Cameron has quite rightly been castigated for his lack of a defining vision, a core idea that drives the policy of government. He wanted to become Prime Minister, we are told, not to leave a legacy of change, not to improve the lot of Britons, not with the passion to correct social and economic wrongs, but because he thought he would be rather good at it. Don Porter, quoted in the Mail, writes "There has been an almost evangelical focus on the “modernisation” or “detoxification” of the Conservative brand. The result is a growing disconnect between the party leadership and the grassroots, and a loss of clarity, principle and policy direction." and Carswell says much the same: "They can reshuffle the personnel all they want, but it is a lack of ideas that is the problem.". If Margaret Thatcher was the Captain Mainwaring of British politics then Cameron is the Sergeant Wilson.
If given the choice of a boozy lunch with Cameron or Boris, the stampede would be for BoJo's table. Affable, self-deprecating, with a stock of unpublishable anecdotes and brighter by far than the Witney boy, a move is being mooted to allow Boris to challenge Cameron for the leadership in advance of the 2015 election. But if Cameron is unprincipled, what's Boris? His mayoral campaigns were founded on either 'Vote for me - I'm not Ken' or 'Vote for me - I'm a good bloke'. A serial adulterer, women voters nevertheless seem more tolerant of a fumbled grope from Boris than Cameron's cold chaste reptilian fingers on their bustier, and even Labour supporters are prepared to vote for a Mayor with five-star charisma and Big Hair. But this isn't enough to make a Prime Ministerial candidate worth supporting. In London, Boris' big ideas have been as absent as Cameron's - notwithstanding Boris Island. Farage's simple political agenda, in contrast, pursued with utter conviction, is more persuasive by far than either Cameron's gentility or Boris' affability.