Big Society: Is David Cameron the new Che Guevara?
Both espouse/d the idea of the individual giving to the common good. Che Guevara believed every individual should volunteer on weekends to help Cuba out and strive to solve it's problems. David Cameron seems to believe the same. The difference is, Che's belief stemmed from the view that if we all work together and invest in each other, we will grow together. Cameron's seems to stem from a desire to reduce the State's role and instead pass it onto the local people. The local people in these problem areas who need the volunteering, of course, tend to be the poorest...It is also not attracting the input hoped for. Why? Because people don't believe in it. They can see that once again Britain is being subjected to the "summint for nutin" culture; oh but it's not from the poor...It's from the rich.
The rich seem to expect that they can enjoy the benefits of this country without having to share the burden. Pay a little more tax on your large income because times are kind of tough right now and some people don't even have a job?...Nope, that's disgraceful. Maybe we could keep taxes a little higher to help pay for youth centres for the disadvantaged, or to have community support areas staffed with full-time paid workers? Nope; cut taxes, "*uck 'em, probably immigrants anyway". No wonder we haven't yet materialised the "Big Society" into the Communist-esqe idea once envisioned; we're "common" but we're not stupid.
People use the buzz-word "Nanny-State" alot. I don't know about you but I was kind of glad I had a Nanny around to prevent me from falling into broken glass or eating something stupid. Yeah, Sharon (my Nanny) p*ssed me off at times; she would shout at me when I was acting up or being naught, and all sorts... but she was also there as somebody who would listen when my older brother was being cruel [unjust] to me; she listened, helped and punished wrong-doings.
So, I don't know about you but having a society without a "nanny" sounds pretty s*itty to me.
But hey, why don't we solve it all by "learning the consequences of our actions" which is what exactly? How do we teach that? You keep mindlessly saying it like some silly mantra but it doesn't even mean anything. I anticipate soon you will start saying Britain needs to be "more dynamic" or "get ready for the future" - they are fillers; thing's Politicians say because they sound nice and seem important but they mean nothing. I think you're not quite understanding the complexity of politics; the web which is both social interaction and the economy.
I suspect you're A-Level to first year undergraduate: probably why you support the academic side of the UK, lest you insult yourself.
I agree with you, this country is crappy but the reason it is, is because of people like you. We need to follow a North European route; welfare and education before corportations. I see value in corporates and believe shareholders are the best way of distributing wealth - but I don't believe in surrendering all to them.
The role of the Government is to remain silent on all issues except those where they must balance the interests of the parties. That is liberalism.
Currently, the UK swings far too far to the businesses.