Time For Change

Just days after Michael Ancram gave us his "simple political creed," suggesting there are three core Conservative values — integrity, national pride and humanity — David Cameron has now summarised the beliefs that drive him: family, responsibility, and opportunity.

He asserts that the political agenda flowing from a belief in those three values "means that the most important driving force of everything you do, the principle and purpose of your politics, is to give people more freedom and control over their lives":

Because freedom is the real benefit of a strong family - it's the security it gives you to get on and get out and get up, with a strong family behind you if you fall.

It's because if you believe in responsibility, you have to give people freedom. You literally cannot be responsible for something unless you have power and control over it.

And it's because opportunity means the freedom to be a doer not a done-for, taking down the barriers so that everybody can make the most of their life.

So that will be the central test for the decisions I make: will it give people more freedom and control over their lives?

That is the overriding aim of the government I will lead...

This will be the choice at the election.

State control from Labour. Freedom with the Conservatives. And we will say to the British people - choose freedom."

Thus, for all the talking up of differences by the media, it is perhaps unsurprising that "the essence of the modern compassionate Conservatism" David believes in is not all that different from that described by Michael in his pamphlet Still a Conservative: "Freedom of the individual lies at the historic heart of Conservatism and sets us apart from those who believe the state knows best." As David maintains, this key principle of freedom applies to every issue and we should not make the mistake of accepting the false choice presented by those on the left who say he shouldn't talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes and by those on the right who say he shouldn't talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.

N.B. If you are looking for the Ofsted report Time for change?, click here.

Real Respect

Four weeks ago in Breakthrough Britain, the Social Justice Policy Group called for greater third sector delivery of public services. Today, the Conservatives' Social Enterprise Zones Task Force reinforces this call for charities and other non-governmental organisations to play a bigger role in boosting deprived neighbourhoods and communities.

Emulating the economic "enterprise zones" set up in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher to create jobs, wealth and opportunity, local authorities would be able to designate deprived areas as "social enterprise zones" in which social entrepreneurs would receive tax breaks to fight poverty. A Community Bank could also be created to channel funds and allocate tax relief where it might have the best effect. In addition, a new National School Leaver Programme would offer every young person the chance to participate in community activity at home or abroad after leaving school.

If we really want to promote community regeneration and attract investment in disadvantaged communities — if we are to have any hope of getting to grips with the sub-culture of drugs, knives and guns in places such as Hulme, the site of Manchester's latest shooting, less than a mile from where Jessie James was shot in Moss Side last September — then these "Real Respect" proposals are precisely the kind of localised, "bottom-up" solutions that government should be facilitating and supporting. As David Cameron notes in today's Guardian, these are social problems that require social as well as statutory solutions and it is a serious failing that, at present, the government typically works with large, national charities rather than smaller, locally based voluntary organisations, which are more often than not the ones most effective at combating entrenched deprivation.

The choice at the next election, whenever it comes, is clear: another four to five years of the present Government, that thinks the state knows how to run our lives better than we do, or a Party that will actually trust the people.

The Only Way Is Up?

Yet another study confirms that children born in the 1970s have a worse chance of escaping poverty than those born in the 1950s, that Britain has the lowest social mobility of any country you can measure, and that the Government's education policy fails poorer children.

There is cause for encouragement, though. For one thing, not only has the issue so clearly been identified as a problem, but many ideas are now being put forward for how to reverse the trend. Just consider the following three lists.

Firstly from David Willetts, who last month identified four areas that would help advance social mobility: ensure all children can read to a competent standard when they leave primary school; make vocational training more worthwhile to help tackle the poor performance of boys when compared with girls; increase home ownership; and reduce means-testing for families with several children staying on at school.

Secondly from Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt, describing elements of a framework to promote social mobility: get rid of the multiple disincentives that trap people in poverty; tackle the root causes of poverty, such as poor education, family breakdown, and dependency on alcohol or drugs; create an environment in which local communities, charities, social entrepreneurs and private enterprises can apply themselves over the long term to establishing what works in helping people deal with the problems that trap them in poverty, to be rewarded fairly and dependably for the results they achieve, and to be allowed to take risks in return for results; and establish asset-building as a key policy objective, whether it is personal assets such as a great education or material assets such as a home, a pension and savings.

