| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Question for Vanessa | |
| Posted by: | Vanessa Smith | |
| Date/Time: | 10/02/11 10:14:00 |
| Looks like the coalition is beginning to have a real difference of opinion - 91 Lib Dem councillors have found their wedding tackle - hoo - bloody - ray! From "i" the new newspaper on the 8th: "Some in No. 10 are adamant that councils should make efficiency savings rather than cut grants to community groups. Cameron made this point at last week's PMQs and it is a valid one. But Cameron cannot do very much about the way councils choose to implement cuts. He has argued that his 'Big Society' is a form of localism. Nick Clegg has declared his support on precisely the grounds that the vision is another form of localism. They can hardly tell councils what to do from the centre having insisted that they wish the centre to do less................ If No.10 were staffed on the scale of the White House. if the Cabinet Office became a mighty machine and Cameron's new director of communications behaved like Alastair Campbell on speed, the policy still could not work when Sure Start centres and libraries are closing, and the voluntary sector is being cut, in front of people's eyes. There is such a thing as society. Sometimes the state is a necessary binding agency even if it is an inefficient one. Only in Britain is there an enduring fantasy that services can improve with less investment. The day Cameron and Osborne opted for sweeping cuts was defining one with a thousand consequences. One of them is brutally clear. The decision killed off the 'Big Society' and no relaunches or 'revolutionary chiefs' can save it as the axe falls." That I think says it all, these cuts are idealogical and talk of charities and voluntary groups running things is ridiculous if you don't support them with government money. Either way - local councils or voluntary sector -services cost. |