David Cameron's press conference

In opening remarks the Conservative leader, standing near a large picture of Winston Churchill, focused on the Blair-Brown transition and the NHS.

He said that Gordon Brown's "non-election tour" was bad for Britain.  Given that the "Prime Minister non-elect" was not going to face a challenge he should become Prime Minister immediately.  The circumstances had changed since the Labour Party had chosen a seven week leadership campaign and now Tony Blair's departure date should change, too.  It was "bad for Britain" that lame duck ministers like Patricia Hewitt were staying in position while the NHS was facing such difficult circumstances.  It was a farce he said that Tony Blair - because of vanity - would be representing Britain at global summits when all other leaders really wanted to sit down and get the measure of Gordon Brown.

Standing alongside Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley he went on to propose a seven point emergency plan for the NHS:

1. An immediate end to the closures of A&E and maternity services that were being driven by short-term financial considerations rather than long-term clinical considerations;
2. More training posts for junior doctors;
3. An independent review of the NHS supercomputer debacle;
4. Re-engagement of GPs with the Department of Health for discussing the future of contracts;
5. Abolish central targets that undermine the professionalism of frontline doctors;
6. A new fairer funding mechanism that recognises the distribution of disease and clinical need;
7. Acceptance of House of Lords amendments to the Mental Health Bill.

Then the questions from the press started and 13 of 17 were about education and grammar schools, in particular.  Nothing much new was learnt with Mr Cameron continuing to insist that the debate was "pointless".  He slightly dodged a question from Nick Robinson in which the BBC Political Editor asked if any frontbencher had threatened to resign.  Mr Cameron replied by saying that no shadow cabinet member had threatened to quit.  He also said that he had not spoken to Michael Howard since the beginning of the row.

Other interesting answers to questions:

• There were no plans to restore the assisted places scheme;
• He would be visiting America soon but had no plans to visit President Bush - it was better that Britain was America's best friend (and was candid) rather than acting like America newest friend (and too eager to ingratiate itself);
• He personally opposed the David MacLean bill.

David Cameron's performance was flawless - perfectly articulate and controlled.

Comments

[deborah]

Cameron needs to stop insisting that debate is pointless. It says far too much about the Conservative Party's approach to democracy.

[Tory T]

He's a pro.

If he got you to say his performance was "flawless" Tim then he did well!

[Editor]

Very early on in the leadership race I described DC as pitch perfect Tory T. I still think he's a great communicator although sometimes I wish he could move up a gear from Mr Perfectly Reasonable to Mr Passionate.

[TomTom]

Re-engagement of GPs with the Department of Health for discussing the future of contracts;

What does that mean ?

The Government imposed a contract - GPs rejected it.

The negotiators went back and a new one drawn up which the Government imposed on GPs.

This contract would have caused a pay-cut for 75% GPs especially in inner-city areas so the Government proposed a Minimum-Income Guarantee....then imposed the contract.

Now Brown threatens to remove the Minimum Income Guarantee which will simply lead to redundancies among support staff and early retirement in inner-city one man practices.

Just what does Cameron mean by "re-engagement" ? That he wants GPs to go the way of NHS Dentistry ie private ?

[Bill]

Deborah is right. To say that debate is pointless is patronisingly wrong.

[Observer]

To say that debate is pointless is patronisingly wrong.

As The Independent article yesterday reported from one of Cameron's Eton contemporaries - he is a social elitist

[John Coles]

Get used to it, Bill - being patronising is Mr Cameron's stock-in-trade.

[Alex Swanson]

"Debate is pointless"

"Resistance is futile"

Start getting measured for the new eyes, people! We now know Cameron's vision of the ultimate political force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29

[Bill]

Most Etonians I know can patronise you without even opening their mouths.

[Og]

I agree that Cameron is a pro. His easy manner, attractive delivery and good humour all put him at an advantage over Brown (forget Ming).

