Against Boris
Sir: In discussing my attitude to Boris (‘The Boris-bashers should be ashamed’, 27 August), Mary Wakefield is too kind — to Boris. She claims that I am agin him because he has no plan and no philosophy. Not so: my criticisms are nearer those of the Oxford contemporaries whom she cites and who described Boris as a ‘sociopath’. He is a charismatic narcissist in a long tradition stretching back to Alcibiades. Such characters have no moral, intellectual or political integrity, but have a sublime confidence in their ability to charm themselves out of every embarrassment.
Mary goes on to claim that David Cameron had no plan either, and surrounded himself with ‘yes men’. David was once asked about his overall objective. He replied: ‘To leave the country stronger and the people more prosperous.’ A sound goal, surely. David also promoted changes in welfare and education and in the size of the public sector.
As for yes men — bunkum and balderdash. I have been watching politics for 40 years, and Cameron’s was much the strongest Downing Street team I have seen. All of them were used to speaking their minds: all had minds to speak.
Mary also accuses David of snootiness towards the staff at Buckingham Palace and discourtesy towards drivers. As for the Palace, Mary’s sources are obviously better than mine, but I have talked to a couple of chaps who know a bit about the place, and were mystified by the allegation. I have frequently travelled in a car with David and his relations with the drivers were easy and relaxed. Under the Camerons, Chequers was a happy family house.
Over the past couple of centuries, we have had two great foreign secretaries, Castlereagh and Bevin. Both rose to the challenge of great events: in Bevin’s case, national survival was at stake.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in