Yesterday I posted on the YouGov/ Channel 4 poll which suggested that David Cameron was seen as more centrist than his party (us) and that Gordon Brown was seen as about 30% to the left of Tony Blair. Left and right are less meaningful than they once were and I thought it might be interesting to think of other scales that could capture the differences between the two men. I can't say that I have spent hours and hours thinking about the positioning of the two men but here some instinctive thoughts on ten axes. I've also added ConservativeHome to each axis...
I have put ConservativeHome as the most ideological (our ideology being the 'And theory of conservatism') and then Gordon Brown. His commitment to a big state (through his record as Chancellor rather than his rhetoric) makes him pretty old Labour. Cameron is pretty pragmatic - with a Blairite view on favouring 'what works'.
Brown is undoubtedly the great centraliser and control freak of British politics. The Treasury interferes in every Whitehall department and he has consistently resisted Blair's public service reforms. I've put Cameron on the localist side of the divide but only just. He talks the talk but his appetite for controlling candidate selection and his opposition to the freedom of Catholic adoption agencies is a warning that he might instinctively find decentralisation hard to embrace when in government. ConservativeHome is sold on the localist agenda so ably promoted by the Direct Democracy group and The Telegraph.
I'd like to have put David Cameron solidly in the authentic camp but I
can't say that I'm convinced on almost any issue other than his
commitment to social justice. I'd really believe him on the
environment if he didn't take so many domestic flights. He's much less
of a spin merchant than Mr Brown, though. The Chancellor's overspun Budget and his thirteen year association with the New Labour project puts Mr Brown deep into the spinners' camp.
Regular readers of ConservativeHome know that this site is firmly in
the interventionist camp - supporting intervention in Darfur and Iraq,
for example, and hoping that - one day - we won't leave it to the
LibDems to question things like the BAe-Saudi affair. I've put Brown
and Cameron at the centre of this scale. The Chancellor certainly
believes in an active international development policy but he has
starved the armed forces of money and probably doesn't share Blair's
support for Sierra Leone/ Kosovo/ Iraq-type interventions. David
Cameron was always cautious about the Iraq war and has said little
about Darfur. Many of his foreign policy advisers are old school FCO
folks. We'll have to wait and see what he believes about
interventionism. We probably won't know until he (hopefully) becomes
Prime Minister.
If there is one area where Cameron is encouragingly and definitely the 'heir to Blair' it is in his optimism. The 'let sunshine win the day' line at last year's Party Conference was awful but he is right to be Reaganesque in his positivity and his talk, on Sunday, of being progressive
was an uplifting new framing of conservatism. Brown does not exude
positivity and he'll probably try to win the next election with lots of
scare tactics against the Tories.
When it comes to establishment versus anti-establishment I've put both
men on the establishment side of politics. Brown is more establishment
- defending the welfare state and centralism - but Cameron's support
for the BBC, European levels of taxation and only cautious public
service reform puts him on the establishment side of politics.
Is Brown mildly Eurosceptic as I suggest? Was his opposition to euro
membership a principled thing or an attempt to frustrate Blair in one
of his great ambitions? My prediction is that he'll certainly style
himself as Eurosceptic over the next few months in order to curry
favour with the Mail and Sun. Cameron - burnt by the ERM in his
defining political years - is certainly more Eurosceptic but has disappointed on the Common Fisheries Policy.
The control freak Brown is probably one of the most closed people in British politics. Just ask Charles Clarke. This week's 'Speak Up' internet initiative suggests that David Cameron is willing to be more open although most MPs find his private office pretty inaccessible.
Gordon Brown is likely to continue the Blair-Reid-Blunkett approach to
civil liberties. David Cameron is an instinctive libertarian on these
issues (as is David Davis). To the horror of regular readers of this
blog, I'm much more open to proposals such as extended detention
without trial if the security situation demands it. I certainly fear
Labour is closer to public opinion on these questions than we are.
David Cameron is more socially conservative than socially liberal
because of his strong support for marriage but he's not a traditional
social conservative. On drugs, gay rights and abortion he is a
moderate. We've put Gordon Brown just to the conservative side of the
scale because of his upbringing. On pro-life, family and drug issues,
ConservativeHome is positively socially conservative.
If there is one area where Cameron is encouragingly and definitely the 'heir to Blair' it is in his optimism.
Conservatism, with its acceptance of human wickedness and imperfectability, is and always has been a deeply pessimistic outlook.
A fact, of course, which is quite irrelevant to Cameron's repeatedly expressed desire to be the Heir of Blair.
In many ways they are indeed two peas in a profoundly unconservative pod
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 19, 2007 at 15:13
Very good Tim and Sam, but you semm to have avoided the question of nappies, which has had the media and bloggers in some speculation.
Posted by: George Hinton | June 19, 2007 at 15:14
I think there is a difference, Traditional Tory, between revolution and utopianism (which no conservative should accept) and a Reaganesque 'can do' optimism.
Posted by: Editor | June 19, 2007 at 15:16
A very clever piece Tim. I can't say that I disagree with you on anything particularly although there are few categories where I would put a don't know against both Brown and Cameron. I'm really not sure how wedded either are to spin or whether either are genuinely EU sceptic for example.
