What is Cameronism? Part one

What is David Cameron's political philosophy? Our panel give their verdicts on the prime minister's first 100 days in power
David Cameron
David Cameron has been in power for 100 days. Photograph: Reuters

Jonathan Raban: I doubt he has an ideological bone in his body


I see no "ism". What's clear is that David Cameron learned more from his seven-year career in PR at Carlton than he did at Eton or in his Oxford tutorials with Vernon Bogdanor. Now, as then, his function is to put the smiley face on a product not his own. I doubt he has a seriously ideological bone in his body.

The dangerous experiment to which the British economy is now being subjected threatens to go further and cut deeper than even Margaret Thatcher dared, but shows no sign of springing from political conviction. Cameron, a born-and-bred Conservative, has the usual Tory instincts and reflexes: shrink the welfare state, liberate the entrepreneurial spirit, crack down on the undeserving poor. But his unprecedented austerity programme comes from his corporate masters: "the markets" will stand for nothing less; Mervyn King and the CBI want it; the G20 summit endorsed it. The government's job is to package (the "big society" stuff) and sell it.

Ingratiating himself to an American audience, Cameron, ever the obliging PR man, told two TV stations that Britain was the US's "junior partner" in 1940, the year of the Battle of Britain. Taken to task for this remark by a pensioner in Hove, he cheerfully retracted it: "You're absolutely right, and I was absolutely wrong." There's a true Cameronism: he deals in ideas lightly espoused, inadequately examined and easily discarded. Will he repeat that line if and when this great experiment results in social and economic disaster?

Sayeeda Warsi: It is a belief we are all in this together


The politics and values we aspire to are a belief in responsibility: government responsibility for the public finances, personal responsibility for our actions and social responsibility towards each other. It is a belief in enterprise and aspiration. A belief there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.

Its fundamental tenet is that power should be devolved from politicians to people, from the central to the local; a belief that personal ambition shouldn't be limited by the intervention of a bureaucratic government but nurtured and valued. Most importantly, it is a belief that as a society we are only as good as the sum of our parts; that we are all in this together.

Our belief in government, personal and social responsibility has found its obvious form in the idea of the "big society" – the idea that people, in their everyday lives, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in their workplace don't always turn to officials, local authorities or central government for answers to the problems they face – but instead feel both free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities. It's about saying if we want real change for the long term, that can help us build a stronger, better society.

Richard Grayson: It ignores the liberating power of the state


Cameronism is primarily about shrinking the state. It means setting out to reduce spending to a particular level, based on a view that size matters most, rather than what the state does. Its zeal is so great that it is even slashing the sustainable development commission, which has saved government much more than it costs.

Cameronism knows the cost of everything but does not understand the value of public institutions such as the census. It shows no understanding of the liberating power of the state, which is often the only institution capable of delivering opportunity for all or safeguarding our environment. Perhaps that is because so many of its leaders are from a wealthy social elite, which does not have the usual sustained engagement with public services.

Cameronism rests on naive beliefs about what the "big society" can deliver, and overestimates the private sector's ability to create jobs to replace public ones.

There are two tragic aspects to Cameronism. First, there are the people losing jobs due to cuts, even without a double-dip recession. Second, the Lib Dems could have stopped much of this, arguing for only the scale of cuts both they and Labour put to voters. The coalition was sold to Lib Dems as being about wielding power. But in a hung parliament, significant third parties can do that through MPs' votes. That they opted for one type of power over another shows how close small-state Cameronism is to Cleggism.

David Miliband: At the heart of this government lies risk

David Miliband

The only "ism" in David Cameron's policy direction is opportunism. Anyone who thought the presence of Lib Dems in this coalition would drag the Tories to the centre has been badly mistaken. In areas where they should be exercising cautious judgment they are taking huge risks. On the economy, they rush to austerity. George Osborne's denial of the causes of the deficit (the impact of the recession and Labour's action to combat it) and the impact of his budget (a decline in virtually all measures of economic confidence) means the government is now putting its chosen dividing line before the country's interests.

The same recklessness is evident in their experiment with the NHS. In the name of cutting bureaucracy and giving patients power, Andrew Lansley has contrived to do the opposite. On climate change they are ducking the big decisions to cut carbon emissions.


At the heart of this government lies risk where there should be judgment; confusion where there should be strength. People did not vote for this – and Labour must offer them a home.

Germaine Greer: This should be the end of kneejerk politics


It isn't about David Cameron: we don't have a presidential system. We've got a coalition now. And what we really want is realism rather than idealism from a prime minister. What is important about Cameron is that he speaks very well, he expresses himself succinctly and effectively, he hasn't embarrassed us yet. I don't care what he stands for. I'd like him to be not quite so Etonian.

We used to tear our hair out in the Blair days because he bypassed cabinet. Now Cameron has no option but to sit down and argue his case. This should be the end of kneejerk politics. That should return us to the 21st century.

David Hare: His special gift is to gild Thatcherism with piety


At the end of this decade, we hit a perfect storm. A financial crisis, precipitated by banking malpractice, coincided with the moment at which New Labour had diluted the principles of social democracy to a point where its founding ideals ceased to be recognisable. When organised finance and the public interest came into direct conflict, the left had neither an analysis nor a coherent plan beyond firefighting. Into this vacuum stepped David Cameron.

In one sense, he's a traditional blame-the-victim Thatcherite. But his special gift is to gild Thatcherism with piety: not just "do this", but "do this, it's good for you". Margaret Thatcher at least had the courage to despise the poor. Cameron befriends them by sticking hymn sheets in their hands while rifling their pockets. She adored the rhetoric of class war; he indulges the blokey pleasures of exhortation. He is a man who because he cannot imagine chooses instead to preach. Internationally, he is null.

Michael Forsyth was asked on Question Time whether the economic crisis wasn't providing visceral Thatcherites with the perfect cover to fulfil their dream of destroying the welfare state. "No, no," he said, "this is economics, not ideology." Cameron was asked whether, when the crisis was over, he planned to restore the familiar provisions of public service. He said not. Somewhere between the hypocrisy and the realism of these two irreconcilable positions lies the future of Cameronism.

Read What is Cameronism? Part two here

Latest posts

Today's best video

Today in pictures