"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.
Agree toally with this.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 01, 2006 at 17:16
Agree 100%.
Posted by: DavidB | March 01, 2006 at 18:21
Have just finished reading my Yorkshire Post.I reccomend getting hold of a copy. In opinion and analysis. There is a thoughtful article by Kieron O'Hara - "There must be no right turn for David Cameron." Towards the end, he says "changing the image of the nasty party is the essential task for now. Every time the Tebbits howl, the voters will be reassured - just as Scargill and Benn helped Blair most by complaining. But Cameron, and the people around him, will have to keep their nerve without the opinion poll ratings that kept Blair buoyant. It will be a long hard struggle, but the rule has to be: No Right Turn." Food for thought for GregL-W et al. This chap wrote After Blair, and The Referendum Roundabout comes out this week. He is a research fellow at Southampton. Its todays Post March 1st.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 01, 2006 at 21:10
The bit about "We understand the limitations of government" is contradicted by all the rest of his platform.
It's an empty slogan.
Posted by: Rebel | March 01, 2006 at 21:32
Rebel's right...if government is limited in what it can do, aspirations will remain forever unfulfiled. I dont think the public want to be told that the Conservatives have wonderful ideas for the country but cant put it in place because they are restricted...
Posted by: James Maskell | March 01, 2006 at 22:58
I prefer what Tim has written after the platform. Surely there is a way of putting more emphasis on building bigger citizens into the platform.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 02, 2006 at 00:08
The best way to help people is to get government off their backs and let them make their own decisions. Encouraging home ownership could be achieved by cutting taxes for example.
Savings for pensions could be encouraged by slowly phasing out the state pension system (no longer will people be able to fall back on the taxpayer due to their failure to plan ahead).
If we want the quality of art to improve then the government should cease funding ridiculous "modern art" projects that require no effort and could be done by anyone (but which should be distinguished from modern art that does actually involve skill and effort).
Marriage could be enouraged by removing the state-imposed financial disadvantage that marriage suffers from.
Starting a business could be encouraged by lowering taxes and making an inferno of regulations.
In short, less government = more independence and power for people to make their own choices.
Posted by: Richard | March 02, 2006 at 00:27
I agree with Richard (for once) apart from the comment "Savings for pensions could be encouraged by slowly phasing out the state pension system".
While I agree it could encourage savings for pensions it would be jumped upon and spun to "Vote Tory and lose your pension". It would be political suicide.
Nice idea - wrong time.
Posted by: Paul Bavill | March 02, 2006 at 09:38
"If we want the quality of art to improve then the government should cease funding ridiculous "modern art" projects that require no effort and could be done by anyone (but which should be distinguished from modern art that does actually involve skill and effort)."
There goes some votes from Thanet. The Turner Contemporary is a key regeneration project aiming to attract investment and create jobs in Cliftonville. Its an art gallery which would be showing modern art.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 02, 2006 at 11:09