What is the 'big society'?

[eFestivals]

More lies.

If it's lies to say that you're "pretending you know what you're commenting on", then ....

Please prove me wrong by giving Tony the answer he asked for.

[worm]

They're the underlying selfish principles of conservatism.

[worm]

ffs..

[worm]

If it's lies to say that you're "pretending you know what you're commenting on", then ....

Edited February 17, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Is it that 'black and white' though? I mean, Ted Heath's administration of the early 70's was, in a number of policy areas, more left-wing than new-labour post 97 (not that i'm holding up the traitors to socialism of new labour as being worthy of any praise mind). Yours (and my) view of 'conservatism' is i think jaundiced by it's abhorrent manifestations in thatcherism - the policies of thatcher were criticised by Harold Macmillain and many 'grandees' of the tory party because they recognised that the conservative notions of self-reliance, probity etc. which you can have some respect for had been usurped by thatcher et al and repackaged as that 'not giving a shit about anyone but yourself' which you, correctly, typify contemporary conservatism as.

[eFestivals]

Is it that 'black and white' though? I mean, Ted Heath's administration of the early 70's was, in a number of policy areas, more left-wing than new-labour post 97 (not that i'm holding up the traitors to socialism of new labour as being worthy of any praise mind). Yours (and my) view of 'conservatism' is i think jaundiced by it's abhorrent manifestations in thatcherism - the policies of thatcher were criticised by Harold Macmillain and many 'grandees' of the tory party because they recognised that the conservative notions of self-reliance, probity etc. which you can have some respect for had been usurped by thatcher et al and repackaged as that 'not giving a shit about anyone but yourself' which you, correctly, typify contemporary conservatism as.

I'm not really old enough to know the more intricate details of Heath's govt and before, but I'm well aware that Heath claimed to work to the idea of the so-called 'post-war consensus', which accepted that a social contract existed between a govt and the people it governed. All the same, it was still much the same in many respects - govt by the rich primarily for the benefit of the rich.

The difference that Thatcher brought which has been continued by all govts since was the rejection of that social contract. The govts since after Callaghan have believed that the idea of that contract can be ignored or manipulated, with the funds sucked from that contract being used only for the benefit of the rich - the numbers get to show that that's indeed what has happened.

[eFestivals]

If it's true then prove it to me. You can't because you can't read minds so it's lies.

If it's lies then prove it to me. You can't because you don't know what the f**k you're talking about.

I'm more than happy for you to prove me wrong with facts rather than pointless hyperbole. And it would be the polite and right thing to do for tony too.

Are you here to contribute, or just to stir?

[worm]

that, and your 'rephrasing' haven't said very much really

Edited February 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

just trolling then. Glad we've cleared that up.

Edited February 17, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

If it's lies then prove it to me. You can't because you don't know what the f**k you're talking about.

[worm]

just trolling then. Glad we've cleared that up.

Edited February 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

If you call invigorating a discussion and saving it from hyperbole trolling, then yes. I rephrased the question because the ansewers were so mind numbingly uninformative. The very next post was the most informative in here.

It's a simple question.

People have given what they believe the answer to be - except you, the one person who is claiming or pretending to know what it's really about.

Those people have given their answers in the way they feel fit, and very possibly in that way because they, like tony, don't understand it as being anything different to what they've said.

You have chosen to dismiss those contributions as hyperbole, which is saying that you know better than they do.

But for some reason, despite pretending to know better, you seem completely unable to say what it is that you know.

You can have one more go at proving you're not here just for belittling the contributions of others and general trolling. Then I'll implement the standard thing for worthless trolls.

[windy_miller]

It's very common to cynically attack the underlying selfish motivations of the tory party and its new ideas. I understand why and have no interest in defending them. However, people seldom seem to attack the ideology behind it and constructively criticise it. It just seems to go without saying.

I say this because there are a great deal of people who actually agree with the grounding principles of conservative ideology. Principles such as removing an autocratic state from the centre of society and allowing independent bodies to hold it up to scrutiny. Principles like individual responsibility, self autonomy and incentive.

What I'd like to see is an analysis of the 'big society' that brings out factors that undermine these conservative principles.

[eFestivals]

Those "independent bodies" being private businesses.

or charities - but without any democratic accountability.

[TalkShow Bob]

It's very common to cynically attack the underlying selfish motivations of the tory party and its new ideas. I understand why and have no interest in defending them. However, people seldom seem to attack the ideology behind it and constructively criticise it. It just seems to go without saying.

I say this because there are a great deal of people who actually agree with the grounding principles of conservative ideology. Principles such as removing an autocratic state from the centre of society and allowing independent bodies to hold it up to scrutiny. Principles like individual responsibility, self autonomy and incentive.

What I'd like to see is an analysis of the 'big society' that brings out factors that undermine these conservative principles.

[TalkShow Bob]

I'm not really old enough to know the more intricate details of Heath's govt and before, but I'm well aware that Heath claimed to work to the idea of the so-called 'post-war consensus', which accepted that a social contract existed between a govt and the people it governed. All the same, it was still much the same in many respects - govt by the rich primarily for the benefit of the rich.

The difference that Thatcher brought which has been continued by all govts since was the rejection of that social contract. The govts since after Callaghan have believed that the idea of that contract can be ignored or manipulated, with the funds sucked from that contract being used only for the benefit of the rich - the numbers get to show that that's indeed what has happened.

[Paul ™]

[worm]

Thatcher still belived in the social contract - its impossible to have a state without a social contract. The post war concencus was mostly about Kansianism and thats where she majorly strayed from it.

[worm]

People have given what they believe the answer to be - except you, the one person who is claiming or pretending to know what it's really about.

Edited February 17, 2011 by worm

[TalkShow Bob]

It's tory rhetoric that incorporates a load of conservative principles that many people will agree with.

I've given it three times now.

So can we get back to discussing the merits and demerits of how the tories are going to deliver those principles instead of hiding behind some anti-tory nonsense that dismisses anything they say on site? You see, anti-tory hyperbole may work well on a generally anti-tory forum, but it's hardly going to help in the real world where people actually believe in these principles and couldn't give two f**ks whether it's the tories or labour who purport to having them as policy.

[worm]

The inns and outs were coverd on the first page. Firstly there cutting the funding so wont be able to delever, secondly it reinforces current socal devides as services in rich areas will prosper and services in poor areas will bomb, thridly the new bodys taking over will not be democraticly accountable or responsible so will be able to cherry pick what services they provide to who. This isnt taking into account the fact that this was tried in the past and they created the state because of these issues and that was before american capitalim and neo libralism took hold and socal responsibility was removed from the corporate hand book.

Edited February 17, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Those "independent bodies" being private businesses.

[TalkShow Bob]

So how does this contradict actual tory ideology. I don't mean neo-consevative Thatcherism, I mean real conservativism. In what sense is this unconservative? Or is conservativism inevitably driven to something like this?

[TalkShow Bob]

And private business is bad because...........

[worm]

their main interest is profit...