Cameron: It's time to bring the ideas of 'Right' and 'Wrong' back into our national life

David Cameron has just spoken these words in Glasgow:

“I think the time has come for me to speak out about something that has been troubling me for a long time. I have not found the words to say it sensitively. And then I realised, that is the whole point.

“We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.

“Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more"

“Of course as soon as a politician says this there is a clamour – “but what about all of you?”  And let me say now, yes, we are human, flawed and frequently screw up".

“Our relationships crack up, our marriages break down, we fail as parents and as citizens just like everyone else.  But if the result of this is a stultifying silence about things that really matter, we re-double the failure. Refusing to use these words – right and wrong - means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.

“We talk about people being “at risk of obesity” instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.

“Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.

“There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.

“And why would a different government be any different? Not least because we understand that the causes of our broken society lie not just in government policies but in our national culture.

“Changing our culture is not easy or quick. You cannot pull a lever. You cannot do it top-down. But you can give a lead. You can give a nudge. You can make a difference if you are clear where you stand.

“Imagine if there was a Government that understood, really understood, that encouraging personal and social responsibility must be the cornerstone of everything that it did and that every move it took re-inforced that view.

“Saying to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.   Saying to head teachers you are responsible and if you want enforceable home school contracts and the freedom to exclude you can have it and we will judge you on your results. Saying to police officers you are responsible and the targets and bureaucracy are going but you must account to an elected individual who will want answers if you fail. Saying to business, if you take responsibility you can help change culture and we will help you with deregulation and tax cuts … but in the long run they depend on the steps you take to help tackle the costs of social failure that have driven your costs up and up.

“It is the responsibility agenda and it will be the defining thread of any government I lead."

Congratulations Mr Cameron.  A great speech.

Download PDF of full 'Fixing_our_broken_society' speech.

Comments

[Norm Brainer]

A great contrast to Brown's speech today that said "it is right" to tell people what to eat.

[Ash Faulkner]

Absolutely brilliant. He needs to talk like this more often.

[Alex Swanson]

Sounds great, but I wonder.

It still smacks of top-down paternalism. The left-wing idea that govt is responsible for everything and can fix everything is still here, it's only that the alleged fix method is different.

Is this going to end up as just an excuse for Cameron to tell the rest of us how we should run our lives? The right-wing Nanny state?

[Ay up]

Well said.

[CP]

Spot On! Lets hope it's not just rhetoric.

[BW]

Actually, Alex Swanson, it seems to me that he is talking of individual responsibility and that is a contrast to Labour's top down approach.

He talks about responsibility being devolved back to people.

I totally fail to see in this any justification for your comment. The first step away from centralised Government nannying must be to recognise the problem as he has done in this speech...

Excellent stuff....

[dogface]

Let's see what kind of coverage it gets from Auntie Beeb.

[matt james]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES...

At last....a politician who finally understands the problem with our society. it is the breakdown in moral values, the teaching of "right and wrong". if he truly acts on this, our country will be a much better place to live 20 years from now.

[GS London]

An absolutely excellent speech.

[alan phillips]

Now that's the stuff I have waited to hear. No more Namby pamby nanny state. Wipe the backsides of those that need it, not those who can't be bothered or haven't the will to do so. I've always been a believer that application+ambition=gratification. Encouragement is a strong force that gives people the belief that selfhelp is the best way to enpower people. If people can't believe in themselves, why would they believe anybody else. People who are disadvantaged need to be told that doing the right thing ultimately is better for the whole community, get enough people doing it and great things happen. Freedom begins with the ability to choose for themselves, waiting for the nanny state and you'll stay put at best. With freedom comes, reward, reward of deciding how to live your life and those around you.

[Andrew Woodman]

Excellent stuff. An end to 'it's not my fault' culture. I think Cameron's been building up to this for a while but wanted to wait until the right moment to say it for fear of a 'back to basics' backlash.

[Alex Swanson]

Actually, Alex Swanson . . .

. . . I totally fail to see in this any justification for your comment.

Don't you think I would love to believe that Cameron is at last - the first politician for decades if not centuries - advocating personal freedoms and responsibilities for their own sake, because a civilised society requires them?

But read it carefully and he isn't. He is not in favour of - for example - giving head teachers power because he believes, in principle, that it's a good idea. He says he'll do it then we will judge you on your results. The implication is clear: what he's after is results, good or bad to be judged by him or his team, and if bad, then the new powers go out the window and something else will be tried.

