±«Óătv

There are two vital debates being staged in the Commons this afternoon - , the other in private.

The first is over calls for an enquiry into the Iraq war. The second is likely to determine the result of the first, and will take place between Labour MPs, their whips, their friends and their consciences. It can be summed up simply - does my anger over the war in Iraq outweigh my political hatred of a coalition of convenience between the Nats and the Tories.

My guess is that for enough of them the answer will be that it doesn't, and that the government will win the day .

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

Dateline: At the back of the room at the Stern Review launch.

When asked about those tax rises Tony Blair has just said "wait for the budget".

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has just announced that the environment secretary will unveil a climate change bill this afternoon, as we predicted a couple of weeks ago.

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

I'm on my way to the launch of the report which Tony Blair says is the most important he's received since becoming prime minister. I am travelling by tube so my green credentials are safe (today at least!)

Others will write more eloquently than I can about the environmental and economic analysis in the Stern Report on climate change. Allow me to focus on the raw politics and the suggestion from some that we are witnessing the birth of a new political consensus.

Yes, the three major political parties now all say climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our era and that is hugely significant. Yes, they now all say that we need to tax "the bads" - airline travel and gas guzzling cars. But no, they don't agree yet on how to do it.

The Lib Dems are the only party to have spelt this out - green tax hikes offset by income tax cuts.. The Tories have echoed this approach but spelt out none of the detail. Labour - until yesterday's leaked memo from the Environment Secretary - had said nothing much on new green taxes. An intriguing thought occurs to me. Could Gordon Brown use his last budget just before he looks set to become PM to hike green taxes and challenge his opponents to back them or reveal that their greenness is only skin deep?

Just because parties agree on ends doesn't mean they'll agree on means - witness the debate on nuclear power and the need for a climate change bill. Talk of a new consensus is - as ever - premature.

Got to sign off now. Tube arrived and can't type and walk at same time!

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

A funny thing happened when I popped in to George Osborne's office yesterday to hear his explanation of Tory tax policy (you can read my explanation ).

I was confronted by a familiar face. I looked, I thought, he spoke. Yes, I remembered who it was. It was - you know, President Bartlet's former campaign adviser who switched sides to help Arnie Vinnick (in ). My God, I thought, the Tories are attracting the attention of the big boys from D.C.

But hold on, The West Wing - I have to break this to you lightly - is fiction. This was . But just to continue the fact/fiction confusion, Silver's no mean politician himself. Once a Democrat, like most in Hollywood, he's become an outspoken supporter of George Bush's since 9/11. He introduced Rudolph Giuliani at the Republican Convention in 2004. Bruno, I mean Ron, also turns out to be a chum of the Tory Party's money man...

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

I don't normally feel the need to say "hear hear" to one blogger or another but I'm going to make an exception. So, hear hear to Steve B, who left ...

"I notice that the trend now on these discussion boards is to ridicule the writer (In this case Mr Robinson himself) if the poster disagrees with the contents (policy or otherwise) of the article... So, a suggestion to posters: if you disagree with the contents of a report. Concentrate your vitriol on the policy or event portrayed, and not on the reporter."

I would only add, "and if you agree, explain why rather than heaping praise on me". This site works best when it's an open debate about politics which my analysis kicks off. If there's something you think I'm getting wrong, say so - but focus on the ball, not the man.

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

• Do the Tories want to cut taxes?
Yes. They think tax cuts are necessary to keep the British economy competitive and they want "to roll back the state" (in old speak) or "roll forward the frontiers of society" (in Cameron)

• Will they cut taxes by £21 billion?
No. That's the total cost of the proposals produced by their Tax Commission. The shadow chancellor George Osborne said this morning that he would not be promising a reduction in taxation at the next election

• I'm getting confused. Are you saying that the Tories won't cut taxes at all?
Sorry but that's a "No". The Tories say they will cut what they call "family taxes" but they'll pay for that by putting green taxes up. They also say they will cut business taxes but that will be paid for cutting the many tax rebates which businesses currently pay.

• OK, I'm getting there now. So, the overall level of taxes will be the same under the Tories as Labour ?
Sorry again. That's another "no". The Tories say they'll share the proceeds of growth between increases in public spending and cuts in tax. In other words as the economy grows there'll spend some of the extra cash the Exchequer gets in on tax cuts whereas, they say, Gordon Brown would take it all for the Treasury.

• So, what taxes will they cut and what green taxes will go up?
They're not going to tell you that for quite some time.

• What have they got to hide?
To be fair - nothing. They don't know the state of the economy at the time of the next election. They don't know what Gordon Brown or the next chancellor will have done by then. They don't know what the political situation will be by then. And, most importantly, they haven't finished their policy work yet

• Shall I ignore this Tax Commission Report then?
No. Today's report (which you can download - it's a PDF file) is a very detailed study of the problems the Tories believe are created by the over-complex tax system created by Gordon Brown; the book that details tax codes has - they claim - doubled in size since he took over. The shadow chancellor George Osbourne pledged to follow their advice on simplifying the tax code; cutting business tax rates to be paid for by cutting tax rebates and to look at their ideas for family tax cuts

• So, do the Tory leadership secretly agree with this report?
No. There's been quite a row behind the scenes between its authors and George Osborne. He wanted them to focus on tax reform and simplification. They insisted on arguing that tax cuts are easily affordable, would boost the economy overall and thus partly pay for themselves. Osbourne believes that's economically risky and is politically unsellable. They did a deal before today. The Commission would not demand upfront uncosted tax cuts and, in return, he would welcome their report.

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

I was overwhelmed by the number and quality of suggestions for (which you can watch here). Among my favourites were:

"Mr Blair, what would you say to yourself if you could send one message back in time to a month before the invasion?" (from )

"If Gen Dannatt was now running the NHS instead of our armed forces, what do you think his honest assesssment of the current state of its health would be?" (from )

What's intriguing is that no-one wanted me to ask about who or what had forced him to say he'd be leaving office much earlier than he'd promised. Even though - as I explained yesterday - he's managed to avoid answering this question, and it went unasked yesterday.

Why then did I ask what I did? (My question was - "The Head of the British Army says Britain's presence in Iraq exacerbates the difficulties that we face around the world. You didn't sack him - is that because you agree?). My choice always stems from trying to guess what the news story of the day will be (remember that TV only has the equivalent of a front page and not all those interesting worthy inside pages) and trying to formulate a question that he has to answer. Finally, the question must be short enough to work as a clip on radio and TV.

So, how did I do? Well I asked about Iraq and that was the lead story for our Six and Ten TV news bulletins. He didn't answer but his failure to do so was obvious for all to see. But the exchange did not prove interesting enough to make it on to air.

The most productive question came from 's who followed another commenter's advice...

"I don't have a specific idea but can you please ask something totally off the wall. I've watched a number of these press conferences and find that each reporter asks questions that the PM and his staff can clearly predict and prepare answers for." (from )

Andy (Bell) asked whether someone could be a full member of society if they wore a veil. For the first time all morning Tony Blair took a second or two to think of the answer.

By the way, your question ideas were not wasted. It's PMQs today and I've no doubt that keen-eyed researchers for David Cameron, Ming Campbell and a host of backbenchers will have been reading - and maybe even stealing - your ideas.

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

Talking , I had to face a few yesterday lunchtime from Michael Howard. I was the interviewee and he was the interviewer at a charity event called , in aid of .

He was pretty kind to me but did put me on the spot one or two times. He asked me whether journalists should allow themselves to be "used" by politicians. That's a kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Naturally, I said that we should not be used but then guessed where this line of questioning was heading; my report about Gordon Brown's pledge - that he never actually delivered - to renew Trident (see blogs past).

The former Tory leader's point was that the chancellor had used me - and others - to issue a totally deniable pledge since he had never uttered the words in question. He suggested that I should have said to Gordon Brown - if that's what you think, come on television and say it. Mmmm. Interesting thought.

