Melanie Phillips on David Cameron's first year

I had lunch with Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips yesterday and she recorded this five minute assessment of David Cameron's first year as 'Blue Labour leader' for 18 Doughty Street Talk TV.

Comments

[SimonNewman]

Michael McGowan:
"Martin, I would have said that she is more of a classical liberal than a Conservative."

I agree - Phillips' stance, like mine, starts from a classical-liberal rather than traditionalist-conservative perspective.

However, cultural Marxist dominance of political discourse in modern Britain has moved the "centre ground" so far to the left that classical liberalism is now seen as well over on the right and can be hard to distinguish from traditionalist Conservatism. Basically, Whigs & Tories are on the same side now.

[Jorgen]

mason:
Not necessarily as there are different types. Zionism means supporting a homeland in Palestine, i.e. todays Israel.

[esbonio]

Simon Newman rightly says: "Basically,Whigs & Tories are on the same side now"; please tell Cameron and his acolytes.

[Larry Green]

Whigs and Tories are indeed on the same side now. I suppose I'm really a Whig.

Socialists are on the other side. That includes Cameron and all his Blairite mob.

[Michael McGowan]

Simon, you only shift the terms of political discourse if you refuse to buy into the left's sterotypes.....a point repeatedly overlooked by the Conservative Party.

[SimonNewman]

Michael - I agree - I found the book "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" a very interesting and useful read. It explains what the Left does so well, and is good for thinking about what we need to do - though ironically the author is a cultural Marxist and his thesis is that the American Left doesn't do this and needs to copy those wily Conservatives!

[SimonNewman]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/dictionary/2005/08/dont_think_of_a.html

[SimonNewman]

"Whigs and Tories are indeed on the same side now. I suppose I'm really a Whig.

Socialists are on the other side. That includes Cameron and all his Blairite mob."

I think Cameronism is profoundly opposed to the Roundhead or Whiggish Conservatism of Thatcherism, but has some links to the old Cavalier 'divine right of kings' paternalist Toryism, albeit with a social-democrat gloss. I recall reading Julian Critchley saying that Thatcher wasn't really a Tory, she was a radical, and I think there is a point there, a point which makes me hesitate to describe Cameronism as "un-Conservative". Cavalier-Conservatism is not a kind of Conservatism I have any great natural affinity for, but it may not be any less genuine than Thatcherism.

[SimonNewman]

I think the thing about Thatcherite or Roundhead Conservatism is that it's a politics of the upper-working class through to the aspiring lower-middle and insecure middle classes, people who might have gone to Grammar school but can't afford Private school. Cavalier Conservatism has a much stronger "noblese oblige" ethos, it's a politics led by the secure upper-middle class, which I think is something Blairism and Cameronism have in common. Its language is much less harsh than "on your bike" Thatcherism, it's more "one nation" and "social cohesion". Arguably therefore Cameronism represents something of a return to old-style Toryism.

[TomTom]

people who might have gone to Grammar school but can't afford Private school.

Public Schools were mainly in The South - Grammar Schools were the mainstay in the North

[Alexander Drake]

Michael McGowan @ 13:24...

1. Personally I think it will be quite hard to replace Gordon Brown with David Cameron because incumbency is hard to overcome these days. Cameron is doing very well to be as successful in the polls as he is, in my opinion.

2. I think it's fair to say Michael your attitude towards political involvement and activity are very different to mine, and that's fine. Personally I am committed to seeing the Liberals do as well as possible at the polls here, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Party. My parents have been active Party members for almost all my life (dad was a Lib candidate) and I think I got the taste for involvement from them.

And on your other point I found it hard to put up with Canberra's winter so I think it unlikely I'll try my hand at 3pm dusks during cold English winters any time soon! I'm just an enthusiast for the team and like to get behind it. You're not, and that's fine, if disappointing. I guess the Party has to double its efforts to try and persuade you!

[John Irvine]

"Cameronism...has some links to the old Cavalier 'divine right of kings' paternalist Toryism"

Only in its dictatorial arrogance.

Do you think Charles I/Laud/Strafford would have favoured homosexual or racial equality?

Those concerned would have ended up with offending body parts displayed on Traitor's Gate.

