two for the price of one

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there quite a few foreign observers who see this picture today and assume Britain has followed Poland and elected a pair of twin brothers to run the country.

What an amazing week for British politics.

There are plenty of reasons to scorn the Obama-Cameron comparisons. Obama was raised by a single mother in something close to penury and worked his way to scholarships and the Ivy League; Cameron comes from a long line of stockbrokers and went to Eton. Obama's Grant Park victory speech was a masterpiece of rhetoric; Cameron, on entering Downing Street for the first time, sounded like he was opening the IT department's weekly status meeting. But as this is the first full day of the new government we ought to be generous, and I'll say this: in the last few days Cameron has demonstrated more imagination, and more audacity than any politician since Blair in his early days as opposition leader (Clause IV etc). The decisions that the Tory leader has taken in the last few days signal either a massive panic on his part or remarkable boldness and vision. For the moment, I prefer to believe the latter.

Cameron found himself in a position of strength and weakness simultaneously. The safer, or at least less imaginative move would have been to propose an informal arrangement with the Lib Dems ("confidence and supply" in the parliamentary jargon), and to plan, covertly, for an election in six months' time at which point he'd be able to slough off his semi-detached partners and govern alone. That's what many of his MPs expected and wanted from the outcome of these talks. But he went all in for a five-year coalition. That meant making some painful compromises on policy, and some even more difficult compromises on personnel (five cabinet posts to another party, plus junior ministerial posts, means plenty of pissed off or impatient Tory MPs). Those are big prices to pay.

So why pay them? Because a confidence and supply arrangement would have seen him in power; a coalition could see him reshape British politics. In the longer term, the prize for the Conservative Party of a successful coalition is huge. First, it spreads culpability for the dreadful decisions that any new government will be forced to make. When the opposition screams "Heartless Tories", Cameron and his party will have a powerful human shield in place, made up of Clegg and Cable and their colleagues; it will make the pain seem like the result of a national emergency rather than a party ideology. Second, it will finish the job of detoxifiying the Tory brand that Cameron, despite valiant efforts, was only partially able to complete by the time of the election; if the Tories play nice with the Lib Dems and govern effectively, they will no longer be seen as the nasty party. Third, they will have reshaped the opposition landscape: the balance of power on the "progressive left" will shift away from the Labour Party.

The most exciting thing about this is that it's not just a reconfiguration of power - it has the potential to change the way we do politics here, to work its way into our political rhetoric and body language. How for instance, will "collective responsibility" work in this government? One of the things that kills politics here is that all front-bench politicians of one party have to stick to one line, even when they plainly disagree with it - hence the public perception that all politicians are dishonest. Will the Lib Dems and Tories be able to find a new, more candid way of discussing their differences in power, without undermining their cohesion?

I've no idea if it will work. All those people confidently predicting disaster or a bright new dawn have no idea either. It may end within a few months in a massive crash of smoking metal and melted glass. But it might also herald the most far-reaching change to British politics for nearly a century.  Obama has been, in my view, a terrific president, but he hasn't succeeded in changing the political culture of Washington. If this works out, Cameron (or Cameron and Clegg) might actually go one better than him.

Comments

[peter]

Au contraire, Obama attended Punahou School, Occidental College, and Columbia and Harvard Universities, all private (not state) institutions. It is true that he was there on scholarships, but that does not mean he "worked his way through the public education system". Obama's education was very exclusive and has much more in common with Cameron's than you imply, since Punahou is one of the leading private schools west of the Mississippi.

Or would you say that Eric Blair (aka George Orwell), who attended Eton on a scholarship, was educated by "the public education system"?

[Marbury]

A fair point well made, sir.

[peter]

Further to your post, Ian, I sense that DC's own personal sympathies are closer to LibDem policies than to the extreme right of his own party. In other words, his attempts at modernisation of the party appear to me to be genuine, not mere window-dressing. That being so, he may be thinking that being in coalition with the LibDems gives him more leverage over his own party, especially over the troglodyte right. Already, the knives seem to be out within the Conservatives, blaming the failure to secure an absolute majority of MPs on policies which they see as being too wet. So Cameron may be thinking that he can use the presence of the LDs in Government to rebuff demands from the trogs on his own right-wing for more red-blooded policies.

Successful business partnerships usually require partners to have objectives which are mutually-reinforcing, and that looks very much the case here.

[Tom Morton]

I'm with you, Ian. It's a proper government of all the talents. Ken Clarke at Justice, Chris Huhne at Energy and Climate Change, Vince Cable at Business and Michael Gove at Schools is a progressive, liberal line up. Note that Chris 'no benders in my B&B' Grayling did not make it in to the Cabinet. Making up a majority with Lib Dems is a powerful steer towards liberalism for the Tory government: better to be dependent on Nick Clegg than Ian Paisley for your majority.

[Marbury]

Right. Now all they need to do is bring Adonis back to Transport.

[Elemjay]

"better to be dependent on Nick Clegg than Ian Paisley for your majority"

Ain't that the truth!

There are some bold words coming from DC - maybe he really IS a big reformer in terms of shifting the fundamental tectonic plates of politics? The Tory old guard are going to *hate* it....

[CC]

I agree, Ian. Weird optimism is the way to go re the Liberticons. (And I voted Labour). Give them a crack of the whip, hope Dave has it in him to keep the Tebbits at bay.

Sour notes: IDS at Work and Pensions; Hague, Foreign Sec. But let's see. Anti-tory hysteria on Twitter, etc. funny but a little de trop.

[underdog]

First - congratulations Ian on correctly predicting this outcome!

Cameron and Clegg is an arranged marriage, but these can work just fine, of course.

Especially as this is an endogamous marriage. Clegg and Cameron may have some significant ideological differences, but socioculturally they are from the same tribe: upper-middle class/public school/Oxbridge, etc., etc. They 'speak the same language'; they obey the same unwritten rules; they instinctively understand each other.