Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

I agree with all of this - particularly the references to urbanization and loss of religion in the break down of a community ethos - but I think successive governments also bears a large slice of the responsibility for the situation. The Tories have identified the former and the 'big society' idea is about encouraging people to feel ownership of their communities. I would suggest it hasn't gone anywhere near far enough though, and the solution is tied up with governance and devolving more and more power down to the local level.

I agree with you on the problem and I agree with you that it has been caused by successive governments from both sides of the political divide, this is not a case of me playing party politics as though I hate to date always voted Labour I'm not a Labour supporter, member or lifer I judge events, policies and politicans on their own merits.

That said though I think we differ hugely on what we see as the motivation of the Tories for their 'big society' drive. In fact I think your last sentance quoted above demonstrates the lack of real conviction in this notion by the government, at the moment the 'big society' thing isn't about change, it isn't about building society or encouraging society to build itself its about decentralisation for ideological and in turn financial reasons though I accept and agree with the need for change even as a traditional Labour voter who hold them partcially responsible.

The difficulty with that theory is the extent to which people have become increasingly accustomed to government doing things for them, telling people it's officialdoms job to do x, y and z, backed up by a legal system that at times seems to hand out judgements that are utterly divorced from the wishes of normal people. "Don't get involved, it's not your responsibility" seems to have been the maxim of the last 20 years.

I agree that generally is todays culture, 'someone else's problem', 'let them worry about it/deal with it' it is part of the blame game, the 'its not my fault' culture we live in now with people ready to chase a claim at the slightest trip or fall.

We live in a culture in which the self and self responsility seem to be non existant and that is a huge problem in all walks of life. I don't know who is to blame for it or what can be done about it if indeed anything can be but it really isn't a welcome evolution of our nations culture.

Gradually a whole generation has lost the spirit of social inclusion and self reliance, growing used to abdicating responsibility for themselves and their communities. The really remarkable thing is that this change in outlook has occured over so short a period of time - 25 years at the outside.

Indeed, a by product of globalisation, modernity and the changing fabric of society and employment I guess. Gone are the mines and factories that often employed whole communties and bound them together far more than the church ever did in my view.

Changing that mindset will be a generational task and may be impossible given that the other main party will come back into power during that period, championing their big government and infantilizing agenda. To have any chance creating irreversable change, the government would need to do one big thing that couldn't easily be undone without public consent.

I'm not convinced either party can or will change it and I think both are in part responsible for it.

My suggestion would be to change the electoral system. Not to some poncey version of 'AV-light' but by legislating to create open primaries combined with the right of recall for MP's and the removal of deselection powers from the parliamentary parties (resting instead with the constituency party). You remove the malign influence of party lists, get candidates for election that the constituents actually want and emasculate the party whips, making MP's directly accountable to the people they represent. I think such a system would have ensured that our Iraq adventure would never of happened, for example.

If people can start to feel ownership of the political process then the rest of the stuff that needs to happen should flow from there. It wouldn't happen overnight, but I do think it would put us on the right road and move us towards the 'fairness' agenda that seems so fashionable at the moment.

Totally agree.

I don't expect any government to go through with a plan like that because it means voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their power, but it's what I would do.

Or at least you would until you got elected

[TrentVilla]

One of the strongest expressions of community we have seen in the last 25 or so years was the miners' strike. These communities had grown up around one specific form of employment (a pretty unpleasant one) and often had a very strong sense of identity and cohesion. (They were also mostly urbanised and as far as I know not religious).

They were smashed as a deliberate act of the state, a planned action involving the stockpiling of coal supplies for months before engaging in behaviour aimed at escalating a strike; the active use of MI5 etc to try to infiltrate the strikers, intercept communications, conduct illegal wiretaps and so on; the payment of large sums to the police as "overtime" in return for physical confrontation to break the strike; and of course relentless use of the lapdog press as a propaganda tool. During the strike, we saw one of the strongest expressions of the power and resilience of community that I can remember. In the end, though, these communities were crushed.

When I hear the present government, so closely allied in ideology and networks to their recent predecessors, talk about the "big society" and "building communities", I think of this.

I have to be honest so do I.

[TrentVilla]

although I'm not entirely sure how seriously the poor were taken especially by religion in the days gone bye as they lived in squaller and the church amased huge amounts of wealth, land and property.

I think one has to separate high church from the church of people’s everyday lives, or rather religion on a daily basis. People genuinely thought about the actions on earth and how that would affect the afterlife. To donate money during and at the end of life to worthy causes; church, poor, schools, alms houses, etc seemed the thing to do...

