Cameron: Modern Conservatism

David Cameron gave a major speech today - entitled Modern Conservatism.  Extracts are posted below.  More analysis will come tomorrow [31/1: see Tuesday's newslinks]...

"Amongst the many things that the Thatcher revolution changed was the Labour Party. Gradually, the Labour leadership came to realise that the changes of the 1980s were irreversible, because people didn't want to reverse them. People didn't want to go back to Clause 4, class warfare and industrial strife. A more middle-class Britain wanted a middle-class lifestyle based on a prosperous market economy.

Tony Blair understood this - profoundly understood it. And people could see he understood it. So they could see that New Labour really was new. But there was something else that Tony Blair understood. He understood that some people had been left behind.

In point of fact, he wasn't the first person to understand that. Margaret Thatcher herself became increasingly worried that not everyone was participating in her property-owning democracy. She became increasingly worried that the new, open economy was not tackling problems of family breakdown, crime, poor schooling, drug dependency and the decline of respect in parts of our inner cities. She made a famous speech invoking religion as a means of enriching our sense of social obligation.

Her successor, John Major, was even more acutely aware of the problem of those left behind. It was he who sought to make Britain a nation at ease with itself. It was he who formulated the desire to make Britain a truly classless society - explicitly wanting to tackle the problems of an underclass of people left behind...

...But it was Tony Blair who made the aims of a stronger economy and more decent society most explicit, with his twin focus on 'social justice and economic efficiency'. His aims were not markedly different to Mrs Thatcher's aims, or John Major's aims. But they were new for Labour. The 'new bit' of New Labour was the equivalence granted to economic efficiency.

Tony Blair saw that the task of New Labour was to preserve the fruits of the Thatcher revolution - the open market economy and the end of the 'us vs. them' mentality - whilst making real progress to include the excluded minority. On that prospectus, he won the 1997 election.

Tony Blair's victory in that election created a problem for the Conservative Party. It was not the same sort of problem that Old Labour had faced. It was not a problem that arose from the failure of our ideas. It was, on the contrary, a problem that arose from the triumph of our ideas...

...There was in truth nothing fundamentally new about the New Labour analysis except that the Party offering it was Labour. The market economy New Labour set out to protect was a market economy that Conservatives had fostered. The social ills New Labour set out to cure were social ills that Conservatives - Margaret Thatcher and John Major alike - had tried to cure. So we, as a Party, were left opposing a Prime Minister who claimed that his aims were far closer to our own. From this fundamental fact sprang most of the difficulties we faced over the last decade.

We knew how to rescue Britain from Old Labour. We knew how to win the battle of ideas with Old Labour. We did not know how to deal with our own victory in that battle of ideas. That victory left us with an identity crisis.

Despite its 1997 prospectus, the Government has failed to maintain the competitiveness of our economy, and has failed to lift the excluded out of the trap of multiple deprivation in which they find themselves. We have seen neither economic efficiency, nor social justice.

The reasons for these failures are instructive. In both domains - economic and social - the Blair/Brown Government has put its faith in legislation, regulation and bureaucracy. Wherever they have seen a problem, they have seen action by the state as the solution. This is why we have seen an unprecedented growth in the size of the administration - both in the civil service and in the public sector more widely.

Why has the Government resorted to these failing bureaucratic measures?

Partly because that is the natural instinct of the Labour Party - and especially of Gordon Brown.

Partly because, unless checked, it is the natural instinct of the civil service.

But there is another reason. Tony Blair wants results fast. He wants results visible. He wants results that are visibly the results of his actions. So he is not really interested in long-term changes of culture if they do not produce short-term effects.

And now, with the quest for a legacy becoming an all-consuming mission, the short term just got shorter. For Tony Blair, the short term is now not just next year - it's next month, next week.

He is not really interested in sustainable change if it is brought about by businesses, social enterprises, neighbourhoods, families or individuals - without a visible link to the actions of his Government. This is Government governed by appearance, a Government in which - to use David Blunkett's immortal phrase - a day without an initiative is seen as a day wasted.

