Weak Hague must shoulder the blame too
WhY did the fiasco of David Cameron’s humiliation over Syria happen? Why was he allowed to make such an historic miscalculation, which has wasted much of the goodwill he managed to generate in his party since its pitiful performance in the May elections?
Mr Cameron was let down by his own poor judgment. But he was also let down by his closest colleagues.
From the moment at the start of the week when he responded so positively to Barack Obama’s call to arms, alarm bells should have been ringing among his advisers.
The Foreign Secretary, William hague, should have urged caution for diplomatic and strategic reasons. Instead, he was a main cheerleader.
When Mr hague led the Tory party between 1997 and 2001 he had, for all his shortcomings, a reputation as a clever, no-nonsense Yorkshireman with reasonable political antennae. These qualities seem to have deserted him over Syria.
To an extent, in the past week or so Mr Cameron seems to have decided to become his own foreign secretary, and Mr hague seems to have decided to support him. Loyalty is admirable, but not when it amounts to Mr hague refusing to bring his own diplomatic experience to bear in such a crisis.
It may be down to a slow response by the Tory whips’ office that Thursday’s defeat was not warded off. But many MPs plainly did not relish the sight of a gung-ho Prime Minister — an attitude Mr hague, as Foreign Secretary, should have counselled Mr Cameron against.
Mr hague must take his share of the blame, and of the political fallout. he has often seemed a somewhat detached and preoccupied figure, but if he is to stay in his job he needs to assert himself, and assert common sense.
Another in the inner circle who could and should have offered some sober home truths was Defence Secretary Philip hammond. Unfortunately, he eventually convinced himself a missile strike was in the national interest.
Sadly, he and Mr hague never realised how little the British people, and the house of Commons, shared this view.
The whips’ office were always cautious about the outcome of the vote, though Mr Cameron seems not to have listened to them. They did at least call back MPs from abroad all through Wednesday — though it now emerges that International Development Secretary Justine Greening, having driven from France, missed the vote anyway.
She says she failed to hear a division bell ring, and has had to apologise to the Prime Minister personally. even worse, she was one of ten members of Mr Cameron’s government who failed to vote — including eight ministers. Little wonder it’s being reported that the Chief Whip, Sir George Young, may be facing the sack.
The whole thing does not smack of a well- oiled Parliamentary machine.
It has often been said that Mr Cameron is a poor judge of people, and rarely have those chickens come home to roost so much as this week. he likes to surround himself with people who agree with him rather than challenge him — which is one of the reasons he proceeded headlong on a course that has now humbled him.
Mrs Thatcher was kept from making mistakes by the older and wiser Lord Whitelaw, prompting her to say, famously, that ‘ every prime minister needs a Willie’. Mr Cameron has yet to find his (‘Willie’ hague, it seems, does not fit that bill).
The size of the Tory rebellion on Thursday reflects how much he has taken his MPs for granted, and should concern him deeply. Of course, the lack of a Tory majority in the Commons meant Mr Cameron was vulnerable from the outset — mind you, so extensive is the opposition among Tories to military action that he would have required a very hefty majority indeed to get approval for it.
What Mr Cameron attempted was the sort of act of leadership achieved by Mrs Thatcher over the Falklands. What he and his advisers ignored was that leadership even in a cause that is right and just is only successful when others trust your judgment, and are persuaded to follow.
At a time when ed Miliband was still attempting to recover from his much- mocked ‘summer of silence’, the Prime Minister has enhanced his reputation for being impetuous — and on this occasion it seems his advisers did not have the wherewithal to rein him in.
his MPs can’t understand why he didn’t prepare the ground better, domestically and internationally.
he also should have ensured Mr hague, and Britain, played a wider diplomatic role in the past few weeks — notably by trying to re- open lines of communication with Vladimir Putin about Russia’s obstructiveness in the United Nations.
‘Constantly poking Russia in the eye does not seem to me to be sensible politics,’ one former minister told me. Mr Cameron has shown himself, once more, to be out of touch with the feelings of those on whose support he must rely. So why did his close circle of advisers not tell him how restive his backbenchers were?
It is bad politics, and, for him — and those closest to him — a self-inflicted wound that may take some time to heal.