ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Big welcome from centre right press for IDS' report

The traditionally right-of-centre newspapers give a warm welcome this morning to yesterday's policy recommendations from Iain Duncan Smith.  Although there is some discussion of the breadth of the report, the main focus is on the promises to help families.

Daily Mail (not online): "For ten years, Gordon Brown has presided over a tax and benefits system that not only destroys incentives to work, but positively encourages parents to live apart, while penalising those who stay together.  Mr Cameron's determination to redress that balance not only makes good sense for Britain; it makes good politics for the Tories too.  If he has the sense to match properly costed policies to his brave words, he'll find he's on to a vote-winner."

Daily Telegraph: "The outcomes for children raised by two parents living together are far better than for those raised by single parents, and couples are far more likely to remain together if they are married rather than cohabiting... This is clearly a sphere in which Mr Cameron feels comfortable and to which he can bring sincere personal conviction. It may well be his key to a successful opposition strategy."

The Sun (not online): "For the first-time, the Tories have carved out vote-winning territory beyond the reach of New Labour.  They promise to use the tax and welfare system to reward marriage... A stable and happy marriage offers the best family environment for children... Now - instead of suggesting we pay more for our booze, museums and cheap flights - the Tories are backing marriage.  And that has to be a good thing."

Daily Express (not online): "David Cameron is right to set a political course that encompasses tax breaks for married parents.  Marriage should be encouraged because children thrive when they grow up in stable, two-parent families.  Labour's welfare state tinkering has led to parents lower down the income scale being much better off if they split up.  That cannot be right."

Leaders in The Guardian and Independent are critical of the marriage recommendations although The Independent is impressed with much of the report: "This voluminous report is for the most part admirably free of preconceptions, and contains ideas that would deserve consideration by a government of any complexion."

David Cameron writes for the Mail about his commitment to marriage.

188 policy ideas to tackle poverty

Just returned from the press conference at which Iain Duncan Smith and his team of policy advisers presented the Breakthrough Britain report.  You can access a full copy here.  Perhaps inevitably the journalists' questions focused on the proposal for a tax break for married couples.  My guess is that this one recommendation will dominate the rest of the day's news cycle.  Here are my own contextual thoughts:

• The financial support for married and two parent couples is important because there are currently penalties for couples who live together and get married.  These penalties may not affect the lifestyle decisions of comfortably-off people but they matter when you are struggling to make ends meet.  We should not only look at these issues through middle class eyes.
• Breakthrough Britain does not pretend that a tax allowance alone will repair marriage.  Unlike previous Tory policies on families there are many other pro-family proposals including recommendations to review family law, provide couples with relationship education, Frank Field's option of frontloading child benefit, more help for carers and Cabinet-level representation for the family.
• The family breakdown section of the report is just one of six sections.  Breakthrough Britain is clear that we won't tackle poverty unless we also tackle the problems of addiction, indebtedness, worklessness and educational failure.  The sixth section focuses on the voluntary and charitable sector and its role in building 'the nation of the second chance'.
• Some of the best policies in the report are, for me: extension of the right-to-buy, simplification of child benefit, requirements for lone parents to be available for undertake 20 hours of work when their youngest child reaches five, payment of welfare-to-work providers according to results-based contracts, premium pay for inner city teachers, 'Pioneer Schools' free of LEA control and based on the US charter schools model and with funding voucherised, stricter classification of cannabis, a move towards abstinence-based drug rehab, measures to strengthen credit unions, greater funding of debt advice services, financial education for 14-year-olds, simplification of Gift Aid, a V-card reward scheme for young volunteers, the piloting of Community Growth Trusts (of which more soon) and fairer treatment of faith-based organisations.

In total there are 188 policy recommendations.  If you want to read them all please download this pdf.

Iain Duncan Smith set out the big picture ideas behind his report on YourPlatform earlier today.

Iain Duncan Smith's social justice report is published tomorrow

There wasn't much detail on tonight's Ten'o'clock BBC1 news bulletin but Nick Robinson accompanied Iain Duncan Smith to Glasgow and met some of the people who have inspired the former Tory leader to pursue his commitment to find new ways to defeat poverty.

The BBC's Political Editor reported that Iain Duncan Smith had been on a years-long crusade to convert his party to the cause of social justice and with tomorrow's publication of the heavily-trailed final report that crusade now expands to the whole nation.

IDS is first filmed with Janis Dobbie (above) who has lost two sons to drugs.  A key component of the Social Justice Policy Group's report is a major increase in funding for drug rehabilitation and a movement away from methadone-type programmes that maintain people in forms of prescription dependency and towards real programmes that provide freedom from addiction.  Prescription programmes currently receive ten times as much funding in total as freedom programmes.  IDS also wants a tighter classification of cannabis given the links between stronger forms of this drug and mental illness.

Iain is filmed above with Janis and Jim Doherty of the Gallowgate Family Support Group.  The Group is one of the small community-based projects that the voluntary sector chapter of the report is designed to help.  The SJPG aims to 'trustmark' the best community groups with a new level of recognition that will attract higher levels of private and public sector grants.  The report also suggests more use of matched funding so that the crucial decisions about which charities receive public money are increasingly made by local people rather than remote bureaucrats.

Nick Robinson's report concluded with a preview of tomorrow's announcement that IDS will recommend a £6bn package of support for marriage and two parent families. Half of which will go towards a new tax allowance for married couples and half of which will go to eliminate the benefits penalty that couples have to face compared with single parents.

Many middle class observers sneer that they would never get married or stay married for a tax perk.  That ignores the reality of 'life at the bottom'.  Many couples struggle to make ends meet and Gordon Brown's tax and benefits system makes it economically advantageous for many low income parents to live apart or at least pretend to live apart.

My own hope is that there isn't too great a media focus on the tax allowance.  The SJPG will also recommend new forms of counselling and practical support for couples starting their life together.  This practical mentoring and other measures to help families with dependent relatives, and those who are struggling with debt, are also essential ingredients of a comprehensive anti-poverty programme.

Speaking to Nick Robinson, IDS said that poverty could not be beaten by concentrating on any one of today's five giants of poverty.  All five evils - family breakdown, severe indebtedness, addiction, educational failure and worklessness - all had to be tackled together.

ConservativeHome will be at tomorrow's 10.30am unveiling of the 200 policy recommendations and IDS will be writing exclusively for this site about the philosophical underpinnings of his analysis.  David Cameron will be speaking tomorrow afternoon at a London community project about his own first reaction to the former Tory leader's report.

IDS proposes 'treatment tax' on alcohol and reclassification of cannabis

Yesterday it was tackling education failure.  Friday was about tackling debt.  Today the focus of the social justice policy group turns to drug and alcohol addiction and the Sunday newspapers are full of the group's recommendations.

Grabbing most headlines is the Addictions Working Group's recommendation that extra taxes should be levied on beers, wines and spirits in order to pay for new treatments for people with addiction problems and to help fund the policing costs of binge drinking.  The Mail on Sunday suggests that the tax would amount to £1.4bn - equivalent to 7p on a pint.  Such a tax would fit in with Project Cameron's general inclination to shift the burden of taxation on to things that are bad - like pollution - and away from things that are good - like the family and enterprise.  The report says that a tax increase would only restore the real price of alcohol to the levels of the 1990s.  Gordon Brown kept down taxes on alcohol while he was Chancellor because of the alleged impact on the UK drinks industry of booze cruises and other alcohol 'smuggling' from lower tax jurisdictions.

The SJPG estimates that the cost of alcohol and drug addiction is nearly £40bn pa to the British economy and an increase in expenditure on treatment will save money in the long-run.

Iain Duncan Smith's group wants a switch away from 'harm reduction' approaches to drug treatment and much greater investment in 'harm avoidance' services.  There is a recommendation for a £30m programme of drug abstinence programmes for the nation's prisons.  The report notes:

"Spending on “harm reduction” measures – such as substitute prescribing, needle exchange, and harm minimisation advice – runs at ten times the level of spending on residential and community rehabilitation programmes designed to make people permanently drug-free."

As reported in The Observer, the SJPG also wants cannabis reclassified as a class B drug, "carrying much greater penalties for possession and trafficking."  The potency of cannabis has grown significantly over the years and is now associated with an increase in mental health problems.  Iain Duncan Smith suggests that the slogan 'war on drugs' should be binned: "[It] sends the wrong signals. It is not a war on drugs. It is about getting kids off drugs."

In today's Sunday Telegraph Iain Duncan Smith overviews his prescriptions to mend Britain's broken society.

12.30pm: Speaking about an hour ago on Sky News Iain Duncan Smith spotlighted the rise in juvenile alcoholism as a primary reason for his group's recommendation of higher taxes on alcohol.  He argued that young people's drinking levels were particularly sensitive to changes in price.

'Parent power' is crucial to ending educational failure

Yesterday we had the Social Justice Policy Group's proposals on debt.  Tomorrow the focus will shift to drug and alcohol addiction before culminating at the start of next week with policy ideas for the voluntary sector and for the family.

At the heart of the SJPG's educational recommendations is the idea that "parents are primarily responsible for ensuring their children work hard, behave well and attend school."  A YouGov poll for the SJPG finds that 79% of Britons are in agreement with that contention.

With this idea at its core the SJPG recommends:

• A new wave of 'Pioneer Schools' set up and run by parents and charities but funded by the taxpayer at £5,500 per pupil, per year.  The idea is inspired by the US charter schools movement - a model of supply-side revolution that the party leadership has already indicated it is interested in embracing.  Pioneer schools would be free of local authority control and enjoy charitable status. They would have freedom to set their own pay rates and should, the report says, be helped in this freedom by receiving premium rate funding from a special fund earmarked for attracting quality teachers to disadvantaged communities.  There would be minimum bureaucracy associated with 'Pioneer Schools' - in contrast, the report argues, with the Government's City Academies process.
• A system of compulsory home-school charters would underline parental responsibilities and there would be Be A Credit To Your Child courses to help parents understand how they can help their child succeed at school.
• New tax breaks to encourage businesses to invest in schools.

