³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

San Francisco International Airport: "These are sovereign governments, not puppets on a string". Thus the PM's official spokesman sought to explain why Tony Blair did not believe that calling for an immediate ceasefire would change anything on the ground in Lebanon. Gone was the optimism of only 12 hours earlier when Tony Blair talked of there being "a real chance" of getting an end to hostility.

When Mr Blair spoke to his Israeli opposite number he clearly did not hear what he hoped to hear. Mr Olmert is not ready to call a ceasefire in the coming days and insists that he will only be willing to do so once an international force moves into southern Lebanon.

So the next Blair phone call was to President Chirac. France are the former imperial power, they are in the chair of the Security Council and are expected to lead any international force. The problem is that they say that their troops will only go in once there's a political deal and not a day before. Mr Chirac, unlike Tony Blair, has been willing to criticise Israel and, indeed, his foreign minister has sugested that the carnage in Qana could have been avoided if Britain and the US had followed France's lead.

So, as we prepare to take off from San Francisco to Los Angeles the diplomatic augurs look poor. The backroom boys and girls from Number Ten who thought this would be a leisurely trip to the sun are set to have yet another broken night's sleep. As their boss snores they take messages from diplomats in the Middle East, at the UN and back at base in Number Ten and they set up calls with world leaders once the PM awakes. They've never had a trip quite like this one.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's not often that you get to write about the prime minister and transvestism in the same sentence but here goes.

Speaking to Rupert Murdoch and executives of his News Corporation last night, Tony Blair declared that political "cross dressing" was here to stay. Parties would steal each others clothes as the era of tribal politics was at an end. Divisions between right and left were no longer the ones that counted.

No greater evidence for that claim can there be than Tony Blair's closeness to Mr Murdoch himself. 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.

But who will The Sun shine on next? Rupert Murdoch likes Gordon Brown personally and they share a passion for hard work. However, he suspects that, unlike Tony Blair, Brown really is a socialist. Murdoch has not, on the other hand, taken to David Cameron and fears he may stand for nothing very much at all. Expect both men to jump through hoops trying to win Mr Murdoch's favour.

Although Rupert and Tony were thrown together by mutual opportunism, the intriguing thing is that they came together today because they agree on so very much.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For days now Tony Blar has resisted demands that he calls for "an immediate ceasefire". Now, after the tragedy of Qana, he is calling for "a ceasefire as soon as possible" which sounds awfully similar. Has he changed his position then?

The answer is no and yes.

No because he has not altered his view that those calling for an immediate ceasefire have no idea how they would bring it about. This is what he derides as "commentary" on events rather than working to shape them. He still insists that a ceasefire must come from both sides, that it must stem from a new UN resolution and that it must lead to a long lasting peace and not just be a temporary truce.

Yes, though, because he has moved to end all doubts that secretly he wants Israel to carry on its military campaign until it defeats Hezbollah.

He will still not utter the words of condemnation that Jack Straw - his former foreign secretary - has, or indeed leaders like President Chirac of France did today. This, we're told, is because he wants to retain influence with the players in this conflict.

Today he's focused his energies on talking to the Lebanese. After the tragedy of Qana it is easier to see why they may want to agree to a ceasefire but harder to see why Israel will. Tony Blair's influence in Jerusalem is limited. His best hope is to persuade the Americans to persuade them.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

San Francisco: Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace? This morning for the first time "urgent" stopped being a word Tony Blair deployed and was conveyed by his tone and his demeanour. Speaking to us in his hotel suite in San Francisco he declared that what had happened showed that "the situation simply cannot continue". I think he meant it.

He was woken this morning with the news of the of the single bloodiest attack in Israel's 19-day-old war on Hezbollah guerrillas. Soon after he called Lebanon's prime minister to express his sorrow and to discuss the diplomatic way forward. Then he marched through the lobby of the Fairmont Hotel and past my camera, turning only to promise to speak to us soon. His destination was the Sunday morning service at the Grace Cathedral just a few hundred yards up the road.

On his return he made clear that he does now believe the fighting has to stop. He said that he would be making urgent calls and having negotiations with other world leaders. He has promised to call Lebanon's prime minister again. His aim is a UN resolution that produces a ceasefire on both sides. It will include backing - in principle at least - for a new UN stabilisation force (although the detail of who serves and what their specific mandate is may have to follow). It will repeat UN Security Resolution 1559 calling on foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for militias to be disarmed. In reality, this is likely to mean incorporating Hezbollah into the Lebanese army and not disbanding them. It may need also to make provision for prisoner exchanges.

We are a long way here from the carnage in Qana but Tony Blair wants to be at the centre of the talking designed to prevent another tragedy like it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

San Francisco: I've just been interviewing Tony Blair about his plan to bring peace to Lebanon (you can watch it here). He claims that there could be a ceasefire within days if the UN can reach agreement on a new resolution and the principle of setting up a new stabilisation force. If you think this sounds like he's being - in his own words - "an incurable optimist" there are two straws in the wind that may - and I do stress may - suggest you're wrong.

Firstly, an Israeli official has told my colleague Paul Adams that the guns may fall silent when the UN reaches agreement if - and it's a big if - Hezbollah stops firing rockets and does not use a ceasefire to re-arm itself. Secondly, Hezbollah itself last night said it backed the position of the Lebanese government which includes support for Resolution 1559 which calls on foreign forces to withdraw but also calls on militia to be disarmed. Do they mean it? Does this suggest that both fear the consequences of this conflict continuing? The next week should tell us the answer.

I also asked the prime minister about split in his Cabinet - a split which he said he wasn't aware of. It has now emerged that the man who was his foreign secretary until a few weeks ago - Jack Straw - has publicly attacked Israel and, by implication, his own government. Mr Straw told Muslims in his constituency that "Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation". He went on to say that "one of the many serious concerns I have is that the continuation of such tactics by the Israelis could further undermine destabilise an already fragile Lebanese nation".

A fear many people have is that Britain's position could make us a greater target for terrorist attacks. Tony Blair's answer was blunt - "when people stand up and fight, people will come after you".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

To those who said they were doing nothing while Lebanon burned, Tony Blair and George Bush produced their answer. A route map, not to an immediate ceasefire but - they hope - a permanent end to hostilities.

The prime minister will regard the president's backing for a new UN resolution, a new international stabilisation force and a renewed drive to create a Palestinian state as proof of the benefits of the relationship he's forged.

There was proof too of how close both men are in their analysis of what George Bush called "the challenge of the 21st Century". Violence, Tony Blair argued, must be ended "on the basis of clear principles". He didn't spell out what that meant but it's clear what he means. Israel and Hezbollah will not be treated as equals. Terrorism must be seen not to pay. Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted.

The president began by promising to rebuild Lebanon - the infrastructure and the houses that the Israelis have destroyed. I asked him why, instead, he didn't call on Israel to stop destroying them. It was not a question he welcomed . That, though, is sure to be the test of today's plan - how soon and for how long does it stop the killing - not just in Lebanon, of course, but in Israel too.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Washington DC: Just arrived at the White House where the temperature is fierce but President Bush's spokesman has just been decidedly lukewarm about talk of a new UN resolution.

Tony Snow told reporters here that the fundamental point is getting to have appropriate conditions on the ground to merit a new resolution and that moment has not yet occurred.

In terms of how pivotal this meeting with Blair actually is, Snow said it was arranged primarily because the prime minister was already going to be in California. "It would have been a little weird" for him not to come to the White House then.

As we queue to go through security we're greeted by a protester wearing a Bush mask with a placard saying "I love my poodle."

And Mary Masserini - the State Department's Queen of Protocol - is here to greet me too. She's been here every time I've come but informs me that this is the last time. She's decided to retire after 58 years here. Mary, I should add, is 80 years old.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Andrews Air Force base, Maryland: Sure enough, on board Blairforce One we were served up a string of momentum metaphors along with our scrambled egg and sausage. The PM wants, we're told, to "increase the urgency", "to step up a gear" and to raise "the tempo" of the search for the steps to bring about a ceasefire on both sides.

That means getting George Bush to back a UN resolution next week. It would establish a new international stabilisation force, call on foreign forces to leave Lebanon and on militias to be disarmed (a repeat of resolution 1559 in other words) and, though this may not appear in the final text, a deal on prisoner exchanges.

Politically he wants George Bush to help him rebut the claim that their refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire is in reality a green light for Israel to carry on bombing Lebanon whatever the consequences.

The problem they face, though, is that this is not a claim made only by their critics. The Israeli justice minister said yesterday that that "the world told us...to continue this operation, this war, until there is no Hezbollah presence in southern Lebanon".

That belief goes to the heart of the dilemma facing the twin architects of "the war on terror". Is Israeli action a vital part of that war that should get Bush and Blair's full support? Or, given its lack of success to date, is it now merely serving as a recruiting sergeant for the enemy?

That judgment will underlie just how much momentum towards the steps towards the resolution towards a ceasefire we see tonight.

Watch the news conference. It's sure to be fascinating.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

HEATHROW: This is - one of the prime minister's Cabinet colleagues told me - the most significant Blair/Bush summit ever. Not just, he said, because of the gravity of the situation in the Middle East; not just because of the widespread anger felt at Britain's position; not just because Tony Blair's own political position is precarious; but because of the by now infamous greeting from President to Prime Minister - "Yo Blair". That open microphone at the G8 summit captured what, as I mentioned yesterday, even in Whitehall they call the "poodle problem".

Those close to Tony Blair call his approach to the US the "hug them close" strategy. Others less enamoured of it dub it "the bite your tongue" approach and they're tiring of biting their own tongues.

Stephen Wall, once the PM's adviser on Europe, is one of those who can now speak out. of his former boss's approach is echoed by many in Labour who are normally loyal to the prime minister.

Do not expect the Blair approach to change at the White House today. Not because Tony Blair fears a split with the US but because, as he delights in putting it, "it's worse than you think, I actually believe it".

The PM believes that calls for an immediate ceasefire treat Hizbollah - a terrorist organisation which rocketted Israeli civilians and captured her soldiers - as the moral equivalent of the democratic state it targetted and wants to destroy. It is, he argues, easy to be a commentator - easy, in other words, to label Israeli actions disproportionate. Harder, he insists, is to do what's necessary - that is, to develop a plan which both sides can sign up to and which will produce a sustainable ceasefire.

His advisers believe that their opposite numbers in the White House now understand that the American public's instinctive support for Israel is not shared in Europe. They hope their man can sell to the Americans a plan that they can sell to the Israelis which will then put Hizbollah on the spot and make clear that only their actions stand in the way of that immediate ceasefire. At its heart is the idea Tony Blair pushed at the G8 summit for an international stabilisation force. The hope is that this will be backed at a ministerial meeting of the United Nations next Tuesday.

The PM knows he's under huge pressure to prove that his approach delivers results. His Cabinet colleague told me this is the ultimate test of Tony Blair's entire approach to America.

UPDATE 0847BST Downing Street is teling the world that Tony Blair will today inject urgency into the search for a ceasefire. This does not mean that he has become a convert to calls for an immediate ceasefire. It merely means that he dislikes being portrayed as opposed to a halt in the violence in Lebanon. And he wants to add urgency to the search for a plan which is, he believes, the only way to bring about a sustainable peace. If you heard me somewhat breathless on Radio 4's 7am news this morning, that's because I'd just read how this was being reported by some and wanted to unreport it!

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In Whitehall they call it "the poodle factor" - the widespread perception that Britain is America's poodle or, more specifically, that Tony "Yo" Blair is George Bush's. This is the only reason I can identify for the foreign secretary about US planes carrying bombs for Israel using Prestwick airport as a stopover.

The key question in this affair is: "Would the British government have said yes if the Americans had asked?"

The answer, I'm told, is "yes".

Indeed, the next few weeks will see more such flights. But under CAA regulations the carriage of dangerous goods has to be notified and in this case there was no notification. Failure to tell the authorities can result in a fine of - wait for it - £5,000. Hardly enough to cause even a transatlantic ripple.

Margaret Beckett is making a stand - making it clear that the UK should have been asked. It's an argument which might appear to be about mere process but is really about pride, politics and poodles.

This a day before Tony Blair turns up at the White House.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is there a middle way between telling Israel to stop or encouraging her - in effect - to carry on?

Tony Blair clearly thinks there is. At in Downing Street this afternoon (watch Blair's statement here) I asked him which of these two messages he was sending to Israel. He insisted that that was not the choice. "I want the killing to stop. I want the killing to stop on both sides," he said, "but it's not going to happen on both sides unless we have a plan to make it".

When a journalist from the Middle East translated this as "you want the killing to go on" the Prime Minister shook his head as if in despair. He knows that the fighting in Lebanon is dividing the coalition against terrorism which he is so desperate to build.

At his side - but clearly not shoulder to shoulder with him - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that Israel's action in Lebanon would "backfire" in Iraq, that it would result in a "great push to fundamentalism" and send a "negative message" to those who want peace.

Tony Blair blames Hezbollah for this crisis and says that "the purpose is to force moderate people to divide".

Today showed the clearest possible illustration of that.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Don't blame me, I'm new here.

That's how senior staff greet each other at the Home Office these days. Today we see and a reminder of why change is needed. The Home Office simply doesn't know how many failed asylum seekers there are in Britain. Immigration "systems" sometimes consist of piles of folders covered in post-it notes piled on a window sill.

One visitor from Whitehall who saw this sort of arrangement for the files on foreign prisoners asked whose idea it was. "Mine" said one keen civil servant. "And how long have you been here?" "Oh, two weeks" came the reply.

Thus, today will all be about systems of delivery and not new policy - that comes in more announcements tomorrow. Ministers compare their job with turning round British Airways post-privatisation. So, in management jargon they'll "focus on the core" - i.e. protecting the public. They'll "shrink the centre" - i.e. there will be fewer staff at Home Office HQ and deputy heads will roll (the top team are all pretty new in their jobs). They'll "delineate responsibilities" - i.e. ministers will stop being involved in the day-to-day work of the immigration department, which cost first Beverley Hughes and then David Blunkett their jobs.

It's worth remembering one thing when you hear today's Action Plan. Five outsiders were brought in to advise on reform when Charles Clarke was still home secretary. They were discussing their thoughts with the Permanent Secretary Sir David Normington in his glass walled office overlooking the atrium of the Home Office. Look down there, he told them, and pointed at the TV cameras and reporters including yours truly.

That, he explained to his guests, is the home secretary resigning.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I angered some by focusing on the impact of Lord Levy's arrest on Tony Blair. It may interest you to know, therefore, that John McDonnell MP, the leader of the left-wing Campaign Group, looks set tomorrow to announce a campaign to be Labour's next leader.

Or so I'm told by one of those he's approached to support him.

Is it any surprise that McDonnell wants to topple Tony Blair? No. Can he do it? Almost certainly not. Could he win if there was already a vacancy? No. So, is it irrelevant? No - remember Sir Anthony Meyer, the stalking horse . Lord Levy's arrest has already had a political effect.

A day on from that arrest, I now know a great deal more about the progress of the police's investigation into cash for peerages, and into possible breaches of the law meant to ensure that all donations to parties are open and transparent.

The police told MPs this morning that Lord Levy's arrest was not "theatrical" as the former Home Secretary David Blunkett claimed. It was, they said, designed to enable them to seize documents they needed to pursue their enquiries. They did not, on the other hand, contradict the assertion made by Lord Levy's solicitor that Labour's chief fundraiser is not about to be charged and may never be.

Others close to the prime minister have either been questioned or expect to be soon. Those with knowledge of this investigation expect that Tony Blair himself will eventually face questions. He is ready to do so although, I'm told, no contact has been made by the police and no date is in his diary. This investigation should be complete by the autumn - by which time the police and then the Crown Prosecution Service will have to decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of convictions. At present those involved simply do not know. Like all investigations of this sort, I'm told by someone in the know, the police "might find a smoking gun or this could dissolve into nothing".

Many in the Labour Party are angry that they appear to have been singled out. They point to the Lib Dems' problems with the foreign donor Michael Brown - who now faces his own police investigation. They point to the Tory party's long history of giving peerages to those who've donated and lent money to the party. They can now also point to the fact that the police say that they have interviewed more people from the Conservative than the Labour Party.

Why then is the focus on Labour? Because the police previously said that their focus was on the comments made by Des Smith - a head teacher - to an undercover reporter which suggested that honours could be linked to sponsorship of Tony Blair's favourite schools - the City Academies. And because they also focussed on the nominations for peerages by those whose loans had not been declared to the committee which vets nominations to the Lords. Finally, because only Des Smith and Lord Levy have been arrested.

