David Cameron's conference speech - live stream from 11.15am today

[JaneGMumsnet]

Hello,

David Cameron's conservative party conference speech will be live streamed here at 11.15am today, if you're interested in taking a look:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19890459

MNHQ

Let's also not forget the interests of the City and the big accounting firms in helping rich individuals and companies to hide wealth.

When I worked in tax long ago for a large accounting firm you will all have heard of, the firm was creaming off huge amounts in tax avoidance cash by dreaming up the schemes by which the big companies distribute and account for profit.

These are the Tories true people- accountants, City lawyers, bankers and multinationals. They are the sons of these people, their friends, their milieu. Their interests are entrenched within the party (and New Labour desperately aspired to be the same). Tories believe that what is good for these people is good for the country. The desperately confused individualist moralism of lower-income Tory supporters buys right into that.

sorry that should say Universal Credit thread, active at the moment on MN.

Urgh, could people please stop talking about David Cameron 'using' and 'wheeling out' his dead son.

That boy is his son and he died - DC can talk about him any time he fucking well likes.

Domestic what you seem to miss is that DH is a hard working taxpayer!

It's the student LOAN that would pay for it- LOAN. We would pay, with interest, but the admin got fucked up.

OOps sorry I got that messed up didn;t I? My excuse is a bad day with ds1. I do apologise.

DH was a hardworking tax payer before being a student, so was I: at my palce of study 46% of students were adulst, it's really not that clean cut any more.

Filethe you know, he can.

But the minute he talks about him in political debate, Ivan becomes political property. A politician makes comments that are debated as his profession: you cannot have some areas that are off limits for discussion and yet be able to make political capital from them.

It simply cannot work like that.

Anyone reading this would think that Cameron was a machine and that he wasn't human. He understands more about disability than the majority of the public. He was fortunate to have money and didn't have the extra stresses that some other parents of disabled children had, but he understands disability more than most of us.

New Labour was in power when Amazon moved HQ, which is a legal thing to do, and when bankers were pocketing huge bonuses and some companies were paying low rates of tax (which was also legal). New Labour knighted some bankers for "services to banking". There were newspaper reports headlined "work or lose your home" under New Labour which were about some of Labour's policy towards the unemployed.

All the parties look after the great and the good, unfortunately, and "squeeze" the middle in order to pay for the poor.

Workfare was introduced into Britain by New Labour, just like tuition fees. Labour just handed the baton over to the Tories and they have run with it. Don't believe the cheap tricks of some of the opposition MPs who claimed expenses for bath plugs, flipped homes, sent their children to private schools and earn a pretty packet.

Arguing against Cameron does not equate to liking Labour or having been happy with previous policy.

Oh too right. I'll never forgive Labour for ATOS nor Milibean for his assertions that he'd stick by Welfare Reform.

Good, because it is not black and white. There is good and bad in both parties. The public decided to kick Labour out because they felt there was more good in the Tories and the Coalition than in New Labour, having seen what they did over 13 years. If the public decide that they were wrong, they will reelect Labour.

I don't agree that there is more good in the Coalition.
I honestly feel we do not have an opposition any more.

Workfare was introduced by labour yes but fully enacted before the testing rigmarole was sufficiently complete. BOTH parties have a lot to answer for on that score.

Except I am not anti workfare for certain claimants, I just want compassionate workfare. One that realises childcare is not always accessible, understands there is a world of health between full and disabled; that people have skill sets and skill deficits (put me in a a charity and I will fly, in an accounts dept and I will bankrupt them within a week); that is sensible with distance and travel- they could send me on workfare were I not exempt into England, a trip so costly with tolls that DH used to pay £100 a month in those alone!

I am opposed to jobs in real employments being taken by free workers.

OTOH if someone said to me earn your Carer's Allowance by answering phones term time and when kids in school at a charity 10 - 2 a week I will jump at it, I tried volunteering but they were full of students and workfare people. The new local voluntary body (where the receivers pay for the services of volunteers- wtf?) charges people to ask for volunteer work, as so many students need it to complete their courses they were inundated. The organisation can;t manage difficult cases but is used as an excuse not to provide much in our town now- another kick in the respite!

It's a mess.

I don;t think people understood the coalition would be so unbalanced. It's Tory under another name.

I'd prefer Labour of the two because I know I felt safer then than now. I'd prefer something different entirely.

Labour never reversed outsourcing in hospitals and I think they were the ones that started giving contracts to A4E and many other large providers. They can spin all they like, but the public has a long memory.

But opposition towards current policies are also important, because if there is enough fuss, then the politicians will have to listen and do some U-turns, as the Tories have already done.

'I'd prefer Labour of the two'

That's fine. But you are only one person. It depends what the entire public think. But let's not paint individuals as Tory scum when to a great extent they are only continuing with New Labour style policies.

I think they should slash the foreign aid budget and in these dire times, should spend that money on disabled people, the elderly, on hospitals so that not one more person dies of dehydration on a ward, and on building houses and creating employment. But we all know they won't do that, and New Labour wouldn't have cut it either.

I haven't though, I work hard not to even though I feel it more and more as time goes on. I DO feel they are quite happy to paint me as claimant scum; the universality of UC is going to reinforce that image I feel. When tax credit claimant cannot be separated from IS claimant, we all become 'scroungers'.

Feel pretty sure in my own mind that is intentional.

Actually I'm not one person in that opinion: my family like many from the SW are Lib Dem and have been for many years, I remember spending my childhood treading up and down delivering leaflets, Dad stood and I was invited to, massive signs in Dad's garden and my home as the local base address....

Last count that was another 11 new members for the Labour Party. The only Lib Dem voter in my family who remains is my BIL, who makes Schnapps look like a campaigner for the Yellow Softies Party.

I am not convinced Labour will get in next time, after all they are fronted by a PR man who is very talented at his job. I am pretty certain if they don't DH will end up losing his business as it just becomes harder and harder to fall within their rules and regs- workfare if your business has a bad month and you don't make MW? Really? We have good months and bad ones, it's the nature of the industry.

Some people say they will maintain that budget because they are "caring".

If they can swing it, then there will be a recovery soon. They put us through hard times to gain the approval of the "markets" and have built up good faith with the "markets". If they want to remain in office, they know they will have to turn the economy round. They will try their best to find a way. If they don't succeed, then there is every chance that they will get kicked out.

Peachy Arguing against Cameron does not equate to liking Labour or having been happy with previous policy.

Thanks for that. It pisses me off, too, this assumption that disagreeing with Tory policies mean that we must be blinkered, labour-voters. I hated a lot of what New Labour did, particularly Iraq/Afghanistan etc.

But I know who I would rather have in power...

I'm also relieved to know that I can now argue against Tory policy without acquiring the labour voter badge

I listened to the speech while I was trying to work yesterday. I have to say I thought that Cameron made a bigger impact upon his own party than Ed did. It was by far the more engaging speech. DP and I were so engaged & amused we were howling with laughter. It was entertaining except for the fact that Dave was deadly serious. He actually thinks that penalising self employed strivers like me will produce more of the same! Bless.

Are you saying that he has thrown the striver down the river? I missed that bit, how is he penalising the self-employed?

How many times did Dave say striver! The UC that replaces tax credit will penalise people who are working for themselves who fail to make enough profit in the first year or so. It seems that many self employed people who claim tax credits are having to rethink. It won't effect me but many unemployed people might work for themselves given the right incentives and support, this isn't it clearly.

'How many times did Dave say striver!'

Not enough for my liking. I feel he missed an opportunity there.