British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed to be the candidate of change at the Conservative Party’s annual conference a few weeks ago. Yet the man who aspired to tear up 30 years of “failed consensus” politics lacked conviction. A former school head prefect was always going to be an unlikely rebel.
Now Sunak has dropped the pretense by picking David Cameron, his Conservative predecessor who called and lost the UK’s referendum on Europe, to be foreign secretary. After the sound and fury of the Conservative Party’s eruptions last week, a new vision emerges: Everything must change at the top so that everything can remain the same.
Allies of Sunak — and Cameron — compare the latter’s comeback to Edward Heath’s choice of his predecessor, Alec Douglas Home as foreign secretary in 1970. They might also point out that Neville Chamberlain loyally served in World War II under Winston Churchill, his long-time party rival. Yet the ferocious Heath was never in awe of his mild-mannered colleague and Chamberlain died six months into serving his new boss.
Cameron was prime minister from 2010 to 2016, leader of his party from 2005 and fought and won two elections. Sunak has scarcely been in the job for 12 months. There is no precedent in modern times for such an imbalance in seniority at the summit of power. Desperate times, however, call for desperate measures. The next general election is only a year away and Sunak has chosen to go down fighting with a team he can at least trust to not undermine him. Cameron brings experience and unflappability. Too many of his colleagues lack that quintessential Westminster quality called “bottom” — in the sense of heft and hinterland rather than expansive behinds. In a similar fix, then Labour prime minister Gordon Brown recalled his “frenemy” Peter Mandelson to office 15 years ago, stabilizing his shaky administration.
When he first won the keys to No. 10 Downing Street, Sunak tried balancing the warring factions within the Conservative tribe around his Cabinet table. The party’s right wing was given leave to wage wars on wokeness and transgender rights, while he reassured the markets by returning to Cameron-era fiscal austerity and mending relations with the EU. Experience was thin on the ground after Brexit, and four divisive leadership contests had taken their toll. Critics mocked that his inexperienced government was a “Ministry without all the talents.”
The voters quickly sensed it, too: The Conservatives trail by a consistent 20-point margin in opinion polls. That deficit emboldened former home secretary, Suella Braverman, to flout collective Cabinet responsibility last week and incited other potential leadership candidates to audition for Sunak’s job. Put bluntly, Cameron has returned from exile to compensate for some of Sunak’s own shortcomings.
Sunak has now placed proven ministerial talent in the Big Three Cabinet posts. The drawback is that Cameron, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt and the bluff new Home Secretary, James Cleverly, are all, like Sunak, male and privately educated. That is one risk he has decided he could live with.
The prime minister has taken a second gamble. Political logic suggests he should balance his top team with a right-wing replacement at the Home Office. The obvious candidate, Trade and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, has ambition aplenty, but no track record. Sunak’s calculation is that this is no time for a novice. The alternative candidate, Michael Gove, while respected by Sunak, is not a natural soulmate.
Sunak’s third and biggest risk is the recall of a former leader whose record in foreign affairs is mixed at best. Cameron bet the house on the result of the Brexit referendum and the manner of his defeat tarnished his reputation. His renegotiation of the UK’s terms of European membership was regarded as a failure, and his order that the civil service should make no plans to prepare for a leave vote was irresponsible.
Although Cameron has shown greater application to foreign affairs since his departure from No. 10 Downing Street — his name has been floated in connection with NATO and UN jobs — in office, he lacked a sure touch. Notably, he naively proclaimed “a golden era” of relations with China. He also abdicated responsibility for Ukraine to Germany and France after the first Russian invasion in 2014, although the UK had been a guarantor of the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. Out-of-office grubby lobbying activities on behalf of Greensill Capital, a supply-chain lender that exploded in March 2021, owing billions to creditors, mired him in scandal.
Yet Cameron’s connections in Washington and his understanding of Israel could be a bonus at this critical time in the Middle East. Always sympathetic to the Jewish people and a hardliner on Islamic terrorism, he could play the role of candid friend to Benjamin Netanyahu or his successor, having drawn attention to the unhappy lot of Palestinians in Gaza.
I am sure that Cameron would also be loyal to his new boss. After all, he appointed William Hague, another former Conservative Party leader, as his own foreign secretary; the two men consulted widely on domestic political strategy.
The real difficulty lies elsewhere: Cameron has enemies in the parliamentary party. Brexiteers are naturally suspicious of him, and China hawks look askance at his record in promoting investment in Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative in Sri Lanka. Yet many of these contradictions could be dealt with if the new foreign secretary shows emotional intelligence in his new role.
Fairly or unfairly, Cameron has a reputation for upper-class arrogance among backbench Conservative MPs and in circles who have encountered him since leaving office. If he patronizes his middle-class brethren from his new perch in the House of Lords or from his gilded Foreign Office quarters, he might become a liability to his new boss. The lesson is that a return to the foreground of politics needs as much thought as getting there in the first place. The old adage holds: The personal is political — and vice versa.
As political skies darken all around him, however, Sunak has made his choice — a friend in need is a foreign secretary indeed.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Concert ticket scalping is increasingly severe. From Hong Kong actor and singer Andy Lau (劉德華) to Japanese-American pop star Hikaru Utada, tickets for superstars’ concerts become hot commodities the moment they go on sale. However, prices are often artificially inflated by scalpers, harming fans and the market. To address the issue, the Ministry of Culture has joined hands with local governments to implement real-name registration for popular concerts in large venues with a capacity of more than 10,000 people, to prevent scalping and protect the interests of consumers. The policy is not only a direct response to the market chaos, but
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
RSS