How dangerous a line is this for Cameron?
July 8th, 2008
How will the poor takes lessons on their plight from an Old-Etonian?
A day after Gordon Brown was lecturing us about not wasting food the Times is splashing Cameron’s speech yesterday when he said that some of those “who are poor, fat or addicted to alcohol or drugs have only themselves to blame.”
The report goes on:“In a conscious shift of strategy, the Tory leader said he would not shirk from discussing public morality and claimed that social problems were often the consequence of individuals’ choices. “We talk about people being ‘at risk of obesity’ instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise,” he said. “We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things — obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction — are purely external events like a plague or bad weather…“Of course, circumstances — where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school and the choices your parents make — have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices people make.“
Just reading the article you can see this approach appealing to the core Tory vote - but what about others? And Cameron himself is getting onto pretty thin ice when he talks about poverty.
In the hard world of politics there are enough things in the speech for his opponents to latch onto which when separated from the overall theme might not look so defensible.
I just wonder whether the appalling spate of bad news and poor ratings for Brown and Labour has made the Tory leader a bit too confident. Dangerous.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Sounds like Cameron’s been watching too much Jeremy Kyle…
Not sure Mike. From a purely political perspective, this kind of message chimes with precisely the right people, the C2s and Ds who were the backbone of the Thatcher and Blair co-alitions, whom the Tories have lost touch with for some time. Unless I’m mistaken, Cameron’s policy is not to reach out to Hampstead Heath and Richmond, but rather Hornchurch and Orpington.
However you are right that the papers could cause trouble detached from the underlying message - “Tories in disarray” nonsense like they have tried (and apparently failed) over Ray Lewis. However I think with Brown being Brown there is still a substantial cushion to fall onto even if one message goes seriously off-key …
alot of this could be spun badly by Labour, but at the end of the days Cameron is telling the truth. I’d rather we had a PM who said we were being stupid, said we were seeing up our own lives, than a PM like Brown, who runs a nanny state, and attempts to cover the whoe country in a veneer of PC
Why is it dangerous for Cameron to point out that into the twelfth year of Labour, the public health has deteriorated, with less exercise, worse diets and rising obesity? If Labour want to try and spin the “but Cameron can’t speak on this because he is loaded!” line, fine - but he’s right to remind people that under Labour, the poor have got poorer - which has fueled these problems. The public mood is that after a vast increase in taxes and borrowing, this Government has not tackled child poverty as promised (mostly because we continue to import it through essentially open borders); has seen us slide down the international rankings on reading and numeracy skills; and has allowed many of the domestic unemployed to become long-term unemployable, as they slide into dependance on the state (when work they could have been performing is undertaken by imported foreign workers - whose presence has driven up rents and house prices and looping all the poor - working or not - back into poverty).
Labour has given us a fatter, thicker, poorer population, addicted to alcohol, drugs and credit. And it is always someone else’s fault.
Has David Cameron ever done a day’s work in his life?
What did he do for a living prior to becoming an M.P.?
I agree with Mike - it is the first really bad headline I have seen from Cameron for a long time.
Also, what is the policy implication of this? Politicians lecturing the “poor and fat” isn’t really going to make things any better…….if you reject the “nanny state”, you have to come up with a way of helping people to make better choices. No sign that Cameron has any useful ideas in that regard.
Er, don’t you think that Cameron is includin himself in “the fat”?
Strange how you hear these rich politicians who have never had to struggle to buy food or clothes for their kids lecture people on their lifestyles . They seem to think it is ok for their pals to live a champagne swilling cocaine snorting Bullingdon club existence .
5. - Why do you ask? It makes a difference?
8 - Mark Senior - Shame on you. I ever thought to hear you talk about dear Gordon in that way!
9.
I will leave that to my good friend, Dennis Skinner to answer
More generally i think the thread misses the point, and falls into the Blairite trap of believing that winning elections is the end, not the (necessary) means to the end. If you are an unabashed believer in “big tent politics” then of course you will criticise anything that has a chance of losing even a single vote. But if a politician wants to achieve anything substantial then he knows that this is ultimately a pipe dream anyway.
Cameron’s big political message is social responsibility, and reducing reliance on the state. If the Conservatives want to put this message into action then it doesn’t do them any good to wait until they are in Govt before spelling out the implications. As long as people blame their circumstances or the State for their every suffering, then they will expect the State to provide the solutions.
And such a message can also be a vote winner with the right people. And those right people are most likely to be found in those who will decide an election.
5,11- he worked on policy and campaigns for a decade, he often worked 20 hour days.
Mike is right (I don’t say that very often!) And the reactions here this morning show it pretty categorically. The Tory core people here think that’s exactly what he should be doing, the non-Tories take against it big time, and Alex, the thinking person’s political agnostic weighs it all up very carefully!
Seem to remember Edwina Currie saying something similar!
Hmmmm perhaps Cameron should announce a Ministry to deal with such matters as obesity when he becomes PM, may I suggest Eric Pickles to lead it.
14 - lol, I thought mine was a pretty pro-Cameron post!
What is interesting is that Cameron made the speech when campaigning in Glasgow. So he obviously thinks that this is something that can resonate in unlikely areas.
The Guardian are rather less sensationalist in their reporting.
It is dangerous, but I suppose there is a question of what David Cameron is in politics for. If it is for anything more than getting elected, now is the time to explain what.
Like Mr Smithson, I don’t like the tone of this message: it’s quite a toff to tell a scruff the big mistake he’s making. But it is of a piece with caring Conservatism. The much more friendly Rachel Sylvester article, also in the Times today, gives more insight into the Tories’ thinking. We may be seeing just where David Cameron really wants to plant his flag.
11 - Ah yes, good old Dennis. Aged 76 years - exactly half of which have been as an MP. His honest years working as a miner are, unfortunately, a distant memory.
Got any proof of the cocaine snorting Mark or are you just been your normal offensive self?
Ladbrokes, Paddy Power and William Hill have all taken down their Glasgow East prices. On Betfair the Lib Dems have tightened from 200 yesterday to 100:
Lab 1.91
SNP 2.06
LD 100
Con 150
Any Other 200
http://www.betfair.com/
19. Of course he has no proof, he just like’s insulting tories, actually backing it up is ignored.
Betfair - Next General Election: Overall Majority
Con Majority 1.78
No Overall Majority 3.6
Lab Majority 5.9
Any Other Party Majority 130
It’s going to resonate with the female votes still not sure about whether Cameron is ‘for real’. Up to now there has been some reluctance to David Cameron from this group, they think he is a nice guy saying anything to get elected just like Tony Blair did; and it’s not what they want any more.
They know what he is saying is true, and the fact that it’s not a popular thing to say will impress them for the fact that he is being open.
I agree with Mike, it is a risky strategy that could go wrong but hey, I’d rather have a leader prepared to take risks - especially if they are facing up to the genuine issues we face as a society.
Thats what I thought, but Mark likes to dish it out. Can never take it though.
With Britain on the brink of recession - even according to a survey that has up till now been relatively upbeat - Cameron can afford to take a few chances.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/08/nborrow508.xml
Re Mark at 8, I have to agree with the first sentence. Mr Cameron really has no real idea of what life is like for some. BUT he is not alone in this and politicans of all parties share this neglect, especially when seeking the support of the media.
If he or they had been brought up in a poor area and worked in that environment on a daily basis I do not think he would say that. For some their is little or no choice.
A sad day for a Conservative party seeking to spread its appeal.
At last something we can all agree on. A disgraceful attack on PBs own Nick Palmer in the Daily Maily - Quentin Letts http://tinyurl.com/6cywa5
“Easily the most prattish comment of the day came from Nick Palmer (Lab, Broxtowe), a mystifyingly useless parliamentarian who claimed that Mr Benn’s ‘courageous decision’ just showed that the Tories took the attitude of ‘when in doubt, kill something’.”
I cannot imagine anyone who visits PB buys the Daily Mail (which is all about Max Moseley’s hobby today - but if anyone does a boycott is in order.
PB.com in discussion of Tory Policy( I might keep a running tally as by my reckoning thats the 2nd one in a week).
It gets worse:
“By the way, I notice that the gormless, idiotic Palmer used to take quite a few thousand quid a year from Novartis for his constituency work and newsletters.
Novartis is a science company. Mr Benn’s statement yesterday, with its promises of state-funded research into cattle vaccines, will benefit the science world.”
The obvious solution would be to vacinate the Cows - a lot of TB is spread by cattle movements and once you have killed all the badgers what about deer etc. etc.
Now if the proposal had been to get rid of cats that sh1t in my garden and kill song birds I would be all for it but I’m with Nick on badgers.
The Times headline doesn’t accurately portray the speech. Not read the whole thing, but long portions of it.
Cameron does say that the circumstances of your birth to play a huge role, but so too does personal responsibility. Most memorable example he raised was “at risk of obesity” when in fact people eat too much and exercise too little.
I can’t see how that is controversial. Regardless of the place and parents you’re born in and to you have real decisions to make which affect your life. Pretending that you’re fat because you’re middle class instead of because you eat pies all day, or that you smoke because you’re working class instead of because you buy cigarettes all the time is nonsense.
It is being spun badly for Cameron. This will probably go one of two ways, regarding polls. It could cause the shift seen in Populus (hard to say if a rogue or emerging trend) to become a pattern (ie pro-Labour anti-Tory momentum). Or people considering Cameron too populist or simply lacking any beliefs at all could start thinking of voting Tory.
I think it’s a damn shame that people consider it controversial to tell the overweight it’s their own fault. Barring medical conditions, it is.
Two speeches yesterday - one a public exposition of belief, the other a briefing to journalists.
Cameron’s speech was thoughtful and in line with his & the Party’s themes on social justice, responsibility & empowerment. Thoughtful, but like his so-called Hug a Hoody speech open to being used by his opponents. The Times main report shows how easy it is to misconstrue what he said and present it as “Tory Toff tells poor to shape up”. Will it damage Cameron? probably not , and if Mike Smithson’s rule on Cameron & publicity holds will most likely be positive in polls.
Gordon Brown gives a similar speech on personal responsibility, telling the poor to clear their plates, eat their greens and think about the starving Africans. OK, that’s not exactly what he said but it couldn’t be described as a thoughtful piece, especially the comments about supermarkets withdrawing special offers & two for one deals to reduce waste. It shows a politician cut off from real concerns and the reality of everyday life. Reporting was in effect, look at the powerful in their bubble, feasting on an 8 course meal while lecturing us on tightening our belts. Effect on polls probably negative (not sure if Gordon can further damage his standing but this doesn’t help improve it).
Nick Palmers comment wasn’t exactly helpful, far from engaging in debate he decided to just take a swipe at the tories, a rather lame one as well.
23
But isn’t this a bit, ‘Nanny State’ surely people have the right to be fat slobs if they want to, after all most MP’s are.
A glance along the benches and all you seem to see are paunches poking out through the buttons of their over stuffed shirts.
The fittest MP I can remember was Matthew Parris a sub three hour marathon runner, but then he used to do a lot of nocturnal training up on Clapham Common, according to his bio.
Mike S makes a good point. That said the Times is a problem area for Conservatives as it has supported new Labour and has Lib Dem leaning friends in its political team.
8 Mark Senior has clearly been over indulging in chemical substances.
27 of course Nick P quotes “reliable scientific views” when they suit him. The Govts Chief Scientific advisor recommended badger culling. He was then moved on/retired and the Govt decides to listen to a different piece of scientific advise who advise against culling.
Why did Nick P not blame the former Chief Advisor but instead blamed the Conservatives? Just partisan politicking.
35 should be advice and advise.
“A feasibility study into offshore renewable energy projects, and how the power they generate could be transmitted to the respective national grids, is to be conducted by the Scottish Government in partnership with the Irish government and the Northern Ireland Executive.”
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2383627.0.Scotland_and_Ireland_to_launch_joint_renewable_energy_study.php
32. Benn’s decision looks like part of the ’scorched earth’ policy another poster was alluding to the other day - Labour throwing away any attempt at governing objectively and instead seizing at the chance to have another go at the farming community (and gloat about it as well).
A small comfort, perhaps, to offset the fury Labour must be feeling at the sharp rise in food prices over the last couple of years - which came just when they thought they had reduced farming to its knees.
Oh, and it’s worth noting that Polly Toynbee’s exit from the Brown camp is now complete, as she starts talking about the thinking of Labour plotters:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/glasgoweast.labour
Polly Toynbee comes in for a lot of flak, but if there’s one subject she knows inside out it is Labour party machinations. I wonder who she could mean by:
“A sizeable group of senior back-benchers is ready to move against Brown if there were a signal from cabinet ministers. But so far most lead plotters are Blairites who would only trigger a tribal war. These conspirators include many lean and hungry Cassiuses but they need a Brutus - some Brownite minister reluctantly wielding a dagger against a friend, not to settle old scores but for the sake of party and country. That would be the “Et Tu” moment.”
‘Doctors’ chief says England must follow Scots lead on NHS funding’
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Doctors39-chief-says-England-must.4264198.jp
“Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon will tell a British Medical Association conference how she intends to prevent firms getting a foothold in GP care.
In England a host of firms are bidding for contracts to run GP services after encouragement from ministers.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7493657.stm
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2383599.0.sturgeon_to_close_loophole_in_bid_to_safeguard_gp_surgeries.php
Boris explaining it was his, ‘Civic Duty’ to sit in the Royal Box at Wimbledon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/08/do0801.xml
It may open a chink in the Tory armour - but Cameron is exactly right on this one. Britain has been buggered in so many ways by New Labour and we can’t realistically hope to sort the mess out without some up-front honesty. The ‘rights’ culture, sense of entitlement, benefits dependency, moral vacuum, sense of hopelessness, etc are all driven by government policy over the last 11 years.
Look what happened to Brutus and Cassius? They acted to stop a dictator and where did it all end up? With a dictator.
26. But I think it’s deeply patronising to imagine that *because* you are brought up in a poor area or are ‘in that environment on a daily basis’ (whatever you mean) you are unable to take some responsibility for not getting hooked on drugs or eating to excess.
The often forgotten point is that the majority of people who start out badly in life manage do manage to better themselves (less now than under the Tories, it has to be said) and they do so not because of Government handouts or because they are labelled as victims but because they have enough personal ambition, enough confidence and the odd role model to inspire them to get out there and make the best of what cards life has dealt them, in spite of their poor start. I am worried about these people being forgotten in the rush to attend to the few who don’t manage to or for some reason can’t rise to the challenge of modern life.
Hardly a policy though is it “pull a bit harder on those bootlaces”.
Stock market through the floor down 138 points so far and falling.
46, what time does the FTSE open?
Just checked the graph and it plunges vertically, and has actually made a small recovery.
46. Icarus
… and the BBC’s UK section leads with a headline shouting the magic word: “Recession” -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7494508.stm
Not pretty.
46 B&B down a further 6p at 36p - oh dear.
Opens at 8 - now down 132 points at 5381 - are you looking at the 15 minutes delay screen? (O/T Why the time lag?)
39. If I were a Labour member I would hold fire on my plots. The Tories position is nowhere near cemented, and whether the Tories like it or not, or agree with it or not, there are an awful lot of people who will not like the ‘idea’ that a Tory ‘Toff’ thinks that its the ‘poor wot deserves the blame’ - especially when the other Tory ‘Toff’ (the one that’s been elected) seems determined to shoot both feet off at the beginning of his 4 year stint - and the third Tory ‘Toff’ is under pressure for taking ten tousand quid for speaking.
I agree with Ted. The Tories are being taken out of context / misrepresented (although I don’t agree with Cameron). But that is always the case in politics. The Tories have had a free pass for 6 months - perhaps it is expiring - who knows?
Have we heard from Gabble (stock market up yesterday, down over 2% at the start of today) in the last couple of days? Could he really be in Japan?
I consider that those who do not, or more likely do not wish, to believe that people should take (more) responsibilty for their own situation are the ones who are letting down those about whom they pretend to be concerned. Comments such as Mark Senior’s in 8 above, whilst superficially supposedly amusing, are in reality an insult to those who are struggling to make a better life for their families.
As the economy deteriorates, millions of people are going to have to find the inner strength to get through the next few years (yes, it will take that long for the excesses of the last decade to work through) and some regretably will not be able to do it. There will not be the physical and financial resources to spread across a large proportion of the population, even if that were really the right thing to do. They will have to be encouraged, not directed, to help themselves. At the same time the available resources will have to be concentrated on those who really cannot do so.
47 8a.m.
People have grudging respect for the truth.
49.
A huge problem at B&B indeed.
The end of B&B is very significant. Could we see Queues forming as savers try to get their money out despite Brown’s assurances that the British economy is well placed to avoid the downturn that is affecting the rest of the world?
53, 50, thanks.
And yeah now I see the graph is 15 mins delayed. No idea why.
I think that Cameron is being totally realistic as he describes things as they are and that his analysis will resonate with many.
#46,#49 Bradford and Bingley trading around 30p some 30% down - underwriters sitting on a loss of £160m+ aka our pensions - ouch.
39. “These conspirators include many lean and hungry Cassiuses but they need a Brutus - some Brownite minister reluctantly wielding a dagger against a friend, not to settle old scores but for the sake of party and country. That would be the “Et Tu” moment.”
More knife crime in London.
it is doubtful that those to whom Cameron refers even vote.
56 15 minute delay because you have to pay for a live feed of up to date data - that’s what Reuters, Bloomberg etc make their money on.
This isn’t aimed at the tory vote it’s aimed at the working class vote.
As I know from my own background, there are the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’, working class voters will support anyone who makes this distinction. The ‘undeserving’ are, of course,much less likely to vote in any case.
Alliance & Leicester down 8% today and 80% off their 12 month high. Could this be the next one after Northern Rock and now the ever increasingly problematic Bradford and Bingley.
One wonders if Cameron’s little chats on obesity have included the svelt-like Eric Pickles and that Sussex stick insect Nick Soames !!
56 - Having worked with live stock exchange feeds you would place a 15 minute dissemination delay for internal validation purposes. Not everything that gets fed is reliable…
There’s a certain schadenfreude, I suppose I’d call it, about checking the FTSE data and seeing that the biggest loser is currently “London Stock Exchange Group” (-7.69% for the day right now)…
61. It might be a clause in the BBC’s contract with the Stock Exchange, they can display the data from 15 mins earlier, but not real time. Knowledge is power…
Not a good editorial for Brown in the Sun.
6 - The new book ‘Nudge’ is apparently being read and inwardly digested by Obama and Cameron alike, within it is the core of ‘libertarian paternalism’ which does what you suggest.
Read the whole speech for yourself here.
Judge for yourself; you may not want to rely on those uselss journalists …
I get an approximation for free with Spreadfair
67. dr spyn: Not a good editorial for Brown in the Sun.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece
Ouch.
[More ouch is that something in the editorial triggers Mike’s spam trap!]
67 Nor are the opinion pieces good for him
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/fergus_shanahan/article539512.ece
Though the truly shocking story is the police asking the suspect in the French student murder to hold on in waiting room until he could be arrested, the type of story that feeds into the narrative of poor state response to fears of crime:
“It shows he went to the front counter and was spoken to by a member of police staff. He then went into a cubicle for the next three minutes.“After that he was let back out and remained in the front reception area for another five minutes before he was arrested.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1393584.ece
People have mixed feelings about this sort of comment (and about food wastage too) - as I think David Herdson said, it’s something they quite often say themselves, but they are wary of hearing it from politicians. I wouldn’t think it will do much damage on its own. Norman: if that wasn’t a rhetorical question, David Cameron did have a job before politics. He worked in marketing. It colours his approach IMO.
Thanks, Icarus - attacks by the Daily Mail are fine with me.
I’ll take a 10-year scientific study by a panel of scientists specialised in the field over a one-off comment by the retiring chief scientist any day.
The technical problem about a cull is that if you kill some but not all badgers, the remaining ones move into the vacated setts, increasing mobility - which spreads the disease faster. If you don’t have complete cooperation (e.g. the National Trust has said it will not cooperate), the problem gets worse still. You could try eradicating every badger in Britain, but even the NFU doesn’t go that far, and anything short of that is unlikely to work.
Tory (and indeed LibDem) policy on this is so feeble - they know perfectly well that the case for a cull is weak, but essentially say, “Something must be done, so let’s gas a lot of badgers and maybe it will help”. “If in doubt, kill something” precisely sums it up.
Only 54 weeks since we said “Farewell” to Yogi Blair ..
And now the sun had stretched out all the hills,
And now was dropped into the western bay;
At last HE rose, and twitched his mantle blue;
Tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new…
leaving Boo Boo in charge of the picnic baskets.
They’ve now been plundered and hunger looms in Jellystone Park.
So Boo Boo has come up with this brilliant idea. A bear market!
Anyone want to buy Paddington - cheap?
There is a crucial piece of Camerons speech missing from the Times report above:
“We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.
“Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.
“Of course as soon as a politician says this there is a clamour - “but what about all of you?” And let me say now, yes, we are human, flawed and frequently screw up.
“Our relationships crack up, our marriages break down, we fail as parents and as citizens just like everyone else. But if the result of this is a stultifying silence about things that really matter, we re-double the failure. Refusing to use these words - right and wrong - means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.
“
71. I had wondered why I couldn’t post a cut and paste quote from the Stun.
73. ‘if in doubt, kill it’ is just basically a comment to try and grab attention. It’s not particularly witty or bringing anything to the debate, just you trying to score points off the tories and lib dems.
75. Those are impressive and ringing words, Marcus. They would be more impressive if Mr Cameron and his colleagues had paid more attention to right and wrong over Iraq… arms to Iraq… arms to Saudi Arabia… cash for questions… ad infinitum.
Personal responsibility is central to a liberal society, but it can only really be secured if the state and corporate bodies are held to their responsibilities as well.
It really does look like a classic bear market,a plunge, a partial recovery, yet another plunge and so on and so forth.
It looks like the doom and gloom merchants are on the money
These forays into moralising are always risky for a politician. Of course eating unwisely and taking too little exercise leads to obesity. Family breakdown can lead to poverty and disturbed children. The problem is that if you preach this, people will judge you as well. Woe betide the Tory MP who fathers a child out of wedlock or the MP caught under the influence of alcohol. One can argue that we always fall short of our high ideas, and hence high ideals and hypocrisy go hand in hand. But this is a sophisticated argument. The Newspapers will have a field day showing the discrepancy between what is preached and what is practised.
Dave is exactly right.
I’m slightly overweight. Not much, but a little. Whose fault is that? Mine, for a couple too many helpings of chips and too few outings on my bike.
I don’t have very much money either. Whose fault? Mine again, for not getting a degree, and for choosing easy jobs and the easy life.
I wouldn’t dream of blaming my poor working class background for either of those things. I’m a grown man, I am quite capable of taking responsibility for own decisions and the consequences of them.
How refreshing to hear a politician actually dare to say these things.
73 Gordon Brown spent 8 years at University, then 3 more as a Lecturer at a Tech on politics followed by 3 years as a politics journalist at which point he became an MP. That in my opinion colours his approach.
Perhaps he wouldn’t be so inept if he had taken a job in Marketing or in fact a job doing something other than politics
75 - I can see what Cameron is doing but to trade in absolutes is only a short term benefit, sooner or later you have to acknowledge grey areas, look at any moral issue and, even with murder for example, there can be justifications.
