David Cameron has just been taking questions from callers to Radio 4, here are his paraphrased answers:
Proud single mother with two successful children: What is the 21st Century Conservative Party attitude to single mothers?
DC: Huge admiration, but evidence across society suggests that children do better with both a mother and father bringing them up. If there was ever a war against single mothers, the weapons have been put beyond use. You have to think about society more broadly. We don't do enough to help parents stick together, a tax break for married parents would be a good thing. Some marriages should break up but fathers should on the whole stand by their responsibilities - we should hunt down dads who don't pay Child Maintenance.
Oliver James' psychological book on success and sanity, Affluenza, says children need more time with parents and less state-provided care. Is there a link between this and the UNICEF report? Would you support financial incentives for parents to stay at home with children under 3 years old?
DC: Wouldn't necessarily make a link between the two. Support parents choice to stay at home if they want to, but it doesn't fit with everybody's lifestyle. I'd support transferring tax allowances from the non-working to the working parent, although I don't like to describe stay-at-home parents as "non-working"! Sweden's quality bonuses for families seem to work well.
Would you consider bringing back the assisted places scheme to help children in failing inner-city schools? Would you halve the size of secondary schools? Are you sending your kids to state schools?
DC: Can't promise the latter, but can make it easier for new schools to be set up. If voluntary bodies and churches want to set up a school, money should follow the decision of parents. Assisted places not the way forward, amounts to helping people out of state sector and in to private sector. Ivan, who has Cerebral Palsy, goes to a state special school. Planning on sending Nancy to a state school in central London, a church school in particular. I'm of the relevant faith, but am a fan of church schools in general because you can build a relationship with them through church. No plans for one year old Elwin, but hopefully a local state school.
What will you do about the lack of affordable housing?
DC: Rung of ladder is rising faster than people can earn enough money to get on the bottom rung... extending home ownership is improtant. More rent-to-mortgage schemes where you pay an increasing proportion of the mortgage are needed. Either from private or council houses, and not just aimed at key workers. Inheritance tax isn't the problem, but real division is between those who have houses and those who don't.
Will you have the courage to challenge climate change? Do you realise people are ready for a strong lead on it?
DC: It's a big, growing concern that people have (stopped short of saying biggest). Bicycling twice a week now, rather than once. If there are going to be extra green taxes, other taxes will be reduced to help families and to prove it isnt about increasing income.
Do you advocate binding targest to reduce traffic and increase cycling and walking?
DC: Local councils should make local decisions that help environment. Cultural change more powerful than binding central targets.
Would you make it easier to buy micro-generating windmills for homes by giving grants before they are bought and easing the need for planning permission?
DC: Go to QualityOfLifeChallenge.com with ideas. There are simple schemes in Germany where you get a grant for having a green home. (Didnt answer question from presenter about India and China making these schemes irrelevant).
Deputy Editor
I thought Cameron came across very well - polite, answered most questions, was restrained in responding to the single mother with the victim mentality... all good.
Posted by: Mercy Man | February 20, 2007 at 13:51
I also thought he came across very well.
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | February 20, 2007 at 14:25
I thought he came over VERY VERY BADLY.
Posted by: Mad crypto-UKIPer on speed | February 20, 2007 at 14:30
This was a polished performance by DC helped by the fact that the BBC 'You & Yours' presenter was not aiming to score points and, equally, DC was totally honest and candid with his answers to sensible questions. Quite refreshing.
Posted by: R Shaw | February 20, 2007 at 14:44
David Cameron said:
Civitas have a program "New Model School" which aims
Posted by: Dave Bartlett | February 20, 2007 at 15:21
I do hope the Policy Review returns us to the policy of Swedish style education vouchers, as this will make all those things DC professed to want, possible.
Posted by: John Moss | February 20, 2007 at 15:59
*COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY DEP ED*
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 20, 2007 at 16:01
Denis Cooper, no matter how bitter and twisted you are, this sort of language is not appropriate. I guess from your cibberkshire.info site that you're more UKIP than Conservative - and it shows.
Posted by: Valedictoryan | February 20, 2007 at 16:25
After a couple of minutes of Cameron's curiously clipped, prissy, self-satisfied tones I switched back to the rather more rewarding sound of Morley, Byrd and other Elizabethan composers on R3.
What a gift for Cameron. The interviewer resembled a throwback to some grovelling Home Service suit of the 1950s.
Did he end with "Thank you so much your Honour for condescending to let me breath the same air as you"? I'll bet he did.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 16:26
Mad crypto-UKIPer on speed 14:30
Could you explain why you thought Cameron came over badly?
Posted by: NigelC | February 20, 2007 at 16:30
Oh dear, Valedictoryan, I'm terribly sorry if you're affronted by plain speaking.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 20, 2007 at 16:37
Bicycling twice a week now, rather than once.
