Category Archives: Tony Blair

Tony’s tab

blairThe Daily Mail today carries a typically incandescent piece about former Prime Minister Tony Blair, now international Middle East peace envoy, who failed to show up in Israel until last Saturday, long after the disaster of Gaza had begun.

According to the Mail, Blair’s late arrival was due to the fact that he was holidaying with his family; his spokesman, however, hotly denies any lack of urgency on his boss’s part and says that he has been “working tirelessly” behind the scenes “since day one”.

Whatever the truth, I was rather perturbed to read that Blair’s office space in Jerusalem, which apparently comprises the entire fourth floor of the “exclusive” American Colony hotel, is costing the British taxpayer “half a million pounds a year, and more when Mr Blair and his entourage are in town”.

Blair is the appointee of the Middle East peace “Quartet”, comprising the UN, EU, Russia and the USA.  One might have thought, in the circumstance,  that his considerable expenses would be met by those four entities equally; why should the  British taxpayer pick up the tab?

Lucky Gordon

gordon-brownThe Telegraph today reports that, at a question and answer session with students at Yale University, Tony Blair put down the ten years of economic growth under his premiership to nothing more than good fortune:

“It is true that we had 10 years of record growth when I was Prime Minister. I have, unfortunately, come to the conclusion that it was luck.”

There has been some suggestion that the comment was intended deliberately to infuriate Gordon Brown, who was, of course, Chancellor throughout Blair’s tenure in Downing Street.  A spokesman for Blair has, however,  been quick to explain the remark away as a “self-deprecating joke in response to a comment praising the Labour government’s handling of the economy while he was Prime Minister”.

However, just as Blair never “did God”, neither did he ever do much in the way of self-deprecation.  His answer, in fact, did Gordon Brown a considerable favour, because, if he had been completely frank, he would have replied along the lines of:

“Well, what happened was that Gordon ramped up the economy by allowing a massive consumer boom to develop, based upon huge levels of personal indebtedness  and a seemingly unending  surge in house prices.  The bubble was bound to burst, and of course it has.  I’m just grateful that it didn’t happen on my watch and that Gordon has to carry the can for it.”

If Blair had said that, Brown would have had real reason to be annoyed.  As it stands, he may even gain the sobriquet “Lucky Gordon”, which has a nice, jaunty ring to it.  And jauntiness is one characteristic seldom previously attributed to  our  deeply lugubrious Prime Minister.

Red Mist

Amid today’s wall-to-wall coverage of the global financial crisis, one story, from the Sunday Telegraph, stands out. The newspaper has fought a two-and-a-half year battle with the Government to obtain the release of papers that reveal that Tony Blair personally intervened to ensure that Formula One (F1) was exempted from a ban on tobacco advertising in sport.

Readers will recall that Bernie Ecclestone, the boss of F1, was a major Labour donor, who had given £1 million to the party in January, 1997. During the summer months after Labour’s election win in May, 1997, Labour fundraisers held talks with Mr Ecclestone over a possible second donation.

The ban on tobacco advertising had been announced by the then health Secretary, Frank Dobson, on 19 May, 1997. On 16 October, Tony Blair met Mr Ecclestone and other F1 leaders at Downing Street. The newly-released papers reveal that, within hours of the meeting, Mr Blair instructed his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, to tell the junior health minister, Tessa Jowell, to exempt F1 from the ban.

The exemption stirred up a massive hornet’s nest for Labour in its very earliest days in power. Blair and the Government repeatedly played down the link between the donation from Mr Ecclestone and the decision to exempt F1. The furore led to Blair’s famous appearance on the BBC1 On the Record programme, when he protested that he was a “pretty straight sort of guy”.

The Telegraph contends that the papers:

show beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Blair decided on his preferred course of action on the same day he met Mr Ecclestone, railroading the F1 exemption through and brushing aside any alternative plans put forward by ministers and officials at the Department of Health.

They throw a new light, too, on Mr Blair’s assertion, at Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 November, that “no decisions” were taken at the 16 October meeting and that “it was only at the beginning of last week that the specific exemption for F1 was decided upon”. In addition, the documents show how civil servants were forced to dissemble massively to find a form of words to answer a parliamentary question by John Maples, then the Tory health spokesman, asking when Mr Blair first informed Mr Dobson of the exemption. The original “suggested reply”, that the decision was conveyed in the 29 October letter, came close to being an outright lie, given what we reveal today.

