Jesus wept. And so should any decent human being to read one more egregious example of the police state created by NuLabour and very carefully NOT dismantled by a coalition containing the supposedly civil libertarian LibDems.
Mrs McIntosh (76) and her 46 year-old daughter were ARRESTED for feeding pigeons in their own back yard. We have empowered the nosy neighbours, the kill-joys, the whiners and the oi no moi roights brigade at the direct expense of common sense, and we are deservedly regarded with contempt by the rest of the world as well as by a large proportion of our own population.
Britishness? The right to make everybody else as miserable as you are. The Big (pile of shit) Society, with history's hand hovering over the lever to flush it away for the betterment of humanity.
Showing posts with label Big Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Society. Show all posts
4 May 2011
22 March 2011
Crow: Rowan Williams off the arseholes list
My thanks to Archbishop Cranmer for drawing my attention to this speech by the self-styled 'hairy lefty' Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, at King's College, London. Crow-eating time.
The man's an academic theologian - shouldn't have judged him on second-hand soundbites, they are not his thing. The speech contains much serious thought and so, as Cranmer says, the MSM has not and will not report it because even religious affairs journopukes lack the intellectual capacity to process it into something they can use.
The following seems pretty unequivocal and if the Boy Wonder can acquire some humility might help him sell his Big New Idea by recognizing, first, that there is nothing new about it at all, and, secondly, that wise politicians respect the barrier that separates their sphere of activity from those of private conscience and genuinely voluntary association:
The man's an academic theologian - shouldn't have judged him on second-hand soundbites, they are not his thing. The speech contains much serious thought and so, as Cranmer says, the MSM has not and will not report it because even religious affairs journopukes lack the intellectual capacity to process it into something they can use.
The following seems pretty unequivocal and if the Boy Wonder can acquire some humility might help him sell his Big New Idea by recognizing, first, that there is nothing new about it at all, and, secondly, that wise politicians respect the barrier that separates their sphere of activity from those of private conscience and genuinely voluntary association:
I intend in this address to reflect a little on the implications of our current discussions around the 'Big Society'. My hope is to suggest ways in which it can be a vehicle for serious rethinking of our national and international priorities at a time when some of our conventional pictures of left and right in politics are under question. This certainly doesn't mean that we should see it as a sort of halfway house between different sets of principles. I believe that the possibilities are more radical than that, involving the development of a new set of principles – or perhaps, as I shall also be suggesting, not so new after all. A politics, national and international, of local co-operation and 'mutualism', rooted in a sense of political virtue and appealing to human empathy – this is, as far as I can see, a large part of what my religious faith has always looked towards. That faith will be shared by some but not all in this audience; I hope that what I say will have some resonance with those who do not begin where I begin, and may even suggest that there is some significant intellectual and moral capital to be discovered in the world of theology as we seek for ways forward for a society currently facing the likelihood of pretty high levels of anxiety and disorientation.
7 March 2011
Not thinking things through
The following chart from the Mail may help to explain that "broken society" the Boy Wonder used to talk about, and which his administration is doing nothing to mend. The article highlights a study by CARE, the Christian social policy charity, which rebuts the declared intentions of Work and Pensions Secretary Duncan Smith on the subject of married couple families.
The changes made by the Coalition Government will materially worsen the position of one-earner couples on an average wage, although they will improve the position of some other families. In 2009, a one-earner married couple with children on a wage of £33,745 paid over a third more in tax in the UK than in the average developed country, and a fifth more than in the average EU country.
The study concludes that under changes introduced by the Coalition, one-earner families on an average wage will pay even more tax, because although their tax threshold will rise by £1,000, the gain will be cancelled out by loss of tax credits and an increase in national insurance contributions.
Damn. I thought IDS was the sole member of this government who had actually thought things through. I should have known better. The alternative - that he has thought it through - would presuppose that he is making a premeditated attack on the principles he claims to uphold. I think he is a well-intentioned bear of little brain doing the best he can, but unfortunately the results are the same as if he were a Machiavellian genius.
The changes made by the Coalition Government will materially worsen the position of one-earner couples on an average wage, although they will improve the position of some other families. In 2009, a one-earner married couple with children on a wage of £33,745 paid over a third more in tax in the UK than in the average developed country, and a fifth more than in the average EU country.
The study concludes that under changes introduced by the Coalition, one-earner families on an average wage will pay even more tax, because although their tax threshold will rise by £1,000, the gain will be cancelled out by loss of tax credits and an increase in national insurance contributions.
Damn. I thought IDS was the sole member of this government who had actually thought things through. I should have known better. The alternative - that he has thought it through - would presuppose that he is making a premeditated attack on the principles he claims to uphold. I think he is a well-intentioned bear of little brain doing the best he can, but unfortunately the results are the same as if he were a Machiavellian genius.
10 February 2011
Big Society - would t'were so
Baroness Warsi has defined the Boy Wonder's "Big Society" as follows:
Since that is not going to happen, the "Big Society" is simply a PR gloss on the pious hope that the British people actually want to take control over their lives instead of demanding that in return for high levels of taxation the state should take all the hard decisions - how to raise their children, how to manage their health and how to look after their elderly relatives.
Cameron and Co. are certainly right to argue that a revolution in public attitudes is essential to break out of the welfarist death-spiral. But they are equally certainly wrong to think it can be brought about by preaching de haut en bas from a tainted pulpit.
If they really wanted to institute devolution, they would start by repatriating the powers of self-government surrendered willingly by the British political elite to the unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucracy. Since they are not going to do it, their commitment to devolution is a sham and their dishonesty patent.
The big society is defined by many in this House [of Lords] as being what most of them have done for most of their lives. It is a volunteering, social action, philanthropic approach to life, but it is also about the opening up of public services to local control and devolution of power.The comments following the report in ConHome are revealingly superficial. The fact remains that devolution of power involves, in the first instance, giving up control to local authorities whose corruption and unfitness for purpose is notorious. The only real devolution of power is to reduce the role and cost of government and to cut taxes, so that people can vote with their own money rather than with debased and devalued ballots.
Since that is not going to happen, the "Big Society" is simply a PR gloss on the pious hope that the British people actually want to take control over their lives instead of demanding that in return for high levels of taxation the state should take all the hard decisions - how to raise their children, how to manage their health and how to look after their elderly relatives.
Cameron and Co. are certainly right to argue that a revolution in public attitudes is essential to break out of the welfarist death-spiral. But they are equally certainly wrong to think it can be brought about by preaching de haut en bas from a tainted pulpit.
If they really wanted to institute devolution, they would start by repatriating the powers of self-government surrendered willingly by the British political elite to the unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucracy. Since they are not going to do it, their commitment to devolution is a sham and their dishonesty patent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
