David Cameron's 'Big Society'

[Enirehtac]

"The 'big society' is David Cameron's Big Idea. His aides say it is about empowering communities, redistributing power and fostering a culture of volunteerism." - Norman Smith, Chief Political Correspondant, BBC Radio 4.
(Please search google as I need more post counts to post proper link)


I know this may be classed as old news and the thread will probably be (re)moved but,

David Cameron's 'Big Society' plan will not work. Agree or disagree? Your reason why?
If there was a 'Big Society' plan, how would it work?
Is the plan/idea good or bad?
What are your views on this as a whole?
I'm just curious as to what other people's thoughts are about this. As for myself, I think it would never happen with a Conservative government. After all, I thought they didn't favour change.
However, I suppose there might well be a 'big society' either now or in the near future and the 'big society' will be in favour of uniting together and ridding the Conservative government and the upper classes.

Thanks for your views or opinions. :)

[Arlekino]

Big Society I see future. Poor will work for free and rich elite will tell to us how to work for big society, get maybe free buses pass. Is that back to feudalism.

[Dimentio]

According to the latest reforms, there won't be any society when he's done.

[scarletghoul]

"The 'big society' is David Cameron's Big Idea. His aides say it is about empowering communities, redistributing power and fostering a culture of volunteerism."Maoism for the rich.

[ed miliband]

Maoism for the rich.

Funny you should say that:


THERE wasn’t much to laugh about in the Commons chamber yesterday, but it was the first time I had seen Chairman Mao’s famous “little red book” waved about.

Conservative backbencher Dan Byles had recently visited China and was convinced one passage – “thrift should be the guiding principle in government expenditure” – made the late dictator a fan of the “age of austerity”

[Hit The North]

The 'Big Society' is an ideological cloak, an attempt to hide the true implications of the cuts in public spending. It is typical of the strange contradictory stance which all Tory governments take: cutting resources to those communities which depend upon it and claim they are empowering community. Similarly, they create the conditions for mass unemployment and adopt a moralistic position vis a vis those individuals who have been thrust (by Tory economic policy) into unemployment. It is a deep artery of hypocrisy which runs to the very heart of Tory ideology.

It is also an attempt to connect with the nostalgia inherent in Conservative ideology for an idealised community which has never existed, which is made impossible by the development of capitalism, in an attempt to connect with Conservative members and supporters. If anyone is familiar with the utopian world of Sunday night TV in the UK, the Heartbeats and Last of the Summer Wines, they will recognise the rhetoric of the Big Society: paternalistic rural communities where everyone pitches in and takes responsibility.

The 'Big Society' is an attempt to shift public opinion away from the principles of welfare statism, towards a more entrepreneurial and free-market ad-hoc approach to social welfare, similar to the laissez faire approach found in Victorian England.

It represents a political attempt to scapegoat the poor for their own poverty. They will argue that the poor have failed to take advantage of the opportunities the Big Society has given them. Therefore, they will solemnly declare, your poverty is your own fault!

Meanwhile, already socially and economically advantaged groups will seize the opportunities given to them by the free-market of social goods and inequality will be increased and deepened.

Given that this would be considered a result by many Tories shows that the Big Society might just work. :glare:

[jingle_bombs]

I'm tentatively supportive of anything that gets the lumpen, apathetic British public out working in the community, because that's a base that a revolutionary movement can actually work with.

I mean it's no good having even the best left wing ideologues in the world when the public would rather watch the X-factor.

I don't think it will work though. Historically the only times the British working classes have mobilised in any shape or ideological form is when they've faced extreme hardship. The cutbacks we're seeing now are child's play compared with the squalor and misery of early 20th century Britain.

[Dimentio]

The 'Big Society' is an ideological cloak, an attempt to hide the true implications of the cuts in public spending. It is typical of the strange contradictory stance which all Tory governments take: cutting resources to those communities which depend upon it and claim they are empowering community. Similarly, they create the conditions for mass unemployment and adopt a moralistic position vis a vis those individuals who have been thrust (by Tory economic policy) into unemployment. It is a deep artery of hypocrisy which runs to the very heart of Tory ideology.

It is also an attempt to connect with the nostalgia inherent in Conservative ideology for an idealised community which has never existed, which is made impossible by the development of capitalism, in an attempt to connect with Conservative members and supporters. If anyone is familiar with the utopian world of Sunday night TV in the UK, the Heartbeats and Last of the Summer Wines, they will recognise the rhetoric of the Big Society: paternalistic rural communities where everyone pitches in and takes responsibility.

The 'Big Society' is an attempt to shift public opinion away from the principles of welfare statism, towards a more entrepreneurial and free-market ad-hoc approach to social welfare, similar to the laissez faire approach found in Victorian England.

It represents a political attempt to scapegoat the poor for their own poverty. They will argue that the poor have failed to take advantage of the opportunities the Big Society has given them. Therefore, they will solemnly declare, your poverty is your own fault!

Meanwhile, already socially and economically advantaged groups will seize the opportunities given to them by the free-market of social goods and inequality will be increased and deepened.

Given that this would be considered a result by many Tories shows that the Big Society might just work. :glare:

The question is how do non-tory voters who have voted tory view it?

