Phil Hope MP, Labour's Minister for the Third Sector, responding to David Cameron's speech on the third sector, said:

"For all his warm words today, David Cameron's pledges on the Third sector show he's prepared to say anything to win support. In yet another example of the Tory leader's shallow salesmanship, more than half of the pledges in the document today are already Labour government policies that are popular with charities, but his other promises show his true colours.

"The Tory attitude towards the third sector is patronising and dangerous. Their plans show they would leave charities to deal with some of society's most difficult problems without the money needed to do it, hoping for hand-outs rather than being funded properly to do their important work. David Cameron's real agenda is about delivering services "more cheaply" by placing the burden on the voluntary sector.

"In the last ten years, funding for the third sector has doubled, but the Tories have still not committed to match Labour's funding for the third sector. In fact, David Cameron's plan for £10 billion of tax cuts would put at risk all Labour's extra support for charities.

"The third sector has been able to flourish and expand because of what the Labour government has done. The Tories would prefer the third sector to stay small silent and grateful while Labour is building it into a strong and powerful force for social change. The Tories say they'll get behind the voluntary sector. But that's only so they can slope off leaving the sector without the funding and support it needs to thrive."

It is vital that party responds properly to Cameron's musings on the Third Sector as, beneath the froth, that is where the Conservatives are most threatening to Labour. I'm glad this statement takes it seriously.

Oppositions may gain support through the unpopularity of the an incumbent government, but they only gain credibility through presenting a 'big idea'. Cameron's Third sector-based agenda may be flaky but it has elements that appeal across the political spectrum while employing language ("There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state") that seeks of define the contest between Labour and Conservatives as 'centralising, bureaucratic state control of everything Labour' versus 'devolved, liberal, innovative civil society Conservatives'. In a debate framed that way, it is difficult to see how Labour can move forward and it's vital that the party doesn't allow the Tories to define the contest as such.