John Rentoul: Cameron is the new Blair
The Tory leader has learnt from New Labour not to promise too much. There's little danger of that
"What are Cameron's 10 Bills for his first Queen's Speech?" a Cabinet minister asked me recently in disbelieving frustration. "The Swedish Schools Bill, and what else?" This could be a consistent theme of Labour attacks on the Conservatives, if Labour attacks on the opposition were sustained and coherent enough to have a consistent theme. You could imagine that, if the Labour Party had more confidence, it could take the Tories apart for their inconsistencies and their lack of preparedness for government. You could. But you would be missing the point.
Of course David Cameron's party is riven with fundamental contradictions, and of course neither he nor any of his Shadow Cabinet is ready for government – not even the few that have government experience. No one ever is. One experienced Labour adviser told me about the shock of moving from opposition into power: "It is just a bloody wall when you run into it. I come across some of their advisers: they will not know what's hit them."
Last week the Conservatives did two important things in preparing for government. Cameron ditched the policy of a referendum on Europe; and Michael Gove made a speech on schools policy. The first everyone noticed; the second was probably more important for what a Conservative government would actually do.
The first, it must be said, was a brilliant short-term political operation. The sight of the Tory leader taking Liam Fox hostage was a remarkable one. On the morning of Cameron's statement, there were photographs in the newspapers of the Tory leader on the London Underground, with Fox. Then there was footage on the television news of Cameron arriving at the venue to deliver his statement, with William Hague, shadow Foreign Secretary, and Fox.
What has the shadow spokesman on Defence, who writes opposite, to do with Europe? Everything, if you know the internal dynamics of the Tory party: remember that Fox ran Cameron and David Davis close in the 2005 leadership election, and that Cameron peeled off some of Fox's Eurosceptic supporters late in the day to make it to the run-off ballot. Yet Cameron's statement also satisfied the pro-European Kenneth Clarke.
My esteemed colleague Alan Watkins, on page 47, says that the Tory leader is prone to mistakes in his European policy; he may be, but I do not think that this is one of them. On the contrary, it would seem that in one bound Cameron is free. He was much criticised, including in these pages, for refusing to face up to the possibility of a Yes vote in the Irish referendum, and held the preposterous line of "only one policy at a time". Delaying last week's announcement until the Lisbon Treaty was finally a legal fact was cowardly, intellectually unsatisfactory and absolutely right. The delay allowed the Foxite wing of his party to come to terms in advance with their betrayal. Cameron now has as much room for manoeuvre on Europe as is possible while leading a fundamentally Eurosceptic party. In government, he would have as much room for manoeuvre as is possible while leading a fundamentally Eurosceptic country. In a negative sense, then, of getting awkward stuff out of the way, Cameron is prepared for government.
The positive preparations are less far advanced. I remember a Cameron "town hall" meeting in Cornwall last year, when he was asked: "How can you make us believe in you?" His reply was telling: "I learnt a lot from watching Blair. He was a brilliant leader of the opposition but hadn't really thought through what he'd do in power. What I learnt is: don't over-promise." In other words, he is going to be exactly like Tony Blair.
"Don't over-promise" was precisely the lesson that Blair had worked out for himself. If anyone remembers what the British people actually voted for in 1997 – smaller class sizes, shorter waiting lists, faster sentencing and young people off welfare and into work – the striking feature was their modesty. The trouble was that the size of Blair's majority convinced everyone that they had voted for something greater, more exciting, more transformative, thus raising expectations that could not be met. That is not a problem that Cameron is likely to have. With the electoral system tilted against him, his majority is likely to be small, and he will inherit wrecked public finances.So it could be that the Blair strategy would be right this time: keep your options open and focus on a few of what are now known in New Labourese as "key deliverables".
Which is where Michael Gove's speech comes in. His plan, modelled on Sweden, to set up new small secondary schools is one of the Conservatives' few credible policies. The aim is to turbo-charge the Blair reforms that became bogged down in the inertia and vested interests of the status quo. Gove's speech was another raid on left-wing values of education as the engine of greater equality, quoting Nye Bevan and claiming: "The central mission of the next Conservative government is the alleviation of poverty and the extension of opportunity." He has also recruited Sally Morgan and Julian le Grand, Blair's former advisers, to help with a cross-party initiative, New Schools Network, to promote new providers of schools.
This is promising, and it may be the best that can be hoped for from a Cameron administration: that it does not try to do too much, but focuses on one area where real improvements are needed and "deliverable" even in conditions of extreme fiscal stringency. As Cameron said last week in his Europe statement: "If we win the election, we will inherit the worst public finances of any incoming government for 50 years. We will have a generational challenge to get Britain to live within her means [and] to secure economic recovery." The idea that Cameron's first Queen's Speech may contain only one substantial piece of legislation, a "Swedish Schools Bill", is paradoxically reassuring.
