Verdict on the Blair trilogy

Blair is challenged over donations

By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent

It is ironic that Tony Blair has always appeared least comfortable when questioned about his personal beliefs.

He is a deeply committed Christian and often seems more at home when travelling the globe addressing problems of poverty and conflict than at home facing the challenge of the public services and sleaze allegations.

Paxman: insistent style

So it is odd that it is questions about beliefs, ethics and ideology that often show him at his most uncertain and indecisive.

The best example of that was when backbencher Tony McWalter asked him during question time what was his core political philosophy.

Apart from some generalised waffle about the NHS, there were no insights - leading many to claim that was because there was nothing to reveal.

And it is this Tony Blair that is on view in the third and final section from his Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman.

No big thing

He is quizzed about his core political beliefs, taking money from a porn merchant and his thoughts on creation theory and faith schools.

He insists he did not respond more fully to Mr McWalter's question because question time is not the right forum for such a debate.

And, in an attempt to answer the core beliefs question, he claims the old Clause 4 of the party constitution - which talked about mass nationalisation - had to be torn up because it led people to believe Labour was Trotskyist.

Top shelf publisher

But, when pressed about his own beliefs he again skirts around the issue, claiming he does not make a big thing out of his Christianity and insisting he is motivated by belief in social justice, community and opportunity.

On the controversial issue of taking donations from a man who publishes top shelf magazines, and how that fits with his personal beliefs, he is clearly irritated.

He refuses to expand on his claim that, as long as Richard Desmond is deemed fit and proper to run a newspaper then he can give money to the Labour party.

It is clearly one of the more embarrassing moments of the three sections of the interview for Mr Blair.

Presidential style

Arch inquisitor Jeremy Paxman took some flak after the opening section for not displaying his usual insistent style.

Even so, the prime minister still managed to look decidedly intimidated.

And the interviews covered a large amount of ground.

The question at the end of them, however, remained the same as before - why did the prime minister decide now was the time to submit himself to, arguably, the toughest interviewer around.

The answer remains the same. Complaints about his out-of-touch, presidential style, the reliance on spin and apparent attempts to marginalise parliament and avoid hard questioning may have hit home.

His decision to walk into the lion's den, combined with his plan to appear before select committee chairmen are all seen as evidence that he is looking for a more transparent and accountable style.

But it can only be seen as a mixed result for the prime minister.

While he may have generally held his own against Paxman he offered no new insights and did little to satisfy those critical of his government's direction.

And it is now highly likely that the interview will be looked back on as the start of the campaign to take Britain into the single currency - and maybe that was the point of it all.