The night before I took questions on who sets the agenda - politicians or the media - with David Blunkett and Matthew Parris. The event was staged at the Cheltenham Literary Festival and Parris made another interesting, if alarming, point that journalists and politicians are in a sort of conspiracy to make political news more interesting than it actually is. No doubt a view that will be shared by some bloggers who accuse me of making rather than reporting the news. You will be able to listen to the discussion (though the link isn't there at time of writing...).

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

It's that time again. The morning before the PM's monthly news conference. I say "monthly" but this is actually still September in Downing Street's diary. The PM's not answered our questions since the summer and, more importantly, since les evenements which led to him announcing he'd be gone by next summer.

You may recall from blogs previous that he made that announcement in front of one camera and one agency reporter and so faced no follow-up questions. In Israel he avoided questions on that announcement by saying it was "disrespectful" to ask or answer them and he - for the first time - gave no interviews at the Labour Party Conference.

So, the only question is what to ask - about General Dannatt's warnings, the state of the NHS, his failure to back Gordon Brown...? Any ideas?

UPDATE 11:25: Some . My favourite so far comes from a Blunkett-inspired colleague - "who would you like to turn the machine guns on?". The only problem is that his answer would inevitably include "you lot".

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

Would politicians really choose to close hospitals in their opponents' constituencies and open them in their own? That's the question raised by which shows that community hospitals facing the chop are largely in Tory and Lib Dem seats. It's a follow-up to the paper's earlier report about health ministers getting together with the Labour Party chairman to discuss closures.

One of those involved in the development of health policy in this government told me many months ago - and before this current controversy - that too many new hospitals had been built in northern, Labour constituencies since 1997. It was a mirror of what the Tories had done - spending and building too much in southern, Conservative seats.

Now, this pattern may not only reflect party political favours - or what the Americans call "pork barrel" politics. The prime minister has responded to Tory charges that spending's much higher in his constituency than theirs by pointing to the fact that the mortality figures are much higher in County Durham than the ±«Óătv Counties.

My instinct tells me that it's in the case of marginal decisions where party politics will make a difference. Where the health or economic case rests on a knife edge, the presence of a friendly or hostile MP could - and I do emphasise, could - make the difference.

The fashionable answer to this is to "take the politics out of the NHS" by setting up an independent NHS Board. Gordon Brown has flirted with one version of this. David Cameron has proposed another. Such an idea might take party politics out of the calculations (though the board - like all - would owe their existence, appointments and budget to the government of the day) but the risk is it might reduce political accountability. The debate will roll on.

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

It was a long long night for many at the Ministry of Defence, in Downing Street and with Team Blair in Scotland. A series of conference calls were held until the early hours of this morning to work out how to react to what . A junior staffer in Washington DC had to be repeatedly re-assured that the White House's involvement was not needed. Yes, the Brits did know just how serious this was!

The Head of the British Army has done his best to repair the damage this morning - insisting that there's no divide between him and his political masters. What he has not done, though, is withdraw or deny making any of the comments he made in . He told the Mail that we have to "get ourselves out [of Iraq] sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems". This morning on Radio 4 he went further saying "the fact that we are there leads people to attack us" (hear it here) . There was one qualification - namely that in some areas British soldiers were making things better.

In the Mail he said: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." This directly contradicts what ministers have been saying. This morning he did not withdraw, amend or qualify this statement.

The question is what was he up to? "It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha," he told Radio 4's Jim Naughtie and I'm told that he was genuinely perplexed that what he regarded as a feature for the inside pages of the Mail has become headline news around the world. He's clearly a better soldier than a newsman because there were about four front page splashes in what he said!

"I'm not a maverick. I'm a soldier speaking up for his army," he insisted. My guess, and it can only be a guess, is that he is anxious that the Army is under political pressure to stay in Iraq for longer than is necessary - in part to avoid embarrassing the Americans who are operating to a different timetable. Why else did he say this morning "We need to keep thinking about time, because time is against us, because time is money [and because] time is, particularly, soldiers' lives"?

