And another thing…

A NIGHTMARE! The evil Baron Cameronstein in hellish communion with four of his predecessors.

At the risk of sounding like an American, happy Hallowe’en…

TODAY is a big day in the calendar of British Conservatives — the 30th anniversary of the last time their party moved from opposition to government.

But going by most of the coverage in the blogscape, you could be forgiven for believing that today is a religious festival: The Feast of the Ascension of the Blessed Margaret might be an appropriate name. 

This is a revealing time for David Cameron’s party; the economic crisis has given them the opportunity to revert to type: the sighs of relief from Central Office were almost audible when they were released from their commitments to match Labour spending plans and were able to revert to their default position of slashing public spending, particularly the budgets of the hated public sector.

And today’s anniversary exposes the Tories as unapologetic adherents to a political philosophy which was so divisive that Tory MPs themselves were forced to bring it to a dramatic end.

If the Conservatives were to win the next general election, Cameron’s premiership would be judged — at least by his own party — by how closely he aped his esteemed predecessor’s values and style. If his claims to represent a “new” form of “compassionate” Conservatism turn out to be true, he will be found wanting by his party, just as John Major was. 

Meanwhile, today is an appropriate time to challenge the Thatcher worshippers on an overlooked conundrum: if Thatcher’s philosophy really did change the country irreversibly for the better, why do so many of her worshippers followers adherents supporters now believe that Britain, after 12 years of a Labour government, is the worst place in the world to live, variously comparing it (laughably) to Zimbabwe and Soviet-era Russia? Were the Iron Lady’s reforms so insubstantial, transient and superficial that they left no long-lasting footprint on the political, social or economic landscape?

GIVEN the anti-politics culture prevailing at the moment, many readers of this blog will undoubtedly rub their hands in glee at Trevor Phillips’ suggestion that MPs should be forced to retire from the Commons after four terms.

He plans to present the idea to the Speaker’s Conference where, I trust, it will receive the serious consideration it deserves and be binned. 

Term limits are fundamentally anti-democratic and the satisfaction that some would have at seeing the forced departure of this or that politician they dislike would be tempered, I hope, with the realisation that such decisions should be left to the electorate and the electorate alone.

The only reason that US presidents are limited to two terms is that Franklin D. Roosevelt went and got himself elected four times by the American public, the cheeky scamp! His detractors believed that allowing the public a say in who should lead their country was undemocratic, so while Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, was in office, they passed the 22nd amendment to the US constitution to make sure the electorate would never again have the chance to vote for a president on more than two consecutive occasions.

I know Phillips’ motives are decent, and I have no suggestion for alternative ways to clear the way for more black and ethnic minorities to enter the Commons. But limiting the number of times an MP could stand would be just silly.

Just think: if we’d had a four-term limit since the end of the Second World War, we would have been deprived of the premierships of Attlee, Churchill (second time round), Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Heath, Calaghan, Thatcher, and Brown.

We would, however, still have had Alec Douglas-Home, John Major and Tony Blair (although he would have been forced to retire from the Commons at the 2001 election).

Silly idea, Trev. Sorry.

FORMER political leaders should command a certain respect, even from those who opposed them during their time in office.

I did not, and do not, like Margaret Thatcher, but I can nevertheless admit to respecting, even admiring her. I respect anyone who has had the skill to reach the highest (indirectly) elected office in the land, whatever their party.

With one exception.

Because I’m finding it awfully difficult to feel any respect for John Major these days. Every time he opens his mouth it is to criticise his successor(s). Maybe I’m old fashioned but shouldn’t former PMs be statesmanlike?

He was at it again today, criticising the government’s economic policy. I’ll say that again for those of you who are unable to suspend disbelief: John Major is criticising the government’s economic policy.

Yeah, I know.

The man who, as chancellor, pressured Margaret Thatcher into joining the euro European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) at an unsustainable rate, the man who then, as prime minister, presided over the chaos of Black Wednesday, the man who led his party to its greatest electoral defeat in nearly a century… is criticising the government’s economic policy.

