British society is in "deep trouble" says Cameron

In the wake of the murder of south London teenager Billy Cox and the UNICEF report on child welfare, David Cameron's speech on British society was likely to win substantial coverage and it led this morning's Today programme.  In the 8.10am interview Mr Cameron said that all of Britain's social problems - teenage pregancy, bad discipline in schools and urban violence - were related to family breakdown.  In language likely to delight social conservatives he reiterated his pledge to introduce an allowance for married couples and to ensure that absent fathers paid maintenance to the mothers of their children but his main point was that government could not succeed if the institutions of society remained weak.

In his speech the Conservative leader will say that Britain urgently needs "to encourage a culture of intervention":

"In a healthy society, children are the responsibility not just of their parents, but of the whole community.  I'm not talking about taking on a gang of dangerous thugs. I'm talking about treating children and teenagers with respect - with the expectation that, if they are spoken to as reasonable people, they will respond as reasonable people."

Although he will touch on issues such as the need for teachers to enjoy greater powers to instil discipline in schools, Mr Cameron's speech identifies two key villains behind the decline of society.

First, father absence.  He will say that society is founded on the care of children "by the man and the woman who brought them into the world."  Without defining what he means he will say that "we urgently need to reform the law, and the rules around child maintenance, to compel men to stand by their families."

His second target is unhealthy working hours.  Here is a key extract of what he is expected to say:

"If it comes to a collision between our wealth as a nation and the well-being of families - I choose families.  I don't make this choice lightly. I know that a dynamic economy is essential to create the wealth we need, not least in order to eradicate poverty.  Competitiveness, which includes a flexible labour market, is one of the central components of a fair society.  But we must not put the cart before the horse. If our working habits are damaging our families, we need to change our working habits.  I believe that businesses have an overriding corporate responsibility to help lessen this conflict, and make it easier for parents to find the proper balance for their lives.  Let us have no more grandstanding about the exclusive importance of competitiveness in business. Nothing matters more than children."

The Tory leader's analysis will be backed up by Alan Duncan.  In a lunchtime address to the Centre for Policy Studies the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary will praise David Cameron for having "decontaminated" the Tory brand (that word again) and will go on to say:

“The collapse of authority cannot remain undiscussed. If there is no fear of authority, there is no respect for it. It cannot make sense in a civilised society for children of school age to face the discipline they need in court rather than in class or in the home.  Even though most of the problems at any school are family-based, we are condemned to decline if adults and institutions remain unable to reclaim authority over younger people. Living out in real life the disturbing plot of William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' risks corroding Britain's well-being. The likes of Gordon Brown believe that action by the state can and will solve all these problems. It can't.  Social responsibility means that the state on its own should not be seen as the solution; institutions other than the state have a far greater role to play.”

Comments

[thatcherite]

The Tory brand was contaminated by Theresa May who called us the Nasty Party.

[Alex Forsyth]

Well whaddyaknow?

Not so long ago Dave was telling us that we should all be happy people celebrating "Blair's Britain" and the rich diversity therein.

Seems that since passing 40 (or at any rate since getting a very nasty reminder that his past may return to haunt him) Dave is becoming an angry curmudgeoonly old man who hates Modern Britain.

The way he's going we'll soon be The Nasty Party again.

[TomTom]

http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/

Wherever we go we come back to the same place. If you have no discipline in the schools you will have none on the streets. The schools must have higher standards than the homes.

The police must be seen and enforce.

People must behave to the same standard and not sink to their own level. Expectations condition Performance.

You either put the criminal behind bars or the law-abiding buy their own bars to hide behind

You banned handgun ownership for the law-abiding (how will The Olympics have pistol-shooting ?) but let gun crime go out of control.

Why do we have sex at 16, anonymity for crime until 18, but no mandatory jail for gun posession until 21 ?

Why are parents who exercise control over their children abused in the media and scorned by politicians; but those who are feckless and absent are showered with gifts from the taxpayer ?

