PM’s message for Eid

Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his warm wishes to Muslim people in the United Kingdom, to mark the start of the festival of Eid ul Fitr and the end of Ramadan.

With the devastating floods in Pakistan still fresh in everyone’s minds, the PM called Eid “a time for celebration but also a time for contemplation”.

He said:

“As families, friends and communities come together around the United Kingdom to celebrate the end of the Holy month of Ramadan and the start of Eid ul Fitr, I want to send you all my warmest best wishes.

“Eid is a special time, a time for celebration but also a time for contemplation.

“The terrible scenes of devastation in Pakistan have shocked us all. I am hugely impressed by how we in the UK have responded to this tragedy, with communities up and down the country coming together to mobilise support.

“As Eid begins we should enjoy this very special time but our thoughts will of course turn to those less fortunate.

Eid Mubarak.”

Source: this message first appeared on the Prime Minister's official website.

David and Samantha Cameron welcome baby daughter Florence to Downing Street

David Cameron and his wife Samantha have posed for pictures outside Downing Street with their 10-day-old daughter Florence Rose Endellion

Asked how many nappies he had changed, Mr Cameron joked: "Hundreds."

Another journalist asked: "Has Nick Clegg changed any nappies yet?"

Mr Cameron replied: "That's next."

The baby was wearing a white shawl crocheted by a member of the public who sent it in to congratulate the couple on the birth.

The woman, Jane Fraser-Cross, from Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, is a local fundraiser and grandmother of six, who likes to be known as "Granny Jane".

Mrs Cameron was wearing an orange dress made by a local dressmaker in which she has been pictured several times before.

Asked if the baby was keeping them awake, she smiled and replied: "Yes."

Mr Cameron bent to kiss the baby on the head and she opened her eyes briefly.

The appearance was delayed by more than 10 minutes and a Downing Street press officer said this was for "operational reasons". It was not clear if there was nappy changing involved.

The Prime Minister said in a statement: "Samantha and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their kindness and generosity since the birth of baby Florence.

"We have been really, really touched by all the people who have offered their warm congratulations, and by the many cards, gifts and flowers that we have received."

Florence was born at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro on Tuesday 24th August, weighing 6lb 1oz.

She was not expected until this month, but caught the family by surprise while they were on holiday.

Her middle name, Endellion, refers to the village of St Endellion on the north Cornish coast, near where the Camerons were staying.

The Camerons are also parents to Nancy, six, and Arthur Elwen, four.

Mr and Mrs Cameron lost their other son, Ivan, who suffered from cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy, when he died aged six last year.

Florence is only the third baby to be born to a serving Prime Minister since 1849.

The US-UK “special relationship”

When a cross party foreign relations committee recently urged the British Government to adopt a more hard-headed approach towards the US and avoid the phrase “special relationship” there was a palpable sense of relief amongst those who had felt for some time that the phrase was best avoided.

Unsurprisingly, as the British Prime Minister visits the United States this week, the term remains as popular as ever. It seems the Americans are just too polite, or possibly too astute, to suggest it be consigned to history. Instead, just like with previous high profile UK-US meetings, the term is being rolled out to make yet another appearance and will most likely be used just enough times to avoid mass hysteria in the British media.

The Prime Minister’s first official visit to Washington comes at a time of widespread concern within UK media and foreign policy circles that Obama’s ethnic origin and upbringing may have defined a world view that is very different from his predecessors. To be more precise, policymakers are concerned that Obama is less interested in the special relationship because he is not of European origin.

To many observers such conclusions serve only to highlight the unhealthy obsession with the special relationship and the emotional nature of Britain’s friendship with the US. Whilst it may be true the US-UK relationship seems less warm under Obama, it's probably due to his government's focus on new priorities including the establishment of a new multi-polar world that includes the likes of China, Russia, India and Brazil. The alliances of the past will no longer suffice, even for the Americans, and it is therefore only natural that British/ European security is currently less of a priority for them.

Similarly, even though the US will continue to be the UK’s most significant bilateral ally for the foreseeable future, it is also apparent that the relationship will be less important in a world increasingly dominated by the multilateral process. In this new world order Britain will be expected to forge a common European security and energy policy and to establish strong relationships with emerging world powers such as India and Brazil and midsized powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Britain should remain confident that it will continue as a privileged US ally, not least because the Americans wish to maintain their status as both an Atlantic as well as Pacific power. This requires the Americans to remain fully engaged with Europe and its big countries. Therefore the US cannot ignore Britain’s status as Europe’s largest military power and still one of the world’s largest economies - expected to remain that way even in 2050 - when it will also be the largest economic power in Europe. Britain also continues to be a leading investor in the US (BP is a case in point) and maintains close cultural and military ties that bind the two together.

It’s therefore rather surprising to see articles appear in respected British publications suggesting the UK has little to offer the United States. Even the Prime Minister’s suggestion that Britain is America's “junior partner”, whilst probably nothing more than a self-deprecating remark in the best British tradition, only serves to support this line of thinking.

In a world where geopolitical power is set to become increasingly diffuse, Britain must gradually reduce its dependence on the special relationship and learn to foster new friendships and alliances in order to maintain its privileged status in world affairs.

Mr. Zulfi Caar Hydari is a British financier based in Dubai. He is Co-Founder and CEO of HBG Holdings and Co-Chairman of British Conservatives Abroad for Dubai and Northern Emirates. The views and opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/zak_hydari

“Deep friendship between the UK and UAE” – PM

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the friendship between the United Arab Emirates and UK is deep and is based on a “unique, shared history and common interests”.

The PM completed his visit to the UAE on Saturday 12 June after meeting President H.H. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President and Prime Minister of UAE and Ruler of Dubai H.H. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and H.H. General Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi and deputy supreme commander of the UAE Armed Forces.

He also met members of the UAE Cabinet and senior state officials during his brief visit to the country.

This was one of Mr Cameron’s first overseas visits as Prime Minister, highlighting the importance that the UK government attaches to the UK-UAE relationship.

PM outlines plans for transparent Government

The Prime Minister has outlined plans to make Government more transparent and allow people to hold ministers and public services to account.

In his first podcast, David Cameron said he would “rip off the cloak of secrecy” surrounding Government information and help to rebuild trust in politics.

As a first step, details of public spending over the past 12 months, information about hospital infections and some of the salaries of senior Whitehall officials will be published next week.

The PM said:

“If there’s one thing I’ve noticed since doing this job, it’s how all the information about government; the money it spends, where it spends it, the results it achieves; how so much of it is locked away in a vault marked sort of private for the eyes of ministers and officials only.

“I think this is ridiculous. It’s your money, your government, you should know what’s going on. So we’re going to rip off that cloak of secrecy and extend transparency as far and as wide as possible. By bringing information out into the open, you’ll be able to hold government and public services to account.”

David Cameron hails 'seismic shift' in politics

David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised a "new politics" that would transform the political landscape yesterday as they launched their coalition government.

The new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister issued their policy prospectus for a full five-year parliament as they promised to bury the past differences between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in a move that could create a permanent realignment in British politics.

With the hopes of Blairites for a Lib-Lab "progressive alliance" in ruins, some Tories said Mr Cameron saw his partnership with the Liberal Democrats as the next stage of his crusade to modernise the Conservative Party.

His close allies believe the Tories' failure to win an overall majority in last week's general election shows they have not yet "detoxified" the party's brand – and hope that the unexpected alliance with the centrist third party will enable him to complete his project.

But such views will anger Tory traditionalists, who are blaming the Cameron inner circle for a campaign which they claim lacked a cutting edge and failed to inspire the voters.

Although some Tory MPs have misgivings about the coalition, Cameron allies believe the agreement to legislate for five-year, fixed-term parliaments will ensure the coalition lasts. Another safeguard is to raise the threshold for a dissolution of Parliament to 55 per cent of MPs, making it hard for either coalition partner to walk away and provoke a general election. Privately, senior Tories believe they could enjoy an advantage at the next election because it will be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to criticise the coalition's record.

But the Liberal Democrats are jubilant about their surprise return to the Cabinet after almost 70 years in the wilderness. They trumpeted Mr Clegg's role as Deputy Prime Minister in charge of a programme of wide-ranging political reform including changes to the voting system for the Commons and an elected House of Lords. Some Liberal Democrats hailed as a victory the coalition's initial programme published yesterday and praised the team that negotiated it with the Tories. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Liberal Democrat peer, said: "You see why Chris Huhne and David Laws were gold dust in the City. Thank God I've never had to negotiate against them. They've taken the Tories to the cleaners."

Britain's first coalition government since the Second World War got off to an impressive start when Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg held a press conference in the Downing Street rose garden. The new Prime Minister said: "It can be a historic and seismic shift in our political landscape. It can demonstrate, in government, a new progressive partnership." He added: "It will be an administration united behind one key purpose: to give our country the strong, stable and decisive leadership we need. We have a shared agenda and a shared resolve, to tackle the challenges that Britain faces."

Mr Clegg acknowledged that there would be "bumps and scrapes" as they were different parties with many different ideas, but insisted: "This is a Government that will last because despite those differences, we are united by a common purpose for the job we want to do in the next five years." He added: "Until today, we have been rivals, now we are colleagues. That says a lot about the scale of the new politics now beginning to unfold."

Mr Cameron handed five cabinet posts to Liberal Democrats – including David Laws as Chief Treasury Secretary, Vince Cable as Business Secretary, Chris Huhne as Energy and Climate Change Secretary and Danny Alexander as Scottish Secretary.

Theresa May becomes Home Secretary, only the second woman to hold the post, after Labour's Jacqui Smith – a surprise move aimed partly at heading off criticism that the Government was composed of "men in suits". But women took only four of the Cabinet's 23 posts. The others are Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary; Baroness Warsi, the new Tory chairman and Cheryl Gillan, Welsh Secretary.

There was a return to the front line for Iain Duncan Smith, the Tories' former leader, who becomes Work and Pensions Secretary in a move designed to reassure the party's right-wingers and a clear sign that the Government will pursue radical welfare reform. Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor, became Justice Secretary.

Despite the smooth start, the practical problems that are bound to arise in the double act were highlighted soon after the full Cabinet line-up was announced. Liberal Democrat sources claimed only Mr Clegg could remove the ministers from his party who serve in the Government. But Tory aides contradicted their new partners, insisting Mr Cameron enjoyed a veto over every member of his administration.

The new National Security Council met for the first time last night to discuss the conflict in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism measures in Britain.

United we stand: What they said about working together

"It will be an administration united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility. And it will be an administration united behind one key purpose and that is to give our country the strong and stable and determined leadership that we need for the long-term."

David Cameron

"In other political cultures it would not be even a faintly radical thought that parties might co-operate with each other in government for the good of the country, but campaign against each other at election time. That is precisely the kind of thing that you will see now. I hope people will find it relatively unsurprising relatively quickly. As David has quite rightly said, we can only help bring that about by being successful in delivering the good government that we've negotiated in this coalition agreement... It's a new kind of government, a radical, reforming government... a source of reassurance at a time of great uncertainty."

Nick Clegg

"He has the Deputy Prime Minister's office in the Cabinet Office. We haven't yet explored all each other's offices, but [they are] pretty close together. This is not going to be a partnership where we have to book meetings."

David Cameron

"There is a corridor that links No 10 to where I am but I have no idea where I am. It's a rabbit warren."

Nick Clegg

"If [making the partnership] work means swallowing some humble pie, and it means eating some of your words, I can't think of a more excellent diet."

David Cameron

President's seal of approval

David Cameron seems to have made a good impression on his new deputy, and he also appears to have a fan in Barack Obama, too.

When the US President was asked in Washington last night – during a joint press conference with his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai – whether he had received any assurances from Mr Cameron about British commitment to the war in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied: "I have found Mr Cameron to be a smart, dedicated, effective leader and somebody who we are going to be able to work with very effectively. He reaffirmed, without me bringing it up, his commitment to our strategy in Afghanistan. We also both reaffirmed the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain that outlasts any individual party, any individual leader. It is built up over centuries and is not going to go away."

Source: The Independent

New PM Cameron promises 'better times'

Press Association/ The Independent

David Cameron entered 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister tonight promising to lead Britain through to "better times ahead".

Arriving from his audience at Buckingham Palace where he formally "kissed hands" with the Queen, the Conservative leader said he intended to form a "full and proper" coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

David Cameron: Our country needs a change of course

Samantha Cameron gives frank TV interview

Britain can't afford another year of Labour

David Cameron: Good government costs less with the Conservatives

It's great to be back in Wales. It's four years since I first addressed this conference. Back then we were just a footnote in Welsh politics. And just look at what we've done since then.

We've won council seats in Denbighshire, in Powys, in Pembrokeshire. We're running councils in Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan.

We've got over sixty more councillors in cities, towns and villages and even in Labour's heartland, and yes, even deep in the valleys, even in the Rhonda let's not forget Joel James - he may be the only Conservative in the village but were proud of the progress we've made.

And four years ago, who would have thought that the Conservative Party could top the poll in Wales beating Labour for the first time since the First World War, like we did in last year's European elections? Forget 'how green was my valley' it should be 'how blue is my valley' because the great dragon of Welsh Conservatism has awoken once more. So I want to thank you for everything you've done. And I especially want to thank Cheryl and Nick. You have dedicated yourselves to our revival in Wales. You have led our campaigns from the front. And you should both feel incredibly proud of what you have achieved.

FIVE MORE YEARS

Yes, you've all been working hard. But today I'm here to ask you to double your efforts. That general election is just over sixty days away. This isn't an election that it would be quite nice to win. It is an election it is absolutely essential we win because our country is in a complete mess and we have to turn it around. Everyone knows five more years of Gordon Brown would be a disaster for this country. Another five years of his spending, bloat, waste, debt and taxes. Another five years of failing to get to grips with our big social problems. Another five years in our politics of that big, top-down, bossy "I know best" sort of approach.

That's why the choice at the next election is as simple as this: Five more years of Gordon Brown's tired government making things worse or change with the Conservatives, who have the energy, leadership and values to get the country moving again. Change in our economy, backing aspiration and opportunity and aspiration for all. Change in our society, encouraging responsibility and backing those who do the right thing. And change in our politics, giving people more power and control over their lives

THE CHOICE IN WALES

And Wales needs that change as much as anywhere else in Britain. In fact, I'd argue it needs it even more. Do you know what Peter Hain said last month? He said "compared with Rwanda...Wales is indeed still a wealthy country". Now, I've been to Rwanda and it's a beautiful place. And I'm proud that Conservative Party volunteers have been there to help out in social action projects.

But what does it say about this Government - and these Ministers - when they compare Wales to the 17th poorest country on the planet? What does it say about this Government - and these Ministers - when the scale of their ambitions for Wales do not seem to go beyond a country that in the last twenty years has been ravaged by war and genocide? What does it say about this Government - and these Ministers - when they think the Welsh should put up with this and just be thankful for what they get?

