A distinctly average speech from Cameron

The PM fails to set the conference hall alight, calling for "optimism" as growth figures are revised

Today was not a good day for David Cameron. The controversy in the morning over lines in his speech referring to personal debt threatened to overshadow the address itself - and when it came, it was rather underwhelming.

Cameron looked tired and sounded hoarse, which was unfortunate given his emphasis on "can-do optimism". There wasn't much here in the way of policy, simply an attempt to encourage positivity - a tough call in the face of inconvenient facts, such as the news today that growth figures are being revised down.

Ed Miliband was not once mentioned by name, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, he can be feeling very flattered indeed. While Cameron rubbished the Labour leader's "saints and sinners" idea, he echoed his language on "vested interests" and the "something for nothing" culture. It is an interesting, if bizarre spectacle to see the leaders jostling for exactly the same ground.

Strategically, the speech did little except to continue the attack on Labour's record, ignoring the fact that before the banking crash, the Tories had pledged to match Labour's spending plans. More worryingly for Labour, he also honed in on Ed Balls. Cameron channelled Nick Clegg when he said "we must never, ever let these people near our economy again". In much the same vein as George Osborne in his speech on Monday, Cameron painted Balls as a basket case; somebody mad, to be laughed at. Labour should work hard on counteracting this tactic before it begins to stick with the public.

While Cameron highlighted his socially liberal credentials on gay marriage, cross-racial adoption, and - with genuine enthusiasm - international aid and educational standards, in many places this was an uncharacteristically right-wing speech. Comments about "bureaucrats in Brussels" wanting to stop diabetics from driving could have been taken straight from the Daily Mail, as could those about the health and safety culture that hindered a school from purchasing highlighters. "Britannia didn't rule the waves in armbands," he jeered. Some right-wing populism is to be expected, but was an odd tone from a Prime Minister at the height of worries over the economy.

"In these difficult times, it is leadership that we need," said Cameron, summing up the scope of his distinctly average speech. Perhaps, given the remit - encouraging optimism when no-one feels particularly optimistic - average was the best he could have hoped for.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Paul McMillan
Show Hide image

"We're an easy target": how a Tory manifesto pledge will tear families apart

Under current rules, bringing your foreign spouse to the UK is a luxury reserved for those earning £18,600 a year or more. The Tories want to make it even more exclusive. 

Carolyn Matthew met her partner, George, in South Africa sixteen years ago. She settled down with him, had kids, and lived like a normal family until last year, when they made the fateful decision to move to her hometown in Scotland. Matthew, 55, had elderly parents, and after 30 years away from home she wanted to be close to them. 

But Carolyn nor George - despite consulting a South African immigration lawyer – did not anticipate one huge stumbling block. That is the rule, introduced in 2012, that a British citizen must earn £18,600 a year before a foreign spouse may join them in the UK. 

“It is very dispiriting,” Carolyn said to me on the telephone from Bo’ness, a small town on the Firth of Forth, near Falkirk. “In two weeks, George has got to go back to South Africa.” Carolyn, who worked in corporate complaints, has struggled to find the same kind of work in her hometown. Jobs at the biggest local employer tend to be minimum wage. George, on the other hand, is an engineer – yet cannot work because of his holiday visa. 

To its critics, the minimum income threshold seems nonsensical. It splits up families – including children from parents – and discriminates against those likely to earn lower wages, such as women, ethnic minorities and anyone living outside London and the South East. The Migration Observatory has calculated that roughly half Britain’s working population would not meet the requirement. 

Yet the Conservative party not only wishes to maintain the policy, but hike the threshold. The manifesto stated:  “We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas.” 

Initially, the threshold was justified as a means of preventing foreign spouses from relying on the state. But tellingly, the Tory manifesto pledge comes under the heading of “Controlling Immigration”. 

Carolyn points out that because George cannot work while he is visiting her, she must support the two of them for months at a time without turning to state aid. “I don’t claim benefits,” she told me. “That is the last thing I want to do.” If both of them could work “life would be easy”. She believes that if the minimum income threshold is raised any further "it is going to make it a nightmare for everyone".

Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, co-sponsored a Westminster Hall debate on the subject earlier this year. While the Tory manifesto pledge is vague, McDonald warns that one option is the highest income threshold suggested in 2012 - £25,700, or more than the median yearly wage in the East Midlands. 

He described the current scheme as “just about the most draconian family visa rules in the world”, and believes a hike could affect more than half of British citizens. 

"Theresa May is forcing people to choose between their families and their homes in the UK - a choice which most people will think utterly unfair and unacceptable,” he said.  

For those a pay rise away from the current threshold, a hike will be demoralising. For Paul McMillan, 25, it is a sign that it’s time to emigrate.

McMillan, a graduate, met his American girlfriend Megan while travelling in 2012 (the couple are pictured above). He could find a job that will allow him to meet the minimum income threshold – if he were not now studying for a medical degree.  Like Matthew, McMillan’s partner has no intention of claiming benefits – in fact, he expects her visa would specifically ban her from doing so. 

Fed up with the hostile attitude to immigrants, and confident of his options elsewhere, McMillan is already planning a career abroad. “I am going to take off in four years,” he told me. 

As for why the Tories want to raise the minimum income threshold, he thinks it’s obvious – to force down immigration numbers. “None of this is about the amount of money we need to earn,” he said. “We’re an easy target for the government.”

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496