Why in this country are the values of a normal society inverted and unrecognisable to a family from any period before 1957 ?

[Rudyard.]

The Tories will always be known as "The Nasty Party"afterall,we have done much more damage to our country than anyone else has.(This excludes the two World Wars).

[david]

Alan Duncan, now there's a real expert on families!

[Martin Wright]

Alex Forsyth
"Dave is becoming an angry curmudgeoonly old man who hates Modern Britain."

That is not at all the impression he created on the Today programme. I was delighted that he said that it wasn't an issue about money but about values. His tone wasn't angry or grumpy but one of some one offering a positive and caring alternative.Although he wants to see change, he wasn't hectoring or lecturing (unlike Labour) at all.

Although he did mention tax breaks that was only a small part of the interview.It would be wrong to overemphasise this aspect, as that would reduce the issue to money alone.

[Alex Forsyth]

I love Cameron's touchy-feely guff about "absent fathers"

In most of these cases nobody has a clue who the father is. Typical nonsense from a silver-spoon-in-mouth Eton boy who has no idea what life is like outside his cosy yuppie enclave.

What these young thugs need is a taste of their own medicine. Since successive governments in this country went utterly wet on the issue they have totally run riot.

I know what I'd like to do with them. Think keys, think thrown away and think of the satisfying crack of birch/ash on bare flesh.

[Dave Bartlett]

I heard Mr Cameron on the Today programme and I thought he made a lot of sense, much along the lines of TomTom's

"Why in this country are the values of a normal society inverted and unrecognisable to a family from any period before 1957 ?"

It can't be an easy thing for a politician to say the cure is beyond his control but its true. One of the best things a gov't can do is stop hamstringing individuals who are trying to do the right thing.

I really think this 'social responisibility' thing is an important idea, and if it remains a core philosopy of conservative policy, there are going to be some very exciting policies coming out of Conservatives.

[thatcherite]

Rudyard is obviously a Labour Party troll.

[Martin Wright]

Alex Forsyth -If nobody has a clue who the absent fathers are, how are you going to identify who to birch? In any event, not all absent fathers are thugs, most of them are just plain feckless. We don't have laws against extra-marital sex. But as David Cameron suggests we could do a lot more through education and community pressure to reduce the problem of feckless fathers/abandoned mothers.

[Alex Forsyth]

I heard Mr Cameron on the Today programme and I thought he made a lot of sense, much along the lines of TomTom's

"Why in this country are the values of a normal society inverted and unrecognisable to a family from any period before 1957 ?"

The problem is that this is exactly the opposite to the philosophy he has ben plugging up to now.

Remember all that stuff about Tories wanting a return to the 1950s? Wasn't that one of the reasons we were The Nasty Party?

He's been busy supporting some of those "inverted values" lately, you may have noted.

All that's changed is that he has a new speechwriter.

[Dave Bartlett]

Martin Wright said:

His tone wasn't angry or grumpy but one of some one offering a positive and caring alternative.Although he wants to see change, he wasn't hectoring or lecturing (unlike Labour) at all.

He did come over well didn't he? Positive, can-do, passionate and saying the answer lies more with us than with the gov't.

(It's not online yet, but the interview will be availble on Today's listen again page.)

[Peter Hatchet]

Thatcherite: Agreed. It's pathetic.

He hasn't even tried to be clever about it.

Advice to Labour Trolls: Don't ever start a sentence with "The Tories have.." or "The Tories will.."

Pretty basic stuff, if you ask me.

[Dave Bartlett]

@Thatcherite 9:29

I don't think he's working solo, must have them rattled :-)

[Editor]

I have banned Rudyard's IP address in the hope that we won't hear from him again. There is nothing intelligent or surprising about what he writes and he's usually off topic. Can we all get back to the thread now please?

[malcolm]

I thought it a good interview and Cameron made a good attempt to get his complicated thoughts over well. I'm interested to see the reaction 'though. Labour spin doctors battered him the last time he made a speech on this subject 'hug a hoodie etc'. I hope they are not able to get away with it again.

