Not quite true, Mr Robinson

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.

Comments

[Peter Franklin]

Conservative Home: Built To Last!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"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."

Hear hear. Don't worry Editor, you're not ploughing a lone furrow on this one!

[Tory T]

If we're in the business of giving credit where credit's due then Iain Duncan Smith should give a few name checks to the man who gave him the whole Helping the Vulnerable idea - Dominic Cummings.

[Rob G]

Editor: I was a supporter but not a member of the Party while IDS was leader. I have always taken a close interest in politics but, at the time, I don't recall reading or hearing anything that showed that IDS was interested in social justice. Indeed it came as a real surprise--a very welcome surprise--to discover the CSJ about a year ago. That was one of the key factors that convinced me that I could actually become a member.

I am sorry that IDS (and you) didn't get the publicity or the credit he (both of you) deserved at the time. But at least the show is now firmly on the road. Thanks!

[malcolm]

Bing cynical about the Conservative Party is standard fare from Nick Assinder.I was disappointed with Robinson however.I think he is starting to go native!

[Ted]

The IDS quotes are why I am amazed at the response to Cameron's Built to Last statement on the other thread - it sounds just like the party I re-joined.

Perhaps the briefing before DCs win about 25% strategy & recent talk of looking for Clause 4 has infected those who opposed him and the media with "Clause4itis". Perhaps some excitable cameroonies are stoking it.

DC is re-stating in different tone & language and with different emphasis the principles of belief in the individual and social responsibility that IDS has, that Hague has, that Major has and Mrs Thatcher has. He might emphasise our social responsibilities and the governments role more than Mrs T would but principle is the same.

It's the policies that should be of concern to DCs followers and those members not sure about him. Thats when we may see more of a Clause 4 but I hope not.

[Victoria Street]

I think, esteemed editor, this just proves the maxim that it is only when a politician is utterly sick of repeating himself on a subject that the public starts to hear it.

[Rob Largan]

"I don't recall reading or hearing anything that showed that IDS was interested in social justice."

I think this once again illustrates my concern that social justice, for whatever reason is largely played down by the media. It is a very important idea, but for some reason the media chooses to largely ignore it. Cameron's speech on social justice a while back recieved very little coverage, why is this?

This idea deserves far more coverage than it is currently getting.

[wrong and wrong again]

Forget IDS. Nick Robinson has become a cheerleader for Cameron's leadership. Faithfully pinning their line on the Tories' not promising tax cuts in 1979 (wrong) and Liam Fox being well "looked after" in the cabinet reshuffle (wrong again). What price objective journalism?

[wrong and wrong again]

spinning, that is...

[Jaz]

One thing really bugs me about right-wingers and tax cuts. Cameron cannot promise tax cuts due to inaccurate planning 4 years in advance, but what he has said is a commitment to reduce the % national income used by the state. - Which is usually done by reducing spending.

Whats worse is that tax-cuts will not be for rich people like the majority of us...Income tax cuts would only go to low-income earners. But frankly... Its better to stick with business rate cuts which is what Cameron is likely to do...

So in the end... The tax cuts is a non-issue, he has a great difficulty where people believe that a) tax cuts may deliver instability (which can happen) b) tax cuts means cuts in public service spending (which is also usually the case).

Can you blame him for avoiding tax cuts after the total mess relatively low investment in some sectors by the Thatcher and Major governments?

[Rob Largan]

Jaz, you are completely buying into the Labour spin.

"people believe that a) tax cuts may deliver instability"

So Cameron is doing nothing to change this, his statement is effectively saying tax cuts cause instability. This short sighted gain of electoral trust, is damaging the long term success of our movement.

"Whats worse is that tax-cuts will not be for rich people like the majority of us...Income tax cuts would only go to low-income earners"

This is a very curious complaint, hardly compassionate conservatism, a tax cut aimed at those of lower income indirectly benefits the entire economy.

