大象传媒

We鈥檙e learning what a canny political operator John Yates (pictured right) of Scotland Yard is - offering the Today programme a pre-recorded interview when he must have known that his force was about to interview and arrest Lord Levy.So, you see and hear him today but you don't see or hear him asked questions about his investigation into honours.

People close to Tony Blair are spitting blood about what they believe are leaks from the police and what they see as smears against elected politicians. They believe that the police have found very little evidence but can鈥檛 "let go" of this investigation.

If only the police were telling me what evidence they've found I could tell you but, in the meantime, you'll have to put up with my attempt to pieces this jigsaw together.

We know that the police investigation has changed since Christmas. It is now investigating charges of perversion of the course of justice. That鈥檚 legal-ese for a cover-up and suggests that the police have either been given inconsistent stories by witnesses or believe vital documents - perhaps e-mails - are missing.

There have been a series of allegations in the media in recent days which, for the first time, Downing Street are flatly denying - in the past they refused to comment at all. reported that there was a second secret computer system in Downing Street. This has been denied. The and the suggested that there was a Labour Party e-mail system that acted, in effect, as that second computer system. Downing Street says that their firewall security system doesn鈥檛 allow any of their staff to use any other e-mail system. In any event, we're told, the key people at the heart of this investigation do not have passwords to use the Labour Party system even when they're using other computers.

Having said all that, the police must have some reason to make arrests - a serious thing to do. They are, I believe, seeking records - which could be e-mails but might be other notes or diary items - of meetings at which the granting of honours were discussed.

For a prime minister who鈥檚 leaving this year anyway, this is putting huge pressure on him and the rest of the party who feel that they鈥檙e being judged as guilty by public opinion before any charges have been brought - which, of course, they may never be 鈥� and before they鈥檝e had a chance to defend themselves in public, let alone in court.

At this stage I don鈥檛 sense that this is leading to pressure for Tony Blair to go early. Why? Partly because he鈥檚 set a rough date to go already which Gordon Brown is content with. Partly because if people moved against the PM now they鈥檇 be implying that he was guilty.

The question that they will be asking themselves now is - what next? Could the police ask the PM for another interview? Is it possible that that interview would be under caution? Could they treat him not as a suspect but as a witness - which could involve him taking the stand if someone else is charged? I merely speculate because I simply don't know but neither does Tony Blair.

He is rarely so out of control of events that have such consequence for him, his party and their collective reputation.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Ever since Peter Lilley - Margaret Thatcher's social security secretary - put single mothers on his "little list", British politics has been neuralgic about the issue of lone parents and benefits (Surely you remember his excruciating rendition of Gilbert & Sullivan at the Tory Conference - if not you can watch it here).

When Labour came to power its . So why is the Work and Pensions Secretary, John Hutton, ?

Actually, I'm not sure he is. Time, I suspect, may have moved the argument on. What Hutton is doing this morning is trailing the results of a review into the "can work, won't work culture" - which has been carried out by - a former city banker and FT journalist. It is focusing on two facts about lone parents in Britain - firstly, we have one of the highest proportions of families headed by a lone parent in Europe and, secondly, the lowest lone parent employment rate of any major European country.

In his speech Hutton insists that he is not talking about cutting benefits. He's talking, instead, of increasing the obligations on claimants. This is the approach he's taken to cutting Incapacity Benefit bills. It is already government policy that lone parents should attend what are called "work focused" interviews. Over time the number ministers are increasing the frequency of those interviews.

Given that Britain only requires lone parents to work when the youngest child reaches 16, whereas many other countries treat them just like any other benefit claimants, it will be interesting to see if anyone believes and has the political courage to argue that benefit cuts are actually part of the answer.

UPDATE 1330 GMT

The personal is so often the political.

John Hutton was himself brought up by a single Mum. The welfare state, he says, saved his family from going under. In a recent interview in the Times he went on to recall that "We became more isolated as a family, because my mum, she was worried about my schoolmates coming back home and seeing the hole in the carpet and the threadbare sofas. She didn't want Johnny's mates to see that there was a hole in the sofa.

"I understand that now, I didn't understand it then. It was, 'Mum, why can't I bring my friends home?' And that kind of thing, when you are little, is quite difficult. So we became more isolated as a family, and that is true for many, many lone parents. Where do we get a lot of our social networks from? From the workplace."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

John Reid to a decorator renovating a house. It's inevitable, he says, that as you pull back the wallpaper you find problems you didn't know were there. (Hear his interview on Today here.)

