"Do you believe that tax-payers' money should be used to support voluntary and faith-based organisations that are helping couples to build healthy and stable marriages?"
David Cameron: “Yes.”
David Davis: “I believe that voluntary sector and faith-based organisations are often the best at delivering the services people need. The volunteers and faith members are rightly focused on the communities they want to serve rather than focused on meeting targets and diktats from Whitehall. I think that funds should therefore be allocated to voluntary and faith-based organisations as part of our drive to increase efficiency in the delivery of services. I believe also that we should adopt a lighter touch to regulation so that volunteers and faith groups can get on with the job. For example at the last General Election we committed ourselves to encouraging wider rights of supply in education so that more charitable and faith-based schools could be set up. This is a policy that has worked with stunning success in Sweden and I want to take the best of what works in the world and implement it here in the UK.”
Editor's Comment: "I'll put this down as a very slight DC win. DC answered the question with a clear 'yes' and DD gave a longish answer without clearly saying that he does support using voluntary/faith-based groups to deliver healthy marriages support services (although I think that the clear implication is that he does). Both candidates have previously made it clear that they support tax relief for married couples. I'm glad to see that they're both open to other ways of supporting the still popular aspiration to marry. Broken families and drug addiction are one of the two main cultural forces that explain the persistence of poverty in this time of great wealth and welfare. Family policy must be at the heart of any compassionate conservatism and both candidates appear ready to deliver this. As I said with regard to the candidates' answers on Question Time last week - DC has shown a little more awareness of the need to produce a broad pro-family policy."
I think the scoring here is a little harsh. DC's "Yes" has the merit of simplicity, but there's no detail as to any particular method of 'supporting' the family, and whether it would be any good.
DC's "Yes" could, for example, cover using taxpayer's money to buy a free lollipop (or should that be a free smoothie?) for anyone working in the voluntary sector.
Posted by: Floating voter | 10 November 2005 at 12:17
Yes, the scoring here doesn't seem logical. DC's 'Yes' has the obvious merit of simplicity, but it doesn't really spell out any broader principle or belief. DD wants to take the concept further. Not just support for marriage, but also any charitable provision of current public service:
'I think that funds should therefore be allocated to voluntary and faith-based organisations as part of our drive to increase efficiency in the delivery of services.'
Surely this is a good thing?
Posted by: Andrew | 10 November 2005 at 12:20
I would actually have given this to Davis.'Yes'could mean a lot of different things and some explanation is needed.
Posted by: malcolm | 10 November 2005 at 12:21
Floating voter: I gave the swing to DC on this occasion because I also noted what he said on Question Time last week. It wasn't just a judgment on this question and answer.
It's refreshing to be accused of bias towards DC for once!!!
Posted by: Editor | 10 November 2005 at 12:21
David Cameron as always made it perfectly clear that he belives that policys should be pro family.
It seems to me that one innovation he as put forward so far is greater use of the voluntary sector and faith based groups which I throughly welcome.
The comment by so called floating voter is pathetic. Like quite a number on this site he wouldn`t know wether DC had a good idea or not as there is none so blind as those who will not see!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 10 November 2005 at 12:28
Once the state starts funding charitable institutions, isn't there a risk that they just become arms of the state?
Posted by: Sean Fear | 10 November 2005 at 12:28
"The comment by so called floating voter is pathetic. Like quite a number on this site he wouldn`t know wether DC had a good idea or not as there is none so blind as those who will not see!"
Is that the official position of the Cameron Campaign?
Posted by: Floating Voter | 10 November 2005 at 12:31
I would like to know in what specific ways the voluntary and faith-based oreganisations are currently helping couples to build healthy and stable marriages. I can see that the government could give tax advantages to married couples, though I doubt that this would have much effect on reducing the divorce rate, though it might encourage some of those living together, to tie the knot.
The main problem in my opinion is that people today are not prepared to tolerate even a slightly dull relationship, let alone a difficult one. Divorce is fairly easy, and any change would be met with stiff opposition. In the current climate all we can expect from politicians are soundbites and lip service.
Posted by: Derek | 10 November 2005 at 12:31
Fair point Sean. That's why we need Stakeholder-Directed Funding of the voluntary sector. Defined on the Dictionary Blog!
Posted by: Editor | 10 November 2005 at 12:32
"Do you believe that tax-payers' money should be used to support voluntary and faith-based organisations that are helping couples to build healthy and stable marriages?"
Oh dear. That means that these organisations would be captured by the bureaucrats.
These organisations would no longer be voluntary because they would be funded by money that is taken by force.
DD seems to have a similar view but does want to day it.