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.

Two issues for David Cameron

When former Archbishops start calling for stricter controls on immigration you know something is up.  As the table above demonstrates, Britain has a big immigration problem and none of the main political parties are really addressing the issue.  Max Hastings writes about the issue in today's Mail:

"I am an admirer of Tory leader David Cameron. But it seems extraordinary that he scarcely opens his mouth about a subject which alarms most British people vastly more than Iraq, the environment or Europe... Cameron is scarred by the memory of the Tories' fate at the 2005 election, after Michael Howard talked tough about immigration. I do not believe that had anything to do with Howard's defeat, but the Cameron camp think they did."

There wasn't too much wrong with the substance of Michael Howard's 2005 message.  What was wrong was that Michael Howard wasn't liked enough to be trusted with the message and he gave it too much volume.  His message was also unbalanced.  There was very little from Michael Howard's Tories on international justice issues.  A tough-on-immigration only stance was therefore portrayed by opponents as harsh and a product of a Little England mentality.

David Cameron is widely seen as a decent man and he is in a position to talk about border protection with more authority and success than his predecessor.  Addressing international justice issues in a more prominent way would also demonstrate that the party is concerned about the world beyond Dover.  Although David Cameron has been to Darfur and raised the issue intermittently he has not communicated a sufficient degree of urgency or passion.  He should look across the Channel and follow the example of President Sarkozy.  Since becoming President, Sarkozy has appointed the founder of Médecins sans Frontières as his foreign minister.  That signal of humanitarian intent was followed up yesterday by the Paris conference on Darfur.  At that conference Sarkozy was characteristically direct.  "Silence is killing," he said.  For the first time for a long time there is now hope that something might be done in Darfur.

Ten days ago I wrote about my vision of a more progressive Conservative Party.  Such a party - if David Cameron really invested in creating it - would find it much easier to address issues like immigration.  Up until now we are making the right noises on environmental and justice issues but voters are yet to be convinced that we are serious.  This summer's policy review groups must help to show that we are.

The Government brutally discriminates against two-parent families

So says Frank Field, and he should know. In a paper for Reform (download), he predicts the Government will miss its "audacious" target of halving child poverty by 2011 and that government policy:

• "has missed its 2004-05 target of a reduction of a quarter in child poverty and fallen further behind last year"
• "has seen no change in the numbers of children in severe poverty"
• "leaves one in five of poor children in persistently poor households"

He found that because of the discrimination against two-parent families:

• "the risk of poverty has hardly changed for children in two-parent families"
• "half of all poor children are in working families despite the Government’s belief that working is the best route out of poverty"
• "the numbers of children in working poor households is back at the level it was in 1995"

The Director of Reform, Andrew Haldenby, told ConservativeHome:

"Child poverty will remain at the heart of politics whoever wins the next election.  The Government’s target to “eradicate” child poverty by 2020 is its defining commitment to social justice.  In November, David Cameron said that the next Conservative Government would seek to reduce poverty in relative terms (in practice the same as the Government’s position).

Current policies will not deliver for either party.  In his latest paper for Reform, Frank Field, the former Minister for Welfare Reform, shows that extra spending on taxes and benefits has amounted to £13 billion since 1997, yet progress on child poverty has stalled since 2001-02.  He makes three recommendations: a redesign of the tax credits system to end the bias against two-parent families (which now contain over half of children in poverty); an improvement to the child support system; and education reform. 

In recent speeches and interviews, both George Osborne and John Hutton have signalled a wish to think about new ways to tackle poverty.  I hope that Frank Field’s ideas will influence their thinking."

The findings of the report are won't surprise many, but they are yet another damning indictment of Brown's failed approach to tackling poverty in the long-term. Understandably, Frank is one of the first people to decline an invitation to write for this site!

Deputy Editor

New names of CCHQ rooms confirmed

As mentioned in the Pandora column recently, CCHQ is naming one of the few rooms it has in Millbank that isn't part of the open plan office after suffragette Emily Pankhurst. We can now reveal the names of the other Conservative social reformers honoured with room names: Churchill, Disraeli, Butler, Wilberforce, Thatcher and Shaftesbury.

A memo from Francis Maude describes the reasoning behind each one:

"Known for his war leadership, Churchill’s stoic defence of liberal democracy preserved the legacy of freedom we enjoy today. No Conservative HQ could be complete without a Churchill Room.

Disraeli was of course one of the Party’s defining Leaders. As Prime Minister from 1874 to 1880 he pushed through the largest tranche of social reform legislation in the nineteenth century.

Emmeline Pankhurst was both a pioneering suffragette and subsequently a Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservatives. Her role in securing women’s right to vote is genuinely historic.

Rab Butler ensured a secondary education for every British child, regardless of social class or ability to pay. The 1944 Act that bears his name was a defining moment in the twentieth century.

