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"?

Atlantis. Don't leave, I've been picked on for various reasons, but I won't leave. People who pick on you for spelling says more about them, than it does about you. As Claig says you put on some good posts.

I'm intensely relaxed about the Guardian and Mumsnet lefties finding the Big Society a rubbish idea. Perhaps you cynical lefties have to ask yourselves whether you would ever be attracted to/interested in any idea put forward by the Tories? Even if it was a good one?

Labour champion a big authoritarian state that does everything for you. If you like that arrangement, it's not surpising you find the Tories' (and Lib Dems' actually) ideas alarming becuase they champion a much smaller state.

Welcome back, invigorating Sweedes.

I agree that I, for example, am not the target for the Big society idea. I must admit, I started out lurking on this thread because of a perception that it hadn't gone down so well with its target audience.

I'm, obviously, pretty discounted from a view, or emotional/intellectual insight into that ... so here I am, wondering ... .

'it's not surpising you find the Tories' (and Lib Dems' actually) ideas alarming becuase they champion a much smaller state.'

If it comes with lower taxes to go with it - VAT and income tax, them I'm all for it. I'm from the US originally, smaller state and much lower taxes and cost of living (VAT, for ex.).

Otherwise, it just seems like a con job to me.

Indeed swedes, I have declared myself very interested in and attracted to the ideas of the most hated Tory of all the Tories, toothy tax dodging toff Zac Goldsmith

I don't want the state to do everything for me. But it's true that there are quite a lot of things I would not like left to the vagaries of the market.

(V nice to see you btw. I'll be glad when the dust finally settles and we can all start talking about something other than politics again.)

Sweedes
I AM a tory at heart. But haven't voted for them since 1992. In 96, I was working for the labour candidate (amazingly, this person had a life outside politics!), so I voted for them. Since then, I just cant be bothered to vote tory.
so dont make assumptions about lefties on this thread!

Interesting programme on BBC1 for those in Scotland, narrated by Sally Magnusson: Why Didn't Scots Vote Tory?

Well, Swedes, it needs to cut both ways! But if a good idea is a good idea, then yes, it should be given consideration regardless of origin. This just doesn't really smack of an idea at all. Atlantis' post above about her council was really interesting (don't go, atlantis!), and I was going to come back to it later.

But I'm with Zeph - leaving everything to the market is too unstable for my liking, and also presumes that what works in one environment automatically works in another, which is a leap of logic I don't subscribe to.

Sweedes, I am right-wing. I am all for small state. But I am anti big government and anti Big Society. I am distrustful of all big ideas, particularly when they are presented in capital letter as in Cameron's Big Society. They smack too much of Stalin and the socialist/communist social engineers. I am for freedom and not being told what to do by socialists or right-wingers.

the biggest big of all is Big Brother. Big Brother would be big on Big Society, the Inner Party would get medals for dreaming that one up.

Claig, what's interesting me atm is the idea that what our politicians do must/should, as was mooted by pundits on election night, be governed by how the financial markets react - strikes me as lack of freedom by another avenue, tbh. I don't like being told what to do - indirectly - by panicky traders!

Anyone recognise the idea below and know whose idea it was?

"They were to be locally administered by partnerships between the statutory agencies (local authorities and primary care trusts) and the voluntary and private sectors........ it was structured to allow local people, particularly parents, to participate fully in determining the content and management of the programmes, in the light of their perceptions of what their areas needed.......to involve local people fully in the development and management of the programme if it was to take root and not simply be seen as another quick fix by middle-class social engineers"

Of course the original Surestart program and Gordon Brown (well the treasury anyway)!

This article makes interesting reading Surestart

HamShine, I agree with you but that is reality. Over that we have very little choice, since the markets control the politicians.

Jackstarbright - is that a reference to my post a while back?

Meh. Don't buy the "that is reality" argument, tbh - they said that to women about voting, equality etc years ago.

Point is, "freedom" isn't necessarily what it's cracked up to be - I can play my part in the democratic process, I can petition MP, etc etc. No, it isn't perfect, but it's why I prefer a bigger govt to an all-controlling market

animula - Not intentionally. Just pointing out that the Big Society is not a totally original idea. I guess I'm a New Labourite, now more comfortable with the Tories. But agree that the whole Big Society thing was poorly communicated and like Claig I don't trust 'big ideas'. I like small, clever, test and roll out slowly ideas.

HamShine, I agree that the market is all-controlling, and it also controls the govt. The bigger the govt. is the more it controls you. We are all controlled, it is just a question of degree.

Nah - smaller govt, bigger market - all teh same in the end. Point is, I'm part of the choosing process with the govt. Sometimes it will go my way, sometimes it won't, but that part is important to me.

I think this big govt - over controlling thing is far too simplistic an argument (as could be said about my statements about markets); while simplicity is a virtue, over-simplification of complex issues helps no-one. We owe it to ourselves to try to understand the basis for our gut reactions and political leanings - hence me digging out Joseph Stiglitz' book for another go after all this political chat!

jackstarbright, I think we have similar views. We both don't swallow any line in full. I always read you as a Conservative, I'm surprised you were ever New Labour. Although I did vote Labour in 1997 as I had had enough of the Tories at that time. But I soon lost any enthusiasm for New Labour.

Well, big and small ideas caan come from any quarter. Thatcherism was essentially a Big Idea, wasn't it?

"Sometimes it will go my way, sometimes it won't, but that part is important to me."

HamShine, I think it never goes our way, we always lose. As the good socialist, Ken Livingstone, says "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it".

It is still important to vote, so that you choose the lesser of two evils, that way you lose less. That's why I prefer small government.

No, I don't agree that we always lose. If you mean that you never get everything you want - well, it's not your or mine personal fiefdom! Nice soundbit from Ken, but I don't agree. You work towards the greater good, with your vote, your work, the way you raise your children and deal with fellow people, etc. No one thing, in general, will make a big difference, but it's the little things, on and on, including my little vote, that do.

I don't quite see the logic of your last sentence. you could vote for a competent big govt, or an incompetent and corrupt small govt. Or vice versa.

yes I think you're right, Thatcherism was a big idea, that's why it rocked the country. The Tory old guard, Howe, Heseltine etc. hated it. It overturned British consensus politics. Thatcher was an idealist and that's why so many people were against her.

Well, I don't think people were against Thatcher or Thatcherism because she was an idealist, or because she had a Big Idea. It was because they fundamentally disagreed with those ideals and the idea itself. Idealism and Big Ideas are not, of themselves, either good or bad - the substance is all.