TONY BLAIR’S political future depends on him adopting the maxim of a man who died more than 400 years ago. John Heywood was a musician, playwright and singer at the court of Henry VIII, then that of Mary I.
His real claim to fame comes from a book — The Proverbs of John Heywood — published in 1546, in which he carefully collected, perhaps coined and then shamelessly publicised phrases popular at the time. One of these was: “No man ought to look a geuen hors in the mouth” (it probably sounded better in Tudor English). Its modern rendition is the saying: “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.”
Mr Blair could do with such an equine present at the moment. When it comes to his plans for schools, a large number of his own MPs must seem to him like clapped-out old nags whom he would whisk off to the political knacker’s yard if he was given half an opportunity.
That the forthcoming education Bill is based squarely on explicit references in the Labour Party manifesto, 2005 (pages 35-37 — it may be a long and dull document but there is no excuse for not reading it) seems immaterial.
Mr Blair faces an axis of the three Ds consisting of the disaffected (who have never approved of him anyway), the dismissed (those whom he removed from office) and the dogmatic (others, including, lamentably, former leader Neil Kinnock, whose bizarre attachment to comprehensive education, despite the evidence, overrides their reasoning).
Advertisement
The Prime Minister has tried his best to persuade them. Scores of backbenchers have been invited to Downing Street and spoken to sweetly. Vera, the legendary No 10 tea lady, has plied them with her finest fare and produced the chocolate biscuits. It has made no difference.
It will be a miracle if fewer than 50 Labour MPs either vote against Mr Blair or, at best, abstain on this measure. Indeed, the number of defectors may well be double that. Even I, who attended an English comprehensive 25 years ago, can work out that with a majority of just 66 seats the numbers are not with the Prime Minister. He cannot pass this legislation on the basis of Labour votes alone. At least, not at a price he should consider worth paying.
The supposed “compromise” that is on offer to Mr Blair would, in reality, call for his abject surrender. His plan, designed to allow schools more autonomy and diversity, would be replaced by one in which they were placed in new, more restrictive shackles. Their independence would be subject to the mercies of the local education authorities (LEAs). The “trust” in what Mr Blair calls “trust schools” would change its meaning entirely. To rely on the LEAs to promote independence in the secondary sector would be absurd — rather like founding a militant Heterosexuals Only Society and then asking the Liberal Democrats to administer it. There is no way that Mr Blair can concede an inch more to his critics.
Which is where the gift horse comes cantering into the picture. David Cameron does not resemble anything that might run in the 3.15 at Doncaster. Nor is the Tory leader long in the tooth and requiring that close inspection of the mouth that the proverb abjures against. Despite everything, though, Mr Cameron seems desperate to embrace the Prime Minister on the subject of education. He could not have made that more plain if he had sneaked into the House of Commons and Superglued himself inside the Aye lobby.
Mr Blair remains impervious and is reported to be reluctant to abandon his efforts to reconcile the irreconcilable and rely on the backing of the Tories. There are three possible explanations for this. The first, which comes from the Whips Office, is that such an alliance would be unnatural. The second is the fear of “Doublecross Dave” — Mr Cameron might seize upon a technicality late in the day and leave Mr Blair in parliamentary quicksand. The third is that, while the Bill might be enacted, any informal deal would have “severe consequences later”.
Advertisement
I cannot believe that the Prime Minister is especially impressed by either the first or the last of these arguments. He is not a tribal politician by instinct. He has scant interest in the black arts of party discipline. That there might be “severe consequences later” is speculation. Besides which, the “severe consequence” Mr Blair must avoid is the emasculation of legislation that he rightly thinks is in the national interest. Anyway, at this stage in his tenure, he can afford to be relaxed about “later”.
But what of “Doublecross Dave”? Is this a gift horse or a Trojan nag parked at his gates? That, one senses, is what is really troubling the Prime Minister. He should, on this, have more faith in his Tory rival. Mr Cameron has knowingly painted himself into a corner. He has calculated, correctly, that he cannot achieve power without recasting Conservatives as reasonable and responsible. The education Bill is the perfect vehicle for that repositioning.
Mr Cameron cannot be seen as duplicating the shallow opportunism that allowed the Tories, disgracefully, to stand against the introduction of top-up fees to finance the universities. This is one gift horse that is determined to be led to water and drink everything in front of it (no more extended horse metaphors, I promise). There will be no “Doublecross Dave” on this issue.
Mr Blair does not have to care for Mr Cameron’s motives to accept advantage from them. Nor should he enter into negotiations with him. The Prime Minister simply needs to stick with the scheme that he has laid out for schools and anticipate that a “coalition of the willing” will be forthcoming. What matters, as he is fond of stating, is what works. An ad hoc coalition will work in this instance. Another of John Heywood’s phrases (later borrowed by William Shakespeare) is appropriate for the occasion. It reads: “All’s well that ends well.”