The first mistake critics of both David Cameron and Boris Johnson make is to assume that neither men believe in anything. The second mistake they make is to assume that even if this were true it would matter.
It is of course impossible to know exactly what either of the two men believe (for as Lenin put it, a ‘sincerometer’ has never been invented) but it is unimportant since both seamlessly fall back onto right-wing Tory instincts when it comes to the pinch.
We’ve seen evidence of this with David Cameron’s rush to purge his government of ‘green crap’ and portray migrants as benefit scroungers. We also saw it from Boris Johnson last week when he addressed the Centre for Policy Studies and called for a return to the philosophy of ‘greed is good’.
If there is a lesson here it should be this: supposed no-content Conservatives are actually the ones you have to watch out for.
But David Cameron and Boris Johnson are very different types of Conservative. Whereas Cameron is a shire Tory with metropolitan social mores, Johnson (I refuse to call him Boris, for I do not know the man) should be viewed as a liberal Thatcherite. The latter believes in capitalism red in tooth and claw, but he shares the liberalism of the young when it comes to social issues. He is pro-immigration, ambivalent about gay marriage and called for a ‘rethink’ on drug policy long before it was fashionable to do so. David Cameron certainly appears to be in favour of gay marriage, but it is hard to imagine him joking about cocaine or mulling amnesties for illegal immigrants, and not simply because he is the prime minister.
Apart from the amiability of his bumbling clownish demeanour, therein lies the secret to Johnson’s popularity, especially among the young: there is a call for his brand of economic and social liberalism, as recent Social Attitudes Surveys keep attesting and which we on the left keep ignoring. Boris Johnson isn’t (only) popular because he is funny, but the fact that he is funny prevents some of us from getting to the nub of his appeal.
Johnson has been able establish a broader appeal than any other leading politician because he is far more in touch with the young than most politicians. As the Economist put it in a brilliant piece back in June, which looked at the growth of British liberalism:
‘The chaotic, colourful mayor of London, a rare politician who transcends his Tory identity by melding social and economic liberalism, appears to have Britain’s libertarian youth in the bag’.
Like Boris, young people predominantly favour a small state in both social and economic affairs. Despite continued strong support for the National Health Service, the 2012 BSA survey showed a hardening of attitudes toward many traditional left-wing concerns. In 1991 over half (58 per cent) of Britons agreed that the government should spend more on benefits even if it resulted in higher taxes. Last year that figure was just 28 per cent. More than half also believed people would ‘stand on their own two feet’ if benefits were less generous, while only 20 per cent disagreed. Going back to 1993 the responses were almost exactly the opposite.
On social issues the liberal trend is also clear. Again to quote the Economist:
‘Polls show that the young are more relaxed than others about drugs, sex, alcohol, euthanasia and non-traditional family structures. They dislike immigration, but not as strongly as do their elders. And they are becoming ever more liberal. The BSA has tracked attitudes for three decades. It shows that the young are now far more tolerant of homosexuality, for example, than were previous generations at the same age’.
As I’ve written before, I don’t think the economic liberalism of the young necessarily dooms the left, because it is this same economic liberalism that is failing those who appear to have embraced it. In Britain in 2013 young people are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have accrued large debts and have less chance than previous generations of owning a home.
That said, there has been a signal failure of any politician of the left to connect with young people in the way the Mayor of London has been able to. Putting this down to Boris’s anti-politics ‘charisma’ is a convenient excuse which side-steps the fact that there is a growing audience for his liberal message.
This is why Boris Johnson is such a dangerous politician. In assuming the public is stupid enough to vote for a politician they simply find ‘funny’, critics misunderstand his appeal, and will likely be found wanting when the time comes to counter his alluring brand of liberalism.
———————————————————
James Bloodworth is editor of Left Foot Forward and writes a weekly column for Progress. He tweets @J_Bloodworth
———————————————————
Photo: Gary Knight
Independent, 2005: “Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws”: “David Cameron, the Tory leadership contender, believes the UN should consider legalising drugs and wants hard-core addicts to be provided with legal “shooting galleries” and state-prescribed heroin.
