によって ナイジェルMorris

それらが上院に対立に公共の照会のための戦いを運んだようにイラクによって訴えられるトニー・ブレアーの「うそ」の参戦の政府で殺される2人の十代の兵士の母。

侵入を保障しないことをことをだった正当大臣が英本国の武力にによって破った彼らの義務をことをBeverly Clarkeおよび穏やかなローズは論争する。

兵士デイヴィッドClarkeは、Littleworth、Staffordshireから2003年にバスラの近くの「フレンドリー・ファイア」によって、が、2004年にバスラの路傍の爆弾攻撃で死んだグラスゴーから穏やかなFusilier Gordon殺された。 Both were 19.

法律の主は昨日修理人および女性が権利を違法対立で危難にさらされる彼らの生命を過さないために持っている議論母」考慮し始めた。

女性を表しているRabinder Singh QCは裁判所を告げた: 「その義務は州の独特で強制的な制御の下にあり、命令に従わなければならない兵士に負われる。 それらは害の方法で国がそれを」。要求するので生命を必要ならば置かなければならない

Singh氏は政府によって受け取られた法律鑑定の圧倒的なボディが侵入が第2国連国連安保理決議なしで正当ではないことだったことを言った。 「これらの母は不本意と…裁判ざたになった。 それらは国を機能する名誉と死んだ息子の自慢している」彼言った。

Clarke夫人およびGentle夫人は戦争に主がGoldsmith、値上りの前の司法長官、準備する法律鑑定に彼女達の議論を基づかせている。 彼らは軍事活動がちょうど10日に法的であること「曖味な」助言の13ページが明白な助言の1ページに減ったことを言う。

女性は「生命への右を」保護する人権のヨーロッパ大会の記事2の下で独立した照会を発注するために政府は強いられなかったことを言った支配最高裁判所に挑戦している。

gentle夫人は言った: 「私はうその戦争に私達の男の子に差し向けられるトニー・ブレアーを考える。 彼はGeorge Bushとちょうどすぐに同意した」。 息子、L/Cpl Shaun Brierleyが2006年に、殺されたとピーターBrierleyは言った: “This was not defending his country. The country was not under any threat of attack.”

Lord Bingham, sitting with eight other law lords, said they were mindful of “the human loss which underlies these proceedings”.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is reportedly eying a new political office ― president of Europe.

Copyright 2008 by UPI

Tony Blair’s conversion to Catholicism has been criticised by commentators who argue his views as PM were at odds with church teachings.

Tony Blair has met Pope Benedict

Mr Blair was welcomed into the Roman Catholic church by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor - leader of the Roman Catholics in England and Wales.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor welcomed the politician’s personal decision, which culminated in the ceremony at the chapel of the Archbishop’s House in Westminster.

He said: “For a long time he has been a regular worshipper at Mass with his family and in recent months he has been following a programme of formation to prepare for his reception into full communion.”

The move comes after years of speculation that Mr Blair, whose wife Cherie and four children are Catholic, would convert from Anglicanism after he resigned from Number 10 in June.

Converting while in office would have caused him problems in connection with issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality and faith schools.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) reacted with surprise to the news.

John Smeaton, SPUC’s national director, said: “During his premiership Tony Blair became one of the world’s most significant architects of the culture of death, promoting abortion, experimentation on unborn embryos, including cloned embryos, and euthanasia by neglect.

“SPUC is writing to Tony Blair to ask him whether he has repented of the anti-life positions he has so openly advocated throughout his political career.”

Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, who converted to Catholicism in 1993, told Sky News it was possible in her opinion to be a practising Catholic and prime minister.

She said: “I think the crucial thing to remember is at the point you are received (into the Catholic church) you have to say individually and out loud ‘I believe everything the church teaches to be revealed truth’.

“And that means if you previously had any problems with church teaching, as Tony Blair obviously did over abortion, as he did again over Sunday trading…you would have to say you changed your mind.

“And I think people will want to know that he did go through that process, because otherwise it will seem as if the church did make an exception for somebody just because of who he is.”

Tony Blair is supposed to be enjoying the high life after leaving office but friends say he is miserable

On the face of it, retirement seems to agree with Tony Blair.

He is leaner and fitter than when he left Downing Street nearly five months ago. Gone is the vaguely haunted look that characterised his final, troubled days in office.

Now that he is free to pursue the millions on offer to him after life in No 10, the former Prime Minister already bears the unmistakable buffed glow of a money-maker.

Scroll down for more…

Out of office: Friends say Tony Blair is ‘in mourning’ for his Downing Street life

He has even found time for the occasional game of tennis, although not yet the lie-ins he promised himself once he was no longer running the country.

A steady stream of early-morning builders and decorators to his still-unfinished London home has put paid to that.

Not that he has any time to be idle. When not criss-crossing the Atlantic or travelling to China in recent weeks to deliver a series of highly lucrative speeches, he has been hard at work sketching the outline of his forthcoming autobiography which will net him £6 million.

Indeed, Mr Blair has quickly honed his taste for the high living to which he has always been drawn.

Friends say he has, of late, been extolling the virtues of the private Gulfstream jets that are now his preferred mode of travel - those wishing to book him on the international lecture circuit are routinely told that providing Mr Blair with his own airliner is a non-negotiable requirement.

Nor, it seems, is the Blairs’ £3.65 million home near Hyde Park proving a sufficiently comfortable base for him as he commits pen to paper with those musings about ten years in power.

Instead, he is said to have spent recent weeks holed up in the lavish £20 million Mayfair home of his friend, PR guru Matthew Freud, as he waits for the completion of his own luxurious offices nearby.

All of which is very grand. So why, given that earlier this month he commanded an astonishing £240,000 just to pay a three-hour visit to a Chinese housing development, do those closest to him say Tony Blair is “utterly miserable”?

In fact, so out-of-sorts is the former premier as he struggles to come to terms with life outside the corridors of power that one recent visitor to Tony and Cherie’s new home told me: “There is an all-pervading joylessness about the place. Tony is very low.

“Neither of them is happy. The initial sense of relief both of them felt when they left Downing Street has gone and they are having trouble adjusting. I always felt that once the money started rolling in, Cherie, in particular, would perk up, but even she is miserable.

“As soon as you walk through the front door there is a bad vibe. The house feels soulless and there is tension in the air.”

Scroll down for more…

Slimline: Tony Blair is tanned and toned since leaving office

Part of the problem, say friends, is that Cherie is using much of the downstairs of the house in Connaught Square as an office and every morning their home is invaded by her staff, who now include a chauffeur.

The friend added: “Her staff are milling about constantly. It feels more like a business than a home.”

The mood has not been helped, insiders say, by a war of attrition being waged by the two teams the Blairs have hired to oversee their separate offices.

At the centre of the acrimony is Martha Greene, the New York-born former restaurant owner who acts as Cherie’s manager. The energetic Miss Greene is said to be so at odds with members of Mr Blair’s office that Tony has chosen to escape to Matthew Freud’s during the day simply to keep the peace.

One source said: “Martha is bossy beyond belief. The aggravation is affecting everyone. Tony needs to get out of the house for some peace and to work.”

All this comes at a time when Blair remains, say friends, in a “period of mourning” over his lost power.

And while the fortune he is now earning has undoubtedly softened the blow - during his first lecture tour of North America last month he earned more in a week than the £183,000 he earned in a year as PM - he cannot come to terms with his new role as a “civilian”.

This is perhaps unsurprising given that Blair’s status has been reduced from that of world statesman to little more than a celebrity for hire.

Consider his highly-paid trip to the Far East last week, which was partially funded by Chen Runguang, a property tycoon worth more than £100 million.

After paying £80,000 in local income tax, Mr Blair still trousered £156,000 for addressing a group of businessmen and touring Mr Runguang’s development of luxury villas in the industrial city of Dongguan.

Scroll down for more…

Diplomat: Blair, during his time as Prime Minister, rarely had a moment’s rest

This week, Mr Blair’s image was being used to promote the development, with pictures of his visit displayed on a hoarding outside the sales office, while a slide show of his tour of the properties plays inside.

For all the financial consolations, it must surely be something of a come-down from those cosy Camp David summits with George Bush.

And then there is the fact that he was accused by the Chinese media of “gold digging” and “money sucking” and - horrors! - of boring his audience with another speech during the visit.

Certainly, he has fared better in America, where he remains popular.

Last month, he gave a series of speeches in the U.S. and Canada as friends revealed that Cherie had “put the arm on him” to earn more money.

He didn’t do badly - bringing home around £300,000 in just one week of four paid talks and a series of appearances for charity. But after being the guest of honour at a £500-a-head white tie charity dinner at the Waldorf Astoria in New York (fellow guests included Rupert Murdoch and mayor Michael Bloomberg), he was accused of telling the same jokes at a paid-for speech to oilmen in Calgary days later.

And when the Jewish Federation in Tampa, Florida, approached his agents, the Washington Speakers’ Bureau, to book him for its annual President’s dinner next March, it baulked at their insistence that Blair would charge £125,000 for a one-hour talk, plus, of course, the prerequisite private jet to transport him from the UK.

The trouble is that the money is desperately needed. The Blairs have £5 million of mortgages on their several properties including their London home, two flats in Bristol and his former constituency home in County Durham.

The couple were also linked last month with a £3 million estate close to Chequers, the Prime Minister’s weekend home in Buckinghamshire. They are said to have made three trips to view the Christopher Wren-designed Winslow Hall, set in 22 acres.

Friends say the Blairs initially set their hearts on the property which, despite needing at least £1 million of renovations, has its own Catholic chapel (Mr Blair is said to be preparing to convert to Catholicism, possibly later this month). But recently, the couple have “gone quiet” on the subject.

Meanwhile, their new earning power (Cherie has also signed her own £1.5 million deal to write her memoirs) does not seem to be reflected in the decor of their new London home, say visitors. One recent guest described the interior of the Georgian Connaught Square house as “unutterably naff”.

Scroll down for more…

Free time: Tony Blair has slimmed down since he left office and even finds time for the odd game of tennis

The friend told me: “Considering all the renovations they are still having done, the place is a taste-free zone.

“Cherie simply has no clue about style and decoration. The house in Islington that they had before they moved into Downing Street was a shambles, and this place is the same.

“They are having an expensive marble floor put in, but, true to form, Cherie has been telling their architect, a man called Simon, to get her discounts on everything.

“One of their few extravagances has been an enormous plasma television which dominates one wall downstairs.

“The house is lovely outside and you’d think it would be equally elegant inside, but they have brought all their old, nasty furniture down from the constituency house in Trimdon and it just doesn’t fit in.

“I felt a flush of horror come over me when Cherie showed me into the living room and there was this huge and tacky TV next to a flower-patterned sofa of the most questionable taste.

“You’d think given the money they’re earning that they could have splashed out on some decent new stuff.”

Mrs Blair has nevertheless insisted on living a life commensurate with her position as the former unofficial First Lady and has assembled her own staff, having taken with her from Downing Street two full-time female assistants. She has also headhunted her former No 10 cleaner to work for them at their new home.

And as befits her taste for the regal, she has seen fit to employ her own full-time chauffeur (friends had become used to her complaining that she was expected to drive herself around when her husband was Prime Minister).

While she continues to tout herself for speaking engagements, insiders say the lure of her husband on the lecture circuit has led to a dropping off in her own bookings.

Where once it was her controversial speaking engagements that kept the family afloat, it is now Tony who is the major breadwinner - which leaves barrister Cherie clear to stake her long-held ambition to be chosen as a High Court judge.

Her well-orchestrated bid for the job, which began in an interview she gave to Lawyer magazine this week, has received something of a blow, however.

In accompanying comments, her former mentor, Michael Beloff QC, describes his one-time protege as a “reasonable” advocate.

Meanwhile, friends confirm that Mr Blair, who was appointed a Middle East envoy after leaving his job in June, is attempting to rekindle his political career by lobbying for the role of first full-time president of the EU.

He has already enlisted the support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, with whom he dined in Paris at the end of last month.

It is a position he would relish, not least because it would allow him to do battle once more with Gordon Brown. On the subject of the former Chancellor, friends say it was Cherie who was the prime mover in persuading her husband to appear in the controversial three-part BBC1 documentary, The Blair Years, which begins tomorrow night.

It features friends of Blair, including Peter Mandelson, former BBC boss John Birt and former Health Secretary Alan Milburn, who were sanctioned to speak about his former Chancellor Gordon Brown’s alleged treachery.

The programme is seen by friends of the Blairs as the first salvo in a ‘get even’ assault on his successor.

In particular, Cherie - whose memoirs will come out to coincide with next year’s Labour Conference (and a year before her husband’s tome) - is said by insiders to be “beside herself” at the thought of getting her revenge on Mr Brown in its pages.

Given their multifarious missions - the determination to make money, the desperation to reclaim their former power-broker status and that overwhelming desire for revenge - the Blairs have left themselves little time to readjust.

As a friend said: “They are both incredibly busy and I think they should have given themselves time to be a normal couple again after all the madness of the years in No 10.

“I always felt Tony was reluctant to dive straight into making money, but Cherie was having none of it. She felt it was his turn to start making some cash for them.

“But it’s not making him happy and I think it has been a mistake to turn the house into her office. The place feels tense and miserable.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494607&in_page_id=1770

Tony Blair has been accused of “gold-digging” and “money-sucking” after he reportedly charged £240,000 for giving a speech in China. The China Youth Daily newspaper said the address had been like “listening to some domestic county or city-level official” and had given “nothing new”.

But The Beijing News called the former UK prime minister’s visit an “honour”.

Mr Blair’s spokesman said the speech had been “very well received by the audience in the hall”.

‘Tentacles’

The former Labour leader spoke in Dongguan, in China’s southern province of Guangdong, as part of a visit sponsored by a real estate company.

The subject of his address was economic development and how it could be combined with environmentally friendly policies.

The Guangzhou Daily reported that Mr Blair had received $500,000 - about £240,000 - before tax for the speech. After tax, the fee was estimated to be £156,000.

The Guangzhou Daily said: “Like many world-renowned statesmen, Tony Blair, who only recently left his throne as British prime minister on 27 June this year, has been rushing around the world making commercial speeches after leaving office.

“This time, Blair’s money-sucking tentacles have extended into China.”

A commentary in China Youth Daily says: “Mr Blair’s speech sounded familiar to me. It was like listening to some domestic county or city-level official making a report, and his viewpoints did not have too many new ideas.

“That being the case, why did the local political and business sector spend such a huge sum of money to ‘buy’ this speech, and was it worth it?”

It adds: “With China’s opening up and development, China will also become a golden market for lectures by international celebrities like [former US President Bill] Clinton and Blair, and more international celebrities will inevitably be invited to give speeches in China in future.

“That being the case, we should be a bit less frivolous and vain, a bit more modest and pragmatic, and ask for more real knowledge and new knowledge, especially if we are spending even a single cent of taxpayers’ money.”

‘Mystique’

The Beijing News says: “Blair’s different treatment in the East and the West clearly shows the effect of ‘looking good from a distance’…

“Westerners, who have had close contact with Blair, have ’shifted their affections’ since he stood down, but he still holds mystique for Asians.”

It adds: “In China, his speech was free to listen to… listening to a speech by a celebrity like Blair was an honour, and it was not important whether any new ideas were heard.”

Mr Blair’s spokesman said: “Mr Blair receives a large number of invitations to speak to a whole range of organisations.

“His speech was very well received by the audience in the hall.”

Mr Blair, who was replaced by Gordon Brown when he left Downing Street after 10 years, is now the Middle East envoy for the “Quartet” of the European Union, United Nations, Russia and the US.

He announced last month that he had signed a deal to write his memoirs, reportedly worth about £5m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7086474.stm

£240,000 for Tony Blair’s not so great speech on greatness

Jane Macartney and Francis Elliot

The banquet was readied, the Château Lafite was at room temperature and the 700 guests were in their chairs and eager to listen to a veteran of the world stage deliver a speech entitled From Great to Outstanding.

No one could accuse Tony Blair of selling himself short when he arrived by private jet at Dongguan, near Hong Kong, on Tuesday for the latest leg on his debut tour of the lecture circuit.

He had been invited by the Guangda Group, the biggest property developer in the boom town in southern China, to visit its luxury housing estate and speak at a VIP banquet.

Three hours later, as Mr Blair left with his post-tax takings of an estimated £156,000, Dongguan reflected on whether it had, indeed, been witness to whatever lies beyond greatness.

For Deng Qingbo, a commentator in the China Youth Daily, the answer was a resounding “no”. “To be honest, Mr Blair’s speech sounds so familiar. It’s just like the report of any Chinese county level official and contains no novelty. If the local political and business circles paid such a high price for a speech they could have made themselves, was it worth it?”

The former Prime Minister’s oratory on the importance of enhancing mutual understanding, boosting co-operation and of ensuring that environmental awareness accompanied economic growth offered little more than platitudes, Mr Deng complained. “In the future, more foreign celebrities will come to give speeches in China and we should be less ostentatious and vain and more modest and realistic. We should ask for more fresh knowledge and real knowledge ― especially when we are touching even a few cents of taxpayers’ money.”

Not all the coverage was negative. The Guangzhou Daily recorded that female guests, won over by Mr Blair’s smile and his “English gentleman” look, cooed: “He’s so cute.” His hosts were evidently pleased enough to offer Mr Blair one of their villas. It is not known whether he accepted the show home, “equipped with five en suite bedrooms, two additional guest bathrooms, gold taps, marble floors and a spectacular garden”.

For his part, Mr Blair expressed delight to be in Dongguan. He spoke of “the soft spot in my heart for China”, revealed that his son Leo was studying Mandarin and mused that, in another 40 years, he might return able to say more than a mere “Ni hao” – or “Hello” to his Chinese audience. His remark that “the sky’s the limit” for Dongguan drew resounding applause, according to the newspaper.

And then it was time to go. There was no opportunity for Mr Blair to sample any of the nine bottles of Château Lafite, costing as much as £600 each, that Guangda had provided for his dinner, the Guangzhou Daily lamented.

There was, however, just time to file his return to the Chinese tax office. The office confirmed that the amount he paid in income tax was £80,000.

The spokesman for Mr Blair said that the tour of China had been undertaken in his capacity as a private individual and had been arranged through the Washington Speakers Bureau, the agency that organises his commercial appearances. He refused to confirm any further details of the trip or respond to the accusations that Mr Blair had not provided value for money on his tour.

Asked how much the former Prime Minister had earned during the trip, Matthew Doyle said: “It’s none of your business.” He later added: “Mr Blair receives a large number of invitations to speak to a whole range of organisations. His speech was very well received by the audience in the hall.”

Mr Blair signed a book-publishing contract worth about £5 million and made his debut on the lecture circuit in the United States last month. Billed by his agency as having “transformed Britain’s public services” the first paid engagement of Mr Blair was at an event in Washington organised by Goldman Sachs. Mr Blair is said to have earned about £300,000 for the tour, which included appearances in California, Arizona and Calgary in Canada.

― Tony Blair could be received formally into the Roman Catholic Church in time to celebrate Mass at Westminster Catholic Cathedral at Christmas.

According to a report today in The Tablet, a Catholic newspaper, Mr Blair is to be received into the Church in the next few weeks.

Mr Blair is expected to be received by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor in his private chapel of Archbishop’s House. There has been repeated speculation for a decade that Mr Blair, whose wife Cherie is a practising Catholic, was to convert. The Times reported this year that Mr Blair would convert after he left Downing Street.

Catherine Pepinster, editor of The Tablet, said: “The cardinal’s involvement, as if he were Mr Blair’s parish priest, would suggest that the process of conversion did in fact begin during his tenure of No 10.”

She said that Mr Blair, whose four children were all baptised Catholics, could have been received earlier, but was discouraged by his advisers. Alastair Campbell famously said: “We don’t do God.”

A spokesman for the Cardinal said: “It is inappropriate for the Cardinal to comment on an individual’s faith journey. It is a private and personal issue.”
Hot air

£102,000 for Cherie Blair for 2005 Australasian lecture tour

£60,000 per after-dinner engagement by Mrs Thatcher

£25,000 paid to Prince Edward for 75-minute talk on the Royal Family in Florida in 2005

$2million raked in by Ronald Reagan in Japan, after leaving office

$40 million earned by Bill Clinton through public speaking engagements

Sources: Washington Post, Agencies

By Andrew Grice

All of Tony Blair’s closest aides had “severe moments of doubt” about his decision to join the American invasion of Iraq, Alastair Campbell reveals in his diaries, published today.

Downing Street’s former director of communications suggests that Mr Blair was the only member of his inner circle who did not have private reservations about the decision to topple Saddam Hussein.

The Blair Years describes the scene in the former prime minister’s Commons room after he won the crucial vote on the eve of the war despite a rebellion by 139 Labour MPs. He wrote at the time: “All of us, I think, had had pretty severe moments of doubt but he hadn’t really, or if he had he had hidden them from us. Now there was no going back at all.”

The previous day, the Cabinet met without Robin Cook, who had resigned over the war. According to Mr Campbell, John Prescott, John Reid and one or two other cabinet ministers “looked physically sick”.

Clare Short, who did not resign for another two months, told colleagues: “I’m going to have my little agonising overnight.” Mr Campbell accuses her of “making a complete fool of herself”.

In a prophetic remark, Mr Reid told the Cabinet: “We will be judged by the Iraq that replaces Saddam’s Iraq, and by the Middle East.” Lord Irvine of Lairg, then Lord Chancellor, warned that the public would think America and Britain needed a further United Nations resolution before taking military action because the Government had made so much effort to get one. Mr Blair admitted that public opinion in Britain was less favourable towards intervention than in the United States.

The Campbell book sheds light on a dispute at the highest levels of the Bush administration over whether it should back Britain’s call for another UN resolution. Six months before the invasion, Karen Hughes, President George Bush’s communications adviser, said “not too convincingly” that the US President was always going to go down the UN route, Mr Campbell writes. But Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, “looked very sour” throughout talks at Camp David because he favoured immediate action. “After dinner, when TB and Bush walked alone to the chopper, Bush was open with him that Cheney was in a different position,” says Mr Campbell.

President Bush joked to Mr Campbell: “I suppose you can tell the story of how Tony flew in and pulled the crazed unilateralist back from the brink.” Mr Campbell insists the President is “far more impressive close up” and believes he “comes over better than people might expect” in his book.

Extracts from his diaries were released on Mr Campbell’s website ahead of the book’s publication today. The entries he made in nine years as Mr Blair’s closest aide run to more than two million words and he is issuing the first 700-page instalment in an attempt to shape Mr Blair’s legacy. He admits he has omitted details of Mr Blair’s “pretty tense” relationship with his successor Gordon Brown to avoid handing the Tories “a goldmine” to use against the new Prime Minister.

In a television interview yesterday, the former chief of communications at No 10 sought to play down the doubts about the Iraq war he had at the time, saying he believed Mr Blair did “the right thing” in what was “clearly the most difficult decision of his life” and “one that he is going to have to live with for the rest of his life”. But he admitted the aftermath of the invasion was not “as well planned as it should have been”.

Mr Campbell told the BBC’s Sunday AM programme that he felt partly responsible for the death of Dr David Kelly, the government scientist who committed suicide after being the source of a BBC story claiming that Downing Street “sexed up” a dossier about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

He described it as “the worst period of my life” with the possible exception of family deaths and his own breakdown in the mid-Eighties. “It was like a collision course that perhaps we all should all have seen coming,” he said.

“I was a player in a series of events that somehow or other led to a man deciding he had to kill himself. I can defend every single thing that I did, and every single thing that I said. But we all of us have to accept that as that was happening there was stuff going on that frankly was leading people, leading that particular individual David Kelly, to feel despair.”

Mr Campbell admitted he was “raging” at the time, but only because of the seriousness of the allegation “of deliberately lying, falsifying intelligence, so that the prime minister could persuade Parliament and the country to go to war on a lie”. Mr Campbell admitted that he was an aggressive character who got “very, very angry” with the media and that he had regrets over the way he became the story.

* Three British soldiers died in Iraq in as many days over the weekend. Rifleman Edward Vakabua, 23, of 4th Battalion The Rifles, died in an accident at the Basra Palace base in the centre of the southern city on Friday.

L/Cpl Ryan Francis, 23, of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, was killed when his vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in Basra’s Hay al-Mudhara district early on Saturday. A third soldier, of the 3 Regiment Royal MP, died yesterday after suffering serious injuries in the same operation, the Ministry of Defence said.

The thoughts of Alastair Campbell

Bill Clinton [The then US President accuses Campbell of briefing against him as Blair presses him to deploy ground troops in Kosovo]

MAY 18, 1999: He [Clinton] said it may play well with the UK media and public but “there is a price to pay and you will pay it.”

May 19, 1999: TB said BC’s outburst was “real, red-hot anger”… it had to be understood he could not be briefed against like this.

Blair on Thatcher

AUGUST 30, 2000: TB said it was important I understood why parts of Thatcherism were right. TB said [to his advisers]: “What gives me real edge is that I’m not as Labour as you lot.” I pointed out that was a rather discomfiting observation. He said it was true.

Blair’s departure [Blair originally planned to serve only two terms as Prime Minister]

July 11, 2002: He [Blair] said: “In truth I’ve never really wanted to do more than two full terms.” The big question was … does it give him an authority of sorts, or does it erode that authority, and do people just move towards GB?

Princess Diana [Campbell meets the Princess]

May 4, 1995: “It would make a very funny picture if there were any paparazzi in those trees,” she said. TB was standing back and Cherie was looking impatient and I was just enjoying flirting with her.

[After the Princess is involved in a car crash in Paris]

August 30, 1997: He [Blair] was really shocked. I don’t think I’d ever heard him like this. He was full of pauses, then gabbling a little but equally clear what we had to do …

Northern Ireland [The first visit to Downing Street by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness]

December 11, 1997: TB said he would not be a persuader for a united Ireland. The principle of consent was central to the process. Adams said if TB could not be a persuader, he could be a facilitator.

Paddy Ashdown [Like Gordon Brown, Tony Blair planned to bring Paddy Ashdown, then leader of the Liberal Democrats, into his Cabinet]

April 26, 1997: He [Blair] stunned me straight out with the boldest plan yet. “How would people feel if I gave Paddy a place in the Cabinet and started merger talks.” He had the Clause 4 glint in his eye. He was making a cup of tea, and chuckling. “We could put the Tories out of business for a generation.”

9/11 attacks [Blair was due to address the TUC annual conference in Brighton when news of the attacks on the Twin Towers emerged]

September 11, 2001: I turned on the TV and said to TB he ought to watch it. We didn’t watch that long, but long enough for TB to reach the judgement about just how massive this was. TB was straight onto the diplomatic side, said that we had to help the US, that they could not go it all on their own, and that this would be tantamount to a military attack in their minds.

By David Cracknell

TONY BLAIR wanted to quit as prime minister a year before the Iraq war, according to Alastair Campbell, his former communications director.

He told Campbell that he was not going to seek a third term of office and wanted to be free to act without worrying what the Labour party or public thought of him for the remainder of his second term.

Campbell reveals the former prime minister’s plans in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times today on the eve of publication of his long awaited diaries, The Blair Years.

His revelations, from the man who was at Blair’s side for a decade and dubbed the real deputy prime minister, are the first to come from a figure at the centre of power in Downing Street.

In the summer of 2002, a year after winning his second general election and nine months before the start of the Iraq war, Blair decided to tell the Labour party conference in the autumn that he would not fight a third election.

He told Campbell: “Two terms is all you get in the modern world.”

Blair asked his inner circle – Campbell, his political adviser Sally Morgan, and his chief of staff Jonathan Powell – whether the announcement would liberate him to pursue sometimes unpopular reforms without focusing on the next election.

“I wasn’t totally opposed, but I advised him that it would make him a lame duck,” says Campbell.

There had been mounting tension over the potential military action in Iraq and there have been claims that Blair and President George W Bush had already decided in principle to invade Iraq, although this has always been denied by Downing Street.

Blair was also under pressure over a variety of issues, some of them personal, but others included wrangles over tuition fees and hospital reforms.

“We had been going through a lot of crap,” says Campbell.

As the diaries record, Blair’s departure plan was shelved under pressure of events.

But the motive remained – “What you get as the book goes on is Tony caring less about what people say about him,” Campbell says.

Campbell also reveals that Princess Diana held secret dinners with Blair and his inner circle – including one at an “ordinary house” in east London – in the mid1990s when he was leader of the opposition and inventing new Labour. “It was just extraordinary to see her in this ordinary house. We had an amazing dinner. She made me a cup of tea,” Campbell says.

The princess had earlier met Blair at an “Establishment” dinner party in Belgravia, where she had made a beeline for Campbell when he arrived at the end of the meal.

“I rang the bell and told them Mr Blair’s car was there. And the next thing is she’s there, at the car. I’ve ribbed Tony about this ever since, because she basically said she’d really like to meet Alastair Campbell.

“We’re standing there, in the middle of the road with cars whizzing by . . . And she said, ‘Wouldn’t it be hilarious if there were a photographer around now?’ She was so gorgeous.

“She said, ‘I mustn’t hold you back any longer,’ and there was I wanting to be held back for a very long time.”

A few weeks later Diana accepted an invitation to the modest Hackney home of Mag-gie Rae, a Labour activist and friend of the Blairs. This time Campbell was a guest with his boss at the relaxed and informal dinner.

“I think she really felt she was part of the whole new Britain. I think she thought Tony would support her causes, Aids and child poverty. We talked to her about how she was seen and how she handled the media . . . She’d talk about pictures all the time. She said to me, ‘They can take a lot away from you, but they can’t take away your pictures.’ She said, ‘You can really touch people in pictures.’

“I think she was interested in Tony and what we wanted to do.

He described her as very political, not in the party sense but instinctively.

“At the dinner she would physically withdraw from the conversation if she thought it was getting too political. I honestly don’t know what would have happened if she’d lived. And whether she would have had a role.”

A source close to Campbell said yesterday that Blair thought Diana could do “a brilliant job as a kind of ambassador abroad for his vision of a modernised Britain. The princess was intrigued by the idea. She liked the image of the country Blair wanted to project and thought she could make a contribution. She was very excited about it”.

The sources said Blair and Diana continued to meet secretly until her death in August 1997, three months after new Labour

came to power. In his diary Campbell denies that he put the words “the people’s princess” into Blair’s eulogy for her. The former prime minister came up with it himself, he says.

Similarly the phrase “bog-standard comprehensive”, for which Campbell was widely criticised by Labour traditionalists, was coined by Blair, he says.

The former Downing Street communications chief talks about the ideological gulf between himself and Blair. They fell out over the decision to send Blair’s sons to a selective school. Blair said he was not going to do “the wrong thing for my kids for the sake of political correctness”.

On another occasion Blair told him: “I’m not as Labour as you.” Campbell comments: “He truly wasn’t.”

The Iraq war overshadows the diaries. Campbell says he warned Blair about its likely political repercussions. “I had doubts about the impact of military action on Tony’s future. I said to him, ‘Look, if, when all this is done, you are history before your time, is it really worth it?’ And he said, ‘It’s always worth doing what you think is right. America has been attacked. It’s important they don’t think they’re going to stand up to this on their own.’

“He knew from the word go that there would be some who would want to portray him as Bush’s poodle. He was just prepared to live with that.”

He says Bush joked about his relationship with Blair when they visited Wash-ington in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on America. “After the first meeting before we flew home, Bush said to me, ‘There you go – you’ll be able to paint a picture of how Tony flew in and pulled the crazed unilateralist back from the brink’.”

As for Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, Blair was sympathetic during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “He said every leader’s got to be able to let go a bit, and Bill – that was his way of letting go of it.”

Clinton was equally supportive of Blair, giving Campbell a pep talk. “I was a bit down on Tony at the time – I was pissed off with everything probably – Bill said I should mix very frank advice with an understanding that we’re all human in the end. He was saying don’t beat up on him.”

Clinton also asked Campbell to consider whether he was “hurting” Blair through his antagonistic relationship with the British news media, which Campbell says he now regrets.

There was less empathy in Blair’s relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. A lunch in Moscow became particularly heated.

“There were tough exchanges. It was at the time of Iraq. Putin felt that Britain was constantly taking the American side on different issues. There was a point at which he was talking to Tony in a very personal, emotional way, and I noted that it reminded me of Fiona [Millar, his girlfriend] when she was having a go at me.”

Boris Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor, was sober when he first met Blair, but “there were other times when he might have had a few. There was a phone call when Tony had no idea what he was saying at all”.

Campbell writes at length about the row with the BBC in 2003 over claims that the government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction [WMD] had been “sexed up”, which led to the suicide of the former weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

When Campbell heard Kelly had gone missing: “I felt absolutely sick. I felt like a juggernaut was coming my way. When they said a body had been found, I came home just before the press started arriving and I wanted to quit there and then. I knew what was coming. Then Tony phoned me . . . and I said, ‘Look Tony, I just want to go’.”

Campbell says Millar had long wanted him to leave, and his resignation had already been agreed with Blair before the WMD row. It was put on hold for three months, but he then left.

“Fiona didn’t want me to do the job in the first place. At times she felt I was off, gallivanting round the world, being feted as a political superstar. . . To me,I was working my arse off. I had to go, not just for the family, I had to go politically as well.”

Haaretz

A state-run Syrian newspaper on Saturday lambasted Tony’s Blair’s appointment as a special Middle East envoy, saying a man with “hands smeared with innocents’ blood” cannot be a peace envoy.Shortly after stepping down as Britain’s prime minister, Blair was named Wednesday as a Mideast envoy by the “Quartet” of peace mediators that is comprised of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.

Blair, who handed over the reins to Gordon Brown, has said his task would be to prepare the ground for a future Palestinian state as an essential first step toward reaching a negotiated settlement in the region.

“How could a liar, who is directly connected with Washington and who is a staunch proponent of the extremist rightist ideology, be a peace envoy?” the Tishrin newspaper said in a front-page editorial. “Who would trust his promises? Would he work truthfully for peace so long as he personally doesn’t know, as we think, the meaning of the word ‘truth’?”In some Arab countries, including Syria, Blair has been criticized on the suspicion that he is a lackey of U.S. President George W. Bush and for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

“Can we forget that the new peace envoy repeats literally what is being dictated upon him by the lowest-ranking official at the White House?” Tishrin said.

It added that Blair’s “U.S.-Israeli policy” is to be blamed for most of the “catastrophes and ordeals” that have befallen on the Arabs, and criticized his attempts to isolate Syria and impose sanctions on it.

“We would not pin great hopes on his mission simply because a war man could never be a peace advocate or peace envoy,” the paper said. “This is the first time throughout history in which we see a peace envoy with his hands smeared with innocents’ blood.”

Blair faces several challenges in his new role, namely Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip two weeks ago. Hamas has already criticized Blair’s appointment, saying he is too close to the United States.

Tony Blair has been appointed as envoy for the Quartet group of Middle East negotiators after he stepped down as Britain’s prime minister.

Members of the group - the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia - confirmed the position on Wednesday.

The decision came after Russia agreed to drop its reservations over the appointment.

Michele Montas, Quartet spokesman, said: “Following discussions among the principals, today the Quartet dealing with the Middle East is announcing the appointment of Tony Blair as the Quartet’s representative.”

Two-state solution

Blair was replaced on Wednesday by Gordon Brown, the finance minister, after 10 years in the position.

In his last appearance before parliament as prime minister, Blair told politicians a viable two-state solution in the Middle East is “possible… but it will require a huge intensity of focus and work”.

A spokesman for Blair said the former prime minister had telephoned Vladmir Putin, Russia’s president, late on Tuesday in an attempt to calm his concerns about him becoming the envoy.

Relations between Russia and Britain had been soured by London charging Andrei Lugovoi, a former Soviet-era spy, with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, another ex-KGB officer who had been a severe critic of Putin.

But Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said on Wednesday that his government backed Blair.

International reaction

Blair’s appointment was welcomed by figures in the US, Israel and Palestine.

George Bush, the US president, said: “I am pleased that this capable man has agreed to continue his work for peace in the Middle East.”

“Tony will help Palestinians develop the political and economic institutions they will need for a democratic, sovereign state able to provide for its people and live in peace and security with Israel.”

Mark Regev, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said: “Tony Blair is a friend of Israel, a friend of the Palestinians and above all a friend of peace.

We are delighted with the idea of working with him.”

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, expressed satisfaction at the decision.

Saeb Erakat, chief Palestinian negotiator, said: “President Abbas welcomes the nomination of Mr Blair as envoy of the Quartet.

“The president, who was consulted on the matter, has given the assurance that he will work with Mr Blair to arrive at a peaceful solution on the basis of two states.”

Tough task

David Chater, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Jerusalem, said on Tuesday: “Tony Blair is being fitted up for a job that is a very difficult one, because unlike the previous occupant of the post he faces not only a geographic split between the West Bank and Gaza but also a political one.”

Hamas seized full control of Gaza two weeks ago prompting Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to form an emergency cabinet drawn from Fatah and independent politicians, ignoring Hamas representation.

Chater said Blair has several skills that give him an advantage for the job of Middle East envoy.

“His micromanagement skills in finding a resolution to what was seen as an intractable situation in Northern Ireland will aid him greatly in this task.”

But Chater said Blair’s support for the US administration’s Middle East policy had been considered by many Arabs as a mark against his candidacy for the post.

Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, was also said to have opposed Blair’s appointment.

Al Jazeera and agencies

By Tomos Livingstone
IC Wales

TONY Blair spent his last day in power with Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Political Editor Tomos Livingstone went to say hasta la vista, Tony.

Blair and Arnie’s get-together on the Prime Minister’s final full day was a somewhat bizarre sight. But political editor Tomos Livingstone watched the routine unfold in businesslike fashion

IT WAS the obvious joke to make, but Tony Blair made it anyway.

Striding out to meet the waiting press for the last time as Prime Minister, and flanked by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, he said, “My press officer said to me, whatever else you do this morning, don’t say – ‘I’ll be back’.”

It was a reminder to those who still can’t quite believe that Tony Blair is going to stop being Prime Minister this afternoon and hand over to Gordon Brown.

And it was apposite that someone so often criticised for being a political actor was joined by an actor who became an unlikely politician.

It was a businesslike affair, with both men fielding questions on climate change and how the G8 deal reached last month would work.

Which was a shame, as the journalists were hoping that Mr Schwarzenegger would talk like he does on the American electoral circuit, where he says things like, “To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don’t be economic girlie men!”

It would have been much more fun if he’d have taken questions on Mr Blair’ s decade in office.

“I say to people who think it was wrong to invade Iraq and think inequality is getting worse – Don’t be such girlie men!”

Then Mr Blair could have said “Hasta la vista” and roared off into the sunset with his new buddy on a Harley Davidson.

Sadly, all that happened was that they both behaved like statesmen, then got into a Government car and went to a school in Hammersmith. Oh well.

Still, after his speech two weeks ago when he criticised the “feral beasts” of the media, you wondered whether Mr Blair had been watching some of Mr Schwarzenegger’s films.

Perhaps he sees occasionally imagines himself as the killer in Terminator, spearing those irksome hacks who stand in his way with an extendable metal arm, on his way to bringing peace to the Middle East.

But all he told us was, “This will be the last press conference I will be giving to you guys. That’s something I’m really going to miss.”

We couldn’t get him on anything else he’d miss, but he did give a broad hint that we hadn’t heard the last of him.

“Maybe one of the benefits when I do step down – and I remember President Clinton once saying this to me – is you can then focus on specific issues with a greater intensity than when you are having to deal with the whole gamut of issues as Prime Minister.

“We will see.”

Indeed. Asked if he had any advice for the Chancellor, he replied simply, “No. Because he is perfectly capable of doing the job on his own, thank you.”

You suspect he was thinking, ‘And the chances of him taking any notice are zero anyway, as you lot well know’.

Ten years ago, the crowds were chanting “Tony! Tony!” Yesterday, on the final day, it was West London schoolchildren chanting “Terminator! Terminator!”. I wonder whether they thought Gordon was coming too.

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Monday June 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Holding a referendum on the EU treaty would entail “sucking the energy out of the country for months”, Tony Blair said today.

Making his final full statement as prime minister before retiring on Wednesday, the prime minister rejected outright Tory demands for a plebiscite on the weekend agreement.

In an unusual move, the prime minister was joined on the frontbench for the statement by the new Labour leader, Gordon Brown, who will have to pilot the bill through parliament this autumn.

Mr Blair repeated his principal reason for refusing to grant a referendum: that Britain’s “red lines” had not been breached by the marathon negotiations, which only came to a close at 5am on Saturday morning.

But Mr Blair conceded that the 48-hour talks had comprised “an exceptionally difficult negotiation”.

And he made his revealing comment on the political costs of a referendum when under pressure from the Tory leader, David Cameron.

Mr Cameron declared that the treaty agreed was simply a constitution “that dare not speak its name”.

The Conservative leader said that Mr Blair had sanctioned the transfer of powers from Britain to Brussels “without the permission of the British people”.

To loud Tory cheers, he added: “This will be remembered as one of the most flagrant breaches of any of the promises you have made.”

The prime minister accused Mr Cameron of saying he was “too busy” to attend a meeting of Europe’s centre-right parties held by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to discuss the treaty.

Yet, Mr Blair added, Mr Cameron thought the treaty was so fundamentally important it would require a referendum that would “take months … sucking energy out of the country for months”.

The Tory argument is that Mr Blair agreed to a referendum on the constitution in 2005, and today’s document is largely similar to that one.

With both positions well-rehearsed, the prime minister accused Mr Cameron of “going through the motions” by demanding a referendum.

And he pointed out that neither the Maastricht treaty nor the single European market treaty of 1986 had been put to a referendum by Tory governments.

Defending the deal achieved - which will still require a referendum at least in Ireland, if not in other EU states - Mr Blair insisted it was “quintessentially” in Britain’s interests.

Amid noisy scenes in the Commons, he told MPs: “Over the past ten years Britain has moved from the margins of European debate to the centre. This is absolutely right for Britain.”

And he added: “Britain has for a decade been in a leadership position in Europe. That is exactly where we should stay.”

There is still some confusion over the treaty, with the Tories claiming Britain has given up a unilateral veto in over 60 areas and Mr Blair insisting it was nearer 40 - and many in largely technically or minor areas.

Mr Cameron accused him of signing up to a treaty “he’ll never have to defend”.

The Tory leader quoted the Irish foreign minister as saying that 90% of the original constitution - rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums - remained in the new amending treaty.

And he said that the power of veto would be given away in such crucial areas as transport and energy.

The prime minister insisted that a new two-and-a-half-year EU presidency was “necessary for efficiency” and that Britain’s “opt-ins” in areas of crime and immigration allowed the UK to “pick and chose … on a case-by-case basis”.

Mr Blair said that the UK had secured a legally-binding protocol on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and extended opt-in rights on migration, asylum and immigration issues.

He also said that the UK’s social security and benefits system was “completely protected” while the common foreign and security policy remained essentially unchanged.

The Independent

An explosive Cabinet Office document reveals that the departing Prime Minister had no intention of making a ’smooth transition’ of power to Gordon Brown. Political Editor Marie Woolf reveals the detailed plans to sack his bitter rival and break up the Treasury in an exclusive report that reveals an extraordinary breakdown at the heart of government

An astonishing confidential document - disclosed by The Independent on Sunday three days before Gordon Brown takes over as Prime Minister - proves that Tony Blair planned to sack Mr Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately after the last election.

The Cabinet Office document, drawn up by a team of Downing Street advisers including Lord Birt, the former director-general of the BBC, shows that far from the “unswerving support” the Prime Minister pledged to Mr Brown this week, he planned to scupper his career and break up the Treasury just two years ago.

The revelations will shock Labour Party delegates assembling in Manchester for the formal announcement of Mr Brown’s succession as Labour leader.

They will also confirm long-held suspicions by allies of Gordon Brown that the Prime Minister has been undermining him for years. The top-secret paper confirms talk at Westminster that Mr Blair intended to sack Mr Brown after the 2005 election and move him to another post to loosen his control over the domestic agenda.

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.

In the week in which Tony Blair finally leaves the stage, the leak starkly illuminates the extent of the breakdown in the central relationship of the Labour government over the past decade.

It emerged last week that Cherie Blair repeatedly urged her husband to sack Mr Brown, and that Mr Blair told friends of his intention to ditch the Chancellor.

The paper was prepared by a trusted team of advisers in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, in close co-operation with John Birt and the Economic and Domestic Secretariat in the Cabinet Office - Mr Blair’s elite civil service support team.

Downing Street sources have told The Independent on Sunday that Mr Blair wanted to be kept closely informed of its work and watched presentations of the plans as they developed. As proof of how closely involved Tony Blair was, The Independent on Sunday has seen the Prime Minister’s own personal copy, drafted for him in March 2005, weeks before the election.

One Downing Street insider said that the secret plans were known only to a small coterie of Mr Blair’s inner circle, including Alan Milburn, Lord Birt and a group of key Downing Street officials.

“There were all sorts of presentations to the Prime Minister. He was definitely aware this was going on - he wanted it. There was a big thing about how Mr Blair was going to make a big comeback after the election. His basic command was ‘I want to refresh my government’. It was about Mr Blair being so sick of the in-fighting with Brown,” said one source.

The blueprint for the third term included Mr Blair’s notes for briefing the Chancellor and other ministers, including the new environment and industries secretaries and energy minister, who were all expected to be “neutral” on nuclear power. A list of policy decisions to be made throughout the third term, including raising the retirement age and taking a “nuclear decision”, are listed in detail.

Many of the changes listed in the document have been brought in, but the preparations to radically reshape the Government and split the Treasury were rapidly shredded after Mr Brown stepped in to rescue Labour’s flagging election campaign.

As Labour slipped in the polls, Gordon Brown did a deal not only to keep his job, but to have a say in the post-election reshuffle, in effect anointing him as Mr Blair’s successor.

Some months before the last election, the Chancellor had been sidelined from the campaign when Mr Blair put Mr Milburn, his staunch ally, in charge.

In the weeks before the campaign, Downing Street advisers were instructed to draw up a far-reaching blue-print for Mr Blair’s third term, and to renew government so it was fit for the next 10 years.

The secret “Gov 2015″ programme, the start of a 10-year plan to be put into effect the moment the 2005 election was over, is entitled “3rd Term Plan: Implementation Pack”. It shows that the Prime Minister not only wanted a new Chancellor but also to emasculate the Treasury as a power base.

It proposes boosting the role of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who would head a new Office of Delivery and Expenditure within the Treasury, which would be responsible for public service delivery and control of spending. The Prime Minister would chair a new cabinet committee determining “overall strategy”.

The proposals suggest that Mr Brown was to be kept in the dark about the changes afoot, while his own civil servants would be asked to work on the plans without telling him.

The document says that the Prime Minister must decide whether to tell the top civil servant in the Treasury in advance of the secret plans “in confidence” so he could work with Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, to refine them.

The changes were to be abrupt and ruthless, planned months in advance of the election.

A list of “Actions to be taken by the Prime Minister in Week 1″ begins with him conducting the reshuffle. His second priority in the first two days after the election result would be to “Convey to new Chancellor and Chief Secretary the high-level plans”.

The paper headed “draft speaking notes for the Prime Minister in his Day 1 briefing of the Chancellor” begins: “I propose to make some significant changes to the role of the Treasury.” It sets out point by point how the Treasury would be reduced from a powerhouse to an administrative department.

Mr Blair proposed to remove the Treasury’s ability to spend money because it had “caused a conflict of interest”. Most of its enterprise team would be transferred to the DTI, which would be renamed the Department for Trade, Productivity & Energy (DTPE) - a name change that was made but then swiftly dumped after objections by Alan Johnson, who was put in charge of the department after the election. Responsibility for overall policy on productivity would also go to the (DTPE) department, while a new Office of Delivery and Expenditure would be established within the Treasury to ensure that “the spending allocations and targets are aligned with the Government’s strategy”. The Department for Work and Pensions would take over responsibility for tax credits and tackling poverty.

The blueprint was designed to address Mr Blair’s concerns that Gordon Brown’s powers over spending and allocating money to government departments were so extensive that they worked against the Government’s own spending priorities. His advisers were determined it would never happen again. At Downing Street those in on the plans speculated that the changes were so dramatic that Gordon Brown, when he caught wind of them, would resign his post before being reshuffled. Others said he would have to be pushed and be made Foreign Secretary “to give him more experience”.

The plans to diminish the Treasury and appoint a “new Chancellor” demonstrate the depths to which the relationship had plummeted, and the extent of the distrust between the two men and their rival courts.

It was the lowest point of a steady deterioration that led to shouting matches, slamming doors and angry accusations - a situation that many in No 10 thought frustrated good government.

The tension was so palpable that Mr Blair’s aides complained that they were treated like children in a dysfunctional relationship. Estelle Morris, the former education secretary, recently said that “the tension between them made decision-making impossible”.

Tony Blair complained that Gordon Brown’s influence over domestic policy had stifled many of his reforms. At the 2005 Labour conference, the Prime Minister said revealingly: “Every time I’ve ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further.”

The source of the enmity goes back at least to 1994 and the unexpected death of John Smith, the Labour leader. Mr Blair and Mr Brown, both rising stars on the opposition benches, were pitched into competition for the job. Elected in 1983, the two MPs shared a cramped office in Westminster and were close friends. They enjoyed each other’s company and worked in partnership as an energetic modernising force in the party. Mr Brown, the more experienced politically, took Mr Blair under his wing. Soon Mr Blair, promoted to the role of shadow Home Secretary, showed his parliamentary skills and asserted himself with a “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” message. When John Smith died, Gordon Brown was still the senior partner, but Mr Blair emerged swiftly as the modernising candidate considered most likely to win over middle-class voters.

The famed meeting at the Granita restaurant in Islington over who should become Labour leader sealed the premiership for Mr Blair. Over dinner Mr Blair is said to have reached an understanding with Mr Brown that he would not stay at Downing Street for ever and would step down to hand over the reins of power to his friend. Mr Brown was given guarantees that, as Chancellor, he would have control not only of the economy but also policies such as reducing poverty.

Mr Brown is said to have left the dinner with the understanding that Mr Blair would stand down during his second term. But his feeling that Mr Blair had somehow cheated him of his rightful inheritance poisoned the early years of government. One ally of the new Prime Minister said in 1998 that the Chancellor had to get a grip on his “psychological flaws”. In time it became clear that Mr Blair had no intention of handing over in his second term. Allies of the Prime Minister have often insisted that no time limit was put on his premiership but that he had made it clear that he would not go on and on. Repeated attempts to extract a date from Mr Blair failed and gradually the fault lines in the relationship became wider.

