THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: The public is paying dearly for the Prime Minister's cult of personality, argues Simon Heffer.
That the public mood lightened last week when the BBC went on strike, and we were spared for a day or two endless earnest reports and analyses of the activities of our pygmy politicians, should hardly be a surprise. What perhaps requires further thought, both by politicians and those of us who report or analyse their doings, is whether there is generally just too much of it out there for anybody's good.
We know that in a democracy information (preferably truthful) is essential. I, like many of my colleagues, came into journalism precisely to throw bricks through windows. The Fourth Estate has a role, without doubt, in fulfilling the import of that pompous phrase "holding politicians to account". But since so much of what the politicians tell journalists is either only half the truth or, at times, none of the truth at all, some of us do start to wonder why we bother. I rarely sit down on a Tuesday without the thought crossing my mind that it would be better all round if I were to write a column about the cultural importance of Ealing films, or a defence of Wagner, or a philippic against much contemporary architecture. I do not doubt many of you would agree. Yet again, however, this week there is a subject, related to what I have just said, that requires all our attention.
The Prime Minister has put no fewer than 26 people on the public payroll, on short-term contracts, without advertising their posts. Most of these people are trusties, and the most prominent of them are in the business of managing Mr Cameron's image: and, in one case, Mrs Cameron's. One of them is his photographer. Another is described as being his "web guru", a man whose contribution to the lexicon of conservative thought so far has been to seek to "pimp your party" and to throw a fund-raising event that was "so hip it hurts", whatever the hell that means. The Prime Minister also has his own film-maker. There is also someone being paid £50,000 a year working for something called the "behavioural insight team" in the Cabinet Office. She, and they, must have their work cut out. I believe there are even some young people who advise on policy, and we must judge the quality of their contribution to our governance by its results.
It is reported that a senior civil servant warned Mr Cameron of the injudiciousness of appointing at least some of these people at all, and especially in this way, at a time of stringency in the public sector. The act has also been interpreted as a means of Mr Cameron getting around his own much-trumpeted policy of reducing the number of special advisers in government. But the real issue here is one of image, and image management. We knew that Mr Cameron was obsessed with this when in opposition, usually to the exclusion of developing any policies or principles. Many of the people hired in this compromising way were in charge of massaging the Cameron image before he entered Downing Street. Nicky Woodhouse, the film-maker, did his saccharine and nauseating "WebCameron", by which the public who cared to watch were deceived into believing they were witnessing real slices of Cameron family life. Read on and comment >>> Simon Heffer | Tuesday, November 09, 2010
This article hits the nail right on the head. We, the electorate, are sick and tired of our vain politicians who think far too little of the 'little people' and far too much of themselves. David Cameron is an exemplar par excellence of such a politician. One can see his vanity in his face. In short: He loves himself. And he is using these spin creatures to try and make the rest of us love him equally as much. The strategy will fail. The electorate has had quite enough of spin during the Blair years. Look where that got us!
How nice it would be to be governed by real politicians. Winnie was the complete opposite of Cameron: Churchill thought little about his appearance, but a hell of a lot about the country.
Thank you so much for this insightful article. It was a pleasure to read it. – © Mark [This comment can also be read here]