That is more separating the people from the institution rather than the high church from the every day church. I totally agree with you that Christians as individuals, groups or congregations did and continue to do a huge amount for those in poverty. But the church? as a whole as an institution? No, I won't have it. The church got rich on the fear of the weakest and poorest, it didn't protect it operated the most successful protection racket ever, give us your donations and we will provide you with God's grace in this and the next life.

The Church built its fortune during times of the greatest poverty.

Why are priests not allowed to marry? Because its nothing to do with anything that is in the bible. It was because the Church wanted to protect and further its wealth and ensuring they had no family achieved this.

The church (Catholic) is an immoral, greedy and self-erving organisation which I detest, some of those who follow it though have and continue to do some wonderful things for the poor. I just choose to believe they do so because of their inert sense of humanity rather than because of the light of Jesus shines into their hearts although I accept the church acts as a magnet for creating groups of such individuals which is why the secularisation of society has reduced the impact of these people and their numbers.

[Jon]

this is not a case of me playing party politics as though I hate to date always voted Labour ...

Freudian slip? :winkold:

[TrentVilla]

this is not a case of me playing party politics as though I hate to date always voted Labour ...

Freudian slip? :winkold:

You will keep, I'll be waiting.

[Awol]

Or at least you would until you got elected

MUUHAHAHAHAHA!!

[peterms]

Happening now.

11.04am: John Mann is asking about housing benefit now. How many children will have to move out of their homes because of the chancellor's plans?

Osborne says no one should be left without a home because of his plans.

Mann asks if homelessness will increase or decrease.

Osborne says he is not making a forecast.

Mann asks if there will be a reduction in the number of police officers.

Osborne says all parties accepted before the election that spending cuts would lead to there being fewer officers. But the government wants to ensure that the availability and visibility of policing is not cut, he says.

Mann asks if there will be any reduction in provision for special education needs within schools.

Osborne says Mann voted for the various budgets that led to an 11% budget deficit.

At this points Andrew Tyrie cuts Mann off. When Mann protests that the chancellor has not answered his questions, Tyrie reassures him: "The public will have noted this exchange."

[blandy]

Gradually a whole generation has lost the spirit of social inclusion and self reliance, growing used to abdicating responsibility for themselves and their communities. The really remarkable thing is that this change in outlook has occured over so short a period of time - 25 years at the outside.

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

[LondonLax]

Gradually a whole generation has lost the spirit of social inclusion and self reliance, growing used to abdicating responsibility for themselves and their communities. The really remarkable thing is that this change in outlook has occured over so short a period of time - 25 years at the outside.

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

The problem with this line of thinking is that this is not a phenomenon isolated to the UK, it is true of most developed countries around the world.

[snowychap]

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

The problem with this line of thinking is that this is not a phenomenon isolated to the UK, it is true of most developed countries around the world.

Is it a problem or is it just identifying the timeline in this country?

The cancer of neoliberalism spread to different countries at different times (and in different ways).

[PauloBarnesi]

although I'm not entirely sure how seriously the poor were taken especially by religion in the days gone bye as they lived in squaller and the church amased huge amounts of wealth, land and property.

I think one has to separate high church from the church of people’s everyday lives, or rather religion on a daily basis. People genuinely thought about the actions on earth and how that would affect the afterlife. To donate money during and at the end of life to worthy causes; church, poor, schools, alms houses, etc seemed the thing to do...

That is more separating the people from the institution rather than the high church from the every day church. I totally agree with you that Christians as individuals, groups or congregations did and continue to do a huge amount for those in poverty. But the church? as a whole as an institution? No, I won't have it. The church got rich on the fear of the weakest and poorest, it didn't protect it operated the most successful protection racket ever, give us your donations and we will provide you with God's grace in this and the next life.

The Church built its fortune during times of the greatest poverty.

Why are priests not allowed to marry? Because its nothing to do with anything that is in the bible. It was because the Church wanted to protect and further its wealth and ensuring they had no family achieved this.

The church (Catholic) is an immoral, greedy and self-erving organisation which I detest, some of those who follow it though have and continue to do some wonderful things for the poor. I just choose to believe they do so because of their inert sense of humanity rather than because of the light of Jesus shines into their hearts although I accept the church acts as a magnet for creating groups of such individuals which is why the secularisation of society has reduced the impact of these people and their numbers.

