« How leaving one Union might affect membership of another... | Main | Tory 'northern problem' underlined by YouGov poll of Yorkshire voters »


My goodness,this is,perhaps, the most amateurish thing we have ever presented to the British public.

We must be sinking fast,that video and his message was absolutely awfull,if this is the best of David Cameron and all we can do at this late stage in the lead up to the local elections,we may as well roll over dead right now.

Oooh. Don't you just love the return of "noblesse oblige".

THe largest single provider of Social Workers in England is from The Church of England but since they are paid from public funds they cannot advertise their connection with religion.

In Britain charities and other groups have been coopted and incorporated into the Extended State just as Church Schools have been.

I have no idea what these politicians are trying to do when even a local authority has no power to determine planning without being overruled by London............all power radiates from the centre

I'm afraid that I still have a fundamental objection to the voucherisation scheme.

Apart from the questions of where people would choose to direct the state funding which they could ordain by the act of "volunteering", and how that act would be defined, and how much bureaucracy would be entailed in checking that they had fulfilled their pledge to devote so many hours a week to the charity of their choice, no doubt averaged over a year and with a minimum number of hours each month or whatever, and whether the time they give to that charity is spent usefully, there is a profound difference between a moral responsibility to neighbours in need and a legal responsibility to hand over taxes to the state.

Any scheme which is based on the premise that if an individual accepts what they in their heart see as their personal moral responsibility then everybody else must have an increased legal responsibility to hand over their money to the state blurs and will eventually destroy that distinction, and predictably charities rather than being independent of the state will become absorbed into its apparatus.

Judging the aspects of this plan which were in any way coherent it does seem to me that such an arrangement would be much better than the status-quo. Worth welcoming.

However its still quite obvious that if one doesn't see anything inherently paradoxical about such a message - that of a politician announcing what he believes should be government policy on the voluntary sector and the responsibilities we should feel to each and all in society - then one is never really going to "get it".

Sorry to be pessamistic but this is like yet another nail in the coffin.

I really do think that the "Project" is running out of steam.

I cant get audio on this computer (library computers are impossible to work...). Could someone post a transcript please?

I would also point out as an afterthought that there is ample scope for horrendous and outrageous abuse of a "voucherisation" scheme. There are Islamic "charities" which are almost certainly funding extremist teaching and even terrorism, but the Charity Commission says that it doesn't have the resources to investigate them as thoroughly as some journalists have. I've no doubt that when the worshippers down at their local mosques were asked/told to sign up as "volunteers" for such charities there'd be loads who did so, even if many did so in complete innocence, and each of them would in effect be compelling the rest of us to pay more tax to support organisations which may want to destroy our society.

That really is pathetic. Dace, Camilla and Nick all come across like sixth form arts students on pot spouting vagus nonsense about some big idea that, when you wake up in the morning, you realise is just bs.

As for Bole's comment that "there's lots of meat" pleeeeeeease. It is staggering how lightweight and superficial the Tories have become.

I don't watch telly or listen to the radio much so don't really know what Dave sounds like. Having played the video I can hear that he is very posh - how well is that accent going down with the punters? Is it an issue?

After such an amateurish performance, can anyone honestly claim that Nick Boles has the necessary communication skills or intellect to be our London Mayoral candidate?

In response to Freedland, maybe the reason Britain has a less charitable culture is because our welfare state is more comprehensive? Trim it down (I'd prefer slashing but trimming will have to do now) and I suspect charitable involvement would rise significantly. After all, the last time we were highly charitable was before the modern welfare state.

I would prefer it better if Dave was running for Londo Mayor and someone else was Leading the party.

Absolutely dreadfull,uug.

I am encouraged by the number of ukip-Labour Trolls on this thread as clearly Social Responsibility scares the hell out of anyone who likes control freakery. As far as I can see it is about truly devolving power down to a local level. Brown is of course copying this as his focus groups have told him it is his only chance of staying in power, but there is no way Gordon will really loosen control, it is just not in his nature. Also to me farage seems to be a mirror image of Ken Livingstone, The last thing he would do is give people a greater voice.

What remains to be seen is how serious Cameron is about the devolution of power, I think he knows people are not daft and want proof. So I would like to see policies that truly reflect localism when the policy groups report.

Voreas06, if you read Gordon Brown's recent speech to the Fabian Society:


you'll find when it comes to the role of "charities" and "voluntary work" as part of the state apparatus he has a similar attitude to Cameron, and "voucherisation" would probably fit into the Brown agenda very nicely if he'd thought of it first.

Could it be that we really are as UKIP says?


We need another Leader again I'm afraid,DC is becomming more of a disaster each day.

This video should never have been released,and if DC said to release it or insisted on its release,he has no idea what damage something like this can do,and,in this case,has already done I'm sure.

Almost criminal damage in fact.

"reward more voluntary sector activity"

That goes without saying. Create a wealthy society as Lady Thatcher did and the voluntary sector grow strong automatically, just as it does in the US.

Dennis Cooper "Voreas06, if you read Gordon Brown's recent speech to the Fabian Society:


you'll find when it comes to the role of "charities" and "voluntary work" as part of the state apparatus he has a similar attitude to Cameron, and "voucherisation" would probably fit into the Brown agenda very nicely if he'd thought of it first."

Indeed Gordon has as I said Grasped Localism because the focus Groups have told him to. However an example of gordon's Devolution of power is the Bank of England. Gordon has not really devolved power(All the criteria are his and he elects the monetary policy committee), there is no power there, there is just responsibility. So I think the difference may be that Brown will claim to be localist while still retaining all the control whereas I think Cameron will be much more, "I don't care how you do it just go away and get me the results". I believe people work far better if not micro-managed but Brown is incapable of any other kind.

I like the sound of this 'social responsibility' idea, but I think Mr Cameron and co need to do a lot more explaining.

A brief cruise around conservatives.com shows me that that's exactly what they've been doing.

The closest thing to a soundbite summery I could find was

"The idea behind social responsibility is that the state alone is not able to sort out all of society's problems - only society can do that. And by 'society' I mean each one of us. Social responsibility can be led by politicians, but it can only be delivered by people themselves. "

taken from a speech by Cheryl Gillian (shadow secretary of state for Wales) 16/1/07


And Mr Cameron 15/1/07

"Rather than approaching every issue with an open chequebook from the taxpayer and a new regulation, we'll approach every issue with the expectation that, in the first instance at least, responsibility lies with the people.

"The key is cultural change. When people realise that the system will help them rather than get in their way when they try to make a difference in their community - then imagine what a flowering of enterprise and commitment and innovation we will see."


And a speech Mr Cameron gave in Birmingham, 14/7/06


while focused on local government, shows that when, control is not held by the centre, initiative and motivation is that much freer (if that's a word) and more powerful that centrally driven plans.

I'm looking forward to the runup to the next general election, I think there will be some real passion to it, as this "social responsibility" thing really does have huge potential for all of us.

Cynicism, cynicism, cynicism...

Negativity is all you get from the "Conservatives" on this site.

Do any of you ever have a positive word to say? About anyone?

If everyone took the trouble to LISTEN to the themes behind Camerons initiative they would understand that this is classic Conservatism. The real stuff. Maybe there are issues in how we communicate this message, but let's be reasonable about it.

A strong civil society is exactly what is missing from todays Britain. A revolution in responsibility would liberate people from state control and go a long way to solving many of Britains deeply-ingrained social problems. It amazes me that people cannot see this.

But, then again, I'm not that worried about those same people realising this, given that 75% of people on this blog have their own, disruptive, agenda.

The USA has more volunteerism because they have lower taxes and lack a big welfare state. If Cameron wants more social responsibility, it will need a smaller state. Channeling public money to charities will have the opposite effect.

Peter Hatchet

don't worry about the UKIP ingnuts on this site - it is a feature of ConHome that it is a safe place for the angry anarch-capitalists to let off some steam. They choose to do this on a COnservative blog as noone reads any of the UKIP ones

Yes, well, I've noticed what thin skins the Cameroons have. I suppose it goes with the territory.

Last night we even had one of them declaring his "hate" for a fellow poster.

I doubt whether all but a fairly obvious handful of the growing number of sceptics who post here are actually UKIP activists, although they may have been tempted to vote UKIP.

Most of those highly critical of Cameron seem to me to have deep knowledge of the Conservative party, so I would guess that they are or were longstanding Tory activists like myself.

Mr "Hatchet" (Ha!) may care to note that at least one councillor and one association chairman post regularly and openly in opposition to the extremely unconservative direction in which Cameron is trying to take our party.

Ian @19:30 - apologies for long post but feeling a bit philosophical.

Unfortunately since DC made his valid critisism of the leadership of UKIP we have been plagued by UKIP posters, often presenting themselves as disappointed Tories who cannot understand or support Cameron. This can make it difficult to recognise those from the minority of the party membership expressing the real concerns of that part of our party. Cemeron was elected by a majority of the membership on the platform of changing the party but nearly a third of the membership expressed little desire for change and reasonably continue to feel that way.

I can understand their concern but equally sometimes find it hard to understand critisism based on misconception or lack of interest in finding out what was actually said rather than reported. But equally the currentl leadership has, rightfully IMHO but probably wrongly in yours, changed our position in areas of personal morality, in policies in Education & Health which I can understand is difficult to those loyal Tories who campaigned for these in the last two or three elections.

Where I expect you and I differ is that I accept that there are members of the Party who are free traders, open marketers (as Andrew Lilico pointed out really not Tories but Whigs), others who are more traditionalist Tories, some who believe in liberal morality and others whose priorities I don't share but don't feel I can state any are not Conservatives - as my view of Conservatism is that while it has certain verities it is neither a religion nor has an absolute unchanging philosophy to which we sign up.

