Sense of well-being
It is a sign of the times that the leader of the Conservative Party that the nation's sense of well-being is the central political challenge of those times and not economic regeneration. It's a sign of how used we've all become to an era of never-ending economic growth. A sign too of how keen Mr Cameron is to challenge the notion that his is a party obsessed with money alone.
Is this speech about more though than political positioning? The Tories insist it is - that they are staking out the middle ground between laissez-faire and over regulation... between indifference and interference. A promise to make the British public sector a world leader in the way it treats its employees and to stop burdening business with bureaucracy is, they say, evidence of how that approach could improve life in the workplace (speeches are to follow on the family and the community).
Labour have been quick to point out that the Tories opposed extensions in maternity and paternity leave. They claim that the Tory leader's support for exhortation is not new politics but merely a new gloss on Tory opposition to minimum standards at work. It is how that debate plays out which will mark the true significance of today's speech
P.S. - In a sign that there may be just a little resistance amongst the grassroots to the politically correct Cameron leadership, Tory chairman Francis Maude has been Conservative constituency associations that the leadership is not trying to foist "mincing metrosexuals" on to "gritty northern" seats. So that's all right then.
He says this, apparently, in a podcast for "Tory Radio". Has it occurred to him that those this message is aimed at will neither know what a metrosexual or a podcast are?
P.P.S. - Talking of new means of communication, it's a little unfortunate that David Cameron praised a website in his speech today but failed to point out that it was a .com and not a .co.uk. Unfortunate because the UK website - and no I'm not telling you its name - is a site for those seeking casual sex. It includes an interesting quote from someone called "David 'married and cheating'" about his liaison with a housewife.
I wonder what his level of "well-being" is?
I'm 
Comments
Thing is Nick that the comments about sexuality all seem (mis)directed at one member of the A List - Adam Rickett.
The issue of his sexuality was mentioned as recently as yesterday in the Sunday Times:
"Rickitt became a popular figure with homosexuals after taking part in Coronation Street鈥檚 first same-sex kiss. He has also posed bare-chested for the gay magazine Attitude, raising speculation that he is himself homosexual."
Quite how this related to his comments on the NHS I've still not worked out after 30 hours of consideration.
The quite bigoted assumption underlying the coments is that one can't be attractive to gays or prepared to pose topless in a non-adult magazine without being gay means Rickett has been the subject of these rumours for years.
He has consistently dismissed them with perfect charm:
鈥淚 haven鈥檛 sued people for saying I鈥檓 gay because I don鈥檛 see it as an insult. But it鈥檚 not true鈥
surely a response so sane it alone would prevent most local Tory associations from selecting him?
I can't help but think somewhere out there at least one local Tory selection committee
are drawing up plans to ask him to prove his hetrosexuality in front of the local membership and activists.
As for the Guardian article you linked to, it's a bit worrying that people who seek to select future MPs don't know the difference between Gay and Metrosexual!
I think this is the first of your entries that has made me lauph out loud. Todays speach is once again just another example of the new image that 'call me dave' wants to portray, and once again it isn't backed up by policy or the way they vote. I don't know whether it is just me but the Tory party actually look in a state of disoray- I think members of his shadow cabinet are finding it hard to convince themselves that they like what 'Dave' is doing so it is very difficult to convince us- as I noticed today when Oliver Letwin was trying to convince us (however he doesn't have much else to do as policy director these days)- Anyway Dave you are fooling no one so drop the act and get on with forming an opposition with some opposing views!
I am personally a little bit surprised that Cameron made the speech he did today given all that is going on in Iraq and the Home Office. It simply gives of the impression that Cameron is living in another world to people in Britain. There is no policy substance behind the rhetoric. As another poster says Oliver Letwin on the Daily Politics just did not appear to have a clue what he was discussing when asked what Cameron's speech actually meant. What exactly does a "modern vision of ethical work" mean? Is this guy courting the unions or being more left wing than Gordon Brown? One thing Labour has tried to tackle is work/life balance but there is a limit to what can be done before affecting the economy. I frankly have no idea what Mr Cameron is advocating and I imagine neither do a large proportion of his party. I imagine his Shadow Cabinet is starting to get perplexed with these constant PR stunts.
As for the A-List shambles, Tory Central Office seems to be doing it's best to emulate the Home Office at the moment.
This new dialogue regarding "well-being" appears eccentric coming from any politician, let alone Dave.
He says, "There is more to life than money"
Should he be concerned about how this novel world view will play with the Tory grass roots, he should reference an old Monty Python sketch, where an obvious tory city type is totally confused by a beggar who asks for the price of a cup of tea...
"So, let me get this right, you want me to GIVE you sixpence. And what do I get in return? Is it some sort of investment? Can I see the portfolio?"
I just wonder when he will get on to the pressing issue of saving fluffy orphaned kittens.
The oddest put-down: 'given all that is going on in Iraq and the Home Office. It simply gives of the impression that Cameron is living in another world to people in Britain.' How dare Mr Cameron spare a moment to blatantly think about the concerns of everyday life of people in this country rather than sticking to cynical chitchat or party-political rambling.
Nick, of course Conservatives know what podcasts are. You will probably find the party is leading the way with technological advances in communicating with its members. If only New Labour was so open.
Perhaps you would like to buy the Editor of Tory Radio (me) a drink the next time I see you in Portcullis House, and maybe I could interview you.
I usually enjoy your blogs Nick, but not this one.Why do you think Tories would be less familiar with terms such as metrosexual or podcast than anyone else?Aren't you just reinforcing the false view of so many of those at the 大象传媒 that Conservatives are not in touch with the modern world.
It is so easy to be cynical about whatever Mr Cameron says. So what if he has changed his views? When you look at some of the things Tony Blair used to advocate before he became prime minister, he's the one who has changed. Your correspondents are presumably Labour supporters who want the Conservatives to go back to being right-wing and therefore unelectable. As for substance, surely it is not sensible to release the 2009 manifesto now. Give Mr Cameron time to think out his policies, or better still, log on to the Conservative website and input your own ideas - he would appreciate them.
Nick
A bit patronising to say people in the North won't know what a metersexual or a podcast are.
Just off to walk the whippet and buy some black pudding....
Nick,
Of course the Tories know what a podcast is. In these days of ethnic diversity appreciation, any Tory worth his salt will be well informed about the cultural differences and the cast system of South Asia.
Silly you.
By the way, in your report last night you were stood near Westminster Cathedral. I dropped a pound coin there last week and couldn't find it - did you happen to spot it?
Whatever he says the media pick up on. Its all good publicity and you news people are suckers for it. At the same time I reckon there is much more to Cameron than critics give him credit for.
All style and no substance - and not even very much style. If the Tories get in to power at the next election, would anyone be willing to bet on this nebulous concept ever being mentioned again?
Surely David Cameron is just acting in accordance with Hotelling's Spatial Theory?
Why all the criticism, because a party aren't detailing every minute detail as they develop their thinking (which would only later be held against them)? I'd rather politicians were open on their thinking.
Not sure how I'll vote going forward, but give DC and the Tories time to sort themselves out and develop meaningful policies. It has, after all, been so long since we had any meaningful opposition, I'd rather they took some time, got their act together, and then got specific.
Also getting frustrated with party employees/ activists (both L & T) using this blog as another cog in your spin machine. Leave the real 'Nick bloggers' alone to make our own minds up.
The great thing about the Cameron speech was that in order to promote well being and more flexible working practices - he suggested scrapping flexible working regulations and leaving employment conditions more to market forces. (which he said would raise working conditions).
Is it not ok for anyone to say anything anti-Cameron now? I tell you what annoys me is the media love in for Dave. I am allowed to express my views on this blog just as you are 'Adam'.
I personally felt the speech was alot of waffle but that is my view. Some other people may have fully agreed with Louise Bagshawe on Newsnight about how great Cameron's speech was. That is the joy of this great democracy we live in.
Funny how you never hear poor people making speeches about there being 'more to life than money.' As a working class Conservative I'm starting to get a bit disenchanted with this emerging manifesto for the chattering classes. About time he switched his focus to improving the lot of the skilled working / lower middle classes who have been so ignored by the government and have seen their quality of life diminish.
I think the Labour Party should take this set of ideas very seriously. I believe that both parties have come to see that well-being, is at the very least, of equal importance to economic status both as an individual and as a nation. The Labour party manifested these beliefs with ASBOs, Family Tax Credits, Targeting single parents for work and a whole raft of policies and legisaltion, that in essence, are social engineering. This is the primary function of government. This is exactly where all parties should be and for raising the issue in a positive manner I'll give him a point - just one. The problem has always been to turn a hypothesis into an axiom and I wonder about DC's metal in a fight. Capitalism has no heart, it isn't human and has no master, so how will he make it sit?
Seems to me that he is striving to de-link his party in the public mind from those Line Of Beauty-type 1980s Tories (to whom we're being re-introduced on 大象传媒2) as a neccessary preparation for ultimately peddling some new-fashioned yet essentially old-style, roll-back-the-state Tory policies. Do I detect in the mist the outline of lower taxes, more 'freedom' in education and (at least moral) support for the 'traditional' family, albeit liberally expressed? I kind of hope so. I don't think I would vote for it but should such a package be bold enough to really look different from Labour it would make politics a lot more interesting.
P.S. Enjoyed the potential website confusion, by the way.
"Alright" isn't. All right?
With his relaxed attitued and new agendas Dave is causing Gordon all kinds of problems.
I suspect Tony is loving it.
