Prime Minister's Questions: Ask Andrew Marr

  Click here to watch the forum  

Click here to read the transcript

---

Tony Blair faced more questions on his government's policy towards Iraq during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.

Mr Blair denied there is a split within the cabinet over Iraq. His comments come the day after Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announced the call up of more than 1,500 army reservists in readiness for a possible war on Iraq.

Mr Blair is also warned about the threat to UK security and the need for the public to be alert but not alarmed.

Six Algerian men are being questioned in connection with yesterday's discovery of a trace of the potentially lethal substance ricin at an address in north London.

The prime minister also told MPs the government was trying to tackle the problems of gun crime by supporting inner city regeneration projects. He said he had sent his heartfelt sympathies to the families of the two girls who were shot and killed in Aston on New Year's eve.

How real is the threat of a chemical attack? How much political support is there for a 'Minister of Homeland Security'? Has Tony Blair convinced people of the need for action against Iraq?

The BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr took your questions in a live forum.

---

Transcript

Newshost:
Welcome to this BBC News Interactive forum. A New Year of politics is now underway after the earlier Prime Minister's Questions in Westminster today - now at midday rather than 3.30pm.

Tony Blair denied there's a split within his Cabinet over Iraq. His comments come the day after Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, announced the call up of more than 1,500 army reservists in readiness for possible war.

How real is the threat of a chemical attack? Has Tony Blair convinced people of the need for action against Iraq? Some of the questions I'm going to be putting from you to the BBC's Political Editor Andrew Marr who's joining us from Westminster.

Let's start with this question that gets straight to the point from Kathleen Greening, London: I am concerned at what appears to be a rift in the cabinet with Mr Hoon so forcefully attacking Mr Straw over his remarks. Is there agreement on the war strategy within the Blair government or is it split?

Andrew Marr:
There is a division, there's no doubt about that at all. It's not an easy division to analyse and it's perhaps not deep enough to be a real rift. It's not the kind of thing that's going to cause, I think, resignations in the short-term.

However, there is a division between the pro-war, pro-Pentagon faction, if you like, led by Geoff Hoon, who after all are the people preparing the military for what is likely to be a war - they still believe there's likely to be a war - and in a way they have to keep their tails up, they have to keep assuming that there's going to be a war.

On the other hand the faction led by the Foreign Office - a lot of people in the Foreign Office very worried about the longer term - their job is a different job, not to prepare the troops but to prepare the diplomatic ground, to keep closely in touch with countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all the countries around - and to think about the future of the Middle East. Will Britain have real say and influence in the Middle East in the future?

Now, as I say, it's not as deep as an old-fashioned split but there's definitely different perspectives. It's a bit like in Washington where the defence department and the Pentagon on the one side, sound more hawkish and the state department - their version of the Foreign Office - sounds a bit more dovish - the same here.

Newshost:
Tim Grana, St Albans: Is it possible, in the event the United Nations does not recommend military action against Iraq but the United States launches such military action anyway, that the UK could stay out of the conflict?

Andrew Marr:
It's possible. It is the absolute nightmare scenario for Tony Blair. What you ask is the same question that Charles Kennedy asked of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions and which Tony Blair completely refused to answer. He refused to answer it, as I say, because it could have almost catastrophic political fallout here. It would outrage not just a lot of Labour MPs but quite a few people in his own Cabinet. He would then, I think, be faced with resignation from his Cabinet. He would be faced with the likelihood of having to carry a critical vote in the House of Commons on the basis of Tory votes. I don't think the Labour Party, as a bloc, would go with him if he went against the United Nations and went without there being further evidence of Iraq breaking its obligations on weapons on mass destruction.

So three things have to happen for Tony Blair to get out of this easily. First of all the weapons inspectors have to come up with hard evidence that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligations; second the United Nations then has to authorise the use of force and third, any war then has to be relatively short, effective and not too bloody. So those are three hurdles. If any of those three things don't happen then I think Tony Blair has terrible problems inside the Labour Party.

Newshost:
Dipti in London asks: Why is our Chancellor so silent about foreign affairs and the war against Iraq?

Andrew Marr:
Gordon Brown's critics always say that when it comes to something difficult - when Tony Blair is in real trouble - you can tell because the Chancellor goes quiet, silent, disappears under the table. He would say, I think, that this is not his job. His job is to ensure that any war against Iraq or anywhere else can be paid for, can be funded, and he has got plenty on his plate with all sorts of problems over Britain's national arithmetic coming up - the economy not going as well as he'd hoped. There are all sorts of problems building up - will he have to tax more, will have to borrow more - that's what he's thinking about and not about a war.

But it is, I think, fair to say that people around Tony Blair feel that the Prime Minister could occasionally get a little bit more vocal support from his Chancellor when the going gets really rough.

Newshost:
Ian: No one I know wants war. Why, then, is there this enormous gap between what we, as people, feel and want and believe, and what Tony Blair wants and is doing?

Andrew Marr:
Easy, cynical answer - because Tony Blair is being dragged along by Washington. He's convinced himself that he has to be very close to the US administration and he's really just following Washington.

I think perhaps a more accurate and truer answer, however, is that Blair does genuinely believe that the international trade in terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is a genuine threat to Britain and that he has not convinced most people of that. Iraq seems a long way away. The very idea that Iraq of all places could be a threat to country strikes most people as bizarre.

I think Tony Blair's view of that would be that that's simply because most people are not properly educated yet into the kind of threat that he sees coming across his desk in all these secret cables from spooks and diplomats and others and that it's not simply that he is following America whatever happens but that on this occasion, he's going with America because America sees the same threat and America is right.

Newshost:
John Quinn, London: Is the terrorist threat being over-exaggerated in order to soften up public opinion for war on Iraq?

Andrew Marr:
I think every journalist in London suspects that's the case because we carry on getting bloodcurdling stories about imminent gas attacks on the underground, all sorts of al-Qaeda cells here and there and they come up just when the Government is in some difficulty in selling the idea of the war against Iraq.

It's very, very hard to say. I think probably that is too sceptical or cynical an explanation. After all, these stories, like the latest one, arise because individuals have been arrested by the police who've been carrying out surveillance and then genuine charges of terrorist activity tend to follow. It's probably the case that there is al-Qaeda and related terrorist cells working - not just in London but all around western Europe - trying to attack again. But it's also probably the case that the media are exaggerating and flaming up the threat a bit and politicians in government are perfectly happy to see that happen.

Newshost:
Mel, London: Just how ready is this country for a chemical attack? Most people I have spoken to are afraid and have no idea what to do.

Andrew Marr:
Well I just have to say, I join that club - I have no idea what to do. A chemical attack is such an outlandish thought for most of us and there has been no public preparation.

In those grim days back in the 70s when people were genuinely worried that there would be a nuclear attack from the Warsaw Pact at some stage and we had these protect and survive pamphlets and all this stuff about underground bunkers, there were at least some people who thought they knew what to do - this is very different. If you look at this latest story about ricin, now this has not, up to now, been a poison that is easy to spread around a large area or the Underground or to use as a mass attack or in a dirty bomb.

I don't think that the security services, I don't think that the Government, really knows what kind of attack might be coming next and therefore they're not able to prepare the rest of us - it's just the world we live in.

Newshost:
Abrar Khan: Does the Prime Minister accept that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are opposed to an attack on Iraq?

Andrew Marr:
I think he knows that most people are opposed to it at the moment. Tony Blair, in particular, keeps trying to distinguish what he regards as the vast majority of Muslim opinion, which is hostile to al-Qaeda, deeply upset about the September 11th attacks, moderate, mainstream - if you like, pro-western - from a tiny fringe who are genuine extremists, who are prepared to wage some kind of holy war against the West.

Now I don't suppose that the division between those two groups is quite as neat or in the proportions that the Prime Minister hopes. Nevertheless, he accepts that when it comes to Iraq he has a mountain to climb in terms of winning public opinion round. He has started the New Year, very noticeably, first of all yesterday and then again today in Prime Minister's Questions, trying to ram that message home. Tony Blair is selling the idea that there might have to be a war against Iraq very, very hard - he's quite a good salesman - but he's selling it because he knows that most people in this country - Muslims or non-Muslims - are still pretty unconvinced.

Newshost:
Paul Blount, Slough: Why can't you journalists cut through the official Government line, and get them to admit that the impending invasion of Iraq is that a "non-compliant oil state" is against the interests of the West?

Andrew Marr:
This is the most common conspiracy theory and it may be partly true - some conspiracy theories are. It's certainly the case that the Bush administration is more dominated by big oil men - people from his business background in Texas - than any administration has been in the past. Nevertheless, if you look at the history of the Iraqi crisis, there have been a series of specific problems about weapons of mass destruction, about an attempted nuclear programme, about biological and chemical weapons and about a dictator who has attacked his neighbours twice and has used chemical weapons against his own people, the Kurds, in the north.

Now you stack all of that up - I think it's very hard to then just say it's all really about oil - it may also be really about the obvious things that we are observing and have observed in Iraq for the last ten or fifteen years.

Newshost:
Vincent Murphy, Manchester: The original UN resolution calling for Iraq to disarm, also calls for all weapons of mass destruction to be removed from the Middle East. Why is the UK not seeking to enforce the full resolution, which would include Israel, and choosing only to concentrate on Iraq?

Andrew Marr:
Israel is the favoured state of the United States. Israel is in an enormously powerful diplomatic and military position because of that.

There is a very widespread perception inside the Labour Party and the Government too that the world has not treated the Palestinians and Israel even-handedly. Nevertheless, at this stage, Tony Blair - because he wants to stand with the Americans on Iraq and other issues - makes those kinds of representations mostly in private.

It was very, very interesting that yesterday, in his big speech to all of Britain's ambassadors, who've been drawn into London together for the first time ever - Mr Blair repeatedly banged on about the importance of the Middle East peace process. He was doing that because Israel has been extremely obstructive in not allowing representatives of the Palestinian side into London for a conference on the future of the Palestinian state and also because there's a widespread feeling in London that Washington has put no kind of pressure at all on Israel at this particular time.

Now Tony Blair always gives the impression that he can influence Washington to influence the Israeli government - that there is a kind of double-sided arrow of diplomatic muscle that can be applied to Israel. It has to be said, that over the last few months there is not a shred of evidence of that happening.

Newshost:
Simon Redfern, London: Is it true that the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit has been transferred from Number 10 to the aegis of the Chancellor in the Treasury? What do you make of this in terms of the PM's relationship with the Gordon Brown?

Andrew Marr:
No, its gone to the Cabinet Office. The Prime Minister's relationship with Gordon Brown is one of the great enigmas. The truth is that nobody, apart from those two men, really knows what it's like. It has got worse, I think. It was never great - it hasn't been great over the last three years or so and I think in the last year it has got worse. But they tend to deal with their real problems in deep privacy - by which I mean, not even Alistair Campbell is in the room - the door closes and they try and thrash it out between themselves. There are reports of terrible language being used and so on echoing out of those meetings from time to time - but we don't really know.

What we do know is that people around both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister radiate hostility towards the other camp. There are definitely camps and you can go down the Cabinet and divide most Ministers into one camp or the other. Gordon Brown's camp is in the minority, Tony Blair's camp is - not surprising given he's Prime Minister - a little bit bigger. But it goes on.

It's been an unhappy marriage, I think, now for four or five years. It has been difficult on both sides but somehow they have been able to stay in this political marriage and from Tony Blair's point of view, divorce would be pretty dangerous. Gordon Brown still has a reputation as a highly effective Chancellor - a safe pair of hands. If Tony Blair wants to fight a euro referendum at some point, sacking the Chancellor and having him rampaging around on the Back Benches would be a very, very strange way to start that campaign.

Newshost:
This e-mail just in from James in London: Is it at all possible that Hans Blix would hold back any information he has on Iraqi weapons until he's made his official report?

Andrew Marr:
Yes, it is possible. The official report of Hans Blix to the United Nations is a solemn and dangerous moment. Hans Blix realises that as well as anybody else - probably better than anybody else and therefore he will want to make sure that when he makes that report at the end of this month, it is as clear and full and frank a report as he can achieve.

In other words, he will resist, I suspect, any attempt to pressurise him to produce a report which just gives the go-ahead, gives the green flag for an American-led attack. But at the same time he knows that if it turns out in six months' time that the Iraqis have got chemical and biological weapons and he hasn't found them, he will be a figure of fun and worse around the world. So it's a very difficult moment for me.

Newshost:
Tim, Shrewsbury: What could happen to Tony Blair if it does not go his way and he ends up losing the war?

Andrew Marr:
In the end he could resign, I suppose. He's got an enormous parliamentary majority but if the very worst happens - I think the very worst is Britain joining America in going to war against Iraq without there being further United Nations cover with a split in the Security Council and without further evidence and then that war going badly. By which I mean, because it's inconceivable that the Americans with all their might wouldn't eventually win that war. By badly, I mean vast numbers of civilian casualties - a lot of our service people being killed as well - if that happened, I think the Labour Party would revolt - it might well split and in due course we would have a new Prime Minister.

Newshost:
Andrew Marr on that rather sombre note, thank you very much for joining us. Much as we'd like to carry on I'm afraid that's all we have time for. Thank you for watching and thank you for your questions. From me Andrew Simmons and the rest of the BBC news interactive team here all the best and goodbye.