POLITICS
If only they'd given Miss Nicholson a job: the trouble is, she's ghastly
BRUCE ANDERSON
The problem is jobs, status and money. Does anyone believe that Emma Nicholson would have quit the Tory party if doing so would have meant leaving the Govern- ment? Had she been a Home Office minis- ter required to defend the practice of shackling pregnant prisoners, she might have set the public's teeth on edge but she would not have departed from her brief.
It is easy to understand why Miss Nichol- son is so resentful. She is not without abili- ty. She became an MP in 1983; since then at least half-a-dozen less clever back- benchers have been made ministers. There was only one obstacle to Miss Nicholson's ascent, and it will be apparent to anyone who has heard her speak over the past few days. She is ghastly. So deeply disliked was she among her Tory colleagues that the Whips felt unable to recommend her.
In view of the smallness of the Govern- ment's majority, this was an error. The very qualities which made her unworthy of pro- motion also made her a threat. The ruth- lessness, the ambition, the sheer nastiness, denied their chosen expression, would break out in betrayal, which they did. Miss Nicholson is now Paddy Ashdown's public relations adjunct. They deserve one anoth- er.
Emma Nicholson was not the Tory Whips' only mistake. When Charles Powell was at No 10 — officially as Mrs Thatcher's foreign affairs adviser, in practice varying between assistant and deputy Prime Minis- ter — he tried to get Bill Cash a job. But the Whips refused, on the grounds that Mr Cash was boring. He is indeed a world-class bore, but it would have been better for the Government if that obsessive energy had been channelled harmlessly into an under- secretaryship. Mr Minister Cash would not have resigned over Maastricht, and would now be defending the Government's fish- eries policy.
Ambition and its discontents are not a new problem. Had Peel given Disraeli a job, had Gladstone handled Joseph Cham- berlain more sensitively, the political histo- ry of the 19th century might have been very different. But the current administration has more difficulties with frustrated office- seekers than any of its predecessors. Apart from the inevitable vulnerability arising from a small majority, there are two rea- sons for this. The first is the changed nature of the Tory benches; the second, longevity in office.
As recently as the 1950s, a large number of Tory MPs had no particular interest in becoming ministers; they regarded mem- bership of the House of Commons as an end in itself. That no longer applies. Today, ..there is hardly a Tory MP of employable age who would not want to join the Gov- ernment. The post-war years have seen an expansion in the number of ministerial posts, which cannot be justified by any administrative criteria. If there were half as many ministers, the country would be bet- ter governed — but the Tory party would be wholly ungovernable. Disraeli did not believe that the government of Great Britain could be carried on unless the Prime Minister had a certain number of sinecures worth £1,500 a year at his dispos- al. The sinecures may have gone, but their modern equivalent is junior ministerial posts, and even with the inflation in the size of modern government, there are not enough of them for Party management pur- poses.
Not every dog can have a bone, but the Whips can normally keep the growling in check by pointing out that while there is life there are reshuffles. However, once a gov- ernment enters its second decade in office, the Whips' task becomes harder and hard- er. Once he has been passed over a dozen times, even the dimmest backbencher gets the message. Equally, for each new man promoted in a reshuffle, someone has to be displaced: in most cases, involuntarily. Very `That's the Birdman of Alcatraz' few ministers ever leave the table with their appetite satisfied. So the longer a govern- ment is in power, the greater the list of malcontents: the exes and the never-weres. This was a factor in Mrs Thatcher's down- fall; it is a growing problem for her succes- sor — and it is a double asset for Mr Blair.
Not only does he benefit from the Tory party's indiscipline; the prospect of office is of great value in keeping his own party in order. Labour MPs are aware that within a few months, their leader could have 90 or so red boxes to distribute among his Com- mons followers. They also know that if they do not win the next election, they may as well give up.
I remember a convivial lunch with the late John Smith in about 1988. 'Tell me, John,' said I, 'You've spent your forties in Opposition; how d'you fancy doing that in your fifties as well?' He dismissed the prospect with an expletive. If Labour did not win soon, he would be off doing some- thing else. Fate, alas, had different plans for Mr Smith: but other Labour front- benchers are still experiencing the same frustration. Take Donald Dewar, who would be the next Labour leader in the unlikely event of anything happening to Mr Blair. It is almost 30 years since Mr Dewar was first elected to the Commons. Had he not lost his seat at the wrong moment, he would have held office between 1974 and 1979, as he would have done if Mr Callaghan had won the 1979 election. As it is, Mr Dewar has never been so much as an assistant Government Whip. For him, as for many of the colleagues, it is next time or never. No wonder Mr Blair's party is so tractable.
There is only one comfort for Mr Major in all this. As the problem is insoluble, there is no point in tackling it. If they are to avoid being forced into an early election, the Tories will need a lot of fancy footwork — but the PM should leave all that to the Whips and business managers, while he leads the Party from the front, as if he had a majority of 50.
Robert Cranborne frequently reminds his colleagues of Marshal Foch's dictum: `Ma gauche est foutue; ma droite recule; mon centre se perd: situation excellente! J'attaque.' The Government is now in at least as deep a hole as the French forces were in the first world war. It has no alter- native but to turn Fochist.
Previous page
