And He's Off - David Cameron's Speech

[LadyBlaBlah]

Has anyone seen the young Tories in the crowd/being interviewed?

I thought William Hague at 16 was bad

Yes these cuts are happening in exactly the same way all over the world. This financial crisis has given the powerful elite the excuse to reorganise welfare and make cuts that would previously have been impossible. They are doing it as a coalition. But don't be fooled that the "socialists" would be any different. There is only one team.

Without the convenient financial crisis, the planners would never have been able to introduce the changes that they intend to carry out. Their fears about us living longer and enjoying our well-earned pensions could never have been addressed. They tell us that the financial crisis was our fault. Apparently we were too greedy, we spent too much on our credit cards and we over extended our mortgages. Pull the other one, we know who was really behind it.

It was the same with the last government; using the terror threat as an excuse to introduce legislation that under other circumstances would have never gotten through the first reading.

And look how well it worked in Ireland.

There is not only one team. Far from it, thank goodness. Hutton, Field and Milburn would not feel particularly at home in today's Labour party - which is why they are now working with the Tories.

Labour would have introduced cuts, of course. But not as many as the Tories and - importantly - not the same ones. Many of the Tory proposals are driven by ideology not by necessity. Claig is right on that.

We are not all in this together, and this is not all necessary. It's economically illiterate to keep on asserting that it is.

Here is an article about the former Trotskyist, Alan Milburn

From Trotskyist to Tory Adviser

Milburn talked a very good game. The current "opposition" socialists also talk a very good game. But do you seriously think they will be any different to Milburn?

Have you forgotten Caroline Flint and here "work or lose your home" message to the unemployed

Work or lose your home

"In a speech, Ms Flint said: "Social housing should be based around the principle of something for something."

The unions opposed Flint's plans, but a right-wing think tank applauded them.

"The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said: "The right to a home is a fundamental right that should not be linked to employment status.

"A family already struggling on a low income should not face added insecurity and stress over their home because of unemployment."

But Ms Flint's proposals were supported by a centre-right think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS)."

Of course the right-wing think tank supported Ms. Flint. They must have been cheering her on, as if she were one of their own.

""The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said: "The right to a home is a fundamental right that should not be linked to employment status.

"A family already struggling on a low income should not face added insecurity and stress over their home because of unemployment."

Do you disagree with this, then, claig?

Of course I don't disagree with it. I am trying to show that the Labour minister, the "socialist", Ms. Flint, disagreed with it.

The right-wing think tank supported Ms. Flint. The ex-Trotskist Alan Milburn advises the coalition. Say no more, say no more.

Doesn't the cap on benefits which will bring about a "social cleansing" of certain areas of cities also bring about this situation:

"A family already struggling on a low income should not face added insecurity and stress over their home"

resulting in a move out of one's home to 'elsewhere' and away from support structures, stable schooling and social networks, and possible family assistance.

There has been a financial crisis. They told us we were at fault and now they are going to make us pay. I don't like it, I wish it wasn't happening. But in the real world, Alan Milburn et al. are part of the "solution". They were certainly part of the problem, and now amazingly enough, they have been invited back to be part of the "solution". They spun you when they were in power and they are spinning you now that they are in "opposition".

DandyDan, London has already been socially cleansed, but of middle class families in many cases, who have moved out to cheaper areas. Hence you get great social and financial polarisation, and a breakdown in civil society in some areas, because the social mix is insufficiently diverse. This is unhealthy for all.

Xenia, the issue here is not that the top 15% is 'wealthy', but it is that this group of higher earners is simply not big enough. We suddenly have a situation now where very few families are able to bring in a sustainable wage if you take into account the current need to remove benefits and other forms of state support. This is because the distribution of wealth is particularly polarised in the UK and it shouldn't be. The state has also interfered in an unhelpful way, indirectly subsidising private provision for some and also increasing red tape at the same time, consequently making the private sector provision that most people rely on for childcare overly expensive.

Countries with less polarisation of wealth, such as Finland and Sweden (until recently) are able to ensure that the vast majority of citizens have broadly comparable standards of living, and this means fewer social problems overall. I think it is perfectly congruent for Conservatives to aim for that as a position. A start would be forcing employers to expose disparities in pay between men and women, different ethnicities, etc, which would immediately begin the levelling process. The next step after that might be to review the tax and benefits system so it is more logical and less vulnerable to criticisms of being arbitrary (the HB plan, stamp duty, household vs personal assessment, these are what I would classify as arbitrary and clumsy forms of taxation or revenue limitation - back of an envelope stuff thought up by amateurish Civil Service Fast Track 20-somethings). Then once that is in place, there needs to be a proper debate about progressive taxation, and not one led by the type of people who have been leading us for the last couple of decades of so.

