Jesus fucking Christ.
The jury has returned from its deliberations and the verdict is in. If Cameron was the “Heir to Blair” then Theresa May is the “Hand-me-down of Brown”.
Emphases are mine…
Theresa May will ditch Margaret Thatcher’s and David Cameron’s approach to social policy as she pledges to create a “shared society” where the state helps to strengthen communities.
The prime minister will use a speech tomorrow to outline plans to abandon Cameron’s vision for a “big society”, where charities and local groups were asked to take on functions from a shrinking state. Instead, in a radical departure for a Conservative politician, she will make clear that central government has a responsibility to do more to strengthen “the bonds” holding communities together.
May will outline a programme of social reform and a “significant shift” where the government steps in to play an active role in tackling “everyday injustices” that have left many in society feeling forgotten. The prime minister will repeat that she wants to help the middle classes who are “just managing” and set out her belief that previous governments have focused too narrowly on the poorest.
She will say: “The central challenge of our times is to overcome division and bring our country together. And that starts by building something that I call the shared society. This means a government rooted not in the laissez-faire liberalism that leaves people to get by on their own but rather in a new philosophy that means government stepping up — not just in the traditional way of providing a welfare state to support the most vulnerable.
“People who are just managing, just getting by, don’t need a government that will get out of the way, they need a government that will make the system work for them.”
Just where does one start with this utter shit-show?
Well, my answer comes in two parts.
1) Government can do no good and much harm.
It’s probably no co-incidence that my response here will be a continuation of the theme of my last post, and of a recent post about Louise Casey’s review into the integration of minorities.
This theme is that it is much easier – intentionally or otherwise – for the government’s interventions and initiatives to have a negative effect on individuals and society than for them to have a positive one, and that the best outcome is where the government has no effect, in the course of burning no taxpayers’ money.
But no, in spite of mountains of evidence that whether by design or default, governments cause misery, hardship and injustice, May seems bent on inserting the state even more firmly into our lives, at great cost, and doubtless benefiting only those who got a ticket for the gravy-train.
2) There really is no such thing as society, even if there once was.
So the state wants to “strengthen communities” does it? And how would they do that exactly? By reversing the state-sponsored mass immigration that has lead to a far less homogeneous society? Cultural, ethnic, ethical and religious homogeneity are, for better or for worse, what makes society strong – the feeling that we are cheek by jowl with “people like us”, with whom we have a shared experience of life and shared values.
Although, perhaps that plural usage of the word “communities” speaks to the heart of the problem. Perhaps May’s view is that we need a strong Muslim community, and a strong gay community, and a strong Polish community, and a strong .. etc..
She will say: “The shared society is one that doesn’t just value our individual rights but focuses rather more on the responsibilities we have to one another. It’s a society that respects the bonds that we share as a union of people and nations — the bonds of family, community, citizenship, strong institutions.”
That Times article does the all too common trick of quoting Thatcher without the necessary context
For the past 30 years Tory social policy has been shaped by Thatcher’s declaration that “there is no such thing as society” as she outlined a creed of individual responsibility.
So here is that context, and I think it’s worth reading and thinking about.
But, if you will take Thatcher out of context like that, you could easily and convincingly argue that she was wrong when she uttered those words 30 years ago. But if she’d uttered those words today, people would have a far harder time saying she was wrong.
We cannot make a shared society out of a diversity of “communities” that are all at each other’s throats, having been balkanized by successive waves of progressive policies, can we?
Because I feel no bonds with, or loyalty to, most of what May thinks of as society. I feel no brotherhood with the bitter Remainers, the entitled breeders, the Romanian beggars, the rancorous Islamists, the swivel-eyed feminists, the vindictive gays, the snowflake students, the sanctimonious celebs, the Civil Self-Servants, the NHS worshippers, the barmy Corbynistas, the antediluvian unions, the militant cyclists, the animal rights head-bangers, the fake charities, the self-serving lobbyists, the fucking statists.
And it isn’t one-sided. There’s copious evidence that these groups espouse agendas and attitudes that – actively or passively – demonstrate disdain for people like me. With one hand they stick two fingers up at us, with the other hand they empty our wallets, and they can all go fuck themselves in the eye-socket with a cattle prod.
And in that, I’d like to see Theresa May take the lead.