Cameron Shows His Loyalty
All Cameron was guilty of was trusting his friend, says Adrian Hilton. There are worse mistakes in politics.
8 Jul 2011, 16:50
Cameron: Will his loyalty to Coulson rebound?
Which is why Andy Coulson must be thankful today that David Cameron, his friend, who happens also to be Prime Minister, has not rejected him like Hal dispensing with the swindling, selfish and irresponsible Falstaff. Now that Cameron is king, there are many who say he should focus on his duty and the political imperative, expediently denigrating and disowning those who inconveniently happen to get in the way. While the majority of politicians would probably bend over backwards to undermine, slander, and stab anyone in the back who might threaten their ascent, Cameron isn’t quite like that.
In this morning’s news conference, he said of Andy Coulson that you’d be ‘pretty unpleasant if you forgot about him’. It wasn’t a prejudicial defence of his friend, by any means: the judge-led investigation will now take its course, and hopefully the truth will come out. But it was an expression of loyalty which is rather rare at this level of politics. Tony Blair very publicly dispensed with Peter Mandelson three or four times, without a second thought for the political humiliation of his ‘friend’. Gordon Brown quickly distanced himself from Damian McBride when that association became unbearably toxic. Cameron may occasionally have been over-zealous with his parliamentary colleagues in his quest to decontaminate the ‘nasty’ Conservative brand when it risked being tarnished with allegations of racism, homophobia or ‘duck-house’ excess. But today it’s simply a matter of innocent until proven guilty, and he’s sticking by Andy Coulson because he’d be ‘pretty unpleasant’ if he didn’t.
Many Tories would probably side with the calculating Prince Hal in his aggressive assertion of a proper social and political order. Others will lean towards sympathy for the affable underdog Falstaff, whom the Prince callously casts aside in order that he may achieve his political destiny as King. There aren’t many politicians at all who would put loyalty to their friends above their careers. But while some consider it a gross error of judgement on Cameron’s part to have given Coulson a ‘second chance’ in the first place, I, for one, find it a rather attractive quality. It certainly beats those ‘friends’ who would exile you forever to the furthest reaches of outer political darkness for the merest transgression.
For as long as we live in a country in which you’re innocent until proven guilty, it’s heartening that we’ve got a Prime Minister who is prepared to stand by his friends when it would be an awful lot easier to dump them. While the media mobs gather and the hordes bay for blood, David Cameron simply isn’t prepared to pre-judge the outcome of a judicial enquiry. Others have evidently already made up their minds, especially those who oppose the Murdoch take-over of BSkyB. But if it eventually transpires that Coulson manipulated, lied and cheated his way into Number 10 – a proposition which, at this stage, is founded upon nothing but conjecture – then the confidence and trust will naturally disappear. And if that is indeed the outcome, I wouldn’t mind betting that Cameron would be guilty of nothing but trusting a man’s word and wanting to give him a second chance. And it would be a sad world indeed if we could never do that.
The author
Adrian Hilton
Adrian Hilton is a conservative academic, religious and political commentator, journalist and author.
Full profile →
Comments (5)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Dear Adrian,
08/07/2011 19:10That is a rather naive viewpoint. Giving someone a second chance is clearly a laudable intention, but to do so as leader of the opposition and while apparently ignoring the advice and warnings of an editor of a national newspaper, all makes Cameron's decision look a little rash. The PM looked increasingly uncomfortable this morning when speaking about the subject of Coulson; I'm sure arses will be kicked and heads will roll in his team at their failure to carry out the proper security and background checks. Especially given that Cameron was not simply (for example) a retired judge living in the provinces who had decided to give a helping hand to someone down on his luck. The head of a major political party cannot afford to be so blindly altruistic, and no doubt this is a consideration that is uppermost on the PM's mind now, as the NOTW car-crash continues its course.
It is refreshing to see a politician exhibit such a candid sense of loyalty towards a discredited friend. We have seen with l´affaire Strauss-Khan just how damaging prejudicial presumptions of guilt can be to one´s political (and, indeed, life) prospects;
09/07/2011 10:41it is thoroughly pleasing to see that the PM has chosen not to sacrifice Coulson to the witch hunt entirely.
That said, however, it is a tactic fraught with risk. If, as you say, Coulson is proven guilty, the damage to Cameron´s credibility could be sizeable.
I do, however, suspect that the fallout from this story is far from complete; only once the extent to which Coulson was/wasn´t implicitly involved is determined will we know whether or not Cameron will be able to gloss over his loyalty to a friend.
(Sorry this is in two parts - not quite sure why it sent halfway through...)
09/07/2011 10:51What more can Cameron do other than say Coulson gave him assurances? It seems to me that some of his uncertainty about this is because he didn't appoint Coulson by himself over the heads of all his team. They - and this includes Osborne - need to consider that at some point someone might have to help Cameron out by admitting that they pushed for the appointment.
09/07/2011 12:05Anyone else read this and conclude 'aaaah diddums'?
Just me then?
Naive and unhelpful analysis, to expand on the diddums bit.
09/07/2011 22:44