It is government of the short term, by the short term, for the short term.

The principal task for us is now clear. 'Social justice and economic efficiency' are the common ground of British politics. We have to find the means of succeeding where the government has failed.

As we set about this task, we have a clear picture in our minds of the Britain we are trying to build. And we have a clear idea of the way we are going to build it. We have at last come to terms with our own victory in the battle of ideas. There is no need to refight those battles - because they have been won.

We now know that we have the opportunity to combine the preservation of the Conservative economic inheritance with the resolution of the social problems which were left unresolved at the end of our time in government - and which remain unresolved after a thousand short-term bureaucratic initiatives.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which no child grows up trapped in the multiple deprivation of family breakdown, drug and alcohol dependency, decayed housing, dangerous neighbourhoods and poor education.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which the financial power of a free, competitive, open market economy is harnessed to provide first-rate, universally available public services.

But we want to go further than this.

We understand, unlike Labour, that social justice and economic efficiency are not enough to meet people's aspirations today.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which the quality of life matters as much as the quantity of money. Where the passions of a new generation for a more beautiful and a more sustainable environment are fulfilled. And in which the relief of poverty across the globe is not an add-on, something additional to our aims, but a central part of our vision.

We also know that we cannot build such a Britain in a rush, with a hailstorm of government initiatives. We know that the only way to build such a Britain is for government to lay solid foundations upon which civil society and the individual can rely and then to release the boundless energies of civil society and of individuals.

Instead of issuing top-down instructions, we will enable bottom-up solutions. Instead of pulling the same statist levers and expecting different results, we will respond to state failure by empowering individuals and civil society. Instead of public service reform at the pace of the Warwick agreement with the trades unions, we will deliver the improvements we need through real modernisation. That is what we mean by trusting people and sharing responsibility.

The change we are making recognises that we have won the battle of ideas.

That, as are result, our aspirations are shared by others on the common ground of British politics; aspirations for a vibrant open economy; a decent society in which no-one is left behind; and where everyone who needs it gets a second chance.

But we should also be clear that the change we are making takes us beyond those aspirations to see happiness, quality of life, and environmental sustainability as central goals of progressive government.

Our process of change is also a recognition that, to realize these aspirations, we need to win the last battle - the battle to replace short-term bureaucratic fixes with long-term sustainable solutions brought about by individuals and civil society building on firm foundations laid by government.

And, as a Conservative Party changed by those recognitions begins to build a better Britain, we will be fulfilling, not betraying our inheritance.

We will be showing that we have understood our past, and that we can see the way to our future."

Comments

[Goldie]

Cameron said, inter alia:

On the plus side, we have to acknowledge ... that spending on public services has markedly increased.

What Cameron is saying here is that, on the "plus side" the State has taken "markedly" more money from its citizens and spent/wasted it as the State saw fit. If this is Modern Compassionate Conservatism, then I am not a Modern Compassionate Conservatism. (Although I personally believe that I am a Conservative and Cameron, at least when he is saying these types of things, an impostor, who is espousing social democracy, which is neither just nor efficient).

It ties in with Cameron's main problem: his trite formula "sharing the proceeds of growth between tax cuts and increased public spending" is a completely incoherent concept, as anyone realizes who thinks about it for a while.

It is based on the Socialist Presumption that there is a Cake To Be Divided. The problem being, of course, that the Economy is not some kind of machine "producing" a Cake (wealth) that, once it's been created, must be, somehow, be "divided" by the State. Alas, Cameron's whole philosophy is based on this profound fallacy and is therefore so muddled, so incoherent, so meaningless.

In fact, of course, the economy is a DYNAMIC thing, wealth is created and destroyed and consumed and redistributed each and every day. It follows, naturally, that the effect of government interventionism and public spending on wealth creation are crucially important. This, I would have thought, is the central insight of classical economics, from Adam Smith to Hayek, with which I would expect a man of Cameron's education, background and intelligence to be thoroughly familiar.