What bugs me is that he (or Hilton/Maude) lack the confidence to acknowledge that New Labour is a dead duck - not only are the public bored with it, they also now hold it in contempt, with every A&E closure, sacked nurse or million-pound diary/book deal making it easy to conclude that New Labour, not very good for Britain, is very-good-indeed-thanks for those at the top.

Britain is ready for conservative policies again, particularly if offered by nice guys like Cameron. The move to the left-of-centre is completely unnecessary, and leaves the electorate effectively defrauded, there being no right-of-centre choice available.

[Dave Blunkett's Dog]

If 'Dave' is so opposed to McLean's Bill why didn't leak this to the Media before last Friday? If 'Dave' wanted to he could have gone through the lobby on Friday to oppose it? If 'Dave' wanted to stop this Bill, he might have 'encouraged' other MPs to make sure that McLean's Bill was not at the top of the pile of Private Member's Bills for discussion.

As for picking a fight with his own party over Grammar Schools, when there is the absurdity of Labour's Dual Premiership is certainly an unusual approach.

Am wondering if 'Dave' for all his abilities would have been able to pass an 11+. Perhaps he needs to start reading the job vaccancies in The Grauniad.

[Dave Blunkett's Dog]

If 'Dave' is so opposed to McLean's Bill why didn't leak this to the Media before last Friday? If 'Dave' wanted to he could have gone through the lobby on Friday to oppose it. If 'Dave' wanted to stop this Bill, he might have 'encouraged' other MPs to make sure that McLean's Bill was not at the top of the pile of Private Member's Bills for discussion.

As for picking a fight with his own party over Grammar Schools, when there is the absurdity of Labour's Dual Premiership to challenge, is this unusual if not novel approach is really to 'Dave's credit. has he discussed this change of policy with his front bench? Shutting up and not encouraging Willetts to issue this report might have been a wiser course. Why open up splits, wounds at a time when New Labour is trying to pretend that there is no disunity in their ranks, doesn't suggest vision, leadership or intellignce.

Am wondering if 'Dave' for all his abilities would have been able to pass an 11+. Perhaps it is time that 'Dave' needs to start reading the job vaccancies in The Grauniad.

[HF]

Why did Dave not make his position clear on Maclean's tacky bill earlier?

If he had spoken out beforehand then we would not have had the problem of it being labelled as a Tory bill.

Again another PR mistake.

Anyone got a taxi for George Useless for failing to point that out?

[John]

To follow up on Alex's thoughts...

And the assimilation of Labour policy continues, if a little problematically!

[Conand]

DC is picking a fight?

Willetts was making clear the existing position on grammar schools.

'Observer' on a post here calls Cameron a 'Social Elitist'. The starting point of this discussion was Cameron and Willetts etc being extremely worried about the slowing of social mobility in the UK. How the hell is that elitist?
Yes he would have passed an 11+. He probably did as a precursor to Common Entrance.
Let's strive to give all children a really good education in the state sector and stop imagining policies that Lady Thatcher never had.

[Julia Manning]

There is a core theme to David Cameron's 7 point plan for the NHS - which is that NHS professionals deserve to be trusted to make clinical decisions based on their experience and knowledge. It is frontline, grass-roots expertise that should inform and shape health policy. What we have had is years of politically motivated, top-down imposition and regulation, despite the efforts of professionals, public and patients to be heard. Even the Department of Health called their last £1m 'consultation' a 'sham'.
Most NHS professionals are employed by Trusts; it's time that Trusts are allowed to live up to their name and trust their staff to deliver what they are trained to do. We desperately need to re-engage disillusioned health-care professionals as their passion for their work is daily squeezed by targets, yet their 'outcomes' of well, restored or healed patients given little credit. Giving professionals a voice in policy formation is precisely what 2020health.org is seeking to do as an independent, clinician-led Think Tank for Health and Social Care.