We last won an election 15 years ago, and if it's 2009 before the next, then it'll be a generation ago. The 70's are now nearly two generations ago - the kids educated in the 80's now have kids beginning their education. It's a different world and we need to change and recognise that we can change and still be conservative.

Mr "Hatchet" (Ha!) may care to note that at least one councillor and one association chairman post regularly and openly in opposition to the extremely unconservative direction in which Cameron is trying to take our party.

I hope they're very happy together in their majority of two - could I suggest a civil partnership, perhaps, while the rest of us get on with the job?...

More seriously, I can't imagine how this concept of "social responsibility" could be described as "unconservative". I'm on record here as really disliking the idea that we can make lists of things that are conservative and un-conservative (sounds eerily familiar from somewhere to me), but I don't know why this one is even debateable.

Don't we Conservatives stand for the importance of the institutions of civic society that we're looking to use to deliver positive results in this model? Don't we stand for the kind of localism that will be needed to give people a genuine say in it? And don't we want a "responsibility culture", the best antidote to those repeated shouts of "I've got my rights!"?

Next time someone asks "so what do you stand for?", the constructive posts on this thread provide a good start, I think.

Whilst I don't think (of the top of my head) I share most of Ted's opinions I do think his 2018 post is a good one. Despite what their acolytes do and say, simply disagreeing with Cameron and the Cameroons does not stop your being a big or small "c" Conservative nor does it make you a UKIP supporter.

OK, so who are the UKIP posters?

Let's have some names.

Curious: Let's have some names.

Well, posting yours would be a start, I suppose...

This doesn't help expand on or explore the idea of social respnsibility in the topic of the thread - please folks, don't rise to it.

Curious, what do you think about ways in which the state could learn from the voluntary sector to better implement public policy?

This is just old fashioned paternalism from Cameron. At the end of the day the funding will still be centralised.

Boles - "is this just a glib sound-bite?"

What can I say!

O/T Thank you and it applies vice versa, being a Cameroon doesn't mean you are a CCHQ astroturfer, Blue Labour or the other epithets used. We are on the whole conservitives with differing views on how to achieve a secure, economically, socially and physically healthy state based on personal responsibility and small government (I exclude the various trolls from Labour and the UKIP & BNP disrupters)

On thread - in the UK the state has for decades co-opted voluntary organisations, not always successfully I do not think that the NPCC has been helped by its quasi governmental role. I think however the voluntary organisation of the RLI is probably more efficient and effective than a state funded equivalent would be.

Perhaps thats because a state shouldn't outsource enforcement to a charity but should look to the charitable/volunteer sector for social assistance, support & care. The NSPCC, RSPB or RSPCA lose by becoming policemen in enforcing law - we wouldn't like the AA or RAC enforcing traffic laws (OK they are commercial orgs now). Yes if they see lawbreaking they should bring in enforcement but there shouldn't be fear in approaching a volunteer organisation for assistance.

Empowering voluntary organisations and supporting their involvement to build more social responsibility is a great idea but lets not blur too much the responsibilities of state and private organisation.

You are the same old scum.

Boles, it should never be forgotten, once described the excellent charity CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England for anybody as appalingly ignorant as he) as "the campaign to defend posh people's gardens"

In the course of a TV interview about development about a year ago this wannabee MP (loser) claimed that development brought untold benefits to the countryside. I noted down some of his moronic drivel at the time but sadly can't lay my hands on it at present.

That a so-called Tory could ever describe something as self-evidently good as CPRE as "the campaign to preserve posh people's gardens" shows how disgracefully unsound and ideologically bankrupt the "Tory" party has now become.

The man is appalling. Of course there's only one reason why this talentless urbanite winebar philistine has been promoted within the Notting Hill Set and I think we all know what that is.

Boles is living proof that there is something desperately rotten in the Tory Party whatever Ted may claim.

Just so as not to be unfair to Mr Boles, his actual words (on breakfast TV) were “The Council for the protection of Posh People's Back Yards”.

Boles then attempted to justify his offensive opinion by the remark that “we have less land built on than other European countries”.

On being told that this statement was false in respect of France and Germany alone, Mr Boles displayed a woeful ignorance of geography by replying “We may be slightly smaller than both those countries...”

He later commented “I've never understood why people in the cities should have to give (sic) in order to protect a few fields”.

Seems we're dealing with the biggest philistine since Goliath hit the deck.

"Mr "Hatchet" (Ha!).."

I think those sort of comments just go to highlight your maturity to everyone.


I am afraid that I am going to have to agree with your last post as well. I could not agree more that the RNLI is a fantastic organisation
from which many others could learn lessons. I believe it was turned down by the people who dole out the national lottery money which tells you more about them than it does about the RNLI. I also agree that expanding the quasi-legal and enforcement rights of other organisations is not the right path. It is entirley the wrong way to impose "justice" and is likely to be counter-productive.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker