CCHQ has sent ConservativeHome the breakdown of how people voted in the Built to Last referendum. 65,889 people voted in total....
The CCHQ ballot paper suggested that a text vote would cost £1.50 and a phone vote about £1.20.
Team Cameron have chosen an odd day to announce the results of the Built to Last referendum. Given the fanfare with which it was launched in January the BtL result will hardly be noticed given today's LibDem vote on tax.
As recorded in this earlier post, 92.7% of participants in the Built to Last ballot have endorsed David Cameron's new statement of values. But it will be the poor turnout that will attract attention. ConservativeHome predicted a poor turnout and a 90%+ endorsement... and both have happened. The turnout was just 26.7%. The party hoped to use text voting and a premium phone service to encourage participation but with little success.
See here.
11.30am update: This has been issued by CCHQ...
"The Conservative Party has today announced the result of the ballot of Party members on the Built to Last statement of Aims and Values. There was resounding support for the document with 92.7 percent in favour and 7.3 percent opposed to Built to Last.
Responding to the result, David Cameron said:
"The Conservative Party has today announced the result of the ballot of Party members on the Built to Last statement of Aims and Values. There was resounding support for the document with 92.7 percent in favour and 7.3 percent opposed to Built to Last."
“Today’s result confirms that the Party has changed. It shows that Conservatives support the vital changes that we have made over the last nine months. Those changes are clear. For example, we will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility ahead of promises to cut taxes. Protecting the environment and tackling climate change will be given equal prominence to public services and the economy. We will improve public services for all, rather than promote opt outs for a few. The test for all our policies will be how they help the most disadvantaged in society. We will take action so that our Party reflects Britain as it is today, not Britain as it was. Ours is a message of change, optimism and hope. Our aims and values are as relevant now as they have ever been and this vote demonstrates that they are built to last."Notes to editors
(1) The full results are as follows:
Yes 60,859 (92.7%)
No 4,787 (7.3%)
Blank 193
Spoilt 23
Rejected 27 (e.g. tendered ballots rejected)
Turnout 26.7%(2) These results mean that 24.6 per cent of the total membership voted in favour of Built to Last and 1.9 per cent voted against.
(3) In a comparable ballot on the Conservative Party pre-manifesto, Believing in Britain, was held in 2000. The result was announced on 2 October 2000. 50,508 people, or 16.7 per cent of the membership, voted in the ballot.
98.8 per cent of those who took part supported Believing in Britain; 576 members voted against, meaning 16.5 per cent of the total membership voted in favour."
The party leadership appears to have genuinely listened during the Built to Last roadshows and the Built to Last document has been amended as a result (new document here). There's now mention of more "streaming and setting" in schools, the creation of a "unified border police", the appointment of a homeland security minister, a British Bill of Rights and a promise to scrap Labour's ID card scheme and regional assemblies. These amendments are welcome and I shall certainly vote for B2L when I get the chance. I expect the vote will be 90%+ in favour but on a very low turnout.
The two big disappointments in Built to Last come in what is missing: an adequate section on immigration and a commitment to reduce tax.
Michael Brown - writing in today's Independent - fears that the timidity on tax is politically dangerous:
"The tax cuts question remains the rock on which Mr Cameron's leadership will be judged, and by more than just right-wingers. Several Tories have pointed out that the gains in the May elections, especially in London, were greatest where Tories promised to cut council spending and reduce council tax. Why, they ask, if the formula is so successfully locally, is it deemed so unappealing by Mr Cameron's focus groups nationally? Bromley was a classic example. In May the Tories stormed to victory in the town hall, but the more equivocal message, during the parliamentary by election a month later, led to a meltdown in the Tory majority."
Continue reading "Built to Last has two big holes - tax and immigration" »
The revised version of the Party's statement of beliefs, Built to Last, has been released today.
This newer and larger version (see the original version) reflects the most common criticisms raised by Party members in the consultation process. This process included a "roadshow" and a Platform article, the lessons from it are summarised in this document.
The ballot of Party members is still going ahead but, as ConservativeHome looked at in June, there are different methods of voting - which should cut down on costs. Every member will receive two unique numbers which they can use to identify themselves when voting by either telephone, text, internet or post.
Speaking on Breakfast this morning, David Cameron emphasised the process had been about listening to and working with the Party membership, saying that he didn't believe in handing "tablets of stone" down to the members. He also told the Today programme that Built to Last gave the Party a "sense of direction".
We will provide analysis of the document's content in the near future, in the meantime this part of DC's Foreword is worth highlighting:
"A revolution in personal responsibility – giving every individual the
skills, the resources, and the confidence to take control of their life.A revolution in professional responsibility – giving all those who
work in our public services the freedom to fulfil their vocation.A revolution in civic responsibility – giving our neighbourhoods
and communities the power to shape their destinies, fight crime and improve the quality of life.A revolution in corporate responsibility – giving business the
encouragement and the incentive to help enhance our environment
and improve well-being.That is the mission of the modern Conservative Party: a
responsibility revolution to create an opportunity society – a society
in which everybody is a somebody, a doer not a done-for.
Deputy Editor
9pm update: Newsnight are asking: Is David Cameron Built To Last?
The Party referendum on Built to Last is likely to still be going ahead, but it might not be quite the unnecessary drain on resources it might have been.
I questioned George Osborne on the issue after last night's Built to Last consultation in Manchester. He said "a promise was a promise" regarding whether it would go ahead, but came back to me to add that it "doesn't necessarily have to be a paper referendum" - that there were other ways of doing it.
Most objections to Built to Last's content in Manchester were semantic or about priorities rather than trenchant, ideological criticism - they were considered to be a little vague but generally agreeable. 86% of party members in March's ConservativeHome survey said that they wouldn't mind the principles espoused in the first draft of B2L being incorporated into the next Party manifesto. In analysing these results at the time ConHome believed that the only profitable use of a ballot would be if it provided different options to be voted on - but now that its "work in progress" status has been further emphasised even that reason is diluted. If it is truly open to being moulded around the views of the party members then why then get them to vote on what they have amended?
The huge cost of "a paper referendum" - mail-shotting 250-300 thousand members - could be better spent on a couple of target-seat election campaigns, or on funding London's open primary for a mayoral candidate.
The second Built to Last consultation was held in the Lowry Centre, Salford Quays – a part of Manchester that has developed hugely from the seeds that the last Conservative government sowed. George Osborne (who was having a busy day and has a safe seat in
Osborne started encouragingly by emphasising B2L is still a “work in progress”. He framed its purpose in the aftermath of the last election, when our share of the vote fell in the North-West, saying it was about changing the public perception of us. The perceived change in the Conservative Party has been too focused on the new party leader, whose leadership campaign he ran, and not the party membership, he said. He went on to press the point that we shouldn’t see the best days for
“We will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility first. They must come before tax cuts”
This excerpt from the first B2L statement, A successful Britain must be able to compete with the world was debated for a while. One gentleman was particularly angry about the lack of emphasis on tax cuts, but on the whole people had points on the minutiae. This was Osborne’s media topic of the day so he was fairly solid in his answers. Talk of the importance of changing perceptions doesn’t directly justify creating an automatic distinction between tax cuts and economic stability/fiscal responsibility, however. The wording certainly needs tweaking, and I would suggest referring to “tax relief” rather than using Labour’s lexicon of “cuts”, with its negative connotations.
Continue reading "The Built to Last roadshow comes to Manchester" »
Malcolm Dunn, regular ConservativeHome contributor, reflects on last night's 'Built To Last' roadshow event.
Last night around 100 Conservative party workers, activists and CH bloggers gathered in a compact little venue in Hammersmith for the first of what I understand will be a number of debates around the Built To Last statement of values and principles. David Cameron was there to both explain the reasons for BtL and take questions from the audience.
He began by explaining why he feels it is essential that the public is made aware of this statement and that the party both understands and accepts it. He made particular reference to those points which dealt with economic competitiveness, economic stability, the need to be representative of a modern Britain and finally the environment.
