In 1598, William Shakespeare wrote of English politics in his otherwise unremarkable play “King John”:
O inglorious league!
Shall we, upon the footing of our land,
Send fair-play orders and make compremise,
Insinuation, parley, and base truce
To arms invasive?
412 years later David Cameron enters stage left, arms as invasive as ever before in Britain’s Conservative Party. Will he be equally as unremarkable as “King John”?
In the last year, the youthful, moderate, almost too-charismatic leader of the Tories has yo-yoed from political genius/cross-Atlantic conservative inspiration to cautionary tale and nearly (within the last 24 hours) the head of the loyal opposition instead of Prime Minister. Instead Cameron sent “fair-play orders” (which in Shakespeare’s era was tantamount to surrender) and made compromise with the exceedingly left-wing Liberal Democratic Party to form the oddest fusion since the Second Coalition of the Napoleonic Wars. Or maybe Elton John and Eminem at the Grammys.
The tendency in Anglo-American political relations has long been to see parallels across the pond. Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher, Blair and Clinton. Indeed, from the moment Barack Obama positioned himself at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, conservatives both of the big ‘C’ and litle ‘c’ variety, began to argue that Cameron was positioning himself as a fellow change agent en route to occupying 10 Downing Street.
Perhaps the most accurate link between between Obama and Cameron was their first and foremost notion of what such “change” meant – having the other party out of power. Most certainly for Cameron, at least on the campaign trail, having Gordon Brown out of power was the only real change he promised to offer the United Kingdom:
The last years of Labor’s rule were marked by recession, crushing debt, two unpopular wars in league with the United States and several high profile scandals.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives, following [Tony] Blair’s playbook, reinvented their party with a younger leader and a softer edge, deemphasizing the ideological free-market capitalism of the Thatcher years in favor of what Cameron labeled “The Big Society,” with a vision not so much of small government but of “more effective government.”
Between Cameron’s self-description as a “liberal Conservative” and the Tories’ newfound alliance with the Liberal Democrats, it would seem safe to say that Cameron’s “Big Society” government is only going to get bigger.
It didn’t necessarily have to end like this. Even after squandering a major polling lead in the weeks and months leading up to the election, Cameron could have made up the 20-odd seats the Conservatives failed to get to hold a majority through a series of alliances with more regional parties. While a “grand coalition” of Scottish nationals and Northern Irish politicians would be more unwieldy to assemble, Cameron would have had to surrender far less than he has to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. In exchange for Clegg’s 57 seats (and roughly 10% of the electorate), the Tories will likely grant the Liberal Democrats 6 of the 22 cabinet posts – a move that only further complicate any efforts for serious political reform:
The new coalition will face formidable challenges, chief among them addressing the huge budget deficit and cutting spiraling public spending. If he is to bring Britain’s finances under control, Cameron will have to implement the kind of Thatcher-style reforms anathema to the Lib-Dems. He will also have to address the major issue of illegal immigration, a huge matter for British voters and another area where there are major differences with the Liberals; Cameron believes in tighter controls, while Clegg has called for a deeply unpopular amnesty. The gulf is also vast between the parties on Europe, national security, defense, and foreign policy, and it is hard to see how the two sides can bridge the divide in these areas.
Like a distorted bookend, Cameron’s rise comes 30 years, nearly to the day, of the start of Margaret Thatcher’s tenure. It’s hard not to compare the steely confidence of the Iron Lady to the milquetoast performance of Britain’s latest Conservative PM. Thatcher quotes St. Francis of Assisi. Cameron seems to be reading from the gospel according to political correctness, focusing on Britain’s “more open and inclusive society.”
God save the Queen indeed.
Good post, FR. Cameron wanted to PM in the worst way. He seems to have received his wish. Clegg will pull the struts out from underneath Cameron sooner than later.
I don’t think that I would have much confidence in an elected official who instead of saying “I love my country” or “I love our country” said “I love this country.”
I know it seems like a little thing but when you’re trying to connect with your fellow countrymen with a message of national unity, it seems an odd choice of words.
Or maybe he thinks of himself as a European (or Citizen of the World) first and a Briton second (or third) and that was the best that he could manage.
Well King John died of dysentary, so Cameron already has a major advantage.
FR you clearly haven’t followed the election closely, sorry to be a snob about this but I’ve watched the BBC (online) more since Thursday than the Fox News Channel. Let’s break this down bit by bit
In the last year, the youthful, moderate, almost too-charismatic leader of the Tories has yo-yoed from political genius/cross-Atlantic conservative inspiration to cautionary tale and nearly (within the last 24 hours) the head of the loyal opposition instead of Prime Minister.
To be honest there was never any real threat of him being part of the loyal opposition. The Lib Dems and Labour (yes that’s how they spell it in the UK) combined had 315 seats, the Conservatives have 306. For an overall parlimentary majority you need 326. So even if there was going to be a Lib-Lab coalition they would have had to ask one of the crazy Scottish nationalist parties to join their government. The government would have been about as stable as Charles Manson on Meth and elections would have had to have been called again by November at the latest, while the UK economy went into the crapper and unemployment hit 15% in the country. He and Nick Clegg formed a government and the Lib Dems aren’t THAT bad. They are more of a moderate green party type over there and they did get 22% of the vote even though they only got 10% of the seats in the Commons.
Instead Cameron sent “fair-play orders” (which in Shakespeare’s era was tantamount to surrender) and made compromise with the exceedingly left-wing Liberal Democratic Party
No he didn’t he put the country’s needs above his own personal political ones. He could have very easily formed an (unstable) minority government that literally couldn’t have gotten one bill passed but he decided to negociate with Clegg. They found common ground and signed a pact, a very honorable thing considering the country over there is hanging by a thread
It didn’t necessarily have to end like this. Even after squandering a major polling lead in the weeks and months leading up to the election, Cameron could have made up the 20-odd seats the Conservatives failed to get to hold a majority through a series of alliances with more regional parties.
Like I noted above, less stable than Manson on Meth. The regional parties would have refused any necessary cuts to their areas. Government wouldn’t have lasted a year
While a “grand coalition” of Scottish nationals and Northern Irish politicians would be more unwieldy to assemble, Cameron would have had to surrender far less than he has to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. In exchange for Clegg’s 57 seats (and roughly 10% of the electorate), the Tories will likely grant the Liberal Democrats 6 of the 22 cabinet posts – a move that only further complicate any efforts for serious political reform
The above description would have put labour back in power in a couple years. Cameron now has a solid 82 seat majority to work with. Don’t forget because of Britians screwy electoral system Lib Dems got 22% of the overall vote and only 10% of the seats. It will help with reform and the markets and thats what was more important here, national stability. Props to Cameron and Clegg for working out a deal. This might put Labour in permanant minority party status and that would truly benefit the UK.
God save the Queen indeed.
eh, say what you want but I am happy with a result. This is what happens when you get a hung parliment