Your questions unasked...
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.
I'm 
Comments
I think the reporters should make a pact that when (as usual) the PM doesn't answer the question, the next questioner either repeats it, or asks him what he thinks the general public will make of his failure to answer.
I think that only a constant onslaught on his (and other ministers') tactics will convince these "servants of the people" that *we* do not permit *them* to be evasive.
Why can't you ask simple questions about the issues of the day. Why are you so keen to be clever or outwit the PM ? Are you trying to score political points ? if so why ? isn't that the job of the opposition ?
A question that has been nagging me about both Bush and Blair for some years is a simple one:
What is more important, belief or fact?
Paul
The internet is an amazing political tool!
I hope Mr Cameron and his assistants read blogs and other debate, as 60,000,000 heads are better than one...
"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 idea."
No doubt Mr Blair’s people have been reading too and prepared some side-stepping answers...
"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."
It's almost as if real (i.e. non-Westminster) people arn't interested in that sort of tittle-tattle. Most intriguing...
Nick
it was the story about hospitals more likely to close in Conservative constituencies that made me wonder if the population drift to these that seemed to determine the last election is still ongoing?
I know Ed Balls seat is being considered for the axe, but does the process create a broadly level basis, or does ongoing drift mean that Labour have a 'drag effect' benefit where Boundary Commission is always playing catch-up?
I couldn't think of a good question at the time, but now I think I have one. Unfortunately it's about a story that the media seems to think is totally un-newsworthy so would probably never get asked anyway.
It's been several months now since the Power Inquiry concluded that the system of government in this country is flawed. Over the month of September, while the main political parties had their conferences, the public had their own, called Taking Power. It was a direct debate about the very future of Democracy in this country. It's a subject that has been commented on by both Ming Campbell and David Cameron, yet as far as I can tell Tony Blair has not made one mention about it. If anything, judging from some of the ideas put forward by Labour, he's more determined to shift the balance of power even further towards the Labour party making the country even less democratic than it is now.
My question would be "Isn't it about time this country had a say in how we want to be governed?" It is a debate that MUST be had, before even more of this country become disillusioned and disenfranchised by the perpetuation of the myth of Democracy in this country. It may not be seen as a newsworthy story, but it's the single most important political debate since women were given the right to vote.
You don't need to thank us for providing your questions for you - you're welcome, and I'm glad that some of them were of use to you.
Any time you want us to write your copy for you (if Huw Edwards is too busy), or do pieces to camera on your behalf, I'm sure you could round a few of us to help out.
Blair has turned not answering the question asked into an art form !
I'd like to see all the journalists turn up to the next monthly news conference and refuse to ask any questions at all. Why give politicians the 'oxygen of publicity' if they refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner?
The same applies to all TV and radio broadcasts. Refuse to invite politicians on if they have a history of answering the question they want to answer rather than the question actually asked.
I watched it in the gym yesterday and I have a feeling that I wasn't the only person sweating!!! Great questions.
I thought his question to that journalist from The Middle Eastern News asking what faith he was was a little cheeky....
Just about says it all really. The ±«Óătv "ask" the public to be involved but then arrogantly ignore what the people want.
They see their agenda as being more important than the needs of the taxpayers.
Why don't you put yourselves through this level of openness?
In response to KP: The job of the opposition is exactly the same as that of the independent media: to hold the government to account. This is one of the cornerstones of the democracy that we supposedly enjoy in this country. It is a shame that journalists have to resort to seemingly sneaky tactics when questioning politicians, but this is a direct result of the evasiveness of those in power when challenged.
I'm not surprised that nobody wanted to ask what forced Tony to announce his retirement plans.
The only people whom this interests are the media and politicians.The rest of us aren't interested enough in Westminster gossip, I'm afraid!
"My choice always stems from ... trying to formulate a question that he has to answer."
Wow. Tough job. Has he ever actually answered a question?
Do you ever think that no-one submitted a question about when the PM is leaving because on one cares? The general public only care about services that are provided to them by the government and not about all the political rubbish that surrounds it all. It seems only the newspapers care about that...
Considering the fact that Sharia Law is an integral part of Moslem life, should the proposed visit of the Prince Charles & his wife to Pakistan go ahead? Freedom to practice one's religion can be tricky when the punishment for adultery by a woman is stoning by death.
Nick,
We require straight and meaningful asnwers from Mr. Blair. Afterall this ias meant to be a democratic country.
1. Why is the UK voting system under investigation by Europe regarding the introduction of Postal Voting? As usual not thought through and implemeted incorrectly.
2. Why is education at it lowest level with the dumbing down of exams? This will have a long term effect on are competive position as a country.
3.Why is the NHS in such a poor way considering the many millions spent? Why all the jobs in strategic planning?
4. A war undertaken not based on fact. More like fiction, and an inability to give clear instruction to the armed forces? The Leader of the Armed forces should never question the PM, however with all his spin and propaganda he had no alternative.
5. A ministerial team that cannot be sacked. He is meant to set standards.
6. If I had a million I could by a seat in the Lords!
Nick, you ask him questions, can we have clear evidence of what he says. Is it fact or is it fiction.
These are important questions and need answers.
Adrian (the first to comment on this blog) highlights something that annoys me too. Can nothing really be done to point out that politicians so often decline to answer the questions put to them, or do we just trust that listeners and viewers will notice their obfuscation for themselves. Let's have more 'Paxman' moments - asking the same question 14 times, even though he never got an answer. Don't politicians realise how shifty they appear when they just refuse to answer a straight question?
Please ask Mr Blair, Why, having sent our soldiers into a war , has he not visited one injured soldier in hospital? Is it because you are ashamed?
To pick up on the comment above by Mark (at 11:36 today)…
I live in the Selby Constituency of John Grogan MP who very nearly lost his seat to the Conservatives at the last election. Subsequent to that, I wrote a letter to the (Rt. Hons.) Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy urging them not to let Tony Blair claim he had a mandate to govern, as his party was only supported by about a quarter of those eligible to vote (Charles Kennedy’s response was the best).
The vast majority of the population (those that do not live in marginal constituencies) are effectively disenfranchised by our “first past the post” system. So, to pick up on the suggestion of Adrian (at 10:52 today), why don’t you reporter’s all make a pact to demand an answer to this question.
Do you really think that David Cameron has 'keen-eyed' researchers on the look out for questions? There was zero evidence for it from his lame performance at today's PMQs!
I agree with Phil Valley. You've shown scant respect for the public by asking for their questions and then ignoring them. You then try to put your own spin on the questions by commenting on what the pulic didn't ask. How arrogant is that!
Ref Nick's question: "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."
I've often wondered this, and have a blog called Keep Tony Blair For PM. We don't all want his head on a plate ;0)
I would guess that Mr Blair thought it might keep the hounds within his party at bay for a while if he gave them this concession, and it might keep Gordon onside. It didn't, so in that he was wrong. Pity, I think he should go on and on. He's still a strong and purposeful leader, as witnessed today in PM's Questions. I've looked but failed to find any other UK politician who could take the flak, stick to his guns and still come back for more. It's hard to argue with his case for staying in Iraq "until the job is done". Principled, or stupid? I know what I think. The Chancellor isn't the only one with Balls.
Adrian (the first to comment on this blog) highlights something that annoys me too. Can nothing really be done to point out that politicians so often decline to answer the questions put to them, or do we just trust that listeners and viewers will notice their obfuscation for themselves. Let's have more 'Paxman' moments - asking the same question 14 times, even though he never got an answer. Don't politicians realise how shifty they appear when they just refuse to answer a straight question?
Good effort, Nick. It would be good to see you asking the blogging public what their thoughts are on a regular basis. Even if you don't ask what people suggest, its a good way to see what's on people's minds and makes sure the traffic isn't always one way. Wish we had something similar in Scotland.
Nick, regarding your belief that this blog is studied by researchers - I hope that this is the case and that some of those researchers will further seek to highlight the case of Mirza Tahir Hussain, which was raised at PMQs today.
I was not a little surprised that the Prime Minister would not comment on the pending visit of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall to Pakistan (which, as things stand looks likely to coincide with Hussain's execution) not least because this visit is at the request of the FCO.
Despite the Prime Minister's insistence that he has personally sought to pursue all means available to prevent Mr Hussain's execution, the timing of the FCO request and announcement of the visit at the start of this month, immediately following a further refusal by Gen. Musharraf to intervene in the case, appears to indicate a lack of concern on his part.
"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."
I'm surprised you find this so intriguing Nick! I consider my self a politico and compulsive Westminster village-watcher but even I find this story tedious beyond belief, and its made worse by the press's obsession with it. We all know Brown had something to do with the 48 hours of madness in the Labout party over the summer but ultimately WE DON'T CARE!!!!
I watched the news conference live. I have no problems with any questions asked of the PM (he did after all set up the forum)but resent very much the tone of the voice in which questions are asked by some journalists. I think that you Nick are most at fault for the supercilious and totally disrespectful manner in which you seek to get answers for the benefit of us licence payers. I think that good manners towards another human being is lacking from you and unworthy of the role that you undertake. I do not want political journalists to become similar to shabby car dealers. It demeans our political system. Thank goodness we do have some journalists - many at the ±«Óătv - who ask pertinent questions to assist the viewer rather than to promote oneself.
Point 21
Fair comment, perhaps you should (media ±«Óătv, ITN, & Sky)all not leave Downing Street until he tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It is the long term impact of this government on our country that should worry us all on both sides of the political spectrum.
Will there be a welfare state?
Will there be pensions?
Will we have a strong economic postion going forward? Inflation is now on the rise cased by excess government expediture.
Anyway that dosser on IRAQ just about sums up our government and our Prime Miniter.
When will the boundary commision changes go before parliament.
Perhaps we will need more investigation by the European Union!
That could be a question that you could ask?
The Independent quotes Blair as saying that we are in Afghanistan and Iraq at the behest of their governments. This is untrue. The illegal invasion of Iraq was mounted on the pretext of Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction which he could activate in 45 minutes. In fact the US had decided to invade months previously, and we have to assume that Blair had agreed to involve us in that invasion. The results, as predicted by diplomats, historians, have been a catastrophe beyond anyone's wildest nightmares. If we had an effective opposition it would be calling for the removal of Blair and, possibly, his being charged with war crimes. I am amazed that the media are not more outraged at the insouciance with which he remains in post. I know we can expect nothing from the Murdoch Press, but the ±«Óătv has a duty to the public to highlight this very grave state of affairs.
Nick.
Any comment on Armando Iannucci's claim in his lecture last night that the media have given up asking relevant questions of politicians, and are leaving that important task to the comedians?
I hope I am wrong, but it seems that the ±«Óătv is losing its impartiality as far as the PM is concerned. There seems to be a concerted effort to bring about his downfall. It has not gone unoticed by others and I suspect will become an issue in months to come. Nick Robinson seems to be the biggest culprit. Despite increasingly poor performances by David Cameron at PMQ's...the ±«Óătv appear to always dismiss the PMs performance. My own feeling, is that the ±«Óătv is on a mission to gain some sort of revenge for the Iraq "dossier".
To "Not a Labour Supporter But..."
I'd like Blair to stay as well, if only to prove how far he is willing to go to stay in power. How on earth can they claim a mandate to rule with the second lowest vote in 70 years? The elections have been rigged to the point that we make dictatorships seem democratic. The sooner we have real Democracy in this country, instead of this elected dictatorship with their emphasis on turning this nation into a police state where everyone has to spy on everyone else in order to prove they're not a terrorist the better.
Here's a thought. Why not ask "Mr Blair, what is the answer to my question?" If he expresses puzzlement about the fact that you haven't actually asked a meaningful question, you could explain that it doesn't really matter what you ask, as he won't answer it anyway.
If he disagrees with that, you could then follow up with any one of your tricky questions. He'd look even sillier than usual if he then didn't answer the question.
I must say I enjoyed having the possibility of suggesting questions for the PM's briefing. Thanks, Nick.
However like others I do despair of ever getting a straight, honest answer from the PM. No wonder Gordon Brown wants his statements witnessed by 60 million people - just in case. Every time he speaks I know he has verbally misled me in some way and the challenge is to work out how.
The format of the monthly briefing doesn't really lend itself to Paxman/Howard moments, but perhaps just once the press pack could all agree to ask him exactly the same question repeatedly. It may not force an answer but it would make for better telly.
Nick, when was the last time a General took an active view and then expressed it in to an open opinion, regarding politics, foreign policy and security?
When was the last time the military interfered with politics?
Was it when Oswald Moseley tried to turn the UK into a Nazi sattelite in the 1930's?
Gary
Attn: Nick Robinson
On reflection, "Stealing" was rather a strange word to use. It does indeed seem to show up the point-scoring mind set that has dominated the media machine for far too long, to the detriment of this country and its people - not to mention the effect of our past practices upon the rest of the world.
You might have used instead "reading and hopefully taking on board", "reading and, we trust, assimilating", "reading and undoubtedly giving due consideration to" etc. etc. (you can no doubt do better than I've done, but I'm sure you get the sense of it)
I'm sure you don't now need me to point out that the use of the word "stealing" sets up a most curious apparent relationship between politician and members of the electorate. Why and how on earth would a politician be "stealing" an idea from the electorate? Surely said politician, taking up an idea (from the electorate) would merely be doing what he/she is supposed to do by taking any ideas on board i.e. representing the electorate (and their concerns). Precisely what said politician is there to do.
One route of word usage casts the reader/contributor in a paradigm of possible loss and deprivation whereas the other casts him/her within an inclusive paradigm with the politician, both working towards a common goal - presumably an attempt at action for the sake of the common good.
The more I think about it the more disrespectful (of politician and electorate) the use of this word seems to be. The electorate as child/disenfranchised entity having a personal posession stolen and the politician as lawless thief. Not the most helpful choice of gerund for an otherwise fine wordsmith.
Nick, I think, your questions to the Prime Minister the other day pulled a bit of a stroke, and if I read the Prime Minister correctly, I reckon, he would be more open and responsive if he got the impression that other politicians and the media were worth respecting.
Some people keep demanding apologies from Prime Minister Blair but in his own way, I think, his focus on better policy and leadership is his own way of moving forward. Focusing on negatives and pulling strokes really isn’t a response worth giving much attention to.
That said, I’ve really enjoyed the progression of your blog, how you’ve touched on issues of policy and character quality, and your generous invitation for everyone to submit questions. It's easy to be critical and cynical but you've done well and I'd like to acknowledge that.
Gosh Nick. What a brilliant question. I don't know how you do it month after month - incisive questions which exactly encapsulate the thoughts on everyone's mind and the issues which really affect our daily lives. Absolutely right to focus on General Dannatt's comments rather than any of the other possibilities which would have made you stand out from the crowd of hacks - after all, who if not the ±«Óătv to ruthlessly pursue the out-of-context comments made by Gen Dannatt to the Daily Mail, that other paragon of journalistic excellence. Some might say that the Today progam interview with Gen Dannatt himself had already flogged the subject to death - but not you: congratulations again. By recirculating the same story again and again, you save valuable taxpayers' money. Thank you from the bottom of my pocket.
All considered, I am sure that you have the PM quaking in his boots whenever you ask a question. It may have been just a bit predictable that he wouldn't answer your searching interrogation directly but all the same, you can still claim how you foxed him! Great stuff.
Frankly with your evident impartiality, modesty and discerning inquisitiveness for the truth, I am surprised that you have not already risen much further in the ±«Óătv.
Dear Nick,
Here's a question you should ask:
"Prime Minister, you've defended the introduction of ID cards with the arguement that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. If you agree with this concept, why has the attorney general threatened newspapers with legal action if they reveal the contents of the documents recording the conversations yourself and President Bush had regarding the conduct of the Iraq war, in particular regarding the alleged targetting of Al Jazeera television?"
I'd just like to agree with 2 points that several people have made on this blog. 1) People outside of politics / media don't care what forced Tony Blair to announce a slightly more definite timetable for stepping down. 2) If you're going to ask for questions to put to the Prime Minister at a news conference, then you should at least have the decency to ask one of them.
I'd also like to almost agree with another point. If politicians side-step a questions, they should be asked it again. However, it would be nice if Paxman let them get more than 2 words out before asking it again and insisting that they're avoiding it. Atleast give them a chance to first!
Two little points on the impartiality/ judgement or otherwise of journalists.
1. Ref post 33 from Scott.
'Any comment on Armando Iannucci's claim in his lecture last night that the media have given up asking relevant questions of politicians, and are leaving that important task to the comedians?'
My thoughts: The media are informed and serious enough to know that the issues are complex. I don't mean to condescend, but comedians know how to get a laugh at the politician's expense, seldom to flatter. Don't get me wrong, comedians do a valuable job, and Ianucci's article was well-written.
BUT ...
2. Ref post 34 from Justin
'...the ±«Óătv is losing its impartiality as far as the PM is concerned. There seems to be a concerted effort to bring about his downfall. My own feeling, is that the ±«Óătv is on a mission to gain some sort of revenge for the Iraq "dossier".'
My thoughts: You see how confusing it all is? Two people, different interpretations. I tend to share Justin's viewpoint to an extent but as regards Nick I don't think he was putting it on after Blair's speech to conference, when he almost glowed with admiration. Or am I wrong there, Nick?
It seems to me that Nick is one of the least guilty of being unempathetic to Blair, and we can work out where Nick's political sympathies lie.
Leave Blair alone. He's going anyway, despite my little blog :0(
And I for one will miss him. I only hope his successor has the skills to manage our future international affairs. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Blair has more political nous, charisma and presence in the knifewounds in his back than the rest of them put together.
Good on your Nick for finding a way of asking TB a question that he either has to directly answer or not answer and be made to look foolish.
A similar question asked not long ago by a reporter commented on this issue and Blair ended up saying that the head of the army basically said:-
'we need to stay till the jobs done (which may be years) then get out upon mission accomplished'
How blair managed to roll that off when the head of the army has blatenlty said our prescense makes matters worse and our being there is futile. But he did and everyone seemed to accept it.
What really annoys me about Blair is his profound arrogance the way he poo poo's the most obvious of logic almost suggesting anyone who disagrees with him is some kind of moron or badly educated.
Nick
Is there any chance someone could ask him if we'll ever arrive in the 21st century with regard to tax? Why is the P11D earnings rate for declaration purposes still set at ÂŁ8,500. Even the office cleaner earns that! And why, after his tenure in office has the tax system become more burdensome than helpful?
Cheers
Ian
re Not A Labour Supporter But's post 44
"And I for one will miss him. I only hope his successor has the skills to manage our future international affairs. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Blair has more political nous, charisma and presence in the knifewounds in his back than the rest of them put together"
TB may have political nous, charisma and presence but unfortunately he has lost any integrity he came into the job with and when it comes down to it he got the biggest decision of his time in office catastrophically wrong.
He is only hanging on now to satisfy his own ego and probably a deep seated need to gain redemption and certainly isn't staying for the good of the country! The sooner he goes the quicker we the public can see the true worth of his possible successors and make our eventual judgement in our (fatally flawed but that's another post!) electoral system.
So you ask people to suggest questions for the Prime Minister, you then disregard all the suggestions in favour of your own question, which is not answered and isn't even 'interesting' enough to be aired, but not to worry, all the suggestions were not in vain, as keen eyed researchers might steal them and they might be asked in Parliament, although the idea that your blog is going to be used as some kind of database for questions seems pretty ludicrous to me.
Lastly, doesn't it worry you that the questions have to be short enough for reproduction on TV and radio? Surely the depth and integrity of a question must be compromised by these contraints.
I would like to ask Blair a question is he a member of BUPA?.
Come to think of it I would like to put that question to ALL MP`s.
Come on Nick find out for us PLEASE.
None of these highly intelligent and highly motivated journalists ever ask whether the Middle East in the wrong hands, could result in the Western industries being put onto a one day week pending the invention and development of new power sources.
The vitriolic and cynical comments in this bog (sic) all add up to a distinct feeling that people are being left out of any remaining democracy that this country may possess. In general I have to agree. More powers that can be selectively enforced, more record keeping "just in case" and more taxation without any obvious return tend to support the case.
It feels very much like the powers-that-be are introducing controls and a surveillance culture that is targetted at reintroducing a class system, but not one based on birth or wealth but instead on power and position. Those in authority (elected or appointed, uniformed or badge wielding) get more freedoms to do what they wish while the rest of us live under a more oppressive and dicatorial regime than any I have learnt of (in the West, at least) since the McCarthy days of the US.
Perhaps asking the meglomaniacs in Westminster about where the "class struggle" is going now would be appropriate ?
I'd like to agree with Liz at post 29.
She says she "resents very much the tone of the voice in which questions are asked by some journalists."
I realised years ago that the British are SO rude. I know we got rid of subservience years ago - and good thing too - but manners? We haven't got any! I blame the parents and the teachers! Being both, it's MY fault then. (Except tht my four kids are the exceptions!)
You'll notice that when the American President holds a press conference the pundits all stand up on his entry. Can you imagine that here? If they stood up here, the PM would just think they were walking out in the usual style of the dull, rude and badly informed.
Oh, how he must be looking forward to working in the USA.
Liz also says, "I think that good manners towards another human being is lacking from you (Nick) and unworthy of the role that you undertake."
Hear, hear Liz!
With the Stern Climate Warning today, I think Mr Blair should be appointed to a new post of International Climate Co-ordinator and make it his first task to get the Americans onside. They're half way there now anyway, and if the PM talks to them at least he will get a polite hearing.
Still, in case he doesn't get the job, I haven't given up my little blog. Not yet anyway!
All polite comments are welcome, though I'd prefer it if they were supportive, naturally.
With property prices growing more insane by the day when will the Treasury impose the old 'twice-income plus 10% deposit' as a legal requirement for all mortgage lending?
To enforce the point state the repayments on a UKÂŁ100,000 mortgage at 15%; do you remember interest rates going down & up on the same day?
Housing Benefit is directly linked to property prices, hence taxation must rise to pay rents for the increasing numbers not earning enough.