|
Having previously written about the similarities between Ken Livingstone and John McCain, I have since been struck by another US-UK comparison - though this time it is once that cuts across the political spectrum in the other direction. It's between David Cameron and Jimmy Carter.
For Conservative supporters, I guess this might sound a hopeful comparison - after all, Carter led the Democrats, who had previously lost twice in a row, to an election victory against an opposition disgraced by scandal. But it's the manner of Carter's campaign that makes the comparison interesting for me - and less hopeful for Conservatives.
For Carter very nearly blew it. He came in short order from being a
virtual unknown to winning comfortably his party's nomination (sound
familiar?) Then in the Presidential election itself, from being over
thirty points ahead he only just sneaked it at the end.
His campaign was heavy on general aspiration and light on policy detail,
typified by the slogan stating that he wanted "a government as good as
its people." These are just the sort of words you can imagine coming
from David Cameron in his "let sunshine win the day" mood. Carter
suffered from coming over as a nice guy, but not having - when it came
to the crunch - given people a clear idea of what he stood for or
believed.
As for Cameron - well the modernising, I'm a liberal too, pro-sunshine
man is also the man who wrote the 2005 election manifesto for Michael
Howard (not a pro-sunshine politician, methinks!) and who was Norman
Lamont's top advisor at the depths of the Tory economic recession (not a
sunshine period either). Good room for doubt as to what Cameron really
believes.
As Carter's Director of Communications latter put it, Carter "stood for
getting elected." So clearly does Cameron. The swiftness and apparent
superficiality of his conversion from Michael Howard's policy maestro to
his all-new, all-dancing, I'm really a liberal too, persona means there
is very little evidence that he really believes what he is now saying,
other than that he'll say anything different to get elected. When put
under pressure, he views have been remarkably fluid - as on Iraq, where
he voted for it, flipped to telling the voters of Dunfermline that he
agreed with the Lib Dem on Iraq after all, then flopped back to being
for the war after all, then flipped again to voting for an inquiry.
As with Carter, Cameron has also tried to make something of his
transport arrangements. For Carter it was ostentatiously carrying his
own suitcase (to contrast with scandal ridden, complacent and arrogant
politicians - here was an ordinary chap). For Cameron, it's been cycling
- with the ordinary, environment hugging bloke message. An image just
slightly ruined by having a chauffeur driven car following him around
with his shoes! Though as Cameron has pointed out - the trailing
chauffeur isn't a permanent fixture. Having only a part-time shoe
chauffeur makes you a man of the people I guess.
So that's why David Cameron does not scare me. We should not be
complacent about the different sort of opponent he is from previous
ones, but he is very vulnerable. It is the same story with Gordon Brown
- another person who (at least used to) have the aura of personal
popularity around him and who commentators have predicted would help
spell the demise of the Liberal Democrats.
Being an MP who is very much a child of the 2005 general election,
garnering many former Labour voters on issues such as Iraq, civil
liberties and student tuition fees, I am just the sort of person who
needs to keep the support that commentators have predicted Brown could
win back for my Labour.
My experience, out on the doorsteps pretty much every Sunday through the
autumn and early winter talking to supporters, have been rather more
positive than that. Although the public widely expect Brown to become
the next PM (I'm not quite so sure myself - there may yet be a surprise
or two on the road to Labour's leadership election), they recognise that
this is the man who signed the cheques for Iraq, who betrayed our trust
in government by failing to ask searching questions about the quality of
the WMD intelligence, who insisted on part-privatising the London
Underground and wasting huge sums of money on lawyers and contracts, who
regularly voted for student tuition fees and who has presided over
complicated and failing scheme after scheme, as with the tax credits
fiasco.
Moreover, Iraq is not fading as an issue. This is not just because the
problems and deaths in Iraq continue to feature so prominently in the
news, but because for many people in broke a life-long commitment to the
Labour party. The loss of that instinctive support and loyalty can't
just be put back together again even if Iraq was been and gone as an
issue. It'd be like an adulterous person turning to their partner and
saying, "It's all ok now, I've stopped having the affair so things can
just go back to how they always were."
Just as the Tory economic recession and Britain's crash out of the ERM
(remember who was Norman Lamont's top advisor at that point!) has had a
long, long electoral legacy for the Tories, beyond even changes of
leaders - there is no reason to think Iraq will not have a similar
impact on Labour.
And if Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, will the plotting and
factionalism in the Labour party really stop as they rally round him?
For the truth is that plotting for and against Brown, and suspicion of
him, has stretched right back to Kinnock's days as leader. As Philip
Gould has recounted, even back before the 1992 general election:
"The whole thing was so debilitating because every time Gordon appeared
on TV, someone in John [Smith]'s camp would say, 'Look, it's another bid
for the leadership', Patricia [Hewitt] remembers."
Meanwhile, Labour's big idea - "choice" - sounds good on the surface,
but is very vulnerable. For "choice" to really mean something it means
having surplus capacity in the best schools and hospitals - otherwise
being offered choice is just a chimera. Yet simply getting sufficient
top quality school places, hospital beds and so on is a struggle and a
half - even without having a policy that actually requires you to get
even more. By contrast, the Liberal Democrat emphasis as regards high
quality local services for everyone is simpler, more convincing and more
achievable. It also provides an answer to issues such as crime where
choice simply doesn't make sense - or will Labour in the spirit of
re-engaging with communities offer them direct elections to choose
whether Group 4 or another security firm will do the policing in their
high street next month?
The contrast between the over-complicating, centralising and meddling
Labour party - traits personified by Gordon Brown - and a Liberal
Democrat approach that is based on simplifying government, freeing up
individuals and emphasising fairness is one that we can and should
exploit.
On terrorism and crime too, whilst Labour likes to talk tough, we can be
optimistic about our alternative approach - believing that the need is
to tackle criminals and terrorists, not spending huge sums of money
building up databases of innocent people (ID cards, DNA records). Why
waste these resources on tracking innocent people when they could
instead go on tackling criminals and terrorists directly - and to sort
out records of criminals such as the mess that is the Criminal Records
Bureau? It shows how there is something very wrong at the heart of
Labour's approach that they are keen on piling up records on innocent
people but don't give the necessary attention to keeping proper records
of criminals.
This weakness of Labour is particularly important not just for MPs like
myself who took their seats from Labour, but also for the party's
overall long-term growth. After all, even if we concentrated all our
fire on the Tories and by some magic managed to win every single Tory
seat, it would still leave us short of a majority. We need to progress
by taking seats from both parties.
That may be certain, but one thing that is uncertain though is what the
big issues are which will crop up between now and the next general
election. We can all make our guesses, but one regular feature of our
politics is how then end up being dominated in a Parliament by an issue
that barely, if at all, featured in the previous election. Who was
talking about Iraq in June 2001 for example?
For this unknown future it comes down to trust and judgement, and just
as the party has got it right on the recent big issues that cropped up
like Iraq and tuition fees, I am confident that - looking at the quality
of my colleagues compared with those on the other benches - we will
again. So at the end of a very lively political year, with more than a
few ups and downs on the way, I am confident about what 2007 will bring!
This article first appeared in Liberator.
(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2006
Getting these columns in future
Or, you can subscribe to my columns feed:
|
Having only a part-time shoe chauffeur makes you a man of the people I guess.