William Wilberforce was of course the man who ended the slave trade, and by involving black abolitionists in his campaign was instrumental in the earliest stages of a long process in which black people eventually achieved equal rights.

Margaret Thatcher gave the poorest in society a way to buy their own homes and an opportunity to own shares; her 1988 Royal Society Speech put environmentalism and global warming on the political agenda; and her Scarman Enquiry began to engage Britain’s disaffected inner city youth.

Lord Shaftesbury’s campaigns for legislative reform improved access to education, improved conditions in factories and restricted child labour."

A great blend of tradition and "modern compassionate conservatism".

Deputy Editor

David Cameron's recipe for civic renewal

ConservativeHome struggled to understand Tony Blair's Telegraph article of Saturday in which he confessed that his approach to incivility had been wrong but then offered confusing ways forward.  Responding on the same editorial pages today David Cameron writes that it is obvious that the Prime Minister still doesn't 'get it':

• He still believes that public investment is the solution - "He believes that state initiatives and taxpayers' cash can ''cure'' the "nature of society". Anyone who still believes either that Mr Blair is a ''closet Tory'', or that I am anything other than a Conservative, should stick that quotation on their fridge door." Quite.
• He believes that crime and incivility are concentrated in a few hands and these hands need the interventions of the nanny state.  David Cameron is excoriating: "I find it extraordinary that Mr Blair could go from thinking incivility was a widespread social phenomenon in 1992, to a limited and localised one in 2007. Maybe this is what happens after 10 years as Prime Minister. Rarely travelling on public transport, constantly told what you want to hear, only aware of the most sensational breaches of public order, Mr Blair has missed one of the most pronounced and important social changes of our times.  The decline in civility is not confined to a few unruly families and neighbourhoods. It is all around us - on buses and trains, in shops and on the street."

At the end of his article, the Conservative leader identifies some of the policies that he will introduce to lead a revolution in social responsibility.  They are listed below with ConservativeHome reactions in italics:

1. Reforming the benefits system: Haven't seen much policy here although it is vital that the benefit system encourages the two pillars of any strong society - work and marriage.
2. Recognising marriage in the tax system: ConservativeHome strongly supports this policy and hopes that it won't be a mouse of a commitment when it is announced.  Only a large allowance will signify intent.  It's also important that the party realises that a tax allowance does not make enough of a family policy.  There need to be the kind of Healthy Marriage support services that are run by the voluntary sector but are supported by taxpayers' money.  We also need action on debt and other measures that will increase the strength of families.  Giving parents freedom to choose their children's own school would be a good start but we're unlikely to see that policy revived.
3. Freeing police from central bureaucracy: Nick Herbert MP's policy is one of the most encouraging of the party's initiatives and will be vital in turning the tide on criminality that preys so disproportionately on the vulnerable.  Other encouraging aspects of the Conservative law and order agenda include investment in drug rehabilitation and a double commitment to more imprisonment and more rehabilitation.
4. Long-term contracts for voluntary and social enterprises: This language is worrying.  Talk of contracts echoes the Labour-voluntary sector relationship.  Much of the establishment voluntary sector has an ethos that is indistinguishable from the public sector - partly because of long-term contracts that have come at the price of a dilution of essential difference and have filled many voluntary sector HQs with ex-local and central government staffers.  David Cameron rightly praises the smaller and more community-rooted charities and enterprises.  They are the future of poverty-fighting but they do not need the bear hug of the state.  They need new forms of funding that ensure that they can grow without their effective ethos being compromised.  Finding these forms of funding will be a primary test of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group.

Three other members of Team Cameron who are pursuing excellent policies in this whole area are Michael Gove - working on affordable housing; John Hayes - raising the standing of skills and vocational education; and David Willetts with his enquiry into the pressures of modern childhood.

The world has failed Darfur for four years

In a statement issued today Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell identifies Darfur as "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world" today.  He is surely right but it has been said a thousand times before and nothing substantial has been done to stop the slaughter by the Khartoum-backed Jangaweed militia.  Britain and America are bogged down in Iraq.  NATO is struggling to meet its obligations in Afghanistan.  The EU failed in its own Balkans backyard and is still failing today.  Russian and Chinese vetoes mean that the UN is repeating the tragedy of Rwanda.  The African Union lacks will and airpower.  Click here to see Globe for Darfur's hard-hitting photo campaign in which celebrities including Matt Damon and Hugh Grant drop hourglasses filled with blood.

Civility and social progress

Libby Purves concurs with Cameron's diagnosis of society in the Times today:

"As Mr Cameron said, there’s a lot we have started to shed responsibility for — public manners, civic pride, carrying a job through and taking the rap if we foul up. And the way has been led by a governmental and official culture of denying guilt and refusing ever to resign, and a mania for removing responsibility from individuals by hedging them in with restrictive rules. Head teachers, police, NHS staff, museum curators, officials of all sorts are made to spend far too much time in the tedious tasks of “accountability” (meaning form-filling and pretending to have hit imaginary “targets”). Individuals, meanwhile, fear to tackle nuisances in case they themselves are jumped on by the law."

