POLITICS
Dr Mowlam's errors will not cost votes: only lives
BRUCE ANDERSON
Since the general election, there has been an interesting change in the British political mood. It would seem that the British people not only admire their new government, they enjoy doing so. Yet until 1 May, Britain appeared to be suffering from the same malaise that was afflicting most major democracies. Nearly all elec- torates were becoming increasingly con- temptuous of their governments, to such an extent as to arouse fear of a withdrawal of popular consent from the governing process.
This was an unhealthy development, far in excess of vigorous democratic scepticism or of a free marketeer's suspicion of the overmighty state. The social contract may be unhistorical; no such contract was ever signed. But the idea of the social contract, by which individuals renounce certain free- doms in exchange for protection, underpins any civilised society, just as every govern- ment, however benign, requires some of the appurtenances of Leviathan. So the loss of respect by electorates in the early 1990s, leading to a collapse of confidence among the political classes, was destabilising; even democracies cannot dispense with deference.
The Major government died of derision. By 1 May, the political atmosphere was poi- sonous. Labour propagandists claimed that this would change as soon as Tony Blair entered No. 10, but they convinced hardly anyone of this, including themselves. Yet it now appears that they may have been right, at least for the time being.
The Tories are protesting that this is unfair. That is correct; it is also irrelevant. It is true that Labour ministers have been brushing aside misdemeanours that would have led to their Tory predecessors being excoriated. Messrs Clark and Reid's unde- clared trip to Switzerland was the merest peccadillo, as was Lord Simon's failure to register his shareholdings: barely worth a penance of two Hail Marys each. But had a senior Tory committed a similar indiscre- tion, we would never have heard the end of it. There have also been some serious offences. The decision to alter Prime Min- ister's Question Time without consulting the Speaker gave an impression of arro- gance, confirmed by the budget leak. Then there was Ron Davies, the Welsh secretary, who tried to bully one of his colleagues and then misled Mr Blair, who in turn misled the House. Mr Davies always tries to look like a nasty piece of work; he is not one. He is merely a bumptious, strutting mediocrity, risibly overpromoted. But this time at least, Mr Davies would appear to have got away with it. A Tory minister would not have done, and deservedly so.
Some Tories are making a second, broader point which is even more justified. One of the main reasons for the new gov- ernment's popularity is the skill with which it has taken credit for Tory successes. For 18 years, the Tories piled on additional public spending, especially in health, and the voters refused to believe it. But they will believe the new government; Labour will secure at least 20 times as much politi- cal credit from every additional billion of public expenditure as the Tories ever did. In two years' time, Labour will have spent no more on the health service than a Tory government would have done. That will not stop Labour ministers from claiming to have saved the NHS from collapse, nor will it prevent the voters from giving credence to that claim.
The voters would not be half as pleased with the new government if they had not been so well governed over the past few years, the Tories insist, and rightly so. But perception is all. The Major government was grossly unfairly treated and never received the gratitude it deserved — but that is history. Sensible Tories never forget that Patrick O'Brian's Captain Aubrey's description of the navy applies a fortiori to politics: 'This has always been an unjust service.' Sensible Tories ought also to admit that their party is not in a strong position to press charges of injustice. Though there is never a good moment to lose an election, it was particularly thought- less of the Tories to do so in 1997, when everything was in such good shape, but they brought it on themselves. For the past few years, the Tories were as bad at politics as they were good at governing; a lethal com- bination which will make it hard for them to regain the confidence of middle Britain.
But not impossible. The Labour govern- ment has only had the longest honeymoon in recent political history; it has not repealed the law of gravity. Ministers who run into trouble will not all be treated as leniently as Ron Davies has been. No 10 is already becoming alarmed at one senior figure's enthusiasm for the bottle. More- over, the government will soon have to start taking decisions, and it will then start mak- ing mistakes. That is not a hypothesis but a certainty, for one thing is clear after Labour's first weeks in office: only about one third of the Cabinet is up to the job.
That third does not include the Northern Ireland Secretary. It would not have been easy to solve the parade problem, as was demonstrated last year, when the govern- ment and the then Chief Constable mishan- dled Drumcree. But there have been 12 months since to put matters right and, above all, to enunciate a general principle which would govern all marches in the province. That would not have prevented disputes and disorder, but it would have helped to contain them. Inasmuch as Mo Mowlam expounded a general principle, however, it was a mere touchpaper to law- lessness; she more or less conceded that she was yielding to force majeure.
It was an appalling misjudgment, which she compounded by reading her statements to the cameras in a flat voice, as if she were only a dutiful mouthpiece for her officials' prose; there was no attempt to invoke the authority of her quasi-gubernatorial office.
Dr Mowlam is likable and reasonably able, but there have always been doubts as to whether she had much substance. The doubts stayed muted, for two reasons. Her illness — a non-malignant brain tumour - won her sympathy, which was turned into admiration by the courageous manner in which she coped with it. She has also been fortunate in her principal detractor, Peter Mandelson. He has never concealed his disdain for her, which led many others to exaggerate her merits. But Mandy is not always wrong. Dr Mowlam will find it hard to recover from such a disastrous start. She could turn out to be the weakest Ulster sec- retary since Merlyn Rees, in a government not oversupplied with Roy Masons.
None of this is likely to undermine the government's standing. As the late Peter Utley often observed, failure in Ulster never damaged any politician's reputation. Mainland opinion always blames everything that goes wrong on the intransigence of the natives, while if anything should go right, the politician in question will be hailed as a miracle-worker. So Mr Mandelson's plea- sure in seeing his assessment of Dr Mowlam vindicated need not be alloyed by any fears for the government's popularity. Dr Mowlam's errors will not cost votes: only lives.
Previous page
