Praise and rewards for those who deserve it

It’s around three years since David Cameron first used the phrase ‘Big Society’.  Indeed, Conservative M.P. Jesse Norman had earlier written a book on the subject.  It was mentioned in the last Tory election manifesto, has been heralded in various speeches and has been talked about almost as often as the economy or spending cuts.  Amazing, then, that we still have no idea what the Tories mean when they mention it.

Most people, when questioned, feel that it is a vague notion about volunteers running public services and for that reason, it’s a phrase and an idea that puts people off.  In short, the public feel as though using your free time to help others has been politicised.  David Cameron spent a large part of his first six months in office being photographed with any group of volunteers he could get anywhere near.  This hobby seems to have tailed off in recent times – could that be because private polling tells him what he doesn’t want to hear?  Perhaps he is getting the message that people are put off by this grandstanding, this taking advantage of people, this cynical attempt to manufacture party political kudos from people’s good will?  There’s an irony here.  As unemployment rises and people have more time on their hands, the number of volunteer hours clocked seems to be falling.  Rather than stepping into the breach to run closing services, people are angry at this attempt by the Government to get something for nothing.  Society is treating me as though I am worthless, the feeling goes, so why should I put anything back?  As one who has run an organisation which depended upon volunteers for its success, I can also vouch for the notion that people volunteer when they feel good about themselves.  If you’re made to feel undervalued in the labour market, you’re hardly going to feel as though you have huge amounts of skills to offer the ‘Third Sector’.

This, of course, is where Government should be stepping in.  Rather than expecting volunteers to do more in our society, why are we not doing more to reward those who already give their skills and time?  Of course central Government won’t lift a finger to help – there are no votes in recognising things that people already do.  But communities, led by Local Government could make a massive difference.

Here in Monmouth, we have a number of organisations which rely on help from unpaid sources.  Two examples are the Guides and the local football club.  It would seem logical to me that by rewarding the work people already do, we could not only make people realise that they are held in high esteem, but also encourage more people to help out.  What rewards could we offer?  Well, I doubt very much whether our local Leisure Centre is full to capacity all the time.  Why can’t we give the Guides and the football club vouchers for off-peak periods to be given as rewards for those who help out?  Log, perhaps, 10 volunteer hours and you could have a free swimming session as a thank you from the community.  If you’ve been helping out with Guides, you and a partner could have a badminton court for free.  It may not sound much, but it sends a definite signal – we appreciate you and value the commitment you give to the community.

Once this is established, it can be built upon.  The idea that helping out can have its rewards doesn’t have to stop with organised groups.  How many people could do with a helping hand somewhere along the line?  Whether it’s help with the garden or taking something to the tip, picking children up from school or a few logs chopped for the fire, people need help all the time.  Normally, the reward comes with a similar favour returned, but not everyone can do that.  A system of Community Credits would assist those who need help and encourage those who are able to provide it.  Local businesses could be involved too, without any great loss – a free cake at the café for anyone who has 10 Community Credits, or a half price hour in the Playbarn if you’re looking after someone else’s children.

Such a scheme would be bound to attract criticism, on the basis of cost, administration and abuse.  None of these issues is insurmountable. 

Many supermarkets run loyalty schemes which can be adapted for this use.  Tesco and Sainsbury are not renowned for doing things which are prohibitively costly and they would not run their schemes if they cost too much money. 

There is also no reason why schemes need to be centrally run.  If communities ran them, through a local shop or pub or Community Centre, they would be far more effective.

Thirdly, anyone suggesting that those who currently give their time freely might be corrupted by the idea of a free hour at a swimming pool doesn’t understand why people do these things in the first place.

Let’s stop playing politics with people’s good nature and do what elected representatives should be doing – rewarding people who do the right thing, and encouraging those who do not.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - #liamstubbs

Future jobs? Current despair.

During an episode of Blackadder the Third, it became clear that the bumbling staff of the Prince Regent’s household had burnt the manuscript of the dictionary written by Samuel Johnson.  In the midst of the shock and horror that greeted the news, Baldrick announced that he had a cunning plan.  “Hoorah,” said Prince George.  “Well that’s that, then.”  Of course, the plan had more holes than Swiss cheese, but George’s response to it was similar in many ways to public reaction to Government announcements.  There’s a problem, but the Government has a plan, so that’s okay.  We can forget about it.

The current Government’s own version of Baldrick, Nick Clegg, attempted to solve youth unemployment on the Today Programme this morning by announcing a series of measures which amounted to nothing more than scraping the soot off and sticking the pages back in.  In response to a 20-year old from Middlesbrough who had been unemployed for five months, he announced that she will now be able to go to the job centre every week, instead of every fortnight, and sit down with her adviser.  To look for a job.  That isn’t there.  Well done, Nick.  He also told her that if she was unemployed for another four months, she would qualify for a new work placement programme.  Great.  Kick your heels for another 120 days and we’ll then let you work for someone for free.  I’m not sure whether Clegg expected to be thanked for these announcements, but I doubt whether the good folk of Middlesbrough are currently raising the rafters from Coulby Newham to St Hilda’s.  Clegg also announced subsidies for jobs which sounded spectacularly like the Future Jobs Fund – which was scrapped by this Government and has been rubbished by them ever since.

Leaving aside the issue of why the BBC only ever ventures to Teesside to cover stories of poverty and despair, I’m not sure what Clegg hopes to achieve with these new initiatives.  Perhaps he is hoping that creating enough sound and fury will convince people that he is ‘doing something’ about the problem and therefore the problem is going away.

