Determined to stick it out
After listening to the prime minister's interview on the Today programme, I think it's clear that anyone hoping that the 'cash for honours' investigation might persuade him to go early will be mightily disappointed.
He's clearly set on sticking to his timetable, and that phrase - "you'll have to put up with me a bit longer" - sticks in the mind. He spelt out his reasoning when he said, "It wouldn't be a very democratic way to decide who's prime minister".
Tony Blair is determined to sit this one out. He clearly believes that he's done nothing wrong, and is not intending to go, even if people think he ought to, merely to help Labour out.
Perhaps surprisingly, he seemed a man at ease with himself. Of course, that's also what he wants us to think - why else would he volunteer to be interviewed by John Humphreys at this time?
I suspect he thinks that the only antidote to what's going on at the minute is to be out there, to look relaxed, to be appearing to get on with his job. It's almost as if there are two worlds for the prime minister; the world of the media - where he's continually under pressure and where it's said his authority is shrinking - and what he sees as the real world (quite often outside this country) - in which he is praised.
On the day he was interviewed by the police, he travelled to Davos in Switzerland and was . Yesterday, after the news emerged, there was another at a sports college he visited.
Tony Blair has, of course, lived through something very similar - the Hutton Inquiry. Then, like now, there was an almost daily revelation which was damaging for him. Then, like now, many were concluding that he - or at least his inner circle - were guilty. It's worth remembering that now, like then the official verdict may still be "innocent".
I'm 
Comments
The Hutton report, fiction more than fact
Looking at PMQs and listening to his statements earlier, it seems to me that the PM is behaving more like a cat in a room full of dogs, than as one of the hounds. He is on his own, has been distanced by many senior figures within the party and all you can mention is some happy clapping in Davos and a school playground. I recall the footage of Hitler being cheered and saluted on his last day before he killer himself.
The Hutton whitewash? the problem here, unlike the Washington post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, is, there is no deep throat feeding the media,there might be a "DEEPTHROAT" feeding the police however?time will tell all on that!look Blair's position is not just about "CASH FOR HONOURS QUESTION"it's about his whole premiership and his trust,it's about the collapse of a major political party"THAT HAS LOST IT'S SOUL"but more important than all that;it'a about a Nation that doesn't trust nor vote for politicians.In short the political system we had, has gone.
Since when do we decide Prime Minister's democratically? In case the Prime Minister has forgotten only the people of Sedgefield vote for him directly. His party then chooses who is leader.
This isn't America, we don't get to vote for the person who leads a party. We have never "democratically" selected a PM.
Unless there are some major constitutional changes we will never choose a Prime Minister democratically.
Nick Robinson wrote:
On the day he was interviewed by the police, he travelled to Davos in Switzerland and was given a standing ovation. Yesterday, after the news emerged, there was another at a sports college he visited.
Tony Blair has, of course, lived through something very similar - the Hutton Inquiry. Then, like now, there was an almost daily revelation which was damaging for him. Then, like now, many were concluding that he - or at least his inner circle - were guilty. It's worth remembering that now, like then the official verdict may still be "innocent".
True enough Mr. Robinson - but it might be worth remembering the verdict the public bought in on both Hutton and Butler Enquiries and may yet bring in on the 'Cash for Honours' probe: Whitewash.
The Hutton report, fiction more than fact
"It wouldn't be a very democratic way to decide who's prime minister".
And simply accepting a handover to Gordon Brown is?
That seems like a fair and accurate analysis, Nick. The media, opposition parties, and grumbling from the mob are froth 鈥 the frustrated howls of people who want to grab attention and wrest power from Prime Minister Blair. In the final analysis, without finger pointing, the disruptive and rude behaviour we鈥檝e seen speaks for itself.
By the simple filter of action and relationships. The focus on respect and responsibility is delivering a new dynamic at home, and meetings such as the one between Prime Minister Blair and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French presidential candidate, indicate things are moving well in foreign affairs. While the current storm obscures the view these unremarked upon successes continue to develop while a noisy few just talk.
Martial arts is rooted in reality, or physics and psychology. Whether you use a fancy move or words, bending like a tree in the wind and distraction are powerful techniques. By not reinforcing hate with hate, and waiting till an opportune moment to pull a surprise out of the bag, Prime Minister Blair will retain control. With some deftness, his opposition may reflect on their silliness and allow a more positive consensus to emerge.
All hail the chief!
It seems that it is now Democracy that is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Well given the recent devolution debates patriotism might have been even dodgier.
However, when has this PM been interested in the fair and balanced representation of the will of the people? Virtually two out of three of those who voted didn't want him of his parties policies! Has he ever cared about that?
Starting to complain now that he doesn't like the consequences of a representation system that he and his cronies have hugely benefited from, and yet is less fair than virtually every third world democracy let alone the western ones, seems more than a bit fatuous.
The bit that really stuck with me though was that he had no real answer to " this is damaging for the Country" except "you'll have to put up with me a bit longer". His own hubris and self interest clearly rate much higher than any concern for the country or the views of the electorate.
The reality now is that the longer he stays the bigger the defeat in the May elections will be and the more unrecoverable will be the Labour party position in the country. Now that at least is a good reason for him to stay!
'he seemed a man at ease with himself' ?
That the PM of Great Britain could be 'at ease with himself' doing an interview on the condition that he didn't have to talk about an ongoing war that he himself took us into, says it all really.
He's totally lost it!
Took you a long time Nick, but you got there in the end. Well done.
Thank you for writing that all parties interviewed may be "innocent". I do not want to live in a society where the concept of innocent until proven guilt is removed. Neither do I want to live in a society were political journalists and a press governed by a code of practice rather than laws decide when an elected PM steps down.
Unlike some comment on this board, I do have confidence in our Judiciary. I do not consider independent reports to be a "whitewash" just because they do not concur with my bias. I have not liked many reports but feel they have scrupulously followed their terms of reference impartially. I will never accept any assertion that a Senior Judge would bow to the executive.
Neither do I accept that the electorate vote just for a parties policy - the leader of the party does matter. We do not want to be represented abroad or at home by someone who does not hold mainstream views, lacks personality, unable to articulate policies and who cannot handle the media. (Poor devils having to deal with some of our media who are very rude). It would be utter embarrassment and reflect badly on this country.
The PM was elected to serve a full term. He has stated that he will leave office this year. I disregard the loony left, disgruntled sacked ministers, frustrated want to be ministers who support Gordon Brown, the opposition (Tony Blair has always been a threat to the Tories)who lost votes because of the PM's qualities. Funny you know - the PM remains very popular within my group. Perhaps political commentators need to listen to us out here as well as all the aforementioned disgruntled types.
2Feb-07.
The PM has reaped what he has sown,reform reform,is the pass word only the House of Lords,lets reform the HOUSE OF COMMONS do we need all those MPS the bounderies should be altered,The House of COMMONS BLD should be used as a tourist attraction and, a building which should be more envionmetly built.
The PM situation has been brought about by himself,But one doesnt see much hope under MR BROWN or in FACT MR CAMERON,we the public should elect the next PM,it has been stated that power should be given back to the PEOPLE,fat chance of that.
The PM will be remember for IRAQ.
A H BUTLER
Nick
Could Blair be under the impression that while he remains in office he is untouchable? You can almost smell the desperation that he has convinced himself that there is nothing wrong and don't forget he is married to someone who has made a living from representing peple and their "rights".
I think that it would do British Politics and the Labour Party more harm than good if he was to go sooner than later!
Nick is, of course, correct. Blair will hang on until after the Scottish elections to take the "blame".
He can then join the other major sleaze-monger, Bill Clinton, on the US lecture circuit and collect the millions he (and Cherie) have always wanted. With a bit of luck he will move to the US and never darken our shores again. The damage this man and his colleagues have done to the UK in the last 10 years is beyond most people's worst nightmare. And Cameron wants to rgeain the centre ground!
It saddens me that the ideal of british democracy, that the public's trust in the democratic process must come before all other concerns, has been so throughly forgotten.
I can't possibly imagine a modern party putting the health of the democratic process before their own partisan interests, which is a deeply depressing fact.
In 1997 there was a momentous opportunity to re-establish politics as the pursuit of selfless, virtuous men and women. Through incidents like this, it has been squandered in the pursuit of remaining in power.
The Hutton Inquiry - an interesting parallel to draw.
We've since realised that not all the pertinent evidence was presented to Hutton.
Are you perhaps suggesting that this is happening again?
The most interesting thing about the Today interview is maybe the sentence about not caring so much about being liked. Remember, this is the man who saw fit to address the nation when we lost a world cup soccer game. The man who was reduced to sulky silence by the WI. The man who went to war only because he wanted Bush to like him. Maybe Blair is finally getting some therapy for his narcissism.
In the world of spin, hype and being "economical with the truth" I always thought the PM was the "problem", all things considered, and that Campbell and Mandelson were simply kindred spirits. And now I'm certain. Tyrone Power would have had trouble putting in such great performances as Tony does. You know, a line has always been peddled that Tony actually believes what he says. I'm not so sure about that. He may convince some people on this front but to others he is pretty transparent.
Blair looks like someone that has stopped listening to the British, who can blame him they never stop moaning. What do the British want, do they know other than not what they have? They did want: lower unemployment, more money spent on the NHS, lower crime, a stable economy, better schools. And so you have them and as seems always the case the rest of the world can see it but the Brits can't and hence others clap your leaders.
As ever delusions of grandeur at our expense!!The longer he stays the better the chance that someone with guts will emerge from the opposition.
It seems to me that there is no one "innocent" at the 91热爆. Innocent, that is, of hypocrisy and innuendo.
Let us contrast the coverage of the terror arrests in Birmingham. There, 91热爆 correspondents fall over themselves to quote the mantra "Arrest does not mean Guilt" and "Innocent until proven guilty" with a fair sprinkling of "allegedly". Then look at the treatment of the political arrests, we have the word Innocent in quotes and a reporting tone of "we have to say that XXX arrest does not imply guilt but really we think they are as guilty as hell" Trial by media is wrong whoever is in the spotlight. Leave it to the police.
"seems like a man at ease with himself"
Sorry, but when did this column turn sycophantic? Is this just a revert to type by the 91热爆? He's seemed like a man at ease with himself all the way through one PR disaster after another; it's called being a politician.
The biggest risk to all of us now is that we let these guys run the economy into the wall with higher taxes and regulation at precisely the time Europe is reforming and cutting taxes. It wouldn't be the first time we stood back while everyone else made hay and in fact it generally happens under Labour governments... Atlee got rinsed by the US with huge post war loans while they soaked the Germans with subsidised cash with the Marshall plan.
We are sleep walking. Wake up and call for the resignation of these fools.
Is an official verdict only the truth when it agrees with a 91热爆 Reporter's opinion? With his last statement Nick Robinson has implied that Tony Blair is guilty whatever the outcome of the police inquiry. Pathetic journalism.
Of course the PM should stick to his personal timetable before he hands over to his successor. This endless 'Cash for Honours' Police inquiry is a complete waste of the taxpayers money...........haven't they anything better to do ? I suspect no one in politics for the last 60 years thought there was anything amiss with the practise of giving rich , silly men preposterous titles to hang round their names, in exchange for contributions to Party Funds.I believe it is still perfectly legal for anyone to call themselves anything they like so what is all the fuss about.
The fact that Mr Blair has been interviewed as a 'witness' is interesting ( i for one would not have expected anything else!). If he is just indeed a witness why wasn't this fact released before it was, namely 6 days after the event. Did someone think that the gullible British public would never find out? Second, if Mr Blair was only a witness after the fact, that tells us he was unaware of this alleged corruption involving his party's funding, which was hardly on a minor scale. How could this be?
It seems man doesn't listen to anyone expect George W Bush anyway - if GW told him to quit he'd probably do it quicker than you can say Iraq.
As for putting up with him a bit longer - isn't 10 years enough?
