Memo to all: just toe the party line
Published 29 November 1999
Parties are back in fashion. I am not referring to social gatherings such as those hosted by Lord Archer, in which champagne and shepherd's pie are served to grateful Tories. In recent days, these have probably gone out of fashion. It is the political party that is enjoying a new and unexpected lease of life. The contest to become mayor of London, which in theory should have propelled individuals above their parties, is the main reason why.
For a long time, Tony Blair seemed indifferent to the rigidities of party allegiances. After all, he had his " big tent" in which politicians from all parties were welcome. Chris Patten and Lord Wakeham have had much more impact on government policy than most Labour MPs. Blair has also worked closely with leading Liberal Democrats.
Like a magician, he has waved his wand and political opponents have no longer seemed trapped by their parties. It goes without saying that the magician did not feel greatly constrained by his own party, either. Hardly surprising, then, if Blair was also keen on the idea of mayors who could offer dynamic leadership transcending party ties.
But precisely the opposite has happened. The Labour row over the mayor centred on whether Ken Livingstone would abide by the party's manifesto for London. As Livingstone mischievously pointed out, members of the selection panel were foaming at the mouth over a document that has yet to be written. But Blairite indignation was not entirely staged. At the general election, Labour proposed a public/private partnership for the Tube. The detailed plans have now been passed into legislation. However misguided, it has always been the case that the London mayor would inherit the government's financial structure for the Tube. Flexibility for the party's mayoral candidates has never been on offer. The candidates are standing for office as representatives of the Labour Party, not as individuals with their own ideas and programme. Blair has become a party man. As he put it himself with some passion on the day Livingstone was finally allowed to throw his cap in the ring: "I'm Labour . . . I'm Labour through and through."
So no individualism for Livingstone (if Blair can avoid it). Likewise, if Archer thought he was standing as a charismatic individual, he knows better now. He has not just lost the candidacy, but the party whip as well. We await news of his expulsion from the party after a meeting with its elusive ethics committee. Indeed, each time I switch on the radio I expect to hear of the latest punishment meted out to him by the Conservative leadership. "We have just heard that William Hague has ordered a ban on Lord Archer's books in libraries run by Conservative councils . . . later in the programme the party chairman tells us why he believes Lord Archer should lose both his legs, and possibly his arms as well, for letting the party down."
Anyone wishing to be Archer's successor may be summoned before the ethics committee as well. The committee has never met before. Now it seems as if it will be meeting in a continuous session between now and the general election. "Virginia Bottomley, is it true that you ate one of your husband's sandwiches during a picnic on holiday in the Isle of Wight in 1984?" Goodness knows what they will ask Steve Norris, who would make an excellent candidate if he can pass the Tories' ethics test.
The Conservative leadership is overcompensating. It made a huge blunder over Archer; now it feels obliged to appear purer than pure. This will place huge pressures on some of those in the party who seek top jobs. How many of us have absolutely nothing to hide? Only such a person need apply for high-profile posts in the Conservative Party.
Hague is being blamed for the Archer candidacy, but like all the bizarre events that have enlivened political life in recent years, the party itself is at fault. What other party, for example, could force a ruling prime minister to resign the leadership, or to produce a " dream ticket" in the form of Ken Clarke and John Redwood in a later leadership campaign? In the current farce, the party adored Archer, as did Thatcher and Major, who formally endorsed his candidacy. Hague was in too weak a position to do anything about it.
Now he will ensure that whoever is the new candidate conforms in every way to the wishes of the national party leadership. This has become a test of his leadership, in the same way that Blair is under pressure to deliver a candidate close to his liking. The Tories' mayoral candidate will not be putting him- or herself -forward on the basis of individual appeal. The person will be approved by the party, espousing always the party line.
These developments reflect a wider return to tribal instincts. When Paddy Ashdown revealed on Radio 4 the other day that a coalition government was a serious possibility on two occasions since the election, the words had a historic ring about them, as if time had moved on. I have always had my doubts about whether Blair really wanted a coalition in any circumstances except a minority government. Now Blair has his reservations about Charles Kennedy, who himself is more wary about cuddling up to Labour as the next election approaches.
As for the pro-European Tories, they have promised not to appear with Blair on a platform before the election. Their leader clicked his fingers and they obeyed. There will be no schism in the Tory party.
For those who excitedly regarded the "Blair project" as the beginning of the end for the old party boundaries, the message is the same as it is to those who were looking forward to champagne with Jeffrey next month. The party's over. Or rather, a different sort of party is going with a swing once more.
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.
