The poodle gets his chocky snack

Explosive leaked Blair memo

"Lamentable...hubris and vacuity" are just some of the words Blair used to describe Brown's performance in a leaked memo revealed the Mail on Sunday.

The official cost of Blair's farewell/vanity tour

There's all sorts of official information coming out of the woodwork at the moment. At last we have found out the full cost of Tony Blair's farewell tour:

£724,686

Remember that this included his visit to the Pope with family and friends. Blair joined the Catholic Church a few months afterwards. Is it right that the British taxpayer funded what appears to be, overwhelmingly, a private visit to the Pope.

Is there any previous precedent for a UK Prime Minister to make a bee-line for the Pope a few days before he or she left office? Of course not.

Levy does Brown a favour

Lord Levy, the man who brought us "My Coo ca choo", says there is a lack of strong leadership under Brown. Gordon ought to thank Levy for reminding us of the "strong leadership" of his mate Blair, against which comparison, Brown is a breath of fresh air.

EU President Blair? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

I see Tony Blair wants to be President of Europe - but only if he is given "real" power in defence and trade affairs.

Presumably, that would be the power to ignore the wishes of the people in crawling up to extreme right-wing US Presidents to pre-emptively invade a country in the cause of "defence", would it?

On your bike sunshine. He's not going to get the job anyway. Merkel is against it, so forget it.

The main person who seems enthusiastic about the idea is Sarkozy. Add to him, presumably, Berlusconi, if he gets back into power.

Pass the sickbag, Alice.

I cannot think of anything that turns my stomach more than that ******** (see Greg Mulholland's lexicon) Blair getting to be President of Europe.

If there is a campaign against it, I will gladly march 100 miles to stop it happening.

Blair's invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes in British foreign policy ever.

He really should get the message and crawl away and spend the rest of his time with his directorships.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Phew! That feels better.

Tony Blair joins Catholic faith

Well I suppose it was inevitable. I am still a little worried that the British taxpayer paid for a visit from Tony Blair to the Pope, just a few days before he left Number Ten. It seems such a blurring on his personal and his professional lives that he should have coughed up for the expense.

Have you heard the one about the ex-Prime Minister who rakes it in for duff speeches?

Tony Blair is under fire in China for being paid £237,000 for a twenty minute speech which did not impress. It's reported that the speech offered "nothing new". It contained pleasantries and clichés without any insight. This comes after Blair was criticised for recycling the same old jokes several times during a trip to North America.

Blair: Statesman or Poodle?

Every so often a little voice emerges speaking what seems to be overwhelming common sense.

John Dugard, UN Human Rights envoy in the Palestinian territories, was on Today this morning. He was basically saying that the UN's independence is being compromised by its membership of the Middle East "Quartet". This is due, he says, to the Quartet not sufficiently condemning the building of the Israeli Wall and supporting Fatah at the expense of Hamas. He says the Quartet is "heavily influenced" by the US.

One wonders where this leaves Tony Blair. His retirement role as Middle East envoy for the Quartet was meant to restore any reputation he might have once had as an independent international statesman. These comments from Mr Dugard suggest that Blair's role is really an extension of his career as George Bush's pet poodle.

Airbrush makes Tony Blair a new man

Tony Blair is a new man, now that the cares of office have been lifted from him. A bit of airbrushing also helps.

Welcome British change of tack on Guantanamo detainees

It is good news that the British government has requested the release of a further five UK residents from Guantanamo Camp. This is a welcome change of direction following the change of Prime Minister.

Guantanamo camp remains one of the most disgusting acts of the US government. Tony Blair should hang his head in shame for supporting Bush in Iraq, following such a shameful abuse of human rights.

Should Charlotte Church be treated at Chequers?

Well done to Norman Lamb for eliciting the information that Tony Blair's guests at Chequers, in his last few months as PM, included:

-Charlotte Church
-Gavin Henson
-Lorraine Kelly
-Richard Madeley
-Chris Evans
-Vernon Kaye

It speaks volumes about this government's lack of commitment to freedom of information that it took months of effort to extract this information, as Norman comments:

For reasons that defy rational explanation the government has been treating the fact that Tony Blair enjoyed drinks with Vernon Kay and Charlotte Church as a state secret.

Could the government's reluctance to publish this information be motivated by an attempt to avoid this question?:

Why is Charlotte Church being treated to a slap-up meal at Chequers at the taxpayers expense?

What possible advantage to the country can be gained by discourse between a departing Prime Minister, a singer and her Rugby playing partner? Even if such interaction were justified, does it have to be accompanied by luxury treatment at the taxpayers' expense?

And we hear today that Blair's farewell tour cost the taxpayer £1.7 million. Surely some of this should billed out to Blair's future publisher and agent? After all, much of it was an advance publicity tour for Blair's future lecture tours and publications.

Blair to stand down as MP

I agree with Clare Short (interviewed on Radio Four's PM) that it is not entirely necessary for Blair to stand down as an MP purely because of his Middle East envoy role, which is not full time. It doesn't involve chairing standing talks, for example. It will probably involve just the odd trip, which Blair has managed to fit in with two other roles for years, so fitting it in with one role wouldn't have been a problem.

He just hasn't got the patience to carry on has he?

I am sure Brown will welcome it, because it means there is no chance of sulking on the back benches. It is traditional that retiring PMs (e.g Major, Heath, Churchill) stay on until at least the next election (Heath went on far longer). But Blair is no normal human being, of course. He has millions (mainly dollars) to earn.

In reply to Newbury Blogwatcher and others who have suggested that this will overstretch the LibDem by-election machine...Sedgefield and Ealing are so far apart that this hardly arises as a problem. In the main, people who are likely to travel to Sedgefield to help are not the same people who are likely to travel to Ealing to help.

Blair the Middle East "peace envoy" - like pouring petrol onto a fire

Lindyloo's Muze hits the nail on the head, and then some:

The news that the man who was prepared to collude, lie and condemn hundreds of thousands to death in Iraq is now likely to be appointed an envoy to the Middle East beggars belief. I remember the contempt with which Blair was regarded by Palestinians when I was there a couple of months after the Iraq invasion. The idea that Blair will do anything other than collude with US and Israeli objectives to weaken the Palestinian cause and ensure the Palestinian state remains untenable, seems to me Alice in Wonderland politics. No, the most appropriate job for Blair would be to go and work with an NGO working in Iraq with the victims of that illegal, immoral and disastrous war - maybe that will at least go some way towards his own much needed rehabilitation.

Way to go, Linda! I imagine Blair on his hands and knees, scrubbing floors in Iraq, while wearing a hair shirt and periodically flagellating himself with stinging nettles. That's the only suitable role for him!

Blair planned to sack Brown

The Independent reveals government papers which show that Blair planned, in detail, to sack Brown and break up the Treasury, after the last election.

One warning though: the plan seem to have involved John Birt - so no wonder it didn't go ahead.

But seriously, the detail of this planning - including draft speaking notes for the announcement and a profile of qualities the new chancellor should have - demonstrates a remarkable degree of distrust between Blair and Brown, to an extent which hasn't previously been clear in such a concrete fashion:

The paper provides the first concrete proof that the speculation was true, including draft speaking notes for the Prime Minister, a briefing for the " new Chancellor", as well as a list of personal qualities Mr Brown's successor should have.

Marked "Copy No 1 - Prime Minister Confidential Policy", the paper says the new Chancellor's qualities must include "lack of personal investment in previous policies". It adds that "teamwork" is a key asset, something that arch-Blairites have accused Mr Brown of being incapable of.

The document adds that on the first day in office Mr Blair should " convey to the new Chancellor" his plans to split the Treasury and hand many of its key roles, including responsibility for tax credits, to other ministries.

Kinnock: "What the hell is a Labour Prime Minister doing with George Bush?"

I have just been watching the first part "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair" on Channel 4.

It was a remarkably clear summary of Tony Blair's period in office up to 2004. There was an exceptionally qualified cast of interviewees including Condeleeza Rice, Andrew Card, Stephen Wall, Sir David Manning etc as well Labour figures including Jack Straw, Neil Kinnock and David Blunkett. There was also 'Bazza' or Barry Cox, a family friend, who was very frank.

So it was a very authoritative account, also bearing in mind that it was narrated by Andrew Rawnsley, who has a reknowned knowledge of "New Labour".

A few things stood out for me.

It was made clear, in a way that I had never appreciated before, how Blair's success in getting the US on board to win a victory in Kosovo gave him confidence and a belief that he could sweep all before him in international affairs. That confidence was later to lead to over-confidence in relation to Iraq.

