Loyalist's lament
Sir: Whenever there is an inquest on a Con- servative debacle, we get wailing sing-songs about the inadequate presentation of the party's message: leaders without charisma, prosperity without the feel-good spirit, the length of the election campaign, or even the shortage of punchy posters.
In fact, after the 1992 general election Central Office realised that the loss of one by-election after another could not be attributed entirely to mid-term protest. It was a time for mini-brainstorming sessions among Conservatives, in some of which I participated. I argued that the problem was one of substance, not of presentation.
Thus, when the 'fat cats' salary increases began to scandalise public opinion, I sug- gested that a small fiscal gesture, say a token increase of income tax for those earning over £250,000 per annum, would be extremely popular, particularly with disaf- fected middle-class voters who had to worry about job security and negative equity.
This idea was rejected out of hand, firstly because it violated Thatcherite dogma, sec- ondly because its revenue potential was negligible, and finally because it would have affected not just the fat cats of the priva- tised enterprises but all high earners. More- over, such taxation would have amounted to an intolerable concession to the culture of envy. Should politicians ignore envy in their calculations? And when does envy become legitimate fair play?
The real difficulty was the frame of mind that associates high taxation with socialism. Pointing out that some of the world's most successful economies impose much steeper personal taxes than we do did not cut any ice. On health, by the mid-1990s even those who benefited from private health insur-
LETTERS
ance were up in arms, following reports of hospital closures and the inability of medi- cal emergency services to cope. Ministerial explanations about ever-increasing costs did little to reassure. It seemed to me that a radical reappraisal of spending priorities was required. The government's line was, broadly, that cuts had already been made `across the board' and that in any case addi- tional funds were constantly being pumped into the NHS.
So, could we not reduce further the road- building programme? Was it absolutely necessary to resurface the Strand and Oxford Street and widen their pavements? Well, apparently it was not just a matter of priorities between more potholes and fewer stretchers in hospital corridors. Administra- tively it was not possible to transfer surplus funds from one department to another.
In all these discussions, I was struck by the remoteness of our administrative proce- dures from the man in the street. I found it interesting to note the surprise caused by the smarter country folk joining 'tree peo- ple' and professional protesters in opposing the building of a certain bypass. Many solid Tory majorities in safe country constituen- cies crumbled as a result of insensitive poli- cies such as road-building at any cost.
Finally, how important was the sleaze factor in Mr Major's defeat? Now that the Downey report is out, Conservatives com- plain that the indiscretions of a few MPs ruined their party's electoral prospects. In fact, while the spectre of the brown envelopes haunted them, it was graqgate' that really damaged the party's image. This was due partly to the combined efforts of so many party grandees to criticise the Scott inquiry. The massive show of solidarity with those implicated in the investigation was a serious political blunder, and on this point I took issue publicly with Lord Howe and others.
`We are all together in this' seems to have been the prevailing view at the time. Perhaps that is why 'we' all sank together. Lionel Bloch
Halcyon, Ormond Avenue, Richmond, Surrey
Previous page