The question is whether he can do the renovation on his own. At present some other members of the Home Office renovation team - prison officers, judges, civil servants - appear to be going from room to room in the house shouting "look at the mess you've made in here" and pulling out bits of the plaster.

Others seem to be muttering: "It's all very well for him to throw his weight about but where was he for the past nine years when we were trying to sort the place out?"

If only were still alive they could pen a ditty about it: ""? (If you're too young to remember them, ask your dad.)

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

When John Reid attacked the judge in the Craig Sweeney case for passing a sentence that was "unduly lenient" and lent his tacit support to newspaper campaigns attacking soft judges, I knew he'd come to regret it.

Sure enough the judges are biting back. Today a second judge adds to his discomfort. Crown court Judge Richard Bray today says politicians should "wake up" to the fact prisoners were reoffending "because judges can no longer pass deterrent sentences".

Some have sympathised with judges in the past for not being able to answer back. They just did.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Adoption was not discussed at this morning's Cabinet. The Domestic Affairs committee of the Cabinet has not even fixed a date for its final meeting on the issue. Nevertheless, it is now clear that there will be no blanket exemption from the new Equality Act for the Catholic Church. Tony Blair's ministers would not accept one.

This week they have lined up one by one to say so publicly. The charge was led by the Lord Chancellor - the man in charge of the law. Since then, three ministers have gone public. Peter Hain, Alan Johnson and Harriet Harman. Can you spot the connection between them? All are running for deputy leader. They are, as a result, more concerned with how they're seen publicly than how they're viewed by the current leader of their party.

No-one looks over their shoulder anymore in fear at what Downing Street might say or do.

Tony Blair insists that he has never wanted an exemption for the church. He was - his aides say - merely trying to find "a way through" the practical problems and to tread carefully around religious sensitivities. He, and communities secretary Ruth Kelly, are said to have only wanted a temporary exemption or a transition period to ensure that no adoption agencies shut up shop the day after the Equality Act comes into force.

That is not, however, the impression that they've given to Cabinet colleagues and gay rights campaigners. Hence, the - still unresolved - row.

Many ministers want to "face down" the Catholic church. They believe either that they are bluffing or that the cases they deal with - around 4% of the total - will quickly be taken up by other agencies. Ruth Kelly points out that the Catholic agencies deal with 33% of the difficult cases and still help the thousands of children they have placed in the past. There's been much talk of people on either side resigning. My guess is that it will not come to that and some form of transition arrangements will be agreed.

This is a serious debate about competing rights and strongly held convictions. I am struck by the level of vilification being meted out to those with strongly held religious views. It is stated, as if fact, that Tony Blair is acting under orders from his Catholic wife who's acting under orders from the Archbishop who's acting under orders, presumably, from the Pope.

No-one who has met Cherie Blair would believe that a quick call from a bishop would have her quaking. Ruth Kelly is accused of putting her religion before her principles. One Catholic MP who defended her publicly has since received hate mail.

Gay public figures have, of course, experienced vilification for many years and often from religious people. Allow me to delicately suggest, however, that the attitudes being displayed now towards Catholics in public life must feel to them like a form of prejudice and discrimination.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Church versus the State, gay rights versus religious rights, Tony Blair versus most of his Cabinet... is a combustible mix. The curiosity is that it's been coming for months and that it's been allowed to reach this pitch.

When the Equality Bill was first being drafted the prime minister proposed an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies. The minister then in charge, Alan Johnson, resisted. A reshuffle led Ruth Kelly to take over control of the Bill. She joined Tony Blair in pushing for an exemption. Johnson now found himself responsible for adoption agencies as education secretary. He continued to resist. He was joined by Lord Falconer who - as the minister in charge of the law - argued that you simply couldn't have a law banning discrimination which allowed some people to go ahead and discriminate.

Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, also joined in as he was facing down protests in the Lords and Northern Ireland over their own version of anti-discrimination legislation (he has not, it should be noted, yet tabled specific proposals for adoption agencies). Others, including Jack Straw, joined the fray. Many around the Cabinet table see this as a core test of principle. Just as there could be no exceptions to laws banning signs declaring "no blacks" (or, indeed, Catholics) they argue that there should be no tolerance of policies which declare "no gays".