Watching the clip of Blair in the Commons mentioning the "45 minutes" made me realise that this clip will be Blair's epitaph. It really encapsulates the shattering of the trust in which people held him.

It was telling to hear Stephen Wall describing a conversation with Jacques Chirac about the proposed Iraq invasion. Chriac said that he had been a soldier in Algeria and knew the horror of war at first hand. He said that if Blair/Bush invaded Iraq they wouldn't be welcomed and they would start a civil war. He added that they shouldn't mistake the Shia majority for democracy.

Wall said that Blair came out of the meeting with Chirac saying "Poor old Jacques doesn't get it, does he?" As Wall commented, events proved that, in fact, Jacques "got it" and Blair didn't.

Neil Kinniock talked with considerable passion when he described the incredulity of Labour stalwarts that Blair got so close with "above all people - George Bush". In the trailer for the next programme, this sentiment is expressed with even more exasperation by Kinnock with these words, presumably describing the views expressed by Labourites:

What the hell is a Labour Prime Minister doing with George Bush?

Blair feared US would "nuke the s**t out of Afghanistan"

Former British Ambassador to the US, Christopher Meyer has said that Tony Blair feared that the USA would "nuke the s**t" out of Afghanistan in revenge for 9-11.

In Channel Four's two part documentary, "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair", Meyer says:

Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a kneejerk reaction' by the Americans... they would go thundering off and nuke the s**t out of the place without thinking straight.

The Mirror reports:

In Channel 4's candid two-part documentary The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair, Mr Meyer claims the threat explains why the Prime Minister vowed to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Bush over the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan - to thwart his allguns blazing battle plan.

But it meant sending British troops to Iraq knowing Washington had NOT made preparations for its post-war reconstruction.

From the other side of the pond, Daily Kos comments in outspoken terms:

The next time a world leader feels like legitimizing some reckless endeavor because they think they can keep control of Americans better by working on the inside, I have a request: don't do us any bloody favors. And Tony, if you wanted to stop this war, the way to do it was to speak out against it, not pal up with the instigator. W***er.

(My asterisks)

Blair knew that Iraq aftermath would be disastrous

The Observer reveals quotes from senior Blair aides at the time, from a forthcoming Channel 4 programme, which show that Blair repeatedly warned Bush of the need to prepare for the post-Iraq invasion scenario. Blair knew full well there was no adequate plan. The picture painted is of Blair as powerless to persuade the US to properly prepare for the aftermath.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told The Observer: 'These frank admissions that the Prime Minister was aware of the inadequacies of the preparations for post-conflict Iraq are a devastating indictment.'

(What the article doesn't mention is something Paddy Ashdown said the other day. That is that an expert on the World War Two aftermath in Germany visited the White House well before the invasion and told them not to do all the things they did do - chief among them: disbanding the army.)

The article also repeats that Bush was quite happy for Britain not to send troops:

Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, confirms that the President offered Blair a way out. Bush told Blair: 'Perhaps there's some other way that Britain can be involved.' Blair replied: 'No, I'm with you.'

So, Blair could have quietly helped without sending troops and Bush would have been perfectly happy. It just shows how foolish Blair was on the whole issue.

"Margaret Thatcher was a sweetie to the young and old"

I know, I know, I should stop reading articles in the Daily Telegraph. It would be good for my blood pressure.

But, in an article entitled Tough luck if you're not Scottish in that organ today, Alice Thompson reminds us of Neil Kinnock's speech in 1983 when he said that if Thatcher was re-elected: "I warn you not to be young - I warn you not to grow old."

Alice Thompson remarks:

Margaret Thatcher was a sweetie to the young and the old compared to what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done to them.

She then goes on to list some examples to demonstrate her point. I have found fatal flaws with the first two examples and then gave up, as my blood pressure was getting too high:

Now the results are showing. Blair's babies are actually worse off than Thatcher's children. Not only are they now the most over-tested, stressed and unhappy children in the world, but according to new figures they are also saddled with far more debt than Thatcher's brood were when they left university.

According to reports in this week's Daily Telegraph, children spend the first 18 years of their life being examined, starting as babies, when they have to show they can shake a rattle. As toddlers, they must prove they can integrate with their peers; by seven they are sitting formal national tests.

Hang on. The SATs, the 'formal national tests' to which seven year olds are subjected, were introduced by the Conservatives - not Gordon and Tony, Alice old thing! And this stuff about toddlers having to 'prove they can integrate with their peers'...our child was recently a toddler. I think Thompson may be somewhat over-egging the pudding regarding toddlers. That's putting it mildly.

