91Èȱ¬

91Èȱ¬ BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog

Archives for February 2006

A Clause 4 moment?

Nick Robinson | 12:18 UK time, Tuesday, 28 February 2006

The Tories have long craved one. Team Cameron now hope they've created one - they know what it did for Tony Blair.

I speak of a "Clause 4 moment" - a moment that convinces the country their party has changed.

Of course, today's document of Tory aims and values () can be no match for Tony Blair's ditching of Clause 4. That had shock value, it was daring and there really was a fight.

Until I dug out the library footage of the time, I'd forgotten that the vote in favour wasn't of North Korean proportions. It was roughly two-thirds for and one-third against. It was, in many ways, the symbolic end of a decade long struggle to re-position Labour begun by Neil Kinnock.

David Cameron (who you can watch here on 91Èȱ¬ Breakfast) may be denied the fight which some of his advisers desire in order to prove that they're really changing. Many Tories grumble and moan while sullenly accepting the changes he's making as "there is no alternative".

But don't then imagine that what he's doing is merely PR fluff with no significance. For the Tories to sign up to a "moral obligation" to end world poverty; to building a consensus to tackle global warming; to testing their policies against what they do for the most disadvantaged, or to celebrating the role of government can play as a force for good is, to say the least, historically intriguing.

(Operational note: Most computers should open the PDF automatically - if yours doesn't, you can download Adobe Reader .)

Jowell and the Italian job

Nick Robinson | 10:44 UK time, Monday, 27 February 2006

Berlusconi, bribe (alleged) and Blair (oh all right, his friend the minister or, to be more precise, her husband). These three Bs were always going to prove irresistible to the government's enemies and for those in the media whose noses are always sniffing for a scandal. So, is there one? And will it cost Tessa Jowell her job?

Up until yesterday it was easy to say a simple "no" to that. Whatever scandal was alleged, Tessa Jowell could insist it had nothing to do with her. It was her husband - the corporate lawyer David Mills - who had once worked closely with but was now being dissed by Silvio Berlusconi.

It was he whom Italian prosecutors had been investigating for years and who could face indictment in less than a fortnight. Miserable for Ms Jowell - who backs her man to the hilt - but not a problem for her politically. Until yesterday.

It was then that the Sunday Times made a link between the minister, her husband and the alleged bribe. The link came in the form of a joint application with her husband for a loan which was - in some way far too complex for me to get my head round - linked to the money Mr Mills received which has made him so interesting to Italian prosecutors. Aha, say those sniffing ministerial blood. I say hold on a second.

Note how the Daily Mail - once again in the lead - and the Tories only say that there are questions that need answering. Not, in other words, allegations of misconduct. In Westminster asking questions is a way of keeping a story going when you're not sure where it's headed but you hope something bad might just turn up. Fair enough - that's what journalists and politicians sometimes need to do to get to the truth.

The Conservatives have called on the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to investigate whether there's been a breach of the ministerial code. They know that the code is vague - stating only that there should not be a conflict of interest between a minister's private dealings and their public duties - but not stating how such conflicts should be investigated or judged.

They know the code says that it's up to the Prime Minister to decide whether ministers should be resigned (they never, perish the thought, are sacked). They also know though that it was the advice of Sir Gus that finally ended David Blunkett's career.

So, back to my questions. Is there a scandal? Well, there's not even - yet - an allegation, though they may follow soon. Will it cost Tessa Jowell her job? Not if the Prime Minister can help it as they are both close friends and allies.

There is, as ever, a "but" to be inserted here…but this story is not being controlled in London but in a Rome dominated by election fever and there can be no knowing where the 3 Bs may take us yet.

'Anomaly' or 'outrage'?

Nick Robinson | 13:34 UK time, Thursday, 23 February 2006

Tony Blair simply won't say it. Today the Foreign Affairs committee called on him to "make loud and public" his objections to the existence of Guantanamo Bay. But at his news conference he refused to go further than calling it an "anomaly" which should come to an end.