He also supported calls for ecstasy to be downgraded from the class-A status it shares with cocaine and heroin and said it would be “disappointing” if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-contender-calls-for-more-liberal-drug-laws-6143525.html
Hmmm, I think I’d want to see a greater degree of analysis other than a single survey to base an about turn and a lurch to the right on the politics of welfare – curiously, the very same policies advocated by some in Progress. I don’t think Boris’s anti politics so called ‘liberal’ stance is anything other than a well-constructed front that hides a cool, calculating political brain. He’s many things, but he’s not entirely stupid.
Boris J works extremely hard to appear to be ‘stupid’, as the above article points out, he is no clown. Luckily for the LABOUR Camp, he lacks sincerity, the ‘common touch’ [which Ken has] and Boris J has not a whiff of objectivity. What Boris does well though is read every document on paper that’s put before him, every line is read and re-read — he understands his enemy. LABOUR is a bit ‘soft’ on going for the ‘jugular’ when it comes to slaying one’s political opponents. Boris has no such qualms; he flattens the opposition and kicks his opponents when they are down. Ruthless tactician like his ‘hero JFK. But no leader of men. Not in my opinion and that is my contention, Your Honour@the Slander/Libel Inquisition Board.
There is not, and never was, anything liberal about Boris. By playing the buffoon he thinks he can hoodwink people into thinking he is “one of us”. His recent speech about how inequality is built in and certain people are inferior to other people (utter rubbish, by the way, it is the antithesis of the question ‘if you’re so clever why aren’t you rich?’) was going where others rightly fear to tread and he has gotten himself into an awful mess. What worries me is that after the Ken debacle (for which the Labour Party ought to have apologised to the Jewish community and all the other ethnic minorities who feel threatened by his hate speech) Labour will not be able to find a worthy opponent in the mayoral elections.
Basic inequality is clearly built in. Timing myself against Usain Bolt, I concluded that the finest physical trainer in the world would fail to find a way for my times to threaten his. The same applies to my painting skills versus Leonardo. I couldn’t even find a gallery to take my stuff. And as for my intellectual achievements versus Isaac Newton, it was laughable.
Some people are born strong, some tall, some handsome, some clever, some dextrous. Society puts a value on each of these, depending on their usefulness. All that matters is that, within each category, opportunity to achieve is maximised.
That’s what Boris Johnson said. I can’t see the problem.
No, that is not what he said. He was trying to be deliberately obscure with his cornflake packet metaphor but he was basically saying that some people are rich and deserve to be so and others are not and also deserve to be poor because they are stupid. I thought his meaning was pretty clear despite his usual obfuscation.
I would be unhappy to live in a world where stupidity was valued as much as brilliance. I’m glad that the surgeon who may save my life is better rewarded than I am. Being somewhat on the stupid side myself, I acknowledge the superiority of the brilliant…or even the very clever…in terms of their usefulness to society. I do not envy their wealth. They deserve it. One day, society may value equally highly my talents and award me correspondingly. I’m not holding my breath.
“I don’t think the economic liberalism of the young necessarily dooms the left, because it is this same economic liberalism that is failing those who appear to have embraced it. In Britain in 2013 young people are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have accrued large debts and have less chance than previous generations of owning a home.”
According to Deborah Mattinson’s research, swing voters simply don’t believe politics has the capacity to resolve these problems – even if they were caused by economic liberalism, and even if they accept that they were caused by economic liberalism. That’s a major problem as, if you don’t believe politics can help, you are presumably more likely to think that it is better to be laissez faire than to try and – and fail to – help. For many people inclined to this way of thinking, we need to demonstrate – some how – that we have devised a set of longterm, sustainable and affordable solutions to our current financial problems which support choice and opportunity, and aren’t anti-market.