So bitter was the distrust between the two former friends that in 2004 the relationship reached near meltdown. The simmering tension finally became so great that the Chancellor’s patience snapped and he told Mr Blair, ” There is nothing you could say to me now that I would ever believe.”

In 2004 Mr Blair tried to dampen the flames by announcing that he would step down as Prime Minister during his third term of office. But the stand-off continued. At times, the two men would not speak to each other. Then, exasperated, Mr Brown would storm into No 10 and confront the Prime Minster face to face. Allies of the Prime Minister accused the Chancellor of being paranoid and obsessive.

By 2005, on the eve of the election, the dysfunctional marriage was heading to the divorce courts. But what the Treasury did not know was that Mr Blair was already drawing up the divorce papers - in the shape of the secret strategy document outlining plans to move Mr Brown out of the marital home. As the document was being drafted in secret, the relationship between Mr Blair and Mr Brown was at one of its lowest ebbs. Although the Chancellor was known for his campaigning skills, the Prime Minister publicly snubbed him, appointing his arch enemy to head the 2005 election campaign. Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, was summoned to the forefront of the campaign. However, preparations for the campaign began to falter and Mr Blair had no alternative but to bring the Chancellor back centre stage.

With Alastair Campbell as the intermediary, the Prime Minister struck a deal with Mr Brown. Not only would there be no question that he could keep his job, but he could also rewrite the manifesto on the economy and education, and have a say in the reshuffle following the election victory.

Mr Blair’s blueprint was hastily filed in a desk drawer, where it has remained until now. The Treasury remained the powerhouse it is today.

Mr Brown, unaware of how detailed the plans were that had been drawn up to move him, rallied to the cause. Labour’s first election broadcast, by the Oscar winner Anthony Minghella, featured Mr Blair and Mr Brown talking about their “shared values”.

Crucially, on the day that the Attorney General’s fuller and more equivocal legal advice on the Iraq war was leaked, Mr Brown rescued Mr Blair at a news conference by firmly saying, when asked if he would have taken the country to war, “yes”.

Visibly surprising Mr Blair with the strength of his endorsement, he continued: “I not only trust Tony Blair, but I respect Tony Blair for the way he want about that decision.”

Cementing Mr Brown’s position, Mr Milburn, seen by some as a plausible ” heir to Blair” and rival to the Chancellor, dramatically dropped out of government.

Could it have been that he had been lined up for the role of Chancellor and did not want to serve in a government where his arch-rival’s power had not been switched off, as planned, but given a megawatt boost?

The key architect of the plans, Lord Birt, also announced shortly afterwards that he would resign as Mr Blair’s strategic adviser and join a finance firm. His four years at the Prime Minister’s side had given him a pivotal position, often resented by civil servants and ministers who complained he used to interfere in policy. John Prescott was characteristically outspoken, launching an attack on “John Bloody Birt”.

Mr Blair, on the other hand, praised his blue-skies thinker: “His hard-headed analysis and ability to get to the heart of the most complex of problems has proved invaluable.” Had he not stepped aside, his blueprint suggests John Birt would have had a key role in overseeing the reshaped government and Treasury and would have been part of an ” implementation team” to “run the change process” which would have included the Cabinet Secretary, then Sir Andrew Turnbull.

The plans will appear to Brownites as a back-handed stitch-up, designed to reassert Mr Blair’s authority across government and undermine his most valuable lieutenant. Mr Blair’s team was, according to the paper, preparing to “hit the ground running” on day one.

But two years on, in the final days of Mr Blair’s premiership, it is Mr Brown who has prevailed and is preparing to revitalise the Labour government with a blueprint of energetic and radical proposals.

Today Tony Blair will travel to Manchester to hear Gordon Brown make a speech, accepting the leadership of the Labour Party. When he shakes hands with his old friend his smile is likely to be firmly fixed, and his tributes generous. But Copy No 1 of the confidential blueprint is proof that Mr Blair’s accolades are less than sincere.

Further reading: ‘Tony Blair - Prime Minister’ by John Rentoul, Little Brown

How Blair tried to sack Brown

1992 ‘Two bright boys’

Back in the innocent days before John Smith died, Brown and Blair are the ‘two bright boys’ feared by Alan Clark, the Tory minister, admired by Neil Kinnock, and promoted to top posts by Smith

1994 The breach

Tony and Gordon take a walk for the cameras after Brown has announced that he will not be a candidate for the Labour leadership. Early outing for the Mark I forced smile

1995 Bruise beneath the surface

In opposition, Blair and Brown work closely together, but Brown’s resentment at being beaten to the leadership takes the form of a ‘titanic feud’ behind the scenes with Peter Mandelson

1997 Neighbours

The newly elected Prime Minister and Chancellor wow a grateful and relieved nation with clever stuff like Bank of England independence, although their secretive way of working horrifies the civil service

1998 Putting on an act

Within a year things were already so bad, with Blair’s people deriding Brown’s ‘psychological flaws’, that they were forced to watch football together for the cameras. Who is supporting Scotland or Morocco?

2001 I’m not listening

As the first four-year term draws to a close, Blair suggests he might let Brown have a go in the driving seat if the Chancellor helps to make the case for Britain adopting the euro. Brown refuses to take the bait

2001 Give us a clue

As the election that was postponed by foot and mouth approaches, Brown becomes increasingly impatient to learn of Blair’s intentions about the next one. Blair’s too busy eating his fish and chips

2004 ‘Nothing you could ever say’

Having told Brown that he would stand down this year, Blair changes his mind. Brown takes it calmly: ‘There is nothing that you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe.’ Or words to that effect

2005 Brown seals the deal

Just before the start of Blair’s third election campaign, the Pope dies. Blair is forced to push Alan Milburn to one side, ditch the Birt plan and bring back Brown to rescue Labour’s electoral fortunes

2005 Corny, but it works

With Blair and Brown running as a team, the Labour campaign achieves lift-off. Blair is returned with a majority of 66; Brown keeps his job and tightens his grip on the succession, which is finally his two years later

Tony Blair has spoken to President Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about becoming a Middle East envoy, a White House official says. Two senior US administration sources told the BBC that the PM’s aides have indicated he is interested in the role.

The president would reportedly like him to be an envoy for the quartet of the US, European Union, UN and Russia.

The PM’s official spokesman said there was lots of speculation over Mr Blair’s future, much of it “inaccurate”.

The White House officials told the BBC that the talks were preliminary, and did not have any comment on Mr Blair’s reaction to the suggestion.

But later, the administration sources told the BBC’s Jonathan Beale that both Israel and the Palestinians had signed up to the proposal.

Beale said: “Most important of all Tony Blair, or aides of Mr Blair, have signed up to this.

“It looks like this is going to be Tony Blair’s next job and it looks like Tony Blair wants this job… that is the message I am getting from officials in Washington.”

However, he added that the appointment was not a “foregone conclusion” and that more discussions were needed.

Beale said that Mr Blair would not be President Bush’s envoy under the plan but specifically the envoy of the quartet of nations and institutions mediating in the Middle East.

But he added that there was momentum building for Mr Blair to take the role with backing from the US.

Position vacant

Mr Blair steps down as prime minister on 27 June, ending 10 years in Downing Street.

The White House officials did not know if the president had discussed the idea with the other three members of the peace quartet.

It follows reports on the al-Jazeera TV news network that Mr Blair was set to take up the position, which has been vacant since former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn resigned the post in April 2006.

Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said: “Officials in the prime minister’s office are aware of this idea and Prime Minister (Ehud) Olmert is very supportive of Prime Minister Blair and of his continuing involvement in the Middle East and the peace process.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “Obviously Prime Minister Blair has been very active and deeply involved in Middle East peace issues throughout his prime ministership.”

She added that Mr Blair and the US President spoke often, adding: “It would not surprise me if they have talked about what Prime Minister Blair would like to do following the end of his term… but we don’t have anything to announce today”.

Mr Blair is a controversial figure in some Arab circles, after his refusal to press for an immediate ceasefire during the war in Lebanon in 2006 and his prominent backing for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

BBC

By Frances Webber
RINF Alternative News

As Blair leaves office, he leaves a country more divided - by race, class and status - than he found it.

As Tony Blair finally relinquishes power, much has been and will be written about the legacy of his ten years. In the fields of immigration and asylum, as in other fields, his reign presents a strange paradox. His government was responsible for bringing in the Human Rights Act 1998, which was designed to ‘bring human rights home’ and which has forced government to confront the impact of legislative, executive and judicial acts on the human rights of those affected. At the same time, his government has been responsible for serious encroachments on fundamental rights, a shift in the balance of power from individual liberty and towards state control; a similar shift as between the executive and the judiciary; entrenchment of xeno-racism and, in particular, erosion of the idea of universality of human rights.

