David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said recently that he has a busy job because 40 per cent of news headlines are on his patch.
Naturally, John Reid is even busier, and the abundance of headlines provides perhaps the strongest reason to split the Home Office in two as he has proposed. Lord Falconer, whose Department for Constitutional Affairs would merge with some Home Office functions, backs the scheme. Insiders say the plans are well advanced.
Operational arguments pull both ways. It is said that the Home Office has too many wide-ranging
responsibilities for one cabinet minister. On the other hand, recent crises have been caused by poor communication within the department – for example, between prisons and immigration – so breaking it up could make matters worse, not better.
But, in terms of presentation, the case is simpler. Polls regularly put crime, immigration and terrorism near the top of voters’ lists of concerns. Cabinet ministers need to be held to account by parliament and the media over things that go wrong in their patch, which is time-consuming, and becomes impossible if they are too busy being held to account over something different. And with an aggressive media, it is inevitable that more and more careers will come a cropper at the Home Office, as Charles Clarke’s and David Blunkett’s did, and Michael Howard’s nearly did.
Labour’s re-election prospects could rest on what a new prime minister does in home affairs. How should a new leader seize the political initiative? Gordon Brown made an immediate impact as chancellor in 1997 by giving the Bank of England independence to set interest rates; what could his equivalent be this time around?
This question will be raised in a Progress debate at Westminster on April 17, at which I will be a speaker. As a journalist, I intend to suggest policies which will give the new premier some positive headlines in right-of-centre newspapers, such as being tough on crime, determined to protect UK security, and not afraid to tread on liberal toes.
The strategy has been used before by Labour home secretaries, too much so for many party members who think the government should shift the balance away from ‘tough on crime’ towards ‘tough on the causes of crime’. Yet, as Professor Danny Dorling’s research shows, crime hits hardest those at the bottom of the pile. Victims are likely to be people already disadvantaged in other ways, the very people Labour is trying hardest to help. Being tougher on crime is not only popular, it is principled.
What are the biggest achievements of Tony Blair’s government? A minister regarded as one of the cabinet’s most Blairite members told me, without hesitation, that numbers one and two have been maintaining a strong economy and delivering extra investment in public services.
Both are successes which the chancellor would claim as his own, and the answer shows how most of Blair’s supporters are likely to rally behind Brown when the moment arrives, rather than casting around for an alternative leadership candidate. If nothing else, Brown is likely to be handing out the ministerial posts soon. Why fall out with him unless there is a real prospect that he will be beaten?
But the answers – strong economy and public spending – are probably the same as those the public would give. Some say that voters look to the future, not the past, so such achievements don’t matter. Others say that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them – in which case, Labour’s record is all-important. Piecing it all together, it seems to me that the bookies’ odds against Labour winning an overall majority at the next election – as I write almost three to one with Betfair – are generous.