'Big Society' Aide Turns On Cameron Over Children's 'Appalling Experience'

[Thorpe Groyney]

Blimey. Phillip Blond, who David Cameron described as an 'intellectual soulmate' has said that government policy of 'Big Society' has actually made children's lives worse.

Blond set up the ResPublica research group and thinktank for Cameron, and they issued their findings in "Children And The Big Society." It says that the project is letting children down with the closure of parks, selling of playing areas to property developers, and the end of community and play schemes.

Blond himself has said "Our poor record on child welfare obscures the dark reality – the appalling experience that some children endure on a daily basis."

Good grief, if that's what one of your trusted advisors is saying publicly .....

 

[MK Shrimper]

Let's face it, this "big society" tag is a load of Tory horsesh*t to disguise massive cuts in public services.

 

[Cricko]

I think the poo may be just about to hit the fan. Riots seen abroad are IMO only a matter of time away before they start here.

:gun:

 

[OldBlueLady]

Everyone knew the Tories would be making cuts when they got in, it was inevitable after the financial mishandling under Brown's regime as first Chancellor and then PM. However, I do think they are going about things in entirely the wrong way. They need to keep the public sector workers on side and at the moment they're going completely the opposite direction. First pay freezes and even cuts in some cases, and now pensions are being targetted. The public sector is the backbone of society, alienate them and the Tories will be creating the easiest walk into office at the next General Election for Labour that's ever been seen.

About a third of prisoners in our prisons are illegals. Ship them out. Get tough on immigration. Stop bankers awarding themselves obscene bonuses. Get in touch with what society wants.

 

[MK Shrimper]

About a third of prisoners in our prisons are illegals. Ship them out.

Any evidence of that Kay?

 

[Hotman]

Everyone knew the Tories would be making cuts when they got in, it was inevitable after the financial mishandling under Brown's regime as first Chancellor and then PM. However, I do think they are going about things in entirely the wrong way. They need to keep the public sector workers on side and at the moment they're going completely the opposite direction. First pay freezes and even cuts in some cases, and now pensions are being targetted. The public sector is the backbone of society, alienate them and the Tories will be creating the easiest walk into office at the next General Election for Labour that's ever been seen.

About a third of prisoners in our prisons are illegals. Ship them out. Get tough on immigration. Stop bankers awarding themselves obscene bonuses. Get in touch with what society wants.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the pandering to the public sector. The inherent problem with the public sector is that the motivations are the polar opposite of what makes most service organisations work. Most businesses run to minimise costs whilst maximising service and stakeholder value, as their livelihood depends on it. Most public sector organisations aim to spend their entire budget while doing as little as possible to scrape past minimum expected value, as they know their livelihood is secure. I'm glad the Tories are shaking them up.

 

[canveyshrimper]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the pandering to the public sector. The inherent problem with the public sector is that the motivations are the polar opposite of what makes most service organisations work. Most businesses run to minimise costs whilst maximising service and stakeholder value, as their livelihood depends on it. Most public sector organisations aim to spend their entire budget while doing as little as possible to scrape past minimum expected value, as they know their livelihood is secure. I'm glad the Tories are shaking them up.

Spot on. While I have every sympathy for those in the public sector who may have to work longer it's an issue that has been forced on the private sector partly because of Brown's wholesale destruction of private pensions by his depradations when Labour first came to government in 1997. Added to which is the thousands of non jobs with fantastic salaries and benefits packages which have been created in the public sector in the years Labour were in power.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

I'd be interested to know exactly how ridding prisons of illegal immigrants and Gordon Brown's daliiances with private pension plans will improve the lot of many children, whom the thinktank's report confirms live an "appalling experience" on a day-to-day basis.

Or, perish the thought, people simply like hijacking any thread on this forum to pursue their own politicial allegiances and agendas without giving any thought to the actual issue at hand .....

 

[OldBlueLady]

I'd be interested to know exactly how ridding prisons of illegal immigrants and Gordon Brown's daliiances with private pension plans will improve the lot of many children, whom the thinktank's report confirms live an "appalling experience" on a day-to-day basis.

Or, perish the thought, people simply like hijacking any thread on this forum to pursue their own politicial allegiances and agendas without giving any thought to the actual issue at hand .....

I think you'll find Groyney, that any changes to people's lives that are working in the public sector will impinge on the lives of their offspring, so, yes, it is connected. As to the prison analogy, again more pressure being put on individuals in prisons, schools, hospitals will also reflect on their children as those working in these environments will find their work lives more stressful. We've not had any school land or playgrounds sold off in this area for years so that's not a relevant factor in this area. The only school to close is on Canvey and was due to a falling roll, meaning it was more cost effective to merge two schools and sell the land off of the one that closed.

