Since 2005 David Cameron has been perceived, in the media and amongst prominent politicians, as Britain’s Prime Minister-in-Waiting. At only 42, Cameron has shone as a political prodigy, and has been credited with successfully re-branding the Conservative Party he leads. However, not all of Britain believes that he has the experience to become Prime Minister. Perception of his character ranges from concerned to smug, having declared on his third day as MP to then Prime Minister Blair that “You were the future once”. An ominous assessment of the state of Britain’s citizen’s discontent, Cameron appears to have dedicated much of his political career within the Conservative Party to becoming the future of the country and proposing solutions to mend what he calls a “broken Britain”. Now with Gordon Brown’s support dwindling further as he faces crisis after crisis, the Conservative party appears unbeatable.
Polls have shown that the political climate in Britain is ready to welcome Cameron as the new Prime Minister. However, having spent the last 4 years under the spotlight, one must question how this publicity has affected his chances for success? Speculations have suggested that despite improving the popularity of the Conservative Party, the fact that he has been considered for the position of Prime Minister for 4 years may also present challenges for an election. True, Cameron has become the face of the Conservative Party, but this might affect him negatively, since mistakes of the party have also tarnished his political image. The advantage that politicians from the opposition have in elections, is that they are judged increasingly on the basis of their promises more so than on the past success and failures of their party. As the image of the new Conservative Party, however, Cameron may have lost this advantage. The question that remains is not then whether Britain is prepared to accept Cameron as Prime Minister, but does it view his reform of conservative politics as the way forward?
Dating back to his days as a student of Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, Cameron’s trajectory seems to imply that he is destined for political success. His tutor at Oxford, Professor Vernon Bognador, has described him as one of the “ablest students he has taught, with moderate and sensible Conservative views.” However, David Cameron’s recent accomplishments in politics are more indicative of his ability to gauge the interest of voters in Britain. While there is a significant debate over how, to use Cameron’s terminology, “broken” Britain really is, he has been able to draw on widespread worries about growing poverty, overextended public services and an increase in violence.
Cameron’s signature policies consequently focus on improving social mobility in Britain. As a Conservative, he argues in favor a small government and a restrained approach to public expenditures. His political priorities, he says, are “welfare, schools, and families. If you want to mend the broken society, these are the things that you have to get done right.”
Cameron however has been hard pressed to define his political philosophy as an “ism” of any sort, even Cameronism, declaring instead that practicality leads his decision making. His focus on middle class issues, nonetheless, have warranted comparisons with the policies of Margaret Thatcher. In this sense, the combination of Cameron’s approach of directing policy reform to the benefit of the working class follows an interesting trajectory in British politics. While the Tories have traditionally been the party of privilege, and Labour the champions of the working class, conservatism under Thatcher took a radical turn and began to appeal to working class voters. Although Blair also appealed to middle class interests and won three terms as leader of the New Labour Party under these policies. Therefore, instead of suggesting that Cameron’s conservatism is Thatcherite in nature, his policies suggest the importance of working class interests for all parties. Cameron’s awareness of the interests of British voters, and his ability to tailor his political strategy accordingly, highlights his pragmatism more than his tendency to follow trends within the Conservative Party.
Discussions on Cameron’s understanding of what Britain needs have also prompted an interest in what has shaped his political ideology. Perhaps this pragmatism reflects his youth or relative inexperience in politics. His background in business, as Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications, might also explain his unconventional approach within the Conservative Party, and particularly the pragmatism that tends to characterize leading business men who measure success in terms of efficiencies and bottom lines. In either case, and most likely as a result of all of these factors, Cameron has been able to develop a growing base of support for the Conservative Party by promoting policies that were outside its traditional mandate, and at times even his own. In 2003 for example, Cameron opposed the repeal of 1988 legislation banning local authorities and schools from “promoting” homosexuality, arguing that his original stance was mistaken. David Davis, Conservative Party Member of Parliament, also notes that Cameron would talk about “detoxifying the party”, believing it was the predominant mission. In Davis’ assessment, Cameron’s understanding of the state of the party was correct, and is what has allowed for the party to reinvigorate itself in the eyes of voters.
The success of this tactic, if one may call pragmatism that, is supported by polls that continually assess the preference of voters in favor of the Conservative Party over the Labour Party. Even Cameron’s early leadership saw the Conservative Party establish a lead in opinion polls over Tony Blair’s Labour Party for the first time in over ten years. Although the Conservative Party lagged behind the Labour Party after Gordon Brown replaced Blair, under Cameron’s leadership, the Conservative’s place in polls have risen, and been consistently ahead of Labour.
Cameron’s last four years in the spotlight as the Prime Minister-in-waiting, however, have led many have come to question whether past successes have built him up too high. Could so much attention have negative implications on his election? In other words, has Britain been convinced that it is his brand of conservatism that they need today? The Guardian noted that “The Tory leader knows better than anyone else that he still has a lot more running to do before he crosses the line”. In other words, a mistake could still cost him the election. “Whatever else you can say about Gordon Brown, he is a stayer, and his party is a course and distance winner many times over.”
It is clear that the competition for the election of Prime Minister is far from over. However, an example of the Conservative Party’s strength, which has recently gained much attention, concerns the budgets of the two contending parties. It indicates that Britain, as a result of the economic crisis, is more inclined to trust the Conservative leader who has promised them benefits for the middle class and fiscal restraint over all. At least two polls, from The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, have now shown that Gordon Brown’s “Labour investment vs. Tory cuts” message seems doomed to fail because voters prefer cuts. The scale of public debt that was exposed, therefore, offers the Conservatives, and Cameron in particular, a huge political opportunity: the ability to associate the debt figures with Brown and Darling.
Cameron has also been able to capitalize politically on the Labour Party’s troubles with Iraq, as well as the recent expenses scandal amongst MPs. Although it would be unfair to claim that all of the Conservative Party’s recent successes can be explained solely by Labour’s missteps and infighting, according to Time magazine “It is a pillar of British political science that governments lose elections; oppositions do not win them”.
If Time is correct, then Cameron’s political strategy reflects an astute understanding of the current dissatisfaction in Britain. The notion of progressive Conservatism, or the pursuit of progressive goals through Conservative means, appears to fit comfortably as a solution to the problems that seem to be plaguing the government today. Cameron has publicly defined these problems as inevitable results that come from taking control away from the individual and the community and giving it to political and bureaucratic elites. Cameron’s position is then that the “new politics Britain needs should be a massive sweeping, radical redistribution of power: from the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities; from the EU to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.”
The central claim behind Cameron’s conservatism is therefore that the problems Britain faces today are a result of a government that is too big to control itself. In other words, that the current government is the problem. The economic crisis and the expense scandal resonate with this message. As much of Britain is disillusioned with the way both have been handled and why they came about in the first place, it appears that Cameron’s solution is destined for success despite the length of time that he has been the focus of the media. When the government is in trouble, an opposition party’s main priority is not to be unelectable. What Cameron has achieved, according to Kellner, the head of a polling organization, is to make the Conservative Party electable.
