As David Cameron makes another bid to impress those who are never likely to give him the time of day, one is left wondering about his tactical nous. Suppose "UK Prime Minister" is merely a tick on his CV. Suppose that’s all he intends – all he ever intended. Not a new or original suggestion I know, but what are we to make of it?
It isn’t easy to thread a way through UK political motives. Stupidity, cupidity, inexperience, legal and political entanglements, complexity, vested interests, misinformation, fanatical ambition, backstabbing, inertia, greed, amoral cunning, conceit, megalomania, deviousness and simple bungling are all on offer as explanations suited to what we see from our political class.
Without knowing Cameron personally and knowing him well at that, any pundit may pick and choose from the rhetorical feast he and his ilk provide. Maybe they provide it deliberately too – who knows?
Very few really know - that's my guess. Although it doesn’t stop many of us from putting together a point of view which we can’t actually check. The problem is, neither can anyone else and that’s something we know too.
So do we do it for fun - slagging off whoever happens to be in charge? Well I’m sure we do it to let off steam, but what use is it when we don’t actually know? When we aren’t on the inside, never will be on the inside and therefore never view events from that fascinating perspective?
It seems to me that we have to go with a mix of possibilities - mostly negative in Cameron's case, but he's hardly alone in that. We have to compare what we see with an intelligent, rational, well-managed political scenario where voters are given some kind of choice.
Not because voters know best, but because nobody else knows any better. Some may express themselves more cogently, but cogency is not wisdom. Which of course is the thing we lack – wisdom.
So back to Cameron’s CV. Is the office of Prime Minister merely a ticked box? At the age of 46, I think it has to be.
As with stupidity, cupidity, inexperience, legal and political entanglements, complexity, vested interests, misinformation, fanatical ambition, backstabbing, inertia, greed, amoral cunning, conceit, megalomania, deviousness and simple bungling – it explains too much to be entirely wrong.