The very basis of his thought, then, consists of Socialist Dogma, and therefore leads him astray.

But the media and the public are so economically illiterate that it might take a very long time for people to fully realise this.

In the end though, when Brown will ask for the NUMBERS to back up the waffle, Cameron will come crashing down. Inevitably, he is either going to promise the SAME spending as Labour (hence no tax cuts hence no difference) or he is going to promise LOWER spending plus some tax cuts. Brown will then attack him mercilessly for "cutting" services and we will be back to square one.

Instead of his inane formula, Cameron should start attacking Labour's waste, its overregulation, bureaucracy etc. (there is some of this in the second half of the speech but it's incoherently tied to the Big Theme in the beginning).

This is the way forward. You need to say: yes, we are going to spend less that Labour but we will do more with the money, and with the tax cuts and deregulation we will create more wealth. That is the conservative way.

A Conservative leader who fails to espouse this View simply does not deserve to win the elections.

[Rob G]

Goldie: It is based on the Socialist Presumption that there is a Cake To Be Divided
Actually that is something that Mrs Thatcher believed. To quote Lord Saatchi's remiscences about the winning arguments of her era [Daily Telegraph 1/5/04] They said that a 'bigger cake means a bigger slice for everyone'. But, first, you had to create the wealth to make the cake bigger.

[Richard Allen]

The speech shows why Cameron is no real leader. He simply seeks to position us on the centre ground rather than trying to move the centre ground towards us. He seeks to win the debate as it is instead of trying to shape the debate. He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.

[Goldie]

Rob G writes:

Actually that is something that Mrs Thatcher believed. To quote Lord Saatchi's remiscences about the winning arguments of her era [Daily Telegraph 1/5/04] They said that a 'bigger cake means a bigger slice for everyone'. But, first, you had to create the wealth to make the cake bigger.

No, this shows that Mrs T unlike Mr. Cameron understood PRECISELY what I was talking about. That there isn't some "fixed" pie to be divided, but that government policies affect the, continuously changing, size of the pie. I have no problems with Mrs. T's essential economic programs (although she should have cut more instead of talking of cuts that didn't emerge).

[Goldie]

Richard Allen writes:
The speech shows why Cameron is no real leader. He simply seeks to position us on the centre ground rather than trying to move the centre ground towards us. He seeks to win the debate as it is instead of trying to shape the debate. He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.

I'm afraid I'm starting to come around to the view that this is correct (and I say this as a Cameron supporter --of the man not his course of the past two months).

The problem is not the public will never go for it.

[Andrew Woodman]

Of those criticising Camerons speech and approach, what would you do instead?

[Goldie]

Sorry: "that the public will NEVER go for it"

[Rob G]

Goldie: this shows that Mrs T unlike Mr. Cameron understood PRECISELY what I was talking about. That there isn't some "fixed" pie to be divided, but that government policies affect the, continuously changing, size of the pie. My reading of Cameron's various speeches is that he also fully understands the need to reduce the size of the state and grow the size of the pie.

[Goldie]

@Andrew Woodman:

Pretty simple. Keep the "And Theory of Conservatism". By all means speak of the environment (but not of course the irrelevant Kyoto), poverty, Darfur, etc.

Keep the focus on 'modernization' within the party. Recruit more attractive, modern, young, female, minority candidates if they have the required qualities. Organize vibrant grass roots. Etc.

On grand policy, keep the second half of the speech where he attacks Brown's economic record, but ditch the first part with its implicit defense of the virtue of high public spending. Take the time to develop and defend a social insurance scheme to replace the NHS under the slogan: "If Sweden, Holland and France can do it, so can we". Commit to reversing the burdens on tax and regulation.

Ditch the 'sharing the proceeds of growth nonsense'.

[James Hellyer]

I think the problem is that sometimes it sounds it like Cameron & co. know they aren't divvying up a fixed amount (i.e. that the pie can grow - or shrink), but sometimes it sounds like they're buying into the socialist or fiscally conservative theory that it's their job to divide up a fixed pie (Letwin and Osborne are the biggest offenders for chopping and changing between the two though).