[Dave Bartlett]

Malcolm said:

I thought it a good interview and Cameron made a good attempt to get his complicated thoughts over well. I'm interested to see the reaction 'though. Labour spin doctors battered him the last time he made a speech on this subject 'hug a hoodie etc'. I hope they are not able to get away with it again.

As I understand it the Today interview was a preview of a speech he's giving later today, so it'll be interesting to see how much coverage that gets on the news.

If he's heard at any length, I think his theme will strike a cord with people, but, as you say, social responsibility is not a very 'sound-bite friendly' thing.

[Waldemar Gardner]

Alex Forsyth:

"think of the satisfying crack of birch/ash on bare flesh."

We all have the same dreams, sweetie. The same sweet, wonderful, painful dreams.

[Simon]

Point #1 - having read this site for a little while I am genuinely confused as why some of you chaps bother being here. Messers Forsyth / Thatcherite et al seem to have no comprehension of how bad things were in re the national perception of the Tory party. As they spout ideological purity and call for re-runs of the mid 80s they seem to be shouting 'no surrender to the electorate', a refrain that Andrew Stuttaford and Iain Murray (the Brits at NRO) have adopted as their own.

I thought Cameron came over well, he sounded reasonable, decent, human, interested and didn't lecture.

That being said, I completely disagree with him on the need to re-wire the 'work life balance'. With the UK plunging down the competitiveness tables and productivity reaching, frankly, Spanish levels we need to work harder. Part of this can be achieved by stripping out whole civil service functions and requiring the employees to get proper jobs.

However - mine would be an unpopular and minority view. DC is right - let's win the election - and then try to change the game.

[malcolm]

Your last point Simon is absolutely spot on. We can't do ANYTHING in opposition.

[Adrian Owens]

Like most others, I thought David Cameron came across well in the interview.

He stressed that many of the causes of family breakdown are cultural and that Government has a proper, but limited, role to play.

The most important factor is that Cameron is committed to a family friendly agenda which will move our image on from being a "dry as dust" economic party.

[Curly]

Once more we get involved in a salvo of sound bites, as Duncan attempts to

[Curly]

Try again!

Once more we get involved in a salvo of sound bites as Duncan attempts to stiffen up Cameron in a speech full of "take me back to the fifties".

It would be oh so nice to extract ourselves from the EU and reintroduce corporal and capital punishment, but we must be honest with ourselves and everyone else - that isn't going to happen.
It's time to start formulating real meaningful alternative policies to tackle this social degradation, platitudes and presentation will suffice!

[Stewart]

If Alan Duncan thinks the party has been decontaminated, then I'm worried.

Isn't it wonderful, all the new research showing that the way families have been for generations (Husband, wife, children, responsibility for each other) is better than the status quo which seems to put selfish so called self fulfillment above all.

Isn't it interesting how children brought up in an environment where the mother is there to care for them and the father there to provide a sense or direction, authority and discipline seem to be the most well adjusted members of society? Sounds like traditional family values to me. I think the time has come to emphasise for example that the mothers role in childcare is the most important job in the world and must be honoured (and through the tax system- let a wife transfer her tax allowance to the husband or v v. As an alternative let the husband assign a portion of his income to the wife or v v)

The problem is that after forty years of sowing the wind we are now reaping the whirlwind.

A return to traditional values is essential, but it will take time. Government needs to re-enforce that preference through the tax system. If that means that some who choose to live differently (as must be their right) feel that they are being discriminated against, then so be it.

For my part I'm willing to alienate 5% to win the backing of 95%

[Richard]

I am pleased to see Cameron openly stating that modern Britain isn't perfect and that in the past certain aspects of society were more stable. This doesn't equate to a call for "back to the 1950s" but a call to accept that the current situation is in need of massive improvement

[George Hinton]

Lets hope that DC doesn't say "Policing, Policing,Policing".
Welcome to 21st Century Britain and the Brave NuLab World.
If you politicise the police and make the criminal justice system ineffective, then what you get is the early on-set of Anarchy, as we are witnessing. Indeed if you take away the whole discipinary structure and allow free range of expression all you get at the end is total contempt for society, its mores, its structure.

