The real big society


By Stephen Pollard
February 14, 2011
Share

Writing about the Big Society (cringe-makingly awful name for an important and good modus operandi), Ben Brogan hits the nail on the head:

[T]he combined might of Labour’s useful idiots in the voluntary and
charitable sector...are neither volunteers nor charitable – they are
paid and their money comes not from individuals but the state. No
wonder they snap any time a hand reaches to turn off the tap.

The other crucial point here was raised yesterday by Nick Clegg in a seemingly unrelated interview in the Observer:

I need to say this – you shouldn’t trust any
government, actually including this one. You should not trust government – full
stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information;
to accrue power to itself in the name of the public
good.

Quite so.

COMMENTS

Stanley Walinets

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:00

Rate this:

-4 points

"Ben Brogan hits the nail on the head:"
"[T]he combined might of Labour’s useful idiots in the voluntary and charitable sector...are neither volunteers nor charitable – they are paid and their money comes not from individuals but the state. No
wonder they snap any time a hand reaches to turn off the tap."

I'm sorry, Mr Pollard, but Ben Brogan doesn't hit the nail on the head. I'm a Labour supporter, as are many Jews I know. And for your interest I give to numerous charities well over £600 every year, from my modest local government worker's retirement pension. That's MY money, not the state's.

And I wish you'd reconsider the JC's kneejerk and distasteful practice of putting down any Jew who isn't a well-off right-wing businessman but has centre-left views.

Incidentally, like many Jews I'm also a Guardian reader and recognise its overall efforts to report honestly and objectively, unusual in today's Press. But it doesn't claim to be perfect. And, re your jubilant report of its misrepresentation of Tzippi Livni's rermarks in the Palestine Papers, it was me, Jew, Guardian and JC reader, who drew that misreporting to their 'Corrections' column. And they printed it didn't they? How many other national papers have a 'corrections' column?

So please Mr Pollard, let's have a bit more objectivity in the otherwise much-valued JC. Thank you.


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:13

Rate this:

-2 points

"Incidentally, like many Jews I'm also a Guardian reader and recognise its overall efforts to report honestly and objectively"

You need to seek urgent help.
The Guardian is a sick antisemitic rag. It has not reported honestly and objectively in decades.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:28

Rate this:

-2 points

Hello Yoni! Thought you wouldn't be far away! Regular Guardian reader, are you, all those decades?


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 13:25

Rate this:

-2 points

What is Wallnuts screeching about this time?


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 13:29

Rate this:

-2 points

Re the other thread:
Poor Wallnuts, so ignorant and yet so ignorant of his ignorance.
THERE NEVER WAS A COUNTRY CALLED "PALESTINE".


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 13:46

Rate this:

2 points

Incidentally, like many Jews I'm also a Guardian reader

Why oh why does that not surprise me in the least?

and recognise its overall efforts to report honestly and objectively

That is incredibly idiotic. We just saw today how they blattantly distorted quotes from Livni and others. They had to correct it this time, not because of you of course, but because many weren't fooled this time. They didn't correct the many other distorsions and demonisations of Israel
Their evident effort is to distort the truth and demonise Israel as much as they can.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 13:49

Rate this:

2 points

Poor Wallnuts, so ignorant and yet so ignorant of his ignorance.
THERE NEVER WAS A COUNTRY CALLED "PALESTINE".

Yes, there never was any independant STATE named "Palestine" and there was never any people there who called themselves "Palestinians".
The only independant state that ever existed on this land was always called ISRAEL.

That is geography and history 101, Wallinuts.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:26

Rate this:

-3 points

Oh dear Jose. As I've already told you on another site, you really aren't worth answering, with your endless self-pretence that Palestine never existed.
Would you be interested to know that in the 1940s(possibly before you were born?) the kids at my elementary school, hearing I was a Jew, would shout "Get back to Palestine!" ?

