that is utter bollox... so, sack school caterers and expect volunteers to do the work for nothing? ... give the sacked workers unemployment benefit instead of having them pay tax?... utter rubbish, who wrote that? crazy chris?

 

No this is the BIG society concept David Cameron has been talking about for months.

 

surely to god the idea of getting people to uni is to better themselves... take my partner, clare (daylight dancer), she left school with sweet fa, got her modules and qualified for uni... shes now doing uni, she will get a much better paid job then what she ever would if she didnt volunterily take on further education. sure itll cost the country to educate her for 3 years.... after which upon gaining a well paid job, she will more then repay in the extra taxes she will be paying..

 

Universities should be elitist, privatized, and a place that recognizes the best academic talents this country produces, not just a free for all.

 

I'm not saying your wife should've been deprived of a shot at bettering herself, but there should be distance learning opportunities and local vocational courses to deal with such educational needs.

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

And where do you propose:

 

- We get the time from? Britain is already one of the most overworked and time-poor nations in the Western world - are you SERIOUSLY proposing that people pop out and do the school meals and local community centre work for free during their lunch breaks and what have you?

- We get the MONEY from? It's unrealistic to expect that enough people will be able to charitably provide enough food for several million schoolchildren each day, manage every library, manage local community centres.

 

The Big Society concept is a load of absolute inhumane tosh, a mere way of sugarcoating the Conservative government's dearest wish to cut off the most vulnerable in society just to reduce the tax burden and set us back eighty years to the idea that the most vulnerable in society are better helped by private charity than by the government.

Universities should be elitist, privatized, and a place that recognizes the best academic talents this country produces, not just a free for all.

Yeah, that's really going to help with the deficit. Let's get rid of the one huge advance and the key supply-side policy which has educated the workforce and transformed our economy into a knowledge based one, just for the sake of satisfying the cravings of an elite chagrined that its education no longer represents a way for them to differentiate themselves from the dirty proles.

 

Get real!

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

 

In the unlikely event that we become a truly communist country and the wealth of the country is shared out exactly equally, then you can say that we should all chip in with school meals and libraries and whatever. Until that happens, it's the government's duty to provide us these services, funded in the main by those who have the most money.

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

 

In the unlikely event that we become a truly communist country and the wealth of the country is shared out exactly equally, then you can say that we should all chip in with school meals and libraries and whatever. Until that happens, it's the government's duty to provide us these services, funded in the main by those who have the most money.

AN APOLOGY.

 

I'd just like to apologise for my post last night about teachers. I'd had a few cans and a row with the wife but I know that's no excuse. I realise now that my post was maybe a little inaccurate after reading Grebo69's response. I'm very sorry.

Apology accepted

They could only be the words of a lazy workshy sack of $h!t.

 

When you know exactly what the workload of a teacher is then you get to comment that teachers are pampered.

 

I get to work at 8.00 and leave at 5.00 then do at least 2 hours when I get home.

AND then I do at least 4-5 hours on every Sunday, prepping and marking.

 

AND I also work during the holidays prepping and marking.

 

I think lazy fukkers who scrounge off the state should be asked to paint the schools and clear canals.

 

I am quite literally shaking with anger at the moment.

 

exactly!, which is why i responded as i did.

 

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

 

is that what he really is suggesting? i cant see it, that sound utterly ridiculous and unworkable.... where do you get your info from?

 

 

No this is the BIG society concept David Cameron has been talking about for months.

Universities should be elitist, privatized, and a place that recognizes the best academic talents this country produces, not just a free for all.

 

I'm not saying your wife should've been deprived of a shot at bettering herself, but there should be distance learning opportunities and local vocational courses to deal with such educational needs.

 

contradiction there... you say my partner shouldnt be deprived of a further education but say unis should be elitist, in which case she WOULD be deprived of further education.

 

fact.... the majority of students leaving university will throughout the course of their lifetime repay tenfold the investment the country gives them in supplying further education. to stop 'ordinary' people bettering themselves for short term savings is a long term financial disaster.

is that what he really is suggesting? i cant see it, that sound utterly ridiculous and unworkable.... where do you get your info from?

It is, it was one of Cameron's key ideas he kept talking about during the campaign and what Labour where ripping into in their adverts. Also as part of this "big society" anyone with enough money and/or is unhappy with the school system are allowed to set up their own school, which they think will drive up standards.

Edited June 11, 201015 yr by Daniel Gleek

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

 

It's the essence of the bull$h!t that he used to blag his way into Number 10. Has anyone else noticed his voice has got posher again now he's PM?

This is the BIG Society David Cameron has been eluding to; people will have to take on the responsibility, in their own communities, for the provision of services that the government can no longer afford to fund as it makes its spending prioritizations. This is a once in a generation opportunity to downsize government, to rethink what a government should and should not provide, and enhance society by people sacrificing time to help staff libraries and school kitchens; we’re all in this together. That in essence is the BIG society, an ideology that is very much in mainstream politics today.

