Big Society quote of the day – Karl Popper

I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous-from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.

I am speaking this evening to explain the systematic cause of our present economic, fiscal and therefore social crisis: excessively cheap money.

I don’t doubt that those who have managed our present social system meant well but they have operated a system which is unavoidably harmful, irrespective of good intentions. Likewise those who still propose Keynesian remedies: their prescriptions would make matters even worse, later.

If we are serious about bettering the lot of our fellows, we need to create the right social system and learn patience. That means social responsibility, not state control: a Big Society, not Big Government.

Big Society quote of the day – Ayn Rand

Since it is Sunday and I am off to church, something from Ayn Rand seems excusable:

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

Rand detested religion of course. Me too: it tends to spoil faith.

Big Society quote of the day – Huerta de Soto

To attempt to coordinate society through coercion is an intellectual error.

– Jesús Huerta de Soto

Big Society quote of the day – Mencken

It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.

– Henry L. Mencken, 1926, found in the introductory remarks to Our Enemy The State by Albert Jay Nock.

Big Society quote of the day – Jose Ortega y Gasset

The first of a series:

This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies.

– Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922, found in the introductory remarks to Our Enemy The State by Albert Jay Nock

And yet today, people still can’t figure out the Big Society.

We have far to go. I hope we travel quickly.

CentreRight: Surely the Big Society is about more than volunteering?

Yesterday, I received a sneering email from an obviously partisan campaign group which implied that the Big Society is about nothing more than people giving their time. I beg to differ.

If society is “the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently” (Concise OED), then it comprises everything we do. Society includes family, friendship, volunteering, giving and exchanging.  It is a rich and comprehensive tapestry of human relationships which includes business.

Read the rest of my article: CentreRight: Surely the Big Society is about more than volunteering?.

“We are a whole generation clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, direly dependent on the State”

NB: The author is Tim Hewish, who I am glad to welcome as a local contributor. — Steve

One of my local Wycombe friends asked me: Why, as a young person, should I vote Conservative? I initially came out with the usual blurb about the positives of Conservatism, but she stopped me mid-way and she repeated ‘no, as a young person’. This made me think about the question further and I was fortunate enough to find two articles that stated my case beautifully. The first comes from a young campaigner who recently wrote on the ConHome website:

We’ve come to love and depend on our captors. A whole generation is clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, direly dependent on the State – and Labour would have us stay this way to ensure we vote for them for years to come.

For many my age who think Stockholm Syndrome is just a Muse song let me flesh out the basics. It is instead defined as:

A paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein a positive bond between hostage and captor occurs. In essence, eventually, the hostage views the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it.

For far too long, young people have been at the mercy of the Blair/Brown Curriculum.

Almost all of us rebel against our parents in our teens, but then why should we run into the arms of the big nanny state? There is a twisted Nineteen-Eighteen-Four aspect in our generation where we are taught: War is Peace (The Iraq War),  Freedom is Slavery (hundreds of children’s rights but no personal responsibility) and Ignorance is Strength (teaching us social issues, but not the educational facts that means we are unable to question and think for ourselves)

In a world where we are ‘told’ the standard of life has improved by reams of Gordon Brown’s statistics tell us they want a double-think worthy fair future for all. (Click hear for a new blog detailing all of Labour’s failures)

I ask you: Is it a fair future that thousands of young people leave school without the basic grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic? Is it a fair future when you finish university without there being enough jobs to go around? Is it a fair future that Labour doesn’t actively support the stability that marriage brings? Is it a fair future not being able to get a foot on the housing ladder? Is it a fair future that out of the almost 3 million unemployed 1 million of those are 18-24?

This is exacerbated even more by the second article I found, which shows Labour have dropped their pledge to get one million more people to own their home as it “compounds inequality”.

Their own Housing Minister, John Healey, attacked owner occupation, saying that:

“Home ownership had been dropping since 2005 and I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing” and he slammed parents passing a legacy on to their children since “inequality is compounded over the generations.”

Only in a world where 2+2=5 would this make sense and people would swallow it. The hard graft and determination to own your own home is one of greatest aspiration the young can aim for. It gives you a goal to work towards, it maintains your work-ethic, it gives you a sense of pride and something on which you can improve. While it is also something that you can leave to your children.

Relying on your own acumen and skill is something we should champion, not condemn.

