Stephan Shakespeare: Time for Cameron's team to step forward

I write looking out over Santa Monica beach, Los Angeles, a few surfers just waxing down their boards under the opalescent orange glow of what will become the first clear sunny day following the engulfing fires. I’m here for business and part holiday, so I’ll keep this brief.

In the UK, we’re reasonably up to date on the Hillary-Obama-Giuliani state of affairs, but out here no-one knows much about Gordon Brown, and few even have heard of David Cameron. But they do refer fondly to Tony Blair, and they are more aware of his Middle East missions than of Brown’s ups and downs.

That’s understandable given how much more influential US politics is on us than British politics is on them.  And how much more colourful it is too, with a much broader layer of the population taking an active interest.

It set me thinking on the difference between the US system of Presidents, Senators, Governors, Congressmen, Mayors, and our party representatives.  The American system is of course much more focused on the leader, and there are many leaders at many levels.  Those leaders generally belong to their party, and feel a loyalty to their party, but they are much more independent from them, feel that they derive their legitimacy direct from the people who elected them and not the party that gave them the platform, and they have their own team that they have hired out of their budget, they do not rely on their party.

In Britain, of course, we have moved to a more ‘Presidential’ style of party organisation and campaigning. But this is the mere invention of marketeers, who believe it makes their job easier, it does NOT flow from any underlying reality in our system. Turning our leaders into Presidential types damages politics in Britain, because we don’t have the broader system to make that work democratically. In America, there are many leaders, all with their own proper and appropriate power base, often linked in a cause but never dependent on each other. In Britain, we have no systematic way of creating a balance of forces, other than collective cabinet responsibility (and it’s shadow version).

So when you make British politics quasi-presidential, undermining the role of the senior leadership team and its own individual connections throughout the party and back to constituents, you weaken British politics and you also curse the very leaders you are trying to pump up. Neither Brown nor Cameron can ever deliver as Presidents. We saw that with Blair, who increasingly sounded like a President but could never succeed in any real reform down below. Create the presidential expectation in the public, and they will soon become even more cynical.

As this site has argued elsewhere, Cameron could take a genuine lead by presenting himself not as the single golden man at the head, but as the first among equals, part of a true team with a genuine variety of talents, experiences and connections to the public. I believe that is exactly what the electorate will respond to best. They are not interested in flash politics, they want to know that their future is being looked after by a trustworthy team. They are unfashionable, and right.

Comments

[David Belchamber]

"As this site has argued elsewhere, Cameron could take a genuine lead by presenting himself not as the single golden man at the head, but as the first among equals, part of a true team with a genuine variety of talents, experiences and connections to the public. I believe that is exactly what the electorate will respond to best".

"primus inter pares" - well said, Stefan.

We want policies and also a team with DC as captain. We do not want a president.
That is partly why I argue for DC to bring in a few (a very few) mature and experienced MPs who still have some fire left to add weight to the very impressive younger people coming through.
Each time DC makes an important announcement on an issue, let him be flanked by the appropriate shadow minister. Why not have a small group backing him at his proposed monthly press conferences?

[Ken Stevens]

"..derive their legitimacy direct from the people who elected them and not the party that gave them the platform.."

That perhaps is the deficiency of our political system. In overall terms , the party is paramount.

I don't now how one goes about changing our politicians' attitude so that they focus on the general population even when there is no election in the offing. However, two practical measures towards the objective, on the basis that an MP's primary loyalty is towards constituents:

The whipping system should be abolished, so that every vote was free one.

No MP should be sponsored by a trade union, trade association or any other pressure group.

[Equation]

full time leader + part time shadown cabinet = presidential approach

[John Leonard]

Fully agree Stefan. It was encouraging to see the shadow cabinet at conference presenting the policy areas with DC pulling it together at the end. I think it sent out a strong message of unity and purpose.

It was also good to see DC, David Davis and Nick Herbert sharing the podium on the Crime debate in September.

It made a great contrast to Brown and his '7 minute wonders' at the tawdry Labour One Man Roadshow the previous week.

I hope the team approach is continued and that the media provide sufficient air-time to the Shadow Cabinet for it to come across to the public strongly.

[Diablo]

Not only do we need a team led by a strong leader - we need a a strong machine to back it up. Fast, slick and ruthless rebuttal (aka as spin) worked for Labour in the run up to 1997. Can we match it?

[Dave Bartlett]

"Cameron could take a genuine lead by presenting himself not as the single golden man at the head, but as the first among equals, part of a true team with a genuine variety of talents"

Wasn't the presence of the Shadow Cabinet on the stage, and singled out for praise, during Mr Cameron's headline speech at the Conservative conference intended to make that same point. A leadership team, rather than a one man band.