With less than two weeks to go, it seems that only about half the membership of the Tory party has cast its vote for a new leader. One can only assume they don't understand the question.
They'd better hurry up. With the onset of winter, the spectre of bird flu and the shortage of suitable vaccines, the party's core support - the elderly - could soon be decimated. Perhaps the quality they most need in a leader is the ability to kill a chicken with his bare hands. That would be David Davis, then.
During my current tour show, I have a section where members of the audience submit questions, the idea being to get into some of the subjects we cover in Bremner, Bird and Fortune which don't lend themselves easily to stand-up. Asked how I voted in 1997, I began with my stock response that to vote against Tony Blair that year would have been to vote against hope. But then the parallels struck me. Back then, the Conservative government had grown tired and fractious, with a significant minority determined to bring the leadership to heel. Ministerial resignations and minor scandals had given an impression of sleaze and complacency, and people felt powerless in the face of creeping privatisation and market forces. Things could only get better, we were told. As it is, we should perhaps console ourselves that whereas it took
the Tories 18 years to get to the state they reached in 1997, Labour has managed it in eight.
I wonder what Blair makes of the Israeli premier Ariel Sharon's latest wheeze: to give up on his recalcitrant party and create a new one. ("What a great idea! Why didn't I think of that?") In seeking new partners, he could even give David Cameron a call, since the Tory hopeful has shown a willingness to support Blair's reforms, rather than oppose them for the sake of opposition. (Where's the point in that? They're Conservative reforms anyway, and supporting Blair against his party is by far the most effective tactic the opposition has at its disposal. When it comes to annoying Blair's backbenchers, nothing else comes close.)
In any case, such is the identity of interest between Cameron and Blair that they could happily coexist as party leaders, both competing for the centre-right ground. The differences between the two would be largely reduced to marketing, with each vying to come up with an attractive gimmick to win new supporters. There would be no need for an election: changing governments would become like changing your utility supplier. ("Simply log on to cheapergovernment.com and see how much YOU could save!")
David Walliams recently confirmed that Sebastian Love, the gay adviser in Little Britain with a crush on the Prime Minister, was inspired by Peter Mandelson. (No! Really?) But it struck me that the relationship between Tony Blair and David Blunkett has come to resemble that between two other Little Britain characters: Lou, the gullible carer, and Andy, the able-bodied slob in a wheelchair who endlessly exploits him. (Blair: "Right, David, sorry about your job. We'd better find a new house for you. Have you seen one you like?" Blunkett: "I want that one." Blair: "What about a new job for you? How about something in Europe?" Blunkett: "I want that one.") I have a picture in my mind of the Prime Minister speaking fulsomely to reporters about Blunkett's integrity and courage in overcoming adversity, while behind his back we see Blunkett tearing off his clothes and running into Annabel's, emerging a few seconds later to take up his place at the PM's side before Blair, none the wiser, has finished speaking.
Politicians under fire from all sides are often tempted to go for what's called "The Nuclear Option". With his newfound espousal of nuclear power, the PM appears to have taken this literally. It's already become something of a pattern that if Labour is against something, Blair pronounces himself strongly in favour, but this is bold even by his standards. After all, we're talking about a source of power that has caused innumerable deaths abroad, has unpredictable consequences, takes years to decommission, and leaves a legacy that costs billions. And the same is true of nuclear power.
