Cameron's revolutionary speech
Fraser Nelson 5:04pm
This was one of the best speeches I have heard David Cameron give. It may not have been a masterpiece of oratory, he may have read from notes, left too make lulls lulls inspiring only a few standing ovations. But it was packed with mission, seriousness, vision, principles – and, most of all, a real agenda.
Just as last year’s conference speech laid out a Conservative defence of the free market, this year’s laid out a vision of the conservative society. That is to say: one which hands back power to communities, which trusts people and places huge emphasis on social mobility.
First, he positioned the Conservatives squarely in the fight against poverty – on the explicit grounds that Labour has lost that fight. And with news that means we can take him seriously: Iain Duncan Smith will return to government – hopefully to run welfare reform and implement the seminal work he has done with the CSJ. This is an appointment that speaks more to me than that of Dannett or Freud. Go into IDS’ room in the commons, and it’s a library of welfare reform papers.
Just a few hours ago, Pete blogged about how Cameron would struggle to meet his word on welfare withdrawal rates – a theme of his speech. “For every single pound you earn, you keep just 4p,” he said of single mothers. “What kind of incentive is that?” He said – in what was, for me, the best passage that he wants the Conservatives to show just as much anger for 96% tax rates for the very poorest as they once did with Callaghan’s 98% of the richest. The floor erupted here, and I hope Cameron now incorporates the CSJ’s dynamic tax-benefit model to cure the problem he highlighted.
On education, it was brilliant. He managed to humanise Gove’s policy by talking about his own daughter – and when he does, his eyes light up. He wants to think when she goes to a state school that “this is my child, this is my [tax] money, give the money to the headteacher and spend less on Whitehall.” What a fantastic way of describing the voucher system. This gives a little of the revolutionary of Gove’s Swedish schools plans.
I was impressed with his repeatedly positioning himself against “big government” – listing the harm that it inflicts on a society, sapping responsibility and providing perverse incentives which run against the grain of human nature.“The more that society can do, the less we will need government to do,” he said – precisely right. And also “big government has failed in a big way – 2m living in workless households.” Again, bang on. If Labour’s “let them eat tax credits” approach was going to tackle poverty or promote social justice, don’t you think they’d have done it by now? Cameron was making these profound themes simple.
He had other powerful ways of outlining the problems. The deficit (“our children will be saddled with debt for decades to come”) and the legal red tape (“Laws so complicated that even their attorney general could not obey them”). He struggled to convey the danger of failure of a buyers’ strike in the gilt market, and said the usual self-flagellating nonsense about global warming. Everyone who contacted him “sent an email” rather than “wrote”. The ending was a little abrupt and the speech about ten minutes too long – he shouldn’t go on about health service when he doesn’t have a policy to discuss. Taking the military more seriously is good, though I suspect this just means more attention to smaller and less ambitious deployments. Some of it was daring – “I want every child to have the chances I had”. Eton costs £28,000 a year.
What impressed me most about it was the ideological integrity. Brown’s speeches are little nods to what he regards as various pressure groups: they have no narrative and neither does his government. A coherent thread can be woven though Cameron’s speech: that Britain’s problem (moral and financial) has been too much government and the Tory solution is to transfer power to communities. Thatcher made the mistake of being seen as an individualist agenda and Labour said there is a binary choice: crude individualism v the state: Cameron said today it is “we” rather than “me”, that the choice is community rather than the state. Or “big government” – the villain of his speech.
At the Tory conference there are all these posters saying “bye, bye bureaucracy” and the like. Excellent, I thought as I walked past them, why can’t Tories talk about that more often? And Cameron did. His agenda was coherent, diametrically opposite from that of Gordon Brown. Importantly, he used Tory language – previous leaders have used Labour language (“investment” rather than “spending”). He laid out the debate, on his terms. No one could doubt, listening to the applause as he mentioned the scandal of sink schools and lone parent marginal tax rates, that the Tories are genuinely furious about this. I couldn’t really care if it was short on bile and soundbites. It was a new way of seeing society: as James says in his political column it’s a very Tory solution to a very Labour problem.
We have yet to see many of the Tory plans – but the direction is, to me, clear and reassuring. Last week in The Spectator, we asked if Cameron was a revolutionary. On the strength of today’s speech, I think the answer might just be ‘yes’.