What is definitely going to change for children is the Government's academy plans....this is going to mean an end to school catchments and their "number to admit" figure. Instead the most popular/best performing will be able to accept as many as they want. And being as children are a very valuable commodity for a school - each child is worth x amount of pounds - the more children, they have, the more money they will receive. Obviously those at the other end of the scale will decrease and decrease over time. So there is a lot going on that's going to affect children one way or another.

With what you're referring to more specifically though, again Government cuts are being very ruthlessly made in a number of areas where normally children living in abject poverty/unsuitable home lives would be given help by outside agencies. The cuts being made are, I'm afraid, likely to see an increase in child protection cases coming to prominence as less help is made available to those who are vulnerable. Scaremongering? Possibly, but it's an outcome I dread may be a reality if things continue as they're going.

 

[Hotman]

I'd be interested to know exactly how ridding prisons of illegal immigrants and Gordon Brown's daliiances with private pension plans will improve the lot of many children, whom the thinktank's report confirms live an "appalling experience" on a day-to-day basis.

Or, perish the thought, people simply like hijacking any thread on this forum to pursue their own politicial allegiances and agendas without giving any thought to the actual issue at hand .....

Appalling because they've only got a PS2, not a PS3? Why not have a look at Africa for some truly "appalling" experiences. I grew up as a dependant beneficiary of the welfare state, and whilst I didn't have everything, it was hardly appalling. If you're interested, do an ACORN lookup on http://www.caci.co.uk/acorn-classification.aspx for the postcode SS3 9PP - being ranked alongside Glasgwegian tenements isn't great, but it's hardly Ethiopian mudhuts.

So - much as everyone likes to say that bankers should pay back their ill-gotten gains, shouldn't overpaid public sector (when compared to private sector) suffer pay freezes - which will impact families far less than the dramatic reduction in a "bankers" pay? They can always fall back on the welfare state - which as stated above is hardly "appalling".

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...ectors/banking_and_finance/article6948052.ece - replace the word "banker" with "public sector worker" and it's largely appropriate.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

It can't be right, then, that the most vulnerable in society, the most innocent, and the very future of this country, are being treated in such a way.

This isn't a politicial line, this is something that needs to be addressed across the board. Politicians are supposed to go into it to make people's lives better but the opposite is happening to those that should be most protected. Surely it's not too much to ask for people on all sides of the politicial spectrum to put petty rivalries aside and concentrate on actually doing something that would benefit every family in the UK?

There has to be a better way than this. I always thought it was one of the duties of parliament, not just government, was to prevent situations like this happening. Whatever the necessity of cuts in expenditure, in public services, in disposable income, whoever is in power, making children's lives worse is no legacy for the nation's future at all.

 

[the_forgotten_man]

There are posters plasted all over my university campus claiming that 13% of all children in the UK live in 'real poverty'. Upon seeing these I assumed that this was just one example of ******** spouted by the 'look-at-me-I-care' society, and it would be seen through by everybody. But remarkably it seems as if people have bought this myth about children being in real poverty in this country. There is no way, aside from neglectful or malicious parenting, British children live in poverty. They live in 'relative poverty', but this is really an issue only in the minds of socialists, as Maggie so brilliantly showed us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

 

[OldBlueLady]

There are posters plasted all over my university campus claiming that 13% of all children in the UK live in 'real poverty'. Upon seeing these I assumed that this was just one example of ******** spouted by the 'look-at-me-I-care' society, and it would be seen through by everybody. But remarkably it seems as if people have bought this myth about children being in real poverty in this country. There is no way, aside from neglectful or malicious parenting, British children live in poverty. They live in 'relative poverty', but this is really an issue only in the minds of socialists, as Maggie so brilliantly showed us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Well said, I believe that neglect is actually the biggest problem faced by children in this country these days.

 

[MK Shrimper]

There are posters plasted all over my university campus claiming that 13% of all children in the UK live in 'real poverty'. Upon seeing these I assumed that this was just one example of ******** spouted by the 'look-at-me-I-care' society, and it would be seen through by everybody. But remarkably it seems as if people have bought this myth about children being in real poverty in this country. There is no way, aside from neglectful or malicious parenting, British children live in poverty. They live in 'relative poverty', but this is really an issue only in the minds of socialists, as Maggie so brilliantly showed us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Rather the "look-at-me-I-care" society than the "I don't give a **** about anyone but me" society championed by that loathsome hag Thatcher.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

There are posters plasted all over my university campus claiming that 13% of all children in the UK live in 'real poverty'. Upon seeing these I assumed that this was just one example of ******** spouted by the 'look-at-me-I-care' society, and it would be seen through by everybody. But remarkably it seems as if people have bought this myth about children being in real poverty in this country. There is no way, aside from neglectful or malicious parenting, British children live in poverty. They live in 'relative poverty', but this is really an issue only in the minds of socialists, as Maggie so brilliantly showed us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Class hatred is a terrible thing.I hope you're grateful for the opportunities you've had,which have allowed you to get to University.And I also hope that while you're there, you'll learn something about the class divide in British society, which makes it so very difficult for working class kids to achieve what you have.

