Your questions for the PM
Earlier I asked you to suggest what question I should put to Tony Blair during his monthly presser (which you can watch here).
I was so so tempted by Chris's suggestion to ask "Is this your best ever year yet?". It was a clever, witty idea which would undoubtedly have got a laugh but in the end I plumped for asking him simply why he hadn't repeated the Health Secretary's "best ever year" claim.
Chuck no doubt speaks for many when he says that Blair never answers the question but in truth you do learn quite a lot from these news conferences - often not on the main story of the day.
I will recall today as the day he said he was only "marginally open-minded" to the idea of a democratically-elected House of Lords and that the more you looked at the idea the more problems there were. Oh yes, and his insistence that giving cash to his favourite schools - city academies - was the biggest contribution that you could make and might merit an honour.
I'm 
Comments
Nick - I don't like to enter into random "politician bashing" but I was wondering if you could chase this one up for me ... In relation to honours for those individuals who support City Academies the Prime Minister said: "I think if someone gives £2m of their own money, time, effort, energy, years of hard work - isn't that something we should be saying 'that's a great thing that they have done'?"
Well both my parents have been in education their entire lives and so, as far as I can see, they meet all those criteria except one - because they're teachers they don't have £2m!
Is Tony Blair admitting that honours are for those who can afford them?
If there is nothing wrong with giving sheds of money to city academies; if it is the biggest contribution one can make and merits an honour, then let Mr Blair be up-front about it and publish a tariff:
£0.5m gets you a knighthood; a million quid nets you a coronet.
But in my understanding of the word a philanthropist is a person who makes gifts out of selfless benevolence, without thought of reward. Perhaps Mr Blair has another definition? If so, I would be interested to hear it.
Time, effort, energy, hard work; yes.
Money; no.
Nice try at obfuscation, Tony, but there's no equivalence there.
Hello Nick
It is not just that Tony sidesteps questions but rather that he is not confronted by his own contradictions
ie:
1. The best year ever for the NHS
But
Acknowledged failures in care for older people necessitating the 'dignity nurse'
2. More nurses ever in the NHS
But
The need to make numbers of nurses redundant
3. Building more and better hospitals
But
The need for less hospitals and more community care
It reminds me of Alice's response to Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland
'The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things'.
Perhaps we shouldn't quibble at this postmodern plasticising of language?
Lords reform is difficult. If any new democracy were to propose a system like ours they'd be laughed out of court.
And yet there's an awful lot of talent in that upper house which wouldn't be there if it was fully elected. (But there are quite a few old duffers as well!)
Anyone who thinks it's easy perhaps doesn't fully understand the question!
I watched the press conference today and was very struck by Tony Blair's defence of honours for city academy donors. Without wanting to be pompous about it this seems to have been a bare-faced admission that yes, if you are rich enough, there are ways in which you can buy your way into the honours list. But it also shows how politicians are between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, how do you reward someone who, as the PM said, wants to do something for society and has backed a policy initiative with money, effort and commitment? and on the other hand, how do you avoid the perception that the donation and the honour are linked - and therefore seen as corrupt?
Surely the answer is for the donors to refuse any honour that is offered.That would be the truly selfless thing to do and would avoid this scandal.
Mr. Blair has been a resident of 10 Downing Street nearly as long as Mrs. Thatcher. The immediate cause of her downfall was the poll tax. What historic lessons does Mr. Blair see in that experience?
Nick
Off topic but partially in relation to Charles Clarke's outburst tonight against the media and last week's discussion of the BNP - I wrote somewhere else - and I hope it's ok to post an extract here:
"The poorly considered ID card scheme was sold to the public on the lie that it would protect them against terrorism. Now we're told that it will protect the NHS from 'healthcare tourists'. The casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the foyer of every NHS hospital is packed with Johnny Foreigner and his family all demanding their free operation.
No matter that Ministers can't quantify the cost of the problem, let's not worry that even the highest estimates "put the cost at anything between £50m and £200m each year" - a tiny amount compared the billions the ID card system will cost us all. All that matters is that Blair gets to sound tough without needing to consider the consequences.
Whenever a Home Office initiative on security is questioned the justification from the Prime Minister and his Home Secretary is that these people pose such a threat to our way of life that the only the most drastic action can save us. How much simpler the BNP message of 'send them all home' must sound on the doorstep."
So you detect any sense of realisation within Government circles that the presumption that Labour is a threat to civil liberties or that the BNPs momentary appeal is the direct product of their own actions and policies?
