The Tories must accept Mr Portillo on his own reinvented

values if they wish to retain his services

BRUCE ANDERSON

Since his return to the House of Com- mons, Michael Portillo has disappointed many of his own supporters. 'Hamlet rather than Henry V' is the Daily Telegraph's ver- dict on his performance as shadow chancel- lor: a judgment which is widely shared in the Conservative party. Mr Portillo's deci- sion to rule himself out of any future lead- ership contest will cause much less shock and dismay than it would have done two years ago.

But this is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. Mr Portal° is only 47. He has a powerful personality and a considerable intellect; the most interesting mind at the forefront of British politics (not that there is much competition). Politics is a career that leaves little time for introspection, and few politicians have much taste for it anyway. Those that do, such as Keith Joseph, are often the subject of gentle mockery from their colleagues. But Michael Portillo is on a journey of self-discovery. It is hard for any- one — including him — to judge him in mid- voyage.

He has always been a thinking Tory. The main intellectual influence on the young Portillo was not Maurice Cowling, as is often claimed, but the late Shirley Letwin. In his mid-twenties, Michael Portillo was thinking and reading hard about the nature of the state, allegiance and the social contract.

But as one would expect from a passionate Wagnerian, he is also a romantic. In his poli- tics, this expresses itself in patriotism. His love of country gains in intensity because he is in part an outsider, who was never able to take his nationalism for granted.

By the time Mr Portillo's father was in his mid-twenties, he had a brilliant career in front of him and a secure place in the Span- ish haute bourgeoisie. He then had to exchange all that for the meagre bread of exile, which explains why his son has always been reluctant to acknowledge General Franco's merits. Michael Portillo was brought up not only in England but in old European high culture. In his attachment to this country's traditions, freedoms and par- liamentary democracy, he is the last person who could ever be accused of Little EngIan- dism: 'What should they know of England who only England know?'

By the time he was in his early forties, Michael Portillo too seemed to be on the verge of a brilliant career. Circa 1994, most of the Tory Right thought that they could predict the course of British politics over the next few years. An election defeat would be a salutary purgation for the party and would kill off the interim Major leadership. Michael Portillo would then effortlessly assume the crown, rekindle the torch of Thatcherism and sweep the party back to power at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Portillo, who has a weakness for flat- tery, was happy to accept this vision of his future. But another Tory MP was less impressed. This was not John Major, but John Redwood: Mr Redwood regarded his claims to be Margaret Thatcher's intellect- ual heir as being far superior to Mr Portillo's, and was irked by the assumption that Portillo would inherit the laurels while he would have to make do with being social security secretary. John Redwood's leader- ship attempt had a twin objective: to destroy John Major and also to destabilise Michael Portillo.

The latter attempt succeeded, for Michael Portillo was caught in no man's land. Not only was he uncertain as to whether to rally to the PM or to run himself. Worse still, he allowed those uncertainties to become pub- lic knowledge. He was lucky in his boss. John Major not only forgave him; he promoted him. Not all premiers would have been so generous. But some right-wingers, angry at Mr Portillo's refusal to be ruthless, were less forgiving: 1995 saw the beginning of the doubts as to whether Michael Portillo had the steel of leadership.

Not that this would have mattered if he had held his seat in 1997. In that case, the leadership election would have been a for- mality. John Redwood would have fought a bitter, innuendo-driven campaign and might still have formed an affiance with Ken Clarke. But Michael Portillo would have won on the first ballot.

Instead, he went on long walks, made tele- vision programmes — and asked himself why it had all gone wrong. Why had both he and his party been so misrepresented?

For 18 years, the Tories had spent increas- ingly large sums on the public services. Yet at the end of those 18 years, the public's atti- tude could be summarised in one word: 'cuts'. Labour was able to talk as if the NHS and state education barely existed, and many voters in Enfield Southgate believed them. So how had these falsehoods gained curren- cy? Michael Portillo also thought of himself as a man with broad cultural horizons and generous human sympathies. He was a Tory not only because he himself enjoyed free- dom and prosperity but because he wanted as many people as possible to enjoy those privileges. In that sense, he was always an inclusive Tory.

Yet large swaths of the public had come to see him as an arrogant, uncaring philis- tine: the epitome of everything which they had come to hate about the Tory party. Michael Portillo has spent much of the past three and a half years trying to work out what he did wrong and to ensure that it never happens again.

That process is not easy to reconcile with the demands of opposition. A good opposi- tion politician should spend time refining his ideas and setting out his intellectual stall. But the first question he should ask himself on waking up every morning is how he is going to scrag the other lot today. Michael Portillo has proved a disappointing scragger; he seems too fastidious for the brutalities of opposition.

This fastidiousness has faced other assaults. His decision to admit a homosexual past was probably a wise one, but he will not have enjoyed the consequences. He is far too proud a man to be at ease with the thought that a lot of people are sniggering about his private life.

Until now, they have also been speculat- ing about his ambitions, which left Michael Portillo with an irresolvable dilemma. Every time he made a good speech, the response was 'All, a leadership marker.' But if he seemed to go quiet, the response was `Ah, Portillo's sitting on his hands wait- ing for Hague to fail.' Whatever he did, he could not win; hence yesterday's statement renouncing leadership ambitions. But it was not made on oath. It was far more than a cynical ploy; Michael Portillo may be Ham- let, he is not Richard III. If circumstances change, however, he would still be in a position to change with them — or would he?

Michael Portillo could easily make a good living outside politics and has plenty of other interests to enjoy. I suspect that he has no settled idea as to what he will be doing in five years, or what he wants to be doing. It is to be hoped that the answer is poli- tics; he is far too original a man to lose. But for the time being, any Tory leadership that wishes to retain his services will have to accept him on his own terms.