Cameron: moron and liar

Cameron's latest speech must be one of the most moronic and dishonest efforts ever. Here goes:

The cause that you champion – corporate responsibility – was always very much part of my personal values when I worked in business.

This is not how others remember it:

Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money"...."In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative..." Mr Randall wrote.
Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

Then there's the P-word, lifted straight from Blair:

I believe passionately that we're all in this together – government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals...I have always passionately believed in the dynamism of the free market and its power to do good.

These aren't the only thing's he's "passionate" about. He's P about climate change, and about (contra Thatcher) the fact that there's such a thing as society. Do we really want a prime minister to be so emotional about so many things? Or is the "passion" just fake?

If a supermarket opens a convenience store on the high street and uses its financial muscle to drive down prices until small shops are forced out of business – and then immediately puts prices up again – we need to complain.

How often does this happen? Cameron's failure to do so suggests this is a Frank Doberman moment: "If that Leahy comes round here cutting his prices and then raising them, I'll say; Oi! Leahy no."
I this does happen, the policy solution is not to whine, but to ensure that planning legislation is sufficiently flexible to allow competitors to threaten the supermarket's dominance. Ever heard of contestable markets?

If employers are making it harder, not easier, for people to combine fulfilling work with their family life, we should speak out.

What's so special about family life? What about people who want to combine fulfilling work with playing the guitar or cuddling their kittens? Why should these have fewer rights than breeders?
And again, the solution to a lack of workers' rights is not to complain, but to improve their bargaining power - by greater trades union rights or a citizen's basic income.

A good neighbour will occasionally go out of their way to do something friendly.
Offering to babysit one night. Or let workmen into your house if you're out one day.
It's exactly the same for business - whether you're a small business like a pub or a newsagent, or a huge global business like Microsoft or Tesco.

So, next time you want a night on the razz, give Bill Gates a ring and he'll come round to mind little Tarquin and Clytemenestra.

I want to explore the potential for a new understanding between business and Government.
With this new understanding, businesses that have publicly signed up to a commitment to responsible business practices would enjoy a lighter touch regulatory enforcement regime. The same rules would apply to them as to all businesses – but the presumption is that they are in conformity unless proven otherwise.

Has he never heard of adverse incentives? Who do you think would be quickest to sign such a commitment?

I remember a couple of years ago BHS had to withdraw a range of underwear for kids after some mums objected to the fact that padded bras and sexy knickers for the under tens were on sale.
BHS's initial reaction was to claim that the underwear was "harmless fun."
That sums up why parents are often reluctant to complain even when they feel uneasy.

But this episode shows exactly that a free market works. BHS realized that its range was losing customers and withdrew it. There was no need for politicians to speak out - the market did the job.
What's as bad as anything Cameron says, though, is an omission. He never mentions the obvious way in which policy can ensure than business behaves ethically - by changing taxes or property rights so that  negative externalities are internalized.
But then, he doesn't really want to improve the market economy. he merely wants to kid people that the Stupid Party and big business are caring - just as, when he worked for Carlton, he tried to kid people that OnDigital wasn't going bust.

Comments

[dearieme]

Oh irony: Blair's legacy will be Cameron. And all because "Eva" Brown is a coward.

[Tim Worstall]

I was recently reminded that I’ve actually met Cameron, many years ago. Didn’t like the twit then either.
Anyone ready for the "None of the Above" Party?

Costs 350,000 k or so to stand in every constituency. Can sell the mailshot for 2 million. Self-funding protest?

[Tim Worstall]

Bugger. Just checked with the Electoral Commission. Someone’s already tried registering that party and they’ve passed a statute not allowing it.

[David Farrer]

But if we all were to change our names to "none of the above" and stand for election?

[Tim Worstall]

I think we can change our name by deed poll and do that: although the Electoral Commission can, I think, limit the names used. Didn’t someone try to stand as Margaret Thatcher against Margaret Thatcher? I know there was a court case/ ruling on it but not how it turned out.

[Dander]

Ever since Cameron was elected I've been surprised by the outright hatred and contempt he inspires among serious Tories.

True Conservatives should hope that Blair stays in power long enough for Cameron to be ditched. But how to get rid of him...?

[dearieme]

Dander: mange?

[Dander]

True to form, though, the FT sucks up Cameron's drool and gives him just the headline he wanted: "Cameron picks fight with big business", thus panding to the illiterate discontented vote while safely avoiding any real controversy --- who's going to defend irresponsible business? What a tosser.

[Luis Enrique]

Is there any comfort in the thought that politicians’ speeches are just attempts to second-guess what's going to "play well" with the electorate that bear very little relation to anything else? So we don’t have to worry if they spout incoherent nonsense – engaging speeches like this as if it ought to actually make sense, is about as clever as pointing out plot flaws in Hollyoaks. Perhaps we should congratulate Mr Cameron on knowing that his job consists only of saying whatever will get the Torys elected, and doing a good job in that respect. (mmm, if supermarkets do bad things, we’ll complain! If companies are nasty, we’ll make them nice!)

No, there’s not much comfort in that thought. I suppose what politicians do in power is also determined by second-guessing what will play well with the electorate. God it’s so depressing. The whole thing is a charade.

It’s not an original observation that we’ve got the politicians we deserve, but why is the system producing such stinkers? I blame the media! But that doesn’t help, because we get the media we deserve too. Is there any way of increasing the incentives politicians have to talk sense? I suppose the only thing to do is to keep pointing out when they talk crap and bash them over the head with it whenever possible. Doesn’t seem to work very well, though.

[Jeremy]

it would have been nice if Cameron had pointed out that Green took a £1bn tax free dividend in his wife's name to Monaco. Don't his staff use the NHS and have kids that use schools?

[Alex]

Well, I don't recall anyone at all in any party saying a word about the Tories making Archie Norman a shadow cabinet member at the same time as he was in on the shameless Knutsford plc/"Marks&Sparks takeover" ramp scam.

So no, I wouldn't expect much.