MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE PARTY

Simon Heffer on the

hidden conflict in the Conservative Party

PART of the good taste required when discussing politics in time of war is not mentioning the gains the Government might make from the conflict when it is over. The opinion polls show the Con- servatives have suffered no disadvantages from the fighting. When a land war starts, and casualties rise from their initial un- naturally low level, all that may change; but for the moment it is a strong-minded Tory indeed who, in his most secret thoughts, does not find the forbidden phrase 'khaki election' knocking upon his conscience.

Temporarily forgotten — by all except those whose careers depend upon con- tinuation in office — are the difficulties (principally economic) the Government will face when the distraction of war has passed. Also, the divisions in the party following the removal of Mrs Thatcher have not gone away. At home, the price of money promises to stay painfully high for the indefinite future, and unemployment and bankruptcies will continue to increase. Worse, workers and entrepreneurs who will be losing their livelihoods will often be Conservative supporters, the troops of the service industries that led the economic revival of the late 1980s.

Abroad — never mind the Gulf — the country faces one of the most important constitutional decisions in its history, as Parliament may within 18 months have to ratify or reject an amendment to the Treaty of Rome to allow European econo- mic, monetary and political union. This issue, it may be remembered, did much to make Mrs Thatcher the ex-Prime Minister, though the new consensus in Britain of dismay at our so-called partners for their reaction to the war may neutralise this problem.

Mr Major's personal success as leader has been marked, and he has discharged his duties with dignity, intelligence and '1 was kicked a good deal further upstairs than I anticipated.' decency. The war affords him an opportun- ity to establish himself far more quickly than most prime ministers could ever do, and in the process to bind his party together by the strength and success of his leadership. The parliamentary Conserva- tive party is, however, nearer to being a rabble than most people realise — though this became clear from their behaviour during the leadership crisis. Rabbles re- spond to many things, but dignity, intelli- gence and decency are not often among them. To use the language of the barrack- square, the leader will need to be a bastard when the focus returns to the Govern- ment's domestic problems, for the de- mands of the self-interest of other ranks may become implacable. Even Mrs Thatcher was not a big enough bastard to survive. Mr Major is one of the most civil men in recent political history, and may be sorely stretched.

He was always likely to be better at uniting the party than either of his two rivals for the leadership, but even he has not entirely succeeded. Perhaps a third of his MPs — members of the No Turning Back and 92 groups — would feel agitated if the party moved too far away from Thatcherism. The movement, though, has already begun: Mr Heseltine's recent deci- sion to emasculate the original principles of the poll tax was the signal of the start of post-ideological politics.

Perhaps because of the distraction of war, there are no signs of indiscipline in the parliamentary party yet. However, resent- ments about last November's events are just below the surface, and retreats such as are in progress over the poll tax are angering members of the Thatcherite Right. Moreover, it is not just the party's MPs who matter. Party activists in the country tend to be adherents to the old orthodoxy. So long as they perceive Mr Major is behaving as Mrs Thatcher would have done, they will support thim, though they will continue to feel anger against those who removed her.

This last point brings us to another, bizarre element in the Conservative Party's near future. Throughout the next year several political journalists will publish accounts of what happened last November. It is not just that each new book will open wounds that have barely healed; it is that reviewers (among whom one must assume will be the odd Thatcher insider with privileged knowledge and an axe to grind) will use their column inches to correct whitewashes and settle scores. Unfortu- nately for the Government, those with whom this rather public settlement will occur are mostly senior figures in the new administration.

As the election nears, and policy has to be settled for a manifesto, so will the most anxious time come for internal party man- agement. Mr Major won the leadership election because he had the support of the Right, including his predecessor. Approx- imately a quarter of the Government are members of the No Turning Back Group, whose ideological worship of Mrs Thatcher has, if anything, grown since her removal from office, and whose president she is.

These people, almost all of whom seem to have voted for Mr Major, expect to influence the tone of the manifesto. If they cohere, such are their numbers that they could force Mr Major away from any decision they consider doctrinally imperti- nent. However much he may claim to be his own man, a prime minister (as Mrs Thatcher found) can only be so indepen- dent so long as he or she enjoys the support of senior colleagues.

Two other bodies providing a focus for Thatcherite values also promise to obstruct the work of reconciliation, though that is not their intent. One is the Thatcher Foundation, a still undefined 'educational' body with pledges of huge amounts of money for use in propagating — in an `educational' fashion — the gospel. The other, with the inspirational title 'Con- servative Way Forward', is reported to involve two of Mrs Thatcher's most loyal supporters, Mr Tebbit and Mr Parkinson. It intends to mobilise mass support within the Tory party to promote her beliefs.

It is said that some senior ministers also will be involved in it, and a spokesman for the group is quoted as saying 'it is not a vehicle for Mrs Thatcher. It is a vehicle for those who support what she stood for.' However, on the principle that one does not stage Hamlet without the Prince, Mrs Thatcher will (whether she and the orga- nisers like it or not) be the natural spiritual leader of this grouping. Those close to her say she is still restless and anxious to find a useful role to occupy her considerable energy and resources, and her uncharacter- istic silence surely cannot last long. The fact is that the Tory Party is about its mass membership more than its parliamentary party; and for that mass membership she, and not Mr Major, is the towering figure.

Although the Right is outnumbered in the Government, it has the benefit of being organised and, after its miseries of last autumn, potentially ruthless. Its say about future policy could be the price of its unwavering support when the coming eco- nomic privations are at their worst. But with each move away from the past — such as has happened not just over the poll tax, but over a range of policy from the NHS to the holding of fixed exchange rates — the Right becomes more edgy. The final test, which could split the party irrevocably in a manner not seen since 1846, would be over Europe.

Once the Conservative Party can again afford the evil luxury of introspection when the war is over or its novelty has worn off — the prospect it will have to contemplate promises to be, at best, one of uncertainty, compromise and struggle ab- out political direction. All these are better contemplated after a general election rather then before it, especially if the speed with which the election is called wrong- foots both internal and external oppo- nents. So, if Mr Major and his party are to do well out of the war, cashing in quickly, khaki style, might not be so unthinkable after all.

Simon Heller writes for the Daily Tele- graph