Monday, 19 October 2009


Tory Outcast has kindly posted the video that preceded Cameron's speech to conference:

Powerful stuff, and well done. But... it not sad that it was possible? Is is not sad that Labour have handed all that ammunition to the Tories?

Glad as I will be to see the back of Labour and, especially, Brown, it is deeply depressing that he has had to inflict such damage on the UK in order to make it so.


  1. Something which I bang on about (too) often is how much power the incumbent government has. With a decent majority the government doesn't have to listen to dissenting voices, meaning that it makes mistake after mistake until the roof falls in and the party is kicked out.

  2. I'm hoping they put one together of Browns old speeches on not letting house prices get out of control and no boom and bust for the election.

  3. Is it not sad that the vote is going to Cameron's mob because of the failure of Labour, and not because of his policies?

  4. What is sad is that the Conservatives will get tarred with the suffering that has to be endured to put the country back on a sound footing. They will struggle to pay for some of the policies that are proclaimed in that trailer. The price we will all have to pay for New Labour is so high.

  5. Good presentation, ever, what is the real Conservative content on all these things? We are beginning to see a picture emerging but it is very unclear. What, for example, is Cameron going to do about "Broken Society"? While I think that Labour have been terribly socially destructive, is it really within the power of Government to mend a society that is culturally so nihilistic and self-destructive? Are the Conservatives committing themselves to delivering on lower teenage pregnancies for example? If so, how?

  6. BE - Cameron *must* deliver on the localism that he promises. That is the only way (yet, also, the right way) to deal with this problem.

    Steve - please do! That would be an invaluable resource.

    Measured - that worries me, too. T'was always thus, though - hence my suggestion.

    Albert - Oh come on. It was a glossy video to set the tone before a speech. You can't pick up every piece of Conservative literature and wail "But this utterly fails to set out a comprehensive framework and timescale for the elimination of teenage pregnancy!!". If it had been (say) a speech on that specific subject, a week before the election, saying that things would be dealt within a fortnight, then yes; it would be reasonable to ask what would be done eight days hence. But it isn't.

    More generally, the Conservatives are not yet in power. They do need to set out what they want to do, and what their guiding principles are, but there is a degree of detail beyond which they need not, and should not, go. We cannot expect them to set out in detail what they will do between 1 and 6 years from now; we should ask what they want to achieve and their general principles, then allow them to implement those principles in the light of the circumstances in (potentially) 2015.

    Time and place, Albert.

  7. P, I think you are guilty of special pleading. If the roles were reversed would you not make the same point I am making against Labour? Would you not also defend the Tories against "Broken Britain" slogans by pointing out that there is a wider problem than just Government policy?

    Accordingly, I did not ask for "a comprehensive framework and timescale for the elimination of teenage pregnancy." I was raising the question of whether such a thing is really within the power of a Government.

    My own answer is yes, it is possible for a Government to make a difference on this provided they seek to join those who are wanting reinvigorate the moral and social climate and culture. But you will not make a real substantial difference by policy and legislation alone.

    However, as Young Mr B pointed out a while back, it is precisely some of the unjust and socially and morally destructive Labour policies that Cameron has adopted. It is disingenuous therefore to pretend to be part of the solution, while adopting some of the very Labour policies that are in fact part of the problem.

  8. If I did level that charge against Labour, I would expect to be shot down. But I hope that I would not, and I think that on previous occasions I have not.

    I think you are confusing a brief statement of aims and a detailed statement of policy. Now that I have challenged you, you have morphed your argument into a disagreement with the policies. ;-)

    You have a good point in your third paragraph. Sadly, whilst I would agree that you will not make a real substantial improvement by policy and legislation alone, I would suggest that a significant decline can easily be achieved through legislation and policy. I have the last 12 years as evidence, of course :-(

  9. No, my position has not changed, my objection to the film is that some of the things it blames Labour for are things that any sitting Government could be blamed for and from which a change of Government will not free us without more radical difference than the Tories are offering. Hence I picked on the subject of Broken Society rather complaining about the lack of policy on other things. On those issues your point would be well taken.

    Whatever you said in 1997, I bet that at the next election Labour will have a presentation pointing out all these problems and blaming the Tories.

    We will not have change until we are prepared to declare clear moral grounds for our social positions, at the moment, the Tories lack the moral fibre to do that. So we can expect some change under them, but not much. They will still be part of the problem.

  10. How much do you bet? I prefer non-monetary stakes, btw. Gambling is evil....

    I agree re the need for a moral basis. Have you seen Ian Duncan-Smith's work?

  11. Yes, I have been encouraged by IDS' work, but disencouraged by the kinds of things that Young Mr B referred to (amongst other issues), and these, it seems to me, give the game away. But hopefully I will be proved wrong.