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.