Click here to read yesterday's civility speech in full (over 4500 words) or continue reading this post to see a few extracts. It brilliantly articulates some of the subtler, underlying problems with 21st century British society. The New Culture Forum has also covered the speech.

Deputy Editor

The poor are getting poorer

The Business have been doing some digging in the official statistics and the above quote is taken from the leader in the latest edition of the magazine.  It's quite an achievement for Mr Brown to have combined deeper poverty with the highest tax burden in British history... and tragic for the most vulnerable members of our society.

IDS: Manchester casino would mean degeneration - not regeneration

A report to be released by the Centre for Social Justice confirms critics' worst suspicions about the Government's planned 'Super-Casino’ in East Manchester, saying degeneration, not regeneration, will be the outcome.  Highlighted in the report were several key facts that seem not to have been taken into account in the plans.  Download PDF of Interim CSJ paper on gambling.

‘Problem’ gambling is on the rise in Britain with over 300,000 addicts, despite the opportunities for gambling being relatively limited.  Those most likely to be affected by problem gambling are typically of lower socio-economic background, and bearing in mind that the casino’s planned locality boasts 50% economic inactivity (total dependence on the state), that makes this the worst place to go ahead with the plans.  With research suggesting that in the UK, problem gambling and people getting into serious personal debt are very closely linked, and the young being the most severely affected, the casino is a ‘potentially hazardous threat’.

The report quotes the findings of the British Medical Association that there is a ‘close correlation between gambling and other addictive activities, such as drug and alcohol abuse’, as well as clear evidence from other countries’ experience that the installation of these super-casinos often lead to ‘vice and degeneration’ in the neighbouring communities.  When Manchester already tops the list for robberies, vehicle crime and violent crime, such exacerbation of the problem is very irresponsible, and the report concludes that the placement of a super-casino in this area could have devastating social consequences.

Cameron steels Tories to oppose Manchester casino

According to The Sunday Telegraph David Cameron has over-ruled George Osborne and imposed a three-line whip against Labour plans to base Britain's first super casino in Manchester.  The shadow cabinet - reportedly - had decided to back the plans but two factors appear to have changed the Conservative leader's mind.  First many Tory MPs were prepared to rebel against Tory support for the Government and, secondly, the revelation that Manchester appears to have been chosen because it would provide an ideal setting to test the "social impact" of a super casino.  In effect the deprived population of a great British city are intended to be used as guinea pigs.

Click here for Friday's Today in Parliament programme and to listen to Julie Kirkbride MP perform an excellent demolition job on Labour's super casino plans.

11.30am update: Whilst on the subject of gambling this leader from Friday's Daily Mail is worth highlighting:

"One of the great mysteries of modern politics is why this Government - a Labour Government, of all things - should so eagerly promote gambling, when it knows very well the harm that will be inflicted on the weak and vulnerable.  A super-casino in Manchester … smaller casinos elsewhere … an evident desire to make Britain the world capital of online betting … in her drive to encourage a freefor- all the egregious Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell seemed unstoppable.  But now, in what must be a deep humiliation for this foolish woman, the gambling industry has suffered a devastating blow at the hands of Gordon Brown with a 50 per cent tax on big casinos and 15 per cent on betting websites.  The result? Casinos are no longer quite so sure of the profits they can expect from mug punters. Online operators wonder if it is worth their while to move to Britain.  Ms Jowell's balloon has been pricked.  For the public - which never wanted a gambling explosion - this is a welcome reprieve. All credit to Mr Brown who, unlike some of his colleagues, hasn't forgotten the principles for which Labour once stood.  The Mail is not overly fond of taxation.  But this is one tax we heartily endorse."

'Wilberforce Conservatism'

Last night David Cameron gave the annual William Wilberforce Address to a gathering of more than 850 Christians at an event organised by the Conservative Christian Fellowship.  When I organised the first Wilberforce Address nearly ten years ago the attendance was only a third of that number.  It is a mark of the progress of the CCF under its current director Elizabeth Berridge - and of the star status of David Cameron - that last night's event was so well attended.  The quality of the audience was also high.  The Bishop of Liverpool James Jones (and my hope to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury) chaired proceedings and many black church leaders were also present.  The Conservative Party needs more organisations like the CCF that represent the party to, in its case, the churches and the churches' views to the party.

Do you know an effective poverty-fighting organisation?

All the biggest charities are well-represented at Westminster. With their public policy teams and large marketing budgets, they can exercise disproportionate influence. Smaller voluntary and community groups are often doing the best work in tackling poverty a local level. However they get little opportunity to demonstrate their effectiveness and value to national politicians.

The Centre for Social Justice Awards, sponsored by the Pears Foundation, recognise, reward and celebrate the work of innovative grassroots poverty-fighting groups. Winners get the opportunity to showcase their work to senior policymakers from across the political spectrum. David Cameron, Charles Kennedy and Stephen Timms have attended previous CSJ Awards presentations.  Last year Ruby Wax and rugby legend Keith Wood were among those who presented prizes.