Continue reading "Malcolm Dunn: The Built To Last roadshow starts rolling" »
ConservativeHome has twenty tickets for a special event in Hammersmith at 6.30pm this Wednesday night.
The event - to be co-hosted with ConservativeHome and to be attended by David Cameron - will be a discussion of the Conservative Party's Built To Last document (the new statement of Conservative principles and values).
It will be open to the media.
If you would like to attend and raise questions about the selection of representative candidates, how our public services are run and economic stability versus tax cuts please email tim@conservativehome.com.
"8. We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away.
We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation - whether to Brussels, Whitehall or unwanted regional assemblies - and we want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales work. Communities should have more say over their own futures."
Again, this is all very solid stuff - although, like everything else, harder to do than say.
Europe is deliberately downplayed in the statement but if Conservatives can't start to repatriate powers from Brussels then the rhetoric on decentralisation rings a bit hollow. Eurosceptics must ensure they get something more fundamental than a welcome exit from the EPP.
Where David Cameron's localisation agenda is particularly strong is in the willingness to devolve to below local government - to really grassroots organisations in the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
THIS SERIES HAS NOW ENDED... A POST TOMORROW WILL REVIEW OUR DISCUSSIONS AND IDENTIFY THE FEW AREAS THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF 'BUILT TO LAST' HAVE NEGLECTED.
"7. We understand the limitations of government, but are not limited in our aspirations for government.
We believe in the role of government as a force for good. It can and should support aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business. It should support families and marriage, and those who care for others. And it should support the shared experiences that bring us together - such as sport, the arts and culture."
I think this is one of the best written and most important of the principles. The British people don't dislike government - they dislike ineffective government. Conservatives should be on the side of good government - particularly insofar as it encourages personal responsibility and Margaret Thatcher's vigorous virtues. A government that supports "aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business... families and marriage... and those who care for others" will actually, in the long-term, produce smaller government as it is building bigger citizens.
The shop window emphasis of this principle is rightly on good government - not its size.
"6. Security and freedom must go hand in hand.
In fighting crime and terrorism, we will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security. We will ensure strong defence and the effective enforcement of laws that balance liberty and safety - instead of ineffective authoritarianism which puts both freedom and security at risk."
This is all very well again but Conservatives do need to give more emphasis to the security concerns of the British people. Labour think they are on to a winner in this whole area. Again and again every poll shows that the British people want homeland security taken seriously and they support most of Labour's security measures. Conservatives can't just oppose Labour's "ineffective authoritarianism" - our home office team must actively propose our own security measures.
"5. It is our moral obligation to make poverty history.
We will fight for free and fair trade, increase international aid, and press for further debt relief. But this is not enough. We will also take action to build those institutions - like the rule of law and property rights - that support development."
Rank-and-file Conservative members have always given time and money to overseas causes but Tory politicians have traditionally approached the issue in a tick box kind of way. David Cameron has made development one of his top six policy priorities and that is enormously welcome.
I hope we'll soon see Mr Cameron in Africa... visiting projects that exemplify a distinctively Conservative approach to development - projects that emphasise civil society, economic empowerment and the huge role that micro-lending can play.
I also hope that we'll see more attention to issues like Darfur. David Cameron talked a lot about this massive human tragedy during his leadership bit but we haven't heard much since. This principle could do with an addition to reflect Darfur-like, human rights concerns. 'Conservatives will never turn a blind eye to oppression in any part of the world and will champion the spread of democracy, religious liberty and human rights." Any ideas on some wording...?
"4. Public services for everyone must be guaranteed by the state, not necessarily run by the state.
We will improve the NHS and schools for everyone, not help a few to opt out. But public services paid for by the state don't have to be run by the state. We will trust professionals and share responsibility - instead of controlling professionals in state monopolies."
Conservatives do need to reassure people that we believe in public services that are free at the point of use but the opposition to 'opt-outs' is disappointing. The importance of opt-out policies lies in the impact they have on the whole standard of provision. If a service provider knows that pupils or patients can go elsewhere - and that that could affect their budgets - there is a tangible incentive to improve the service for everyone.
