In the above link Lord Tebbit wonders:
So we have entered the era of the Big Society, New Politics, consensus, decentralisation and power to the people. Everywhere, that is, except in the Conservative Party.I disagree. I think the New Politics, the "Big Society", "consensus", "power to the 'people'" will be a collection of events not too dissimilar to what happened to the 1922 Committee. If Cameron is happy to do that to his own, do you think he will baulk at doing it to outsiders?
I can see his cohorts pitching up to voluntary organisations up and down the country, barging in, hijacking the organisation and installing their own placemen so that "the people" are "represented" and "their voices heard". They might not use all or the same techniques, possibly using entryism, for example, but I can see it occurring. They will justify it by saying it is needed because Taxpayers money is being spent and it needs "oversight". Totalitarian Authoritarians (Totauths?) in bootstrap mode. Remember, "consensus" means only one way, not a plurality of ways. It is meat and drink to the Totalitarian mindset.
I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. Cameron is exposing his Modus Operandi. The mask is slipping if anyone cares to notice.
UPDATE: I hear via Coffeehouse that the Tory Chief Whip has so graciously decided that Ministers will not be able to vote in the 1922 Committee meetings, only attend. Attend. It is not as benign as it seems, but we shall see how this plays out if ever we are so unfortunate to see the Coalition try and roll out "The Big Society".
Freedom by permission is not Freedom at all.
6 comments:
I think someones getting a little carried away...
He has placed ministers in the '22 becuse he can foresee the rebellions that are coming and wants to be represented. It's quite wrong, bu that is his reasoning.
It is a serious, and somewhat bizarre, leap of faith to apply that to groups in town halls across the country a la the USSR.
I'm not so sure... The 1922 committee defended some of the worst of MPs excesses; it was effectively a Lobby group for the political class.
That's not to say I approve of the motive: Cameron's crushed it because he doesn't want any co-ordinated opposition from his own benches -- good move; wrong reason.
@Kevin,
In "The Big Society", groups will be formed, existing ones co-opted, services "mutualised", and what I am saying is Cameron, to use your words "wants to be represented".
Cameron has shown what he is willing to do.
Sorry Tim, but that isn't what you have said.
You seem to think that a political move (that is wrong) within his own party will result in "installing their own placemen" in "voluntary organisations up and down the country" "barging in, hijacking the organisation".
I fail to see how you can equate the two things under 'Cameron has shown what he is willing to do'
At no point has he shown any willingness to install commissars at the WI or the local neigbourhood watch!
I don't agree with this big society rubish, but his views are not new. The 'co-opting' you speak of is simply the integrating of community groups to achieve a common purpose as opposed to pulling in different directions.
It's total rubbish, but that is all it is. Not jackbooted black shirts waltzing into meetings.
@Kevin,
It is what I have said, only you seem determined to understand it differently or fail to see the implications of what you say.
Hair-splitting and Strawmen like the WI and Neighbourhood Watch cannot disguise the fact that you seem to base your argument on the fact that Cameron has not yet done such things, which is patently an absurd position to hold given the timeframes involved.
Putting in like-minded people into organisations that one funds directly or indirectly and wishes to use to be a proxy for one's vision for the country is a pretty understandable move, is it not?
"co-opting" and "integrating of community groups to achieve a common purpose" as you frame it, is not easy when those groups are independently minded and will be reluctant to play ball. The need to ensure they do, just a the need to ensure the 1922 Committee does, will often require changes of who and how. If it does not, that begs the question of why they are not doing it already. I do not think Cameron will have the patience and he certainly does not have the time to just use money to bribe/corrupt them in the "right" direction as the Fabians can do in their long game.
As for your colourful description of blackshirts, I cannot see where you get that impression, seeing as all I said was "installing their own placemen" followed by "they might not use the same techniques".
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment