Wednesday, 3 October 2007

David Cameron - like it

Despite the BBC mobile service putting the speech below North Korea's latest unstable promises, the 'news' about Diana, andBush vetoing a bill, his speech once found looks good to me. I think this is very effective:

It wasn't just that we' heard it all before, I mean literally heard it all before. I think actually quite a lot of people in America had heard it all before as well. There were the GP surgery family friendly opening hours, we've had that one three times before; eco towns, four times before; competitive sport in our schools, six times before - and no indication about how any of these things are going to be done. But it wasn't just that. It was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he knows he can't do. British jobs for British workers, it's illegal under British law. Deporting people for gun and knife crime, you can't do that because of Labour's Human Rights Act. I have to say to the prime minister: if you treat people like fools, you don't deserve to run the country, let alone win an election."

Anything that promises to cut central interference into teachers' decisions gets my vote:

We will give head teachers complete command of their schools. If they want to have enforceable home/school contracts which parents have to sign about the behaviour of their children before the children go to school, that's fine. And no ifs, no buts, if a head teacher wants to exclude a pupil because their behaviour is wrecking the education of others, they should be able to do so. The appeals panels have got to go.

I still don't like where they are spending their money, inheritance-tax wise, though I'm sure their focus groups say otherwise. The Indie has a good letter on this. But for now, the Tories are ticking up, overtaking Labour for me. Updating the SWING!

1 comment:

purplepangolin said...

Cutting taxes is not spending government money. It is taking less of our money. Now, there is a moral argument to be had about who should be taxed and by how much, but I think that the argument should start from the premise that the government needs to justify taking money frrom us rather than us justifying why we should be allowed to keep some of it.