Where the party has been excellent is the way in which David Cameron and David Willetts have handled the Education Bill. They haven't played Punch & Judy politics with the Bill and have decided that 'something for parents' is better than nothing. That is why Tories will vote with Blair and against Labour's dinosaur backbenchers. David Willetts yesterday, justifying the decision:
"It will now be easier to create new schools outside the control of Local Authorities. We need that extra diversity to improve the quality of education for all our children. Schools that take up Trust status will have power over their own admissions, to own their own assets and employ their own staff. Those are crucial freedoms, which we support. We also welcome the other measures to strengthen school discipline, to tackle failing schools, and to improve the standard of school food... Tony Blair said Labour was at its best when at its boldest. This Bill would have been better if it had been bolder. We were promised radical reform, but the Government daren't even put the term 'Trust Schools' into the Bill for fear of its own backbenchers. It is a long way from the boldness of the original rhetoric."
THE SERIES OF 'BUILT TO LAST' POSTS WILL NOW BREAK FOR PMQs AND RESTART AT 3PM.
"3. The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money.
We will enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change - instead of short-term thinking and surrender to vested interests. We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them."
Difficult to disagree with these words although they hide some disappointing policy changes on the greenbelt and a lot of LibDem-inspired Kyoto-style environmentalism.
The basic idea behind the principle - that Tories are more than the party of pounds, shillings and pence - is very welcome, however.
"2. There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.
The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich. We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness."
I love this statement. It's fundamentally conservative. One of the biggest differences between the Labour and Conservative worldview is that we think the most important caring work is undertaken by the 3D and free institutions of civil society - particularly the family but also local charities, faith communities and networks of friendship. Labour puts all its eggs in the feed-and-forget welfare state basket.
My only suggestion of an amendment would be some reference to David Cameron's nation of the second chance. A commitment to help people get back on their feet is another contrast with the "decommissioned Scotland" that David Cameron described in his 'second chance' speech:
"In recent decades, health, education and other public services have also been more generously funded north of the border than in the rest of Britain. Therefore, if Labour's anti-poverty strategy is working anywhere, it should be working in Scotland. Earlier this month, however, The Scotsman published research which lays bare Labour's failure. The hundred most deprived postcode areas were dubbed 'Third Scotland' because of their Third World level of life outcomes. If this sounds exaggerated, look at life expectancy. In Third Scotland, average male life expectancy is only 64 years - lower than in Bosnia, the Gaza Strip, Iran or even North Korea. Shockingly, this trend is actually getting worse. Worklessness is also endemic in Third Scotland. In Calton, in the east-end of Glasgow, 57% of adults do not work at all, even though only 8% are classed as unemployed. Here, two out of every five adults claim incapacity benefit. In Hamiltonhill, 61 per cent of children live in workless households. And this is true for 58 per cent in Drumchapel. Throughout Britain, 2.7 million are claiming incapacity benefit which offers guaranteed payouts for life. Together with the associated benefits, this can pay more than an uncertain life of work on the minimum wage. For others, the skull-splitting complexity of the tax credit system and the proliferation of means testing has debased the very principle of work... Labour is creating a new class of decommissioned people. Individuals who should have been guided on to paths out of poverty have instead been shunted into life's sidings."
Throughout today - on every hour from now on (with some kind of interlude for PMQs) - ConservativeHome will be taking a quick look at each of the main principles of 'Built To Last'. I've been in email contact with Steve Hilton, David Cameron's key adviser, this morning and the principles are open to amendment. Sometime after today's discussions I'll submit a report to Steve and Francis Maude on the range of changes we all would like made. We will also test the party's initial proposals and our amendments through the ConservativeHome Members' Panel (click here if you haven't yet voted in the latest survey - today is the last day for your vote to be registered).
THE ECONOMY
The first 'Built to Last' principle focuses on the economy:
"1. A successful Britain must be able to compete with the world.
We will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility first. They must come before tax cuts. Over time, we will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes - instead of letting government spend an ever-increasing share of national income."
This is the only principle I really take exception to (I'll be more positive for the rest of the day). George Osborne was in Ireland last week to celebrate that country's economic success. But the key lesson of Ireland is that they didn't achieve economic stability and then cut taxes. They cut taxes and that got them to economic stability. Taxes created the growth that avoids the instability and factionalism of a zero-sum economy. David Cameron and George Osborne have been 100% right to say that tax must not be the Conservatives' only economic weapon (and John Redwood has made some interesting noises on what this wider competitiveness agenda might involve) but I hate to think that the 'stability versus tax relief' false choice might be enshrined in our party's constitution.
I'm also with the Taxpayers' Alliance on the popularity of tax cuts. This was on the TA blog yesterday:
"We believe that the reason the Party has failed to make an effective case for lower taxes because they have pushed the wrong messages and we think that the Party should have made an adapted case in terms of how lower taxes can help ordinary people in their everyday lives (as the Daily Express has recently done in their campaign against inheritance tax)."
Conservatives should be using the whole parliament to make the case for economy-boosting tax relief - as David Davis proposed in the highlight of his leadership bid. That isn't going to happen but let's not box ourselves into the Labour way of thinking about tax.
I think we should be thinking about adding a sentence on the ingredients for a growing economy... so that we have "proceeds" to share.
NOON ADDITION: This transcript of Andrew Haldenby's Today programme interview makes good reading. Andrew, of the Reform think tank, puts the 'tax cut versus stability' false choice in the context of public service reform and monetary stability.
David Cameron will talk about 'Built To Last' at a party event at Vinopolis tonight. You can read a pdf of the full text
now. This is my favourite part of the speech:
"Labour don’t think for the long term. They think that announcing government schemes, setting up quangos and passing laws is the way to solve problems. Gimmicks such as night courts, rewarding young people with music vouchers, and marching yobs to cashpoints. None of them got off the ground. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the state keeps getting bigger and bigger but the long-term challenges are just not being tackled.
We can meet these challenges. Our enduring values are right for our time and right for the challenges we face. So it falls to our Party to meet the challenges of a dynamic economy, a strong society and a sustainable environment. We know we have the right values. We believe that the more you trust people, the stronger they and society become. We believe in sharing responsibility; that government doesn’t have all the answers; that we’re all in this together – individuals, families, business, voluntary organisations and social enterprises, business and government. Above all, we think for the long term. We’ve been around for a while. The long–term is in our blood."
"The long-term is in our blood". What a great thing for a Conservative to say. Protecting the environment, raising the next generation and restoring the competitiveness of the British economy are all great Conservative projects and all take time to deliver. All a real contrast with the shallow grandstanding of Tony Blair.
All we now need from Mr Cameron are the policies to deliver long-term change...
BBC Online are having a little bit of fun with the title of David Cameron's 'Built To Last' values statement (download a PDF copy of it here). Here's Nick Assinder:
"So this is supposed to be David Cameron's Clause Four moment - when, like Tony Blair before him, he buries the party's election-losing past and moves into a brave new era. Well, perhaps. But let's not forget we have sort of been here before. William Hague had his "common sense" agenda with a document setting out what his Tory party was really all about. He also called it "compassionate Conservatism" by the way. There was Iain Duncan Smith's "fair deal for everyone". More recently, Michael Howard had his full page "I Believe" newspaper advertisements in which he set out what his Tory party was all about. Now Mr Cameron has his "Built to Last" statement that, er, sets out what his Tory party is really all about."
Slightly less cynical but less accurate is the Corporation's Nick Robinson. He has been writing about the document on his blog:
"For the Tories to sign up to a "moral obligation" to end world poverty; to building a consensus to tackle global warming; to testing their policies against what they do for the most disadvantaged, or to celebrating the role of government can play as a force for good is, to say the least, historically intriguing."
Mr Robinson went further on last night's Newsnight and on Today this morning. He suggested that it was impossible to imagine any of the last three Tory leaders saying the kind of stuff that appears in Built To Last. Not quite, Mr Robinson. Much of the material is very close to that spoken or written by IDS. Here are the most obvious things...
