Leading Article: Politics ends the age of ideology

THESE days, Labour and the Tories often seem to find party ideology more of a liability than an asset. Thatcherite language is toned down; denunciations from the Opposition have become less Pavlovian. Tribal politics is increasingly tempered by a practical approach that owes as much to policy wonks as to political theory.

As we report today, a private survey for the Conservatives has found that disaffected former supporters are put off by talk of markets, competition and choice in health and education. Waverers are impressed by tangible achievements: higher standards in schools, shorter waits for hospital treatment. In future, we can expect less talk from Virginia Bottomley about GP fundholders and more about the number of patients treated. Gillian Shephard, the new Education Secretary, will probably focus on improved A-level results rather than the numbers of opted-out schools.

Tony Blair, for his part, yesterday turned conventional wisdom on its head. His party, he said, was best placed to run the market economy. The Tories, not Labour, were hidebound over mixing private and public sector solutions. Mr Blair's oppositional criticisms are selective rather than blanket: as spokesman on home affairs he attacked only sections of the Criminal Justice Bill. In a similar vein, the Labour leader did not oppose Monday's rise in interest rates: he merely questioned the government policies that had made it necessary.

These shifts by Labour and the Conservatives are to some extent no more than a battle for the centre ground. But the depolarisation of politics is also a response to demands from voters for competent and accountable government. Increasingly, citizens see themselves as consumers of policies provided by politicians. They want measures that work. But solutions to pressing problems are elusive. Economic globalisation has, for example, reduced the ability of governments to shape national economies. Prudence would have dictated a rise in interest rates to a Labour Chancellor just as surely as it did to Kenneth Clarke. In this world of limited options and less powerful politicians, it is not surprising that parties have similar platforms.

It would be nave, however, to assume that the party which dumps its ideology most wholeheartedly could expect the greatest political reward. Government by think-tank will never adequately replace party rule, since rational argument is only one factor that influences politicians. Bill Clinton's difficulty in holding together a governing coalition in Congress demonstrates how it is vital to retain philosophies that bind parties if such groupings are to be effective. As Harold Wilson, Mr Blair's predecessor, remarked: 'The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.'

Some ethical framework will always be needed to establish the priorities that governments must set. But the days when an all-encompassing and distinct party ideology could alone offer a winning programme have given way to a more pragmatic era.