Small wobble in Labour party: no one killed

PETE"R MANDELSON

Don't be taken in by the media's hyperbole; by comparison with summers past, this government is not having a particularly rough time. Of course, depending on your media outlet of choice, Mr Blair is said to be 'reeling', 'fuming' or 'fumbling', and having the toughest two weeks of his premiership or the worst crisis since he came to power. But those with long memories and a sense of perspective know that we are light years away from the storms that used to rock Mrs Thatcher's ship and the raging internal battles that tore apart John Major's administration.

Compared with previous Labour governments, Mr Blair's wobbles are a sideshow. Remember the deep sense of crisis and electoral collapse that followed the Bevanite split in 1950-51 or the economic crisis and political defeats in 1967-69, not to mention the winter of discontent in 1978-79? For all their achievements, what these administrations demonstrated was the difficulty for Labour of renewing or even sustaining itself in office, not least because too many in the party preferred to undermine their government than to help renew it.

It does not mean that everything has gone perfectly well; it never does. But I am struck by the fact that this year the Labour party's cohesion has survived British backing for one of the most controversial and divisive international actions — in Iraq — of the entire postwar period; and that the government has an agreed position on the European single currency from which no member of the Cabinet dissents.

Add to these unity-defying achievements the fact that the government has delivered unprecedented economic stability, historic investment in public services, much needed reform of the welfare system, devolution of government and other elements of a constitutional revolution, as well as success in remaking Britain's relationships in Europe, and you have to accept that recent wobbles were small earthquakes which left no one dead.

Does this mean that every Labour MP can go off on holiday in July without a care in the world? Of course not. The odd media gaffe is bound to be magnified because of New Labour's legendary prowess in this area. But periodic presentational tiredness should not be confused with terminal 'decay', as some BBC political correspondents suggest. And there is a nagging feeling that the New Labour 'project' has lost momentum. But this is because too few in government talk publicly and convincingly about their mission rather than because its purpose no longer exists.

The government's opponents, naturally, will be swift to take advantage of any wrong ministerial step. And there are those on the old Left and old Right of the Labour party who may quietly hope that New Labour will come an embarrassing cropper. But this is the flotsam and jetsam of politics, and significantly more of Mr Blair's critics are concerned about the government's direction because they want it to achieve more, not because they want to destroy it. Outright oppositionists should not be confu.sed with malcontents and worriers.

Most important is whether the government's policies are right, and whether it is pursuing them with adequate thoroughness. The answer to the first question is yes; to the second, not entirely.

A strong public service ethos — and rising incomes and morale among staff — have flowed back into the National Health Service and education. With more money has come reform, and already a range of different providers is emerging — for example, in the school system in the form of specialist schools, city academies and new voluntary schools. But the opening up could go much further, schools are still hedged around by bureaucracy and the system is still broadly closed.

New legislation will radically change the criminal justice system, including the rules of evidence, previous convictions, sentencing and the way court hearings are held. But big problems remain. Much of the court system and police service is still unmodernised, which does not help the fight against crime. And transport? The government's present ten-year plan is not likely in itself to result in a first-class infrastructure, and neither will reliance on public spending alone make this possible. More radical ways of funding better public transport, roads and city systems need to be devised and long-term solutions advanced by the government.

Making hard choices to prepare Britain for an increasingly uncertain future is the leitmotif of New Labour. No doubt some in the party fear that Blairite radicalism will lose us votes. But abandoning the hard lessons of the 1980s and 1990s and adopting a left conservatism is not the answer: that is the long-term Achilles' heel of the government.

In 1986 Mrs Thatcher faced a similar barrage of media and chattering-class criticism to that which Mr Blair is facing. By agreeing to let America use British bases to bomb Libya she opened herself to attack, not least from her own party and most of it, as she reflected in her memoirs, was tinged with anti-Americanism. At the same time she suffered the loss of her ideological soul mate, Keith Joseph, who left the Cabinet. Ex-ministers accused her of not listening, and she complained that her achievements were not understood by the public. All this and the Westland affair left her lagging way behind in the polls and commentators began to write her political obituary.

Her massive victory just a year later, after revealing the 'next steps forward' at the autumn party conference, showed both the capacity of a resilient and focused government to renew itself, and the false dawns that are the hallmark of opposition parties which have not yet changed enough to win.

Tony Blair's determination should never be underestimated. He has another great advantage — the popular appeal of centre-left values in an uncertain and insecure world. I believe the government has the self-confidence and fire-power to renew itself, in office. I also believe that the durability of a government is not best judged by the fickle media that report it, but by the underlying tectonic plates that take longer to shift. The public chose this government for a reason — to create opportunity and security for the many, to modernise Britain's institutions and public services, and to fund this on the basis of fairness. That rationale remains as strong and relevant now as it did in 1997. But to retain its strong position the time is approaching for the government to take the next bold steps with even greater clarity and purpose.

Of course, presentation is important. But what the government needs now is primarily policy-driven not media-managed performance.

Peter °borne is away.