Nick really! The Hutton report didn't investigate Blair; mainly because he set its remit. You sound sucked in by, or as bad as, the Labour spin that claims Blair was innocent of wrong doing because inquiries (not investigating him) didn't find him guilty.
However, still a good point. We must be prepared for smug 'lord'ing of innocence as, no doubt, the same will happen again as cover ups, sword falling and 'collective responsibilities' will save the B Liar.
This blog ...on the subject of all things sleaze (possibly) over the cash for peerages issue needs to quietly stand down to allow the law to decide. The blog has done its job but surely it has run its course.
That seems a fair and balanced report on the situation. It is good that the police are investigating matters and we will have to wait and see what the results are and keep an open mind in the meantime. The public seem to expect politicians to be saints whereas the reality of British politics is a history of colonisation and plunder. Compared to his predecessors Blair is a pretty straight kind of guy. That surely is without question. John Major and Thatcher and previous politicians have had no respect for the average working class person and Blair is different. He is a man of the people.
Party politics is about PR, not democracy. 10 years ago, Mr Blair was Labour's PR front-man and the party was voted in primarily on the basis of "cleaning up" British politics from all the (mostly unproven) allegations of sleaze. So with sleaze now prevalent in the Labour camp, if he's a man of character he really should resign. Not because of any prejudgement of guilt or innocence, but because even after 10 years he has utterly failed to deliver the primary promise his party was elected by the British people to deliver.
Tony Blair does not really want to leave office does he? I feel sorry for Gordon Brown because by the time he takes over Labour would have have lost its magic and the opposition may be getting ready to take power.
It is now quite apparent that the British people trust very little of published information from the Government.This includes Statistics and even simple information. Why because they have imagined one 'cover up' after another. When anything went wrong they used to wheel out John Reid to help them spin their way out of trouble. They have lost that facility after the past few weeks. He has his own troubles some of which are self imposed. What happens now Blair can only state he stands behind this or that person. No matter what the Police enquiry in the next few weeks reveals I am quite certain that the view in the real world will be one of yet another spin to cloud the judgement of the normal working man.
I hope Blair stays PM till the may elections at least because I want my 'democratic' right as a voter to give my final verdict on his 10 years as PM by voting for the SNP in the Scottish parliament elections.It wouldbe typical of Blair to avoid the judgement of the people by running away before may 3 so I dont trust his pledge to stick it out.I can assure him that part of his leaving legacy willbe an SNP run Scotland and the break up of the United Kingdom.Did Blair realy intend that acheivment after 10 years in power?
I do hope he stays PM for a long time so that the voters have yet another democratic chance to kick him out, which they have signally failed to do so far. And then with Gordon Brown foist upon us it really would be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire. Please don't go yet Tony!
Quote from the interview on 02/02/07 with Tony Blair and John Humphreys - "He (Tony Blair) cautioned voters against believing everything they read "ricocheting around the media", some of which he said was "untrue".
May I take this opportunity to remind Tony Blair of his comments on
October 07th 2006 referring to his trip in AFGHANISTAN - the REAL source of recent "war on terrorism" courtesy of the Establishments' favourite UK newspaper -
"However, the Prime Minister said: 鈥淚f the commanders on the ground want more equipment 鈥 armoured vehicles for example, more helicopters 鈥 that will be provided. Whatever package they want, we will do.鈥
Given his comments today that we are not to believe everything we read in the media, and given he has yet to fulfill his PROMISE to the UK troops in AFGHANISTAN.. I take this opportunity to share the words "straight from the horses' mouth"..
Who are we to believe? Media, or Tony Blair himself?
Thank you
Love the fact no one takes politicians seriously anymore and innocent is in inverted commers
Any political journalism worth its salt, at the top of UK media?
Apparently not.
T. Blair says that it has been an honour (etc) to lead the British people.
Shall you have another chance?
He said that he has been leading the British people.
Hint: Since when did a servant lead the house?
Perhaps if you considered this to be a leaked memo from a senior Brownite in the village..
Nick, I wasn't aware that the PM had volunteered to be interviewed by John Humphreys ??
That said, I did hear him being interviewed yesterday by John Humphrys - presumably they both consented ?