What a joke. The man’s got no class.

Can you imagine Tony Blair behaving like that – touring the studios, pathetically eager for someone to pay him some attention?

I guess he’s still bitter, and no-one can blame him for that. But it’s bad form for former prime ministers to behave as a second rate attack dog – leave that to back bench bloggers and nurture your legacy…

John Major's proudest achievement. Yet, unbelievably, he still lost!

I BOUGHT a house in 1992. Bad move. Long story. The best fixed-rate deal I could get was 9.9 per cent for five years. I remember the figures well because a month later, despite the then prime minister’s promise that the UK would never leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

So while everyone else’s mortgage interest rates were falling, mine stayed the same. That’s what happens when you trust the word of a Tory prime minister, I guess, so it served me right.

Now, I can see the comments already: “John Smith and the Labour Party supported Major’s ERM policy at the time…”. Yes they did. And they were wrong. But it was Major’s policy and Major’s responsibility. And Black Wednesday was his, his chancellor’s and his chancellor’s special advisor’s legacy.

The Bank of England base rate today is five per cent. Mortgage rates paid by home owners today are far, far lower than anything experienced during the Tories’ wasted years. Times are very difficult for those hoping to move house (and let’s face it: most of the criticism of yesterday’s stamp duty announcement is based on the fact that it was announced by a Labour government). But we would be kidding ourselves if we claimed that things wouldn’t be an awful lot tougher if we were experiencing the kind of interest rates the Tories inflicted on us.

FOR the first time I can recall, former premier John Major has emerged into the daylight to say something not completely negative about one of his successors. I’ve been deeply unimpressed by JM’s occasional forays into public discourse because they were, until now, invariably negative and bitter about Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

He says GB has, in the past, received more praise than he deserved and is now receiving more criticism than he deserves. Perhaps he’s been put into a better mood by all those commentators and Tory politicians who have been trying to draw parallels between now and the dying years of Conservative government over which he presided. Pretty deluded stuff. Those tempted to draw too many conclusions should read Gyles Brandreth’s brilliant “Breaking the Code”, his Westminster diaries covering the years 1992 to 1997. Whatever difficulties the government is facing right now are as nothing compared with the disaster of the Tories under Major. Cheered me up no end.

Compare and contrast: this week, former prime minister Tony Blair appeared in front of a House of Commons select committee to report on his work as the Middle East envoy of the so-called “quartet” countries. He put in an impressive performance. And outside the committee room he offered only solid support to his successor as prime minister.

In today’s Times, former premier John Major is having another go at the government, this time over plans to extend pre-charge detention for suspected terrorists to 42 days. He says the measures “go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular – and no less violent – assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.”

Scaremongering. Hmm. I seem to remember the same accusation being made against those of us who, in the wake of 9/11, warned that a suicide attack on the London Underground was possible, or even likely. Scaremongering.

But whatever his utter failure to grasp the seriousness of the threat (he was probably too busy to notice that the 7/7 attacks on London claimed more lives than any single IRA act of terrorism in its history), the most disappointing aspect of Major’s post-No 10 life is how ungracious he has been. Somehow I expect former prime ministers to conduct themselves with some measure of dignity. Thatcher has done this, as did Jim Callagan. Ted Heath, not so much, but I like to think he was the exception to the rule.

So, okay, Major doesn’t like Blair or Brown. Blair gave him an electoral hiding in 1997, and I suppose that must be hard to forgive. But the only time we ever hear from him these days is when he wants to gripe about his successors in a nasty, partisan way. Not even remotely statesmanlike.

It would be impossible to imagine Major giving the kind of performance that Blair did in the committee room. And just as unlikely that he would have anything to say anyway, except, perhaps, more bitter criticisms of his political nemesis. Frankly, it’s pathetic.

You lost, John. Just accept it and get over it.