We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Is David Cameron a hologram? I am not exactly a fan of David Cameron, the 39-year-old (same as yours truly) who won a crushing majority of votes for the Tory leadership from fellow MPs. Yes, he is obviously bright, telegenic, youngish, and might have appeal outside the Tory ranks, but er, could we actually find out what he actually believes in, please?
What on earth does this mean, for example:
Slipping into the language of the street, Eton and Oxford-educated Conservative leadership hopeful David Cameron urged radio listeners on Friday to “keep it real”.
Huh? The rest of the Reuters article offers zero illumination. Now, I realise that expecting politicians to set out their stall in full has its risks. As a regular commenter, Verity, put it the other day, if a politician has a goodish idea, the chances are that Blair will steal it, or at least pretend to copy the policy (what happens in reality is a bit different). Politics is rather like business in that regard.
Meanwhile, Clive Davis wonders whatever happened to meritocracy in politics?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m deeply troubled by Cameron, who seems to be the choice of those who would win at any cost, and worry about the policies later – the end result of which would, of course, be almost exactly the same as if Za-NuLabour won.
What is the point of winning if one doesn’t know what one wants to do with the victory prize?
And forgive my prejudices – but since when has being young been any sort of a qualification for the role of Prime Minister?
This strange cult of youth which afflicts the British puzzles me. Pace younger readers, but if one were pressed to define the qualities associated youth, they would, on average, include lack of experience and impetuousness. Not quite the qualities I’d want in our leader.
Cameron is a cypher, the Tory party’s supreme triumph of style over substance. I suspect he is just an avatar of Tony Blair and will appeal just fine to the self-important fools and thieves who make up the Stupid Party.
I think most people (even people I have the greatest respect for such as GCooper) get “New Labour” wrong.
I think they do have beliefs and these beliefs are not just about winning elections.
I hold that Mr Brown (and even Mr Blair) have fairly normal Labour beliefs and that this “New Labour” stuff is a P.R. stunt (one that has worked well).
I am not saying that they are clause four socialists in the Harold Laski sense – no they got rid of that (which most Labour party people never believed in anyway).
They are normal Harold Wilson style Labourites – spend more money on doing good, and impose more laws to do good. At least they think these things will do good.
The difference is that men like A. L. Blair (and even Mr Brown) come out with free market talk in order to sound different from old style Labour people – they are only different in the sense that they are dishonest.
As for Mr Cameron, I think he really is the pragmatic person that Mr Blair and Mr Brown pretend to be.
Yes he may well believe in nothing apart from being elected, but is that not better than believing in lots of bad things?
If Mr Cameron was ever convinced that free market policies would get him votes then (for all his talk of spending more on the dear “public services”) he would turn on the bloated state in a second.
G Cooper and Some Guy – I too am disturbed by David Cameron, me for two reasons. First, of course, he has no clear ideas of what he would want to accomplish as prime minister and seems, like T Blair, to not be really connected with his own country. Second, his quick elevation tells me that the MPs who voted for him are frightening.
They have truly been cowed by a snake oil salesman, and now they want a snake oil salesman of their own. I trust the Conservative Party membership is more realistic and goes for Davis who does have some ideas he wants to implement. Even David Cameron’s smile gives me the creeps.
@Verity
That bodes well, I mean if Camerons smile creeps you out now then Blairs must of done the same in 1997? It certainly worried me and I lacked then the rudimentry knowledge of politics I have now.
If Blair can slime his way into office on a centrist ticket (Labour + free market rhetoric) then shift to a statist nightmare then surely Cameron is equally likely to slime his way in with his centrist ticket (Conservative + public services rhetoric) and move to the right?
It may be nonsensical but IMHO that doesn’t stop it from working. Aren’t we always told that politics has become “more complicated” than ideology, i.e. dumbed down?
Ultimately if libertarianism is the better approach then the libertarian policies adopted by the conservatives in the next parliament will save the Cons from the fate of we all have in mind for Labour.
Of course, I’m assuming the Cons have *some* worthwhile libertarian policies but if you think I’m wrong please do tell me why. I don’t pretend to be all-knowing.
Well, Simon Gibbs, I don’t know that we have the tiniest amount of evidence that David Cameron would make such a shift. I don’t think Conservatives will vote for him for Leader because there is an offchance that he’s not really sincerely bland.
Verity
You are correct, of course, but I would prefer to believe, perhaps optimistically, that Blair’s shift and the posited shift by Cameron are more to do with the disposition of the party as a whole. Based on BBC analysis the right-wing MPs had the numerical majority in this contest but were split by Fox. At minimum I propose that those MPs would value lower taxation more than Cameron, but I suspect moral baggage.
I think if David Davis can compete on oratory and debating skills then he would be the better option. David Davis has been described at least once as a libertarian, I don’t expect to hear that said of Cameron.
Either way, a slick electable conservative leader would be a step in the right direction – away from the statist left.
Simon Gibbs writes:
“..away from the statist left.”
But do we actually know that? Conservatives have, in the past, sometimes proved extremely statist (the traitor Heath, for example) and all the psychobabble being spouted by Cameron acolytes seems to suggest he could be every bit as interventionist and touchy-feely social engineering friendly as the twerps we have in power at present.
David Davis doesn’t do anything for me – but I instinctively mistrust herd reactions and that’s what seems to be behind Cameron’s sudden promotion.
The fact that he is being backed by the very worst Tories (look at those who voted for him, or someone like the so-wet-she’s-drowning Rachel Sylvester in the Telegraph) starts all my alarm bells ringing.
Perhaps we might allow the horse to actually bolt from the stable first before trying to firmly slam the door shut behind it.
The reality is that the Conservatives may well not win the 2009 election, no matter how well David Cameron conveys his sincerity and competence to the electorate, unless Our Little Tony or Gordon Brown can resort to Tory tactics and pull disaster out of success by then. I think that Cameron’s real direction lies in reconstructing the Conservative Party both to the popular acceptable right of Blair and, hopefully, away from the Europhiles of Clarke and his ilk – something that will take a considerable length of time and may only come into fruition by the 2014 elections.
As for David Cameron’s background I feel that just for once the Conservatives may well have made the ideal choice. Cameron was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton, working his way up to executive board level over some years, in addition to possessing a 1st Class Hons in PPE – credentials that I dare say Blair can only envy from a distance.
Seems to me that the David Cameron would turn out to be about as good as William Hague.
Julian Taylor writes:
” in addition to possessing a 1st Class Hons in PPE …”
Well, I’m glad you’re impressed. Personally, I regard such educational trophies as bearing about as much relevance in a dog fight as a first in show at Crufts.
And, no I don’t consider being Vice President (paperclips) at Carlton, much of an achievement, either.
As for his credentials regarding Europe, how are we supposed to know? Thus far we have had little more than political ectoplasm from the boy wonder.
Call me Little Miss Grumpy, but I had rather hoped we’d got past the point of electing matinee idols on account of, you know, their “boyish charm”.
What next, Hugh Grant for the War Office?
Robert Alderson writes:
“Seems to me that the David Cameron would turn out to be about as good as William Hague.”
Well might you jest. There are those who believe that, had he the mind to, William Hague could yet be a very potent weapon.
As it happens, I’m among their number.
Julian Taylor, I appreciate what you are saying and it is a very thoughtful and interesting comment and cleverly put, but I think Robert Alderson just below you makes a strong point.
Cameron is another clever young(ish) man – too inexperienced to be leading one of the major political parties of the world. And he is empty. He just doesn’t seem to have anything to offer. By which I mean, nothing. He’s all polish. He did a clever turn, talking without notes. And? This means ….? He can govern a country? Actors in theatres do entire one and a half hour plays without notes. Do you want Vanessa Redgrave for prime minister?
Do the British want someone else whose business is doing an act? We’ve had one of those for 10 years. A L Bliar has occupied the entire British stage – heaven forbid any other actors should have lines! – with his hissy vapidities for an entire decade. Think of it. If Cameron wants to be Labour Lite Lite, I don’t think he will speak to the Conservative heartland.
I think Davis will get it and I think he’ll make a good fist of it.
GCooper,
You should probably count me among William Hague’s fans too. He’s a fellow Yorkshireman and I canvassed for him when he won Leon Brittain’s old seat in a by-election.
The similarity that I see between Cameron and Hague is that they have or had support amongst an aging Tory party largely because of their youth. Neither of them seem to have any clear ideological presence. I think that Tory members may realise they are very out of touch with the country and elect as leader a person who most resembles the type of person they know they need to vote for them at the next general election.
There is a danger that Cameron will go down in the national memory as the guy who may or may not have done cocaine in the same way as Hague is (sadly) remembered mostly for wearing a baseball cap at the Notting Hill carnival.
William Hague would be a good choice now as leader but it seems that the unwritten rules of the Tory party preclude former leaders from running again. This is a great pity because I think he has accquired tremendous experience and would do well.
Robert Alderson writes:
“William Hague would be a good choice now as leader but it seems that the unwritten rules of the Tory party preclude former leaders from running again.”
I should have recognised good Yorkshire common sense.
I’ve not written William Hague out of the story, yet. I still think he might well end up the PM of this country.
Stranger things have happened – Churchill’s rehabilitation, for example.
I think the phrase is “Keep it real up in the feel.” Maybe that will help enlghten you as to his agenda.
GCooper, my bet is that Hague is a future chancellor. With that bright, analyticial mind of his, he’d do pretty well. He frequently took Gordon Brown apart in debate. He is also one of the more pro-Atlanticist Tories, unlike some who deluded themselves by cosying up to John Kerry at the last Presidential elections.
As for Cameron, I think of it this way: he may be able to blarney his way into power and shift in a libertarian, anti-statist direction, which would be wonderful. But a few hints might be nice, and reassure those of us who have been let down by the Tories time and and again. If he were a candidate in a job interview, or a firm staging an IPO on the stock market, I would expect some detail, however sketchy, about what Cameron is about.
Melanie Phillips, in one of her anti-drugs rants, quotes David Cameron:
That doesn’t sound too bad to me.
Grr, here is the non-broken link.
Well, David Aaronovitch seems to think that Cameron is a reforming Neo-Con. Here’s the link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1837542,00.html
Personally, I do not think he is policy-free as some people like to think he is. He is clearly on the centre-right of the British political spectrum, even if he is on the left of the Tory Party.
Besides, I find it absurd that some of you would rather have your version of what the Tory party should be even if it means they stay in opposition with Labour remaining undefeated and wrecking the country. Cameron seems more likely than Davis to defeat Labour and the Tory party is the least worst option even if they don’t conform to your libertarian ideals, which by the way nobody will ever vote for. Or do you prefer the Labour government because it gives you lots more to moan about?
Shaun, steady boy. No, speaking for myself – there is no “line” here at Samizdata – I want the present bunch of control freaks, crooks and inadequates kicked out. But let us at least try to have an alternative which is better rather than a pale imitation. It may be that Cameron will be better than Blair in significant ways. Excellent. Let’s see some evidence then.
In any event, the Tory Party has given defenders of liberty plenty to bitch about over the years, so we are not exactly short of material to write about.
The Conservative MPs are panicked and are looking for a Phony Tony clone and as far as I can see, in David Cameron, they’ve found him. I don’t think he has the faintest idea what he would do in office and if he does, he should have given out a hint or two by now.
In addition, like Melanie Phillips, I do not like his stance on drugs. Like magpie Tony, he has lit on an issue and viewed it through a magnifying glass, out of the context of the society in which drugs are such a problem. You are not going to repair the breakdown in Britain’s civil society by making drug use legal without spending two or three or five years laying the groundwork. He’s an empty gadfly, like his hero.
I agree that Hague would probably be a very effective chancellor. I don’t ever see him as prime minister because, again, he doesn’t seem to have a paradigm in his head of what Britain needs to do to regain its vigour and continue as one of the top countries in the world – given that India and China are powering up the inside track. In addition, anyone who worked for a “business consultants” firm is a bit of a con man. McKinsey is known for getting its teeth into a client and never, never letting go by continuing to “identify” new “problems” to consult about.
I think the Conservative membership is considerably more grounded than panicky MPs, and I would be surprised if they chose the empty Cameron over someone of substance like Mr Davis.
BTW, Jonathan, great title! I think David Cameron is indeed a hologram.
If the percieved wisdom of politics in this country was Marxism, then the Tory party would be a Marxist party.
The Tories are about one thing and one thing only, and its the reason they are the most successful political party in the Western World “Power”
Without the instruments of power, you may as well sit in the corner and talk to yourself.
I think one of the problems facing the modern Tory (or for that matter, any opposition) party is the supposed lack of ideology of their opponents.
When Labour openly espouses the ‘third way’ – i.e. ‘we’ll do whatever we think is appropriate’ then how can you combat that apart from with a direct attack on the personal faces in the Labour party?
As Blair leads by saying ‘we have very intelligent people and researchers working for us, so we will decide which actions are appropriate at a particular time’ then one is left to either:
1. State that this is invalid and that it’s better to apply a consistent ideology without regard to context (but this is basically what got the Labour party kicked out in the seventies, application of socialist ideology regardless of whether the money was there to afford it or not, and the only reason Thatcher got away with it was because there was no opposition that the populace could trust, given the Lib Dems were a joke in the mid-80s and that Labour had entirely worn out their welcome.)
or
2. State that it is valid but that your opposition is incompetent and don’t know what is ‘right’ for a particular context – which is a much more difficult argument to have when (as yet) the economy is still vibrant and the country is still #7 in the global competitiveness leagues. This argument might come to bear fruit once Brown is in charge and the economy is collapsing, but no-one is convinced it’s going to be _that_ bad yet.
Basically, if you have an ideology, the public can say ‘we don’t like that’ whereas if you just wave your arms around and say ‘yeah trust us, we’re good’ they can’t – and once one person starts doing it, everyone follows because it’s easy.
“Do you want Vanessa Redgrave for Prime Minister?”
Well Verity, thank you very much for putting that thought into my head! I will probably wake up in a cold sweat tonight, clutching my chest.
I’ve just read on the BBC news website that Heseltine is backing Cameron. Do we need to know any more?
Matthew Parris has an interesting piece on Cameron in The Times, in which he makes an intriguing point: The peasant’s revolt is over … (Link) I wonder if he’s right …
I note that the government is not allowed to do something as piffling as ban the importation of wild birds.
It has to go cap in hand to the EU and beg them to do it.
Does it, therefore, matter who leads the bloody Tory party under such miserable circumstances?
Why don’t they just ban them anyway? Jacques Chirac deports suspected terrorists by the planeload without trial regardless of the Human Rights Convention and no one bothers.
Hmm, Verity, I think you are being a bit unfair on management consultants. Of course some of them are shysters who add no value to the firms they advise, but presumably some do so. McKinsey’s is renowned for the tough standards it expects of its senior staff. The fact that Hague has had a senior job there is pretty impressive. He is certainly very bright. He ought to be central to any sustained Tory fightback and formulation of policy.
With all these things, there management consultants and management consultants…..
Jonathan – You may be right. There may be very astute management consultants who can spot flaws and advise on how to put them right, get paid and leave.
McKinsey has a reputation for getting impressive people to work for them – and no one would deny that William Hague is a brainbox – but they also have a reputation for being a terrier with its mouth around a company’s ankle. I have heard that once they’re in a company, it’s almost impossible to get rid of them.
This is just hearsay and I may be wrong.
At least Cameron wants to pull out of the federalist EPP in the EU parliament. Cameron. despite what some Fox supporters are trying to say, he is not a Clarkite, he may not be as sound as Davis but he is certainly not a dripping wet.
worked very well in Ali G’s campaign a couple of years back.
I live in America, where our President talked us into going to war, saying we’ll stay there
And that, sadly, was good enough for many here.
Of course, Bush never said anything anti-prohibitionist. The quote presented above is the kind of thing American politicians seem to be able to say only after they leave office.
Timothy J. Lambert
Just inside the beltway
Cameron is illuminati. I feel it in my bones. He’s come from nowehere and yet has been backed by the rich, the powerful and the entire media left, right (and the BBC of course who were talking him up, up, up from the very first nanosecond).
Eton, Oxford, no principles, talks about “modernising” and the big lie of our times, global warming and cycles to work for the TV cameras (while travelling in gas-guzzling Range Rovers at other times).
The New World Order has its next and possibly most brillient leader of the UK in place.
Be afraid, be very afraid.