Downing Street now says the PM is looking for a "way through". There is no legal "way through" which I can see which does not risk either a Catholic or a Cabinet revolt. The government either has a ban on anti-gay discrimination or it does not.

So, what is he up to?

Ruth Kelly is looking for a practical way to avoid the loss of adoption services on April 6th when the Equality Act comes into force. She believes that the Catholic adoption agencies want to find a way through and are desperate to stay in business finding homes for some of the hardest children to place (although they only handle 4% of new cases, I'm told that they take on around a third of all the toughest cases). She is examining a long transition period to allow Catholic adoption agencies to change policy, merge with other non-Catholic agencies or to close in an orderly way.

What's striking about this row is how it is driven by a clash of principles and not by practical problems. There are relatively few gay adopters and only a tiny number choose to go to Catholic agencies (more, of course, might come forward if they were confident that they wouldn't be discriminated against). However, both sides are determined to assert their rights and to go straight to the courts to test them. What's more, a newly-assertive church is, I sense, planning other stands to defend its rights.

The tension between religious views and political principles is embodied in the prime minister himself. It is a sign of how serious this argument has become that he is being condemned by some for putting his own beliefs and those of his Catholic wife, Cherie, before Labour's commitment to equality.

It's a sign too - yet another one - that he no longer provokes fear or loyalty in a growing section of his party.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Tony Blair has given Ruth Turner his full backing. He could do no other, really - to do otherwise would have been to admit that there was some wrongdoing.

Of course we have to say that although it is serious that she's been arrested, she has not been charged. Remember that the chief fundraiser for Tony Blair, Lord Levy, was arrested some months ago, and he has never been charged. Charges are possible but they may never happen.

One possibility is that the police are using arrest as a way of obtaining documentary evidence that they've not been able to secure so far. Another is that they are trying to unnerve Ms Turner. A further possibility - we simply don't know - is that they are arresting her and they intend at some later stage to charge her.

But - in other words - there is a great range of possibilities for her and Tony Blair - from very very serious indeed, to much, much, much less serious.

Just before Christmas, my feeling was that there were more interviews to be done - including Ruth Turner, amongst others - and that a file would then be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS would then have to decide whether there was enough evidence to press ahead with charges, and perhaps a court case.

What wasn't expected was for it to take this long, for there to be another arrest, and for the police to then say that they needed yet more time. Remember that originally, it was said that this would all be sorted by last autumn.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I write this from a viewing screen in one of Bollywood's top studios. Gordon Brown is here with his friend aka Big B. His son is marrying , and both also star in the film Brown watched.

In fact, bizarrely, in the film, Big B鈥檚 character is flirting with that of his future daughter-in-law鈥檚.

There is, I might add, something faintly surreal about watching a suggestive Hindi song-and-dance routine whilst sitting behind two managing directors of the Treasury.

Afterwards I asked the chancellor whether he felt able to take a role in the film himself. He declined to comment, saying he didn鈥檛 feel quite up to it.

I also asked him if he鈥檇 received an invite to Bollywood鈥檚 鈥渨edding of the year鈥� and he didn鈥檛 say no鈥�

PS. You can hear an interview I did with Gordon Brown by clicking here.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Surreal but true. Gordon Brown has just emerged from his speech on globalisation to reveal that the alleged racism directed at Big Brother contestant Shilpa has been raised with him, and he wants to reassure people that Britain is a place of tolerance and fairness.

In case you're one of those who despair at the trivialisation of politics let me add that diplomats here say the row is damaging Britain's reputation.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

What, said the British businessman I've just met sipping tea on the Prince of Wales lawn at the Confederation of Indian Industry conference, are you doing here? It's a good question. The answer is that I'm here because the man who looks almost certain to be our next prime minister is here in training for the big job.

The pretence, you see, is over. Gordon Brown no longer brushes aside questions about what he'll do as Prime Minister as speculation or media tittle tattle. He answers them. What's more he no longer gives speeches purely about the economy.

This morning he has called for the creation of a new world order with international organisations reformed to deliver justice for all and security for all. His agenda is ambitious taking in the reform of the UN, the G8, the IMF, the World Bank and NATO which he insists were designed for the world of 1945 and are now in need of real change. He is challenging those countries who have attacked American unilateralism to show that multi-lateralism can work.

