Tony blair

Blair's return will be worth a good 2-3 points to the Tory lead. Like Mandelson, he can dazzle journalists who admire his tradecraft. Like Mandelson, he is loathed by the public who see a snake oil salesman. Blair mis-sold the country a project in 1997, and delivered none of what he promised (and it was with those broken 1997 problems in mind that the News of the World backed the Conservatives last weekend). He is not very popular now. When he gave evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry, the crowds came from near and far to denounce him. One placard, which I found outside my office, said "Blair is a war criminal" then someone had taped below it "and a w****r" but without the asterisks.

In the News of the World today, I propose a new tax on the rich: specifically, on ex-ministers who go on to earn a crust advising companies how to avoid the regulations with which they have saddled the British economy. I proposed this before the news broke about Byers and Hewitt etc, but their appalling story makes it all the more pertinent. The Nelson tax should be above the top rate, and imposed on any activity such as giving speeches to the Chinese, lobbying, consultancy, etc. - anything which trades from contacts or reputation built up while serving the taxpayer. It would not be levied on activities which the ex-minister could plausibly claim he would have taken on anyway. So if Blair were to return to law, his earnings would be taxed at the normal rate.

I just took a quick stroll around the block from Old Queen St, to check out the situation on the ground outside the Chilcot Inquiry.  The most striking thing is how few protestors there are – about ten at most, I'd say, and a fraction of the number that marched out against Blair a few weeks ago.  Brown doesn't even make one placard's list of – and I quote – "Lying R. Soles," which includes Blair, Campbell, Straw and Goldsmith. It's all rather suggestive of how Brown has managed, over the years, to separate himself from those who made the political and moral case for war.  But there lies the problem.  In distancing himself from Blair et al, Brown has emphasised how he – as Chancellor – did little more than control the purse strings.

... this September: Tony Blair's memoirs, entititled The Journey.  Question is, what does this say about his hopes for a Labour victory?  Or will all the juicy Blarite-Brownite stuff be cut out?  Either way, the cover will be what you see on the left.

First the tragedy, then the farce: if there was something dark, perhaps shocking, about last weekend's bullying allegations, then the latest Rawnsley revelations veer towards the hilarious.  They're centred around Brown's efforts to oust Tony Blair, and the Guardian covers them here.  I won't pre-empt your enjoyment of them, except to highlight this passage from the report: "Rawnsley reveals that Brown rang Blair while he was staying with the Queen at Balmoral. He was furious that Alan Milburn, Blair's close ally, had written a piece supporting the prime minister's right to stay at No 10. Rawnsley writes: 'The chancellor's fury was titanically demented even by his standards. 'You put fucking Milburn up to it,' Brown raged down the phone. 'This is factionalism!

Brown is very lucky to have a friend in Piers Morgan. He did him a great service in the ITV interview tonight - and while it would have made CoffeeHousers nauseous (if they watched it), it will be the best television the PM will get this year and probably ever. Mark my words: the Labour Party will not produce anything that shows Brown in such a sympathetic light. It was powerful, I'd say, because it was not party political propaganda: Morgan genuinely likes Brown and did his utmost to project the human side of him. Those hours of coaching from Alastair Campbell paid off. He kept smiling in a credible way - telling anecdotes in exactly the way that he does, in private, when he's trying to charm people.

Strange that there's really only one major political point arising from Gordon Brown's interview in the Standard today.  But, then again, maybe that is the point.  Like the PM's interview with the News of the World a few weeks ago, the emphasis is far more on the personal than anything else: his relationship with Sarah Brown, the death of his daughter Jennifer, his upbringing, and so on.  We even learn why his handwriting is so bad ("due to the way he was taught to write at school," apparently).  And with a TV appearance alongside Piers Morgan in the schedules, it does seem that Brown is keen to present a more human front. As for that political point, it's Brown's confirmation that Tony Blair will play a "major role" in Labour's election campaign.

So there we have it, straight from the horse’s mouth, and to round off a sentence of tired clichés all that needs to be said is that Clare Short was “conned”. Everyone was in fact: “We were in a bit of a lunatic asylum… I noticed Tony Blair in his evidence to you kept saying, ‘I had to decide, I had to decide.’ And indeed that’s how he behaved. But that is not meant to be our system of government.” The sofa was barred to all except Bush and the Cabinet exercised collective ignorance. Even Brown was left to brood over cups of coffee and macaroons with Clare Short. Short’s evidence must not be entirely discounted.

It's striking how Tony Blair, the most successful election winner in Labour party history, is now so despised in the country that gave him three landslides. This matters politically, because he has - I fear - poisoned the cause of liberal interventionism. I look at this in my News of the World column today. Blair's Chicago speech of 1999 laid out what I regarded as a bold and coherent foreign policy case. It was time to stop letting genocides happen because they take place within the borders of sovereign states protected by the UN Security Council. I agreed with him when he said that, if the Rwandan genocide happened again, we would have a moral duty to act there. But if it happens again, what are the chances of Britain joining a multi-national coalition? Pretty close to zero.