[Rob G]

Richard Allen: He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.
That sort of bald and unsupported assertion is, of course, incapable of rational debate. His speeches include numerous references to his beliefs and vision. You may not like them, but it seems strange to deny that they exist.

[Rob Largan]

oh dear, oh dear oh dear. Can't help notice on the bbc website that the coverage of Cameron isnt quite as positive as before. Calling Cameron a Blair rip-off and offering no real alternative.

[Goldie]

Rob G:
My reading of Cameron's various speeches is that he also fully understands the need to reduce the size of the state and grow the size of the pie.

Good for you, for those of living in the real world, we can count and we see:

-Cameron praising Blair for the "marked" increase in public spending, i.e. government spending, i.e. collectivism.

-Osborne disclaiming the flat tax, setting back tax cuts in favor of "stability", I quote Boy George, "stability will always come before promises of tax cuts".

Cameron's Conservatives might as well be called Cameron's Cowards. Their essence is that, whatever they may privately believe, they think they cannot sell their programs to the British public.

I suspect they will pay the appropriate price for this cowardice.

[Goldie]

PS: Nick Robinson finally started raising some of these issues in this BBC Interview with Cameron.

Cameron handled them very badly, he looked very arrogant and condescending.

When he summed up the differences between Cameron's Cowards and New Labour he said something about "NHS Dentistry" and "setting". If you seriously think that setting is the solution to our educational woes and that people will vote for you because of dentristy, they were deluding themselves even more than I already think they are.

If Cameron doesn't deliver a victory in the May elections --and I don't think he will-- perhaps Hague, Fox and Davis will force him to come to his senses.

[Rob G]

Rob L: Calling Cameron a Blair rip-off and offering no real alternative.
Where are you looking on the BBC website? The News item on today's speech seems to consist largely of quotes from the speech itself. The only reference to "rip-off" that I could find at a quick glance was a quote from Peter Mandelson last Friday. Not sure that I am too worried about his views.

[Jono]

Hokum from Richard Allen.

Enough of such squeals from the right.

Politics IS about power - NOT the ideological fallacies that have been indulged in by the Party over the past nine years.

Ideology with no powerbase can never be Politics.

The Editor remarked recently about the general right-of-the-Party position of a majority of the Participants on this site. This is natural, as in all areas of life the silent majority tend to be exactly that. I am one of the usually silent readers of this very fine site.

However, such guff as posted at 21:21hrs must be responded too.

More of the same please Mr Cameron.

And if those on the right don’t like it then please leave this good Party, join UKIP or some other such marginal irrelevance (perhaps Mr Kilroy-Silk will re-open his shop for you), leave this re-emerging giant of a Party to it’s (sadly all too) silent majority, so that it can regain it’s rightful place in Government, in the resolutely right of CENTRE ground of British Politics.

[Goldie]

Jono: what exactly is the difference between Cameron and New Labour?

If it's all about power, what does it matter who is in power other than to those hungry for a government job (because they can't find anything better to do with their lives)?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"When he summed up the differences between Cameron's Cowards and New Labour he said something about "NHS Dentistry" and "setting". If you seriously think that setting is the solution to our educational woes and that people will vote for you because of dentristy, they were deluding themselves even more than I already think they are."

If David Cameron can resolve the chronic shortage of NHS dentists in Wales (although that may fall within the remit of the National Assembly - it's hard to tell thanks to the muddled mess that is devolution), I'll take back every critical word I ever said about him. Now, you can't say fairer than that, can you?

[Rob G]

Goldie: Clearly we aren't going to agree about much.
Cameron praising Blair for the "marked" increase in public spending, i.e. government spending, i.e. collectivism You are taking the quote out of context (though it would have been better if he hadn't said something that could be misquoted). The "plus side" is in the context of assessing the extent to which New Labour fulfilled its own 1997 prospectus. It is clear from the paragraphs that follow that Cameron regards the growth in the size of the administration as a bad thing and damaging to UK's competitiveness.

