David Cameron is halfway through his speech. Resilient, inspiring and eloquent so far. No autocue, not reading from notes. A similar style to 2005. Going down well in the hall. I'm watching on a big screen. Surreal to witness people clapping a screen! Powerful passage on local government and a powerful section on Brown's habit of multiple announcements.
There was an audible intake of breath when he used the word 'pissed'. Not sure that was such a good idea, even if he was quoting a 16 year old.
Biggest cheer so far is the critism of Brown's record on pensions. Quite right. Good anecdote about a pensioner in his constituency who lost his pension. Promised to set up a lifeboat fund for 125,000 people who have lost out.
Very interesting that the cameras are concentrating on a much younger age profile for their reaction shots. Normally they concentrate on people who look as if they are about to fall asleep. Not today.
At the end of the speech I'm doing a quick piece on News 24 then heading back to London to do Vox Politix tonight. We'll be reviewing the conference.
I leave Blackpool more optimistic about the future than I have been for a long time. Gordon Brown will know the Tory Party is back - and back with a vengeance. Brown has a real dilemma now. If he calls an election he loses, and if he doesn't call an election he loses.
138 comments:
Re Pissed - inevitable headline tomorrow, "Dave turns the air blue"?
Bit of a gamble, but I think it will guarantee the point gets attention, and the appeals panel scrapping is a good message to get out there.
Simply below par - one long anti-Labour attack. If you're going to speak without notes, do you really need to announce it like a smig schoolboy at the start? Long on platitudes, short on substance and strangely hubristic. I'm a Labour supporter, acutely aware of the importance of this speech. I thought he'd pull out a corker, but really don’t think he has. The bit about the CSOs was particularly shitty too, and simply not true.
Watching it live on the BBC website. DC's welfare reforms sound surprisingly radical. "Do you know what's the best welfare? The family" - a bit Thatcher there!
I'm listening to it on radio
-I feel that it's gone a bit flat since about 2.40 (the education/broken society bit is very cliche-ridden) -needs a strong finish.
Very impressed so far.
do you really need to announce it like a smig schoolboy at the start?
You obviously missed the point.
The point being, Ed?
I told you he was a one-trick pony. Having got a big hand for giving a note without an autocue last time, he thought he would do it again and it would be equally impressive.
The only way he could have impressed the crowd, who have seen him speaking without notes before, was to deliver his speech hanging from a chandelier or tap dancing to "Puttin' on The Ritz".
It's not a speech to worry Brown as he ponders an election.
Eh?
He says he will re-invigorate local democracy, reform the welfare state, give responsibility back to the professionals, spend more on the army, spend less on bureaucrats.
What more do you want?
Luke, the point being that he is not reciting a speech copied and pasted from Robert Shrum's Guide to Spin.
Oh yes I forgot, the Labour trolls on here are looking for spin rather than actually what he says.
Iain, Personally I think Gordon will look at this and be panicked into 'Cutting and Running', and whatever happens, he ain't going to increase his majority, that's for sure..
Although we can never rule out him thinking 'I've waited thirteen long, hard years to get my hands on the train set, I'm going to hang on to it for the Three Year Guarantee, and hang what happens after that..'
luke "Simply below par - one long anti-Labour attack"
Finally !
By attacking Labour and drumming in their incompetence and sleaze just maybe people will finally listen and the penny will drop how awful Brown really is and do we really want to see him on TV for the next few years lying, spinning and exerting ever more state control of our lives ?
Brilliant speech so far.
Certainly contrasts favourably with the wooden, plagiarised performance from Gordon Brown last week. True patriots don't need to make every second word "British" to get their point across.
Ed. I'm not a Labour troll - I'm a daily reader of Iain's site who is also a Labour supporter. I happen to think that the speech is below-par. You say that Cameron will "will re-invigorate local democracy, reform the welfare state, give responsibility back to the professionals, spend more on the army, spend less on bureaucrats." I note that you, like Dave, don;t say how.
As for the Brown / Shrum stuff, its a non-starter. Sorry.
"As for the Brown / Shrum stuff, its a non-starter. Sorry."
If it was such a non-starter, why was Brown so rattled that he personally intervened with the editor of the Times to try and get the story spiked.
I shall have to look later. It was a mistake to expect too much he has a lot of constituencies to speak to. Brown solved this by ticking them off with leaden meticulousness but even for such good speaker as David Cameron it presnts difficulties that the warm acts do not face.
Ahem, as I blogged at 10:17 AM:
"Let's see if anyone can spot a member of the public during David Cameron's speech today. I bet you can't.
But then, you won't be given much chance, since all the cameras will be obediently pointed at the seat-seeking boys (old Durham hands will understand what I mean when I call them "rahs") corralled at the front in order to make the hall look much fuller, and massively to reduce the age profile of the people in it.
This isn't a party point - they are all like that now."
Point proved, I feel.
I was worried before today now i think Labour will win by fufty seats.
A victcory is not good enought for Brown , with a reduced majority he cannot move and with the Press and those who do not vote for him immediately on his back( unlike Blair) it will be lame and fag end .
He will avoid this if he wins a fair mandate but a novelty bounce would cripple him without a huge victory. Apart from anything else he will be unable to govern England without a good majority here.
I think he may decide depending on how the Press treat him over the next week...although it is equally likely he will run for it and if soit will be a fight for every inch of ground from day one
David Lindsay...you make an interesting point about age profile .
How old are you ?....
Members of the public? At a party conference? What ARE you talking about?
Luke - if you listened to his words you will have heard exactly how he intends to do those things.
I was suprised with how much I agreed with him, especially the ID card bit.
Good speech
"Rahs" I love that word. Class war is the first refuge for the intellectual poor.
The speech was heartfelt- and pure gold! Makes you proud to be a member of the conservative party! bring on the general election!
Interminable list of universals. Few solutions. Leavened with dodgy stats. Live blogged it here.
It was feelgood quackery. Quoi quoi.
As Ed Balls says: competent delivery but noticeable that for a leader determined to change the party he hit the jackpot half a dozen times with utterly old school Tory totems.
At least two more terms in opposition unless he raises his game. Samantha looked like either she knew the game was up or she and he are not on the best of terms.
Looked awkward. Going through motions that bit.
Hmm.. nice side-step of We're going to fight, Britain's going to win... so not necessarily the Tories then.
I thought the whole thing was managing expectations, pulling punches and showing how he is going to be a good opposition leader for the next four years, so please don't sack him when he doesn't win the election.
Good speech, but nowhere near good enough.
Now very visibly older than the people I described, alas, Newmania. I met my latest freshmen tutees on Sunday. A lovely bunch, but they look so YOUNG!
By the way:
Who on earth produced that first video? Looked absolutely appalling.
The animation that followed? Not actually that much better.
But the first thing had the audience muttering nervously.
Like booking a terrible support act to make the main act look good.
What the few who take the time to blog on here think doesn't really matter, although I think Cameron did well, it's what the people think in the polls and whether they think Cameron is capable of being PM in 29 days time(providing Gordon doesn't bottle out)
One thing's for sure Cameron has told people what he stand's for and the Tories have set out their policies. The ball's(no pun intended) with Labour whether they feel they can chance it or not.
Am watching Peter Hitchens on News 24 .... the man sickens me, what a t***!
I thought the speech was brilliant - all those who thought it 'lacklustre' don't understand the world we live in. It's not an age of tub thumping rhetoric any more. It was the kind of speech that made all other speeches look contrived. No-one could make charges of spin or lack of substance or PR. It was straightforward - from the heart - and combined vision with realism. Leadership with humanity. I loved it.
Shock news just in: Labour supporting blog visitors didn't like Cameron's speech.
In other news: bear sh*ts in woods.
Oscar Miller - the age of tub thumping is over? The Americans give some wonderful tub thumping speeches and enthuse and rally their supporters. That's why they have a higher percentage of people who turn out at the polls than we do, where everything is pale and watery.
Can you believe the cheek of David Cameron? You have to laugh at a man who talks about a ‘new style’ of politics after a speech and a conference which has had to resort to attacking Labour.
Remember how Brown didn’t mention Cameron or the Tories once last week? That indicates a new style of politics.
Notice how Brown has got Lib Dems and Conservatives working with him on the important issues of the day? That indicates a new style of politics.
Merely saying you offer a new style of politics isn’t enough David.
Can you believe the cheek of David Cameron? He believes he’s offering us something different from the Conservatives of the past and yet he still believes marriage is a social cure all.