What he is after is low crime, good education, good health care, etc etc. Nothing wrong with that in itself. But his approach is exactly that of the socialist: the govt has all powers and is graciously pleased to devolve them downwards to those who, in the govt's opinion, are wise enough to use them properly. All that is different is that such devolution is to happen to different people; I agree, probably to better people than in the past, but the point is, still to and only to the people Cameron's team select.

[David Belchamber]

This is very refreshing; David Cameron is to be congratulated for articulating what so many people in this country are currently yearning to hear. A moral stance. An end to political correctness.

The vital thing is now to ensure that this new basis informs all our policies, with a strong dash of common sense thrown in.

Can we hope in due course to hear that the basis of the tories' tax policy will be to raise the threshold for personal taxation to at least subsistence level, thereby removing the lowest earners from income tax (and benefits)?

That is morally right.

[David Cooper]

Good thinking. No micro-management, just accountability against a background of common sense - exactly what we need. More please.

[StevenAdams]

I agree with 99% of comments; this is a brave and thoroughly welcome speech. I think the public mood is receptive and the political imperative is massive. Moreover, it begins to manage expectations of politicians, which hasn't been done in years to devastating consequence.

Hear, hear.

[RichardJ]

It would be great if people were finally forced to take responsibility for the choices they make on their own free will. Can we expect to see free healthcare for drug takers being denied?

[David_McD]

But what is "Right" and what is "wrong"?

Is it "wrong" to be a single mum? Or an absent father? Or to have two, three or four wives (our benefits system, if not our law of matrimony, currently recognises all four!). Or to have a spouse of the same sex (our poor confused schoolchildren are currently being taught that this is fine)? Or to be highly promiscuous (thus spreading all manner of STDS)? What about all those "love children" fathered by certain Conservative MPs?

Complicated is it not? But one thing is for sure; it is the demise of traditional marriage that has brought the broken society upon us. What will the next Tory Government, due to take offence in Spring 2010, do about this? Not much, I fear!

[C List and Proud]

Great stuff, I'm sure. But.....

Isn't the logical next step in this arguement to accept that it was the creation of the Welfare State that was the starting point of the removal of personal responsibility in our society - or at least the point at which that idea became accepted by all strands of society and when the acceleration of decline really took off.

Not quite sure how this sits with our pledges on health policy viz~a~viz the NHS - which of course encourages people to eat, drink and smoke to excess, because it will fix you if you get sick, wont it?

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I agree that this is a great speech. I also think this will be to our electotal advantage, and that David Cameron must bring these ideas with him to Downing Street. He can to this because millions of our people want a leader to proclaim what they have always beleived themselves.

[Erasmus]

Simply superb

[Norm Brainer]

He says he'll do it then we will judge you on your results. The implication is clear: what he's after is results, good or bad to be judged by him or his team, and if bad, then the new powers go out the window and something else will be tried.

Hmm.. If you take 'we' to mean him and his party I see your point, but if you take it to mean we, the people, then it's different.

I read it as the latter as it's then the people who judge the results and then vote with their feet.

[doriangrape]

Echoes of JFK’s Ask not what your country. Cracking stuff and on the money not least of all in the present context.

But, there is something that I am perplexed about.

Haltemprice & Howden. ‘We’ are standing up for human rights in line with Shami Chakrabarti because we oppose the draconian imposition of state sponsored snooping and detaining people willy-nilly subsequent to 911. Protect human rights is the rallying call.

Glasgow East. Context of the above speech. ‘We’ are standing up for re-adjusting the balance of rights with responsibilities because the ‘rights’ agenda has corrupted the core values of our society. It has gone too far. PC gone mad!

I agree with Glasgow East but I am highly dubious about Haltemprice & Howden. Here’s something from Chakrabarti in today’s Guardian:

‘Now politicians of left and right trash the Human Rights Act and wish to substitute a British bill of rights and responsibilities". My first fear is of "British rights for British workers … " – a xenophobic ideal that forgets the lesson of the Holocaust*: that human rights are for human beings, not only citizens of one kind or another.’

Are we Glasgow or Haltemprice?

*Oh, deary, dreary, me. Godwin’s law applies.

[K. Hadley]

Great message. Now needs to be followed up by each of us in the voting booth -- vote only for those who manifest moral integrity and are not afraid to speak up; with our pocketbooks -- purchase only ethical products that enhance our lives and do not rob us of health; in our relationships -- let the irresponsible sink on their own lack of merits. As we save ourselves, let's try to also save the people of goodwill on each side.

[Josh]

I want, and we all need David Cameron to be Prime Minister.

[Concanvasser]

Just what the doctor ordered!
Well said DC.

[Imogen Brodie]

What happened to 'Hug a Hoodie' ??

