The Adrian Mole generation

In an article for the New Statesman Martin Bright examines the up-and-coming generation of MPs - particularly Cameron, Clegg and Milliband..

"Born within 18 months of each other, they form an oddly homogeneous group of fortyish, Oxbridge-educated politicians more remarkable for their similarities than their differences."

..and compares them to Adrian Mole who, born in 1967, is a character in the ongoing series of books by Sue Townsend (Britain's bestselling author in the eighties):

"If we widen the circle further, it is possible to identify a swathe of senior politicians who have recently turned 40 or are just about to: David Laws and Lembit Opik in the Lib Dems, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson in the Conservatives, and Labour's Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander all fall within this age bracket."

Maybe politics isn't such an old man's game anymore. The 'yoof' of today are not necessarily any more politically engaged than that of yesterday, but politics is becoming more of a career direction rather than something you fall into.

It's not just the age of the generation that will supplant the baby-boomers that is interesting, but their ideological alliance. Consensus should be welcomed in some ways, but it may have more to do with careers and polls than principles:

"it could become an amorphous grouping of polite, if ambitious, young men if it fails to provide the radicalism and political definition to inspire disengaged voters."

This (non-)ideological alliance is generally economically liberal and sympathetic to localism, although it can be very socially liberal.

The Notting Hill set have got their man as leader, the Orange book 'Young Turks' are biding with Menzies Campbell for a term, and odds have fallen on leadership contenders to Brown.

Filed by Sam Coates, Deputy Editor

Comments

[James Hellyer]

I preferred Peter Briffa's take on this.

[Samuel Coates]

Can you fix that link James?

If the time of the posting of this article is confusing anyone, the time was the time it was drafted rather than published.

[James Hellyer]

Try this!

[James Maskell]

Im concerned at this. The three main political parties are slowly but surely drawing towards each other. I believe this is due to a lack of ideology. The last generation would have been much more aware of ideology and that is what split the different parties. Now pragmatism is the ideology of choice.

The main parties arent driven by their old ideologies but are driven by pragmatism. Sticking to ideology wont necessarily win votes, so ideology goes out of the window.

[Sean Fear]

It's the sign of a political system on the brink of disintegration, James, if the rival parties are simply offering variations on a theme.

[John Hustings]

"It's the sign of a political system on the brink of disintegration, James, if the rival parties are simply offering variations on a theme."

I also think it gives Labour a huge advantage. If there's no difference between the parties, then many people will think "better the devil you know".

That's one of the reasons I want Simon Hughes to win the Lib Dem contest. I don't want the same rubbish from each party.

[Samuel Coates]

There are also precedents for too much jumbled consensus amongst 'the politicians' creating a disaffected populace more inclined to vote for extreme parties.

[Selsdon Man]

The Adrian Mole generation have the following characteristics;

Public school and/or Oxbridge education.
No real world experience outside politics, the media and PR.
Propose change or modernisation without having delivered it.
No deeply held convictions or philosophy.
Fear of genuine radicalism.
Pursuit of power for its own sake,

[aaron]

Is it not just a sign of the victory of Thatcherism. That there is no other ideology that is electable. All that is on offer today are various forms of Thatcherism. We shouldn't complain, we should be proud of the ideological victory.

[Selsdon Man]

That's rubbish Aaron. All that is on offer is three forms of Blairism - reheated corporatist welfarism.

[James Hellyer]

You voted for it, Selsdon.

[Selsdon Man]

And I admit to regetting it, James. How's that for honesty! I supported Fox initially and then followed his advice to vote for Cameron.

[James Maskell]

Thats it Selsdon, repent!

In all seriousness, Cameron might re-adjust. Im hoping he is. I dont want to be fighting my ass off in the next year and a half for a Conservative Party's policies that I honestly cant back.

[conservative observer]

The point of the Conservative Party now is to move on from Thatcherism, not by abandoning what worked, but by applying conservative solutions that were not tried, or that were tried and then unwisely abandoned during her premiership, (all of which later caused the party to lose).

What failed under Thatcher was the way the government continued to manage and throw money at failed public services, like education, the NHS and welfare. This is the one area where Cameron doesn't want to move on. Instead, like Blair, he proposes to tinker with the status quo, lacking the vision, the will, and ability to change it.

The Tories let the public down on public services, the economy and tax by failing to apply Thatcherism (public services) or walking away from policies (like controlling inflation and cutting taxes) that had earlier proved their worth.

The majority of our members are as clueless about what is needed as they were when Mrs Thatcher stood against Heath in 1975 (if most had had a say then they would have wanted Heath to continue, after the country had rejected him for the third time). I don't claim our MPs are any better as they would also have voted for Cameron if they had had the final say. But to be equally clueless is hardly a great recommendation for their political foresight and judgement.

First William Hague, then IDS and Michael Howard failed to learn the lessons and move Thatcher's agenda forward. The only real lesson the party has learnt is on the ERM, and a rather expensive lesson it was for the rest of us it was too (interestingly enough, Thatcher was the first of any of the last six leaders to admit it was a mistake). Now Cameron is busy underlining their timidity with new no-go areas in the public services and vowing even more of it on subjects like tax and who knows what else to come.

The Conservative Party is now just going along with a shabby failed consensus with two other drifting, purposeless political parties that will cast a stain on its reputation every bit as shameful as the way it signed up to the unworkable post-war consensus and let the country down for a generation.

The party failed the public during the two world wars and then again in the post-war period. Having a few Tory MPs enjoy the spoils of office is not a sufficient excuse for electing a Conservative government.

[conservative observer]

or in between the two world wars, even

[Selsdon Man]

A fair analysis, observer.

[Chris Palmer]

I wonder whether - despite public opinion - it might be a good time to re-visit poll tax. Especially with the current unpopularity of council tax.

[James Maskell]

No way, Chris. I would leave the Party immediately and find an alternate political party if they did that. Its wrong. Its harder on lower incomes. There is no way on this earth any political party would seriously consider it. I know Im being really blunt about it but we would lose as HUGE amount of votes by even suggesting the idea of such a tax.

[John Hustings]

"I know Im being really blunt about it but we would lose as HUGE amount of votes by even suggesting the idea of such a tax."

You're right. But the irony is that if Labour proposed it they'd probably get away with it.

[James Hellyer]

"And I admit to regetting it, James. How's that for honesty!"

It's admirable.

"I supported Fox initially and then followed his advice to vote for Cameron."

I judged Cameron on his merits, and not on what people said they were. I still wouldn't change my vote.

Conservative Observer's analysis is about right. The Thatcher governments never tackled the public services beyond simple supply side tinkering. Norman Tebbit has openly said that NHS and education reform were things they should have addressed in 1987.

But I suspect that this is because our MPs have reverted to type. In today's Telegraph, Newt Gingritch singled Thatcher out as a leader who wanted to do something with power. By contrast, he said, other Conservatives just wanted power. Looking at the corrrespondents on this blog, I think that's a fair demarcation point.

[Jaz]

There is a serious image problem that the Tory party has. The Thatcher nad major government failed to make the conservative changes to the NHS and education. Now they've been their for such a long time, that the NHS is almost a "sacred cow", the same goes for education. The party lacks the popular support for major change.. Cameron is right to now change the party into a newer direction.. We've frankly been stuck in the same piece of policy for years upon years.

People don't trust us to reform I'm araid, and that is why Cameron is going with a more gentle approach and fewer reforms.

We have to admit the truth conservative economic policies int he 80's ranged for great reform to experimentation. Inflation and unemployment went through period of major concern.

You only need to see from 1992 onwards to realise why labour are in such a strong position politically today. The only thing Cameron can do..is a serious tax reform agenda at best. He is forced to accept the NHS as it is as all other options seem to backfire for the party and the public has no trust.

The public do have trust in our policing and immigration policies... cameron must consolidate these againa nd offer total reform of the police force.

Our defence policy used to be clear...Howard has totally confused the situation, it makes us look like fools at the minute.

We need to show that we are big players for government. Cameron should go to Germany, France USA and meet with powerful people...Its a very convincing act.

"This is the one area where Cameron doesn't want to move on. Instead, like Blair, he proposes to tinker with the status quo, lacking the vision, the will, and ability to change it."

He has vision, but not he will, he also has the ability. Most people on this site would probably agree..that his ability is endless..which is why he was chosen as leader. Most are now doubting his vision...

[malcolm]

Most are now doubting his vision-Jaz.
Most Jaz?I think not.16,000 new members and more favourable opinion polls I think would suggest the opposite.
In any case he has been leader for a little over a month.Did anyone seriously expect that anyone could have delivered a coherent 'vision'in that time?
Selsdon, you and I are contempories, can you remember how cautious Mrs Thatcher was when she first acceded to leadership.There was absolutely no hint of the radicalism that came later.
Conservative Observer,I think you are likely to be disappointed whatever Cameron does.

[conservative observer]

"Selsdon, you and I are contempories, can you remember how cautious Mrs Thatcher was when she first acceded to leadership.There was absolutely no hint of the radicalism that came later.
Conservative Observer,I think you are likely to be disappointed whatever Cameron does."

No. Thatcher did not rule out future ways of cutting inflation, taxes or union power except those that had already failed (eg Heath's Industraial Relations Bill or wage and price controls). She did not try and position herself in between the two parties but rather offered a new direction where existing policies were not working. She promised to tackle these issues at a time when society had much more faith in government than it does today.

You can say what you like about Cameron but this opposition is totally different in style and substance to hers. But there is one similarity: both had already made up their minds what they wanted to do by the time they became leader.

[James Hellyer]

I think the difference is that Mrs Thatcher had a vision about what she wanted to do when governing the country, while David Cameron just wants to govern the country.

[BB]

Don't worry James. Boy Wonder is never going to govern this country in a million years.

Time for us to start talking about who takes over once Kameron has been kicked into touch.

[Matthew Oxley]

It was interesting to hear Portillo last night, saying more or less the same thing as James ; that politicians are only Interested in getting into power & Cameron is just doing whatever it takes to be elected.

I've watched the last month with great interest, and of course I'm delighted with the gains on members, but I have to say I'm a little bit worried.

What worries me is that David Cameron doesn't seem to believe there is an illectual argument there to be won - he is only interested in finding the positions that are already safe and occupying them (even if these aren't what 'we' believe in).

Looking a long way ahead, if we somehow managed to win the next election, it would be with a tiny majority, or maybe we'd lead a coalition government ; either way Cameron woudn't have the chance then to really define a clear identity for the Party. If he wants to truly 'change' the party he should do it for the long term (not the next 5 years), now is the time to win the key debates which we could stand on for a decade or two to come.