POLITICS
Max Clifford defends the NHS: Titus Oates masquerading as Nye Bevan
BRUCE ANDERSON
Family values' and 'back to basics' are among the most unfortunate political slo- gans of all time. Yet when the Prime Minis- ter first used them, it seemed as if he was employing a formidable new tactic. By 'back to basics', he was signalling his wish to combine the economic dynamism of the Eighties and Nineties with the social stabili- ty of the Fifties, while the family is the most important little platoon of all Politicians should always search for phrases which they can use as Leitmotiven or, to switch metaphors, as clothes-lines to which any number of pegs can then be attached. These new phrases sounded like powerful integrative themes. They could be used not only to present Government policies but to humanise them, something which Thatcher-era Tory language rarely achieved.
Then it all went wrong; for 'back to basics', read 'back to my place'. There is no reason to believe that the present Tory benches are any more adulterous or sodonriitical than either their predecessors or their Labour opponents. When Lord Jel- licoe and Mr Lambton got into trouble in the early Seventies, Bernard Levin predict- ed that this would be the last time a British politician would have to resign for such an absurd reason. Mr Levin, alas, was wrong. He had overestimated the grown-upness of public opinion just as he had underestimat- ed the relentless unscrupulousness of tabloid editors in pursuit of circulation, especially when abetted by Max Clifford, that new defender of the NHS: Titus Oates masquerading as Nye Bevan.
The tabloids try to justify themselves by claiming to be campaigning against hypocrisy. Hypocrisy used to be defined as the tribute which vice paid to virtue — and what is wrong with that? Vice ought to pay tribute and few human beings can remain virtuous all their lives. It is different, of course, on the News of the World, where all employees have to produce references from six ministers of religion testifying to their blameless life. But most of the rest of us have to settle for lower standards.
Hypocrisy is one of the least harmful alter- natives to virtue. Many marriages go through a hypocritical phase, and perhaps could not survive otherwise. Hypocrisy is indispensable to human happiness.
When John Major spoke about family values, he had no intention of referring to personal sexual morality; he had no wish for windows into men's bedrooms. As so often when he expresses himself on basic questions, he was drawing on his own back- ground. When the Majors were living in poverty in Brixton, they were able to sur- vive only because Mr Major's mother held everything together. As far as possible, she mobilised the strength of the family to insu- late her children and her invalid husband from harsh circumstances — made harsher still by the insensitivity of the bureaucrats whom they relied on for sustenance. Those formative experiences led to the Citizen's Charter, and to the PM's determination, as he expressed it last week, to 'support the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the family from the incursions of the face- less state'.
But when he originally launched his ini- tiative, Mr Major made two mistakes. The first was tentativeness. Although he knew what he wanted to say and what he did not want to say, he did not do enough to make this clear. Nor — parallels with Europe — did he ensure that all his Cabinet ministers sang from the same song-sheet. In a vacu- um, his colleagues improvised. Some of them, and especially John Redwood, made it sound as if family values were about sexual restraint.
The second mistake was to ignore the low road. Ideally, political rhetoric should have two aspects: a high-minded one, and its opposite. Sometimes, circumstances are such that the politician does not need to mention the low-minded element. Harold Wilson could spout away about the white heat of technology in the certainty that the public would already be thinking about the contrast between him and Alec Douglas- Home with his tweeds and matchsticks. But on other occasions, it is necessary for politi- cians to be more explicit in their attacks. In order for Mr Major's party to derive the full benefit from back to basics/family values, it would have been necessary to find a Nor- man Tebbit figure to point up the contrast with Labour. After all, whatever Mr Blair's own views and standards, there are plenty of Labour councils who still hate the notion of family values, whose social workers do their hardest to make it impossible for normal people to adopt children and whose schoolteachers advocate political correctness and cultural and moral relativism.
Although he is cautious about it — he took a long time to be persuaded about the 'Devil Eyes' poster — Mr Major is not opposed to all negative campaigning. But it does not come naturally to him; he lacks Lord Tebbit's instinctive feel for the jugu- lar, the viscera and other areas. Before John Major can commit himself to the low road, his own anger has to be aroused. He has now come to believe that Tony Blair is an unprincipled opportunist who will say anything to win power, and that belief will be reflected in the PM's election campaign. But back at the beginning of back to basics, Mr Major was not angry with Labour, so there was no negative dimension.
Even if there had been, it might not have survived the ridicule. It was typical of the Prime Minister's luck that his latest pro- nouncement on the family had barely reached the papers before the news broke of Mr Hayes's indiscretion. If there were two years to go before the election, it would be hard to rehabilitate the family as a Tory cam- paigning theme; when there are only four months, it would seem to be impossible.
Yet Mr Major is determined to try; the man has not only a streak of obstinacy but an underlying confidence in his own politi- cal judgment and in his understanding of the British people. In recent speeches, he has linked the defence of the family with the defence of national institutions and — rightly — put both at the heart of Tory thinking. Moreover, he should find it easier to vindicate his approach to the family even under rigorous questioning than to defend the current compromise on Europe.
When all else fails in politics, there is something to be said for candour. 'Yes, some of my MPs have broken certain rules,' the PM could say, 'but in most cases, that was purely a matter for them and their fam- ilies; no question of public policy was involved. When I talk about family values, I mean the vital questions that affect every family in the land, and I am not going to allow the tabloids, Max Clifford or the Labour Party to trivialise them.'
It might work. Although Clifford promis- es further revelations, there are signs of growing public distaste; even Peter Man- delson has now dissociated himself from the spinner of sluts and rent-boys. If Mr Major can rescue the family from the tabloids, it will be his greatest political achievement since . . . winning the last election.
Previous page
