In the midst of war and mid-term elections in Britain, Tony Blair has thrown another nugget to Paddy Ashdown. From a landslide parliament stuffed full of loyal Labour MPs supportive of the war, Blair has asked the leader of Britain's third party, rather than a member of his own, to be his prime-ministerial envoy in the Balkans. As a result, Ashdown becomes more directly involved in the government's war effort than most of the cabinet.
Domestic politics may not have been at the forefront of this particular decision. Ashdown is a powerful advocate of the war. His advocacy has become more powerful since his official trip to the Balkans. "Anyone who has spoken to the refugees as I have done will have no doubt that the air strikes were right and should continue," he declared on his arrival at the scene. The Downing Street media machine must have been rubbing its hands with glee. John Simpson watch out, Paddy has arrived. In fact, Ashdown's observations fail to address directly the concerns expressed by some of us that the air strikes have made an appalling situation even worse. Still, for both Prime Minister and minority party leader, the war has provided another opportunity to show how close they are.
The domestic political situation has made it possible for Ashdown to play his small part without eyebrows being raised. The newspapers hardly reported it. Imagine if Margaret Thatcher had called for David Steel in her hour of need. We would all have assumed that she had gone off her head. The Blair/Ashdown relationship has become part of the furniture in British politics. It continues to intrigue, but ceases to cause surprise.
After the serialisation of Donald Macintyre's biography of Peter Mandelson in the Independent, perhaps we shouldn't be intrigued any more, either. The book includes passionate pre-election letters written by new Labour's warring soulmates to each other. Illuminating though they are, they can be summarised in a few words: "Dear Tony, Gordon's not speaking to me, so it's best that I don't speak to you, so you can carry on speaking with Gordon. Love Peter."
Blair must find a quiet chat with Ashdown on the alternative vote a refreshing diversion. Ashdown carries none of the emotional baggage of new Labour's inner circle.
But Ashdown is performing his last important role as the Liberal Democrats' leader. If the Balkan conflict continues into the summer, as it surely will, he will by then be a back-bench MP. And then what? The endgame of Blair's "project" is as hazy as that of the war.
Over the next few months, as the Liberal Democrats finally get round to choosing their new leader, there will be much sound and fury over the future of the "project". Indeed, there is a little sound and some fury already, as potential candidates in Ashdown's party begin embryonic campaigns. Unfortunately for most of them, they have agreed to stick to their briefs until the formal contest begins. Only Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesman, has struck gold, looking increasingly ministerial as he proclaims on the Balkans. There has been no such luck for Charles Kennedy, the party's agriculture spokesman, who jokes that he might have to organise a countryside march on London in order to get legitimate exposure.
Yet whoever wins the contest, Lab/Lib Dem relations will be broadly unaffected. Kennedy is being presented by his rivals as the "anti-project" candidate and, indeed, has been critical of "constructive opposition" in the past. But now there is little difference between him and the likely alternatives, Campbell, Nick Harvey and Don Foster.
The future of the project is in the hands of Tony Blair, as it always has been. A Prime Minister with a three-figure majority pulls all the strings. He can govern with his party alone and he can almost certainly win another election with his party alone. But he can also build on his relationship with the Liberal Democrats. His intention is to continue wooing a party that forms an important part of his informal but increasingly mighty, anti-Tory coalition now running Britain.
But can he woo for much longer? As ever, the key is electoral reform - an issue that has all but died, with resuscitation awaiting a second term. The second term, however, may be too late. As Ashdown proclaims on Blair's behalf in the Balkans and his potential successors squabble over the party's relations with Labour, a new report from the independent Constitution Unit has sent a dramatic warning shot across all their bows.
It argues convincingly that the introduction of a new voting system will take at least four years , starting with the enabling legislation for the referendum and ending with the parties' new candidate-selection arrangements. It would be difficult enough anyway to introduce a new system within a single parliamentary term. What will make it even more difficult in a second Labour term is that the government's first priority will be to hold a single currency referendum. The Unit suggests, therefore, that the only realistic option would be a plebiscite on electoral reform during the first term, in the winter of 2000-01. Yet there is no way that Blair would risk a divisive plebiscite then, months before the election campaign is scheduled to get under way. For the same reason, he is highly unlikely to hold it on the day of the election. The report points out also that, with a wider campaign going on, voters wouldn't get much information about electoral reform.
Ashdown can sound increasingly ministerial in the Balkans, Kennedy and co can debate the nature of the relationship, and Blair can throw more symbolic gifts their way. Electoral reform seems as far away as ever.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
