The Tories need to make up their mind.
Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said "There's no such thing as society"?
Maybe she couldn't see it because it used to be smaller....
The Tories need to make up their mind.
Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said "There's no such thing as society"?
Maybe she couldn't see it because it used to be smaller....
In both cases, you have the Tory Prime Minister trying to define what British society should be. In Maggie's case, it was to define it in terms of individualism. In Cameron's case, it's to define it in terms of some homogeneous conformity to his ideals of what Britain should be. Maggie failed because society is too complex (and, for want of a better word, too big) to define in simple, one dimensional terms. Cameron's ideas will ultimately fail because society is too dynamic and diverse (and big) to fit into his rather simplistic ideals.
An interesting comment from Alistair Campbell on his blog. This may be heresay (and he's hardly a neutral commentator), but the story he reports is telling:
If I could believe that the concept of the big society was driven by a positive social ideology, I'd be for it. In that frame, it's basically saying we need to work together to improve the local communities where we live. I can't see any reasonable person objecting to that. However, in practice, it appears to come from a far more negative economic ideology of, "we need to save money; we've decided to cut as hard and as far as we can (because we, ideologically, believe Government should be small). So we're not going to help you any more, so do it yourself or your screwed."I have much enjoyed the retelling of a ministerial meeting recently at which the LIB DEM said he (or might it have been she?) said he/she was worried that the policy under discussion did not have a Big Society element. The (senior) TORY in the team piped up … "oh do grow up. That's code for cuts."
Well, indeed. But its a conservative party idea, so "it's code for cuts" was practically lasered onto the frikkin moon the moment the policy was announced. Or maybe I am just naturally cynical and non-cynical people actually though "oh what a caring comunity bettering idea. I love David Cameron" ... c'mon, hands up who thought that
oh and i'm sure this maybe in peoples inboxes already, sent to me by a Forestry Commission employee (i worked there recently)
As a former card carrying member of the Conservative party I take exception to the swearing on this av. In my experience Consevervatives will slit your throat whilst staying polite at all times.
I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree with the rest. But the addition of the swearing reduces the credibility of the author and makes me think it's all rubbish. It might even be true, but we really don't need to hear all the swearing, do we?
I think it's fair to say that the swearing adds a bit of unsubtle arrogrance, and is not strictly necessary to make this point, but swearing is immediately dismissive and the addition makes it slightly funnier as it is every UK taxpayer/voter who is being dismissed.
I don’t think I swear too often but I think it depends how much you despise the policies and plans of this government, as to how funny, appropriate and acceptable you find the swearing.
I have always found humour a good form of attack
I thought it was one of the funniest sketches I have seen in a while
This one is highly amusing too. No swearing, so Andy's delicate ears should remain unoffended.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks