Share Cameron’s Big Bankrupt Society
Aug 3rd, 2010 | By Keelan Balderson | Category: Editorials, Featured Articles, Politics |
Print
On my relatively short time on this earth I’ve been able to come to a reasonable conclusion that the majority of politicians are liars and obfuscators. Whenever they open their mouths and spew their carefully crafted speeches or move their hands like a hypnotist there are only two questions and one concept that run through my mind.
A) What is the real agenda behind what they’re saying?
B) What are they trying to cover up?
and the concept…
C) When they say one thing they mean the other.
Some might call this cynical. I call it realistic. After all we are in a great depression and still fighting illegal wars. Did many politcians tell the truth in the lead up to these incidents? No, they are still lying and covering them up.
This brings me to David Cameron’s “Big Society”. I say Cameron’s, but I’d make a wager that the idea really came out of the boardroom of some think tank, the writings of some radical or a society that isn’t so “big”; most likely reserved only for elites or proverbial “intellectuals”.
Leaving newspeak behind, lets cut to the chase. In its basic form the Prime Minister’s Big Society involves giving local groups, charities and private corporations the power to do things on a voluntary and independent basis, that would otherwise be done by the government through the regular tax payer’s publicly funded system.
For example, through the traditional system the Government uses its funds to build and maintain roads. Under the big society it’s possible that some new road projects might be given over to private companies or charities.
In a speech in Liverpool, the prime minister said groups “should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects”.
On top of this money will be taken from “dormant” bank accounts to fund parts of the project. “The big society bank will be established using every penny of dormant bank and building society account money,” [Money that has been untouched for over 15 years] “These unclaimed assets, alongside the private sector investment that we will leverage, will mean that the big society bank will – over time – make available hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance to some of our most dynamic social organisations.”
To make a sweeping general statement, it’s about swapping our increasingly authoritarian quasi-socialist government with a Corporatocracy or Charopoly. Meaning power shifts from the “nanny state” to an even less accountable corporate or obscure charity state, where instead of getting socialised services for taxpayer’s money, citizens must still pay taxes, but then work for free to get those same services or at least rely on non-accountable groups to do it for them.
The big lie in all of this is that it’s giving power back to the people. Mr Cameron said the concept would be a “big advance for people power”.
What it’s really doing is giving power to certain clicks and groups of people and forcing the average person to do the leg work with no extra benefit.
Each of the initial project areas (Liverpool; Eden Valley, Cumbria; Windsor and Maidenhead; and the London borough of Sutton) will be given an expert organiser and dedicated civil servants to ensure “people power” initiatives get off the ground.
So in essence this isn’t really a grass-roots movement but a top down structure that will see these experts guide the decision making process.
If government wasn’t corrupt and we really did have a working democracy or even better a republic, we wouldn’t be talking about giving power back to the people anyway, we’d already have the power. We are supposed to have the power now! We ellect officials in to the politcial positions to serve our needs and protect our inalienable rights. What happened is the government stripped away our rights and served the needs of itself and the bankers, indebting the nation.
If we look at the basic questions we should all be asking when Cameron reads out his DEMOS approved autocue.
A) What is the real agenda behind what they’re saying?
It’s certainly not about giving power back to the people – it’s about the people bailing out the all-powerful government at the behest of a newer less accounatble power structure. It’s about making the people pick up the slack and fix the problems the government made in the first place. And if it all goes wrong it will be the people that are blamed.
B) What are they trying to cover up?
They are trying to cover up the fact that Britain is totally and completely 100% in the red and is being held as collateral to the Bank of England.
So… C) When they say one thing they mean the other.
Nearly every headline you find on Google about the Big Society is about how it isn’t about masking spending cuts. Well guess what. It is!
Projections put us at about £1.1 trillion in national debt, of which we must pay back with interest. So that figure as it has done since the late 1600s will continue to go up. When the government needs money or wants to increase the money supply it must borrow it from the Bank of England, therefore all money is a debt, and therefore under the current system there is no way to pay it off.
Unless…..all the services the government spends money on are cut or sold off.
You see the big picture here?
If you imagine Britain as a bankrupt company that owes it’s creditors £1.1 trillion, and the people of the country are simply employees generating sales, then you’re imagining Britain quite accurately.
But we also need to add to this mental picture two concepts. A) The company is never allowed to fold and B) the employees are never allowed to quit when conditions get too bad.
You see our politicians won’t let Britain go bankrupt and start again, they won’t end our relationship with the Bank of England. If the national debt goes up, it goes up, but us, the slave employees have to deal with the consequences.