"But frankly... Its better to stick with business rate cuts which is what Cameron is likely to do..."

Why would that improve our electoral standing and trust with the electorate?

"Cameron cannot promise tax cuts due to inaccurate planning 4 years in advance"

That doesnt stop him making the case the lower taxes, which he has so far failed to do, and has with his stability statement undermined the case for lower taxes.

[James Hellyer]

but what he has said is a commitment to reduce the % national income used by the state

Has he? Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the "sharing the proceeds of growth" formulation could mean anything from tax increases to tax cuts. Personally I see little difference between it and Oliver Letwin's old pledge to grow public spending more slowly than Labour.

"Slower tax rises", what an inspirational slogan...

[Jaz]

Rob, I want income tax cuts for the lower end..But it simply isn't going to happen.

Why would that improve our electoral standing and trust with the electorate?

It makes sense that if he want a dynamic economy to beat some of the growing competition from developing countries, business' taxation must be lowered to the same extent. People understand this..its a simply concept which will work easily with the electorate.

What doesn't work with the electorate are blind promises of tax cuts, its annoying. I think the public have got he message that the Tories will cut tax during its time in government. So banging on about tax cuts again leads them to the same possibility...drastic cuts in public services.

Labour can use whatever economics they want.. They have proved to be excellent managers on a whole for the economy, inflation is within target, unemployment is low and we've had stability and growth since 1992. Who are people more inclined to believe on the issues of the economy and taxation? David Cameron or the Iron Chancellor Mr.Brown?

[Jaz]

James, Cameron said on todays BBC Breakfast that increases of the states share of national income shouldn't continue;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[Jaz]

Err bad link.. Sorry.

[Selsdon Man]

I posted this on the wrong thread earlier.

Only a few months ago we were being told that a members' ballot was too expensive for a leadership election (it actually made profit). We supposedly lacked the knowledge to make an informed choice, i.e. we could not be trusted after picking IDS over Clarke.

Now we are to balloted on a short vision and aims document. Chairman Maude now thinks that MPs cannot be trusted to decide on such an important strategic matter. How times change!

LOL!

[Derek]

I have serious doubts whether the ordinary voters are going to get excited about a set of very general principles. When we debate them, I cannot see many changes being made, unless we can add to them; in which case I would add to (5) on making poverty history - that we should not give aid directly to corrupt regimes. Further, we should seek to recover money that has been misappropriated by corrupt leaders.

[PassingThru]

ending world poverty, beating global warming...not ideologues. righto.

*takes drill to head*

the capitulation continues. Nothing to debate here. We'll tax ourselves out of climate change. That'll work. Meanwhile, the Chinese have other ideas.

As said before, the whole thing, be it tax cuts, or whatever else, reeks of avoiding any sort of confrontation with liberals and just reinforces the publics liberal view the conservatives are dumb and have little to bring to a debate. A good leader surely should not be able to convince people that they are right, but that they are wrong.

[James Hellyer]

James, Cameron said on todays BBC Breakfast that increases of the states share of national income shouldn't continue

That is not a pledge to reduce the share of national income taken by the state.

[Paul Bavill]

"Labour can use whatever economics they want.. They have proved to be excellent managers on a whole for the economy, inflation is within target, unemployment is low and we've had stability and growth since 1992"

They have nothing to do with the interest rate, uemployment is as low as it was in 1997 but the number of IB claimants has dramatically increased, and while we have growth it is lower than it was before.

[Mike Christie]

And to add to Paul Bavill's comments...

Inflation is only so low because of all the things that aren't counted. Runaway house price inflation, council tax and all sorts of other things.

Tell me how inflation can only be 2-2.5% when house prices are going through the roof, petrol has gone up 50% or so in price in the space of a few years, gas bills are going up in double-digit percentages, council tax bills are rising by huge amounts in parts of the country, and on and on.

[Mike Christie]

Damn... just realised I've resurrected a 6-month old thread after following a link! Sorry!!