Their teens are spent in their bedrooms cramming for GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels. All to get to university where, according to the National Union of Students, they now leave with vast debts.

Instead of being able to buy their first flat, they are paying off the tutors who taught them geography or golf management. The average degree course now costs £42,000, and then they have to think about a mortgage.

Hello? Unless David Cameron has done another U turn on this since January, the Conservatives actually support tuition fees!

Blair Rome trip: Taxpayer pays for Pope to see after-dinner speaker and book salesman

I suppose you have to go back to Winston Churchill to find a Prime Minister of the UK who has had anything like the "long goodbye" that Tony Blair is having. So, to a certain extent, Blair is writing the manual for retiring PMs.

One feels slightly nauseous watching his recent tours around the globe. It is very difficult to see where valid representation of the country ends and the advance book tour begins. It is hard not to conclude that the publisher of Blair's future books, or his speaking agent, should be paying part of his tour expenses.

Richard Littlejohn, with typical colour, has called Blair's tour a "carnival of vanity".

I have tended to shrug off all this. But I am little nervous about the timing of Blair's trip to see the Pope. It will be on June 23rd, four days before Blair stands down as PM. That's according to Reuters, although it is denied by Downing Street.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things Blair ought to be discussing with the Pope. A confession over his stupidity and arrogance on Iraq would be an excellent start. The Guardian quotes Freddy Gray, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald listing some of the topics they might cover:

I expect they will talk again about foreign affairs - notably the plight of Christians in Iraq and, perhaps, the issue of what is widely called 'aggressive secularism' in British society and governance, an issue that came to the fore recently in the row over Cateholic adoption agencies.

However, I am very curious about the timing of the Papal audience. By its lateness in Blair's premiership, it is being given very high priority. Quite rightly so, but one cannot help concluding that the priorities of Blair the private person are overly influencing the schedule of Blair the Prime Minister.

I feel quite queasy about this. Number Ten bats away rumours of a Prime Ministerial deathbed Catholic conversion and appointment of Blair as Deaconess of Detroit (sorry - Deacon - my Monty Python obsession overtook me there) as "a private matter". Indeed they are. But it is hard not to conclude that Blair is allowing private considerations to unduly influence his use of taxpayers money to fly to Rome at this time.

You could say he has "saved the trip up" but I just think it seems pointless for the Pope to be speaking to someone who has just three days left in charge. The Pope will in effect, be talking to a very well known after-dinner speaker and odd job ex-statesman.

Fine. But why should the taxpayers pay for it?

Brown the roundhead; Cameron and Blair the cavaliers

Clifford Longley had a very interesting "Thought for the Day" this morning.

In a nutshell, for the purposes of discussion, Longley divided Britain into "roundheads" and "cavaliers", calling Tony Blair and David Cameron "cavaliers" and Gordon Brown a "roundhead". He summarised the opposing characters they symbolise as:

"Cavaliers have more fun, Roundheads get more done."

His conclusion was that we need both types in society. It is a fascinating thought, and certainly more soothing than anything "from our Oxford studio, writer and broadcaster A..click....this is Radio One". The transcript of Longley's talk is here. Here is a sample:

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both been emphasising the need to establish a clearer sense of national identity, to counter the tendency for a multi-cultural society to pull itself apart. Neither mentions religion, probably because it is seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. But what about the national character?

That's slightly different from identity, and you can't so easily dismiss religion from the equation. The Anglo-Saxon personality owes a lot to our turbulent religious history, in particular the fault- line that has emerged time and again between two principles or ideas which, going back to the English civil war, we could label Roundhead and Cavalier.

If we're looking for where the dividing line runs today, we shouldn't ignore the party wall between No 10 and No 11 Downing Street. There is something of the Roundhead about Presbyterian Gordon Brown and something of the Cavalier about Tony Blair, who leans, as we know, towards Catholicism. The Cavalier and the Roundhead have two views of God, even a God they don't believe in like my utterly atheist father who was distinctly Puritan in his values. The Puritan God is hard to please; we must keep to his rules or he will be angry with us. Those who follow him are zealous strivers who work hard to get where their duty drives them. The Cavaliers' God is more relaxed and forgiving, who wants us to enjoy life. Cavaliers, natural aristocrats, rise effortlessly to the top as if it was their God- given right.