History > 2006 > UK > Politics > Prime Minister (I)

Steve Bell

The Guardian        p. 29        28.3.2006

https://www.theguardian.com/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1741151,00.html 

US is a difficult friend, Blair tells Australia

Tania Branigan in Canberra and Will Woodward

The Guardian        Tuesday March 28, 2006

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/28/uk.foreignpolicy 

Center: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

Politics

Bush and Blair Concede Errors,

but Defend War

May 26, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER
and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 25 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago.

Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room, the two leaders steadfastly refused to talk about a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq — a pressure both men are feeling intently. They stuck to a common formulation that they would pull troops out only as properly trained Iraqi troops progressively took control over more and more territory in the country.

But in an unusual admission of a personal mistake, Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Those two statements quickly came to reinforce his image around the world as a cowboy commander in chief. "Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people," Mr. Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner." He went on to say that the American military's biggest mistake was the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs of detainees showed them in degrading and abusive conditions. "We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Mr. Bush said, his voice heavy with regret.

Mr. Blair, whose approval levels have sunk even lower than Mr. Bush's, said he particularly regretted the broad decision to strip most members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party of their positions in government and civic life in 2003, leaving most institutions in Iraq shorn of expertise and leadership.

The news conference, in the formal setting of the East Room, was notable for the contrite tone of both leaders. Mr. Bush acknowledged "a sense of consternation" among the American people, driven by the steady drumbeat of American casualties.

The meeting came at a low moment in Mr. Bush's presidency and Mr. Blair's prime ministership, at a time when the decisions that they made to invade Iraq and that they have defended ever since have proved a political albatross for both.

Just as they joined in the drive to war in 2003, the two leaders on Thursday evening seemed joined by a common interest in arguing that things had finally turned around in Iraq. Mr. Blair, who was in Iraq earlier this week, ventured the closest to a prediction about a timetable for disengagement, saying that he thought it was possible that Iraq's new prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was accurate in his prediction that Iraqi forces could control security in all of the country's provinces within 18 months.

But Mr. Bush quickly fell back to his familiar insistence that he would not begin a drawdown until his commanders said it was possible, and he noted that troops were recently called up from Kuwait to help stabilize Baghdad. He said that in the end he would insist on victory over both insurgents and terrorists linked to Al Qaeda, and he dismissed as "press speculation" reports of tentative Pentagon plans to bring American troop levels to about 100,000 by the end of this year. "A loss in Iraq would make this world an incredibly dangerous place," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush said he and Mr. Blair had spent "a great deal of time" discussing their next challenge: how to put together the right mix of penalties and incentives to force Iran to suspend the production of uranium and give up a program that both men had said clearly pointed to a desire to build a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Bush bristled at a question about whether he had "ignored back-channel overtures" from the Iranians over possible talks about their nuclear program. Mr. Bush said that "the Iranians walked away from the table" in discussions with three European nations, and that a letter sent to him by Iran's president "didn't address the issue of whether or not they're going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon." Some in the State Department and even some of Mr. Bush's outside foreign policy advisers have said that Mr. Bush missed a diplomatic opening by deciding not to respond to the letter, though others say it is still not too late.

But the overwhelming sense from the news conference was of two battered leaders who, once confident in their judgments on Iraq, now understood that misjudgments had not only affected their approval ratings, but perhaps their legacies. The British news magazine The Economist pictured the two on a recent cover under the headline "Axis of Feeble."

And while both men sidestepped questions about how their approval ratings were linked to Iraq, at one point Mr. Bush seemed to try to buck up his most loyal ally, who is expected to leave office soon and may be in the midst of his last official visit to Washington, by telling a British reporter, "Don't count him out."

Outside the White House gates, a smattering of protesters gathered, blowing whistles and chanting, "Troops out now."

Mr. Bush called the terrorists in Iraq "totalitarians" and "Islamic fascists," a phrase he has used periodically to give the current struggle a tinge of the last great American-British alliance, during World War II. But he acknowledged that the war in Iraq had taken a significant toll in public opinion. "I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Blair tried to focus on the current moment, saying that he had heard the complaint that "you went in with this Western concept of democracy, and you didn't understand that their whole culture was different." With a weak smile, he suggested to Mr. Bush that those who voted in Iraq had amounted to "a higher turnout, I have to say — I'm afraid to say I think — than either your election or mine."

Mr. Bush did not budge from his long-stated position that conditions in Iraq and the ability of Iraqi security forces to assume greater responsibilities would dictate whether the United States reduced the 133,000 American forces there. He said he would rely on the recommendations of Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq. In an effort to cajole the new government even while he was praising it, Mr. Bush twice mentioned that it had yet to appoint a defense minister with whom to discuss troop cuts, one of the glaring gaps in the Iraqi cabinet that is symbolic of the continuing struggle over power. "We'll keep the force level there necessary to win," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Blair acknowledged that some of the 260,000 Iraqi security forces, especially the police, suffered from corruption and the influence of militias. But he said a new Iraqi government would be more able than allied officials to cope with these problems.

For those who trace Mr. Bush's own reluctance to acknowledge errors in Iraq, his statements on Thursday night seemed to mark a crossing of a major threshold. In an interview with The New York Times in August 2004, Mr. Bush said that his biggest mistake in Iraq had been underestimating the speed of initial victory over Mr. Hussein's forces, which allowed Iraqi troops to melt back into the cities and towns. When pressed, he said he could think of no other errors.

Over the winter, as public support for the war eroded, he acknowledged other mistakes — failing to plan sufficiently for the occupation and rebuilding of the country, or to execute the plans that had been made. But he described these as tactical mistakes that had been fixed.

His answer on Thursday evening, though, harked back to the two statements — "bring them on" and "dead or alive" — that his wife, Laura, had been particularly critical about. While he had apologized before for the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, his statement on Thursday was his starkest admission to date of the damage that the episode did to the image of the United States.

But Mr. Bush emphasized that American soldiers had been punished for the abuses. "Unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice," he said. Mr. Bush's critics have noted that the prosecutions have focused on low-level soldiers and have not held senior officers accountable.

Mr. Blair, while saying that the coalition had misjudged the de-Baathification process, added: "It's easy to go back over mistakes that we may have made. But the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the determination of our opponents to defeat us. And I don't think we should be surprised at that."

Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War, NYT, 26.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26prexy.html

The White House

Covering a Friend's Back:

Leaders Reverse the Roles

May 26, 2006
The New York Times
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Tony Blair has always served as the world's Bush-whisperer, but at their joint news conference last night, it was almost the reverse. Mr. Blair, the normally silver-tongued prime minister, seemed stiff and defensive, and it was Mr. Bush who tried to smooth things over and help Mr. Blair out.

British political analysts have repeatedly predicted that Mr. Blair, a lame duck whose popularity in Britain has never been lower, will be out of office as early as next year. But when a British reporter actually suggested that this was his last official Washington visit, he looked dismayed and tongue-tied.

Mr. Bush jumped in, saying with a laugh, "Don't count him out, let me tell it to you that way." He also asked the British to give his friend another chance. "I want him to be here so long as I'm the president."

That role reversal was as good a sign as any of how the two friends' political standing has eroded since they made the case together for war in Iraq. Last week even The Economist, a British magazine that has been more favorable to Mr. Blair than most, called his partnership with Mr. Bush the "Axis of Feeble."

In the past, Mr. Blair always raced to Washington to buck up Mr. Bush with his eloquence and aplomb, spending his own political capital to enhance that of the American. Mr. Bush was obviously grateful for his ally's support, yet last night he hinted that if he had to go it alone, he could take it from here — even in the realm of the English language.

Asked what he most regretted, Mr. Bush replied that he was sorry he had used terms like "bring it on" and "dead or alive," and that he had learned to express himself in a "little more sophisticated manner."

It was never an even-steven friendship; Mr. Blair risked his popularity in Britain when he stood by Mr. Bush and supported the war. In return he received gratitude, but little else.

One reason Mr. Blair's reputation is so tattered is his critics dismiss him as a poodle, doing his master's bidding. It did not help that before the war, Mr. Blair was unable to persuade his American friend to seek a second United Nations resolution authorizing military action.

He did not have much luck with other issues important to Europeans, from an effort to double aid to Africa to the need to take steps to avert global warming. (It probably did not help Mr. Blair's morale that "Stuff Happens," a play by David Hare that focuses on the imbalance of power between the White House and 10 Downing St., is on the New York stage.)

No one has been a better bedfellow for George Bush than Tony Blair, but last night the steadfast British prime minister tugged the covers to his side, adding his own, broader agenda to the subject at hand.

He spoke of "the importance of trying to unite the international community behind an agenda that means, for example, action on global poverty in Africa, and issues like Sudan; it means a good outcome to the world trade round, which is vital for the whole of the civilized world, vital for developing countries, but also vital for countries such as ourselves; for progress in the Middle East; and for ensuring that the global values that people are actually struggling for today in Iraq are global values we take everywhere and fight for everywhere that we can in our world today."

Mr. Blair came to Washington to help the president, but this time, perhaps for the first time, he looked like he needed the president's help.

Covering a Friend's Back: Leaders Reverse the Roles, NYT, 26.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26tvwatch.html

Blair tells Bush US must back reformed UN

PM attempts to steer White House towards shift in foreign policy

Friday May 26, 2006
Guardian
Julian Borger in Washington, Martin Kettle and Will Woodward

Tony Blair will today call for a return to a multilateral approach to global affairs built around a radically reformed United Nations led by a powerful secretary general, in a bid to salvage his legacy as a progressive leader on the world stage.

In a foreign policy address at Georgetown University, Mr Blair will put forward the case for "values based interventionism" in the name of democracy and human rights and the reinvigoration of the UN and other institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Standing alongside President Bush at a White House press conference last night, in what is bound to be one of the two leaders' last summits, Mr Blair portrayed UN reform as a path towards faster intervention by the international community in response to threats to global security.

He said: "What we want to do is to make sure the UN is an effective instrument for multilateral action."

President Bush went further, declaring: "The UN ought to be clear in its desire to liberate people from the clutches of tyranny. That's what I think the UN should be doing."

In today's speech, Mr Blair is expected to do more to distance himself from the US president, suggesting that in return for UN reform, world powers and America in particular should take a more collective approach to foreign policy.

But the visit also represented a bid to recast the Iraq invasion in a more positive light than it is currently seen in Britain.

"He's going to make the progressive case for engagement in Iraq," a Downing Street official said. The prime minister would present the US-British invasion and occupation of Iraq, another source said, not as an aberration but as "the natural core of a values-based interventionist foreign policy."

Again and again, the two leaders referred to the formation of a democratically elected government and the transformation that represented. Whatever differences there may have been in the war, Mr Blair said, the international community should now unite behind the cabinet of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki.

However, the two men were obliged to repeatedly acknowledge the mistakes made along the road to Baghdad. President Bush regretted his early challenge to the insurgents in July 2003: "Bring 'em on."

He described it as "kind of tough talk ... that sent the wrong signal to people."

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. 'Wanted, dead or alive' - that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that."

The president said the America had been paying "for a long time" for the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

For his part, Mr Blair said that the process of de-Baathification had been badly handled and the insurgents had been underestimated.

British officials said Mr Blair would use his visit to appeal for greater American involvement in the UN, in return for reforms that could make the UN more responsive to American interests.

Those reforms would include an expansion of the Security Council to 25 members and the addition of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan as permanent members. The position of secretary general would no longer be rotated to give every continent a turn (it is Asia's turn next), but awarded instead to a high-powered international figure chosen from a global pool. He or she would have far greater powers over the budgets and staff of the UN agencies than Kofi Annan currently commands.

Mr Blair denied last night that he was seeking to write a job description for his own post-Downing Street years. When asked about the timing of his departure, Mr Bush jumped to the prime minister's defence.

"Don't count him out," the president said. "I want him to be here so long as I'm the president."

Mr Blair will also argue that the leadership of the IMF should no longer be seen as a European preserve, nor should the World Bank necessarily be led by an American, as tradition has dictated to date.

Mr Blair's spokesman said yesterday: "It means having agencies not designed to meet the challenges of the world as it was in the immediate aftermath of world war two, but are designed to meet the challenges of today's world ... in which we shouldn't be afraid to stand up for democratisation."

Today's speech at Georgetown is an attempt to return to the high road taken in foreign policy addresses in Chicago in April 1999 and at the Labour party conference in October 2001. But as the prime minister flew into Washington last night it was unclear whether the proposals had meaningful support from his host or in the international community.

The US wants a more modest restructuring of the security council with one or two new permanent members at most. Meanwhile, developing countries have fiercely resisted Mr Annan's proposals to increase the freedom of action of the secretary general at the expense - as they see it - of the UN general assembly.

Blair tells Bush US must back reformed UN, G, 26.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1783490,00.html

Troop pull-out from Iraq to be speeded up

Handover to local security forces will begin in July, Blair says in Baghdad

Tuesday May 23, 2006
Guardian
Will Woodward in Baghdad and Ewen MacAskill


George Bush and Tony Blair are to discuss in Washington this week a programme of troop withdrawals from Iraq that will be much faster and more ambitious than originally planned.

In a phased pullout in which the two countries will act in tandem, Britain is to begin with a handover to Iraqi security forces in Muthanna province in July and the Americans will follow suit in Najaf, the Shia holy city.

Other withdrawals will quickly follow over the remainder of the year. Officials in both administrations hope that Britain's 8,000 forces in Iraq can be down to 5,000 by the end of the year and that the American forces will be reduced from 133,000 to about 100,000.

Yesterday Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, told a joint press conference with Mr Blair in Baghdad that Iraqi forces could take over from the US-led coalition in 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year.

Mr Blair and Mr Maliki said the "process of transition" would start in some provinces in the coming months, and that "by the end of this year responsibility for much of Iraq's territorial security should have been transferred to Iraqi control".

Mr Blair, in his fifth visit to Iraq since the invasion, flew to Baghdad to become the first leader to greet the new Iraqi government, which was inaugurated on Saturday. Mr Blair is investing his hopes of salvaging his legacy in the new Iraqi prime minister and described the government as "a new beginning" after three years of hard struggle.

President Bush echoed him yesterday, saying that the new government was "the beginning of something new constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East". Mr Bush acknowledged that there had been mistakes in Iraq, but said repeatedly that there had been "incremental" progress.

Mr Maliki surprised Mr Blair's team at the press conference by saying the UK handover to Iraqi forces could begin in June. British officials later corrected this, saying that the planned date was actually July.

Mr Blair preferred not to put an explicit timetable on it, saying that such a move depended on conditions on the ground, and the government's most optimistic public timetable has Iraq taking full control of security within a four-year period. But a joint statement issued by Mr Blair and Mr Maliki acknowledged their agreement to make an early start.

The statement said the new Iraqi government would "in the weeks ahead work with the MNF [multinational force] on the details of transition to Iraqi control".

Britain has responsibility for four provinces in Iraq. After Muthanna, the next province for handover to Iraqi forces by Britain is Maysan. But Basra, where most of the 7,200 British forces are stationed, is - the two prime ministers admitted yesterday - a serious problem, and the new government is to send a delegation there soon.

The fate of Dhi Qar, which is in the British sector but is run in effect by 2,600 Italian forces, is uncertain, since the new Italian prime minister, Romano Prodi, says he wants a speedy withdrawal.

Mr Maliki denied that the country was in the midst of a civil war. "The multinational forces did let us improve the capability of our forces but the Iraqi forces still need more," he told reporters. "Iraq's forces still need more backing, more training and more armaments in order for the Iraq security forces to take over the security fully. We will start in the provinces and we will do them in turn."

His total of 263,000 Iraqi police and army is still short of the 325,000 target, although this is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Mr Blair stayed overnight in Kuwait and then travelled into Baghdad's high-security green zone by Chinook helicopter. After meeting the prime minister, Mr Blair saw the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, who hailed him as "a great friend to the people of Iraq".

The British prime minister said after the meeting: "What we want to see is a sovereign independent nation in theory and in practice."

Mr Blair's official spokesman denied that talk of a "new beginning" offered a hostage to fortune, arguing that a cabinet formed from Shia, Sunni and Kurd leaders after a successful election involving more than 12 million people was proof of the significance of the weekend's landmark cabinet settlement. But both Mr Blair and Mr Bush risk the remark rebounding on them severely as Sunni and Shia insurgents continue to bomb the multinational force - and themselves.

"Troop withdrawal comes after the process of Iraqi-isation, not the other way round," the prime minister's spokesman said. The Americans have drafted in a further 650 forces from Kuwait to help "stabilise", amid fear of violence after the formation of the new cabinet.

A senior British official predicted that a full handover of security could be achieved within the four-year term of the new Iraqi government. "The aim is to take Iraq to a position where the multinational force is able to withdraw during its [the new government's] period in office," said the official, who was accompanying Mr Blair into Baghdad.

"During the four years, the present role and structure of the multinational force will change and come to an end."

Troop pull-out from Iraq to be speeded up, G, 23.5.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1780993,00.html

Host springs surprise for PM

New Iraqi leader reveals more urgent and ambitious troop withdrawal than UK and US had admitted

Tuesday May 23, 2006
Guardian
Ewen MacAskill


Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, had a surprise for Tony Blair and his entourage in Baghdad yesterday. At a joint press conference, Mr Maliki said British troops would hand over responsibility in two provinces to Iraqi security forces by next month and that he expected US, British and other foreign troops out of 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year, a much speedier and more ambitious schedule than the US and Britain have so far admitted to.

The announcement was news to Mr Blair and his team. Mr Maliki said there was an agreement with the British: but British officials said there was no agreement. And he said the withdrawals would be in June: officials say it will be July.

Mr Blair was more vague than the Iraqi prime minister. He insisted that there was no timetable and that the handover to Iraqi forces would depend on the prevailing conditions.

Both Mr Maliki and Mr Blair's comments were telling. With the arrival at last of an Iraqi government, the US and British can at last begin to plan for specific withdrawals. The planes to carry troops home can be booked.

The US has 133,000 servicemen and women in Iraq and the British 8,000. The combined Iraqi army and police have 263,000 at present and are predicted to have a strength of 320,00 by the end of the year. British and US troops withdrawals are scheduled to begin this summer and by the end of the year there will have been significant reductions, even though there will still be a sizeable presence for anything between four and 10 years.

Mr Maliki said by the end of the year Iraqi forces could have taken control of all the provinces except Anbar, to the west of Baghdad and where the insurgency is strongest, and Baghdad itself.

The British forces have responsibility for four provinces: Muthanna, Maysan, Basra and Dhi Qar (where Italian troops are stationed). Muthanna, which is to the west of Basra and contains relatively small towns such as Samawa that sit beside the Euphrates, will be the first to be handed over. Compared with the rest of Iraq, Muthanna has been relatively quiet. British forces would expect to have completed their withdrawal within a matter of weeks of the July handover.

Next up will be Maysan, to the north of Basra and where British forces have suffered heavy losses. But the violence has tended not to be from organised insurgency but from criminal gangs in what is one of the poorest parts of Iraq, and from renegade bands who were active even under Saddam Hussein.

As part of the agreement, the Iraq army and police have to demonstrate they are competent to deal with various problems. There is a long tick-list they have to satisfy, not only their ability to fight insurgents but to demonstrate that the police, as well as the army, is relatively sectarian-free.

The remaining two provinces in British hands will prove more difficult to hand over, in part because Basra is becoming more unruly and in part because the police force there is riven with sectarianism. The British hope is that they will have withdrawn 3,000 personnel from Iraq by the end of the year.

The US withdrawal is more problematic, mainly because the Americans are facing a more sustained insurgency campaign. But the intensity of the fighting in Baghdad, Anbar and, until the middle of last year, Nineva overshadows the relative peace in other parts of the US sector. First up for withdrawal is expected to be Najaf, the holy Shia city.

The US had been planning for the Iraqi forces to take over by July half of what the Pentagon refers to as its "battlespace". But that was before the insurgents increased their attacks in the past few months, killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians. Insurgent attacks on US forces in March and April were at their highest since last autumn.

US and British officers have said that the next few months are crucial as insurgents try to undermine the new government. For this reason, some US officers have been recommending to the Bush administration that it is the wrong time to be handing over to Iraqi forces. Other voices in the US army have been warning that there is a huge gap between the Iraqi forces on paper and their actual ability.

In a report to the Pentagon, General Barry McCaffrey, a retired army commander who teaches international affairs at West Point, said the Iraqi army was badly equipped, with only a few light vehicles and almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, air cargo transport, helicopter troop carriers or strike aircraft of its own.

Host springs surprise for PM, G, 23.5.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1781019,00.html

8.45am

Blair makes surprise visit to Iraq

Monday May 22, 2006
Press Association
Guardian Unlimited

The prime minister, Tony Blair, flew into Baghdad today for a surprise visit to mark the formation of a new Iraqi government which has pledged to defeat terrorism.

Mr Blair's visit to the capital's heavily-fortified green zone from Kuwait had been shrouded in secrecy, as deadly violence continued to provide the grim backdrop to the new administration - only agreed after months of bitter wrangling between rival factions.

The premier will meet his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri Maliki, for talks, and the two leaders are expected to hold a joint press conference later today.

On Saturday, Mr Blair hailed the formation of the government as a "huge step forward" after Mr Maliki's ministers were sworn in before a parliament elected by more than 12 million Iraqi voters.

The British prime minister flew into the green zone by helicopter for his second visit to Iraq's capital city early this morning.

Mr Blair was determined to show his support for the new national unity government, despite the obvious security risks.

His hair-raising helicopter ride into Baghdad followed days of bloodshed surrounding the formation of the new administration, with dozens killed and injured in a string of suicide and roadside bombs and drive-by shootings.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Iraq now has a democratically-elected government which is there for a four-year term, is made up of all the different groupings within Iraq and it is very much dictating the agenda.

"We are here to show our support for that democratic government and to help it take charge of its own destiny."

A senior British official travelling with Mr Blair said the withdrawal of the present multinational force should be accomplished within four years, with a handover to civilian control in several provinces during the summer.

He stressed that was not a timetable for troop withdrawal, and was not necessarily heralding the swift repatriation of large numbers of British troops.

The senior British official said he hoped that at least one of the four of Iraq's 18 provinces currently controlled by UK forces would be able to transfer to civilian control soon.

The official said: "Our message is one of support for a government which has now taken over the baton and will be running things for itself over a four-year period.

"Sovereignty is not new, independence is not new, but this length of time is new and this government is going to take the country to a position where the multinational force (MNF) can withdraw during its time in office."

He added: "During that four years, the present role and structure of the MNF will change and come to an end."

He said there might be a continuing role in training and development of Iraqi forces "but the scale of the forces that you have today will change over that four-year period".

He went on: "The UK has four provinces. I would certainly hope that at least one of our provinces would be able to transfer during the course of the summer."

That would almost certainly be al Muthana or Maysan, the two most stable of the provinces - the others being Basra and Dhi Kar.

But the official repeatedly made clear that handing over to civilian control would not lead to an immediate repatriation of British troops this summer.

Mr Blair will also meet Iraqi president Jalal Talibani and members of the newly sworn-in Iraqi cabinet today, as well as the US ambassador to Iraq and the senior UK commander in the country, General Sir Rob Fry.

Mr Blair wants to offer technical help in setting up the fledgling administration and his visit also follows a strong message of support for Premier Maliki from the US president George Bush.

Blair makes surprise visit to Iraq, G, 22.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1780432,00.html

Blair turns to Cunningham

in drive to curb Lords powers

Saturday May 20, 2006
Guardian
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent



Tony Blair will on Monday move to curb the powers of the House of Lords to wreck his government's legislation programme after a series of bitter clashes between the Commons and the unelected house over terrorism laws, ID cards and hunting.

He will announce he is bringing back former cabinet minister Jack Cunningham (now Lord Cunningham of Felling) to head an all-party parliamentary committee to review the house's powers.

The committee will be expected to report in time for a government bill to be introduced next year to reform the Lords before the next election. The bill is expected to recommend the end of the Lords' powers to throw out bills.

Critics view Lord Cunningham's proposed appointment as a sign that Tony Blair is determined to end the century old Salisbury convention which allows peers to overturn legislation, after a bruising 12 months which has seen the Lords curb the terms of his ID cards bill and dilute the powers of the home secretary to detain suspected terrorists without charge.

The change of tone dates from last Wednesday after politicians met Jack Straw, the new leader of the House of Commons, only to learn that a carefully agreed deal with Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, to balance changes in the powers of Lords with plans for a newly elected House had been torn up by Mr Blair.

Downing Street has always wanted to give the Commons the final say in legislation but Lord Falconer had promised during informal negotiations with opposition parties that axing the powers of Lords to block bills would not be on the new committee's agenda. Lord Cunningham who left government to work with a lobbying company, Sovereign Strategy, had never been mentioned as chairman.

Mr Blair's renewed interest in Lords reform also follows the furore over the "loans for peerages" scandal, which is now being investigated by Scotland Yard. By abolishing working peers, the prime minister will no longer face accusations that he has put people into the Lords in return for donations or that he is shoring up controversial policies, such as his City Academy programme by awarding funders with peerages.

Liberal Democrats, who oppose curbs on the powers, have raised objections with Mr Straw. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, warned yesterday: "Any move to castrate the Lords of any of its powers to make the government less accountable will not be welcome. It will be also up to the new committee to elect its chairman and I am not sure that a Labour loyalist like Jack Cunningham is the best person. Another person may be nominated by non-Labour people."

Lord Cunningham has supported the government on ID cards and its restrictions on human rights to fight terrorism, but is a rare attender at the House, except to vote for the government.

Blair turns to Cunningham in drive to curb Lords powers, G, 20.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,1779362,00.html

Legislation

Pressure to change law on carrying knives

Saturday May 20, 2006
Guardian
Paul Lewis

The death of Kiyan Prince follows a series of high-profile knife, blade and bottle attacks against schoolchildren, including Shanni Naylor, 12, who was slashed across the face last year with a blade thought to be from a pencil sharpener, and Damilola Taylor, who died after being stabbed in the thigh with a broken bottle in 2000.

Last month a 13-year-old boy was stabbed with a penknife during a playground fight in Northern Ireland.

In legislation before the Lords, the government hopes to increase the age at which someone can buy a knife from 16 to 18. The violent crime reduction bill will also permit staff in schools and colleges to search pupils for weapons.

Some schools have already begun to use metal detectors to search pupils. In London, the mayor, Ken Livingstone, has announced the deployment of police teams to "every London neighbourhood" to target knife carriers. He has called for them to receive "maximum sentences".

Stabbing is the most common method of killing. More than 240 murder victims were killed that way last year, 29% of those deliberately. In 2004, more than 20 teenagers died as a result of knife attacks in the UK. In a Mori survey 29% of young people in London schools admitted having carried a knife; one 16-year-old boy in five had attacked someone with a knife, intending to hurt them seriously. Sixty-five per cent of people who carry knives have the weapons used against them.

Next week, the government will launch a month-long knife amnesty allowing individuals to hand in weapons to police stations without facing prosecution.

Tony Melville, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on knife crime and assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, said: "Taking knives off our streets will save lives and cut crime. Every weapon that is handed in is one that cannot be used in causing horrific injuries or even worse ... we hope this amnesty will be a catalyst in changing the culture of routine knife possession."

Pressure to change law on carrying knives, G, 20.5.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1779374,00.html

6.15pm

Lords block right to die bill

Friday May 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies

The Lords tonight blocked a bid to allow terminally ill patients the right to end their lives, despite widespread public support for a change in the law.
After an impassioned seven-hour debate, peers voted by 148 to 100 to delay the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill bill's second reading for six months.

The move further reduces the bill's chances of making its way through parliament.

Crossbencher Lord Joffe's third attempt to enshrine in law the right-to-die aroused strong opposition from the medical profession and from church leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.

A You Gov poll commissioned by Dignity in Dying, the lobby group campaigning for a change in the law, meanwhile showed overall public support for right to die legislation.

Lords turned out in force to debate the controversial issue, with 80 peers lined up to speak.

The proposals would have allowed doctors the right to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient, in the final stages of life and suffering terrible pain, could take to end his or her own life.

Opening the debate earlier today, Lord Joffe said: "As a caring society we cannot sit back and complacently accept that terminally ill patients suffering unbearably should just continue to suffer for the good of society as a whole.

"We must find a solution to the unbearable suffering of patients whose needs cannot be met by palliative care. This bill provides that solution in the absence of any other."

He insisted the bill would "not impose anything on anybody and only provides an additional end of life option for terminally ill patients which they are free to accept or reject as they and only they decide".

Opponents argued that the bill did not include safeguards to protect people suffering from depression, and could put pressure on the terminally ill to end their lives prematurely.

Archbishop Rowan Williams warned that the legislative proposals would "jeopardise the security of the vulnerable by radically changing the relationship between patient and physicians".

He said: "Whether or not you believe that God enters into the consideration, it remains true that to specify even in the fairly broad terms of this bill, conditions under which it would be both reasonable and legal to end your life, is to say that certain kinds of life are not worth living."

Outside the debating chamber, disabled opponents launched the Not Dead Yet campaign in protest at the proposals, while supporters of the Catholic church-backed Care Not Killing also held a protest.

Care Not Killing, which represents more than 30 charities and healthcare groups, warned that the Joffe bill would put the old and sick under intolerable pressure to end their lives, not least because of severe pressures on health and long-term care services.

Despite the vocal protests, a YouGov survey published today for the Dignity In Dying group found three-quarters of people in favour of the right-to-die bill.

More than half (59%) said there was good care for people in the later stages of a terminal illness, yet 76% were in favour of assisted dying as long as there were safeguards in place.

Of the 1,770 people questioned, 13% were opposed to the idea, while 11% said they did not know, and 39% said they had experienced hospice or palliative care either directly or though a loved one.

Deborah Annetts, chief executive of Dignity In Dying, said: "It is clear that the public truly appreciates the scope of the problem. Even with the high quality of our palliative care, some people will still want this option."

The government had resisted taking a position on the controversial proposals, citing a position of "neutrality". A Department of Health spokeswoman said it would "wait and see" what happens in the Lords before deciding whether to back the bill's passage through the Commons.

Earlier today, the archbishop denied that opponents of the bill were trying to impose their religious beliefs on the general population, many of whom did not share their faith.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that a "diverse range of groups" was opposed to the bill and not just those "enslaved by so-called clerical superstition", including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Disability Rights Commission.

"[Opposition] comes from a number of people who are very close to the hardest of practical decisions who still say the costs of voting this through is disproportionately high to the benefit for certain individuals."

Lords block right to die bill, G, 12.5.2006,http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1773462,00.html

Blair presses the nuclear button

· New generation of atomic stations endorsed by PM
· Failure to act would be 'a dereliction of my duty'

Wednesday May 17, 2006
The Guardian
Patrick Wintour and David Adam

Tony Blair ignited a political storm, including within his own cabinet, by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations last night. Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country.

Effectively pre-empting the outcome of the government's energy review due to be published in July, Mr Blair, in a speech to the CBI, said the issue of a new generation of stations was back on the agenda with a vengeance, alongside a big push on renewables and a step change in energy efficiency.

Mr Blair's spokesman said the prime minister was speaking after reading "a first cut" of the Department of Trade and Industry-led review on Monday. He said the country could not rely on one new source to meet the coming energy gap, pointing out that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, had technical problems.

Ministers believe a new generation of nuclear stations will require an extension of the current renewables subsidy to nuclear electricity and some form of pre-licensing agreement to speed up planning permission for new stations.

In his speech last night Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world.

"The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia.

"These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country."

Although Mr Blair has warned before -in a speech to the CBI last November - that energy policy was back on the agenda with a vengeance, his remarks yesterday were significant since his considered judgment comes after viewing the initial findings of the energy review.

His aides said he was convinced that improved energy efficiency and renewables were not enough to fill the energy gap caused by the phasing out of the current set of ageing stations. His spokesman insisted: "There is no one club solution."

Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by the government chief scientist, Sir David King, who believes nuclear power could in future provide 40% of electricity supply, double the current figure.

Mr Blair's move will open up divisions inside the cabinet, on the Labour backbenches and provide the first serious test of the nature of David Cameron's green credentials. The Liberal Democrats are firmly opposed to nuclear.

Some environmentalists regard nuclear as a renewable option, and Mr Cameron's colleagues have been looking at making the investment climate more favourable to nuclear without actually endorsing new stations.

Mr Blair has also decided there will not be a separate white paper after the energy review, suggesting there will be no legislation to bring in nuclear stations - reducing the opportunities for a focused backbench rebellion in the Commons. He will face familiar questions on the cost and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and strong criticism from his own Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt.

The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the prime minister's remarks, saying they came at a "crucial time". Keith Parker, NIA chief executive, said: "Nuclear energy is a large-scale, low-carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply."

The French company Areva said last night its reactors could be up and running by 2017 - if the planning procedures were streamlined and decisions made on long-term waste storage.

Resolutely anti-nuclear environmental groups were less enthusiastic. Greenpeace said Mr Blair's nuclear embrace was "recklessly incompetent". Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is not a chance comment it is a political set-piece. He's trying to soften the ground and get us all angrily running about in the hope that by the time the final report comes out in July we'll all be bored of arguing about it. We won't."

Polls show that Mr Blair is pushing the right buttons to convince a traditionally equally split public on the issue of new reactors. A survey of 1,491 people this year, carried out by Mori and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, found 60% of people would support new atomic power stations as long as renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply.

But 74% said that nuclear power should not be considered as a solution for climate change before all other energy options had been explored.

Blair presses the nuclear button, G, 17.5.2006,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776499,00.html

Blair admits failing most needy children

Tuesday May 16, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor


Tony Blair began his Let's Talk initiative yesterday by admitting for the first time that both his Sure Start scheme for under-fives and policies for children in care have failed the socially excluded.

Let's Talk is seen by No 10 as a new version of the Big Conversation and a crucial vehicle for reforming public services through a series of events designed to establish Labour's next manifesto.

Yesterday's session, in front of public sector professionals, private sector managers and Labour members, including some of his recent critics inside the parliamentary party such as John Denham and Karen Buck, saw the prime minister admit that the government has "not yet found a way of bringing the shut-out into mainstream society".

He said figures for the number of children in care receiving decent GCSE results were appalling and problem families sometimes had as many as five agencies supposedly helping them, as a result of which no one actually did.

Cabinet Office minister Hilary Armstrong will this week set out plans to reorganise the drive against social exclusion.

Mr Blair delivered his heavily trailed attack on the criminal justice system, demanding a profound rebalancing of the civil liberties debate, labelling the courts, legal system and police as the public services with which the public is least satisfied. He is asking Gordon Brown to take the lead in looking at how criminal justice resources need to be organised in the spending review starting from 2007, the point at which Mr Brown might be expected to take over as prime minister.

Mr Brown's involvement has been welcomed by the Treasury as a sign of closer cooperation between the two men since the collapse of relations last week. Mr Brown underlined his New Labour credentials in an interview with the Washington Post, saying the American economy is the one he admires most.

In unscripted remarks, Mr Blair said of the multibillion-pound Sure Start scheme: "If we are frank about it, there is a group of people who have been shut out against society's mainstream and we have not yet found a way of bringing them properly in.

"When we started Sure Start - I was always a bit sceptical that in the end that we could do this - there was an idea it would lift all the boats on a rising tide. It has not worked like that. Sure Start has been brilliant for those people who have in their own minds decided they want to participate. But the hard to reach families, the ones who are shut out of the system ... they are not going to come to places like Sure Start.

"Their problems are so multiple, and if you have one organisation dealing with one aspect of their problem, these families then end up having five or six organisations dealing with them, but no one is actually dealing with them.

"If we are to change that we need a different way for government to operate and we need different systems of delivery. The government in such cases needs to make full use of the voluntary and third sector, some of whom have greater expertise than the organs of government do."

He said it was appalling that the government was spending as much as £2bn on children in care and yet only 8% were gaining five decent GCSEs and only 1% went on to university.

Mr Blair told his audience there "has to be a profound rebalancing of the civil liberties debate", and continuous reform was the only way public services could meet ever-increasing public expectations.

Blair admits failing most needy children, G, 16.5.2006,
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1775622,00.html

Blair's new bid to 'rescue' public services

Shadow of leadership battle hangs over launch of party consultation

Monday May 15, 2006
Guardian
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent

Tony Blair will today attempt to re-establish control over the domestic political agenda by calling for an overhaul of the criminal justice system, which he believes to be in worse shape than any other public service.

After a slide in the polls and three weeks of negative headlines, the prime minister will launch a programme of party events designed to establish the territory for Labour's next election manifesto.

But uncertainty remains as to whether he will be able to shake off questions about his succession, with noises-off continuing at the weekend from the separate camps of both the PM and his likely successor, Gordon Brown.

Under the banner of Let's Talk, Mr Blair will lead the Labour party into a series of conferences on public service reform. His frustration at the administration of justice predates the fiasco over foreign prisoners, and controversy over the human rights of convicted criminals, but has been given further fuel by them. "I believe people want a society without prejudice but with rules; rules that are fair; that we all play by; and rules that, when broken, carry a penalty," Mr Blair will say.

"The truth is most people don't think we have such a society. The problem of crime can be subject to lurid reporting or undue focus on terrible but exceptional cases. But even allowing for this, the fundamental point is valid.

"Despite our attempts to toughen the law and reform the criminal justice system - reform that has often uncovered problems long untouched - the criminal justice system is still the public service most distant from what reasonable people want."

In a formal minute released in full today, the prime minister tells the home secretary, John Reid, to ensure "that the criminal justice system is shaped around targeting the offender and not just the offence, in order to enhance public protection and ensure that the law-abiding majority can live without fear".

He calls on Mr Reid to "build on, and seek to accelerate" a reduction in crime, and to ensure that the police "radically improve their performance on customer and victim satisfaction". Mr Reid is the fourth of Mr Blair's four home secretaries to be told that the department needs to perform better.

At the launch today in London, Mr Blair will call on the Labour party to accept new forms of delivery, and to embrace and harness ideas from outside opinionformers and "stakeholders". Organisations including Microsoft, the CBI, the Red Cross, the National Consumer Council, and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, are being co-opted into the Let's Talk process.

Hazel Blears, the new party chairman, is attending meetings of the new ministerial teams in each department to enlist their involvement. The Let's Talk proposals will be debated at party conference and be finalised at the party's national policy forum in November.

"There is a new agenda to be grasped and shaped by progressive politics," Mr Blair will say today. "Modern social democracy must find answers to these new questions or fall back. We need this debate to be open, frank, and engage public as well as party. The most effective politics today is not tribal. It is issues-based. And we should play our part with confidence." Mr Blair has likened the Let's Talk initiative to the debate he launched over replacing the party's old clause 4, but some activists will today's speech as further proof that Let's Talk is designed to reduce the sovereign power of the party conference. Ms Blears said that the initiative would "allow us to step back from the fray, think about our priorities, and consider how best to match our progressive values to the demands and needs of the British people".

Mr Brown is concerned that the prime minister might "do a Margaret Thatcher" and leave office in a way which will leave the Labour party divided and unelectable. The chancellor believes that the political events of the past 10 days have created their own momentum, and does not intend to repeat his interventions of last week. The show of unity which marked the deal between Downing Street and the Treasury over pension reform has failed to deal with either the timing or the manner of Mr Blair's departure, according to the chancellor's supporters.

After the previous tacit deal between the two came unstuck, the chancellor is reluctant to accept verbal assurances from the prime minister and wants a written and witnessed agreement.

Mr Blair's former flatmate, Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, headed off airing of handover issues in a round of media interviews yesterday.

Next week Mr Blair faces the prospect of a second rebellion on his controversial school reforms, with hostile amendments being debated that are designed to limit the number of self-governing trust schools and scrap selection at 11. This issue cuts across Brown/Blair lines but will add to the sense of malaise.

Though the Conservatives are likely to vote with the government to ensure that the bill remains intact, the amendments, agreed by a group of mainstream Labour MPs, have the potential to attract more than the 52 Labour backbenchers who voted against the government in March.

The amendments include:

· An end-date of 2010 for the 11-plus exam. Parents to be allowed to vote in a ballot to restore the exam after that date.

· Tighter admissions criteria to be written in to the bill to restrict "backdoor selection" by schools.

· Local authorities rather than individual schools to be given the responsibility of deciding whether the admissions criteria are met by an individual pupil.

· A register of approved trust partners to be set up, to prevent disreputable outside organisations taking control of schools.

· Moves by schools to become trusts to be agreed in principle by a ballot of school parents.

Bury North MP David Chaytor said: "The government should listen very, very carefully to what is being argued through these amendments. This is not about concessions, its about improvements."

Blair's new bid to 'rescue' public services, G, 15.5.2006,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1774958,00.html

Blair backs secrecy law

to thwart animal activists

Monday May 15, 2006
Guardian
Will Woodward, Sandra Laville and Steven Morris

Companies with links to animal testing might be allowed to hide the identities of their shareholders, Tony Blair said yesterday as he moved to reinforce what he believes is a hardening of public attitudes against the anti-vivisection lobby.

The prime minister took the rare step of promising to sign up to the online "People's petition" which declares: "Medical research using animals, carried out to the highest standards of care and welfare, and where there is no alternative available, should continue in the UK."

Wary of the charge that Mr Blair should concentrate on tightening the laws rather than protesting, Downing Street sources insisted yesterday that the petition was better described as a "declaration". Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, said last week he wanted to add amendments to the company law reform bill to prevent animal rights activists from acquiring the home addresses of shareholders.

In an article for the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Blair said he would consult on further action, including "exempting companies from providing full public details of shareholders in future".

He added: "Crucially, we are now seeing a change in public attitudes as well as the law. We are now seeing very welcome signs of both individuals and firms being ready to stand up publicly to intimidation and making clear this extremist fringe is out of touch with public opinion."

Last week the pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline won an injunction against animal rights activists who have been targeting small shareholders. At the weekend, seven leading institutional investors sent a letter to the Financial Times promising to keep shareholdings in companies engaged in research.

The government and police have been encouraged by the formation of ProTest, a grassroots movement in Oxford formed as a counterpoint to activists who want to stop construction of the £18m Oxford University animal testing laboratory.

Police believe the campaign against extremists is turning their way. A member of Nectu, the national extremist crime unit, said: "There is a new momentum within the law enforcement agencies and we are beginning to see the results."

Last week three activists were jailed for a total of 36 years, 11 protesters were arrested under new laws and 43 police forces were drawn into the search for the authors of threatening letters sent to hundreds of GlaxoSmithKline shareholders.

Jon Ablewhite, John Smith and Kerry Whitburn were each sentenced to 12 years after a six-year campaign against the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm in Staffordshire, which culminated in the theft of an elderly woman's body from her grave. Ablewhite and his accomplices are likely to chronicle their life behind bars on websites, for supporters to whom they are martyrs and who insist the campaign will continue.

"This case is going to make some of us a little more careful," one said. "There are a lot of very clever people in this movement. They will be considering in the light of this case how best to carry on."

Tim Lawson Cruttenden, a barrister who specialises in representing companies targeted by the Animal Liberation Front, was sceptical of police claims that the momentum is going their way. He said that, despite £3m spent by police on protection, Darley Oaks farm closed last year as a result of the campaign. This week he will ask the high court to extend an Oxford University injunction to cover suppliers who are being targeted by activists.

Blair backs secrecy law to thwart animal activists, G, 15.5.2006,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1774968,00.html

Revealed: Blair attack on human rights law

· Letter to Reid demands urgent action
· Police call for end to early jail releases

Sunday May 14, 2006
The Observer
Ned Temko and Jamie Doward


Tony Blair is planning a radical overhaul of Britain's controversial human rights legislation after claims that the present laws put the rights of criminals above those of victims.

In a move which brought immediate criticism from human rights' experts, the Prime Minister wants the government to have the power to override court rulings. The move comes only days after Blair criticised a senior judge for preventing the deportation of nine Afghan refugees who hijacked a plane to Britain. Downing Street said he was determined to find a way around such 'barmy' court rulings.

Blair unveiled his plans in a letter to the new Home Secretary, John Reid, in which he set out his 'most urgent policy tasks'. Legal experts and civil liberties groups accused Blair of playing politics with fundamental rights. The Observer has obtained a copy of the letter, which says it is essential to 'ensure the law-abiding majority can live without fear'.

It adds: 'We will need to look again at whether primary legislation is needed to address the issue of court rulings which overrule the government in a way that is inconsistent with other EU countries' interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.'

A Downing Street source said a range of existing laws could be reviewed and new legislation was also possible. One option under consideration was to amend the 1998 Human Rights Act, which wrote the European Convention into British law, to require a 'balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community to basic security.' He said that 'although British judges should already take that balance into consideration, it's clear that sometimes they don't'.

He said the act could be further amended if British courts blocked moves to deport terror suspects on the basis of 'memorandums of understanding' that they would not be tortured. A further possibility would be for Britain to consider withdrawing from specific clauses of the European rights convention if they led to court rulings which placed 'community safety' at risk.

