In all the fuss about the 'big society' - whatever it means - the absurdity of the 'professional' voluntary sector has got lost.
This morning we had the sight of Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, outgoing director of the council for voluntary service, complaining to BBC breakfast, that spending cuts made the big society impossible. One of her reasons was that they needed government money so that they could get their volunteers' criminal records checked.
That simple juxtaposition shows just how the state under Labour got too mighty and overweaning and ought to show to forward looking leaders in the voluntary sector that reductions in public spending are an opportunity not a threat. Sadly for people like Dame Elisabeth, many have clearly become so addicted to public cash that the threat of its withdrawal makes them act like some shambolic smack addict who cannot see past their next fix.
Did you actually listen to what she was saying? Her case was not that charities were reliant on government funding, only 25% of charities actually receive public fund and that is generally when they are delivering public services subcontracted to them. But that government cuts to civic amenities would mean charities and volunteers wouldn't have anywhere to volunteer. As she repeatedly said, what does a volunteer librarian do when the libraries closed?
ReplyDeleteHow does attempting to ensure that potentially dangerous volunteers are kept away from vulnerable people show the state got to big and mighty? There have been far too many cases of dangerous criminals using volunteering to get close to vulnerable people with ulterior motives for no background checks to take place.
Daniel, and you're getting your Sunday name because I'm disagreeing with you, I think you are being really harsh here.
ReplyDeleteWhere, exactly, are voluntary organisations and charities supposed to get their money from when people have less disposable income to give to them?
The Big Society has some good elements, like decentralisation of power, but it needs money behind it. The Voluntary Sector can provide much better services than the state, locally or centrally, but it needs to get its money from somewhere.
The Big Society concept reminds me of the Scottish Futures Trust, the SNP's much vaunted successor to PFI which has yet to build one single thing.
Don't slate the voluntary sector who do a very good job on very little money without suggesting an alternative source of funding.
Ouch!
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the voluntary sector - but my gripe is with the 'professionalisation' of it - Dame Elisabeth for example is rumoured to earn £140,000 a year.
Labour over the last 13 years have been responsible for the most bureaucratic and inefficient expansion of the state, crowding out local and voluntary action as a result. They in effect 'nationalised' large sections of the voluntary sector and it is no surprise that these bits of the sector are complaining when in effect they are being denationalised again.
Where will they get their money from - exactly the same sources the sector always has. And as it won't come with the particularly nasty strings Whitehall attaches, it will be much more effectively spent.
"I have no problem with the voluntary sector - but my gripe is with the 'professionalisation' of it"
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous statement!
"Labour over the last 13 years have been responsible for the most bureaucratic and inefficient expansion of the state, crowding out local and voluntary action as a result."
Ideological nonsense.
"They in effect 'nationalised' large sections of the voluntary sector and it is no surprise that these bits of the sector are complaining when in effect they are being denationalised again."
As I said above only 25% of charities receive any public funds. When they do receive public funds it is generally because they've won the contract to deliver some public service. And studies have shown that on average charities running public services generally have to support those services through donations.
"Where will they get their money from - exactly the same sources the sector always has. And as it won't come with the particularly nasty strings Whitehall attaches, it will be much more effectively spent."
Really, you strike me as an ideologue who doesn't actually know what he is talking about. You're spouting uninformed ideological drivel.
Anonymous - it's all very well throwing around insults behind the cloak of anonymity, but it's not very helpful as far as constructive debate goes.
ReplyDeleteI'd be more willing to debate your points if you weren't anaonymous