by Sam Saunders
Dennis Skinner, the former MP who went by the moniker ‘Beast of Bolsover’ once famously referred
to David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, as ‘dodgy Dave’ a comment that, whilst funny, seemed
little more then a political jibe at that time. However, recent news that Cameron used his
connections to the current chancellor to lobby on behalf of Greensill Capital, a firm where he was
employed and had serious shareholdings until its recent fall into administration, has led some to
believe that Mr Skinner had it right and that Dave most certainly earned the moniker of ‘dodgy’.
Of course one should note that Cameron has has not broken any rules. As a private citizen and an
employee of Greensill Capital he had every right to lobby on behalf of his employer. He certainly is
not the first ex-senior government figure, not even first ex-PM, to take up employment and lobby for
the said company using hisextensive political network, after all that is why they are paid to big bucks
(apparently Cameron stood to make up to £60m from his shareholdings at the firm). So, if Cameron
was operating within the accepted parameters for lobbying, and in end was actually unsuccessful,
why has it caused so many people so much anger? Well, this largely comes down to two things, the
current context and Cameron’s own legacy.
Firstly, Cameron was lobbying for the use of taxpayer backed Coronavirus loans in order to shore up
the failing finances at Greensill. This was not a lobbying attempt for a government contract, but an
attempt to take money that had been put aside to help businesses during the pandemic. It seems
that the issues facing Greensill come from its inability to find a new insurer after Tokio Marine, its
previous main insurer, pulled out of their deal. This had led tomany core customers, such as Credit
Suisse, to freeze their funds and call in loans whilst Greensill was also hit by defaults from another
key customer, GFG alliance. It is not clear to what extent the pandemic caused these difficulties and
thus to many there is something fishy about a former PM using his influence to try and secure
money for that was set aside for pandemic-related issues, for a firm who’s struggles were largely
removed from the current health crisis.
However, far more important for many is the personal legacy of David Cameron. The Eton educated,
ex-Bullingdon club member spent much of his time in office trying to remove the image of cronyism
and self-enrichment that had plagued his party in the past. He even set up the current lobbying rules
that he has been cleared of not breaking. Whilst he could never claim to have a squeaky clean
image, there is no doubt that Cameron was always aware of his public image and always acted in
ways aimed at sharpening it. Yet, the manner in which he exited politics left many with a sour taste
in their mouth. Resigning as PM after just calling a hugely divisive referendum, leaving the House of
Commons almost immediately afterwards and retreating to a life of relative obscurity (till now) left
many people seeing Cameron as an opportunist who had risen to the top of politics, styling
himself as a breath of fresh air and champion of public service, only to run away when things didn’t
go his way. One does not need to recall the less then kind words Danny Dyer had for the PM on
Good Morning Britain back in 2018 to get an idea of how some people felt. Now that it has been
revealed that he spent his time post-politics enriching himself through a firm whose CEO he brought
into the centre of government itself, and used his connection to try and secure public money for
many have had their suspicions confirmed about ‘dodgy’ Dave.
At the end of the day little will come of this. There is certainly an argument that lobbying rules in the
UK need to be addressed, but for now it seems as if no rules have been broken and eventually the
news cycle will simply move on. The current government will most likely emerge undamaged, if not
possibly strengthened by the fact that no public money was given to Greensill, but Cameron will not
fare as well. His complete silence on the issue only damages his legacy, if he still has one, even more.
For many, post-Brexit Cameron was seen as weak for abandoning politics so quickly after his defeat,
certainly in comparison to the likes of Theresa May. However, this scandal means he will be seen not
only as a failed Prime Minister, but a deeply flawed man as well. Whether this assessment is fair or
not is immaterial, the damage has been done.
Comments