On the subject of (child) poverty,here's a quotation for you from Owen Jones' "Chavs:The Demonization of the Working Class":-

"Poverty is generally defined as households with less than 60%of the nation's median income(currently 21,000 pounds)after housing costs are deducted.Less than five million people lived in poverty on the eve of the Thatcher counter-revolution,or less than one in ten of the population.(as a very young looking Simon Hughes pointed out to Mrs T.in your Youtube clip).Today,poverty affects 13,5 million people,or more than one in five.If you are a single adult without children,that means living on less than 115 pounds a week after housing costs are deducted.For a couple with two young children,it is less than 279 pounds a week.There are only four EU countries with higher rates of poverty."

 

[Swiss Tony]

Rather the "look-at-me-I-care" society than the "I don't give a **** about anyone but me" society championed by that loathsome hag Thatcher.

Don't forget the Kinnocks and Blairs,also loathsome i'm alright jack champagne socialists.

 

[the_forgotten_man]

Yes it's all very well claiming that more people lived in poverty after Thatcher's terms in office than before it, if you define poverty as absurdly as Owen Jones has done. Is it not enough that every one of those 13.5 million living in 'poverty' now are better off than they were before Thatcher came to power? Better off than basically everyone who has ever lived on this planet? Everyone in Britain is ****ing amazingly rich! Or does it only matter that they're not quite as wealthy as Mrs. Jones who lives down the street? Give up this absurd notion that relative poverty matters, and realise that actual wealth - you know that actual material thing - is more important. And in this country everyone has ****ing loads of it.

 

[Hotman]

Class hatred is a terrible thing.I hope you're grateful for the opportunities you've had,which have allowed you to get to University.And I also hope that while you're there, you'll learn something about the class divide in British society, which makes it so very difficult for working class kids to achieve what you have.

On the subject of (child) poverty,here's a quotation for you from Owen Jones' "Chavs:The Demonization of the Working Class":-

"Poverty is generally defined as households with less than 60%of the nation's median income(currently 21,000 pounds)after housing costs are deducted.Less than five million people lived in poverty on the eve of the Thatcher counter-revolution,or less than one in ten of the population.(as a very young looking Simon Hughes pointed out to Mrs T.in your Youtube clip).Today,poverty affects 13,5 million people,or more than one in five.If you are a single adult without children,that means living on less than 279 pounds a week after housing costs are deducted.For a couple with two young children,it is less than 279 pounds a week.There are only four EU countries with higher rates of poverty."

I'm sorry but that blatantly is not poverty. This sense of entitlement is why the UK is in a state.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm sorry but that blatantly is not poverty. This sense of entitlement is why the UK is in a state.

Sorry the correct figure for a single person was 115 pounds a week.
Of course for someone on benefits the single person allowance is I believe 65 pounds per week which blatantly is below the poverty line.
This happens because benefits are linked to inflation in the UK whereas in most EU countries benefits are linked to average earnings.If that were the case in the UK then I believe the figure for a single person would be nearly double.

 

[the_forgotten_man]

Sorry the correct figure for a single person was 115 pounds a week.
Of course for someone on benefits the single person allowance is I believe 65 pounds per week which blantly is below the poverty line.
This happens because benefits are linked to inflation in the UK whereas in most EU countries benefits are linked to average earnings.If that were the case in the UK then I believe the figure for a single person would be nearly double.

So you get housing bills paid for, and then 65 pounds a week for nothing? Sounds alright to me.

By the way, why did you assume that because I'm at university I had 'opportunities' that others didn't have? Yes I had great parents, and my education was fine, but I'm by no means from a wealthy background. Why is it that you make the assumption that I'm not from a working background? Because my views differ from yours? It seems like only one of us is making assumptions based on the academic qualities of the lower classes, and it ain't me.

Oh, and I get by spending about 20 quid on food a week. I know in your mind it'd be easier if I were a rich public school boy, but I'm not, and I know that 65 quid is enough for people to get by, especially as it should hopefully be a temporary scenario.