[renny]

"Compelling men to stand by their families" is a very easy sound bite to make, but until fathers get some rights regarding their children's upbringing (to go with these responsibilities) the CSA (or any successor) is going to keep on failing.

[Peter Hatchet]

Sorry Ed (9.44) - I'll get back on topic now.

I'm a very strong supporter of Cameron, as some of you may already have gathered, and these sort of statements always remind me why.

This is classic Conservatism.

To put it simply, I think that what Cameron is pushing for is to complete "phase 2" of the Conservative reform agenda, which started with Thatcher in the 1980s.

You could diagnose 2 problems with Britain in the 1980s; "economy" and "society".

We have largely addressed the "economy" - phase 1. Britain is now, more or less, a strong and competitive economy. And we have international influence and status as a result. Yes, public spending is too high, yes taxes are too high, but the arguments have been won and the public at large no longer believes that tax&spend is effective.

What we haven't addressed is phase 2; "society". Mainly, because it's much much more complicated and because we were too busy in 79-97 sorting the "economy". Upward long-term trends in Crime, Family Breakdown, Drug Abuse continued throughout, but these trends have been evident since the 1960s. There has also been a steady erosion of community cohesion and identity, educational attainment of the poor and personal responsibility too.

"Phase 2" - needs to address this. Whenever Cameron talks about social responsibility, strong families, communities, charities and institutions he is pushing all the right buttons. A Tory government could make a real difference if it could just get people to take some responsibility themselves.

Logically, 10 million people taking responsibility for their own lives, families and communities is going to be far more effective than 200,000 civil servants trying to impose responsibility *upon* them.

Where Cameron gets it dead right is in reintroducing a kind of national service, discouraging multi-culturalism, supporting marriage, stimulating institutions to set an example and encouraging a 'thought process' in people that says less; "government looks after me" and more "I can do something to change this".

Where Cameron gets a bit nervous is on reform of the public services; especially on education vouchers and the funding structure of the NHS. Although reform here is desperately needed, political reality is that voters will reject a Conservative party that is too radical on these issues. Hence his cautiousness.

I don't think we can begrudge him for this. We're fighting a tactical battle as well as an ideological one.

However, ultimately, our problems are social ones and they lie with the steady erosion of Civil Society over the last 50 years.

It will need a Tory government relentlessly focussing on this for 15-20 years to make a difference.

It's not perfect and success is not guaranteed, but it's the right agenda to promote.

The question is, how do we communicate it, how do we prioritise it and how do we implement it?

[Simon Chapman]

I am delighted that DC is taking this raft of issues seriously, and agree largely with what Peter Hatchet says at 1121. My main disagreement is in his assessment that it is also sound tactics to be timid about public service reform. But that's for another thread another time.

There is significant brokeness in many aspects of our society and communities - we need to recognise that and set about healing and mending, accepting that damage that has accrued over generations will take generations to fix.

Cameron is on the right track here. It will be important to identify the correct levers to achieve sustainable and beneficial cultural change.

[Michael McGowan]

While I can agree with a lot of what he is saying, the absent fathers issue is rather more complicated. There are plenty of absent fathers who do support their children financially but who get short shrift from the courts when it comes to enforcing contact rights wtih their children. Children, especially boys, need fathers, not just fathers' cash and the huge clunking fist of the CSA hounding absent parents. Under the status quo, too many judges allow mothers to deny access rights on spurious grounds and relegate fathers to the role of sperm donors and payers of maintenance.

[Valedictoryan]

Communities were long since killed-off by the welfare state. The chav family down the street from me remains untouchable because the state will provide everything they need. They don’t need to cooperate with their neighbours so their neighbours have no currency. Communities have been killed off by impotence – just the same as every other bit of initiative is killed of when the state takes control.

[Winchester whisperer]

Mr Cameron said that all of Britain's social problems - teenage pregancy, bad discipline in schools and urban violence - were related to family breakdown.

The reasons for these things are not necessarily related to family breakdown at all. One could blame them on 24 hour drinking, appalling management of the education sector and hideous inner city environments. One could argue that these things cause family breakdown rather that result from it.

[Nick Langford]

There's some good sense here but also an awful lot of ignorance and prejudice. 'Compelling' fathers to 'stand by' their families makes no sense until fathers are allowed to do so by the family courts. Wake up, David; 60,000 fathers a year are pleading to the courts to be allowed some time with their children. We are not absent through choice. And please remember also - you even said it yourself, then forgot 2 minutes later: there is more to parenting than writing a monthly cheque; it isn't the CSA that will make us better fathers.

[Jack Stone]

One thing you have to admire about Cameron is that he realises that these problems are complecated and have no easy answers and unlike the government he is not looking for easy answers or the striking newspaper headline but is telling people how it is and how Governments do not have all the solutions to societys problems.

[James Maskell]

I have a concern regarding how we can make sure fathers stay and are responsible but hes making a few good noises. Others have already outlined the problems with the concern I have. I will have to wait till I read the full speech though.

No, I havent found Camerons secret stash from Eton...

[wicks]

what do you fellows make of this stat

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42579000/jpg/_42579331_graph.jpg

[Valedictoryan]

"One thing you have to admire about Cameron is that he realises that these problems are complecated"

Yeah Jack, isn't is amazing and fantastic that we've got a leader who knows the world is a complicated place. You know, he's so great that I bet he knows where Iran and Iraq are, and probably Australia too.

[Winchester whisperer]

I wonder how the same stat would look regarding Iraq

[Nick of Worcester]

If Mr Cameron feels this way then why don't his policies support the family more strongly.
In fact, why not support native Britons more strongly. Once upon a time, not too long ago, I remember the Tories as being the natural home of the nationalist. Now that's all been changed by kow-towing to PC and the 'Common Purpose' agenda. Once Cameron leaves that clandestine organisation of internationalist liberals then he can start thinking freely again about the good of this country in all aspects, adults as well as youngsters, and not that awful pinko BlairLite stuff he spouts now in order to please his 'Common Purpose' masters. Perhaps a visit here would be a good start: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm

[Tabman]

If fathers being absent is bad, what if mothers are absent too? Goodness me - doesn't that happen when a chap is sent to boarding school? :o)

[Annabel Herriott]

Nothing the matter with boarding school Tabman, I absolutely loved mine. North yorks countryside, cliff tops above Whitby -you learn self reliance in safety.

[Jack Stone]

Valedictoryan. In your effort to score points against David Cameran you shouldn`t mis-represent what I said.
I believe he should be admired because he is not resorting to headline solutions or trying to make the public believe there are easy answers. He is telling people how it is. These are complicated issues and there are no easy answers.

[Matt Wright]

Excellent speech from Cameron and Duncan. Exactly what we should be saying and exactly right. We need to stick resolutely at this and not be detered. As to those that say this is different, it is not, it exactly the social responisibilty message that DC has consistently been saying. Keep it up,

Matt

[Alex Forsyth]

Valedictoryan. In your effort to score points against David Cameran you shouldn`t mis-represent what I said

Jack it's not "Cameran"; it's "Camera-on"

Your memory seems to be even worse than your spelling. Valedictoryan is a fully paid up member of Dave's fan club.

[Matt Wright]

Alex, reading your posts it is blatantly clear your main reason for posting is to damage the Conservative party and attcak Cameron whatvere he does or says.

Matt

[Cleo]

On estates where gun crime is a problem family breakdown is a key problem but it is also all the layers of multiple deprivation that have to be addressed. On estates there are problems with poor quality education, high truancy, unemployment, lack of services, poor health and environment. Community and voluntary groups have to be encouraged to take part in improving local conditions and extra help is needed in schools and other statutory services

[TomTom]

On estates there are problems with poor quality education, high truancy,

Well if they don't go to school they don't get an education. If they do go to school the teachers truant.