This, he was careful to add, built on Tony Blair's leadership "in a spirit of continuity". But can you imagine Tony Blair ending a speech by quoting Gandhi who said "Whenever you are in any doubt, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest person whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to them... then, he said, you will find your doubts melt away".

PS You might be wondering if he's bothered by the news that Tony Blair plans to . The answer is no - he appears totally relaxed about it. He's rather more bothered by the treatment of Big Brother contestant Shilpa which is in The Times of India.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Three hundred years ago today the proud Parliament of an independent Scotland voted to form a union with England. From that day to this Scots have argued whether Rabbie Burns was right to say that they'd been "bought and sold for English gold". The governments in Westminster and Edinburgh dare not organise a celebration of this anniversary which is so vital to our nation's history (beyond, that is, ).

Last week I had the privilege of reading the original hand-written minutes of the Parliamentary debates about the Union (watch my report here). Lord Belhaven's warning jumped from the page:

• "I think I see the Honest Industrious Trades-man loaded with new Taxes and Impositions, disappointed of the Equivalents, drinking Water in Place of Ale, eating his saltless Pottage"

The Earl of Cromartie wrote that he was rather more enthusiastic about becoming British:

• "May we be Brittains; & down goe the old ignominious names of Scotland; of England... Brittains is our true our Honourable denomination."

So, will this be the year the union is strengthened or fatally weakened?

The polls - - appear at first sight to tell a confusing story. In truth, the story is rather simple. Many voters want to give Labour a kicking in May's elections to the Scottish Parliament. Many believe that the best way to do that is to vote SNP even if they do not support independence. The polls show that support for breaking the union is no higher than it has been provided people understand the question they're being asked. Ask them whether they back "independence" and as many as half say they do (it is, perhaps, like asking if they support "freedom"). Ask a harder question about breaking away from England - as our 大象传媒 poll did - and the figure plummets.

So, the politics of the next few months will involve the nationalists playing down their plans for independence by promising a referendum on the issue one day rather than pledging a swift, clean break. Labour, on the other hand, will play up the uncertainty the Nationalists will create and the economic consequences that will pose.

Meantime, the Tories are pondering whether to embrace calls for "English votes for English laws" - supported in our poll today. It is tempting them because it's popular, it highlights Gordon Brown's Scottishness and many believe it's fair. Mr Brown's nightmare scenario is that the SNP become Scotland's largest party, delay a referendum on independence until they can raise the fear of Tory rule from Westminster again and that that proves enough to persuade Scottish voters to abandon caution and take a giant leap into the unknown.

It's one more reason why 2007 promises to be intriguing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Could tradeable fat permits be the answer to the nation's growing waistlines? Or how about booze permits to tackle the growth in alcohol abuse? The idea's an intriguing one and comes from a working group set up by David Cameron to look at how to make business more responsible. The group's just floating ideas at this stage but it wants the Tories to examine whether the methods being used to tackle pollution and climate change could also be used to confront other social ills.

So, just as airlines will soon be able to buy and sell permits to emit carbon, food and drink firms might be able to buy and sell them for producing fatty foods or intoxicating drinks. The aim is to give businesses incentives to move away from doing what's bad for society and do more of what's good and to rely less on government regulation.

The group proposes that firms that act responsibly could be rewarded by being regulated less. The ideas will be unveiled today at a summit on social responsibility - the Tory leader's Big Idea. He's determined to prove that it's a coherent alternative to what he dubs Labour's big government approach. He wants also to show that he's not been scared off by rows about chocolate oranges and padded children鈥檚 bras.

So far, social responsibility's not really flown as a big idea. It's been dismissed either as a headline-grabbing soundbite or mere exhortation to business and society to do more. What the Conservatives are trying to show is that there is a role for government in setting the framework for policy even if politicians themselves actually do less.

PS. There will not be permits, I'm assured, for curried chips. I'm grateful for the messages of sympathy from those who've heard that a man in a pub threw the afore-mentioned culinary delicacy at me last week. The tale has grown somewhat in the re-telling so that many have wondered how I continued working after a plate of vindaloo was poured over me.