Brown’s speech had gravitas and was statesmanlike. David Cameron uses talking without an autocue as a gimmick! The two men are poles apart in terms of intellect and leadership.
Cameron has been found out by the electorate and his speech was too little too late.
http://gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com/
I don't read anything with "Fabian" in the title.
It's not an age of tub thumping rhetoric any more.
Funny it seems to work fine for Brown. 11 points of fine in fact.
The right tub thumping works rather well indeed.
Out with the old and in with the politics of belief and a new world of freedom.
Which is also a new world of unease and insecurity.
Let's have some sensible green leadership and a mini-me for national service.
My Mum was a magistrate. Greenham Common and Newbury.
If Gordon bottles it, I'm in.
Thank you.
"At least two more terms in opposition unless he raises his game. Samantha looked like either she knew the game was up or she and he are not on the best of terms." Chris Paul: are you saying that bit or quoting the odious Ed Balls? Either way, it's an extremely odious comment. Don't you have the imagination to realise that if she looked a bit off colour it was probably because she was extremely nervous?! This speech has been billed as make or break for him (probably overhyped as such, but never mind). Some loyalists blogging this afternoon have admitted that THEY were so nervous they could hardly bear to watch, and they aren't married to him. Therefore imagine what SHE was feeling like.
I did not watch the speech - many over at ConHome are overjoyed at how good it was. More mixed here. But you just don't know if the negative comments are the NuLab propaganda machine. So what is your considered verdicts, Mr Dale?
It was a good speech, and as someone who isnt keen on Dave it did make me think a bit better of him.
However I think it was more of a speech at the beginning of the conference not at the end to rally the troops.
Also he's getting like the early Tony Blair and calling children KIDS. Sorry but its my pet hate.
Go get them Dave!
I've tried to post a blog on BBC site, but obviously that will be "moderated" by the Ministry of Truth.
Good stuff, wish there was an election now. bet there won't be till 2010 though
I thought Mr Cameron's speech was outstanding. The Conservatives are going to win the next election by a mile :-).
Marvellous. I'd forgotten how good he is when not filtered through the media. Those Labour trolls are perfect examples of the "old politics." His speech was positive and constructively critical. He made the case for modern conservative philosophy for our country and not just the Conservative party for government. Making the case for Campbell and the Conservatives as the next government, not because they want power like New Labour but because they have a constructive, positive plan for governance.
Very pleased.
A comment from BBC HYS to give us heart -
Added: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:57 GMT 15:57 UK
That wasn't just a speech...
.....that for me was the 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'
Good bye Labour.........
Ajit Singh, Uxbridge
Already recommended by 20 people. I'm with you there Ajit!
And what did he say about the two most critical issues of the day: immigration and the EU?
GMF and Luke-
Hmmmm.....how is old Gordo doing nowadays down in Basra?
Was he spinning any yarns to the troops I wonder.
Overall pretty good.
I'm not so worried about the pissed thing, it's one that has dropped of the bottom of the blue scale in the country at large.
I might have prefered a little more tub-thumping to the end, but the personal touch was solid.
It might have been a good idea to acknowledge some of the areas where policy has moved in the government's direction like family friendly working, it could have contrasted well with a much less honest speech from Brown where he shamlessly backtracked on a raft of issues.
Not sure about having the National Community Service thing as the last highlighted policy area. I'm generally pretty positive about Cameron, but doing my best to look at it through a 16 year old's eyes and I'm still scratching my head a bit about this one, though not dismissing it out of hand.
Overall though the conference and the speech have seemed pretty successful and regardless of the impact on the timing and result of any election, everything feels a bit more joined up now and should get things moving in the right direction.
IDS and Fox still the best performers this week for me though.
Its a simple choice really.
Either we put up with more 'King Brown and the Mungrel Mob
Or we have a proper centre right Government that actually does something for the people.
BTW-Funny how the NuLab trollers keep talking about the past....
I'd forgotten how good he is when not filtered through the media.
That's why I insisted on watching it live rather than on the News, who knows what snippets Nick Robinson will use to prove that David Cameron is a lightweight..?
Excellent Measured Speech. Clear concise and most of all genuine.
Nice touch calling Brown out. Now we will see just how much strength of conviction there is behind the great clunking fist. My guess is he will do his Macavity act and hope the noise will die down....
Oscar Miller - the age of tub thumping is over? The Americans give some wonderful tub thumping speeches and enthuse and rally their supporters.
Yeah - but that's America. With the exception of George Galloway supporters, it would go down like a bucket of vomit here.
I can just see the Rory Bremner sketch this weekend with Cameron practicing his spontaneity with his spin doctors...
Any doubts in my mind (and there were loads) over policy and what a conservative government would be about are now dispelled.
It was an excellent leader's speech, delivered with passion and a clear vision of the future that people can think about and then accept or reject. It has definitely brought this doubter firmly back into the fold.
Very good speech - 8 and a half out of 10.
Particular plus points:
- Scrapping ID cards
- Abolishing regional assemblies and giving the powers back to local councils
- Givings heads the right to remove troublesome pupils
- Standing up for jury trials (could they be more specific?)
- EU constitution referendum
- Reforming benefits to stop the bias against two-parent families.
- IHT threshold (although it would have been nice if they had gone further and made it something that was exclusively for the very rich).
- Various other things.
Cons:
- Cutting stamp duty was nice, but they need to change the ridiculous system whereby you pay higher-rate duty on the entire value of the house, rather than just the value above the threshold.
- Not too sure what they're going to actually do about the NHS (now they've rejected vouchers), although the rhethoric is all in the right direction.
I had plenty of doubts before this conference, but most of them have been dispelled. If an election is called, I'll phone my local Consevative association immediately and see how I can help.
Only caught the second half of the speech but I thought it was good.
Diana could be the death of the speech though. After exclusive Diana pictures rescuing Browns PR stunt yesterday, both news channels (BBC & Sky) are now wall to wall with new CCTV footage of Diana. These pictures could steal the headlines of the evening news and tomorrow morning's papers.
Fabians say
"Notice how Brown has got Lib Dems and Conservatives working with him on the important issues of the day? That indicates a new style of politics."
It's far broader than that. He's gone and nicked the BNP's British jobs for British workers slogan.
Oscar Miller - No. Patriotic speeches go down well. It's just that the Tories are afraid the socialists would sneer and make them feel silly. Why anyone would fear a sneering socialist is a moot point, but the British do seem to be a little cowardly in regard to them. A more robust attitude would be effective.
Why do you hate the United States, Oscar Miller? Chippy, aren't you?
Could you let us know the difference in merit between cold vomit and hot vomit, please, as you seem to be something of a connoisseur?
Moving over to address the more lucide posters on this thread, what did Cameron say about the two most critical issues for our nation's future - the EU and immigration/repatriation?
BBC Have Your Say seems mysteriously to have crashed...
Verity, you'd have agreed with Greater Manchester Fabians if you you'd read his/her post. Brown never mentioned the Tories once, and has two Tory MPs and a Lib Dem as Ministers in all but name and salary. THAT is "a new style of politics", Dave.
In his posh Scottish way (complete with the requisite English public school, Oxbridge degree, Southern English seat, and wife whose father is an English baronet), Dave simply cannot believe that some state school, non-Oxbridge son of the manse from Kikcaldy has the effrontery to be Prime Minister when he himself wants the job.
He honestly imagines that this state of affairs cannot and will not survive a General Election, and so does anyone who thinks that he either could or should win. Moreover, those who believe in that possibility are psephologically innumerate.
But enough of this. Read the Daily Telegraph today for a dose of one of the last real politicians in the House of Commons. Birkenhead is one of the very few seats where anyone should bother voting at all in a General Election next month. Frank Field is a national treasure, and proof that you don't have to come from an extreme position to be an original political thinker.
He is also one of the most striking examples of just how badly the Old Labour right wing (if you want to call it that - you know what I mean) has done under New Labour, a carve-up between those who had cleared off to the SDP and those who had been Communists, Trotskyists or fellow-travellers at that time.
Now, as I said, we even have two Ministers in all but name and salary who are taking the Tory Whip, and one who is taking the Lib Dem Whip; one of the former spent Labour's battle years running the Federation of Conservative Students and being Secretary of the Race and Repatriation Committee of the Monday Club! (What are Labour candidates' leaflets in this threesome's constituencies going to say, and why?)
Meanwhile, Frank Field, who long ago resigned from the old Young Conservatives in opposition to apartheid, is writing op-ed pieces for the Telegraph and that's about it.
