DC in the FT

John Lloyd has profiled 'Project Cameron' in today's FT magazine (subscription required).

I've picked five highlights from the feature:

David Cameron and God.  On the day that Tony Blair is in trouble with The Independent for admitting (shock! horror!) he prayed before the Iraq war, the FT feature mentions David Cameron's visit to the Open Doors Christian charity - a charity that promotes freedom of Christian worship. (Editor's note: "The wider cause of religious freedom should be a great cause for the Conservative Party to champion").  Mr Cameron describes his Christianity to John Lloyd:

"Yes, I'm a little more than an Easter and Christmas Christian. I go to church about once a month - so I'm a typical Church of England, slightly laid-back Christian."

The language of Built To Last is, as I come to think of it, very similar to that of a typical Church of England social responsibility document:

"We will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes..."

"We will enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change - instead of short-term thinking and surrender to vested interests..."

"We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them..."

'Sharing', 'cross-party' and 'not imposing' are all very Anglican concepts.

An end to Punch & Judy.  David Cameron: "I grew up in 1980s politics when there was this massive division between Labour and Conservative politics, by its nature very confrontational. Politics has changed since then. Now, genuinely, the Labour party has changed and the parties are closer together, so a more reasonable dialogue makes perfect sense."

The breadth of the Cameron project.  David Cameron: "Post-Thatcher, the Conservative party allowed itself to be painted into this corner of lacking compassion - which I think is unfair. The change in the country and people's aspirations go to the agenda on quality of life and environment and globalisation and global poverty. People's concerns have got much broader."

A first class team.  John Lloyd: "Cameron may indeed be changing the Conservative party, but he remains an indisputable member of the British upper class. He and his political circle are formidably bright and posh. If measured in terms of elite education and achievement, they are the brightest and best-bred leadership group of any British party since the last war. Apart from Cameron himself (Eton and Oxford), there is the shadow chancellor, George Osborne (St Paul's and Oxford); the MP Ed Vaizey (St Paul's, Oxford and the London bar); the policy review chairman Oliver Letwin (Eton, Cambridge and London Business School); the shadow education secretary David Willetts (Oxford, Treasury, head of a think-tank) and the shadow housing minister Michael Gove (Oxford, Times columnist, chairman of a think-tank)."

Michael Portillo was right all along (so says the great bus-travelling man himself, anyway).  John Lloyd:

"I talked to Portillo on the telephone as he was travelling on a bus, his method of travel itself a sign of his new persona - open, liberal and concerned about the living conditions of the poor. He has even tried to experience these conditions, in a 2003 television programme in which he lived for a week on the state benefits of a "single mum" in Liverpool.  Portillo told me that modernisation had been a suit cut for him. "The strategy we developed after the 1997 [election loss] was really all the things you have seen Cameron do," he said... Portillo and his allies - who included Francis Maude, now the party chairman - thought William Hague, John Major's replacement, was on their side. But "he kept being pulled back by the right," said Portillo, and resigned as leader after the 2001 election defeat. (He is now the shadow foreign secretary.) "The whole thing," said Portillo over the roar of the bus, "has been sitting there waiting for the right person - pretty fully tailored, waiting for someone to wear it. It was in the cupboard."

So are we all blood-spilling Portillistas now?  I've dealt with this suggestion before.  See here.

Comments

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

How typically modest of Michael Portillo.

However, I seem to recall that the dominant theme of the 2001 campaign was saving the pound - an issue of economy and Europe.

And who were the two Shadow Cabinet members responsible for these areas?

None other than Michael Portillo and his chief henchman Francis Maude, both of whom would surely have given up their cushy Shadow Cabinet roles if they'd had serious qualms about the policy wouldn't they?

One more thing - to suggest that the party has now embraced Portillist modernistation when it was rejected before is effectively saying the party liked the product but didn't like the salesman, which is untrue as the party actually liked neither.

[Elena]

The issue I have with the Blair/God situation is that it was "revealed" on a chatshow of all places. It just cheapens the image of the PM, whoever they may be, to drag up things like this. If I had been Blair at that point in the interview, I would have told Parkinson that going to war was a complex government process (at least, I hope it was) and "gut reaction" and "faith" were simply by-products and a way for the PM to feel secure in the difficult decision he had to take. Instead we got a lot about "God" and "conscience" and very little about WMD and evidence (I wonder why?!)

[Annabel Herriott]

Elena! He is becoming more Messisanic by the month. Its highly likely, you aint seen nuthin' yet! Personally, I have no intentions of watching the thing. Better things to do with my timme.

[Biodun]

A very well written profile by John Lloyd.

For all the criticism that Cameron and his set have been receiving, I am still convinced that they know exactly what they are doing, and that it is the right thing to do.

[spagbob]

its a breath of fresh air to finally hear politicians standing up for their faith and what they believe in. good on them both i say (even if bliar seems embarressed by his). if what we believe in doesnt effect the way we live and the decisions we make, then what is the point of having faith. faith is not a private thing, no matter what politically correct people may try to argue it effects all of life and its about time we got it back into our political life.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Perhaps spagbob - but I wouldnt want elected politicians saying "it doesn't matter what the electorate think about decisions I've taken - I am going to be judged by my maker." I actually think it does matter what the electorate think.

[spagbob]

Jonathon, i agree that bliar or any leader should listen to the views of the electorate and not try to justify morally wrong decisions with reference to God. of course they are accountable to the electorate. i think that if they think they are also accountable to God, it adds an extra ounce of accountability to make them even better (ok so in bliars case it hasnt happened). in all i just think its about time that political leaders stop being ashamed of their faith.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The issue I have with the Blair/God situation is that it was "revealed" on a chatshow of all places."

Quite right - Talk Show Tony strikes again!

Could you imagine Jeremy Paxman letting Blair get away with spouting this cynical attempt at "God will be my judge" piety?

No - he'd have been torn to shreds (remember how Paxman asked if he and George Bush prayed together?) and rightly so.

I don't doubt that Blair is a religious man, but to play politics with religion like this is just shabby.

[Elena]

"I don't doubt that Blair is a religious man, but to play politics with religion like this is just shabby."

Exactly. As is wrapping yourself in the Union flag in the hope that people will forget you're Scottish. I wonder who that could be?

Oops! Is that the time... gotta go, I've got a plane to catch!

[carol42]

I have come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with Tony Blair. How can he profess his Christianity when he has been involved in so many sleazy incidents, selling peerages, dodgy money etc. . I think he really believes what he says is correct and can see no wrong in anything he, his wife or colleagues do. I think there is a mental condition that allows people to be like this, great con men have to believe what they say. Don't know if it narcism and would be interested in finding out how people can lie in the total belief that they are telling the truth.

[James Maskell]

"How can he profess his Christianity when he has been involved in so many sleazy incidents, selling peerages, dodgy money etc."

The Lord works in mysterious ways!

[Editor]

Unfortunately TB has encouraged cynicism. I hated the way he used to allow himself to be photographed in church and the way he appealed to Catholics but supported no new restrictions on abortion.

Today's Independent says that "There are rumours that George Bush and Tony Blair prayed together at the President's ranch in Texas" as if this was some dastardly thing to do. But most people pray. It would have been odd if someone who is religious didn't. I'd rather we had a leader who did think he was going to be judged for his earthly conduct than one that didn't (like Stalin and Hitler).

I'm looking forward to seeing the full interview this evening and will withhold full judgment until then. TB's particular remarks should, I think, be judged in the context of the full interview.

***

Jonathan Sheppard writes: "it doesn't matter what the electorate think about decisions I've taken - I am going to be judged by my maker." I note the inverted commas. Did TB really say that, Jonathan?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Not a quote - apologies Tim - more me twisting his words!

I really have no strong feelings about Blair being religious. There are surely worse things to be accused of.

However the snippet of the interview I saw seemed to suggest (maybe just to me - I wonder if others got the same impression) that as Prime Minister you have to take tough decisions, and that at some stage you are going to be judged on what you have done. When Parky asked him what he meant, to me he seemed to indicate that if you are religious - then a certain part of being judged would be being judged by god.

His exact words I believe were, ""If you believe in God (the judgement) is made by God."

Now there is nothing wrong with that - I just wouldnt want a Prime Minister to ever be able to say - well you lot in the electorate dont agree with what Im doing - but that as someone religious, I am going to be judged by god - and thats much more important than what you voters think.

[Editor]

That's a helpful clarification, Jonathan. We mustn't put words into anyone's mouth. I'm very keen - with ConservativeHome - to show that blogging can be (reasonably) responsible!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

The quotations were my (poor) attempt to try to show how his comments seem to have been interpreted.

I have to say it all seems alot of fuss about nothing. I hardly think its a heinous crime that Blair is religious.

The only alightly worrying bit for me is if he really does give an impression if he believes what he is doing is right - it is god that will be judging him and by implication - it doesn't matter so much what the electorate think.

[Mark Fulford]

I share Richard Dawkins' view of religion.

When leaders start waiving their religious flag, I worry that their decisions are sometimes based on faith, not fact. Leaders must have analytical minds and make rational decisions based purely on evidence. Tony Blair is rumoured to be influenced by New Age rituals. If that’s true, it’s evidence that he doesn’t have the analytic mind required to do his job safely.

[Mark Fulford]

Sorry, waving, obviously!

[spagbob]

"When leaders start waiving their religious flag, I worry that their decisions are sometimes based on faith, not fact. Leaders must have analytical minds and make rational decisions based purely on evidence."

as a big beleiver in rationality, im inclined to agree with you here, however, i think everyone has a different perception of what is rational and therefore claiming rationality alone is not enough. decisions based on faith are not necessarily wrong either, in fact i think most decisions are based on some kind of faith, but we do need faith to be backed up with facts. trying to do something in faith that is obviously against the facts is wrong, i agree, but then again i cant see anything in a christian point of view that is against the facts, especially as we believe in a rational god.

as a christian i do find the fact that bliar claims to be a christian and then is so socially liberal and sleazy to be extremely annoying and i would question whether he really was a christian.

[spagbob]

"Today's Independent says that "There are rumours that George Bush and Tony Blair prayed together at the President's ranch in Texas" as if this was some dastardly thing to do. But most people pray. It would have been odd if someone who is religious didn't. I'd rather we had a leader who did think he was going to be judged for his earthly conduct than one that didn't (like Stalin and Hitler)."

i agree with you completely.

also, the last time christianity agreed to stay out of politics we ended up with hitler, stalin and mao. thats why i think its important that religion has a part to play in politics, not to force anyone to follow a certain religion, religious liberty is vital in any democracy as is religious plurality. but people of faith can ake a great contribution to the country precisely becuase of the motivation of their faith e.g. william wilberforce who abolished slavery.

[Mark Fulford]

Leaders who hear messages from God scare me. For example (quoting from the Guardian):

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

[spagbob]

Mark, though i agree with the iraq war, i find it highly unlikely that bush would say something like that. it hasnt been proved he did say it and anything that comes from the mouth of a palestinian terrorist (or the independent newspaper for that matter) should be taken with a pinch of slat as far as im concerned. i suspect the palestinian leader was probably trying to stir up trouble for bush in america.

[Jon White]

Interestingly, in Britain we have a formal link between Church and State. The Head of State (HM QE2) is also the head of the 'official' religion. (The C of E). However, despite this, religion has played very little part in UK politics historically.

Contrast that with the US where I currently reside. Here, the constitution guarantees a seperation of Church and State. There is no 'official' religion. However, religion plays such a crucial role in US politics that any visitor from Mars would conclude that the US was a theocracy more so than Iran. Look how the two candidates in the 04 election were so keen to wave their Christian credentials.

I find this both distateful and worrying. I am a (admitedly very rarely practising - therefore an ideal C of E member!) christian. It doesn't worry me if the head of government is a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu or any other faith. That is his/her business solely. The head of governments' job is TO GOVERN.

I have no problem with Bliar praying with Bush. But that is a private matter between him and Bush. Both men have the absolute right to practise their religious freedom. What I don't like is the fact that he shouts about it. God will be his judge on moral matters finally, but the electorate will judge him as a Prime Minister. His faith should make no difference to that judgement.

I don't see a need for a formal seperation of church and state - the current system has worked well for a long time. What I fear is Britain becoming more like the US where the truly horrible religious right hold so much sway. (Similar to the Liberal - in the US sense of the word - left in Bliar's Britain).

As a party we should stress our absolute commitment to everybody's religious freedom (With the caveat, of course, that they also afford that freedom to everyone else). How we pray, or to whom we pray, is not relevant and should be left as a private matter between us and our own faith.

As the late great Dave Allen used to say; "Good night, and may YOUR (my capitals) God go with you."

[spagbob]

"How we pray, or to whom we pray, is not relevant and should be left as a private matter between us and our own faith."

prayer yes, but it is something a religious person should do before making any important or even unimportant decision. but i must maintain that faith CANNOT be kept seperate from public life for the same reasons that conservative principles cannot be kept seperate from public life. they are both vital to forming our political beleifs and policies e.g. i oppose abortion and laws that allow it becuase my religious beliefs make me believe in the absolute importance and inherent dignity and value of the human being from conception to death. that is my main reason for opposing it. faith whether in religion or conservative/ socialist values is all part of politics.

[Jon White]

Not quite the same thing, spagbob. Abortion is perhaps one issue where the lines do get crossed. I respect your views, but I don't share them. Does that make me less "Conservative"?

Likewise, the logical conclusion to your argument is opposition to the death penalty. (Which is something that I do oppose). Ergo, if I oppose it, does that mean I am more "Conservative" than than someone who supports it? I don't think so.

