Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 3° London Hi 5°C / Lo 2°C

Johann Hari: Cameron is wily but he's beatable

Monday, 25 August 2008

At the next election, the Brown stuff will hit the fan – and the British people will elect a blank space. David Cameron is known to us through a series of slick sound-bites and husky-hugging images. But beyond the great PR, what will we be getting? Dylan Jones, editor of GQ, has just published a series of interviews with the Tory leader called "Cameron on Cameron". It's mostly sycophantic swill – "David Cameron is the last person to call himself a genius..." – but if you root around, there are clues to the man behind the hologram.

The PM-in-waiting has built a string of images that create a fanciful David Cameron who is Normal and Nice. Here's an example: last week, Cameron holidayed in Cornwall, and summoned the press to photograph him playing Frisbee while his wife giggled in Boden catalogue swimwear. Then he waved goodbye and went on another holiday – on a £150,000 fleet of private yachts hired by his multi-millionaire father-in-law. Cameron insistently says we should judge him on his personality. He tells Jones, "Character is far more important than policy ... I think you should always trust your gut feelings about everything." So let's look at how the gut that would guide the nation was formed. Cameron tells Jones a series of stories about his own life.

He says he got his first paid job in politics this way: "I saw an advertisement in a careers' bulletin for a job in the Conservative Research Department, and thought, I can give that a go, and that was the job I got ... I went for an interview and I got the job." But he didn't get it – he was turned down. So he got his uncle – the Queen's equerry – to call from Buckingham Palace and suggest his boy get taken on. That's how David got his break in politics.

This privilege has given him a warped view of Britain. For example, Cameron complains that "the papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school." Does going to a day school make you "very unconventional"?

This world-view, although it may seem trivial, is at the core of his policies. He tells Jones: "You could say, in this age we should just tax rich people more, but I don't think that's the right answer." He says "redistribution" has "reached the end of the road". Indeed, Britain's current social stratification is fine: "I don't buy these class things because they are all going." Maybe in his world it is. But the vast sociological evidence is not in dispute: after 30 years of Thatcherism, if you are born poor, you will stay poor; if you are born rich, you will stay rich. Social mobility has stopped. While Cameron sends his spokesmen to emote about this, in conversation with Jones he shrugs it off.

Indeed, Cameron will deepen the gap by dismantling the too-small, too-late Labour programs that are trying to start up mobility again. He would stop the £40-a-week given to poor students to stay on to sixth form. The only "solution" Cameron has presented to growing inequality is to punish the "undeserving" poor.

He will whittle down services largely for the children of single parents – SureStart, Family Credit – to pay for tax breaks for wealthier married couples. He is, Jones notes, a "huge fan" of the Wisconsin model of welfare reform, which cuts off single mothers from benefits for life after two years – whether they are prepared to work or not. Cameron singles out these "time limits" as crucial. He talks about how much he loves Nessa in Gavin and Stacey – but his policies would impoverish her.

The nature of Cameron's salesmanship is even clearer on the issue he used back in 2005 to decontaminate the Tory brand: global warming. He tells Jones he first became alerted to the urgency of this issue by Margaret Thatcher in 1989. But why then was he silent about it for the next 16 years, except to mock wind farms as "giant bird-blenders" and demand "a massive road-building program?" Now photo-ops have done their job, he has reverted.

He delivers a Clarkson-style rant against the pedestrianisation of city centres, and puts a chasm between himself and Zac Goldsmith: "We have a lot of people on the environmental team and he's one of many. He doesn't overpromote himself but I think sometimes people attach an enormous amount to him." Ouch.

On foreign policy, Cameron also lets his teeth show. He calls George Bush "very intelligent", and effectively endorses McCain for President. In 2005, he introduced McCain to Tory conference as "the next President", and now brags: "I'm a huge fan of John McCain and think he would make a great president." He repeats this point several times. About Obama, he says he made "a fantastic speech but I suppose he probably didn't do enough", and stresses "I don't see serious similarities".

Cameron's McCainiac approach to the world was clear in his response to the Georgia conflict. There are many issues where Putin is unequivocally thuggish and should be challenged, including the cyber-war on Estonia, the gas-based bullying of Ukraine, and the sheltering of the man who murdered Alexander Litvinenko on the streets of London. But Cameron, with McCain, has chosen to challenge Putin on one of the very few areas where there are shades of grey: the people of South Ossetia really don't feel part of Georgia, and do want independence backed by Russia. Cameron's extraordinarily aggressive stance on this signals a sabre-rattling foreign policy – when all our sabres are engaged elsewhere.

Yet there is one cause for hope buried in this little book. This man is beatable. the scenario I suggested – a Cameron victory – is not inevitable. His current lead in the polls is built solely on Brown's haplessness and a sweet, fluffy mask that can be tugged off. If Labour gets itself a leader who can expose this spinning dervish – and offer a vision of a fairer, less unequal country – then this book could yet end up where it belongs: in the remainder bin of history.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

66 Comments

Cameron is NOT on consistent 45% of vote. He is on consistent 45% of the approximately 50% of total electorate who are committed to vote and expressed a preference. Of these almost 40% say they may change their minds. Of the other 50%, half expect to vote ("certain") but won't say or don't know for whom, the others are less certain to vote.

So:

Cameron's Tories 22.5%
Brown's Labour 13%
Others inc Nats and Libs 14.5%
Certain to Vote but WS/DK 25%
Less likely to vote 25%

This looks a whole lot better to anyone determined that Cameron should not be PM than the inaccurate statement that Cameron has a consistent 45% of the vote.