The truth is a little less exciting. A drunk in a pub in Rochdale (where I was filming opinions on the Act of Union - 300 years old this year) objected to my failure to take his views seriously and the decision of the landlady to throw him out. He returned to the pub, shouted at me for failing to bring the boys home from Iraq and chucked his chips with curry sauce in my general direction. The chips missed, the sauce hit leading to me spending the next day in Edinburgh apologising for the curious smell. You can see the report on the Act of Union on the 10 O'Clock News tonight. Look hard and you might see the curry stain.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Another PMQs, another Home Office crisis to handle. It wasn't meant to be like this. The home secretary's confession "I'm John Reid and my department's not fit for purpose" was supposed to bring an end to these sorts of crises.

The PM began by deploying what sounded - at first - like the fact that would protect his home secretary and his ministers. All the serious criminals who'd offended abroad were . Later though came the crucial qualifier - there were 280 serious criminals who were not on the computer because there wasn't sufficient information about them. What's more Tony Blair could not answer David Cameron's question - could he give a guarantee that these people had never worked with children? An answer to that is promised soon.

At the time of the foreign prisoners scandal John Reid asked his officials if there were any other similar issues that he should be aware of - and should tell the public about. He wasn't told about this. Now an internal inquiry must find out why. The implication is that, as after the foreign prisoners scandal, civil service heads will roll.

Politically this may prove irrelevant. Even if it's "someone else's fault", voters and parliament hold ministers responsible. This story - and the confusion with which it's been handled - will be a massive setback to the government's attempts to prove that, however bad things were in the past, they've got the Home Office under control again.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Thinking about that weekend in Tallinn? You better go before it鈥檚 too late.

The Environment Minister Ian Pearson has dug out Ted Heath's old phrase to brand Ryanair "". Ryanair's crime is that its publicity-hungry boss is resisting the new conventional wisdom that says that we're all going to have to fly less, and pay more if we do fly, to combat climate change.

Intriguingly Pearson and Labour are not alone in taking on the low-cost airline. The Tories鈥� green policy review group is discussing plans to tax flights within the UK to encourage people to travel by rail. One of its members, the former transport minister Steve Norris argues that low-cost flights must - quite simply - get much much more expensive. (Indeed, he recently made this case on Decision Time - which I spoke about here.)

The Lib Dems published detailed proposals for ending air travel's low tax status last year.

The politicians say air travel's under-taxed compared with other forms of transport and that flight emissions are the fastest growing contributor to global warming. Ryanair replies that flights here are a tiny proportion of the problem compared with China's plans to open a new coal-fired power station every week. It just could be that they're both right.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In all those New Year predictions there is one country which features again and again 鈥� Iran.

Just before Christmas the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its failure to halt its nuclear programme. Iran's response was to announce the immediate installation of centrifuges at a uranium enrichment plant - a vital stage in the process of producing weapons-grade material.

Iran insists her aim is only to produce energy. Pretty much everyone else fears it鈥檚 to develop the bomb putting nuclear weapons into the hands of a leader who disputes Israel鈥檚 right to exist, questions the Holocaust and has sponsored violence in Lebanon, in Iraq and against Israel.

The focus for now is on diplomacy but in America and Israel there is talk about what military action could be used as a last resort. Some weeks ago 鈥減repare to deploy鈥� orders were issued to the US navy ships who would be needed to blockade Iranian ports.

What should Britain's role be? To oppose military action in all circumstances, to offer logistical and diplomatic support or to stand aside and leave Israel and America to do what they will?

Tonight you can hear me hosting Decision Time - the programme which examines how decisions are taken behind Whitehall's closed doors - on Radio 4. During the debate, Sir Malcolm Rifkind - the former Conservative foreign and defence secretary - will say that it is vital that Iran believes that we carry a credible stick as well as have generous carrots on offer. He prefers carrots and advocates a "Grand Bargain" - promising Iran that if she ends her nuclear aspirations and support for terror then America will resume full diplomatic and trading relations with her.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock - who, as our man at the UN, was a familiar voice during the build up to the war against neighbouring Iraq - predicts that no British government would support military action - whether taken by Israel or the United States. The consequences of them acting alone would, he predicts, be grave.

Sir Stephen Wall 鈥� the prime minister鈥檚 former adviser on Europe - explains how the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and officials at No 10 will be assessing the options.

And they all hear Reuel Marc Gerecht - a former CIA specialist on Iran who advised the Iraq Study Group - warn that in the past 12 months there's been a "tidal shift in Israel", meaning that it is "likely if not highly likely" that they will seek to do it by the end of George Bush's presidency.

Decision Time on Iran is drawing near.

Happy New Year! The holidays are, I'm afraid, over.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?