Sorry, you’re no Mrs Thatcher
One of Tony Blair’s most cunning and cynical ploys in his early years as Labour leader was to model himself explicitly upon Margaret Thatcher. In 1995 he said, ‘She was a thoroughly determined person and that is an admirable quality. It is important in politics to have a clear sense of direction, to know what you want.’ It was the Iron Lady, not his Labour predecessor, Jim Callaghan, whom he invited to No. 10 in his first days as Prime Minister. He postured — and postured is the word — as her true successor: a great domestic reformer and global statesman.
How embarrassing it was to hear Mr Blair signal at his monthly press conference last Monday that he did not want to suffer the same fate as his supposed role model. There was, he claimed, no Labour equivalent of the poll tax: a hugely unpopular policy that would drive him from office. On Tuesday Gordon Brown twisted the knife, with a warning that Mr Blair should not repeat Mrs Thatcher’s ‘unstable, disorderly and undignified’ exit from No. 10 in 1990. In response, Blairites muttered that this is precisely what they have been trying to avoid, and that their chances of success would be much improved if the Chancellor and his supporters would cease their intrigues.
Only now is the Conservative party emerging from the wretched depths into which it was plunged by Mrs Thatcher’s fall. Michael Howard established a spirit of unity and organisational purpose upon which David Cameron has built; the local election results testify to the encouraging prospects for the Tory party — as well as to the work that remains to be done. It has taken 16 years to repair the damage wreaked by Mrs Thatcher’s departure, and even now not all the scars have healed. Small wonder New Labour wishes to avoid a similar denouement for Mr Blair.
There is a crucial difference, however. By 1990 Mrs Thatcher had transformed the country, inheriting an economic basket-case and bequeathing a robustly competitive nation. She had tamed the unions, denationalised the utilities, extended home ownership, slashed taxes, and collaborated with Ronald Reagan to bring the Cold War to an end.
Eight years into his own premiership, Mr Blair can claim no such record. True, the granting of independence to the Bank of England was a welcome extension of the antiinflationary measures taken by the Conservative government in its final years. He has proved remarkably good at mastering modern political methods and winning elections. No Labour leader has been better at out-foxing the Tory party.
Other than that, Mr Blair has tinkered with the constitution; evaded the radical welfare reform he promised in opposition; wasted time on a European dream that has gone up in smoke; presided over a rise in violent crime; proved incapable of managing the immigration and asylum system; permitted his Chancellor to impose an outrageous range of stealth taxes; allowed foreign ex-prisoners to roam the streets; and postponed difficult questions such as pensions policy, transport funding and Lords reform for so long that they will probably not be settled on his watch.
Untold billions have been spent on health and education. But with what results? New Labour’s pledge that it would transform health and education has proved to be hollow. For all the bureaucracy imposed on schools and hospitals, and the botched structural reforms to which they have been subjected, the Croslandite comprehensive system and Nye Bevan’s NHS remain fundamentally unchanged. We have postwar solutions to 21st-century problems. A Populus poll for the Times on Wednesday showed that voters think Labour has been worse than the Tories at improving the NHS, fighting crime, spending taxpayers’ money efficiently, maintaining the defence and security of Britain, representing Britain’s interest in Europe, and protecting ‘people’s personal security’. The same poll also revealed that 29 per cent believe that Labour are sleazier than the Tories were, compared with only 10 per cent who believe standards in public life have improved under Mr Blair.
To adapt Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s withering put-down of Dan Quayle: the British know Margaret Thatcher; Mr Blair, you’re no Margaret Thatcher. Not only does his record look frankly meagre compared with her achievements. It has also taken a much shorter period of time for his premiership to unravel. Mrs Thatcher was in office for 11 years. Mr Blair faces a serious and potentially terminal crisis of authority only nine years after he entered No. 10. Whatever one says about the NHS, waiting lists for new prime ministers seem to be coming down.
Since 1994, when Mr Brown reluctantly agreed not to enter the Labour leadership contest, he and Mr Blair have tussled as if the office of prime minister belonged to them. Mr Cameron’s showing in the local elections adds a third plausible combatant. Most important, the Tory leader scores better against Mr Brown than against Mr Blair in opinion polls; his lead over the Chancellor is 10 per cent according to last week’s Times poll, compared with an 8 per cent margin over the Prime Minister.
Mr Cameron deserves praise for changing the public’s perceptions of the Conservative party and persuading voters that its motives are honourable. This is a considerable achievement. With political capital in the bank after the local elections, his next challenge is to convince the voters that he is on their side in a more specific sense: that he is as serious about radical education reform as he is about the environment, about reducing the tax burden as well as encouraging ‘diversity’ among Tory candidates, about devising unremittingly tough policies on domestic crime as well as supporting action against global poverty. There is no reason that these objectives should be inconsistent. But the stakes are rising. To his credit, Mr Cameron is in with a chance. But that means that his task is even harder.
Previous page