In June Populus fieldwork for The Times a rare question was put. Respondents considering themselves certain to vote were asked whether they wanted a further term of Labour or a Tory government. More than half of the WS/DK agreed to vote on that question. 44% wanted Labour, 42% Tory. Other 14% stuck with WS/DK.

Not a lot of people know that.

Posted by Chris Paul | 28.08.08, 18:51 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

according to Wikipedia - Hari was born in Jan 1979 - so, allowing for the first Labour term following Tory spending plans - his first 22 years were under 'Thatcherism'. He didn't do too badly out of it did he? Or was he privileged - isn't it always the same, get your status and then pull up the ladder and put on the boiler suit (at least when the oiky plebs are about)

Posted by Duncan | 27.08.08, 11:45 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

ScaryBiscuits

Given that nothing could be worse than FPTP I do not think that introducing AV - which of course keeps the same boundaries as FPTP and the same constituency links - would be much of a risk.
I do recognnise that there is only a CHANCE of itS favouring the left-of-centre but this chance is greater than if we kept FPTP. But in any case we do not know exactlly how people would vote if they were freed to some extent from the wasted vote aspects of FPTP

I recognise the precedent danger but I think that there would be such an outcry if the Tories tried to revert from AV to FPTP (which is the only change that they would be likely to seek ) that they would back down .

Of course this is all despairing speculation. Labour wont take any notice - theyare now going to drift to defeat whatever we say. Serve them right some might say for their bad faith in reneging on their PR commitments - except that we shall all suffer if the Tories get back in.

Posted by Joe Patterson | 26.08.08, 17:42 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

PPS @Scary Biscuits

Have done a bit more digging about 'social mobility'

Acording to an LSE report in 2007 "Intergenerational income mobility for children born in the period 1970-2000 has stabilised, following the sharp decline that occurred for children born in 1970 compared with those born in 1958 "

Clearly, children born before 1958 came of age before the 1979-97 Tory experiment.
Children born in 1970 will have spent the majority of their school years, and also entered the job market under said Tory regime.

That doesn't absolve Labour of blame, but it shows the Tories have a hell of a lot more to prove...

Posted by Caspardavidfriedrich | 26.08.08, 16:39 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

@Scary Biscuits

I agree that something as important as PR must not be seen to be opportunist - even where motivated by improving our rotten "democracy".

I fear that we will have to endure the misery of yet another Tory Government before the Labour Party finally learns that FPTP almost always favours a more reactionary agenda both in the UK and elsewhere (Partly because it so blatantly goes against the notions of equality respect and tolerance, partly because the left tends to be less disciplined than the right).

Would love to know your sources for thinking that social mobility rose in the 1980s. That's a new one on me...

Posted by Caspardavid friedrich | 26.08.08, 16:17 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Kirsten and Joe, it would be a very brave man to introduce proportional representation of any variety when your opponent is on a consistent 45% of the vote. It could easily rise well above that if a change to the rules was perceived as cheating, meaning a catastrophic defeat however you count it. Worse you would have created a precedent for your opponent to change the rules again once in power, probably even less in your favour.

Finally, social mobility is mentioned in the article above. From what I understand it rose during Mrs Thatcher's time but has ground to an almost total halt in the last 10 years. She may have done many things wrong but how is Labour's recent performance her fault?

Posted by Scary Biscuits | 26.08.08, 15:31 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Hovetory, people have such short memories. How great was British society around the time of the Brixton and Toxteth riots?

'damn proud of it we are' - are you really in your mid 30s as you say or do you just hark after a romanticised old era? As for that extraordinary statement about socialists not liking hard work, makes you sound kind of...... nice, posh but dim.

Posted by Kirsten | 26.08.08, 13:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

If Labour had honoured their 1997 commitment regarding the introduction of Proportional Representation the present outlook for the UK could well be very different.

There is one possible hope for those of us who contemplate with horror the propect of a Thatcherite follow-up era (for that is what a Cameron "victory" will mean): the introduction of AV. AV is not proportional of course, but it could represent more fairly in Parliament the WEIGHT of left-of-centre opinion.

In this regard I note that in the latest opinion polls the total left-of-centre percentage is still greater than that of the Tories. There is just about time to introduce it before the next election (it is probably too late to honour the so cynically, and stupidly, abandoned PR commitment). Not only does AV have some advantages over FPTP it could also very easily in due course be converted to the proportional STV in multi-member constituencies.

Posted by Joe Patterson | 26.08.08, 12:14 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Excellent article, as usual Johan.

Yes Cameron is dangerous precisely because he knows that the majority are not ready for yet another massive lurch to the right.

In 1979 43% were ready for a right wing experiment. Each year offers more evidence that that experiment was 90% disastrous (and even the remaining 10% could have been done much better).

Consequently we have these apparent noises about equality, greenwash etc., with nothing underneath to back them up.

Many people like me who found labour too left wing in the 80s now find it too right wing, and almost every bad mistake made by Labour (from abolishing the 10p rate to letting the markets rip in an regulation-lite environment, and even by invading Iraq has been because it was stealing Tory clothes).

This also leaves a huge opening for the Lib Dems. They have also perhaps drifted a bit too far for the right, but at least they have been right, and consistent on ALL of the above issues.

Posted by CasparDavidFriedrich | 26.08.08, 12:11 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

"and so what if he is rich - he has earned it"

What?

Posted by Anthony Molyneux | 26.08.08, 11:39 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

66 Comments

Columnist Comments

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: The greasy gravy train of lobbyism

The idiocy and graft at work in the system barely merits a second glance.

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: When 'life' should mean life.

Sometimes the public feel the perpetrator should not be released.

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Who is accountable for the police?

Why was Damian Green arrested with such spectacular insensitivity?