POLITICS
Blair is the better baby-sitter, but do you want a baby-sitter running the country?
BRUCE ANDERSON Which is just as well; the Tory leader still has mountains to climb. The poll showing a 7- point Labour lead caused great excitement in Central Office because it appeared to con- firm the party's own poll data which had the Labour lead down to 8 per cent. Such materi- al should normally be treated with reserve; there are lies, damned lies, and political par- ties' private polling results. The Tories insist that their latest research was kosher, howev- er, and there is now some corroboration.
But the significance of these latest find- ings should not be overrated. At the three- year point in most previous parliaments, a government that was only 7 points behind the opposition would have felt justified in planning its post-election celebration, while any opposition which was 7 points adrift would have been steeped in gloom.
The Tories, however, insist that everything is going according to plan. Up to now, they claim, William Hague has been concentrat- ing on his own vote: a necessary task after the debacle of 1997. But he still has plenty of time to broaden out his appeal, break out of the low thirties and to challenge for victory.
All that raises two questions. First, is it a truthful account of the previous strategy? Second, will it work? Politicians who claim that everything has gone according to plan should always be heard with caution. Most so-called political strategies are merely ex post facto rationalisations, with some bright spark trying to appropriate credit by impos- ing a retrospective pattern on the haphaz- ardness of events. I suspect that this is what has happened in Central Office. Having failed to improve more than marginally on their standing at the last election, the Tories have now decided that they had always intended to consolidate it. But even if it is a limited objective, there is nothing wrong with a secure political base, as long as it is only a base, not a threshold. Which is it in this case? The answer to that question will depend on trust.
By the last election, the Tories had forfeit- ed that trust, even among many of the 31 per cent who voted for them. In one respect, matters have improved since then. In those days, the Tories were widely hated, and that has gone. But trust? In recent years, political consultants have come to rely on new forms of polling and especially on the focus-group, the Blairites' indispensable governing device. Groups of 'real people' are asked questions, partly about their values, attitudes and lifestyles. Attempts are then made to extrapolate their likely voting behaviour from their answers. So what would happen if a focus-group were asked whom it would employ as a babysitter, Tony Blair or William Hague? Mr Blair would surely win an over- whelming majority. Nor would this necessari- ly be a frivolous inquiry. It is easy to exagger- ate the public appeal of anti-government Thatcherism. Many voters want to feel that the government is on their side; they want to be reassured that education and especially health are run by politicians who understand ordinary people's needs.
In that respect, Mr Hague's credentials ought to be far better than Mr Blair's. William Hague comes from tough, muck- and-brass Yorkshire business stock, which was refined but in no way eradicated by Oxford and McKinsey's. He always insists that his most important political education took place during his school holidays, when he used to deliver barrels of beer to working men's clubs around Rotherham. Naturally, the product had to be sampled, so young William learned to hold his ale and to hold his end up in the political arguments, espe- cially after his notorious Conference speech.
A down-to-earth background and a first- class mind reinforced by considerable debating and indeed oratorical powers: this ought to be a formidable politician. So what has gone wrong? There is the accent, which does not seem to play as well as one might have thought, and there is, of course, the hair. In other circumstances, those might not have been such strong negatives. After 1997, however, many voters wanted to for- get all about politics. They also wanted an excuse not to listen to the Tories — and found it in Mr Hague's hairstyle. But the Tory strategists are also to blame, for their lack of tactical imagination.
It is as if those responsible for such mat- ters have never lost hope that some day, somehow, William Hague could beat Tony Blair in a beauty contest. Instead of clinging to such fantasies, they should have made it clear that beauty contests were not on Mr Hague's agenda. Nor it is too late for the Tories to adopt this approach. If the babysitter focus-group was also asked whether Tony Blair was sincere, there would be a less enthusiastic response. That ought to give William Hague an opportunity. He is spin; I am substance, Mr Hague should say. He tells you what you want to hear; I tell the truth. I have opinions; he has opinion polls. He is desperate for your votes; I want you to share my values. If Tony Blair was me, he would have had a hair transplant, to go with his view transplant and his party transplant. You cannot believe a word he says. Those are obvious lines of attack. A lot of voters are beginning to wonder whether there is much to Tony Blair, and in politics it is always more profitable to push at opening doors than to batter against locked ones. Admittedly, William Hague will shortly have the Blair baby to contend with; there is a rumour in 'Whitehall that if it is a girl, the Blahs will call it Diana. But it may be that the public appetite for mush, which reached its appalling apogee in the week after the Princess of Wales's death, has now abated. If Mr Blair tried to distract voters who were worried about their kids' education by talk- ing about his hopes for his kids, they might just realise that they were being patronised.. Despite Mr Blair's quasi-monarchic aspi- rations, our elections are decided in the con' stituencies, and there are precedents for supposedly unelectable leaders confounding their critics. Ted Heath would have found it hard to win a presidential election against Harold Wilson, while Margaret Thatcher would have found it impossible against JO Callaghan, as would Attlee against Churchill. Admittedly, the circumstances 111 1945, 1970 and 1979 were vastly n1°.,r.e, favourable to the opposition than they wl," be next year, but there is a certain public restlessness. William Hague may find it easi- er to win the voters' trust if he starts off by persuading them to distrust phoney Tony. Nor should Mr Hague despair if his babyslt ting skills are disparaged. How many people want their babysitter to run the country?
Previous page
