Tony Blair's explanation on his peerage nominations doesn't add up

Tony Blair's explanation of his peerage nominations was intriguing. According to his spokesman:

The Prime Minister explained why he nominated each of the individuals and he did so as party leader in respect of the peerages reserved for party supporters as other party leaders do.

The honours were not, therefore, for public service but expressly party peerages given for party service.

The Prime Minister is right to explain that a peerage is a political office rather than a conventional honour. But he fails to comprehend that it is precisely this that made his choices so curious.

The various people he nominated for peerages in the most recent batch were deserving of honours - they were people with distinguished records in business and many charitable works to their name. Knighthoods were quite in order. One or two might even have been worthy for consideration for a cross bench peerage on a different list.

But as working Labour peers? That's quite a different matter. At least one of them was openly a Tory. None had strong party identification or records.

Usually the Prime Minister is good at selecting his argument. I think in this case he has made the situation worse.

Comments

[Peter Ordway]

This is a bigger story than Diana!! What rubbish. You will probably make it a bigger story, but may I suggest that you cast your mind back 10 years, enough said.

[Matthew Dawkins]

Of course this is a bigger story than Diana.

Peter Ordway,
Was a British Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation 10 years ago? 110 years ago? This fact alone makes it a bigger story than the (tragic) death of an individual. Even a Princess.

[B A powell Leicestershire]

Media hype.Blair is first PM interviewedbecause
1.he is first PM operating under these rules
2.He is a party leader-as was Howard,also interviewed
3.Given the complaint an interview was always inevitable as was the synthetic shock/horror of our pathetic media.

[Manjit]

It's rather funny reading how upset various lobby journalist's are that the PMOS did not tell them that the PM was being interviewed straight away. Personally I have to say the story is being blown out of all proportion, some journalists almost seem despondent that the PM was not charged.

[Ken Horton]

Diana will be remembered, despite her alleged flaws, mainly with affection, whilst Tony Blair is guaranteed to do exactly the opposite.

[Henry Percy]

I suppose life peerages are different to hereditary peerages, but the latter have traditionally been necessarily connected with property and in the gift of the sovereign who is entirely free to do as he likes in the matter.
I don't understand the fuss, because I can't see that anybody with enough assets to give serious money to a political party would particularly want a peerage. I would have thought it would be more of a handicap in today's business world than an asset.

[Ephi Levyn]

It may be true, as Manjit suggests, that some journalists almost seem despondent that the PM was not charged. Others seem more exercised in castigating the police and the Electoral Commission for attempting to do their jobs. They should not forget that the PM came to office promising a Third Way in politics, to be purer than pure. He did not add: but always read the small print.

If the PM has nothing to hide, he has nothing to be afraid of. It may well be coincidental that Downing Street asked for him to be interviewed on the day that the Stevens report into Princess Diana's death was released; that this was not just another good day to bury bad news. But disinterested journalists might reasonably be expected to pose the awkward questions rather than act as counsels for the defence.

Graham Greene asserted that disloyalty was a virtue in writers: 'Honours, even this prize-giving, State patronage, success, the praise of their fellows all tend to sap their disloyalty... Loyalty confines you to accepted opinions...'

Greene's words were spoken as he received the Shakespeare Prize by the University of Hamburg in 1969. It is clear that Greene regarded the Bard in a less favourable light than his contemporary poet Southwell, executed for opposition to the Establishment. 'Perhaps the deepest tragedy Shakespeare lived was his own: the blind eye exchanged for the coat of arms, the prudent tongue for the friendships at Court and the great house at Stratford.'

On balance, I prefer my journalists to adopt the philosophy of Greene rather than that of Shakespeare.

[phil]

once again those that can think of nothing better to do than humiliate the successful amongst us are having a field day -the ever fragrant kirsy walk on newsnight nearly swallowed her own saliva whilst finding nasty insinuations about tony blair(and no i dont vote for him,but he is my PM).what is wrong in being interviewed as a witness?surely it does not imply guilt ,and why have people like her had so long to insinuate the possibility of that ?. this country is being dragged into the depths of despair by such journalism , last night included the report about saudi and our air industry ,again only negative criticsm . does newsnight really want to see thousands of people lose their jobs when it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the rest of the world adhere to a different morality than ourselves . either we become a self sufficient island or we realise the pragmatics of living in a wider world.i despise that morality but i do understand it as do the french etc i would rather see a brit earning a living than newsnight having a ball at their expense.i dont suppose their will be an apology to the PM when he is cleared but we can only live in hope