When put to him that he should use his access to the American president and Congress he grew visibly frustrated and took issue with the assumption that he was taking "no personal action" to bring about the prison camp's closure. It's another of those issues on which those behind the scenes claim Tony Blair speaks strongly in private but softly in public.

PS. If you were watching the live coverage (which you can see a recording of here), you might have wondered why there were cheers for the man who brought the prime minister a cup of tea. Despite his bow, he's no butler or manservant. He is is Alastair Campbell's one-time deputy, Godric Smith, who is finally taking his bow from the Downing Street press team. A civil servant of integrity - marred only by by being an Arsenal fan - he will be sorely missed.

His Royal Highness the political dissident

Nick Robinson | 19:17 UK time, Tuesday, 21 February 2006

If the heir to the throne is really a 'dissident working against the prevailing political consensus' you'd expect politicians to be up in arms. I have to report that they are not.

Grumbling about Prince Charles is about as worthwhile most think as grumbling about the weather. Sure, his attacks on GM foods or nanotechnology hardly helped the Prime Minister campaign for British businesses to be at the forefront of these scientific developments.

Certainly, many Labour MPs whinge about his opposition to the hunting ban recalling his leaked letter to the Prime Minister in which he quoted a hunter as saying "if we, as a group, were black or gay, we would not be victimised or picked upon".

Others complain about his "out of date" views on education which led him into a public confrontation with Charles Clarke when he was Education Secretary.

And yet probe a little and ministers praise his work with deprived young people via the Princes Trust or his sponsoring of an Education Summer School to bring the great and the good of that world together or his work on alternative medicine. One minister told me "if he can help my cause I'm happy to enlist it. If I don't agree with him I simply ignore him" .

Just before Labour were elected Jack Straw mused out loud about creating a Scandanavian style "bicycling monarchy". All hell broke loose. I rememember as I edited the Panorama on which he said it. Ever since New Labour has steered well clear of any conflict with the monarchy. Anyone who thinks that will change once Gordon's at Number 10 are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Citizen Miliband

Nick Robinson | 09:40 UK time, Tuesday, 21 February 2006

Listen hard and you will hear something emerging from the political undergrowth. It is the sound of a group of politicians trying to roll out a "Big Idea". In the lead is the man dubbed "Brains" (as in the geeky Thunderbirds puppet) by Alastair Campbell when both men worked at Number 10.

Then David Miliband was the prime minister's ideas man - his head of policy. Now he is often tipped to be prime minister though he is still the most junior member of the Cabinet.

The "Big Idea" has a familiar ring (click here to listen to David Miliband on 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4's Today programme this morning). It's a slogan you will have heard before. It's "Power to the People". Not a call to revolution but a call to give citizens the power that people now take for granted as consumers. What does that mean?

First - the power to choose whether it's the school our kids go to, the hospital we use or who provides the care we need if we're elderly or disabled.

Second - the power to sack with new powers planned for parents to trigger the removal of school boards or for residents to trigger the termination of contracts to clean the bins.

Third - the power for communities to choose how money is spent. This is what Miliband calls "double devolution" - not just from Whitehall to Town Hall but from Town Hall to communities and citizens. In the summer we'll see the product of many months of labour by Mr Miliband when he produces a review of local government.

Miliband is not alone. He denies being leader of a new "Primrose Hill Set" - named after the smart district of north London where he lives - which brings together New Labour's best and brightest. I note though that those said to be in the club - the new Downing Street Policy Chief, Matthew Taylor and rising ministers Liam Byrne and James Purnell - this week published a pamphlet called, yes, you guessed it, .

And the granddaddy of the PH set, Alan Milburn, writes in the Guardian today of the need to come to terms with the "Me Generation" who want control over their lives.

What's going on here is in part real policy thinking and in part political positioning. Miliband has been working on these ideas since long before David Cameron was elected Tory leader but his arrival has speeded up their promotion. New Labour fears that Cameron - with his talk of social justice and giving power back to communities - is positioning himself so that at the next election he can claim that people have a choice between Big Government and "compassionate Conservatism".

They want instead to present the choice as between "an enabling state" and a Tory government that abandons those in most need.

Let's be honest, this is hardly going to get them talking down the "Dog & Duck". And, yes, we have heard politicians talk this way before. I recall speeches 20 years ago by leading Tories promising to give power to the "Little Platoons" (a phrase first used by Edmund Burke). And, yes, there are reasons to be sceptical of politicians - of both parties - proclaiming that they'll give power away when they appear to want to take more and more. But that doesn't mean this doesn't matter. Many "Big Ideas" disappear without trace. Others, though, end up shaping our lives.

PS: I told you that nothing would happen whilst I was away. Apart from a ban on smoking in all public places; a vote which will have the effect of forcing people to carry ID cards; a huge defeat for Labour in a by-election; the banning of glorification of terror; the birth of a new Cameron and of the "dual Premiership" it was quiet enough and just the right time to abandon Westminster

Bye for now

Nick Robinson | 21:09 UK time, Wednesday, 8 February 2006

An incredibly busy week beckons - a by-election, Commons votes on ID cards, glorification of terror and a smoking ban, Labour's Spring Conference so ... er ... I'm going on holiday with my family.

It's all Geoff Hoon's fault. The Leader of the Commons fixes parliamentary half-terms to match, if at all possible, those chosen by most people's schools.

Given the choice of coinciding with London schools or those beyond the capital, this proudly provincial son of Derby and man of the people plumped for the week after next. So I'm missing the next interesting few days.

No need to worry though. On previous holidays I didn't miss anything - oh, except the resignation of Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Omagh bombing and 7/7. Blogging will resume if I get to the bottom of the my Alpine resort or if I can't resist. Do get them to call me if anything dramatic happens!

The boys are back in touch

Nick Robinson | 13:09 UK time, Wednesday, 8 February 2006

Gordon Brown has at last struck the blow he has been waiting for against the new Tory leader, though you might have thought it was Tony Blair who today had a clear victory at Prime Minister's Questions against David Cameron. He branded him a "flip-flopper" and brandished a Tory leaflet from the Dunfermline by-election.

In the leaflet David Cameron described himself as a "liberal Conservative" who now shared the Lib Dems' views on a range of things, including the environment - no huge surprise there. But in a statement that has eyebrows in Westminster heading for the ceiling, he claimed that they agreed on Iraq as well.

So what's Gordon Brown got to do with any of this?

Well, the chancellor happens to live in the Dunfermline constituency and the leaflet was posted through his door. Who says the Blair and Brown partnership isn't working again?

On the road with Gordon

Nick Robinson | 17:34 UK time, Tuesday, 7 February 2006

Just back from travelling with "Britain's next prime minister" on tour - that's how most people see him and that's how he's beginning to behave.

Speaking to me on the way back from a trip to Birmingham tonight, Gordon Brown calls for tougher laws to deport and exclude extreme Muslim clerics; new laws to ban the glorification of terror, and is hinting that if he moves to Number 10 he wants to revisit the laws on detaining suspects for up to 90 days.

What's more, he says he backs education reform now and in the next Parliament. I think I know what he's saying. Watch for yourself!


Or if you prefer to read it, here are some highlights:

On terror
He said he understood the anger and fury felt by people over the extremist demonstrations against cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, accusing the placard-waving fanatics of "abusing their citizenship of Britain". When I asked him about suggestions that he was against tougher anti-terror laws, such as ID cards, the chancellor said: "They have certainly got me wrong because I want the toughest of security in defence of people's liberties, in defence of our country's freedoms, in defence of the safety of individuals in this country."

"People" he added "are worried about the social cohesion of our country...We need to be more British, we need to integrate our society more closely and defend what are the values that we hold in common."

On reform
"My message is reform is going to continue. This is not the last education reform there will be. There are going to be more education reforms as well. And there reform in education is very much part of not just what we will do in this Parliament but what we will do in the next Parliament and people should support it."

