Balls, bikes and Big Society

Those familiar with the gentlemanly warfare of croquet - that will be Dave, Nick, George and myself - will recognise the concept of the double target. A double target is when the opposition leave their balls so close together that one is bound to hit one of them on the next shot. The news this morning that the coalition proposes to offer incentives for people in areas of high unemployment to move to areas where jobs are more likely to be created (that would be China or India then?) is at least a double target! The obvious comment is that we are back to the Tebbit tactic of the 1980s telling the plebs to "get on their bikes". The less obvious one is to ask how this coheres with the concept of the Big Society, as it is so clearly damaging to communities, social capital etc. Note that the minister in DCLG tasked with the Big Society agenda is a Lib Dem - no surprise there then!
So, a few shots at the target...........
If they have so much money to slosh around that they can afford to do this, why 25% cuts in public services?
Wouldn't the money be better spent trying to create jobs and employment?
Isn't this a tacit admission that certain areas of the country are going to become jobless no-go areas, despite what the budget claims about help for the disadvantaged regions?
Isn't this a return to the Washington consensus, neo-liberal argument about the need for labour market flexibility in the globalised economy?
How are numbers of people moving down to the south east going to be accommodated now they are allowing local areas to revise (i.e slash) the housing targets?
Sorry - this was meant to be a double target, not a duck shoot! But we do seem to be in the realms of a Monty Python approach to politics (and economics!).
So the real concern (!) should be the impact of such a policy on the Big Society..........
What will this do to already "left behind" communities, to remove from them the income generators - the old and the very young will remain, unsupported and without the capacity to function as, what are they called, mini-battalions, cosseted cohorts, of civil society?
Where is the logic or the coherence in this?
One cannot help but wonder whether the coalition is taking this job seriously, and, if they are, can they be taking "us" seriously, if they keep coming up with inept policies such as this!
Come on guys, step up and play the game at least!