Most charity awards are run for profit by trade magazine publishers. Recipients have to make do with a perspex bauble. CSJ Awards are different – winners will receive prizes of £5,000 at the high-profile presentation to be hosted by JPMorgan Asset Management in July. Most Awards will be made to grassroots projects working in the UK with another going to a group tackling poverty or advancing social justice overseas. A local authority award will also be made to a council doing innovative work to tackle deprivation.

ConservativeHome readers who get organisations to apply that are subsequently short-listed will receive a pair of tickets for the prize-giving event on July 11th.  For further information or to discuss sponsorship opportunities for individual Awards contact Cameron Watt at the CSJ.

British society is in "deep trouble" says Cameron

In the wake of the murder of south London teenager Billy Cox and the UNICEF report on child welfare, David Cameron's speech on British society was likely to win substantial coverage and it led this morning's Today programme.  In the 8.10am interview Mr Cameron said that all of Britain's social problems - teenage pregancy, bad discipline in schools and urban violence - were related to family breakdown.  In language likely to delight social conservatives he reiterated his pledge to introduce an allowance for married couples and to ensure that absent fathers paid maintenance to the mothers of their children but his main point was that government could not succeed if the institutions of society remained weak.

In his speech the Conservative leader will say that Britain urgently needs "to encourage a culture of intervention":

"In a healthy society, children are the responsibility not just of their parents, but of the whole community.  I'm not talking about taking on a gang of dangerous thugs. I'm talking about treating children and teenagers with respect - with the expectation that, if they are spoken to as reasonable people, they will respond as reasonable people."

Although he will touch on issues such as the need for teachers to enjoy greater powers to instil discipline in schools, Mr Cameron's speech identifies two key villains behind the decline of society.

First, father absence.  He will say that society is founded on the care of children "by the man and the woman who brought them into the world."  Without defining what he means he will say that "we urgently need to reform the law, and the rules around child maintenance, to compel men to stand by their families."

His second target is unhealthy working hours.  Here is a key extract of what he is expected to say:

"If it comes to a collision between our wealth as a nation and the well-being of families - I choose families.  I don't make this choice lightly. I know that a dynamic economy is essential to create the wealth we need, not least in order to eradicate poverty.  Competitiveness, which includes a flexible labour market, is one of the central components of a fair society.  But we must not put the cart before the horse. If our working habits are damaging our families, we need to change our working habits.  I believe that businesses have an overriding corporate responsibility to help lessen this conflict, and make it easier for parents to find the proper balance for their lives.  Let us have no more grandstanding about the exclusive importance of competitiveness in business. Nothing matters more than children."

The Tory leader's analysis will be backed up by Alan Duncan.  In a lunchtime address to the Centre for Policy Studies the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary will praise David Cameron for having "decontaminated" the Tory brand (that word again) and will go on to say:

“The collapse of authority cannot remain undiscussed. If there is no fear of authority, there is no respect for it. It cannot make sense in a civilised society for children of school age to face the discipline they need in court rather than in class or in the home.  Even though most of the problems at any school are family-based, we are condemned to decline if adults and institutions remain unable to reclaim authority over younger people. Living out in real life the disturbing plot of William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' risks corroding Britain's well-being. The likes of Gordon Brown believe that action by the state can and will solve all these problems. It can't.  Social responsibility means that the state on its own should not be seen as the solution; institutions other than the state have a far greater role to play.”

Child poverty in Britain

A UNICEF report on child welfare in twenty industrialised nations paints a depressing picture of the welfare of British children:

"Not only do they drink the most, smoke more and have more sex than their peers, they rate their health as the poorest, dislike school more and are among the least satisfied with life. Their relative poverty, the lack of time spent eating meals with their parents and mistrust of classmates mean that Britain languishes at the bottom of the wellbeing league table."

One of the authors, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, basically puts the blame on the last Conservative government:

“Between 1979 and 1999, children were relatively neglected in Britain, child poverty rates rose rapidly, those living in workless households soared and the numbers not in education or training also rose.”

Debating the problems associated with child poverty often comes down to "the chicken or the egg", but I think Professor Bradshaw is being overly simplistic in deciding that relative poverty is the sole "chicken". Britain having the highest rate of single parenthood is a major factor, it also has the lowest number of children that said fellow children were "kind and helpful", is this merely because of material welath, or the lack of? If I can quote Iain Duncan Smith:

"Many of today's children have more material possessions than the post-war generation could even dream of. Whilst some are still in material need there is a deeper poverty. Times may have changed but children's fundamental needs have not. Children are essentially the same at every time and in every place. Deeper than their material needs is a hunger for identity and security. To be part of a loving home where they can become more than they could ever be on their own. The state cannot provide such a home."

George Osborne is right to point the finger at Gordon Brown:

"This report tells the truth about Brown's Britain. After ten years of his welfare and education policies, our children have the lowest wellbeing in the developed world. The Chancellor has failed this generation of children and will fail the next if he's given a chance. We need a new approach."

Brown's policies have done little to get to the roots of these problems, Cameron's talk about General Well-Being and the family unit promises to do more.

Deputy Editor

Taking the batteries out of social projects

In his Telegraph piece entitled "God help needy Christian charities", Charles Moore today highlights how Christian-inspired social work gets a raw deal from councils and quangos. He points to how a potential foster mother and grants for two voluntary projects that helped people of any faith or none, have been knocked back purely on the grounds of them being Christian.

Christian faith is the driving force for many social projects, but as Charles says:

"None of this means that Christians cannot serve people of other beliefs, or people whose actions they think are sinful. In fact, the whole of Christian charity is based on the idea that we are all sinful and that you should show particular consideration to those – prostitutes, drug addicts, drunks, prisoners etc – broken down by a sinful world. But it does mean that if the public authorities start demanding Christians' assent to anti-religious doctrines, they cannot give it. And that means that such catechising, if rigorously applied, will prevent Christians from doing the benevolent public work that the Government itself welcomes."

Tim, Joseph Loconte and I discussed this very issue on 18 Doughty Street recently. Of course, one of the biggest tests of David Cameron's rhetoric about the voluntary society was the recent issue over Catholic adoption agencies, although I'm not sure we need to debate that again here!   

Although the vast majority of faith-based social work is Christian this isn't just about championing Christian charities over others - they just need to have a level playing field:

"Another oddity is that "faith groups" of other religions – most notably Islam – seem to attract much less persecution from government and local councils than does Christianity. This is because such groups have been encouraged under the banner of helping ethnic minorities, whereas Christians in Britain, at least outside London, are predominantly white and Anglo-Saxon. Ethnicity gives you a free pass. Many of these charities of other faiths are excellent, but few cater for the general population in the way that Christian ones do. In that sense, they are less "diverse" than Christian charities."

I'd attribute some of this phenomenon to what Americans like to call "self-loathing liberalism", in which the majority culture and religion is constantly apologised for. Whatever the reasons behind it, it is a crunch issue that lies at the heart of the now-fashionable political agenda of social responsibility.

Deputy Editor

Cameron's hesitation on Catholic adoption row imperils his faith-based social action agenda

On this morning's Sunday AM Shadow Home Secretary David Davis made it clear that he would be voting against the attempts by the Government to force the Catholic Church to consider placing the very vulnerable children in its care with gay couples.  Mr Davis, who has long championed the welfare of 'looked-after children', will - like all other Tory MPs - enjoy a free vote on the issue.

Mr Cameron's silence on this issue has frustrated Tory traditionalist MPs throughout the week.  Edward Leigh was on yesterday's Week in Westminster attacking the Labour policy and the anxieties of John Hayes and Julian Brazier are spotlighted in today's Sunday Telegraph.

The issue is important for all of the reasons stated in an excellent article (with a misleading headline) by Matthew d'Ancona.  At the heart of Mr Cameron's 'social responsibility agenda' is a belief that faith-based groups can do a better job at welfare than the state.  But a big part of the reason for the efficacy of faith-based groups is the religious ethos that drives them.  If Government insists that faith-based groups adopt an ethos that is less authentic to their traditions (and more like that of government departments) the faith-based projects will decide that they had better remain independent of government.  There is a deep and unresolved tension between David Cameron saying that he wants public policy to encourage more faith-based social action but then hesitating to support the freedom of faith-based groups to behave authentically.

David Cameron has another go at explaining his big idea: Social responsibility

Writing in The Guardian Jonathan Freedland lists some objections to the Tory leader's social responsibility mission.  Comparing Britain with America he worries that there is little culture of philanthropy or Christian-inspired volunteering that gives America's social sector its strength.  Mr Freedland is undoubtedly right about the sources of America's vigour but he betrays the leftish mindset that something has to be huge and comprehensive in order to be worthwhile.  It may be that the capacity of the social sector remains very limited for a number of years but we should welcome the possibility that tens of thousands of extra people might be freed from drugs, given basic life skills or are helped from rough sleeping into work.  David Cameron is right to want to reward more voluntary sector activity because again and again it offers superior care and rehabilitation - particularly when offered by the community-rooted or faith-based groups that haven't adopted the statist mentality that infects so many of Britain's bigger voluntary sector organisations.  Voucherisation of funding and a new willingness by church and other leaders to remind people of their responsibilities to neighbours in need will both be essential underpinnings of a voluntary sector revival.

Cheryl Gillan proposes voucherisation of charity funding

Cheryl Gillan has delivered a speech on 'Labour's selfish society' today.  Read it here.  It won advance coverage in the Mail on Sunday and I guess that any further coverage Mrs Gillan receives will be connected with the speech's attack on Labour.  The most interesting idea comes at the end of the speech when the Shadow Welsh Secretary proposes 'Volunteering Vouchers':

"As the interim report from Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Policy Group demonstrated last month, one of the trickiest challenges for us is to find ways of increasing state funding of charities and other independent organisations, without at the same time increasing the power of the state and diminishing the independence of the organisations we are funding. A possible way of doing this is to ensure that some of the money the state spends on the voluntary sector is allocated by citizens themselves, rather than by government officials with all sorts of strings attached.

