POLITICS
To lose one leader was a misfortune, but to lose a second might be downright necessary
S IMON HEFFER For reasons I could not, at the time, fathom, I was bothered last Wednesday week by telephone calls from broadcasting organisations asking me to talk about the Prime Minister's mental health. I was told that an article had appeared in that morn- ing's Times (which I had not then read) suggesting Mr Major was nutty as the proverbial fruit-cake. I replied that there were two ways a leader could wreck a coun- try. One was to be barking mad, the other simply to be a berk. I have always, as read- ers will be aware, subscribed to the second view as far as Mr Major is concerned.
Within 24 hours, though, I was less sure. On taking tea last Thursday with a Cabinet minister, I was told the Prime Minister had informed him, categorically, that I had invented the rumours about him cracking up. A Fleet Street editor then told me a similar story; as did another Cabinet minis- ter. It was thought, I was told, that I had tipped off Mr Simon Jenkins, the ex-editor of the Times, about Mr Major's descent into mania. Mr Jenkins had alluded to this mental instability in one of his excellent columns, and the Times, believing it had a story, had put two of its journalists onto the case. Never mind that, to my regret, I have only met Mr Jenkins once, at a cocktail party over a year ago; never mind that he is too gifted to have to take a line on anything from me. Never mind that no one on earth could be found (not even Mrs Heifer, or, going still further up the ladder of intimacy, the editor of The Spectator) to whom I had ever professed that Mr Major was eleven- pence-ha'penny to the shilling. Yet Mr Major had decided I was the culprit, and was telling his closest colleagues this 'fact'.
Sadly, my role as Prince of Darkness did not reflect reality; my criticism of the Prime Minister has hitherto been limited to his berkship. However, I have reluctantly decided that the First Lord of the Trea- sury's lift might indeed these days stop somewhat short of the top floor. Indeed, I did not have to wait long before further political action of his confirmed he had taken leave of his senses. He decided to try to 'smoke out (a phrase used to me by one of his supporters) those opposed to his stance on Maastricht by having a paving debate on the subject next Wednesday. There is, as despairing ministers freely admit, no constitutional requirement for this whatsoever. It will serve not to 'smoke out' but to inflame his enemies, as the 1922 Committee told him last week. Faced with this, he compounded his error by not deny- ing suggestions that, were he defeated on the paving debate, he would call an elec- tion. This blunder gave Labour the excuse to promise to vote against the Government and humiliate Mr Major. Thus he had added further credence to the view that his ticket to Euro Disney was one way only.
The Prime Minister's European partners (who already, despite the non-ratification of Maastricht, condition Mr Major's domestic political behaviour) have been goading him to take on the anti-federalist forces in his party. To satisfy Francois, Hel- mut and whoever happens to be the Prime Minister of Italy at the time, Mr Major must pursue the ratification process before the Edinburgh summit. He felt the brave move of a paving debate to pull everyone into line would demonstrate his authority. The problem is that, ever since he took this courageous decision, he has been fast run- ning out of authority to demonstrate.
Just as an alcoholic cannot reform until he acknowledges his drink problem, the men in suits from the 1922 Committee must admit their fundamental difficulty before their party can recover: they must accept that they seem to have a leader at the mercy of events, and who cannot reassert his grip. Mr Major no longer com- mands widespread loyalty. The 40 or so MPs who stated they would not vote for him on a substantive motion in next week's debate are merely those prepared to make public their misery. Among ministers, there is horror at the scale of his misjudgments. No one, apart from, it seems, Mr Major, believes things can go on as they are. At the very least he needs a wide-ranging reshuf- fle, to get a Cabinet that better represents the views of his party; but even that might not be enough to save him. Worse, some who have seen him lately have derived the impression that he does not enjoy being Prime Minister, and is behaving in a reck- less, unpredictable fashion because he has some sort of political death wish.
Choosing not to have a vote next Wednesday would be the most serious of all the humiliating U-turns he has executed in recent weeks, the latest of which was his belated admission that threats of an early election were empty. It would add to his undistinguished record of having been per- sonally responsible for all disasters endured by his party lately, except that his toes were not sucked by Antonia de Sancha. If he calls a substantive vote he might lose. Feelings against him among some in his party border upon contempt. In defeat, Cabinet ministers would have to realise what a change there had been. Up until that point, it would have best served their individual and collective ambitions to sup- port Mr Major. After a defeat on next week's vote, though, those ambitions would best be served by bringing out the Margaret Thatcher memorial stillettos and plunging them in. By backing down on his election threat, Mr Major has avoided becoming the Ramsay MacDonald of Conservatism. Yet, unless the Cabinet want to share the blame for more drift it would be their duty, if he lost next week, to question his future. He could insist on the resignations of the Cabinet, reminding them how they are implicated; in which case there would have to be a leadership contest, and the new leader would have to see what sort of a team he could put together. Paradoxical as these matters are, it may even be that the Cabinet's most accomplished operator, Mr Kenneth Clarke, who is even more commit- ted (if that be possible) to Maastricht than Mr Major, could end up succeeding him. But that is the point. The animus against the Tory leadership is directed as much, if not more, against Mr Major as against any of his policies, even the loathed Maastricht Treaty. Mr Clarke may well get elected and find he has all the same problems with Ins anti-federalist forces, though the shock of seeing his predecessor removed ostensibly on the Maastricht question might well encourage him to do what Mr Major said (as recently as in the emergency parliamen- tary debate on 24 September) he would do, and wait upon the Danes. Nothing in Mr Clarke's history suggests that he too has suicidal tendencies. If he failed, then there really would have to be an election; but few can see things getting to that stage. One solution for Mr Clarke — or, indeed, Mr Major — would be to call a referendum. Whatever next week's motion, and what- ever the vote (if there is one), the T°1 party's problems will still require radical surgery. Putting Maastricht aside, and con; centrating on recovery, are the priorities looks increasingly unlikely that John Major can regain the credibility to address them.
Previous page
