New Tory leader David Cameron has been portrayed as a moderate and progressive in many corners, while acknowledging he hasn't said anything about his policies. And there's a good reason he hasn't.
He keeps using the word "compassionate" coined by fellow-right winger George W Bush across the Atlantic. The similarities do not end there.
George Osbourne, his Shadow Chancellor, is his most high-profile ally. Like Cameron he enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, welcoming in Parliament an "excellent neoconservative case" for it.
However, it is the shadowy figures in the background we need to examine - his Peter Mandelsons. In Cameron's case though a better comparison would be to ask who his Richard Perles and William Kristols are, two of the most prominent architects of the Bush administration's Pax Americana vision. Cameron's acolytes in this regard are Michael Gove and Ed Vaizey.
Gove is well known from his neocon columns in The Times before his election this year. Both he and Vaizey are signatories to the statement of principles of the Henry Jackson Society - set up recently to espouse neoconservative values on these shores. One of those principles is to support the "stick" of US military action across the globe.
"Supports a ‘forward strategy’ to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. This would involve the full spectrum of our ‘carrot’ capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those ‘sticks’ of the military domain."
[Interestingly well-known Islamophobe Denis Macshane is one of only two Labour signatories. On the links section of their website, the only 'Islamic' links are for Irshad "let's de-Islamify Islam" Manji and the Centre for Islamic Pluralism which was funded by rabid Islam and Muslim hater Daniel Pipes]
The Henry Jackson Society boasts leading neocons like William Kristol and Richard Perle as its patrons.
So if you judge someone by their company, Cameron's outlook on life becomes clear. In truth it doesn't require too much digging though - everyone knows how long he has been hanging around the Tory party in Parliament from Norman Lamont when he was Chancellor to his relationship with Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary and latterly Tory leader. His work history since his mid-20s actually betrays a complete lack of real life experience.
Ultimately though I don't think he will be successful. The British people are thoroughly sick of Tony Blair and they don't want another one. Cameron may have energised the Conservative Party over the last few months on the basis of modelling himself as Blair's heir apparent. I suspect though that the coming feeling across the country will be similar to what happened in the US after Clinton - after years of lies, smokescreens and spin, they went for the antithesis of clever and slick in George Bush.
I don't think we'll end up with anyone quite like him, but I think a more low-key, and dare I say it, less smarmy, figure would come across more genuine to the voters. Mimicking Blair is not the answer.
Comments