Cameron and the EU

Cameron has got himself into a terrible spot. As a young politician he was a aide to Norman Lamont, John Major's disastrous chancellor of the Exchequer who presided over the debacle of exit from the ERM. At this time he was

As a fresh leader he styled himself as the 'heir to Blair', pragmatic and socially progressive.

At election time he presented himself as a fiscal conservative and prime ministerial.

And under threat from his back benchers and a nascent right wing electoral force in UKIP, he now tacks to the right on Europe.

In short Cameron may be seen as a great political chameleon, as was Blair.

On the other hand, given his background, it is also possible to see Cameron as a throwback to an earlier age of patrician Tories.

His continued backing for the international development (aid) budget coupled with his consistent record as a social liberal (at least within the context of his party) display something other than simple pragmatism.

Mr Cameron appears to come from that class that thinks he has a God given right to rule. He thinks he was born to rule.

In that sense the career of Mr Cameron is reminiscent more of Mr Bush than Mr Blair. Both started out as representing the centrist wing of their parties (remember Bush the compassionate conservative?). Both have championed international aid, in the face of political opposition. Both have implemented some radical policies in education for the poorest.

Most importantly, both come from families which presume to know what is best for the rest of us. Both rule with a cavalier attitude of indifference. Embarking on radical shake ups of long established systems without bothering to think through he most immediate consequences. Both delegate vast slices of power to basically unelectable sidekicks (Osbourne/Cheney), who are driven by ideological fervour hard to identify in the leader. Both appear sort of semi detached from the political fray, so some conclude that real power rests with the sidekick.

There are, though, real differences. Mr Cameron has not yet managed to win an election. He therefore must engage with his coalition partners. You could argue that Mr Bush also failed to win election first time around, but he did at least win the count.

And he is not leader of a superpower, but rather prime minister of a member of that troubled partnership called the EU.

Both of these facts limit Cameron's room for manoeuvre. His response is that of the old style patrician. He tries to play the different constituencies off against one another. He tells his back benchers that he can't move to the right because of the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats that he can't be more liberal because of his own party. Her forgets they sit next to one another in parliament. It escapes him that the whole of parliament asks what his policy would be if he had the choice, and no one knows the answer.

This is what has brought the United Kingdom to our current predicament. Mr Cameron wants the political benefit of bashing Europe. Of blaming the Liberal Democrats for his pro Europeanism. Of blaming the EU for high levels of immigration.

He wants to do all of this without actually changing anything. This sort of status quo suits him well. He wants to make a fuss at EU summits, get some special piece of paper with some special words on to show how 'strong' he is.

This is how the patricians rule.

Mr Cameron has forgotten that Twitter has been invented. The country is, at some level, aware that he says one thing about Europe, but intends to do approximately nothing about it. Hence the rise of UKIP.

We no longer live in an age where a politician speaks and we all listen to their words through established media. We live in a more democratic society, where everyone can be a part of the conversation.

For Mr Cameron, an ex PR man, for whom controlling the narrative really is everything, this is an especially difficult change to manage.

He is already to some extent an electoral failure. It is difficult to see how his career in office can end any other way.