Thursday 13 August 2015

David Cameron: Tempted to stay on?



David Cameron’s “shredded wheat” talk with James Landale before Election Day has been well documented. When asked about seeking a third term, Cameron told Landale “terms are like shredded wheat-two are wonderful but three might just be too many”. He was slated at the time in certain quarters for saying this, but I thought it was a nice example of a politician giving a straight answer to a straight question, for a change. The family impact on Cameron is obvious; Cameron’s former speechwriter Ian Birrell noted that Samantha Cameron was in the room when the question was put to the Prime Minister, with Cameron giving a more ambiguous answer to a similar question when she was not present. Despite all of this, might the Prime Minister be tempted to stick around?

David Cameron may well have gone down in history as a pretty unremarkable Prime Minister, serving only one term with the help of the Liberal Democrats. That he defied the odds and gained an overall majority in May is impressive enough, but given the paucity of the Opposition he could extend his legacy. As John Rentoul pointed out, a Cameron ministry up until 2025 would numerically surpass not just Blair (10 years) and Thatcher (11 years), but also Gladstone (12 years) amongst others. Cameron has been plagued with difficulties ever since his leadership election in 2005 when trying to “detoxify” the Tory brand, but it’ll be far easier to present the Conservatives as a party of moderates if Jeremy Corbyn is his opponent. After a vote to stay in the EU, an optimist would like to believe that Cameron would be given an easier ride by his rebellious backbenchers. The party which appeared ready to draw out the knives for Cameron may well be tempted to persuade the Prime Minister to stick around, for fear of the alternatives putting off the electorate (George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Owen Paterson, Michael Gove). As I pointed out in my last post, speculation will be rife over his departure date, but if the economy keeps growing and the deficit keeps going down, why not stay?

There are obvious downsides, however. Whilst Cameron may well want to surpass the reign of Mrs Thatcher, the Iron Lady is also a lesson for knowing when not to cling on. A Prime Minister leaving on his own terms after a successful EU referendum is a far more harmonious epitaph than the fractured nature of Mrs Thatcher’s departure. Harold Wilson was the last Prime Minister to enjoy the luxury of departing on chosen terms, something which Cameron would do well to emulate. There’s also the risk of a Blair/Brown Granita repeat; imagine the awkward conversation between Cameron and Osborne if the former decides to stick around. The Chancellor will have hoped that his July Budget would be a springboard towards the Tory leadership, and it would make for an uncomfortable atmosphere if Cameron decides to renege on his “shredded wheat” promise. Furthermore, if the 2020 election is seen as significantly winnable, Cameron won’t need to view himself as indispensable to the Tories, and would be prepared to bequeath the role with minimal risk.

The phrase ‘Prime Ministerial’ can appear vacuous, but it is important. Cameron looked ‘Prime Ministerial’ where Ed Miliband did not, and this perception carried through to the electorate. It is a key skill to have, and one which has often made Cameron more popular with the country than with his own party. Trying to look at this as objectively as possible, I think Cameron’s best bet is to wait until after the EU referendum (ideally in 2016), and then to judge the public and party mood. If Britain votes to stay in by a small margin but the Conservative backbenchers continue to kick up a fuss, then it may be better for Cameron to depart gracefully rather than face more internal battles (Europe is the main weak spot for the Tories at the moment). However, in the unlikely event that the Eurosceptics respect the results of the referendum, then you can’t really blame Cameron for wanting to stay. If Cameron can lance the UKIP boil, keep his party united and sweep aside a bitterly divided Labour Party, he may well follow the lead of the Spitting Image puppet of Mrs Thatcher and “go on and on…”

1 comment:

  1. He may, of course, decide the best time to go is when the party is set to win again, since that is the best way of protecting his legacy. It also reduces the risk of his successor being a failure if he / she takes over in favourable circumstances, due to factors like a stronger economy and someone called Jeremy.

    ReplyDelete