<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Oliver Letwin MP &#187; Other articles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/category/other-articles/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com</link>
	<description>for West Dorset</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:14:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What fairness really means</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/479</link>
		<comments>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/479#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/?p=479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>This year&#8217;s Conservative conference is unlike any since the second world war. Instead of promoting one party, we are reaffirming the historic commitment we made in May – to work together with our coalition partner in the national interest.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to be clear about what that means. A big part, of course, is about bringing [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p>This year&#8217;s Conservative conference is unlike any since the second world war. Instead of promoting one party, we are reaffirming the historic commitment we made in May – to work together with our coalition partner in the national interest.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to be clear about what that means. A big part, of course, is about bringing sanity to our public finances. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve taken necessary and immediate steps to tackle Labour&#8217;s record deficit in a fair and responsible way – ensuring that taxpayers&#8217; money is spent responsibly and getting the public finances back on track.</p>
<p>But fixing the structural deficit is only the beginning. Governing in the national interest means achieving a horizon shift from short term to long term. It means running a government, not a magazine – where we seek to be judged by what we achieve for future generations, not by how many press releases we issue.</p>
<p>It means structural reform – of the NHS, so that our hospitals can care for our grandchildren as well as our grandparents; of schools, so that coming generations are the best-educated ever; of our political system, so that in coming generations communities have the power to shape their own ways of life; of our energy and planning systems, so that we are good stewards, handing to our successors a secure, low-carbon economy, a thriving natural environment and beautiful cities.</p>
<p>Above all, we want to build a stronger, more progressive welfare system to make sure that future generations inherit a better society – a society in which we encourage and enable everyone who can work to take work.</p>
<p>In 1942 William Beveridge wrote that the state &#8220;should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility &#8230; in establishing a national minimum it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family&#8221;. The welfare state was never meant to be a lifestyle choice. Yet our economy has become over-reliant on welfare, with mass worklessness accepted as a fact of life and more than five million people on out-of-work benefits. The Labour government singularly failed to tackle our entrenched social problems, leaving a welfare system that is poorly targeted, unfair, wildly expensive, open to fraud and difficult to understand.</p>
<p>This week we have announced how we will correct these fundamental problems by replacing the existing system of working-age benefits and tax credits with a single, integrated universal credit to make work pay and enabling people to lift themselves out of dependency.</p>
<p>The point of this reform is not simply financial: it&#8217;s social and cultural too. It&#8217;s sending a clear signal about what fairness really means: being there for people when they need it but creating the incentive for people to do the right thing, by establishing a clear link between work and reward.</p>
<p>And this welfare reform goes alongside our massive work programme – paying social enterprises and private providers by the results they achieve in getting people back into work. Together, welfare reform and the work programme will make a reality for millions of people the fact that work, not benefit, is the most sustainable route out of poverty.</p>
<p>Tackling the deficit, handing power to the people, reforming our public services, achieving green growth, and building a new strategy in which welfare helps people into work instead of trapping them in dependency. Whether you agree with these aims or not, you cannot deny the scale of the ambition. We are actually working together and fixing our thoughts on the national interest. So, this year at least, a conference slogan represents a new reality in British politics.</p>
<p>Article for the Guardian.</p>
<p> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/04/coalition-welfare-reform-fairness</p>
<p>Monday 4 October 2010 20.35 BST</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/479/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spatial Strategy</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/15</link>
		<comments>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/15#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/wordpress/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Campaign to protect rural England



As I write, the debate about the so-called South West Regional Spatial Strategy has entered a new phase. Local governments across Dorset and local MPs on a cross-party basis have registered strong disagreement with the proposals for new building put forward by regional government. And this, of course, is a campaign [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><strong><strong>Campaign to protect rural England</strong><br />
</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><strong><br />
</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">As I write, the debate about the so-called South West Regional Spatial Strategy has entered a new phase. Local governments across Dorset and local MPs on a cross-party basis have registered strong disagreement with the proposals for new building put forward by regional government. And this, of course, is a campaign in which CPRE has also played a leading part.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span>But there is a danger here.  </p>
<p>The danger is that people will think that the problem lies in the particular proposals put forward in this particular Strategy &#8211; whereas the real problem is with the very idea of a Regional Spatial Strategy. This is not merely the wrong thing. It is altogether the wrong kind of thing. </p>
<p>For years, the so-called planning system has been far from perfect. Too often, it has not resulted in rational and acceptable plans for enabling our population to be housed in a way that respects local opinion, environmental constraints and the desire to make Britain more beautiful rather than uglier. </p>
<p>But the invention of wholly unnecessary regional government and the transfer to regional government of immense power over “planning” has accentuated this long-running problem. </p>
<p>The result is that we are now faced with ghastly fantasies proposed at regional level and imposed on local government, only to be opposed by locals. And this confrontational system pleases no-one. The objectors, of course, are unhappy. But most of the houses in the regional “plan” will in fact never get built because of the opposition generated and the delays caused by the opposition. So the first-time buyers can’t buy and there are two million people on waiting lists for social housing. .</p>
<p>This is not a sensible way for our nation to proceed. </p>
<p>We need to move to a completely different model, in which regions have no part to play in the planning process, there are no national “targets”, and local people play a serious and constructive part in developing local plans and local planning decisions through co-operative processes such as enquiry by design. </p>
<p>In this new world, the vehicle for progress will not be the ghastly lucubrations of remote, regional bureaucracies, but local Community Land Trusts, which enable people in villages and neighbourhoods (urban as well as rural) to come together to provide the affordable housing that they and their children need.</p>
<p>That’s the way we can square the circle, end the confrontation and provide what is needed, where it is needed, at a price that can be afforded and with a look and feel that connects in a sensitive way with the buildings and the society around it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p></span></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oliverletwinmp.com/archives/15/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

