The sheer front of the man. Dave Cameron has been openly lying for political advantage again and again and in response to suddenly realising that the recent defections to UKIP are indicative of a very serious problem, what does he do? He is doing it again, with the Daily Telegraph not so much as blinking at the latest volte-face from repudiating Thatcherism to (ostensibly) wrapping himself in it. So I suppose from now on everything he has said since he was elected leader of the Tory Party (more regulation, less school selection, more Euro-Federalism) gets ‘packaged’ in a covering that suggests the exact opposite. “I am Thatcher’s heir!” he proclaims. Well as we are playing make-believe…”I am Howard Hughes heir”. It would appear that stating something boldly simply makes it so, regardless of all the contradictory evidence.
I have also been pondering the article of Matthew d’Ancona, or more correctly the attitude underpinning it, called ‘Tories who would rather lose than change’, which I linked to in my previous bit of bloggage as two bits of it stuck in my mind.
But to say that Mr Cameron is an old-fashioned statist is simply incorrect. His ethos has much more in common with the “compassionate conservatism” espoused by George W Bush when he was Governor of Texas than with the Butskellism of the old Tory wets.
…and…
I would simply ask this brilliant economist: who is more likely to lead a Eurosceptic government, to reduce the tax burden when the public finances allow, and to tame the centralised state? David Cameron or Gordon Brown?
Nice leading question. So when trying to get elected leader, Dave Cameron promises to pull the Tory Party out of the €uro-federalist EPP (part of whose platform is ‘ever greater union’), then decided not to after all… and then upon being elected goes back on his pledge to allow individual Tory MPs to campaign to leave the EU, and that somehow that makes him a… Eurosceptic. How does that work exactly? And his promises to impose more ‘green’ regulations and absolute refusal to say which government programmes or departments would be scrapped under his administration, that makes him in favour of reduced taxes? Really?
But when I saw d’Ancona holding up G.W. Bush (timber industry protectionism, ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ federal statism, Patriot Act, etc. etc.) as an example of someone who is not an old-time statist of really significant magnitude, well, that actually left me lost for words for initially (not a common occurrence for a opinionated git such as myself). So Dave Cameron is not an ol’ time statist… he wants the state to meddle in family life, but he is not a statist. He refuses to cut taxes but he is not a statist. His close adviser wants to redistribute wealth but Dave is not a statist. Oh, what’s that? He is actually Thatcher’s heir? Oh, that’s all right then! Phew, you had me worried for a moment there.
In short, Matthew d’Ancona’s article is actually either incoherent or (more likely) not actually based on any genuine exposition of what Tory ideology consists of at all but just a tactical piece designed to protect ‘his party’. I strongly suspect d’Ancona thinks getting onto power is an end in and of itself, rather than achieving some specific objective with political power. That really is the only way I can explain his strange lack of understanding why life long Tories have turned against his party. He seems to have the meta-context of ‘politics as its own justification’ if you like. No doubt if confronted with that notion, he would reply “you actually have to get elected before you can implement your policies”, as if you do not actually need to get the intellectual ground work into place for what you intend to do, you just get elected and viola…you implement whatever policies take your fancy… which would work if we were electing dictators, which we are not.
A very good indication that the Tories have belatedly woken up to the fact they are indeed circling the drain is that today’s Daily Torygraph is absolutely chock-a-block with anti-UKIP articles. It is almost as if they are trying to force UKIP out of existence by sheer force of column inches. The reason I have only externally linked to articles in the Daily Telegraph is that all the information you need to see the absurdity and contradictions in the articles today in the Telegraph praising Cameron and saying he is the heir of Thatcher can be demolished by reading other older articles… in the Daily Telegraph.
And I’m Walter Mitty’s second cousin twice removed.
Perry, do you or any of the other Samizdata folk have any affiliation with UKIP? I only ask because, as I posted on “Circling The Drain”, their manifesto is small-government hands-off liberal, and they could easily be the political arm of Samizdata! If you’d asked me last week if I would ever think of joining a political party, I’d have laughed. …Now I’m seriously considering joining them. They’re the only party I’ve come across which bucks the usual mediocratic trend, and they not only buck it, but kick it into touch. D’you think they have a hope of getting elected? Has there been a thread on their policies? (Sorry, I’m new to this — and to UKIP). Thanks,
Paul.
No but I agree with more of their policies than any other party… the immigration and NHS stuff makes me gag but they are still the only thing even vaguely like a classical liberal party in the UK today.
Immigration stuff, yeah, like we need more of these fellows.
Dispatches clips
For DC to draw parallels with Maggie is misleading but there are points to consider. During the mid-70s, she was mostly known as the rather brassy ex-Education minister who, let it not be forgotten, shut down a lot of grammar schools (a point that does not quite fit with the Received Version). In power, she initially delayed taking on the miners in 1981, signed the 1986 Single European Act, the Anglo-Irish Agreement (probably wisely), objected to abolishing mortgage tax relief, and arguably, held off from very serious reforms of the NHS/welfare system. She was not a consistent practioner of small government. Neither was Reagan, remember. But she did achieve a lot, and she signalled her broad intent in advance of 1979. The problem with Cameron is that there is no sign whatever of such intent. None. Nada. Zip. We are obliged to think that Cameron is trying to seduce liberal England into voting for him. About the only good thing he has said so far is his general aversion to ID cards. But even here, I don’t trust him.
I also fear he lacks the experience and maturity of a long life spent creating wealth, running a business or a large organisation to be able to handle great pressure, work well with a team and handle the complexities of the job. He is too young and given the changing demographics, I don’t see why it is regarded as such a good thing to put youngsters in power. They should be out raising kids, doing an honest job and trying to have lots of sex.
I am still laughing at the brilliantly shallow portrayal of Cameron on The Trial of Tony Blair last night. Cameron was acted by Alexander Armstrong – the chap who does the PIMMS adverts – as an immensely vain trendy ‘with it’ Tory leader cycling around London with hiphop music blasting out and , always followed by a pair of Trinny and Suzannah-type style gurus who can not make up their minds on whether he should wear jeans or trousers.
“I also fear he lacks the experience and maturity of a long life spent creating wealth, running a business or a large organisation to be able to handle great pressure, work well with a team and handle the complexities of the job. He is too young and given the changing demographics, I don’t see why it is regarded as such a good thing to put youngsters in power. They should be out raising kids, doing an honest job and trying to have lots of sex.”,/em>
Another disadvantage arising from his inexperience is that he has never met “ordinary people”. He has never had a gossip about the latest government cock up with colleagues who are not political obsessives, or heard views that haven’t been viewed and reviewed for their possible impact on a future political career if quoted. Past politicians had worked with or employed such normal people. Until recently they may have served with or commanded them in military action. Cameron has only opinion polls and “advisors” to let him know what the country thinks.
Tam Dalyell was right (in this if nothing else) when he suggested that, instead of lowering the qualifying age to stand for parliament, it should be raised, and an experience hurdle imposed. I suspect that fewer than 35 MPs (5%) would clear such a hurdle today. With so few MPs, they would have to do less.
That piece in the DT was particularily vomit inducing. It did rather amuse me to see the backlash it was getting from Telegraph readers. Not exactly overwhelmingly positive it has to be said!
Dave is a PR spiv. It’s all he ever has been, and all he ever will be. He’d say the moon was made of green cheese if he thought it would help him. He’s put a bloody windmill on his roof. His political beliefs are the square root of jack shit. End of story.
I realise that it was inadvertent, but the phrase:
you just get elected and viola… may sum up Cameron’s attitude better than any other.
– What an INFLAMMATORY accusation! My dear Sir, you have just neatly paraphrased the election platforms of BOTH major parties in every Canadian federal election in the last four decades – welcome to the Human Political Condition!
“Yes, we’ll save you all, and Utopia will happen right here on Earth – as soon as you elect us! – And IF YOU DON’T LIKE MY PRINCIPLES, SIR – I have others…”
Another disadvantage arising from his inexperience is that he has never met “ordinary people”
Not convinced that’s necessarily a disadvantage.
Having spent a lifetime among “ordinary people” – and, indeed, being one – has formed the statesmanlike credibility of John Prescott. The PM, on the other hand, has met ordinary people no more than he had to after leaving the Eton of Scotland, and even if his silver spoon wasn’t antique Georgian silver, it would still have choked him if it mattered. It didn’t: he’s done much more to reshape the country than any of his predecessors (bar Attlee, maybe), sad to say.
What counts in modern democratic politics is plausibility and energy, not subtle patina. The capacity to use ordinary people is not dependent on personal familiarity. One may not like absolutist telegenetic democracy, but the that’s how Britain is actually governed.
Sorry about the mangled link.
I have to concede that John Prescott is no recomendation for MPs having worked for a living, but I’m equally unsure John Prescott is a recomendation for being human (which he is, almost).
I am convinced that it is preferable to having career politicians such as Blair (did he ever fight a case as a barrister?), Brown (the academic life is hardly gritty reality, & thank God I was never a student of his) and Cameron (a week’s work experience, which no doubt daddy set up for him).
When you declare, “I am Howard Hughes’ heir”, are you referring to the nattily-dressed early Howard Hughes, who dated Hollywood actresses and flew cool aircraft, or the later, reclusive, insane one, who surrounded himself with a staff of Mormons, quit bathing, and stored his urine in used mayonaisse jars?
The Howard Hughes who left the $2 billion estate of course…
Cameron is truly Thatcher’s heir.
It is often seen that the progeny who had no part in creating the wealth are swift to squander their inheritance.
I described d”Ancona’s piece as blowing smoke up Dave’s arse and I think that about sums it up.
Oh yeah and don’t look now but Davey boy is a supporter of Unite Against Fascism an anti-fascist group with some dubious links & tactics.
Odd that Mr d’Ancona should talk about “compassionate conservativism” in relation to Mr Bush’s time as Governor of Texas.
As Governor of Texas George Bush did not really introduce any new welfare state schemes (as he has done at the Federal level with no-child-left-behind and the Medicare extention). And whilst he was not as good as the present Governor of Texas (Rick Perry) Mr Bush did balance the budget and introduce a tiny bit of Tort law reform (pushing the law a little way back in the direction of a person who sues having to show that a wrong has been done to him by the person or organization he is sueing – as opposed to “I am poor and have a problem, they have money – so they must give me some of it” which is the principle of “progressive” Tort law).
Is Mr d’Ancona saying that Mr Cameron is telling lies when he promises to keep spending ever more money on government health, education and welfare schemes? Or is he just getting confused between Mr Bush as President and Mr Bush as Governor of Texas?
I suppose Mr d’ Ancona could be talking about George’s Bush efforts to get religious charities more involved in government work (which he introduced in Texas). President Bush’s efforts to increase subsidies to religious charities were (I believe) blocked at Federal level – I think rightly blocked, as such subsidies could only corrupt the charities.
I know Mr Cameron (on the prompting of Ian Duncan-Smith) has said nice things about relgious and secular charities but I did not know he supported increasing government subsidies to them – that would be a very bad thing to do.
As I pointed out in my detailed fisking of d’Ancona’s mendacious load of old rubbish, Cammy-Baby cannot withdraw from the EU Social Chapter, because it no longer exists.
The Social Chapter was incorporated into the Treaty of Amsterdam; is Honest Dave going to “unsign” an entire EU Treaty? No.
Can he change the Treaty? Only with a unanimous vote, something that is, practically, not ever going to happen.
So his promise to leave the Social Chapter is… well… One has to apply what I call the Polly Toynbee Conundrum: is he an ignorant fool or is he a perfidious liar?
Either way, I don’t want him having any power over me, thanks.
DK
P.S. I should probably point out, for those who don’t know, that I am a member of UKIP.
DK
Amazing that Cameron has gone from praising Polly Toynbee to the heir of Thatcher within a month. The man should have been a contortionist.
Indeed.
I have to hand a Selsdon Group paper by Harold Taylor published in June 1997 – “Last Stop Amsterdam” which predicts the change that Devil’s Kitchen points out.
For such a young man (and his youth points to the absurdity of “waiting for Mr Cameron to retire” as someone suggested on another thread) Mr Cameron does seem to be stuck in the past – in his mind he is still a young hanger-on of the government of John Major.
As for Mr d’Ancona – as Mr Booker is fond of pointing out, “modern” newspaper writers (and broadcasters) consider it beneath them to actually research the facts – if they wasted time on such reseach they wold have less time to got to social events with important people (which is all that really matters to them).
Modern political journalism is rather like the “society page” of old.
I suppose that Mr d’Ancona should be sent a link to Devil’s Kitchen’s examination of his piece – but I doubt he would be interested, after all the examination does not contain an invitation to a dinner party with Mr Blair and/or Mr Cameron.
I remember the precise moment I gave up on DaveC and the whole New Conservative band- when they voted against the 90-day detention of terror suspects. I realise there are many people who read and write on this blog who probably thought the 90-day detention proposals a threat to civil liberties. I thought they made sense. And given that they had built-in termination clause, it seemed a very small risk to civil liberties for people not currently engaged in bomb production. Not sure where that would leave me with UKIP… did they vote against the 90-day detention prop?
HOWARD R HUGHES SON AND ONLY HEIR IS MYSELF. BORN 1959 AT GROSSMONT HOSPITAL IN LAMESA CA. LIVED IN TWO RIVERS WISCONSIN. FATHER JAMES WILLIAM FITZGERAL -WILLIAM J FITZGERALD, MOTHER BETTY J HOFFMAN, MAIDEN NAME BETTY JEAN PETERMAN. 3 BROTHERS ALSO. DNA TESTS CONFIRMED THIS SEVERAL YEARS AGO. ASK JAMES A BAKER THE 3rd.