[Tanuki]

Whatever, we need to avoid the risk of 'producer capture' in the NHS and prevent ourselves bending over backwards to please the likes of the BMA [who deep down are nothing more than an unreformed 'closed shop' trade-union.]

Like any other service the NHS will only succeed by putting the customer first. The doctors and nurses peripherally important but the NHS must emphatically not be 'run by' doctors and nurses any more than an airline should leave it to the pilots/cabin-crew to decide where they are going to fly to today.

[Observer]

'Observer' on a post here calls Cameron a 'Social Elitist'.

NO HE DID NOT.

He quoted an article in yesterday's Independent newspaper referring to a contemporary of David Cameron at a School called Eton College

http://tinyurl.com/2nb6bd

Someone who knows him well - and, having been to Eton, can claim to speak with some authority - says Cameron is secretly an unabashed social elitist. "I think there's something very unconservative about believing that because of who you are, you are the right person to run the country. It's the natural establishment which believes in power for power's sake, the return of people who think they have a right to rule."

Perhaps Conand can read more carefully and not attribute statements to people who merely report what was printed

[IRJMilne]

"More training posts for junior doctors...
An independent review of the NHS supercomputer debacle... Re-engagement of GPs with the Department of Health for discussing the future of contracts..."

On the first and last of the above quoted points, it looks harder to get results on them than to say them; whilst the NHS IT programme needs to be cancelled at once before any more money is wasted.

No assisted places scheme is a pity, though as with "no new grammar schools" I'm prepared to attribute it in part to post-Brown financial belt tightening.

[TomTom]

The doctors and nurses peripherally important but the NHS must emphatically not be 'run by' doctors and nurses

Wait until 1st August 2007....you will get your wish when the doctors have no jobs and thousands are unemployed.

It should be an exciting winter

[Tanuki]

"...Wait until 1st August 2007....you will get your wish when the doctors have no jobs and thousands are unemployed...."

If there are more doctors than NHS-vacancies maybe some of them will think about entering the private sector instead? Doctors have no intrinsic right to a Taxpayer-funded NHS post after all.

[Nick]

I disagree that he played this very well or held back from adding anything to the situation. Rather, he fed the flames - the Beeb are now reporting that he said support of more Grammar Schools is "delusional" and driven by a "fantasy". That's not controlled, reasonable or good tactics, it's just hacking off more of us even further.

[Chris]

"Rather, he fed the flames - the Beeb are now reporting that he said support of more Grammar Schools is "delusional" and driven by a "fantasy". That's not controlled, reasonable or good tactics, it's just hacking off more of us even further."
Cameron simply needed to answer the grammar school questions in the same manner as the drug related ones during the leadership contest - "I've said all that I want to say on this subect for now, next question".

[Nick]

Really, Chris? Where did this come from then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6676447.stm

I'm well aware it could be the Beeb stirring but Cameron's a pro - if he didn't want these things quoted he wouldn't say them in press conferences.

[TomTom]

If there are more doctors than NHS-vacancies maybe some of them will think about entering the private sector instead? Doctors have no intrinsic right to a Taxpayer-funded NHS post after all.

Posted by: Tanuki |

You are ignorant. ONLY the NHS trains doctors. These are training posts. Doctors have 6 month contracts and need to work in teams to gain experience in fields such as Surgery, A&E, Obstetrics, Psychiatry etc.

If they don't get the training places they cannot become qualified doctors.

The Government took control of Medical Training and then abolished the SHO grade - so now two years supply of post-graduate doctors are competing for training places. If the 34.000 doctors applying for 18.000 places don't get one - they are not allowed to apply again for 12 months..........that means they cannot continue Medical Training.

How could they work in the private sector as unqualified doctors ? I know private sector standards are low, but even there patients prefer fully-qualified medical staff

[Nick]

Oops, my apologies, Chris @ 15:10! I read your post rather too quickly and read it as "Cameron simply answered..." rather than "needed to answer..." I now realise you were in fact agreeing with me.

Editor, any chance we could have a "Delete your own post because you are an embarassment to yourself" function?

[Chris]

Nick,
Thank you very much for attacking me after failing to read my comment. I was saying what Cameron SHOULD have said, instead of the endless angsty soundbites he is providing the media with.

[Chris]

Nick, apology accepted!

[malcolm]

Oh dear! I'm hating this! If the BBC report is accurate then it appears that DC does indeed see this as a 'Clause 4' moment and that defeating his opponents within the party is more important than the policy itself.How sad.

[michael mcgough]

Editor, any chance we could have a "Delete your own post because you are an embarassment to yourself" function?

I'll second that.

[HF]

On the subject of calling for Willetts head, well either he or the PR people decided to lead with the grammar school point.

He also decided to ignore his own policy team causing a great deal of unnecessary upset. Hardly fits in with our new image?

Someone has to pay for what will soon become a week of bad pr portraying us as a party that is disunited.

[Lucy Allan]

Impressive performance from DC - confident, entertaining, master of his brief. Despite the best efforts of journalists he did not appear in the least bit ruffled by events. I for one was pleased to hear the other side to the selection by ability debate - it was well articulated and I felt somewhat mollified having heard the case first hand.

[Harsh but fair]

Lucy Allan: good luck with the seat-hunting!

[Michael McGowan]

If David Cameron "personally opposes" David MacLean's Snouts in Trough (Entrenchment and Condolidation) Bill 2007, why is he not whipping his Party to oppose it? There is hardly a big ethical dilemma about whether MPs should be able to help themselves to public money untroubled by public scrutiny.

[Hug a PR Junkie]

Inpressive performance from Dave Cameron.

[Deputy Editor]

Nick and Michael, feel free to email me with things like that (within reason!).

[James Maskell]

Regarding the Grammar Schools debate, why must Cameron be so rude about opposition? calling a debate "entirely pointless" then the "delusional" comments. Its highly inappropriate for someone of his high standing to behave in such a manner. If the debate is so pointless, then he should think his arguments are overwhelming. In that case, then bring the argument on rather than just calling us names...

Grammar Schools is no Clause 4 moment. There are bigger things than that. Until he takes the bull by the horns over Europe and gives his true feelings and say he is pro-EU, there is no such thing as a Tory Clause 4. He needs his war over Europe first. This is just a skirmish...

[James Maskell]

If Cameron is pledging not to shut down existing Grammar Schools, then will he pledge to abolish the legislation which gives the option to shut them down? According to the Kent on Sunday, that pledge cannot be made.

[Bill]

James you are quite right. Of course his language is inappropriate and arrogant but that's Cameron for you.

[Annabel Herriott]

I feel that the "Grammars at all cost" brigade are positively tribal in their devotion to the concept of a grammar school in a separate building, with a distinctive uniform. They are resistant to any sort of reasoning and argument, as to the notion of a school with a "grammar" stream for highly academic children, thus bringing that stimulation and education to the many, not the few.
I have had the most furious debate with my ever loving on this very subject this evening. He, born 1926, head of a fine primary by age 36, will not hear of any other way of delivering a grammar school education. Fellow CHomies - I got SHOUTED at!!!!!
Now I am no spring chicken, being born 1935, but I have the most tremendously good fortune, in having a young head on my shoulders,and a very good long term memory of how soul destroying and ghastly it was to be taught my duff subjects by a grammar school type teacher.
One day, hopefully soon, you will see what David is driving at. Full setting and streaming. One particular child in one set for one subject, and a different set for others. Result, one interested, involved child who is going somewhere.
Suppose a child is very good at math, very good with his hands, but lousy at english. Why not the technical stream. We have too many polish plumbers as it is. We could use some english ones, earning 100k per annum!
Suppose a child is good at english, debating etc, not so hot at math. Too different streams, and you have your top salesman to complement your plumber.
Carry on through, sciences, biology, communication skills, your medics, nurses etc.
Oh ye Tribes of ye Grammar schools persuasion. Verily it is not Rocket Science! Mind you, that would need an aptitude for physics.

