Not so long ago leading Conservatives were comparing David Cameron with Barrack Obama. The comparisons ceased when Hilary Clinton stormed ahead in the Democrats’ gripping contest. Now some of them make connections with the triumphant John McCain, almost certainly the Republican candidate. This blog pointed to the similarities between McCain and Cameron, two figures apparently representing together a new brand of Conservatism.
Yet in revealing ways the claimed similarities were wrong. Supposedly both McCain and Cameron are pro-immigration, green and fiscally cautious to the fury of their own right wing. But Cameron is taking a tough stance in relation to immigration, is promising tax cuts along with spending increases and has shown less interest in green issues recently. Being also strongly pro-marriage and Euro-sceptic Cameron is a mainstream Conservative presenting his party in new and modern ways.
McCain is more of a genuine maverick, pro-war and reactionary on social issues, but closer to many Democrats in relation to economic policy, the environment and immigration.
The extraordinary rise of McCain raises a different but still illuminating question for British politics. What would have happened if Ken Clarke had won the Conservatives’ leadership contest in 2005? More than Cameron, Clarke is the McCain of the Conservative Party, the veteran with broad appeal who arouses suspicious wariness in Tory activists. The question is more interesting in the light of the Conservatives’ relatively small opinion poll lead and their internal debate, increasingly intense, about the direction of policy.
The election of Clarke would have signalled the Conservatives had changed. Although Cameron spoke a lot about the need for the party to change in many ways he represented continuity in his support for a smaller state, tax cuts and Euro-scepticism.
Clarke spent much of his leadership speech at the Tory conference in 2005 lecturing his audience on the limited scope for tax cuts. Recently in an interview he told me there was no scope at all for cuts in the light of the economic gloom. If he had been elected leader there would have been no flakiness around the issue of tax and spend as there is at the top of the party now. The economic policy would be more rooted and credible. Clarke opposed the war against Iraq and would therefore have more credibility in relation to foreign policy in comparison with the current shadow cabinet, which contains some of the most enthusiastic neo-cons in the land.
The biggest change would have been in relation to Europe. The Tories would have had a leader with a sensibly pragmatic approach, including support for the current Lisbon Treaty. Of course this is why his leadership would have been a disaster. The Tories would have fallen apart once more, turning away from their popular leader. Currently they are as euro-sceptic as ever, suggesting the party has changed only in limited ways. With some reluctance the Republicans might be ready to accept John McCain as their candidate. The Tories could never accept their equivalent here.
Cameron has been clever in his presentation of the Tories giving the impression of change, without actually committing the party to anything of the sort. His members would be in open revolt if he did.
This strategy is doomed to failure, and I believe the Tories will lose again. For one thing, New Labour have stolen all their best tunes.
In the medium term, the Thatcherite policy followed by New Labour and still the core of Tory policy, will reach its sell by date. People are discovering that trusting the market in all aspects of life has very serious drawbacks. And privatising so much of our economy has made a few people very rich at the expense of the many.
There's an opening in British politics on the centre left crying out to be filled. The Tories can't go there. But Labour after Brown could, but the Lib Dems ought to get there first. Cameron or no Cameron, the Tories future looks bleak.
Posted by: David Rolfe | Sunday, 10 February 2008 at 06:19 AM
They both support war, they both support Marxist, Zionist Israel, they both support the phoney War on Terror. Whats new or different about that?
Posted by: scousekraut | Sunday, 10 February 2008 at 11:45 AM