Not humiliated, honest

So Tony Blair isn't to be EU president. But then, according to the Guardian, he didn't want the job:

It is understood that he would have been unsure of taking the post when the Swedish government, which holds the rotating EU presidency, indicated in a paper on Wednesday that the president would have little or no role in foreign affairs.

The Hello effect

The BBC and the Telegraph have different takes on a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on equality.

The Telegraph reports the finding that the gap between rich and poor in the UK is one of the widest in the developed world, relegating the finding that "the situation has been improving since 2000... with the UK experiencing the largest drop in inequality among all developed nations. "

It is that finding that the BBC leads on and apparently that is what the researchers thought most significant.

Mark Pearson, who wrote the OECD report, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the UK government was not shouting about the drop in inequality.

"To some extent this reflects the Blairite approach; that you do, almost, the redistribution by stealth," he said. " ...you don't advertise the fact that you've actually put an awful lot more resources into helping the least well off in society.

Both picked up on the "Hello magazine effect", where the public would read about the super-rich getting richer and would feel worse off as result.

Blair goes up in smoke

The Telegraph's Andrew Pierce, clearly feeling some vindication, uses the revelation that Tony Blair lied about the Ecclestone affair to launch an attack on Blair. But, probably advised by lawyers, he is reluctant to say outright that Blair lied on this one, although he does say:

In a funny way, the apparent lie is even more shocking than the one he told in the House of Commons about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Blair did indeed lie about Iraq's alleged wmd.

Blair a liar shock

Congratulations to the Sunday Telegraph on winning its "two-and-a-half year Freedom of Information battle" to

reveal that [Tony] Blair personally intervened to secure Formula One's exemption from the tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting Bernie Ecclestone, the motorsport's billionaire boss.

We know that Ecclestone gave Labour a million pounds, that he met Blair and asked him to exempt F1. Immediately afterwards, Blar set out doing just this. If this was a local authority official giving
planning permission to someone who had just him money, both parties would be in jail.

Carry on Tony

The Quartet of international powers has "lost its grip" on the Middle East peace process which it is meant to foster, a group of aid agencies says.

The Quartet's representative is, of course Tony Blair. It isn't surprising that it hasn't acheived anything and seems merely to be going through the motions. I can't help thinking of that devastating Harry Enfield sketch where Blair is hired by some big firm, who really don't know what to do with him and send him to the post room.

Wot not to say

Brian Cathcart continues to write a brilliant column on the media for the New Statesman. This week he analyses the so-called codes used by politicians and the proclaimed ability of political journalists to decode them, including drawing inferences from what politicians don't say:

The theory is that, because political correspondents know what politicians should say in any given circumstance, they are instantly alert when one fails to do so. And having identified a point of deviance, these correspondents are able to construe, from unnamed sources or circumstantial evidence, the true intention behind it - a signal or manoeuvre the ordinary reader would otherwise miss.

In short, these people know the meanings of the things that politicians don't say. So, for example, when David Miliband did not mention Gordon Brown in his Guardian article a few weeks ago, and went on not to swear undying loyalty to Brown in a subsequent press conference, he was obviously launching a leadership bid.

And his intentions were all the more transparent, we are told, because Miliband also knows the codes. Since he knew that reporters would construe what he didn't say in the way they did, it follows that he must have not said it deliberately because he wanted it construed that way. QED.

Of course, politicians and their spin doctors also tell journalists how to interpret what they do or don't say - like when Tony Blair didn't have the guts to tell the Labour conference that he would re-write Clause 4 but Alastair Campbell told the media that this was what he meant.

In the same column, Cathcart takes issue with Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph, on Gary Glitter: "Most rational people would find it quite acceptable if he were to be taken out and shot in the back of the head."

Cathcart observes:

no matter how much the Telegraph comment pages try to be modern or intellectual - and there have been heroic strivings down the years - somehow they can't quite shake off the attitudes and tone of the officer's mess, circa 1937.

This puts into a nutshell what I have been trying to say about the Telegraph lately. Shame about the misplaced apostrophe.

How do you prove a negative?

The revelations in Ron Suskind's new book (see e.g. the Times) that the UK and US were told before the war that Iraq had no WMD are fascinating. It's not clear that the claims of Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush should have been believed but where do they appear in e.g. the Butler Review?

Trying to work out the timing is quite difficult. The Times says:

The book claimed that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion

With the invasion taking place on 20 March 2003, three months before that would be 20 December 2002.

The other main claim from Suskind's book is that after the war the CIA used Habbush to forge a letter linking Iraq with the September 11 attacks. The Times gleefully says:

The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003.

Sarkozy gets my vote

Nicolas Sarkozy has withdrawn his backing of Tony Blair to become the first president of the European Union, senior sources have told the BBC.

It is thought he feels EU opposition to the former UK prime minister is too strong because he backed the Iraq war.

Pots, kettles, etc

It's not clear why Patrick Wintour in the Guardian has reheated yesterday's story about Tony Blair saying bad things to Lord Levy about Gordon Brown. Perhaps it's so he can promote Blairite favourite David Miliband to the front of the story.

It has to be said that Tony Blair calling anyone a liar takes some nerve...

In typical BBC style, the state broadcasting service presents the story from the government's point of view:

The prime minister has dismissed suggestions by Labour's former chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, that Tony Blair believes he cannot beat David Cameron.

Ken's not so secret weapons

For some reason, Tessa Jowell has chosen to tell the Guardian, that Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell have been quietly helping Ken Livingstone's re-election campaign.

It brings to mind Blair's campaign for the Labour Leadership in 1994 when he could not let it be known that Peter Mandelson was on board. It's probably a truism that letting it be known that you're getting help from arch spinners like Blair and Campbell, described by Jowell as "the best in the business", doesn't help your credibility.

The Vultures may have to wait

Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian has a vulture in the background that is perhaps supposed to be Tony Blair. It might be Cameron but the way Blairites have been behaving lately...

Anyway, it looks like the vulture will have to wait. The row over the 10p tax band looks to be sorted this afternoon, albeit with a climbdown.

Seldon's spin pass

The Telegraph tells the sad tale of two of our top public schools falling out over rugby. What's sad is that the head of one of them has been caught spinning:

At first, Dr Anthony Seldon, the Master of Wellington and Tony Blair's biographer, hinted the games are to be stopped because newly co-educational Marlborough was no longer up to scratch on the field.
But yesterday Nicholas Sampson, his counterpart at Marlborough, hit back with the revelation that a "violent incident" had been committed by a Wellington player, which had soured relations between the two sides.

So a Blair sycophant seems to be taking the same approach as Blair. Perhaps that isn't surprising: Blair went to public school too. It seems to be a part of the ethos of at least some of them that when things go pear shaped you lie through your teeth to keep up appearances.

Blair's schadenfreude

Blairite without a cause Andrew Rawnsley says that Blair and friends are enjoying seeing Brown in the mire over secret donations, especially after Brown allegedly threatened Blair over cash for honours.

Of course none of this - dating back 4 years - has anything to do with Blair.

War was always the plan

Yesterday, it was revealed that Tony Blair wanted the Iraq war all along. He claimed, as he has claimed before, that he wishes he had just published the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments on Iraq. This is one of Blair's great con tricks. He has conned a lot of people into believing that the intelligence was as certain as he said it was.

Today, Blair's former chief of staff Jonathan Powell admitted that it was about regime change all along.

Blair not dead yet

As the Mail serialises another book on Blair by Blairite sycophant Anthony Seldon, it seems Blairites haven't entirely gone away. Mail on Sunday political editor Simon Walters allows a Brownite a chance at an unattributed "free pop" that nevertheless seems to sum up where the Blairites are coming from:

"Mr Blair's people cannot accept that they have lost power," said one. "These stories are a crude attempt to settle scores with no regard to the effect it has on the Government."

