Coalition PM promises stronger communities
David Cameron has begun his time as prime minister with a promise to build a more responsible society with stronger communities.
Speaking in front of 10 Downing Street, before entering as prime minister for the first time, he said the country faces ‘deep social problems’.
‘I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities,’ he said.
‘And a guide for that society - that those that can should, and those who can’t we will always help.
‘I want to make sure that my government always looks after the elderly, the frail the poorest in our country.
‘We must take everyone through with us on some of the difficult decisions we have ahead.’
Mr Cameron became prime minister last night, after the Conservatives agreed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats that gives them an overall majority in Parliament.
Last week’s general election left the Conservatives as the single largest party, with 306 seats, but 20 seats short of an overall majority. The agreement with the Liberal Democrats, who secured 57 seats, gives them a comfortable lead.
Labour prime minister Gordon Brown offered his resignation to the Queen after his party failed to reach an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron was called to the palace shortly afterwards to be invited to take on the role.
Full details of the new government are expected to emerge in the coming days, but it has already been established that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will be deputy prime minister, and his party will have four other seats at cabinet, as well as a number of ministerial posts.
Among the Conservatives, George Osborne will be chancellor, William Hague foreign secretary, Andrew Lansley health secretary, and Liam Fox will be in charge of defence.
Reports suggest the coalition government will unveil a new Budget within 50 days, and will commit to £6 billion of cuts this year. Liberal Democrat plans to introduce a ‘mansion tax’ on properties worth more than £2 million and use the proceeds to reduce income tax for the lowest earners have apparently been shelved.
See more election 2010 coverage
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (17)
Harry Lime | 12/05/2010 10:02 am
Will be interesting to see what's behind the rhetoric, presumably the tories will be more on the side of the victims than ossibly the bleeding heart approach of worrying about the perpetrators? Sounds easy, though in practice is usually anything but. Te "Respect Agenda" has largely (in my opinion) been a talking shop, the only decent thing to emerge in recent years has been the Family Intervention Projects, but they don't come cheap and they want to balance the books.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Stokes | 12/05/2010 10:40 am
""I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities,’ he said. And a guide for that society - that those that can should, and those who can’t we will always help""
Lets hope he carries this through and we get away from the dependency culture which is bleeding this country dry. Those who truly need help will recieve it and those who dont will not be given the option of a life on benefits. We need to hit this from both sides, we need the opportunities there for those people to move onward and upward, but we also need to take away the endless payment of tax payers money to those who cant be bothered.
It is not either financially or socially viable to continue to make living on benefits a lifestyle choice for those fully able to work and contribute to the society they want to support them. I am not saying it will be easy or without its hurdles, but it is good to see the Government finally realising that the social welfare system is not only grossly unfair and open to abuse, but that we also cant afford it any longer. Good luck to them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Pienaar | 12/05/2010 10:43 am
Please fill in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors online survey (link below) if you are a housing professional with views on localist policies and the way they impact planning and housing. It takes approximately 12 minutes and your input will help to shape RICS policy. Thank you.
Link: http://communities.rics.org/connect.ti/localismconsult/groupHome
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 12/05/2010 10:53 am
Cameron repeatedly stated that he would protect "essential" public services, yet was never challenged on what his view of "essential" was.
The term "essential" is by definition highly subjective and fears that the Tories would reduce public service spending are well grounded given they stated they would make savings from the public sector, as did the Lib Dems.
Can social housing be "essential" with a party wedded to to the idea of RTB and RTM (right to move)? Or as SP funding has no legal basis for the vulnerable recipient can SP be viewed as non-essential? These are just some concerns and as with all parties the rigid commitment to soundbites such as RTM (or stronger communities whatever that means?) when no such rights exist or can exist in practice is a worry.
Perhaps naively the merger of two disparate social policy ideolgies may result in this coalition actually looking beyond the superficial for once to see that every £1 spent on social housing HB saves paying £1.63 in HB to private landlords or every £1 spent on SP saves £3 and more to the public purse - or will this very uneasy coalition on social policy mean less thought and less risk being taken in the name of political blame when this coalition doesnt work?
National Interest or party electability interest? The latter will probably win out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Read | 12/05/2010 10:59 am
They'll be a researcher from central office who'll pop out of the cupboad with 50 pages of insight from the public accounts committee.
The report found housing authorities spent £37bn on Decent Homes against a projected £19bn. Worse, the pac expressed concerns about the quality of the work - the VFM.
Of course, any decision is going to be tarted up but the real conclusion is inevitable. Cuts. The party's over, I said.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Realist | 12/05/2010 11:41 am
Cuts can and should be made. For far too long the Public Sector "monopoly" business position has led to massive waste and complacency. After all, if you have no competition for your business (people have no where else to go for their Council services other than thier Council), then why bother to be efficient and work hard and offer value for money?
The Council I work for are incredibly inefficient, with too many managers who have been there too long with no desire or ability to change. Endless meetings and box ticking just for the sake of it and departments working against each other rather than together because they are each given conflicting targets. Million of pounds of tax payers money is wasted every year on old fashioned ways of working, at a rough estimate, we could get rid of 25% of the staff numbers (if it was the right 25% to go!) and actually be more efficient and productive. This is 2010 and we need to drag some organisiations kicking and screaming into the new world. The days of housing organisations having plenty of money to meet their commitments is long gone and efficiency and value for money for tenants should now be the priority.
I am sure there will be those who disagree, but most will be the ones holding the organisations back in the first place. I agree with the above poster, decent homes was a shambles, mainly because contractors saw it as a licence to print money and most councils are an eay target to make money out of. Our "partner" contractors have done very well thank you out of decent homes, as most of their work is never checked either for quality or to check they have even done it! The public sector needs to wake up and change volantarily, or they may find themsleves victims or the private sector "partnerships" (or takeovers as they are in reality), which I can assure you is 10 times worse!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 12/05/2010 12:44 pm
I do hope that with a new right wing government that the posters on IH won't go even further to the right, but this is not a good start.
Competition leads to efficiency, well ask the Banks about that, or rail operators since privatisation. Markets are vital, untramelled markets are disastrous. The puiblic sector has already been achieving 2.5% efficiency savings each year under Gordon Brown. The obvious thing for the Realist to do is resign and go and work at Marks and Spencers.
Simon's view of the world is pure daily mail. The real benefits dependency in this country is not poor people liviing in social housing but the middle class who consume vast amounts of tax pounds in pension reliefs, capital gains tax reliefs and the rest - benefits the poor don't get because they don't have private pensions or homes to sell. Hear them squeal whenever one of their benefits is threatened!!
He won't have to worry about the efficiency of the decent homes programme in future - with the cuts, there is very unlikely to be one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 12/05/2010 12:54 pm
'Joe Halewood | Wed, 12 May 2010 10:53 GMT
National Interest or party electability interest? The latter will probably win out.'
Wow. They've not been in for 24 hours and your already on the attack.
Maybe you should wait a little longer to actually see what the unified policies will be and who they appoint to which post!...Not that it will change your opinion though eh?
People who attack this coalition before it has even started should know better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
simon Stokes | 12/05/2010 1:33 pm
""Dave Hollins | Wed, 12 May 2010 12:44 GMT
I do hope that with a new right wing government that the posters on IH won't go even further to the right, but this is not a good start.
Competition leads to efficiency, well ask the Banks about that, or rail operators since privatisation. Markets are vital, untramelled markets are disastrous. The puiblic sector has already been achieving 2.5% efficiency savings each year under Gordon Brown. The obvious thing for the Realist to do is resign and go and work at Marks and Spencers.
Simon's view of the world is pure daily mail. The real benefits dependency in this country is not poor people liviing in social housing but the middle class who consume vast amounts of tax pounds in pension reliefs, capital gains tax reliefs and the rest - benefits the poor don't get because they don't have private pensions or homes to sell. Hear them squeal whenever one of their benefits is threatened!!
He won't have to worry about the efficiency of the decent homes programme in future - with the cuts, there is very unlikely to be one.""
Actually I have never read the Daily Mail in my lifer nor would I. At least the "middle class" as you put it do contribute something to society which those on endless benefit dont and actually support them with thier taxes so I am not sure what you point is. its always easy to criticise when its someone elses money! And it has nothing to do with wealth, its about the attitudes of those on benefit that they are somehow entitled to take something out of a society they have never contributed to. You wouldnt expect to take something out of your bank account without putting something in first! We all have to contribute or we will all suffer, we cannot support endless benefits or pensions without earning the money first, its basic economics, not somethnig the far right have ever been very good at, they are just jeaous of those that have and want the same without expecting to actually do anything for it! And as for your comment that the realist should resign, again, just concern that he/she actually wants to change the compacency culture which you seem so comfortable with.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Katie | 12/05/2010 2:14 pm
I think that the "mansion tax" is quite a good idea as those people could certainly afford it more than others who are struggling to keep their small homes even. I think that idea should come back off the shelf and put into action as I think it could reduce taxes for others quite drastically.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment