The deal was done and the coalition was formed. I must admit that being on the left, the deal upset me somewhat. That said, if this was a deal done by any other Tory I would have to be impressed by how they sacrificed so much of what they stand for to get Liberal backing. But I'm not so sure there has been that much sacrifice.
You see Mr Cameron has never been a Tory. Yes he represents the party, yes he now represents the country (although Scotland, Wales and the North might disagree), but throughout his leadership he has had no shortage of critics from within his own party. They have never really felt he was singing from the right (wing) hymn sheet.
I would say that this extraordinary compromise deal would confirm those doubts within his own party. But if he isn't a Conservative, what on earth does Mr Cameron stand for?
'Being under the rule of David Cameron is like being in an abusive relationship.'
('A Backbench MP'; Metro, 2010)
'I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married]... My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system ... This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it.'
(Kenneth Clarke, 2009)
As far as I have ever seen, Mr Cameron has only ever stood for whatever position opposes Labour. Time and again he takes stances on behalf of 'his' party which most of his own ministers find utterly abhorrent. This deal suggests to me that Mr Cameron is a man far less concerned with political stances than with the pursuit of power. In doing so he has increasingly taken on all the characteristics of Mr Blair's type of leadership: populism.
So what do I mean by that? Well from theoretical perspectives leadership can be interpreted as a two-way relationship, counting on a constant circle of feedback to clarify, reinforce and define a unified message. Such a relationship is designed to manage the identity of a group towards in-group members, out-group members and the obstacles faced in achieving goals (House, 1996).
When talking about a populist, I speak of a leader who makes their sole concern the managing of their relationship with followers. As I see it this corrupts the reasons for leading a group of people in the first place; by inverting the nature of the factors to produce an effect where future paths and goals are mapped to manage a fluctuating follower landscape. It is in this that I find a difference between Populist Movements and Social Movements, in forcing activities to become focussed purely upon the maintenance of the group's by-product: power.
When combined with the out-group negativity that, certainly the right-wing press at least has adopted, it breeds a loop of scaremongering and press stunts designed towards managing the dynamics of power, not the achievement of goals. It is the shifting stance that became very familiar with Mr Blair and Mr Cameron is swiftly becoming very adept at tugging at the public's sensitive strings.
'There is nothing to him. He is like a hollow Easter egg with no bag of sweets inside. Cameron will say absolutely anything if he thinks it might get him elected.'
(Charlie Brooker, 2007)
These then are my concerns:
+ First that the new Prime Minister commands with far too great an emphasis upon how best to ensure & insure power and not nearly enough on what the purpose of attaining such power would be.
+ Secondly, considering my first concern, should a Conservative administration subsequently become strong enough to govern in a manner unfettered by Liberal Democrats, what affect this could have on British politics. My fear is that a leader with such an amorphous stance before public opinion, backed by a heavily right-wing & reactionary party could blind the public to the realities of serious situations.
While I may be just be another whining lefty, I nonetheless have serious concerns about the serious objectives of this new administration. This is something to be watched with open eyes in the future.
==========
References:
==========
+ Robert J. House's 'Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory'; Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–352; 1996.
- For more on Leadership:
Colin Barker, Alan Johnson and Michael Lavalette's: 'Leadership and social movements
'; Manchester University Press, 2001.Dan van Knippenberg & Michael A. Hogg's 'Leadership and Power: Identity processes in groups and organisations'; Sage, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
+ John Higginson's 'Bull-boy Cameron stands accused of abusing power';
- For more about David Cameron:
Tories call on David Cameron to quit
Tory MPs react to David Camerons Surprise 1922 committee vote
1922 Committee: David Cameron wins vote on rule change
+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";
- For more angry Ken Clarke:
Ken Clarke clashes with David Cameron over cash crisis
Clarke in 2003: Supremacy Act “fundamentally incompatible” with EU membership
Ken Clarke brands Cameron plan for Bill of Rights as 'xenophobic'
Clarke slams Cameron rights plan
+ Charlie Brooker's 'David Cameron is like a hollow Easter egg, with no bag of sweets inside. He's nothing. He's no one';
No comments:
Post a Comment