There is, no doubt, that the leaderships of all three UK parties are thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". That is why there now appears to be a growing consensus behind reform both of the party-funding laws and the House of Lords. There is, though, only one party's leadership which is waiting nervously to see what the police might reveal.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Hyperbole is never in short supply in the Westminster village, but the news of Lord Levy's arrest can fairly be described as a political bombshell.

Tony Blair's enemies have long thought - hoped even - that the police investigation into cash for honours was the one thing that could force the prime minister out of office long before he would want to leave it.

Why? Because Lord Levy is not merely Labour's fundraiser, he has been the PM's one man solution to Labour's over dependence on union funding. And, of course, he is a friend. Levy is being investigated - though it must be stressed he has not yet been charged - for a serious abuse of public office; the sale of honours and the concealing of donations to the Labour Party.

He does and will protest his innocence but already those more interested in ending the Blair era than in bringing Michael Levy low will sense that they may have the man, the story and the issue to do it.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

What connects John Reid's decision to go slow on and on ? No, not - though both decisions have. The answer is money.

Home Office ministers could have given approval to the first merger of two police forces this week - but only if they'd agreed a year-on-year cost of around £13-£15 million. Peanuts in Whitehall terms, but if they'd agreed to that then everyone else might have demanded the same, leaving a hole in the police budget.

The costs of the ID card scheme are, of course, vast in comparison. So vast that the Tories think that they can make a whole series of promises simply by pledging not to spend billions on ID cards.

I am not alleging that the Treasury are behind the go slows. The Home Office budget for the next three years was agreed some time ago. No effort has been made, I'm told, to re-open it. Team Brown were not asked their view on police mergers. Had they been they would have said that they hoped spending money now would produce long term savings.

My suspicion is that the home secretary - who unveils his reforms of the Home Office next week - is looking for things that will restore confidence in his department in the short term, and to postpone rows that are costly - not just in political terms but in financial terms too.

This may be the first example of a minister in a very high profile department having to get used to living on budgets that are much tighter than they've been at any time since Labour came to power.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Well, the home secretary does not believe he needs to . I'm told that he still believes that the sentence given to - the paedophile who kidnapped and sexually assaulted a young girl - was too lenient. This despite the fact that the attorney general will announce this afternoon that he will not be asking the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.

The attorney is not referring the case because he believes he'd lose. Both he and John Reid want to stop automatic sentence discounts for those, like Sweeney, who are are "caught red-handed". The attorney's already lost an appeal on this very issue. So, attention now turns to the Sentencing Guidelines Council who are looking at the issue.

That still leaves the question of whether the original sentence (before the discount for the guilty plea and before parole consideration) was long enough. The home secretary thinks not. It was 18 years and could have been 24. The attorney general either doesn't agree or feels that he wouldn't succeed in getting this over turned in the Court of Appeal.

Next week we should learn how the government believes it can "re-balance" the criminal justice system to avoid this sort of row in future.

P.S.

Just a reminder...

Although Sweeney could be in prison for life, his sentence means that he will be considered for parole after five years. The judge said the tariff for his crimes was 18 years. This was reduced by a third for a guilty plea - making 12. Parole is then considered after half the remaining sentence is served - leaving six years. Sweeney had already served some time on remand - hence the minimum sentence of 5 years.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A series of examples today of how politicians need to mind their language if they're not to come a cropper.

• John Reid
The home secretary leapt on (who got a minimum five years for a sexual attack on a child) as an example of a judges being too lenient. Today that he is not referring the sentence to the Court of Appeal. He will point out that he would only have been able to do so if he believed that it fell significantly below what any judge could reasonably have passed. It didn't. Will John Reid pause before criticising other judgements?

• Downing Street
Number 10 dismissed reports at the end of last week that more troops would be sent to Afghanistan. No request had been made, none received we were told. Yet today of extra troops being sent. A request was clearly in the pipeline. We were told the truth - but were they a tad economical with it?

• David Cameron
The has already been successfully reduced by Labour spin doctors to a single phrase - "hug a hoodie". How long before they turn back on the Tories the claim they made repeatedly against Labour - that they're "all spin and no substance"?

Those who remember the old Pepsi slogan - lipsmacking, thirstquenching... etc - might like to try to come up with one for Dave. Hoodie hugging, chocolate orange shunning, padded bra condemning... Come on, you can do better than that. Entries below please.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So, John Prescott has kissed goodbye to the headlines that said the end was nigh. He's blaming his current plight on the media - "they don't like me and I don't like them".

His defence is simple. Yes, he did champion the cause of Philip Anschutz - the man he sees as the saviour of the Dome. But no, he had nothing to do with any decision on whether a super-casino will go into it.

His difficulty remains that his officials did tell other parts of government about his meetings with Anschutz and that a casino in the Dome was a key plank in the long-term business strategy (see the memos produced by Newsnight last night)

Also there are allegations that his department leant on others not to make rival bids for a casino.

His defence - and, for now, it seems to be a pretty solid one - is that all times he got his permanent secretary's approval - and that he separated himself from decisions about the casino bid. Until someone proves that he knew something or that he was lying, I think he is on safe ground.

However, he will not enjoy the fact that Sir Alastair Graham - the standards watchdog - now says there should be a proper enquiry into whether he's breached ministerial rules. And Sir Phillip Mawer is now investigating whether he broke Commons rules.

I note that, so far, none of Prescott's senior colleagues are rushing to his aid - they are watching and waiting to see if there is another revelation - to see if he has to go. They are contemplating life after him. Most of them hope he can survive - many of them think he may not.

Talking of revelations I seemed to stir up a hornet's nest by pointing out yesterday that certain blogs are running unsubstantiated and politically motivated allegations about the deputy prime minister's private life. I was not attacking them. I read them - from time to time. I enjoy them but there is, rightly a difference and a distance between what they do and I do.

PS. In his interview with John Humphrys this morning (listen here) John Prescott pretended he didn't really know what the internet or blogs were (even though there was a election).

But if, like him, you are mystified or even intrigued by the talk of political blogs, my colleage Alan Connor from the Daily Politics has put together on some of the sites you have might heard of.

PPS. I'm on a train. John Prescott is sitting five seats away.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Here's Robinson's guide to Prescott for dummies - a brief, detail and complexity-free guide to the latest furore surrounding the deputy prime minister.

Prescott-backers point out that by law the DPM has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of licences for casinos, nor did he have anything to do with planning decisions about the Dome.

Prescott-bashers respond with a single question - of the type Mrs Merton once posed to the wife of Paul Daniels: "What first attracted the billionaire owner of the Dome who wanted to house the UK's first ever super casino to John Prescott?"

Incidentally, this is another example of some blogs trying to make the political weather. First, they demand to know why the mainstream media - and, in particular, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ - are not covering an alleged "scandal". Then they report unsubstantiated allegations which have been denied by those involved, which some newspapers then report as second hand news.

Let's be clear. This isn't because they are better journalists, free from censorship. They often have a political agenda. This is a political phenomenon copied from the United States where the Swift Boat Veterans John Kerry.

Here's proof, from my old friend Iain Dale - a former Tory candidate and chief of staff in David Davis's leadership campaign who chivvied the mainstream media for not covering the story of Cherie Blair signing the Hutton report to raise funds at an auction. This entry on his blog is titled .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community and persuade them". That confession - with the emphasis firmly on the "I" - was the most revealing part of .

It tells us a great deal more than the official response to one of his own Muslim MPs, Sadiq Khan, who has worried aloud that the government might become "the Duke of York - marching all these talented British Muslims up the hill of consultation and dialogue, only to march them down again as very little appears to have changed." You can read his speech . Mr Khan was speaking from his experience as a member of the Preventing Extremism Together working groups set up after 7/7. He was articulating the complaint that the government is not really listening to the grievances of the Muslim community. A charge that was taken up by the chairmen of two Commons committees this morning - both Labour MPs as it happens.

Tony Blair made clear that he thinks this is all beside the point. "The problem", he said, was not what the government had or had not done. It was the failure of the Muslim community to have a "fundamental enough debate". It is, he argued, not good enough for people to say "we understand" the anger of those who commit acts of violence but that we disagree with the methods they pursue. The "whole sense of grievance" must be challenged and is wrong.

You could sense his frustration that he knew he wasn't the man to do it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?