The Archbishop of Canterbury had made a dramatic political intervention. There will be some who will say that politics are nothing to do with the church, but they would be wrong. Under our constitution, the Church of England is one of the pillars of the state and central to the monarchy. For centuries religion was politics. In more recent times senior clerics have tended to comment on the social issues of the day, which though political, are seen more as giving voice to the national conscience. Dr. Williams’ intervention is not of that category.
He makes, instead, a real and valid point about the workings of our democracy and the relationship between the electors and the elected in a modern world. In that world, bound by the notions of contract and fair marketing, it is no longer appropriate to elect private members of the House of Commons, who do as they think best. It is now expected that the Members of Parliament of each political party will do as they individually and collectively promised.
Leeway is given for adjustment to events. Even so, if promises are rashly made and abandoned because of events, the political cost is high, as the Lib Dems have found. Dr. Williams goes further. The essence of part of his argument, is that little or nothing was said about key elements of both health and education reforms in the election campaign, yet so radical are some of these, that they must have been known beforehand. In commercial terms such marketing is deemed misleading and is illegal. In politics it abuses the principles of modern, inclusive, democracy.
From the very beginning of the coalition government, this blog has been against ideologically driven reforms, whilst the financial crisis is in being. The government has a clear mandate to set the economy right and anything, however nasty, that falls within reasonable understanding of that remit, has, still, majority public support. Within that framework there will be need to reform, simply in order to make less money do more in order to maintain services and provision. Because of Blair’s regret at not starting politically driven reforms earlier in his premiership, Cameron was determined to get stuck in at once. However Blair and Brown inherited an economy well on the mend, not one technically bust. Brown dined in the City talking of prudence; Osborne has had to talk of survival. This is a very different climate.
Although this Blog has been outspoken in its criticism of the NHS (the latest in the last post) and supports the thrust of the proposed reforms, I, like everyone, was astonished when they were announced, as they flew in the face of everything the Tories had been saying, or appeared to be saying, during the election campaign. Had they stood alone, they may have got through. Coupled with everything else subject to u-turns and re-thinks ordered by the Prime Minister, this raises not only the concerns so aptly voiced by the Archbishop, but the narrow political question: does Cameron know what he is doing? The Tories know for sure they are not led by another Thatcher. They are beginning to fear their Prime Minister may be another Heath.
What impact this will have remains to be seen. Labour will be heartened, especially after it and its economist toadies were slapped down by the IMF. The coalition itself must press forward with a clearer vision of what is feasible before intentions are announced. The political capital to fund any more u-turns has run out. Indeed the government is already in political overdraft. It must pay back by delivering real improvements in the areas of controversy, so that it is forgiven for its failure to explain, on the grounds that it did the right thing. Failure to do this will meet a harsh outcome when the day of judgement comes. Governments of every stripe and record have to face the electors eventually.