The rise of personality over policy in political life is one of those ubiquitous phenomena of the modern age which is trotted out every time by tired hacks and politicos to berate various groups of all political colours. Equally, under the leadership of our Great Helmsman, we (i.e. Labour) have apparently become the party of ’substance.’ If I were to be cynical, I might observe that this is due to the fact that our Dear Leader lacks personality, echoing the comment on The Week in Westminster today that even top political correspondents are having trouble identifying members of the Cabinet.
Certainly, when you look at some of their illustrious predecessors – to name but a few, Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Tony Blair, Frank Field etc – the current Cabinet seems a tad, well, anonymous; evenly split between the tired old men and teenagers (this comment is stolen from Private Eye, no copyright infringement intended). On this issue, the media seems to have been unanimous in declaring it a ‘bad thing’ for the Labour Party and government.
But I’m not so sure. Personality infects politics to such an extent now that any or all of the following seem to bar one from being taken seriously in public office: (1) being bald, (2) being Welsh/Transylvanian, (3) being serious, (4) being Scottish. In contrast, one seems to only have to be youthful and slightly charming to be heralded as the best thing since sliced bread (take David ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron or Tony Blair in 1997 for instance).
But the “New Tories” seem to have taken this to a whole new level. I mean, if this was a Doctor Who plot, there would be some massive brain-washing scam behind it (cf. Timelash, 1985). Is it just be or is the entirety of the Tory party unable to get through a sentence without name-dropping Cameron?
When the New Labour project began, there was indeed renewed (and desperately needed) innovation in party policy. Yet I don’t remember hearing every single Labour MP continually releating the ‘as Tony said…’ litany. OK so the Tories have always tended more toward paternalism, but this constant obsequious referencing of all policies to Cameron strikes me as taking that a bit too far. Whether its the economy, social justice or crime control, it is never “the Conservatives’ new strategy”, nor is it “our” radical agenda. The agenda, the policy, the consultation, pretty much everything is referenced as belonging to “David (call me Dave) Cameron”.
There are, clearly, two conclusions which could be drawn from this. The first is the prosaic and obvious that Cameron is in fact the only person in the Conservative Party who is capable of consulting, innovating and implementing new party strategy and policy. Yet this answer seems unsatisfactory even if you go in for the hardcore (practically homoerotic) arselicking of the right-wing press.
In which case, one is forced to be cynical. To my knowledge, the Labour rebranding in the 1990s never wet as far as printing on the ballot papers “Tony Blair’s Labour Party.” It was “New Labour” – a radical and vital reconfiguration of core Labour values. Perhaps “New Conservatism” is an oxymoron, but “David Cameron’s Conservatives” strikes me as taking personality a tad to far. I mean, to be facetious for a second, is there an alternative Tory party headed by someone else?
This leads me inexorably to conclude that the reason for this personality cult rebranding of one of the oldest political parties in Great Britain originates primarily in the Tories’ desperate attempts to reject the label of the “nasty party” which stuck so firmly following their 18 years in power. Furthermore, Cameron and his closest colleagues seem to me to be the only fresh thing in the party, the rest being split between the ultra-right-wingers (John Redwood) and the classically liberal One Nation Toryism of Alan Duncan.
Therefore, the constant reiteration of the “as David Cameron said” litany by individuals of all shades of blue suggests a party clinging desperately to its sole successful progeny as they sky-rocket in the polls. Perhaps this is just a more overt form of the strict party discipline which New Labour achieved for the majority of Blair’s tenure. Yet I cannot help thinking that such an approach devalues the seriousness of politics in its overt and sycophantic creation of personality cult politics. Particularly given the vapid and ephemeral character of Dave himself.
