Antony Seldon’s new biography provides a first-term report for D Cameron, and the results are mixed. He gets a C- for language, texting Boris Johnson to “f***ing shut up”; an A for teamwork with George Osborne; a D+ for sartorial sense, on account of his shiny wellington boots; a “must try harder” from Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, the former chief of the defence staff, who claims that if No 10 had possessed the “balls” to go through with his “boots on the ground in Syria” proposal, “they wouldn’t be where they are with Isis”.
In an age of un-deferred gratification, we don’t like to wait for the verdict on our politicians. There is a rush to pass judgment and weigh up whether the first five years in government have been a success or failure.
Yet, while Seldon is a peerless biographer, this is not the “definitive” account of Cameron’s first term — it cannot be. The truly definitive account will come 20 or 30 years down the line, when its author can analyse not just the seeds that have been sown but the way they have bloomed or withered in the long term.
History has delivered a contrary verdict on many political decisions that seemed good or bad at the time.
Some 364 eminent economists famously thought Margaret Thatcher’s early economic policies were a very bad idea. History proved them wrong. Then there was the Big Bang era of financial deregulation. Yes, the changes helped transform London into the city it is today, but many now think they also ushered in the “greed is good” philosophy that ended in the crash of 2007/08.
Advertisement
Just about everybody thought Britain should join the Exchange Rate Mechanism — Gordon Brown, Nigel Lawson, John Major, Paddy Ashdown. They were disastrously wrong. It ended up providing one of the British economy’s worst post-war humiliations.
Right to Buy was and remains a brilliant and much-lauded scheme — but it is only decades later that we can fully appreciate the damage done by failing to replenish the housing stock.
For Tony Blair there was devolution, heralded in its time, embraced by the Lib Dems, the unions and eventually most Tories. Labour’s George Robertson famously promised that it would kill Scottish nationalism “stone dead” — laughable in retrospect. If the Saltire is ever stripped from the Union Jack, the blame will be traced back to that fêted policy.
Also absurd in hindsight is Gordon Brown’s claim to have abolished boom and bust. If history had freeze-framed him in that moment, after years of growth, he would have been undiminished as the Iron Chancellor. Few at the time dared to call his boast preposterous but the years rolled pitilessly on, we witnessed the biggest bust in history, a wise man turned into a fool.
In foreign policy too, time changes perspectives. When Obama came to power, the dominant notion was that “Afghanistan is the good war and Iraq is the bad war”. Afghanistan could be won — Iraq couldn’t. But when Obama quit Iraq and “surged” into Afghanistan, the way was paved for the rise of Isis.
Advertisement
Legacies shift over time. History may be written by the winners, losers or bystanders — but it cannot be fully written while the drama is still being played out.
When it comes to the big decisions of Cameron’s first term — the pace of deficit reduction, welfare reform, the sanctions on Russia, the action in Libya and Syria, the promised European referendum — it is far too early to judge how these will ultimately work out.
Yet people still hunger for information about the man and judgment on his actions right now. Seldon’s book will be followed this autumn by the Lord Ashcroft-funded unauthorised biography Call Me Dave, promising more insight into the “real” David Cameron.
During seven years working for him I was asked about 842 times: “What’s he really like?” as though he were a riddle.
There are some aspects of Cameron’s character that don’t come through — humility for one. He is often portrayed as lordly, even kingly, but he actually wears power extremely lightly. While we wrote his potential resignation speech on election day, he joked that we should keep it short, or “they’ll be saying ‘F off, it’s time for the next guy’.”
Advertisement
In the main, however, what you see is what you get. The prime minister is a Ronseal politician, giving you exactly what it says on the tin: a pragmatic, reasonable, decent family man.
It is perhaps these qualities of steady reasonableness that lead people to underestimate his ambitions for the country. Since 2010 he has been pursuing an astonishingly ambitious agenda: re-creating an affordable state, transforming the education system, giving welfare its biggest shake-up since Beveridge, radically reforming public sector pensions and the justice system, addressing our role in Europe, while aiming to run a surplus in the next few years.
In foreign policy there is his fierce ambition not to remake the world but to win friends and massively escalate trade —as evidenced by the march of foreign office outposts in emerging markets.
This is not to say that I think he gets everything right. My end of first-term report on D Cameron wouldn’t be entirely glowing.
He would get a D for ruthlessness, meaning he wasn’t ruthless enough: too reluctant, for example, to decapitate left-wing heads of quangos and replace them with those sympathetic to government aims.
Advertisement
A C- for party branding, following the cut to the top rate of tax, which reinforced the impression of the Conservatives as a party of the rich. There would also be a “disappointing progress” on immigration.
The best grade would go where it counts most: an A+ for ambition.
Because while his premiership is rocked by regular explosions — the debt crisis, the eurozone fallout, the re-emergence of Russian belligerence, the Arab spring and its aftermath, Isis — Cameron’s agenda is quietly transforming the country in a way that will not be fully apparent for some years to come.
When today’s books are yellowing on the shelves, history will deliver the ultimate verdict — and my hunch is that it will be kind.