The first parts of his plan will barely scratch the surface.  It may be the case that one or two young people may, through luck or timing, obtain a job by focussing more often, though Clegg’s assumptions seem to be based on the notion that, at the moment, young people are simply not looking hard enough.  This smacks of the idea of the ‘feckless’ unemployed which we heard so much about in the 1980’s.  Perhaps Clegg’s next suggestion is that they should purchase a bike.  However, in the case of most people looking for work, visiting the Job Centre more often will only improve their chances of finding a job if the jobs are there to find.  Employment advisers do not possess magic wands and can only work with what they have, no matter how many times you see them.  You could move in with them, but if a job is not there, they cannot help you find one.  I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's only visit to Middlesbrough, when she was approached by a man holding 200 unsuccessful application forms.  Her answer to him (as she sped away as quickly as she could) was that he should retrain.  "Retrain as what?" he asked.  "I'm thick."

As for work programmes, I suspect another cunning plan.  Will those undertaking this free labour be counted among the unemployment statistics?  I bet they won’t.  The message is: sign off for a month and we will pay you benefits plus travel costs.  With any luck, that should bring unemployment down by a quarter of a million and make us look good.  Then, when your placement comes to an end, you sign on again and some other poor sap can take your place.  With any luck, people will forget all about you.

Which means we are left with the Future Jobs Fund.  David Cameron has said many times that the fund is unaffordable.  All eyes will be on George Osborne to spot his next move.  I would wager a young person’s Job Seeker’s Allowance that there will either be a cut in Tax Credits or a freeze on benefits.  That should secure enough money to pay for their erroneous ways.  In other news, the Chief Executives of 75 companies whose profits went down last year saw their average pay rise for the same period.  We’re all in this together, didn’t you know?

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter #liamstubbs

Attitudes to young people hit the wrong notes

The aftermath of the summer’s disturbances is still reverberating.  The sentencing authorities have released demographic figures which show the ages of the people involved, again shining a light on society’s attitude towards anyone younger.  Here are a couple of quotes about young people:

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves."

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful."

Pretty damning.  In addition, The Times reported "organised terrorism in the streets." 

You could be forgiven for thinking that society has gone to hell in a handcart.  Indeed, a recent survey showed that a huge percentage of adults think that is the case, and the reason they point to is the behaviour of young people.  Around a quarter of people think that children can be ‘written off’ at the age of 10, no hope of transforming themselves into anything meaningful.

But are young people any different today?  The short answer is no.  My mother used to regale me with tales of the mischief the Land Girls used to get up to at the tail end of the Second World War.  Apparently this now revered group of women were seen as feral upstarts by the local farmers, who wanted them to be packed back off to the towns as soon as possible, air raids or not.  My uncle also pointed out that my Dad in his teenage years was not adverse to using his boxing skills to sort out problems, whether he was inside a ring or not.

We need to pause for a moment and consider our attitudes towards young people.  We regularly pave over their green spaces to build car parks.  When they continue to pass exams in ever increasing numbers, we tell them it must because exams are getting easier.  We tell them what they are and are not allowed to wear when they are spending their money in shopping centres, contributing to the economy.  We criticise their music, their dress sense, their beliefs.  When we see more than two of them together, we refer to them as a ‘gang’, a word we would never dream of attributing to a collection of men standing outside the British Legion, or ladies gathered outside a Bingo hall.  In short, we behave appallingly towards young people, then have the barefaced cheek to complain that they show us no respect.

Most worryingly of all is the fact that in law, the only group of people against whom physical violence is permitted is young people.  The Welsh Assembly is promising a free vote on outlawing the smacking of children, something I wholeheartedly support.  What possible justification could there be for using physical violence against somebody half your size and a third of your strength?  None whatsoever in my opinion.  In any other sphere of life, this kind of behaviour would be greeted with outrage.  Imagine it in the workplace.  Someone further up the hierarchy comes over to you, tells you that you have done something wrong and strikes you for it.  90% of people would hit their superior back and almost all would issue some kind of complaint, many pursuing a legal path.  Physical violence simply breeds more physical violence and a desire for retribution.  When used against children, it teaches them that people who are bigger in size than them have the ultimate say, without any need for explanation or justification.  I am bigger than you.  I can hit you.  you do as I say.  When it happens on street corners we call it mugging, bullying, assault.  When it happens in the home it’s called chastisement.  There are a million ways to discipline children and it is often necessary.  The use of physical violence is an admission that the parent does not have the ability to parent in any other way.

Shamefully, the cowardly M.P. for Monmouth, David Davies, feels that violence against children is not only justified, but also wishes to prevent the Assembly from attempting to outlaw it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15353564

A typically underhand way of preventing something you don’t agree with.  Perhaps Mr Davies wants to protect people like him who feel that hitting children is justified.  I'm sure he would have been perfectly happy had the Whips beaten him up after voting in favour of an EU referendum recently.

Just in case you are wondering where the comments at the top came from, I’ll tell you.  The Times report wasn’t from this summer, but from 1898, that golden Victorian age that many would like us to return to.  The first quote was attributed to Peter the Hermit in 1274.  But attitudes like this aren’t simply a recent phenomena (i.e. the last millennium).  The second quote is from Hesiod, in the 8^th Century BC.  Yes, folks, the world is going to hell in a handcart, and it’s young people’s fault.  Just as it has been for the last 2,800 years.

aa