POLITICS
Populism can mean better policies and more votes
BRUCE ANDERSON
High-minded persons who care about political morality will not enjoy the next few months. Between now and the elec- tion, there is going to be a lot of populism. William Hague started it, whereupon Labour denounced him, for about five minutes. But this did not work: far from objecting to Mr Hague's populism, the populace seemed to approve of it. So panic broke out in No. 10. Since then, the focus groups have been in emergency session. Labour no longer expresses disapproval of the Tories' populist tactics; it merely tries to rival them.
Two questions arise from all this. The first is whether it is a further example of the moral hazards of democracy. The second is more immediate. Leaving aside morals, which pack of populists will win more votes?
Apropos of morality, Mr Hague's views on law and order have caused a lot of unhappiness in thoughtful quarters. But those who are tempted towards that reac- tion should first ask themselves whether they have thought the matter through.
For one point is indisputable. Our criminal justice system has failed, is failing and — on present trends — will continue to fail. True, it provides a good living for lawyers and an adequate one for criminologists, whose num- bers seem to rise in step with the crime fig- ures (not that abolishing criminology would, of itself, bring down crime — though paying less attention to most criminologists is a desirable first step). It also keeps large num- bers of prison warders in overmanned employment; the Prison Officers' Associa- tion is the last ScargjHite trade union.
But our penal system neither protects the public nor reforms criminals. It is not nec- essary to be a soggy liberal to agree with Douglas Hurd that prison is often an expensive way of making bad men worse. No area of public policy is in greater need of radical reform, for its intellectual foun- dations are rotten. Is prison supposed to deter, rehabilitate or punish? No one can explain. We do not know why we are doing what and to whom. Criminal justice is a thought-free zone.
So at the very least, alternative approach- es are entitled to a respectful hearing. There is indeed an analogy between penal policy now and economic policy circa 1979. In his memoirs, Jim Prior writes that although he, Peter Carrington, Willie Whitelaw et al. were not Thatcherites, they knew that the existing arrangements were bankrupt and that something dramatic had to be done. As they themselves had no alternative, they felt unable to resist Mrs Thatcher.
So it need not necessarily alarm us that, just like Margaret Thatcher in 1979, Mr Hague has not yet progressed much beyond slogans. Once in government, Thatcherite economics underwent modifications. In some respects, most notably public spending levels, it never lived up to the radical instincts of opposition. In others, such as privatisation and trade-union reform, it exceeded them. Hagueism would undergo a similar evolution, if the voters gave it the chance. On certain questions, most notably international treaties on asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Hague would be forced into an early confrontation with the forces of bien-pen- santry, and, unless he prevailed, his radical impulses would count for nothing. In other areas, a Hague government ought rapidly to discard some of the nostrums of opposition. Of themselves, longer prison sentences would do little good — though there is no reason why the offence of burglary should not carry an automatic custodial term, unless there were exceptional grounds for clemency. But instead of simply banging up criminals for longer, the Tories should call for more rigorous forms of imprison- ment: forcing prisoners to work or indeed study hard; making them use the prison day in a productive, disciplined manner. Let there be no more of the anthropoid-ape shuffle which is the normal demeanour in most penal establishments. Nor is it desir- able to deny prisoners the possibility of an early release, as long as it is hard-earned. As for those who refuse to earn it, why not introduce a new offence, that of being an idle prisoner, for which the original sen- tence would be extended?
Such measures would administer an almighty shock to the present system, and this would mean trouble: nothing wrong with that. After six months in office, the next Tory home secretary should wonder what he — or she — was doing wrong, unless there had been a prison riot and a prison officers' strike: both, of course, crushed.
The pseudo-elite who currently control much of penal policy, and who now hate William Hague almost as much as they hated Michael Howard, would have us believe that the situation is not as bad as we think, and that nothing can be done about it. Neither proposition is true. The problem of crime is bad and getting worse, and the voters are just as entitled to demand higher standards in law and order as in health and education. In all these areas, the public services need to live up to their name; in each case, it is possible to enforce significant improvements. There will always be crime, but there is no need to despair. By revolutionising imprisonment, by vigorous attempts to pre- vent young offenders from taking up 3 criminal career, and by demanding much higher standards from the police, the prob` lem can be tackled. If that is populism, s° be it. Better populism than pessimism.
Equally, anyone wishing to discredit pop- ulism should not cite William Hague on crime, but Gordon Brown on Oxford. Has there ever been an example of a senior minister getting quite so many facts wrong in such a brief statement? But leaving aside its contempt for truth, Mr Brown's speech., was bad politics, and not only because it will have caused lasting resentments among those who do mind about morals.
For Mr Brown's Goebbelsian foray was not an isolated incident. As part of a cam- paign to counter William Hague's populists on crime and pensions, Robin Cook ais° popped up, calling for positive discrimina" tion in future ambassadorial appointments (one can see why he dislikes promotion On merit; what if it applied to foreign secre- taries?). Then John Prescott returned t° the subject of universities, a subject 00 which he should keep quiet. He spent five years in higher education and still cannot speak his own language; there is no point in sending everyone to university. But ambassadors and Oxford: is this P°P-ci ulism? The family who come home to fin that they have been burgled: will they be tesse upset because Gordon Brown wants Ill°1, comprehensive kids to go to Oxford? Granny anxious about her heating bills: will she 13`t appeased because more black lesbians !riga be enjoying free heating, courtesy of a Brits, embassy? Even the family with kids at rnA. local comprehensive: are they more worrw'4:t about them getting into Oxford, or abcw them learning to read and write? To judge by Messrs Brown's and COICos recent utterances, this government /), longer knows the difference between P°r ulism and political correctness. If that co1r. fusion persists, Labour will be in trouble.
Previous page
