What did Fleet Street make of Cameron’s speech?
David Blackburn 9:07am
Not a lot is the short answer. Many commentators argue that the speech failed to match
the gravity of this moment in time; that it was safe; that it was not prime ministerial.
Steve Richards believes that Cameron was timid, choosing to reassure rather than challenge. He writes:
‘Yesterday in his address David Cameron did Ed Miliband an unlikely favour. He made Miliband's seem deeper and substantial. The Labour leader's address last week was poorly structured and delivered, yet compared with Cameron's it had an argument and was at least an attempt to address the scale of tumultuous change sweeping across Britain. In contrast Cameron's speech was a giddying guided tour around his favourite themes, without much sense of where he was taking us next or why.’
Even some of Cameron’s admirers were left bemused. Max Hastings writes in the Mail:
'I believe in David Cameron as a man and as prime minister. We are lucky to have him in Downing Street. But it seems foolish to pretend that his speech will dispel public unease that amid global financial turmoil his government lacks a coherent plan.'
Jonathan Freedland agrees with that analysis, arguing that this was an insubstantial speech because optimism alone cannot restore economic confidence:
‘The problem is rather that happy talk makes no sense unless it is anchored to a plan of action. When Churchill sought to fill Britons with the belief that they would ultimately prevail against Nazism, he did not offer exhortation alone, but a military strategy. Cameron offered no plan at all to get Britain working again. At the centre of his speech was a growth-shaped hole.’
The FT takes (£) a marginally more positive line, albeit one suffused with faint praise. Its leading column says:
‘The prime minister’s task was to avoid underplaying the scale of Britain’s economic challenges while rejecting any hint of pessimism. He broadly managed this, while leaving unsaid the fact that Britain remains at the mercy of events in the Eurozone.’
However, there are some dissenting voices in that chorus of criticism, and those voices were attracted by Cameron’s impassioned commitment to social policy, which, it is argued, allows him to hold the centre ground — points made variously by Pete, James and Alex yesterday.
The Times’ leading article observes (£), “Critics of the speech might argue that it was slightly too long. But two items that might have dropped out if the speech had been vigorously edited were critical to its success. One of these was the commitment to gay marriage. The other was the pledge to focus on adoption.”
The Telegraph’s Graeme Archer takes a similar view. “The parts of the speech where Mr Cameron became passionate were highly personal; you can tell when you watch him what he really cares about in life, and it isn’t deficit reduction…I left the speech with the belief that he has set his sights on leading one of the great, One Nation, reforming Tory ministries.”
Indeed, it was a One Nation speech: Scotland and the Scottish Tories were omitted.
Previous
DavidDP
October 6th, 2011 9:17am Report this commentBoth the Times and Telegraph comments on the speech are far more enthusiastic about it than you seem to be implying.
Tim W
October 6th, 2011 9:33am Report this commentHaving read the Times this morning I'd say they were lapping it up. Extreme praise rather than disappointment from them.
TomTom
October 6th, 2011 9:37am Report this commentNot sure who has less credibility Cameron or Max Hastings; then again Hastings was so impressed by Blair......and he is always ready to revise his opinions ex-post
Vulture
October 6th, 2011 9:44am Report this commentSo the two hot topics that Cameron chose to focus on as the country goes gurgling down the plughole are...gay marriage and adoption?
Not exactly blood, toil tears and sweat is it?
This was a piece of PR puffery by a PR puffball with no clue what to do, made to an audience (as Fraser rightly noted) of Corporate lobbyists, carefully selected black faces and Cabinet ministers.
We are in deep doody and a trustafarian sitting on his little pile of £38 million is hardly the one take us out of it.
JohnPage
October 6th, 2011 9:53am Report this commentWho cares? We've forgotten it already. You'd to better to write about Quentin Letts' critique of party conferences in general.
FvH
October 6th, 2011 10:21am Report this commentSo Cameron is less bad than the other 2 stooges
God help us all - no mention of Europe, nothing on taxes
A lot of hot air
Cameron talks the talk but does not walk the walk
MilkSnatcher
October 6th, 2011 10:23am Report this commentThe speech was a good reminder of the powerlessness of today's political class.
Boo
October 6th, 2011 10:43am Report this commentI'm always annoyed by this call for a plan.
To be sure they have anounce a number of worthy policies and are doing good reform in education and welfare that will have long turn benifits, but a plan to deal with this recession?
A plan wont have an effect. It is based on the assumption that a government can plan their way out of this mess.
We stuffed our faces during the seven years of pleanty and no amount of planning will fill our bellies during the seven years of famine.
If there was a time for a plan, it was during the years of plenty.
All you can do now is tough it out, keep the state functioning, and try and improve the foundations as we adjust our living standards to our means.
toco
October 6th, 2011 10:47am Report this commentYou spend too much time listening and watching BBC's news programmes Mr.Blackburn which now account for over 50% of the Corporation's production spend due to premier league salaries and perks and near blanket coverage.Red Ed's hysterical business bashing speech was hardly conducive to improving our economy whereas Cameron's provided areasonable hope of a better,kinder future.
Dennis Churchill
October 6th, 2011 10:50am Report this commentHis priorities were those of the political class rather than the majority of the electorate. A speech for the BBC staff gathering to have their Winterval meal..
As you would expect from someone of his, or Cleggs/Miliband’s, background.
The speech that will be remembered is the one about the homosexual Bolivian and his cat. It shows the arrogance of our judiciary where they no longer even try to justify their interpretation of the ECHR.
TomTom
October 6th, 2011 11:13am Report this comment"We stuffed our faces during the seven years of pleanty"
You confession is admirable Boo, but some of us did NOT get to gorge on the fat of the land and resent being told to pay for those of you that did !
There are provocations to resistance and you have just stated one !
Heartless Perry
October 6th, 2011 11:27am Report this commentWords ... just words . . PR 'Puff' as another commentator notes.
TGF UKIP
October 6th, 2011 6:24pm Report this commentI stand to be corrected, but I'm struggling to recollect any mention of those magic Dave words "climate change".
As for "The Big Society" I am assuming that The Mole has dispensed with that, now it's served its principal purpose of helping ensure that Dave failed in May 2010.
Dimoto
October 6th, 2011 8:02pm Report this commentRed's speech was universally panned. Clegg's speech was mostly ignored.
Cameron's speech was criticised by Steve Richards (Stevey Richards for God's sake!), Max Hastings and Jonathan Freedland.
As the quality of their output plunges to new depths, the media panjandrums become more and more negative.
The speech (which IMHO, WAS too long and a bit cobbled-together), was aimed at the mainstream electorate, NOT the hypercritical and opinionated, self-styled, "opinion formers".
Insofar as anybody out here in the nether world actually heard it (ITV showed extended extracts, BBC censored most of it), it probably induced slight feelings of comfort and that Cameron was Prime Ministerial - that's all.
Back to top