POLITICS
Thatcherites who would prefer to be without Thatcher
BRUCE ANDERSON
Last October, who could have pre- dicted that by this summer recess the main political issues would have been South Africa, Westland, and the relations be- tween the Queen and her Prime Minister? But this has been a very odd Parliament altogether. A Government triumphantly re-elected with an increased majority, fac- ing a divided and demoralised Opposition proceeds to spend three years stumbling from one cock-up to another. But then we have a Prime Minister with a unique method of running the Government. Mrs Thatcher is an extraordinary mixture of recklessness and caution. When she is in her reckless mood, she is in effect a permanent revolutionary, deeply disatis- fied with the Government's record, and convinced that, but for her unceasing vigilance, the whole country would instant- ly slide into sloth and chaos. In this mood, she is almost Maoist in her suspicion of established institutions, seeing them as mere encrustations of temporising and vested interest, and above all as obstacles to change, change, change. At such mo- ments, permanent secretaries, governors of the BBC — and her ministerial col- leagues — are perhaps fortunate that the British system denies her the power to send them off to work in the fields.
But sometimes, when she seems at her most impossible, is there not also an element of posturing? It looks as if she is about to fling herself over the balcony but all the time she knows that Willie Whitelaw, John Wakeham, Geoffrey Howe are there to stop her. Throughout her years at No. 10, she has always used some of her most senior colleagues as a handbrake on her own impetuosity, with- out acknowledging the fact to herself. Her cautious side leads her to give way to them — but she reserves, and exercises, the right to blame them for her having done so.
She is much more careful than the myths would have it. Indeed, on two crucial occasions, she was extremely fortunate that her enemies were so besotted by hubristic folly that they failed to take advantage of her hesitancy. If Galtieri had accepted the Peruvian peace proposals, and if Scargill had jumped at the Nacods terms her reputation would not stand where it does. (She might well be out of office.) Of course, Margaret Thatcher didn't think much of the Peruvian proposals or the Nacods deal either — nothing to do with her, all the Government's fault — but as Prime Minister, she did not prevent Francis Pym and Peter Walker from deter- mining policy in the way they did. That is one of the problems. The daring and the caution proceed on parallel lines: the dialectic between them is never resolved into a simple issue of ends and means.
This is because the Prime Minister is too little of a cynic. She has a most un-Tory reluctance to recognise that we live in a fallen world, in which political decision- making is often of necessity a matter of ascertaining the lesser evil. That is why her Cabinets have contained so few politicians able to put a gloss on that process — the rhetoric to mask retreat, the promise to avert disillusion — or if all else fails, the fudge to get through the reshuffle in the hope that the mess will then land on some other fellow's plate.
The Prime Minister believes that politics should proceed from vision, to conviction, to dramatic conclusion. She has never understood the way in which the business of the House is organised 'though the usual channels' — which means both sets of whips sidling up to one another, like Irish election agents organising the personation quota. Of course, she is aware that her whips meet the other lot to fix things, but she finds the whole process most disagree- able, and fears that all this fraternising in no-man's-land can only undermine the troops' partisan zeal.
Seven years of this is wearing. Although they hold out no hope of getting it, a large number of senior Tories would now prefer a quieter life under a new leader. (Kenneth Baker is the current favourite; at present he would probably beat Geoffrey Howe in the final ballot, though shares in Hurd, well down on their early-year high after profit-taking, are a sound investment.) It is easy to see why a lot of Tory MPs think that it would be simpler to win the next election with Mr Baker as leader. The Tories' general stance on law and order, fiscal prudence, trade unions, and nationalised industries remains popular as the Labour Party is well aware. Despite all the Government's political difficulties, the Opposition parties have failed to break through in the opinion polls. There seems to be a strong potential market for Thatch- erism with a caring face — a bit less emphasis on tax cuts, a bit more on the health service and the long term unem- ployed. Take away the angularities and aggravations arising from the Prime Minis- ter's personality, make a few marginal adjustments to policy: and the Govern- ment could be thoroughly popular.
This popularity might be enduring. With the decline of the Labour Party, large numbers of voters are living in temporary political accommodation. Their values, in- stincts and prejudices are at least as com- patible with Toryism as with the Alliance — were it not for the fact that they are put off by the Prime Minister.
Tories who believe all this are not to be confused with the Old Wets, for this is an attempt to replace Thatcher rather than overthrow Thatcherism. Indeed, these post-Thatcherites — neo-Thatcherites, perhaps we should call them — see her as the main obstacle to the enduring success of her policies. They believe that on inflation, privatisation and trade unions, the argument has been won and the momentum of events is working in their direction. 'A couple more trade union Bills,' one such minister said to me, 'and we'll not only have repealed the 1906 Act — we'll have got rid of the wetter bit of the 1875 Act as well.' Only one thing could go wrong — an electoral defeat caused by the rejection of the Prime Minister, though not her policies. This would, however, give Labour the opportunity to undo much good work.
Of course, all this is horribly unfair and to do them justice, that would im- mediately be conceded by the neo- Thatcherites. The Government has been much more successful, in dealing with inflation and in trade unions, than its most ardent supporters could reasonably have hoped. Even allowing for the fact that she was lucky in her opponents, to deny that Mrs Thatcher is owed a great deal of the credit would not only be churlish, but a falsification of history. Many of the major achievements would just not have hap- pened without her. Anyway, Mrs Thatcher is not at the mercy of fairness or unfairness. She is not going to be replaced — as the chaps having an end of term Pimms Or two on the terrace known perfectly well. Post-Thatcherism will have to wait until post-Thatcher.
Previous page
