In 1598, William Shakespeare\u00a0wrote of English politics in\u00a0his otherwise unremarkable play\u00a0“King John”:<\/p>\n
O inglorious league!
\nShall we, upon the footing of our land,
\nSend fair-play orders and make compremise,
\nInsinuation, parley, and base truce
\nTo arms invasive?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n412 years later David Cameron enters stage left<\/a>, arms as invasive as ever before in Britain’s Conservative Party.\u00a0 Will\u00a0he be equally as unremarkable as “King John”?<\/p>\n
In the last year, the youthful, moderate, almost too-charismatic leader of the Tories has yo-yoed from political genius\/cross-Atlantic conservative\u00a0inspiration to cautionary tale and nearly (within the last 24 hours) the head of the loyal opposition instead of Prime Minister.\u00a0 Instead Cameron sent “fair-play orders” (which in Shakespeare’s era was tantamount to surrender) and made compromise\u00a0with the exceedingly left-wing Liberal Democratic Party to form the oddest\u00a0fusion since the Second Coalition <\/a>of the Napoleonic Wars.\u00a0 Or maybe\u00a0Elton John and Eminem at the Grammys<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The tendency in Anglo-American political relations\u00a0has long been to\u00a0see parallels across the pond.\u00a0 Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher, Blair and Clinton.\u00a0 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<\/a> en route to occupying 10 Downing Street.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 Most certainly for Cameron, at least\u00a0on the campaign trail,\u00a0having Gordon\u00a0Brown out of power was the only real change he promised to offer the United Kingdom:<\/p>\n
\nThe last years of Labor\u2019s rule were marked by recession, crushing debt, two unpopular wars in league with the United States and several high profile scandals.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the Conservatives, following [Tony] Blair\u2019s 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 \u201cThe Big Society,\u201d with a vision not so much of small government but of \u201cmore effective government.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Between Cameron’s self-description as a “liberal Conservative”<\/a> and the\u00a0Tories’ newfound alliance with the Liberal Democrats, it would seem safe to say that Cameron’s “Big Society” government is only going to get bigger.<\/p>\n
It didn’t necessarily have to end like this.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 In exchange for Clegg’s 57 seats (and roughly 10% of the electorate), the Tories\u00a0will likely grant the Liberal Democrats 6 of the 22 cabinet posts – a move that only further complicate\u00a0any efforts for serious political reform<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\u00a0The 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\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n