Two hundred policy ideas to convert breakdown to breakthrough

These have been a tough six weeks for Tories but today's PMQs and yesterday's statement on the Constitution show the vulnerability of Gordon Brown.  Over the next few days the Tory fightback will begin in earnest.  The policy review process will start to accelerate and, as just reported on BBC1's Ten'o'clock news, the social justice policy group will present two hundred policy ideas to convert Breakdown Britain to Breakthrough Britain.

Some will approve of the report's contents because it promises to mend a broken society and to provide hope to people with none.  Others will see it as a route map to reducing the massive economic cost of social breakdown.

The social policy group has calculated that the headline cost of social breakdown is £102bn every year:

• £18bn because of educational underachievement
• £24bn due to family breakdown and
• £60bn because of crime.

It's worth noting that the cost to society of family breakdown is estimated to amount to 40% of the cost of crime. Whilst on the face of it crime is much easier for the state to tackle than broken families, it is worth considering the huge disparity in resources devoted to the two problems.

The Tory social justice policy review under Iain Duncan Smith, Philippa Stroud and Cameron Watt has focused on:

• Low levels of well-being - see the UNICEF report on child welfare;
• Drug addiction - levels of problem addiction are twice as high as in Sweden and three times higher than in the Netherlands;
• Record levels of debt - approximately 8 million people claim to have a serious debt problem in the UK, with British consumers twice as indebted as those on the Continent;
• Educational inequality - social mobility is worse than it was thirty years ago;
• Family breakdown - Britain still has the highest levels of divorce and lone parenting in Europe.

The solutions centre on three philosophical themes:

• Rebuilding "the welfare society" - the care delivered by neighbours, relatives and volunteers still dwarves that provided by the state so marriages, communities and charities need to be better supported and not undermined by increasing state activity;
• Looking to the long-term by supporting independent citizens - by, for example, properly rehabilitating drug addicts and ensuring young people get and keep jobs;
• Reversing existing disincentives to socially beneficial behaviours - including the disincentives to two parenting and marriage.

The social justice report makes two hundred specific policy recommendations and combined with Breakdown Britain the word count of the group's report reaches an intimidating 600,000 words.  The report is partly based on three YouGov polls of over 50,000 people, 3,000 hours of public hearings and consultations with over 2,000 relevant individuals and organisations.

In the approach there are echoes of Liam Fox's statement, expressed in the leadership race, that Thatcher's mission was mending a broken economy, whilst the new Conservative mission must be to fix a broken society.

The next few days will be seen as the first major broadside against Brown since he became Prime Minister.  Breakdown Britain diagnosed the problems that Brown has exacerbated and Breakthrough Britain promises to remedy them.  David Cameron has promised to make this theme of social responsibility the central battleground in British politics. The full report will be published next Tuesday but the countdown to its publication has begun.

Comments

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"yesterday's statement on the Constitution show the vulnerability of Gordon Brown."

How about Cameron's vulnerability on his inability to keep promises in Europe too, ie. leaving the EPP grouping "within weeks" of his being elected leader of the Tory Party.

What Brown does, Cameron does.

[Umbrella man]

I have always believed that Conservatism is more caring than socialism.

I look forward to seeing I-DS' actual recommendations.

[malcolm]

Me too. Should be an interesting day.
PS Is there any subject at all Stephen Tolkinghome which you won't twist into some half witted attack on the leadership?

[Iain Lindley]

I look forward to reading the report Tim. I was greatly impressed with the Bow Group "Go Zones" report a few years back and I hope to be equally enthused by this document.

As an aside, why is there always someone trying to turn every thread into a discussion on leaving the EPP? :(

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

Even addressing the topic of family breakdown will take far more guts than waffling on about tough sentences, as you say. Wonderful if they really have policy ideas that may help to keep families together. Social engineering by government is happening anyway in a negative sense. Why not do it positively?

[William W]

If Cameron can maintain his performances in PMQ as he did today today, continue to expose Brown's failures and incompetence, and respond with good, sound policy then we can cut Labour's honeymoon nice and short.

[Matt Wright]

I agree with William above and the imminent release of the report is really good news. I look forward to seeing and reading the content. I think it is vital that the party focuses on a few big issues and uses each one to show what we mean by social responsibility and therefore what Conservatives stand for. If we stick at this we will beat Brown, no doubt about that,

Matt

[Pete]

Now if Dave called for referendum on whether we stay in the EU, not just the 'amending treaty', we would start to motor.

[tapestry]

I watched PMQ. Brown really cannot cope. It's not his nervousness that matters. It's that he cannot handle a brief. He gives as much detail on each answer as he can muster wearing out himself and his audience and then he always does a grand finale to each question as if this is the last time he'll get a chance to sum up on the topic, or he's terriified he might be criticised or something - so you get 'British people' 'our country' 'magnificent job' 'no panic' 'steadfast strong' 'thanks thanks thanks''rights, responsibilities' blah blah blah.

He fires nothing back at his questioner directly, and carries on as if he's making a speech on each topic in turn, when he only needs the points of detail that are relevant ot his answer, plus a way to unsetle the questioner, which he never does.

He repeated often times that his door was always open. Or he'd call the questioner in to discuss things once the facts and info are brought together. He just wanted to stop all these nasty people pointing the finger at him. He really could not cope with it.

Blair said Brown hadn't got it, and Blair was right. Brown's a staffer who's strayed and bullied his way into the top job. Now he's paying the price. He looks exhausted. His party look glum. Conservatives look really bouncy.

[Matt Wright]

Yes I think if we pull together, focus our efforts and get across what we stand for, we can best Brown who is already showing the fault lines that will widen in the months to come. Brown will firstly try to make out he is new then try to bully his way forward and all along he will use smoke and mirrors to try to keep Labour in power. Britain does not need anymore of this, we have had 10 years of it.

[Genuine Conservative]

Let's hope that the 200 policy ideas contain a good proportion of radical conservative proposals that will cement in the electorate's minds the belief that we still stand for something and that we can make their lives better. If this is the case, and I think that it will be, then we will at last have something positive to talk to the voters about and that is what we've been missing.

[Deputy Editor]

I've deleted a couple of comments, please keep them vaguely relevant to the subject of the post!

[jorgen]

The CP does not need 200 new ideas. It needs some real Conservative policies, you know, small state, low tax, curbed immigration etc.

[Editor]

For me, though, jorgen the road to small government is also the road to social justice. Until we reduce the demand for government - associated, for example, with broken families and dysfunctional addicts - we will struggle to cut the supply of government and the tasx burden. I might write more about this later...

[Traditional Tory]

The Conservative announcement of a 'war on poverty', trailed on the TV news last night, set all the alarm bells ringing.

Either this is total hot air or it is about to involve pouring vast sums of taxpayers' money down a bottomless pit.

Poverty is a fact of life that will always be with us. If the problem could be 'solved' it would have been solved long ago.

I was also bemused to find Modern Britain (rightly) described as a sink of family breakdown and drug addiction. I thought the Dave line was that it was a peoples' paradise crafted by the benign hand of his mighty mentor Blair?

[Paul D]

Very encouraging. Let's hope these ideas are constructive and can be implemented without leaving us open to "hug-a-hoodie"-style spinning from our opponents (as it's largely forgotten that that speech in itself did more focussing on the causes of crime than Labour have managed in 10 years)

It is important, though, to wait for all the groups to report before beginning to announce policy, as I'm sure that many suggestions from 6 groups in 6 diverse areas will end up being contradictory

[Traditional Tory]

Until we reduce the demand for government - associated, for example, with broken families and dysfunctional addicts

What we need is a return to religion, marriage, and traditional family discipline. These are all pillars of Conservatism which were once taken for granted and challenged only by the most way-out extremists.

Personally, I see no early prospect of achieving any of those desirable ends, but if all Conservatives were fully signed up to that triad, the first step could at least be taken.

As long as there are those within our ranks who decry traditional morality we remain a house divided against itself.

[Ken Stevens]

Minimum wage for someone in fulltime employment should be such that the person is above the qualifying level for State benefits. Otherwise it is a case of the State indirectly subsidising the low-paying employer.

Balanced of course by need to review e.g. whether level of benefits has in some instances resulted in a higher remuneration to a claimant than to someone of similar skill level in fulltime employment and not qualifying for any benefit.

[David Cooper]

Can we hope for the launch to include a reminder about how Frank Field was once given the task of thinking the unthinkable, and sacked before he had the chance to do so?

[Tory T]

This is terrific stuff and shows`what an asset IDS is to the party.

Aside from useless trolls like Traditional Tory, it will unite both wings of the party - those who want to see us champion the poorest, and those looking to reduce European levels of government spending.

It all starts with the family and with education. We are looking like a serious party of government, not merely taking a "bobbies on the beat" soundbite approach but trying to fix the root causes of crime. What Blair promised to do but never actually did.

Labour discriminates against the family in all sorts of ways. Against marriage, against stay at home mothers, against grandparents who are full-time carers. If the Tories are prepared to grasp the nettle of social exclusion that would be both revolutionary and true to the soundest economic principles.

We really don't need to both with those who don't even see the elimination of poverty as a worthwhile goal.

[Christina]

I think this will work well if Cameron adopts policies which are seen as conservative as well as modernising. If he only takes the modernising ideas and rejects conservative ideas, there could well be a 'povertygate.'

[TomTom]

Minimum wage for someone in fulltime employment should be such that the person is above the qualifying level for State benefits. Otherwise it is a case of the State indirectly subsidising the low-paying employer.

That might seem attractive but those on minium wage are marginal workers who would be uneconomic at a higher price....it might be worth making PLC accounts carry a section on Remuneration showing just how much the Company is paying out in Tax Credits to its employees.....might make a contrast to see Terry Leahy's salary at Tesco and how much the taxpayer is paying his checkout staff.........

[Traditional Tory]

If he only takes the modernising ideas and rejects conservative ideas, there could well be a 'povertygate.'

'Conservative' ideas, such as reversing disincentives to two parenting and marriage, strike me as the only practical solutions proposed here.

They are also the ones that 'Tory Modernisers' are most likely to decry.

So, yes, I can see a sort of 'Povertygate' developing. Have we not been pretty much there already with Michael Forsyth's (shelved?) report.

[Editor]

Let's wait and see Traditional Tory but I'm optimistic...

[Peter Hatchet]

Excellent. This sounds FANTASTIC.

This is just the sort of stuff we should have been addressing from Day 1 of political opposition in 1997.

It demonstrates how caring Conservatism can be and how it offers real solutions to some of todays most pressing problems - which socialism will never solve.

I have some concerns about listing out all 200 policy recommendations, but only because Gordon Brown will nick them.

Ditch "social responsibility". This should be our slogan:

"Mend our broken society"

Everyone understands that. It chimes.

RUN WITH IT!!

[Peter Hatchet]

Traditional Tory/Jorgen/Stephen Tolkinghome/Pete:

We're sick and tired of you and your negativity, obsessional tendencies and attacks on the leadership.

Do you ever have anything nice to say about anyone?

I will now be ignoring anything you write in future.

[Andrew Woodman]

Must agree with Peter Hatchet here. This is positive substance. The constant moaning by some is becoming really tiresome.

[Edward]

Great stuff which is even making it difficult for some of the head-bangers on here to come up with even remotely coherent attacks on Cameron!

[Editor]

The internal tension - if any emerges - will be between those who want to support marriage and those who do not. I think David Cameron is the perfect leader to convince the party's social liberals that marriage is the best 'tool' we have to arrest social breakdown.

[Tony Sharp]

Editor - "For me, though, jorgen the road to small government is also the road to social justice. Until we reduce the demand for government - associated, for example, with broken families and dysfunctional addicts - we will struggle to cut the supply of government and the tasx burden. I might write more about this later..."

Exactly right. The previously trailed plan to give resources to groups on the ground who know best how they can be used is a good example of how Government can help in a hands-off way.

Rather than merely throwing money at the problem and increasing the cost through bureaucracy and more Government involvement, we might actually achieve better results with less interference. Likely there would be less waste too.

[Christina]

Traditional Tory

"'Conservative' ideas, such as reversing disincentives to two parenting and marriage, strike me as the only practical solutions proposed here.

They are also the ones that 'Tory Modernisers' are most likely to decry."

We know that IDS points out research about the importance of marriage and family so we can expect a lot of proposals on that.

I think the way to unite modernisers and traditonalists is the AND theory which can promote the traditional values (backed up with current research) without viciously attacking those who are different, such as gay people.

[Rachel Joyce]

This is excellent stuff - IDS's interim work was of the utmost quality.A few random thoughts:
1. We do need to be seen to be leading the agenda because Brown will steal many of the ideas (or at least the words if not the substance, as he is doing with localism....). So we need to do this with a blaze of publicity.
2. I agree that Conservatism is more caring than socialism - nice catchphrase - "Caring Conservatism vs Authoritarian Socialism".
3. Although I agree small government actually results in a more caring and responsible society, I don't really think the public understand what is meant by small government - it seems to mean "cuts" to so many people. Perhaps we need to speak to Frank Luntz or other excellent word-master pollsters about the best way to get the message over (this poverty work is in the right direction), because "small government" just isn't a phrase that really conveys what we mean.

[TomTom]

nice catchphrase - "Caring Conservatism vs Authoritarian Socialism".

I would not recommend using such a trite catchphrase...but you have a constituency to fight so you can try it out.....

[Ken Stevens]

TomTom | July 05, 08:40 "That might seem attractive but those on minimum wage are marginal workers who would be uneconomic at a higher price..."

I can see your point partially. However, might it not be the case that most major companies for which it is practicable to offshore their remotely operable functions will already have done so?

Can't man many supermarket checkouts or serve umpteen burg(h)ers from India or China!

This would need greater control re migrant workers undercutting but that's an aspect of immigration control, i.e. joined-up government.

I'm certainly no economist or other national finance expert but is it not just possible that this could be sold as lower taxes (e.g. reduced employers' NI rate) and an appeal to the goodness of society's heart that paying an extra tuppence for the pot of guacamole means proper wages. There would presumably be a saving in benefits administration.

[jorgen]

editor @ 8:05,

I look forward to see your arguments for social justice leading to small government. I agree with Traditional Tory @ 8:11.

An additional worry is that if certain charities are allocated vast sums of money, they may not be part of the Government, but they will either be so close connected with the Government that there is no difference OR they may not be accountable to the extent necessary. However, I am sure you will cover this aspect too in your coming article.

[jorgen]

Hatchet: Do you ever have anything nice to say about anyone?

Absolutely! In Lady Thatcher's days as PM, I said nice things about her and President Reagan nearly every day as they had policies that were realistic and worked.

I also often say nice things about TomTom, Trad Tory, TFA Tory and others. :)

[Graeme Archer]

I don't understand why anyone would worry that support for heterosexual, child-rearing marriage would be seen as being in opposition to gay marriage. Just to say, I don't see any danger of a moderniser v traditional conflict. We can have interesting debates on the margin about whether you consider homosexual union to be 'marriage' (like, I wonder what I think?) but it doesn't obscure the proposition (about supporting marriage) at all, and (please take note Cornerstone types) David Cameron's complete ease with gay partnerships is at least partly why it will be impossible for Labour to paint him as some sort of finger-wagging back-to-basics pro-marriage hypocrite.

I've been hyper critical of CH for the last 72 hours, I think it's all this rain. So would like to emphasise (like, who cares what I think?) that Tim is completely correct here (in general and in his response to Jorgen in particular). Mending a broken society (and doing so by supporting on-the-ground groups, and supporting marriage, and increasing social responsibility) not only makes people happier and leads to a more peaceful public space, it is a precursor to a reduction in the overall social security spend. In some of the ghastlier circles I habituate, this is known as a "win-win". Which just means it's a goal that should unite all of Planet Tory.

This is a serious mission guys. Somebody (me) wrote the other day about the necessary anger that a political party requires to give it the energy to make its vision compelling to the electorate and hence become real. Our broken society makes me angry, and much of what I'm reading from people like the CSJ is quite visionary. There's a Disraeli quote I would put here to finish if I wasn't completely disorganised and incapable of finding it, the one about the Tory party being the engine for the improvement of the condition of the people. And he didn't mean socialism!

[Oberon Houston]

Is anyone aware of the current strategy for coping with Brown. Is there going to be a rolling broadside associated wit the policy reviews? Or are they keeping the powder dry until Brown is embedded and a proper target?

I've been reflecting on PMQs yesterday. Brown was continually saying 'bi-partisan', and repeated again and again 'cross party consensus' and then the 'door is always open' gag for Ming. Seems obvious that he is courting the Liberals. Whats the thought here? Merge the LibDems into Labour? Give them some PR consecions and form an anti-tory coalition? Call for an early election? Somrthing weird is going on here.

[Graeme Archer]

Jorgen says An additional worry is that if certain charities are allocated vast sums of money, they may not be part of the Government, but they will either be so close connected with the Government that there is no difference OR they may not be accountable to the extent necessary. However, I am sure you will cover this aspect too in your coming article.

-- pop over to WebCameron or conservatives.com, Jorgen. DC addressed this issue specifically when he addressed a group of social entrepeneurs recently. He - and the audience of people who actually do the work - swapped some practical ideas about how this arm's length stuff can be maintained. I'm pretty sure it's this one.

[johnC]

It is interesting to note the contrast between the general enthusiasm on this thread about the Conservative party's desire to address the problem of social breakdown, and the distinct lack on enthusiasm on the next thread for Cameron's attempt to tackle one specific contributory factor to social breakdown which is the influence on youth culture of harmful music lyrics. Surely trying to improve cultural influences is an important part of creating a decent and civilised society.

[jorgen]

Thanks, Graeme, I have listened to the first 6 mins of it and remember having heard it before. Is there a transcript of the speech? If not, I will wait for editor's article.

Until then: I am all for the voluntary sector and for supporting this sector with public money as long as this does not create a dependency to the Government. The voluntary sector works because it is private: it is small and people in it work for love and not money. If the Government posts tons of money in it, there will soon be demands for influence on who runs it and how it is run.

[Ken Stevens]

johnC | July 05, 12:37
".. contrast between the general enthusiasm on this thread about ..social breakdown, and the distinct lack on enthusiasm on the next thread ... influence on youth culture of harmful music lyrics." Surely trying to improve cultural influences is an important part of creating a decent and civilised society."

This thread covers overall strategic aspect; other thread (arising from a themed speech to a music body) is a tactical aspect, to which one could add o.t.t. violence on computer games, videos, films, etc.

Complementary threads, not contrasting ones.

[jorgen]

I heard some more, but it reset around 20 mins into the speech and I can't spool forward so I will pass on hearing it all again.

The speech is based on wishful thinking. Successful individual charities work because there are entrepreneurs, who have time and luck enough to make it successful. Yes, luck is necessary like in all business.

Yes, it is possible to help more people starting more charities, but it is wishful thinking to believe they will all be successes just because they get money from the state. To solve the many cases, the UK would need many more charities and many more successful charities.

Psychologically: 1) People are more likely to give money to charities if taxes are low and they feel they get a reasonable value for their tax money. 2) Charities who have to get money from a lot of private sources are probably more likely to become successful as they are closer to the source.

Anyway, what keeps Cameron from fundraising privately to start many more charities today. Deemed from his speech, he would be good at it. Why does he want until he can use other peoples money?

[Andrew Lilico]

My guess is that this is the make-or-break for the policy reviews. Many of us have considerable hope invested in the Centre for Social Justice and its contribution to the social justice policy review. If, as I hope and suspect IDS' people would have been capable of doing if not over-ruled by nervous Party Leadership types, the Review has managed to produce authentically Conservative solutions to address the significant social problems we face, and if we can come up with a credible way to argue for these to the Public, then almost all Conservatives will have a Cause to unite us - a melody. For it will much easier to be in harmony if we have a melody to follow.

[jorgen]

So, Mr. Lilico, which solutions might that be?

Just saying that more charities will have to be made won't cut it. How is the Government going to be involved?

[Graeme Archer]

Jorgen, my anti-cynic pill is wearing off. But I *refuse* to give into my desire to ask you, exactly, what is UKIP's policy on inner cities? (Compulsory pin-striped school uniform and tanks on every municipal lawn?).

Let's have a debate within the Tory family about what we mean about social justice; let's see what IDS' group have to say about practical means of implementing third arm solutions; let's not get bogged down in discussing any of it with our political enemies. Even if they can sometimes be quite charming.

[Andrew Lilico]

I could propose a number of ideas of my own, and indeed have done so on a number of occasions. But given that the Report is out so soon, it's probably more productive at this stage to stick to the generalities for now, and to react to the specifics later.

In terms of the generalities, I believe that we should

1) Paint an accurate but restrained picture of the problem,
1A) giving it sufficient emphasis to demonstrate our genuine concern,
BUT
1B) avoiding creating the impression of a world in crisis or that matters were much rosier in the past
2) Characterize the problem in the first instance as one of misery for those suffering deprivation and distress, rather than as one of a source of threat to the comfortable. That is to say, the problem(or problems - for they are many) should be seen as principally a social problem, rather than a crime-and-punishment problem or a taxation burden problem, but without failing to note, as secondary features the crime-and-punishment and taxation elements.
3) The solutions offered should strive, in the first instance, to involve the state removing obstacles it itself creates to private/community action (through markets or charities or families or churches or other private/community institutions), secondarily by the state creating the conditions in which those institutions can flourish without further assistance, thirdly by the state facilitating or encouraging the formation of private/community groups, fourthly by the state creating its own versions of private/community action (e.g. social insurance), and only lastly via direct imposed-state-provision solutions (e.g. taxes and benefits). All five elements will be necessary (and that should be acknowledged explicitly), but the hierarchy of desirability should be recognized.
4) Within the solutions offered, we should strive, insofar as is feasible and practicable, to favour solutions that permit of the expression of self-sacrificing love and pity and other moral elements - not shying away from these to less "cringey" utilitarian notions. This will mean more personal solutions, and ones that involve more judgement and more cases of individual controversy and the possibility that matters might have been handled differently. That should be seen as a strength, not a weakness.
5) We should entirely eschew any notion that our goals are egalitarian. Quite the reverse. We want a system in which those that are loved more tend to do better than their individual qualities would merit alone. For love must issue in effect if it is to be true love at all.
6) Our overall solutions should be framed so as to maximize ordered liberty as their underlying guiding principle.

Does that help?

[Serf]

I don't understand why anyone would worry that support for heterosexual, child-rearing marriage would be seen as being in opposition to gay marriage.

Graeme,
There is of course no reason why the two things should be connected/opposed in such a way.

However, an unholy coalition of gay activists & those who are bitterly opposed to them, have constantly pushed the idea that society is either based on marriage or an immoral one full of homosexuality.

We have allowed them to get away with this lie for too long. A decent society is one in which an acceptance that child rearing works best within a traditional family setting, does not proclude the right to choose an alternative.

[jorgen]

I have no idea of what UKIP's policies are on this, if they have any. I have no connection to them and don't read their website as I am not interested.

Thanks for the detailed answer. I am impressed. Great stuff!

I of course agree fully with 1).

Number 2) is probably necessary, but runs into many problems if a crime has been committed, for example in cases where drugs are involved.

I can only agree with number 3) one and five. The problems here should be solverable.

I don't understand 4) but assume the operating word is "personal" and the idea is to leave the "how-to" up to the volunteer. I agree. You then need to find and vet quite a number of people with such qualities and that will not be easy. Apart from the "postcode" problem DC mentioned (unavoidable as volunteers will want their say in where they volunteer; however, life is a postcode lottery so I am not too worried about that), you will have problems with ensuring evenness (scaling up to large scale is always difficult): being a nice person is not enough as they will be dealing with serious problems so they have to be trained.
I don't understand 5). However, that is not important to me as such. You of course know what you mean.

6) "maximize ordered liberty"? Is that: maximise security, freedom, happiness and like? Or is there more in it?