Also, does Cameron understand the difference between good and bad language??

"...And let me say now, yes, we are human, flawed and frequently SCREW UP".

Please... find a better, more grown up phrase.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is daft enough to fall for this PR man.

This is all claptrap, garbage, nonsense etc

And as for being PC about obese people, why don't you tell that Eric Pickles to stop eating too much and do some exercise.

You might have a degree of credibility if you get him on a diet.

Oh and as for setting an example... why are the Wintertons still in the party... need I say any more??

[Alex Swanson]

If you take 'we' to mean him and his party I see your point, but if you take it to mean we, the people, then it's different.

If he meant "the people" he could have said "the people".

My interpretation is based on his past behaviour: his record on MP and MEP candidate selection is not one of trusting ordinary party members. And if he doesn't trust his most loyal supporters, why should we expect him to trust the general populace, most of whom most likely won't even have voted for him?

Sorry if I seem unduly suspicious or cynical, but there you are.

[Norm Brainer]

If he meant "the people" he could have said "the people".

Yes, but then it would make it sound like he is a dictator rather than being a part of the people.

You may be totally right, but that's how I read it.

[Mark Fulford]

What happened to 'Hug a Hoodie' ??

Another person who clearly never bothered to either read or listen to that speech.

[RichardJ]

"Are we Glasgow or Haltemprice?"

We believe in defending our traditional liberties as found in the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta etc. We do not believe in refusing to deport terrorist suspects, that criminals have a right to access pornographic material or other so-called "human rights".

We also believe that those who are found guilty after a fail trial should be properly punished, not given a slapped wrist.

[Matt Wright]

Very good speech hitting the nail bang on the head. This needs doing but it will need steely political will to make it happen against all the inevitable barrage of negativity and picking from the left and parts of the media. It also needs some careful thinking about the stages on the way with all the stages fitting together. Take crime we must address the broken family and welfare dependency issues but also in the short term tackle the current ASB issues decisively.

[Deborah]

"what he's after is results, good or bad to be judged by him or his team, and if bad, then the new powers go out the window and something else will be tried." - Alex Swanson 14.56

It's not the new devolved powers that will go out of the window.
With devolved powers comes responsibility. If a headmaster is given a free rein to run things his own way and he fails badly then it is the headmaster that needs replacing, not the powers. This is freedom with accountability.

[John Leonard]

I do wonder what all the adulation over this speech is all about. I have read it several times actually trying to find out what is so inspiring about it and I can't. Cameron has given much better.

It seems to me to be a jumbled confabulation of random assertions, aspirations and vague promises that provide no coherent picture of what a Conservative Government would do about reversing social breakdown or anything else for that matter. In short it seems like a sub-Obama 'Yes We Can' type speech.

As for the section on morality well I've not seen so much said about right or wrong without a single solid indication of what the speaker actually thinks is right or wrong.

If anything it is an artful speech in that it can pretty much mean all things to everyone.

I only hope when the time comes that David Cameron has the definitive substantive 'bold and radical' conservative policies to back up this somewhat empty speech because in many areas the policies so far announced seem somewhat lacklustre and timid or have already been diluted by facsimiles already introduced by the Labour Government.

To conclude, a phrase from a past US electoral campaign comes to mind:

Where's the beef?

[Graham Checker]

WELL DONE CAMERON.

Don't often have a good word to say about you but..

WELL DONE.

Now, you must fight the inevitable misrepresentations in the newspapers...

[David Sergeant]

"This is all claptrap, garbage, nonsense etc

And as for being PC about obese people, why don't you tell that Eric Pickles to stop eating too much and do some exercise."

Posted by: Imogen Brodie | July 07, 2008 at 17:00

DC's speech was, of course, spot on. But we have to realise there a lot of people with a vested interest in rubbishing anything the party leadership says because they worry that DC is taking the country with him. (And I include the Telegraph with these people.) Ms Brodie demonstrates the sheer desperation of these people with her spluttering gibberish. Another example is Osborne's fuel tax idea; Labour, and Cable for the Lib/Dems, blatently misrepresented it in a desperate attempt to counter it, so effective were they bloggers on this site even were repeating their rubbish.

My point is that, given the electoral situation to-day, any important points made by Cameron will be jumped on by many people and there is the need to answer these otherwise the message is not only going to get swamped it will be turned negative - "no such thing as society" etc.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Best speech he has ever made, but the proof of the pudding will, as usual be in the eating.