Osborne disclaiming the flat tax, setting back tax cuts in favor of "stability" Surely you accept that "stability" is important for economic growth?

Now I must try to find the Nick Robinson interview

[Selsdon Man]

A speech on modern conservatism should have been delivered to a Conservative think tank - not a bunch of Blairite wonks.

[Goldie]

Rob G:
You are taking the quote out of context (though it would have been better if he hadn't said something that could be misquoted). The "plus side" is in the context of assessing the extent to which New Labour fulfilled its own 1997 prospectus. It is clear from the paragraphs that follow that Cameron regards the growth in the size of the administration as a bad thing and damaging to UK's competitiveness.

No, I am not. Cameron regards the increases in public spending as a good thing. That's why he is in favor of it. That's why he is not going to offer tax cuts. That's why I think he is Social Democrat.

Face up to facts, my friend. Now that he's won the Leadership his real views are emerging.

We have elected a Wet.

[Goldie]

PS: Now if Cameron and Osborne are really crunchy but are merely presenting themselves as Wets to get elected, and their Wet-ness will lead to a 100-seat majority, upon which we will implement a crunchy program, that would be fine with him. But I don't believe the above propositions, most importantly I don't think that Wet Tories can beat Gordon Brown.

[Damon Lambert]

Its hard to dig out any key points from this speech - or policies. Is Cameron the new Major?

[John Hustings]

Jono offers no arguments in support of Cameron, except ad hominems against his opponents. All he does is tar those who disagree with him as extremist and he seems to think that sufficient to win an argument. He is heavy on emotion and short on reason. In other words: he argues like a socialist.

[Ted]

This speech exemplifies why I supported Cameron, a vision of a better Britain built through civil society on the basis of conservative principles. I have always supported this party because i believe that enterprise, backed by individual and civil society underpinned by efficient public services will benefit the poor better than socialism.

Margaret Thatcher's promise was that when we had taken the tough medicine, survived the recessions, high unemployment, social strife we would build a Britain that had more resouces that could provide better for the disadvantaged, could afford better public services. We betrayed those hopes in the early 90's through economic mismanagement; Gordon Brown is destroying them again through mismanagement and centralised control.

The doomsayers above speak I believe for a minority of this party's membership - most of us would like to see the Britain Cameron talks about.

[Jono]

Goldie, I find myself agreeing with a part of your sentiment. We all know that a too great a proportion of Politicians on both sides of the house have gone into it for exactly those wrong reasons.

Cameron Vs New Labour: A couple for you to muse over:

Consensus Politics - something Labour has never understood, but that the broader electorate is desperate for.

The desire to help the underprivileged comes from the opposite side of the debate to Labour - out of a duty to give opportunity, rather than to simply redistribute. There is nothing wrong with old fashioned compassion – and there IS plenty of space for it in a market lead economy.

[Rob G]

Goldie: One last comment from me, before everyone else gets bored.

That's why he is not going to offer tax cuts. The "sharing the proceeds of growth" formula guarantees tax cuts provided the economy is growing. We may not think that is the best way of promoting tax cuts, but there seems little point in denying that Cameron is committed to fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services. [Latest statement of Beliefs on the Party website]

[Andrew Price]

I think sometimes people here need reminding that Blair was WON THREE elections - YOU have lost THREE ELECTIONS.

Cameron is appealing to sections of society (me for one) that would have never have even considered voting Tory ever. As a 19 year old, the post 1997 Tory Party for me stood for Homophobic, Extreme Racist, Little Englander's waving your Union Jack in your small rural towns.

YOU LOST Three times - ask your self WHY? Its not that hard guys. You offered something that we did not want. We still DO NOT want it, and Cameron realises what we do want is more NuLaBur.

The fact that the Conservative party was unable to actually see what Blair was doing in 1994 is the only major reservation that I have against voting for you now. It took you 12 years to realise what this country wanted. An absolute crime in my opinion. What were you doing during this period?