I tell you what it says. It says this Government is arrogant, out-of-touch and has completely lost any right to govern. So at this election, I want you to show your real passion and anger at how Labour have let down Wales. Because there is a simple fact about what's happened here in the past decade. There's not just a border separating Wales and the rest of the UK - there's a prosperity gap. And under Labour it's got deeper and wider. This is the poorest nation on these islands. It has the highest rates of unemployment and the highest rates of child poverty. There is only one word for what Labour have done in Wales this last decade: failure and I don't want you to let anyone forget it. But more than that, I want you to tell the people of this great country that it doesn't have to be like this. Explain to them the real difference between Labour's approach and the Conservative way.

Take the economy. Labour think you get the economy moving by opening up the big government toolbox, pulling out the old tools like regional development agencies and new initiatives and trying to crank it to life from on high. We understand that in the end it's not government that will get the Welsh economy growing it's enterprise, it's entrepreneurs, people with a great idea and the courage to start their own business. That's why we'll cut corporation tax rates, abolish taxes on the first ten jobs created by new businesses and get people off welfare and into work.

And look at our different approach to our biggest social problems. Labour say we're wrong to talk about mending our broken society. But when there are towns in Wales where one in five of the working age population live on benefits when one in ten are on some type of incapacity benefit when there are 140 violent crimes a day in this country when about 500 people in Wales die each year from alcohol when so many children are deprived the structure of stable family life how can you pretend our society doesn't need mending? We need a government that's going to face up to the facts, roll up their sleeves and get on with the job. That's exactly what we'll do. It's our ambition to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe, by recognising marriage in the tax system, supporting couples in the benefits system and fighting back against crime.

And there is a massive difference in the way Labour and the Conservatives see our politics. Labour see a system that is fundamentally sound but just needs a bit of tinkering to sort out the expenses scandal. We see a top-down, bossy, power-hoarding, unaccountable relic that needs to be re-built from the bottom up. Yes, we'll sort out expenses - and we've been leading the way on that - but we need to go much further.We will give everyone in Wales a sense that they are in control of their own destiny. That's why we'll reduce the number of MPs, cut Whitehall bureaucracy by a third and make our politics more local, more transparent and more accountable.

That's the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. Inaction vs action. Defeat vs optimism. Despair for Wales vs hope for Wales. There's no iron law that says Labour must win in Wales. So at this election, I want you to get out there and fight, fight for our party and fight for the change we want bring above all, fight for Wales and fight for the future of Britain.

DEVOLUTION

But let me say this, whatever the outcome in Wales at the next election, we want a relationship of co-operation, not confrontation, between Westminster and Cardiff. I will be a Prime Minister who acts on the voice of the Welsh people and will maintain strong relationships with the Assembly Government. That's why I'm happy to come to the Assembly each year and make myself available to answer questions on any subject. It's why I want Westminster Ministers appearing in front of Assembly committees - and Assembly Ministers appearing in front of Westminster committees. And it's why I will always support devolution and make sure it works for the benefit of everyone. And if people in Wales want a referendum on full law-making powers that is a matter for them - so a Conservative Government will not block it. But let's resolve right here and right now that we will be the ones who stop the endless round of arguments that too often block progress in Wales - and start working together to build this country's future.

THE BIG QUESTION IN POLITICS

But today I don't just want to talk to you about how we can secure the future of Wales, I want to set out how we can secure the future of the United Kingdom itself. The greatest task of all will be getting to grips with the monster budget deficit that Labour have created. I think people know by now that the Conservatives are the ones with the grit and the guts to cut public spending to cut the deficit. We've been upfront that there will have to be cuts, upfront about where they will come and upfront that they will have to start straightaway. And people say 'yes, we agree with the Conservatives when they say they want to cut the deficit.' But when we also talk about our big ambitions to reform schools, shake-up welfare, help the poorest in society, they can sometimes think: "hang on a minute, how are you going to make this country better at the same time as dealing with these massive debts?" They're right to ask - because their question goes to the heart of the big argument in British politics today.

At the last few elections, according to Labour the big question in politics was: "who do you trust to spend some more of your money?" That was Gordon Brown's question. Well I've a message for you, Gordon: it's over. There isn't any money left. You've spent it all. No, the question today is this: "how do we make things better without just spending money?" This is the question that will define British politics for the years to come and today, I want to show you how it's only the modern Conservative Party that has the answers.

BIG SPENDING FAILS

We've always known that you don't improve things by just spending more money on them. For years now at Prime Minister's Questions I've faced Gordon Brown - and Tony Blair before him - droning on about resources going up, spending going up, investment going up...all to cheers from the Labour benches. They were always less forthcoming about what that money had actually bought. Social mobility, Stagnant. Inequality, rising. Hundreds of thousands more living in severe poverty. They thought it was all about money. It wasn't. And no there is no money left there is nothing left to say. Labour never understand that it's not the numbers on the government cheque that count but the number of people who are lifted out of poverty; who get a chance in life; who get helped or cured or taught or given the opportunity to live their dream .... that's what it's about.

