Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

The New York Times's view of Cameron

 
Christopher Caldwell’s interview with David Cameron – long anticipated by those inclined to wait with bated breath for such things (I hold my hands up here) – has been published in the New York Times. It’s long, thorough and makes a good read.

There are two points I’d particularly like to hear your thoughts on. The first is Caldwell’s deft reflection on what Cameron might teach the Republican party:

Cameron’s rise has led some conservative thinkers in the United States, notably the Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks, to suggest that Republicans follow his lead.

Speaking to Charlie Rose in April, Brooks described Cameronism as the “natural alternative” to the “technocratic” politics of Barack Obama and summed up Cameron’s philosophy this way:

“You’re going to champion the technocrats in government; I’m going to champion every other institution in society, whether it’s family, career associations, the church — every other association you can think of.”

A pragmatic kind of communitarianism runs through a lot of Cameron’s policies. His advisers, particularly the party’s shadow education secretary, Michael Gove, argue in defense of local institutions, from schools with competitive enrollments to small post offices, whose contributions to community cohesion don’t appear on the bottom line and are often invisible to orthodox Thatcherites.

The second – presented as rather more of a fait accompli by Caldwell – seems more contentious (though I’m not inclined to say he’s wrong):

The gap between rich and poor is wider in Britain than it is in most advanced economies. The politics of class, however, are more complicated than they used to be.

Political consultants, when they describe the electorate, often use a classification system devised by British sociologists. ABs are managers and professionals, who were once reliable Tory voters; Cs are various laborers.

But ABs broke for Labour in recent elections, and C2s (skilled laborers) were a bulwark of Thatcherism, playing a role in Tory coalitions analogous to that of “Reagan Democrats” in Republican ones.

As elites have become more meritocratic, the Tory Party is no longer their natural home. A result is that having a toff as leader now worries the Tories less.

Maybe Cameron’s popularity means that the public is falling back into what the historian R. H. Tawney called “that habit of mean subservience to wealth and social position, . . . which is still the characteristic and odious vice of Englishmen.”

But maybe a shared consumerism is making people think about class less in terms of power than of lifestyle. Consider Johnnie Boden, a graduate of both Eton and Oxford, whose catalog business sells an image of casual refinement to Middle England and Middle America.

'Toffs' - a redundant, relic of a moniker that's ready for scrappage, or still a real sore point in our society and politics? Lend me your thoughts.

Cameron's German accent

OK, I know I’m a little late to respond to this story, but I’m intrigued by the positions of both those attacking and defending Cameron about German-accent-gate.

Because I really can’t work myself up into even a mildly righteous indignation about this. And yet the defence – the do-we-really-want-a-humourless-politician line – seems to me to fall a little flat.

Obviously, it’s the kind of humour he expressed, and not the fact of it, that has people tut-tutting. But are we really saying that a light-hearted bit of cultural ribbing is racist?

Because if not, I fail to understand the problem. And if we are, then have we condemned ourselves to a future in which colourful cultural variance has to be studiously boiled down to a grey lifeless pulp before it is mentioned?

The question over spending plans

In this morning's papers, understandably, David Cameron's statement yesterday is reported as ending his policy of matching Labour's spending plans.

It is understandable because that is what Mr Cameron said he was doing.

However it is important to understand that not matching Labour's spending plans is not the same as not matching the amount Labour intends to spend.

Eh?

Labour is about to review its spending plans. In other words what, it will, by next week, plan to spend in future is not the same as the amounts currently pencilled in.

David Cameron called on them to reduce those amounts. And it is very possible that they will do so. So reporting that the Tories will not match Labour's plans misses a crucial point. Labour probably won't match Labour spending plans.

Until we know what Labour intends to do, we will not know whether Labour and Tory plans will be the same.

David Cameron's strategy and why it will work

So Roxy Music has faded out, David Cameron has kissed Samantha, headed back to London down the motorway. The conference season is over, what has changed?

In the Mail this morning, it is clear they think they know.

They have gathered up their chips and put them back on red again. Not content on the tonking they got last time, they are back in the Brown camp, with all their father of the nation stuff.

Ben Brogan explains that the next election is back in the melting pot and the leader column suggests that the Tory conference should have been called off, being such a waste of time.

So are we all about to go Browntastic?

No.

David Cameron's speech demonstrated that he has made a strategic choice - he is going to fight experience with change. And this strategic choice is the correct one.

This election will not be fought in the middle of a crisis. It will be fought in the depressed aftermath that results from the crisis. The politics of these two moments are quite different.

In a crisis people will be small 'c' conservatives, clinging to experience. They fear losing what they have got. But the literature on loss aversion suggests that in the depressed aftermath, when things are already bad, they will take a risk, and plump for change.

So even if I were inclined to believe that the electorate are willing to give Brown a second chance - which I am not - I don't think Labour can win using experience against change.

The only question left is whether voters will trust Cameron's Tories with change. A conference speech isn't going to make much difference to that. But Cameron showed, with great verve and confidence, that he knows how to frame the argument.

Why David Cameron's support is important

Plenty of coverage this morning of David Cameron's offer of support for measures to support the banks.

Various commentators point out that Cameron's offer, while good politics, isn't really necessary. After all, this isn't America. Gordon Brown has a Parliamentary majority.

But this point isn't right. Cameron's offer is meaningful.

Gordon Brown does not have a large majority. And Labour has required Tory support in the last few years on controversial measures, including the Iraq war and education reform.

It is not hard to see bank support being controversial with the left, with a group of MPs objecting to City "fat cats" being bailed out. In such circumstances Tory support could be useful in helping new measures pass swiftly.

And even if that were not true in the Commons, it could be in the Lords.

It is certainly true that it would be easier for a British Prime Minister than a US President to get assent from the legislature. But the need to make use of Tory support is not entirely out of the question.

David Cameron vs. the Treasury

Fascinating post by Nick Robinson on his blog. It suggests that David Cameron's offer of co-operation was pitch perfect but then raised some questions over the substance.

It is obvious, Nick says so, that the substance was provided by the Treasury . They either volunteered it or Nick asked them for it.

Either way, it is clear that their response to Cameron's offer was to rebut his points and suggest his offer was not necessary.

They don't get those guys, do they. The point was not the details of Cameron's offer but the unifying tone.

The Treasury response, I would suggest, is so far from politically pitch perfect as to leave one shaking one's head in amazement.

Perhaps it was an official. They need to get a politician on the case.

When politicians really are pants...

A great gift for those who still hold the memory of Maggie dear in their hearts.

Now they can keep her close to more private parts of the anatomy.

Political pants offers a selection of underwear emblazoned with your favourite politicos. Prices fluctuate with public opinion. This week, Brown's a mere £9 while Cameron's riding high at £11. Not too high, we hope.

Alice Fishburn

It's all about the light blue tie

What is it about light blue ties?

Gordon Brown wore one on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th of October.

On the other two days, October 3rd and 7th, David Cameron wore one.

Never, interestingly, did their neckwear coincide.

Hugo Rifkind sheds some light on this mystery in a recent observation about George Bush:

His work with Iraq and the US economy may have been sketchy, but George Bush scored a lasting triumph with his neckwear. He has, apparently, pioneered the wearing of light blue ties, a trend copied by both Barak Obama and John McCain. "It really lightens up a man's face, and he comes across as more decisive, but in a human sort of way," says the American author Donna Brazile..

Perhaps this is where the inspiration comes from?

Tim Rice

How Cameron scores on the über-moderniser test

On Wednesday last week I declared myself an über-moderniser and set David Cameron some tests for his speech.

With the conference finished here's how I think they did against the principles I set out:

That optimism triumphs over pessimism. Both Cameron and Osborne's speeches were more optimistic than some that were made earlier in the summer, but this remains an area where a strategic choice is required. Fringe meetings were still full of incredibly gloomy, almost apocalyptic talk about the state of society.

When you talk about them, voters learn about you. Only the most grudging über-moderniser could fault Cameron's speech on the tone of his argument with the Government. Arguing that Labour means well and that the Tories therefore have to explain clearly why the Government has fallen short was just right. Other Conservatives were less good but this conference was definitely better than in previous years.

That to win, Tories must appeal to their core vote. The inheritance tax proposal was aimed squarely at the core vote, which I define as the upwardly mobile middle classes. It was a risk, but after a lot of opinion research they got the proposal right. I am less convinced about the marriage idea. Intellectually I worry about a tax break and politically I don't think it's a winner with women.

That brand decontamination comes before everything. I think Cameron did well in his speech on this. The passage about immigration, in particular, was well structured. The European section was too early in the speech but didn't drown it out.

That the danger is having too much policy, not too little. On the whole, the party preferred directional statements to micropolicy and I was pleased to see that. There were one or two moments, though when, for instance, a sweeping, but impractical sounding, benefits policy appeared out of nowhere, when I was a little concerned. I think also that NHS policy is less coherent than education policy.

That you must show as well as tell. I was worried about this. I suppose it was inevitable that less should be made of party reform at a pre-election conference, but it does mean Cameron would fight an election simply asserting that he is strong and modern. Why should voters believe that? So during a campaign he'll have to find innovative ways of demonstrating it. Not easy.

On the whole?

Cameron's speech showed he is pretty remarkable and that he gets it, or at least most of it. But the Party still has a long way to go.

The sleep test

I wish there had been a proper academic study, but in the absence of one I'll make an untested assertion. There is an inverse relationship between how late the leader's team finish his speech and its quality.

Last year David Cameron's speech wasn't finished until just before he gave it. And you could tell.

Good speech writing is partly about creativity but editing and polishing make a huge difference. If you run out of time (personal example William Hague, 1998) you can't do that vital work.

The earliest sign that this year may be better? Steve Hilton was to be found at a party at 10pm, calmly sipping a soft drink.