. . .
Of the three party conferences, the Conservatives’ provided the most fodder for that inevitable litmus test of a political story: splits. This year, they were primarily on the nature and existence of EU membership, and the Human Rights Act. But news stories do not always reflect the broader reality. Aside from the very real differences between Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, and the home secretary Theresa May, the splits are exaggerated.
If MPs on the Conservative right really believe that David Cameron is “betraying” Toryism, they are mistaken. Ever since he became leader in 2005, Cameron has skilfully encouraged the media to portray him as a “moderniser” while quietly refusing to ditch any of the core Tory policies on immigration, Europe, tax, and law and order. But a perceived fight with the right over the presence and supposed influence of the Liberal Democrats in government suits him: he is, after all, pitching for the centre ground.
There is one area, though, on which Cameron is to the left of his party: foreign aid. You could tell from the bemused and bored reception on the conference floor given to the pre-speech films promoting it.
To be fair, Cameron himself had a decent conference. Any critic who saw his commanding performance, for example, at the beleaguered Scottish Conservatives’ reception on Monday night could not help but be impressed at both the authority with which he carried himself and the genuineness of his Unionist message, despite the electoral advantage that some in his party want to exploit by breaking up the UK.
Yet in his speech today, Cameron exposed the myth that in anything other than appearance, he is a centrist, liberal, new kind of Conservative leader, or one that is, in the words of the Mail on Sunday’s Peter Hitchens, “left-wing.” (Read Peter Hitchens's article on the Conservative party, "A toxic brand," in this month's Prospect.)
He began by siding with May over Clarke, adding a rather cruel jibe at the elder statesman, when he joked about making him read a book called “Crime and Punishment—twice.” Cameron claimed his was a “One Nation” party, but that wing of the party, redistributive as well as pro-European and led by the besieged Clarke, has all but fizzled out these days.
Instead, there was easy populism. Looking and sounding strangely tired, he seemed at his most comfortable when he declared, looking into the cameras: “As long as I am prime minister, this country will never join the euro.” “Europe has got to wake up,” he declared in Thatcher-esque tones.
Yes, he abandoned an earlier draft of his speech, which appeared to order people to pay off their credit card bills. But he did not drop the false comparison between a national economy and a household, first used by Margaret Thatcher.
On the economic “mess” he said: “Labour got us into it, and I’m getting us out of it.” He trashed almost every element of Labour’s record. And he was powerful in his condemnation of public sector strikes.
Easily the most crude populism came when he lumped “welfare and immigration” together as one subject, without any mentions of the benefits, economic let alone cultural, of migrants. Immigration, race and asylum have long been discussed together in British politics, wrongly. But the automatic link between immigration and welfare problems is a new and misleading one.
On crime, the message in the wake of the summer’s looting, was a traditional law and order one. Cameron echoed Iain Duncan Smith’s emphasis on family values as a way of addressing crime. Cameron said he was “speaking out on marriage,” repeating his insistence that marriage is recognised in the tax system.
Finally, there was the usual attack on political correctness and red tape, gaining a delighted cheer from the hall when Cameron said “Britannia didn’t rule the waves with her armbands on.”
A friend of Cameron’s told me off the record recently that “the thing you have to understand about him is that his ambitions were all fulfilled the minute he walked into No 10.” That helps explain the lack of detailed vision outlined in his speech today. But he can be a master at managing events, as he did so ruthlessly in the coalition negotiations last May.
Cameron, a supremely skilful politician, ended with his characteristic rhetoric of optimism, looking forward to “better days ahead.” But whether that vision will be realised depends on the success of policies defined by traditional Tory pessimism.
IF YOU LIKED THIS, WHY NOT TRY:
Born to lead—but where? - David Cameron may be the Conservative party’s most successful leader since 1997, but, asks Wendell Steavenson, is he a traditional shire Tory or a liberal moderniser?
If MPs on the Conservative right really believe that David Cameron is “betraying” Toryism, they are mistaken. Ever since he became leader in 2005, Cameron has skilfully encouraged the media to portray him as a “moderniser” while quietly refusing to ditch any of the core Tory policies on immigration, Europe, tax, and law and order. But a perceived fight with the right over the presence and supposed influence of the Liberal Democrats in government suits him: he is, after all, pitching for the centre ground.
There is one area, though, on which Cameron is to the left of his party: foreign aid. You could tell from the bemused and bored reception on the conference floor given to the pre-speech films promoting it.
To be fair, Cameron himself had a decent conference. Any critic who saw his commanding performance, for example, at the beleaguered Scottish Conservatives’ reception on Monday night could not help but be impressed at both the authority with which he carried himself and the genuineness of his Unionist message, despite the electoral advantage that some in his party want to exploit by breaking up the UK.
Yet in his speech today, Cameron exposed the myth that in anything other than appearance, he is a centrist, liberal, new kind of Conservative leader, or one that is, in the words of the Mail on Sunday’s Peter Hitchens, “left-wing.” (Read Peter Hitchens's article on the Conservative party, "A toxic brand," in this month's Prospect.)
He began by siding with May over Clarke, adding a rather cruel jibe at the elder statesman, when he joked about making him read a book called “Crime and Punishment—twice.” Cameron claimed his was a “One Nation” party, but that wing of the party, redistributive as well as pro-European and led by the besieged Clarke, has all but fizzled out these days.
Instead, there was easy populism. Looking and sounding strangely tired, he seemed at his most comfortable when he declared, looking into the cameras: “As long as I am prime minister, this country will never join the euro.” “Europe has got to wake up,” he declared in Thatcher-esque tones.
Yes, he abandoned an earlier draft of his speech, which appeared to order people to pay off their credit card bills. But he did not drop the false comparison between a national economy and a household, first used by Margaret Thatcher.
On the economic “mess” he said: “Labour got us into it, and I’m getting us out of it.” He trashed almost every element of Labour’s record. And he was powerful in his condemnation of public sector strikes.
Easily the most crude populism came when he lumped “welfare and immigration” together as one subject, without any mentions of the benefits, economic let alone cultural, of migrants. Immigration, race and asylum have long been discussed together in British politics, wrongly. But the automatic link between immigration and welfare problems is a new and misleading one.
On crime, the message in the wake of the summer’s looting, was a traditional law and order one. Cameron echoed Iain Duncan Smith’s emphasis on family values as a way of addressing crime. Cameron said he was “speaking out on marriage,” repeating his insistence that marriage is recognised in the tax system.
Finally, there was the usual attack on political correctness and red tape, gaining a delighted cheer from the hall when Cameron said “Britannia didn’t rule the waves with her armbands on.”
A friend of Cameron’s told me off the record recently that “the thing you have to understand about him is that his ambitions were all fulfilled the minute he walked into No 10.” That helps explain the lack of detailed vision outlined in his speech today. But he can be a master at managing events, as he did so ruthlessly in the coalition negotiations last May.
Cameron, a supremely skilful politician, ended with his characteristic rhetoric of optimism, looking forward to “better days ahead.” But whether that vision will be realised depends on the success of policies defined by traditional Tory pessimism.
IF YOU LIKED THIS, WHY NOT TRY:
Born to lead—but where? - David Cameron may be the Conservative party’s most successful leader since 1997, but, asks Wendell Steavenson, is he a traditional shire Tory or a liberal moderniser?
