Suggestions that the government is arrogant will surely be laid to rest after recent events. Why, for example, would a lofty, imperious Prime Minister spend so much of his time contemplating a coalition with another party? Such conversations with Paddy Ashdown were based on the premise, which is difficult to challenge, that more often than not, Labour loses elections. Perhaps, at some future date, the two parties of the centre left will need to dance together in order to keep out the one party that tends to win elections in conservative old Britain.
And now we have the latest example of a policy to be ditched as politically dangerous. Railtrack, the least popular of the privatised industries, will not be able to get its incompetent hands on the London Underground after all. A less pragmatic government would have proceeded with such a policy come what may, but at the first whiff of trouble this administration pulls back.
The press release from John Prescott's department was as understated as many of the government's incremental announcements are overblown. You will struggle to find the revolutionary ardour that pervades most ministerial releases in the following words: "The government, Railtrack and London Transport have agreed not to proceed with discussions about the possibility of Railtrack taking on responsibility for upgrading and maintaining the sub-surface Tube lines and linking them to the national railway network."
As far as Railtrack is concerned, the revolution is on hold. The genius who wrote this press release could have at least placed an asterisk at the end of that opening sentence, signalling a footnote for those who sought further clarification: *Vote Frank Dobson.
For the timing of the announcement is entirely related to Labour's mayoral race. In the summer of this year, John Prescott announced that Railtrack would have until March 2000 to come up with its proposals for the Underground. Unfortunately for the company, Labour Party members will not vote for a candidate until February. Goodbye Railtrack.
Margaret Thatcher would not have bade farewell so quickly. Famously, she sought "solutions" from her ministers, rather than "problems". In such an atmosphere her courtiers were frightened to warn of the dangers arising from increasingly far-fetched policies. The opposite is true of Tony Blair. He is surrounded by people who warn of potential problems. Philip Gould heads for Downing Street each week with the latest findings from his focus groups. Alastair Campbell is there to remind the Prime Minister of what the Mail and the Sun would make of any policy initiative. Gordon Brown pops round to warn him that nothing must be done to disturb the confidence of the markets. Labour Party headquarters is rarely off the phone raising the spectre of mighty Red Ken towering over London. With warnings everywhere, the scope for solutions is a little on the limited side.
As a result of all these people running around in a frenzy, we have the most sensible government in decades. They can spot a trouble-making policy a mile off. Railtrack had become a liability: entirely sensibly, the policy was dumped.
Sometimes the sensible approach can have silly consequences, though. Prescott blames the delay in tackling "transport" on the very focus groups that are supposed to keep the government in touch. In an interview this summer, given once Blair was safely in Tuscany, he condemned Gould for advising that transport was of no great concern to his focus groups.
You can bet the subject is high up their list of concerns now, but a more confident government would have acted without waiting for the green light from Middle England. Even now, the policies are a muddled attempt to keep everyone happy. One moment Prescott rightly proclaims that congestion-charging to pay for better public transport is a radical initiative. The next a motorists' summit is reassured that congestion-charging will not be in place until public transport has been improved. But wasn't the congestion-charging meant to pay for the improvements? Even then, there will be no such charges without local referendums - and not until after the election. More policies and fewer summits might start to address the crisis.
The whole mess over the London Underground, which is such a gift to Ken Livingstone, follows a similar, messy pattern. Quite rightly Prescott realised that action was required for the Underground immediately after the election. But Gordon Brown was busy proving his prudence in those early years.
There was not going to be much money for the Underground from the Iron Chancellor. So Prescott went to the private sector in search of cash and came upon the ever eager Railtrack. No doubt he will resume his search once more. Indeed, he has no choice as the public-private partnership is still in place.
A bolder government, with its landslide majority and healthy economy, would have pumped money into the Tube immediately after the election to tackle the short-term crisis, brought in a competent management team and then given responsibility to the Greater London Authority for the long-term financial structure.
That way poor old Frank Dobson would not have to pretend to agree with every dot and comma being imposed from the centre. As matters stand, the mayor will acquire the responsibility for a structure that he or she did not devise.
The government's cautious instincts guard against terrible cock-ups. They also prevent it from rising to the challenge of an appalling transport crisis. For those of us in traffic jams or crammed on to overpriced trains, the government has been nowhere near arrogant enough.