The Big Society is simply a neatly packaged way to cut government spending and make the people work for free. According to Cameron “we are all in this together” – so in essence we must all live in poverty for hundreds of years, with poor public services until the Bank of England is paid back.
As Anna Coote wrote for the Guardian:
Individuals who are already marginalised by poverty and powerlessness will be left behind by the Big Society, where everything hangs on how much power is assumed by which groups and businesses, to do what, for whom and how. A much bigger role for the market is not a recipe for a bigger or stronger society, because in practice businesses – especially the big US corporations that are hovering over the NHS – are accountable to no one but their shareholders and much more interested in their financial bottom line than social justice or equality.
Dave Prentis, head of Britain’s biggest public sector union, Unison, said: “Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ should be renamed the ‘big cop out’. Make no mistake, this plan is all about saving money. And it will cost even more jobs and lead to more service cuts.”
Who’s Idea Was It?
It’s no secret that Cameron’s campaign run was a cheap knock-off of Obama’s “Change Yo Can Believe In” – which really means brainwashing you in to thinking we’ve changed. But the idea of a Big Society itself was also a knock-off that appears to have come from radical marxist ideologue Saul Alinsky, a former mentor to Obama.
Alinsky’s community organizing was based on the neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Communist, yet Cameron happily points to Alinsky as his inspiration:
“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”
So does Cameron also embrace that Alinsky was only using community organizing as a means to a communist ends? Alinsky believed there was no right or wrong in politics, only what was necessary to seize power.
As noted by Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner:
What is beyond question is his project to overthrow capitalist society and to do so through infiltration of political parties, institutions and, above all, by the use of “community organisers”. Anybody who thought claims on this blog of Cultural Marxism influencing even the Tory Party were exaggerated can now think again. Alinsky was the first begetter of ACORN, the sinister organisation that tried to gerrymander the American electorate.
What is going on here? Who is running the Cameronian Party – Common Purpose? How is it conceivable that even the most bland, politically correct, centre-right “conservative” party could derive its flagship policy from the thinking of Alinsky, whose seminal work Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer? If, as one suspects, this is the brainchild of Oliver Letwin, he needs to be escorted expeditiously to the seclusion of a padded boudoir.
As this big society goes forward we need to keep a close eye on several factors.
1) Which charities and companies get given the free money?
2) Is this money used effectively or simply laundered through the charity/company for their own benefit?
3) Do any of these groups demonstrate a social or polictical agenda?
4) Will any of it become mandatory or neccesary through hardship?
5) What is the chain of accountability?
6) Do the organizers and experts really listen to the local communities?
7) Will police forces end up going private?
8) Will public property like town centres be made private; therefore stripping us of our rights?
And I’m sure you can think of many more.
Here’s a thought to ponder. Big Society in short is BS. What is BS also short for?
*You can stay up to date with WideShut using our RSS Feed, Twitter, Facebook & Youtube
Is not the reason that Cameron and Clegg work together so well in the coalition Govenment, becasue they share a comon idology? which is not conservitive or liberal, but Marist in insperation?
The sooner these people are fully exposed the better!
Sophie, ever asked yourself, why the Tories never opposed much of what Blair and Brown were doing?
tpuc.org/node/36
and you think the Tories will save us, think again!
but more likely communist movement. Note communist, not Marxist – two extremely different philosophies….Having lived in Hungary under Marxist Communism….will you explain the difference to me please?
What we have in the UK is a little known branch of Communism that of Fabianism, and have had for decades now.
Growing our own food- great idea, with such an huge population on a small island, where?
Sir Andrew Green migration watch, ignored this!
Optimum population trust replied, they have to use official stats!
both BBC Radio 4s Farming today also the independent used the stats……….Lies are no use when planning agriculture or the stocking of supermarkets.
Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million
Independent on Sunday, The, Oct 28, 2007 by city eye
It is the satatistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don’t forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one’s most definitely a damned lie.
My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It’s like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers – the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That’s easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption – that’s the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.
The supermarket in question was privately lobbying the Competition Commission to let it grow its market share. The argu- ment, reasonably enough, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realised, so expanding the network was fair.
I have a second, respectable, source. A major, non-commercial agricultural institution reckons there are 77 million of us in the UK. Again, its reckoning is based on what we eat.
That faint background noise you’re hearing as you read this is the sound of everyone slithering off the record. Why? In political terms, standing behind these figures would be to toss a hand grenade into a vat of gasoline. People would be hounded out of a job for scaremongering.
