(I think I've found my forum, now - posted this just now in Education...). Does anyone else think that David Cameron's idea of "The Big Society" is just his utterly cack-handed was of trying to say that the emotionally resilient should do a bit more to help the emotionally poor and needy (ie understanding the concept that all people in society are occasionally extremely needy and deserving of support, not just the generally inadequate)? I agree with this idea, I just disagree with the method of trying to carry it out - it takes too much responsibility away from the State. And, of course, the attitude of the City, whose workers are supposed to be among the more emotionally resilient, doesn't help foster the right attitude. Apparently, different rules should apply to them - they don't have the time to volunteer in this way, because City workers are just so self-importantly busy making money, nor do they want to donate money to the State to help it in a worthwhile project. They would rather keep all the money to themselves, or pick and choose their own pet charities, rather than getting involved in any sort of common cause. (Behaving like a group of capitalist cats...).
Which leads me to think that the political parties are not poles apart at all - they just disagree on the numbers in society who genuinely need support and how many of them can actually cope with being told to "pull their socks up." ie at least the "Big Society" rubbish is an attempt to show that the conservatives are not totally autistic (unlike the City).