It was the same man, but a different prime minister who walked on to the conference stage in Manchester last week. We saw a return to Cameron the social reformer, just one of the many faces of the prime minister that have shown themselves over the past 10 years: Cameron the environmental campaigner; Cameron the community champion; and, most recently, Cameron the deficit hawk.
Just after the election, it was unclear how the Conservative strategy was going to unfold. One reading of the situation was that, far from being newly strengthened, Cameron was perhaps a weakened leader, with a tiny majority of 12, no Liberal Democrats to provide cover from the right of his party – and a lame duck in light of his pre-election announcement that 2015 would be his last election as leader.
But far from feeling constrained by his slim majority, or undermined by the parade of leadership contenders who hope to succeed him, it is clear Cameron is feeling emboldened and endowed with a fresh modernisation mandate. He does not want to go down in history as a deficit hawk but as an enlightened social reformer in the tradition of Burke and Disraeli.
Hence the stark contrast between last week’s rhetoric and that of the past five years. Gone was the doom of austerity and the justification of deep welfare cuts, with its sharp distinction between the deserving and underserving. In its place came optimism and light: Cameron’s portrait of a better Britain.
Thus, while national and economic security featured, the speech overwhelmingly focused on social reform: equality of opportunity, an “assault on poverty”, expanded home ownership, a strong stand on race discrimination, integration and cohesion, and prison reform. But just as telling was what was missing: nothing on welfare shirkers, the downsides of immigration or Cameron’s tough EU demands. And rather than characterising Labour as a party of prolific spending, the attack shifted to paint the opposition as incapable of delivering its mission to support workers and tackle poverty.
The speech was big on rhetoric and light on substance, but no less significant for it. While Corbyn addressed his conference hall, Cameron addressed the nation. It was a bold step on to the centre ground, a big pitch to Labour voters, with much to challenge and little to appeal to the Tory grassroots. Cameron was Blairite in approach, not substance: he mirrored Blair, who gave speeches not on redistribution but on being tough on crime, taking on unions to improve public services and reforming welfare, counterintuitively defining his own territory and challenging his membership.
There are serious dangers for the left as the Conservatives look to stake out this territory. Far from being a land grab, Labour vacated the ground in advance. As Cameron has shifted his tone from austerity to optimism, even as deep public-sector cuts remain to be implemented, there is a risk Labour will get left behind, engaging in a narrative no longer being expressed by those setting the agenda.
The past five years have shown that moral outrage in response to public-sector cuts – while justified – does not by itself win elections. If it is to be in with a serious chance of winning in 2020, Labour cannot simply rebut and attack. It needs to define its own territory, addressing its weaknesses, such as its lack of economic credibility, and showing that it has a different vision from Cameron’s one-nation Conservatism. This is how the success of Corbyn’s Labour must be judged, not just its ability to mobilise a movement of people unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.
On this front, it seems Cameron, for now, has little to worry about, but he faces a set of unrelated risks. He clearly feels liberated by his announcement that he will be stepping down. But this undermines his authority as leader, never particularly strong, given his willingness to let ministers steer their own agendas, rather than shaping departmental policy from Number 10.
He now seems set on approaching government like a second-term president, focusing on his reforming priorities while leaving tough action on migration to Theresa May, the roll-out of universal credit to Iain Duncan Smith and the cutting of tax credits to George Osborne.
But unless he gets a tighter grip on government policy, Cameron’s legacy will be shaped by the deeds of Osborne, May and Duncan Smith. Strong words on poverty and making work pay will not disguise the fact that the net effect of Conservative reforms will be to move 200,000 households into working poverty and damage work incentives. Housing starts remain far below pre-financial crisis levels and Cameron’s announced shift in emphasis from affordable rental housing to affordable home ownership has been widely criticised by organisations ranging from KPMG to Shelter. There is a brewing crisis in social care and childcare. Providers will have bigger wage bills, owing to the introduction of a national living wage; state-funded social care is being cut and funding is insufficient for expanded free provision in childcare.
Improving social mobility was a strong theme of the prime minister’s speech, but new research last week showed that the pupil premium has had a limited impact on the social attainment gap and schools in poor areas will continue to be most affected by cuts to critical services such as child mental health and educational psychology.
While Cameron claimed to want to address inequality, the Conservatives have taken little action against tax havens. On migration, the government remains committed to a target no one thinks it can meet and that businesses and universities say harms Britain’s economic prospects. And on the EU, Cameron has raised expectations about what Britain could get from a renegotiation, in a way that could badly backfire.
Cameron has performed a remarkable volte-face in the past week. His many faces make it difficult to know who the true Cameron is: all that seems to remain of Cameron the environmental campaigner of 2006, for example, is the Conservatives’ tree-shaped logo. His speech does, perhaps, give us a glimpse into the prime minister he might have aspired to be had economic circumstances been different in 2010. But if he is genuine about social reform, he needs to address the serious contradictions in his government’s agenda. Otherwise, his legacy will be more working poverty, more substandard housing, less social mobility and an internationally isolated Britain.
