David Cameron has had a busy month. Since the European elections he has been campaigning hard in Britain and across the rest of Europe, in a losing effort to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker from ascending to the role of President of the European Commission (Helm, 2014). That defeat was followed by hasty apologies from Cameron following a guilty verdict for his former communications chief, Andy Coulson, over charges related to the phone hacking scandal (O'Carroll & Winter, 24/6/2014).
In an article published in The Guardian (Cameron, 2014), Cameron interpreted the results of the European elections as the people having instructed their politicians to restructure the EU in favour of growth and jobs. Just for the record, this was the election with a less than 50% turnout that returned a majority of largely pro-EU party groupings, even despite an upsurge in votes for far right parties.
Cameron tried in his article to warn against the dangers of European centralisation, especially by what he calls a 'back-door power-grab'. But he largely came off as a conservative patrician hypocritically bent out of shape because power was centralising somewhere away from his own supporter-base. Particularly when managing to patronise the citizens of Europe by seemingly suggesting that they were too distracted by the World Cup to concern themselves with European politics.
In fact, Cameron's whole approach to recent matters has reeked of these kinds of crossed-purposes.
Cameron is not, in principle, entirely opposed to the UK being part of the European Union - albeit a much reduced and reformed business- and trade-oriented union. But he cannot simply go to his party and push for a pro-European position without the EU reorienting itself into something more English Conservative friendly first (Watson, 2014; Traynor & Watt, 2014).
This is made all the more ludicrous by the fact that he is not necessarily a million miles away from the truth when he speaks of a Juncker Federalist Presidency as being a little far from public expectation, or needs, right now (The Guardian, 2014). The Guardian's own editorial assessment of the matter manages to make much the same argument in a more sober and less slanted way. They do have it easier though, since they aren't trying to win two games with one move.
The controversy over Cameron's employing Andy Coulson, the former News of the World and hacking-associated Editor, represents another such mixing of the partisan and public purposes. The PM's careless or cynically pragmatic ill-timing of apologies, for not having more thoroughly vetted Andy Coulson, drew criticism from the presiding judge for potentially affecting the case (O'Carroll & Winter, 25/6/2014).
There were even suggestions that the Prime Minister had had broken the rules regarding commenting on an ongoing case and was close to, if not completely in breach of, contempt of court (BBC, 2014). It's not even like this is the first time Cameron has found himself facing this kind of criticism either. His 'Team Nigella' comments during a fraud case in which she was embroiled were wildly
inappropriate and were deemed regrettable by the judge (Raynor, 2014).
Cameron has criticised the centralising of political power in Europe, while being part of a government centralising power in the UK (Adams, 2014). His government came into office talking about the Big Society, citizens taking control over their own lives, and yet they run Westminster like a big corporation, as if they're directors and the country, the detestably named 'UK plc', is to be
turned for a profit (Moulds, 2012). Watching the budget has never felt more like spying on a corporation's board of directors
arguing about their shareholders, stakeholders and profit margins.
Cameron's political actions appear to have been consistently undermined by carrying multiple purposes. His appeals to ideologically conservative nationalist attitudes, as part of domestic partisan movements, while negotiating the UK's future within a wider world, have seen public matters complicated by personal and party ambitions.
If we are to tackle the problems of our time, it cannot be done effectively, our freedoms cannot be protected effectively, within a system with crossed-purposes. Leaving great powers in the hands of singular individuals will only invite these conflicts of interest. They are only to be expected when power is centralised, and its retention becomes tied up and tangled with the use of the powers of office, exercised at the office holder's discretion, on the public behalf. The Prime Minister actions are only symptomatic of that problem.
==========
References:
==========
+ Toby Helm's 'Cameron faces defeat in bid to thwart Juncker European presidency'; in The Guardian; 22 June 2014.
+ Lisa O'Carroll & Patrick Wintour's 'Andy Coulson guilty over hone hacking as Rebekah Brooks walks free'; in The Guardian; 24 June 2014.
+ David Cameron's 'Electing Jean-Claude Juncker would be a back-door power-grab'; in The Guardian; 13 June 2014.
+ Iain Watson's 'Tory MPs unhappy at Cameron's EU tactics' on the BBC; 27 June 2014.
+ Ian Traynor & Nicholas Watt's 'Britain closer to EU exit after Jean-Claude Juncker vote'; in The Guardian; 27 June 2014.
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the commission presidency: old politics in new times'; 6 June 2014.
+ Lisa O'Carroll & Patrick Wintour's 'Andy Coulson trial: jurors fail to reach verdicts on remaining charges'; in The Guardian; 25 June 2014.
+ The BBC's 'Judge rebukes Cameron for comments on Coulson conviction'; 25 June 2014.
+ Gordon Rayner's 'David Cameron criticised by judge for 'Team Nigella' intervention in trial'; in The Telegraph; 12 December 2013.
+ Richard Adams' 'Governors of new academies and free schools told to abide by 'British values''; in The Guardian; 19 June 2014.
+ Josephine Moulds' 'Cameron and co drum up business for UK plc at lavish conference'; in The Guardian; 26 July 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment