This government has been a failure, morally and intellectually
BRUCE ANDERSON
If the opinion polls are remotely right, one conclusion is inescapable. British voters lack political judgment. For this government does not deserve re-election, let alone by a thumping majority.
It was understandable that many people were reluctant to vote Tory in 1997. After spending five years making it impossible for Mr Major to be an effective PM, the Tory party did not deserve to win. Messrs Blair and Brown seemed to have taken the steps oppositions ought to take if they want to take power. New Labour had been transformed into a post-socialist party, which did just about deserve to win.
It rapidly became clear that this victory had been won on a false prospectus. Labour had denounced the Tories for neglecting the public services: anyone listening to its propaganda would have been astonished to learn that spending on the NHS had increased by 60 per cent in real terms in the course of the 18 Tory years. But politicians are not on oath during election campaigns. Labour had promised basic reforms and radical improvements in the public services. If they had delivered them, their libels on the Tory record could have been forgiven. But there has been no delivery, which is a systemic failure. It is not a question of Labour spinning a few lies on the hustings and then getting on with the serious business of government. To the Blairites, the spin and the lies are the serious business of government.
The problem arises from Tony Blair's incurable shallowness, reinforced by his lack of interest in the truth. It might seem odd that any elected politician should be quite as willing to tell lies as Mr Blair. He claimed that he had watched Jackie Milburn play football, tried to stow away from Newcastle to the Bahamas, and voted for a Hunting Bill which was then blocked by the House of Lords. These were not only lies, they were unnecessary lies, merely designed to give 30 seconds' pleasure to audiences which were already on his side. So why should he take such risks? There is a simple explanation. Mr Blair has a deficient concept of truth because he has a deficient grasp of reality. Not only does he fail to understand the difference between feeling sincere and telling the truth; he is always taken aback when others make that distinction. He is bewildered, and sometimes petulant, when the written records are cited against him to prove that he could neither have watched Milburn play football nor tried to fly to the Bahamas, and that he did not vote for the first Hunting Bill, which never reached the House of Lords. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty: if Mr Blair believes that he has found a nice knock-down soundbite, he will decide that history means just what he chooses it to mean — neither more nor less. Spin is truth, truth spin: that is all you know in Blair's Britain, and all you need to know.
This does not make for good government. The NHS was overdue for restructuring, as were social security and education. Instead, they have been given soundbites. In the case of social security, Mr Blair's preference for headlines over substance was especially apparent, in the way that he treated Frank Field.
When Mr Field was initially made a minister at the DSS, it seemed as if this might prove to be a serious government after all. In opposition, Mr Blair had talked about 'thinking the unthinkable'. Mr Field was the man for that role. He not only combines moral depth and a capacity for hard thinking; he would not be interested in belonging to any government unless he could employ those qualities. So any Prime Minister who appointed him must surely be serious about reforming social security. Not Tony Blair; he merely wanted a couple of respectful headlines. Once it became clear that Frank Field was actually determined to do some thinking, it became equally clear that there was no place for him in a Blair government.
The PM's inability to distinguish between headlines and reality has had its most grievous consequences in Ulster. The Good Friday Agreement of 1999 was Mr Blair's finest hour. Only he could have brought it off, as this column acknowledged at the time. Tony Blair succeeded where John Major could not have done — then he threw it all away. He had won his plaudits and his headlines, so as far as he was concerned, the job was done. But it was not done; it had barely begun. There was a vital follow-through task: to secure decommissioning. Mr Blair had given the Unionists written pledges that Sinn Fein's presence in government depended on decommissioning, and that prisoners would only be released if their terrorist groups renounced violence. He must have known that he would be expected to keep his word. After Good Friday, Mr Blair seemed elevated to statesmanship. He had more moral authority in Ulster than any mainland politician had ever possessed. He had the momentum, if only he had used it. By then — if not before — he had also realised that Mo Mowlam was useless; key members of his staff had come to hold her in contempt. Post-Good Friday, he could have brought her home in a cloud of glory to some grand honorific post, while appointing an Ulster Secretary who could do the work. But Dr Mowlam was good for the odd headline; she could always stimulate the Labour Conference's erogenous zones. So she was left to be a phoney heroine, while the position steadily deteriorated.
Now, hardly any Unionist believes a word that Mr Blair says, and his lack of credibility may bring down David Trimble. Even if Mr Trimble survives, the Agreement may not. This is all Tony Blair's fault. Because of his incurable moral and intellectual superficiality, he could neither appreciate the problem he faced, nor the opportunity he had created.
But Mr Blair can relax. He seems to have found an electorate which shares his worst faults. Over the past three years, the voters ought gradually to have seen through Tony Blair, while reassessing William Hague. Mr Hague may have an odd voice, but he uses it to tell the truth. He may have no hair, but he does not employ his cranium for decorative purposes. To Mr Hague, 'patriotism' is not a word you use in articles for the Sun while you are secretly planning to abolish the pound. It is the ground of his political being.
In an ideal world, the opposition would be readier for office than Mr Hague and his colleagues are. But we have to make the best of the available choices. This government has been a failure, morally and intellectually. We have a Prime Minister who has never grasped the difference between a posture and a policy. If he is re-elected, we are in for a second instalment of spinning and deceit. Mr Blair will also make an attempt to take us into a single currency, mobilising all his resources of deviousness. In that regard, he is formidable.
Tony Blair has had four years in office: four years of drift, shallowness and dishonesty; four years of dumbed-down politics. But it looks as though we are in for four or five more years of the same.
Previous page
