Built to Last: the sequel

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?

Comments

[Daniel Lucraft]

There's good stuff on the constitution in there, but why are there so few proposals on security/foreign issues? Given his speech the other day I would have hoped to see something stronger.

Also, the public services section is a bit weak compared to other sections. It seems a little too obvious that there are few ideas there yet.

[MH]

As weak as the original. Yet more reasons for true Conservative voters to stay at home.

[Mark Fulford]

It's slightly too politico - most target readers won't know the meaning of West Lothian Question or "DfID" without consulting Google.

Apart from that, I approve of the balance found between criticising public services and supporting civil servants. I particularly liked "giving all those who
work in our public services the freedom to fulfil their vocation". That will certainly strike a chord with the several very talented and dedicated civil servants that I sail with.

[Jon Gale]

Looks good, a solid framework for a manifesto.

[Jamesw]

But will it be trotted out as so called proof that the a-list has support from the grass roots? I am concerned that it will and so until i am assured otherwise cannot support it.

[Tom]

More proof of the leftist conspiracy at the BBC. There's a link to the BTL pdf on the bbc website, but when you click on it you get the error 'File not found'.

[william]

I like 'enterprise' coming first especially as an emphasis on 'enterprise' is what I recommended to Jesse Norman in June. Have to put in the occasional claim, you know.
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2006/07/compassionate-conservatism-mission.html

The fiscal debate was current then, and the need to dodge hostile questioning about tax cuts.

Now people seem to be more relaxed about the tax issue, BTL is stating what economic growth is all about, as well as social justice and quality of life - the enterprise of individuals and organisations.

Brilliant improvement (though I say it myself!).

[Richard]

"Apart from that, I approve of the balance found between criticising public services and supporting civil servants."

Indeed, although there should perhaps have been a distinction between useful civil servants and the Guardian non-job brigade of outreach workers, broom inspection officers and other usless public servants.

[Bill Cranthorpe]

Oi! ConHome - wake up. Get over to Guido's site. A poster on this website (Inigo) has been suspended from his job (with Orange) following a complaint about supposed 'Islamaphobia' by the fascist Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

What are we doing to help him? A boycott of Orange by Tories should be organised. If they want to pander to terrorists and their apologists we shouldn't give them our custom.

Give us a Tory Diary thread on this, please.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Deregulation? There have been a succession of initiatives from the Conservatives when in government and promises when out of government to deliver deregulation. Nothing has ever materialised. With a few honourable exceptions, the Conservative MEPs believe in "better regulation" rather than "deregulation". Remaining a member of the EU is hardly a good way of delivering deregulation. In fact, quitting is a necessity if you genuinely want deregulation. I write as always from the heart of Brussels!

[TomTom]

Why don't they get original and demand that every aircraft passing through the United Kingdom airspace goes through a full Customs check as in the USA.

Lockerbie was the terminus of a Frankfurt-New York flight which touched down in London, but had already imported the bomb by the time friends of mine went through the security gates at Heathrow...............

[Ted]

Bill,

O/T but agree that Deputy Editor should put up something on Inigo Jones's suspension.

If you look at comments to his jokey piece on Lefty language it gets pretty ugly with accusations of racism & islamaphobia from certain posters (not regulars) towards the end.

This action bears out the misuse of language and the humourless attacks on any critisism of Islam and any muslim nations.

Orange's original statements that it was not their business and that as he had not identified himself with the company had a perfect right to express his lawful opinions was the right approach. To react further brings more publicity but presumably Corporations are so fearful after the Danish cartoons and such that they appease rather than defend.

As it was a piece on this platform I think ConHome should take notice.

[Ted]

Inigo JONES - sorry Inigo Wilson

[RodS]

Built to last - more Motherhood and Apple Pie.

Where's the Beef.

Where are lower taxes - because that is the only way to get smaller government.

Where is Immigation - because sheer numbers are going to overwhelm support services and create social division.

Where is the first duty of any Government 'Defence of the Realm' (including fighting off the EU) because everything else depends on being able to control our own destiny.

Education, Health Social Services are simply issues of competency and management not priniples to go to the barricades for.

[Chris D]

"Is David Cameron Built To Last?"
With this statement of beliefs I think that the tory party has been rebuilt. It provides a positive alternative to Nu Labour, by moving us back into the centre ground of British politics.

[Andrew Woodman]

Willetts facing Stephen Pollard, Peter Hitchins and some tree hugger from Friends of the Earth on Newsnight now. Nice balance.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Hitchens is just as tedious as Heffer. Awful.

[Andrew Woodman]

Lucky Heffer is on Holiday or he would be there as well.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I hope it is a long one!

[Andrew Woodman]

Kirsty Wark is enjoying this as well.

[Chris D]

Well done David Willets.

[Matt Wright]

I like DCs foreward as quoted above. I am pleased that we are addressing issues of responsibility. We are not going to achieve anything substantial in our country until we imbue and reward responsible behaviour. Almost every issue that we tackle as councillors, MPs or whatever comes back to this point and it rarely the case that you can make people responsible simply by passing laws. Freedom used to mean something because it was balanced by a real sense of duty and responsibility amongst enough people.

Matt

[Chris]

The message of personal responsibility should indeed be at the forefront of a Conservative manifesto. State intervention should only occur when a significant number have failed to act in a responsible manner.

The additional points under the original list of values make all the difference, and I fully applaud DC for listening to our worries about the document being too vague.

[Jaz]

Newsnight balance, what was this? Bash the conservative party newsnight?

I've never seen such an unbalanced debate. Well done Willets who somehow got out alive...

[John Hustings]

Personally, I'm much less interested in party political balance than whether there is some attempt to reflect the broad range of opinions among the general public. I've no problem seeing the Tories "bashed" if it's from a right-of-centre perspective; in fact, I find that rather rare and refreshing for the BBC.

[James Maskell]

The balance is wrong. Putting health, education and housing in one section whilst global poverty and the environment get a section each?

I think the word 'responsibility' is mis-used in this. Responsibility is more than offering opportunities to someone and hoping they'll do something in return. Theres no "responsibility revolution" here. The document is full of buzzwords and the meat content is still too low. Tax comments here are still too vague and Im not convinced they really want tax cuts. It ignores its own internal policies like the A List, which is simply wrong and unjustified. Wheres the meritocracy in the A List? When will we know when the EU Constitution is leading to a superstate? Whats the measurement? Im not sold on aid vouchers either.

This isnt good enough. I will be voting against this document.

[malcolm]

Willets was as ever cogent but far too reasonable in my opinion.Hitchens cuts a ludicrous figure and a fairly unpleasant one at that and Pollard who often says intelligent things on other subjects on his blog is like a single issue fanatic vis a vis Israel.Kirsty Wark was as usual awful full of snide little interuptions that threw no new light on the debate.The whole debate would have benefitted from Paxmans moderation but was as always far too short.