« Should the Conservatives abandon the inheritance tax cut? Should the upgrade of Trident be scrapped? Can we afford National Citizen Service? | Main | Liam Fox attacks Muslim fanatics who branded British soldiers as "babykillers" during homecoming parade »



Are these speeches of George Osborne's and IDS not available on video or YouTube at all?

I'd really like to watch them.

Great speeches from them both incidentally.

Just what's needed to get the PM out of his hole too, which I notice has happened today.

He's beginning to say he takes responsibility (all of a sudden), for the economy but not for the global economy.

Funny. I don't ever remember anyone asking him to run the world?

Nice speech from IDS!

Nothing about the Fibertas launch today? Lazy!

I could not agree more ! Go get the morally bankrupt liberalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Powerful words and very true. I'm glad that IDS mentioned preserving the enviroment, it's something that is sometimes forgotten by many in the Conservative Party. I hope he throws his considerable weight against plans to build all over England.

Fantastic speech! IDS goes from strength to strength!!

Trouble is that much of the broken society you describe was created by Thatcher who only concentrated on the economy and never on social needs. The workless communities around the coal mines with the high levels of teenage pregnancies and now 2 or 3 generations in families that have never worked are just one example. I pray that the NuTories have some answers, but I am very fearful.

My God. Former Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith, (IDS), certainly knows a thing or two about what makes a society. He should. He's spent the last several years studying it and trying to get his plans into the country with the newly invigorated, new socially aware and active, and ready to take off Conservative Party and with David Cameron who's motivated and prepared enough with a good shadow cabinet, which stands at the ready to shake the place up from top to bottom with sorely needed reforms which carry the edge of social justice for all. "Save UP"! George Osborne says, and "your government will spend less too"!

Whilst, IDS, never one to gloss over a plan but rather one to go to the very heart of it, is raring to begin mending Britain's "broken society", with its "broken families", "worklessness" and "adult dysfunctionality".
His speech is to be applauded, his efforts are not to go unnoticed, and I'd like to shake the mans hand for being number one on the ball here as far as knowing what the country needs. We need to restore British spirit back into our society, and we all need to get our backsides off the settee, stop watching telly and start 'fixing society', because it is us who ultimately has to put it right. We have to care more because we have someone ready with caring policies and a heart which truly does care about Britain, and that man is Ian Duncan Smith, who paints a picture of "Conservatism and Society"

H Taylor.
At this 25 years anniversary of the Miner's Strike, I would say that Scargill damaged "society" far more than Thatcher. The Unions never represented the "Working Class" , they represented the interests of their members and though they paid lipservice to to solidarity, were the most racist, protectionist, self-serving collection of individuals in the main I came across. A subsidy on loss-making jobs is a tax on profit-making jobs which is something people never seemed to get. There are arguments for running a subsidy for a community for a limited time while you implement change, but in the end you must move away from it completely because in the end you are wasting resources that could be used elsewhere. Look at Kinnock when he goes on about Scargill.
Conservatism is about self-reliance both at the individual and community level. On this, by the centralising of powers away from local communities, Thatcherism worked against itself and is guilty of weakening communities. But if I faced Hattons and Militant Tendency Councils, that like Scargill were willing to throw away needs of their members/communities on power plays for that leadership, I too would have been tempted to legislate against them. The big failure in the exchange of principles on the Tory side was the implementation of the Poll Tax, not the idea which I supported and still do (secret Lib Dem? as the local income tax).

I think the reason lots of families break up is because people start families when they are too young.
We have to encourage ambition in youngsters and give them opportunities so they see that life is more than having baby`s or getting married. That they have the ambition to establish themselves first before they set out on that path.
If you want less broken families you need to start with the children not the parents.

sorry bu whilst the lady was our greatest pm since the war I must dispute her legacy as a defender f conservative values. It was her commitment to the market which destroyed the social bonds which are fundamental to the workings f society


LIT would be disasterous in many parts of London and the South East and would deservedly lose the Conservatives many, many Councils and rent our membership were we to ever think in such terms.

Leave it well alone, even the opposition locally 'don't go there'

Things are bad - I agree with Mr Stone.

Although I really don't like the self agradising talk of 'I want the British people to remember us for other things too'.

You don't work at legacies - if you do the right thing then they will look after themselves. Do the wrong things, and no amount of last minute posturing will help (vis. the outgoing a-fix-a-minute labour party).

The work is not about 'creating opportunities' and making people fit into someone elses master plan - it is about removing the state built barriers and letting people apply (and benefit from) their natural ambition.