Blair's letter, one of a series to be released this week setting out his policy priorities for the major government departments, also stressed the need for Reid to deal urgently with the scandal of foreign prisoners which forced Charles Clarke out of the Home Office. In addition, the Prime Minister endorsed calls by the government's probation service watchdog for a tightening up of rules for the release of violent offenders after a rapist, Anthony Rice, went on to murder 40-year-old Naomi Bryant. The report said probation staff had been so 'distracted' by Rice's human-rights claims that they lost sight of their duty to protect the public.

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of the rights group Liberty, denounced Blair's initiative. 'This government is addicted to quick-fix legislation to distract attention from maladministration,' she said. 'Tough talk and tough legislation don't ensure that the prison service is run properly, or the probation service is run properly.'

'The sinister twist in this case is that the government's own Human Rights Act is being used as the target for tough talk. In fact, it's a very tame piece of rights legislation that doesn't, for instance, allow the courts to trump Parliament. Still, it is an important framework to give the courts a say to prevent the worst excesses of authoritarian government.'

Anthony Lester, the human rights lawyer and Liberal Democrat peer, was particularly scathing about Blair's response to the Afghan ruling: 'The Human Rights Act was one of the first constitutional reforms of this government, but the Prime Minister persists in undermining public confidence in the rule of law and the protection of human rights by the senior judiciary,' he said.

Blair's tough policy prescription for Reid came amid growing pressure from the police for tightened sentencing guidelines for violent offenders.

The Observer has learnt that the Police Federation, which represents the interests of 130,000 officers in England and Wales, will use its annual conference this week to vote on a motion calling for the government to overhaul the current sentencing regime under which offenders can qualify for early release after serving only half their sentence. The motion is expected to get overwhelming support.

'We need to ask whether we should tell people exactly how long they will serve and they serve it, rather than telling a person they've got seven years and in three years they are out,' said Jan Berry, chair of the federation.

The conference will hear that police are concerned there are insufficient resources being devoted to the supervision of offenders in the community.

'We're not saying community sentences can't work, but we shouldn't underestimate the time and investment community sentences take if they are to work,' Berry said. 'The criminal justice system has enough trouble establishing an audit trail of foreign prisoners, let alone managing offenders in the community so that the public are kept safe.'

Q & A Human rights debate

What is the Human Rights Act?

The Human Rights Act (1998) came into force in the UK in 2000 and is viewed as a flagship piece of Labour legislation. The act incorporates into UK law the1950 European Convention on Human Rights, which makes a number of inalienable civil and political rights enforceable by the courts in England and Wales.

What does the convention establish?

The convention is divided into a series of 'articles'. Articles 2-14 establish the rights protected by the convention, such as the right to life, freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to liberty and to a fair trial. Over the years a number of protocols agreed by the Council of Europe have been added to the convention. Some of the protocols deal with procedural issues, but some guarantee rights in addition to those included in the Convention. The UK has signed up to just two of the additional protocols.

Who interprets the convention?

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the international court set up to interpret and apply the Convention. Based in Strasbourg, it is made up of judges nominated by each of the member countries of the Council of Europe. Over the years there have been many cases in which the ECHR has found the UK in breach of the Convention. The fact it took so long for a British citizen to bring a case before the court was a major factor in convincing the government to incorporate the convention into UK law after Labour came to power in 1997.

Why is the Human Rights Act in the news now?

In the last week there has been widespread public disquiet at the way the act is being interpreted. Last week a judge ruled that nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked an aircraft to fly to Britain should not be returned to their country because to do so would be to risk subjecting them to 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' and therefore a breach of their human rights. The Prime Minister described the verdict as 'an abuse of common sense'. The decision - like the claim that convicted rapist Anthony Rice, who went on to kill Naomi Bryant after release, was freed because to hold him any longer risked breaching his human rights - caused public outrage. To pillory the act, however, misses the point. The UK signed up to the convention in 1953. Even if we didn't have the act, the hijackers and Rice could have sought redress in Strasbourg. It would simply have taken them longer for their cases to be heard.

What could Tony Blair do to ensure the act wasn't interpreted in similar ways in the future?

The government is supporting a test case by the Netherlands to appeal against a ruling that prevents it from sending a suspected Algerian terrorist, Mohammad Ramzy, back to his native country. The case is wending its way through the European courts. In the interim, the new Home Secretary, John Reid, has announced that he is appealing against the decision that the Afghans must be given leave to remain and work in Britain. If that doesn't work, experts say, the government might be left with only the legal equivalent of a nuclear option. The article of the European convention under which they were originally allowed to stay - the Article Three anti-torture clause - is one of only three which member states can abandon only if they leave the convention altogether.

David Cameron has talked about pulling out of or repealing the act. Could he do that?

In theory, yes, and he first mentioned the possibility when standing for the party leadership last year, so he clearly feels it's an option. But Labour has portrayed the idea as an example of old-style Tory Euroscepticism that would in effect require leaving the EU, even though the convention has nothing to do with the EU. Cameron's aides say that the idea would be a temporary withdrawal from the European Convention with a view to negotiating 'appropriate' changes in the way clauses such as Article Three apply to deporting terror suspects or foreign criminals.

Revealed: Blair attack on human rights law, O, 14.5.2006,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1774399,00.html

Blair v Brown: the public and the private disputes

· Fresh demand for exit date
· No 11 anger at PM letter
· No 10 intervenes in spending
· New pensions row

Wednesday May 10, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Gordon Brown yesterday raised the spectre of Margaret Thatcher's ejection from No 10 as he pressed Tony Blair to give assurances to senior party colleagues on the date of his departure and the process of transition. The chancellor is determined not to let his chance to succeed to the leadership on his terms slip from his grasp, as it has in the past.

He believes he has received worthless private assurances from the prime minister before and now wants flesh on Mr Blair's promise to give his successor "ample time" to take over and set his distinctive agenda. The prime minister gave that assurance under backbench pressure at a meeting with Labour MPs on Monday.

In an interview with GMTV yesterday Mr Brown repeatedly insisted that Mr Blair had said he would talk to senior colleagues about the transition. No 10 regards this demand for a private pledge to senior party colleagues on when he will stand down, and the process of transition, as unreasonable and unworkable.

Mr Brown said in a carefully worded warning: "Tony has said he is going to do it in a stable and orderly way. That means he is going to be talking not just to me, but to senior colleagues about it. Remember when Mrs Thatcher left, it was unstable, it was disorderly and it was undignified."

In the interview, his fourth since Friday, he also said: "There are problems that have got to be sorted out and they have got to be sorted out quickly." His remarks were seen in Downing Street as a coded warning that Mr Blair could yet be thrown out like Lady Thatcher unless he agreed to make a firm private commitment to stand down on a specific date.

Asked if Mr Blair had given him a firm date for the handover, Mr Brown replied: "No, and I think that what he is going to do is to talk to senior colleagues about it."

The chancellor's intervention comes as the latest poll shows Tony Blair to be the most unpopular Labour prime minister in modern times. Only 26% of voters are satisfied with Mr Blair's performance - lower than Harold Wilson's 27% in May 1968 after the pound's devaluation.

According to the YouGov poll for today's Daily Telegraph, Labour now trails the Tories by 6%. The poll puts the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 31% and the Liberal Democrats on 17%

The Treasury insisted that yesterday's reference by Brown to Lady Thatcher was not a threat, but just a reminder to the party of the dangers of a disorderly transition. Many MPs thought Mr Blair had given ground on Monday by promising that he will give Mr Brown ample time to succeed him. In discussions in recent weeks he has made similar promises to Mr Brown privately, as well as vowing not to support anyone against Mr Brown for the Labour leadership.

Mr Blair's closest aides were admitting yesterday that he would probably now have to go in the summer of 2007 or early 2008 at the latest. But these semi-public assurances are treated with suspicion by the Brownites. They want the assurances on the handover to be passed to some senior cabinet members, and possibly officials or senior members of Labour's national executive. The chancellor is not seeking a public timetable but one to which Mr Blair can be held to account.

An increasingly emboldened chancellor also mapped out the issues he wants to address most urgently in the face of Labour's slumping poll rating. "We are about propriety, we are about security and law and order, and we are about giving people the best public services," he said.

Mr Brown is determined to reach an agreement on what issues he will be responsible for and take the initiative on, and the issues that Mr Blair should be allowed to complete. He also wants assurances that he will be fully consulted on appointments and policy that might impact on his leadership. He feels last week's reshuffle was provocative by promoting Blairites, especially Hazel Blears as party chair.

There is another reason for Mr Brown's anger. His team has been exercised by letters from Mr Blair to cabinet ministers. The letters - being released by No 10 this week and next - are "designed to identify the key challenges for departments and how they propose to deliver against these". But the letter that most concerned the Brownites was one dispatched on Friday - amid the cabinet reshuffle - from Mr Blair to Ms Blears. In what Mr Brown's supporters regard as provocative language, it set out how the party must be organised by 2009-10. Some Brownites now want it withdrawn, saying drily: "It may not be a sensible idea to send a personal mandate to the party chairman to do what whatever she wants."

Mr Brown's team believe the organisation of the party machine must be his preserve because he will take the party into the next election. The letter was discussed in No 10 - as if some were aware that its existence, as much as its contents, might not go down well in No 11.

The letter says: "We need to adopt new ways of working to connect the voters, members and potential supporters. As the opposition parties look to renew themselves, we need to meet this challenge with the same relish and enthusiasm which we created New Labour more than a decade ago."

It calls for a radical review of the way the party is organised and sets out plans to develop a Labour supporters' network, seen by some as a way of circumventing the traditional party member. The letter argues that 100,000 "supporters" have so far been recruited, adding that specialist networks in education and health have been developed which have helped on policy discussion about the education bill. Ms Blears is instructed to produce "imaginative proposals for developing a supporters' network".

The letter argues that the internet rather than the traditional meeting will be the face and the front door of the party to an increasing number of people, particularly the under-35s. It then discusses plans for a "Let's Talk" debate on the future of public service reform, in essence a rebranding of the successful Big Conversation events pioneered by Labour before the last general election. It adds that Mr Blair will launch the debate on May 15, including a pamphlet called Building a Progressive Future. Some of the ideas have been circulated before, but the Brownites regard the letter as a symbol of Mr Blair's reluctance to consult.

Mr Brown was displeased earlier this year when Mr Blair resurrected the issue of Lords reform and state party funding in the wake of the peerages for loans scandal. The Blairites hit back that they had tried to launch a joint consultation with Mr Brown on these issues in January, but were blocked by him on the basis that the ground had not been fully prepared.

Tensions are also bubbling about spending plans. Mr Blair this week again highlighted his plan for a fundamental spending review to be published this summer. It is being drawn up the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and No 10. This would look at all aspects of government spending from first principles on the assumption that no spending is sacrosanct. Mr Blair has always been frustrated that the biennial spending reviews run by the Treasury become the vehicle by which the chancellor dominates domestic policy. The fundamental review is seen by some as Mr Blair's means of trying to get a slice of the spending action.

One other issue has been corroding relations: pensions. On Thursday, the day of the local elections, Mr Brown and Mr Blair had yet another difficult discussion on whether the proposals in the Turner commission's report were affordable. Mr Brown believes the Turner proposal to link the basic state pension to earnings is unaffordable. The white paper is due by the end of the month.

If the week's events end with Mr Brown and Mr Blair agreeing to cooperate once more, they will have to look at why previous talks on the transition failed, leaving an atmosphere of mistrust. Discussions were held in January and February, with Alastair Campbell and Philip Gould representing Mr Blair, and Ed Miliband and Ed Balls representing Mr Brown. According to one account, the talks were relatively formal, with 15 or 16 minuted meetings. The committee - dubbed the capitulation committee by No 10 - also looked at the issues Mr Brown should gradually take up, including security, the environment and globalisation. Accounts differ as to why the meetings ended, but some Brownites found it strange that they were not talking to people inside No 10, rather than two admittedly hugely influential figures who flitted in and out of No 10.

No one is planning to restart such a process, or at least not with the same personnel. This is partly because the Brownites feel they have the upper hand as the mood on the backbenches shifts away from Mr Blair, spurred by disenchantment with the education bill and the manner of its introduction.

It is significant that the backbench figures who have tipped the balance away from Mr Blair this week have been key figures in the alternative education white paper - Nick Raynsford, John Denham, Alan Whitehead and Richard Burden. It is their disillusionment with Mr Blair's brand of public sector reform that has weakened him. The new education secretary, Alan Johnson, has less than three weeks to find a deal with the rebels before the bill returns to the Commons for its third reading.

As one backbencher warned: "If we don't get what we want on the transition, we can make this place ungovernable.

Blair v Brown: the public and the private disputes, G, 10.5.2006,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1771430,00.html

Plotters move to oust Blair

· Ex-ministers tell PM to name date
· Sweeping reshuffle after polls drubbing

Saturday May 6, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour Political editor


Tony Blair came under carefully choreographed public and private pressure from Gordon Brown's closest supporters yesterday to set out the timetable for his departure in the wake of dire local election results.

In an escalation of the power struggle between New Labour's two creators, Andrew Smith, a former cabinet minister and an ally of Mr Brown, identified Mr Blair as the problem on the doorstep in the elections. He said: "We have uncertainty over the transition and it has to end very soon. It gets worse with every month that passes and reinforces the lack of trust in this government."

Ominously for Mr Blair, backing for the prime minister to agree an "orderly transition" soon is also coming from former Blairites such as Nick Raynsford and John Denham. Mr Raynsford said: "I now think it's going to be necessary to set out a timetable for the change of leadership, though I do not think we should be specific or seek to impose one. But the objective of stability for ministers to deliver on key policies will not be possible if there is uncertainty over the leadership. Ministers will be continually looking over their shoulders."

If Mr Blair does not bow to the pressure backbench MPs intend to publish a letter, possibly by the end of next week, with as many as 75 signatures calling on him to agree the transition or face a formal challenge. Mr Brown called the election result - Labour lost 306 seats and 18 councils - a "warning shot" that showed the party needed to renew itself in the same way as it had in the 80s. His aides said he would be speaking to Mr Blair over the weekend about the need for renewal and an orderly transition.

The prime minister will hold a press conference on Monday and address querulous Labour MPs later that night. Despite the pincer movement against him, there is a defiant mood in Downing Street based on the fact that Mr Blair was democratically elected only a year ago, the local election results were not calamitous and opinion polls do not show an overwhelming demand for him to go immediately. But Mr Brown believes the defeats reflect an irretrievable loss of trust in the prime minister.

Mr Blair sought to reimpose his authority by implementing his widest ever ministerial reshuffle yesterday, including the sacking of the home secretary, Charles Clarke. After keeping Mr Clarke in office for 10 days as he faced daily damaging attacks over his handling of the foreign prisoners fiasco, Mr Blair buckled, believing a debilitating drip of further revelations was inevitable and Mr Clarke could never regain his authority. Mr Clarke was offered the posts of defence secretary and environment secretary, but in a controlled display of independence rejected them, saying he would return to the backbenches.

Mr Blair said he was sorry to lose Mr Clarke, but added: "I felt that it was very difficult, given the level of genuine public concern, for Charles to continue in this post." Mr Clarke is replaced at the Home Office by the defence secretary, John Reid, his eighth cabinet post since 1997.

Margaret Beckett, another safe pair of hands, becomes foreign secretary, the first female foreign secretary in the department's 224-year history. Jack Straw, Mr Blair's loyal ally during the Iraq war, is demoted to the post of leader of the house with responsibility for Lords reform and the funding of political parties.