When the new party comes, as it surely must and certainly will, then I for one hope that Frank Field, among others one could name, does us the honour of joining it.
Cameron can then just clear off to spend more time with his money. As he's going to be doing within the month anyway.
Each year numerous surveys confirm the low esteem in which people hold Estate Agents. Estate agents are regarded as dishonest by the vast majority of people who have bought a home. “Which” survey 2006 found that 94% thought estate agents deliberately overvalued properties and 70% believed they invented false offers. Only last week The Daily Mail (27th September 2007) published the story of whistle blower Pav Sheen, a disillusioned former agent who exposed the underhand dirty tricks of the trade. He is planning to launch a website, www.IHateEstateAgents.co.uk where people can share their home buying nightmares. Home Information Packs are in part the legislative solution to curb Agent excesses. Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps then told the Tory conference, “The experts (Estate Agents) ridiculed them, the industry (Estate Agents) doesn't want them, and I can announce that the next Conservative government will scrap them." This was greeted with rapturous applause from the floor and no doubt by every Estate Agent in the land. However HIP’s have already proven their worth, the overvalued market has cooled, 80% of agents have been corralled into the Ombudsman for Estate Agents, and Under HIP regulation the sceptre of a £25,000 compensation award against offending agents will see their dubious behaviour curtailed. For Snapps information www.Toriesloveestateagents.co.uk is still available as an IP; approximate cost £9.99 pa, however Snapps will obviously accept a gazumped price without any qualms.
Very good Speech, that could be the problem, GB wont call an election. The Polls will close and GB does not want to be some question in a pub quiz on which PM served the shortest in the 21 Century.
Ed,
As an old Durham hand the term 'Rah' is not class war. Some of my best friends had all the attributes of a Rah but were human. It is more a state of mind for the 'nearly-theres'. We used to thank 'Rah City' for taking them away out of circulation.
Blah Blah Class War Blah Blah Rah Rah. David Lindsay you are the pre-1997 John Prescott and I claim my £5.
Rah is a term usually uttered by people who want to belittle someone else because of their class background. It's reverse snobbery of the worst possible kind.
Rah is a state of mind. Yes, it requires a certain background. But it doesn't necessarily follow therefrom. You know it when you see it. Look at the Tory Boys, and you see it. Not a pretty sight, is it?
The Cameron speech was being touted as "The Speech of His Life". Most people agreed that he needed to perform excellently. He needed to make people like me think again about my image of him as "Blair Lite" and the "Sultan of Smarm"
Did he succeed? Do you know, I don't know, and reading some of the comments so far, I am not sure anybody does know!!! Was this a barnstorming bring it on speech? Was it a benchmark in political addresses? What then?
He certainly covered all the bases and ticked the boxes:
*Immediately addressed the issue of what he personally believes.
*Namechecked Thatcher in the first ten minutes in a way designed to bring tears to the eyes.
Covered, Environment, Education, Law and Order, Immigration, Defence, Health..all neatly and all convincingly. making sure to credit his Shadow Cabinet.
*Featured and backed Sayeeda Warsi, making what I thought was strong point all round.
*Showed by not using an autocue or a written speech that he has an impressive command of his intellect.
I put myself in Gordon Brown's position..what was he thinking as he listened? That his opponent is a man of strength and character, someone who will not be messed about or easily spun off the platform of opinion. Cameron scored a direct hit over the EU treaty referendum.
I don't think it influenced his decision on an election date. Dave may have demonstrated he is ready, and good luck to him but Brown's concerns are about how long he can leave it before the economy crumbles.
Finally, I have to say I was appalled, totally and utterly appalled at the spat between Ed Balls and IDS on The Daily Politics. IDS was impressive, calm and assertive whilst Balls came on like some thug with a baseball bat. The resultant display of bullying, shouting down coupled with a manic stare was revolting, made worse by Jenny Scott's inability to shut him up(in the end the producer was resorting to switching his mike off.)
I can remember the end of the last Conservative Government. They were arrogant, out of touch and blase. They now appear as lambs compared with the thuggery,lies and spin of this New Labour fag-end of an administration.
Was this Cameron's speech of his life? Not really, but it was enough to keep his life support machine turned on.
He absolutely nailed it! Brown will be crapping himself now. Call an election or look like a gutless wonder. If he backs off now the Tories will have a big stick to beat him with for the next 2 years.
Since when does Labour know about 'losing' in this day and age?
You are talking of the last Century I take it.
For all you Tories who are itching to get on the team sheet, please stay on the subs bench and take the hint...Don't call us, we'll call you.
Gary
I wonder if banging on about pensions isn't going to come back to haunt Cameron in an election campaign. He never seems to back up his claim that 'Gordon Brown has screwed over this country's pensions'...largely because it's not really true.
Ask anyone in occupational pensions (and I mean anyone) and they'll tell you that Gordon Brown's not got as bad a record on pensions as Cameron would like people to think. No matter which political party you support, it's hard to dispute this. Labour have set up a lifeboat fund for pension scheme members who lost pensions prior to 2005. They've set up the PPF for members after 2005. The 10% tax on share dividends introduced in 1997 (which Cameron/Osbourne don't seem to have any desire to scrap anyway) had precious little to do with the current pensions crisis - it's largely our fault for living longer!
But then, that's what you get if you only ask Ros Altman about your pension's policy...
MANCHESTER FABIANS THE FACTS
Seeing the fatuous piffle Manchester Fabians ( eugenicist of the North) babbles reminds me of this interesting fact in FHM`s survey (20,000 sample ...)
“Manchester has the worldwide high for women that swallow after a blow job at 50% and another 20% who sometimes do”
It appears they swallow anything up there
IMMIGRATION THE FACTS
On immigration I have been doing some maths. This is the way it looks . the full details and figures are on my feeble blog drawn from govt. figures so god knows what the truth is ...................
In 20 years the English white ethnic group will reach the end of a 1000 years in which they have been the majority in England . I have invented a bus with 30 people on it that you might have got on this morning and this is the way it will look now and in 2027 assuming current rates of change.
Bus 2007
30 people
24 White English (80%)
Bus 2027
34 People
17 White English (50%)
Bus 2047
38 people
8 White English (21%)
BROWNS IS MORE PRIVELIGED THAN CAMERON.. FACT
( Not that I care especially )
Methusalen purveyor of riddles and myths David Lindsay misrepresents both Cameron and Brown. David Cameron is of course ethnically English and unless David is suggesting that a genetic inheritance is required( Goodbye blacks then David you racist tsk tsk) that is that.
Brown is part of the Labour establishment of Scotland and Tim Luckhurst had this to say about it
'If stable family life, reverence for education and encouragement to excel are privileges, Brown had them in abundance. He also had access to the network of connections that link the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Labour party. There are parts of Scotland where the established church's influence on the establishment party is more important than the C of E's cameo as the Tory party at prayer. The difference is that Scotland's establishment party is Labour and it privileges its own to undeniable effect. The reputation for nepotism that damaged it in last May's contest with the SNP is no invention.
Seen in this context, Brown was about as fortunate as a politically ambitious young Scot could be. Forget Eton and Oxford. He had the right family, the right school, the right university and, of course, the left opinions.......
I doubt Cameron has anything approaching Brown's faith in his right to power. Etonians have been disliked for decades. The country has only just begun to perceive the true nature of the Scottish Labour party.I shall be stunned if the Conservative leader emerges from his party conference looking as smug as Gordon Brown did this week. Never mind the polls, Cameron simply lacks the upbringing.
( Tim Luckhurst is professor of journalism at the University of Kent and a former editor of the Scotsman.')
BROWNS LIFE OF GENTILITY
It's time we recognised the important differences between a poor English parson and a wealthy Scots rector. There's no comparison.GORDON BROWN WAS LOCAL GENTRY.Brown is a wee fraud, . He had a VERY PRIVILEGED background. His father was not just a rector but the headmaster of Kirkcaldy High School where Gordon was a pupil. Dr John Brown was also the author of several books.
The Brown family were used to controlling everything in their wee Scots town.
The family lived in a WEE MANSION - albeit called the manse or rectory - the sort of country pile which would fetch a couple of MILLION now.
Gordon's mother, a Tory like all her family, was a DIRECTOR 0F HER FAMILY'S COMPANY which did very nicely indeed, the largest company in Insch, it employed 70 people. She and Gordon are the descendants of a long line of merchants and businessmen. Gordon's mama as sent by her father to be PRIVATELY EDUCATED at the POSH Aberdeen High School for Girls, founded in 1874 for the DAUGHTERS OF GENTLEFOLK.Her father was so determined that her privileged education should not be interrupted that a clause in his will stipulated: "If at my death the education of my daughter Jessie hasn't been completed, I direct my Trustees as far as necessary to pay the expenses from the estate and not to be deducted from her share."