Moral neutrality is not the same as moral realism.
82. I read somewhere that Brown was brilliant as an undergrad, but struggled with his PhD thesis and took unusually long to complete it. Someone on here may be able to corroborate that.
If it is true, what does that tell us about Brown?
81 - except not getting a degree is not usually the decision of an adult, is it? It is the result of experiences and decisions made for someone when they are still a minor.
The risk to Cameron, if any, is in the way hostile or glib commentators and journalists interpret or paraphrase his speech(es). If he wants to be Prime Minister - and I think we’ve established he does - then he has to be able to address issues applying to all parts of the social spectrum. Nothing can be off-limits.
I know it does not appeal to the world view of some of the Lib Dem supporters on here, but being born into the higher classes does not deprive Cameron of the right to talk about the issues affecting the poorest in society; and as much as you might like to live in a pretend world where Cameron and his fellow Eton toffs care only about how to use the machinations of state to enrich their cabal of public school chums and keep the lower classes in their place, the reality is that Cameron stems from a long line of Tory tradition which is genuinely appalled by the lack of social mobility in this country and will not shy away from identifying the causes. Policies to address them will follow, but a key part of the process - the essence of conservatism, no less - is the recognition that there is a limit to what the State can achieve. After a certain point, individuals need to stop blaming society, their parents, their background, their estate, their school - and take some responsibility.
It is notable that nobody on here has challenged the substance of what Cameron has said. Nor can you. His speech was finely balanced. He has learnt from the Thatcher years that the electorate dislikes high minded, unsympathetic moralising, and the new message is a more educated, more socially aware message.
The sooner Cameron’s opponants accept that he is a new proposition, the sooner they can start to challenge him effectively, and perhaps even peg back the outrageous poll leads. I am constantly amazed and amused by the way so many on this site underestimate him, and/or believe the politics of class envy is the way to take him down. It’s worked so far, eh?
Anyone with over the £37k (or whatever) limit in B&B should spread their risk today.
75 it is that part of the speech which will guide tory policy development. I suspect that once again the Westminster journalists will misread the public mood and then change their minds.
Yesterday we had nanny Gordon telling us to brush our hair and eat up our greens. The same day we had Cammo telling people ‘you can choose your destiny but don’t blame others for your choices’. If people really want the State to guide their every mood then these two speeches give them a clear choice.
Cameron chose his location and timing well - he’s looking to hoover up the C2/Ds and is going the right way about it.
Sorry to go completely off topic but a few minutes a go B&B share price went down to 30p. Remarkable because it implied a zero value for the company. The rights issue at 55p would raise £400m after £50m in costs, yet the market cap of B&B after the rights issue at 30p would only be around £400m.
Thise participaiting in the rights issue were paying more for a 55% share than the whole company would presumably be valued at after the rights issue.
Incidently B&B last dividend cost around half their current market cap.
Cameron’s approach here is modelled on Bush’s compassionate Conservatism, c. 2000. Bill Clinton described it as ‘I really want to help you, but I can’t’.
I don’t think the rhetoric is unpopular (particularly as others have said, with the voters who the Tories are aiming to attract), but the actual policies might be - most people think that when there is a problem, the government ought to do something about it, after all. Part of the question will be about whether Labour want to make this a dividing line or not.
One of the weird things about how all of this has been reported is that it is treated as if Cameron is proposing something novel which hasn’t been tried before. In the USA, it led to rising levels of poverty during a time of overall economic growth, and didn’t achieve any of its stated aims (though once elected, Bush was rather less interested in being a compassionate Conservative, which I guess might be more where Cameron is going with this).
84 Did he “dither” over it?
Perhaps Mr Cameron would like to explain what led him and George Osborne to drugs?
I hate to use the old “doorstep” chestnut but for those of us who spend our lives out campaigning, the Cameron line addresses what I hear at every second house.
My constituency is southern and, in places, it’s very affluent. But in many places like Waterlooville, Cowplain, Hart Plain and Horndean it’s full of people living modest lives in modest homes who have worked long and hard for what they have.
It is for these people (of whom there are many millions) that DC’s words will clearly resonate.
They all know and understand that there are people who, through no fault of their own, need our help and they don’t begrudge it. What they cannot stand is the fecklessness and the lack of responsibility amongst people who, in their eyes, could easily look after themselves if they cared to do so.
The speech might not go down well in Islington restaurants but it will hit a real cord in lounges in Horndean.
79 Yes. One of the many problems with Brown’s leadership is that he does not recognise the fact that the economic good times are over and will not come back until well after the next general election. This is not a political point - the main factors involved are the credit crunch and the rise in commodity prices, neither of which are much to do with the government.
But because Brown has been so used to taking credit for economic success he can not now stop saying things like “we have to get the economy going” even though he is powerless to do this, and making comments like this is a huge hostage to fortune because he will be held responsible when the economy does not get going.
The government needs to talk the language of burden-sharing and also make clear whose side it is on. It is outrageous that directors of banks - all of which are being supported by the Bank of England thorugh the special deposit scheme - are still paid millions of pounds in bonuses whilst they are busy throwing the unfortunate victims of their imprudent lending out of their homes. And what has the government ot say about this?
Answers on a very small postcard please.
86 - “After a certain point, individuals need to stop blaming society, their parents, their background, their estate, their school - and take some responsibility.”
And at what point is that?
This is the nub of the problem. That point is different for every individual, and is a highly complex mix of their upbringing, nature, genetics, present personal circumstances and external circumstances.
It is also extremely difficult to get people to think positively about how to take responsibility for getting out of a situation rather than behave like a victim. And when you’re in that mind set, to be told to “take responsibility” by someone who has never and will never have to worry about their own circumstances might be a little trying.
To go to Mike’s premiss, however, is this dangerous for Cameron? It depends who he’s trying to keep inside his tent. If he’s going for the Working Class battlers, then, as others have pointed out, its might well be a sound strategy (”I’ve pulled myself up by my bootstraps, why shouldn’t the other b*ggers?”). But if he’s trying to hold onto the more liberal Middle Class vote, then this approach may well grate.
