The Prime Minister and the Political debate
Competence is not the only quality we hope for from our Prime Ministers. They also set the tone for our politics.
Mr Cameron seemed to understand that when he responded so sure footedly to the public mood after the uncertain outcome of the last election, working with Nick Clegg to put together a different kind of government. For many, myself included, the hope was that the Downing Street Rose Garden “love in” was not just about a new way of governing; it was also about creating a new culture of respect in the public discourse. The end of the old “dog eat dog” style of political debate that so many people find so offensive; so out of kilter with the standards they hope for everywhere else – from classroom, to football terrace, to family home. Maybe now, we hoped, our political leaders would no longer be required to hang up their brains in favour of their political cudgels before entering into the chamber of public debate.
Mr Cameron, indeed, promised just such a thing when he first became Conservative Leader and has even admitted since that he has failed to live up to his own hopes because he just “can’t help himself” when it comes to the fray.
The last few months – and especially the last week – seem to indicate that he still can’t control his urge to return to the “tooth and claw” of past practice, rather than fulfilling his promise to try for something better. The hob-nail boot remains his preferred political weapon.
The result is that, when it comes to the atmosphere of our political discourse under his Premiership, things are not just, not better; they are, arguably, much worse.
Of course we value the robust tradition of British politics. But the personalisation and bitterness of the exchanges at Prime Minster’s Questions – and beyond – is now becoming offensive and distasteful. It is also, from the Prime Minister’s point of view, most unwise. A man with basically decent instincts, he had much to gain from leading a move to a style of politics which, while just as robust, is less dependent on raw tribalism, invective and personal insult and more in tune with the nature of the Coalition Government he leads.
The slide began I think in the AV referendum. No-one is questioning the decisive result of this. It was not the outcome of the campaign, but the way it was conducted which caused the damage. Mr Cameron, under pressure from his right wingers, uttered no syllable – public or private – when Tory Party funders bankrolled a campaign, controlled by his Government’s enemies on the Labour benches and licensed to use the unrestrained hob-nailed boot in personal attacks on his own coalition partner, Nick Clegg. If, as I believe, this could have been stopped with a single word from the PM, then that was an error of taste or worse. If as he claimed, he couldn’t stop it, then it was a failure of leadership. Either way, in creating an unnecessary abrasiveness, even lingering mistrust, in relations with his coalition partners it affected the smooth running of his Government and thus placed the lowest form of politics before the proper and efficient government of the country.
This, arguably was the moment that the present unpleasant tone began to take root in the political culture over which Mr Cameron presides. It has not diminished in virulence, since.
Last week’s debate over the Benefit Cap illustrates the point. The wholesale vilification by Tory MPs and the Tory press of the Bishops for having the temerity to put forward an amendment (note; an amendment, not, as it was portrayed, “blocking” or “killing” the Bill) to the Government’s proposals was as discomfiting as it was distasteful. No doubt there are good reasons why the Bishops amendment was, in the Government’s eyes, misguided. But did these really justify holding them up to the nation for public abuse when all they were trying to do was ensure protection for vulnerable children?
Then there was the spectacle at last weeks Prime Minster’s Questions of Tory MP after Tory MP, egged on by the Prime Minister, laying into Labour for “opposing” the Benefit Cap, when they knew perfectly well that Labour favours the Cap, even if not precisely in the form the Government proposes. Peddling a lie often enough in the hope that it will be believed, may be a good propaganda technique, but it’s a rotten debating one. Over–excitement amongst Tory MP’s at having a policy which is popular and a natural desire to have it all for themselves, is not an excuse for practices which owe more to the techniques of Goebbels, than the conduct of rational debate on a serious subject.
Successive Prime Minster’s Questions have seen a further degeneration in the already depressing tone of the exchanges between Mr Cameron and Mr Milliband. Am I alone in feeling that last week, this plumbed new depths? Perhaps Mr Cameron might take a few moments off his busy schedule next week to look at the tapes and ask himself; honestly – does he think he is doing anyone any good by this? The tone; the bitter invective; the increasing use of highly personalised insults. Do he and Mr Milliband REALLY believe this is the way to win supporters? I suspect that it will have exactly the opposite effect, especially amongst the female voters they seek. Meanwhile, further damage is done to the already low standing of our politics at a most fragile moment.
Of course both men bear responsibility for this. But only one of them is Prime Minster.
Mr Cameron’s first instincts about finding a better way to conduct our political discourse were right. He needs to find his way back to them. At present the tone he tolerates from his Party and its satraps in the popular press – and too often adopts himself – is damaging both his potential and the chances of a new tone in politics which is more in tune with what most people would like to see.
1022