May 27, 2009
The Reform Candidate?
Yesterday, David Cameron published an article in The Grauniad claiming that if (when?) elected he will instigate “sweeping” reforms.
Anyone who actually reads what Cameron proposes and knows anything at all about politics will spot his piece for what it is: vacuous, hollow and opportunistic. Writing in today’s Grauniad, Simon Jenkins summarises much of Cameron’s bluster accordingly:
His [Cameron's] bon-bons yesterday included a curb on the prime minister’s power to call elections (unbelievable), free Commons votes on committee stages of bills (unbelievable), and an end to prime ministers taking “major decisions” without recourse to parliament (meaningless). The Tory leader also wants to give local councils powers to do things they can already do, such as save post offices, but will not allow them the necessary means, an uncapped rate.
I would also add that Cameron’s out-of-hand dismissal of any form of PR should sound alarm bells. Firstly, Cameron appears willing to treat all PR alike; as though a closed party list system – which vests huge amounts of power in party officials and is undoubtedly worse than First Past the Post – is equivalent to Single Transferable Vote (which I’m in favour of). This is either ignorant or dishonest on his behalf. Neither is appealing in a potential future leader.
Secondly, it gives the lie to Cameron’s claim to be the reform candidate. If he really wants to shake up Westminster, then he could do worse than to overhaul an electoral system that vests power in a few voters in a few marginal constituencies, and effectively disenfranchises a majority of the electorate whilst denying small parties fair representation. Of course, Cameron doesn’t want to do that, because the present system gave his party 70 years of power in the last century, and is set to reward him with a staggering majority at the next election.
Which is all very instructive. Cameron is interested in reform insofar as it makes him look good and wins him plaudits. Genuine reform that might take a bite out of the Tory apple is dismissed out of hand. Cameron is not the reform candidate, he is the opportunistic candidate.
What makes this all-the-more depressing is that he is getting away with it. Jenkins optimistically writes:
In Britain, students are taught that tradition and the probity of the ruling class are sufficient guard against elective dictatorship. It is no longer enough. That is why I believe that only a written constitution will free us from reliance on the wishy-washy, easy-to-discard pledges of leaders such as Blair, Brown and Cameron. The game is up. Their word is not to be trusted. Liberty from overpowering government must become compulsory.
But the point about Cameron is that the game is not up; people still trust his word. To the politically-initiated, his reforms are obviously vacuous. Yet most people are not well-versed in the workings of Westminster. Cameron’s article and speeches on reform are not meant for informed politicos: they are meant for the man in the street.
And the thing is, it works. Last night a friend of mine, who is highly intelligent and informed, said the following:
I know that Cameron’s making it up, and I know that he isn’t genuine. But when I’m not thinking about what he says and I’m just watching half-watching him on the telly, my unthinking response is ‘yeah, he seems like a pretty good guy’
Cameron is more like Tony Blair with every passing day (and he thereby fulfills the hopes of a Tory Party that picked him hoping he was precisely that). The substance of what Cameron says isn’t what defines him, it’s his ability to put people at ease, to make them think ‘yeah, he seems like a pretty good guy’.
As yet, we still have no idea what the Conservatives’ actual policies are on pretty much anything that matters. Cameron’s proposed ”reforms” are vacuous and opportunistic. Yet polls show he is almost certainly going to be the next Prime Minister.
From 1997-2007 we had a Premier who put people at ease, but ultimately did not know why he was in power. The results included a disastrous illegal war, the widening of social and economic inequality, and the foundations for an economic collapse of era-defining proportions. Can we afford to repeat such an experiment? Well, that’s what we’re heading for.
Thomas Byrne said,
May 27, 2009 at 11:20 am
Unless of course he implements some of Daniel Hannans, ‘The Plan’
Peter said,
May 27, 2009 at 11:35 am
Hah, the fact that he has no time for the Hannanites is one of the few good things about DC!
Thomas Byrne said,
May 27, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’m quite sad for that to be honest, I’m one of the hannanites you speak of (Although my latest blog entry really defies that) although I’m often torn between pragmatism and theory.