Quote from nevosopelo

, the "Big Society" is brought in by the new coalition government, to offload the government's responsibilities towards those in need, e.g. "single mothers as a life style choice" and, since he has done nothing about discouraging single motherhood, either by teenage abuse of the system or, as a consecuence of divorce, upon us "the man slaving it on the job" to volunteer to take responsibility for other peoples "life styles" consecuences.
]

NEVO

""Another intelligent step will be to stop the family court's massive rewards to those who deliberately break up families for the sake of the financial rewards given in the ancillary relief rip off.""


right on !!!

could "those " be the sit down to piss brigade making all their clewless choices suchas is their wont

the Family Court, the sacred feminit, shibboleth does not consult with sincere fathers about anything, it merely impoversishes the men rips their kids off of them and packs daddy off to Peonageville for the term of his natural life

What we need, there and here, is for Government to know its place.

It is supposed to keep the streets clean and the grass gowing in the parks and keeping friggin' furriners out, and the rest they can bugger off about.

Governments are supposed to answer to the People and do what the people ask. But they don't ask the people and they only ever answer back.

Big Society, indeed. A slogan.

Three quarters of the time of MPs is taken up by backstabbing, chicanery, betrayal and thievery, and the other quarter is devoted to fiddling expenses.

A Pox on them all.

Sod all this offloading responsibility to a population already burdened with keeping their heads above water, more importantly, I want to hear more about minimizing the role of the state and maximising individual rights Cameron and Clegg previously spoke of.

return to the natural order of the family, male headship in marraige, and you have solved 99% of the problems at a stroke..

Or will do, once the effects of that classic eternal order filter through again!

Giving every other style of family cash at the expense of the most efficient style is what the state does because it DOES NOT WANT families to be managed efficiently, it wants families to be managed by the state! The more inefficient, the more the state can come and say "you need us, you cant do it without us!"

On the day of 9/11 certain Mp's and their assistents said in Parliament "this could be a good day to put out bad (policy) news!"
The cynic in me always thinks hairbrained schemes like this is designed to divert our attention from key issues , just as our weary leaders jet off on their 12 week summer recess. 'Fob um off with any ol' bullshit and we can run roughshod over them in September!' Well I have news for Cameron, Clegg and cronnies you are about to be sued in every court in the land until the Family Law Farce is rectified (Watch this space following the DC gig)

Quote from Daveyone

On the day of 9/11 certain Mp's and their assistents said in Parliament "this could be a good day to put out bad (policy) news!"
The cynic in me always thinks hairbrained schemes like this is designed to divert our attention from key issues , just as our weary leaders jet off on their 12 week summer recess. 'Fob um off with any ol' bullshit and we can run roughshod over them in September!' Well I have news for Cameron, Clegg and cronnies you are about to be sued in every court in the land until the Family Law Farce is rectified (Watch this space following the DC gig)

The best way to bury bad news is by creating a bigger pile of bad news somewhere else.

In the town where I live a number of services have already disappeared because of ending government funding. As this happens with astonishing speed nobody can mount e serious defence because of the sheer amount of cancelled programes.
Not that I mind the government saving money, the problem is those cancelled programs are usually for people who have nothing to do with the economic mess. Meanwhile, single mothers by choice or divorce who are causing billions of £ expenditure to the government, have suffered but a dent in their incomes.

Social justice the conservative way, reminiscent of the thatcher years.

NEVO

Sounds like a major cluster fuck over in britain, I wonder how long it will be before men as awhole say " Fuck this shit" and walk off the jobs enmass, hell I bet if 10% of menwalked off the job the whole stinking system would come crashing down or at the very lest the goverment would have to take these men seroiusely enough to make some major policy changes.

Here's two interesting articles which predates the election before Cameron officially rolled out his 'big society' movement. Many are claiming all he's offering is a mishmash of restructured marxism!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...-saul-alinsky/

David Cameron's Big Society is a grotesque fantasy inspired by leftist subversive Saul Alinsky

“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”

That statement, which beggars belief even in the political fairground we now inhabit, is not taken from some far-out Trotskyite samizdat, but from the official Conservative Party introduction to David Cameron’s Big Idea – the creation of a “Neighbourhood army” of 5,000 full-time community organisers to implement his grotesque fantasy called “Big Society”. If you ever doubted that, under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become ideologically and culturally deracinated, has lost its political compass and is occupied by an alien clique that has disfigured it beyond recognition, here is the incontestable evidence.

Saul Alinsky is here openly acknowledged as the inspiration behind Cameron’s “Big Idea”. Alinsky was the lifelong cultural revolutionary and political subversive whom Barack Obama formerly claimed as his “spiritual mentor”; since Obama hit mainstream politics, however, his supporters have expended a vast amount of effort on trying to conceal that embarrassing history. The aggressively amoral Alinsky believed there was no right or wrong in politics, only what was necessary to seize power (well, Dave and his gang would buy that).

Yet the Conservative Party blurts out this admission in the launch document of Big Society. There is a pedantic debate over whether Alinsky was technically a Marxist, or by-passed Marx as old-hat. What is beyond question is his project to overthrow capitalist society and to do so through infiltration of political parties, institutions and, above all, by the use of “community organisers”. Anybody who thought claims on this blog of Cultural Marxism influencing even the Tory Party were exaggerated can now think again. Alinsky was the first begetter of ACORN, the sinister organisation that tried to gerrymander the American electorate.

