Leaked Memo!
Tony Blair Exposes His Lack of Direction
In a leaked memo, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has candidly admitted that his policies seek to replicate initiatives from the Centre Right of politics. The nominal leader of "Third Way" politics has disclosed that the Third Way is not only a repackaging of Conservative economic policy, but is also developing into a replica of the Conservative social agenda.
The memo, emailed by Mr Blair to key Ministers and aides, was dated 29 April 2000 and written the weekend prior to local council elections, after two-weeks of campaigning in which Conservative Party Leader William Hague had set the agenda.
Mr Hague had campaigned on pledges to lock up asylum-seekers on arrival in Britain and to give greater legal protection to people defending their families and homes from criminal attackers (hence the reference below to farmer Tony Martin).
Blair has confessed that both he and his Government are perceived as "out of touch" because it was seen to be unsupportive of the family unit, soft on asylum seekers, lenient on crime and not genuine about defending the nation's interests. The Prime Minister's memo divulges that he personally demanded hardline measures to mimic the Conservative Party’s popular policies in these areas. “I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.”
The email exposes a paranoid, vexed and ultimately reactive Prime Minister, consumed by his personal image and unconcerned about the rationale for his policy decisions. “But all these things add up to a sense that the Government - and this even applies to me - are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.” Implicitly, Mr Blair’s comments vindicate the extent to which Conservative policies are attuned to the mood of the people.
Mr Blair sought to ape Conservative policy ideas, urging his Ministers and advisers: “We should think now of an initiative, eg locking up street muggers. Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system. Maybe, the driving licence penalty for young offenders.”
This memo explains several recent government decisions. The government recently announced a proposal to give police power to drag minor criminals to cash machines to pay up on-the-spot fines. This followed directly from Mr Blair's urging that “Above all, we must deal now with street crime, especially in London.”
Also preceding the leak of the memo, Defence Department Chiefs won their campaign for an increase in spending. In his memo, the Prime Minister had called for measures “asserting the nation's interests where, because of the unpopularity of Europe, a constant barrage of small stories beginning to add up on defence and even issues like Zimbabwe, we are seen as insufficiently assertive.”
According to the Times newspaper (17 July 2000), “Downing Street sources confirmed the authenticity of the leak, saying that Mr Blair regularly wrote such notes and that they were acted upon”. In the wake of the devastating leaking of the memo, Mr Blair is suffering a considerable set-back in opinion polls.
As Downing Street began an inquiry into how the email was passed to newspapers, Conservative Party Leader Mr William Hague said it showed that the Prime Minister no longer had any sense of belief in what he was doing.
"Now we know where all the spin and the gimmicks come from in this Government. It comes from the very top. It comes from the Prime Minister himself,'' Mr Hague told reporters.
"It shows that the Government gets very rattled that we are now setting the agenda. They don't really know where to turn next. We have got a Government that is only in government in order to fight elections. What we really need is a Government that fights an election in order to govern properly.''
Well said.
The memo in full (29 April 2000)
'We need eye-catching initiatives'
"TOUCHSTONE ISSUES
There are a clutch of issues - seemingly disparate - that are in fact linked. We need a strategy that is almost discrete, focussed [sic] on them. They are roughly combining "on your side" issues with toughness and standing up for Britain. They range from: the family - where, partly due to MCA [Married Couples' Allowance] and gay issues, we are perceived as weak; asylum and crime, where we are perceived as soft; and asserting the nation's interests where, because of the unpopularity of Europe, a constant barrage of small stories beginning to add up on defence and even issues like Zimbabwe, we are seen as insufficiently assertive.
All this, of course, is perception. It is bizarre that any government I lead should be seen as anti-family. We are, in fact, taking very tough measures on asylum and crime. Kosovo should have laid to rest any doubts about our strength in defence. But all these things add up to a sense that the Government - and this even applies to me - are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts. The Martin case - and the lack of any response from us that appeared to empathise with public concern and then channel it into the correct course - has only heightened this problem.
We need a thoroughly worked-out strategy stretching over several months to regain the initiative in this area.
Each of these issues should be analysed and the correct policy response drawn up. Then each should be dealt with, but with a message which ties it all together. This is precisely the sort of thing AC [Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's press secretary] and CF [Charles Falconer, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Cabinet Office Minister] should do if a new system is put in place which frees up their time.
My thoughts are:
(i) Possibly on the Martin case, asking a senior judge to look at changing the sentencing law, ie to allow lesser sentences than life. We also need a far tougher rebuttal or alternatively action, re the allegations that jurors were intimidated.
(ii) On asylum, we need to be highlighting removals and decisions plus if the April figures show a reduction, then a downward trend. Also if the benefits bill really starts to fall, that should be highlighted also. Plus some of the genuine asylum claims being given some publicity.
(iii) On crime, we need to highlight tough measures: compulsory tests for drugs before bail; the PIU [Performance Innovation Unit] report on the confiscation of assets: the extra number of burglars jailed under the "three strikes and you're out".
Above all, we must deal now with street crime, especially in London. When the figures are published for the six months to April, they will show a small - 4 per cent - rise in crime. But this will almost certainly be due to the rise in levels of street crime - mobile phones, bags being snatched. This will be worst in London. The Met Police are putting in place measures to deal with it; but, as ever, we are lacking a tough public message along with the strategy.
We should think now of an initiative, eg locking up street muggers. Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system. Maybe, the driving licence penalty for young offenders. But this should be done soon and I, personally, should be associated with it.
(iv) On defence, we need to make the CSR (Comprehensive Spending Review) work for defence. Big cuts and you can forget any hope of winning back ground on "standing up for Britain".
(v) On the family, we need two or three eye-catching initiatives that are entirely conventional in terms of their attitude to the family. Despite the rubbish about gay couples, the adoption issue worked well. We need more.
I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.
TB, 29 April 2000”
- finish -