PS. I was pleasantly surprised to be asked earlier this evening to do a piece for The Guardian along the above lines – it’s online already. Read it here.
Reading other blogs, it’s strange to find myself against the conservative consensus on both main speeches of the week. I was underwhelmed by Osborne’s speech, which I considered a statement of the bleeding obvious rather than the “massive gamble” everyone wrote up. Cameron’s description of a conservative future was one I found well thought-through and credible. I suspect I’ll continue to disagree with him on how he gets to his destination, and how fast he should seek to move. But his speech showed - to me, anyway – that he really is heading along the right direction.
Previous
Irene
October 8th, 2009 5:20pm Report this commentFraser:
At last a true version of events - yours is the only analysis I agree with, there seems to be a lot of negativity I'm afraid.
Anthony Jones
October 8th, 2009 5:23pm Report this commentWhy is it no matter what he says or does, you say it was absolutely brilliant. One mention of immigration, nothing about the banks and he even said there was TOO much regulation.And why oh why does he keep on telling us week in week out he feels the poors pain, they should get off their arses and try working for a change.
I thought it was flat and boring and even on Conservativehome it has received at best what can be described as lukewarm reception by the grass roots.
Any chance of putting your bias to the side for just once when doing an article about Cameron, it is getting quite weary now even to Conservative supporters like myself.
Sean O'Hare
October 8th, 2009 5:26pm Report this commentFree market in a post Lisbon EU. I think not!
Herbert Thornton
October 8th, 2009 5:27pm Report this comment".....a vision of the conservative society. That is to say: one which hands back power to communities, which trusts people and places huge emphasis on social mobility."?
What a misleading and shallow policy statement.
Does 'trusting people' and 'handing power back to communities' extend to trusting them enough to let them vote on a referendum on Europe and exercise their power to decide about Europe, or to vote in a referendum to curb immigration and exercise their right to require that illegal immigrants be deported?
Not on your life, it doesn't.
Chuck Unsworth
October 8th, 2009 5:29pm Report this commentEton costs £28k pa - plus.
But to quote Alan Clark:-
"That's not much".
And the cost of not educating people well is what, exactly? How much does it cost to keep someone in prison, on benefits etc etc? Just do the Maths.
Fergus Pickering
October 8th, 2009 5:32pm Report this commentIt would be nice if all children had the chances I had - free schooling at the RoyalHigh School of Edinburgh, free university at Oxford - but they're not going to get that are they? Never mind. We can surely make it better than the shit they get now - schools that teach you nothing, universities that have dumbed down for thirty years at the behestof government. Wel, let's hope so.
Dave B
October 8th, 2009 5:34pm Report this commentI have to say I loved this speech. I'm surprised by the 'meh' reception it seems to have provoked.
He clearly came out against inflating the debt away - good. Identified big government as contributor to problems, rather than a solution - good. Re-iterated the need for devolution of power away from Westminster - good. The need for personal responsibility - good.
I just loved it all to bits. :-)
Bring on the election!
Moraymint
October 8th, 2009 5:40pm Report this comment"I want every child to have the chances I had. Eton costs £28,000 a year ..."
Tell me about it.
I hail from traditional, working class roots; wife does too.
Worked hard at school. Earned a university scholarship. Grafted for 40 years to achieve membership of the "Coping Class", ie the milked, squeezed and thieved middle-class, courtesy of 12 years of Brown's very own brand of deceitful Marxism.
Started my own business. Put the children into private school, despairing at the quality of the local state schools.
Just found out today that the bank has neither the funds nor the desire to back my business anymore and intends to pull the plug.
The sooner somebody gets to grips with this shambles of a country, the better; otherwise I, and people like me, will be taking to the streets in the not too distant future.
Vulture
October 8th, 2009 5:42pm Report this comment@Fraser, Please don't keep portraying Dave as Guevara. He's supposed to be a Conservative - not a nasty little mass murdering Communist.
Dave Cameron
October 8th, 2009 5:45pm Report this commentIt was a bloody great speech. Yeh!
Carol-Ann
October 8th, 2009 5:51pm Report this commentFraser, I like Gove but why hasn't his education stuff had any impact on the public at all? It didn't even get mentioned on the news yesterday.
jon dee
October 8th, 2009 5:57pm Report this commentA visionary speech from Cameron, which answered his critics who complain that they don't know what he or the Tories stand for.
