David Cameron: It is your fault if you are fat and poor.

[FairyMum]

Has anyone commented on the David Cameron-speech on moral neutrality? He is a price-dick, isn't he?

I haven't read a transcript but this was reported as a direct quote:

"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."

I find this bizarre - this statement seems to be implying that "poverty, or social exclusion" come about as the result of obesity, alcohol abuse or drug addiction. Sorry, but I just don't see that. I know plenty of functioning alcoholics and people who have abused illegal drugs amongst the middle classes. Why aren't they poor? Answer (probably) because they weren't poor in the first place.

Your friend will probably be better off in the long run - I'd rather be her than the people next door.

You know the Fundamental Attribution Error - where people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person?

Well I think DC's speech is a good example of it.

I wonder MB, and this is an even bigger can of worms, that it's realistic to expect a majority of people to have the intelegence - or want of intelligence - to make such choices. The whole 'fallacy of choices' seems to confuse more than it does help in the long run.

It's hard enough for someone on a middle income with a uni education to feed themselves and their kids healthily, never mind someone on low or poverty wages with a minumum of education. ...amd crap at spelling

Chocolatedot: haven't studie the Australian political and social landscape over the past 10 years so couldn't say. What do you think it's down to? Evil computer games?

and hello 6spot - how you doing?

Well, the tennagers are better off if you aspire to smoking and smoking, I guess.
Life of riley?
I don't think so
What have lentils got to do with this?

6, that makes me

so it seems on one hand Cameron et al are all on at us tryingf to seduce us with the endless 'choices' claptrap while on the other are bumping up against the paradox that such 'choices' result in.

Not joined up thinking at all really is it?

i think it is hard to unbderstand that the average level of understanding is not as high as you may think it is

i remember being shocked when i trained as a teacher and discovered how wide the range of ability actually is

and saying its easy enough to do this and that yep it does require some intellectual ability

and plenty of people dont have it and what they do have hasnt always been helped by their lack of opportunities tro improive it

apologies for my ironically gobbledigook post lol

(I am good, mt, and I know I owe you an email )

mrsruffalo, this attitude of DC's makes me angry too.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

gross generalisation there fishy. i dont agree with DC

I don't think he is far wrong

also 'choices' are going to be horribly squewed sonce Sunny D had a massive budgit to promote their stuff, and I had a 70 minute lesson where the kids didn't even get a book each!

Who had the most effect, I wonder

Message withdrawn

sorry, didn't spell check.. the lesson was checked though!

when people (some intelligent people too) hear what they want to hear cos it suits their own personal thumbnail of a person its worth repeating this post

By MsDemeanor on Tue 08-Jul-08 09:47:57
What he actually said was:
"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."

Which is rather different from the headline. He didn't ever say 'it's your own fault'.

I didn't really see any new ideas in what he said, let alone any policies, but I think that acting as if everyone is purely a victim of circumstance and absolutely cannot help themselves is not helpful either. And my family have been very poor.

Can't see anything wrong with what he said and the responses here kind of confirm it really - let's all blame someone or something else, who can we sue? not my fault, no siree!

The Polly Toynbee article said it wasn't to do with education particularly, it is the lack of jobs (white collar and apprenticeships) which lead people to lower aspirations etc, and I agree with her. When I left school to go to university, in the late 70s, plenty of the not so bright pupils left at 16 and went into decent office jobs or apprenticeships and those that were bright were able to work their way up to managerial situations. The grammar schools always helped the bright working classes (but thats another discussion) but now the education system is that EVERYONE has to get 'qualifications' which is all well and good but there are no jobs to go to with all these extra qualifications, some of which are more than useless, and that's where the problem is. A lot of these families trapped in the so called 'underclasses' and 2nd generation unemployed with no likelihood of getting out of it despite being 'educated' up to the hilt. Also there are some children who really do not benefit from being forced to stay at school. I really do not know what the answer is, but, being as old as I am, I remember the Tories last time round and for all the ranting of 'get on your bike' and 'back to basics' etc which plenty of people agreed with, it didn't actually do much good, did it? Or we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in now, so it has got to be much more complicated than that. Whatever anyone thinks about Labour at least they care
about the poor and needy. I remember the Tories and how dismissive they were of anyone needy for whatever reason. I truly hope DC is not showing his true colours, I thought the Tories might have actually learnt some lessons from Labour, and that they had been forced to change tack somewhat.

Thanks for enlightening me, smallwhitecat albeit without grace.

A rather, late and begrudging acceptance of the minimum wage though. Thank goodness that's a policy the Tories didn't think of first so that Labour could steal it.

I'm pleased about they have accepted it because it is a matter of social justice. And at least it's become a norm, a standard for most.

And as bagsforlife states, the Tories have been forced to change tack somewhat.

Madamez, can't say I've studied it either but given the dramatic rise in obesity in a huge number of countries around the world, I struggle to see how those particular reasons can be the driving force. Personally I think its pure and simple - the dramatically increased availability of cheap calorific food combined with a lack of education in vulnerable sectors of the community.

Availability of fresh affordable food is surely greater now than at any time in our history. It's just that there's a whole heap of crap available that can be microwaved in seconds with a minimum of fuss and a minimum of outlay.

Personally I think DC is on the right track. Until people start accepting responsibility for their choices, you can't do anything about ti. Having said that, I do think he could have been a lot more insensitive.

eek! I mean "sensitive"