Let's avoid copying George "federal spending up 36%" Bush.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 10 November 2005 at 12:35
Cameron's brief answer is inline with what he has been saying during the campaign. Presumably (the man allegedly) William Aitkin won't be complaining Cameron waffled on this answer :-).
Posted by: Kate Castle | 10 November 2005 at 12:37
""Do you believe that tax-payers' money should be used to support voluntary and faith-based organisations that are helping couples to build healthy and stable marriages?"
David Cameron: “Yes.”"
Does David Cameron believe we should support voluntary and faith-based organisations that are helping Africans to build healthy and stable water supplies?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 12:40
Only with voluntary donations, Daniel. I refuse to donate to Christian Aid and other charities who put out anti-free trade propaganda. DC was right - the CA website describes free trade as promoting slavery.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 10 November 2005 at 12:43
Is that not a criticism of the current unfair trade system, which in reality is anything but free?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 12:46
Selsdon, public funding can be a danger but it doesn't have to be. For instance Gift Aid channels millions to charities every year without corrupting them.
As for the spending implications, marriage support saves the taxpayer money because its the taxpayer that picks up the cost of family breakdown.
Posted by: Ian Sider | 10 November 2005 at 12:47
The trend in Britain is to take less responsibility (for ourselves, our family and our children), primarily because the state has been taking ever-more responsibility.
I can’t find a solution to reverse this trend, but we can certainly stop making it worse – no new legislation to make extra provision for families. Neither candidate seems to be saying this, so perhaps there's a gaping hole in my logic or it's politically unpalatable.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 10 November 2005 at 12:53
A really depressing answer from DC.
The question is ludicrous in any event. What's the great virtue of 'faith based' organisations as opposed to any other voluntary organisation? What exactly is a 'healthy' marriage and how is such 'health' to be promoted? How can any organisation intervene in what must, by its nature, be the most intimate of relationships?
Even the Republic of Ireland is slowly giving up on all this nonsense and it would be madness for us to try and turn the clock back to 1955.
Posted by: Gareth | 10 November 2005 at 12:55
Daniel - yes, it should be a criticism of the current unfair trade system. The problem is that Christian Aid fail to make the distinction and criticise free trade.
Some quotes from their website:
"The slavery of free trade"
"Kofi is a victim of free trade."
"Free trade is imposed on poor countries..."
"The effects of free trade can be seen across the developing world. Millions of poor people's livelihoods are being threatened, and their governments are powerless to prevent it"
I agree with Christian Aid that we want fair trade. However, I do not agree with them in their attempt to undermine free trade.
Posted by: Peter Harrison | 10 November 2005 at 12:58
It's a nice ploy from Cameron to get the evangelical Christian lobby onside, although they are particularly numerous this side of the Atlantic...
Posted by: Andrew | 10 November 2005 at 12:59
"I agree with Christian Aid that we want fair trade. However, I do not agree with them in their attempt to undermine free trade."
Yes, but the point is the 'free' trade system as it stands is not free or fair at all.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 13:05
I don't believe we have "free trade" in the world at present, so why shouldn't poor third world countries be able to put tariff barriers up to protect their emerging industry and farming from competition? What is unfair is when they are bribed to do this in return for aid.
International trade agreements are a cut-throat business. It is not a level playing field. The EU must shoulder a lot of the blame. We must reform it or leave.
Posted by: Derek | 10 November 2005 at 13:08
But Christian Aid are simply as opposed to free trade as they are to any form of economic liberalism. They are socialists.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 10 November 2005 at 13:10
I don't suppose you'll ever achieve absolute free trade, Derek, but you can certainly move towards it.
The objection to tariffs in third world countries (as in rich countries) is that they protect vested interests at the expense of the wider population.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 10 November 2005 at 13:19
Daniel - I agree completely.
Christian Aid SHOULD be against what currently passes for "free trade". They should NOT be against GENUINE free trade which should also be fair. I think that's the point DC was making.
The problem is that the current unfair unfree trade system is referred to by all and sundry as "free trade", undermining public support for genuine free trade. "Fair trade" has been hijacked for an alternative system which is also unfair and unfree.
A perfect example of how labels can get in the way of discussion!
Posted by: Peter Harrison | 10 November 2005 at 14:02
I tend to agree with the view on Christian Aid - I used to donate money to them but stopped a few years ago when they sent me what was little more than anti-Israeli propaganda. Neither side in the Israel/Palestine issue has acted well and it is a horribly complicated situation as well as being a tragedy for all concerned, but reading this particular leaflet you would think the Palestinian Authority walked on water and the Israeli government was the embodiment of evil.
Posted by: CJ | 10 November 2005 at 14:30