The Truth About IPP Sentences

Big Society looks more like a big fat lie

As unemployment continues to rise, public sector cuts abound, bank bosses make a fortune and ordinary people can’t afford to pay their bills, David Cameron has been forced to defend his ill-fated Big Society.

Multi-millionaire Cameron thinks we should all volunteer more and spend our time working for nothing. He believes that we all don’t do enough for our communities or for society as a whole. He thinks we should all work harder, for longer, for less.

Instead however, more and more people are thinking of doing what any sensible person would do; try and find additional ways to earn money. Something which has not been encouraged in the UK, unlike in America where everyone and every family has an additional, usually web-based business.

(TheOpinionSite.org Digital Download Store opening in March will have some great ways for you to make money. We’ll also be opening a new and exciting Members Club and Advice Service. Just as well really as unemployment is set to be higher than at any time in the last 30 years. There is much more about this in this months Subscribers Newsletter available here.)

As TheOpinionSite.org has pointed out previously, there are 18 millionaires in the Cabinet, none of whom seem to have the slightest idea what it is like to have to scrimp and save just to pay the grocery bill.

In a speech this morning, the Prime Minister claimed that the Big Society is about “people taking responsibility for their own lives”, whilst in an interview, minister Francis Maude denies that nobody understands what Cameron means when he talks about “his Big Society”.

Maude also, rather naively in our opinion, believes that “everyone is talking about it” and therefore must understand it.

The last British premier who spoke about taking more personal responsibility was Margaret Thatcher and her rule ended up with riots on the streets, privatisation of essential services, the most expensive rail network in Europe and two generations of often nasty, selfish, vindictive children who now as adults can’t pay their bills and owe a fortune.

Blair tried it too but instead opted for a dictatorship. It was easier to go on and on about ‘responsibilities’ rather than stand up for those whom the State decided to persecute.

Cameron is different though; he is being so vague as to allow the end result, whatever that may be, to be hailed as a success. Disaster or triumph, it’s all the same to him, just so long as he remains in Downing Street.

If the cuts result in another 250,000 people losing their jobs – which the government admits they will –  then the Big Society will be  responsible for much needed greater efficiency.

If community groups decide to take more action in their local area to improve things, which they will mainly because local authorities are cutting services instead of getting rid of highly and grossly overpaid executives, then the Big Society will be hailed for promoting community fellowship.

And so it goes on.

Of course, what the Big Society really is, if you believe it exists at all, is a typically meaningless, shabby piece of political double-talk designed not to help those who lead ordinary lives but those whose only wish is to stay in power. A device to ensure that the rich get richer whilst the rest of us do not.

People should not have to work for nothing; that’s why we have a minimum wage. Yet we also now have unpaid ‘internships’ and ‘extended work experience’, ‘mentoring’ and ‘guided learning’, all of which are excuses for getting someone, usually young, to work for nothing on the basis that there ‘might’ be a paid job at the end of it.

TheOpinionSite.org has always believed that more people should work for themselves and, if you are unemployed, there is every reason to consider doing so.

The sad fact is though that whilst websites such as this one are making plans to help people to succeed, the government and local authorities are doing the exact opposite.

As it was once put, “They talk a lot and say very little“.

Well actually, Cameron talks a lot and says even less, whilst at the same time destroying jobs and communities in the process. What a great leader he’s turning out to be.

It is always a good thing to have a smaller government and a bigger society; that way, in theory at least, the power stays with the people. That was precisely the reason why Tony Blair trippled the size of the government machine when he was prime minister. It gave him the power and left the rest of us subservient.

Nevertheless, we should not be fooled either by this politically driven, vague nonsense coming from David Cameron and his colleagues.

The Big Society might one day exist but not now. Not until we can all afford to pay our bills; not until we all have employment; not until those who want to be self-employed have a real chance to do so without having to mortgage their house to the bank and their soul to the taxman in order to do so; and not until families no longer have to choose between whether to feed the children or whether to put the heating on.

The Big Society can be abbreviated to two letter: B.S.

I think that says it all really, don’t you?

4 Responses to Big Society looks more like a big fat lie

  1. Malcolm Wilkinson
    February 15, 2011 at 5:45 am

    Having multimillionaires as politicians let alone premiers, in my view goes completely against the grain of “for the good of the people” In my experience most rich people I have known would be more than happy to re-use a tea bag rather than to give. Probably the reason as to why they are rich in the first place. We simply cannot and should not have the rich leading people, governing. All the time we do have they come out with these completely absurd ideas.

    Big Society, allegedley devolving powers from the centre and off-setting to the periphery will no doubt create for one thing many redundancies. There’s always, in my view an ulterior motive.

    Lastly, we need all politicians to be cast from the same mould as Nelson Mandella. Regretably, we live in a world where this is not the case.

  2. nick
    February 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    There is a question that I have been asking myself recently as I go along in life and work. What’s the plan? Not for me, or my work, but as human beings. What’s the plan, what are we trying to achieve? World Peace? Carbon free? I mean normally, be it at work, or play, one has a plan. From A to B if you will. But it seems to me that there is no plan. As a society we just stumble along, trying various things to stem what ever issue has turned up. But there doesn’t seem to be a plan, or have I missed something? I wonder what it would be like if we were actually aiming for something. Like a global aspirational plan that has a little bit more meat on it than just money and possessions etc. At School it was all about career this and career that, a job for life. And yet we have no world plan, no goal to reach. This strikes me as being bizarre.

    Probably off topic, but it reminded me again, that who ever is in power, what ever they say, nothing really changes, and maybe that is because there is no plan. Maybe it would be better, if there was a general idea at least, something that humanity as a whole could aspire to, and then whoever wins at the polls, at least has to continue certain aspects of these ideas. Changing the faces every few years doesn’t work, because there is no continuity in the ideas going forward. And so we just stumble along.

    If you could ask humanity that very question, ‘so whats the plan’ what would the answer be?

    • Malcolm Wilkinson
      February 15, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Having people lead us who are not motivated by a pursuit of self-agrandisement. People who are not greedy conceited or arrogant.

      People that run and work in charity shops are my preferred choice rather than those that run multi-nationals. Or those types of people rammed down our throats by the media that frequent popular programmes such as “Dragon’s Den” or “the apprentice” where they preen themselves and convey the impression of how important they are.

      To give should be the most important quality we exude. Not to succeed at the expence and failure of others.

      I am constantly annoyed by this so called “the survival of the fittest” belief. The strongest should carry the weak.

      I’m going to jump down off my soap box now as I do feel quiet faint with all this spouting off

      Regards

  3. February 14, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    BIG JOKE thats what it is, 100’s even 1000’s cannot be part of the Big society because soft intelligence on a CRB prevents them from working and contributing to society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.