Tony blair

Well, it seems like Paul Richards – a former aide to Hazel Blears – wants to corner the market in quietly persuasive demolitions of his own party's strategy.  If you remember, he wrote a perceptive piece on Labour's shortcomings in the aftermath of the Norwich North by-election, which we highlighted here on Coffee House.  And, today, he's at it again, with a very readable article in PR Week on why the class war won't work.  His three reasons why are worth noting down: "First, it is hypocritical. The Labour Party has a disproportionately far higher number of former public schoolboys and schoolgirls in parliament and in the government than a random sample of the public they serve.

Another one for the Brown as Nixon folder, courtesy of Rachel Sylvester's column today: "'It’s about style of government,' says one senior figure due to give evidence [to the Iraq Inquiry]. 'Blair would have a war Cabinet, but a small caucus would meet beforehand. The civil servants were frustrated. Gordon is just as bad. He gives lots of time to Peter Mandelson and Shriti Vadera and ignores the officials. There’s a darker side to the Brown machine — he’s more suspicious. It’s cliquiness driven by paranoia rather than camaraderie, but it has the same result.

Another good quote for the Brown 'n' Blair scrapbook, courtesy of Ben Brogan's column in the Telegraph: "Only once in the 20th century has a government that won the games survived to deliver them. A change of administration in the run-up to the Olympics might be expected to herald political trouble. Thankfully, David Cameron does not share Gordon Brown's loathing of what he refers to as 'Tony's f------ Olympics'. He is committed to ensuring stability by protecting London 2012's status as the Switzerland of politics, immune from partisan attacks." Brogan's wider argument is worth noting: that the Cameroons think 2012 could be the tonic the country – and their potential mid-term government – needs.  Myself, I still think there's a strong case for an Austerity Olympics.

Among a batch of unpopular blogposts, this is the one that will get Coffee Housers to grab their pitchforks and hunt me down. Because I think the appointments of Belgium’s Herman Van Rompuy, as president of the European Council, and Britain’s Catherine Ashton, as EU “high representative” for foreign affairs, are not bad at all. First, I have to eat my words. I thought Gordon Brown would fail to shoehorn a Briton into a top EU job. Credit goes to him and Britain’s diplomats, chiefly Kim Darroch, the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels. Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Brown did what he should have done: he pushed Blair but switched horses when necessary and secured a key job for Britain. So well done.

Two Labour figures, two bad news stories.  The first is Tony Blair, and the news that he has given up on the role of EU President – leaving the path more or less clear for the Belgian PM, Herman Van Rompuy.  The second is Harriet Harman, and the news that she faces prosecution for allegedly "driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone." The Blair story is significant enough on its own – but throw in Harman, and it's doubly certain that Brown's legislative programme will be shunted right off the news agenda.  But isn't that a good thing for Labour, you might ask, given the kicking the Queen's Speech was subjected to in this morning's press?  Well, perhaps.

The process to pick the two new EU jobs - that of Council President and High Representative - is nearing completion and Britain looks set to walk away empty-handed. Tony Blair's candidacy is unacceptable to many EU leaders - both because of his record, particularly over the Iraq War, and because of Britain's odd-man status in Europe. Last night at the Queen's Diplomatic Reception, a senior ambassador remarked to me that if Blair had really wanted the EU job, he should have started lobbying for it a few years ago - or at least shown a post-No 10 interest in European affairs. Blair, said the envoy, could have given a speech in Berlin, an interview in a French paper and so on. But he did not.

In his column, James asks the key question about Tony Blair’s candidature for President of the European Council: what would it do for the Tories and Britain’s foreign policy. William Hague clearly thinks it would be a bad thing and has been lobbying against Blair’s candidacy.   The Shadow Foreign Secretary is letting his anti-EU, anti-Labour views cloud his judgement. Let me explain. If the Tories win, Labour will be in the doldrums, a shadow of its former self. The idea that the party will mount a challenge to a Conservative government by rallying around an EU-focused Tony Blair is unbelievable. Romani Prodi may have jumped from an EU job to the top of Italian politics, but Britain works differently. Peter Mandelson is the exception, Roy Jenkins the rule.

A contact just back from Brussels tells me that the putative Blair candidacy, which I wrote about this week, is in trouble. Apparently the supporters of Jean Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg PM, are frank that the purpose of his candidacy is to polarise the field with him—Federalist, anti-Iraq—on one side and Blair on the other. In typical EU fashion, the compromise candidate will then be looked for.   Blair’s problem is that he is the high-profile front-runner. He is the man everyone is either for or against and in a selection that is decided by consensus that person rarely gets the job. In the meantime, the Dutch PM Jean Peter Balkenende, who I am told Merkel favours, is neatly tucked up on the rails ready to break through when there is a gap in the field.

David Cameron was in confident form at his press conference this morning. Most of the questions were about the possibility of President Blair and Tory opposition to that. But three other things from the event were worth noting. First, Cameron’s announcement that the Tories will publish their top three or four priorities for each department shows the influence of the Institute for Government on Tory thinking. Michael Bichard, the director of the Institute, was David Blunkett’s permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment and Blunkett’s success in this job is largely credited to him and Bichard working out a few priorities and sticking to them. The Tories are now adopting this Bichard / Blunkett approach for every department.

Increasingly, it looks as though Tony Blair must make do with what he’s got. Last Saturday, the Independent reported that Nicolas Sarkozy is likely to evoke the spirit of de Gaulle with an emphatic ‘Non’, founded on Britain's retention of the Pound.Today, Iain Martin has heard that Jonathan Powell’s proselytising in Brussels merely antagonised his audience. And the kiss of death for Blair probably came in the form of an endorsement from Silvio Berlusconi. But, there must be a European President, and, as Matthew D’Ancona observes, Blair’s experience on the international stage, his Europhilia and his Eurotrash-popstar status make him the ideal candidate.

It’s not yet official, but everyone is couning on a big “yes” from Ireland – to the tune of about 64% says The Guardian. I say in my News of the World column tomorrow that this is far from a disaster for the Conservatives. It works well for them, in fact: it isn't nerds who want a UK referendum but any fair-minded person who has just witnessed the way Brussels bullies, bribes and cajoles to get its way. Tony Blair was the one who reneged on his promise of a rederendum – something which, in my opinion, should be a criminal act (but, as Stuart Wheeler tested, is not technically breach of contract). And who is to be EU President? Blair himself. It will be dawning on Cameron, fairly soon, why Europe is important.

Tom Watson has told the Times that Tony Blair should hit the campaign trail "if he fancies it". There have been rumours that both Blairs will campaign at the next election, but this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a Brownite has publicly implored the former PM to return to the fold, and perhaps it's a measure of the Brown camp's increasing desperation that they are prepared to bury the hatchet. I've no doubt that Blair will answer the call, he would have done so had no call come. His input will be valued by a party that grew accustomed to victory under his leadership, even if he only inspires false self-confidence. But, after 12 years of government and the catastrophic Brown premiership, I doubt whether even Blair can avert the inevitable.

Adam Boulton is exceptionally well sourced in the Blair circle so the extract from his updated history of the Blair years makes for fascinating reading. It shows how Blair is carving out a post-premiership in a way that no other ex-British Prime Minister ever has. What is making news, though, is what Boulton reveals about relations between the Blairites and Brownites. In a way, it is no surprise that Blair regards Brown as a quitter not a fighter. Brown’s avoidance of contests where the result is not certain has been a feature of his political career.

The Daily Telegraph reports today that Cherie Blair will campaign for Gordon Brown at the next election. She told Tim Walker that "I will personally get involved in the electoral campaign". The idea of Cherie campaigning for Gordon is rather comic. Relations between the two were famously tense. At Tony Blair’s last conference as Labour leader, Cherie was heard to say ‘that’s a lie’ when Brown said how much of a privilege he had found it to work with Tony. As Tony Blair quipped in his speech, he never had to worry about Cherie “running off with the bloke next door”. Personally, I’m intrigued by how much campaigning the other Blair will do.