If Wilson's problem was his party Blair has eradicated it I mean the problem of course not the party

If Wilson's problem was his party, Blair has eradicated it (I mean the problem, of course, not the party). He faces no serious or organised dissent.Yes, this was a tightly controlled conference, but it was possible mostly because the party itself wanted to be controlled. The floor of the conference reacted with open-throated enthusiasm to Blair's speech; more to the point, I found even left-wing MPs approvingly quoting bits of it round the fringe afterwards. He has created a new structure which ensures that the fiercest internal arguments take place in policy forums, hidden from the media. He has a clearer line of command than any previous leader, owes less to the trade unions, chooses his own Chief Whip. On every vote this week, from the referendum on PR to foundation schools, from Trident to the minimum wage, it sent just the messages he wanted it to.

If it is the full explanation, then Blair must, surely, out-perform Wilson Unlike Wilson, he has made no compromises with his party. Wilson lost sight of the grand vision of 1963-4 because his attention was perpetually distracted by the party.The memoirs and histories suggest there is a lot of truth in this. A Labour Party that wasn't suspicious wouldn't be true to itself.Tony Blair is aware of the dangers. As his performance at Brighton showed, he had spent part of the summer studying the Wilson years, including a close re-reading of Harold Wilson's speeches from the early Sixties.

He concluded that they were pretty good, and were remembered sourly only because of the failures which followed them.But why did Wilson's governments fail? The Blair assessment seems to be that Wilson was forced to dissipate his energies trying to hold an ill-disciplined, complex and squabbling organisation together. Labour is a radical party, and radicalism inescapably involves confrontations with concentrations of power. It is a challenge to the establishment, or it's merely the establishment renamed. Few party workers can feel entirely easy about the arrival of so many glossy famous men in hand-made shoes; none will be happy, either, about the bouquets from Conservative commentators like Lord Tebbit, Sir David English, Paul Johnson and the editorialists at the Sun.If they weren't uneasy, they would be naifs. Business is business.What, though, does the Labour Party think about it all? After years in the cold, demonising the corporate victors of Thatcherism, how do they feel when they find their leader being courted, apparently successfully, by the same men? I think it's fair to say that alongside a widespread tingling enthusiasm for Blair, there is some worry about new Labour's new mates. If things carry on like this, they'll be left with Cedric Brown and nobody else For business is disloyal Business is unsentimental.

The big boys make their peace with what they think is the next government In return, they confer a new status upon Labour Both sides know what is going on. Both are consenting and active adults.For the Conservatives, this is humiliating. Ian Lang's anger about the cheeky BT announcement and ministerial angst about Murdoch are only part of the story There are quiet defections all over the place. The last lot find it harder to make eye contact with private power; the next lot are being fussed over; and the country notices There is a deal being done here. So are scores of other movers of commercial Britain, now bidding for lunches, briefings and first-name terms. The voters' verdict is seemingly being taken for granted by the Lords of the Market as they prepare for a change of regime But this helps make the change happen. Rupert Murdoch's News International, Sir Iain Vallance of British Telecom, Richard Branson, Lord Rothermere of Associated Newspapers - all give the impression that they now see Blair as Prime Minister-elect.