We all suffer from the "big government" of Labour, so any vision repackaging they do will be fairy tale or their usual lies.
Anthony Jones
October 8th, 2009 6:06pm Report this commentIt looks like I am not the only one that thinks the speech was uninspiring and waffle.
There is a difference of being safe and waffling for an hour, generalising and not mentioning a policy.
Cameron only seems to show he is a true Conservative when we are behind in the polls.Maybe a few more percentage point drops will bring back Cameron the Conservative.
With regards your constant, no matter how good or bad a speech is I will report it as Churchillianly brilliant, take your hugahuddy glasses off, stop trying to be on message all of the time and report it properly. You would think you were tying to get a job in the next government.
TrevorsDen
October 8th, 2009 6:57pm Report this commentThe misery making ever eager doubting Thomases really shopul get out moe.
The deficit this year is going to be 180 billion. can you nget that rounnd your head? Well if so he deficit next year is going to be 180 billion as well.
Just what on earth can we rationally expect from the next conservative govt (or any govt.)
And really really really - "let them vote on a referendum on Europe" . We will if the treaty is not ratified. But it would be utterly pointless if it has been.
Only ONLY a new treaty can do that. A referendum would ONLY make sense after more negotiations or some interaction with Europe.
oldtimer
October 8th, 2009 7:05pm Report this commentI think the speech was "revolutionary" in the sense it set out the situation as it is warts and all, and that he rejected sovereign debt default or hyper inflation as ways out of the debt crisis in favour of paying down the debt and the restoration of sound money.
I am all in favour of this as the only solution available - the other choices are not solutions, they are an abdication. It remains to be seen if the voters share this view.
daniel maris
October 8th, 2009 7:51pm Report this commentThe Tories have been far too specific about the pain and targetting high-percentage-voting public sector workers is most definitely not a good idea.
I think the public are sick of being asked to see their conditions of employment and pension arrangements eroded. Be prepared for surprising levels of sympathy with the Royal Mail if they focus on the pension issue (they have been badly used on that point).
But when it comes to "gain" well firstly ALL oppositions claim they are going to "hand back power" to "local communities". But it hardly ever works out like that. Excuse the scepticism. We need to hear some details. What is being planned. Are we going to have Ward government as in Tower Hamlets so we will have some Wards ruled by Shariah enthusiasts and others by neo-Nazis? Is that the plan?
The analysis of the welfare dependency issue shows more promise. But I think we need even more imaginative thinking there and having a vivid imagination is not something I would accuse IDS of.
And yes Gove has failed to make a mark with the education proposals. I think the problem is that they are not putting forward a proper schools voucher programme or a proper system of school choice without 11 plus.
CS
October 8th, 2009 8:05pm Report this commentI'm glad it was met with wild acclamation by the grass roots. We had speeches galore like that since 1997. He should be speaking to the whole nation which isn't keen on Europe and immigration but isn't obsessed by it.
CS
October 8th, 2009 8:06pm Report this commentSorry, that should have been "I'm glad it WASN'T met with..."
London Calling
October 8th, 2009 8:25pm Report this commentI'm still worrying about your friction burns from all the rubbing of shoulders with David Cameron recently, let alone all that Bucks Fizz...
Actually, Daves speech was quite good in respect that he expressed who he is and what he hopes for GB, its a good start.:)
Simon Stephenson
October 8th, 2009 8:28pm Report this commentEton costs £28,000 a year.
Yes, but Eton is a boarding school, with all the costs of providing a term-time home the children as well as educating them. It's not really a helpful comparison to make with the £5-7k that will be the per pupil spend under the Gove proposals, since this will not include the cost of the boarding element.
Verity
October 8th, 2009 9:12pm Report this commentAnthony Jones thought the speech uninspiring and waffling. Melanie, in her 'Playing It Safe' thread agrees. She is the only one in The Speccie who has the acuity to see that speech for what it was. I commend it highly as an antidote to the Coffee House team's unalloyed thrill at what sounds like a vapid serving of evasions and extremely modest aspirations.
Nicholas
October 8th, 2009 9:23pm Report this commentI thought it was a great speech. DC said everything I wanted to hear. This man will give us the liberation we so desperately need from Brown's incompetent and spiteful Nazi regime. That is all that matters to me right now. As I listened to him the faces of the New Labour cabinet appeared in my minds eye and became more grotesque and evil with each point he made. Everything he said about Britain and what New Labour has done to it is true.
I think DC is like Tin Tin - and I mean that in a good way. Energetic, young, straightforward, honest, determined and with some good allies you feel you could trust.
I think most of the punditry and "expert" commentary about the speech (q.v. Ben Brogan esp) has been absolute bollocks. Many of the negative comments here and elsewhere seem to have listened to the BBC soundbites rather than actually listened to the speeches. It convinces me that there is a lot of cynicism, spite and envy out there - no doubt the scar tissue of 12 long years of New Labour misery and corruption. We need a change.
For me it is quite simple. Good versus Evil.
Tiberius
October 8th, 2009 10:06pm Report this commentThe speech was a continuation of what has gone before (Cameron's general direction of travel has always been clear), and it will have consolidated his credibility with those who, unlike most of us on here, don't wear politics-coloured anoraks.
The feeling of release from the New Labour yoke is now palpable. So I'm off for a beer (a generally more satisfying experience than drinking bubbly).
Verity
October 9th, 2009 1:10am Report this commentNicholas, I usually either agree with you, or see some fine point to argue in your posts, but oh, dear!
Cameron's the one who enforced the politically correct A List over local Conservative Parties, which some, like me, judged a little on the fascist side. A bit like the showy social engineering of the ambitious Tony Blair.
It was Cameron who bought into the "man made global warming" garbage against the scientific evidence, which he possibly didn't understand, or possibly because he doesn't listen to opposing points. A parka-clad Cameron (I assume a parka is not part of his regular wardrobe, so he bought it specially; I wonder how much it cost the planet to manufacture that parka...)posing on a glacier was meant to prove ... what? Did he fly back home again on the jet he came out on, or did he row?
Does Al Gore believe in "man made global warming" any more? Or has he "moved on"? Like Tony...
Cameron buys into the EUSSR, he buys into the EHRA, he buys into mass immigration for no conceivable purpose except the bullying of the owners of the country; he's for 90m Turks having right of abode in Europe, for some unknown reason as they are not European, he buys into One Worlderism, as Brussels or the UN is where he sees his future.
He sacked an honourable soldier because he saw an opportunity, not in the real circumstances, but in the perceptions, to aggrandise his Leadership.
What he appears to fear is the independent-mindedness of capitalism. At least the man he is Heir to, Blair, is a gloves-off capitalist.
W Smith
October 9th, 2009 1:36am Report this commentA great marketing and PR effort by the new mod cons with something for everybody.There may well be enchantment in the view from the sorely climbed mountain but didn't someone already offer the whole world for a little worship.The question of trust leaves a disillusioned voter like me thinking caveat emptor Perhap's Boris can translate for us illiterati or the new mod cons.
Verity
October 9th, 2009 2:08am Report this commentAs Ian Duncan-Smith was mentioned in this post, may I please express a strong wish and a prayer for his wife, Betsy, who has been diagnosed with cancer and who - if the reports are correct - is in hospital.
Nicholas
October 9th, 2009 8:26am Report this commentVerity, you are focussing on a few cherries rather than the whole package and it seems from what you write you may not have actually listened to the speech in full? In paradox you are ignoring the very real and present danger of Brown's Big World, not just the increasingly Marxist cant and barmy legislation which is stifling everything good about Britain but the mad, bad economics that have brought us to bankruptcy.
For me it is a very simple choice between survival with some reservations and another five, possibly terminal years, under the most pernicious and evil government Britain has ever endured.
In that sense I have more issue with those on the right side of politics who are threatening our imminent liberation with their anti-Dave posturing (Melanie Phillips being one) than those on the Left who just do what they do. I'd rather have the good tomorrow, or even the fairly OK, than still be hoping for the best during another 5 years of Brown & Gang!
Yarnesfromhorsham
October 9th, 2009 8:59am Report this commentI do hope that the issue of MPs expenses has not slipped below the radar.
Good aspirational speech but not sure whether the DC/Tories have the ability to progress from policy to implementation.
David Belchamber
October 9th, 2009 9:03am Report this commentI agree fully with your assessment of the two main speeches but I also agree with Carol-Ann above: for many of us, Michael Gove's speech was one of the most important in the conference. Giving our children the education they deserve should be one of our top priorities and, like Carol-Ann, I simply cannot understand why it received so little comment.
Simon Stephenson
October 9th, 2009 9:49am Report this commentYes, David Belchamber (9.03am), I agree. The Swedish-type schools policy is just about the only one which seems to have germinated from the initial seed of "this is a good idea" rather than "this will probably go down OK". I want ... no, I expect, the supposed cream of society's talent to propose policy that is the fruit of their superior intellects, not to limit their role to choosing the least bad of what is currently in vogue with the narrow mainstream mentality.
Right Said Fred
October 9th, 2009 10:49am Report this commentThe media criticism seems to be that it wasn't a great oratory or a policy wonk speech. Well I dare say that 99% of the population doesn't want a policy wonk speech. They want the kind of language that you hear in conersations in pubs, living rooms, on trains/buses and to me that is exactly what he delivered. Clear, understandable and with references that we can all relate to. It hit all the right notes for everyone I know that listened to it.
mac
October 9th, 2009 11:19am Report this commentAgree Nicholas' (0826) pragmatism; the priority is to end Brown's pernicious regime.
Cameron's right to steer a course that, above all else, will deliver this at the GE.
David Short
October 9th, 2009 11:52am Report this commentTime was when Tories thought it was a good idea, not a bad one, for mothers to be at home with their children, not at work.
Or doesn't that apply to single mothers?
As for people getting back to work generally, how is that supposed to happen. Even by the current definition, there are 2.5m unemployed and less than half a million vacancies.
What 'work' are they supposed to get back to?
If Cameron gets to be PM, I very much doubt whether he'll have the guts to allow unemployment to soar by millions by throwing people of Invalidity Benefit and onto the Jobseekers Allowance.
It must all seem so easy to him, because he's had such an easy life of it so far.
For the life of me I cannot see what others see in Cameron.
logdon
October 9th, 2009 2:23pm Report this commentAgreed. Absolutely.
The BBC's reaction was, of course talking of moribund doom and gloom, yet watching QT last night offered me faith in our electorate's ability to sort bullshit from truth and, amazingly many were swayed by the sheer honesty.
Of course the usuals talked their usual class divide nonsense but I think the message is actualy getting through.
Shame about the Grayling/Dannat faux pas but apart from the slavering Beeboids who actually cares?
raymond
October 9th, 2009 2:25pm Report this commentStill not happy about Tory deicision to continue with Labour's policies on Academies ! Here in Northampton, Parents are desperately trying to fight off forced Academization at Unity and Weston Favell colleges. If MIcheal GOve is dtermined to press on with this Academy policy in the face of concerned parenatal opposistion, then sadly I will not be able to vote Tory. Who I do vote for though, is now a moot point !
Tiberius
October 9th, 2009 3:13pm Report this commentRaymond: can you tell us why parents are fighting those steps, which are presumably taking those institutions out of state control?
raymond douglas
October 9th, 2009 5:04pm Report this commentTiberius, Unity parents do not like control of a COFE school passing to the secular David ross foundation, whose other Academy in Grimsby does not do much better than unity ! Weston favell parents do not like the United learning trust taking over a secular school and whose other academies are themselves in special measures in Sheffield ! Apart from anything else, we are more happy that our schools stay within the local authority than passing to distant private buisinees men. Hope this helps !
logdon
October 9th, 2009 6:45pm Report this commentFrom the Cranmer site.
Who are these people? We had Rowan Williams signing the C of E death knell by promoting shariah. Now this?
Nothing to add which doesn't end in 'meddling priests'.
Oh, apart from, does this man live in a council maisonette or a Bishops Residence?
Bishop of Croydon attacks Conservative economic policy
The Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, has objected (rather strongly and scornfully) to the Conservative Partyâs strategy for dealing with the national debt. He has also criticised the party for linking with âracistsâ and âpseudo-facistsâ in its new EU group. The Bishop hath a blog â“ âNick Bainesâs blog - musings of a restless bishopâ, and restless (indeed, intolerant) he certainly is. In response to George Osborneâs speech, he wrote: "Call me old-fashioned, but was George Osborne having a laugh yesterday?"
