For Mr Blair, morality is a platform affectation; ethics are whatever he can get away with
BRUCE ANDERSON
0 \.er the past few days. the Prime Minister has behaved disgracefully. He has defended ministers who are guilty of lying and corruption and who have treated Parliament with contempt. In both the Lords and the Commons, he has encouraged the violation of the rules of procedure.
Robin Cook is not as culpable as either Keith Vaz or Tony Blair. Mr Cook prevaricated under pressure, not after malice aforethought; ministers have told worse lies in Parliament. But lying to the Commons is a hanging offence. Robin Cook is not fit to remain in office.
Mr Vaz's behaviour has been scandalous, and was premeditated. He and his friends set out to prevent Elizabeth Filkin from to completing her enquiries. Even if Mr Vaz were innocent of all the charges against him — in which case his behaviour would be incomprehensible — he ought to be sacked on the spot for the way he has behaved towards Mrs Filkin. Keith Vaz has displayed contempt for Mrs Filkin, contempt for Parliament, contempt for public life and contempt for democracy. He is not fit to be a minister; he is not fit to be in Parliament. There is a challenge worthy of Martin Bell. Instead of persecuting holy rollers in Brentwood, Mr Bell should give Mr Vaz's constituents the chance to prove that they know what should be required from a MP, even if Keith Vaz does not.
Mr Vaz has no concept of the standards which sustain British politics; nor has Tony Blair. By retaining Keith Vaz in office, Mr Blair has condoned his behaviour and become his accomplice. There are rumours that Mr Vaz will not be reappointed after the election, but that is not enough. He ought to have been dismissed instantly, as he would have been by any previous Prime Minister, with the possible exception of Harold Wilson in his lavender list phase. If Mr Blair wants to dispute the late Lord Wilson's claim to be foremost in political immorality, he is going the right way about it by retaining Mr Vaz's services, and at least Harold Wilson had no cant of morality. For Mr Blair, morality is a mere platform affectation. Ethics are whatever he can get away with. Standards are a means of smearing the Tories; they were never meant to apply to a Blair government. 'Power tends to corrupt,' said Lord Acton. In modern British history, that process has never occurred so rapidly. Late on Monday evening, after a brief debate cunningly timed in the hope that no one would notice, the government forced through a motion decreeing that an incomplete committee stage had in fact been completed. Even Speaker Martin observed that the motion was 'unprecedented', but with this Speaker, it is a miracle that he can pronounce that word. It would be absurd to expect him to follow the logic of his observation and to use his authority to protect Commons procedure from majoritarian abuse. That was not why he was chosen. Labour MPs wanted a pliant mediocrity. They have found one.
On Tuesday, the government rammed through another motion, this time in the Lords. It was a coup for the government's business managers in the Lords, who managed to entice large numbers of Tony's ennobled cronies into voting to pervert the working of a House which they have never tried to understand. The House of Lords runs its own debates with a minimum of procedure, but there is an understanding that peers who want to speak should be able to do so. The corollary is that peers only speak when they have something to say. In the Commons, Whips who find themselves running short of speakers will conscript some passing MP to talk for ten minutes on a subject about which he knows nothing and cares less; thus are ministerial ambitions nurtured. There is no equivalent in the Lords: one reason why its debates often reach a high standard. But the Blairites have as little use for debate as they have for high standards. So they have ensured that the Lords' committee stage on the Hunting Bill will be curtailed: a further insult to the countryside.
Faced with such a charge sheet, the Blairites' response is to bluster about Margaret Thatcher. Just like Tony, she was a strong leader who went in for the odd bit of roughshod riding; that is the sort of behaviour which you must expect from effective premiers. That analogy is as false as it is pretentious. Whereas Tony Blair suppresses debate, Margaret Thatcher revelled in it. How else would she have the opportunity to expound her views? To her, politics was about the clash of values and world-views. Mr Blair will never be happy until the whole country is in his big tent, singing his praises. She would have hated that; there would have been no one to argue with. She did like to win, but only after vigorous combat, endlessly renewed. She loved power, but for her, power was the handmaiden of ideas. For him, ideas are the slave of soundbites: mere confetti for the victory celebration.
The Blairites are now hoping desperately that the foot and mouth epidemic will not interfere with the next celebration, which they are planning for May 3rd and 4th. Their pre-electoral mood is a curious mixture of nervousness and complacency. The PM panicked over Peter Mandelson and was uneasy about Lord Irvine; those episodes were not the ideal way to begin an election campaign. Since then, however, the Blairites have become more relaxed. Mandelson, Irvine, Cook, Vaz: the dramas and allegations have their brief moment in the headlines, but the opinion polls remain unmoved. Whatever this administration's faults, the voters do not seem to care or even notice. As they come to believe themselves invulnerable, Mr Blair's entourage grow more confident.
In the short run, this is justified, but the position could rapidly change. A lot of voters do not want to take cognizance of this government's failings; they had their bellyful of all that during the Major years. As long as they are feeling prosperous and the government seems to be competent, they will not go to the trouble of changing it, especially when the Tory opposition has been so bad at selling itself. But the great surge of goodwill and credulity which swept Mr Blair to power has dissipated, for ever. He will be re-elected, but in a spirit of cynicism and complacency, which will leave him nothing to fall back on when his government runs into trouble.
Margaret Thatcher knew all about trouble; she spent many years provoking it and defying it. But when she was in difficulty, she always had her ideology to sustain her; adversity was just another chance to propound her beliefs. Mr Blair does not have those resources.
Tony Blair has run an arrogant and incompetent government which is increasingly corrupt, increasingly contemptuous of the political process and which is largely staffed by third raters. Yet it is popular. But as the promoters of dot.com stocks could tell the Prime Minister, undeserved popularity is inherently unstable.
Previous page
