What we learn about Mr Portillo in the next week will decide the fate of the Tories
BRUCE ANDERSON This was a paradoxical election. Ulster excepted, there was minimal movement in percentages or constituencies. Fewer seats changed hands than in any election since December 1910. But despite that, there was a dramatic shift, from voting to abstention. With fewer than three in five electors bothering to vote, the turnout was around seven and a half million lower than in 1992. So in assessing the Tories' prospects of regaining power, it is no longer enough to focus on switches of allegiance among those who voted. Next time, the crucial factor could be a move from abstention to voting. On this election's figures, and excluding the abstainers, the Tories would still need a swing of around ten per cent in order to form a government. But a six per cent swing of the entire electorate could see them home.
We do not yet know why there were so many abstainers. Some of them were loyal Labour voters in safe seats who saw no point in enhancing an impregnable majority, but who would always be there if their party needed them. But that is not the whole story. Such a large fall in turnout must indicate a decline in political tribalism. This is confirmed by all the anecdotal evidence from the nation's doorsteps, where canvassers encountered large-scale cynicism and apathy. But cynicism could rapidly turn to anger; apathy, to antipathy. Last week's results could mark the beginning of a new era of volatility in British politics. The turnout also signifies the extent to which the political class has lost touch with the public.
For me, the defining moment in this election occurred over dinner with a Tory candidate and his wife. A bright girl — barely 30, and already successful in business — she disliked William Hague's `fascist rhetoric'. I asked her to give an example, so she did: all this talk about 'one nation'. Her husband and I burst into incredulous laughter. When we succeeded in interrupting her flow, we explained the history of 'one nation' as a concept, and how it had become a slogan for leftist Tories who disliked Thatcherism. She was unabashed. She might not have read history at Oxbridge, she said, but she had been to an academic girls' school (she could have added that there was plenty of politics in her blood line). So if she did not understand the significance of one nation, who would, and what was the point of politicians using language that would baffle most voters? On that, she was right. Nor was her point refuted when Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair both referred to one nation on election night: both trying to claim it for New Labour. All this made me aware of the extent to which the language and rituals of the political class mean increasingly little to most people. As long as the economy prospers, this might not matter. The demos will merely observe with detached amusement the antics of those who claim to speak for it. But if the economy turned nasty, so might the voters. Even at this election, if a Dr Taylor from Wyre Forest had fought every seat, these independents would have won a lot of votes. We have always taken the durability of the party system for granted. But suppose the right sort of charismatic billionaire emerged at an opportune moment, with Jimmy Goldsmith's energy, minus the egomania. If the cards fell for him, such a character could have as much impact on our political system as Berlusconi has had in Italy.
First, however, another character whose name ends in a vowel will probably have the chance to stabilise the party system by reviving the Tories' fortunes. At present, Michael Portillo looks like a certain winner, but his campaign team will not regard that as a helpful comment. They are aware that they have problems to overcome. Many Tory MPs are only supporting Mr Portillo because they see no alternative, and a lot of them have a jaundiced attitude to the whole leadership campaign. So any hint of complacency could exasperate them into an unpredictable vote. Equally, a number of Tories are unsure where Michael Portillo stands.
Everyone in the party is aware that he has been on a journey of reassessment. They now want to know what he has discovered and how he proposes to win the next election. If he strikes an uncertain, unconvincing note, the race could still be blown wide open.
But there is no reason why this should happen. Michael Portillo has not changed his core beliefs. He remains what he has always been: an economic Thatcherite, a social liberal and a Eurosceptic. But he is certain that his party will have to change its rhetoric if it is to expound its principles successfully, and regain the voters' trust.
This has nothing to do with becoming more left-wing, still less with abandoning the battle for the pound. But the Tories will now have to take their catchphrase from E.M. Forster: 'only connect.' There are millions of voters with small 'c' conservative instincts who used to be Tories, but who no longer assume that the large 'C' Conservative party will represent their interests. Mr Portillo will have to persuade his colleagues that he can reconnect the Tory party to the values and aspirations of middle Britain.
He is also determined that the Tory party should move beyond the era of the 'cuts' libel. The Tories spent 18 years spending more public money; despite Margaret Thatcher's instincts, they ran a social democratic state. Yet anyone running against a Tory knew that he could always raise a cheer by referring to Tory cuts. At this election, the Tories were committed to increasing public expenditure by £160 billion over the next few years: a dangerously high figure. The Tories were also committed to matching Labour's plans for health and education. Yet Labour were still able to use their Goebbelsian lie about £20 billion of cuts. The Tory vote was depressed because many voters were persuaded that a Hague government would immediately slash spending on the NHS. So Michael Portillo has a simple aim. He wants to ensure that his party fights future elections on its record and its plans, not on its opponents' distortions.
Like all opposition leaders, he will have to pray for some help from the government. At this election, Mr Blair's luck held. In 1992, John Major won by 42 per cent to Neil Kinnock's 34 per cent. The outcome was a majority of 21. This time, Mr Blair won by 41 per cent to William Hague's 32 per cent. That additional one per cent gave him a majority of 167 — eight times Mr Major's — and sent Mr Hague off to history.
But Mr Blair should beware. Though he has won, he has also developed a reputation for arrogance and incompetence. Nor will many voters be impressed by the way he has handled his and his ministers' salaries: a cynical operation even by his standards. When he told voters that this would be the Parliament for delivery, they thought he was referring to a four-year plan for health and education, not a four-day plan for pay rises. The Tories ought to keep reminding the voters of that discrepancy in the pace of delivery.
For the present, however, the focus will be on Michael Portillo. By this time next week, we will know a lot more about him. As a result, he will either be a certainty to win the leadership — or his party will be in an unholy mess.
Previous page