MORE FOR LESS

So after all this waste, all this failure and now all this debt, it falls to us, the modern Conservative Party, to restore hope in all those Labour have let down. Showing government can be smarter, better, more imaginative and more competent. Explaining how we can make things better without just spending money, how we can deliver more for less. More for less is not some pie-in-the-sky political promise. It's something that businesses up and down the country do day-in, day-out. They think: how can I deliver more for my customers while reducing my costs? Imagine if they took the Labour approach, believing that every reduction in spending and costs was automatically a calamity for their customers.

Think of the advertising. Good food costs more at Sainsburys. Not "Every little helps" from Tesco, but "Every little Hurts". Businesses are constantly looking for creative ways to get more bang for their buck. Reforming work practices. Buying wholesale when they can. Eradicating duplication. Innovating new delivery systems. Cutting out waste. We need to bring that business sense and imagination to government.

Let me make clear: we are not offering a simple efficiency drive. We're not promising that the path to less spending and better public services is paved with just a few well-chosen cuts. What we propose is something entirely different - something so bold and radical I would call it a whole new type of government. Where it spends money, how it spends money, the way it spends money - that's all got to change. We're going to shape government in a way it has never existed before so we use our instincts as Conservatives, our understanding of how people and communities really work and the latest technology to deliver more for less.

And this means doing three things in particular: First, tackling the root causes of our social problems so that we can make millions of lives better while at the same time reducing the costs on the state. Second, reforming our public services so we deliver both choice and efficiency. And third, making government more local and more transparent so we cut waste as well as improve outcomes. Let me take each in turn.

REDUCING THE DEMANDS ON THE STATE

First, reducing the long-term demands on the state. In plain English that means asking the obvious question: why is public spending so high in the first place? We spend so much on prisons because there is too much crime. We spend so much on welfare because there are too many people not properly equipped for work. We spend so much on health because our lifestyles are so unhealthy. We need to rewind and ask: what are the causes of these things? Do you know how much social breakdown costs our country each year? Over £100 billion. That's one and a half thousand pounds for every person in our country. That money gets spent on the family that's broken, the man who's never known what it is to work, the child who's growing up in desperate circumstances, the communities who live in fear of violence and crime and it passes through our education system, our healthcare system, our criminal justice system, our care system, our welfare system.

Now just imagine if we got to grips with our social problems - gave everyone the hope that comes with work; every child the chance that comes with love; every community the purpose that comes with security. We would make life so much better for so many people. And we'd also massively reduce the bills for government. In other words, delivering more for less. The question is: how do we do that?

And here, there's a real difference between our approach and Labour's approach. Labour's approach is just to treat the symptoms of our big social problems by spending more money. For example, when it comes to poverty they think a tax credit here or a benefit change there will make all the difference. But all this does is keep people stuck in poverty while at the same time leaving the state with an ongoing role. Our approach is to tackle the root causes of poverty, like welfare dependency, addiction, debt, poor schooling and above all, family breakdown, so the state is no longer so dominant. That's why we have put such focus on school reform, welfare reform and strengthening families, giving people the chance to lift themselves up and out of poverty, breaking the cycles that have existed for generations, and being the ones who will make British poverty history.

PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM

The second way we can deliver more for less is through reform of our public services. In 2001 Gordon Brown said "there is not going to be one penny more until we get the changes" we need to reform our public services. But there's been trillions of pennies since then - and where's the reform? It was blocked. By guess who? Gordon Brown.

He now poses as the champion of public service reform. The truth is that he is to reforming public services what Nero was to fire safety or Tiger Woods to marital fidelity. Speak to doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers and they'll tell you what a nightmare it is working in Labour's bureaucratic state machine. They start out idealistic, they go into their training because they have a vocation, they have a love for what they do but that passion is being killed. It's death by a thousand tick boxes, targets, performance indicators, inspection regimes. They're left feeling demoralised, disrespected, disillusioned. Most of all they're pulling their hair out because they see all that money being wasted and they know that it could be spent so much better. That's why our reforms will all led by this common, clear Conservative principle: Public services work better when they're driven from the bottom-up, by people on the frontline. So we're going to take apart the centralised apparatus of command and control and we're going to give that power to people who work in our public services - even going as far as giving them the chance to take complete ownership of the organisation they work for in.

We'll also smash open the state monopoly and open the door to charities and private companies who can play a part in the public sector. And we'll pay them all by the results they achieve. To those who say 'you can't do that', I say 'of course we can - and of course we must.' Our reforms will unleash a new culture of public sector innovation, giving higher morale, better results, lower costs and - you've got it - more for less.

CUTTING WASTE

All these changes will have a profound impact on how much government spends. But the truth is it may take years to feel many of the benefits - and we can't afford to wait that long. We need to start getting more for less from day one. So there is a third component to our plans - cutting out waste. Labour's spendaholic culture needs no introduction. This is the Government that has elevated money-burning to an art form. We've all got our own ridiculous Labour waste story.

Since 2003, this Government have paid out £10 million in tax credits - to people who are actually dead. Then there's an agency of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills - they spent, and I promise this is true, £12,000 on branded golf balls. Or how about the Department for International Development? They spent £240,000 on Brazilian dancing in London. Here in Wales you had the huge upheaval of 22 health boards, launched to a great fanfare and scrapped just six years later.