Gordon's mother had a nice, NOT SO WEE, INHERITANCE from her industrialist father too - marrying in silk and tiara...as ordinary vicars wives tend to do...Gordon's uncle was CHAIR OF HIS LOCAL CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION and was MR BIG locally.Thanks to his mother's family money - TORY MONEY - and an income she received for being a director (albeit a silent one) GORDON WAS BORN IN THE SELECT AND PRIVATE AMBIENCE OF THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE'S OF GLASGOW, The Orchard Maternity Nursing Home - in its time just as costly as Queen Charlotte's.
Nowadays, it's a hotel, the Orchard Park, where serve up a special celebration cocktail called 'Brown Sugar'. Doing very well during the war, by the 1960s, the family company practically had grown to the point that it practically owned the town. John Souter Ltd were builders and builders' merchants, ironmongers, timber merchants with a sawmill, electricians, masons and plumbers. They were even the village undertakers - SO OUR GORDON IS THE SON OF THE FUNERAL PARLOUR TOO - WHICH EXPLAINS A LOT :)
He is also said to have been a tough employer. "If you went about your work properly, he left you alone, but if you stepped out of line he would give you a cursing," recalls Bert Maitland, 84, who started with Souter's as a messenger boy and ended up in the ironmongery.
Once again we in England are fooled by not understanding the Scottish context ( Fettes). Brown is a dictator because he is used to ruling unchallenged as his family always did
Cameron is a just a nice English chap who happens to be a bit posh. So stop talking such crap David Lindsay
WW - That was a very interesting and thoughtful summing up.
My question is, did he come across as a PR spiv? Did he seem to have conviction? How does one give any credibility to someone who has spent the last two years hugging hoodies and huskies and bleating on about the delusional "green" agenda, and so on, and now is suddenly motivated to address the issues that the British have been wanting him to discuss for two years?
Cameron, with his hawking his "disabled" son around newspaper and magazine features editors two years ago and the two subsequent years of unalloyed irrelevance to the national agenda, just does not come across as a politician of conviction.
I didn't see the speech and won't watch the clips on the news because they come filtered through some Beeb editor's own agenda, but I am very interested in some of the more thoughtful comments on this thread.
Finally, he should have said a few words about our closest ally and wrong-footed Brown who is now personna non grata at the White House.
A good speach but not a great one.
I was at Durham in the late 70s and had never realised the word "Rah" was unique to the place until now. As Durham was about the most socially conservative university in those days it was as much a term of envy or endearment as class war. Class Warriors were very thin on the ground there.
On a less frivolous note I really wish Cameron would say that his party, like the public, were lied to by Blair and Brown, about Iraq and would not in retrospect and do not now support the continuing war there which has been a moral and material disaster for Britain. He should come out with guns blazing on this (um... unfortunate metaphor perhaps). Otherwise he is letting them off the hook. For this reason alone he should NEVER have given Blair a standing ovation - that was truly a dim thing to do.
Anon 5.39...Labour supporter perchance ? Then why did Brown spend so much tax payers money fighting off attempts under the FOI act to keep what he had done a secret ? ...As if we didn`t know.
Outside the Public sector the Pensions are now a luxury, and the actuaries were aware of the trends in life expectancy which have been moving comnsistently since the Second world war. Have these footliog measures equated to the 100 billion removed from pesions ...
Well; I sort of doubt that. Put your Labour Party pamphlet down and back slowly away. Don`t get me started on what Brown has done to financial services with his endless thicko Guardian reading FSA parasites that are putting usd all out of business.
An intelligent speech which not only highlighted the failures of the New Labour approach, and outlined the policies he would put in place if elected, but also supplied a lucid account of the assumptions which motivate his reforms.
His only mistake was to assume that the Labour Party is full of people with good intentions who welcome intelligent debate.
As readers of the comments on this blog will know, Labour Party supporters seem to have very little interest in anything except expanding the tax funded section of the economy, upon which they rely for their employment.
The importance of individual freedom, the importance of having a civil society which functions independently of the State, the importance of affirming standards that transcend whatever happens to be fashionable amongst the Leftist establishment.
An inspirational speech, no wonder the Labour Party apparatchiks hated it.
Bring on the election.
great great speech. full of optimism for the future. Compared to that weirdo Brown, Cameron looked absolutely and utterly NORMAL
that will count in the election, mark my words.
I thought it was an excellent speech. He said what needed to be said and appeared completely sincere. Delighted to hear him put forward proper policies. He came across as an honest man - when did you last think that about a Labour politician?
"Outside the Public sector the Pensions are now a luxury" writes Newmania on the day after Shell announces that, in common with many other private schemes, their fund is so awash with money that they're taking a contributions holiday.
As with the tragic ‘drowning whilst PCSOs stood callously by’ nonsense that Cameron shamefully trotted out in his speech - never let facts get in the way of a good old rant...
Cameron would never have been let into the Bullingdon Club if he were only "a bit posh", Newmania. They nearly kept out Osborne because he was only Saint Paul's and his father was only a baronet (and in trade). Where would he be now, one wonders?
Cameron has a house in his constituency, a house in London, and a house on the Isle of Jura. He presumably wouldn't bother with the first if he weren't the MP there. So he has a London house and a Scottish country house. Like a Scottish toff, not an English one. So, like half my family, he is Scottish.
He is also the most privileged frontline politician in Britain since - well, that depends what you count as frontline. At quite the level of holding or shadowing one of the great Offices of State, you probably have to go back to the early Thatcher years, a generation ago.
And he's the first Leader of one of the two main parties like that since Alec Douglas-Home, who was also Scottish.
Iain,
Silly question for you to ask really ; if you are a Conservative you will largely have been pleased by the speech, if you are Labour then nothing he could say would have ever impressed.
The real answer will be if Brown decides to go with the election. My feeling is there has been enough said this week at conference to probably make him delay for the time being (with the 1 million voters who have moved offering a rather handy get out policy) Then again he might see the economy getting worse and opposition getting stronger.......
"If he calls an election he loses, and if he doesn't call an election he loses."
You don't really believe that Iain.
I bet you £100 (to go to the TPA if I win) that Brown does not lose the the election (i.e. will still be PM after it).
Don't take that bet, Iain. I don't know how many times I have to say this: it is psephologically impossible for the Tories to win. You are simply never going to get the 11-point lead (ELEVEN!) necessary for an overall majority of one.
That will be true whenever the next Election happens, which probably means that it will now be true for ever.
But in that case, deprived of even the theoretical possibility of a Tory victory, what is the point of the Labour Party? What is it for anymore? Why are even so very few people still in it?
Meanwhile, conservatives and "free" market libertarians (who really have nothing to do with each other, and were ultimately never going to be able to hold together) should both now be well down the road of making alternative arrangements. But they're not. Why not?
As luke says (2.50), Cameron's attack on the police was not based on fact.
it was disgraceful spin to use the tragedy to try score a cheap political point.
if anyone's interested in the facts, there're at
http://fairdealphil.blogspot.com/
Given his busybody international tendencies,he seems to have been curiously mute on the three major international issues that affect Britain: our relationship with the EU, third world "immigration" that needs to be sluiced out, and our relationship with our most important ally, and with whom our relationship seems to be curdling dangerously under Brown, the United States.
If any of these were addressed, no one has mentioned them above.
"third world "immigration" that needs to be sluiced out.."
Since verity is a migrant, and lives in latin america, I can kinda see her point..
The BBC touted Cameron's speech as 'make or break' - pivotal not just for Cameron but (a point Neil made over and over) for the future of the Conservative party. How did they cover it on the 6 o'clock news? Oh about 3 minutes including Nick Robinsons nonentity of a report, followed by some stuff about ballot boxes being ready and a vox pop not on the speech but on whether there should be an election. Then it was off onto Diana. I assume this means that the speech was good enough for them to erase it just as far as they were able. The BBC is deliberately cheating the public and loading the dice.
Verity,
I know you have a strong personal dislike for Cameron, which is fair enough, but I'm sure you are really much more interested in what he does and says than in whether you like him or not.
Did you manage to watch and hear the whole speech on the Web or are you having to rely on selections? That could make a difference, depending on who did the selecting.
I did watch the whole thing (on the BBC Parliament channel, so I was spared the unedifying spats elsewhere). For what it's worth I did think it was a good speech, and that it covered the salient points pretty well. It's a bit too early to say whether it will come to be seen better than good, and whether will change anything very much.
I think what Cameron said about Immigration and the EU was just about right. If he had said any more or any less his words about both would have been drowned out by the zeal of enthusiasts on either side. I'm sure by now you've turned up some details of what he said on those topics. They were covered at greater length earlier in the conference by other platform speakers.
I watched a number of good speeches during this week but I must honestly say that I thought this was one of the best. Even though Haig always speaks well and IDS gave the speech of his life I thought Cameron was better.
(I didn't watch last weeks offerings with nearly the same attention but I thought the bits I did watch were mind numbingly boring.)
As to the future, I frankly can't imagine anyone I saw on the Tory platform doing nearly as good a job as Cameron, and even if he loses the next election my guess is that he would have to lose it disastrously to be dislodged by a coup. As it happens I voted for Davis in the leadership election but I now believe that the huge majority of my fellow members who voted for Cameron were right to do so. But time will tell.
On a lighter note I too think that the death of tub-thumping speeches in England is sad, but speakers do have to adapt to their audiences. Listeners here and on your side of the Atlantic seem to react differently which doesn't imply either side is better or worse.
Phil, mate
I spent years working for mediocre people from the Boro part of the fens. You fit the mold perfectly. Big fish, big talk, small pond. (and even smaller portfollio).
And by the way, the plastic police are not trained for water rescue and are advised not to try it. The requirement for police to be able swim was dropped because it 'discriminated' against the muslim community, very few of whom can swim. Indeed virtually no muslim women swim. Why do you think some local councils have muslim women-only mornings in the local pool?
Wow - Brown is going to be so happy with that. It was Cameron's to lose, and he ended up saying nothing in particular about a lot of specific, technical issues.
And if anyone gets offended by pissed, they should kill themselves.
Henry Rogers - thanks for your thoughtful post. No, I haven't seen it on the net. I hadn't really woken up when it was being given, so when I finally turned on the computer, the net was full of commentary, which I read instead.
I wasn't aware that he'd addressed immigration. I am sure he wasn't robust as he is a One Worlder in a similar vein to Labour, although he would go about achieving it differently, I'm sure.
I can't bring myself to watch it because I cannot stand his empty face and I cannot forget that he commanded a standing ovation for the man who took a wreckers' ball to our Constitution and Bill of Rights and flooded the country with illiterate, opportunistic migrants who came with nothing to offer the country and are in the process of destroying it. That standing ovation for the most disgraceful prime minister we have ever endured finished David Cameron in my mind.
Come on Iain, do you really believe that Cameron will be pm after the next election or not?
Why write it if you don't believe it?
Take the bet!
I would consider myself to be a floater.
I watched Cameron’s speech in full and I wasn’t even slightly impressed. The I’m not using a script was school boyish, particularly since every single newspaper in the UK on Wed morning had a long lens photo of David tolling over his script in the wee hours of the night. The arranged photo was an attempt by the Tory spinners to portray him as Kennedy-esk.
The speech lasted an hour, first and last 5 were OK but the middle 50 mins was sloppy, uninteresting and frankly dire. Then the “”forgetting”” to turn his microphone off, so we could hear him say “ I love you babe” to his wife was cringeful.
I felt that the PR man had come home, but didn’t realise that he was supposed to be prime ministerial.
As a floater the bigger decision will be made on the talent in his cabinet. Gideon in number 11, Hague at the foreign office and the quiet one in any post, actually fills me with dread.
"........I cannot forget that he commanded a standing ovation for the man who........"
Verity,
Like you I was and am horrified by some of the things Blair did in all our names. But he was in office because a majority of our fellow voters chose the party he led. And they did it three times. We think they were mistaken to do so, but they did. That's democracy.
One of the things I dislike most about the Left in politics is the personal vindictiveness against oponents which is so often evident. Until recently their reaction to Maggie T was a good example. Surely we don't want to go there!
A bit of good manners never did anyone any harm and I personally think Cameron was wise to show some graciousness when Blair left the chamber that day, if only out of respect to millions of fellow Brits who put him there in the first place. After all, we'd rather like some of them to vote Tory next time!
But that's just a personal view and I wouldn't want to fall out with anyone over it.
Anonymous said...
"I would consider myself to be a floater."
Well at least that's very honest of you mate.
Surreal to witness people clapping a screen!
I take it youve never watched rugby in a pub then!
;-)
verity said...
"And what did he say about the two most critical issues of the day: immigration and the EU?"
Immigration: some soft twaddle about how much good immigration has done Britain, but we have to put some limit on numbers arrving from outside the EU; and have transition arrangements for new countries joining the EU. - So essentially sod all.
EU: He thought Hague's idea of a referandum on any new powers going to the EU was a good idea. - So apparently current circumstances are good enough.
The message of holding up a unified front and discouraging 'noises off' behaviour for the better of the Party and the work of its hard-working activists and candidates has hit home and been taken on by pretty much everyone except David Davis- the only person in the room I could see who was trying their best not to make an effort to throw some support behind the speech, demonstrated by his half-hearted, slow handclap.
I know that differences between the two men are inevitable, but was there really a need to make them so evident?
Perhaps somebody who knows him better could explain his behaviour...
All the journalists seem to be waiting to see what everyone else thinks, so let me help.
On the scorecard the tories went into the conference with 1 out of 10. To even seriously pretend they might win they need 8 or 9. After Dave's speech they get 3 out of 10. Had he done better it would be obvious; it isn't.
A creditable performance taking everything into account but nothing like enough. In fact, it might just motivate people to go and vote nulab, just to make sure the tories are smashed. With the tories out of the way space would be created for a serious party of the right to emerge to smash the lib/lab criminals.
On a positive note, I was impressed by the way the tories had scoured every constituency to find even half-decent totty to cram into the conference. Far better than the deeply ugly cows at nulab. So the number of tories looking like wierd aliens was reduced to as little as 50-60%. Well done.
Dear Ian
David Cameron, a man educated above his level of intelligence !
Ian, David Cameron is the Michael Foot of the Conservative Party !
Anonymous 8:53 On a positive note, I was impressed by the way the tories had scoured every constituency to find even half-decent totty to cram into the conference...
I agree. There's nothing as dispiriting as a bunch of silly, self-satisfied overweight men in ghastly suits, three or four long strands of hair combed over a bald pate, shirts that don't coordinate and pot bellies. There's nothing I like better than a bunch of well-dressed men with good posture - any age; they're all lovely when they're properly dressed. And behaving in a genial, civilised manner - mixing around in a spirit of goodwill. Male totty is very much appreciated.
Anonymous 8:51. Thanks for the summing up of the Europe and immigration issue. That's about what I thought. A man of conviction.
Henry Rogers writes patronisingly: But he was in office because a majority of our fellow voters chose the party he led. No, they didn't. A majority stayed at home. He got in with what would have amounted to approximately 23% of the electorate voting for him, had they voted. Last time I looked, that wasn't a majority.
One of the things I dislike most about the Left in politics is the personal vindictiveness against oponents which is so often evident. Until recently their reaction to Maggie T was a good example. Surely we don't want to go there!
Speak for yourself. You sound like a bit of a nellie. I hate Tony Blair and I hate Gordon Brown and if I got a chance to vindictive to either one of them, trust me, I'd go there.
I personally think Cameron was wise to show some graciousness when Blair left the chamber that day. We differ. I think Cameron's weak and eager for approval.
PS to Henry Rogers, who says Cameron was "wise" to give Blair, who should have been his bitter enemy, a rousing send-off.
So all the other prime ministers down throughout history who haven't seen fit to perform this obeisance were not "wise". It was rather silly of them to demonstrate that they were only too pleased that the louts had been ejected from office?
And don't forget: Labour has that tape. They can use it to their advantage any time the going gets rough.
Saw you on Sky Iain, you looked very tired, Iron deficiency?
You also looked very nervous, terrified someone may not praise Dave highly enough. You needn't have worried, if he'd shit on stage, it would have been the best turd in history.
The presence of so many desperate and angry New Labour trolls on here demonstrates that Cameron's speech, and the whole Tory conference, was a great success.
Their paranoid and neurotic master is now in his bunker, chewing what's left of his nails, picking hs nose, ranting, raving, sinking into depression, and agonising over what to do next.
Has he backed hmself into a corner so much that he is uable to cancel an election everyone expects but which will lead to the loss of his overall majority?