Posted by: malcolm | June 19, 2007 at 15:21
I think, Ed, that begs the question as to whether there really is such a thing as a true American conservatism.
Alexander Hamilton was probably the last real Conservative in the US, and look what happened to him.
I can never get my head round a country based on the principle that all men are free and equal - unless they're black, where famous liberal internationalists turn out to have had links with the KKK. and all sorts of other politically bizarre things happen.
The Republican Party executed something like a 180 degree turn in its ideology over the century following the Civil War.
It's another world, and perhaps one best avoided. However, having said that I actually admire the 'can do' philosophy which permeates American life.
It'll never happen here.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 19, 2007 at 15:30
Congratulations -- a brilliant feature
Agree with almost all of your calibrations
A bit sceptical about the establishment/anti-establishment divide -- how does one decide who is the establishment on certain issues?
Posted by: Erasmus | June 19, 2007 at 15:34
Whereas your positions for Brown and Cameron are opinions the positions you give yourself must be true. A good exercise in openness on your part although revelatory for some readers of your site.
Posted by: bluepatriot | June 19, 2007 at 15:34
Tim,
Interesting. But I think the difference between CH and both 'leaders' is that they need wider appeal. To plot what both these men really believe would (I think) see Cameron closer to conhome and Brown much farther to the left. If one studies Browns form before Smith died he was much more left-wing. Similarly Cameron has become more populist of late because he has seen the mileage he can get, and needs, because there is a trust issue between his party and the electorate, i.e. what will we do in power? Are we strong enough to unite on our manifesto? Similarly Brown has built up the trust issue over time - but is dangerously strained now. Cameron needs to fight Brown in the centre but on ideological terms [sic] (individual vs state etc). This was the emphasis of his speech yesterday, but much of the press and commentators have ignored this and used it to attack him, probably because of a bias. But as announcements on policy direction are rolled out he should be able to counter this, well he better, otherwise we are sunk.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | June 19, 2007 at 15:35
Thank you Erasmus.
I have a go at defining what I mean by establishment here.
Posted by: Editor | June 19, 2007 at 15:44
Would 'institutions' not hit the mark?
Posted by: Oberon Houston | June 19, 2007 at 15:46
Editor
FWIW, I am surprised your new establishment includes the armed forces which I would have had down as being old establishment and sharing the old establishment's views more than the new one's. Also you do not include the police whose higher echelons have to one degree or another been IMO far more susceptible to buying in to the pc cultural Marxist nostrums of the last thirty odd years than the armed services have.
Posted by: Bill | June 19, 2007 at 15:56
Political Compass is a lot of fun.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 19, 2007 at 16:09
I did say, Bill, that the military tended to be a force for conservatism although the recent behaviour of the Navy makes me wonder a little!
I agree with you about the top bods in the police.
Posted by: Editor | June 19, 2007 at 16:21
I am very interested in the authentic and pragmatic comparisons.
Politics is the art of the possible -- so forces politicians away from ideology and towards pragmatism. I see ideology ss a good quality for a commentator, but pragmatism is a necessary evil for a politician.
On authenticity, it’s easy to over-estimate your own while underestimating others’. When we change our mind or are thwarted, we know in ourselves that what we previously said was authentic. However, when a politician changes their mind or is thwarted it is a sign of weakness and potentially a breach of mandate. Part of a politician’s skill set is to judge how much error to admit.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 19, 2007 at 16:45
At passing leftie's suggestion I just redid the political compass test. I could not believe it (and am sure others wouldn't either) but it placed me almost in the centre, just short of the x=0, y=o axes. Which gives me all the more difficulty with the C4 survey.
Posted by: bill | June 19, 2007 at 17:32
Thanks Tim. A genuine belly laugh from this thread.
Posted by: Chelloveck | June 19, 2007 at 18:06
I actually admire the 'can do' philosophy which permeates American life.
That's because of The Frontier and the push westwards.......the nearest equivalent for this country was Protestantism and The Empire......the ability to go to fresh territory and start anew made for a different culture........remember that when the homeless Confederate soldiers were becoming post-Civil War cowboys and driving cattle up the Chisholm Trail, England was a highly industrialised and urbanised country
Posted by: TomTom | June 19, 2007 at 20:47
I actually admire the 'can do' philosophy which permeates American life.
That's because of The Frontier and the push westwards.......the nearest equivalent for this country was Protestantism and The Empire......the ability to go to fresh territory and start anew made for a different culture........remember that when the homeless Confederate soldiers were becoming post-Civil War cowboys and driving cattle up the Chisholm Trail, England was a highly industrialised and urbanised country
Posted by: TomTom | June 19, 2007 at 20:48
I think using the political compass methodology (which has some research behind it) might be interesting as well. Where would Brown and Cameron fit on that and generally which groups in society might cluster where on that axis.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | June 19, 2007 at 20:59
I'm in Japan for a wedding.
I'm so impressed by the courtesy of the people, their industry and their joy at everyday work.
However the tour guides are inflexible in wet weather, so they aren't perfect.
But if we could instil the efficiency of their rail service on ours, we would be reformed overnight!
Posted by: Ronald Wheeler | June 24, 2007 at 08:21