In the context of the heading to this post, not what immediately springs to your mind dear reader! I of course mean it in the context of one 'leftie' endorsing the view of another 'leftie'. Shame on you if you thought otherwise - hush your mind!
I refer to Mandelson's agreement that Cameron's "Big Society" is a good idea, from which I quote:
"Yes he is. I said [in a Progress lecture in September 2009] we are going to have to see the role of government evolve and change. We are going to have to look at public services, how they operate, how they are delivered, how they are going to change as well in an era of much tighter public spending in the coming decade.
We need to be state reformers rather than state retrenchers...We will have to find more of our solutions from within the communities that make our society...Insofar as that prescription corresponds to what David Cameron calls the Big Society then I think he is onto a good idea – in theory. I think what we have to do, all of us in politics, is draw the right sort of instruction from the state of our economy and finances...We have got to find new, improved, different, better ways of delivering high quality public services.
When considering the EU's overall "ever closer union", their 'intrusion' by way of being able to 'legislate' in Member State's affairs, coupled with the aims of the EU's Committee of the Regions, what is 'new' about Cameron's Big Society - bearing in mind the 'central control' that Cameron envisages?
Remembering also that as an ex-EU employee and in order to continue receiving his EU pension, Mandelson cannot and must not 'criticise' the EU, is it any wonder he would not be in favour of Cameron's 'Big Society'?
No comments:
Post a Comment