Any Tory voters think Cameron's "Big Society" idea was a good one?

[VodkaAndTonic]

From The Guardian here:

Another senior and normally loyal Tory MP complained that Cameron's big idea for the campaign ? "the Big Society", under which armies of volunteers would come together to tackle the country's ills ? was "complete crap".

"We couldn't sell that stuff on the doorstep. It was pathetic. All we needed was a simple message on policy. We could have won a majority if we had not had to try to sell this nonsense."

Do any Tory voters:

a) think Big Society is a good idea
b) think it is a vote winner
c) think it is "complete crap"?

It's a good but slightly complicated idea, which is very hard to sell on the doorstep, and therefore isn't a good campaigning tool but a useful governing philosophy.

I think they made a big mistake in how they handled selling it. It should have been articulated as a philosophy 2 years ago, and then every policy measured up against it. That would have gotten people more used to the idea.

They also shouldn't have allowed the crude caricature (oh, you'll have to run your own schools'n'hospitals) to get out of hand.

I tried to start a thread a week ago about how badly it was coming across but it never really got going.
This is what I said:
'I am because there is a lot about this idea I really liked.
I have been frustrated about the way a lot of Labour policies/changes in culture that aren't necessarily Labour's fault have contributed to putting people off from collective or individual action or making it harder for them to do it.
The CRB checks thing where volunteers are being put off or their recruitment getting slowed down because of the time taken to wait for checks, is the most obvious example, another one would be last winter when the pavements were full of snow that was not getting cleared because people had got it into their head that they would be liable if people fell over. Or that general situation where people are scared to confront antisocial behaviour because they are afraid (unjustifiedly or not) they will then be accused of assault and get arrested themselves.
I had hoped that Big Society would basically mean looking at what the barriers are that are stopping people from volunteering and doing something about them.

However whenever he talks about it it sounds like he is saying:

1. you are lazy sods and you have got to get your finger out - we can't do everything for you you know! (can come across as v patronising)
2. we are planning to take away some of your essential services and leave you with ones that will be run by volunteers (at which everyone who has been on a committee for anything thinks, 'Oh right, inefficient and crap then')

just read article in V&T's link. Bloody Ashcroft.

excellent post sethstarkaddersmum

(Yes, me again)

That is an interesting article, they were muttering about a tory revolt against the leadership on PM the other day but didn't hear anything since.

Cameron IS very cliquey though, isn't he? It is one of the things I find irritating about him.

Humphrey.

Have I got Big Society right? I'm still not entirely sure if I've understood or not.

It is what they meant, isn't it?

They should have asked you to get the message across effectively.

Humphrey - yes, Cameron is hugely cliquey. At first, I thought it was just that I know so many of the names that keep cropping up - but as far as I can make out, he is even more cliquey than the Tories have been in the past.
Every time I read something about a new MP, it always seems to come back to a familiar name (friend, relative, married to...)!
There does seem to be a deliberate policy of getting new MPs to be either members of his clique, or outsiders who are put into seats by Central Office, and therefore "owe" them a favour ("Cameron's hand-picked..." in one article)
Its not a good time to become an MP if you dont get on with the Cameron clique.
I find this very off-putting.

just read your link, Prolesworth (love your name btw)

The Guardian guy says
"A more realistic danger is the growth of a type of populism similar to that which has developed in the Netherlands. For Pym Fortyn and Geert Wilders a liberal society isn't an open society. These European populists aim to make a particular interpretation of liberal values compulsory, while shutting out anyone ? most obviously, religious minorities ? who may not accept their interpretation of what freedom means."

But this is already happening in the UK, and it wasnt brought in only by the Tories, Labour has been pushing it for some time.

In answer to the OP.

At least they acknowledged that they needed a plan to improve services whilst making spending cuts. Labour relied on a message that cuts cld be delayed and possibly might never happen.

Was it a well thought through plan? Not really!

IMO - the Tories (relative) honesty may have cost them the election.

But if they'd said "look, theres no more money for schools, so you've all got to run your own" it would have come across better than "now, we're going to make a lot of cuts, but dont worry, because you won't notice them. Now I bet you'd all fancy running your own school, wouldnt you?"

They're so f*g out of touch, that its all just theory to them!

Hurrah, just read this piece in the Guardian:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/08/david-cameron-faces-tory-anger

Love this quote:
"The [Tory] frontbencher said: "[George Osborne] ran his campaign from the back of his Jaguar with a smug, smarmy little clique ? people like Osborne, [Oliver] Letwin and Michael Gove. He should get rid of all of them. "

Oh, how much I agree with that!!

I wouldn't necessarily believe what you read in the Guardian . I mean "an unnamed Tory MP said he had difficulty selling the big society on the doorstep". It's laughable.

And all that running the campaign from the back of a Jag and Ashcroft being peeved. FGS.

The Guardian are just trying to discredit the Tories because they are TERRIFIED the party they endorsed for the election are going to form a coalition with the Tories.

It looks extremely likely the Guardian may have helped the Tories gain power and that probably isn't pleasing them much.

Nighby - I think the message they intended to get across was that they could improve public services whilst cutting costs.

IMO - That message not clear and was easy to twist.

yes, well like I said, they obviously havent got any personal experience of running your own school, have they.

The message was not twisted. It was bullshit.

Sweedes - it does ring true though. Sounds just like one of the Oxford Union president campaigns that they were running 20 years ago.

Oh for heaven's sake. They never said that parents have to run their own school.

Now that the election is over you can look at the reality rather than Labour's rhetoric.

They want to enable parents to be able to start new schools, with specialist education federations, charitable foundations, existing academy networks, and existing private schools, taking over most of the management functions.

I think its a wonderful thing to aspire to and I think it is something that can be done but it has to be done by the people. It can not be done by the Government.

Oh, STARTING, oh well thats easy then. Ill just start one next week, shall I in between my full time job and looking after my 4 children.