On Cameron
"The problem as I see it is, we have someone who is saying I'm Conservative to the core one day, I'm the inheritor of New Labour the next day, I'm a Liberal the next day. I think people are going to need answers about policies and about programmes and about big questions for the future of our country and not a glib PR exercise."

So, is this Mr Brown shedding his inhibitions and coming clean that he's prepping to be premier? Oh no, Mr Brown insisted with a smile, he was just seeking "to be a better chancellor, a better minister".

Despatch from field

Nick Robinson | 14:27 UK time, Tuesday, 7 February 2006

I am out and about and with Gordon Brown on his tour of Britain. Gone is the gruff denial that the succession is an issue. This is a man preparing to be prime minister. More later.

Choreographing a schools' deal

Nick Robinson | 11:05 UK time, Tuesday, 7 February 2006

A choreographed climbdown. That was the phrase I used a couple of weeks ago to describe the process whereby the Education Select Committee would produce a report that would call for changes to the government's school reform plan, which ministers would then praise before promising to make the changes called for.

So, it has turned out. When you hear the Education Secretary praise the Select Committee, and its Chairman welcomes her concessions, remember that, in the old phrase, "they would say that wouldn't they" since they jointly plotted the production of a report designed to give the government an elegant means of compromising with its critics.

Climbdown is not a phrase likely to come from the Prime Minister this morning. The worry I'd have if I was a rebel welcoming the language of these concessions is that the government's most radical reformers seem untroubled by any of them.

Tony Blair will be able to say that "the direction of travel" remains the same as before - more freedoms for schools and a greater diversity of people who set up and run schools - and all he's conceded is reassurances and safeguards. So how do should you judge the changes on offer?

On the vexed question of backdoor selection, ministers are promising more policing of the existing admissions code and more information on how it's operating, but not greater council power to do anything other than complain about the outcome. The question for the rebels is whether this will radically alter the way schools can pick pupils now?

On councils' right to set up and run new schools - the biggest concession - councils will still need the permission of ministers to bid and to win a competition in which other groups - charities, voluntary bodies, private sponsors - may be chosen instead by an independent adjudicator. The rebels will ask whether this will really mean many more new council or "community schools"?

What of the Tories? Forget all the talk of double crossing and switching sides at the last minute to catch out the government. David Cameron wants to vote for these reforms. He believes it demonstrates his commitment to a new style of politics. He believes it lays claim for the Tories to being reformers of state education rather than plotters of the best way to escape it. He knows that voting against now would be used to confirm that he's a policy "flip flopper".

Lastly he, and the Prime Minister as it happens, knows that the only question that really matters for Tony Blair's survival is whether he can get his own side to back his reforms.

Now that the rebels are talking about the small print and not opposing the whole thrust of the Bill the likelihood has to be that the PM gets his way with Tory support. Last night some rebels who hailed the headlines of the climbdown reacted warily to the detail.

If Tony Blair does grows confident of victory I suspect he'll look for an artificial device to try to split the Tories and force many of them to vote against his Bill. This chess game still has many moves to go.

Prezza rides to the rescue

Nick Robinson | 10:33 UK time, Friday, 3 February 2006

Number Ten always hoped that there would come a "tipping point" in the row about schools reform where the worry about offering David Cameron a victory outweighed concerns about school reforms.
Prezza
Ironically, defeat in the Commons the other night might have brought that tipping point closer. No-one cares more about not letting the Tories back in than John Prescott. But no-one cares more about not returning to the divisive days of school selection than Prezza. (Always remember that he failed his 11 plus and didn't get the bike on offer for passing it).

Having, uncharacteristically, allowed his private worries about school reforms to become public, it is an important moment when he publicly switches to backing them.

His endorsement won't, in itself, bring around the rebels. They will study hard the idea of giving local authorities "strategic oversight" of all state schools. It is that and not admissions policy which holds the key to this rebellion. It's the simple question of where power lies.

Tony Blair wants to give it to parents and headteachers. Many in the Labour Party fear the anarchy that could produce, and want it in the hands of democratically elected councillors. Nevertheles, today's speech by John Prescott is a milestone.

P.S. Let me know if you see him riding about on a new Raleigh.

All sceptics now?

Nick Robinson | 17:12 UK time, Thursday, 2 February 2006

Well, well. Are we all Euro-sceptics now? Read an intriguing speech on Europe by the prime minister and you do wonder. In it, he insists that not all Euro-sceptics are anti-European. There is, he says, a strain of Euro-scepticism which he calls "practical scepticism" which is "a genuine, intellectual and political concern about Europe as practised".

"This is not xenophobia, nor devotion to undiluted national sovereignty," he goes on, "but a worry about Europe's economy being uncompetitive; its institutions too remote; its decision-making too influenced by the lowest common denominator."

A description, you might think of Gordon Brown's European views and, perhaps, latterly his own too.

What though of his desire to get Britain into the single currency and signed up to the Euro constitution? On the euro currency he says "the economics had to be got right and the politics follow".

My recollection of his original position was that it was the other way about - the politics, he used to argue, had been settled. All we had to wait for is the economics to be right. He once argued that the public should vote for the constitution but now says "no-one in Europe knew what it was meant to solve".

Some are already calling this a valedictory speech from Tony Blair designed to counter the claim that he failed in his mission to put Britain at the heart of Europe. It may be about something else - closing the gap between Blair-ite euro-enthusiasm and Brown-ite scepticism.

Why? Because this will ensure that, in New Labour's favourite phrase, there is a "clear dividing line" between them and David Cameron. One way of proving that Cameron is not the man of the future is to split him off from the next generation of EU leaders. It's not by chance then that Tony Blair praises both the new German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the man most likely (for now at least) to be the next French President - Nicolas Sarkosy.

Both are Conservatives. Both have criticised David Cameron's plan to take his party out of the group they sit in the European Parliament. Both, Tony Blair is saying, agree with me.

Victims and pawns of the war

Nick Robinson | 20:00 UK time, Wednesday, 1 February 2006

The photo of Tony Blair meeting the man who would become the 100th soldier to die in the Iraq war adds personal poignancy to a grim milestone. Of course, it changes nothing. Not the tragedy for his family and friends. Not the tragedy for all those who lost someone who happens not to have been the 100th and happens not to have met the prime minister. Not the question of whether war was right or wrong.

But inevitably those opposed to the war or critical of Tony Blair will use it against him. Some are demanding to know how he deals with the victims of "his war" or are asking why his letters are typed and not hand written, or why he doesn't attend funerals or meet the bereaved families. Number 10 is reluctant to be drawn on any of this knowing all too well the dangers of being seen to parade the prime minister's emotions publicly.

I'm told that he does write to all. I understand that there is a policy of not phoning families or going to meet coffins or attend funerals since some families would not want it and inevitably if it was done for one some would argue it should be done for all. It's all just a reminder that the victims of this war also become pawns in the political battle about whether it should have been fought at all.

A slow decay

Nick Robinson | 11:51 UK time, Wednesday, 1 February 2006

"These things happen". Thus Number 10 has . I suspect that at Prime Minister's Questions Tony Blair wll try to laugh off the fact that his absence made the difference between defeat and victory.

George Galloway turned out to be a more reliable supporter of a Labour manifesto pledge than the PM himself. Despite their obvious distractions, Mark Oaten and Charles Kennedy turned out to be more consistent voters.

Now, it's true the world will go on. It's true too that last night's defeat will act as a shot across the bows before the votes that really matter on schools reform. But - and it's a big but - governments with a majority this size should not lose votes, not least on manifesto pledges. It suggests not so much a loss of authority as a lack of grip by Team Blair.

It also demonstrates the slow decay of instinctive discipline and loyalty in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Those things do happen to governments, but usually only just before their leaders stand aside or are pushed.

91Èȱ¬ iD

91Èȱ¬ navigation

91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.