Built To Last... Quality of Life

"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.

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

I think we need to offer some practical policies on this rather than just offer words and signing up to an ineffective treaty. We should encourage councils to get their fingers out more with regards to recycling, encourage the use of biofuel through tax incentives ect. We need to show there are more ways of encouraging people to be green than just tax tax tax.

[Ian Sider]

"LibDem-inspired Kyoto-style environmentalism."

Surely, Margaret Thatcher inspired Kyoto-style environmentalism?

"some disappointing policy changes on the greenbelt"

Last night's excellent Wilberforce Address from Caroline Spelman would seem to indicate that policy has not changed. Indeed it made clear that any decision to sacrifice the green belt would be a disaster for urban regeneration as well a rural conservation.

[Editor]

Is there a link to that address Ian?

[Daniel Lucraft]

"We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them."

What does this mean?

Does it mean that we will crack down on employers?

Or is it referring to the commonly held belief that Labour makes it financially crazy for mothers not to work, even if they don't want to, and that we think this is wrong?

So is it an attack on the right or a sop to them?

[Ted]

1 - DCs comments on BBC this morning seemed to look towards example local power networks, green fuels etc rather than just targets - though these would still be annually set.
2 - Wording needs work - current mix of environment & supporting women's choice of work &/or home isn't very obvious. Needs a better leed in about why quality of life mattters.

[Ted]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4761760.stm
Camerons green growth v rather than tell people what to do

[DavidB]

Of course the quality of life matters, this is a traditional conservative belief. As long as it doesn't mean less money, building on the greenbelt or using business as a cash cow it's fine. Green growth is very welcome.

[johnC]

'The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money.'

Easy to say if you are as affluent and privileged as those who compiled this quasi-manifesto, but for those struggling to make ends meet it just sounds patronising.

"We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives'

What a strange remark. How will David Cameron know whether my wife has decided to take a part-time job or not, how will he be able to decide if it is the right choice given the circumstances, and how will he be able to support her? Is he going to come and do the school run or the Tesco's shop ?

[Derek]

This is a sound bite, from a series of sound bites. Rather than a set of values it should be put out on a calendar - a sort of "thought for the day". The explanation is equally bland. Why a cross-party consensus? Why not set the agenda and get on with it? Will we support any choices that women make, if so ,how?

[DavidB]

"The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money." I agree with johnC, it is patronising if you're struggling, and all DC's initiatives seem to be aimed at upper middle class Lib Dems. I really dislike this Curtisland style.

[Rebel]

The defense of the Kyoto approach is hopelessly outdated. If his is so committed, why are his positions so stale and irrelevant?

[James Maskell]

This one is wrong from the start. Its completely incompatible with our already announced policies. The building on greenland policy is disgraceful and WILL lose us votes in spades, I assure Cameron. Labour can now come ot and say that the Conservatives want to concrete over Britains greenland.

Also its nice and fine to support green ideals...its a nice thing to aspire for. But if you are living on a low income, its hardly easy to do that.

Also the women comment...what does that mean and why make it a principle? It makes it seem like we never cared before Cameron came. People want action not words. Its easy to say you care about women's rights but I want to see some real pledges before I believe that line.

[PassingThru]

Still yet to realise that climate change is not an environmental issue, but an economic one.

As said, it forgets to mention the greenbelt issue, one area where i am in complete agreement with the Cameroonians.

[Richard]

"The building on greenland policy is disgraceful and WILL lose us votes in spades, I assure Cameron."

Agreed, this is nuts. The Tories are still strong in the South East. Cameron's Green Belt policy could greatly undermine that. I live in a fairly built up area and so enjoy the chance to escape into the countryside from time to time. I will find it much harder to vote Tory if I find there is less countryside for me to escape into.

[Richard]

Having said what I just did, a strong argument for infringing on the Green Belt was made by Ferdinand Mount in Mind the Gap. He argues that available land, preferably the big ugly prairie fields, should be parcelled up and sold off to those who wish to settle in the countryside. This would give some individuality to the countryside instead of the uniformity of property developers.

[Chief]

This is all very well but the shadow cabinet continues to contradict itself on 'green' policy issues.

For example, George Osborne and David Cameron talk about improving our crumbling transport infrastructure. They talk about green fuels rather than green taxes.

Yet Chris Grayling (new Tory Transport spokesman) has taken it upon himself to decide that the Tories are now sceptical about the need for expansion of aviation, and are opposed to new runway developments at Stansted.

He has also said, according to my sources, that broadly speaking the Party should support business travel but curb persoanl travel (i.e. flying on holiday!!)because of the environmental damage it causes.

Has Chris never heard of collective responsibility?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"For example, George Osborne and David Cameron talk about improving our crumbling transport infrastructure. They talk about green fuels rather than green taxes.

Yet Chris Grayling (new Tory Transport spokesman) has taken it upon himself to decide that the Tories are now sceptical about the need for expansion of aviation, and are opposed to new runway developments at Stansted."

Call me stupid, but I don't see how calling for green fuels and opposing aviation expansion are contradictory.

[Chief]

Cameron said that being green doesnt have to mean stopping people from traveling. That is very different to Grayling's view that you shouldnt fly to Prague (or wherever)for leisure purposes because it is environmentally irresponsible.

Also, George Osborne recently said that priority should be given to improving Britain's crumbling transport infrastructure. Therefore, why oppose airport expansion where there is an economic need?

The answer, I guess, is that Uttlesford District Council is currently Lib Dem run and is a target council for the Tories this year. Oh, and it is the local authority for Stansted Airport.

A potential government-in-waiting needs to be exactly that, not a NIMBY opposition.