Cameron, Clegg & New Politics

May 2010

Yesterday David Cameron and Nick Clegg staged their first press conference. Commentators have been surprised by both the warmth between the two men, and Cameron's willing adoption of many Liberal Democracy policies.

Right wing Conservative MPs are beginning to ask: "Does David Cameron share our agenda? Is the 'New Caring Conservative Party' too Liberal Democrat like? Is it corrupted by the sort of wishy washy humanitarianism that refuses to fight wars, dislikes sending criminals to jail, and soaks the rich for the sake of the poor?"

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows I object to ideological positions and speak of a type of pragmatic detachment which transcends partisan ideology. Last month I wrote an article called Nick Clegg - Revolution? in which I talked about the potential of a political alliance to create precisely the sort of post ideological system which Obama talks about. I spoke of how this is the definition of the "New Politics" voters are really looking for. It is about governing in the national interest, not the party interest. It is about detail and honesty, not naïve ideological messages shamelessly designed to win voters. It is about stripping Parliament of TV cameras, not introducing direct democracy and X-Factor debates.

Nick Clegg does not demonstrates these qualities, the FT, for example, described his campaign as "sanctimonious populism". David Cameron is widely regarded as a Machiavellian PR man, which by dint of its pragmatism would be a sophisticated position. But pragmatism is cold and David Cameron is hot. There is also a sense of shallowness about Cameron which he himself senses and is desperate to fill with something. However much Cameron and Clegg talk about pragmatism, I just do not believe they are capable of it.

As an example take the issue of freedom. David Cameron has described himself as a pragmatist, as someone who doesn't do "isms". Yet he has said his priorities include reducing the number of CCTV cameras, reducing the DNA database, and abolishing ID cards. The police object to all these measures because they will make it harder for them to catch criminals. Public opinion surveys also show that the vast majority of people support CCTV as a crime prevention tool. This policy of Cameron's is a classic example of moral ideology not pragmatism. Indeed, when you listen to Cameron talking about this issue, the "evils" of the "surveillance state" etc, you can hear the emotion, the lack of rationality, the tunnel vision.

Another example of Cameron and Clegg's lack of pragmatism revolves around their management style. Pragmatism is unemotional, pragmatism is technical. These are not grass roots qualities, they are specialist qualities. Pragmatism involves a more top down management style, pragmatism is not democratic, it does not search for truth in town halls and referendums, pragmatism is anti populist. Cameron is committed to referendums, Clegg is committed to proportional representation. Again, this is liberal ideology, not pragmatism, not rationality, not science.

One of the frightening things about pragmatic policy making is that the optimal solutions may be radical, which is to say far away from prevailing moral assumptions, because popular morality frequently falls way behind the challenges of life. In other words pragmatic solutions may radically violate prevailing moral assumptions, and therefore horrify a large number of people. So great people are usually remembered as tyrants. Margaret Thatcher read the book on economics, agreed, and implemented it, mentally she closed off the people's cries of horror. Thatcher had that tough, down to earth, pragmatism every women inherits, every mother needs. Any man able to follow in her footsteps would have to be either a genius or a tyrant. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are neither.

Today the challenges ahead of Cameron and Clegg are even tougher than the challenges Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, faced. The right wingers in the Tory party are right to worry about wimpy Cameron. Yet, they are right for the wrong reasons, it's not about ideology, it is about tyranny. Cameron and Clegg are in fact the very opposite of what we need- they are overly ideological and under tyrannical.

Is there any other way - any way of avoiding strong man leadership? If a leader could massively detoxify political decision making by putting experts in change of Britain, he could try to present the unpleasant policies as inevitable, and thereby contain public anger. For example, Cameron could ask the IMF to prepare an austerity package for the UK, and then present it as a fait-accompli. Cameron should also work closely with Rupert Murdock, papers like the Sun are the key to stable and successful government.

Instead we can expect Cameron and Clegg to coalesce around a highly liberal agenda which pushes both individual liberties and direct democracy. No doubt they will talk about rolling back 'Blair's authoritarian policy'. But was Blair really being a tyrant, or just a realist? If Cameron and Clegg do indeed end up pushing such an agenda, it will ultimately prove disastrous.

The national health service will be a big test. Spending on health has increased rapidly from around 6% of GDP in 1997 to around 9% today, now healthcare spending must be reigned in to save cutting more growth relevant spending on infrastructure and education. Health, pensions and welfare are examples of policy areas in which spending more does little to help GDP growth and may even damage it - these are the items the government must cut. To cut back health spending we need much greater centralization Singapore style. Singapore spends under 4% of GDP on heath yet it comes in toward of top international quality surveys, it is generally regarded as the most enviable health care system in the world. Some of the mechanisms centralization provides include economies of scale, consolidation of services, bold decisions about treatment rationing and drug availability. However, Cameron and Cleg's liberal agenda are likely to push them toward decentralisation under the banner of democratization and patient choice, which risks delivering far less per pound spent.