Forum menu
😆
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Somewhat appropriate for what this government is doing at the moment Z11.
not read thread but if it was an attempt to build social cohesion and get people and communities to work co operatively together it is not a bad idea.
Sadly in this climate it will be seen as a cynical attempt to get folk to do what the government used to. In the current climate of low wage rises, threat of redundnancy , and a generally poor economic climate I am not optomistic of huge groundswell of philanthropic behaviour .Whether dave means it or not I have no idea as he is clearly a very skilled liar - he is a top politician after all.
flash I like the way you have of taking a quote about the tories and saying look are't labour just as bad without ever really commenting on your beloved party.
The Big Society is already happening in the towns and cities we already live in. Every day hundreds of thousands of people give their time voluntarily whether it be being an adviser at a CAB, caring for people who are elderly or with ill health, being trustees of charities, school governors, doing fundraising work for a variety of causes and so on. Social enterprises, which include cooperatives, have been developing for years taking over pubs, post offices and village stores, leisure centres, food manufacturing, and producing electricity, as well as producing huge numbers of employment and training opportunities.
Cameron and his cronies need to recognise this, before thinking that they have invented the "Big Society" - they haven't, we the population have already done it but are too busy doing it to start boasting about it as a new idea!
Look for Philip Pullmans speech about library closure, in the first section he articulates brilliantly why it's a load of toss
my take on it is...
communities with well heeled, cash rich and with spare time members can find ways of extending volunteering to run services, but the communities who need them most are the ones who are time and cash poor and will suffer the greatest
you can't dissasociate the cuts from the big society initiative precisely because dave isn't being clear on what he thinks the government will prioritise, what the communities should pick up and what's not needed. hence why everyone thinks its a load of toss because without that it's a load of empty words
It means **** all. cheers Dave, like you care!
Couldn't get a big enough tower crane for Orkney, never mind Shetland?[img] http://static.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-plan-twelve-months-to-renew-britain/3525060/thumbnail/320 [/img]
communities with well heeled, cash rich and with spare time members can find ways of extending volunteering to run services, but the communities who need them most are the ones who are time and cash poor and will suffer the greatest
I'd agree with that as one of the main problems with the BS.
So im still no clearer than a muddy puddle on what the big society means.
The governmnent have just sacked 35 warrant officers, (whatever they are),
sacked 100 training to be the new Biggles, and Auto windscreens have gone bust yeasterday 1100 jobs gone, but some nice cheap vans in the auctions soon.
Soon there will be nobody working only the bankers and politicians claiming lots of cash for not working, while trying to work out what the big society means.
Here it is in action....
The moment he said "Chipping Norton", I kinda stopped listening 🙂
Whatever it is, it's making me very angry. In fact I don't know why we're even pretending it might mean anything.
It's shoddy window dressing put up by a bunch of rogues to disguise the dismantling of our nation on some half-baked ideological principle.
Shame we're not allowed to swear on here. I really want to use a few C words.
chakaping - Member
Whatever it is, it's making me very angry. In fact I don't know why we're even pretending it might mean Shame we're not allowed to swear on here. [b]I really want to use a few C words.[/b]Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post
CONSERVATIVE, CONSERVATIVES,CAMEROOOOOOOOOOOON,
Theres 3 "C" words for you
so essentially, after watching the chipping norton vid, the following analogy fits...
Big Society is like babysitting:
Local Government is the parent
The Public service is the child
You are the impoverished teenager
You take over full time care of the child, because the parent is has "issues" with the day to day duties
You do a good job but their seem to be more and more deep rooted issues with the child
It turns out the child as been continually abused
You then discover that the parent is the serial abuser
You then also become abused by the parent
doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
The moment he said "Chipping Norton", I kinda stopped listening
Racist.
hmm. Big society - is it something to do with obesity?
I've noticed David Cameron never says what it [b]is[/b] he says what its [b]about[/b]. "Its about giving more power to the members of commuity". yes but WHAT IS IT?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN!?
If you want to read the book that will shed light on what the Tories are really doing then read this:
[img] 
[/img]
They're using it as a blueprint. Using economic or social upheavel to rapidly implement irreversible, ideological, society-changing policies while a population is still in shock from, in this case, the banking crisis.
As advocated by Milton Friedman - not only an utter * but now a totally discredited *!!! and prcticed by such forward-thinking social reformers as General Pinochet (the Tory love affair with that man seems to continue unabated)
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/15/david-cameron-advantage-wm-closed ]heres cams BS in action :-)[/url]
flash I like the way you have of taking a quote about the tories and saying look are't labour just as bad without ever really commenting on your beloved party.
The mark of a true politician. 😈
Cam discusses Big Society.
To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.
Aristotle
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
I don't quite understand this: Thomas Jefferson, like Aristotle, lived in a slave owning society. He owned hundreds of slaves himself and it is reasonably certain that he fathered children on his slaves because as an owner he had a right to do so.I just don't see why you are quoting the views of people who lived in a privileged position in society and who preached freedom and democracy, while at the same time relying on large numbers of other people to work for absolutely nothing to support them in their own fortunate status.