 

If you actually believe that pile of utter bollocks, you presumably believe in fairies at the bottom of the Garden and Leprechauns too..... :rolleyes: Those in the know (ie Think Tanks) have already put it quite clearly that Cameron's Cuts will cost 750,000 jobs, and will push unemployment up to over 3 million (sound familiar?)... The Tories destroyed this country's manufacturing base in the 1980s and the coalmines, now Cameron's lot want to destroy the public sector... Same Old Tory bullsh!t, different target this time round... Destroying our manufacturing base had the result of the likes of Germany and Japan completey over-taking us, and where they incorporated their unions and respected their workers, Thatcher and chums destroyed the Unions and broke the backs of the workers... Why the hell SHOULD people do UNPAID work in order to help the fukkin' Tories and their Lib Dem flunkies cook the books, this whole idea you're talking about in bold is taking paid jobs AWAY FROM THE WORKERS AND CREATING UNEMPLOYMENT.... If you cant see that, then, frankly, you're an idiot.... <_<

 

The ordinary, working class people of this country should respond to Cameron's "Big Society" in the same manner that the Greeks are responding to "Austerity Measures", ie, to go out on the streets and start getting fukkin' ACTIVE.... Big Society is utter, UTTER'Old-Skool' Tory bullsh"t, those of us who are old enough to remember Thatcher, etc, can see through this "Coalition" for what it is..... <_<

 

PS, and there's talk of a repeal on the ban on hunting... So nice to see the Tories have their priorities straight innit....? Any more proof needed as to where their true loyalities will ALWAYS lie....? -_-

 

 

 

Regarding Child Benefit, does anyone think it should be limited to say 2,3 or 4 children as well as stopped for high earners? We know a family with 13 kids so that's a lot of child benefit. The father is working but I mean no-one tells them to have so many do they? Another family we know have 8 kids.

Regarding Child Benefit, does anyone think it should be limited to say 2,3 or 4 children as well as stopped for high earners? We know a family with 13 kids so that's a lot of child benefit. The father is working but I mean no-one tells them to have so many do they? Another family we know have 8 kids.

 

I think child benefit should cease after ONE child, especially for non-workers.... why reward someone adding to the drain on society funds when they've failed to put anything IN to the pot? Apart from this, you'd see a LOT less fat teenage chavs in leggings pushing prams if this were the case... everyone's allowed one mistake... but mistake after mistake with numerous fellas? No way.

 

Bring back the days when kids having kids was a huge embarrassment to the individual and their families - nowadays, having a sprog seems like some ghastly badge of honour....

I think child benefit should cease after ONE child, especially for non-workers.... why reward someone adding to the drain on society funds when they've failed to put anything IN to the pot? Apart from this, you'd see a LOT less fat teenage chavs in leggings pushing prams if this were the case... everyone's allowed one mistake... but mistake after mistake with numerous fellas? No way.

 

Bring back the days when kids having kids was a huge embarrassment to the individual and their families - nowadays, having a sprog seems like some ghastly badge of honour....

 

 

My suggestion wasn't just for teenage girls though or those not working. Should someone working get it for 13 kids? They've had one a year for the past 14 years and haven't stopped so I've heard. The eldest daughter's in my daughter's form and was at primary with her.

Edited June 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

everyone's allowed one mistake... but mistake after mistake with numerous fellas? No way.

 

Bring back the days when kids having kids was a huge embarrassment to the individual and their families - nowadays, having a sprog seems like some ghastly badge of honour....

 

While I agree with the top part, I dont think the answer is to go around "shaming" people in that manner... Society changed in the 60s and 70s for good reasons (I mean, Russ, surely you dont want a return to the days of Back Street abortions and homosexuality still being a crime, because this is the sort of society we had pre-60s) and I would say even given the mistakes, we're a lot better off now for having these changes....

 

I think the strong message has to be - "well, if you want numerous kids, YOU have to look after them, we've done OUR bit as a society when you made the first mistake". Might lead to more abortions, but so what? Beats over-population....

 

I think the strong message has to be - "well, if you want numerous kids, YOU have to look after them, we've done OUR bit as a society when you made the first mistake". Might lead to more abortions, but so what? Beats over-population....

 

So what if the girls won't abort Scott? Many people are against abortion. Does the child live in poverty for years then, especially if, as some suggest, income support is only paid too for the first child. Child-benefit's only about £11 for subsequent children, £15 for the first, but it does help. It's not the kids' fault that they've been conceived is it? Ultimately the child would go without things. :(

Edited June 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

So what if the girls won't abort Scott? Many people are against abortion. Does the child live in poverty for years then, especially if, as some suggest, income support is only paid too for the first child. Child-benefit's only about £11 for subsequent children, £15 for the first, but it does help. It's not the kids' fault that they've been conceived is it? Ultimately the child would go without things. :(

 

my god ... youve made a point!

my god ... youve made a point!

 

I know I've surprised even myself Rob.

Edited June 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

So what if the girls won't abort Scott?

 

They have a choice - abort or work. 99% would abort, believe me.... because as soon as these girls get pregnant, they use this pregnancy as an excuse not to work or even bother lookingfor it - believe me, I see these girls day in day out.... they'd rather eat their own eyeballs than even consider working.

 

And before we start thinking of excuses for them... my friend worked until the day before she gave birth..... pregnancy, in most cases, is absolutely no barrier to someone working. Whilst employers would think twice about employing a pregnant girl... well.... isn't there a whole load of things these girls could do for the community?

 

I want a society that simply does not tolerate social scroungers any more.

 

And Scott.... I'm not saying I want a return to the 60s and 70s where things were 'shameful'.... but.... you liken the pregnancy issue to the gay issue - and it doesn't compare - being gay does NOT take money out of mine and every other worker's pockets.... being jobless and pregnant DOES.

They have a choice - abort or work. 99% would abort, believe me.... because as soon as these girls get pregnant, they use this pregnancy as an excuse not to work or even bother lookingfor it - believe me, I see these girls day in day out.... they'd rather eat their own eyeballs than even consider working.

 

 

You honestly think 99% would abort? :o I'd guess at maybe 30% or up to 50% even.