Extending and curtailing human rights

One of the Blair government’s first acts, in 1997, was to abolish the hated ‘primary purpose’ rule which kept thousands of foreign husbands apart from their British wives. Shortly after, cohabitees and same-sex partners were given the right to live in the UK. The Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000, brought the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right to life, the right not to be tortured (or expelled to torture), rights to liberty, fair trial, family life, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and association, into the law of the United Kingdom. The Act enables executive action to be challenged in UK courts on the basis that it violates one of the protected rights. The Act is a significant achievement. But the government has endeavoured to ensure that it is applied restrictively, on the basis that immigrants do not have the same rights as others. Thus, thousands of families have been broken up by the removal of the foreign partner - the government argues that the ‘imperatives of immigration control’ outweigh the families’ rights.

Internment and control orders

The extent of the Blair government’s encroachments on liberty through executive action was exemplified by the internment of foreign terrorist suspects introduced by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and declared unlawful by the House of Lords in December 2004. Internment was replaced by control orders under the 2004 Prevention of Terrorism Act, which can be imposed on anyone reasonably suspected of involvement in supporting terrorism (given a very broad definition by the Terrorism Act 2000). Control orders, or immigration bail conditions to similar effect, have been imposed against those suspected of support for resistance in Libya, Iraq, Chechnya and Afghanistan. Conditions include home curfews for twelve to sixteen hours a day, coupled with limits on movement outside the home to a specified area (frequently a mile or so radius), wearing an electronic tag, the surrender of passports, prohibition of all but security-cleared visitors, restrictions on people who can be met outside the home and on places of worship, ban on possession or use of a mobile phone or a computer, daily reporting to police, and allowing police and immigration officers to enter, search and seize items from the ‘controlee’s’ home at any time, day or night. The cumulative impact of these conditions has driven ‘controlees’ to the brink of madness.

Other notable encroachments on rights:

• That biometrics such as fingerprints or iris imprints can be demanded of visa applicants; asylum seekers can be fingerprinted; and the 2007 UK Borders Bill introduces compulsory biometric ID cards for immigrants;
• Successive Acts since 1999 have given immigration officers equivalent arrest, search and seizure powers to police, including the power to use reasonable force, without any of the safeguards;
• Home Office officials have been given powers to compel banks, local authorities, employers and others to pass on information about immigrants;
• Since 2005, immigrants have needed permission to marry (unless they marry in an Anglican church), in a measure declared incompatible with rights to marry by the Court of Appeal in 2007;
• A raft of new criminal offences directed against those who arrive without documents, and those who refuse to cooperate in their own removal by getting new travel documents from their embassy (introduced in 2004);
• A massive increase in the use of detention, including so-called ‘end to end’ detention of asylum seekers from specified countries throughout the asylum process, has meant the opening of new centres including Oakington (1999) and Yarl’s Wood (2001);
• Legal migrants including work permit holders, business people, refugees and students are to be made subject to conditions of residence and reporting under the UK Borders Bill.

Double standards in human rights

Internment was declared unlawful by the House of Lords in 2004 not because it breached rights to liberty but because it did so on a discriminatory basis. Only foreigners could be interned. As the Lords pointed out, there was no evidence that foreigners were more likely to be terrorists than British citizens. This was a very serious instance of discrimination, but by no means the only one. The past ten years have seen an entrenchment of segregation and marginalisation of asylum seekers, and the death of the idea of universal provision of fundamental rights on the basis of need rather than status.

Marginalisation and denial of rights of asylum seekers

• Immigrants were removed from entitlement to all mainstream means-tested benefits, and a Home Office agency, NASS (the National Asylum Support Service) was created in 1999 to provide basic asylum support;
• From 1999, destitute asylum seekers needing housing were forced into sink estates outside London and the south-east, and vouchers for essential needs replaced cash support;
• The government sought in 2002 to segregate asylum claimants into huge accommodation centres, away from towns, with on-site healthcare and education to prevent families’ integration into local communities, which ‘hindered removal’;
• The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 deprived late and failed asylum seekers of all forms of support, leading to street destitution for thousands until the House of Lords ruled in 2005 that those at risk of street homelessless must be provided for;
• Amendments to the 2002 Act in 2004 meant that failed asylum-seeking families who did not leave could be broken up, with the children taken into care;
• Free NHS treatment was removed from failed asylum seekers (except in emergency cases) by regulations in 2004;
• Policies allowing those from war-torn countries temporary leave were abolished, leaving failed asylum seekers from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Zimbabwe in limbo and at risk of removal;
• AIDS patients and others with chronic illness began to be deported in the early 2000s, in the knowledge that they would die without the expensive treatment their condition required.

Suspects’ rights removed

Where the foreigner has committed an offence, or is suspected of terrorism, his or her rights are given even shorter shrift.

• Even those with over 20 years’ residence, with parents, siblings, children and grandchildren here, face deportation under the new rules creating a presumption in favour of deportation;
• Despite continuing allegations of incommunicado detention and torture, deportations of suspected terrorists to Algeria continue, and the government is seeking to deport terror suspects to torturing states including Libya, Jordan and Egypt under memoranda of understanding which provide ‘diplomatic assurances’ against torture;
• The government is seeking to persuade the European Court of Human Rights to remove the ban against expulsion to a real risk of torture;
• Active complicity in ‘extraordinary rendition’ (ie illegal removal of terror suspects to torturing states) has been established;
• A 1972 ban on inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners was lifted for suspected ‘insurgents’ in army custody in Iraq.

Executive v judiciary

As the Blair government has passed tougher and tougher laws restricting the rights of asylum seekers and other groups seen as undesirable, it has tried to insulate the laws from the scrutiny of the judges, who have frequently condemned the executive for abuse of power. The most egregious example of this was the attempt in 2004 to remove the normal rights of appeal and judicial review from immigrants and asylum claimants, leaving them with no legal remedy against legal errors by adjudicators. A coalition of refugee groups, lawyers and senior judges defeated the attempt, but the government has weakened legal protections in other ways.

Weakening legal protection

• Claims deemed ‘clearly unfounded’ by Home Office officials cannot be appealed until after the claimant’s return home (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002);
• Statutory presumptions such as the presumption of safety in countries of transit (’third safe countries’) and in specified countries of origin (’the white list’, abolished when Labour came to power and brought back in 2002), the presumption of adverse credibility (brought in in 2004, which deems conduct such as a late asylum claim or travel on false documents as damaging credibility) mean fewer legal challenges and less scope for judicial intervention and discretion;
• The presumption in favour of deportation, introduced in 2006 following the ‘foreign criminals’ tabloid-generated outcry, has been followed by provision for mandatory deportation of foreign criminals in the 2007 UK Borders Bill;
• Suspected terrorists are not allowed to see much of the evidence against them, and judges have been warned not to interfere with the government’s assessment of the needs of national security;
• Under the Human Rights Act, passed in 1998, judges cannot strike down laws which contravene basic human rights, but can only declare them incompatible with human rights, leaving the government with the choice to revise the legislation or not;
• Changes in legal aid rules have driven many solicitors out of business or away from publicly funded immigration work.

Entrenching xeno-racism

The Blair government was the first to acknowledge the reality of ‘institutional racism’ with the ground-breaking Macpherson inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. But in parallel with that recognition and the extension of anti-racist legislation to public bodies in 2000, the policies of segregation and marginalisation of asylum seekers, and Blair’s fixation with detaining, refusing and removing them en masse and as fast as possible, have been a major ingredient in the legitimation of anti-asylum seeker racism. The policy of ‘managed migration’ has seen a large increase in legal economic migration (frequently at the expense of the south, as in the recruitment of doctors and nurses from sub-Saharan Africa), but simultaneously, asylum claimants with hugely valuable skills and qualifications have been banned from working, as part of the deterrent policy to stop them coming, and their resultant, reluctant dependency on asylum support has fed back in to media and popular racism, which, in turn, has fuelled yet more state racism.

The attitude of enlightened superiority which has been a hallmark of Blair’s attitude to the disastrous and brutal intervention in Iraq is also evident in his government’s moves to restrict British citizenship to those sharing ‘British’ values. The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act introduced new requirements (knowledge of language and life in Britain) as a condition of acquiring citizenship and allowed citizenship to be removed from the unworthy.

The hope that the Blair government would set its face against popular racism, and would seek to educate the country about why people need refuge from persecution - or simply a chance to earn a livelihood - has gradually turned into disillusion and then to anger, as Blair sought instead to prove his toughness through inhuman policies towards asylum seekers and radical encroachments on civil liberties in his anti-terrorism policies. As Blair leaves office, he leaves a country more divided - by race, class and status - than he found it.