Why didn't they shout "Get back to Israel"? Because, as you well know, a state called 'Israel' didn't yet exist.
And why did they refer to 'Palestine'? Because that, dear child, was the name of the territory known as the British Palestine Mandate, since the end of WORLD WAR 1. Alright it wasn't an independent state, but everyone in the world knew it as Palestine. Ask your parents. Or your grandparents.

You have no idea of history. Do you even know what the word 'history' means? Actually, I think for you it means the same as the word 'hysterics'.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:32

Rate this:

-3 points

Stanley, don't bother, just ignore him and his alter ego. He's here only to bait, to promotre himself or to give himself points. He has no other meaningful contribution.


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:35

Rate this:

-1 points

Wallnuts thinks that by calling someone 'dear child' he can hide his huge ignorance and illiteracy.

Millis: do seek psychiatric help.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:37

Rate this:

2 points

Stanley the British Mandate of Palestine was always intended to be the homeland for the Jewish people (as declared in the Balfour Declaration and endorsed by the League of Nations), since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It had a Jewish government (the Yishuv). Palestine was the de-facto Jewish state under British military occupation until the declaration of independence (from Britain) in 1948.

No Arabs identified themselves as "Palestinian" until after the six day war and the invention of the PLO. In fact "Palestine" was considered by the Arabs to be part of Syria.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:38

Rate this:

2 points

Millis you must know that Stanley's historical assessment is flawed. Why aren't you correcting him?


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:38

Rate this:

-3 points

As I was saying, Stanley, I thought the splenetic alter-ego would be along as soon as he is mentioned, and here he is... as welcome as Horst Wessel Lied at Yad Vashem


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:40

Rate this:

-3 points

Matt both Stanley and Jose/Yoni1 are wrong. But hey... at least Stanley is polite


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 14:55

Rate this:

2 points

How is Jose wrong, Millis? And you are in no position to lecture others about politeness.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:02

Rate this:

3 points

When was that independant state of 'Palestine' created, Milligramsam?
Has there been another independant state, created on this same earth, that was named something other than Israel, Milligramsam?

Because that, dear child, was the name of the territory known as the British Palestine Mandate,

Thanks Wallinuts, for confirming what I was saying: that there never was an independant state of 'Palestine', and confirming indirectly that there was never any people in 1948 who identified themselves as 'Palestinians'.

Milligramsam, even Wallinuts knows you're mistaken.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:03

Rate this:

2 points

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/guardian-owns-falsifying-livni-quote-how-a...

I call on the President of the Board of Deputies to declare that the Guardian should be shunnned by both readers and advertisers.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:05

Rate this:

-3 points

Jonathan, I thought you were against boycotts. Calling for one is double standards...


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:07

Rate this:

3 points

" .... recognise its overall efforts to report honestly and objectively, unusual in today's Press."

That's about as truthful a comment as me saying that your poetry is good, Walinets.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:08

Rate this:

3 points

Don't presume to know what I think, T-Sam


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:13

Rate this:

3 points

Jonathan, I thought you were against boycotts. Calling for one is double standards...

Milligramsam, you chould change your broken record, once in a while.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:21

Rate this:

-2 points

One thing you could do jonathan is ignore the guardian. I find ignoring useless idiots affords them the disrespect they deserve.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:23

Rate this:

1 point

Millis, please will you answer my question above and tell me why Jose is wrong. You can't just say someone is wrong and then fail to address why. If you cannot find a flaw in his argument, then a) retract your statement that he is wrong, and b) answer my question above, i.e. why do you not correct Stanley's misgivings about Israel's history?


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:28

Rate this:

2 points

Millis, please will you answer my question above and tell me why Jose is wrong. You can't just say someone is wrong and then fail to address why. If you cannot find a flaw in his argument, then a) retract your statement that he is wrong, and b) answer my question above, i.e. why do you not correct Stanley's misgivings about Israel's history?

Because if Milligramsam corrected Wallinuts, he would have to say exactly the same thing as I did, proving himself wrong about what he said about me, Matt!


