Follow me on Twitter- @Unencom - or don't, it's up to you but it would be nice if you did.
it's like society but bigger, I think.
It worked in the 1930's as I just posted at my place, since you ask.
Oh, right. I have a post up at CCinZ saying, basically I'm scoobied (as I suspect is iDave). I'm not sure I'm glad you're in the same boat!
My take is that it's a continuation under a new name of of Labour's New Localism (aka double devolution), which included a much bigger voluntary involvement in delivering services. Probably without the pump-priming funding. But I could be completely wrong coz I can't actually bring myself to read anything emitting from Cameron. Whatever it is, it's doomed.
Mark- Very astute observation.Banned- Yeah I saw your entry, if all the Big Society is, is for communities to come together more to do stuff without the state then that's fine.Julius- That sort of makes some sense, akthough I don't think New Labour actually were in favour of localism at all after Scottish and Welsh devolution.
Ross - there was a lot about empowering local communities in the 2006 white Paper 'Strong and prosperous communities' (altho' not as much as some wanted), and a lot of effort was put into 'third sector' delivery. It will be interesting to see if the tories can push it further with less money... From M Thatcher's time there was a history of Central govt not trusting localities to deliver; I suspect the Big society is a continuation of the slow swing back of the balance between central and local which begun under Labour. Much as I hate to give credit to Labour for anything.Julius
Read Gerald Warner in the Telegraph, he has it about right:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100047805/daves-big-society-is-not-a-top-down-project-thats-why-it-was-launched-by-the-prime-minister/
It's certainly a good line by Warner.
Post a Comment