Did I watch the same speech?

anonymous

bow locks

prinkipo

I am afraid Stuart is right - our otherwise reliable correspondents seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome after so many days in Blackpool. Alas, the Cameron speech, as Nelson and D'Ancona have so compellingly argued, need to be brilliant to be anything at all. Instead we got - the same old, same old. Christ, the tragedy of it. We have got a Tory Blair just when Blair and all his works have been defenestrated ... as the Tory party will be at the next election.

Dave Bartlett

" I can scarcely believe we all witnessed the same event this afternoon. What I saw was a car crash"

Sounds like you had a flashback to Ed Balls speech at the Labour Conference in Bournemouth. It must have been ghastly.

On the plus side, you can still see Mr Cameron's excellent speech, as it's now availble online from conservatives.tv

Drusilla

The one thing that 'normal' people will remember about Dave's speech today is that it was made without benefit of an autocue, as indeed Dave took great pains to point out personally, as well as briefing to the press before and afterwards. From this experience, 'normal' people will be able to discern two crucial facts, viz., (1) it is possible to speak for more than an hour without reference to an autocue (a revelation which, in hindsight, does in fact explain a lot about Demosthenes, Cato the Elder, F. E. Smith etc), and (2) Old Etonians are often self-confident. Well, who knew? Recalling one thing about the speech, of course - and such a satisfying thing! - such people will be spared the realisation that Dave's peroration was really much more about the unplugged medium than the unfocussed, unsatisfactory message, and hence in essence more interesting as an irrelevant commentary on Gordon Brown's not very striking footnotes regarding Blairite presentation, its causes and cures, than it was as an articulation of a political credo or an electoral platform. Fortunately, however, only an unhappy minority of us will have invested more than a few moments' attention in this cynical exercise, which means that few, perhaps, will fully appreciate the accuracy with which you've denounced Dave's arguements, such as they were. Rest assured, though, you and I were listening to the same speech. As for pretty much everyone else, I suspect they were hoping or dreaming, but certainly not listening.

Tiberius

Oh we all watched and listened to the same speech, but some of us seem to lack understanding.

John

What a dim view of life you have Stuart.

John Whitworth

What is this stuff about privilege? You mean being rich. If you are rich then you can buy Eton. If you are rich then you can buy a Ferrari and a castle in Spain. I was educated at a state school (in Scotland as it happens) and I really, really never wanted to have gone to Eton of (my God) Fettes. My daughters were educated at State schools (grammar schools I do agree since we live in East Kent) and I really, really would not have had them go to the King's School down the road. Because you meet nobody but the rich (or 'priviliged') you see, and thus remain ignorant in a most important way. As Dave is ignorant (and as the other Dave is not). I like Dave but the drawbacks of his education really are drawbacks, you know.

Mike Stallard

Not fair - I watched the whole thing (except where the army bit was blacked out for some reason) and was truly inspired. the education bit (Charter Schools) was truly inspiring.
I am an old chap too and I thought I was alone. Now I know I am not.
Brilliant piece of oratory - well delivered, thoughtful and full of meat.
Stop being clever!

David Lindsay

You can't be pro-family and anti-state . This would be rather beyond David Cameron (educated beyond his intelligence, and all that), but Marxists, including neoconservatives, are correct that the family, private property and the State have a common origin, with each absolutely necessary in order to maintain the other two. However, Marxists, including neoconservatives, are wrong to see this as a bad thing, and therefore to desire the withering away of the State, which they know would be the withering away of the family and of private property, and which they want precisely for that wicked reason. It is worth bearing in mind that Marxists are ultimately no more pro-State than they are pro-family or pro-property, simply because, as Marxists themselves recognise, nobody can be. Family life is one of the many things that conservatives exist in order to conserve. And, like all of them, it is corroded to nought by the "free" market, either directly or by driving despairing millions into the arms of Jacoboinism, Marxism (including neoconservatism), anarchism (of which it is itself a form, anarcho-capitalism) or Fascism (again, including neoconservatism, particularly as it derives from Leo Stauss or Ayn Rand).

Derek L. Piper

David Lindsay is dead wrong. A good starting point to understanding why the family and the state are natural enemies is Peter Hitchen's chapter on the family in his 'Abolition of Britian'. De Juvenal, and Russel Kirk also had much to say about this. Whether you agree with PH on most stuff, or even like PH, isn't the point. The point is, however, that a ridiculous quote such as "You can't be pro-family and anti-state" needs to be met head on with a serious answer, which isn't really possible in a blog comment.

John Austin

You won't get far sticking up for privileged private education in these egalitarian times. Cameron is quite right on this. There really is a respectable argument for this. I was educated at one of the King's in Kent - it *really* was not money well spent.

David Lindsay

Derek L Piper is only opposed to the State's doing certain things. Or, at least, Peter Hitchens is. Not to State action as such where the family is concerned. Very far from it, in fact. Leave it to the "market", and the family, like everything else that conservatives exist in order to conserve, would be, and is, destroyed. But then, those who would so leave are not really conservatives at all.

David Barnett

I agree about his sending his children to state schools. Why should they have to suffer just to make their father look good to the sort of people who will never vote Tory anyway?

Derek L. Piper

Mr. Lindsay, the choice isn't black/white, between 'state' and 'market' intervention. I at no point implied (and as you know neither did Hitchens) that market forces are inherently conservative. But *that* doesn't make the state an ally of the family. The long-term effects of American style government wefare payments on the poor should make my point painfuly obvious.