The other big casualty was John Prescott. As the Guardian revealed yesterday, he was stripped of his departmental responsibilities, but allowed to keep the post of deputy leader, deputy prime minister, his £135,000-a-year cabinet salary, and his grace-and-favour home in Dorneywood.

Allies of Mr Brown expressed displeasure at the appointment of Hazel Blears as chair of the party, replacing Ian McCartney. They were also disappointed that Hilary Armstrong lost her job as chief whip, to be sidelined as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and minister for social exclusion. She is replaced by Jacqui Smith, former schools minister.

Ruth Kelly was ousted as education secretary to become secretary for communities and local government.

Plotters move to oust Blair, G, 6.5.2006,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1768939,00.html

Prescott loses job as PM tries to stem crisis

· Blair reshuffles cabinet in wake of local election losses
· Brown says voters have sent party a serious message

Friday May 5, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Tony Blair will strip John Prescott of his departmental brief in a wide-ranging cabinet reshuffle today designed to reassert his faltering grip on government, as voters inflicted Labour's worst local election results in terms of expected share of the national vote since the Falklands war in 1982.

Labour was projecting that it was on course for 25% of the vote - worse than in 2004. The party appeared to be doing better in the north than in the south, where voters in the capital appeared to have seized on the nearest stick available to beat Mr Blair.

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, is expected to go on BBC radio this morning to urge the party to listen to the wider reasons for the voters' rejection of Labour, implicitly dismissing suggestions that the losses can be attributed to the Prescott affair, or the home secretary Charles Clarke's difficulties.

By 2am the party had lost overall control of 10 councils including Derby, Crawley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent. In his first test as leader, David Cameron's Tories had made well over 100 net gains of council seats, predominantly in the party's southern heartlands. Mr Cameron made no breakthrough in the northern cities, however, failing to win a single seat in Manchester.

The Liberal Democrats appeared to have had an indifferent night, repeating gains against Labour in middle-class London, regaining control of Richmond on Thames, but appearing to lose control of its flagship Islington council, and failing to win overall control in Bristol or to make progress in Birmingham.

In a reference to the affair of Mr Prescott and Mr Clarke's travails over foreign prisoners, the London Labour election coordinator, Tessa Jowell, said: "The headlines of the last two weeks have made it very difficult for us and created a noise that has made it very difficult to get over our local election message. I am very sorry if local activists feel that they have been let down."

The defence secretary, John Reid, asked for a sense of perspective: "In 2004 we got 26% of the vote and we won the general election a year later. In the last fortnight we have seen a lot of good campaigning damaged pretty badly."

The Liberal Democrats insisted the result had made three-party politics a reality across London for the first time and predicted that Labour had lost its flagship council of Camden in north London, which they have controlled for 35 years.

Overall turnout across England was expected to be around 37%, in line with recent local elections.

With 107 council results in, just after 2am, and none yet in from London, the Tories held 42 councils, up three, Labour held 16, down nine, and the Liberal Democrats held eight, up two. The number of councils under no overall control was 38, up four. Overall, the Tories were up 120 in terms of councillors, Labour was down 132 and the Liberal Democrats were down 6. Labour was still predicting it might lose close to 400 councillors overall once all the counts had been completed today.

A total of 4,360 council seats were fought yesterday, including 144 English authorities and the 32 London boroughs. More than 42% of the seats up for grabs last night were in London, where every seat was being contested.

By early morning, the BNP had taken eight seats from Labour in Barking, east London, and was on course for more although it was being repelled in parts of the north, including Rotherham.

Labour also suffered a drubbing in Tower Hamlets, with George Galloway's Respect party predicted to become the second largest party behind the Liberal Democrats in a bitter contest with fierce allegations of ballot rigging from all sides. Labour also lost control of Hammersmith and Fulham in west London to the Tories.

Tony Blair, now facing a serious threat to his leadership from within the parliamentary party in the face of the losses, decided to bring forward to today the ministerial reshuffle originally planned for Monday.

In the main change, Mr Prescott will lose his departmental job responsible for communities and local government, but will stay in the cabinet as party deputy leader and deputy prime minister.

Mr Prescott is planning to take much of the blame for the reverses, even though it was being briefed that the loss of the departmental brief had been planned for some months. Mr Blair was said to be considering asking Mr Clarke to move position and shift his education secretary, Ruth Kelly.

There is concern in the parliamentary party that Mr Blair will not use the reshuffle to bind the wounds of Labour's broken coalition.

It was suggested that Mr Brown had not been consulted about the changes, except for those affecting his Treasury team.

Despite assertions of confidence inside No 10, the mood in Mr Blair's inner circle is jittery and his aides are actively considering whether Mr Blair should say today he will stand down in the summer of 2007.

Mr Blair is braced for backbench calls for him to name the date of his departure.

Prescott loses job as PM tries to stem crisis, G, 5.5.2006,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/localelections2006/story/0,,1768133,00.html

Steve Bell        The Guardian        p. 31        3.5.2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1741151,00.html

Remember nine good years, Blair urges voters

Patrick Wintour, political editor        The Guardian        Wednesday May 3, 2006

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1766187,00.html

Center: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
 

Ministers say Blair must name day

· Demand to go public on handover
· Prescott and Clarke still under threat
· Labour lag in polls

Monday May 1, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour and David Hencke

Senior cabinet ministers want the prime minister to rescue his flailing government by agreeing a public date on which he will hand power to the chancellor. The group includes normally loyal cabinet ministers who fear it is the only way to stabilise the government in the wake of more damaging revelations at the weekend threatening the careers of both the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, and the home secretary, Charles Clarke.

Mr Blair is considering a reshuffle as early as a week today, just long enough to give him time to reflect on what is expected to be terrible local election results for the Labour party on Thursday.

Some backbenchers are organising to mount a challenge, and set a new political direction for the party. Leftwing MPs have been planning for months to put up a "stalking horse" challenger to Mr Blair if he does not agree to go by the middle of next year. The move comes after a weekend of lurid and damaging headlines on Mr Prescott's affair with his diary secretary, Tracey Temple, dominating the Sunday newspapers.

He is facing an internal Whitehall inquiry after the former Tory whip Derek Conway filed a complaint demanding an investigation into Ms Temple's use of government cars to travel to and from trysts with Mr Prescott. The use of the cars, revealed in a diary by the ex-secretary published in the Mail on Sunday, could be seen as abuse of ministerial perks.

But the main damage to Mr Prescott is the tawdry description of his affair with his ex-secretary, including sex in his office, his flat and at a hotel. Mr Prescott's friends have denied the hotel incident and he is said to be determined not to resign.

Mr Clarke's position appears to be more precarious. In an interview, Mr Blair refused to guarantee that the home secretary would not lose his job over the mistaken release of foreign prisoners. The prime minister added that there were "no excuses" for the error. He told the News of the World that Mr Clarke's survival "depends on what happens" - specifically whether any of the released prisoners later committed serious offences.

Mr Clarke was put under fresh pressure yesterday when it became clear that the Home Office was wrong when it said that 1,023 foreign prisoners had been released. In fact, a number of them are still in jail.

The discrepancy came to light when David Davis, the shadow home secretary, questioned three contradictory sets of figures for the most serious offenders said to be on the loose, which had mysteriously fallen from 105 to 73 in four days. Yesterday the Home Office refused to reveal how many of the wrongly released foreign criminals were still at large.

Opinion polls at the weekend reinforced the sense of panic gripping Labour ahead of Thursday's local elections. A YouGov survey for the Sunday Times put support for the party down three points to 32% - two points behind the Tories, with the Liberal Democrats on 18%. An ICM poll for the Sunday Express put Labour two behind, at 27% to 29%, and the Lib Dems on 22. In the Mail on Sunday, a BPIX survey of those certain to vote in the local elections gave the Tories a nine point lead by 35% to 26%.

    Ministers say Blair must name day, G, 1.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1765074,00.html

Blair savages critics over threat to civil liberties

· PM responds to attack by Observer writer
· 'I will harry suspects from Britain'

Sunday April 23, 2006
The Observer
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor


Tony Blair launches an unprecedented assault today on the legal and political establishment, accusing it of being 'out of touch' with the people - and pledges new moves to 'hassle, harry and hound' suspected criminals from Britain.

In a passionate public exchange of emails with Observer columnist Henry Porter, the Prime Minister vigorously defends his stance on civil liberties and sketches out a new faultline in British politics over individual freedoms, crossing the traditional divide between right and left.

Admitting frankly that some of his own party as well as many Tories and the Liberal Democrats are ranged against him, he insists nonetheless that he is on the side of popular opinion and will not retreat, adding: 'I truly believe they are out of touch with their own voters.'

Critics such as Porter or Lord Steyn, the ex-law lord who recently accused his government of authoritarian tendencies and creating 'oppressive' immigration laws, had respectable motives but 'the practical effect of following the course you set out is a loss of civil liberties for the majority,' Blair concludes.

He outlines controversial new steps, ranging from seizing assets from suspected drug dealers - which could see anyone stopped with more than £1,000 having the money confiscated - to draconian new restrictions on the movements of those suspected of involv-ement in organised crime.

Even if they are not convicted of a crime and there is insufficient evidence to try them, suspects could be banned from associating with certain individuals or travelling to certain places, in order to disrupt trades such as human trafficking.

Blair's approach, to be fleshed out in a major debate about Labour's future after May's local elections, reflects a growing cross-party conviction that liberty is the new battleground for British politics.

Last week senior Tories launched a new grouping, Conservative Liberty Forum, with the blessing of David Cameron, which will debate issues ranging from CCTV to anti-terror legislation, and advise his policy review on fresh ideas to promote liberty.

'This will be one of the big issues for the next 10 years. It fits well with the new Conservative party and it's rediscovering a lot of Conservative tradition,' said Damian Green, the party's immigration spokesman and one of the group's supporters. 'It's a genuine divide between the parties: New Labour has now taken the view that if something serves the interests of the police and the security services, we should do it.'

Labour strategists, however, believe the Tories' reinvention has set Cameron adrift from public opinion: they were thrilled last week by newspapers unfavourably contrasting his eco-friendly trip to the Arctic with the Prime Minister meeting pensioners for tea. 'Tony Blair believes the political and media establishment are completely out of touch with where the public are on these issues and it's during election campaigns that that is brought home to politicians on the doorsteps,' said a Downing Street source.

'He wants to reopen the debate. David Cameron and Menzies Campbell are on different ground to him on this - and it's an area where the Tories, through having to take up positions to appeal to new people, seem to be losing the plot.'

Today, also writing in The Observer, leading Tory the Earl of Onslow writes an open letter to Cameron demanding his leader take a much more active role in defending what the peer describes as threatened British liberties.

In the exchange with Porter, Blair admits measures such as the antisocial behaviour laws have 'disturbed the normal legal process' but argues that previously police were not prosecuting over such crimes: 'Where these powers are being used, the law-abiding no longer live in fear of the lawless.'

He defended controversial action on asylum and immigration as necessary to prevent racists exploiting the issues.

And he said Steyn's criticism, in a lecture earlier this year, showed 'how out of touch much of the political and legal establishment is today', adding that he remains determined to go further down the same road: 'I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive round in... I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.'

Plans are being drawn up for a super-strength variant of the anti-social behaviour order, for those suspected of involvement in organised crime such as drug smuggling or sex trafficking.

Suspects would be forbidden from associating with accomplices or visiting certain places on pain of jail, restricting their liberty in an unprecedented way. Such civil orders can be obtained with less proof than a court conviction.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will use a lecture to the London School of Economics tomorrow to counter what he will describe as 'the myth' that Labour has assumed police state powers.

Critics cite examples such as a new law forbidding demonstrations outside Parliament without prior police permission. Clarke is expected to argue that freedom is alive and kicking, with 157 demonstrations held there since last August.

    Blair savages critics over threat to civil liberties, O, 23.4.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1759485,00.html

Blair faces inquiry into NHS crisis

MPs to probe £700m deficit as prime minister says reform at 'crunch point'

Wednesday April 19, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor


MPs are preparing to launch an inquiry into how NHS trusts have managed to accumulate multimillion pound deficits despite record extra spending, the Guardian has learned.

The inquiry, expected to be agreed by the health select committee, will pile further pressure on Tony Blair and the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, over the impact of their reform programme.

Downing Street now believes that it is potentially more vulnerable over the NHS than any other issue, with the prime minister warning yesterday that his long planned reforms have reached "crunch point". In his second speech on health in a week, Mr Blair admitted that the scale of the challenge to deliver a new NHS was "very, very tough".

It is thought the overall size of NHS deficits has reached more than £700m, and some well-managed trusts are angry that they are seeing some of their extra funding for this year reduced to bail out those trusts that are in deficit.

The health select committee - which has the power to call Ms Hewitt and other ministers for questioning - is sceptical about claims from some No 10 advisers that ministers had always foreseen the deficits emerging as the NHS change programme started to bite.

Kevin Barron, the committee's Labour chairman, said yesterday: "The biggest issue inside the NHS is that we know what the NHS spends, but we do not know what it costs. Rolling over deficits has been one way of disguising the costs."

The inquiry is likely to look into the scale and location of the deficits, the government's planned recovery programme and whether successful trusts are still having to bail out inefficient ones. Ms Hewitt has blamed poor financial management, and pointed out that the deficit is only 1% of the total NHS budget. But government critics blame miscalculations over the escalating cost of GPs', consultants' and staff pay. There were claims yesterday that some GPS are earning more than £250,000 a year.

For some months No 10 has not sought to dramatise the scale of the NHS reform programme for fear of stirring up backbench dissent, but Mr Blair has evidently decided he needs to re-explain the purpose of the reforms.

He said yesterday: "This is not the moment to back away or dilute these changes, but rather the moment to hold our nerve, back the change-makers in the NHS who are making it happen, and see the process of change through."

Mr Blair defended the deficits being tackled by primary care trusts up and down the country, which has so far led to more than 7,000 job cuts. "We need to be clear about why the deficits are appearing," he said. "The reforms expose the deficits, they do not create them. Our reforms are opening up the system for scrutiny. They are closing off the hiding places for poor financial management."

In the Commons, Ms Hewitt admitted that NHS redundancies were "very worrying" for staff, but said reports of thousands of job losses were "nonsensical". She added: "It is very few hospitals indeed who will need to consider and may be consulting on redundancies."

David Cameron said: "There is a huge mystery at the heart of British politics, which is how can they have spent quite so much money on the health service and yet today we have got thousands of people facing the sack and we have got hospitals facing closure and vast deficits."

    Blair faces inquiry into NHS crisis, G, 19.4.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1756468,00.html

No 10 admits link between school donors and peerages

Blair wanted greater political support in House of Lords for his controversial education policy

Sunday April 16, 2006
The Observer
Gaby Hinsliff, Ned Temko and Anushka Asthana

Two donors to Tony Blair's flagship education policy project were nominated for peerages because of their support for academy schools, Downing Street admitted yesterday for the first time.

In what will be seen as a clear link between peerages and donations, Number 10's 'citations' explaining the case for putting Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley in the House of Lords 'prominently' featured their role in helping these inner city schools.

Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister wanted their political support in the Lords for the controversial policy.

The sources added that Blair felt that anyone who gave their time, commitment and money to establish an academy - to help children in previously failing schools - 'had a strong claim to be considered for an honour'.

Garrard gave £2.4m for an academy in Bexley, south London. Townsley gave £1.5m for another in west London. Both men's nominations were blocked earlier this year by the independent body that vets honours nominations.

A senior Downing Street source said: 'People are saying: "Is it the case that people like Garrard and Townsley had the fact that they had worked with some academies as part of their citation?"The answer is very much, "Yes it was".

'What we wanted was people with expertise in academies as working peers, taking the Labour whip, who could actively contribute with a massive amount of knowledge to the debate on education in the House of Lords.'

Peers will soon legislate on controversial school reforms closely modelled on the academies. Both men had other claims to elevation, such as charitable work, but their academy involvement was 'certainly a prominent element' in the citations signed off by Blair, a Downing Street source said.

He insisted the Prime Minister was entitled to select as political working peers those he wanted on Labour's side in such votes. Aides insist the row is based on suggestions Number 10 was trying to ennoble donors secretly when in fact the academy link was openly in the citations, adding that this would not stop academy sponsors being nominated for the Lords in future.

But in an escalation of political pressure over 'cash for honours' allegations, the former anti-sleaze MP Martin Bell called on Blair to suspend all nominations to the Lords until the controversy was cleared up.

Bell said in a letter to Downing Street: 'I was elected in the 1997 because of public revulsion against the corruption afflicting the previous Conservative administration. What is happening now is substantially worse.'

Last night, newly published extracts of a tape-recorded conversation between a Sunday Times reporter and headteacher Des Smith - a former academies adviser caught in a sting saying sponsors could expect honours - said Smith had cited Blair's ally David Miliband as worth approaching for 'a knighthood.' But the newspaper added that the cabinet minister was confident he could show 'he has never nominated anyone connected to city academies' for an honour.

After Smith was arrested, questioned and bailed by police last week, the 'peerages for sale' row switched from people who secretly lent money to Labour - as both Garrard and Townsley did - to those making donations to to academy schools.

Downing Street's acknowledgment yesterday that the academy donors were put forward for peerages partly because of their school roles drew criticism from a leading Liberal Democrat MP. 'It does point to a potential link,' said Norman Lamb, the chief of staff to party leader Sir Menzies Campbell.

'We shouldn't get to the point where genuine charitable good works should be a barrier to advancement. But we end up with an appearance that people get preferment as a result of paying a certain sum for a Labour government objective,' Lamb said.

    No 10 admits link between school donors and peerages, UT, O, 16.4.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1754881,00.html

Church groups give Blair respite

· Standing ovation greets PM at Christian centre
· Politicians are only human, audience told

Tuesday April 4, 2006
Guardian
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent

Tony Blair enjoyed an ecstatic reception from black churchgoers yesterday as he defended the political class as a frail but essentially honest group of people trying to take decisions which were impossible to duck.

In a speech at a conference on political engagement at the Ruach Ministries Christian Centre in Brixton, south London, the prime minister said that there was "no point in pretending there's some pain-free way of doing politics, or that you can please all of the people all of the time.

"I've certainly learnt that pleasing some of the people some of the time would be an advantage, but I'm working on that."

In a speech punctuated by applause and cheers - and preceded by a three-minute standing ovation - Mr Blair told an audience of more than 200 pentecostal Christians that their welcome was "certainly the best part of the day so far".

Mr Blair had begun the day rebutting questions from television news about when he is going to hand over the premiership to his chancellor, Gordon Brown. On Radio 4, Charles Clarke, the home secretary, repeated his view that Mr Blair would leave office in 2008.

In his Brixton speech, Mr Blair said the Labour party needed to reach out more to ordinary people. Politics "either works in partnership or it doesn't work at all". He said he was concerned the turnout among ethnic minorities at the last general election was estimated at 47%.

But his defence of conventional politics was striking after more than three weeks of dismal headlines. "Every time we vote or every time we participate, it's a statement of belief in democracy itself," he said.

"There's nothing clever or sensible about running down politics. Politicians are human beings like any others: we've got our frailties, we've got our weaknesses and we've got our problems. Most of the time, whatever the political party, we're trying to do our best. We're not always succeeding, but we're still striving.

"In the end the difficult thing about politics is that ultimately, at its sharpest point, it's about making decisions. And usually in my experience if you make a decision you offend someone. But as we all know, life isn't full of easy choices but hard ones, and government, as with our families, has to make those choices."

Mr Blair told Sky News it was "absolutely not" the case that he had fallen out with Mr Brown over whether the chancellor would join this week's launch of the local election campaign.

"There have been a lot of April Fool's stories including that I was going to paint the Downing Street door red ... I think this story falls into just about the same category. There is the soap opera politics - the important thing is to get on with the job."

Mr Clarke said the Blair-Brown succession issue was "obsessive in media circles, but not the country as a whole".

The latest round of speculation was sparked by an admission by Mr Blair, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, that it may have been a mistake to say he would not fight another election.

    Church groups give Blair respite, G, 4.4.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1746300,00.html

12.15pm

Blair launches FBI-style crime squad

Monday April 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


Tony Blair said today that Britain's new FBI-style crime squad would make "life hell" for the "Mr Bigs" of organised crime.
The prime minister said the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which officially starts work today, would "hit hard" against people-trafficking, drugs gangs and major fraud and counterfeiting.

Soca is chaired by the former MI5 chief Sir Stephen Lander, and includes other members of the intelligence and security services and around 2,000 agents among its 4,200-plus staff. It will be Britain's first non-police law-enforcement agency.

Mr Blair told a Downing Street news conference that the new agency provided a way of fighting 21st-century crime with modern methods. He said the rapidly changing nature of organised crime, which caused "tyranny" in people's lives, demanded ever more sophisticated methods.

The prime minister said the new crime squad, which has an annual budget of £400m, would seek prosecutions and chase after criminals' assets.

Bringing together experts from the police, customs and immigration staff, Soca has already drawn up a "most wanted" list of more than 1,000 targets.

The agency, which will have armed units and electronics surveillance experts, will incorporate the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and key functions of the immigration and customs services

But the prime minister insisted that Soca, which has been working as a kind of shadow organisation for around a year, was much "more than an amalgamation" of existing bodies.

From today the Crown Prosecution Service has greater powers to compel witnesses and suspects to hand over information. Suspects will no longer be able to stay silent with immunity and could face up to five years in prison for failing to disclose information.

However, disclosures obtained using these powers will not be admissible as evidence against suspects themselves.

Mr Blair said there would also be an increase in efforts to persuade minor players to become informants by offering them lesser sentences or "queen's evidence" immunity from prosecution, an approach that is currently more popular in the US. The prime minister said this would help foster uncertainty in the crime world.

Courts will also be able to force crime bosses to hand over their bank statements for up to 20 years after their release from jail to prove they have not returned to crime. Further powers could be created if they were needed, Mr Blair said.

Earlier the prime minister told Sky News: "This is an agency that has got the powers and the organisation that is going to make life hell for you whilst you make life hell for other people.

"It does not matter how far removed you are from the actual street where ... people-trafficking and prostitution and drugs [trafficking] are taking place.

"We will have the powers to come after you ... to put you in jail, and then to make sure that, even after you leave jail, you are subject to restrictions on your financial activities for a long, long time to come."

Mr Blair said that organised crime was not victimless and that it tended "to make victims of the poor at least as much [as] the wealthy". The Tories welcomed the creation of Soca, but said it was vital an engagement with local policing was not lost.

    Blair launches FBI-style crime squad, G, 3.4.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1745880,00.html

Blair axes Brown from key poll launch

· Chancellor sidelined in local elections
· Fury as PM puts handover plan at risk

Sunday April 2, 2006
The Observer
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor

Gordon Brown has been dropped from this week's high-profile launch of the crucial Labour local elections campaign amid revelations that he blames Tony Blair for stealing his plans for the premiership, The Observer can reveal.

The Chancellor was only told late last week he would not be required on the platform with the Prime Minister. He will be left campaigning in Sussex, away from the spotlight.

The move will be seen as an attempt to avoid the two men appearing in public together and being peppered with yet more questions about the succession. It came as explosive claims emerged that Brown blames Blair for disrupting the careful choreography that has seen the two men discuss in detail how the Chancellor could set his own agenda when he moves into Number 10, and how Blair could prepare the ground for him.

Plans for House of Lords reform and cleaning up political funding, hurriedly announced by Blair at the height of the loans-for-peerages crisis, were stolen directly from Brown's manifesto for his premiership, friends of the Chancellor said, adding that he was now reluctant to confide in Blair about future plans.

Brown sympathisers are accusing Blairites of a 'scorched earth' approach to the final phases of his premiership. One called his camp 'paranoid and deluded'.

'What's in the best long-term interests of the party is clearly Gordon having the ability to come in and announce changes,' said a senior Brown ally. 'If these are the right things to do, then they should happen as soon as possible. In the interests of the party you would want Gordon to be able to set out distinctive, fresh policies.'

He said the two men recently held talks about Lords reform pledges for Brown's manifesto. 'Blair then came out and announced everything Gordon had said he was going to do, albeit slightly watered down.' Blair's counter-sleaze package was similarly borrowed by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell from plans prepared by Brown for his takeover, the source added.

Blairites denounced these claims last night, arguing the Prime Minister could hardly hold back measures to help Labour overcome a deeply damaging row on party funding.

The infighting is risky shortly before the local elections in which widespread Labour losses are expected. Rebel Labour MPs are threatening to mount a leadership challenge if the results are particularly bad. The Prime Minister will launch the campaign manifesto on Wednesday in London. Brown had been invited to share the platform, but was then told he was not needed and would instead be sent to Sussex as part of a regional launch, with high-profile members of the party dispersed nationwide.

The snub is akin to the row tbetween Number 10 and Number 11 when Brown was sidelined from the core planning committee for the 2005 general election.

A Downing Street spokesman insisted the Chancellor had not been snubbed. Brown had originally chosen to switch to the event at Crawley to be near Gatwick airport because he had to travel to the United Nations in New York that day, he said. The Chancellor found later that he need not travel after all, and would decide early next week - in consultation with the party - which launch to attend.

With the war of attrition now threatening to harm both men, 'serious rumblings' have begun among senior cabinet ministers about the potential damage to Labour's stability. Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and even the Blair loyalist Geoff Hoon, the Leader of the House, are said to have told MPs they will act to stop the infighting. John Prescott is expected to tackle the issue with Blair this week.

The revelations follow an extraordinary week in which the Chancellor was accused of deliberately spoiling Labour's chances in the local elections and orchestrating the loans-for-peerages row in revenge for another row, over pensions.

'If what they are trying to do is prolong Tony Blair in power, or undermine Gordon Brown, or drum up support for an alternative, it's completely counter-productive,' said a senior ally of Brown.

The relationship between the two men - always volatile - was further destabilised last week by speculation over whether Blair's departure date had been set, something denied by both camps.

An ICM poll in the News of the World today suggests 42 per cent of the public want him to quit now and most think he should leave by the end of the year.

Jim Murphy, the Cabinet Office minister, said yesterday that Blair's departure should not be fixed but should come 'when he feels his job is done'. He added: 'I get a sense that this is about driving social justice, getting a situation where there's genuine choice in public services. It's not about a cut-off point. It's about the challenges that are still there.'

Murphy said that would include ensuring alternative providers were building new schools across Britain, that NHS investment was 'self-sustaining' and there was a deal on pension reform: 'His to-do list is still long and substantial, and it should be driven by that rather than by any date circled in his diary.'

He called on the government to set a target to narrow the gap between rich and poor as a way of illustrating the values underpinning Blair's 'choice reforms'. Another senior ally of the Prime Minister predicted he could stay until at least 2008, when the target to reduce NHS waiting times to 18 weeks comes in and there is due to be a trust school in every poor neighbourhood. 'It's not legislation that makes the difference: it's whether or not disadvantaged communities get trust schools. These things have to be real and meaningful to the public,' he added.

However, backbenchers have already begun taking soundings for signatures to support a 'stalking horse' challenge against the Prime Minister should the local election results prove disastrous. Initially, they plan to ask Labour's ruling body, the national executive, to persuade Blair to go quietly rather than trigger a damaging contest.

'If the local election results are anything like as bad as people are predicting, and then as a result afterwards the signals coming out of Downing Street are "We don't care, we are going to carry on", coupled with no clear timetable for Blair's departure, people will feel there probably isn't much option but to start to organise,' said a source close to the discussions.

    Blair axes Brown from key poll launch, O, 2.4.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1745083,00.html

Steve Bell        The Guardian        p. 33        31.3.2006

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1743603,00.html

Jakarta politely rejects Blair's message

John Aglionby and Tania Branigan in Jakarta        Guardian        Friday March 31, 2006

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/31/
uk.indonesia
 

Jakarta politely rejects Blair's message

Friday March 31, 2006
Guardian
John Aglionby and Tania Branigan in Jakarta


Tony Blair's battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world yesterday earned him a rebuke from the Indonesian president and criticism from religious scholars and school pupils in the capital. While praised for wanting to build bridges between the west and Islam, he was repeatedly warned that being "George Bush's best friend" undermined his initiatives.

Like the United States, he sees Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim country, and its third largest democracy - as central to his task. But while President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono greeted him warmly, he also warned him not to "simplify and reduce the problem" by presenting it as an issue of "extremists versus moderates".

Mr Blair has repeatedly called on moderate Muslims to challenge extremists, depicting a clash between "progress and reaction" - a portrayal that risks backfiring. By his own admission, five of Indonesia's most prominent Islamic leaders were "moderate but critical" in a meeting.

"As long as he keeps George Bush as his best friend he's going to find it very hard to win over the Islamic world," said Azyumardi Azra, head of Jakarta's State Islamic University, who met Mr Blair.

Abdullah Gymnastiar, a popular televangelist, added: "I would like to say it's not in my heart to press anybody, but I expressed my view that the world is going to be better if a leader has a clean heart [and] does not destroy other countries."

Mr Blair later faced just as tough an audience at the Darunnajah Muslim school, where pupils were polite but persistent in a question-and-answer session.

"Do you ever ask your best friend George W Bush to stop the war in Iraq?" asked 13-year-old Rezar Rizky Ramadan.

Mr Blair said: "I think we will not agree about Iraq," before arguing that Iraqis were now able to choose a government.

"I think he's a good man," Rezar said, despite his doubts about British foreign policy.

His fellow pupils applauded Mr Blair and handed over an uplifting parting gift lest they had upset him: an Islamic book entitled Don't Be Sad.

    Jakarta politely rejects Blair's message, G, 31.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1743603,00.html

10.15am

Blair: anti-Americanism is madness

Monday March 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and agencies

Tony Blair today described anti-Americanism across Europe as "madness", although admitted the US could be a "difficult friend to have".

In a speech in the Australian parliament overshadowed by his remarks about making a "mistake" in announcing his retirement early, the prime minister paid tribute to the Australians for joining in the "global struggle" against terror, likening it to their joining the war against the Nazis.