Thirdly, these seven suggestions from Sir Peter Lampl, the chairman of the education policy group The Sutton Trust, that commissioned the latest study:

• Invest more in early years support that reaches the right families.

Sure Start, the government plan to help parents and young children, has too often failed to reach the families who need it most.
• Make school choice a reality for all.

There should be a national school bus system to ensure poorer parents – who are less likely to have access to private transport – can reach the better state schools in their area, even if they cannot afford to live next to them.
• Open up grammar schools to bright children from nonprivileged backgrounds.

David Willetts was right to point out that existing grammar schools serve too narrow a social pool.
• Democratise access to independent day schools.

Open up the top 100 or more private day schools on a needs-blind basis, with parents paying a sliding scale of fees according to their means.
• Supply high-quality provision out of school hours to develop young people.

All children should have access to meaningful opportunities beyond the school day to enrich their learning.
• Give the brightest and best the opportunity to prosper.

Introduce a measure of potential, such as the American Sat tests, to be used in conjunction with A-levels to identify bright children who may not have had access to the best education.
Also move to a system of true postqualification application, where students apply to university once they know their exam grades.
• Create an independent body to monitor education performance.

An education policy committee may be a step too far, but an authoritative body to look independently at standards, both across time and in relation to other countries, is desperately needed.

With such a wealth of suggestions, let us hope that a new government under a new prime minister might seek a new cross-party consensus to implement the kind of changes that will make a genuine difference to those who are currently unable to reach their full potential—and to society at large.

Core Values: Aspiration

"I lead — I don't follow my party."

In its 8:10 interview with David Cameron, the Today programme made no attempt to hide its intention of making as big a mountain out of the grammar school molehill as possible.

Yet for me the above quote was the most important thing Mr Cameron said. Yes, even more than "It's because I'm so passionate about aspiration that I want to get away from a sterile debate about grammar schools," "Let's import into all schools the things that make grammar schools successful," or "I want us to be the party that is for excellence and opportunity for all." His resolve to lead sets Mr Cameron in a different league from that of Mr Blair, driven as he has always been by his focus groups and pursuit of flattering media headlines.

Like everyone else, I have reservations and questions about some of the things that Mr Cameron is doing. Nevertheless, like the Conservative leader, I want the party to take the real steps necessary to deliver opportunity for all. Therefore I for one am willing to follow, not join the whipped-up peasants' revolt.

All You Need Is Love

Writing on the theme of "Charity and Justice in the Relations among Peoples and Nations" in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the Pope has said the world faces three specific challenges that "can only be met through a firm commitment to that greater justice which is inspired by charity."

1. The environment and sustainable development

Benedict XVI maintained that "If development were limited to the technical-economic aspect, obscuring the moral-religious dimension, it would not be an integral human development, but a one-sided distortion which would end up by unleashing man's destructive capacities."

2. Our conception of the human person and consequently our relationships with one other

The Pope lamented the fact that "Despite the recognition of the rights of the person in international declarations and legal instruments, much progress needs to be made in bringing this recognition to bear upon such global problems as the growing gap between rich and poor countries."

3. The values of the spirit, such as knowledge and education

Speaking about the increased interdependence of peoples arising from globalisation, he called for "a just equality of opportunity, especially in the field of education and the transmission of knowledge, is urgently needed. Regrettably, education, especially at the primary level, remains dramatically insufficient in many parts of the world."

He concluded:

"To meet these challenges, only love for neighbour can inspire within us justice at the service of life and the promotion of human dignity. Only love within the family, founded on a man and a woman, who are created in the image of God, can assure that inter-generational solidarity which transmits love and justice to future generations. Only charity can encourage us to place the human person once more at the center of life in society and at the centre of a globalized world governed by justice."

The observant among you may notice an uncanny resemblance between these and "the priorities of a 3G Europe" identified by David Cameron a couple of months ago: Global warming, Global poverty, and Globalisation. This surely represents an incredible consensus, to have both political and religious leaders singing from the same hymn sheet. Assuming they have identified the correct issues, I wonder to what extent the building of a just society is the responsibility of the political order and to what extent the Church and broader civil society need to get involved.

They used to say that "If Jesus Christ were on Earth today, he would be a Marxist revolutionary." Perhaps today he would be a Cameroonian Conservative, encouraging non-conformity in the Church of England?