Quality of Life Policy Working Group

Add a Comment

Comment by Rebekah Gronowski on June 7, 2011 at 9:32am

@Andrew - I think that you may have misread Matthew's post -

Matthew said -

I don't think cuts have got anything to do with it - if anything, if government gets smaller people may come to think that people should take more responsibility for their neighbourhoods into their own hands, instead of just waiting for a government agency to sort things out.

 

He was not referring to "smaller people" - he was saying -

If government gets smaller (comma) people may come to think ........etc.

 

Do you see what I mean? He wasn't referring to smaller people at all. A well-placed comma makes all the difference! ;~)

 

Comment by Andrew Bembridge on October 2, 2010 at 7:18pm

This idea about smaller people. Should not all people be equal. This is one of the problems the so called smaller people do not get a say. Living in Tory heart land I know to well about the haves and the haves not. Yes we should all be responsible but from my point of view it is always the less well of that suffers after all the gap between the rich and poor is always growing. Also it is not just about relying on the state perhaps if those that get out of tax when they should be paying plus the bankers paid what was due we then would not have such a big problem. As for this idea of Socialism only parts of society got into that idea and it was not middle england because the more they got the more they wanted hence many of the problems now.

Comment by Matthew Green on October 2, 2010 at 3:15pm

Maybe the 1980s promoted the idea amongst the middle classes that you should push your own personal agenda ahead at others' expense. But just as corrosive is the "somebody else's problem" culture whereby people expect government agencies to deal with all society's ills, so they don't need to do anything themselves. I remember somebody telling me that it was OK to drop litter because the Council was there to clear it up. This is nothing to do with Thatcherism - it follows from socialism. As liberals we must not fall into that trap.
I don't think cuts have got anything to do with it - if anything, if government gets smaller people may come to think that people should take more responsibility for their neighbourhoods into their own hands, instead of just waiting for a government agency to sort things out.

Comment by Andrew Bembridge on September 30, 2010 at 9:21pm

Life is about careing for other people. But this was destroyed by the Thatcher government. As we we followed the American way. Funny at the time Wall Street was a block buster film now they are releasing the sequal. We know have another Tory Prime Minister, big cuts and people woried about money so what has Changed

Comment by Rebekah Gronowski on September 30, 2010 at 5:33pm

You make good points, Salim.

I think what I am trying to say is that everyone of us, regardless of the area in which we live, ought to be more caring and looking out more for the needs of others and attempting to help where we can to make life better for those people. It's just a general attitude to life and to other people. It is not always a matter of money - it's about a more caring attitude.

.

Comment by Salim Mamdani on September 30, 2010 at 12:04pm

I think, quality of life is different from region to region. People living in London have a very different quality of life from people living in other parts of the country, where there are less opportunities for jobs and money. If we make a general policy for all, it may not work for all. We ought to make specific policies for specific areas and needs, so that the needy get more help and improve their quality of life ! We pay different amount of Council Tax if we live in different areas. Why can't we have specific policies for different areas too ? (with the view to help the poor and deprived areas).

Comment by Rebekah Gronowski on September 30, 2010 at 5:03am

I do think that it is time for "power" to be devolved downwards to people! Red tape and bureaucracy strangle personal initiative and enterprise. The so-called "nanny-state" has never really left us has it? Ordinary people need empowerment and the freedom to contribute to society and their local community in a way which is appropriate to their own skills and abilities. I'm all for reasonable precuations being taken to ensure the safetey of others but, really - some of the rules and regulations governing voluntary service to one's community are too much.

The "Big Society" is simply the current "buzz" phrase - another way of saying that we would all like to help each other and our communities and be a caring society. Surely that's what we are all trying to do already - isn't it? Well - I would say that we need to be allowed to do so.

Comment by ian philip james on July 22, 2010 at 9:13am

To me Camerons *big society* is putting Liberalism into action and as Liberals we should support it and make sure that red tape and regulation are removed to enable people to take back control of their lives, communities and environment.

Comment by Matthew Green on July 22, 2010 at 9:09am

Sounds a bit like Cameron's Big Society...but I suppose there must be something in it. I am sure that empowering people to enable them to take control of their local environment helps wellbeing. But it needs a new mindset from local and national government, who no doubt would insist on volunteers reading several thousand pages of policy and guidance, being subject to inspections, compulsory training courses and such.

Comment by Salim Mamdani on July 21, 2010 at 7:52pm

We should have a group of volunteers with different skills who want to improve the Quality of Life for others and our cummunities. We need motivated, kind, caring, selfless people who are willing to give their time and make a difference. An act of good deed is a Lib Dem Act ! Salim.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page