A spokesman for Tony Blair is quoted as saying: “There is nothing new here. All these issues were debated at the time.” However, given the contents of the documents, further questions are bound to be asked.

Questions are also likely to be raised, once again, over Gordon Brown’s role in the affair. In his book Servants of the People, the Observer journalist Andrew Rawnsley records an appearance by Brown on the Today programme on 10 November 1997, when he was “ambushed” with a question about the Ecclestone affair:

Asked directly whether Bernie Ecclestone had given money to the Labour party, Brown replied: “You’ll have to wait and see, like I’ll have to wait and see when the list is published. I’ve not been told and I certainly don’t know what the truth is.”

The Chancellor did know the truth and he had not told it. He returned to the Treasury that morning in a red mist which staggered even those who had long endured his titanic tempers. “Gordon went mental,” says one witness. Brown raged at his staff: “I lied. I lied. My credibility will be in shreds. I lied. If this gets out, I’ll be destroyed.” Charlie Whelan endeavoured to douse down his troubled master. Thinking Brown to be overreacting, Whelan secured a transcript of the interview hoping to prove that he had been evasive rather than mendacious. He could not really do that: Brown had denied what he had known. To his credit, it can be said that the Chancellor evidently hated being trapped in a lie.

Hated it, perhaps, but, according to the Telegraph, Brown still denies lying to cover up details of the Ecclestone donation.

Andrew Rawnsley, however, has never, so far as I am aware, withdrawn the allegations contained in his book

Where else?

How appropriate that Cherie Blair’s latest interview, in which she asserts that her husband will be viewed by history as “up there with Churchill”, should appear in the pages of Vanity Fair.

Sleepwalk to surveillance

At yesterday’s surgery in Abergele library, I met a couple in late middle age who had come to see me about the withdrawal of Arts Council funding for their music club. Nothing, sadly, unusual about that. Increasing numbers of organisations are seeing support withdrawn by the various funding bodies, much to the despair of the volunteers who run them.

I said I would write to the Arts Council and do some research into alternative funders. They thanked me politely, and then the husband said: “I’m sorry to take your time, but I just have to tell you how very worried we both are about the way the Government are prying into everybody’s lives. We feel that we’re slowly losing all our privacy.”

Again, sadly, there is nothing unusual about that. Increasingly, people are concerned about Government intrusion into almost every facet of life. Cross-referring databases contain and exchange, it seems, every detail of our existence, CCTV cameras track our every move and the advent of compulsory identity cards draws ever closer.

All this, we were told, would make us feel more secure. As for privacy, well, you have to make some allowances and, in any case, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to worry about.

The speciousness of that argument was blown out of the water last year, when it emerged that HM Revenue and Customs had lost data discs containing personal details of almost half the British population. The discs have never been recovered. For all the Government knows, they may have fallen into the hands of criminals. It was the most appalling breach of security.

Despite the monumental scale of the HMRC cock-up, the Government remain stubbornly committed to a paranoid policy of cyber-snooping. ID cards will go ahead, despite enormous concerns over the security of the technology proposed. A few days ago, tests carried out for the Times revealed a defect in the new “fake proof” microchipped passports which allows them to be cloned. In the tests, a computer researcher cloned the chips on two British passports and implanted digital images of Osama bin Laden and a suicide bomber. The altered chips were then passed as genuine by passport reader software used by the UN agency that sets standards for e-passports.

Today’s Mail on Sunday will only increase the concerns of the visitors to my surgery yesterday. Almost 600,000 people who have never been convicted of any crime now have their details stored on the police DNA database. Of these, over 400,000 have been added in the last two years. Many of them – such as my colleague Greg Hands, MP for Hammersmith and Fulham – had their samples taken purely for the purpose of eliminating them from inquiries. They have never done anything wrong, nor even been suspected of doing anything wrong.

Others, such as a constituent of mine whose case I have been pursuing for over two years, were charged with an offence but cleared by the courts. Despite their acquittal, their details remain firmly on the DNA database.

Nobody doubts that DNA matching has proven an invaluable tool in fighting crime. I am all in favour of its use and the proper expansion of that use. What concerns me, however – and must surely concern anyone who cares about civil liberties – is the haphazard way in which the database is maintained. At present, the discretion as to whether to retain or destroy DNA records resides entirely with the relevant chief constable. There is no appeal against his decision. There is no safeguard whatever to protect the innocent.

That is wholly wrong; the maintenance of the database and the establishment of safeguards against its abuse should be the subject of statutory regulation. The issue should be fully debated in Parliament. Those who feel that everyone’s details should be on the database – of which Tony Blair was one – should have their say. Those, such as I, who feel that its use should be more closely constrained should also have opportunity to make their case.

But what should not happen is that this country should continue its present progress towards a surveillance state without the consent, or even knowledge, of the majority of its citizens. That, appallingly, is what is happening right now.

Revenge of the Blairistas

If ever there were any doubt that Gordon Brown’s current difficulties are being stoked up in the most concerted way possible by Blairite loyalists, it is today dispelled by a leaked memo from Tony Blair to an unspecified colleague, covered simultaneously in the Mail on Sunday, Telegraph, Times and Observer.

At the same time, the Sunday Mirror carries a report of an interview with the former cabinet minister Stephen Byers, also covered by the Telegraph, Times and Observer, who directly calls Brown’s leadership into question, as part of a clarion call for Labour to “refresh itself”:

“As David Miliband said earlier this week, Labour has to refresh itself,” he added. “That is not just a question about Gordon Brown’s leadership, but must also include the policies we put forward.”

It is the Blair memo, however, that will call the PM the most discomfiture. Blair dismisses Brown’s first party conference for its “hubris and vacuity” and is scornful of Brown’s cack-handed tactics and lack of strategic vision:

“There has been a lamentable confusion of tactics and strategy. Tactically, it was thought clever to define by reference to TB i.e. this was not the era of spin, we are going to be honest, the style would change etc.

“Strategically the consequence was twofold: a) we dissed our own record – instead of saying we are building on the achievements, confronting new challenges, we joined in the attack on our own ten years – a fatal mistake if we do not correct it and b) because we were disowning ourselves as a government, we junked the TB policy agenda but had nothing to put in its place.

“So tactically we took the benefit of the anti-TB feeling, but strategically, we ended up accepting our opponents’ propaganda and appearing incapable of articulating a forward policy agenda.”

The first interesting question is: which Blairite, or Blairites, leaked the memo (which was apparently written) shortly after last year’s Conservative conference) to the press? The Observer notes that:

“Blair is in regular contact with an inner circle of intimates, ranging from close political friends such as the European Commissioner Peter Mandelson and former minister Alan Milburn to former Downing Street apparatchiks like Matthew Taylor, now running the RSA – as well as some serving cabinet ministers, including Miliband, and even Brown himself.”

The second, even more interesting, question is: when Gordon finds out, what will he do about it?

Amadeus

In yet a further blow to Gordon Brown, a YouGov poll for the Telegraph, just published, finds that only 15 per cent of those questioned consider him up to the job of Prime Minister.

Whilst this is ostensibly bad news for Mr Brown, he may derive some cold comfort from the poll’s further findings, that Labour’s prospects would not improve if David Miliband or Jack Straw were to take over.

Indeed, according to the poll, the only senior Labour figure likely to improve the party’s ratings would be the only one who is certainly not in the running – Tony Blair.

One can only imagine how deeply galling this particular finding must be for Mr Brown. It is irresistibly reminiscent of the poignant final scene of Miloš Forman’s Amadeus, in which the dying Salieri, his powers exhausted, his achievements forgotten, is pushed slowly in his wheelchair through the corridors of the hospital in which he has been confined, haunted to the point of dementia by the ghost of his dazzlingly-gifted rival, Mozart.

With friends like these…

2.45 a.m.

I was woken about an hour ago by the loudest clap of thunder I have ever heard and now can’t get back to sleep.

The Times is leading with an article about Cherie Blair. It has published advanced extracts from her autobiography, Speaking for Myself. According to the Times, this is “catching the political and publishing worlds unawares, as it was originally intended to appear in October.”

Mrs Blair tells the Times that:

“I know that Tony thinks Gordon could win the election and I know that he has spoken to Gordon about how he could do that. Tony has given Gordon advice. He and Gordon talk to each other even now.”

Given the present state of the polls, I am absolutely sure that Mr Blair is indeed advising Mr Brown as to how to win the next election.

No doubt the felicitous early publication of Mrs Blair’s memoirs is part of the same helpful process.

Unfortunate

The first official portrait of Tony Blair, by the distinguished artist Jonathan Yeo, has been unveiled.

The painting depicts Blair wearing a poppy. This, the BBC News website suggests, is meant “to represent his leadership role during the Iraq war”.

If that was indeed the intention, perhaps it would have been more appropriate if he had been shown with a dossier (of the dodgy variety) tucked under one arm.

Events

Continuing his New Year media round, Gordon Brown appeared on this morning’s Today programme, when he was interviewed by Ed Stourton.

The message was very much the same as yesterday’s on the Andrew Marr Show: the government should be judged on its long term performance; there would be choppy waters, but the course was steady. Events were a distraction, nothing more,

This, of course, goes against the received Macmillan wisdom that a government’s course usually is deflected by “events, dear boy, events”. Certainly, in the case of the Northern Rock, we have witnessed a whopper of an event that may yet cause the ship to founder.

Most interestingly, Gordon was at pains to assure Stourton that he would be more than happy to come on the Today programme whenever he was wanted. This is in contrast to Tony Blair, who for years would have little or nothing to do with Today, particularly when John Humphrys was doing the interviewing. It will be interesting to see how willing Gordon really is to submit himself to a savaging from Humphrys, whose confrontational approach is a far cry from Stourton’s velvet touch.

Stourton, nevertheless, did ask Gordon why he looked so miserable as PM. Gordon replied that he “enjoyed all the difficult issues and trying to make the best of it”.

In other words, the premiership is a chore that Gordon feels he has to endure, not something to revel in. How very different from Tony Blair.

Devolution Divisions

Labour MEP, Glenys Kinnock, has expressed severe reservations over her party’s decision to enter coalition with Plaid Cymru in the Welsh Assembly.

Quoted in today’s Western Mail, Lady Kinnock says:

“I have huge concerns about that. I’ve not made public statements of any kind but I do share deep unease about any kind of close governmental relationship with the nationalists in Wales.

“I come from North Wales, in a part of the country where the enemy are the nationalists and it is a very hard one for me and my family. And I know that in Neil’s old constituency there are deep misgivings amongst the political leadership there as well.”

Lady Kinnock’s concerns, from a Labour perspective, are entirely understandable. However, she has nobody but her own party leadership to blame for the current state of affairs. Which is what, fairly clearly, she is doing.

At the high tide of Labour popularity in 1997, it must have seemed to Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues (including, it should be unnecessary to add, Gordon Brown) that Labour could create a permanent Welsh fiefdom in Cardiff as a bastion against a resurgent Conservative party. Whatever happens at Westminster, they must have thought, Labour will always hold Wales.

The stupid arrogance of that view has become all too clear in the succeeding years. Even in the first Assembly, Rhodri Morgan had to be propped up by the Lib Dems. Now, with Labour even less popular in Wales, it is Plaid Cymru who have been called to come to the aid of the party – which, mercifully for Labour, they have done with gratifying supineness.

Coalitions will, for the foreseeable future, always be the rule rather than the exception in Cardiff, given the unstable nature of the devolution settlement. To be fair to Neil Kinnock, he always warned against it. It is interesting, however, that his wife has chosen this particular juncture to add her voice to the debate.

Tectonic Plates

Labour politicians have a standard modus operandi that they employ when something goes badly wrong.

First, an inquiry is launched; the prime recent example, of course, is the affair of the Abrahams proxy donations. The calling of an inquiry buys time while the heat, they hope, goes out of the issue.

Second, they employ a turn of phrase along the lines of: “We must learn the lessons and move on.” This formula was used recently by Hilary Benn in the context of the foot and mouth fiasco.

Finally and as a last resort, they plead their own sincerity and probity as a matter that must be universally accepted beyond question. Today, at his press conference, Gordon Brown asserted: “I think people know that when a problem arises we will deal with it.” The phrase was, essentially, a variant of the line used by Tony Blair when his own back was to the wall over the Ecclestone affair: “I think most people who have dealt with me think that I am a pretty straight sort of guy”.

The whole process is intended to induce forgetfulness or, if that proves impossible, forgiveness. Indeed, Gordon Brown almost admitted that forgetfulness was the name of the game today. Questioned about the issue of political donations and the loss of personal data, Mr Brown said that “many of the things that have been written about for the last few weeks would be forgotten quickly.”

The problem for Gordon Brown, and indeed for the Labour Party as a whole, is that the propensity of the electorate to forget is not as elastic as they would like. Indeed, given the extraordinary sequence of scandals that have flopped out over the last few months, the public have had no opportunity to forget. The bad news just keeps on coming.

If forgetfulness is impossible, then what of forgiveness? That, I think, is also looking pretty unlikely. The movements of the polls in recent weeks tend to indicate that a pretty decisive shift in public opinion is happening. The Sunday Times – YouGov poll this week, for example, not only gave the Conservatives a lead over Labour of 13%, but also showed Brown with a personal approval rating of minus 26%, against David Cameron’s plus 20%. By a margin of 45% to 12%, people thought Brown was less competent than Tony Blair had been, though by a small margin, 26% to 23%, they thought he was more honest and truthful.

Matters may, of course, improve for the Prime Minister. We do potentially have two and a half years and three budgets before the next general election. Things can, and do, change astonishingly quickly in politics.

But, at the risk of leading with my chin, I have to say, as dispassionately as I can, that I don’t think they will.

It was John Prescott who spoke of the movement of political tectonic plates, although he had in mind the shift of power from Blair to Brown. It may be, however, that Prescott unwittingly identified a more fundamental movement that occurs perhaps once every decade or two and last happened in the early 1990s: a cyclical shift in the balance of political sentiment.

If that is indeed what is happening, Gordon Brown will probably find that the process has a momentum all of its own and that the employment of textbook damage limitation, as prescribed by Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, will prove, ultimately, futile.

Obstacle course

Long, slow journey this evening to Euston, where I found, to my less than total delight, that the Victoria line wasn’t working. Lengthy detour via the Northern and Circle lines. Why is weekend travel so miserable in this country?

Read the Sunday Times cover to cover during the journey and was impressed by this article by Simon Jenkins, which I commend for its excellent analysis of the corporate governmental paranoia that is destroying civil liberties in the UK.
Saw a bit of David Aaronovitch’s programme on Blair, but found it contained nothing new, so turned in (relatively) early.

A Man for his Time

Wall-to-wall coverage on TV and radio this morning of the tenth anniversary of Diana’s death.

Listening to the Today programme, I am briefly startled by the voice of Tony Blair delivering his “people’s princess” homily.

It all seems such a long time ago. Blair was then a young, fresh Prime Minister and able to come out with such a corny line without attracting the jeers that would surely have greeted it in his last years of office. The quavering, halting delivery now sounds utterly false, but it was believable in 1997.

Tony Blair was truly a man for his time. That was his genius.

That time, of course, passed, but so it does for all of us.

Endgame

Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it – the House, I mean.

Today’s PMQs were extraordinary by any measure. The House was, of course, full to bursting. Northern Ireland Questions, answered for the last time by Peter Hain, were noisy with an anticipatory hubbub. Several times, the Speaker had to call the House to order to let the questions be heard. Peter looked inconsolably glum, despite a generous tribute paid to him by his shadow, David Lidington.

Quentin Davies then entered the chamber, and was greeted by a rather muted cheer from the Labour benches and stony silence from us. He was escorted by two Labour members and put to sit three rows back, next to Kali Mountford, to whom he chatted with forced insouciance for the rest of the session. It was, I reflected, appropriate that he sat next to a Member who shares her name with the Hindu goddess of death; Quentin has consigned himself to political oblivion.

Then Blair entered. The Speaker called the House to order again and the final PMQs began, prefaced, as is sadly usually the case these days, with a list of brave servicemen killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The session was curiously flat and anticlimactic. Nobody, it seemed, wanted to go for the jugular today. There was some sycophancy from the Labour side, not least from the Father of the House, Alan Williams, who rather misjudged the occasion and was too partisan. David Cameron asked a couple of questions about the floods and was answered in a matter-of-fact way. He didn’t take his full quota of six. He concluded by thanking the Prime Minister for his personal courtesy toward him throughout their dealings. The Prime Minister responded in kind, as he did to Ming Campbell, whose first question was, I felt, a touch on the antagonistic side.

The most impressive tribute was paid by Ian Paisley. He went on far too long, of course; questions are expected to be brief and succinct. But the Speaker didn’t stop him; he didn’t dare. Again, Blair returned the courtesy.

And then the finale. Questions over, Blair, with a catch in his voice which seemed, possibly for the first time ever, genuine, said adieu to the House. The Labour benches rose and applauded – a rare display in the chamber, and one that is rather frowned upon. Then, in a kind of Mexican wave, the Opposition benches rose, Lib Dems first, and then down the Conservative ranks until the wave reached me. I felt I had to stand, too, but I couldn’t clap.

And when I looked across the floor of the House again, he was gone. It was as if he had never been there at all.