It's been a desperately bad week for Brown (not helped by his cynical politicking using the lives of British soldiers) I don't think things are going to improve for him in a hurry if at all.
As luke says (2.50), Cameron's attack on the police was not based on fact.
it was disgraceful spin to use the tragedy to try score a cheap political point.
I find this absolutely incredible from a Labour Party supporter when the entirely random Bulger case was used as a main strut of the Blair campaign , have you forgotten Blair`s endless use fof a child`s death you fraud ?Fair Deal Phil might just as well be a trained monkey so determined is he to jump and squawk to some Party Hack melody .He never has anything to say about what he wants or what his beliefs might be just this moronic ping pong which , in the is case, is more than usually threadbare.
This country needs an enema to rid itself of these old socialist dead beat goons . They clog up information with their white noise
As luke says (2.50), Cameron's attack on the police was not based on fact.
it was disgraceful spin to use the tragedy to try score a cheap political point.
I find this absolutely incredible from a Labour Party supporter when the entirely random Bulger case was used as a main strut of the Blair campaign , have you forgotten Blair`s endless use fof a child`s death you fraud ?Fair Deal Phil might just as well be a trained monkey so determined is he to jump and squawk to some Party Hack melody .He never has anything to say about what he wants or what his beliefs might be just this moronic ping pong which , in the is case, is more than usually threadbare.
This country needs an enema to rid itself of these old socialist dead beat goons . They clog up information with their white noise
I see the Guardian is leading with "Virtuoso" Speech by Cameron. Wnders will never cease!
To summarise: the left don't like Cameron because he is rich and talented. They think swing voters will be turned off by the fact that he is rich. The politics of envy is alive and well in Brown's Britain.
Y'see! Over one hundred posts. Nobody says it was crap, nobody says it was a stonker!
It was a speech. Mmm. So now what? Cameron is a rabbit caught in the headlights. He was blinking platitudes. He has to appeal to his core voters and everyone else because he can only gain votes from now on or the Conservative Party will cease to exist and we will have a virtual dictatorship; a confederacy of the incubi who will, in perpetuity spawn those in their own likeness which will have many heads, but they will look like Blair, Mandelson and Brown and their Myrmidons will infest every tier of the media and like Zeus they will transform themselves and metamorphose and deceive and shaft us up the arris.
We are in the realms of anti-democracy. We need a hero, not a debating society prize winner.
ed
but most of the Labour front bench are from rich backgrounds, oh sorry I hadn't seen the bit about being talented .
well they have my vote as this time last year I was determined to vote UKIp I hope it helps.
Gordon will bottle it anyway.
Thankyou Travis - exactly what our petty class proxy-warriors on here choose to forget.
Labour used to be the party of the common man against the establishment now they are just the party of staying in office at any cost. How sad.
The speech was OK as far as feel good quackery goes. An opposition for the next five years kind of speech. make that 10. I'm still insisting the election'll be June 2009. But many comrades and colleagues disagree of course.
Meanwhile we have had a little delve on this Gove/Oginsky Youth Militia story here. Gove's other side kick spoke up for Labour in effect in 2005. And the co-founder of the Sufi Muslim org is a LP apparatchik.
It is no wonder that he was looking embarrassed to be introduced as a Tory by the naughty dissembling Tory boy.
CP ..I agree that it would be foolish for Brown to hold the election now .Cameron had the advantage of going last and the impression is of the old stale socialist orthodoxies and Blairite style set against a new pulse quickening hope for the future.
Whilst ( despite the Labour squanderbugs) wealth floods in from the low tax global economy Brown appeals to conservative caution , fear and sectional interest and in truth this is what is saving him. He will need more than this
I believe he is likely to win if he runs for it but his majority will be a disappointment. An embattled limping administration is not what he wants . He will want more time to deeply distance himslef from Blair and establish a deeper platform for policy
What he stands to gain is not votes so much but the good-will of those who will never vote for him that Blair had. Polls cannot measure this but at the moment he faces the implacable loathing of all those not in his pay or camp or the few swingers that decide Polls .
Brown also knows that Cameron can always out debate speak and think him on the spot and he will fear the process of election . I predict that he will quietly pay off here and deal there hoping to use his greater ring craft over a period of time .
That would be the decision of an ambitious man at least. I am fairly indifferent ,. Cameron andnthe Party have momentum now , it may get very close. Can the British really want such a dull cynical old operator. Nixon ?
well, by this time of night everebode hav got a little steamed up, but if nobodes' flagged it up yet can i humbly suggest that your billboard campaign copy rede...
"We fight, Britain Wins!"
...& that this become the universal mantra, should the innevitably uninnevitable, forthcoming,potential, expected,...er..cont p94
Lindsay - I wish you would stop this absurd Cameron is Scottish motif .I assume you read a provocative article somewhere and it has lodged in your mind inducing a sort of billious Tourettes on the subject.
He was born and brought up in England attended a very Englisgh school and has spent his working life in England. I am aware of his lineage . Mrs. N has a Trinidadian lineage ( and Welsh) but believe me she is English . We are not racists here and this disgraceful slur is is most unsavoury.Even if he does have a tincture of the unmentionable Pictish Hoard in the escutcheon he stands for the English. On privilege you misunderstand me . Brown had a privileged background which was also a political conveyor belt . No need for gainful employment for wee Gordy .He is an insider to the ruling elite of Scotland. In the only sense that matters he is the one who had an easy ride.
The Conservatives were only recently placed to oust Brown and I certain it is possible . Difficult I grant you and the English votes question looms larger in the vent of a split majority. Brown cannot rule England with no majority here with or without English votes . Quite right too. The current blatant attack on the English cannot be sustained as the British idea , never strong , slips into memory.
The new politics is nationalist and Libertarian. A mixed blessing for Conservatives but an unmixed disaster for collectivism.
Incidentally your idea that Thatcherites and Conservative have nothing in common would not survive ten minutes of talking to either. Most Conservatives have something of both . How the Labour party can contain Communists , Trade Unionists , Liberals and Conservatives like Field and Gisela Stuart amazes me
Brown has a real dilemma now. If he calls an election he loses, and if he doesn't call an election he loses.
Unless he calls the election and wins. Or doesn't call the election until later...and wins.
Other than that, I really can't fault your logic.
With some notable exceptions, I have never read such a collected load of old tosh rendered by your commenters on David Cameron's speech.
His tour de force yesterday was notable not only for his ability to speak without an autocue but because of its content and sheer commonsense.
The idiocy of people like Chris Paul's comments and the views of some unreconstructed ultra right wingers who still believe that Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbitt are about to return to lead the Conservatives are just risible.
Compared to Brown's so-called clunking fist, Cameron has the footwork and the fast hands of Mohammad Ali against Sonny Liston. Cameron "stings like a bee".....
There is now a buzz about the Conservatives.
"If he calls an election he loses, and if he doesn't call an election he loses"
You must be joking Iain.
Nixon wasn't dull. Cynical, as all old pols are, yes, but it was he who opened up trade with China.
It was he who began the rollback of LBJ's socially disastrous "Great Society" with welfare for one and all. Today, in some areas of the US, there are five generations on welfare who have never known what it was to provide for themselves or think for themselves.
Out of interest, they were the ones stranded and festering in New Orleans when "Hurricane Katrina" (actually, it was just the outer fringes of the hurricane* - in other words, heavy rain)hit New Orleans and didn't have the wit to get out. Because "the gummint" hadn't provided transport.
This is a perfect example of socialist welfarey. All the smart people, white and black, who were professionals, owned businesses or worked for their living, made their own arrangements to get out, and went. What was left was the welfare class who, never having had to make a decision in living memory, stayed on waiting for the government to make decisions for them. Even when the water from the cheaply built breached levêes came flooding into their homes, they simply moved up to the next floor and waited to be rescued.
This is the passivity the socialists seek worldwide. People who take direction and don't ask questions.
Nixon started rolling all this back. And opened up China to the West. He is a hero.
What the One Worlders/New World Order want is, obedience. That is why every single human instinct is being outlawed in Britain due to health and safety concerns.
Dave isn't inclined to fight them or fight for the British people. He just wants his share at the top table.
As far as I can see, his speech didn't suggest anything radical other than - if a commenter above is correct, he calls his wife "babe" (as in, pretending to believe the mic to be off and saying, "I love you, babe.") Babe? Who,among British voters, did he think he was relating to?
Tone deaf on every level.
