Cameron's theory of change

Noa Zrk

"what the country needs is not a managerial government but one prepared to shake things up radically...".

Oh my God no! More expensive half baked ideas, more debt, more government, more sell off of the rump of Industry, more government, more legislation, more gravy train, more corruption, more EU. more immigration.

We could actually use some good management based on Gladstonian principles.

It's not that hard, we have an income, we have debt, the former should exceed the latter. The rest is secondary. Unless those "radical shakeups" help to achieve national restoration that they are simply sound and fry, signifying nothing.

Verity

Barf.

British Shorthair

"Taking on vested interests"? Isn't this, once you think about it, the most meaningless phrase in politics? All vested interests? Such as those with an interest in family life, Christian values, and nationhood? Or just those which they can't be bothered to specify at the moment, because essentially the Conservatives are led by pragmatic managerialists who want the reins of power, and who don't think very much of principles?

paulg

I read the speech and thought it was excellent as it was both thoughtful and powerful.

The banks must understand that they have caused real hardship in british society; public sector workers are resentful that it is their jobs that must go to pay for the bankers profligacy.

And, who is to blame them.

The people must know that Cameron will take a Rod to those who have caused such hardship.

Beer Moth

It's all the same, this 'change' lark, innit?

Philip Walker

The Tory party should, and this is a crucial distinction, be pro-market not pro-business.

Hip-hip-hooray! Someone gets the distinction!

Seriously, too many politicians and pundits elide pro-market and pro-business. Even worse, they elide pro-market and pro-this-specific-business, in a 'What's good for GM is good for America' kind of way.

One of the implications of this is that people should not automatically agree with the IoD or the CBI whenever they start spouting off about 'what business needs'. They speak for established businesses and not for businesses yet to be born, so they're going to skew their comments towards supporting businesses against new, innovative rivals.

DZ

I am sure that theories of change are loads of fun, but what the country needs is a practical and achievable programme of change that can be driven quickly and forcefully through the Civil Service and attendant Quango/PFI money wasters.

Whilst New Zealand is small, and not wholly comparable with UK, the radical program of change implemented by the government of that bankrupt country is well worth study.

Just to give a hint: "When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee. In the latter case, most of what the department did was construction and engineering, and there are plenty of people who can do that without government involvement".

Worth a read:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2003-02-03-mctigue.pdf

djw2009

It is not for the government to restructure private-sector banks. Why is Cameron focusing on the bankers? Because he won't take on the quangocrats, that's why. In fact - his priorities are remarkably similar to Labour's.

JohnPage

That would be vested interests like the windfarm robber barons, and the scientists clinging to their evidence-free faith that CO2 is causing global warming? Thought not. Really, what tosh.

Verity

djw 2009 "Why is Cameron focusing on the bankers? Because he won't take on the quangocrats, that's why."

Nail hit on head.

Also, what John Page said.

David Cameron doesn't give a rat's arse about our country or our people. He wants to be Prime Minister and subsequently a member of the Nomenklatura at the top table in the EUSSR.

Herbert Thornton

My long dead and dear father was a lifelong Labour Party supporter: indeed, I'm sorry to say it, but truth to tell, he was to the left of most of them too.

But when I read that Cameron had actually said - "...They're called vested interests, they are the enemies of change and often they will use any means to block progress...." I suddenly felt that my father had been reincarnated and was standing next to me, repeating his own constant theme.

Cameron's theory of change? Summed up, it seems to amount to changing the Tory Party into yet another new Labour Party.

I don't like having to resort to French but Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose fits the situation rather neatly.

Grumpy Optimist

The big vested interest is not the bankers but the bureaucrats and quangocrats.

I am a counsellor/psychotherapist and if Labour win the profession will be regulated, The effect will be to accrue further power to the quango charged with this, the cost to practitioners will be great and the general public will not be protected - indeed the restriction caused by this will be costly to the public and indeed everybody. Now, I have been in communication with Anne Milton MP the shadow health minister and one can have no sense at all that she will take a principled decision against the quango involved and in favour freedom and personal responsibility. It will be a nice test case for the new Tory government if there is one. Will they fight the vested interests here and free up the profession and just say no or will they get sucked into yet another administrative quagmire - which will only benefit administrators, quangocrats and that part of the counselling industry that wishes to restrict competition. The sadness is that I have no confidence that dear Anne will do this.

Mr Adequate

Some people seem rather cynical about Diddy Dave's statement. As someone with a vested interest in just being allowed to get on with my life and not interfered with or f8cked over too much, I am absolutely certain that he will take me on and do his utmost to defeat me.

saddleworth

This has convinced me that [a] Cameron will be lucky to win and [b] if he does he will not be a success. Not an original or sensibile thought in his head. a few conservative thoughts might help.
Was it really his speech or did he just re-cycle one of Blairs?

AdamR

Good article. Dc makes a good point about the vested interests in politics and more particularly, the parties. Brown has had the greatest addiction to big money of any British politician in recent history. it was he that brought in bankers like Shriti (now baroness) Vadera & co from S.G. Warburg to advise him on the disastrous PPP and PFI schemes that he pushed through. Paradoxically, this has been at the same time as bringing in union heavies like Whelan, who have taken an increasingly strong role in the policy making within no. 10.

Cameron & Co have made a right move here, and what with them already saying that there will be large cuts in the numbers of Quangos (which some on here seem to have forgotten), as well as cutting the cost of politics, this is more evidence that we are on the right track.

Verity

All Cameron has to do to win a stonking victory is offer a three point programme.

. A cessation of all third world immigration into Britain, and repatriation via cattle boats, of those in the country illegally. This would include ceasing to pay benefits to extra "wives". It would also include making the official language of the country English and sacking the infestation of Bangladeshi interpreters et al.

. An impartial referendum on our membership/slavery in the EUSSR.

. A promise to dismantle every quango. Every last one. It will be cheaper to keep those who lose their jobs on unemployment benefit for life if necessary than pay them large salaries for interfering in the lives of others.

As an added bonus, he might promise to deal with the BBC, preferably by causing it to cease existing. It serves absolutely no purpose except the negative purpose of destroying standard British values.

As a second added bonus, he should state that the language of the British government is English. Those who have been unwilling or are too stupid to master it should pay for their own Bangladeshi translators and Urdu interpreters. This and the curtain falling on the quangocracy would save us a bob or two.

Loh Mei-Ling

The Conservatives should take a look at how Singapore handles citizenship of children born to non-citizens.

The child does not automatically become a Singaporean through being born in that country. At the age of 16, he gets to choose whether to adopt the citizenship of his parents, or become a citizen of the land of his birth.

It's all but impossible for a foreigner to get citizenship of Singapore.

paulg

I see most of the posters did not read the speech, which is a shame because it is a very good speech.

Verity@ if you look at what cameron has been saying you will see that two out of your three conditions are going to be met.

however, it is not quite so simple to approach the european issue. As it is not just us who are under the jackboot, literally the whole of europe are walking into a totalitarian state, it is our duty as britons to extract yourselves and those whos' voices cannot be heard, to kick down this rotten edifice.

Only a strong united conservative government will send a chill down the spine of evil men.

Noa Zrk

paulg

Verity@ if you look at what cameron has been saying you will see that two out of your three conditions are going to be met.

Which two? and where?