The church didn’t get rich from the poor. They got rich from the rich. Those who had become rich from perhaps ‘immoral’ methods (not ladies of the night) when faced with the fear that they would go to hell, perhaps thought they could buy a place in heaven. Of which the church became the main benificary.

Also when we talk about the church; I am not just talking about the CC or the CoE, but churches plural. Churches like the Methodist and then groups like the Quakers (i.e. the chocolate an confectionary families; Cadbury, Frys and Rowntree). You could apply this to other religions as well I am sure.

[PauloBarnesi]

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

The problem with this line of thinking is that this is not a phenomenon isolated to the UK, it is true of most developed countries around the world.

Is it a problem or is it just identifying the timeline in this country?

The cancer of neoliberalism spread to different countries at different times (and in different ways).

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

[TrentVilla]

The church didn’t get rich from the poor. They got rich from the rich. Those who had become rich from perhaps ‘immoral’ methods (not ladies of the night) when faced with the fear that they would go to hell, perhaps thought they could buy a place in heaven. Of which the church became the main benificary.

I don't agree. The church down the centuries will have taken vast sums from their followers in the collection plates the vast majority whom will have been poor. Sure the wealthy contributed to the wealth as well but the begging bowl of the church was out for all in order to give them a chance to save themselves.

They may have got rich from the rich as well but they sure as hell got rich from the poor also and I didn't say it was just from the poor.

[snowychap]

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

In which case, I think you may have misread what I wrote, Paulo.

I spoke about neoliberalism and the timing of when it became the orthodox political ideology in the UK.

[Jon]

blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

Let us not broach this subject on saturday with Mr B then Paul ...

[PauloBarnesi]

The church didn’t get rich from the poor. They got rich from the rich. Those who had become rich from perhaps ‘immoral’ methods (not ladies of the night) when faced with the fear that they would go to hell, perhaps thought they could buy a place in heaven. Of which the church became the main benificary.

I don't agree. The church down the centuries will have taken vast sums from their followers in the collection plates the vast majority whom will have been poor. Sure the wealthy contributed to the wealth as well but the begging bowl of the church was out for all in order to give them a chance to save themselves.

They may have got rich from the rich as well but they sure as hell got rich from the poor also and I didn't say it was just from the poor.

I am not sure that this is the right place to have this discussion, but its one that goes on again and again. I think that when people talk about giving money to the church through the collection plate, it was the whole of society, rich, poor and those in the middle, whom seem to have been forgotten in this. But the largest donations were those made in wills, and without doubt the largest and most important both in money and other things would have been from the rich and the aristocracy. One has to remember at this time the rich were super rich in comparison to now (seems strange, but remember vasts number of people in the mediaeval era were not even free men). I don’t think the poor were held down by the church as much as the nature of society.

I also think and this seems to get forgotten that the churches did things like provide schools, long before the state. In no way am I trying to defend the excesses of vasts numbers of people involved in the churches who weren’t good, but to say that the organisation didn’t do good is just wrong. And as I ve pointed out churches/religions are a huge spectrum of things and people like the Quakers, and those families I mentioned were IMO really good people

[PauloBarnesi]

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

In which case, I think you may have misread what I wrote, Paulo.

I spoke about neoliberalism and the timing of when it became the orthodox political ideology in the UK.

TBH I just quoted the whole lot to carry on the discussion. Apologies

[PauloBarnesi]

blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

Let us not broach this subject on saturday with Mr B then Paul ...

I am sure we can discuss all the wrongs of the rest of them and have just as much fun. Just don’t get me on to Harold Wilson...

[blandy]

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

She's not solely responsible, but to ignore the malevolent impact of her and her accolytes and the damage the toxic legacy it left would be like ignoring the mess Dubya made of America.

Still, not long now

[PauloBarnesi]

I'd say it dates back a bit further, to exactly the time that witch got in 31 years ago. Her, Keith Joseph, Tebbit and the likes, they're the ones who caused it. No one since has made much of an effort to cure the problem.

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

She's not solely responsible, but to ignore the malevolent impact of her and her accolytes and the damage the toxic legacy it left would be like ignoring the mess Dubya made of America.

Still, not long now

No we shouldn’t. But go to the small border towns of Scotland like Hawick. They were royally f•••ed by the closure of the railways by good old Wilson. Or some one like Red Robbo. Or say Eden’s failings at Suez, etc, etc. Strikes me that we remember our childhood’s best, and so for most people Thatcher sticks in the claws as being why Britain is not what it should be, but it allows the others to be given a get out of jail free card