Furthermore, we know that he is worried about overstretch since in he warned: "We are running hot, certainly running hot."
This morning he went further still with an apparent warning that the Army might not exist in five or 10 years time.

When Tony Blair speaks this morning he will, no doubt, focus on the comment about withdrawing from Iraq "sometime soon" and will insist that that's what he hopes for to. What, I suspect, he will not address is the warnings about the state of the Army or that our presence in Iraq is making life worse both there and around the world. Let's see - not long to wait.

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

Woke up this morning believing that Prime Minister Pritchard had just appointed her first Cabinet. It must be true because I saw myself reporting it on telly last night.

If you do not know that of which I speak, it's ±«Óătv One's new drama - The Amazing Mrs Pritchard - about a housewife who becomes prime minister after running a campaign against "politics as usual". Fun though the programme undoubtedly is, I feel rather ambivalent about having taken part in it. The premise of the series appears to be that politics as practised these days is a giant con on the voters. Call me naĂŻve but this is not my view. On the other hand, Mrs P is already beginning to discover how tough it is really being PM so, perhaps, the final message of the series will be "it's a lot tougher than you thought, folks".

Is it only in America that politicians (real ones as against housewives who are catapulted to high office) are hailed as heroes? Here politicians are almost always portrayed as fools - Jim Hacker in Yes Minister and Hugh Abbott in The Thick of It - or as knaves - Francis Urquhart in House of Cards. I can't think of any fictional political hero or heroine recently except for and conquered the Slithenes in the last series of Doctor Who. Any thoughts?

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

Politics isn't always the subtlest of trades. The backdrop for Gordon Brown's speech on terror today was the Union Jack with the slogan - "The strength to protect Britain". I wonder whether he might just be trying to tell us something?

The speech itself - and an interview I did afterwards with the chancellor - gave an intriguing insight into how the war on terror would be fought differently if Brown, and not Blair, were prime minister. The chancellor sounds like a man who would dearly love to distance himself from the language of "the war on terror" - which many believe gives al-Qaeda exactly the status they crave.

To do so would, though, be incendiary. Instead, he stresses that, "it is right to tackle not just terrorism but the roots of terrorism" so as to, "extinguish the heat that ignites the extremists' fire". If you can hear the echoes of that famous line of Tony Blair's - tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime - it's worth remembering that it was Brown and not Blair that dreamt the line up.

What does this call for a cultural war on terror mean? It is a call for a campaign across society as a whole to defeat support for terrorist ideology. Brown draws a deliberate parallel with the battle to win hearts and minds in the Cold War. His announcement of funding for a new ±«Óătv Farsi service for Iran was presented in this light - by him, I must stress, and not the ±«Óătv. It is also a call to see poverty relief in Africa and the Middle East and a search for a solution of the Arab/Israeli conflict as vital parts of what he calls a "generation-long struggle of hearts and minds".

His views on Jack Straw's call for women to shed their veils are fascinating too - but you'll have to wait for those…

UPDATE 06:06 PM - Gordon Brown has become the most senior minister to date not merely to welcome the debate Jack Straw began (on Muslim women wearing the veil), but to agree that it would be better if they didn't.

In my interview with the chancellor (which you can now watch by clicking here), I asked him whether "you would prefer, you would think it better for Britain if fewer people wore veils". He replied: "That's what Jack Straw has said and I support but I think the important thing is we have a proper debate on this".

He went on to say that the debate should focus on Britishness (a theme of a number of speeches he's made) including better teaching of the English language, citizenship and British history.

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

Just on my way to hear David Cameron talk about his favourite three letters - NHS. The Tories are stepping up their campaign against Brown's "cuts" in the health service. Labour is responding by alleging that the Tory policy for the NHS is "cuts, cuts, cuts", since Cameron is pledged to "cut" ÂŁ17 billion from public services.

Good grief. Can we just get a few facts straight before this rhetoric of slash and burn gets out of control?

