Our man on the scene said...
"Points for and against the Big Society initiative were keenly argued by academic staff from the University of Portsmouth in a public debate held on Monday. (October 15)
The Oxford Union-style debate was on the motion: “This house believes that the Big Society initiative will lead to a more unequal society.”
Professor Dan Finn and David Carpenter spoke for the motion, while Dr Paul McVeigh and Dr Nancy North spoke against it.
Before the start of the debate 55 of those attending indicated they were for the motion and 25 indicated they were against it.
Following the debate, and comments from the floor, a concluding vote showed that 65 were for the motion and 32 against.
The debate, which was held at a lecture theatre in the university’s St Michael’s Building, attracted a large audience and is one of a number of events organised for Portsmouth Local Democracy Week 2010."
So what did you think?
I thought it was an interesting discussion, though it felt odd when both Dr McVeigh and Dr North felt the need to highlight to the audience their political persuasions were not in accordance with the government, whilst defending the Coalition's Big Society.
ReplyDeleteThe atmosphere felt at times a little one-sided and when someone mentioned Thatcher I wanted to scream - it seems she is responsible for everything perceived as negative in the country and beyond. I am beginning to suspect she was the cause of the Battle of Hastings, the murder of Julius Ceasar and the extinction of the dinosaurs too.
Another cause for concern was that those who spoke in the audience had such negative opinions of volunteers - hardly going to muster up much enthusiasm for recruitment to causes that might want more people on board.
Oh well, only time will tell.........
I enjoyed this event greatly. Thanks for organizing it.
ReplyDeleteI started off as undecided and ended up voting against the motion. Below are some personal observations.
A. Someone in the audience commented that volunteers often don't see the bigger picture. The question is whether volunteers might not simply need a good volunteer coordinator rather than a bigger picture. If everybody does it well, whatever they do, isn't that enough?
B. I sense a collective lack in faith in the British nation and a lot of passivity among those who were in favor of the motion. As a foreigner having lived in the US and the Netherlands before, the lack of faith and pride in what the British people can do has struck me before. Believe you can do it, and you can. Believe you can't, and you won't.
C. That brings me to the following. I also sensed a lack of faith in "the poor" or "the lower classes". Research has shown that altruism and cooperation actually are much more common among those groups than among the well-to-do. So I don't see the reason behind the idea that the middle
classes would benefit from the idea of a "good society" or that the lower classes would suffer.
D. That said, with my sincere apologies to those to whom this does not apply, I also believe that it might be time for many of the British to come off their backsides and take some responsibility with regard to many issues they seem to love moaning about.
E. I agree that "Big Society" is an empty and unappealing phrase. "Good Society" or, better, something like "Responsible Individuals" or "Empowered People" could be much more effective. As long as it remains a rather empty phrase that still shifts responsibility to an undefined entity rather than to individuals, and is not more specific than "public services cuts", not much can be said about it or expected from it.
F. I would appreciate it if someone could look into the following suggestions for a British tax reform and cost-cutting exercise, with my apologies for my inadequate phrasing.
The British tax system appears to be pretty similar to the Dutch tax system, but two differences are striking, to me.
1. The Dutch can get money back. Automatically. It happens when one's income was very low and one ends up with a negative number at the end of one's income form.
2. The self-employed in the Netherlands get a big deduction if their income was under a certain threshold (a pro rata system), as they take great risks in developing their entrepreneurial skills and spirit. Also in this case, it can mean getting money back if one's income was very low, resulting in a negative figure at the end of the form.
3. The UK only looks at tax one may have overpaid, but otherwise there is no component of getting money back.
If the UK were to introduce 1 and 2, a lot of people would no longer have to fill out separate forms for tax credits, or apply for benefits. This would mean a huge saving on that side, as so much time and effort would no longer have to be dedicated to this.
It would also mean the government would have to shift some funds.
The tax payments would have to be automated (slotted into the current automated processing), which would mean some costs in the area of IT, but this should be peanuts compared to the accomplished cost-saving.
It could mean that jobs would disappear in the areas of tax credit applications and renewals and benefit applications and reviews, but job cuts are going to happen anyway. It could also mean that people would simply be shifted to other areas in those offices.
RESULT: Cost-cutting resulting in higher efficiency AND increased feelings
of well-being in the British.
Posted on behalf of: Kathryn
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the debate; all four speakers are to be praised for giving up their precious time.
My unspoken comments on the motion are that voluntarism is all well and good but it requires funding.
Many of the services that are already victims of the cuts are delivered by highly trained professionals who, with the best will in the world, cannot be replaced by an army of volunteers, however eager.
It stands to reason that those who are most likely to offer their services for free are those who are financially secure, socially confident and largely middle class. That rules out a lot of people, many of whom are working class and who rely on public services.
I have no problem with volunteering and have benefitted enormously from opportunities to gain new skills, but these opportunities have been in well-resourced organisations with appropriate support and training. Such opportunities are likely to disappear with cuts to services.
Ironically, one of the means of achieving Cameron`s Big Society, in one specific area, social housing, has already been the victim of cuts: the Tenants Services Authority, because it is seen as money wasting quango rather than as a means of empowering individuals.
There are contradictions between Cameron`s idea and the coalition policy of spending cuts.