"Therefore, on behalf of David Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet, I am today submitting a policy proposal to Iain Duncan Smith and the Social Justice Policy Group. We would like Iain and his colleagues to investigate the idea of Volunteering Vouchers - taxpayers money which you can "earn" for the charity of your choice by volunteering for it. This would not represent an increase in spending, but a reallocation of existing funding. Rather than the state controlling this money, we believe that individuals and communities could be in charge of it."

I hope it's an idea that the SJPG will consider very seriously.  Just because charities need taxpayers' money to flourish, there's no need for that money to be directed by risk-averse and politicised bureaucrats.  As much state funding of charities should be voucherised as possible.

See this definition of stakeholder-directed funding for more.

Related link: Cheryl Gillan on Being Shadow Secretary of State for Wales

Labour's Dark Side

David Cameron's New Year's message was published last night, ahead of Blair's later today. He said that 2007 would be the year that Labour's "dark side", in the shape of Brown, would initiate the politics of fear and negative campaigning.

Brown's welfare policies were the main target of the speech, with Cameron framing the ideological battle as being between:

"Labour's state control versus Conservative social responsibility."

In another welcome sign that DC is recognising the importance of strivers since his promise of a grittier second year, he went on to say the Party would side with "working people, not rich and powerful vested interests."  [Related ConservativeHome link from August: It's time for Dave to hug-a-striver].

Civitas' Director, David Green, captures the idea of strivers in his excellent article for today's Sunday Telegraph:

"A free society allows everyone, whether their origins are humble or mighty, to discover their personal best. For anyone with talent, it means the chance to strive for the heights of human accomplishment in any walk of life, from making scientific discoveries that vanquish disease to using words, paint, stone or music to encapsulate truth and beauty."

But a letter to The Observer has a different take on the concept:

"Economic growth not only fails to deliver happiness but it encourages us to be miserable. The capitalist system's survival depends on us all being discontented and permanently striving. If we are unhappy with the way we look, we will buy cosmetics and clothes; if we think our homes aren't up to much, we will continually re-decorate and buy new furniture"

That's materialism, not striving. Brown's failed methods have done untold damage to what Green calls "private action for public good" - to the desire and potential to work hard for society rather than getting whatever you can out of it.

Cameron's team have hit on the Dark Side's biggest weakness.

Deputy Editor

11am postscript: The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that Gordon Brown is planning a humbler, more austere Downing Street.  There'll be fewer political advisers in the Alastair Campbell mould and power will be returned to civil servants.  "You will not see the new prime minister holidaying at the home of a Bee Gee or Sir Cliff Richard," a senior MP told The Sunday Telegraph.  [No ManBoobs then!]   Brownites Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and Ed Milliband are all tipped to join the Cabinet along with Blairites James Purnell and Liam Byrne.  Armstrong, Falconer, Jowell, Hutton and Prescott will all depart the Cabinet table.

Cameron says voluntary sector can help defeat postcode lottery

David Cameron recently admitted to The Telegraph that he was frustrated that his big idea of social responsibility hadn't really taken off.  The Tory leader had another go at explaining the idea yesterday - in a speech to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.  Although the speech was focused on his wish to deliver a shift from state welfare to social welfare he spent some time explaining that he had no intention of dismantling what most voters see as the benefits of state welfare:

• "Universal education" and "universal healthcare" were "great steps forward", he insisted, and they "must never be reversed".
• There would be no cut-price welfare, either: "With a Conservative government, spending on public services will rise. We will share the proceeds of growth between lower taxes and more public spending."
• Mr Cameron also reassured people that there would be no retreat from state provision until the voluntary sector was ready to take its place: "Our motivation is not simply an arid desire to roll back the frontiers of the state. It is a mission richer and more rewarding than that: to roll forward the frontiers of society. To empower - and, yes, to fund - more social organisations in the work they do. Not to force new work on voluntary bodies - but to give them a "right to supply" where they can do a better job than government."

David Cameron also offered four reasons to discount the objection that voluntary sector provision would produce a postcode lottery with very different service standards across the country:

1. There already is a postcode lottery despite the existing centralisation of services and he pointed to inequalities under the NHS.
2. The freedom and innovation produced by a vibrant social enterprise sector will not just raise standards but it will eliminate the worst forms of inequality as social entrepreneurs freely transfer good practice across the country.
3. Expert commissioning of services will ensure consistency and improvement.
4. Basic standards for outcomes and access will still be set by the state and he cited Service Level Agreements and Public Service Agreements as models.

The speech contained some hints of policy direction.  Mr Cameron promised less stringent reporting requirements for small voluntary organisations and measures to ensure full cost recovery.  He also said that matched funding might be one way of reducing the danger that public funding of voluntary organisations leads to them losing their independence and distinctiveness.  ConservativeHome notes a few ideas here that might stop free charities from becoming functionaries of the state.

Webcameron: David Cameron discusses his speech