SHARED OPINION
Mr Blair, Inspector Birt and the mysterious case of the leaked memo
FRANK JOHNSON
Mr Blair entitled his leaked memo Touchstone Issues. Did he have in mind the Touchstone who is the fool in As You Like It? Probably not. Presumably, he would not have named a memo after a fool. Still, Touchstone introduces his unglamorous betrothed, Audrey, to his ducal employer as `an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own'; the opinion which Mr Blair seems perforce to have of his government.
The memo is dated 29 April 2000. All week, we have been unable to make up our minds as to what its most important or interesting aspect is. Is it: who leaked it? Or is it: what does it tell us about the Prime Minister? Concerning the latter, Right, Left and Centre are agreed. The document reveals a politician solely interested not in the subjects or issues that he discusses, but in how they look. More specifically, how they make him look. As to who leaked it, there was no such unanimity. At the time of writing, apart from the leaker, and the leaked-to, no one knows.
An inquiry is under way. Perhaps it is a case for Mr Blair's new crime expert. Lovers of the genre must hope that Inspec- tor Birt will replace Inspector Morse as the nation's most popular modern fictional detective. As BBC director-general, Inspec- tor Birt loved memos. His heart would therefore be in the inquiry. This is the inspector's first big case. The Leaked Memo could do for Inspector Birt's reputation what The Purloined Letter did for that of Edgar Allan Poe's fictional detective, C. Auguste Dupin.
Dupin discovered that the purloiner of the letter was a minister. That is perhaps too obvious a denouement to The Leaked Memo. Inspector Birt has probably by now eliminated most ministers from his inquiries. Of a suspicious-looking neigh- bour, he would have requested: 'Excuse me, sir, we have to ask these questions. May I ask what you were doing on and immediately after 29 April 2000?' — receiv- ing the irritable answer: 'Being Chancellor of the Exchequer.' It would be a much more exciting tale if Inspector Birt could establish that the leaker was someone whom the Prime Minister had hitherto regarded as an ally or friend, perhaps a doctor who had spun for him over the years, but now bore a grudge.
There are other mysteries. For example, what, in, the memo, is Mr Blair actually saying? To the questions he raises crime, asylum-seekers, the family, the Tony Martin case — he seems to offer answers which are entirely Tory. Had Mr Hague been found to have written such a memo, Mr Blair, or at least Mr Blair's party, would have denounced him as pandering to the saloon bar. In fact, they did. Shortly after Mr Blair wrote his memo, Mr Hague did raise some of these subjects, and endured Lib–Lab denunciation for doing so.
But the memo contains some passages which are incomprehensible. For example: `On the family, we need two or three eye- catching initiatives that are entirely con- ventional in terms of their attitude to the family. Despite the rubbish about gay cou- ples, the adoption issue worked well. We need more.'
How can initiatives be eye-catching if they are conventional? What do we need more of? Adoption? Gay couples? Adop- tion by gay couples?
It was enough to make some of us want to hire a deconstructionist literary critic. We searched the Yellow Pages. 'Terry Eagleton Services. Having trouble with a subtext? Ring us. All major credit cards accepted. £50 call-out fee. £50 for every hour thereafter or part thereof. Leaks, a speciality.'
Last week, I said I would return here to the subject of how Mr Blair might fall. I suggested that he, like Lloyd George and Mrs Thatcher, is the Prime Minister of a coalition in which his followers are in the minority; Lloyd George Liberals and Thatcherites being both outnumbered by conventional Conservatives, and Blairites being outnumbered by old Labour. The theory was that old Labour would get rid of Mr Blair as the Conservatives did Lloyd George in 1922 and Mrs Thatcher in 1990, when it looked as if they could no longer win them elections.
In both earlier cases, the wielder of the knife did not replace the knifed. Baldwin wielded it against Lloyd George with a formidable speech at the Carlton Club meet- ing, but the more senior Bonar Law was the next prime minister, Baldwin not entering No. 10 until Law's death. Mr Major replaced Mrs Thatcher, not Mr Heseltine. Also, Lloyd George could not make up his mind on the big question of free trade versus pro- tection. Beaverbrook, chronicler of Lloyd George's fall, doubted if the prime minister had a view either way — like Mr Blair and the single currency.
Ascertaining the possible circumstances of Mr Blair's fall has necessitated study of one of history's least-read documents: the rules for a Labour leadership election. In opposition, the Labour party conference must confirm the leader's position each autumn. But, in government, the leader simply carries on as both leader and prime minister. Yet I have detected a loophole for conspirators: in government, a leadership election — effectively an election for prime minister — can be held if at least 51 per cent demands it. In such a vote, half of those voting represent the unions, and the other half the local constituency parties. MPs as such do not at this stage have a vote. If the 51 per cent is attained, an elec- tion is held sometime afterwards. To stand, a candidate when the party is in govern- ment must be nominated by 20 per cent of the MPs (in opposition, only 12 per cent). The election is then decided by an electoral college made up of one-third MPs and MEPs, one-third unions, and one-third con- stituency parties.
Suppose Labour loses its overall majori- ty at the general election, or is reduced to a majority of, say, between ten and 20. Mr Blair's electoral value would be gone. Per- haps, as many believe, Mr Blair would soon resign. But suppose he did not. Suppose, too, that Mr Brown found a reason to resign, and stood ready to replace Mr Blair. There would be a good chance of 51 per cent of the conference voting for a leadership election, since without the MPs having a vote the voters would be more left-wing, and Mr Brown would be appeal- ing to the Left. Perhaps Mr Blair — like Mrs Thatcher — would then resign rather than go on. So far as one can forecast from the here and now, I do not think that Mr Brown would be the successor. True to tra- dition, the knife-wielder would not gain the place. Just as there were enough Thatcherites to stop Mr Heseltine, there would be enough Blairites to stop Mr Brown. I think the new prime minister would be Mr Blunkett.
The worldly-wise would say that a prime minister would not be overthrown in this way. That is what they said about Lloyd George and Mrs Thatcher.
Previous page