A laugh?
The Bishop appears to be another theologian-economist with a penchant for Marx and an aversion to capitalism. It is noteworthy that he does not appear to have commented upon Labourâs conference anywhere upon his ârestlessâ blog.
Labour, of course, are in government.
Perhaps the Bishop is not sufficiently restless to consider that they might be in any way responsible for the economic morass into which we are all sinking. Perhaps he has not noticed that 12 years of Labour have made the poorest poorer, youth unemployment higher and inequality greater than at any time under Margaret Thatcher or John Major.
Since the Shadow Chancellor has hitherto only announced how he intends to raise £7 billion, Cranmer can hardly wait to hear the Bishopâs reaction to how Mr Osborne might deal with the remaining £163 billion. The Bishop writes dismissively: "Freezing public pay rates was hardly demanding of the grey matter and miserable prioritising of the rich over the poor didn't come as a great surprise."
Cranmer must have missed the âmiserable prioritising of the rich over the poorâ. Did the Shadow Chancellor not specifically say that the lowest paid public sector workers would be exempt from a pay freeze? And did he not also announce an end to tax credits for families earning more than £50,000 a year? And the limiting of baby bonds worth £250 to the disabled and the poorest families?
How does this constitute âprioritising of the richâ?
One wonders why some bishops appear to be pathologically incapable of a rational consideration of anything that emanates from the forces of Conservatism: it is, after all, the political philosophy which has sustained the Established Church for centuries.
But the Bishopâs attack on Mr Osborne did not stop there. He singled out the Shadow Chancellor's mantra âWe're all in it togetherâ for particular scorn, saying: "Why did no one laugh?... Osborne and Cameron aren't âin itâ in the same way thousands of people I serve in south London are âin itâ. They are rich kids with inheritances to spare them worrying about their future - whatever happens to the economy in the future."
He continued: "I know the Old Etonians (who, along with their chum Boris will soon run the country) are doing their best but ... why did no one laugh?"
And here we get to the nub of the Bishopâs gripe (if gripes can have a nub).
Consider ârich kidsâ, âOld Etoniansâ, âchum Borisâ, and the Bishop begins to reveal a rather nasty motivation for his outburst. And when he lauds âPolly Toynbeeâs sumsâ as his economic gospel, oneâs suspicions are confirmed.
In his further comments, the Bishop says he âlong(s) for a party that will raise taxes and âlet justice rollâ.â
If the Bishop believes for one minute that a high-tax society will âlet justice rollâ, he might just consider that it is the worldâs low-tax economies which consistently yield higher standards of living for their populations and do most to alleviate poverty at home and abroad.
The Bishop discloses: âBut I did grow up in the north at a time when the Tories shattered my city (with help from Derek Hatton and co) and left wounds in my family that still weep. These guys have not the first idea about life outside the privileged circles in which they moved and I donât trust them or their worldview.â
There can be nothing to redeem these evil Tories. Rachel is still weeping for her children in Liverpool, and the Bishop is incapable of forgiveness.
The truth is that Bishop Nick has already written off David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson because of their privileged upbringing and education. He ignores completely the immense amount of work done by Iain Duncan Smithâs âCentre for Social Justiceâ, an agenda which David Cameron has announced will be at the heart of his administration.
For Bishop Nick, âCompassionate Conservatismâ will always be an oxymoron because âtheir worldviewâ is incapable of compassion because they âhave not the first idea about life outside the privileged circlesâ.
Perhaps the Bishop might reflect upon whether one really has to lose a five-year-old disabled son in order to understand something of the pain and trauma of doing so. What can a bishop possibly know about that? And when he has considered that one might indeed sincerely and sympathetically weep with those who weep, he might grasp that even Old Etonian rich kids and their chums live with bread like him, feel want, taste grief and need friends.
TGF UKIP
October 9th, 2009 10:32pm Report this commentSorry, Fraser, I know in your new manifestation you are obliged to shake those pom poms, but I'm afraid Dave has just too much previous to carry any conservative conviction now.
Almost four years of unremitting Blue Labour tax and spend ultra green metropolitan political correctness and all of a sudden we're expected to swallow that he really is a small government provincial conservative after all. Bollocks!
Back to top