If Dame Porter didn't sell off the social housing in Westminster then we wouldn't need to families in Eaton Square houses.

" Hence you get great social and financial polarisation, and a breakdown in civil society in some areas, because the social mix is insufficiently diverse. This is unhealthy for all."

Won't moving more lower-income families out create more polarisation, more social division, a less diverse society and ghetto-isation, whether that's for the wealthy or those poorer?

My point - ""A family already struggling on a low income should not face added insecurity and stress over their home"

resulting in a move out of one's home to 'elsewhere' and away from support structures, stable schooling and social networks, and possible family assistance."

still stands.

David Cameron has a vision where we all play our part, fine, but how do people in our generation feel, when we're bearing the brunt of all the cuts? What's more, a lot of us are already making a contribution to our society whether we are paying lots of tax or not!! Not all of us have local family to give practical or financial support either.

At the moment we are just breaking even, because we have learned how to budget very carefully... no holidays other than proper camping; no pay per view channels; energy saving bulbs; going to work by bike; hand me down clothes... No, we are not hard-up I'll grant you, but we're not exactly raking it in either.

As far as volunteering is concerned he's preaching to the converted: Playgroup Committee; School Volunteer; Charity Help and Unpaid Carer!

The thing is, is that I already feel like a responsible citizen and I'd like to do even more, because volunteering is enjoyable and can help build up work experience in new areas. However, if I can only just afford to be a volunteer, it's a bit tough for the Tories to expect it of people worse off.

So, please will any Tories out there explain to my family why you think I should continue to volunteer and save the country money. Can't you see that your policies do not match your vision, especially for new Mums?

I think 'contributing to society' is a very broad church and you're a good example of how it works. Rather than saving money, necessarily it's simply the converse of expecting 'someone else' to do everything... which was the Labour way, let's face it. He's trying to conjure up a kind of wartime spirit and it's no coincidence that he used the Kitchener 'your country needs you' line and 'a call to arms' in his speech.

Kitchener and his slogan however exploited the young and vulnerable, and sent millions to their deaths in a war that was more about economic thumbing the nose at France than the territorial defence it's romantically seen as. Kitchener also oversaw and introduced the notion of concentration camps in the Boer War. There are all kinds of reasons that rebound negatively by using this example. A call to arms is divisive because it suggests there is a war, that a certain group of people (labelled as 'good' or 'hard-working' or 'responsible' is fighting against not a mood, or a culture, or a deficit in money, but targetted groups of individuals - labelled as 'undeserving," or feckless or scroungers. He is proposing a culture of blame.

I agree with you on the point of not expecting 'someone else' to do everything, but I still feel frustrated on behalf of any parents with very young children. They have their work cut out at home and may have a partner who works extra hours that may get stung by the CB cut. They are probably feeling victimised and not in the least inclined to help society!

A lot of women actually do a great deal to help society already. We form 65% of the public sector for example, often paid quite poorly to do grotty jobs, and with only a pension of £5600 a year on average to look forward to after 40 years of work. So why are we being vilifed and stymied at every turn? CB, HRP, childcare costs? I could go on ...

It's the same message as Democrat Kennedy - Ask not what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for your country.

I am wholeheartedly in accord with his message, shame the other Tories found it hard to understand and applaud as it deserved. The 'broken Britain' label irritates me intensely though - I see people working on behalf of others all the time already, whether it's my mate mentoring kids in Hackney, Tory ladies arranging charity lunches in the village hall, me doing the shopping for my neighbour, the way my kids' school is raising funds for two families in trouble...it happens all the time and that slogan drives me nuts. As does 'The Big Society'. Wish politicians could leave the slogans alone. It makes listening to their speeches like the Withnail game where you take a drink every time that do. It's like the 'look...' (hey, I'm just a guy, in front of a journalist, asking him to love me' thing that all the Labour lot do thanks to Messers Campbell and Blair.

The Big Society: Cameron mentions 'the common good'. I wonder how this fits in with Gove's Academies and 'Free' schools? It seems to me that our current comprehensive/community schools will no longer be under any obligation to consider 'the common good' once they are effectively independent (assuming they acquire academy status or are free) schools.

I don't know if it has been mentioned but I feel sorry for the Parent who has to stay at home with a high earning partner that keeps her short. I remember this clearly with my Dad. Mum went to work as soon as my little Brother and sister went to school!

Oh please don't mention David Cameron and John Kennedy in the same sentence.