AND ANOTHER THING
Happy with either, were t'other dear charmer out of office
PAUL JOHNSON
Reflecting on the sad position in which President Clinton finds himself, and the prospect that the time and energy of Amer- ica's public life will now be focused on his iniquities, possibly for months, I thank God for our own political leaders. I can't remember any occasion before when I have felt so content with both the Prime Minis- ter and the Leader of the Opposition. I am happy to be governed by either. Tony Blair and William Hague are both young, ener- getic, industrious, businesslike, open to ideas, eager to learn and acquire experi- ence. Neither is a genius by any means, but both are consummate politicians able to use all the resources of the modern world, thoroughly at home in the Commons and on the hustings, yet able also to represent us with efficiency and dignity on a world stage. And they are, so far as I can tell, both decent, honourable, honest, truthful and anxious to do the right thing. They are lik- able too. So we are lucky.
It was characteristic of Blair to show sym- pathy with Clinton in his troubles. Blair is a good friend: loyal, understanding and dependable. He passes one of my main tests of manliness — would I be happy to share a slit-trench with him? — though I fear I would have to give him some elemen- tary instruction in the use of firearms: one of the difficulties about dealing with lead- ers nowadays, I find, is that they have not been in the army, and there are many points of reference we cannot share.
I liked Blair the first time I met him, when he came to lunch at my house, and my regard and affection for him have grown steadily. Of course I disagree with him about some things. I was deeply sad- dened when he and Frank Field parted company. I have known Field for much longer, and I have more respect for him than for anyone else in politics, except Lord Longford. However, the Prime Minister has explained to me why he and Field could not work together. I know Field is the Messian- ic type. But then Aneurin Bevan was the same, yet somehow Mr Attlee managed to get along with him — otherwise we would not have had the NHS, for sure. So I'm not entirely content with Blair's man-manage- ment in this case. But I accept his assurance that welfare reform will proceed with all deliberate speed.
What I particularly value in Blair, which makes me forgive things about his govern- ment I do not like, is that his gut reactions are sound. You can say that of few politi- cians of the post-war period. The only other ones I can think of are Churchill and Mrs Thatcher. Blair has a strong moral sense and it suffuses his responses, whether cere- bral or emotional. His instincts are right. What he lacks, not often but sometimes, is the will to follow them. Being a good listen- er, he is inclined to allow himself to be per- suaded into doing things, or permitting things, which his guts tell him are wrong. He lacks Margaret Thatcher's tyrannical obstinacy, her iron belief in her own right- ness, which enabled her to discount advice from civil servants and colleagues, experts and wiseacres, Lords and Commons even, on occasion, public opinion — and follow her own maxim, 'The lady's not for turning'.
Blair has the chance to become a great prime minister, an outstanding leader who will take Britain into the 21st century head erect, eyes alight, brain working overtime and with a warm heart. But to do this he will have to assert the prerogative which his own charisma and the voice of the nation have given him, and break some of his col- leagues' bones. I think he will, and I look forward to it.
William Hague has none of Blair's glam- our, but will soon be an equally formidable personality. In his own quiet way, he is already acquiring considerable weight. His decision to put the European issue to the test of democracy is a sign of his growing self-confidence, as well as a tribute to his judgment. If there is one thing this country needs at present it is more democracy. Margaret Thatcher is quite wrong to say, as she does privately, that he is a 'temporary figure'. He is now well dug in and will be around as leader of his party for many years, possibly decades. She is wrong, too, to dismiss Conservative chances of winning the next election. Close scrutiny of the fig- ures in the 1992 and 1997 elections tell a different tale. Blair himself does not share her view: he thinks the next battle will be much tougher than in 1997. And he does not underestimate his opponent, whom he has to face twice a week, and whom he rates far higher than he did Major.
I had never met Hague until this sum- mer, and was grateful when he agreed to lunch at my house so we could go over the whole range of politics together in freedom and privacy. What he said is confidential, but I was impressed and reassured. He is practical, earnest, direct, funny, open, con- temptuous of political blather but in no way cynical — an idealist, indeed, if a hard- headed one. For a Yorkshireman, he is modest. Being a Lancastrian, I was brought up to believe that the men east of the Pen- nines were uppity — England's Texans, as my mother used to say, though she quickly qualified her criticism by adding, 'Both roses are better than anything south of the Trent.' But Hague rather relishes being at the bottom of the heap, with nowhere else to go but up.
In fact he has done extraordinarily well for a politician of his age, but he has no trace of arrogance that I could detect. He is even diffident about putting forward his most significant achievement since he became leader: preventing his party from splitting. This could so easily have hap- pened, and would have happened if Major had clung on, Conservatives disintegrating into three chunks, federalists, nationalists and no-hope Major loyalists. Under Hague, all things considered, the party is in good shape. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Hesel- tine are now marginal figures who will take few with them if, in the end, they decide to go. But they will stay. Chris Patten, who looked papabile a year ago — to some, though not to me — has already admitted that the game is up and Hague is boss.
I am an anti-party man and suspect the 21st century will see the rapid demise of the party system. We have to be English, rather than Labour or Conservative, fighting for our survival and national self-interest in the wider world of Europe and the North Atlantic, in which our real political oppo- nents are abroad. Blair and Hague fit well into this new perspective. The tug of their parties pulls them in different directions but they both agree on ends and, to a sur- prising degree, on means. They are sensible and pragmatic. But they have strong emo- tions too, patriotic ones, I'm glad to say.
Previous page