And Mr Blair reminded his audience that he spent three years of his childhood, aged two to five, living in Adelaide, and that the country was the inspiration for his "Britain is a young country" speech early in his premiership.

Last night's speech to the Canberra parliament was the second in a series of three billed by Downing Street as major setting out of foreign policy thinking. The third will be in Indonesia, where the PM travels next.

Mr Blair told the Australian House of Representatives: "I do not always agree with the US. Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have.

"But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European and world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.

"The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged."

Mr Blair staunchly defended his policy on Iraq - which Australia's conservative PM John Howard supported - saying: "If the going gets tough, we tough it out."

And he repeated his call for a global struggle of ideas and values against the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism, stressing the importance of international alliances. He also used the speech to signal a fresh bid to revive the Middle East peace process after the Israeli elections on April 9 - an issue he is expected to tackle in America next month.

"The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them.

"Our task is to ensure that with them we do not limit the agenda to security. If our security lies in our values, and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America."

He added: "Once the Israeli election has taken place, we must redouble our efforts to find a way to the only solution that works - a secure state of Israel and a viable, independent Palestinian state."

Mr Blair again stressed his belief that democracy and human rights should not be assigned as western values, saying: "To win we have to win the battle of valued as much as arms, we have to show these are not western still less American or Anglo-Saxon values, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen - this is the challenge.

"Ranged against us are the people who hate us, but beyond them are many more who don't hate us but question our motives, our good faith, our even-handedness, who could support our values but believe we support them selectively.

"These are the people we have to persuade.

"They have to know this is about justice and fairness as well as security and prosperity. And in truth, there is no prosperity without security and no security without justice.

"That is the consequence of an interconnected world - that is why we cannot say we are an open society and close our markets to the trade justice the poorest of the world demand."

On Iraq, Mr Blair told the parliament: "I know the Iraq war split this nation as it did mine, and I have never disrespected those who disagreed with me over it."

But he warned: "We must not hesitate in the face of a battle utterly decisive in whether the values we believe in triumph or fail.

"If the going is tough, we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through."

Before addressing the parliament, Mr Blair was welcomed to the Australian capital with a 19-gun salute and inspected a guard of honour outside the legislature.

Later, the prime minister, accompanied by Mr Howard, was going on to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier and visit an exhibition commemorating the Australian contribution to the world wars.

Tomorrow he will have official talks with Mr Howard, before the two host a joint press conference.

    Blair: anti-Americanism is madness, G, 27.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1740613,00.html

Blair: my promise to quit may have been a mistake

PM privately sets departure date but won't go before NHS crisis is resolved

Monday March 27, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan in Melbourne

Tony Blair last night admitted that he may have made a mistake when he announced 18 months ago that he would not be seeking a fourth term in office.

At the start of a week-long tour of the Asia-Pacific region, he accepted that he may have been wrong to make a promise before the last general election that he would serve a third term in No 10 but then step down.

He told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that "it was an unusual thing for me to say, but people kept asking me the question so I decided to answer it. Maybe that was a mistake."

With speculation rife about when the prime minister will chose to hand over the keys of No 10 to his successor, Mr Blair himself is understood to have now set a date for his departure. The details have been kept from even his closest aides, but the timing is unlikely to be as soon as Labour rebels hope.

The prime minister has made it clear to his inner circle that he wants to tackle the financial crisis in the health service and push through NHS reforms before he stands aside - a process that could take him into next summer and beyond.

Mr Blair made his unconventional announcement in September 2004, telling the BBC that he had no intention to serve a fourth term because "I do not think the British people would want the prime minister to stay on that long".

Labour party insiders have expressed concern that this promise has backfired. Rather than ending the uncertainty over his future, it has triggered more questions.

In the interview, broadcast last night, he said: "I think ... when you get into your third term and you are coming up to your tenth year is that it really doesn't matter what you say; you are going to get people saying it should be time for a change or when are you going or who's taking over. You just get on with the job because this speculation I think probably would happen whatever decision you take."

His official spokesman later said Mr Blair was simply commenting on what others had said, adding: "Some people may think it was a mistake. He doesn't."

The remark is the prime minister's first acknowledgment of anxieties about the destabilising effect of having no timetable for the "orderly transition" of power to his assumed successor, Gordon Brown. He is also thought to be keen to lay to rest suggestions that he has no agenda for his last years in office.

Much will depend for the timing of his departure on how quickly he can help the health service to recover from its current funding crisis and press on with further reforms. Mr Blair also believes that reform of the House of Lords must be tackled again to restore confidence in the wake of allegations that offers of peerages were linked to secret loans to the Labour party.

Unlike Tory MPs, Labour backbenchers have no way of ousting the prime minister through a vote of no confidence. Technically, he could be ousted by delegates at the party's annual conference. In reality, the only way of speeding his exit would be for disgruntled ministers to launch a joint appeal to him to step down. There are no signs such a move is afoot, however shaken the cabinet may have been by the row over loans.

The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said he did not think Mr Blair's comments would make any difference to the timetable of his handover. He insisted he played no part in persuading Mr Blair to step down, but conceded the decision to speak out "caused an awful lot of uncertainties."

Mr Blair will court further controversy on the Iraq issue when he addresses the Australian parliament in Canberra. He will urge Australia to "tough it out" despite huge public opposition to the ongoing presence of its troops. Two-thirds of Australian voters want the 900 military personnel who remain there to be withdrawn by May. But Mr Blair will tell the parliament: "If the going is tough, we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away - this is a time for the courage to see it through."

Mr Blair will also travel to New Zealand and Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, on his seven-day trip.

    Blair: my promise to quit may have been a mistake, G, 27.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1740373,00.html

Challenging ideology of terrorists

is key to foreign policy, says Blair

Wednesday March 22, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan, political correspondent

Tony Blair launched a staunch defence yesterday of the government's foreign policy, attacking critics for condemning terrorist attacks but failing to challenge the Islamist ideology which drove them.

In a wide-ranging and at times - as he admitted - controversial speech, he dismissed the argument that invading Iraq had spawned terrorism, insisting: "We must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress."

But the prime minister insisted he was not attacking Islam as a whole, describing the battle with extremists as a battle about modernity itself.

"This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction ... We can no more opt out of this struggle any more than we can opt out of the climate change around us," he said.

In the first of three major foreign policy speeches, he warned that those who condemned terrorism but accepted that it had been prompted by the invasion of Iraq were encouraging extremism by pandering to it.

"This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core," he said. "By this I don't mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd, their concept of governance pre-feudal, their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive.

"And then, since only by Muslims can this be done, standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Qur'an."

He added: "'We' is not the west. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts."

Mr Blair said that much of the debate could only be conducted within Islam itself, but added: "Don't let us in our desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand, or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us. The extremism is not the true voice of Islam."

The prime minister attempted to place Iraq in the context of his wider political philosophy, arguing that his government had deliberately pursued a markedly different foreign policy from its predecessors. It had embraced a "strongly activist" approach based as much on values as national interests. Inaction was "profoundly, fundamentally wrong" in an interdependent world.

But he acknowledged that the majority view in much of the west was "not to provoke", seeing the world as basically calm with some issues it was better to avoid.

In reality, he said, the same struggle against terrorism was taking place in London, Madrid, Lebanon and Iraq.

He promised to address relations between Israel and Palestine in two further speeches, which will outline the importance of global alliances and the need for reform of global institutions such as the United Nations.

The Tory former foreign secretary Lord Hurd, who attended the speech in London, warned Mr Blair that the invasion of Iraq had created a surge of anti-American feeling which was making it harder for the government to achieve its goals in Palestine, Sudan and Iran. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "I do not question the prime minister's values. I do question his judgments and that of his government on Iraq."

    Challenging ideology of terrorists is key to foreign policy, says Blair, G, 22.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1736544,00.html

Blair on Iraq: 'I'd do it all again'

Published: 17 March 2006
The Independent
By Colin Brown Deputy, Political Editor, Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, and Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Unrepentant and unmoved in spite of the rising death toll, Tony Blair has declared that if he was faced with the same circumstances, he would support the invasion of Iraq all over again.

As the Prime Minister uttered his conviction that he would "do it all again", US war planes were already on the move in what the Bush administration described as the biggest onslaught that Iraq has witnessed since the war

More than 50 aircraft and 1,500 Iraqi and US troops attacked insurgents in Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the golden dome of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines was destroyed by the insurgents last month.

The White House is also completely unapologetic about the decision to use force to tackle the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, despite signs that Iraq is now headed for a full-scale civil war.

According to official figures, 103 British troops have been lost in the conflict, while the Americans have suffered 2,311 fatalities. There is no official record of the Iraqi deaths.

Yesterday, US troops launched "Operation Swarmer" near Samarra, which has long been an insurgent stronghold. Residents said they could hear loud explosions and see Iraqi and American troops on the move. An increased use of air power may indicate a shift in tactics in order to reduce US casualties. It is also likely to lead to increased Iraqi civilian casualties.

The insurgents seldom defend fixed positions after they suffered heavy losses when US Marines stormed Fallujah in November 2004, the last major American offensive against them.

Mr Blair, who believes he will be judged by God over the Iraq conflict, will fly to the US next month for talks with President George Bush. The third anniversary of their joint decision to invade Iraq falls next Monday.

They will have a crowded agenda of problems to discuss when they meet: the continued flouting of international law by the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, which Mr Blair said yesterday should be closed; the riots in the Palestinian territories this week that have undermined his reputation of honest broker; the renewed tensions with Iran; and the public demands in both the US and Britain for the troops to be brought home from Iraq.

Mr Blair is planning to deliver a speech next week to justify the war, and answer the deep misgivings within his own party at the continued occupation of Iraq. Although there was never any evidence to link Saddam to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11, Mr Blair yesterday said he would be linking the war which toppled Saddam with the global battle against terrorism.

Asked by journalists whether he would do it all again, Mr Blair unhesitatingly replied: "I most certainly would."

His own anti-war Labour MPs will be joining a mass demonstration against the continued occupation of Iraq in London on Saturday. They will be calling for the troops to be brought home, but Mr Blair ruled out, "leaving a small minority who want terror and violence to overwhelm the majority who show they are prepared for democracy".

He went on: "It would not be just a terrible defeat for the whole of the western world to walk away from these people in their hour of need it would show a complete lack of confidence in our values and in the system of government that we believe in and so do anyone anywhere when they are given a chance to choose it."

Mr Blair carefully avoided saying he was confident about the future of Iraq, but he appeared determined to avoid Iraq being his political epitaph when he steps down. Cabinet colleagues believe he has a little over a year to achieve a lasting settlement that can avoid civil war.

"Yes it is true there are insurgents who are trying to disrupt the democratic process," Mr Blair said. "That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to defeat them."

The Bush administration yesterday issued the latest update of its quadrennial National Security Strategy, in which it conceded errors of intelligence. But it insisted that had pre-war sanctions against to Baghdad continued to erode, the former Iraqi leader would have rebuilt his WMD stockpiles.

"With the elimination of Saddam's regime, this threat has been addressed, once and for all."

The 49-page document also drew wider positive lessons from the war, despite polls showing that a clear majority of Americans now believe that the invasion was not worth it and that the United States is less rather than more safe as a result.

The insurgents have grown stronger in recent weeks as the five-million-strong Sunni community becomes increasingly terrified of Shia death squads drawn from the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the army. Even moderate Sunnis now look to their own militiamen rather than government forces.

The US operation may simply be a show of strength by the US military in Iraq to send a message that it is still to be feared.

Nonetheless, Washington has now decided it has no choice but to talk directly to Iran, a country with strong influence among the majority Shia leaders in Iraq, but which it accuses of denial and deception in a widely suspected bid to secure nuclear weapons.

In Washington, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad, was authorised to talk to Tehran - but only about Iraq.

Unrepentant and unmoved in spite of the rising death toll, Tony Blair has declared that if he was faced with the same circumstances, he would support the invasion of Iraq all over again.

As the Prime Minister uttered his conviction that he would "do it all again", US war planes were already on the move in what the Bush administration described as the biggest onslaught that Iraq has witnessed since the war

More than 50 aircraft and 1,500 Iraqi and US troops attacked insurgents in Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the golden dome of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines was destroyed by the insurgents last month.

The White House is also completely unapologetic about the decision to use force to tackle the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, despite signs that Iraq is now headed for a full-scale civil war.

According to official figures, 103 British troops have been lost in the conflict, while the Americans have suffered 2,311 fatalities. There is no official record of the Iraqi deaths.

Yesterday, US troops launched "Operation Swarmer" near Samarra, which has long been an insurgent stronghold. Residents said they could hear loud explosions and see Iraqi and American troops on the move. An increased use of air power may indicate a shift in tactics in order to reduce US casualties. It is also likely to lead to increased Iraqi civilian casualties.

The insurgents seldom defend fixed positions after they suffered heavy losses when US Marines stormed Fallujah in November 2004, the last major American offensive against them.

Mr Blair, who believes he will be judged by God over the Iraq conflict, will fly to the US next month for talks with President George Bush. The third anniversary of their joint decision to invade Iraq falls next Monday.

They will have a crowded agenda of problems to discuss when they meet: the continued flouting of international law by the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, which Mr Blair said yesterday should be closed; the riots in the Palestinian territories this week that have undermined his reputation of honest broker; the renewed tensions with Iran; and the public demands in both the US and Britain for the troops to be brought home from Iraq.

Mr Blair is planning to deliver a speech next week to justify the war, and answer the deep misgivings within his own party at the continued occupation of Iraq. Although there was never any evidence to link Saddam to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11, Mr Blair yesterday said he would be linking the war which toppled Saddam with the global battle against terrorism.

Asked by journalists whether he would do it all again, Mr Blair unhesitatingly replied: "I most certainly would."
His own anti-war Labour MPs will be joining a mass demonstration against the continued occupation of Iraq in London on Saturday. They will be calling for the troops to be brought home, but Mr Blair ruled out, "leaving a small minority who want terror and violence to overwhelm the majority who show they are prepared for democracy".

He went on: "It would not be just a terrible defeat for the whole of the western world to walk away from these people in their hour of need it would show a complete lack of confidence in our values and in the system of government that we believe in and so do anyone anywhere when they are given a chance to choose it."

Mr Blair carefully avoided saying he was confident about the future of Iraq, but he appeared determined to avoid Iraq being his political epitaph when he steps down. Cabinet colleagues believe he has a little over a year to achieve a lasting settlement that can avoid civil war.

"Yes it is true there are insurgents who are trying to disrupt the democratic process," Mr Blair said. "That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to defeat them."

The Bush administration yesterday issued the latest update of its quadrennial National Security Strategy, in which it conceded errors of intelligence. But it insisted that had pre-war sanctions against to Baghdad continued to erode, the former Iraqi leader would have rebuilt his WMD stockpiles.

"With the elimination of Saddam's regime, this threat has been addressed, once and for all."

The 49-page document also drew wider positive lessons from the war, despite polls showing that a clear majority of Americans now believe that the invasion was not worth it and that the United States is less rather than more safe as a result.

The insurgents have grown stronger in recent weeks as the five-million-strong Sunni community becomes increasingly terrified of Shia death squads drawn from the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the army. Even moderate Sunnis now look to their own militiamen rather than government forces.

The US operation may simply be a show of strength by the US military in Iraq to send a message that it is still to be feared.

Nonetheless, Washington has now decided it has no choice but to talk directly to Iran, a country with strong influence among the majority Shia leaders in Iraq, but which it accuses of denial and deception in a widely suspected bid to secure nuclear weapons.

In Washington, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad, was authorised to talk to Tehran - but only about Iraq.

    Blair on Iraq: 'I'd do it all again', I, 17.3.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article351766.ece

Steve Bell        The Guardian        p. 31        14.3.2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/archive/stevebell/

Poll cash race led to secret deals

Why fundraiser Levy agreed to channel hidden money from those on peerage list

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent        The Guardian        Tuesday March 14, 2006

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/14/
uk.partyfunding1

Blair plunged into secret loans crisis

Cash for peerages inquiry piles new pressure on PM after education vote


Thursday March 16, 2006
Guardian
David Hencke and Will Woodward

Tony Blair was under unprecedented pressure over the secrecy of Labour funding last night when the party's treasurer instigated an official internal inquiry into millions of pounds of controversial soft loans which he alleges were kept hidden by No 10.

Jack Dromey said Downing Street "must have known about the loans", and he was prepared to question the prime minister as part of an instant inquiry into how the cash ended up in the party's coffers, and on what terms.

Mr Dromey, deputy general secretary of the T&G union said in an interview with Channel 4 News: "No 10 must have known about the loans. I'm the treasurer of the Labour party and to be absolutely frank I don't believe the Labour party has been sufficiently respected by No 10. What I want to do is assert the democratic integrity of the Labour party.

"Whoever I need to talk to to get to get to the bottom of this I will do precisely that. The party, its institutions and its democracy need to be respected, including by No 10 ... We have once and for all to end any notion that there is cash for favours in our political culture."

He is also to investigate claims that Mr Blair offered peerages in return for the loans. Mr Dromey, the husband of constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman, said that neither he nor any other elected party official had known about the deals until they were revealed a week ago in the wake of the "loans for honours" controversy.

Mr Dromey's intervention came hours before Mr Blair was forced to rely on Tory support to win the second reading of his flagship education bill, the first time he had been left dependent on the Tories.

Furious Blairites turned on Mr Dromey for his timing. They accused him of failing to raise this issue privately with Mr Blair before he went public in an unexpected statement issued from the T&G, an hour before the Commons vote on education.

Mr Dromey's allies insisted he was genuinely livid, since he is legally and financially responsible for the party's finances. He claimed that the party's chairman, Sir Jeremy Beecham, had only learned about the loans in the weekend press.

Mr Blair, in one of his most difficult days as prime minister yesterday, still suffered a rebellion of 52 on the education bill's second reading despite the chancellor, Gordon Brown, spending much of the previous 24 hours talking to potential education rebels to bring them round. It was the third biggest rebellion against a second reading under a Blair premiership, but the first time the prime minster had had to rely on Tory support to push his legislation through. By a margin of only 10, he avoided losing "a programme motion" that would have meant that future Commons debates on the bill would have been open-ended.

The Guardian was told earlier this week the loans to Labour were agreed between millionaire donors, Lord Levy, the party's fundraiser, and Matt Carter, then general secretary of the party. Three of the donors were subsequently put on the prime minister's honours list.

Mr Dromey promised to work with the new general secretary, Peter Watt, to deliver a report to Labour's national executive committee next Tuesday. Mr Dromey also wants the Electoral Commission to look at the "wider public interest issues" created by the affair. "It cannot be right that the elected officers were kept in the dark," he said.

The prime minister faces an immediate grilling on the subject today at his monthly press conference.

Mr Dromey said the Electoral Commission would be asked to advise on the wider public interest issues surrounding parties taking loans from non-commercial sources, including what the decision-making process should be to ensure a necessary democratic overview and transparency.

"I strongly believe in high standards in public life," he said. "It was the Labour party that campaigned in opposition for action to ensure there was the necessary transparency, as part of the clean-up of politics. I have, therefore, commenced an inquiry into the securing of loans in secret by the Labour party in 2005. I will report to the national executive next Tuesday on what happened and what we need to do to ensure that never again are the elected officers of the party kept in the dark."

A Labour party spokesman said: "The day-to-day management of the Labour party finances are a matter for the general secretary.

"We can confirm that at the time the loans were taken out the party treasurer was unaware of them. The party has always and continues to fully comply with the strict laws set by the Electoral Commission regarding fundraising, donations and loans."

The announcement came hours after one of the three donors, the property millionaire Sir David Garrard, asked Mr Blair to withdraw his nomination for a peerage.

Chai Patel, owner of the Priory Clinic, had already said he regretted lending money to the party because of the row, and stockbroker Barry Townsley had also asked for his name to be withdrawn. The three are said to have lent £3.5m to Labour before the last election.

Tony Wright, chairman of the Commons public administration committee, has already decided to hold an inquiry into the honours system, including the award of peerages to Labour donors.

    Blair plunged into secret loans crisis, G, 16.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1732035,00.html

Blair wins on education - but at a cost

Labour rebels force PM to rely on Conservative support for bill

Thursday March 16, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Tony Blair's premiership entered unchartered waters yesterday when he was forced to rely on Conservative MPs to force through his education bill introducing a new breed of trust schools independent from direct local authority control.

A total of 52 Labour MPs and a handful of abstainers broke the party whip, leaving the prime minister dependent on David Cameron's Conservatives to ensure the bill won its second reading with a majority of 343. Only weeks ago, loyalists such as Stephen Byers warned that Mr Blair's position would be untenable if he had to rely on Tory votes to win the measure.

In a sign of his loosening authority, Mr Blair also only narrowly survived - by 300 votes to 290 - a move to prolong, and possibly disrupt, future Commons debate on the bill. About 25 Labour MPs voted with the Tories to leave future debates on the bill open ended.

Labour leftwingers claimed he had effectively resigned from the Labour party and become the leader of a government of national coalition. Other rebel leaders claimed that the result need not prompt his early exit but "puts the brake on the unremittingly New Labour agenda with which Mr Blair had sought to define his third term".

Shadow education secretary David Willetts said: "Tonight has shown a divided Labour party that can't deliver public service reform, and a united Conservative party that can. Mr Blair cannot get even these timid proposals for education reform through without our support."

Number 10 insisted last night that it could live with the rebellion, pointing out that Harold Wilson in 1975 and James Callaghan in 1979 had been dependent on Tory support to secure key legislation.

The size of the Labour revolt on the second reading was also smaller than the 72-strong rebellion against tuition fees in 2004 and the 65-strong rebellion against foundation hospitals in 2003, years in which Mr Blair had a far larger majority. Last-minute concessions and arm twisting, including more than a dozen "persuasion sessions" by the chancellor, Gordon Brown, reduced the number of rebels by a dozen or more.

Number 10 claimed that Mr Blair's position was secure since the rebellion had been largely confined to leftwing Campaign Group members and former ministers with a personal grievance, rather than serious educationalists, an interpretation deeply resented by those Labour MPs who believe the reforms threaten the party's hallowed principle of comprehensive education.

But even senior Blairites cabinet members said Downing Street had mishandled the bill's presentation, creating an unnecessary confrontation .

The former education secretary David Blunkett also used his first backbench speech since 1985 to urge his party not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

"The message must go out that if the government are prepared to listen and respond, then we, too, listen and respond and give our support to those measures," Mr Blunkett said.

But even Labour backbenchers persuaded to back the bill used speeches to condemn the prime minister's handling of the legislation.

Martin Salter, one of the leaders of the rebellion, warned: "I have to say, spinning a set of proposals to curry favour with the Daily Mail and patronising the hell out of Labour MPs is an interesting but inadvisable political tactic and I trust that ministers have learned from it.

"We can all make grand gestures, but I think some of these issues have become conflated. I have a view as to how long our prime minister should carry on, but I don't think that should be confused with how we vote on the future of our kids' education."

A leading rebel, Helen Jones, argued that the government's proposals for trust schools were simply "wrong in principle". She warned: "It's not a reform for this century, but a return to the notion of philanthropism that applied in the 19th century."

The outcome will also provoke an inquest on the Tory side, with some rightwing backbenchers, including Eric Forth and Edward Leigh, arguing that Mr Cameron had passed up a chance in a million to get rid of Mr Blair by voting against the bill. One said: "It is a dereliction of his constitutional duty". But others argued that it was "better to leave Mr Blair wounded in power, rather than give Mr Brown time to win back lost Labour support north of the M40".

In a bid to mollify his internal critics, Mr Cameron urged his troops to vote against the programme motion, a means of preventing an ordered and fixed timetable for the discussion of the bill in its ensuing Commons stages. He defended the move, saying he supported greater parliamentary accountabilty. But Mr Blair claimed it was the form of Punch and Judy politics that Mr Cameron had claimed to abhor.

The education secretary, Ruth Kelly, peppered her speech with a blend of mini-announcements and reassurances to win over waverers. For the first time, she promised that the bill would set out clear objective criteria, based on the local authority's education record, defining when an education secretary could use a veto to block a local authority setting up a new local authority-controlled community school.

She appeared to offer a sop to Labour MPs when she told backbenchers that under the bill, grammar schools and partially-selective schools "will not be able to expand".

    Blair wins on education - but at a cost, G, 16.3.2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1731905,00.html

God will judge me, PM tells Parkinson

Saturday March 4, 2006
Michael White, political editor
Guardian

Tony Blair is reconciled to the prospect that God and history will eventually judge his decision to go to war with Iraq, and says his decision, like much of his policymaking, was underpinned by his Christian faith.

Mr Blair made the remarks in an appearance on Parkinson to be broadcast tonight, in which he spoke of the struggle with his conscience to do the right thing because people's lives are at stake.

Asked about Iraq, the prime minister said: "Well, I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that judgment is made by other people."

Questioned further, he added: "If you believe in God, [the judgment] is made by God as well."

Michael Parkinson asked: "So will you pray to God when you make a decision like that?" Mr Blair said merely: "Well, I don't want to get into something like that."

Unlike George Bush, who said God told him to launch the Iraq campaign, Mr Blair has taken care to keep his faith away from political discourse. He once bridled visibly when asked by Jeremy Paxman if he and Mr Bush prayed together. But he confirmed the thesis put forward by more than one biographer that it was his rediscovery of religion while at Oxford University which led him into politics.

The first serving prime minister to be interviewed by Parkinson, Mr Blair was gently pressed on the political and the personal. He was reverential about Bill Clinton, calling him "the best politician I've ever come across". But he was less than fulsome about Mr Bush, saying only that he is "extremely straightforward to deal with - and what he says, he does".

He revealed how he responded to a mother whose daughter was facing a heart operation. "She said her daughter was terrified about it, and the only person she knew that had had it was me. So would I speak to her about it? I did, I gave her a call: 'It's not so bad, you know.'"

While brushing aside familiar questions about the Labour succession and his relationship with Gordon Brown - which he suggests is "still a good partnership" - Mr Blair recalls the first time he had a proper chat with his new father-in-law, the turbulent Old Labour actor, Tony Booth.

"We were in our house, and obviously I'd met him before - but I hadn't really had a proper chat with him. He says, 'Do you mind if I light a joint?' And I thought, 'this is my father-in-law, it should be the other way round.' So I said no."

For all his technological evangelism, Mr Blair appears to struggle to keep up himself. Yes, he has an iPod, but no, he is not always in control of it. "My daughter [Kathryn] does all the songs, I'm not very good with the technology, I'm not very good with any aspect of it," he said. Christina Aguilera is on his iPod.

Mr Blair says that living with the "24/7 media is also one of the toughest parts of the job", describing how his profile changed once he became leader in 1994. "I was quite well known in a small way, and suddenly it's completely different."

He admits to only losing a night's sleep "on about three or four different occasions" since 1997.

The Blairs live in the flat above No 12 Downing Street, and once the door is closed they become a normal family, dealing with homework and daily routine. "I think if your family is very strong then it works; well, touch wood it works."

    God will judge me, PM tells Parkinson, G, 4.3.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1723115,00.html

11.30am

Blair: Guantánamo is an anomaly

Friday February 17, 2006
Staff and agencies
Guardian Unlimited

Tony Blair today said the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an "anomaly" that would have to be "dealt with".

In Berlin to meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the prime minister was asked whether he supported a call from his Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, for the centre to be closed.

"I have always said it is an anomaly, and sooner or later has to be dealt with," the prime minister told a news conference, repeating a comment he made to MPs last November.

Last night, Mr Hain told BBC1's Question Time: "I would prefer that it [Guantánamo] was not there. I would prefer it was closed, yes."

Asked whether it was government policy that Guantánamo should be shut down, he replied: "That's what I think."

Mr Hain was asked for his reaction to a United Nations report, backed by UN secretary general Kofi Annan, calling for inmates to be tried or released and for the camp's immediate closure. Some aspects of prisoners' treatment, including the force-feeding of hunger strikers, amounted to torture, the report said.

The camp, opened in 2002 to hold terror suspects seized during the Afghanistan war, is believed to currently contain around 500 inmates.

Mr Hain said the British government accepted that useful information had been obtained from detainees at Guantánamo, but had always been uncomfortable with the camp's existence.

"What we have said all along is, we don't agree with that," he said. "[The prime minister] has said that as a matter of fact some of the information that came from there was of importance, but that does not mean to say that he thinks the place should have been set up in the first place. There's a distinction there."

He added: "We've always said that Guantánamo Bay was something that should not have happened."

The chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, the Labour MP Mike Gapes, welcomed Mr Hain's comments.

"I think the British government was reluctant for a long time to make very strong public statements because we had British citizens still in there," he told the BBC.

"I think anybody who reads this report will see that in many respects there are aspects of the Guantánamo regime that are very, very open to criticism. It is not in America's own interests to maintain this place."

The veteran South African anti-apartheid campaigner Archbishop Desmond Tutu today joined the chorus of criticism of Guantánamo Bay.

"I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful," he told the BBC's Today programme.

"One cannot find strong enough words to condemn what Britain and the United States and some of their allies have accepted."

He also attacked Mr Blair's failed attempt to hold terrorist suspects in Britain for up to 90 days without charge.

"Ninety days for a South African is an awful deja vu because we had in South Africa, in the bad old days, a 90-day detention law," he said.

Yesterday's UN report, ordered by the body's commission on human rights, urged the US government to refrain from any practice "amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" at Guantánamo.

Mr Annan said: "I think sooner or later there will be a need to close Guantánamo, and I think it will be up to the [US] government to decide, hopefully, to do it as soon as is possible."

Following the report's publication, the US administration dismissed its findings as "largely without merit".

Nine British nationals who were detained there have now been flown back to the UK and released without charge.

None of the current inmates at Guantánamo is British, but Amnesty International believes eight were resident in the UK, and that some have relatives here.

Yesterday, three long-term UK residents (though not British citizens) got the go-ahead to seek a high court order requiring the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to petition for their release from the base.

A judge in London said allegations of torture at the facility meant the detainees and their families living in the UK could make the case that the British government was under an obligation to act on their behalf.

Lawyers for the three men, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes, and their families were told there was "no guarantee" they would win the case, expected to be heard in full in mid-March.

    Blair: Guantánamo is an anomaly, G, 17.2.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1712066,00.html