[Hit The North]

The question is how do non-tory voters who have voted tory view it?

I think there's large scale cynicism about it. In fact, Cameron's appeal to the Big Society at his speech to the Conservative Party conference this year, was met with bafflement amongst the Tory faithful.

[Dimentio]

The question is how big influence that discoure has on Cameron's legitimacy. When a large part of the British people are tumbling down in living standards, and the subsequent collapse of what little sense of community there is left, how would the "centre voters" react?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The British workers never had the kind of party-movement that existed in Germany (i.e., a real "Big Society"), so this appeal to "Big Society" is illusory.

[Ocean Seal]

"The 'big society' is David Cameron's Big Idea. His aides say it is about empowering communities, redistributing power and fostering a culture of volunteerism." - Norman Smith, Chief Political Correspondant, BBC Radio 4.
(Please search google as I need more post counts to post proper link)


I know this may be classed as old news and the thread will probably be (re)moved but,

David Cameron's 'Big Society' plan will not work. Agree or disagree? Your reason why?
If there was a 'Big Society' plan, how would it work?
Is the plan/idea good or bad?
What are your views on this as a whole?

I'm just curious as to what other people's thoughts are about this. As for myself, I think it would never happen with a Conservative government. After all, I thought they didn't favour change.
However, I suppose there might well be a 'big society' either now or in the near future and the 'big society' will be in favour of uniting together and ridding the Conservative government and the upper classes.

Thanks for your views or opinions. :)
This kind of thing is dangerous. Because it fosters the idea that capitalism with a human face is somehow better than just capitalism. Volunteerism is good in fact it is the reason why socialism/communism will work. Our strong desire to come together and help others, especially those who are needy inspires us to do great things and will inspire us to do even greater things in socialism. Disclaimer: It is not actually volunteerism that makes socialism possible but rather the spirit of volunteerism. That is what will bring down the bourgeois. That being said why do we need to rely on volunteerism, when we can have socialism?

Poor-transition but I've noticed something about the capitalist argument. It presents a contradiction. You know how they always say that socialism will never work because man is nasty, evil, and all that other shit, yet they attest that capitalism works because man does not need to be coerced into helping his fellow man and charity is the evidence of this.

[Dimentio]

This kind of thing is dangerous. Because it fosters the idea that capitalism with a human face is somehow better than just capitalism. Volunteerism is good in fact it is the reason why socialism/communism will work. Our strong desire to come together and help others, especially those who are needy inspires us to do great things and will inspire us to do even greater things in socialism. Disclaimer: It is not actually volunteerism that makes socialism possible but rather the spirit of volunteerism. That is what will bring down the bourgeois. That being said why do we need to rely on volunteerism, when we can have socialism?

Poor-transition but I've noticed something about the capitalist argument. It presents a contradiction. You know how they always say that socialism will never work because man is nasty, evil, and all that other shit, yet they attest that capitalism works because man does not need to be coerced into helping his fellow man and charity is the evidence of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

[Hit The North]

The question is how big influence that discoure has on Cameron's legitimacy. When a large part of the British people are tumbling down in living standards, and the subsequent collapse of what little sense of community there is left, how would the "centre voters" react?

The centre will vote according to how it is being squeezed in the economic shake-up. This expectation is actually built into the comprehensive spending review and in the Labour Party's response to it.

[Dimentio]

The centre vote will vote according to how it is being squeezed in the economic shake-up. This expectation is actually built into the comprehensive spending review and in the Labour Party's response to it.

Probably. The centre tend to consist of the middle class and the service sector lower managers.

[Oswy]

The 'Big Society' is an ideological cloak, an attempt to hide the true implications of the cuts in public spending. It is typical of the strange contradictory stance which all Tory governments take: cutting resources to those communities which depend upon it and claim they are empowering community. Similarly, they create the conditions for mass unemployment and adopt a moralistic position vis a vis those individuals who have been thrust (by Tory economic policy) into unemployment. It is a deep artery of hypocrisy which runs to the very heart of Tory ideology.

It is also an attempt to connect with the nostalgia inherent in Conservative ideology for an idealised community which has never existed, which is made impossible by the development of capitalism, in an attempt to connect with Conservative members and supporters. If anyone is familiar with the utopian world of Sunday night TV in the UK, the Heartbeats and Last of the Summer Wines, they will recognise the rhetoric of the Big Society: paternalistic rural communities where everyone pitches in and takes responsibility.

The 'Big Society' is an attempt to shift public opinion away from the principles of welfare statism, towards a more entrepreneurial and free-market ad-hoc approach to social welfare, similar to the laissez faire approach found in Victorian England.

It represents a political attempt to scapegoat the poor for their own poverty. They will argue that the poor have failed to take advantage of the opportunities the Big Society has given them. Therefore, they will solemnly declare, your poverty is your own fault!

Meanwhile, already socially and economically advantaged groups will seize the opportunities given to them by the free-market of social goods and inequality will be increased and deepened.

Given that this would be considered a result by many Tories shows that the Big Society might just work. :glare:

Great post.

For "Big Society" read "Small State". "Big Con" is even more apt.