Saying it compounds inequality just shows that Labour doesn’t want any free individual to own anything and wants everyone equally poor as Churchill correctly stated:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

So at a time when the Government’s own advisory body indicates that only 26 per cent of families aged under 40 could afford to buy a home in England in 2008, the Conservatives are calling for:

  • A permanent cut in stamp duty for first-time buyers up to £250,000
  • For an equity stake for social tenants who are good neighbours
  • Respecting the tenures and rents of social tenants
  • And are pledging to build more family homes with parking spaces and gardens for young families by scrapping flawed Whitehall density rules.

This is why young people should vote Conservative on May 6th and break the cycle of being Labour’s captives and end these 13 years of their Big Brother government and start embracing the Conservative vision of the Big Society based on hope, not fear.


Thought for the day: politics, debt and public choice

UK Public Debt To GDP (via BIS)

A joke doing the rounds by email at the moment1:

While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St Peter at the entrance. ‘Welcome to heaven,’ says St Peter, ‘Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.’ ‘No problem, just let me in,’ says the man. ‘Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.’ ‘Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,’ says the MP. ‘I’m sorry, but we have our rules.’ And with that, St Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly and nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. ‘Now it’s time to visit heaven.’ So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. ‘Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.’ The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: ‘Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.’

So St Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ‘I don’t understand,’ stammers the MP. ‘Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time.. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?’

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ‘Yesterday we were campaigning … Today you voted.

But who now rides on whom?

Which is most amusing but it also gives me an excuse to mention public choice theory:

Public choice in economic theory is the use of modern economic tools to study problems that are traditionally in the province of political science. From the perspective of political science, it may be seen as the subset of positive political theory which deals with subjects in which material interests are assumed to predominate.

In particular, it studies the behavior of politicians and government officials as mostly self-interested agents and their interactions in the social system either as such or under alternative constitutional rules. These can be represented a number of ways, including standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory. Public choice analysis has roots in positive analysis (“what is”) but is often used for normative purposes (“what ought to be”), to identify a problem or suggest how a system could be improved by changes in constitutional rules.[1]

That is, in a nutshell, for a very long time, that joke has been a reasonable characterisation of politics and the consequence is the catastrophic public debt projection above. The Wikipedia article is somewhat biased against the theory and lacks citations but it is still worth reading.

Now, consider this:

What is that change? Some promise solutions from on high – but real change comes from collective endeavour. So we offer a new approach: a change not just from one set of politicians to another; from one set of policies to another. It is a change from one political philosophy to another. From the idea that the role of the state is to direct society and micro-manage public services, to the idea that the role of the state is to strengthen society and make public services serve the people who use them. in a simple phrase, the change we offer is from big government to big Society.

And this:

The era of big government has run its course.

The former is from the Conservative manifesto and the latter from David Cameron’s Hugo Young lecture on the Big Society. One party is telling people clearly that we need a radical change in the relationship between people and government. It is the Conservative Party.

  1. And see also this speech by Mark Littlewood at the IEA, which makes good use of another version. []

We will end the Culture of Worklessness

David Cameron has pinned down a major source of Britain’s plight – worklessness. Building on his vision of Britain looking towards creating a Big Society, not running into the arms of the State, he sets out a bold plan of action. It will be a culture that is based on responsibility to one another, not simply rights. He said:

The old way of big government has failed. It’s time to tackle welfare dependency a new way – the Big Society way…This is our new welfare contract: do the right thing and we will back you all the way. But fail to take responsibility – and the free ride is over.

We will:

  • make sure you get help as soon as you need it – straight away for those really struggling to find work, and after six months if you’re less than 25 years old;
  • help you start your own business by giving you access to a business mentor and start-up loans;
  • create a range of business-led training places to get you started on the road to employment, with 50,000 places in the hospitality and leisure industry to begin with;
  • give you somewhere to go during the day – Work Clubs – so you can learn skills, find opportunities, make useful contacts and provide other people with support;
  • if you’re under the age of 25, provide a huge range of extra training opportunities – 400,000 apprenticeship, training and college places over two years;
  • and, pay back-to-work providers in full only if they get you into work for a year or more.

Mr. Cameron goes on to say:

But you must keep to your side of the bargain. We will make sure that you are claiming the right benefits and, within six months of taking office, we will introduce new sanctions for anyone who refuses to look for work

This will mean:

  • cutting the benefits of anyone on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) who refuses to join the Work Programme;
  • cutting the benefits of anyone who refuses to take up reasonable job offers: the first time for one month; the second time for three months; and, the third time for up to three years;
  • cutting benefits for up to three years for anyone caught repeatedly committing benefit fraud.

We feel society is only successful when people work together side by side and a culture of worklessness undermines the dynamic and entrepreneurial Britain we want to see. People can not sit on the sidelines during a recession – we believe firmly that everyone has a talent and that everyone can contribute. A Conservative Government will help every person achieve that.