MR BLAIR IS NOT NICE

. . . and he has contempt for his party,

FOR the first time since 1649 Britain is now governed by an elective dictator.

I believe this apparently excessive view can be substantiated by three arguments, each supported by a growing body of evi- dence.

Every dictator, freshly arrived in power by whatever route — and many have in the first place been elected by a country in cri- sis — begins by stripping off a no longer needed mask. Among the first traits to be revealed is a contempt for the very institu- tions that brought them to power.

In only three months Mr Blair has made quite plain his disdain for the Labour party. Even his own aides privately con- cede, 'Tony never wanted to be leader of the Labour party, he just wanted to be prime minister.' In other words, the Labour party to which stalwarts like Healey, Hattersley and Benn have given a lifetime of service was always no more than the best vehicle available for access to power.

In the same two-month period, the new Prime Minister has shown a growing con- tempt for. the Houses of Parliament, their roles, customs and usages. Twice Madam Speaker has had cause to chide Mr Blair for treating the House with contumely. Never in my lifetime, and I go back to Winston Churchill, has a prime minister of either party seen fit to show such overt scorn for the mother of all parliaments. Nor is it any secret in Westminster that since then a sneering personal campaign has been mounted against Betty Boothroyd — herself a Labour MP and the finest Speaker (with Lord Tonypandy) we have had for many years — and that it is sanc- tioned right at the top.

The second leitmotiv of the dictator mindset is an absolute refusal to be criti- cised, disagreed with or contradicted in any way, shape or form, especially from within his own ranks. For power- dedicated politicians know that they can cope with dissent from the street, which is mainly impotent, but dissent inside the camp is dangerous.

In the guise of 'party discipline', Labour MPs today are subjected to a brutal regime of total control, enforced by a coterie of hard men right next to the leader, of which I have not seen the like since covering East Germany for Reuters in the mid-Sixties.

Enormous efforts have been expended to paint Mr Blair as a smiling man of the peo- ple, unstuffy, church-going, a tender hus- band, doting father and above all someone of enormous personal charm. In other words, a nice guy.

But does a nice guy need to sanction a vicious smear campaign against Clare Short over a possible love affair years ago when both she and her friend were free of emo- tional encumbrances? Does a nice guy need several real political thugs in his inner circle? Does a nice guy allow the threatening with deselection of a Welsh MP opposed to devolution? Does a nice guy dump the respected candidate for Uxbridge, who worked night and day to transform what was once a Tory fortress into a marginal seat, in order to impose in his place a forelock-touching yes-man from miles away? Does a nice guy need to force the humiliated local man to endorse his successor?

The answer is that only a man obsessed by power and total control needs, with a 177-seat majority in the House, to do any of these things.

The obsession with the destruction of opposition goes further. It has begun with the initial subsumation of the Liberal- Democratic leadership into the New Labour fold. This cannot stop where it is now. By the next election, the candidates of both parties will be on a single list, and the Lib-Dems, even if they retain their name, simply a junior affiliate under com- plete control.

With the Tory party a shattered rump, the last source of true contradiction and occasional investigation must remain the fourth estate, the press. Already the new Lord Chancellor is sneeringly threatening the press with gagging laws to reduce it to the poodle status of the press in France where power abuse and corruption can be and often are unrestrained. Ironic, really; for it was the press which investigated and exposed all the scandals that rocked the Tory party and helped bring Mr Blair to power. But that was then.

The third and last leitmotiv of the dicta- tor is to use the power without delay to tear up the constitution of the former state and create a new one incorporating mea- sures to perpetuate his own tenure of office. This too is already under way, aided by the fact that Britain has no written con- stitution and no constitutional court. Thus the usual euphemisms of 'modernisation' and 'reform' can be used persuasively and with impunity.

Sycophants already refer to an exciting `new political map'. Behind the euphemisms lies the systematic metamor- phosis of an old and extremely effective constitution which has served Britain and all her peoples very well these 300 years past. Margaret Thatcher had two majori- ties of more than 100 over combined oppo- sition, but never thought to tear up the constitution. Yet this has already begun, and with devolution — not the fact of it, but the manner.

New Labour pledged to 'offer' the peo- ple of Scotland and Wales the opportunity of devolution, an offer that undoubtedly exercised influence in both lands on 1 May. It did not say it intended to ramrod a 'yes' vote out of both peoples by any method needed.

The desire in Scotland and Wales for a greater measure of self-government is undeniable. But the introduction of party- list candidates, 33 per cent in Wales and 42.5 per cent in Scotland, is a total breach of British tradition whereby constituents select the man they wish to represent them. Party lists massively endorse party power because the managers select the candidates and ensure that only yes-men are admitted. The break-up of the United Kingdom has begun.

So with New Labour under terrified con- trol, the old Left crushed, the Lib-Dems neutralised, the Tories impotent, the Lords and press about to be emasculated, all par- liamentary outcomes guaranteed, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is well on the way to . . . where?

Although a bust of Oliver Cromwell occupies pride of place on his mantelshelf, Mr Blair need never become Lord Protec- tor. Behind the guise of 'reform' the real endgame is not reformation but, I think, transformation: a complete constitutional revolution from an ancient and once proud unitary kingdom to a federal republic with the leader of New Labour in perpetual, untrammelled power.

The author's latest book, Icon, is published by Bantam Press.

Miss Hopkins, I've forgotten my cloak and dagger!'