So much to do, so little time

Philip Hollis / Rex Features

Nobody talks about reform more than Tony Blair. Talk is not enough

"REFLECT for a moment”, Gordon Brown thundered at delegates to this week's Labour Party conference, “on the talent wasted...the great music never composed, the great art never created, the great science never invented, the great books never written.” The chancellor's desire to nurture all of the potential of all of the people is a wonderful thing, no doubt. But Britain would settle for much less from its government - children taught, patients treated, a pensions system that works. Yet, such is the record of Tony Blair's government, and the whiff of fin de regime in the air in Brighton this week, that even this is in question and no amount of vaulting ambition could conceal it.

In his own speech at Brighton, Mr Blair forsook the flourishes and blandishments that have characterised his rhetoric in the past. Step forward the “changemaker”, eager at the start of his third term to get stuck into the nitty-gritty of reform. That was good politics - and welcome contrast to Mr Brown's verbal karate ()see page 35. But it left hanging over Mr Blair one promise and two questions that will define the time remaining to him as prime minister.

The promise was Mr Blair's pledge before May's election that he would quit at some - unspecified - point in this term. It was born of weakness, when he had to pacify a rebellious chancellor who had begun to doubt that he would ever grasp the prize of becoming prime minister. The concession bought Mr Brown's co-operation, but only four months after Labour's third victory it has become a liability.

Other countries, such as America, manage just fine limiting the careers of their rulers. But in Britain, where Margaret Thatcher and Churchill hung on until they were an embarrassment to their parties, it is an experiment - and an awkward one, because unlike George Bush, Mr Blair knows full well that his successor is sitting in the house next door. And because everybody else knows that, too, this week's conference left Mr Blair open to two awkward questions.

The uses of power

The first of these - how long can he remain prime minister? - is the one that captured the headlines. But it is the wrong question, because nobody really knows when Mr Blair will go - and he would be wise to keep it that way. Will Iraq send him packing, or next year's local elections, or his tenth anniversary as prime minister in 2007? The scheming and rivalry between the two men who have formed the most potent partnership in modern British political history have fed a small industry of comment and speculation. The prospect of his departure has given a new piquancy to the parlour game that has captivated metropolitan dinner tables for the past five years.

The second question - what can Mr Blair do with the time that is left? - is the one that matters. Mr Blair has been brilliant at winning and keeping power. His knack for dominating the centre-ground has been abetted by a self-destructive opposition. The country has suffered from Labour's hegemony. Unchallenged, his government has squandered its advantages. He frittered away his first term; in his second he spent huge sums on the public services without extracting enough concessions from workers; and over the past year he has developed an unhealthy habit of putting off difficult but much-needed reforms, whether curbing the over-generous pensions of public-sector workers or recasting local-government finances. Even Mr Blair seemed to acknowledge as much this week, when he said he regretted not taking reform further.

Those words were needed. Yet mere words from someone who finds them so easy to come by will not cut much ice. Mr Blair also needs to be seen doing something for the country - which, incidentally, would benefit his own political legacy. That means he must change his style of government.

Lessons from Maggie

His first task is to deal with Mr Brown. Cabinet ministers who have in the past looked to Mr Blair will now be planning how to carry out a deft switch of allegiance. The chancellor will want influence over the ministries so as to reach agreement with Mr Blair over reforms whose consequences will be felt throughout his own time as prime minister.

But Mr Brown is less strong than he might seem. As the economy weakens, the case for tax rises grows ()see page 27. Moreover, the would-be prime minister can ill afford a messy transition. The chief lesson of Lady Thatcher's political demise is that parties which assassinate their leaders become introspective and factional - and develop a taste for regicide. Voters don't like that. Mr Brown's people will be awkward, but Mr Blair will be able to call his chancellor's bluff because open warfare in the Labour Party harms his inheritance more than the prime minister's legacy.

Mr Blair's other task - to change his style of government - will be harder. He is a political opportunist with a short attention span. Roy Jenkins once compared his government to a lighthouse, “its revolving beam alighting for a time on this issue or that before moving on to the next”. A man always looking to the opinion polls or the forthcoming election could not afford to overlook an attention-grabbing idea, a master plan for European economic renewal, say, or a dialogue between Islam and the West.

Now that Mr Blair no longer faces re-election, the time for grand gestures is past. The jaded electorate has tired of extravagant promises and, even if he could convince voters of his sincerity, time is short. Mr Blair has only a year or so to make progress before the whispers mount again and so he must pick his fights and doggedly pursue them. That means, for example, forsaking illusions that he can put Britain in the European vanguard by pursuing joint reform with France and Germany.

Instead, Mr Blair should do as he says for once and get down to the hard slog of reforming education, bringing more of the market to health care, providing a coherent energy policy and reforming pensions. For a man who wants to save the world that seems a bit modest. But it is what Britain needs and what, after eight years in office, Mr Blair has failed to do.