'Big government' is often attacked as political rhetoric. In the abstract, we all like to be agin it.
Yet, on every specific issue, from child protection to the collapse of the banks, most of the public calls are very often for government to do more.
Especially when it snows.
I would suppose that a 'big government' approach to heavy snowfall would place a good deal of emphasis on local Councils as having the taxpayer-financed responsibility for clearing the roads, and letting business and life carry on as far as possible, and paying particular attention to vital emergency services.
Mightn't a 'social responsibility' approach suggest we should rally around and sort it out for ourselves?
So you wouldn't expect local candidates and councillors whose political parties rail against big government to be pushing for more to be done on the side roads and pavements, though this seems to have been a common theme from local Labour, LibDem and Tory and non-partisan voices.
Similarly, at a national level, the severity of sustained conditions have led to worries about a grit shortage. The Conservative opposition is among those calling for more planning, to try to ensure resources are available and are rationally distributed, reflected in the Cabinet Office-led civil contingencies approach to looking at where salt needs to go most.
A similar instinct has been shown in Tory concerns over gas supplies and energy security.
It would be strange if a bit of bad weather were to trump the laissez-faire instincts of the libertarians.
So I am sure Hannanites of the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Taxpayers Alliance will shortly point out how all of these problems are caused, yet again, by too much regulation rather than too little. (Though we seem to hear so much less about Iceland from them these days).
Still, don't forget that big government is always the route of all of our problems.
Except when it isn't