I don't thibnk these estates have any more poor health than self-induced cigarettes, diet and drugs induce.

It is the people who fail not society that fails them. They have a cultural problem...subculture

[cleo]

If we don't address these problems then we won't create a decent and fair society to the benefit of everybody.

[Andrew]

"Perhaps a visit here would be a good start...."

I'd suggest here would be more illuminating:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6369953.stm

Seems like Combat 18 (the 18 referring to AH/Adolf Hitler for those who don't know) never really separated from the BNP after all.

[Richard Carey]

Seems like Combat 18...never really separated from the BNP after all.

Agreed, Andrew. If anyone here thinks that the BNP or their racist policies are the answer, then it must have been a very stupid question (and they are proabaly on the wrong blog).

Those preaching racial, religious or cultural separatism from either end of the spectrum should not be allowed to find any succour here. In terms of the "deep trouble" that society is in, in the topic of this thread, thse people are a part of the problem, and certainly not part of the solution.

[Richard Carey]

Apologies - looking back up the thread I think that the original post to which Andrew and I responded in turn may have been rightly removed by the editorial team.

[Dave Bartlett]

The full text of Mr Cameron's speech is available on the conservatives website. Webcameron has bits of it on video.

[TomTom]

Cleo, I appreciate you may have experience in Camden in a scheme running since 1992 but I suggest you also read the new Report from LSE published on 14 February 2007 which basically shows why locally authorities like yours can never win.

There needs to be stable population and a personal commitment from that population - and the first requirement is personal discipline

[Martin Bristow]

We need an awful lot more than tax breaks to support marriage.What has been created in this country since the 50's is a climate of intellectual oppinnion which, has steadily undermined the social controls imposed by communities upon themselves.

To this end it is no felt to be acceptable to have children out of wedlock and to live as a single parent funded by the rest of us.This must end.Cameron needs to develop some hard nosed policy with joined up thinking.The social responsibility he talks about must be underpinned by a withdrawl of benefits and access to housing for those tempted by lifetime of dependancy.

It is no answer to talk about flexible working.Cameron should read Jeff Randal in today's telegraph.Behaviours will change over time when collectivley we stop pandering to a victim culture.There should be no acceptance that this gang culture is anything other than criminality.It should be put down forcefully.Those who engage in such actions must feel the full weight of our criminal justice system.

Ofcourse we have many other ills that influence the mess we are in.Not least of which is the startling decline in social mobility and integration problems amongst certain groups.The return of selective education would help why does DC not committ to this?

[TomTom]

I wonder if we will ever get to know who the hit man is who murdered these gang members in South London Bandit Country ?

I mean they have their anonymity preserved as minors and only the victims can be named.

Not much Naming & Shaming for juvenile gangsters is there ?

[Alex Forsyth]

We need an awful lot more than tax breaks to support marriage.What has been created in this country since the 50's is a climate of intellectual opinion which, has steadily undermined the social controls imposed by communities upon themselves.

Correct, and Cameron is the very last person we can rely upon to reverse the trend.

Read what Heffer has to say about it in today's Telegraph:

Admit it, Dave: drugs are bad for you

I wonder why Dave got so rattled when asked a pertinent question on the Today programme yesterday by the great John Humphrys: what, indeed, is the difference between a toff using cannabis at Eton, and a lout on a council estate doing the same thing? The interview began well, with Dave saying some sensible things about the importance of families in preventing children from slipping into serious crime.

I was even prepared to forget, for the moment, that this is the same man who has made the laughable claim that all partnerships bringing up children are equal, whether married, unmarried, homosexual or lesbian. But Dave has got to stop hiding behind his "right to a private life" mantra when asked about drugs, for it is inhibiting his authority in leading his party's policy on an issue that causes most of our crime, feeds poverty and underachievement and blights scores of thousands of families.