John Rentoul blogs at independent.co.uk/eagleeye
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
What an earth shattering article. Dr Rentoul switches hero worship from Blair to Cameron.
An interesting side-bar to scientific, intellectual, academic freedom in government, academia and media. Especially, after Nutt, we know where John stands.
So Cameron's come out of the closet as a fence-sitter European. Big surprise.
Gove is more bizarre. His conservative council in Camden, under Conservative PPC Andrew Mennear, the Tories have approved a 1500 pupil secondary school in Somers Town NW1 on a site designed for 750 pupils, while denying children of a 350 pupil school south of Euston.
Has anyone costed Gove's Swedish plan, in the middle of a recession?
Rentoul should read Tory grassroots response to Hague in Saturday's Daily Mail. The words "spitting-blood-and-feathers" were used by PPCs, prospective parliamentary candidates.
Dr Rentoul has a living, research grant and books, articles and journalism to rake in. No wonder.
Albeit the pocket version, not a cigarette paper between 'em, same style, same slick presentation, same evangelical conviction, same no room for the remotest possibly they could be wrong - perish the thought - depressing isn't it; deeply depressing, I can see no light at that the end of this depressing tunnel, I can't tell you all how depressing this depressing situation is because I'm too depressed
Don't be depressed. It is still a beautiful world. We just have to laugh at their pomposity. Politics 2.0 changes everything.
Don't be depressed. It is still a beautiful world. We just have to laugh at their pomposity. Politics 2.0 changes everything.
If Cameron is Blair Mark 2 then God help us all. I see very little in the Tory programme - such as it is - to give me any confidence in the future. A foreign and defence policy stuck in the past, an economic policy that consists of cutting public spending deeply and quickly, a social policy that harks back to the 1950s etc, etc. In short it's either a turn back the clock or "no change" policy. And while we're at it, why are we importing "Swedish schools"?
What's the difference between New Labour and Old Tories? Very little as far as I can see. Swop Tweedledum for Tweedledee? At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I shall vote for neither.
This whole sorry business is not about Europe. Whether it is good or bad!
This is about BRITAIN!
This is about our government signing away our laws and our liberties!
We can be a part of Europe...we can respect their laws and work as a partner with them...
We cannot accept that TWO Prime Ministers in a position of trust have turned their backs on the country they serve and the people they are/ were paid to protect. They trashed and disregarded hundreds of years of law and common law and imposed an unelected foreign power over us.
Maybe the EU is a good thing... but we should have a voice!
This was a democracy and we were proud to stand behind our government... proud to stand behind our Queen... they have betrayed the people of this country and the trust given to them.
That is Treason and betrayal of everything this country stands for.
Until that is sorted out there will be no peace in this country.
Of course Cameron can see what you point out. Why blame Cameron? He wanted a referendum but the rug was pulled from beneath his feet by ratification, its to late now, the damn thing is law.
Both Blair and Brown lied on this issue. Both could have had a referendum and neither did, they broke pledges.
Cameron has promised laws which will prevent this happening again (so he says).
Of course the pro Europe left who are rabidly anti Tory say his 6 points are rubbish, we will see. However rest assurred the concerns you have are shared by millions and Cameron is very aware of it.
Blair/Brown were like a dad who promised a trip to the cinema, but then went up the pub and forgot about it.
Cameron is a dad who promised a trip to the cinema and found it had closed down.
There is a big difference here which paulstpancras and co fully realise, but choose not to see.
Amongst all this are the articles in the consolidated and amended treaties that would prevent Cameron from making good on his promises. Moreover, the new legislation he promised us "a referendum lock" is actually *already* part of the treaty in the form of a ratification clause required by all states should there be any changes to the competencies, which *any* change to the UK's conditions would be.
If you want to see the first part of my analysis please read here:
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2009/11/r
Caveats: i) I'm a definite Eurosceptic so don't expect "balance" - you've been getting the pro-propaganda from the LibLabCon alliance and most of the media, ii) The blog contains lots of swearing; its my only real catharsis on the anger these issues generate.
Given that both Blair and Cameron's private political offices have been funded by Zionists, what's the difference?
Just exactly what are we in for, should the Tories get in? Not new Labour conservatism, I hope. Blair and his unelected successor have wrecked this country - we don't want more of the same, thank you very much!
Well I've been posting this for weeks, Cameron is Blair II, just as out of touch with the real England out of his charmed circle. If you vote him in you will hate him and it will take as little as 6 months I guess. It'll sell newspapers though, bigging him up and bashing him down, but will it help the country?
There are alternatives you know, you don't HAVE to vote him in, Labour isn't the only choice, the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and BNP offer a wide selection of alternatives.
Actually it's in the best interests of the BNP. UKIP and the Greens to switch to voting Lib Dem, since this would be the only way of abolishing the "first past the post" ping-pong between Lab and Tory. The smaller parties really need proportional representation to get anywhere, it would also keep the big parties on their toes.