Interview: Peter Kilfoyle

By Brian Wheeler
BBC News political reporter

"If Blair is not careful he will end up like Hitler in the last days of the Reich, moving around armies that don't exist."

Mr Kilfoyle is calling for Tony Blair's early exit

Peter Kilfoyle winces a little as he realises how his words might be interpreted.

"He'll kill me for that," he says, smiling ruefully.

The former education and defence minister is attempting to explain the strength of feeling on Labour's backbenches against Tony Blair's education and health reforms.

He believes the prime minister is unwilling to listen to the concerns of his own MPs on these issues and, as a result, he could facing a much bigger rebellion than he bargained for when they come before parliament early next year.

"I am not comparing him to a Fascist, as such", he says later, explaining the Hitler reference.

"I am talking about people reaching a tipping point, where they believe what they want to believe. They think they have more material resources at their disposal than is actually the case. In Hitler's case it was military resources. In Blair's case it is political."

'Mayhem'

Mr Kilfoyle was, at one time, one of Mr Blair's closest allies. The straight-talking Liverpool Walton MP played a key role in his campaign for the party leadership in 1994, helping to convince Labour's heartlands to take a chance on a smooth, public school educated barrister, over the more traditional Old Labour charms of John Prescott or Margaret Beckett.

But since his resignation as defence minister in 2000, Mr Kilfoyle has become one of Mr Blair's most vocal backbench critics.

He voted against the Iraq war and last month was among 49 Labour rebels who helped inflict the first defeat of Mr Blair's premiership over the 90 day detention of terror suspects.

This is not a numbers game - this is about the heart and soul of the Labour Party Peter Kilfoyle

He was angered by the way Mr Blair appeared to deliberately pick a fight with Labour MPs after home secretary Charles Clarke offered a compromise on the issue.

But, he warns, the 90 day rebellion will be nothing compared to the one potentially facing Mr Blair when he tries to get his education reforms through the Commons. Particularly if, as seems likely, he has to rely on the votes of Conservative MPs.

"If he chooses to go that way I think it will have a cataclysmic effect on the party in the country and the parliamentary party," warns Mr Kilfoyle.

"He [Mr Blair] will argue this is in the national interest, but what it will do is cause mayhem in the Labour Party. The party has been losing members hand over fist. It is virtually inactive in many parts of the country."

Unlike terror detention or Iraq, education is "at the core of what the Labour Party is about", he argues.

'Pig in a poke'

"You meddle with them at your peril. It doesn't mean you don't have change, you don't have reform," but many of the reforms ushered in by the Blair government, particularly those involving private finance, "don't add up".

Mr Kilfoyle is proud of the fact that he led Labour opposition to the extension of grant maintained schools in the dying days of John Major's government.

"Now I find that is one of the things that is being brought forward," he says ruefully.

Mr Mandelson's involvement was kept from Mr Blair's campaign team

The government insists its reforms do not mean the return of grant maintained schools. They have ruled out academic selection and argue that giving schools independent 'trust status' will give parents more control and help less well-off children by driving up standards.

Mr Kilfoyle believes the proposals will discriminate against working class children, whose parents might be less able to work the system, as well as immigrant families without English as a first language and children with special needs.

But surely the education proposals, along with other potential flashpoints he identifies, such as ID cards and health service reforms, were set out in detail in Labour's general election manifesto - the document that has just helped the party secure an historic third term?

The manifesto was a "pig in a poke," he argues. Labour MPs did not get a chance to see it before they were adopted as candidates.

'Orderly transition'

He calls Mr Blair a "hubristic leader", who "thinks because he has got the support of the Tories the numbers stack up".

"This is not a numbers game. This is about the heart and soul of the Labour Party," he argues.

He believes his old friend should step down at the earliest opportunity (although he is not in favour of a "coronation" of Gordon Brown without a contest).

"I would like to see an orderly transition as soon as possible.

"It could be done very easily. It could be planned ahead. It could be done in a very orderly fashion at the annual conference 2006. That's what I'd like to see. Whether it will come to pass or not, who knows."

Mr Kilfoyle is not alone among Labour MPs in wishing for an "orderly transition" to a new leader or in warning the prime minister of the consequences of relying on Tory votes to secure his education reforms.

Reading MP Martin Salter last week resigned his junior government role in protest at the aggressive way the proposals are being sold to MPs, reportedly comparing one meeting to the "Nuremberg Rally".

Campaign regret?

So could a bust-up with backbench MPs over education really lead to Mr Blair's early departure from Number 10 early next year?

"We know he is going to go, but whether this will precipitate enough of a rebellion to make his position untenable I just do not know," says Mr Kilfoyle.

He urges the prime minister to proceed "slowly and cautiously".

"I learned many years ago on the streets of Liverpool, never pick a fight you can't win. If he is going to pick a fight on education, I would urge him not to. He may win the vote but he will lose that war with his own party."

He seems at a loss to explain Mr Blair's apparent appetite for confrontation with his own MPs ("I don't know where he gets it from").

Does he regret campaigning for him in 1994?

"There was a lot of good there and there have been a lot of achievements but it's when people start to believe their own publicity. They believe they can achieve things by an expression of their wishes or a demonstration of their will.

"On most policies you still need a consensus to take things forward."

Mo Mowlam

Mr Blair brought a "freshness and vigour to what had been a rather jaded Labour Party" and he was a more attractive prospect than the other candidates.

"We knew we had to win the centre ground but my mistake was I didn't realise there was a different agenda to the one I was interested in."

We didn't know he was involved. How would we know? He wasn't at any campaign meetings. He just was nowhere to be seen. He was off the map at that time Peter Kilfoyle, on Peter Mandelson's secret role in Tony Blair's Labour leadership campaign

It was not until after the 1997 general election that the true nature of the Blair project became apparent, he argues.

"I certainly knew before the general election I was unhappy with the direction and I thought, because I was very friendly with Tony, if people like me don't hang in there and try, at least try, and change some of these things. Persuade. Put a different voice forward, the road to perdition will be ever faster.

"But then I came to the conclusion that, actually, it was beyond redemption. They fundamentally believed in different things.

"If you put the whole package together, the whole style along with the actual policies, it was extremely right wing. It didn't accord with our values."

And there is one aspect of the 1994 leadership campaign that clearly still rankles.

"Mo [Mowlam] and I both agreed on one thing - we would have nothing to do with it if [Peter] Mandelson was involved."

Mr Kilfoyle claims the first time he realised Mr Mandelson, key architect of New Labour and bogey figure for the left of the party, had been advising behind the scenes was when Mr Blair made a cryptic reference to "Bobby" - his codename for Mr Mandelson - in his victory speech.

"We didn't know he was involved. How would we know? He wasn't at any campaign meetings. He just was nowhere to be seen. He was off the map at that time."