Getting more for less or How do you sell a pig in a poke?

The continuing mantra from politicians and senior police officers appears to be 'more services for less money' they espouse this view at every opportunity and no journalist (not even Paxman) has ever called them on it. A simple question like "Can you explain how we get more for less" would suffice because once this thread is pulled the whole idea unravels. No money or less money is just that, it means you cannot do  what you could do when you had more money, for example why not try the 'more for less' approach at your local car dealership, that £12,000 loan you were hoping to get is not available and the bank manager has decided that you are only good for £8,000. Although you want the £12,000 car you will have to use £8,000 to purchase it, the car sales man will usher you down to the smaller cars he will not afford you the chance of a 'more for less' deal. You cannot get more for less, more importantly you can't get better public services with less cash. You cannot cut bin men and road sweepers and still expect that your refuse will be collected 2 weekly and your street sweeped. The army of night shift cleansing Dep't personnel who pour onto the streets of our major cities on a Friday and Saturday Night after the clubs close will not be there, the dayshift will start to remove the detrious from the streets leaving shoppers and commuters to trudge through the vomit, condoms and discarded fast food containers on there way to work and whilst shopping. More for less does not work it can't work once again we are being sold a pig in a poke.
Society is going to change for the worse the gap between the haves and have not is going to grow even wider and become more ingrained in our society. The coalition have been left a mess of that there is no doubt, the Big Society is a lot of nonsense as many commentators and Union spokespeople say this is shoring up the cuts in public services through voluntary work. It has disaster written all over it.

A fellow Blogger speaks of how we all have a part to play in the big society of how it is a community failure that a youth becomes criminalised or abuses drugs or alcohol, I disagree with this idea, surely individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions  at some point in their life, I believe that society should absolutely provide care and protection and guidance to people but at what stage does the states responsibility end and the individual assume control. The term community can mean any number of different things to different people, what is acceptable in one community may not be acceptable in another. Who decides who is part of a community or who is excluded? it is normally the socially excluded that are identified as needing some form of control or behavioural adjustment. Who am I as a member of my community to impose my beliefs or ideals on another, is this not what social welfare policy is intended to do? One could argue that the punitive measures built into social welfare and child protection allows for the recipient to 'shape up or ship out'.

It seems for to long people who have failed to live in a way in which society expects have been allowed to go on with their lifestyles and the blame is everyone else's, where in the past the welfare agencies were able to re establish contact and offer additional services this will no longer be the case, this is where the major change in our society will come. Watch as the crime rate soars, more people are criminalised and the Gov't tries to put the burden onto 'Big Society', that's our 'Big Society' but not in the leafy lanes of driveways of the Eton Boys who are in charge at the moment, they are talking about us not them. Lloyd George said of the welfare state. " Welfare is the ransom that property must pay in order to ensure it's continued survival"