A wider philosophy
Peter Hoskin 2:51pm
David Cameron's given his speech at the Conservative Spring Forum. I haven't got access to a television at the moment, so I don't know what his delivery was like - (can any CoffeeHousers fill us in?) - but the content certainly reads well.
As Fraser said yesterday, the big theme is family. So plenty of talk about rewarding marriage in the tax system and extending parental leave etc. etc. However, what's particularly impressive is how Cameron makes this message part of a wider philosophy. Take, for instance, this passage:
"But let me make a firm commitment right now. Labour are planning an increase in outreach workers at Surestart centres, as one way of supporting parents with young children. That's their idea. But money is tight and we've got to make choices. So I believe that instead of more untrained outreach workers, we need more trained professionals who really know what they're doing. They exist already. They're called health visitors. Highly-trained NHS professionals who come to your home and build up a strong, trusting, personal relationship with your family. They have a huge part to play in making everything seem manageable. They don't judge, they help out. And that's why it's not surprising that overwhelmingly, parents say it's this kind of help and support they want: from a trained professional, in the home.
But under Labour, the number of health visitors is in freefall. Many are set to retire, with no plans to replace them. It's got so bad that in some parts of the country you're lucky to see one at all. According to one report, the drop in health visitors has led to serious medical conditions going unnoticed, poor diet - and even cases of rickets.
That's why I'm announcing today that a Conservative Government will provide a universal health visiting service to all parents. We're going to radically increase the number of health visitors so that every family can count on the proper, professional support they need. Another 4,200 health visitors. With money set aside for proper training and extra help for families in the most deprived areas...
...Don't listen to the desperate Labour lie that this is an attack on Surestart. It's about making Surestart work better. And it shows the big difference between us. You've got to be careful with public money - especially when times are tough. But Labour are casual with public money - and that's why there's been so much waste. Now they want to spend £200 million on a new army of outreach workers with no medical training. Instead of endlessly dreaming up extra things for the state to do, we believe in making sure the state does the things it's supposed to do, well."
It's one of his strongest attacks on government waste - and one of his strongest paeans to public spending restraint - yet. And, crucially, the "family-friendly" terminology will make it hard for Labour to use their tired "More Tory cuts" response. If Cameron can transplant this approach to other policy areas - and make the public hear "waste" when Labour say "investment" - than he'll have won a major battle of the pre-election campaign.
P.S. Another passage deserves quoting. It's something of a Cameroonian social contract, and I'd be keen to hear CoffeeHousers' thoughts:
"More flexible working. Extending parental leave. Corporate responsibility. More NHS health visitors. I know what some of you might be thinking. All this family-friendly stuff he's going on about: it's not really very Conservative, is it? Let me tell you why I think it's not just Conservative, but it's seriously Conservative.
If we Conservatives are serious when we say we want a smaller state and lower taxes, we have to have a serious plan for making it happen. And the truth is this: you won't end up with sustainably lower taxes unless you cut the real costs of government. And the real costs of government are the social problems that cause public spending, and the state, to grow and grow. And the whole point is that we Conservatives know that government cannot solve these problems on its own. So when, for example, we discuss this with business, here is the argument I will make. You in business - you want the same things I want: less tax, less red tape. I want to help you cut your costs, the costs imposed by government. But to do that, you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does.
That's why this family-friendly stuff is Conservative - seriously Conservative. It's about solving our social problems for the long term. Reducing demands on the state. And showing that the way to do it is through social responsibility, not state control."
Previous
Comments
London Calling
March 15th, 2008 4:50pmCall me confused, but How can David Cameron say 'Labour are planning an increase in outreach workers at Surestart centres, and that 'we need more trained professionals who really know what they're doing. They exist already. They're called health visitors' and then contradicts his evaluation by claiming 'But under Labour, the number of health visitors is in freefall. Many are set to retire, with no plans to replace them. It's got so bad that in some parts of the country you're lucky to see one at all'. My question is if these health visitors still exist as he states, how is he going to bring them out of retirement? Are not 'outreach workers' just another modern word for health visitors? what exactly is the point being made here. For those who don't already know,the following requirements for an outreach worker is as follows: * attend the homes of identified individuals/families to carry out duties and tasks as specified in the care plan designed to enable a good degree of independent living – for example, go with the client to collect welfare benefits or a pension * listen and give consideration to what both the client and carer would like to do and help them as best they can * identify deterioration in clients which will enable action to be taken to help them, for example with physical care such as bathing, cooking and so on * monitor and oversee any medication prescribed by qualified medical practitioners and check for any changes that have been made in dosage * provide a safe environment for those who need long-term supervision and support * help the client with preparation of meals, shopping, cleaning and laundry * note any significant changes in clients health, outlook and behaviour and refer upwards for advice about what action to take * assist in any assessment procedures * report to the senior outreach worker/manager about any alteration in the client’s family circumstances * manage the induction process of newly appointed outreach staff. Now tell me what the difference is between a health visitor and an outreach worker, for I am still confused? If this is all that David Cameron can bring to the political table, I'm afraid we are all going to mentally starve.