Someone asked much earlier on when was the last time someone as "posh" as Cameron held, or shadowed, a party leadership or major office of State.
On our side - about 4 years. Michael Ancram, Marquis of whatever it is, was Shadow Foreign Secretary and Deputy Leader.
On Labour's side - about 4 weeks. Harriet Harman not only went to the top academic girls' school, St Paul's (not quite as posh as Eton, granted) but is the niece of an Earl. Presumably by marrying a union leader she married down, which Cameron didn't, but I don't think he has any such close relations within the higher (or any) ranks of the peerage. (OK, pedants, she's not in one of the great offices of state, but she is Deputy Leader.)
Cameron deliberately said that he is the son of a stockbroker. This code was obviously lost on most of the audience, but it may have reassured any upper middle class tiolers who distrust the aristocracy as they would know that aristocrats rather look down on stockbrokers. Useful yes, and they might even take lunch off them once a year to discuss their portfolio (if needs must), but not usually as a social equal. If the "top drawer" did go into the City (I'm talking Cameron's father's generation), they would have gone into a merchant bank. [I know all this because I started working life quite a few years ago as a stockbroker; some people might mistake me as posh because I went to a "top" school; but I know, as Cameron probably does, that my forebears were upper middle class, borderline local gentry at best, with not a sniff anywhere in the family of a peerage.
The Bullingham Club I should think just means he was an Etonian who was charming and popular at school, had the money, and did not turn them down.
It's all absolutely irrelevant as to whether he'd be any good as PM of course. Just as Harriet Harman's uncle is not the reason she is painfully useless as a Cabinet Minister. Now may we please move on?
londoner (1.13am)- excellent comment! It's all about talent and ability. I don't care where my leaders have come from as long as they have both.
NuLab people are still obsessed with "class warfare" and their own "roots". Bojaxs!
Diablo says: "NuLab people are still obsessed with "class warfare" and their own "roots"."
I don't think that's it at all these days (or perhaps ever) Diabolo.
It's about control. There were some firemen yesterday, who focused their fire engine's headlights on four gays having sex in public, and one of the gays complained that the fire fighters were "homophobic" - despite that sex in public is against the law - and the fire rescuers were demoted and fined £1,000 - sacrificed. Do you think they'll stay with the firefighting/people rescuing service or maybe move on? Anyone's guess!
The One Worlders want to suppress all human instincts - don't jump into the water to save a child! You may get hurt! We'll have to fine you! Don't protect your home! The burglar may get hurt! We'll have to fine you or send you to prison! Don't let children have the natural run of their instincts like climbing trees as young creatures! They may get hurt and "social services" will have to kidnap them from your home and you may never see them again. And they will indoctrinated in the faith.
The control in today's Britain is heavier than in the USSR. Did they forbid children to play in the USSR? Were the police forbidden to fight actual crime in the USSR?
After 11 years of Blair and Brown, the USSR is beginning to look good.
Dave doesn't seem to have addressed the greatest threat to Britain today - the threat to the individual citizen whose rights have been surgically removed, under anaesthetic, so he hasn't even noticed.
He didn't address this assault. He's going with the programme.
Diablo says: "NuLab people are still obsessed with "class warfare" and their own "roots"."
I don't think that's it at all these days (or perhaps ever) Diabolo.
It's about control. There were some firemen yesterday, who focused their fire engine's headlights on four gays having sex in public, and one of the gays complained that the fire fighters were "homophobic" - despite that sex in public is against the law - and the fire rescuers were demoted and fined £1,000 - sacrificed. Do you think they'll stay with the firefighting/people rescuing service or maybe move on? Anyone's guess!
The One Worlders want to suppress all human instincts - don't jump into the water to save a child! You may get hurt! We'll have to fine you! Don't protect your home! The burglar may get hurt! We'll have to fine you or send you to prison! Don't let children have the natural run of their instincts like climbing trees as young creatures! They may get hurt and "social services" will have to kidnap them from your home and you may never see them again. And they will indoctrinated in the faith.
The control in today's Britain is heavier than in the USSR. Did they forbid children to play in the USSR? Were the police forbidden to fight actual crime in the USSR?
After 11 years of Blair and Brown, the USSR is beginning to look good.
Dave doesn't seem to have addressed the greatest threat to Britain today - the threat to the individual citizen whose rights have been surgically removed, under anaesthetic, so he hasn't even noticed.
He didn't address this assault. He's going with the programme.
Best speech Blair never gave.
"....Speak for yourself. You sound like a bit of a nellie. I hate Tony Blair and I hate Gordon Brown and if I got a chance to vindictive to either one of them, trust me, I'd go there....."
Verity,
That's fine for you. And, honestly, I wasn't trying to patronize you. Trouble is, I can't see going around hating people would make me any happier, or get Labour out of office any quicker. And there are risks in that sort of hatred. The next stage is to see the objects of hatred as somehow lesser than the rest of us, and the next stage after that...... Well, we've all read our history books and lived through a bit of history.
Listening to speechmakers at this conference and the NuLab conference, they’re all pussyfooting around the immigration nightmare. One of the commonest phrases used in any of the preambles is, “We know (never, ‘I know’) the value that immigration has brought, and is bringing, to our economy”. Who says so? Half arsed Economists whose banal theories have destroyed most of our manufacturing base, economic migrants who contribute nothing to our society once they get here by working black or engaging in criminal acts, and the expanded EU members who have free access to our country, its benefits and are not obliged to take employment. The social costs of this little lot are astronomic and are throttling our social infrastructure. The criticism by the UK (NuLab) of Austria and Germany when they refused to accept immigrants from former East European lands for the first 7 years of membership, was completely misplaced and the UK has paid the price. Even now Brown is suggesting that Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. Has he not learned anything? Is he living on another planet? Is he that stupid that he wants to decimate our culture completely? Believe me when I tell you that if the Turks are allowed into the EU, the immigration into good old GB will make the Polish invasion seem like a garden party.
You are all still missing the real story: the Tories CANNOT win because elections are now, to call a spade a spade, rigged against them. Not against any conservative party. Not against any "free" market libertarian party (which would just lose fair and square anyway). But against the Tories. I do not, of course, write this as any fan of the Tories. It is just the fact of the matter.
And the Tory bogeyman is the only thing keeping the Labour Party in existence. If such members as there still are (mostly retired, almost all over 50, in safe seats normally in receipt of councillors' allowances or married to people who are, practically unheard of anywhere else) ever cottoned on that no such bogeyman existed anymore, then that would be the end of the Labour Party. It has never had any concept of itself apart from as a weapon against the Tories. But no such weapon is now necesasry.
And they will cotton on, sooner rather than later. Labour is as doomed as the Tories, precisely beacuse, without the Tories, there can be a social democratic party, or a left-wing party, or a trade union-based party, or whatever, but there cannot, and there very soon will not, be the Labour Party.
That is the real story. Cameron's charming enough but content-free waffle is no story at all, not least beacuse he is always like that.
Verity, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You simply cannot say that the Americans "have a higher percentage of people who turn out at the polls than we do". The last time more than 60% voted in a presidential election was 1968. In mid-term congressional elections [the houses of Congress constitute the bicameral federal legislature, and as such are perhaps a fairer target for comparison with the Commons], turnout hovers around 38%, roughly comparable to the proportion that turn out to LOCAL elections here.
And as for the Great Society, your remarks display a complete ignorance of thirty years of historical and political scholarship. Richard Nixon rolling back the Great Society? Let's have a look. It was Nixon who increased Medicare and Social Security payments to a decent level after LBJ. It was Nixon who created the EPA. And how about the Family Assistance Plan? How about increased spending on education? How about the negative income tax proposal?
Making reference to American politics seems to be in fashion these days - I dare say it's because everyone has read a couple of articles in the FT about Clinton and Giuliani. Before you next embark on a glib and inaccurate attempt at comparative government, may I suggest you do your homework?
What is more, Verity, your comments on the flood of New Orleans are sickening. How, precisely, if you live in extreme poverty, as many in that city did, and if you have no relations or friends outside the city, are you supposed to get out? If you have no money, nowhere to go, and no means of transport; if you are caring for an elderly or sick relative without assistance or insurance; if you have been spending each day of your life before the flood in a desperate attempt to keep your head above the dark waters of poverty and unemployment - what else are you supposed to do but hope that the institutions of the modern state under which you live might offer assistance?
When people here say they think it was the right thing for Cameron to lead Blair's standing ovation they make me wonder whether Peter Hitchens and Peter Obourne are right in their view that the Tories and NuLab are just different sides of the same coin.