[IRJMilne]

re: last post. The grammar school system works best, it's proven, it does away with co-ed, and it also means smaller schools, which are much better for many pupils. One reason the government likes the comp system is that it's rationalised approach creates mega schools, in which people get lost.

It's also possible to create a different ethos in a grammar school - also, you can let the grammar schools get by with less resources; it's also perfectly true that people often have a sentimental attachment to the system. Also, no grammar schools means no 11+. Passing mine has been one of the absolute best moments in my life, and were I to live again I'd certainly risk failing for the chance to go through that again.

For me a lot of it comes down to, if I was going through the system again, would I rather be at an old grammar school or a modern city academy thing, with "grammar streams". I would not hesitate to go for the grammar school.

As for streaming into technical, scientific, etc - I strongly disagree with that - there are all-rounders about, I was one such - so it would have to be streaming per-subject.

Part of the attraction of the grammar school system also is that grammar schools can attract some teachers who otherwise wouldn't teach. I'd be prepared to teach at a decent grammar school, but teaching at a comp?

Grammar schools also have a history as, part of the fabric of the nation. Some people might compare the abolition of grammar schools to the abolition of tea.

They also help some people from backgrounds which might be described as anti-academic to associate with peers who might have a better influence on them than those they would probably fall in with at a comprehensive.

If it's possible to go up to grammar school at 13, 14, 15, 16, it's also a system providing motivation for hard work. Also, if grammar school children are isolated amongst the top end people, they develop higher standards for themselves. This, admittedly, clearly helps some and hinders others, but the point I make here is that whatever you do with a comp, some grammar school types will lose out, which frustrates me as an ardent meritocrat.

The grammar school system is also proven to work for, yes, the middle classes, who are entitled to a good state education as they pay their taxes as much as anyone - more than poorer people in fact.

I might summarise a part of the argument as - would it be better to get rid of Oxford and Cambridge and have the Oxbridge people scattered across other universities, with some elite streams perhaps? I think not. People might say selection at 18 is fairer - I am not at all convinced by this - my observation is that many people, especially from less academic backgrounds, go off rails in their teens - the 11+ might not be perfect but it catches people at an earlier age than 18. The tutoring-up argument can be countered in exactly the same way.

[Scotty]

" This, admittedly, clearly helps some and hinders others, but the point I make here is that whatever you do with a comp, some grammar school types will lose out, which frustrates me as an ardent meritocrat.

The grammar school system is also proven to work for, yes, the middle classes, who are entitled to a good state education as they pay their taxes as much as anyone - more than poorer people in fact."

No wonder neither Labour or Conservatives brought back grammar schools and certainly not using that argument. Are you opposed to giving poor parents the vote?

[Chris]

" This, admittedly, clearly helps some and hinders others, but the point I make here is that whatever you do with a comp, some grammar school types will lose out, which frustrates me as an ardent meritocrat.

The grammar school system is also proven to work for, yes, the middle classes, who are entitled to a good state education as they pay their taxes as much as anyone - more than poorer people in fact."

I too am a meritocrat, but I am not going to punish a child because of the economic situation of their parents.

The present government already presumes that class and economic situation is inherited (Which is absolute rubbish), which leads to the ridiculous means testing systems which children are subected to. I'm stuck without a grant at university, because the government presumes my parents will fund my living costs. Fortunately my parents do support me, but it isn't the same by any means across the the board.

[Traditional Tory]

the Conservative leader, standing near a large picture of Winston Churchill

Oh dear. Dave is getting desperate.

Sadly, the contrast only succeeds in showing him up as the political dwarf he is.

[richard]

During his peace time Premiership from 1951-1955 Churchill had a phrase he occasionally used in private about highly educated members of his Government who made exasperating pronouncemnts. He called them 'clever fools'. What a pity he isn't around now to say it in public.