AND ANOTHER THING
Forget the gurus and the programmes, look for the character
PAUL JOHNSON
Much nonsense is now being written about Tony Blair. A pamphlet by David Willetts MP, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, attempts an assessment of what Blair is likely to do in government, by examining the views of what it terms `Blair's gums': John Gray, Will Hutton, Andrew Marr, John Kay, Simon Jenkins, etc. In many lengthy conversations with Blair ranging over the whole spectrum of political issues, I have never heard him mention any of these people, let alone their ideas. Oddly enough, Blair, like other strong- and independent-minded politi- cians, has the habit of thinking for himself and making up his own mind. He does not need gurus. Nor is there any mystery about what he believes and intends to do. Over the last year he has made speeches on vir- tually every topic — detailed and clear speeches too — the texts of which have been widely circulated and summarised in the media. So why the need for non-exis- tent gurus? It is all propaganda.
Even more nonsense is written about Blair's election programme. Unfortunately for him, he belongs to a party which makes a fetish of policies. The Labour Party itself, its NEC, annual conference — the whole dreary machinery of pseudo-democratic 'involvement' — exist entirely to create these policies, secular holy writ. They cover everything. Old Professor Titmuss, a tire- some Labour guru if ever there was one, once told me primly, 'If we knew exactly how to control the weather — and we will one day — then we will have a Labour Party policy on the weather.' So poor Blair, who has better things to do, is obliged to go through this ritual.
But anyone who has followed politics closely over nearly half a century, as I have, knows perfectly well that party policies and electoral promises are really of little signifi- cance — 'words, word, words', as Hamlet says contemptuously. The only one which Immediately springs to mind is Harold Macmillan's pledge to `build 300,000 hous- es'. But we now know that this target had already been settled on by the bureaucrats, and that if Labour had been elected it would have done exactly the same. Most of the important actions taken by govern- ments bear no relation to policy commit- ments. I don't recall Margaret Thatcher campaigning electorally about privatisation — a highly successful policy which evolved naturally in the process of governing. John Major did not promise in the 1992 cam- paign to introduce no-fault divorce. Of course not. But that is exactly what he has done. He did not promise to slaughter 150,000 healthy and innocent cows either. But he has done that too.
As Macmillan, who knew his housing promise was a fraud, put it with his custom- ary cynicism, what governments actually do is largely determined by events. None of the big things in our history since the war — decolonisation starting with Palestine, the Berlin airlift and Nato, Suez and the Falklands, the expansion and contraction of the public sector, the rise and fall of trade unions, the beginning and end of the Cold War — was debated in elections or written into party programmes. Our gradual drift into a federal Europe has spanned ten elec- tions, but at no point has it been a major electoral issue or figured prominently in programmes. Heated arguments about party policies are a pantomime politicians stage to keep up the illusion that mass elec- torates are in control of things.
There is only one of Blair's promises which really matters. He takes it with the greatest seriousness and is passionately determined to keep it. Indeed, he must keep it if his government is to stand any chance of success. That is his pledge to retain a tight grip on government expendi- ture from the very 'second he takes over Downing Street, and to finance any addi- .tional spending strictly out of savings. He rightly perceives this as the key to his gov- ernment's ability to master events, as it always has been. Since it was founded in 1900, the Labour Party has produced five governments, three of which I have lived through. Allvere failures, albeit one or two of them did useful things. They failed for the simple reason that expenditure got out I have a fear of not flying.'
of hand almost from day one, leading inevitably to a massive financial crisis and the panic abandonment of programmes, • demoralisation and splits. Labour will not survive another such failure and Blair knows it. If his government is to do any thing constructive at all, that financial grip must be established immediately and never loosened. So here we have the Blair elec- toral promise which really matters.
Whether he keeps it or not will be entire- ly a matter of character. And will power. These are the things which determine suc- cess or failure in politics, and indeed politi- cal good or evil. I now have a fair acquain- tance with Blair and I have formed the view that he is a man of strong character and huge reserves of will power. I believe, then, that he will be able to carry out his funda- mental promise, keep control of spending and so make all things possible. That is why I back him. I have a hunch that most British voters reach their decisions in roughly the same way. What counts in pub- lic life are not programmes and policies, but characters and will — the things which determine how a leader will handle unfore- seen events. The voters gave Margaret Thatcher a chance in 1979 because they suspected she had what it takes. They were proved right and naturally endorsed her twice again. They knew Neil Kinnock was no good, and in 1992 were so determined not to have him that they found themselves giving a reluctant nod of approval to John Major, who looked second-rate even then. Now, after four years of dithering, cow- ardice, sleaze, mendacity, muddle and boneless incompetence, they at last have a genuine alternative.
Most of them have already made up their minds, I suspect, and if Major and his pathetic remnant stumble on through the winter, determined to go down (as Lloyd George once put it) 'with their drawn salaries in their hands', they will merely add to the magnitude of their defeat. The issue is not primarily political, but moral. On the one hand, a government which is used and soiled, tacky and run-down, shoddy, low, mean, base, contemptible and just plain dirty. On the other, a breath of idealism, a hint of steel, a reminder that government, with all its comi3romises and cynicism, can still be about grand ideals and magnificent visions and real achievementi It is a choice between our present mediocracy and the true aristocracy — rule by the best.
Previous page
