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"?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a competent big government. The more power the govt has, the worse it is for the people. Power corrupts, and abolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think the greater good is really freedom, allowing the people to breath. I think that's what we should vote for.

I mean, Martin Luther King was an idealist with a Big Idea. People tend not to talk about him in the same way as they do Margaret Thatcher.

breathe

But with smaller govt, you hand more power over to private enterprise and the market, who do not have to answer to you At All. The opportunities for corruption are no less there. I've never found it hard to breathe under a bigger state, tbh, and we're not likely to get one that does cause people that kind of difficulty in general - the majority of the left are hardly crying out for totalitarianism, are they?

Am going to bed! Nice talking to you, claig.

HamShine, I liked Thatcher because she freed us up. That's why working class Essex voted for her. But many others hated her. But the English are pragmatists and hate idealism. Communism, fascism and other isms are idealisms. That's why they are dangerous, that's why the English have never gone for them. When an idealist pops up, some will love the ideals and others will hate them. Thatcher broke the consensus of British politics and therefore she is still hated by many now.

good night, HamShine, very interesting talking to you.

"the majority of the left are hardly crying out for totalitarianism"

I agree, I'm more worried about the leaders, they're the only ones who really count. Look at civil liberties. It will be the Tories and LibDems who scrap ID cards.

Prolesworth, I agree with you, I don't want a free market that runs wild. I want the railways and energy and water companies to be nationalised. I think the banks should have been fully nationalised, not this half-way house where they can award themselves any bonuses they like. I want the government to run some important things and I want a good welfare society, that's why I don't like Big Society. But I think the government should not grow too big in areas that are not necessary.

I just don't think Labour will deliver those things because they are just as controlled by the markets as the Tories are.

I don't think David Cameron's all that and I agree the Big Society idea was poorly communicated (even though it has merit). But there isn't anything to dislike about the idea, is there? Nor is there anything to dislike about being given the freedom from red-tape to start your own school. It's not compulsory.

We all accept that a school improves with engaged parental involvement, why is it difficult to accept other things might be improved by wider engagement?

I'm enjoying the collaborative nature of this hung parliament. I hope we get PR as it will mean we can take the best of what's on offer from all the parties, in one Government, and put an end to silly tribal politics.

To me it came across as the govt ditching responsibility and expecting volunteers to pick up the slack, with no clear methodology as to how they were going to motivate people to do this.

So essential services would be subject to a mishmash of apathy and/or disorganisation.

Admittedly I never did any great research on Tory party policies, but equally there didn't ever seem to be much easily digestible info about how it might work.

Sweeedes - the school thing is interesting. I would very much like to see a little freedom and diversity within the state school system. It does seem so ... blunt ... that, in theory, diversity is available only in the independent sector - which means you can only opt for that if you can afford it. I know academies aren't popular on mn, but I did like the idea, in principle, of, I don't know, difference in schools.

That said, there is diversity, after a fashion, with schools, particularly at primary level, displaying some quite different ways of going about their business. But it is location-dependent.

Don't know how you get around that.

And I can't get over a creeping feeling of worry. Not least because financing education is key, and any party was looking at a difficult future there. And I do worry about how vehement Michael Gove will be about securing funding for state education.

animula - It looks like David Laws could end up as Education Minister Gove give way. Though the LibDem policies weren't that different from Tory (just less of them - which is nice ).

So Gove would move aside? Phew.

Yes - so it seems.

I was warming towards him a bit after the MN Webchat.

I've always been impressed by Laws. And IMO anyone is an improvement on Balls!

I haven't read the webchat. DH was raging after hearing him on the Today programme - something about how academic research wasn't to be trusted because all academics are left-wing?

is he implying that left-wingers bend the truth? I feel myself warming towards him