Cameron is the best damn thing to happen to you for the past 20 years. He understands 100% like Blair what we want and unlike Blair he can deliver it.

Wise words from David 'nipples' Blucket yesterday. Whoever blinks first (Labour Backbenches rebelling or the fascist right Mail / Telegraph) will lose the centre ground.

The decision is yours. If you rebel against Cameron then you will never ever get into power.

[john Skinner]

Breathtaking stuff from Goldie:
"I'm afraid I'm starting to come around to the view that (Cameron is no real leader)and I say this as a Cameron supporter".
Shome mishtake surely.
Goldie, you're the true heir of Barbara Villiers. Where is she anyway?

[Goldie]

Rob G. you really don't want to believe what Cameron means but:

The "sharing the proceeds of growth" formula guarantees tax cuts provided the economy is growing. We may not think that is the best way of promoting tax cuts, but there seems little point in denying that Cameron is committed to fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services.

emphatically does NOT mean that there will ALWAYS be tax cuts as long as the economy grows. When the economy grows by 0.1% don't count on any tax cuts.

Read this:
Interview with Osborne

He spells it out pretty clearly. No tax cuts any time soon, first they need to "sort out the public finances".

They are committing themselves to Gordon Brown's spending plans.

[Goldie]

Andrew Price: I understand your point but you're not paying attention. I have emphatically embraced the "And Theory of Conservatism" which is very different that the conservatism on offer in 2005 and 2001.

Anyway, if the British population doesn't want our conservatism, let them vote for Labour again. Sooner or later they will see the results.

There is absolutely no point in coming to government by promising to deliver the platform of the Other Side.

[Ted]

p.s James, Goldie, John, Richard A et al.

In case you didn't notice last month David Davis lost, and he didn't lose because we were conned by Cameron, he lost because we preferred Cameron's promise of change. I respect your right to argue and to differ but lets hear something a bit more constructive please. It's 2006 not 1976.

[Goldie]

Ted: I voted for Cameron.

[Andrew Price]

"if the British population doesn't want our conservatism, let them vote for Labour again. Sooner or later they will see the results."

I rest my case.......Now THAT my friend is the reason you are in opposition and not government.

[Goldie]

Andrew: I don't want to be in office without being in power. I don't want a particular group of random PEOPLE to be in office, I want them to implement certain IDEAS. Principles not people--that's why I am interesting in politics, because I want the common good to be served.

If the British electorate wants to have social democracy, let them vote for Labour, which is the party of social democracy.

We should be in opposition to social democracy.

There is no point winning office to implement social democracy.

I would rather lose another election and then get a chance to put things right 4 or 5 years later than win the elections by promising social democracy.

That's because I perceives social democracy to be the enemy of Britain and liberal Conservatism to be its friend.

You apparently only care about the 'circulation of the elites'. Well "jobs for the boys" is not a slogan I can get worked up about.

[Selsdon Man]

" think sometimes people here need reminding that Blair was WON THREE elections - YOU have lost THREE ELECTIONS"

Thatcher won 3 elections and was ousted by moral and intellectual pygmies.

[Ted]

Goldie
Why did you vote for him? - he promised change, he promised an end to Punch & Judy politics, he went out directly against DD on supporting Education reforms and cosing up to Blair. He's done just what he promised and yet every post from you recently has been against him.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I rest my case.......Now THAT my friend is the reason you are in opposition and not government."

What you mean by sticking to our principles and not prostituting ourselves according to the latest political fashion?

[Goldie]

"Thatcher won 3 elections and was ousted by moral and intellectual pygmies"

Hear, hear.

Ronald Reagan also won two landslides.

John Howard has won one election after the other.

It's a demonstrably false proposition that real Conservative policies render one un-electable.

[Selsdon Man]

"In case you didn't notice last month David Davis lost, and he didn't lose because we were conned by Cameron, he lost because we preferred Cameron's promise of change."

Most people voted for Cameron because of his speaking ability, good literature, nice website and that Newsnight focus group run by his Oxford pal. They did not vote for Davis because of his dreadful conference speech and re-cycled 2001 campaign theme. We voted to change the style of the party, not its principles and policies.