The places I mainly see problems are in 3) second, third and fourth.

3) second looks like a bag of worms, including the above-mentioned scaling problem. I assume that the charities will need plenty of money, but on the other hand must be given freedom to work without supervision and still with accountability to the state. I can see lots of problems if they are give a big sack of money: some will be more generous than others; some may help their friends (or themselves); the charity will be very closely connected with the Government, raising problems with accountability if given too much freedom; they will need freedom in order to get results; to which extend will they have to report committed crimes? when do they need to alarm the child caring authorities etc.

You are in 3) third assuming that it is possible to create enough of these voluntary groups. Since DC mentioned poverty caused by drugs, you would need very many.

I assume that you therefore add 3) four: the state create the necessary extra "charities". These will presumably be manned by paid staff and not by volunteers or a mixture of both. This will probably create problems in that some of the volunteers in 3) third may like to be paid too. And if everybody get paid, we have a decentralised social security with less control than a Government office.

As I see it (but I am getting tired now): If you boost the charity generation by posting really lots of money into the project, you get scaling problems and state-dependency problems. If you don't, not many charities will be created.

This said: of course the Government should encourage more charities to do work in these areas including give some financial support and the Government should cheerish every single of them as they are doing very important work. However, I would prefer that private people run and finance such charities (the Government's cold hands always kills good initiatives when they get involved) and that will only be possible if the tax climate encourages it; happy people give to charities, unhappy people don't.

However, since you like in all other endeavours need both skill and luck to deal with really many clients, I can't see how we can expect many successful charities. The state will still need to take care of the vast majority of cases, hence my words "wishful thinking" about DC's suggestion.

[Traditional Tory]

Traditional Tory/Jorgen/Stephen Tolkinghome/Pete. I will now be ignoring anything you write in future.
Posted by: Peter Hatchet

Good.

[Simon Denis]

The really fascinating thing is that, "malgre lui", Mr Cameron is ending up a conservative after all. Explicitly supporting the family will mean all sorts of controversy. Any financial incentive to get and to stay married will be portrayed as a moralistic form of discrimination against single mums. I saw this happen on Question Time about a year ago. The leadership will have to square their shoulders and assert that yes, stable marriage is a vital necessity. All the forces and influences which they have tried to placate will turn vicious all over again. Perhaps it would have been better simply to argue for it in the first place. All that has in fact happened is that the forces of conservatism have taken an exhausting, roundabout route to the battle field and had no opportunity to prepare their ground.

[David Belchamber]

A combination of Brown's poorish performances in the HoD and Tim's announcement about IDS' social justice policy group's report on Tuesday is just the sort of tonic we all need.
Also the reshuffle seems to give us the edge over the government front bench, so there is much to look forward to.
Tim, would it not be a good idea to remind us periodically when other review groups are due to report, so as to prove to the electorate that real substance is gradually emerging?

[David Belchamber]

A combination of Brown's poorish performances in the HoD and Tim's announcement about IDS' social justice policy group's report on Tuesday is just the sort of tonic we all need.
Also the reshuffle seems to give us the edge over the government front bench, so there is much to look forward to.
Tim, would it not be a good idea to remind us periodically when other review groups are due to report, so as to prove to the electorate that real substance is gradually emerging?

[Traditional Tory]

The really fascinating thing is that, "malgre lui", Mr Cameron is ending up a conservative after all.

Something similar happened to Hague after all that baseball hat/Notting Hill Carnival nonsense.

Perhaps the same will indeed happen to Cameron. Actually, the way things are going it's almost inevitable that he will 'drift to the right' as the here-today-gone-tomorrow metrosexuals return to their natural homes.

But the difference is; we always knew Hague was one of us. As far as I am concerned Cameron has by his conduct placed himself utterly and irrevocably beyond the pale.

I wouldn't support him now if he became Life President of the Cornerstone Group

Come to think of it, if his brains were on fire...

[jorgen]

TT, it is not "here-today-gone-tomorrow", it is according to Melanie Phillips: "Heir today, gone tomorrow".

[Traditional Tory]

ROFLMAO!!!