66 - LS - There’s a certain schadenfreude .. checking the FTSE data …
Even as a shareholder, I gain some painful amusement viewing the BBC’s list of 40 “Popular” shares, every single one of which is losing money this morning. That’s “popular”?
On the plus side of the share crash is that Trinity Mirror are going down the drain - hopefully Kevin McGuire will be first against the wall
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/shares/3/23377/three_month.stm
Quentin Letts isn’t impressed with Nick Palmer…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1033087/Clank-chain-Whoosh-70m-khazi.html
92. The speaking clock was funnier.
96, down almost 150 now:(
There is a reason that politicians and government have hitherto been shy of moralising politics in such a simplistic way. The whole process is fraught with difficulty. To gain a genuine understanding of agency, responsibility and culpability is fraught with difficulty even when we are dealing with the individuals closest to us in our lives; when politicians are dealing with people who are distant, or large classes of people like the obese, the dangers of misunderstanding and oversimplification are massive.
Simple moral schemes with their talk of individuals who are good or evil, who act in ways right and wrong, leave too much out. They eliminate the complexity of context so that they can say something strong and definite. People’s actions are partly determined by their histories, the institutions of which they are a part, the cultures into which they have been socialised, the economic system in which they have to survive. Talk of right and wrong tends to abstract from these things because they are complicated and messy and generally leave one with no one to blame.
To read more of my views link to my blog, Just who the hell are we? on wordpress.com at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/
85 - in my case yes, as I started doing a degree, got bored by it (too easy, too dull) and so chose to do something more interesting instead. I’d say that if you’re old enough to start a degree, you’re old enough to appreciate the importance and likely consequences of that decision.
86 - talking of effective challenges, someone pointed me to this critique of Gove’s education ideas on, of all places, ConHome, which rather neatly, if lengthily, encapsulates the charge that current Conservative ideas might sound good in theory but in practice are ful of holes:
“a fair number of questions regarding the practicalities of such proposals come to mind (and no doubt there are numerous others). As someone whose children have now left the educational system it is very much an uninformed layman’s perception but a taxpaying layman’s perception at that. However given the level of expectation that such a proposals will likely generate and many people will be equally as uninformed as myself, politically it is important that expectations of an improved education system as a result of such an initiative can be clearly perceived.
Furthermore, I’m using a ‘one bad apple’ viewpoint as it is often the minority of high-profile failures that undermine the majority of invisible successes that doom an initiative to failure. If this is to work it must provide a stable and sustainable education system at the end of it and not a continuation of the seeming never-ending dissatisfaction and decline that changes in the education system have seemingly caused in recent decades. I’m sure there are already valid answers already available to many of the observations below.
We will change the law so that all sorts of organisations, including those which currently run independent schools, other charities, cooperatives and new education providers can set up new state Academies, independent of political control.
I have a number of concerns on this point. Firstly, regarding funding, how will Government ensure that taxpayer’s money is not misappropriated or misused by these organisations? How will the organisations be accountable both to parents and the taxpayer in general if they are ‘politically independent’? How would Government ensure that the education provided at these schools meet the needs of the country? The article talks about the challenges of a global society and therefore it would seem that there must be some sort of pre-defined formula that these schools/ academies must adhere to?
Secondly, regarding timescales, how long will it take to set up a new school? I can envisage a situation where if it takes too long then there will be little motivation for parents to support such new schools (as their children will have moved on or be close to be moving on as part of their natural progression in life). Without sufficient demand such an initiative could be undermined before it commences and with it potentially the waste of considerable sums of public funds.
As for being independent of ‘political’ control, I neither believe this is achievable or practical. As many comments in this post will also infer a level of strategic ‘political’ control may well be essential.
All new Academies will be free and non-selective.
Fair enough in theory, but surely in reality there will come a point when the most successful of these new schools or academies reach their capacity and demand for places outstrips supply. Without selective criteria how will such schools and academies meet the demand for places?
Does this initiative solely apply to secondary education?
This means that failing schools with bad management in poorer areas just keep failing - there is no way for parents to do anything about it because their complaints can just be ignored
However, these are exactly the areas that are least likely attractive to this sort of initiative. How would Government ensure that such initiatives will focus on these areas and not polarise toward more affluent areas without asserting some level of ‘political’ control?
Even if additional education funding is funnelled into these poorer areas, how long would such additional funding be sustained? Without the necessary associated funding to improve the area as a whole, young people will just move on to better areas once their education is complete. The areas will still remain poor.
Furthermore, should these new schools not prove successful, how long would Government continue to fund them and under what circumstances would they intervene or cut funding?
Similarly, how would Government ensure that more sparsely populated areas (e.g. rural areas) where demand is naturally less receive an equivalent service? Once again given the likely lower demand in these areas they would likely be less attractive? Would they get the same financial support as urban areas?
Furthermore, at what point in a poorer areas education systems’ improvement would such additional funding be phased out to be reallocated to schools in other areas that had slipped into some ‘poorer area/failing school’ status?
One of the underlying flaws in the current regional allocation of funding (PESA) and the Barnett Formula is not that certain areas attract additional subsidy persay but the fact they have been getting that additional subsidy for 30 years or more with little visible sign that they can better survive without it and have seemingly failed to become more self-sufficient. At the same time other areas have been subsidising them for the whole of the period. Unless there is a clear and consistent policy of ‘use it properly or lose it’ then such additional continued funding will attract resentment and opposition from those who do not benefit undermining the initiative in the medium to long term.
“Parents will have the power to take their child out of a school they think is failing”
Where a school is genuinely failing people should be allowed to move their children. However, once again I see a number of potential difficulties here.
Firstly, how quickly will the transition from one school to another take and what justification will parents need to allow them to do so? I see a number of potential pitfalls, not least for the children involved, in navigating such a transitional period.