"Talking of new means of communication, it's a little unfortunate that David Cameron praised a website in his speech today but failed to point out that it was a .com and not a .co.uk. Unfortunate because the UK website - and no I'm not telling you it's name - is a site for those seeking casual sex. It includes an interesting quote from someone called "David 'married and cheating'" about his liaison with a housewife."
Quite funny find that particular advert. Sadly though this crazed and sexually liberated website too risque for Nick to mention is basically classified ads on the web, containing very little that you won't find in the back of Time Our, your local classified, Loot or your local newsagents window.
Honestly why must jounalists all report by "Chinese Whispers", one look at the website tells you that this "story" (which I concede Nick is not alone in reporting) is a distortion of the truth.
PS Not a Tory by the way, Vote Lib Dem or Labour depending on the weather. Don't believe in Cameron's sincerity, but would rather here the truth than sloppy distortions.
Take that all back, Nick was in fact somewhat obliquely reporting the facts, as the .org or .com site is kosher, but the .co.uk list is not so much.
Another 'no-policy' from Dave.
Most people don't choose to work, they need to work. If David Cameron would commit to cuts in taxes, they would need to work less. As far as the public sector goes. Their pension provisions already place them head-and-shoulders above the private sector in terms of 'feel good'. Just how much more must the rest of us pay to molly-coddle labour voters that this silly man wants to attract.
David Camron is making a fundamental mistake moving into the politics of happiness. Whilst on the one hand it may make the Conservatives more rounded, actually it was the old conservaitves who understood life better. If money cannot buy you love or happiness then legislation certainly wont. The best that governments can do is sta yout of our lives as much as possible. They are more likely to create unhappinees than happiness so better to stay neutral. When Cameron talks about smaller less interfering government he is on the right lines. If he were to commit to tax cuts he would be moving further
Policies, policies, policies - Why is everyone braying for Cameron and his policies at this early stage - so that shameless Labour can immediately snatch them up for their own?
Wouldn't they just love that.
Sure Manjit, say what you like, where did I say you couldn't? If you don't make sense I may comment on it... why am I in apostrophes?
Francis Maude assuring the faithful that the Conservative Party is not trying to foist "mincing metrosexuals" on "gritty northern" seats ?
Oh my word !
I doubt that the Conservative Party could sell the last whippet in the world to anyone living north of Watford Gap.
And it does sound terribly disloyal to the distinctly metropolitan elite running the party of which he is chairman. They, I believe, would very much like to be foisted on all regions - north, south, east and west.
What is he saying ?
A veiled leadership bid, already ?
kim
Cameron is naive in quoting webpages. The internet is an unruly, uncontrolled place and politicians should only quote it with great care. As Nick points out, the UK site is overtly sexual. But the .com site is also seedy with its "casual encounters" section.
Another case of style Cameron quoting cool trendy icons without understanding the underlying substance. Perhaps Cameron is sublimely abandoning traditional Tory family values?
Those word "cool" and "trendy", do they sound familiar? Dave does Cool Britannia?
I am honestly hoping that David Cameron will act on what he has said here because if he does he can drag Britain into the 21st century, if the conservatives are elected.
I actually read his speech and what he is saying is he wants to promote flexible working, and move on from the protestant work ethic.
He gave concrete examples of how that is already being done at BT and the benefits to both employee(no daily commute, better work-life balance) and employer (increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, reduced costs). Now clearly that only works for knowledge workers, but if you really think about it most office workers are Knowledge workers and their jobs could be done pretty much anywhere.
I can see why it is so difficult for people on the traditional left and right who are used to a Paternalistic employer-employee relationship struggle with the idea of the boss not constantly checking up on you, but the facts are that if you trust people they normally pay back your trust and more.
If Cameron can start to change people's mindsets then you may actually see increased productivity/profits and improved work-life balance. Not to mention reduced road congestion(less commuters), Increased community ownership (You spend more time in your community you are likely to feel more attached to it).
The question Does remain How will he achieve this without regulation, it seems to me it has to be made attractive to employers and employees and a Conservative way of doing this may well be to offer incentives perhaps through the tax system.
I have found that I'm "so far right, I'm left". What this means is that as one follows the investigative and logical path of "getting government out of our lives", you have to eventually realize that the things necessary for people to live useful lives will have to be found by the people themselves. Instead of cutting government back and leaving the population to compete themselves to death, it is better to use the infrastructure already developed to teach and guide people so that they can cooperate with each other to provide for common needs and creative ends.
In other words, Big Government is bad, but the best way to get rid of it isn't to destroy society, but to eliminate the need for government in the first place. That requires useful, cooperative people who are satisfied with life and connected with their places. People who are capable and happy with their lot in life will be much less likely to seek satisfaction from the strangers in government for their needs. As Cameron says "money isn't everything", perhaps it means that using money to reduce the demand for money is a good thing. Using government to reduce the demand for government is similarly a good idea.
Unfortunately for government employees, it means they will be working themselves out of a job.