I mean what exactly does this have to do with Cameron's Big Socie.....
Ah! I think I can see where you are coming from.
😆
I fail to see your point notverygood?
Are you suggesting that all political arguments can be reduced to Ad Hominem?
The fact that you're unable to argue the point made on the size of the state, or the effect of government, and instead resort to logical fallacies - are Stephen Hawkings theories weakened by the fact he supposedly believes in God?
I think the point I am making is that quoting Aristotle when it comes to deciding how big the 'state' should be is a little bit risky if you want to be taken seriously. I don't deny that the fundamentals of political theory can still apply but you are talking about a philospher who lived at a time when the larget Greek polis consisted of a few thousand people: Athens had about 30,000 voting citizens in Aristotles' time. To suggest that he would therfore have a valid view about how big a 21st century state with 60 million is, I suggest, just a little bit pointless. The role of the state and the challenges it faces have changed in 2500 years. You might as well quote Lycurgus for an idea of how the NHS should manage neonatal care.
However, even though I was being facetious, the fact that the people you quote seek to minimise the role of the state because they were able to get necessary work done for nothing means that perhaps it wasn't such a bad point make after all.
So, to get this correct - you're saying that Aristotle was wrong, that there is *no* limit to the size of the state, and that a (any) system's efficiency and effectiveness cannot be plotted in a bell curve? 😯
Cause if you're not saying that, then any attack you make is purely ad hominem, and if you accept the point, then you're accepting that society can, and will, function in lieu of the state.
Look at it this way, if the council stopped picking up litter tomorrow, would we all drown under a sea of litter, or would the great tapestry of society step in and adapt its behaviour to prevent it being a problem?
Fatcher: "because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living."
Only if you deliberately avoid the many down-at-heel neighborhoods, dear. Access to reliable work, decent basic shelter, avoiding eviction, eating decently, feeling safe and secure. There are millions in our country who struggle with these things. [i]IMO, the Conservatives are not for these people.[/i] Which is why I will not vote for a Conservative.
The current coalition is the consequence of us voting out a tired Labour administration, but not being entirely certain about the Conservatives. Despite the apparent powerlessness of the LibDems in the arrangement, I'm glad it's not a purely Conservative government.
Nope. I'm saying given the context - The 2500 year gap in which every single aspect of human society has changed out of all recognition- Aristotle's views on the size of the state are irrelevant & are not a useful basis on which to conduct a debate on the details of 21st century poilitics. Aristotle's idea of the size of the state are a product of when he wrote & lived. Quite clearly there is a limit to every state. Who knows what Aristotle might have said had he been writing on this particular thread today? ( Although I'm not sure how keen he was on mountain biking, perhaps you might have found something he had to say about it?)
Ok, so, once and clearly - you're accepting his point, so your ad hominem attack is completley pointless
Forget who said it, or when he said it, is his [u]poin[/u]t, that there is a limit to the size of any system or state, true, or false?
apparently, you accept its true! therefore its irrelevant that it was said by Aristotle or anyone else, or when it was said, the point stands on its own value!
To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.
I have absolutely ******* no idea.
The best thing about this?
It took 11 years to bin Thatcher, 10 to bin Blair, a mere 3 for Brown, but within a year I'm pretty sure that even the most chinless of Toryboy STWers have sussed out that Daves a complete twerp, so who knows we might be shot of him and his glove puppet sooner rather than later.
i accept aristotle's point, up to a point- his analogy is flawed though the size of an organism is dependent on the environment and the niche it fills within that ie the sea has krill and blue whales in it.
ultimately its a ridiculous point as the condems are minimizing the state by axing quangos only to have to employ expensive advisors to do the same jobs
or selling off forests at a loss
or simply closing down facilities such as libraries
or slashing university funding so only the rich can attend etc etc
So labrat is now using Aristotle to justify his state hating ideology. Aristotle said there was a limit, but didn't say where the limit was.
Where is the limit?
Look at it this way, if the council stopped picking up litter tomorrow, would we all drown under a sea of litter, or would the great tapestry of society step in and adapt its behaviour to prevent it being a problem?
As a great tapestry of society we can't even pick up our own dog mess!
It took 11 years to bin Thatcher, 10 to bin Blair, a mere 3 for Brown, but within a year I'm pretty sure that even the most chinless of Toryboy STWers have sussed out that Daves a complete twerp, so who knows we might be shot of him and his glove puppet sooner rather than later.
I'm afraid you might be overestimating people's willingness to admit that they were wrong.
Where is the limit?
At the top of the Rahn Curve of course!
I'm afraid you might be overestimating people's willingness to admit that they were wrong.
How wrong??
At least enough constituencies made their minds up for Blair and Thatcher's governments to go in with a majority.
We could have just as easily had a lab/lib government. I wonder if there is a parallel universe with Brown and Clegg in charge?