For me, Conservatism is about a set of political beliefs. Of course, our elected officials do have to legislate on matters of morality. A person's innate morality is something that should be considered by the voters. Blair is unfit for office - he is a liar, and totally amoral. He is also a practising Christian!

The lines become too blurred. Lets keep religion and politics apart!

[Rob G]

I agree that faith is not a private matter. As Spagbob said ealier onh this thread "if what we believe in doesnt effect the way we live and the decisions we make, then what is the point of having faith. But I am very suspicious of any politician who claims that he is doing something because God has told him to. I do believe that God speaks to people today, but I think we always need to leave open the possibility that we have misunderstood what he is saying or just imagined that God was saying something that was really just our own ideas. Politicians don't seem to be good at that sort of humility!

[Jon White]

Rob, you are right. Absolutely anything can be justified by saying "God told me to do it".

This is my point: Lets leave the religious issues to the Bishops/Immans/Rabbis. The politicians should concentrate on the secular ones.

[spagbob]

"For me, Conservatism is about a set of political beliefs. Of course, our elected officials do have to legislate on matters of morality. A person's innate morality is something that should be considered by the voters. Blair is unfit for office - he is a liar, and totally amoral. He is also a practising Christian!"

i agree with this bit Jon, blair is immoral (and not a practicing christian whatever he may claim). as for legislating on morality, the politicians faith will be central to what he decides to legislate i.e. faith is part of politics.

i agree rob that God does speak to us today and that too often people use that to justify wrong actions, however we shouldnt just throw the baby out with the bath water. religion is a force for good, even if humanity uses it for wrong ends sometimes.

and no jon, just becuase you support abortion doesnt make you any less conservative. but that illustrates my point. everyone has different beliefs and they all effect our politics. we cant seperate beliefs from politics, they are intertwined.

[Jon White]

Spagbob, I think we've gone as far with this as we can, and will have to agree to differ.

But just for the record, I don't 'support' abortion. I think it is horrible, and in many circumstances, immoral. I know that I could never agree to the abortion of a feotus that I had helped to concieve. I don't support leglislation that makes it illegal. Sometimes, (incest, rape, risk of health to the mother, etc) I feel that it can be justified. Also, it is going to happen whatever parliament leglislates, so we have to accept reality and ensure that if it has to be done, it is done safely and humanely. (Yes, I accept that 'Humanely' and 'Abortion' together could be considered an oxymoron). I am totally against it being used as a convenient 'after the event' form of contraception.

I suppose that I support a woman's right to choose. I just wish that they would make a different choice.

[James Hellyer]

Sharing', 'cross-party' and 'not imposing' are all very Anglican concepts

As are anti-nuclear tendencies and institutional leftism...

[spagbob]

"But just for the record, I don't 'support' abortion. I think it is horrible, and in many circumstances, immoral. I know that I could never agree to the abortion of a feotus that I had helped to concieve. I don't support leglislation that makes it illegal. Sometimes, (incest, rape, risk of health to the mother, etc) I feel that it can be justified. Also, it is going to happen whatever parliament leglislates, so we have to accept reality and ensure that if it has to be done, it is done safely and humanely. (Yes, I accept that 'Humanely' and 'Abortion' together could be considered an oxymoron). I am totally against it being used as a convenient 'after the event' form of contraception."

sorry jon, my mistake. i miss understood you. yeah, we shall just have to agree to disagree.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'm feeling a tad bemused - Blair is coming across as quite likeable on Parkinson. I'm off to have a shower in sulphuric acid and stick red hot pokers in my eyes.

[a-tracy]

Daniel - Re: Blair on Parkinson, like most modern politicians don't judge by what you see and hear rather on what they do and achieve.

[Rob Largan]

I thought Blair came across as a lot more human than I expected. But I think Parkinson managed to get a lot more out of him, than Blair intended.

[Andrew]

I'm always curious if these leaders who pray for guidance would admit "receiving" it.

If no: what's the point?
If yes: voices in the head, bit worrying.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Maybe I am just cynical, but it seems to me that Tony Blair is an actor (or would-be actor), and at the moment he is under some pressure - more than usual that is, so lets bring on the God slot, it might influence a few people, after all as wwe keep hearing there are local elections coming up in May. I may be cynical, but I am not just being flippant, this is really 'my take' on last night's Parkinson.

[James Maskell]

God must've helped Blair choose more than just about Iraq. His music tastes are a little wierd. The Foo Fighters? They dislike the war in Iraq and in fact wrote "In Your Honour" for their latest album refering to the war. If I remember correctly they dont think much of GWB either and supported Kerry.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

If you only listened to bands that shared your political outlook then you'd probably end up with a very poor music taste!