And of course, no list of Labour waste can be complete without Ed Balls. You don't suffer his rule in Wales, but your taxes pay for it, so let me share this with you. His Department for Children, Schools and Families reportedly spent £3 million on lavish new offices - which included a massage room and 'contemplation suite'. While we're on that department, I found my own story this week. Flicking through the Guardian I saw an advert they'd placed taking up a third of a page of prime-time space. Sadly they weren't advertising for a new Secretary of State. They were asking people - and let me quote this accurately - 'to put questions to the National Strategies about primary children's writing.' Leave aside the question of how you put a question to a strategy; just think of the bureaucratic carnival of waste behind an ad like this. A group of civil servants emerge, presumably from the 'contemplation suite' with a novel idea. They want to set up a taskforce for primary reading. The taskforce books a weekend away to devise a strategy. The strategy needs further thought so they hire consultants. Then there's the branding. The auditing. The monitoring. The strategy needs to be legally reviewed, peer reviewed, benchmarked, mentored and mainstreamed but not before there's an allocation resources impact assessment.Then they call the communications department to create a website, design an ad and get it placed.

I could have saved them all that bother and all that money. Writing is about the imagination. What you need is some great teachers, some good books, some pencils and some paper. Is that really too difficult? Now of course, the golf balls, the dancers, the lavish offices, the advertising campaigns - these are just the small examples of waste under Labour. There have been monumental ones too. The £4.5 billion spent - each year - on NHS bureaucracy. That's more than we spend on maternity and reproductive health. The £3 billion lost in benefit fraud and error. That's more than we spend on winter fuel payments. Every pound Labour waste is a pound that should be spent on keeping us safe, educating our children, improving our hospitals. That's why their spendaholic culture isn't a diverting amusement or a mild irritation - it is a complete outrage and we will obliterate it.

I know there are those who will hear us talking about cut waste and say "you'll be no different, you'll have your pet projects, you'll go native when you start living in the land of bureaucrats". So let me explain why we'll be different. We'll be different because we are different. First, our attitude is different. Conservatives loathe waste. Efficiency is in our DNA. We never forget that fundamental fact about public money, which is that it's public, it's yours, not ours. It doesn't undergo some magical transformation at the Treasury to become government money. Those are the same pounds that were earned by you on the factory floor, on the hospital ward, in the office and we will never forget that we have a moral duty not to spend your money but to save it where we can.

Second, our philosophy is different. We don't believe in top-down control; we believe in local control. We don't believe in taking power; we believe in giving it away. And this will have a massive impact on our quest to cut out waste and deliver more for less. It's not just that a pound spent closer is a pound spent wiser - by those who really know the needs of a local community. It's also that a pound spent closer is a pound spent more efficiently - by those who have an interest in keeping costs down.

And third, our approach is different. I don't think people get quite how radical we propose to be. The next Conservative government will be the first genuinely post-bureaucratic government in the world. We will ditch all the wasteful, costly, old-world bureaucratic methods and instead use post-bureaucratic tools. And when it comes to cutting waste, nothing is more important to this agenda than transparency. We're going to publish every item of government spending over £25,000 online. And we're going to publish every government contract worth over £25,000 in full - every clause, every performance measure, every penalty trigger - too.

Think what this simple act of throwing things open will mean. It will mean an army of 'armchair auditors' will be crawling all over the books, scrutinising them and acting as a straitjacket on wasteful spending. It will mean the Minister who lazily signs off a monster contract without checking if he could get it cheaper will be caught out and will have to answer for their actions. It will mean that businesses and social enterprises can compete to offer better government services for less money. I defy anyone to call our plans of changing the way government works timid. They are bold - and they will make a massive difference. And they are why we can look the British people in the eye and say a Tory pound will go further than a Labour pound...that good government costs less with the Conservatives.

CONCLUSION

We know what we're fighting for. When you're out there on the doorstep, when you're writing a leaflet at 2am, when you're pounding the streets for hours I want you to keep two pictures of Wales in your mind.

First, an image of Wales under Labour. Limping on with high unemployment, increasing child poverty and a government who puts this country in the same bracket as a developing nation. Then alongside that, a vision of Wales with a Conservative government. It would be a more confident Wales, with public spending under control and the deficit being cut. A more prosperous Wales, with enterprise unleashed and jobs created. And a more family-friendly Wales, with marriage recognised in the tax system and parents given more time with their children.

These two visions of Wales are so far apart, but they come together in the polling booth with the real choice that people have at this election. It's our job to keep explaining that choice for the next sixty days. Yes, we have a fight on our hands, but believe me - the Wales that would emerge from our victory - a confident, prosperous, family friendly Wales - will be worth it. So let's get out there and win it.

David Cameron: The next age of government | Video

David Cameron: Join us help bring the change Britain needs

There are just a few months to go until the General Election. All across the country, many thousands of people are still making up their minds about how they will vote.

Many like Julie and Ian and Danielle have never voted Conservative before.

They know that Labour has let them down. They know they don’t want another five years of Gordon Brown.And in the modern Conservative Party they see values, ideas and policies that they believe would help get this country back on its feet.