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:42

Rate this:

-1 points

Matt, over the past century or so, many countries have been created or dismantled, the most recent being the secession of South Sudan from Sudan. There was no country called Israel before may 1948, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist now. There is no Palestine now, but that doesn't mean that the indigenous people of that area who self-determine themselves as Palestinians won't have a state of that name.
Where Stanley and the other one are wrong is that they are debating - and I use that term advisedly especially with regard to the other one - on irrelevant terms of reference. That's the problem with ideologues. They're blinkered by their prejudices.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:45

Rate this:

-3 points

Jonathan again you obsess over TRex? Why? I grew out of them by the time punk came along. Still to each their own. But it is a bit of a double standard to call for a boycott while opposing others.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:58

Rate this:

-4 points

So there never was an independent STATE called Palestine.

This has exactly what to do with the price of eggs ?

Everyone knows what is meant by Palestine and everyone knows, when we refer to Palestine , what we are talking about. And everyone knows, when we refer to Palestinians ,who we are talking about.

There was a kingdom or kingdoms of Israel thousands of years ago.

And this is relevant ? That is the geopolitics of the mad house.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:58

Rate this:

2 points

Well actually I think it's very important, and I don't think it's to do with "irrelevant terms of reference" at all.

If an anti-Zionist says to you "Israel stole Palestinian land and must give it back", how do you reply without bringing up these "irrelevant terms of reference"? If you agree with them, how do you defend Israel six months later when a larger aggressor (e.g. Egypt) decides to take matters into their own hands and invade said land?

Nothing about this is irrelevant. It's all extremely important.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 15:59

Rate this:

2 points

And here's jandrsimonson with his "everyone knows", "the world knows" - YOU know, YOU think, YOUR opinions. Don't presume to speak for others.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:08

Rate this:

-2 points

Matt when someone says " Palestinians " you don't know who they are talking about ?


Watchful Iris (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:09

Rate this:

-2 points

Little green men on Mars?


amber

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:12

Rate this:

2 points

simonson, you couldn't be more wrong. The term "Palestine" is vague and nebulous - often deliberatelyso. Does it mean the areas seized by Jordan and Egypt in 1948? Does it mean what includes Israel?

No, not "everyone" does know, unfortunately.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:13

Rate this:

-4 points

Matt, if you accept the 1947 partition, then in a very real sense Israel has taken land set aside for the Palestinian Arabs. In fact, iall that is left for the Palestinian Arabs is 22 per cent of mandatory Palestine. Israel is already encroaching on that with its settlements and roads.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:27

Rate this:

3 points

Millis you are mistaken. Israel is 22% of Mandatory Palestine (the region promised to the Jews) - the remaining 78% is Jordan (Britain reneged on its promise to the Jews and gave it over to Hashemite control), which already has a 70% "Palestinian" majority.

Judea/Samaria and Gaza together represent 6% of Mandatory Palestine. When they are given to Arabs 16% of Mandatory Palestine will be under Jewish control, and the remaining 84% will be Arab and Judenrein.


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:30

Rate this:

0 points

"Matt both Stanley and Jose/Yoni1 are wrong"

What a really, really thick asshole you are. Jose and I are different people. Got it, asshole?

"Jonathan, I thought you were against boycotts. Calling for one is double standards..."

What a really, really thick asshole you are. Boycotting a particular commercial outfit is not remotely the same thing as boycotting a country. Got it, asshole?

"as welcome as Horst Wessel Lied at Yad Vashem"

Now he is comparing me to Nazis, the disgusting little antisemitic scum.


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:34

Rate this:

0 points

"So there never was an independent STATE called Palestine.
This has exactly what to do with the price of eggs?"

It means, idiot, that there has never existed a 'Palestinian' nation.

I see that Moron Millis is now calling on Israel to retreat to the 29.11.47 lines.
What an isiot.