The Office for National Statistics’ figures, published last week, predict a population of 75 million by 2051. It’s an honest estimate but horribly wide of the mark because number counting doesn’t work effectively. If you want to know how many there are of us, ask a food firm.
If the true numbers were revealed, the Little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of immigration. But that’s what made America great in the 19th century, and it’s a driving force of our economy right now. It’s also anti- inflationary.
David Buik, a money manager with broker BGC Partners, was talking of “one million Eastern Europeans unaccounted for in London” on television last week. I suspect he’s right if somewhat conservative in his estimate. How many do you see working in the construction industry and waiting at tables?
And when I say “anti-inflationary”, I mean they are getting rotten wages. Dignified by the term “cheap labour”, the hidden hordes will do well for the services sector, among others. People are assets – to maintain and to be maintained – so we are wealthier as a nation.
All of which is reflected in strong economic demand and markets see-sawing between optimism over what we all see on the streets (that 77 million figure feels right to me) and the possibility of something nasty if the Bank of England credit-crunch prognosis is correct (to echo last week, I think next spring will be unpleasant).
As for housing, property magnates and chief executives of housing associations alike say the expanding population means serious demand for the foreseeable future, credit crunch or no. Next week, I’ll look at the detail of this argument.
martin@martinfdbaker.com
Copyright c 2007 Independent Newspapers UK Limited. All rights owned or operated by The Independent.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20071028/ai_n21077082
Link became inactive after this article started to appear on certain blogs!!
Sophie heard of PPPs?
We already have soft Fascism, don’t wait for any announcement from the BBC or WESTMINSTER!
libertygarden.com/gateway/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=&page_id=35
Having experienced living in a Totalitarian state, ones itteni is always on the lookout for it making it’s ugly appearance again.
Erted?
Sorry, but I don’t think you could have been more off track with your analysis if you tried. Yes we are almost bankrupt. Yes, money is debt. Yes they know that. Why don’t they tell us? 1) There could be complete panic and no one would buy anything and the economy would collapse even quicker. 2) most people wouldn’t believe them anyway and would just vote in a party that also refused to believe it, so they could stay in their denial a little bit longer.
You say, “What it’s really doing is giving power to certain clicks and groups of people and forcing the average person to do the leg work with no extra benefit.” For one – doing the leg work is an inherent benefit.
It makes us more independent, not more dependent on the state (a very dangerous thing to be right now). For two, the benefit of the government not doing it, is that we don’t have to print money and bring on hyperinflation and bankruptcy in the process.
You say, “It’s about making the people pick up the slack and fix the problems the government made in the first place.” People in Britain today are becoming completely dis-empowered. They expect the government to do everything for them, so when (not if) it collapses, they will be up the creek. Localization and reducing the size of central government is about trying to make the transition to anarchy a little easier, as well as protecting us from totalitarian rule.
What are the threats of UK bankruptcy? That we (the citizens) will have our property seized. Without land, we cannot be self-sufficient, so when we reach peak food (when we can’t afford to import or transport food to feed our population) we will be utterly powerless. There will be total societal collapse as never seen before. That leaves us open to a take over by some military lead, possibly fascist, but more likely communist movement. Note communist, not Marxist – two extremely different philosophies. Blair and Brown were busy for years setting up the infrastructure needed for a totalitarian regime: state governed school system, id card system, cctv, surveillance blimps… The state was expanding and people have become less and less independent. Civil liberties have been removed under the counter terrorism laws.
What do we need to protect us from the inevitable effects of these bankruptcies? Communities, localisation, less dependence on the state.
You make a great spin-doctor (you’ve presented it much better than Cameron has) – but don’t make excuses for them Sophie. The corrupt banking system has been the thorn in the side of humanity for hundreds of years. Governments are supposed to be honest with the public not treat them like coddled children. The reason they don’t tell us is because we’d then have to start talking about real answers to the problem and a complete overhaul of the system, we couldn’t have that now could we. Heck we might actually become free.
“For one – doing the leg work is an inherent benefit.
It makes us more independent, not more dependent on the state (a very dangerous thing to be right now). For two, the benefit of the government not doing it, is that we don’t have to print money and bring on hyperinflation and bankruptcy in the process. “
I can’t see anything positive in this statement. This is the result of corruption. We shouldn’t be in this position in the first place. And it doesn’t make us independent at all, it just makes us dependent on another chain of command other than the Government itself.
You’re just buying in to the spin.
I agree we need “Communities, localisation, less dependence on the state.”
I long for the day we all grow our own food, have mom & pop stores etc etc – but this is not what Cameron is doing at all.
Of course all we’re doing now is theorizing, we’ll have to see what happens in practice.