[Goldie]

Ted:
Why did you vote for him? - he promised change, he promised an end to Punch & Judy politics, he went out directly against DD on supporting Education reforms and cosing up to Blair. He's done just what he promised and yet every post from you recently has been against him.

I thought he adhered to the "And Theory of Conservatism". I voted for the eurosceptic Cameron who wrote the Howard manifestor and whose best buddy was in favor of the flat tax. I didn't hear Cameron say that increased public spending was a great thing, that tax cuts were off the agenda, that the NHS would stay with us forevermore, and that he opposes grammar schools in favour of "setting".

He has NOT done what he has promised.

Moreover, I don't think that his current tactics will win us the elections because his Big Narrative is simply incoherent. He is trying to do to Brown what Blair did to Major, but it misses the central point. The Conservative Party has an image problem, a Brand problem, but people quite like its policies.

The Conservative Party should have stayed a center-right party. Instead it's becoming a center-left party. We already have one of those.

[Rob G]

In case others don't have time to chase up David Cameron's interview with Nick Robinson, here are some quotes from it.

The big challenges that the country faces are having a competitive dynamic economy AND to do more to deliver social justice.

Tax is too high. Regulation too high.

Blair's education reforms are "very timid".

Cameron would get rid of regional government and take powers back from the EU.

[malcolm]

Like Ted I would agree with the vast majority of what Cameron has to say.I think his analysis of New Labour probably is over generous, I am still of the belief that Blair between 1994-2003 had no principles other than to win and then retain power.
Obviously the ideas Cameron refers to have to be fleshed out in the coming weeks and months but I can see nothing in this speech to warrant the extreme adverse reactions that the usual moaners have adopted.

[Selsdon Man]

Barbara Villiers? I thought she married John Coulson.

[Goldie]

Here is the link to that interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[James Maskell]

"It's 2006 not 1976"

I think Camerons latest speech sucks to be honest. Wheres the substance to it? Its waffle. Im proud to have supported Davis in the leadership contest and I would do it again.

Also, I was born in 1984 (22 years tomorrow in fact!) so Im not exactly sure what that comment was leading to...

I know Camerons been in charge now for 7 weeks and we should all give him the benefit of the doubt, but the fact remains, we have to persuade millions of people that we arent talking out of our backsides and we know what we are talking about. In detailed media scrutiny I dont think the "sharing the proceeds of growth" stuff with really wash. The closest thing to an Economics Degree I have is a Politics AS Level (I was one of the very first students to do them and I would cheer Cameron to the rooftops if he was to reform them) but I still know enough to know that theres something not quite right about it.

He needs to start coming up wth something we can really munch over coz the cheddar hes bringing is bland and has no flavour to it...

[Jono]

Andrew:
Happily I believe that the direction that Cameron is taking us WILL offer you and several millions like you a real alternative at the next election.

Goldie:
We're clearly not totally reconciled on the 'In Power' issue!

Ted:
I thank you!

John Hustings:
Oh Dear!

Good night from Bucharest - A City calling out for a Thatcher!

[Andrew Price]

"What you mean by sticking to our principles and not prostituting ourselves according to the latest political fashion?"

No, offering us what WE want and not want you (a small minority) want. Political Parties should offer us what we want. This is what NuLaBur did in 1994 and what some of you still can't see. I respect that you don't want the party to be elected as Social Democrats, but its the only way you ever will.

Get over Thatcher, Reagan et al (I wasn't even born when they were first elected).

Move On.......

[Ted]

DVA - what principles do you think Cameron has jettisoned in his speech? Policies are means not ends - DC lays out clearly that his priorities are social justice, economic competence, the environment & quality of life. I'm waiting on the how but I prefer this speech to the incoherent ramblings we presented to the electorate which presented policies without objectives.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Barbara Villiers? I thought she married John Coulson."

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I remember John Coulson 'coming out' on this board, so to speak.