The Telegraph latches on the story without bothering to credit the Mail. It has a non-story within the non-story:

[Seldon] says that Mr Brown may have been involved in ensuring that Jack Dromey, a senior trade unionist and treasurer of the Labour party, complained publicly about the cash-for-honours affair – which caused Mr Blair huge political damage.

Dr Seldon writes: “A story reached Blair a few days later of a plan to remove him from office by effectively bankrupting the party and encouraging donors to say they would only be prepared to give money to get it back into the black if Brown was leader.”

“Blair himself never accused Brown of complicity but did tell him how outrageous he thought the timing of Dromey’s comments was. 'Well nothing to with me,” was reportedly Brown’s reply. 'Then again,’ sighs one No 10 aide, 'it’s never anything to do with him, is it?”

Meanwhile undead Blairite John Rentoul gives us more unsubstantiated drivel:

Within minutes of Sir Menzies Campbell's resignation on Monday, the question had moved on to the choice of Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne as his replacement, and how either would affect the balance of advantage between Labour and the Conservatives. It was the wrong question. The significance of Sir Menzies's sudden departure is that it tells us this: David Cameron already has the edge.

Blairism is a state of mind

Neal Lawson is getting excited on Comment is Free about the possibility of a seismic shift in British politics.

What is interesting for me is the way that he portrays Blairism as a mindset, and a very defeatist one at that.

How many agendas?

Andrew Rawnsley's film The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair seems to have gone down well enough. I saw the second part last night and was disappointed to see one Blairite after another excusing Blair and having a kick at Brown. Peter Mandelson trotting out the old line that the the Ecclestone affair was just a presentational issue. David Blunkett suggesting that Blair only got things a little bit wrong, in an unforgiving environment. Very little serious dirt dished.

At least Lucy Mangan in the Guardian has seen through some of it.

With so many contributors' agendas to keep track of, it was hard to answer the question at the forefront of our minds: why is this particular bastard lying to me (or at least putting a seriously revisionist spin on things)?

Another Blairite jumps

So "Lord" Goldsmith is the latest Blairite to state that he will leave the government with Blair, as if we didn't know that already. Goldsmith represents more than anyone the corruption of the Labour government. He could have stopped British involvement in Iraq by sticking to his guns and re-stating his view that its legality was questionable but he buckled under political pressure. As if that wasn't bad enough, he was at the heart of the decision to stop the BAE/Saudi corruption investigation.

Goldsmith is getting a pretty bad press, with the papers reminding everyone of his misdeeds. Some, including the Guardian and the Telegraph, carry Blair's response. Blair told Goldsmith that he had carried out his role

at all times with integrity and professionalism ... You have shown an unwavering commitment to the importance of the rule of law and human rights.

Of course, this means the opposite of what it says, as most of Blair's words do. What Blair means is, "when I asked you to compromise your integrity in the name of political expediency, war-mongering and corruption, you obliged and I couldn't have done it without you".

Not letting them off the hook

Bloggerheads has a very entertaining Goodbye Tony Blair video, and "pardons" for some old enemies to celebrate. I'm pleased to see that Jack Straw is not let off the hook and indeed, the "pardon" for Gordon Brown is conditional on Straw not being in his cabinet, which of course is going to happen. Bloggerheads' Tim Ireland cites Straw's denial of torture and denial of extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and torture). I'm more concerned with Straw's role in promoting the war in Iraq and the September 2002 dossier.

Someone else who is not getting a "pardon" is Rupert Murdoch. Indeed, Ireland is trailing a forthcoming Murdoch Watch site with the rationale that:

Nobody voted for Rupert bloody Murdoch, but that doesn't stop him from interfering with our lives on a daily basis

It's also worth mentioning Daily Mail Watch, which has to be done.

Fisk fisks Blair

I'm a sucker for any linguistic analysis so Robert Fisk's Chomsky-style attack on Tony Blair's "lies and linguistic manipulations" is right up my street.

Fisk describes Blair's use of foregrounded elements - "something unusual, a phrase placed in such a way that it warned us of a lie to come."

Another clue is that his lips move.