Click here to read more: Join us help bring the change Britain needs

Labour's Two Nations

The Conservatives have launched "Labour’s Two Nations", a comprehensive assessment of the level of inequality under this Labour government.

Labour’s great claim is that they are 'for the many, not the few', but that rings hollow today.

This report exposes the truth: after thirteen years in government, the party that prides itself on fairness has delivered the very opposite.

And in the foreword, David Cameron outlines Conservative plans to create "the big society" - our positive alternative to Labour’s failed big government - through which responsibility and opportunity can develop.

read the full report here

Never voted Tory before? David Cameron explains why you should join us

David Cameron Woos Davos Business Class

David Cameron determinedly wooed his audience as he addressed the British Business Leaders’ Lunch today. This was the sixth year of the event but the first at which a member of the Opposition had spoken, a clear indication that the organisers do not expect him to be leading the Opposition after May 6.

“I’d be proud to take on the role of flag waver for British business,” said Cameron. His enthusiasm for British business was repeated regularly throughout his speech but, given an audience which represented a large slice of that, including the chairmen of Barclays, HSBC, BT, Lloyds of London, it was an easy strategy.

http://blogs.wsj.com/davos/2010/01/29/david-cameron-woos-davos-business-class/tab/article/

Davos 2010: David Cameron Speech

“It’s great to be back in Davos. Because Davos is about dialogue. For years people have come together here to debate the great challenges of the day - from climate change, to protectionism, to poverty in Africa. And for years we have come at these things from different perspectives, with some very different opinions.

But underpinning it all was a fundamental agreement about the kind of global economy we need. You could call it the old economic orthodoxy. The consensus that controlling inflation is the main purpose of monetary policy. The understanding that in fiscal policy, it is responsibility that matters most – that large budget deficits are always a bad thing. And the shared belief that the capitalist system of open markets and free enterprise is an unalloyed good.

Well that was last year. This year we face a totally different economic landscape. If I had told you twelve months ago that we’d be talking about nationalising major banks, about some countries’ borrowing approaching ten per cent of their GDP – and even printing money – you’d have thought I was mad. But as the full scale of this crisis has emerged, some of our long-held economic assumptions have simply fallen away. So now we are forced to re-consider the old economic orthodoxy. To question its assumptions about monetary policy; its rules on fiscal policy, and its faith in the virtue of free-market capitalism. And the key question we should be
asking is this. Which of the old rules should we keep, and which – in these extraordinary times – should we discard?

The stakes are high. The fate of our global economy for the next few decades rests on the decisions of this generation. Those countries that cling to the old rules, the old way of doing things – they will fail. Those countries that rush to change, to discard the wisdom and experience of centuries – they too will fail. Success will go to those that navigate a sound path – between the bold action we need to pull us out of this slump, and the prudent sense to stick with what works. And tonight I want to tell you where I stand – where I think we should depart from the old economic orthodoxy, where we should strengthen it, and how we should update it.

MONETARY ACTIVISM
Let’s start with monetary policy. In one sense, this crisis is all about monetary policy. Because at the core of the crisis is, as we all know, a credit crunch. We’re seeing the most severe contraction of credit for decades. Britain’s boom, for example, was part-financed by more than £700 billion of foreign money. Now, in the bust, that money has disappeared. Billions have been sucked out of the British economy and the cogs of commerce are grinding to a halt.

The impact on the real economy is devastating. Whether it’s the most efficient car plant in Europe or the store at the end of the street, they’re all suffering the same thing: they’re all starved of credit. The policy priority is clear – we’ve got to get credit moving again. So when it comes to monetary policy, yes I do believe the old rules should be torn up. Radical monetary activism is what the economy needs. We’ve got to take all the necessary steps to restore confidence in our banking system and get credit flowing again. That’s why my party supported a recapitalisation of British banks.

It’s why we proposed a National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite bank lending to business. It’s why we support the principle of insuring banks’ losses for a fee - though the devil is in the details. And it’s why, as a last resort, we might have to consider quantitative easing too. Because our exceptional monetary problems demand exceptional monetary solutions.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
So if it’s right to discard the old orthodoxy on monetary policy, should we also abandon the old orthodoxy on fiscal policy? Should we give up the idea of fiscal responsibility, and suspend all the old rules about borrowing and deficits? Some have argued that to fight the recession we should spend like there’s no tomorrow, junk fiscal responsibility and let the long-term look after itself.

Now, I’ve got nothing against the idea of a fiscal stimulus. I think it’s a good idea – if your country can afford it. But as the OECD, the IMF, and the ECB have all said, if your country can’t afford it, a fiscal stimulus is a very bad idea. Not just in the long-term, as future generations are burdened with a mountain of debt. But in the short term too, because if people know that in just a couple of years they’ll be hit with higher taxes to pay for the stimulus they’re not going to invest, and spend and do the things that will pull us through this slump. So an unaffordable, irresponsible fiscal stimulus will actually damage confidence and delay the recovery.

So no, I do not believe we should just abandon fiscal responsibility. Instead, each country should use fiscal policy to do whatever it responsibly can to stimulate its economy. Sadly, thanks to a decade of fiscal irresponsibility, the current British government can’t afford to do very much.