What is going on here? Who is running the Cameronian Party – Common Purpose? How is it conceivable that even the most bland, politically correct, centre-right “conservative” party could derive its flagship policy from the thinking of Alinsky, whose seminal work Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer? If, as one suspects, this is the brainchild of Oliver Letwin, he needs to be escorted expeditiously to the seclusion of a padded boudoir.

Are the Tories totally demented? Sending 5,000 community organisers to harass people into approved activities is reminiscent of the Red Guards invading the countryside during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Claims that they will not be state employees are contradicted by the references to “grants” that will be made available. The inescapable fact is that any enterprise artificially generated by Government is a state-inspired initiative. Real communities have the WRI, the British Legion, bowling, tennis, cricket clubs – naturally evolved organisations.

Those who prate most about “communitarianism” are precisely those who have destroyed real communities, by enforcing mass immigration, impoverishing the countryside, imposing draconian Health and Safety regulations, etc. What hope for thriving communities when nativity plays are routinely banned on PC grounds? Do something about all that, Dave – that is all that people ask.

What a dog’s breakfast the whole Heath-Robinson contraption is. A Big Society Bank funded by dormant bank accounts – they’re having a laugh, surely? And why should communities want to buy clapped-out shops and other enterprises that have failed the test of market forces? Transforming the civil service into a “civic service” by making community busy-bodying an element in civil servant staff appraisals – what kind of nonsense is this? Forcing the most public-sector-minded jobsworths in the country to the forefront of local community life is actually the most culturally centralising, collectivist initiative imaginable.

On page 6 of this electoral suicide note we also read that neighbourhood “group leaders” will have a code of conduct and “This code of conduct will protect neighbourhood groups against extremist causes.” What is that all about? Political direction and social control, it would seem. The point where one sees why Dave had to rush this initiative out a few hours ahead of 1 April is when we come to the proposed annual national “Big Society Day”.

If you thought Gordon Brown’s abortive “Britishness Day” was, well, un-British – what about this contrived, synthetic, ideological celebration? How would we celebrate Big Society Day? With mass parades, floats, huge portraits of Dave the Great Leader?

Big Society is either sinister or a reflection of the Cameronian clique’s total divorce from reality. It is utterly un-Conservative and totally un-British. The people of this country, insofar as they can bring themselves to take it seriously, will hate it to death. It is the product of an alien intrusion occupying the husk of the Conservative Party. It is an eloquent testimonial to why David Cameron is unfit to become the Prime Minister of this country.

And Melanie Phillips.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...-marxism.thtml

This man's Big Tory Idea: transformational Marxism

When I read newspaper reports of David Cameron’s ‘big society’ speech, my heart sank. Not because I disapprove of the idea of the ‘big society’ replacing the ‘big state’; on the contrary, I have been banging on about this for years. Having seen the way in which locally administered public services can regenerate a community and its social glue, I am deeply persuaded of the paramount need to get the state out of people’s lives and restore the ‘little platoons’ of civic society.

My heart sank because, once again, Cameron appeared to be facing in two directions at once. Proclaiming his intention to end the ‘big state’, what he actually seemed to be proposing – according to the reports presumably informed by background briefings on his speech – was to a large extent a redirection of state administered funds from centrally delivered to locally administered services. But that doesn’t end the ‘big state’ at all. Instead, it nationalises the voluntary sector and thus extends the size and power of the state.

What the state pays for, it controls. The only way to end that control is to end the taxpayer-funded structure of these services. And even if you look at the most radical of the Tories’ public sector proposals, the ‘Swedish model’ school reforms proposed by Michael Gove, these parent-run schools will still be constrained by state regulation.

So I was disheartened by what appeared to be another example of over-heated spin. But that was before I read the speech itself and, even more astounding, the Tory party’s own story puffing this speech. At this point I fell off my chair. For the party’s puff trumpeted:

The new policies announced as part of the Big Society plan include:

“Neighbourhood army” of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers who will be trained with the skills they need to identify local community leaders, bring communities together, help people start their own neighbourhood groups, and give communities the help they need to take control and tackle their problems. This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama(my emphasis).

Ye gods. Rub your eyes, folks. Saul Alinsky?? Followers of this blog will know that I have written many times about Alinsky and his baleful influence over Obama. For Alinsky-ite 'community organisers' are not good-hearted volunteers serving soup to the poor. I wrote here:

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:

These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes...

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization... Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’[41] and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘[42] ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

The British Conservative party has signed up to the revolutionary Marxist politics of Saul Alinsky and his seditious strategy of using ‘community organisers’ to turn the people against the state and against the bedrock moral and social values of their country – and it is almost certainly too ignorant, lazy or stupid to realise that this is what it means.

Unbelievable.

It will not work!

Why?

Because british society is now so disfunctional that before the idea make roots, the partisanism, privilegerism, and all other isms, will create a state of contention between the interested parties that will ensure no agreements will ever take place.

NEVO