[Lucy]

How well are the Conservatives doing?
Kentish Town by election result 7 Dec -

Lib Dems 1093, Green 812, Labour 808,Conservative 198

[Michael McGowan]

Surely Simon, the real problem with Cavalier Conservatism is that it is anti-meritocratic and a roadblock to social mobility? It is built on closed elites and has nothing to offer society's strivers, who should be the natural bedrock for a modern liberal centre-right party. It is a relic of nineteenth century paternalism. The resurgence of Cavalier Conservatism is the big difference between Cameron's Conservatives on the one hand and the Liberals in Oz and post-Goldwater Republicanism in the US. That is one of the reasons why I find Alexander Drake's enthusiasm for Cameronism strange if he such a fan of John Howard: they are chalk and cheese.

[Sean Fear]

I certainly think that Conservatives and classical Liberals have much more to unite them than to divide them.

[James]

Ordinarily I find myself in disagreeemnt with Melanie Phillips (since she considers my relationship with my partner to be bad for us, bad for society and therefore something to be destroyed as quickly as possible), but I agree with much of her political analysis. I was a keen Cameron supporter (and for what it's worth I think we'd be behind in the polls with Davis), but he's disappointed me by saying "Let's keep our policies under review" (fine, I can accept the premise up to a point), but then he does actually have some policies - leftwing ones! And I do worry that he has misread the situation, as she posits.

[SimonNewman]

John Irvine:
"Do you think Charles I/Laud/Strafford would have favoured homosexual or racial equality?"

No, but Cameron & co aren't pushing a radical agenda, as far as I can see they're just saying that Britain is great as it currently is and they don't want to change it.

Michael McGowan:
"Surely Simon, the real problem with Cavalier Conservatism is that it is anti-meritocratic and a roadblock to social mobility?"

Yes, I agree with this, and it's very noticeable that not only has social mobility in Britain declined, both Blair & Cameron seem very happy about this. Putting it a little harshly, their concept of Diversity seems to be to have plenty of female & ethnic minority people around them, but preferably upper-middle-class female & ethnic minority people from a very narrow social set. As you might guess I was unhappy with the way the A-list required female & ethnic quotas but ignored social class.

[SimonNewman]

"The resurgence of Cavalier Conservatism is the big difference between Cameron's Conservatives on the one hand and the Liberals in Oz and post-Goldwater Republicanism in the US"

I agree with this, I've remarked before on how strange it is that the Conservative party currently seems to show no interest in the vital C2 demographic. The USA is a bit different as there has always been a fairly narrow elite political class there, and we don't have a significant religious right here, but the contrast with Australia is very striking.

[Sean Fear]

"I agree with this, I've remarked before on how strange it is that the Conservative party currently seems to show no interest in the vital C2 demographic"

Do you think that may be due to the London-centric nature of the Party Leadership?

London actually has relatively few white skilled and semi-skilled workers, compared to the rest of the country (obviously, there are exceptions such as Enfield North, and Barking and Dagenham).

London is more youthful, more ethnic, more rich, and also more poor, than the rest of the UK. I wonder if our leadership subconsciously view the whole of the country as being like London, socially, without realising how unusual London is.

They may simply not appreciate how numerous C2 (and C1) voters are.

[SimonNewman]

Sean:
"Do you think that may be due to the London-centric nature of the Party Leadership?"

I suspect that may be a big part of it. Cameron certainly didn't do us any harm campaigning in London in the May local election, in Tooting ward (Wandsworth) where I live, we won two of the three seats in what had always previously been a hard-Labour ward. Tooting is about 40% or so ethnic minority, with large numbers of young people, many NHS workers (St George's hospital is the big employer) and few middle-aged families. Partly we won because of the personal qualities of the candidates, now Cllrs Alex Jacob and Susan John-Richards (and Matthew Maxwell Scott just missed out, beating the Labour group leader Stuart King, who came 6th on the ballot). But apparently this was the first time we had ever used a picture of the national Conservative leader on our local election leaflets! It was certainly much easier campaigning in Tooting with Cameron as leader than it would have been under Hague or IDS I think - and I myself joined the party just after Cameron became leader.

[Alexander Drake]

Michael, I hope I can address your confusion when you say:
That is one of the reasons why I find Alexander Drake's enthusiasm for Cameronism strange if he such a fan of John Howard: they are chalk and cheese.

I'm not a John Howard fan just because he's a cultural conservative or because he delivers good economic management. I'm also a John Howard fan because he is a good man to lead our country and understands what makes people tick. He's not 'up himself' to use the vernacular. He goes walking in the morning near where I live when he's here in Sydney and talks to people. He's great with kids and older Australians, holds hands with his wife in public (to the derision of a wife of the worst PM we have ever had), supports and encourages his kids and is proud of his country and the way it is, not lecturing people how it should be. Howard to me embodies a PM and leader who leads, emotes and is positive. Stuff the policy - at an emotive level, as a loyal Liberal footsoldier and as an Australian I am proud to have John Howard as my leader.

