My Nick Robinson rule

When I worked in politics, I used to number among my rules of media engagement: "Never be interviewed by Nick Robinson".

At the time, Nick was just starting his career on-screen and so the advice struck those to whom I gave it as odd. But I would explain that years of knowing Nick had demonstrated that if your argument had an inconsistency or weakness he would find it extremely quickly. I think this view is now a standard one. He is simply the best.

So I am very much looking forward to his new programme Decision Time, the first  (sorry, second) installment of which goes out tonight. It will look at the way in which governments make difficult choices.

The edition will deal with Iran and Nick previews the arguments on his blog.

It seems that Sir Malcolm Rifkind will argue that we need sticks as well as carrots to deal with the Mullahs, but would prefer the latter to the former. If I've understood him correctly from this short summary, then he is quite right. A policy of providing carrots will not work without accompanying sticks, as European policy over the last couple of decades has shown clearly.

Listen to the programme and then read this - Kenneth Pollack's very worthwhile book The Persian Puzzle

Comments

[Stuart]

Hate to be picky, but the first installment went out last week. It was an interesting discussion about how to deal with the CO2 emissions from air travel

[John Hirst]

Rules are meant to be broken. Bring him on. His mind appears to work like mine, I attack the inconsistency or weakness in the treatment of prisoners. I suspect that, although it is decision time for the Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer would decline to be interviewed. He is making a difficult choice for the government, attempting to maintain the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners, in spite of the ECtHR judgment in my case. The simple choice would be to employ the principle of universial suffrage as stated by the Court.