Cameron is a breath of fresh air

David Cameron was elected leader of Britain's opposition conservatives recently by a smashing two-thirds majority of the Tory faithful throughout the country. He had already won the backing of a majority of Tory MPs in the contest's first (parliamentary) round. Since then almost everyone in the Tory establishment had rallied to his standard. And he was introduced by his defeated opponent, David Davis, in a generous endorsement that treated his own defeat as a step to a general election victory.

It was a fiesta of Tory unity not seen since Thatcher was defenestrated in 1990. On top of that the usually hostile media also celebrated Cameron's triumph. Words like "youth", "hope", and "change" were flung about like confetti.

For the New Labour government suddenly looks vulnerable. On the very eve of Cameron's election, Gordon Brown, the finance minister who is universally expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister perhaps as early as next year, had to damage his own reputation by announcing a cut of exactly half in the likely rate of Britain's economic growth next year. It is now forecast to be a mere 1.75 per cent almost down to Euroland levels.

What makes the likely Brown-Cameron contest so fascinating is the unknown and even mysterious character of Cameron. He has been in the House of Commons for only four years and he has never held government office.

The Tory conference speech that propelled him from outsider to front-runner, though delivered with panache, was composed largely of optimistic clichés. And Cameron campaigned in this vein, refusing to offer substantive policies on the grounds that a general election was four years away. Britain's main opposition party has consequently taken a giant leap into the dark by electing him leader. Still, there are three signals pointing to the kind of politics Cameron is likely to favour.

First, he was a member of the small inside team that ran the 2004 Tory election campaign that was widely damned for its timidity especially over taxation and public spending. Its one bold and popular policy better control of immigration he distanced himself from in the course of campaign when it came under criticism. And he has since run against the recent Tory past as if he had taken no part in it. Not a good sign.

Second, Cameron is an old-fashioned Tory "toff" who went to the exclusive private school, Eton, and who is a member of London's most traditional gentleman's club, Whites.

He has described his own background as "hideously privileged". And his parliamentary support was stuffed with members of the Tory establishment the current equivalent of the Tory "wets" whom Thatcher vanquished in the 1980s.

Establishment toffs, however, tend to be guilty about their own pleasant existence (remember "hideously privileged".) So they generally favour high public spending, redistribution and generous public services. Thus, Cameron warmly praises Bush's "compassionate conservatism". And he has yet to notice that compassionate conservatism has produced the kind of overspending for which the Tories denounce Gordon Brown. Not a better sign.

Media savvy

Third, Cameron was briefly a PR man for a television company his only "real job" outside politics and he is distinctly media-savvy. He offered himself to the Tories as a new kind of "modernising" leader, in tune with multicultural Britain and the younger generation.

Thus, Rachel Sylvester, a political columnist in the London Daily Telegraph, contrasted the two men on Monday to Cameron's distinct advantage:

"Mr Brown dislikes the new celebrity style of politics, what he calls "all that touchy-feely stuff"; he has never posed for a photograph with his son, John, since he took him home from hospital when he was only hours old. He thinks parliament should be treated with more respect and he wants his party to rediscover an understanding of the past.

"Mr. Cameron ? wants a new style of politics, more consensual, less Punch and Judy. He prefers the "can do" optimism of The West Wing to the British cynicism of Yes, Prime Minister. [It] was natural to him to create the perfect photo opportunity after his conference speech by patting his pregnant wife's stomach ? He is planning some dramatic demonstrations of his modernity in the next few weeks."

The signs here are more uncertain. If Sylvester's contrast has serious policy implications, it implies a cultural surrender by Cameron to the liberal social prejudices of the media and London's "chattering classes". At the very time when ordinary voters are worried about the London bombings and rising yobbishness, Cameron would then be saying that he will not challenge multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration, laxness on crime, or welfare policies that facilitate family break-up. That would win more headlines than votes.

If it is purely a matter of style, Cameron may be little better off. Most British voters are neither toffs nor metropolitan media operators. They value the solid virtues represented by Brown's personality if not by his policies.

Cameron's current popularity is therefore a "bubble" one. He is popular for being popular. It is possible that he might also be solid, brave, decent, politically shrewd, and even conservative. We just don't know.

If he goes down the primrose path indicated by his media admirers, however, the voters will surely prick his bubble.

John O'Sullivan, former adviser to Lady Thatcher, is writing a book on Reagan, Thatcher and The Pope.