I agree with IDS. I usually do.

However, a socially conservative agenda implies encouraging certain lifestyles and mode dog behaviour (marriage, for example) and discouraging others. This will call down the wrath of the PC brigade upon his head for being “judgemental” about single mums etc. IDS may be prepared to suffer this I doubt that “nice” Mr Cameron will be so keen.

PS: I agree with Jack Stone @17.21. Good grief!

Posted by: pp | March 10, 2009 at 17:51

You are not alone in needing therapy !

I think most thinking people believe Cameron is going down the right road with his Social policies, however you have to get the Economic policies right to be able to deliver the social ones.

First task: Start the dismantling of the Welfare and benefits system

Colin Smith Bromley:
Why? I have heard many people say this. I can understand this in places of high percentage of retirees or non-workers. Are you saying London and SE have this type of population or is there another reason?

Liberals are moral idiots by on large. they live in a "let me get away with la land" they don't want things enforced or pressed upon them, they do not want the state to compel and they want to get away with their sins by and large.I have no time for the liberals and their wishy washy wine soaked culture of decadences. I can just about tolerate Baptists by the way. Liberals can go hang as far as I am concerned.
Evangelicals make me cringe! but I will tolerate even their most fallen rather than the liberals student of the humanities.
please spare Britian from the wooly brained idiots who follow after nutty Nick and his pack of boozers. We need something strong something robust and something that works.

"This will call down the wrath of the PC brigade upon his head for being “judgemental”

Absolutely and following through with the moral reform will provoke outright rebellion,but have our showdown with the hangers and the freeloaders and the illegals we Will. Supporting the right and stomping on the wrong.

IDS has done marvellous work on this 'social justice' stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing how a Conservative government acts on his findings.

if there is no such thing as Society - Thatcher what need are Social Policies ? Such policies need a society to implement them !

Anon R - What Lady Thatcher went on to say was that "There are People and There are Families".

Families certainly need social policies.

David Cameron then went on to say that there IS such a thing as Society - "It's just not the same as the State".

Not a contradiction to what Lady T said but a natural progression from it!

Anon R:
Thatcher meant that no society exists without the active participation of the people who live in area.
In the same as there are no victimless crimes (Oh, the insurance will pay for it - it's not really stealing) so there is no bottomless pit of resources (Society) for those who give up responsibility for the actions and lives. Socialists have forgotten how really harsh the words of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" actually are.
Socialists stress the first part as soaking the rich, the second as subsidising the poor. Tories construe the first part as living up to your potential, the second as only taking what you cannot (not will not) do for yourself.
Hope that clarifies the fundamental difference.

Full quote from Mrs Thatcher:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Now what sensible person could disagree with that?

I just don't get the Conservatives, or some of the commenters on this site. On the one hand (this section) there is support for Conservative social policies on the face of it. On another there is a refusal to come out and say the local authority is wrong which is seeking to penalise parents who withdrew their children from the promotion of homosexuality week at a London school (Romeo and Julian).

It is important to not confuse social conservatism with moral posturing. I simply to live my partner, pay my taxes, work and get on with my life with as little interference as possible. If you want a bad parent I could go to either end of my street and pick up a single mum and a married couple who both have tearaway kids. I could also find you the best kids in each of those environments. I could get you a working class kid who is studious and a middle class kid who is rude, selfish and going nowhere. I could find you a pensioner who is a pillar of her community and one who is the scourge of it.

If we start 'compartmentalising' who we then we are just as bad as the left.

Terry social policies do not mean the exclusion of gays from society as you seem to want. It means trying to give all a better quality of life not just straight people.

"Conservatism is about so much more than economics. In many ways it is the least important component of conservatism."

I disagree that it is the least important aspect of conservatism.

The spontaneous order of the marketplace is more fragile than the web of social and cultural values that bind individuals together. It is much more difficult for the State to undermine social values (although it can obviously have some success) than it is for the State to wreak havoc through inflation, for example. We can separate ourselves to some extent from the State's social engineering, but the poison of inflation, for example, reaches everyone.

"It means trying to give all a better quality of life"

I disagree. No-one should be "given" a better quality of life. That is the way of bossy socialism and it destroys self motivation which is the key to improving one’s life.

People should rather be provided with the opportunity to make the best of their own lives. See full quote from Maggie above.

I fail to see how force feeding children with “Romeo and Julian” will improve anyone’s life.

''I fail to see how force feeding children with “Romeo and Julian” will improve anyone’s life.''

I fail to see how Religious Education or trigonometry directly improves anyones life. I still think it should be taught. For the record 'Romeo and Julian' probably wouldn't have impacted me if I had been taught it as I was always 'on the other bus' anyway. In that same vein playing the part of a groom in a school play wouldn't have made me want to find a bride!

However, I'd rather children were brought up to be prepared for life and everything in it and not afraid of it.

IDS once again is absolutely right. Excellent stuff.

In addition to what he says on the importance of family etc, he makes this comment in his speech: The loudest and most organised advocates of change didn't have the best recipe either. Advocates of dumping marriage, dumping low taxation and dumping a sceptical view of the European Union tended to get most coverage from Britain's liberal-leaning media but my own view was that we needed to broaden our appeal rather than transform ourselves beyond recognition. A Conservative Party that threw out its core beliefs would never be credible. Exactly.

As usual he is getting to some roots of brokenness in society by addressing the need to build family, and of course this means, most importantly, supporting marriage in the tax system and in other ways. But do we need to be clearer that it is the traditional married mum and dad family that always has through the centuries been such a crucial foundation for a healthy society, and that therefore alternative lifestyle choices ought not to be promoted or given marriage-like recognition.

Jack Stone (2106) no, Terry’s comment (2027) was not advocating exclusion of gays from society, but seems to me his point was about a London council penalising naturally concerned parents who withdrew their children from a school when homosexuality was being promoted. One can accept and respect people who make different lifestyle choices, while not agreeing 1) with all those choices and 2) with the promotion of homosexuality to schoolchildren.

As a conservative libertarian I must say I am somewhat worried by the image of a conservative social policy.

If this places more emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability, I'm all for it. The benefit culture sub class that has built up generationally over the last few decades is a major problem. Not only in the economic sense that we are paying for people to not work, but also in the social problems this creates - as a breeding ground for crime and cyclic generations of children who have no hope for a decent future. I would like to see this addressed, especially with regard to shrinking public spending, and encouraging people to work.

With regard to other social policies the conservatives should seek to create a choice for the individual rather than socially engineer society to fit their own vision. Giving parents the opportunity to spend more time with their children is to be encouraged, but the government should not penalise people who instead choose to work more and try and give their children a better financial situation. This is the type of problem I foresee with such an agenda. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that the conservatives should seek to promote choice, rather than remove it.

An interesting speech and interesting mainly for what it does not say and the state of denial which it encapsulates.
In fact the speech reeks with denial.

IDS uses the Britain/British 27 times and yet most of the policy initiatives to which he alludes are devolved, ie he is generally not referring to Scotland, Wales and NI but only to England.
Weirdly, he does refer once to the possible death of Tory England but then instantly reverts to the usual Soviet-style British propaganda blanking out of England.

"Britain needs Conservative social policies more than ever".
Well, England does actually.
Scotland, Wales and NI will operate their own policies regardless of what the British government at Westminster says or does.

IDS does insist on "the acceptance of the need for change" and "the importance of choosing a form of change that is consistent with the intrinsic character of Conservatism"
Quite so and never has the stark need for these sentiments been so lacking in a vehicle. That vehicle must be an English Tory Party.

The party needs to accept that, post devolution, its organisation is completely out of date.
It has always been an insult to England that whilst there is a Scottish Tory Party there is no corresponding English party, only a British one.
That deficiency is now a serious encumbrance. It consistently prevents Conservative announcements from communication with the people of England. Most such speeches are made and received only by the Conservative in-crowd part of the British political class (many of whom share the state of denial)and miss the people of England altogether.
It also creates ongoing puzzlement and confusion in the politics of S, W and NI where people are falsely led to believe that such pronouncements refer to themselves and not only to England.
Thus the irrelevancy of continually harping on about "Britain".

With the government widely hated and yet the Opposition being only 10 points ahead in the polls it must have occurred to someone at head office that there is something wrong. There is.

How long is the Conservative party going to carry on in its somnambulant "British" idyll before it wakes up and communicates in terms that can be understood with the only part of Great Britain that really counts to it ie England ?

"British" is a term that refers to pan UK things like defence and foreign policy. It should not be use in English context.
The Tory party needs a federal style organisation with an English Tory Party operating alongside Tory parties from the other countries of the UK.

With organisation clarity will come clarity of policy and from will flow overwhelming success at the polls- not just the buggins-turn style minor win which so many of the people in this party appear happy to settle for.

'As we rebuild our economies from today’s tough times we are going to need simpler taxes'

No. We are going to need lower taxes. High taxes have helped get us into this mess, and only lower taxes will get us out.
An unusually woolly statement from IDS.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker