Well, really!

"Thank you, Rupert"

Nick Robinson blogs this morning from California, where Blair has been addressing Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation executives. Blair went on to the Pebble Beach, CA, resort after stopping off in Washington for a few minutes to sort out the Middle East with his own Chief Executive. Nick reports:

This trip to California was timed to ensure that the PM could go to Pebble Beach to speak to Rupert and friends. Those who know Murdoch's mind regard it as a "thank you". A bigger thank you may yet come in the form of an offer one day to sit on the board of News International. There he would join the former Spanish PM and fellow backer of the Iraq war, José María Aznar.

The Beeb itself reports that Blair repeated his old 'I really believe I can do anything' mantra:

"I am sometimes taken to task for being too ambitious in the radical nature of the policy changes I am seeking. I always have the opposite worry: not being radical enough."

I bet the Pebble Beach audience loved it; good groundwork for the US speaking tour which we hope will follow soon. Back home, we can look forward to more targets, taxes and destruction of our liberty.

Freedom to Refuse Information

The Sunday Times reports that Charlie Falconer – Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs – is proposing that the successful 18 month old Freedom of Information Act should be amended to prevent "the most difficult requests" for official information. 'Difficult' preumably includes 'embarrassing'.

He also wants a flat rate fee for requests, as a deterrent, estimating this would cut information requests by a third. In other words, all but the rich would be priced out of the market.  This seems to be somewhat against the spirit of the original Act, as I recall.

Unbelievably, Falconer accepts that he is ignoring the wishes of our elected representatives, and reveals that maintaining secrecy will be at a cost to taxpayers:

Falconer admits that introducing a new regime would go against the recommendations of the Commons' Constitutional Affairs committee. But he concludes: "We will be able to argue that our commitment to FOI remains unchanged... but public access rights must be balanced against other demands on public resources.

"It is likely individual flat fees will cost more to collect than they bring in, but their deterrent effect will inhibit many serial requesters from making numerous requests with no regard to the cost to public funds." [source]

Sounds like a classic move to prevent 'hard working families' finding out what their public servants have been up to. They know more and more about us, through ID Cards and vehicle tracking; we know less and less about them. Roll on 1984.

Top People Say 'Stop Now'

Blair is increasingly isolated in his refusal to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon, both at home and on the world stage (and more about the stage later). And what I've found interesting in recent days is the number of 'senior' people, who normally work somewhat in the background as advisers or diplomats, who have gone public to say that he's wrong.

These are people who have made careers of studying and implementing the minutiae of foreign policy. They know in advance the short term and long term effects of a particular action or inaction. They know what they're talking about.

For example Sir Stephen Wall – formerly one of Blair's foreign policy advisers – was interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News on Thursday. He said the UK should do whatever it can to obtain a ceasefire right now, on humanitarian grounds. He pointed out that Israel's attacks on Lebanon were futile anyway, because they wouldn't destroy Hezbollah.  And he warned of the very real dangers of terrorist reaction here.

He amplifies some of this in a New Statesman piece about Blair's overdependence on Bush's coat-tails, dated (for some reason) next Monday:

"There are times, such as the past two weeks, when a British prime minister should have been thinking less about private influence and more about public advocacy. Could the Prime Minister really not speak up for the simple proposition that the slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the destruction of their country and the ruin of half a million lives were wrong and should stop immediately?"

Then Friday night Sir Harold Walker – UK Ambassador to Iraq in 1990/1991 and still with a strong interest in the Middle East – was on BBC News 24 discussing Blair's (then current) trip to Washington. Strongly denying Blair was Bush's poodle, he said he could and should do far more than he is to secure an immediate end to the bombing, regardless of the US position.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that Phyllis Starkey, a former Foreign Office aide, told the BBC that Blair's judgment was wrong: "The prime minister has a far too rosy view of the tactics of the Israeli government and does not take a strong enough line with them in telling them when they are going against international law."

The FT adds that "dissent at home over US and UK strategy [is] mounting. One senior minister told the Financial Times of high levels of unease within the cabinet over 'wanton destruction' in the Middle East and Britain's failure to call for an immediate halt to the fighting."

Tony Lloyd, a former Foreign Office minister and a moderate voice on the Labour back benches, said: "Most people would be entirely unconvinced that Bush is being persuaded even remotely by the prime minister... We should have been loudly voicing our concern at the extraordinary levels of violence and should have been asking for a ceasefire."

Saturday's Times front page reported:

Even Mr Blair’s own Cabinet ministers have been privately critical of his handling of the crisis, with one saying that it "could be the end of him". The Times disclosed yesterday that David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, and Lord Grocott, Chief Whip in the Lords – both of whom are staunch Blairites – spoke out against his position at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting...

Labour backbenchers were not impressed by the meeting. An ultra-Blairite MP said last night: "This is incredibly damaging for Tony. It is not really because people think that we are doing the Americans' bidding. What is dawning on the Parliamentary Labour Party is that Tony Blair actually believes this, and that almost makes it worse. He is now losing goodwill at a pace that is amazing."...

David Winnick, MP for Walsall North, said: "Every day that the conflict continues gladdens the heart of al-Qaeda and its fellow travellers and apologists. A large number of people in this country want it made clear that what Israel is doing is unacceptable."

Alan Simpson, MP for Nottingham South, added: "The press conference just added insult to injury. Blair and Bush are now alone in their own theatre of the absurd. It is like a plan to offer counselling after a hanging – the corpse is not too interested in what they have to offer."

And tonight the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is reported to have gone off message in a statement to Muslim community leaders in his Blackburn constituency last week. The Sunday Times reports:

Straw voiced the concerns of several cabinet colleagues, saying: "Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation... One of many serious concerns I have is that the continuation of such tactics by the Israelis could further destabilise the already fragile Lebanese nation."

Why does Blair do it? Does he really believe – as that ultra-Blairite MP suggested – that it's a good thing for thousands of Lebanese to be killed, injured or displaced in the hope of taking out a few terrorists? Is he labouring under the ilusilusion that his talk and delaying tactics will eventually create lasting peace in the Middle East, so that the historians will finally write good of him?

Or is it just that he likes to be near the centre of attention on the world stage, to catch a little reflected limelight? He is after all an impressive actor – good at learning lines, good at changing character to suit the audience of the moment.

How Not to Say Sorry

Bush has apologized to Blair for not filling in the right paperwork when the US shipped bombs through Prestwick recently on their way to Israel. An apology of sorts, anyway:

"Mr Blair's official spokesman told reporters: 'President Bush did apologise for the fact that proper procedures were not followed, but that was all. It was just one line.

"As part of the introduction, the president said sorry there was a problem.'"

Presumably Blair accepted the 'apology' on behalf of the rest of us, since he doesn't personally care about that or any other paperwork.

But many of the rest of us would like an apology from the US Government – and indeed from the British Government – for continuing to fuel the carnage by supplying weapons at all...

Ken Plans London Cycle Cameras

The CTC – the 70,000 member organisation for cyclists in the UK and Ireland – reports that London Mayor Ken Livingstone announced on LBC Radio this week that he plans to compel all cyclists entering the capital to be registered to a particular bicycle, and for that bike to display a registration plate that can be monitored by cameras. He hopes to use the system to catch cyclists who cycle on the pavement and ride through red lights. [Not, as far as I can see, a huge problem, despite Nigel Havers' absurd opinion].

A CTC press release rightly criticizes the wheeze, describing it as "an ill thought through and completely unworkable idea that risks reversing the current growth in London cycling."

Only a few months ago, Ken was trumpeting: "Cycling is the fastest, cheapest, most healthy and environmentally friendly way to get around London, which is why we are investing almost £20m this year to improve cycle facilities in the capital. The number of cyclists on our roads has doubled since 2000 and we've already exceeded our cycling targets five years ahead of schedule... I will now be looking at setting tougher targets so we can continue to build on this success and encourage many more cyclists in London."

CTC Campaigns and Policy Manager, Roger Geffen, said: "A registration scheme would be an extremely costly and bureaucratic system that would undoubtedly put many people off cycling. A problem with errant cyclists undeniably exits, but pales in road safety terms when compared with dangerous drivers. A better way to tackle cyclists’ bad behaviour is through provision of good cycle training."

Luckily I don't cycle in London, but from this distance this looks like a hair-brained and very expensive scheme that will discourage all but the keenest cyclists, add to the growing burden of personal surveillance, and achieve very little. Well, really!

FCO Rewrites History

Last night Channel 4 News broadcast an interview with Margaret Beckett, in which Jon Snow asked her about her about the apparent transfer of US weapons through Prestwick to Israel, without the appropriate permissions. She said she had made a robust complaint to the US, and there were other reports of a slanging match between her and Condi at a press conference.

Channel 4's Snowmail newsletter now reports that the Foreign Office has reproduced the transcript of the interview on their website, but has edited out the Prestwick questions and answers:

"And as for Mrs Beckett? Well, intriguingly the Foreign Office have reproduced our interview with the foreign secretary, conducted in Rome yesterday, but have edited out the section relating to the weapons transfer at Prestwick .

"And it's that omitted section, of course, where Mrs Becket took an apparently off-message stance by expressing anger with the Americans about the Prestwick business, which was the key part of our interview which was heavily picked up by the rest of the media. 

"Certainly ones impression today is that both Number 10 and the Foreign Office have been sharing a dig in an extremely deep hole which they have sought to bury the matter."

Fortunately, Channel 4 still has the whole thing here.

To Vote for War?

The cross-party House of Lords Constitution Committee has recommended that the Government should scrap the royal prerogative that allows the Prime Minister to start military action without a Parliamentary vote. PM in waiting Dave is in favour, PM in waiting Gordon is in favour, the military – at least in the person of General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN troops in Bosnia – are in favour ("Soldiers don't want to sacrifice themselves for a cause not fully supported by Parliament").

But guess what: King Tony – supported by his old flatmate and lawyer Charlie Falconer, and by Defence Minister and one time computer programmer Adam Ingram – thinks the PM should be able to go to war on his own say-so. None of them, as far as I know, has any experience even of a school Cadet Force, let alone the real armed forces (At school, Blair mocked his Fettes School's Cadet Force, describing boys who joined it as 'toy soldiers' [The Blairs and Their Court] ).

The Commons has debated the issue before of course, in October 2005, when Clare Short introduced a private member's bill. But Blair, never one to do his own dirty work, got poor old Geoff Hoon, then Leader of the Commons, to talk it out.

There was a debate just two days before the 2003 Iraq war, and a vote in favour, but even a vote against wouldn't have been binding. Many MPs were clearly convinced by Blair's persuasive presentation of the lies about incontrovertible evidence of WMDs aimed at Cyprus and beyond which could be used within 45 minutes.

The Lords committee recommends that as well as seeking Parliament's backing before going to war the government should also indicate the war's aims, legal basis, size and likely duration. Can't argue with that.

Blair Calls for Lifestyle Change

"Blair calls for lifestyle change", shouts the BBC News headline. It's not often I agree with Blair, I thought, but this time I do. What I fancy – by way of a lifestyle change – is a month in Barbados, playing tennis, swimming, chilling, and generally living the good life. Unfortunately I don't have any rich chums out there who could put me up for a few weeks.

But it seems this is not what the PM had in mind. He wants people to "take more responsibility for their health" to relieve pressure on the NHS. Not, you may notice, for their own benefit, but to cut costs and reduce the workload of the NHS.

Of course, not being fat, and not smoking, and not overdoing the alcohol, are all good things. Not because they save the NHS money, but because life is just better that way. But it's not going to happen by nannying about and banning junk food advertising (nor by opening the pubs 24 hours a day).

It needs education (with a small 'e') and more genuine opportunities for a more active life. Plus the time to enjoy it. Less testing and exams at school, less pressure and targets at work. Not selling off school playing fields for housing development. Sport in school time, not as an afterthought. A safer environment for cycling (and that doesn't mean half-baked and ill thought out cycle paths), especially for kids, who are less traffic-aware and assertive. More activity holidays, without Health and Safety standing over the leaders. Extending, not cancelling guided walks in the Lake District because they attract the wrong colour of skin...

We're All Going on a Summer Holiday

A caravan train will soon be blocking the M2 as holidaymakers head for Dover en route for France. Caravanner Margaret Beckett will lead the holiday exodus from Westminster, accompanied by aides and security staff, at the beginning of MPs' 76-day Summer break.

The Sun reports: "As the Middle East war rages, [Foreign Secretary] Mrs Beckett and hubby Leo will tour round Europe. Protection officers are now drawing up plans to make sure she is safe. The cops will use tents, mobile homes or static caravans – depending on which camp sites the pair visit."

Friends say the Becketts will be staying at regular campsites, but will stop off at restaurants and wine tastings in France, according to the Telegraph. Not so bad for the spooks, then.

The Blairs, meanwhile, will be doing the decent thing and keeping off the roads. This year they've managed to blag a freebie "with Russell Chambers, a City banker, who entertained the Blairs last year when they stayed at Sir Cliff Richard's Barbados villa." The Telegraph adds that there's speculation that the Blairs have been looking for a holiday property on Barbados. This would add to their £3.5 million London retirement home and the flats in Bristol.

There's a bus-load heading for Scotland, including Dave, Ming, Gordon, Hazel, Darling and Douglas Alexander. Which is a good thing, as Whitehall is normally somewhat overloaded with NuLab Scots and apart from anything else I can't understand what half of them say. They could help save the planet if they did all travel together, though it might not do much for cross party harmony.

The Telegraph states blandly that "While Mr Blair and other ministers are away, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, will be in charge."

Crisis? What crisis?

Yo Ho Ho, Prescott

The Indy reports that the Fat Controller failed to declare his expensive cowboy outfit to Customs on his way home. Does that make him a smuggler?

"Mr Prescott's office sought to deny the latest breach, insisting that he did not want to keep the Stetson, belt, spurs and cowboy boots, and thus didn't owe any tax." Hang on a minute, isn't that a bit churlish, given the considerable hospitality he'd just enjoyed with his rich new friend? And doesn't he claim a lifelong interest in cowboys? And shouldn't he just declare it anyway, regardless of what he might be thinking of doing in the future?

In his letter to the standards watchdog on 14 July, Prezza said: "Some time after my departure from the ranch, they were sent on by Mr Anschutz to my departmental office." The Stetson, he said, was worth about £97, the boots £120, the belt £207 and some spurs £185.

Tooled leather boots for £120? Well, really!