Let me explain to you (although I expect that many of you may have some idea) why this man Cameron is such a complete pillock. A pillock from arsehole to Christmas, and back again.
He is trying to convince the rest of us that his idea of a “big society” is clever. He contrasts it to the “big state” which he sees as a not clever idea. The underlying philosophy of the big society is that the elected government should relieve itself of all responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, leaving all of the onus on those citizens to sort themselves out. By doing this, a large burden of tax will be removed from those fine fellows (bankers, entrepreneurs and other sundry twats) who support slimy Dave and his band of mendacious sociopaths. Freed of this burden, the theory goes, business will flourish, and, he would like us to believe, we will all be better off. I agree we will be better off, as long as we are not sick, disabled, less able, old or plain unlucky. The people who certainly will be better off are those who support slimy Dave, and whom slimy Dave supports, and who already are doing very nicely for themselves at our expense thanks to the efforts of slimy Dave and vast majority of the braying media who see things the way that slimy Dave does.
Dave’s job is made much easier because there are large sections of the population who still associate the Labour party with left wing policies. They are helped in maintaining this mistaken view by slimy Dave’s friends in the majority of the media.
Just in case you have not caught on, I feel I ought to make my position clear. There are surveys widely available, lots of them online, that will show you your political position in terms of left/right wing and authoritarian/libertarian. It shows some famous political and social figures to give you some idea where you stand. I stand in the corner. I am to the left of all of them, and more libertarian than any. I do not support the possession of power (wealth is less important) by a minority. I do not want a government telling me how to behave. But, in practical terms, I would like to be part of the process of choosing an administration that is responsible for the provision of welfare for all, regardless of ability to contribute to the running of society. Education, health care, care for the elderly, care for the disabled and protection from abuse of power should be available to all and equal. Government should only exercise its power to prevent abuse of power and damage to the environment and damage to the well being of its citizens. This is a humanist view, in the broadest sense of “humanist”. It recognises that we are capable of attaining, and should strive to attain, the condition of being cooperative, caring and humble in our interactions with others. It is certainly idealistic, but I will not accept that as a valid criticism. If we cannot strive for the best we might as well all give up now.
The alternative is the system that we are living under at the moment, which Twateron wants to make more radical by relieving the rich and powerful of the duty to contribute to the well being of us all. This is the system that takes us to war whenever the continued flow of wealth to the already overstuffed rich is threatened. The deaths of a million Iraqis is only one the consequences of holding that stance.
I can do nothing about this. Although I sense there are thousands and possibly millions who are in broad agreement with me, I am disenfranchised. Every four or five years I get to cast a vote for one of three political parties who are almost indistinguishable flavours of self-serving environmental fascism. Alas, the majority of people are either too stupid to see or too afraid to admit that capitalism has never delivered the promises of wealth and security to all by lining the pockets of the few.
To sum up, in a caring and well-thought-out way, I wish that Cameron would shove his big society up his big slimy arse, and fuck off.