While
the press got lathered up about Cameron’s gaffe over households reducing their
endebtedness, which of course will simply reduce economic activity, what is
really going on in the world of cuts and the banking crisis? There are several
pieces of news which have not had proper publicity, many come courtesy of the
enewsletter of the National Coalition for Independent Action (NCIA - www.independentaction.net).
Fiddling
While Rome Burns – The Final Report of Banking Commission. According to the group Positive Money the Independent Commission on Banking has not
addressed a fraction of the fundamental problems with the modern banking
system. Rather than looking at fundamentally changing the nature or structure
of banking, they have focused on what to do after the fatally-flawed banking
system inevitably implodes. For the group’s critique see www.positivemoney.org.uk. Positive
Money activists have been involved in writing the new book Where Does Money Come From?" A Guide to the UK Monetary and
Banking System. See PM’s website to buy a copy.
Private Sector Take-Over. Here’s an extract from a
Guardian letter last March from Peter Taylor-Gooby, Professor of Social Policy
at the University of Kent, re-published in NCIA’s enewsletter:
“This
government has learnt the lesson of previous attempts to cut state spending:
public expenditure bounces back. That's what happened after the Geddes axe in
1922, the 1931 National Government cuts, Callaghan in 1976, even Thatcher in
the 1980s and Major in the 1990s. To achieve a permanent shift to a
small-state, market-centred society, it's not enough to slash state spending
for the life of one parliament. You have also to change fundamentally how the
welfare state works, so that private capital and the market are embedded at the
heart of public provision. This is what the NHS, local government, social care,
social housing, university and all the other reforms are intended to achieve.
The objective is simple: the destruction of the public realm.” And what does
this mean for the voluntary sector?
Who’s
controlling the voluntary sector: new bosses, new control agenda. Are
we witnessing a renewed attempt to harness and control voluntary action? Jay Kennedy, Directory of
Social Change’s Head of Policy argues that we are - but this time it’s not the
Big State but the Big Market which provides the conceptual blueprints. See www.dsc.org.uk/PolicyandResearch/News/Newbossesnewcontrolagenda?dm_i=6S7,J8LC,29RU6V,1KDNJ,1
Cut
and dried? What’s the real impact of the government cuts to the UK voluntary
and community sector? There’s
been a lot of talk about the impact of the cuts on the voluntary sector in the
press recently. Dr Catherine Walker, DSC's Head of STEAM, asks: Does the
evidence about cuts back up all the scary rhetoric: www.dsc.org.uk/PolicyandResearch/News/CutanddriedWhatstherealimpactofthegovernmentcutstotheUKvoluntaryandcommunitysector.
Research
reveals that deprived areas face the biggest cuts threat. Work under the umbrella of the
Third Sector Research Centre reveals that community groups in deprived areas
are most at risk of public funding cuts. A consistent theme in the Centre’s
work is the uneven capacity of communities. Their quantitative research has
begun to show how these patterns relate to underlying social and economic
conditions. Professor John Mohan, from the University of Southampton, says:
“Research on registered third sector organisations operating at neighbourhood
scale, for example, shows that there are fewer organisations per head in more
deprived areas. Those organisations operating in more deprived areas are also
more likely to be reliant on public funding. Thus the areas with fewest
registered third sector organisations are also likely to be in areas most at
risk from funding reductions”. More evidence therefore that the ‘Big Society’
is better described as ‘Big Inequality’. See www.tsrc.ac.uk/Research/QuantitativeAnalysis/Distributionoflocalvoluntaryorganisations/tabid/841/Default.aspx.
Future of Britain's poorest
families still relies on urgent social investment. Some of Britain's poorest
neighbourhoods are at risk of decaying into ghetto-like enclaves if budget cuts
halt society's efforts to pull them 'back from the cliff edge', a new book Family
Futures warns. Even small
improvements to deprived areas, from replacement of old window frames to the
retention of local swimming pools, have dramatic effects on the well-being and ambition
of the families who live there. The authors warn that unpicking these
improvements because of financial pressure may cause severe damage to
disadvantaged communities which are sustained in part by constant social and
public investment.
LSE
professor of social policy Anne Power, who co-wrote the book said: "Family
Futures shows that for people who have little choice about where they live
their community is even more important to them. Like all of us, they worry
about schools, play spaces, the need for children to let off steam, crime,
health, housing and their environment. Yet they have little control over most
of these things and rely on government and the wider society to help them
improve their lives. This can only be done by keeping a framework of support in
place but that is what's threatened as public spending is slashed. Families
told us how much they rely on this help for their neighbourhoods to work -
society needs to keep up this support." Family futures: Childhood and
poverty in urban neighbourhoods by Anne Power, Helen Willmot and Rosemary
Davidson is published by The Policy Press .
£24.99. www.policypress.co.uk/display.asp?K=9781847429704
Cuts
in the Capital Counter Pickles Pledge. The latest version of the Big Squeeze, London Voluntary Service
Council’s regular review of funding cuts in the capital, reveals that just over
half of voluntary and community organisations in London axed services last year
because of public spending cuts. According to the research, preventive services
are being "disproportionately cut, particularly in advice, health and
children and young people’s services". 54% of the 120 groups that
responded also expected more services to close in 2011/12 and 86% expected demand
for their services to increase during the same period. This study concludes
that “the cuts being imposed on the voluntary sector are higher than those
imposed on the government and local authorities,"
contrary to the claim of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, that he didn’t
want disproportionate cuts passed on to the voluntary sector. You can see the
whole thing here: www.lvsc.org.uk/campaigns/big-squeeze.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment