That’s the hyperbolic claim of The Guardian’s Martin Kettle:
These are still very early days. The coalition has to get through difficult votes on AV and negotiate the most difficult spending round in a generation. The economy may tank. Yet in these first weeks even opponents should concede that Cameron has played a blinder. He is showing himself as potentially the best all-round prime minister of the modern era. Labour’s hopefuls should learn from him. No doubt about it, Cameron wins this season’s political golden boot.
Wildly OTT? Yes. But it’s not completely without its justification. For example, Mr Kettle points out, rightly, one of Mr Cameron’s best moments to date:
In the last two months, nothing has become the prime minister more than his Commons statement of regret for the Bloody Sunday killings. The speech was a model, and when Cameron said, “On behalf of our country I am deeply sorry”, the applause outside Derry Guildhall almost seemed to wash away 40 years of hurt.
He also fairly points out Mr Cameron’s highly positive ratings among the public, a turnaround from the sharp decline his popularity suffered in the six months leading up to the election.
There are, I suspect, two key explanations for Mr Cameron’s high public approval since becoming Prime Minsiter.
First, there’s the gravitas which is bestowed upon the holder of the office merely by taking up its mantle – after all, even Gordon Brown enjoyed three months of ‘Not Flash, Just Gordon’ honeymoon before reality set in. Mr Cameron is still a novelty, and the British people are going to give him a fair crack of the whip.
And, secondly, Mr Cameron is performing well, comporting himself into an object lesson in popular pragmatism. As, more surprisingy, is his deputy-in-all-but-name William Hague, much to the distress of the uber-right-wing ConservativeHome.
Perhaps Mr Cameron would have been just as good a Prime Minister (to date) if the Tories had won a majority. Perhaps … but I strongly doubt it. What is making Mr Cameron a good Prime Minister (to date) is that he is a coalition Prime Minister. He is not having to tack to the right to keep his extremist MPs happy, but rather he is having to tack to the centre to keep the Lib Dems happy.
I suspect it suits his temperament better, but that’s not why he’s doing it. He’s doing it because he has to, because that is what the British public voted for.
Consciously or not, deliberately or not, David Cameron’s responsible performance as Prime Minister (to date) is a function of coalition government. Before he casts his vote against moving to a fairer voting system, Mr Cameron should consider carefully whether his place in the history books wouldn’t be rather better served by continuing as a coalition Prime Minister.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
13 Comments
I think I might, however, be worried if I were a junior coalition partner if I became considerably less popular even while the Coalition, the PM and even the budget had broad publiic support. I wonder what might happen if the Coalition were to become unpopular, for any reason, in the months and years ahead?
Tony Blair more so… he won elections, for a start.
As for attributing this to the Coalition… anyone else thinking of the Uncle in Goodness Gracious Me who declared everything to be an Indian invention?
I think there’s some element of truth to it, although I wouldn’t like to quantify it.
I’ve heard a lot of comments from Conservative supporters who think that having the Lib Dems in government with them is a good thing. They are those who are not comfortable with the Tory right.
More broadly there are ordinary Labour supporters (i.e. not activists) who, whilst could not be described as happy, are pragmatic about it. They appreciate the significance of coalition government and what it means to nurturing fairness in the electoral system. They also tend to be the ones frustrated by the previous government’s authoritarian approach to everything and are supportive of the coalition’s plans to roll much of it back.
This is just a summary of anecodotes from speaking to people. But I think they give an indication about why there might be truth to it and why there is broad public approval for the coalition.
Undoubtedly Cameron is enjoying a post election bounce and the gravitas of high office. I also agree that the coalition allows him to side line the right in the party (I was briefly a member of the Tories as a student and was suprised at how many extreme views I came across – I left after realizing I was one of the only members who didn’t want to privatize large parts of the NHS). Although we often talk about the number of Lib Dem policies that are now being implemented, the other thing we should think of is the number of policies pandering to the right of the Tory party that will never see the light of day as Cameron can now anchor himself to the centre ground. The question for us is how we turn this moderating influence into a vote winner.
The article starts from a good point – courtesy will always be a powerful political tool. However, barely replacing an unpopular leader by being an inoffensive alternative is hardly grounds for being the best Prime Minister of the modern era (what is the modern era, anyway?). Kettle is premature in talking about the the best all-rounder when Cameron so far has only had to do the politics bit, but not yet the rather important governance bit.
It’s an article of faith to (many of) the Lib Dems that coalitions deliver better governance. So I don’t disagree with your post as such, but again it’s rather premature. I’d be wary of arguments based more on ideology than clear evidence. Cameron would have been just as courteous and charming without the Lib Dems. Blair may have succumbed to kitchen cabinets and so on, but at this point in the cycle that was hardly the perception. More pointedly, the budget has made clear just how little Cameron and Osborne are forced to compromise their agenda. It is far from clear that the clear imbalance of power in the coalition will allow us to make a significant difference.
“Significant” here would be defined as “big enough for the public to notice”, and don’t simply conclude we’re Tory stooges in a PR strategy.
I would say that Cameron has been awarded the golden boot simply in comparison to Brown’s leaden feet.
“Although we often talk about the number of Lib Dem policies that are now being implemented, the other thing we should think of is the number of policies pandering to the right of the Tory party that will never see the light of day as Cameron can now anchor himself to the centre ground. The question for us is how we turn this moderating influence into a vote winner.”
And the answer to the above question is why the Coalition MUST go to the end of the road in 2015. If the Coalition completes its term ‘successfully’ , the question will answer itself. As Cameron said, and most people thought it mere tautology, “This will succeed through its success”. He did not mean a success for the Conservatives. He meant a success for the Coalition and the politics it represented. Failure to man up(person up 🙂 ) to 2015 of course means that turning this moderating influence into anything is quite impossible for the near term. I think Mr.Clegg’s piece in the Guardian indicates that everyone running the Coalition is now aiming at the same goal. They might not make it because it’s going to be hard, but then again —– they well might.
So you’re keen to take the praise but the criticism is dismissed with “don’t you understand compromise!”
Cameron’s approval rating are not especially high for a new PM. While they are higher than Brown’s were (or Thatcher who had abysmal rating for a new leader until the Falklands), they are considerably lower than Blair’s which were at about +60, and also lower than Major (at about +45). Any takers on Major being the ‘best all around PM of the modern era’?
http://ipsos-rsl.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=88&view=wide
You are absolutely right. The public hate tribalism.The coalition has been an amazing success because both Cameron and Clegg don’t see it as a political expediency as Labour did, rather something fresh and lasting. It has the shown the Tories to be capable of pragmatism and the Libdems worthy of government. So far rather good news for everyone.
“The coalition has been an amazing success”
The coalition is near the beginning of its “honeymoon”, which all new Governments enjoy for a year or thereabouts, while the public sensibly suspend judgment. There is praise for the good intentions, which in this case include two parties willing to work together. On questions such as whether the benefit cuts will cause real hardship or merely stop the scroungers, the public will wait to see what actually happens before complaining too loudly. We, however, are not entitled to do likewise. If we think that some of the coalition policies are wrong, we should speak up now.
David Allen’s post is spot on. Not only are some of the coalition policies wide of the mark, Mr Cameron is letting his ministers contradict the concessions agreed. Look no further than the publicly elected appointments to the primary care trusts that the Conservatives are now scrapping. The GP organisations have no local democratic influence at all.
Britain does not have a working opposition, which means the Coalition’s approach is not getting the challenge that it needs to knock out the rough edges and avoidable mistakes. Unless Liberals act now as the voice of reason and conscience to the venture it will all end in tears.
@Jerry Hayes
Liberal Democrats are honoured.
A former Tory MP, http://thinkpolitics.co.uk/tpblogs/jerryhayes/ , has dropped by our humble Lib Dem abode. One of the good ones. Never understood why you were a Tory, must have been miserable at times under la Thatcher, although she did like a drop, probably her only redeeming feature.
Respect.
And your blog is the best.
@David Allen
@Pete H
I agree. With the opposition currently retreating into denial, party members have a responsibility to the country to speak out. But not on every subject. None of us have the time to become experts in every field.
I think those, like myself, who are supporters of the coalition, have a particular responsibility. Because we are supporters, our views can’t be instantly dismissed as attacks from people who wish the coalition ill.
If we do stimulate real debate about these issues, even if we can’t reverse coalition policy in a particular area, we might moderate it.
This will help us retain and build up our separate identity. And by doing so, help those unhappy with the coalition to feel they still have a place within the party.
Because of joint cabinet responsibility, our leadership are not free to publicly say what they think, and it’d be a big problem if our MPs spoke out too often against the government.
But ordinary members have much more freedom. If we are willing to think through our arguments, use criticism to refine those arguments, and present our views in a respectful way to the leadership, I don’t think there is much of a downside.
And besides, it’s more fun to have real debates, than to endlessly react to the cynicism of our opponents.