Synchronicity.

So just how is that 'Big 'ol Society' coming along, Dave? Still on track, is it? Lord alone knows that some of us are doing our bit. After all, we're all in this together, aren't we? Just like a perfectly choreographed dance, I would imagine, precision synchronicity!

More for my own reassurances, that things were progressing satisfactorily, than for any other reason, I decided to conduct my own, limited, survey. Not as easy as I first thought! Absolutely fraught with problems, it was. First and foremost, in a depressingly long list of hurdles, was the obvious one; that nobody seemed to be absolutely certain as to what it was that our Dave was alluding to. Obviously this abstract concept can't be overly concerned with sharing, can it, I thought? A multi-propertied millionaire talking about an aspiration towards a more sharing society, to a population who are becoming increasing concerned about getting food on the table, paying utilities bills or hanging on to their one solitary home; I didn't think so!

A second hurdle was that, given the hazy nature of things, it was almost inevitable, I assumed, that some less-scrupulous individuals would see fit to interpret the amorphous term, 'Big Society', in vastly 'different' ways to that in which it was, I had thought, being sold to us. Factor in the consequent, self-serving, publicity that some 'participants' will be seeking, and then compare this to the modest anonymity sought by many of those who will probably be doing the most and you can begin to appreciate the scale of the problem with which I expected to be faced. Further skewing the issue here were my own health and family commitments, for which I most humbly apologise.

Thanks to slynkycat.

My early hopes had been to create a 'comprehensive' survey, based upon the 'Big Society' undertakings, or absence thereof, of at least thirty, randomly selected citizens. Thus, my severly truncated efforts, based upon the 'work' of just the five individuals, was of considerable disappointment to me.

But whilst it would be fair to point out that the consequent results may not be fully representative, I absolutely maintain that they are still well worth a second look.

For further clarification I feel that I should attempt to loosely explain the elected criteria for my survey. I endeavoured, during my research, to ensure especially two things. The first being that sample individuals were entirely randomly selected, from across the whole population of the UK, in so far as this was possible, and the second being that any unearthed 'Big Society' contributions were to be undertaken entirely at the behest of the person- not, say, a P.R. consultant or such like- and carried out entirely for the benefits of the wider community, rather than for any personal gains. Let's be honest, most of us will be able to appreciate the vast opportunity that exists here for the personal betterment of many self-publicists. It has become abundantly clear that  there is no depth to which certain individuals will not stoop?

Thanks to Mr Greenjeans.

Of note here: my 'whole' society may not be quite as inclusive as the ideal of a whole society. Think, therefore, more of the 'whole' world from which the 'world's' most handsome man was selected, or the 'world's' most beautiful woman, should you accidentally happen to read a copy of OK Magazine, before using it correctly and then flushing it away.

All my sample individuals were painstakingly selected through a personally devised process, not greatly dissimilar to sticking a pin in a map. Space alone has prevented me from further elaboration of my, somewhat extensive, methods.

So, on to the pertinent details. My random 'pins' had eventually arrived at five characters. Sadly my first female candidate was quickly found to be working illegally, without a valid work permit and for a wage easily below the legal minimum, thus 'selfishly' depriving others of the opportunity to acquire gainful employment. I immediately felt obliged to report the lady to the immigration department, declining well-remunerated bids for 'the story' from two of our 'highly esteemed' national tabloids. The councillor, for whom the lady regularly cleaned, was understandably shocked to be acquainted with the full facts, 'politely' requesting that damaging details were not to be exploited, later backing this up with a far more curt legal package.

My second subject, one David Scholey, seems to have approached the 'Big Society' role with purely 'egalitarian' ideals, helping to clear dangerous part of our planet from unnecessary hazards- where conceivably, 'hard-working' British families might fall prey to savage mishap. David, at great personal expense and placing himself in severe danger, was able to bravely destroy a fully-maned lion, armed only with a high velocity rifle, an armoured vehicle and a full retinue of protecting underlings. Well done indeed, David, I seriously doubt whether anyone could have hoped for an alternative ending.

