David Cameron has often been accused of being more concerned with style than substance. This vacuity is still his biggest weakness.
Cameron, that gawky hobbledehoy of Westminster, is a man alone. Attacked by all. Loved by none.
He seems to slip and squirm from one matter to another without direction. Admittedly, he has just pulled off quite the coup down South: English votes for English people is the price of Scottish devolution. Asides from being a vote winner, this move has locked Labour into self-damnation.
However, the price of that vow is only just emerging. Some may call that political genius. But Cameron, in not revealing it, was paying more attention to the 1922 Committee than to the voters of Scotland. He played politics with policy.
Lord Saatchi’s 2005 paper - If this is Conservatism, I am a Conservative - a seemingly visionary paper in our increasingly detached political climate - said, ‘a clear sense of purpose is a prerequisite of victory’. Yet, as we are, in our present predicament it appears policy is being led by the politicking of Westminster.
There are a few men, though, who do seem to break the mould: George Osborne, Michael Gove and Ian Duncan Smith. When you think of them, you may strongly dislike them. However, for many it is not the man who is at fault but what he believes - his policy. And if you don’t vote for him because you reject his policy - fine!
That is what our system is. We do not have an American style system where people vote for a passing man, we have a British system where people vote for what matters.
Cameron, though, has no policy. Again, this may be political genius. But I doubt it. For, with his lack of policy, people have created what they believe his to be: the Bullingdon friend of the superrich with no conception of the value of money.
I imagine he does have policy. It is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if it is his intention to slip through debate, then he must eventually realise that the new electricity in politics will prevent him. People have discovered that the value of knowing where your politician stands is immeasurable.
The referendum campaign showed us that debate did not have to stay in parliament, or merely serve to massage the egos of the politicians. It can be everywhere, as it should be. When we know someone's actual position we can discuss the issue and evaluate the policy. We, the wider voting public, can have constructive debate that actually benefits all of us. Once we get something to discuss, we will debate it. After all, it will affect us.
It seems many politicians have almost forgotten that in our politican-centric democracy we only have one vote. Wwhen we cast that vote for them we owe them nothing. They, on the other hand, owe us everything.