If someone, either worked for say, a charity or an NGO, and as a result had personally contributed to the betterment of the lives of a number of people, then he/she could be in line for a peerage.
Donating money to the city academy programme is no different. If anything, it produces visible results for all to see, within a year or two of completion. It affords people from the poorest parts of our society, the educational opportunities that many of us take for granted.
Some may say that it is a seriously flawed policy. To that, I disagree and point to the fact that most people will not question the methods and success rate of the charity sector.
Please bear that in mind next time you accuse the govt of corruption.
As politicians go, I really don't think Tony Blair is all that evasive. Obviously there are things that he can't or won't say, but compared to the likes of Ruth Kelly, Patricia Hewitt, and to a lesser extent even David Cameron, he usually gives relatively straight answers...
...which brings me to my question. How do you go about deciding what to ask the PM, and why do you (as journalists, not you personally) so often ask things that you know he won't answer? Is it simply a matter of keeping an issue on the agenda, is it that you want to keep it in the news by making a story of his refusal to answer, do you prefer embarrassing the PM to obtaining information, do you want something to analyse in an attempt to extract an answer that he won't give, or are you actually hoping that he will finally break down and tell you if you ask him one more time?
I am genuinely curious, as I spend so much time being frustrated at journalists for asking questions the PM would be mad to answer, instead of ones that could conceivably bring out new information.
Nick,
Have you ever known T.B. to give a straight answer to a straight question? and if so when as I think that I missed it.
Nick,
If we are gonna write your questions for you then why not make it a lottery? The chosen contributor each week could have a refund on their license fee. Do your job, slacker!
"I will recall today as the day he said he was only "marginally open-minded" to the idea of a democratically-elected House of Lords and that the more you looked at the idea the more problems there were."
Of course he would say that, his aim in "reforming" the House of Lords is to turn it into a rubberstamp for anything he wants to pass and having it be democratically elected would throw his plans right out of the window.
It is not only me who thinks that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is giving "poor coverage" of the NHS story...look at this from today's FT
Quote
The next time you see a newspaper headline yelling about hospitals in crisis, turn the page. When one of those breathless Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú presenters wails about another avalanche of job cuts, reach for the off switch. For all the effort to whip up public hysteria there is as much to cheer as lament in the latest turbulence in the National Health Service.
End Quote
Blair did answer your question in the news conference - although you imply that he didn't. Like most politicians, he qualified his answer so that you couldn't report that he had been smug.
On the other hand, he did not as you write say that "giving cash to his favorite schools - city academies - was the biggest contribution you could make and might merit an honour."
What I heard was that spending £2m of one's hard earned money towards establishing schools for underprivileged schildren could be considered a pretty major contribution to society and that honours were designed to refelect major contributions to society.
Not quite the same thing - but its easier for journos to sneer than to
People would benefit from watching the whole news confrence.
Talking of city academies, one question that I would love to see you ask is:
Prime Minister, do you think that it is right to implement a system that allows private donors to have their religious beliefs taught in science class ?
OH COME ON NICK.AN "OLD SOLDIER"
LIKE YOU EXPRESSING SURPRISE. THEIR
ALL AT IT. READ THE PARABLE OF THE
UNJUST STEWART, WHO MADE PROVISIONS
FOR HIS DEMISE LET HIM THAT IS
WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.
THERE WOULD BE NO TAKERS FOR THAT IN
ANY OF THE "parties" NUFF SAID FOR
NOW. BE LUCKY
Simon, It is correct to implement religious beliefs in science because the so called 'scientific' teachings are so very flawed.
Will you answer or will you act like T.B and be evasive?
I do not mind what question you ask, but how about an agreement with the other reporters that you will continually ask that question until you get a response to it.... i.e. not an evasion, not a response to a similar question he wished you had asked but an actual response to the question posed?
If you all agreed on this the results would surely be more engagement at all levels.
Regards,
Frank
When HM Armed Services are sent on operations under the Royal Prerogative by the Prime Minister, what is the staus of the oath of allegiance sworn to HM The Qheen by HM Armed Services ?
Jennifer (26th April) wrote that she doesn't think that Mr. Blair is all that evasive. What planet is she on -has she ever watched PMQs?
A prime example last week was when he was asked by a Labour MP whether he would spare 5 minutes of his time after PMQs finished to speak to families of servicemen who had been killed in Iraq who had been invited to the House of Commons by the MP. Blair hadn't the guts to say 'no' but after replying at some length his answer was obvious.