This government is on course to have trebled NHS spending since coming to power. The deficit in the NHS is small - the equivalent of someone with an income of ÂŁ20,000 overspending by ÂŁ160 in the course of a year. The "cuts" the Tories talk of are - usually - posts being cut and not staff. They stem from the failure of certain hospitals to control their spending and the decision of central government to try to resolve this in a single year. In other words this is an issue of management not total resources. Clearly, if it's your post going or it's happening in your hospital it will feel like a cut but these are not "cuts" as we have known them.

The last Tory government also increased health spending in real terms - albeit though at a significantly lower rate. The Conservative health spokesman, Andrew Lansley, now says he regrets the fact that the rate of increase slowed in the last few years of the Major government and believes that Labour were right to increase NHS spending. The Tories have committed themselves to real terms increases in NHS resources and are likely to match whatever Gordon Brown announces in this summer's spending review. By promising to "share the proceeeds of growth between public spending and tax cuts" they will need to convince people that they can grow the economy faster than Labour, or find savings in new places. In any event, there's no evidence they're committed to NHS cuts.

Why am I challenging both main parties' propaganda? Because it does nothing to aid public understanding. All politicians know that there are forces at work which have nothing to do with cash spent but which will dramatically alter our hospital provision - moves towards specialisation, reductions in the time patients need to stay in hospital, changes in approach to Accident and Emergency.

Is it too much to ask that this should be discussed above and beyond the talk of "cuts"? Probably, but here's hoping...

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

BOURNEMOUTH: David Cameron may have summed up his priority in three letters (NHS), but you can sum up his message this week in three words - New, New, New.

A pledge to save the NHS, back gay marriage, and to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime is nothing if not new. Each an incursion on to his opponent's territory.

The Tory leader is relentlessly re-branding his party - reprogramming his members and, he hopes, the public about what Conservatives really care about . Those waiting for specifics will still be waiting. This was a speech about position-taking, not policy-making.

His aim: to prove that the Tories are no longer angry, backward-looking or pessimistic.

To those who claim this is all style and no substance, his answer is that the test of substance is not policy detail, it's about having the character to say difficult things and make tough choices.

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

BOURNEMOUTH: There have been many surreal moments at this conference, but none quite as surreal as this. I am standing with roughly 60 of journalism's finest, awaiting a rumoured appearance by the unofficial star of today's Tory conference.

I speak, of course, of Boris.

The media, denied what they regard as a proper story, latched on to at a fringe meeting at which he stood up for mums shoving pies through school railings. This is a little unfortunate given that Jamie Oliver is the sole example of "social responsibility in action" cited by the Tory leader in his opening speech. He also said that the problem with Gordon Brown ever being prime minister was that he is Scottish.

Boris has already apologised to the people of , and to the nation of . We await what he will say this time.

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

Royal Bath Hotel, Bournemouth: I'm watching a fringe meeting in which the Chingford Skinhead (Norman Tebbit to you) has wowed his audience with a plea for tax cuts paid for - in part - by leaving the EU. The crowd loved it but so too will David Cameron - he wants an argument to prove that he's on the centre ground.

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

So, why doesn't David Cameron believe in cutting taxes?

Actually, he does

But why's he saying he won't cut taxes then ?

Actually he's not. He says he won't promise uncosted upfront tax cuts. Those words are the key to understanding this. He won't promise tax cuts because he can't be sure of the state of the books and he knows that the public don't believe promises to cut taxes. (See below for the significance of "uncosted" and "upfront".)

Surely the polls show that the public would vote for a party that promised tax cuts?

So, why isn't William Hague or Michael Howard prime minister then? A much quoted ICM poll was used to suggest that people would be more likely to vote Conservative at the next election if they were promised tax cuts. The poll said no such thing. It said that they would be more likely to vote for the party if they believed they would cut taxes. What Hague and Howard found is you can say you'll cut taxes but that doesn't mean that voters believe you.

Meanwhile a put an exaggerated version of the choice facing the Tories at the moment (keep down taxes by cutting waste versus drastically reducing the role of the state) and Cameron's position got pretty overwhelming backing.

The story of all the polling is pretty clear - people do want tax cuts but they don't want cuts in services. They believe - in theory - that you can square the circle by cutting waste and bureaucracy BUT they do not believe anything that looks like a politician's easy promise.

That's why all the parties are beginning to sing similar tunes - Gordon Brown boasts about cutting waste and claims to cut tax rates, and the Lib Dems promise tax cuts and, you guessed it, to cut waste too. That's been the Tory message for the past two elections.

So, the Tories do want to cut taxes but don't want to tell us that now?

You're getting there. The Tories are still fighting to restore their economic credibility after the ERM debacle. They believe that by emphasising their commitment to economic stability and stressing the importance of mortgage rates rather than tax rates they can begin to restore that reputation and re-build trust. Having a fight with the right over being too cautious and centre-ist may help too.

If - and it's a big if - this strategy works then people might just believe any promises they do give later to cut taxes.

So, after all this, the Tories may end up promising to cut taxes at the next election?

Cameron is desperate to "stick to the plan" (as he put it yesterday). He does not want to repeat what Hague and Howard did by producing a plan for specific upfront tax cuts which Gordon Brown can take apart. He wants instead to copy Margaret Thatcher in her first election - promising tax reform, pledging to cut taxes if possible but acknowledging that - just as in her first government - taxes could rise overall if the economic situation demands.

Tax reform would allow corporate and personal tax cuts to be paid for by increases in green taxes. These would not be uncosted (the last of Cameron's important three words about tax).

So, the Right must be furious?

No. They know what Cameron's up to and they trust his instincts as a taxcutter. (Listen to John Redwood on the Today programme or Lord Blackwell of the Centre for Policy Studies on today's World at One.)

They think that he's being too cautious and that he should lead the argument in favour of the economic benefits and moral arguments for tax cuts. So, they'll keep up the pressure and the thinking about how it's done. The real argument will come some months or years down the line about what how specific their next manifesto should be.

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

One’s 70. The other’s not yet 40. The first is the current favourite to be the next Leader of the Free World. The second’s the chattering classes favourite who’s still a long long way from becoming prime minister. Until today the two have never met. What then links Senator John McCain who speaks at today’s Tory Conference and David Cameron?

Both have become pin-ups of what they call in the States “the liberal media” while actually being pretty conservative. Both have challenged their parties head-on but look, for now, to be their parties' best hopes. Both now present their parties with a choice – back us to reach out to new voters or bring us down with charges of betrayal.

McCain has been the enemy of many admirers of George Bush ever since he took on the Republican establishment in a bid to become his party's presidential nominee in 2000 and lost.

Far from pandering to the Christian Right he dubbed them "agents of intolerance" and joked about battling "the forces of evil." He is accused by his party’s rightwing of flip-flopping on taxes and gun control (the symbolic equivalent of Europe on this side of “the pond”).

America’s most feared talkshow host has dubbed him a "RINO - Republican in Name Only." Odd this, since McCain, is hardly that liberal – he’s anti-abortion, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, he favours cutting back the size and reach of the federal government and has backed the war in Iraq.

David Cameron now faces accusations from his party's right-wing that he’s “unsound” on tax, Europe, immigration, selection in schools and much besides.

So, the two men have a political challenge in common. The gulf between them is not just age. McCain has many years service in the Senate and a proven record of taking tough decisions. Not to mention the fact that no-one challenges the strength of character of a man held prisoner and tortured in Vietnem while Cameron was still in nappies. When McCain called his campaign bus “The Straight Talk Express” no-one laughed.

Cameron’s challenge this week is to prove that his campaign bus isn’t just “The Smooth Talking Express”. He plans to show his strength by standing up to those who demand that he promises tax cuts now. The test of leadership will come, though, not simply by standing up to Norman Tebbit or John Redwood but by telling the country – not just his own right wing - things they may not wish to hear.

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