How could any politician applaud a man who deliberately lied to the public and parliament to get us into a war that has led to the needless loss of life of so many British servicemen and innocent Iraqi civilians? Would the Conservative Party still have supported the war if they had been told the truth?
Sadly one must conclude that Cameron really is the heir to Blair. He is still too much in awe of Blairs shallow politics and PR spin. I believe that there is still a good chance of a general abstention of Tory right wingers at the next election in an attempt to stop the ever left-sliding ratchet effect.
You are all still missing the real story: the Tories CANNOT win because elections are now, to call a spade a spade, rigged against them. Not against any conservative party. Not against any "free" market libertarian party (which would just lose fair and square anyway). But against the Tories. I do not, of course, write this as any fan of the Tories. It is just the fact of the matter.
David I have puzzled over this oft repeated fairy tale which, in view of the recent Conservative Local Council gains is demonstrably untrue . You are to some extent correct in that the boundary commission cannot keep up with the frenzied attempts of Britons to leave Labour rule areas and this is worth about twenty seats most of the time . The absurd position of outlying Celtic nationalist areas contributing seats to the government of England yet retaining powers under their own parliaments is clearly against the interests of the English , justified or not . This is worth up to fifty seats . The escalation of the public sector is a more insidious development whereby the state accentuates the propensity of a mass electorate to try to live from the endeavours of others. So yes the natural Conservative Majority is discriminated against as are the English and the private sector . For this reason Labour do not exist in these areas. The ones that pay for everyhting
Despite the despicable rigging operated by the Labour Party much of which actually fell into their lap there is no mystery about obtaining a majority. You think 11% is a lot but it is not really because the last few percents are like six pointers . It’s a five of six percent swing one to the other recently achieved and by no means impossible
To call a spade a spade the sitting administration is protected by the world economies performance and we have never experienced this situation before . This is actually what makes them seem impregnable and not any mysterious cultural trend that you have read in your tea leaves at the age of 120. The Conservative Party has undergone some change and perhaps will change more but a new system will not happen anfor all your supposed independent thinking in practice you are supporting an illiberal tax and spend socialist who is already detested by a numerical majority of the country.
What real chance has he of ruling anything ? Not much . WE are already dug in after Blair and the attacks will be unceasing
Eighteen or nineteen points between now and 1st or 8th November, Newmania, so as to have the eleven point lead necessary for an overall majority of one (ONE!)? Pull the other one!
I am not "supporting" Brown. I am simply stating the fact: it is not just that the Tories won't win this Election, but that they actually can't. With enormous (indeed, fatal) ramificatiosn for all three parties, though beginning with the Tories.
As for the local elections, they proved two things: that far fewer people vote in local elections (who knew?); and that those hardcore voters will happily vote for Tories who are not like David Cameron, and who do not like David Cameron (indeed, who are in many ways much more like Gordon Brown - that bit older, impeccably middle-class but not posh, socially conservative, and all in favour of lavish public spending so long is it is on their own and their supporters' pet projects).
When it comes to Parliament, Cameron has turned super-safe seats into knife-edge marginals, and respectable second places into distant thirds, on one memorable occasion only very slightly ahead of the BNP.
And Keep Your Prejudices to Yourself - and I suggest you do the same, oh keen adherent of the New World Order - Here's my answer on New Orleans and so-called Katrina, which was actually the outer fringes of Hurricane Katrina that touched down in Mississippi (a red state which was out on the streets rebuilding the following morning):
I find your One Worlderism nauseating.
How, precisely, if you live in extreme poverty, as many in that city did, and if you have no relations or friends outside the city, are you supposed to get out?
How about getting on a bus, Clyde? Plenty of people had the get-up-and-go to get up and go on a bus out of New Orleans. Including old people and disabled people. It was the welfare dregs that stayed, waiting for the "gummint" to tell them what to do. Finally,the city government - in a panic move - decided to house them in the Dome, where they immediately began terrorising, raping and robbing the weak and helpless.
If you have no money, nowhere to go, and no means of transport; if you are caring for an elderly or sick relative without assistance or insurance; if you have been spending each day of your life before the flood in a desperate attempt to keep your head above the dark waters of poverty and unemployment - what else are you supposed to do but hope that the institutions of the modern state under which you live might offer assistance?
The dark waters of poverty and unemployment? These people have never looked for a job in their lives. Many of them have never left the sofa. They are five generations into welfare dependency. The only thing they were motivated to do, the ones who weren't too fat to move, was loot. They didn't need insurance! They had the taxpayer! No insurance? They have the entire United States Government to look after their welfare!
In fact, Katrina provided us with a vivid, nauseating illustration of where welfare dependency leads- an insatiable hunger for fried chicken and Coke - loaded; not Diet - and daytime TV.
You know what? Even Mayor Nagins can't stand the place. He moved his family to Dallas for the hurricane, and guess what! They're still there! Meanwhile, Governor Blanco, who refused federal help to get the helpless out of the city, has developed a kind of Tourette's Syndrome of declaring a state of emergency - having so signally failed during Katrina to allow the President to send in Federal help, she recently declared a state of emergency for Hurricane Dean, which wasn't headed anywhere near Louisiana, and Hurricane Felix, which was headed across Mexico, around 600 or 700 miles to the south.
The people who had the gumption to get up and go and made it to Houston were housed, free, in the Astrodome and were given swipe cards to get in and out. There were job fairs organised on the hoof and most of those who got out of NO and made it to Houston are still there, employed.
Before you do your One Worlder number of "We are the children blah blah blah" there were plenty of fat white welfare slobs who were also glued to their couches and TVs for the duration, and there are plenty of successful middle class black people who got the hell out under their own steam, and - you may not know this - plenty of very rich black people who boarded up their mansions and got out in good time and an orderly manner.
Welfare drains ambition and people stay passive and obedient. Let's can the faux sympathy and admit that the people who support these controlling programmes are in it for power.
Please, please check your facts first. Welfare payments in Louisiana are amongst the lowest in the United States. What evidence can you present to prove that anyone is deliberately avoiding work to receive the pittance provided by the state? What evidence can you present that the presence of unemployment benefits or food stamps caused people to stay in New Orleans?
Could you please explain what Coke and fried chicken have to do with the emergency response? Is it possible that, in the absence of any empirical evidence or observations, you might be using a tired stereotype of lower class Americans to bolster your argument?
What is 'One Worlderism'? Can you fill out the rest of 'We are the children blah blah blah'? Kindly refrain from juvenile caricatures of my beliefs.
I cannot account for your peculiar comments about Mississippi's response. The damage there was nowhere near as severe.
As regards the looting and other crime seen in the immediate aftermath, what makes you think a city as large as New Orleans wouldn't have criminals to begin with? Those incidents (and I'm certainly not denying their existence) were tragic, but not exactly a totally unexpected side effect of such a great humanitarian disaster.
And it's Mayor 'Nagin', not 'Nagins'.
Typo re Nagin. I'm sure it's spelled correctly in the Dallas telephone directory.
NO has lower welfare payments than many big US cities because it is not a big US city. It is tiny. Less than a million people. Of course it's not going to have the same welfare payouts as Houston, LA, Philadelphia, New York, etc!
If you don't know what One Worlders are, there's no point in talking to you, although I might point you in the direction of a mirror.
This thread is supposed to be about Dave's speech.
Thats done it for me - after weeks of disappointment's (especially that rubbish about grammar schools - and I never went to one!) I'm now firmly ready to give him my vote - better still I'm now going to join the party - not just Dave but what a week - brilliant - just stay as you are Dave and Brown and his spinning cronies days are numbered
Impressed... but there's still something lacking.
Shame, because he seems so sincere.
Wonder what David Davies was thinking a few yards away...
If you don't want an argument to stray off topic, don't indulge in preposterous historical revisionism, and don't spew bile about survivors of America's worst natural disaster in rececnt times. It is the kind of stuff that confirms every non-Conservative's worst fears about the Party.
Nevertheless, you are entirely right that this thread is supposed to be about the speech - my apologies for straying. For what it's worth, I thought it was quite good, but it feels like Iain, the rest of the media, and politicians on both sides are overestimating the amount of momentum that can be carried from one conference speech. Let's see if we can pop the Westminster bubble (which has temporarily relocated to the seaside) - let's stay calm, not trust polls too much at this point, wait to see if an election is called, and then consider 'momentum' on a much longer timescale. We are not even at the end of the beginning of whatever election campaign there might be.
Post a Comment