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””
Henry
Hey, an outbreak of consensus (almost). Must be Christmas or something.
Anon E Mouse
Henry – You may have spoke too soon I fear…
Liz – I don’t want to see under performing schools, by whatever measure it is decreed they are. I want school standards raised to educate our children properly.
The reason for the list is simple. That useless PM, Gordon Brown, makes reference to the educational backgrounds of members of the Tory party as a slight on their characters.
That is hypocritical when the list of Labour MP’s in the same position are studied. The point is that if class is bad for Tory MP’s, why is it not bad for Labour MP’s?
It’s either bad or it’s not – it can’t be both…
Liz McShane
Anon- i think it is still valid to touch on the whole issue of class and privilege and values. I might not be working class technically but i still espouse the values of it and the values and motives for the emergence of the labour party in the first place.
Also i am truly intrigued by your relationship/ attitude to the labour party. In some of your posts you talk about it with some posts you talk about it in a rather detached manner as well as vitriolic and in others you refer to it in a more inclusive way ( even sounding as if you are embracing it) by using the first person plural ie ‘us’.
Liz McShane
Apologies for repeating part of a sentence. I haven’t quite mastered the art of writing on an iphone on the bus!
Anon E Mouse
Liz – Glad to see you’re taking the bus woman and not polluting the planet in a car.
My problem is I still think of “us” as in I am a Labour voter traditionally but I cannot vote for them at the moment, not since Brown bullied his way into the PM’s job.
I always voted Blair although I am now hyper critical of his privileged background since Labour has gone onto a silly class attack.
Personally I would consider myself middle class now, although I was born working class and although I could afford a private education for them and as a single father it would have been easier, I sent my daughters to the local comprehensive.
Certainly my lifestyle would now be described as middle class although I have an inbuilt affinity with people less fortunate than myself and that’s why I feel the Labour Party have really let people down.
You said previously that Labour had done a lot but to me that was all in the first term. You also (as I remember) used the word timidity as well (and on that I fully agree) yet I don’t know why they were.
Basically we blew it. Lisbon I would have voted against but the case should have been made and I know a lot of Tories who like Matthew Paris, would have voted “Yes”. Labour should have gone for it – it was in the manifesto, it was a pledge and promises should be kept. There is no excuse.
You mention some of my posts as being vitriolic but that’s my exasperation at the lack of activity from the activists on this site who sit back waiting for opposition.
My comments prickle you because you are (imo) an idealist and the criticism hurts you (I get that Liz and no offence is intended). Your loyality, although misguided (imo)is something admirable though and I feel you should grit your teeth next year and prepare for opposition.
Cameron is going to drift into office with no pledges or anything promised to break I’m afraid and it will be Labours fault he wins.