Dylan Jones' new book Cameron on Cameron is a series of interviews with the Conservative leader. Throughout this week, ToryDiaries have focused on highlights discussing the economy and taxation, other politicians, foreign policy and public services. The final post in this series has some highlights of Cameron's responses relating to crime and social breakdown.
Society: “Britain’s broken society – that is what is wrong with the country. People can see that society is generally getting a lot poorer, there is family breakdown, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, persistent unemployment, sometimes three generations of families being unemployed… Labour don’t want to admit that there is anything broken about our society at all, even after twenty-seven children were killed in London last year, even after the appalling death of responsible citizens on their doorsteps and in their front gardens, people who have only been trying to protect themselves, their children or their property. Every day there is another murder, another assault, another rape, another front-page horror story.”
The causes of crime: “We’ve had all these criminal justice bills and thousands of new laws, and I think what we need to recognise is that fighting crime is actually about more than passing new laws. Of course you need to have the tough penalties on gun and knife crime and burglary and the rest of it, but unless you reform the police and get them out from behind their desks, unless you get rid of the culture of paperwork and political correctness, unless you deal with the issue of drugs on our streets, unless you have a broader response to crime, addressing the underlying causes, like family breakdown, unless you start saying no to things – to people falling down drunk in the streets, to shops selling booze to people underage, unless you change that then nothing will change.”
Capital punishment: “[I]f someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.”
Economic and social conservatism: “Obviously
circumstances have meant that I’ve had to spend more time addressing economic
issues and the credit crunch and the cost of living. But the Conservative Party’s
problem wasn’t that we were insufficiently pro-business or pro-markets, our
problem was people didn’t think we had a good vision of society, of what
constituted good public services, of how you actually improve the quality of
life and well-being. It’s quite clear that sorting out the economic mess we
inherit from Labour will be a major undertaking. But equally we have made clear
that social policy will be the focus of our reforms. The focus on those social
aspects of modern Conservatism was right and they’ll be a very big part of my
premiership if I get elected… I’m going to be as radical a social reformer as
Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer, and radical social reform is what this
country needs right now.”
Marriage: “It’s not the only way that
couples come together and stay together, but it helps people, the sense of
commitment, the fact that you’re standing there in front of friends and
relatives and saying it’s not just about me any more, it’s about us, it’s about
us together, we have commitments to each other, I think it’s a really important
thing. I am unashamedly pro-marriage… Some people will say, you’ll sound a bit
old-fashioned – I don’t care. I think it’s important.”
The influence of government: “In the end people are not going to get married for a tax break, and people are not going to suddenly stop separating because we change the benefits system. I’m not naïve. But it seems to me that if we need a change in culture that is more pro-commitment, more pro-family, more pro-marriage, the very least the government can do is make sure the benefits and tax systems are not going in the opposite direction.”
"In the end people are not going to get married for a tax break, and people are not going to suddenly stop separating because we change the benefits system."
Why the hell are planning to spend the money then, you donkey?
Posted by: passing leftie | August 29, 2008 at 18:42
On capital punishment he says, And I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more, but I don’t think it’s a particularly civilised, or just, society that spares the ultimate penalty for those who take innocent life, but allows, and even encourages, the murder of unborn children, including handicapped ones up to birth.
Capital punishment for taking innocent life would not be a matter of us taking revenge, but is sometimes said to demonstrate the value we place on human life.
Apart from perhaps this one aspect, all excellent stuff… e.g. getting rid of the culture of paperwork and political correctness, dealing with drugs on our streets, addressing the underlying causes like family breakdown, start saying no to things – to people falling down drunk in the streets, to shops selling booze to people underage…, and supporting marriage as this makes it more likely mum & dad stay together, thus generally giving children the best chance …
Posted by: Philip | August 30, 2008 at 02:18
"..... it’s not just about me any more, it’s about us, it’s about us together, we have commitments to each other, I think it’s a really important thing. I am unashamedly pro-marriage… Some people will say, you’ll sound a bit old-fashioned – I don’t care. I think it’s important."
'Old fashioned' is good. 'Commitment' is valuable.
There is evidence that the people in arrears with their mortgage payments are much more likely to be cohabiting than married couples.
It seems to be the case that the recent and rapid increase in cohabitation has triggered the repossession boom and the accompanying house price and economic slump.
For example, research shows "the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting couples is sufficient that even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples" [www.bcft.co.uk/research.htm SEP 06 'Family breakdown in the UK' (pdf)]
Research also indicates, "On average change in marital status increases the risk of default 4.5 times".
This is supported by other research: "Why have a rising number of Americans defaulted on their mortgage payments in recent years?"
"When economist Darryl E. Getter of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set out to answer this question, he discovered that the problem was often not chiefly financial, but rather marital: many of the American homeowners who fall behind in their mortgage payments are experiencing the economic distress occasioned by divorce or separation from a spouse ...."
"Whether looking at all households or just at those with 'normal and unusually high' incomes, Getter finds unusually high default rates for home mortgages among Americans who are divorced/separated ....." (Source: Darryl E. Getter, 'Contributing to the Delinquency of Borrowers,' The Journal of Consumer Affairs 37.1 [2003]: 86-100.)
The mortgage lenders are being very coy about the arrears and cohabitation figures.
When will we be told the truth?
Posted by: Nick Gulliford | August 30, 2008 at 05:46
Interesting what DC has to say about capital punishment. I have always been in favour of having the death penalty available as the ultimate deterrent and I still hold the same view, though viewing the biopic on television recently about Albert Pierrepoint the last executioner did make me think hard! He it seems was a basically kind and sympathetic man who took pride in his work but carried it out with always the utmost respect for the condemned prisoner's ultimate humanity. As the film went on one could see how having to carry out his terrible duties took quite a toll on not only him but also his wife. I do, along with DC, wonder if the death penalty SHOULD be available in a civilized country but when I think about the worst kind of criminals, murders and paedophiles I do believe the State should have recourse to the ultimate sanction.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 30, 2008 at 07:31
Sally Roberts,
I agree with you again!
I think that there may be a case for the ultimate penalty to be available but only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt whatsoever and no mitigating circumstances.
Unfortunately this is no possible. It is forbidden by the EU.
Posted by: David_at_Home | August 30, 2008 at 11:20