THE SPECTATOR
THE BIFFEN BAROMETER
There are certain politicians who are assured of a good press. Mr John Biffen is a Prime example, and this fact has to be recognised before the significance of his recent political pronouncements can be judged. Mr Biffen finds favour with jour- nalists for good reasons and for bad. The good ones are that he is remarkably hon- est, remarkably humorous, remarkably likeable, in a line of work where these qualities are rare. He speaks in riddles not because he is devious but because his mind works in riddles. He is sceptical and reflective. Journalists like this because it gives them plenty of material and because they find it charming. They also have good access to Mr Biffen because, unlike a d. epartmental minister, he is not worked into the ground. The bad reasons for the good press are that Mr Biffen gives the easiest story. Based in the House of Com- mons much more than most politicians, he deals with lobby journalists in a way which flatters them and panders to their view of Politics as a game of nods and winks, of sly hints and things left half-said. Mr Biffen does not like to be dull and he does not like to be the same as his colleagues and he likes to start hares which he is then happy not to chase. All this is fun, but it does not necessarily provide a good guide to politic- al reality or encourage in Mr Biffen's party the balance and sanity which he keeps saying that it needs. So one should hesitate before accepting the current journalistic orthodoxy that Mr Biffen has his ear uniquely close to the ground and the head from which the ear protrudes screwed more firmly on the right Way than everyone else. He is a good barometer, but barometers describe situa- tions, they do not tell people what to do about them. The Biffen barometer correctly senses that the weather is set cold, windy and wet. Mr Biffen stands there with gloomy relish with his umbrella up and his rain coat on. The Government is unpopular, he sug- gests, because Mrs Thatcher is unpopular. Mrs Thatcher is unpopular because people are tired of her stridency and doubtful of her achievements. They feel that services which they particularly value — schools, hospitals buses — are not well cared for. From this Mr Biffen concludes that the Conservative? Party needs a 'balanced tick- et', with some voice of sanity, perhaps his own, balancing the voice of stridency. He Wants more spent on the neglected services and a brake on dangerous reform. As Ferdinand Mount points out in his column this week, Mr Biffen's solution has no chance of working, since any voter who wants moderation now has it on tap from the Labour and Alliance parties. It is also impossible for Mrs Thatcher to succeed on the 'balanced ticket' because it is not in her nature. A Biffenite policy could not be carried out by Mrs Thatcher, and so if it is to be attempted, she must be removed. Mr Biffen and supporters do not propose to do this, although they might be pleased if it happened. So Mr Biffen's words, no doubt intended as wise and timely warning, are merely dispiriting. Their effect is defeatist. By noting the probability of electoral failure, Mr Biffen makes it more likely, and nothing that he proposes reduces the probability.
It may be that the Conservatives will be defeated at the next election, but sudden change in a panic will do nothing to prevent that. All the worst setbacks of recent months have come from just such attempts to row back. In particular, the stopping of the various bids for bits of British Leyland prevented the completion of one of the Government's most coherent policies, the return of such assets to private ownership, and prolonged the political agony which the motor industry has in- flicted on every government since the war. The Biffenite attitude is similar to that which inspires the governing party at a by-election to 'reprieve' a hospital, or build a road, or invent some new jobs in the constituency. The gesture appears to make sense, but is extraordinarily expensive as a way of buying votes and there is no recorded instance of it having the desired electoral result. It is a calculation based on panic, and therefore a bad calculation.
Although electoral fortunes vary, national politics shifts more slowly than politicians tend to acknowledge. Mrs Thatcher's administration has existed for long enough to have made a distinct mark.
At present it is suffering from this, but any observer should also recognise that the benefits exist. The three opposition parties are now in many respects Thatcherite. In all those areas (except for Northern Ire- land) in which the Government has taken major initiatives — council house sales, privatisation, the repression (it is too opti- mistic to say removal) of inflation, the reform of trade unions — it has strength- ened its position. Those achievements will not seem negligible to voters as an election approaches, and if they are accompanied with noticeable tax cuts they will be hard to resist. The areas of policy which are causing the trouble are those in which the Government's reforming zeal has faltered. There have not been cuts in spending on health or on education, but no one believes this because everyone detects a decline in the quality of the service. What has hap- pened is that in a climate of greater success, failure has become more appa- rent. When businesses work better and most people are earning more money, the institutions which are run down and shabby become more conspicious. People are angry because schools and hospitals have not been `Thatcherised', but left as they were. If, as is now constantly suggested, Mrs Thatcher now turns her attention to schools, she will do no good by appointing a 'caring' minister and finding an extra billion pounds. Her Government has man- aged to establish certain important changes. The voters will not judge it more kindly if it starts muttering that its changes were no good after all.
Previous page
