Reshuffles will take place and in the end the policies will

Reshuffles will take place, and in the end the policies will be refined or radically altered. Mr Blair will argue this is what he had intended for schools and hospitals all along.As internal dissenters keep their heads down, this is a time for forensic criticism of prime ministerial policy making from the Opposition. As for ministers, they are pleased to be there after 18 years of opposition. They will spend their summer holidays worrying about the reshuffle, not the policies that will form the programme for a third term.When Mr Blair’s policies do not go to plan, he tends to change the nature of the hyped-up arguments that preceded them. The failure of Michael Howard becomes a triumph for Tony Blair.In the meantime, the media is good at getting worked up about non stories such as Cheriegate or Black Rod and the Queen Mother’s funeral, but, perhaps because there are fewer specialist correspondents around these days, tends to avert its gaze on policy- related issues.

Sadly, the Conservatives have become wedded to policies that are almost a celebration of chaos, proposing cuts in some areas and misdirected spending in others. Whenever their leaders probe Mr Blair, he can respond by focusing on their policies. This is how he escaped from the Butler report, by taunting Michael Howard: “You supported the war, but would now oppose the motion that gave the go-ahead for the conflict.” Huge cheers from Labour MPs, even though many of them opposed the conflict. They will form the basis of the election manifesto and the early legislative programme of a third term In theory, the questions about those plans should be raging.

How will the most popular self-governing schools decide which pupils to turn away? Precisely how will successful schools be able to expand, and will they remain so appealing to parents when they become larger institutions? What is the difference between selecting pupils on the basis of aptitude rather than ability? How will successful hospitals meet national targets to reduce waiting lists when patients will exercise their new freedom to choose by selecting the best hospitals, thereby increasing the waiting times? Will the successful hospitals be deemed as failures because their waiting times have increased?There are some good ideas in these five-year plans, but I can see some chaotic and iniquitous consequences arising from them. The second term therefore began in a vacuum that was slowly filled with policies that had not been put before the voters.In order to avoid similar problems next time, Mr Blair has demanded a radical manifesto to shape his third term. Ministers and advisers have sought to deliver, and sometimes been told to go away and find ideas that are bolder still. Mr Blair is ideologically rootless so these demands tend to be rather vague.

As I argued on Tuesday, he is a tactician of genius, sensing what the Conservatives might be up to and getting there first, forcing them further to the right. Equally important, the Conservative government was stuck with a disastrous policy. Perhaps if Labour had posed more of a threat, Margaret Thatcher would have thought twice about casually putting the proposal in the manifesto.Labour’s 2001 manifesto was devoid of many detailed policies, a characteristically defensive programme aimed at alienating no one. He is less effective at coherent implementation of policy, as the somewhat erratic programmes of the last seven years have illustrated.The five-year plans are, therefore, much more important than symbols of prime ministerial intent to go on and on. Labour was still in such disarray that the activities of its own supporters prevented it from effective attacks on the Conservatives.As a result, the poll tax went unchallenged and Labour was slaughtered again. Labour’s leaders decided that it would be too risky for them to raise the issue, fearing that, in doing so, they would draw attention to Labour-controlled councils, the so-called loony-left local authorities. After all, it is not every day that a government proposes to introduce an unpopular and costly tax that will hit its own supporters.