Now they blunder into an unnecessary confrontation over top-up fees having already floundered over the introduction of foundation hospitals

Posted by admin · · Jump to comments

Now they blunder into an unnecessary confrontation over top-up fees, having already floundered over the introduction of foundation hospitals.Not surprisingly, there have been predictions of, at worst, the Prime Minister's demise, at best a loss of authority. In arguing for a new openness in public life, one of his earliest soundbites was, "Say what you mean; mean what you say".Well, Mr Blair, what the heck do you mean by the need to take into account the "totality of my remarks"? Similarly, Mr Blair and his entourage had sharp antennae in the early years, alert to potential dangers, quick to grasp the appropriate language for each new situation. As this newspaper has argued for nearly a year, Mr Blair got it wrong over the weapons of mass destruction and he cannot deploy a few clever words to disguise a misjudgement that justified a war.In a quite extraordinary way the Prime Minister appears to have lost the qualities that made him an exciting and distinctive political figure in his early years as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister. Soon afterwards, without explanation, he said that he believed the inspectors would find evidence of "programmes" relating to WMD.This is an altogether different matter demanding an expansive explanation from the Prime Minister rather than an evasive phrase.

Already he has made a disgraceful linguistic shift on the weapons of mass destruction supposedly possessed by Saddam Hussein. Before the war Mr Blair was adamant that they posed an imminent threat. Was Mr Blair suggesting that a section of what he said was untruthful, but the totality of his remarks purged any hint of mendacity? If this was the case, the explanation was almost as convoluted as the means by which Dr Kelly's name became public.On the big issues - and the disastrous war against Iraq is incomparably bigger than the fate of Ken Livingstone - Mr Blair becomes the evasive lawyer. Mr Howard wondered whether he had been telling the truth.In his answers at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair declared three times that it was necessary to look at the "totality" of what he had said when he spoke to journalists The phrase will be remembered for decades to come. Last July Mr Blair denied to journalists that he had authorised the leaking of Dr Kelly's name.

Even so, Mr Blair's enforced candour defused some of the tension surrounding his pragmatic but extreme change of mind about Mr Livingstone's political qualities.Less than 24 hours later Mr Blair delivered his already infamous response to Michael Howard's questions about his role in the naming of Dr David Kelly. Admittedly, Mr Blair had no choice but to be blunt if he was to explain away such a dramatic U-turn over his view of Mr Livingstone. He admitted that he had been wrong about Mr Livingstone when he warned four years ago that the aspirant mayor would be a "disaster" for London.There was no need for any textual analysis after Mr Blair had spoken The Prime Minister was precise in his use of language. The next he was the slippery, evasive lawyer deploying words and phrases in the hope that they would get him out of a hole. The week began with Mr Blair explaining why he wanted Ken Livingstone to rejoin the Labour Party. The universities need more money.The Government is right to encourage more people from poorer backgrounds to attend universities What it lacks is a credible policy to meet both objectives..