If he can't be a bit more categorical about the wickedness of drug use, some people will wonder whether he has any more secrets.

[ellen]

I sincerely hope that David Cameron reminds all his councillors to behave themselves. Our family is about to split up due to a married female conservative councillor having an affair with my partner. thereby depriving a teenage boy of his father.

[Matt Wright]

I was out again today canvassing. Good response to DCs speech and the overall tone,

Matt

[Philip]

What David Cameron is saying must get to the root of society’s problems more than the socialist instinct for the State to take over from parents the upbringing of children.

DC makes the welcome statement that society is founded on the care of children “by the man and woman who brought them into the world”. Admittedly this begs the question as to why he doesn’t think a being brought by a mother and father is best for adopted children too, and why he supports Labour legislation that would remove the freedom of adoption agencies to follow such a policy. But what DC is now saying is very welcome and could be significant.

He says, “If it comes to a collision between our wealth as a nation and the well-being of families - I choose families.” I wonder if this could be our “Clause 4” issue, demonstrating more than anything else that the party is changing and getting rid of its harsh negative image that we’re only concerned about profit and making money. That is, we stand for the health of families, and therefore of society, before business competitiveness and economic prosperity. It’s not that we shouldn’t aim for these things but not at the expense of families and society.

[Philip]

I meant "brought UP by a mother and father..."

[Johnc]

'The collapse of authority cannot remain undiscussed. If there is no fear of authority, there is no respect for it.'

What an extraordinary thing to say. Surely respect for authority depends on the character and integrity of those exercising it; fear may compel obedience, but it cannot compel respect. There is no longer any automatic respect for authority in this country, and a jolly good thing too. If respect for authority has declined, surely this has something to do with the abysmal level of political leadership over the last 15 years, with the hopelessly incompetent Major succeeded by the congenitally mendacious Blair, not to mention the succession of clowns who have presided over the disintegration of the Church of England and the antics of some members of the Royal Family. Only the monarch herself with her selfless devotion to duty deservedly continues to combine authority with respect. What our society desperately needs are more role models like her.

[Alex Forsyth]

I don't know how many years you have been canvassing, Matt, but after 35 years of "I'll have to ask my husband" and "That'll be all right love" I find the idea that any but a tiny minority of the voting public are even aware that Mr Cameron made a speech - let alone what it was all about - totally risible.

I must admit my line of questioning has generally been limited to "I'm calling on behalf of -------, your Conservative Candidate. May he count on your support?"

I suppose if you ask "Didn't you think Mr Cameron's speech was wonderful" you might get a respectable number of responses along the lines of "Yeah great" before the door is firmly shut.

And these days most people - myself included - have far better things to do on a Saturday afternoon. Maybe they just felt sorry for you.

[Alex Forsyth]

DC makes the welcome statement that society is founded on the care of children “by the man and woman who brought them into the world”. Admittedly this begs the question as to why he doesn’t think a being brought by a mother and father is best for adopted children too,

Exactly, and it also begs the question as to whether his change of tone is genuine or bogus.

Or, more prosaicly, whether his speeches are now being written by the decent Christian Conservative Danny Kruger as opposed to the supposedly reconstructed far-right off-the-wall "swinger" Douglas Smith.

[Seth Gillette]

I found Cameron's speech very encouraging, and actually rather impressive.

Even the Telegraph liked it...

[Matt Wright]

Alex, you clearly don't know what you are talking about then! Camerons speech was reported very widely on the mainstream news. That day and the next I was canvassing. Those on the doors mentioned this withouth ANY prompting. They liked this approach. It seems with you Alex that you want to look for reasons to attack the Party leader rather than help. In fact you are attacking all of us who are out working for the party and working hard.

Matt

[mark hawkins]

How can the leader of the party support such a cheating coniving arrogant boy in formula one. I can understand following McClaren, but a cheat. Does this mean David is a similar person. Do not wxpect a vote from my house hold again for local or national consevative CHEATS