In his end was his beginning. We had plenty of warning
about David Cameron, plenty of warning that he was the worst possible choice, a
bad leader for the Conservative Party who has proved himself to be a bad leader
for the country, weak and shifting, a rudderless sailing boat, drifting in
whatever direction taken by the wind. He is the hollow centre of a hollow
government.
The auspices were there at the outset. He declared
himself the ‘heir to Blair’ in the 2005 leadership election. That really
should have finished him. But by this time the Party was desperate for a
winner and, by whatever perverse chemistry, the morally bankrupt and
intellectually vacant Blair had won three elections in a row, an unprecedented record in
the history of the Labour Party. The Conservative Party, the natural
party of government, seemed to be in fixed in unnatural opposition. Winning was
all that mattered, and so the ‘heir to Blair’ it was.
But he could not manage even that much: he did not
win. Even against that charmless old ogre Gordon Brown, even against a
government marked by stunning levels of incompetence, even against a ministry
that reached a nadir only to reach another, he could not win an outright
victory. With all the pointers in his favour he could only manage second
best, a coalition with Liberal Democrats, a sort of political glee club,
contemptible in their perpetual theory, even more contemptible in their present
practice. A flawed mandate and a gay bargain; that was the best he could manage.
It was one flawed mandate built upon another, a mandate to
‘modernise’ the Conservative Party, or the ‘nasty party’, as the absurd Theresa
May described it, measured against what I can’t be at all sure. Oh, yes,
measured against Margaret Thatcher, measured against the most successful
peace-time leader and Prime Minister in the party’s history. Margaret
Thatcher understood ordinary voters in a way that Cameron and May never
will.
Instead of clear policies on the economy, on home ownership,
on privatisation, on trade union reform we have had a lot of metro-land
political pap. The ‘nasty party’ has become the ‘nice party’, all part of
the Cameron modernisation drive, a sort of Chairman Dave Cultural Revolution
that took in all the fashionable panaceas, a big tent, Big Society
jamboree.
The Conservative Party was to modernise by becoming
something else, though lord alone knows what. It was to move into ground
occupied by tofu-eating, tree-hugging lefties. No wonder his 2010
‘victory’ was such a damp rag. It even looked at one moment that Gordon
Brown might hang on!
It was all there, all on board, all the neo-Islington
panaceas, whether it’s green energy, foreign aid, rainbow liberation or Dutch
cyclists. I guarantee not one Conservative voter in ten cares about the
Big Society; not one person in ten understands what Cameron is
about. I will say this for him, though: he is the best recruiting
agent the United Kingdom Independence Party never had.
Does he understand himself, this silly self-conscious old
boy, terrified of being perceived of as an old boy, so much so that he could
not even go to a wedding in proper attire, least the Bullingdon Bull escaped
from the pen of his past.
What a contrast he is with Boris Johnson, who wears his past
lightly, with no apology and no retreat; and how we love him for it. Yes,
we love Boris, I love Boris. Not that I hate Dave. I think I
probably feel as most other people do, Conservative or not – on the whole I’m
indifferent to him. He is in the worst possible twilight zone, neither
positive nor negative, neither hated nor loved.
Thinking hard about him there is a terrible littleness about
the man. He has no courage, he has no principles, he has no conviction,
he has no ideas because, well, he has no idea. He is simply 'the heir to
Blair', a clone, a manqué who even brought us another ‘glorious’ episode of
post-colonial noblesse oblige in Libya, with consequences that we can all
see. It’s a wonder that we are not also bogged down in Syria .
Tim Yeo, a former minister, described Cameron’s heart “as an
organ that remains impenetrable to most Britons.” That, I suspect, is an
exercise that most Britons would not care to undertake, a journey to the centre
of nothingness. Like his intellect and his character, it’s hollow. He is
the Hollow Man. This is the way his premiership will end, this is the way
his premiership will end, this is the way that his premiership will end, not
with a bang but a whimper.
A poor excuse indeed.
ReplyDeleteYes. There is really no more to say.
DeleteBlancmange, semolia, tapioca, suet pudding, milksops . . . these are the terms that leap to mind when contemplating Cameron.
ReplyDeleteAll a bit too solid!
DeleteCould not agree more with your summation regarding Cameron; however, much as I did admire the Maggietollah I have to ask why, as a people, we allow ourselves to be dictated to by what even they themselves now consider is an elite section of our society.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we freely elect people who, between elections, can introduce whatever law they wish, even one not included in their manifesto? On the subject of the latter, why do we allow such loosely worded documents to be produced?
Back to Cameron, who I have met quite a few times. He exhibits that characteristic so common with our politicians today in that he is able to present a 'front' that can be all things to all men. As for Boris Johnson and your apparent adulation - he is another present day politician and in that respect much like Cameron.
Why do we accept a system of democracy, one riddled with so many defects, that where sovereignty of the people is concerned, said system is no longer fit for purpose?
WfW, good questions. The short answer is that we only really have democracy, in the sense of politicians at least pretending to take account of the desires of the people, between the dissolution of one Parliament and the gathering of the next.
DeleteActually, do we have democracy at all; is it all not just some pointless political carnival? Even Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, begins to look like an infant in a playpen, presided over by the nannies of Europe.
Ana the man is vacuous. And as for May and her abject failure to get that awful hook bearing hater of England deported on time, she should be set in the stocks for a decade.
ReplyDeleteI so agree, Richard!
DeleteBlair's winning of three general elections was 'an unprecedented record in the history of the Labour Party', was it? I seem to remember that Harold Wilson won four.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are quite right, Ekalder, though his victories, apart from 1966, were rather limping.
DeleteI'll clarify the point though. Thanks for this.
DeleteYou are correct though, Ana, that Blair is the only Labour leader to win three elections in a row. Harold Wilson would have done the same had it not been for Heath's completely surprising victory in 1970. A victory that has cost us dearly ever since!
DeleteI agree with you, however, about David Cameron. Pity we can't send him and Blair - and Gordon Brown, for that matter - on a one-way trip in a spaceship.
Do you know John Paul Sartre's play No Exit? If not, it concerns three totally incompatible characters who have died and gone to hell, there to discover that they have to spend eternity together in the same room. That's a fate worse than hell, one that I personally would wish on those three!
Delete