I have a great admiration for most politicians. They pursue a noble vocation compared with, say, journalists. What a dangerously perverse culture we live in when most politicians are despised, the ones that brought peace to Northern Ireland etc, while drunken multi millionaire footballers are deified.
Still having made this general observation I despair at the thin field of truly, great British politicians at the end of 2007.
What characterises greatness? I do not have to agree with a politician to recognise titanic qualities. Nor in my opinion do great politicians have to be successful administrators. But to qualify for greatness they have to be big, compelling figures. The Labour cabinet in the 1970s was overwhelmed by such characters, huge, vivid figures: Healey, Crosland, Benn, Foot, Jenkins, Williams, Owen. They were much more than mere administrators (some of them were poor ministers), but they were enthralled by ideas, debate, oratory, intrigue, literature, music. As a bonus they were all good writers. In the 1980s and 1990s Heseltine, Howe, Portillo, Hurd, Clarke were almost as interesting.
Now I stare at a near blank political canvass. The cabinet is the dullest in modern times. Only Gordon Brown will fascinate historians for decades to come. I cannot imagine a biography of Jacqui Smith hitting the bookshops in twenty years’ time. The shadow cabinet is equally lacking titanic figures.
So in this limited context which politician has shone most brightly in 2007? Gordon Brown achieved his dream of taking over from Tony Blair without Labour lapsing into civil war, an astonishing achievement in the light of the tensions that preceded the so called smooth transition and a reminder of his determined willfulness. He will not give up on the back of a few bad opinion polls. But Brown has yet to flourish as a commanding Prime Minister and therefore cannot be my politician of the year. No one else in the cabinet merits consideration on the basis of the last twelve months.
David Cameron comes close to winning because of the awesome calm he displayed over the summer and early autumn. If events had moved only slightly differently he might have been slaughtered at a general election and no longer leader. Cameron retained focus and humour during this period. His speech at the Tory conference was one of the memorable events of the year. But for a leader to be politician of the year he or she must display more than bravura. It is still not clear what drives Cameron beyond the excitement of the game of politics. Michael Cockerell’s documentary on Cameron broadcast on Thursday on BBC2 did not contain a single idea that inspires Cameron. Instead, Cameron’s entire focus it seems is on performance, a speech, an interview, out manoeuvring opponents, copying new Labour in order to win as if winning is an end in itself. It is not enough.
That leaves me with a politician who has shone brightly in 2007. Cameron’s friend, George Osborne, has won plaudits for his proposal to scrap inheritance tax. I was much more impressed by the way he responded to Brown’s last budget as Chancellor and Alastair Darling’s recent pre-budget report. Osborne spotted the weak points immediately and strode confidently into the lobby to brief political journalists about them, not an easy task. He reminds me in many ways of the young Harold Wilson. I mean this as a compliment. Wilson won four elections and will be rehabilitated by historians before very long. Like Wilson, Osborne has a high voice that is slowly deepening in order to achieve gravitas. He is cunning and quick witted, but also has high political intelligence. He is an essential figure in the increasingly strong team around Cameron. Osborne is my politician of the year.
I agree. Osborne was the brains that stopped the election. Not sure about the comparison to Wilson, but it is an interesting thought. I also agree that history like start to treat Wilson kindly. Wilson went of his own choosing and stood up to the Americans. Two things Blair failed to do. Also he was much more of a skilled politician than any of the present lot. Osborne compared to Wilson needs a bit of thought.
Here is one for you Steve. I compare Brown to Eden. They are very similar in so many ways.
Posted by: Howard | Friday, 21 December 2007 at 11:47 AM
Sad to see that Steve regards Cockerell's profiles as some sort of Journal of Record.
"...[his] documentary on Cameron broadcast on Thursday on BBC2 did not contain a single idea that inspires Cameron..."
Is that the fault of the politician, or the editorial decision of the auteur?
Posted by: Teesbridge | Friday, 21 December 2007 at 08:00 PM