Thanks to slynkycat.

My third sample individual, whilst nowhere near as 'brave' as the previous, is currently battling determinedly to ensure that the nation's heritage (specifically Roald Dahl's writing shed) is not to be further depleted. And I think that we can all appreciate precisely how easily this sort of wholesale butchery is often permitted to slip through the safety nets, during these times of global recession. Do you know, I think that I could be persuaded that certain less-scrupulous characters may even regard these times of austerity as cashing-in opportunities.

Anyway, my third sample subject was one Sophie Dahl, another 'cash-strapped' individual, struggling to make ends meet under difficult circumstances. And, before you jump in with more of that judgemental stuff that I've been reading in our outrageously 'left-wing' press, I feel it is only fair to point out that wealth and poverty, in the 21st century, are very much relative things. We may, from our single, dilapidated home, judge Sophie to be 'having a laugh', but who amongst us can appreciate the immense cost of maintaining homes on several continents, probably also footing the upkeep of some sort of gigantic yacht somewhere or other, maybe a fleet of chauffeur-driven vehicles, a globally flamboyant lifestyle and lord alone knows what other expensive (but highly necessary) oddities? Well done to Sophie Dahl, for recognising where the foundations of a successful 'Big Society' reside.

Thanks to Big Grey Mare.

A fourth sample- no I, too had never before heard of this woman- was one Sue Rabbitt Roff, a social scientist, no less. Sue had already been devoting decades of her life to all manner of social issues that might affect the smooth running of the larger society. However, it is the manner in which she has ingeniously tried to help the less wealthy to climb from that mire of debt that has, apparently, most impressed the wider public, and finally brought her 'selfless' efforts into the public eye. Sue has devoted much time to finding the means, by which less fortunate souls might be able to quickly write off some of their mounting debts.

What could be more simple than giving up a space-cluttering vital organ. I'm sure that I recall reading that George Osbourne, Wayne Rooney, Prince Philip and numerous other public figures have also, at some time or other, been driven to selling off important parts of their bodies in order to make ends meet, so why shouldn't we too be able to access this probably-once-in-a-life-time opportunity? Thanks Sue, the 'Big Society' acknowledges your sacrifice. In absoultely no way, should this be seen as a cynical means of 'putting the concept out there', on behalf of several far darker individuals, with their inhuman vested interests half-geared-up and ready to start the harvesting.

Thanks to spike55151.

Finally- and really, what are the chances of this?- the pin came down, metaphorically writing, on Eric Pickles. My first thought was that this might be some other Eric Pickles, but no. My second thought was that I should really give someone else a chance to shine, but when I soon unearthed proof of the lengths to which this man is prepared to go, in order to help others, I simply felt compelled to give my own personal thanks, in the form of this congratulatory passage, to this 'selfless paragon of virtue'.

Thanks to Ollie Crafoord.

Eric Pickles, it has to be written, has fought tirelessly on behalf of nearly 620,000 British citizens, of which I am almost certain he cannot be one. Incredibly, this is almost 1% of the whole country. Well done David Scholey,  Sue Rabbitt Roff and Sophie Dahl, but please step aside and marvel at the efforts of dear Mr Pickles.

His work, thankfully at long last gathering certain admirers, is devoted entirely to ensuring that 'cash-strapped' individuals will soon be able to keep a tiny bit more of their 'hard-earned' money, thus hopefully ensuring that these  'unfortunates' may not be driven to wrapping themselves in old blankets in order to stave off the freezing winter temperatures in their own homes. It is to be hoped that this long-overdue change to our unjust tax system will also soon put a nutritious and warm meal into the deserving bellies of these forgotten souls.

I may not have fully appreciated the aspirations towards a 'Big Society' at the outset of my research, but please count me solidly in the supporting camp now. Go, Dave, go! 'Big Society', I'm your new number one fan!