Yoni1

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:37

Rate this:

0 points

"There was no country called Israel before may 1948"

What breathtaking ignorance from this asshole.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:45

Rate this:

-2 points

Jose/Yoni1, did that comparison hurt? Good.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:46

Rate this:

2 points

Matt, I may correct your figures: Israel in 1949 was 18% of the British Mandate Palestine.
Jews were promised a homeland on the whole mandate, then the British violated their promise, and gave 75% of it to Arabs, prohibiting Jews to settle there. Egypt and Jordan invaded the Gaza Strip and Judea Samaria and that represents nearly 7% of British Mandate. Jews were ethnically cleansed from these areas too, to the world's indifference.
The 18% that were allowed to the Jews are made of 60% of desertic land.

Arabs are much better served than Jews, in this area. Even if all Arabs in Judea Samaria and Israel gathered in the real 'Palestine' that is Jordan, they would be still the better served ones. From the land point of view, not the human rights' one, of course.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:47

Rate this:

-2 points

No, Israel is 78 per cent of mandatory Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs have been left with 22 per cent. Anyway, it doesn't matter. What really matters is that if Israel holds on to the West Bank, it will face the catastrophe of its demise through demographics. That's why the one-staters on both sides are lunatics who have a lot in common.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:51

Rate this:

3 points

Milligramsam, to confuse me with Yoni1 only hurts the little reputation you might have left as a reporter.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:53

Rate this:

2 points

Millis, why do you keep repeating this lie?

This is mandatory Palestine:

Now looking at this map, how do you work out that Israel comprises 78% of it?

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Yes it does, because it's not true.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:57

Rate this:

1 point

What really matters is that if Israel holds on to the West Bank, it will face the catastrophe of its demise through demographics. That's why the one-staters on both sides are lunatics who have a lot in common.

Well I will turn that around and say that if Israel does not hold onto Judea and Samaria (please do not use our enemies' terms of reference) Jews will very quickly lose any moral claim to the rest of Israel too. Future demographics are anyone's guess.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 16:59

Rate this:

-4 points

It doesn't matter because we are dealing with the here and now. Here and now, in the western part the former mandate there are 5.5 million Jews who have full political rights and about the same number of Palestinian Arabs of whom only 1.2 million have political rights. If you want Israel to continue to exist as much as I do, then you have to recognise that the only way it can exist is not to fall into the one-staters' trap and start arguing over who did what to whom and who has more rights over this stone or that.
That's what matters, Matt.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:00

Rate this:

3 points

And why are one-staters lunatics? There are perfectly rational arguments on both sides of the debate for a unified state.

You really must stop calling people names when you don't agree with them Millis - the only person it discredits is yourself.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:01

Rate this:

4 points

No, Israel is 78 per cent of mandatory Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs have been left with 22 per cent. Anyway, it doesn't matter

Yes, it does, Milligramsam: the figures are reversed. Mandatory Palestine included Transjordan lands, which is now named Jordan. These lands were included in the Jewish Homeland promised in the Balfour declaration that the SDN and UN are supposed to uphold. Today 75% of this territory (Jordan) is forbidden to Jews and neraly 7% more are required by 'Palestinians' for a temporary and shaky truce with Green Line Israel.

That matters A LOT, Milligramsam !


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:01

Rate this:

-3 points

I'll call it the west bank and/or the occupied territories because that's what they are.


mattpryor

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:02

Rate this:

3 points

Right, so (replying to your post at 16:59) do you now accept that you were mistaken in your assertion that Israel comprises of 78% of mandatory Palestine? In which case why did you lie?


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:05

Rate this:

-3 points

Matt, One staters are lunatics because they will lead to the destruction of Israel. And, frankly, I don't care what other people think or say. Especially not lunatics and/or hate-mongers.


Joe Millis

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:11

Rate this:

-3 points

Depends how you interpret mandatory Palestine. Transjordan was hived off as part of britains promise to the Hashemites who didn't get Saudi. So in effect mandatory Palestine was the area now controlled by israel - Israel proper, the west bank and gaza strip. If you want to blame anyone for the mess, blame the British.
But just to clarify, demographically it makes sense to have ethnically homogoneous states and that would mean two states along the 67 lines more or less.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS