Jack Straw is something of a novelty in this government. Whatever is happening around him, he looks as if he is enjoying himself. Even rarer, he gives the impression of thinking for himself. Admittedly, he is rather fortunate in that most of his thoughts chime with Tony Blair's, but this is a genuine coincidence rather than contrived sycophancy. As much as anyone can be in this tightly controlled administration, Straw is his own man.
Again, it helps that he has not had large chunks of his agenda torpedoed by youthful policy advisers in Downing Street. Most of the time, he knows he is carrying out their wishes, although not always. There are cries of impatient anger at the Home Office, as there are in other departments, as ministers await the verdict from No 10 on every small detail of policy. Sometimes, there is a further cry of anguish when the verdict returns. The Home Office, for example, did not want to take on the Lords over whether the mayoral candidates should be allowed to distribute some campaigning material free of charge. Downing Street, with Ken Livingstone in mind, insisted that ministers should fight the parliamentary battle. The Home Office lost, as it knew it would.
Most of the time, though, Straw is a minister at ease with himself, which is fairly remarkable given the battering he has received over the past few months. Bill Morris, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, is only the latest to take a swipe. His particular onslaught was more keenly felt, as Morris has become an ardent government loyalist. Normally, if he has any criticisms, they are expressed privately. Trying to get Morris to comment publicly on welfare reform is as challenging as persuading Michael Portillo to say what he really thinks about William Hague. But when it came to Straw, Morris could not bite his tongue.
The ongoing row over asylum-seekers was preceded by equally passionate onslaughts in the media over Straw's approach to freedom of information. We know how John Prescott would have responded to such a mauling. When the Deputy Prime Minister has a rough time in the newspapers, he hits the roof. Straw remains calm and polite.
Yet Straw, in spite of the attacks, is in many ways a decent, progressive Home Secretary. He came across extremely well, for example, in a late-night Commons debate on asylum-seekers that was held the day before Morris intervened. Even Diane Abbott praised his speech. Straw condemned the use of emotive language and did not in any way attempt to "out-Howard Michael Howard". Rather, he told Howard that his proposals risked "putting more than 14,000 people on the streets with nowhere to live, nothing to eat and no warmth".
In private, ministers testify, also, to Straw's determined tolerance towards race. I am told, for example, that Stephen Lawrence's father often phones the Home Office; and, in spite of a hectic schedule, Straw takes the calls personally whenever he can.
Then again, when the Home Secretary has had some new tough measure or statement to make on asylum-seekers, or any law and order issue, he tells the Daily Mail first. He has pursued this presentational technique ever since he became shadow home secretary, taking over from Tony Blair, in 1994. Morris is more likely to form his impression on the basis of what he reads in the Mail than a late-night Commons debate that has received no publicity until now.
There are two possible outcomes to Straw's political positioning. The government could get credit for a progressive approach to race, while limiting the scope of the Tories to make grotesque mischief, and Straw could please nearly everyone - which is evidently the strategic aim. Alternatively, he could fall between two stools, and alienate nearly everyone. With Morris and others attacking from within and the Tories and the Mail leading the onslaught from the opposite direction, the latter seems quite likely.
Straw has fallen between another pair of stools over his plans for freedom of information. He has been pilloried for the paucity of information that will be made available without getting any credit for implementing legislation that still has some radical initiatives.
His draft bill was only an opening bargaining position. Since its publication, he has made some significant concessions. There was one remarkable occasion recently when Straw conducted what was, in effect, a seminar with MPs. By the end, Straw had agreed greatly to constrain his proposed ministerial veto on the supply of some information.
The Labour MP Mark Fisher, a critic of Straw's bill, observed at the time: "He has moved a great deal and it has been an extraordinary experience for the House to see a Home Secretary reshaping a central part of the bill while on his feet and doing so with considerable confidence." It was an impressive parliamentary performance.
But did anyone notice? Was anyone meant to notice? Is the government progressive in the Commons in order to reassure one part of its core constituency, and reactionary in the Mail to reassure the other part?
The tactical advantages of such an inclusive style are obvious, as Labour's still-high opinion-poll ratings show. As time goes on, though, the government also risks falling between stools, just as Jack Straw has done in recent months. On Europe, to take one of several possible examples, ministers try and please nearly everybody and risk pleasing virtually nobody.
Even with the next election moving into view, they could be bolder and proclaim their boldness more openly. If Straw had done so, he might have enjoyed himself even more in recent months.
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.