BROKEN CAPITALISM
So in this crisis we have seen challenges to the old orthodoxy on monetary policy, challenges which I believe are right. And we have seen challenges to the old orthodoxy on fiscal policy challenges which I believe are profoundly wrong. But perhaps the biggest challenge we have seen is to the capitalist system itself.

All of us here are agreed on something. Open markets and free enterprise are the best way to increase human wealth, health and happiness. We’re not blind to the system’s flaws but we know that at its best, capitalism extends ownership, spreads opportunity, and works arm in arm with political freedom.

More than twenty years ago I travelled through the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. I’ll never forget the greyness of life under Communism, the lack of choice, the lack of freedom, the lack of expression. When the Berlin Wall came down, a wave of colour and life broke over Eastern Europe. Democracy delivered people from half a century of despair, and capitalism – its economic agent – offered hope for a better future. People could rise up, grab opportunities with both hands and make a better life for themselves. It was one of those high points of popular capitalism, like the age of plenty in post-war America, or the ownership revolution led by Margaret Thatcher. These were times when people believed in the best of the capitalist system. They felt they could play a part in its success.

But today that widespread belief – that optimism – has faded away. A lot of people are angry with capitalism. Instead of representing hope for a better future, they think capitalism threatens it. This matters because in the future, social, economic and environmental progress will only come from the drive, energy and enterprise of individuals. So if we want capitalism to be a success again, we need to make capitalism popular again.

POPULAR CAPITALISM
That means updating the old free market orthodoxy, and understanding the reasons why capitalism has become so unpopular. Reasons like the apparent absence of a moral framework because people might not follow the minutiae of over-leveraging or short-selling, but they know that the roots of our current crisis lie in recklessness and greed.

Reasons like the disconnection between capitalism and people’s lives because someone working in the local branch of a global corporation can feel like little more than flotsam in some vast international sea of business their destiny decided by someone else, somewhere else as globalisation can turn into monopolisation, sweeping aside the small, personal, local competition in our neighbourhoods.

And that links to a third – and even more important - reason why capitalism has become unpopular: the incredible inequality of the modern world. Too often, the winners have taken it all. Today, the poorest half of the world’s population own less than one per cent of the world’s wealth. We’ve got a lot of capital but not many capitalists, and people rightly think that isn’t fair.
So this is what too many people see when they look at capitalism today. Markets without morality. Globalisation without competition. And wealth without fairness. It all adds up to capitalism without a conscience and we’ve got to put it right.

CAPITALISM WITH A CONSCIENCE
So I think it’s time to update the free market orthodoxy that has dominated the past few decades. It’s time to assert a fundamental truth: that markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Markets are there to serve our society, not to suck the joy out of it or trample over its values. So we must shape capitalism to suit the needs of society; not shape society to suit the needs of capitalism.

That is what I mean by responsible business. Business helping to create a society that is greener, safer, fairer - and where opportunity is more equal. Business helping to create a society that is more family-friendly, where responsibility and power are decentralised, and where we value and build up the institutions of the public realm and civic society.

So if markets, and capitalism, and the activities of individual businesses conflict with our vision of the good society and a better life if damage is being done to our environment, or if family life is being undermined we must not sit there and take it, going along with the old orthodoxy that nothing should be allowed to impede the pursuit of profit. We must speak out.

Yes, as I’ve said many times, we must stand up for business, because it’s businesses, not governments or politicians, that create jobs, wealth and opportunity, it’s businesses that drive innovation, and choice, and help families achieve a higher standard of living for a lower cost. But we must also stand up to business when the things that people value are at risk. So it’s time to place the market within a moral framework – even if that means standing up to companies
who make life harder for parents and families.

It’s time to help create vibrant, local economies – even if that means standing in the way of the global corporate juggernauts. And it’s time to decentralise economic power, to spread opportunity and wealth and ownership more equally through society and that will mean, as some have put it, recapitalising the poor rather than just the banks.

The best chapters in our economic history are those that embrace the many, not the few. In America in the 1950s there was a sense that everyone could have a slice of the pie. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher led an ownership revolution that gave millions a new stake in our economy. That was truly popular capitalism, and we’ve never needed it more than we do today.

All of us – politicians, campaigners, economists, business leaders – need to help lead the change. Our financial system boasts people so bright they’ve created financial instruments beyond even their own understanding. Now they need to use those talents to help the poorest build assets. To go into our most deprived communities, giving them the tools to make the most of the market, to help them with banking and saving and owning.

CONCLUSION
So here is the outline of a new, updated economic orthodoxy. A new monetary activism. Traditional fiscal responsibility. And a new, more popular capitalist system – capitalism with a conscience. That is the way to meet the great challenges of this moment. And that is the way that this generation can build a legacy for our children we can all be proud of

David Cameron: Ask me your questions on education

Campaigning for the General Election is now really starting to ramp up, but with the year we’ve just had in politics it’s clear it can’t be done in the same old way.

Ask me your questions on education

David Cameron: The Conservative approach to national security

David Cameron: The Conservative approach to national security

Cameron says now is not the time for weak government

Cameron says now is not the time for weak government