If he is doing less driving instead then this will be reducing the amount of greenhouse gases he will be responsible for emitting, if not then this will be good for his health but nothing more and maintenance on the bike and any roads or track added too will actually be adding slightly to damage in terms of emissions of greenhouse gases and use of energy, important to bare in mind when saying things that some people actually seem to believe that cycling is directly good for the environment when it is what you would be doing otherwise and have stopped doing that is the beneficial effect.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | February 20, 2007 at 16:38
Denis Cooper, no matter how bitter and twisted you are...
Takes one to know one Valedictoryan.
At least Denis Cooper isn't frightened of posting under his own name.
I'm not the first to wonder why slavish partyliners like Valedictoryan cower beneath a cloak of anonymity.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 16:39
Bicycling twice a week now, rather than once.
With, naturally enough, the gas-guzzling ministerial limousine following faithfully behind, totally empty except for a chauffeur and a nice red dispatch box.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 16:44
Alex - surely a man of your broad experience and often boasted contacts would have seen Cameron's statement some months ago about getting panniers and how the car was a mistake.
Almost sounds like one of Gordon's astro-turfers...
Posted by: Ted | February 20, 2007 at 16:55
Cameron's statement some months ago about getting panniers and how the car was a mistake.
I think "mistake" is putting it lightly.
Let the cat out of the bag, didn't he?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 17:16
"Oh dear, Valedictoryan, I'm terribly sorry if you're affronted by plain speaking."
I'm affronted by misogynous bile. That you call it "plain speaking" makes it all the worse.
From your cibberkshire.info website, I guess that you're a UKIP supporter, not a Conservative. If I'm right, please be decent enough to admit that you're an example of UKIP, not Conservative thinking.
Posted by: Valedictoryan | February 20, 2007 at 17:59
I'm affronted by misogynous bile. That you call it "plain speaking" makes it all the worse.
Womens' libber, eh? Well we can add that one to your lengthy catalogue of "crimes"
PC centre-left elements like Valedictoryan love to chuck out insults such as "bitter and twisted", "bigoted" etc.
What they really mean is "Aren't we wonderful? Meet the guys whose poo doesn't smell."
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 19:02
Just listened from the R4 website, and agree with R. Shaw above. I was going to say it was a good "performance", but that implies a certain facade, and I don't think there was a facade here at all. Lots of ideas, thoughtful, relaxed answers and came over very well.
From your cibberkshire.info website, I guess that [Denis is] a UKIP supporter, not a Conservative.
You're forgetting your compassionate Conservative credentials, Valedictoryan! This site is fulfilling a valuable role for some of its visitors - part political blog, part care in the community.
That website is great, though - "the Berks campaign for an Independent Britain". I left the apostrophe out because I wasn't sure where to put it...
Posted by: Richard Carey | February 20, 2007 at 19:58
The party's changing...
Posted by: Al Gunn | February 20, 2007 at 19:59
Whether I'm an example of Conservative or UKIP or even Labour thinking on this matter I can't say, because it's widely understood that the Child Support Agency proved to be a disaster not only for the children of divorced parents, but also for divorced fathers who had thought that they had behaved responsibly and could start a new life, and for their new families, because it was decided that it was far easier to target them than chase up the fathers who had never been married - many of whom could not even be named with any certainty by the mothers.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 20, 2007 at 20:02
There is no apostrophe, Richard, so no need for you to pretend to worry about it.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 20, 2007 at 20:07
"Whether I'm an example of Conservative or UKIP or even Labour thinking on this matter I can't say..."
Denis, to ask if you are a UKIP supporter was a very simple question. Why don't you want to confirm or deny?
"I left the apostrophe out because I wasn't sure where to put it..."
Richard, truly great. ROFL, and then some more.
Posted by: Valedictoryan | February 20, 2007 at 20:59
There's no reason why I should answer a question which is basically irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, Valedictoryan. However to satisfy your curiosity I'll let you into a secret - the last time I cast a vote, it went to the Tory candidate. Of course there's no guarantee that will happen next time.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 20, 2007 at 21:27
>>I was going to say it was a good "performance", but that implies a certain facade<<
Exactly.
Dave has learned the importance of sincerity. Once you have mastered the art of faking it the rest is easy
Posted by: Saint-Germain | February 20, 2007 at 22:23
Dave has learned the importance of sincerity. Once you have mastered the art of faking it the rest is easy
I'd really rather you hadn't put that drivel under an out-of-context quote from my post, "Saint-Germain".
But since you have, can I ask you which points precisely in that interview did you agree with, disagree with, and in particular which points did you think were insincere in some way and why?
Posted by: Richard Carey | February 20, 2007 at 22:39
I detest You and Yours a piss-and-moan programme extended by curtailing World At One to 30 minutes.
One of the few BBC programmes with an 0800 number so the whiners don't need to pay local rates or premium rates to have a good moan on Radio 4
Posted by: TomTom | February 21, 2007 at 08:11
I detest You and Yours a piss-and-moan programme extended by curtailing World At One to 30 minutes.
Normally, I never listen to it.
Switch to Donald Macleod's "Composer of the Week" on Radio 3. It's the most civilised programme on air.
Almost makes the BBC worthwhile.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 21, 2007 at 08:37
Alex,
Are you the poster formerly known as 'Mondayclubber'?
Posted by: Gareth | February 21, 2007 at 08:47
Alex,
Are you the poster formerly known as 'Mondayclubber'?
Even if he were it has little bearing on his response to my complaint about You & Yours
Posted by: TomTom | February 21, 2007 at 10:00
I haven't heard it yet but it sounds like it went very well. I just agree so much with TomTom though I'll express an opinion anyway! You and Yours is vile, it's everything that's wrong with the BBC and it seems to last an eternity, especially if you're on holiday, and decide to have a nice long bath, and get in said bath with radio beyond arm's reach, and then it starts, and you can either spoil your bath by getting out to switch it off, thus risking electric shock, or you can lie there groaning with horror and depression at the endless stream of I don't know how I ran up this 456million pound credit card bill, they ain't done nuffink for us this government, What We Need To Solve This Is More OutReach Workers "items". Usually the shock-risk is preferable. It was bad enough in its earlier incarnation of endless, daily, consumer-risk "news" (government scientists warned today that putting a wet finger into an electricity socket can cause injury, after charred body of statistician found sprawled across Hackney bathroom. WE ASK: is it time to ban electricity from the home?. It's even worse now.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 21, 2007 at 13:31
Did I suggest it did TomTom? Unfortunately, I think the prospects of our beloved editor starting a thread devoted to the subject of Mondayclubber's identity is remote, therefore one has little choice but to ask him on this or some other unrelated thread.
Still no reply I see.
Posted by: Gareth | February 21, 2007 at 17:03
Still no reply I see.
My apologies Gareth, or should I say Your Excellency?
What did your last servant die of?
I've been away on business a couple of days. I have never been a member of the Monday Club, nor am I posting under multiple IDs as you are obviously suggesting. That's a tactic more typical of our Camerloonie friends.
However I'm intrigured by your suggestion that I have a doppelganger. On which thread can I read Monday Clubber's posts?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 22, 2007 at 08:22
I am so pleased to see DC consider bringing back Rent to Mortgage.
Buying a 10% stake under Social Homebuy will never work - firstly Social Homebuy carries with it Stamp Duty so it is not just a case of borrowing 10% the Stamp Duty is not a 'lending proposition' and B The Lenders do not want to know.
Posted by: David Castle | February 22, 2007 at 13:53
Surely the property would have to be worth well over a million mounds before Stamp Duty became payable on the purchase of a 10% share?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 22, 2007 at 16:22
"pounds"!
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 22, 2007 at 16:26
Hi Alex - it starts from £125,001.00.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/DG_10010529
And this is what Ruth Kelly has totally overlooked. It simply does not stack up.
Posted by: David Castle | February 23, 2007 at 09:54
Hi Alex - it starts from £125,001.00.
Yes David, I know.
Probably £125,000.01 to be precise.
However if the 1/10 share were worth £125,001 it would have to be a share of an entirety worth £1,250,010.
Would that class as "social housing"?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 23, 2007 at 10:09
Hi Alex - you haven't quite got what my "moan" is about.
If the value of a property would attract Stamp Duty then anyone buying a share and paying more than £600 p.a. rent on the unpurchased % has to pay Stamp Duty on the full value, i.e., over £250,000 value = Stamp Duty @ 3%.
How could any family who can only afford to buy a share in a property be expected to finance this additional cost ? So the answer is No on Social Housing - And the really daft point (which I have made loud and clear in the Inside Housing Forum) is that the Lenders simply do not want to know. It's Prescott part 2 in female form.
Posted by: David Castle | February 23, 2007 at 13:24
OK. I wasn't aware of that technicality.
Sounds like it simply requires a change in the law. If the government aren't prepared to do this why don't the Tories take it up?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 24, 2007 at 07:45
Why do you think I am here LOL?
The Rent to Mortgage Scheme was the ideal vechicle for the Right to Buy to continue with higher House prices. We campaigned the Government on this issue and met with a negative response. It is all very well and good for the Government to issue statements about actually helping first time buyers but in practice all we have is empty rhetoric.
The real problem with the RTB system is that it has always been open to abuse from high fee brokers. We at CTAB made page 3 of the Times with an open dispute over this with Mrs Thatcher who I met with on several occassions. We were also responsible for crashing City Mortgage Corporation with both the Times and The News of The World so the Conservative Party know who we are and what we stand for. I just hope that unlike David Curry who cancelled a meeting with me despite being advised of exactly what needed to be put in place -that the new team will seek our assistance prior to the next General Election. We have some positive ideas to put forward.
Posted by: David Castle | February 24, 2007 at 09:43