I think we are back to me saying:
If you say so, mate! 
-----------------------
Let's go out of character...
Fancy a pint?
The Big Society Page 5
Bit late, but next time, sure. Cheers.
Quote: Badge @ July 21 2010, 1:02 AM BSTOkay, I'm being a bit flippant, but I guess my point is that being in Government is hard and knee-jerk opinions are easy. Which is why I don't like the idea of a policy like Big Society that panders to knee-jerk opinions and absolves Government from many of its hard tasks.
Fair point.
Mines a gin and tonic (double) ice and slice.. and yours..?
Quote: Badge @ July 21 2010, 1:11 AM BSTBit late, but next time, sure. Cheers.
Ah OK, you're probably right!
Cocoa then!
Goodnight!
Quote: Badge @ July 21 2010, 1:02 AM BSTHang on, where were we again?
Discussing who was going to, voluntarily, maintain the roads, cycle paths, footpaths, schools, hospitals, police force, fire service, army, navy, air force, museums, National Parks, art galleries, swimming baths, athletic stadiums, National Trust properties/sites, ambulance services, courts, prisons, probation services et al under the the 'grand plan' of the delusional Cameron/Clegg Unholy Alliance.
If one voted LibDem in May . . hope you're enjoying it !
Have a gin and tonic instead!
Or cocoa!
It's that time of night when you need to reflect that any day above ground is a good day, I feel!
Quote: Nil Putters @ July 20 2010, 5:36 PM BSThttp://daveschneider.co.uk/2010/06/big-society/
Yeah, got to love David Schneider, even though the c**t refused to commission Youth Hosteling with Chris Eubank and Monkey Tennis.
'The Big Society' is actually the Small Society. The Tories are a cracked record of self-interest. They don't believe in full employment and they are actually the country's greatest spongers themselves, since many of them live off of the surplus value of other people's labour.
I've lived through five Conservative administrations and they always do the same thing - raise indirect taxes, cut progressive taxes and public spending and read everyone a bedtime story every night about hard work, thrift and family values, while fisting their secretary and doing f**k all.
They don't need public services because they are rich. But they are not interested in looking at why they are rich or why it is not possible for everyone to be rich. They are just selfish people looking out for themselves and dressing their self-interest up as an economic idea is genuinely laughable.
I dunno some very progressive legislation has come through under them. Even dear old Enoch Powell championed the Mental Health act.
There is plenty of money in the budget to be saved. And means testing is dead easy it's done for the biggies (Housing benefit, JSA and income support already). Giving couples on £60,000+ tax credits and child benefit is silly.
There are buckets of money Labor wasted on bribing people. Whole slices of public spending that do precisely nothing. They can all go. Same with PFI if you can't afford it, don\t build it.
Up the owls!
..remaining nicely on topic!
Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 20 2010, 9:52 PM BSTEndless school top ups? Well, if you don't want to pay, don't have kids.
I don't know if you aware of much biology, but pregnancy occurs regardless of bank balance.
I was going to join The Big Society, but in the end I decided to stick with Weight Watchers.
Quote: Badge @ July 20 2010, 11:35 PM BSTMotorists pay vehicle excise duty, Frankie. It might appear to be semantics, but it does mean that the money raised goes into the general fund rather than to be spent on roads.
If you want motorists to pay for the true costs imposed by their activity then the price might be a bit high for most drivers (or politicians) to accept.
For information, rather than perhaps illumination, vehicle excise duty does not come close to paying for the upkeep of the road network, partly because lorry drivers are let off so cheap; motorists do of course also pay excise duty on fuel, but there has never been any pretence that road fuel duty was anything other than general taxation (at its inception in the 1920s its was essentially regarded as a progressive tax on a luxury commodity). Taken together VED and road fuel duty more than pay not just for the upkeep of the road network but also the external costs of motoring (e.g. local air pollution, global warming, emergency services etc) as calculated by Government statisticians - that is if you believe anything calculated by Government statisticians, which I never do. Despite fuel price hikes, in real terms the cost of motoring continues to come down (again according to Government statisticians.)
New Labour did pour vast sums into developing a sophisticated road pricing mechanism, the Lorry Road User Charge, which it was ultimately intended would be rolled out to all motorists. But like so many New Labour projects the vision far exceeded the limitations of the technology. New Labour were absolute suckers for any snake oil salesman from the private sector who tried to sell them shiney new technology.
Quote: Oldrocker @ July 21 2010, 1:17 AM BSTIf one voted LibDem in May . . hope you're enjoying it !
I was not expecting to enjoy it no matter who got in. Whoever was elected was going to be force to cut deep, the only debate during the election was about how quickly to start. The Coalition rhetoric is more aggressive, and there is a certain Conservative glee in slashing the public sector, as witnessed by their vindictive stance on civil service redundancy payments. But the theory is that the LibDems should act as a moderating influence. It was a very canny move by Cable surrendering the deputy leadership to Hughes, who has effectively set up a LibDem cabinet in exile, to hold Clegg and ultimately the Coalition to account. But even without the need to keep Clegg and his party on board, Cameron could be relied on to flunk all the hard decisions (see free bus passes). The reality is that cutting public services without causing pain is extremely difficult and Cameron is not in the business of scaring off voters. The Big Society is a desperate ploy to make cuts more palatable, but no one is buying. Where he has been more clever is in bringing in Labour figures such as Frank Filed, John Hutton and Will Hutton, to head up policy reviews. The upshot of all this is that cuts are probably going to be no worse under the Coalition than they would have been under New Labour, though with less of a command and control culture, they may hopefully be better targeted.
The LibDems have not done brilliantly out of the Coalition, but as the junior partner that is to be expected. On the bright side they have at least made some progress on progressive tax reform, something in which New Labour had absolutely no interest. For me the real test of the Coalition is whether Cable is empowered to bring the banks to heal and create the conditions for a more balanced economy, something which most certainly would not have happened under the free trade ideologues of the Conservative and New Labour parties. It will also be interesting to see how Huhne gets on at climate change once it becomes apparent how much it will cost to meet even the UKs existing commitments (a problem New Labour very much swept under the carpet).
Quote: Nogget @ July 21 2010, 5:38 AM BSTI don't know if you aware of much biology, but pregnancy occurs regardless of bank balance.
Thanks for pointing that out! Appreciated!
Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 10:02 AM BST
Well can you explain your point then? Because you seem to imply that people would simply not have kids if they lacked money, and history has not shown this to be true.
The fact that they have kids regardless of bank balance is not the point. The fact that they should be prepared to work and pay for their kids once they have had them is the point.
But so what, eh? Or should that be meh?