Although their packaging is different, I see similar features with David Cameron. Sure he went to a posh school and belongs to Whites, but if you listen to him and watch him in action(as I try to do from a distance), he seems to have (or at least project) the same thing. He likes talking to people. He's giving it a go. He wants to rebuild his party's stocks, and rebuild its self-preservation instinct. He seems to be giving it a new vitality again. He likes Britain - he's not some pain-int-the-neck cultural dietician who wants to tell people how Britain should be. I like Britain too - I chose to live there for a while and I liked it, a lot. I can understand why DC seems to like it too!

From time to time there has been a real turn-off to some of the arguments advanced by some people who post here. You know the type - Britain's going to the dogs, the place sucks, it was better in the fifties, I want to emigrate, etc. That sort of talk from politicians repels people. Labor burnt a lot of people here in Australia because it trashed the "Australian achievement" when Keating was PM, although from a romantic-Left perspective. If you criticse a prosperous, democratic country for its lack of perfection, you are criticising its people for the choices they have made. How on earth does a party expect to attract votes from a nation it derides? Both Howard and Cameron understand this. They prefer a positive outlook rather than a Victor Meldrew one.

I should also point out that I haven't been uncritical of Cameronism, as opposed to the guy itself, on this site. I disagreed with his approach to wealth distribution, and I don't like his attitude to showing national pride via flag-flying. I think some of his stuff is a bit off. But I am prepared to take this because politics is also partly a process where you don't get 100% of what you want.

To me there is an awful lot more to politics than policies. Leadership of a party and a nation requires a 'certain something' and I find the same refreshing, 'relaxed and comfortable' positive outlook in both David Cameron and John Howard.

Just my thoughts...

[John Irvine]

If you like Britain so much why didn't you stay here instead of escaping to Australia like many Brits would like to do but are prevented by the sort of anti-immigration laws we ought to have here.

Howard stands up for ordinary middle-class Australians. Cameron is more concerned about the kind of people who have turned our once-great country into a sewer.

The best Prime Minister you ever had was Sir Robert Menzies, and I think you know what I mean.

Blair and his red scum have turned Britain into a filthy tip. We need a real Tory who will put the process into reverse.

As Hague said "It's a foreign land"

[Tory Loyalist]

Yes, it's very telling that the only Cameroonie who ever posts vaguely intelligent comments as opposed to bootlicking claptrap is an Australian who chooses to live down-under rather than in the Blairite paradise "Dave" admires so much.

A few years ago I had a job which frequently involved assisting Australian visitors. We would always chat about Britain and the conversation followed predictable lines.

After praising the countryide, Fortnums, Blenheim Palace etc they would launch into a torrent of invective against certain aspects of UK society which Mr Blair thinks "enrich" us all.

Obviously they didnt feel enriched. I have always assumed that Mr Howard is a man very much in the image of these stalwart traditionalists.

As to the degeneracy of modern British society I am getting quite excited by what I hear of IDS's forthcoming report "Breakdown Britain"

Modern Britain lies under a pestilential miasma which I was once taught to remember as PALE GAS.

Pride, Anger, Lust Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth.

Remember those? The seven deadly sins? I gather "Dave" thinks they're irrelevant.

As a Christian Conservative I beg to differ.

[Alexander Drake]

John Irvine, Britain's too cold for me but I loved it. Completely agree also about R G Menzies. I have said so on this site also. I was very proud to see his Thistle stall in the chapel at St Giles' in Edinburgh. They still have his Southern Cross coat of arms on the wall there.

Tory Loyalist - er...thank you for the compliment, I think! But I stand by the point I was making - no matter how much you think you dislike modern Britain, the point is that the very people who have made it that way are the people who you need to convince to vote Conservative. Why would they turn around and vote for us if all we do is mock their choices (no matter how unsavoury they are) and denigrate them? Patience, and pragmatism. Leverage incumbency from government to turn things around. Play the long game. I think that's the smart play for the Conservative Party, and ultimately for Britain.

[malcolm]

You're a nice chap Alexander bothering to reply to those two 'commentators' above.They're either trolls posing as the most ignorant bigoted of caricature Conservatives or they really are just ignorant and bigoted.Either way it's good of you to take them seriously.