David Cameron has been described as "cartoonish" and a "confused social democrat" by the men who plucked his "philosopher-king" Philip Blond from obscurity.
The men who plucked Cameron’s “philosopher-king“, Philip Blond, from obscurity have rounded on the Tory leader for the “cartoonish depiction of the state” in his party conference speech and for being a “confused social democrat”.
Demos Director Richard Reeves and Chair of Trustees Philip Collins have used their sharp pens in Prospect to criticise David Cameron’s approach to tackling inequality. In the current edition, out today, they write:
“Cameron’s new ‘egalitarian’ platform is full of holes…
“He is signing himself up to Labour-style poverty and inequality measures, even as he rejects Labour-style redistribution. In other words, he is setting his own big trap, and trotting gamely towards it.”
Reeves took over at Demos in September 2008 and quickly launched their Progressive Conservatism project at an event which featured speeches from both David Cameron and Philip Blond. Blond left Demos in June citing “political and philosophical differences” to set up his own think tank ResPublica but the programme continued under the leadership of former Conservative party policy advisor Jonty Olliff-Cooper. Philip Collins is a former speech writer to Tony Blair who fell out of favour with the Government after the publication of a June 2008 article for Prospect titled ‘Liberalise or die‘.
The article in the current edition of Prospect goes on to say:
“the best counter to Cameron did come from Labour’s Liam Byrne, whose speech on the ‘smarter state’ to the Institute for Government in November argued that countries with ‘big’ civil societies almost never had smaller states. Even within the US, liberal Minnesota has higher spending, and more civic engagement, than conservative Mississippi.”
This blog has previously outlined the problems with David Cameron’s selective approach to poverty and inequality.
25 Responses to ““Cartoonish” Cameron the “confused social democrat””
Liz
Anon – not that list again… what does it prove?
Henry
Who cares where politicians were educated? Roosevelt & Kennedy had an elite education & came from wealthy families, as did Atlee – & they were some of the best progressive leaders of the last century.
What matters is what politicans do. Do they just look after the interests of their own sort or genuinely try to improve the lot of ordinary people?
Liz
Henry – I couldn’t agree with you more! Music to my ears!!
Tony Benn is quite a bit of an old leftie and look at his background and it works the other way too – just because you go to state school (especially ones that are deemed by media as underperforming inner city schools) etc doesn’t guarantee that pupils become flag waving socialists!
Anon E Mouse
Liz – Roger asked for a list – that’s why I posted it.
What it proves is that it is crass and dishonest for this government to launch a class attack on the Tory Party when they themselves are exactly the same. No one should be judged on their class.
I agree whole heartedly with Henry and since you say it is “Music to your ears!!” it does appear, much as I didn’t think it was possible, that you and I are in agreement on something.
A good day all round then. (I’m not being sarcastic Liz).
Liz McShane
Anon- I still don’t see the point of publishing a list of grammar & private schools attended by some Labour MPs when it was their parents who made the decision re choice of schools and not some 11 year old. Obviously it is a totally different matter when Labour MPs make a controversial choice and send their kids to fee-paying/private/public schools when they say they are passionate and committed to state education. Bust as I said before controversial as the decision is – The Daily Mail etc al will be the first to condemn them whatever they do – if they send their kids to what is seen as an underperforming school they will be condemned for sacrificing their kid’s for eduction political motives/ideology.