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.
Comments