Issue 551 PDF - Varsity

16outlook interview18 January 2002focusfashion sciencewww.varsity.cam.ac.ukIn Deep ShitThe regretful but stalwart leader of thefloundering Tories talks candidly toSarah Brealey.Ifirst met IDS, as Iain Duncan-Smithhas christened himself, a year and ahalf ago, before the leadership campaignwas thought of, and I was profoundlyunimpressed. So I was interestedto see whether power had changedhim. He has shorter hair now, to matchhis new abbreviated soubriquet andstatesman-like role, but no more charisma.In fact, he doesn’t even sound animatedwhen talking about his wife andchildren. He says “Um” quite a lot,wrings his hands, and most of his sentencesare punctuated with “you know”,especially when I don’t. He doesn’t seemto enjoy his job very much, and speaksof his regrets about standing for election.But that’s not going to stop himgetting on with it.“I have regrets about it, but I just geton and do it now, you know. But at thetime, I had to consider it very carefullyindeed, which I did – I talked to myfamily about it, and it was only afterthey agreed that I finally decided to doit.”He adds that it took him a week and ahalf from Hague’s resignation to decideto run for leader. Hague himself saysthat his successor begged him to stay on,supporting Hague in his last momentsin a way he never did with Major.“I have regretsabout it, but I justget on and do it.”Hague returned the compliment,recently describing him as “honest, wellinformed,intelligent, thoughtful, hardworking and right about everything hespeaks about”. The two are in regular, ifnot frequent, contact: IDS says that theylast met “for a proper discussion” abouttwo weeks before this interview. Whatdo they talk about? One imagines it canonly be the horrors of the job, Hagueperhaps with a slight smile on his face ashe congratulates himself on being wellout of it.I ask what the factors for and againsthis decision were. “Against were theeffects on my family, and whether I reallywanted to do it. It’s a huge step andnow I’ve done it I realise what a hugestep it really was, and if I’d known then,“If you come intothis for money thenyou’re a mug.”I’m not sure…” He trails off, then continues,“It was a completely differentprocess from anything I’d done before inpolitics… I work more hours than I’veever worked in my life, and I don’t reallysee my family. It’s had a dramaticeffect on our lives.”He never gets as far as the reasons forhis decision, although John Major’sautobiography marked him out as“ambitious” some years ago. Heemphatically rules out any financialmotivation – “If you come into this formoneythen you’re a mug” – but doesn’t mentionanything else.The Labour Party calls him “WilliamHague without the charisma”. In fact,his cosmopolitan tastes, regular churchgoingand four children make him seemmore similar to Tony Blair. He drinksEarl Grey, shops in Austin Reed andmoves Tiffany & Co carrier bags out ofthe way for the photograph. UnlikeBlair, however, there have been nomedia-friendly pictures of him surroundedby an adoring family. “I don’twant my family involved at all, so I’vesaid there will be no pictures of them –which there haven’t been. It’s got nothingto do with them that I’m leader ofthe Conservative Party.” He makes itsound rather like a contagious disease.IDS came to politics late in life, onlybecoming an MP in 1992. Before thathe was in business, and before that inthe army. At times he seems to be visiblywishing he were still in such a regulatedenvironment, where orders arethere to be obeyed. “I think it’sdifficult to lead any politicalparty,” he says. “You’ve got abunch of people whocome here with hopesand aspirations andideas, who want topress their case(quite legitimately),so keeping theparty together isalways a difficultprocess.” Hedescribes the job as“a challenge”,adding, “I don’tthink anyone inthe world’s hadenough experience.”Despite this, he saysthat the ConservativeParty’s “fractious moment”is now over. “I think theparty has made a collectivedecision that it wants tofocus now on getting backinto power.” In response, Iask him about the complaintsof Lord Skidelsky, the formerConservative peer who recentlyleft for the cross-benches, that theparty is too dogmatic. He denies this,saying the reverse is true. “I think oneof the problems with the ConservativeParty is that it’s, more often than not,not dogmatic. The Conservative Party,ironically, has always been a fairlyloose collection of principles.” I amreminded of the words of Nick Kent,the man responsible for co-ordinatingKen Clarke’s rival leadershipbid, who described IDS’s victory asa choice of “ideological purityover electability”.Aware of the Euro’s potential tocontinue to divide the party,he has done his best tominimise the European issue. He stressesthat he is prepared to tolerate disagreement,allowing colleagues to stepdown temporarily from the shadow cabinetif they wish to campaign for a yesvotein the euro referendum. He soundspositively offended by questions on theissue, accusing me of “going round andround” the subject after the secondquestion.“The health service, without reform, isgoing to soak up any money that youthrow at it and not deliver anything at all.”He becomes much happier once wemove on to his favourite topic of publicservices, and the visits he and his frontbench have made to study best practicein other countries. IDS has shown himselfkeen to challenge Labour on theirtraditional territory as the party of publicservices. “That’s the biggest thingthat I want to look at in terms of a radicaloverhaul ofpolicy...Key to the central core of that is thehealth service, which frankly withoutreform is going to soak up any moneythat you throw at it and not deliver anythingat all.”During the leadership election IDSperformed what looked like a startlingU-turn on Section 28, the law that stopscouncils promoting homosexuality.After defending the policy at the beginningof the leadership campaign in June,by early September he was complainingthat the law had become a “totem”which identified the party with hatred.In an interview with the SundayTelegraph, he promised to “look at itagain” if elected leader. When I ask himabout this, he says, “My view on Section28 has been the same throughout,which is that it’s important that childrenhave protection against those who canuse their position of authority to influencethem. How we go about that is thekey question. It may be that Section 28is the right way to do it, it may be thatSection 28 is not the right way to do it,that’s what we’re actually reviewing atthe moment.” Not quite the newliberal beliefs he seemed to beespousing during theelection campaign.He refuses tosay what hisown opinionis,claiming,“ M ypersonalopinionsa r eirrelevant,“I think one of theproblems with theConservative Partyis that it’s, moreoften than not, notdogmatic.”because I’m having a review of this. I’mjust part of the rest of them. We allmake our decisions collectively; that’sthe point about democracy, isn’t it?”He is more candid about the party’sproblems: “We were in government forso long that we became more and morefocussed on running government, andnot on the wider political perspective.We’ve had to recover from that over thelast four to five years and that’s what thisis all about: getting back engaged again,on things like health service, publicservice reform, transport, law andorder.”This will be a slow process. The resultsof the policy review will not comethrough until 2003, with a general electiona few years later. At the moment theTories’ performance is barely animprovement on this time in the lastparliament. “I have no intention of losingthe next election, and I don’t thinkwe will lose the next election,” he insists.But he seems close to admitting that hiswords are at best optimistic, at worstempty rhetoric. “Every politician saysthe same thing,” he admits.He has no patience with questionsabout the fate of the Conservative Partyor of himself personally if they loseanother election, dismissing such speculationas “pointless”. He says, “Of coursethere’s a big hill to climb.” But IDS isnot, it seems, a man to be deterred byhills. “You get on with it, you make itwork and a success and deal with whatevercomes next.” He may not havemuch enthusiasm for it, but there is littledoubt that he will, indeed, get onwith it. Whether he will also makeit a success remains to beseen.