'Built To Last': "There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state."
IDS actually launched a book entitled There Is Such A Thing As Society in September 2002. It contained essays - all by Conservatives - on localisation, the importance of the family, standing up to big business, redistribution, a bigger role for the voluntary sector, drug rehabilitation and third world development. In many ways it offers something much closer to the Cameron agenda than the much better known Blue Tomorrow tome.
'Built To Last': "The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich."
IDS at last October's Conservative Party conference: "If a Conservative policy doesn't help the most vulnerable people in Britain it shouldn't be a Conservative policy."
'Built To Last': "[Government] can and should support aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business. It should support families and marriage, and those who care for others."
IDS: "Government should support the aspiration to marry - because healthy marriages are good for children and good for society as a whole. This is not about preaching to people about how they should lead their lives. But about what works. Government does, after all, support other socially constructive ambitions like the ambition to learn, to save or to start a business."
'Built To Last': "We’re all in this together – government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals. We have a shared responsibility for our shared future."
IDS: "We are to preserve the natural environment for future generations. Government must play its full part - knowing when to act itself and knowing when to stand back so people can step forward. Building the common good is not just or primarily the role of government. It is the responsibility of us all."
I could go on and on... I really could! But my point is made. I'm transparently biased as I still work with Iain at the Centre for Social Justice but his trailblazing for David Cameron has been greatly under-acknowledged.
***
FROM 9AM TOMORROW AND ON THE HOUR, EVERY HOUR, I'LL BE POSTING BRIEF REACTIONS TO EACH MAIN SECTION OF 'BUILT TO LAST'. IT'LL BE A CHANCE TO EXAMINE SOME OF THE VALUES IN MORE DEPTH THAN HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON THE "WE BELIEVE..." THREAD.
This has been released from CCHQ this evening...
"David Cameron, at a Party event tomorrow evening, will set out the case for change and the principles and purpose for modern compassionate Conservatism. He will outline the aims and values of the Party, and he will make it clear what the Conservatives are fighting for in a statement of values. He will also propose that the Party debate the document, and then adopt a final version of the statement by putting it to a ballot of the entire membership.
Our aims
To improve the quality of life for everyone through:
A dynamic economy, where thriving businesses create jobs, wealth and opportunity.
A strong society, where our families, our communities and our nation create secure foundations on which people can build their lives.
A sustainable environment, where we enhance the beauty of our surroundings and protect the future of the planet.
Our values
The more we trust people, the stronger they and society become.
We’re all in this together – government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals. We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.
Our Party
We are an open and inclusive Party. We will act to ensure that our Party, at every level, is representative of modern Britain.
What we’re fighting for
1. A successful Britain must be able to compete with the world.
We will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility first. They must come before tax cuts.
Over time, we will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes - instead of letting government spend an ever-increasing share of national income.
2. There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.
The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich. We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness.
3. The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money.
We will enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change - instead of short-term thinking and surrender to vested interests. We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them.
4. Public services for everyone must be guaranteed by the state, not necessarily run by the state.
We will improve the NHS and schools for everyone, not help a few to opt out. But public services paid for by the state don't have to be run by the state. We will trust professionals and share responsibility - instead of controlling professionals in state monopolies.
5. It is our moral obligation to make poverty history.
We will fight for free and fair trade, increase international aid, and press for further debt relief. But this is not enough. We will also take action to build those institutions - like the rule of law and property rights - that support development.
6. Security and freedom must go hand in hand.
In fighting crime and terrorism, we will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security. We will ensure strong defence and the effective enforcement of laws that balance liberty and safety - instead of ineffective authoritarianism which puts both freedom and security at risk.
7. We understand the limitations of government, but are not limited in our aspirations for government.
We believe in the role of government as a force for good. It can and should support aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business. It should support families and marriage, and those who care for others. And it should support the shared experiences that bring us together - such as sport, the arts and culture.
8. We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away.
We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation - whether to Brussels, Whitehall or unwanted regional assemblies - and we want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales work. Communities should have more say over their own futures.
Recent Comments