ANOTHER VOICE
Why I, for one, am sticking up for John Major
CHARLES MOORE
Until last September, one felt slightly pleased with oneself for suggesting that John Major was not a very good prime min- ister. To criticise someone credited with , being 'nice' seemed a bit daring and one had that warm feeling of being in a minori- ty which is so good for a journalist's work. But since Britain fell out of the ERM, ini- tial, unworthy pleasure at being proved right has quickly given way to unease at merely stating the obvious and at being in the majority. I cannot think of anyone who now publicly supports Mr Major unless, like the chairman of the Conservative Party or Mr Bruce Anderson, he is paid to do so.
Mr Major cannot be that bad. Or rather, to be accurate, he can be that bad, but he cannot be that bad all by himself. It is per- fectly fair to criticise him personally as part of one's attack on the Government's record, but beastly to turn on him alone after advocating for years most of the poli- cies he has carried out. People who speak to opinion pollsters are right that the coun- try is in a mess, but why is it? It is because Mr Major has done what he was told. He has undeviatingly undertaken what was expected of him by the dominant groups of respectable governing and arguing persons in his country and his continent.
Like a conscientious, old-fashioned gro- cer with a white overall and a row of ball- point pens in his breast pocket, Mr Major has stood at the counter while the cus- tomers have sauntered up to make their demands. 'I want European Union,' said Chancellor Kohl. 'Of course, sir. I regret it may take a while, sir — we're having awful headaches with delivery times just now, but you can rely on us, sir.' We want more money for health and social security and child benefit,' shouted an unruly chorus of shoppers who were irritated at the long queues that built up when Mr Major's pre- decessor ran the shop. 'Calm yourselves, ladies and gentlemen,' said Mr Major. `Please —. just a tick while I open the till, and then you can all put your fingers in it.' `I want you to lower the age of homosexual consent,' said a theatrical-looking gentle- man. 'Oh, Sir Ian,' said Mr Major, 'I'll see what I can do to help. Unfortunately, there may not be quite enough demand from the other customers to manage that just yet, but we do keep it in mind.' And so on.
In the last months of Mrs Thatcher, the chief demands of her critics were that we should be at the heart of Europe, and in the ERM, and must abolish the poll tax, and increase spending on welfare and get rid of all that harshness and confrontation, and be more classless. Mr Major has faith- fully performed the vow and covenant betwixt them made, so why are they dissat- isfied? Has he done anything not advocated by Kenneth Clarke or Douglas Hurd or Michael Heseltine or Sir Leon Brittan or the Independent or Mrs Sarah Hogg or `intensely able' civil servants or most EEC leaders or — allowing for some rhetorical persiflage — Paddy Ashdown or John Smith? 'I was only obeying orders,' is Mr Major's defence. Not a very good defence for a prime minister, you may think, but not an easy one for those who gave the orders to dismiss without implicating themselves.
If being prime .minister were simply a question of personal capacity, then it might be reasonable to say that Mr Hurd or Mr Clarke should take over. But it isn't, and in the present circumstances the call to get rid of Mr Major is only the latest way for our governing classes to duck the real question. When Caligula made his horse consul it would not have made much sense to sack the horse: the problem went deeper. Mr Major should go only if those getting rid of him know what they are doing and why they are doing it. Last time, they didn't, which is why he is Conservative leader. What sign is there that they know now?
My line of argument is based on a grim view of how badly wrong things are. It is not an economic view, and therefore it is not a view about how the Tories can best win the next election. I expect the econom- ic situation will improve because that is the way of cycles, and so I expect that the Tories will win. Labour have even fewer ideas and will not choose the date of polling day, and governments tend to stay in office when people are getting richer. What is wrong is that the legitimacy of gov- ernment is being undermined.
It doesn't much matter whether a gov- ernment is Tory or Labour or how it is cho- sen. It does matter that it rules with con- sent, that its authority is clear and that its power is real. Nowadays, the authority is weakened. Take all these regulations about safety, hygiene, etc., with which Christo- pher Booker shocks the nation every week in the Sunday Telegraph. On Monday I bought a Victorian overhead light, and was told by the shop-owner that new EEC rules about earthing made it impossible for most antique chandeliers to conform to them, and so they can only be sold for candles. Everyone has his own example. Mr Major told Mr Heseltine to 'put on your loin- cloth' and hack through it all, and since nothing much has happened, people take it as yet another example of Major the weed. But it isn't really. To the extent that the rules do come from Brussels, we have to enforce them if we wish to behave legally.
At present, most of the rules are petty (though they can destroy livelihoods). After Maastricht, there will be 111 more areas (according to Lady Thatcher) in which such rules can be made. After Maastricht we shall have to pursue entire economic poli- cies in order to achieve the 'convergence' necessary for the single currency and set up common foreign and defence policies. And yet the British government, in form and official status, remains the same. The Prime Minister still kisses hands with the Queen and not with M. Delors. But, under Maastricht, the Queen, like the rest of us, becomes a citizen of the European Union, a concept which, the Government assures us, does not mean anything, and yet appar- ently matters so much that the treaty of that name (known as Maastricht) has been forced through Parliament at the cost of the Government's unity and standing.
The result is that government itself — not just Mr Major — falls into disrepute because of confusion. Which is superior in authority — the Houses of Parliament or the European Court? We don't really know, and so we respect neither. Which has real power — Brussels or London? We don't really know, and so we become suspi- cious — is it Germany? is it France? is it the mafia? We do know that we, the voters, feel less capable of making a difference and of reaching those who do decide things, And as the authority of government weak- ens, its scope extends. It will soon eat up 50 per cent of the economy. We pay more heavily to it, we take more often from it, and we have less and less idea what it is.
The logical consequence of this is popu- lar revolt. That is happening now, in the mild form of refusing to vote Tory in by- elections and being horrible to Mr Major' When that is seen not to work, the reve1t will become more revolting, and then it will probably be too late. Mr Major's weakness is not so much a character flaw as a result of what is happening to our constitution: So you won't get rid of it by getting rid of him.
Previous page