In this society where the media exaggerate and distort reality and Government statistics are increasingly criticised what reliable measures will be put in place to demonstrate to parents that a failing school is really a failing school? How will unfair claims of failure be refuted and resisted?
How would Government support poor but improving state schools in the face of parental unpopularity? Potentially, there is a perception gap between when things actually start improving and when people recognise (if ever) that performance has improved. Surely where progress is being made we should not pull the plug, with the resultant loss of investment not just in terms of money but in terms of all resources being utilised?
Additionally, how do you stop knee-jerk reactions to one-off ’scandals’? It may be that there is a particular ’scandal’ which prompts significant numbers of parents to opt to leave an otherwise competent school? As the result of a single scandal (based in fact or not), a perfectly good school could be lost.
Furthermore, how do you deal with a school where over a period say 60% leave and there is a decline in place uptake because the school is perceived as failing but 40% think it is still a good school?
If the school becomes unsustainable for whatever reason what happens to the 40%? If there are insufficient places in the other schools in that locality for these students what happens to them?
Also, how do you stop parents with less than successful children, school-hopping (i.e. blaming the school when really it is their expectations for their children that are excessive?).
The amount the state would give to fund the education of every child from a disadvantaged background would be specifically increased.
It’s absolutely right that we should give our disadvantaged children the best possible start to life. However, given the current gloomy long-term economic forcasts where’s the additional money for this and the other measures here going to come from?
Furthermore, how will Government confirm that a child is from a disadvantaged background? What criteria will they use and what happens if the parents of that child are no longer considered disadvantaged? What ramifications might this have in terms of the relationship between the school, the family and in particular the children?
How will these schools be stopped from selecting based on those children who attract the most funding per head?
Under our proposals schools would have to work harder to attract the funding some take for granted – because parents would be in control. Schools would be actively seeking out parents and pupils, leafleting their communities with prospectuses showing why they deserved your support
This is the one idea here that I find truly disturbing if not unrealistic and wasteful. In saying this, the key consideration is that it is taxpayers’ money being spent that we are talking about.
Is it seriously suggested that schools go campaigning and spend good money on ‘glossies’ when the time and money could be better spent on educating children and providing extra curricular activities?
How would Government ensure that the marketing of a school is accurate and does not inflate parents’ expectations so that perfectly good schools are perceived badly because their marketing has overplayed their positive attributes?
How would Government ‘protect’ schools that quite rightly put an emphasis on education over marketing but are perceived less positively simply because their marketing operation is low key?
Furthermore, will such marketing activities not be an unnecessary diversion, in terms of time and resources from the primary objective of providing a quality education? What I suspect people want is a quality curriculum and quality teaching for their children not a quality marketing operation that eats into the taxpayer funded education budget of the school.
Lastly on this topic, how would such a marketing campaign target its customer base? As both my children are now adults having reasonably successfully navigated their educational years I would be somewhat concerned to be receiving marketing materials or visits from representatives of local schools. To ensure people such as myself are omitted does this not put an excessive administrative resource burden on the schools for such activities?
Lastly, given all these types of issues it would seem that some sort of additional layer of bureaucracy will be required to oversee this initiative. How will this be structured and what controls will be put in place to minimise the cost of such bureaucracy?
In summary, whilst the general thrust of these proposals is sound I do think that it is currently lacking a detailed framework within which it can function successfully and the points I have raised, amongst many others, if not answered, provide plenty of opportunities for those who would for whatever reason want to discredit the proposals as a whole, to do so.
Most of all, drop the idea of actively marketing schools, it’s unwarranted and it’s a loser. Any educational establishments should not be allowed to fund advertising campaigns from the taxpayers’ pocket. “
95 - Tabman, I think it may grate with *some* sections of the middle classes (the Guardian reading tendency, mainly), but to suggest that encouraging people to take responsibility for their own lives somehow conflicts with the tenets of liberalism is indicative of a degree of intellectual confusion. Or did you mean Liberal?
102 - which is fine, but what of the person who, through no fault of their own, was not given the opportunity to go to University? How do they “take responsibility” for that?
104 - I meant “liberal” in the Guardian-reading sense. Most Liberals would expect people to take responsibility for their own actions, but similarly, to ensure that the playing field is levelled to ensure they are protected from consequences not of their own making.
105. The worst thing you can do is mope about it or, equally importantly, be encouraged to mope. For every problem there is an opportunity. Those who get on make the most of the opportunities. Even a small shift in thinking can change the perception that it is all a problem.
105 - Tabman, I’ve always taken the view that if I could go to university, practically anyone could.
I am happy to be corrected if there really are significant numbers of people who (for non-academic reasons!) genuinely cannot, however.
86 - Tabman - you are entirely correct on the first part. But it does not follow that, just because each case is highly individual, politicians should shy away from stating a general truth. All politics involves shades of grey; if you waited for an absolute truth to exist before saying something, you’d be silent for a very long time, and then only stating the obvious.
On your second point, I think you exaggerate the negative impact. While Cameron is trying to build a broad coalition, including liberal elements who are attracted by the Tories stance on ID cards, 42 days etc, he knows the Tories are never going to be natural bedfellows to people who believe individuals are entirely the product of society and have no impact on or responsibility for their own decisions. This speech, and the reporting of it, might consolidate Mark Senior’s anti-Tory prejudices and might lead to hand wringing from the so-called liberal press, but if there is anyone out there who was contemplating voting Tory but now as a result of this won’t I would be very surprised.
106 - I think the whole point is that the definition of “consequences not of their own making” has now become so all-encompassing that it covers almost every possible ill. *That* (if I understand Cameron correctly) is what the aim is to row back against.
The problem is what Cameron says is true - people do need to take more responsibility for themselves. Stop blaming governments, banks, etc. etc.
The Consumer culture and their associated Consumer Rights Pressure Groups don’t help either - their attitudes assume that consumers can do no wrong, and that the retailer is always wrong. The militant Consumer Groups are no different to Trade Unionists of the 1970s.
110 - If you understand him correctly, would be a more powerful message coming from someone like Davis who has actually done it?
Perhaps the Glasgow East by-election has come a year or 18 months too early for Cameron. A by-election in a supposedly rock-solid Labour seat with a poorer population and higher unemployment could be the perfect chance to contrast the Tory plans with Labour’s 10 years of failure to solve these deep-seated problems. It’s just that the Tories would (I assume) want to wait til near the election before they give us their detail on social policy.
On the detail of Cameron’s speech, I think it’s welcome for a politician to give us something different to the standard lexicon on poverty including all those mis-used words e.g. “At Risk of” suggesting it’s nothing to do with their own actions. Well said Cameron. Other classics are “Deprived” and “Lifting people out of poverty”.
101 - In other words, we can’t do anything about it, so why bother?
112 - no, absolutely not, no more so than Jill Saward is better placed to lead the fight against civil liberties.
“I’ve done it, so so can you” actually contaminates the message, medium term.
108. tuition fees and a lifetime of debt are putting the poor off university in massive numbers. these people certainly have far less chance of going to a _good_ university; going to the wrong school in the wrong area really depresses your grades, and then you can add widespread “lack of ambition” i.e. non-pushy parents.
on topic, this message is a bit reminiscent of “on yer bike”, and is bound to polarise opinion if it receives airtime. we will have to wait and see what policies actually spring from it.
The speech might not go down well in Islington restaurants but it will hit a real cord in lounges in Horndean.
Which cord would that be, George? The one that turns the light out in the country?
If only people listened to Gordo and stopped wasting food - all their problems would be solved (and Africa’s too).
Food for thought in an extract from piece in “The First Post”, and my belief is that the SNP will capture Glasgow East
Looking further ahead, more thoughtful Tories are also beginning to worry that if they win big in England at the next election and the SNP do likewise in Scotland, Alex Salmond will be well set for the referendum on independence which he has pencilled in for 2010.
Whatever the tactical advantage to the Conservatives of a smaller Scots Labour presence at Westminster (or even none at all), they do not want the United Kingdom to fall apart on their watch and certainly not in their first year in office.
But if the SNP captures Glasgow East, it could become unstoppable. And while that would be very bad news indeed for Labour, in the medium term it could give the Tories serious problems, too.
FTSE: free live quotes are now available on some sites, I think MSN money is one (free registration required)
106 - it is impossible to level the playing field to the extent you would require in order to do that. Even if you could address inequalities in housing, leisure provision, education and social provision (which is theoretically possible but practically unachievable), you cannot eliminate the differences between two human beings, their parenting skills, their intelligence, personality and the life-schanging experiences they undergo. Put it another way, you could have two little boys growing up in identical houses next door to each other and attending the same school. One is an only child, intelligent, has educated parents who read to him every night, fill his life with interesting experiences and support him at school. The other has learning difficulties, eight siblings by three different fathers, his parents smoke and drink and his step-dad occasionally beats him. All of those are “consequences beyond his making” as you would say, but there is little (if anything) the State or society can do to level that particular playing field.
I thought it was a great speech. It was all about people taking more responsibility for their own lives. As a disabled person I have to say that David Cameron has hit the nail on the head with this speech.
There is such a thing as the poverty industry. The poverty industry is
about people building power empires not about helping the people who
need it.
In general people are able to take decisions for themselves if they get the chance.
There seems to be a lot of anger on here about this. But I think it fake anger from people who have not experienced what David Cameron was
talking about.
A really impressive thread this morning, perhaps just the kind of conversation that Cameron is trying to engender more widely.
Like others, I do think he needs to tread a little warily in these areas (though the message is self-evidently sound and is a consistent theme) to avoid sliding into the back-to-basics stuff that proved so calamitous for Major. Cameron needs to complement the sombre side of the message with his essentially optimistic outlook given voice in his victory speech in December 2005:
“We need to change the way we feel. No more grumbling about modern Britain. I love this country as it is not as it was and I believe our best days lie ahead….”
And his much quoted, “If there was ever a war against single mothers, the weapons have been put beyond use. You have to think about society more broadly…”
105 they do what I did and go at the age of 32. I decided to sacrifice some decent earning power and ended changing careers and earning about 30% of what I used to but enjoying my work much more and spending more time with my family.
Where I think the State could play a part and help more is not assisting people in making excuses for their low aspirations but provide a proper framework for building up self-esteem.
I think the Labour party have tried to do this with programmes like SureStart but have failed to make the impact they would have hoped for because control is maintained by the centre.
one of the most interesting aspects of Michael Portillo’s venture into the lives of a single parent family was the his surprise at the lack of aspiration. It is this weary acceptance of their lives that hurts people more than anything else.
125 - It’s not just lack of aspiration, in many cases it’s actual hostility to aspiration.
125. people who live on or near the poverty line (of which there are WAY too many in the UK, a supposedly developed country) would be unlikely to make that sacrifice that earning power, or take on student loans.
What a fantastic thread! Pretty much everyone who has posted has made very valid points about the positives and negatives of Cameron’s speech, and how it could chime with some but risks losing others. pbc at its best!
I think with many touchy subjects, politicians can find it difficult to talk about such issues. Clearly one’s life is a product of external circumstances and our own choices. Cameron is stuck with having to speak about both sides of that coin, while also not parsing so much that he sounds like he’s not saying anything at all. But that in itself means that he risks headlines like the one in the Times today, which loses the original nuance. Obama often has the same problem (see his two press conferences in one day to clarify things!). Still, bravo to Cameron for taking such a risk!
This argument has been with us for centuries, has its origins in the concept of pre-destination, in which humanity was divided up into two distinct groups, the elect and the reprobates.
Hmmm next thing we know Cameron will be telling us that the, ‘Bullingdon Club’ was really an athletics club, whose members were dedicated to improving their pb’s.
I’d like to see all those MP’s who preach this sort of stuff, out on a really hard cross country run, I can recommend a good course, Studland Beach to Nine Barrow and back, there’d be a lot of by-elections after that particular jaunt.