A pity that he has teamed up with Davis and Wedgewood Benn and the rump of Labour on rejecting 42 days - still, the boy might turn out to be worth voting for yet. What with this speech and "imprisonment" for knife offences I can't take it all in. It is all too much - I must have a lie down. I'll probably wake up thinking that I had a dream. I might even have to change my pseudonym.

[Richard Nabavi]

Absolutely superb speech. Not that I am surprised - DC has the potential to be a truly great Prime Minister, and I think that all those (from left and right) who have accused him of being 'shallow' or 'having no policies' or 'no coherent vision' are completely wrong. Of course, full policy detail won't be available until the manifesto for the general election is published, but it's looking good.

What's more, he's proved himself tough, well-organised, and decisive, and has steered very deftly through the minefields of modern politics. That bodes well for delivery of this vision.

[Richard Holloway]

Is there any way of seeing this speech, I can't find a link to the video of the whole thing anywhere, all that seems to be available is the script. Otherwise it's just a 10 second soundbite from the Labourgraph or the British Bolshevik Club???

[Chappers]

This makes for excellent reading. This speech, the knife crime action plan and the measures on fuel duty really do underline the fact that it is the Conservatives who are coming up with the sensible ideas and principles on which policy detail will be built in the run-up to the election. What a welcome contrast to Brown.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes a very good speech, as I read it I could 'hear' David Cameron saying it, which shows how well it was written as DC must have been very at ease as he spoke, which creates much more belief and confidence in his audience!

What he is saying is EXACTLY what we need to hear at the moment with so many areas in the country in such disturbance.

David Sergeant @ 19.22 - 'Imogen Brodie' sounds a bit like Christina Speight!!

[Dave]

"I agree with 99% of comments; this is a brave and thoroughly welcome speech. I think the public mood is receptive and the political imperative is massive. Moreover, it begins to manage expectations of politicians, which hasn't been done in years to devastating consequence.

Hear, hear."

Posted by: StevenAdams

I agree with 99% of the speech too. I just wish he had been more careful in his talk of poverty.

Politically speaking, an Eton 'toff' who got rich by marrying an heiress can't even obliquely criticise people for being poor. Not if he wants to win an election.

Everything else was spot on.

[johnlocke]

Great words, but am I alone in wondering whether he actually means them, or is only saying them because his pollsters have told him to?

[Duncs1690]

Personally I was offended by the comments as someone who is both fat and currently unemployed. At the same time its correct because I am aware that my choices do cause these outcomes. Nontheless sometimes people are left with crappy choices and a little tolerance for messy outcomes is not entirely unreasonable.

To a certain extent I choose not to work because the job I could get would be paid an uninspiring wage and it would be dull. I would like to work but I would like a job that enagages me and which I would enjoy. Is it 'morally' wrong for me to choose to remain on jobseekers for a while as I seek gainful and enjoyable employment? Is it too much for me or others to hope that life is more than an endless sequence of trudging from an unpleasant job to home and back again. I wonder if DC has ever in his life had to wake up and think about going to work and want to just cry at the thought of the soul destroying tedium that awaits you at work? To not earn enough to even pay your bills as you slip into greater and greater debt. Perhaps before you judge the morals of someone who 'chooses' to be fat or unemployed you might want to consider how it feels to be in that persons shoes or is it the case that this attitude is merely a continuation of upper class contempt for those outside your class? Is life for others supposed to be one of miserable toil? Only the social upper classes can hope for life to have meaning, to have jobs that give them a sense of self respect, that are interesting and enjoyable? I agree that many social problems are a consequence of poor choices but I have enough humanity to understand why some people would make those bad choices and not to declare them lacking in merit or morals as a consequence of those choices.

[US Tory]

In short it seems like a sub-Obama 'Yes We Can' type speech.

John Leonard @ 7/7 18:48

I do understand what you are saying. Aside from the end, where DC provides a few, not particularly surprising solutions, he doesn't really show us "a plan". Fair enough. But, this speech does something else, which I think is equally important. Unlike the "yes we can" speeches (of which I've heard several), in which Obama names a few obvious problems (like poverty, or rising fuel costs) and then provides no solutions, I felt Cameron's speech boldly pointed out something that others are afraid to say because it isn't PC. To me this speech wasn't about the solutions as much as it was about the problem. I thought the beginning was especially strong:
“I think the time has come for me to speak out about something that has been troubling me for a long time. I have not found the words to say it sensitively. And then I realised, that is the whole point."

I congratulate DC on an excellent speech. :)

[Louise]

I suggest he starts lecturing Anne Widdecombe and Nicholas Soames about obesity and their own role in their predicament. They're not exactly setting a good example. Or is it a case of 'do as we say, not as we do'?