If ministers believe voters' lives would be harmed by a change in government, they could rectify the problem: behave better

It has become a mantra of some in new Labour that there are two types of politics - the obsessions of the Westminster village, and bread-and-butter issues that affect real people. The former comprises the cash-for-honours scandal, Iraq, Trident and freedom of information; the latter consists of schools, hospitals and welfare. Indeed, Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, used his turn in our series of deputy leadership interviews to suggest that NS readers lived in an effete and rarefied world where politics was pure sport, and where the outcome of elections made little material difference.

One really does wonder about these people who have grown so comfortable with power. Ministers are right to project the achievements in public services during Tony Blair's ten years. Record levels of investment have all but wiped out hospital waiting lists and led to a broad, if patchy, improvement across the NHS. Performance in schools is better, even if parents panic about secondary-school places and communities worry about the dislocation of a small but significant group of young people. The number of children and pensioners in poverty has dropped sharply, even if social mobility has fallen back and relative inequality is accentuated by the hideous excesses of the super-rich.

Tony Blair and his people have a point when they say one should see the glass as half full. They should practise what they preach. If this government had been more candid about its often stealthy intentions, about arguing the case for taxes as a lever for social cohesion, one would have less reason to cavil.

And yet, for all the achievements listed by Hazel Blears in our interview (page 12), the mood in the Labour Party is glum. The polls point to a sustained lead for David Cameron's Conservatives, who, as our political editor points out on page 11, are being indulged by the media, desperate for a change of scene. Most dispiriting, however, is the inability of senior figures in this government to tackle the major problems - or even to acknowledge them.

Trident is not a peripheral issue. Any government that is willing to spend tens of billions of pounds on a nuclear deterrent without being able to identify an enemy is unworthy of respect. Iraq is not a peripheral issue. It will define Blair's legacy, but more to the point, as Andrew Stephen reports (page 26), it has not just destroyed countless lives, it has dealt a severe blow to the US economy (and one assumes the British, although the figures are harder to come by).

As for the loans scandal, the NS makes no apology for the many columns we have devoted to it. Government is about trust and probity. One doesn't need Scotland Yard's uncovering of documents, as Blair's acolytes incriminate each other, to know that this Labour government has abased itself in its dealings with often unsavoury business interests. If these same ministers believe their voters' lives would be harmed by a change in government, they could rectify the problem quickly: they could behave better. That means opposing bad policy and not indulging in greed.

All the while, Gordon Brown sits on his hands, keeps his counsel and waits. The promised open debate about the party's future has yet to begin. The nearest approximation has been our deputy leadership interviews. The six contenders have provided an intriguing, but often dispiriting, insight into the talent pool for a job that could become important.

Jon Cruddas has thought the most about a radical new path, but he may not receive the required nominations; Peter Hain was forthright, but he must reconcile his words with his own timid performance on Iraq. Harriet Harman's good instincts are blunted by an excess of caution. A similar assessment applies to Hilary Benn. Blears would be a jolly cheerleader, but the party needs more. Johnson's dismissiveness was the biggest disappointment.

We have yet to be persuaded by any of the candidates, and hope for more spirited interventions in coming months. Sleaze, Iraq and Trident are bread-and-butter issues, too - it is because of them that trust in this government is being eroded, and the lives of "real voters" will suffer as a result.

Renaissance and re-education

As the Prime Minister delivered his speech on "the value of culture" to a crowd of adoring luvvies at Tate Modern, it was almost possible to imagine him doing very nicely as an arts impresario after leaving office. He waxed lyrical about the genius of Picasso, and even outlined his theory on the artistic imagination ("great art comes from people who are prepared to think differently").

The NS is not in the habit of bolstering Tony Blair's already ample self-esteem, but with respect to the British arts, he has good reason to feel rather pleased with himself. In the years since he entered office, the country has experienced an impressive artistic renaissance, in no small part due to brave and far-sighted government thinking. The policy of free entry to museums and galleries has revitalised their role in public life. Developments such as the Sage Gateshead have helped to regenerate the regions, and London is one of the world's most creative capitals. The arts represent one of new Labour's most significant successes.

So it is a pity that the PM went on to mention that he'd been chatting about art with "my friend - a musician". The only musicians seen consorting with Blair since the halcyon days of Cool Britannia have been Cliff Richard and the Bee Gees' Robin Gibb. This by no means cancels out the achievements of his government, but we can't help observing that the PM himself could do with some artistic re-education.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website