David Cameron certainly captured the imaginations of the newspaper scribblers with his speech on Monday launching the Conservative campaign for the Glasgow East by-election.

The speech can be read in full from the Conservative's website. A concise summary of it is offered in The Times - and the headline captures a reasonable caricature of what he said - 'David Cameron tells the fat and the poor: take responsibility'

There are the usual suspects that love the message (see the Leader column in The Daily Mail, Simon Heffer in The Telegraph) and other more surprising supporters (see the Leader in The Independent). There are also those that are not amused (see Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, Arrabella Weir in The Independent or a outraged Alice Miles in The Times.)

However much they agree or disagree with Cameron, the commentators are united that the speech represents an important moment in the development of his narrative.  Where they differ is whether his message will resonate with the electorate.

Freedland thinks Cameron is on shaky ground:

"This was the kind of man-in-the-pub talk that sank William Hague, and the early model Cameron would have gone nowhere near it. That he now has, and with such gusto, suggests he really does believe the Conservative brand has been sufficiently decontaminated that the party leader can now move on to the turf of the populist right without anxiety."

Miles believes that Cameron is becoming more judgemental than the public will stand:

"Beware the politician who reaches for religious phraseology. It is “our mission”, Mr Cameron said, “to heal the wounds”... It sounded like Mr Blair but it was far more condemnatory than he would ever have been. Hell, it was more condemnatory than Michael Portillo or Peter Lilley in their most ill-judged moments.

Its easy to think that Miles is overstating her case - but when you read the harrumphs from Heffer, one begins to see her point. Cameron might have been hoping for his message to act as a dog whistle, but Heffer's turns it into a foghorn. Comparing Cameron's new found right wing edge with George Osbourne's lily-livered plan to match Labour's spending plans he says:

"Does Mr Osborne really think it is socially beneficial to pay the dirt poor, such as are found in abundance in the by-election seat of Glasgow East, to remain dirt poor? Haven't these people been indulged long enough, to their and to society's detriment?"

Should Cameron's message be portrayed in Heffer's terms, he will likely lose support.  However, as the backing from The Independent's leader shows, Cameron has put enough ambiguity into the message to allow for different interpretations. This is reminiscent of Tony Blair's ability to play to several different audiences at once.  A feeling only compounded by the one other thing that the commentators agree on: that so far, Cameron has very little policy substance in this area to show how his new rhetoric might be turned into practical policy.