J H Holloway
March 15th, 2008 5:00pmImpressive. If Cameron wanted to conjure up a 'line to take' I think he's squared the circle very well indeed. I'm sure most conservatives will buy into these two passages, especially with the budget coverage in the papers showing clearly that currently income from income tax is swallowed up whole by 'social protection'.
David
March 15th, 2008 5:37pm"I want to help you cut your costs, the costs imposed by government. But to do that, you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does." Ooh, I like that.
Kiffa
March 15th, 2008 5:58pmThis sort of thing shows why the Conservatives are only 3 points ahead of Noooooo Labour: just as Britain is expressing its serious loathing of this government, and even (ex)Labour voters are musing that perhaps Mrs Thatcher was right, Cameron and Osbourne are following the public services (the State is the Solution, the NHS is sacred) mantra. What is the difference between parties? A pox on all (expenses grabbing) politicians, is the current mood. Surely just as Brown has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that government provision is not the harbinger of Joy, now should be the time of putting to the British people the sheer ABSURDITY of taking money off them (taxes) and giving it back to them in the form of hideously wasteful and inefficient services??? No government, despite all good intentions, is anything other than bureaucratic and inefficient. The last politican who articulated clearly that the individual was the best decision maker of what was good for them, was Margaret Thatcher. And she now gets applauded in restaurants. Funny, that. I want Cameron and Osbourne to speak of the theories of the true libertarians: Thomas 'the liberal elite are sleepwalking our civilisation to disaster' Sowell, Charles 'give the money straight to the people' Murray. Come on. Ignore your focus groups, talk to real people and hear how fed up they are. And develop some courage and clear bold vision, to talk of weaning Britain OFF the State.
Kiffa
March 15th, 2008 6:03pmAlthough I did like his comments to business... 'But to do that (cut taxes)you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does'. Brilliant! The debate on what to do with women and children (and economic production) in business needs to happen. It would be nice to have a government that does dialogue again, instead of bossy authoritarianism and denial when the Vision goes awry...
Simon
March 15th, 2008 7:22pmGood news and I see Dave is 16 points ahead in YouGov tomorrow. Looks like you could not have been more wrong about the politics of the budget then.
Nicholas
March 15th, 2008 7:37pmAs with so much of what Cameron actually says, as opposed to what is attributed to him, there is a depth of thought and lucidity sadly missing from the alternatives. The Labour response to these issues is of Neanderthal clumsiness. However, I fear that it is around the popular appetite for superficial soundbites and the media failure to probe and understand the detail of Cameron's governmental philosophy where the battle is being lost. And before mike the Labour troll posts, "posh toff", whatever that means, is irrelevant to this discussion.
carol42
March 15th, 2008 10:30pmI think the paternity leave for a baby is a nonsense, the last thing I wanted when my children were babies was my husband around all the time. If you want really useful paternity leave I would have loved it when the children were around two. That would be wonderful.
David Lindsay
March 15th, 2008 11:48pmIf Cameron were a conservative, then he would indeed be calling for money to be diverted from a scheme which provides the well-to-do wives of seriously rich husbands with baby-sitting at the expense of low-paid men, and thus of those men’s children and those children’s mothers.
But he would be calling for that money to be diverted to the mothers of small children, to pay them to look after their children rather than hand them over to strangers in order to return to the wage-slavery that feeds our deeply sick society’s insatiable greed.
dovegreyreader
March 16th, 2008 10:08amAt last,a politician who has discovered we are there! I wondered when it would dawn on someone that the nation already has in place a highly skilled workforce, professionally accountable and capable and with access to every family.Committed to and knowing the value of the service provision that David Cameron proposes. Yet health visitors are indeed a dying breed and unless someone stems our demise very quickly it will be too late. The baby has very nearly gone out with the bathwater.
Faceless Bureaucrat
March 16th, 2008 12:37pmHowever his speech resonates today, the timing could not be better... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3559480.ece
dovegreyreader
March 16th, 2008 1:50pmLondon Calling, a health visitor is nurse trained with a further post-graduate qualification and the key word to emphasise from that is "health". I have no knowledge about the training of outreach workers and have no doubt that they do a wonderful job but to my knowledge they work in Sure Start areas only. Bad things happen in nice places too and by focusing heavily on areas of social deprivation we have neglected others and their needs are often just as great. Post natal depression knows no social boundaries, neither do behavioural or developmental problems with children and sadly nor does child abuse or domestic violence. These come into any health visitors' remit wherever they may work on a daily basis and fewer and fewer of them have been dealing with more and more of it with very little back-up or support.