ANOTHER VOICE
Some suitably eminent candidates for the political asylum
CHARLES MOORE
Why is it,' asks Matthew Parris in the latest Sunday Telegraph, 'that in the Telegraph and The Spectator we read the articles of eminent columnists who plainly hate the man's guts and whose dislike for him goes deeper than political disapproval, amounting at times to a nasty sort of pub- lic-school nose-thumbing . . . and we are prepared to allow such journalism — seem- ingly motivated by spite — the status of serious commentary?'
This is in the course of supporting Penny Junor's defence of the Prime Minister in her new biography of him. Mr Parris quotes her judgment of Mr Major with approval: 'He is probably the most courteous man in the House of Commons. He has not climbed up on the backs of others. He has a high and rare regard for truth. And he cares about making the world a better place.'
As one who has written unfavourably about Mr Major in columns for all three publications, I feel that Mr Parris may be applying his strictures to, among others, me. I shall not plead innocent, because I do not see how one can prove one's own motives. All I can say is that Mr Major has never done me any injury, so I have no score to settle with him, and that I am sur- prised by the suggestion that public-school- ism should have influenced me against him, since for many years I found myself defend- ing Mrs Thatcher and Norman Tebbit against phalanxes of Old Etonians. The 'grocer's daughter' dismissal of her was much more widespread than the 'Brixton boy' disparagement of him.
It may be that Mr .Parris is right to detect a disagreeableness of tone, though. If he is, I apologise, but can perhaps explain. The note of acerbity comes from exasperation at attacks of the kind, though seldom of the literary quality, mounted by Mr Parris. For they are beside the point. The point is that Mr Major was and is unsuitable to be leader of the Conservative Party. Consider these words written in the Daily Telegraph of 24 November 1990, a few days before Mr Major won the second ballot: 'One would expect the man from the extremely poor background to be more driven of the two [the other being Mr Hurd], the more abra- sive, the more determined. In fact, howev- er, Mr Major is diffident, easily tired, not very forceful. He made 'surprisingly few enemies in the course of his political rise. His reputation is politically dry, but is he, personally, perhaps a little wet? Can he, and his retiring wife, really face what they are embarking upon? Doesn't all this come too early for him?'
These words were right, weren't they, though I say it who shouldn't. What we have seen since White Wednesday is a more widespread acceptance of this view.
It is no answer to this to say what Penny Junor says and Matthew Parris endorses. One might not go quite so far as they, but it is certainly true that Mr Major is polite, that he is not, by the standards of politics, treacherous, nor, by the same standards, a liar. He probably does care about making the world a better place. It is just that none of these qualities, of itself, makes him fit to be Prime Minister.
It is the sentimentality on the subject of Mr Major that has been so irritating. One can forgive it in Mr Parris, who is sticking up for a friend and former parliamentary colleague, but it is less easy to indulge in the Conservative Party collectively.
This may sound an odd thing to say in a paper sometimes thought to be High Tory, but Mr Major's entire career has been so wretchedly unmeritocratic. He did not get where he is because he ever did anything original or daring, but because he did the opposite, because he was 'nice' (how use- less that concept and yet how expressive that word has become), because, if you sur- veyed the parapet, you never, ever saw his iron-grey hair and large spectacles protrud- ing above it. He was appointed because Tories thought that a man of his back- ground must be a good thing, must have a feel for what ordinary people wanted, must represent a new, modern Conservatism.
There was no 'must' about it, of course. lain Macleod, a former editor of this paper, furiously complained that Alec Douglas- Home was made leader by a Tory 'magic circle' determined to promote one of its own, preferably Etonian, kind. A genera- tion later, the same mentality applies in reverse. A man of the people is exalted just because he is a man of the people. For a few heady months it seemed charming to have a Prime Minister who said 'God bless' at the end of a war broadcast, but then the underlying lack of cheerfulness would keep breaking through. The aim was classless- ness but the result was a lack of class.
One of the things which is supposed to distinguish sentimentality from the true feeling is its rage when disappointed. This rage has fallen upon Mr Major. It came first from those Thatcherites — the majori- ty — who had fooled themselves that he was One of Them. Now it comes from almost everyone — the journalists who originally puffed him, the opposition par- ties who feared his popularity and were beguiled by his amiability, the businessmen who gave money, the voters who trusted and liked him. Next week in Blackpool we shall find out how much the rage stirs in the bieasts of the party workers who choose the people who chose him. As a result, Mr Parris's anxieties are becoming more justi- fied. People are being nasty and unfair and spiteful. It is not Mr Major's fault that it is raining. It is not even his fault that my car radio has been stolen ten times since Christmas. But to read all the papers which quite recently exalted 'honest John', you might think it was. It has become very hard for the Government to do anything at all, so automatic is the abuse. Mr Parris may be leading a 'sympathy backlash'.
What ought to happen? In normal life, if employers conclude that someone is bad at his job, they sack or demote him. Since that is the conclusion that Tory MPs and, partic- ularly, Tory ministers have now reached about Mr Major, the logic is clear. But poli- tics is not normal life, and one lesson from November 1990 is that if you get rid of a leader you must know what you mean to do next. If the Conservatives, after listening to Mr Major's oratory next week, decide to replace him with Mr Kenneth Clarke, they will have someone who can lead, but will they have any clearer idea about European and economic policy and the relation between the two? On 1 January 1994 the creation of the European Central Bank begins in earnest, even though the markets have spent the past year demonstrating that it cannot work. The Government has forced through the treaty which makes the Bank possible, but at the same time it says that the Bank's declared purpose is illusory. It is not at the mention of Sir Richard Body that one hears the flapping of white coats. It is unfair to single out Mr Major for Electro-Convulsive Therapy. The whole Government needs its head examined.
Previous page
