It's time to come clean, Mr Blair

Click here for more columns by Peter Kellner

Sometimes candour is the only sensible option. On his return from the frustrations of the Barcelona Euro-summit, Tony Blair is facing trouble on a number of fronts; and the common factor is his reluctance to make clear his real intentions on any of them. "I am a pretty straight sort of guy," he famously said in an early interview after entering Downing Street. That is not how he looks just now.

He will not say openly what his game-plan is for foxhunting, which MPs are debating today and peers tomorrow. He has not divulged in what circumstances, and with what objectives, British troops would be used against Iraq. He has allowed conflicting stories to circulate about his true feelings on workers' rights - for example, when private contractors take over the employment of public sector staff.

Now, we should not get too prissy about all this. All Prime Ministers rightly keep some things to themselves. To say too much too openly too soon is to throw away bargaining power and the chance to be flexible. Nor should he, or we, pay much heed to weekend stories that backbench Labour MPs are beginning to discuss the need to replace him as party leader. The only named sources for such speculation are Tam Dalyell and George Galloway, two maverick MPs who never took to Mr Blair or New Labour in the first place.

Even so, there is no mistaking a change in the mood. When Downing Street was being battered by accusations concerning Enron and Lakshmi Mittal, and by the feuds within Stephen Byers's press team, Labour MPs and ministers tended to huddle together for warmth. These were short-lived squalls, they said, got up by a hostile press and an opportunist opposition. Wait until the squalls subside, and Labour's fortunes would be restored.

That prediction can now be tested. Real, crunchy issues are making political news once again. Yet do ministers walk with a greater spring in their step? Do Labour backbenchers purr contentedly? Not so as you would notice. On foxhunting, Iraq and workers' rights, there are grumblings that go beyond the confines of the traditional hard Left.

In the long run, of course, Mr Blair's actions will speak for themselves. But he does not need to wait months or even weeks to quell discontent. He could do what he has so far failed to do and spell out his basic thinking on each issue.

On fox-hunting, he is believed to prefer a strict licensing system, accompanied by a ban on hare-coursing, to an outright ban. Were he to start campaigning hard for such a deal, he might be surprised at the amount of public support he would attract. A recent NOP survey for Channel Four's Powerhouse programme found a two-to-one majority in favour of banning fox-hunting; but when NOP probed further it found that only a minority of those who want a ban think it should be a priority for Parliament. The anti-hunting lobby claims to speak for the majority of the electorate; in fact the numbers for whom this is a really important, vote-switching issue are tiny.

However, Mr Blair would throw away any chance of public or party approval were he to wait until the inevitable clash between the anti-hunting Commons and pro-hunting Lords and then say that circumstances have forced his hand and made him compromise. Such a pronouncement would be 24-carat tosh. In terms of the parliamentary rules, banning foxhunting is easy. All the Government need do is publish a clear-cut bill; if the Lords vote it down, then 13 months later it can be reintroduced in the Commons and MPs have the absolute right then to vote it into law by themselves under the terms of the Parliament Act.

If foxhunting is still legal at the next election, it will not be because peers have stood in the way of a ban, but because Mr Blair has decided he does not want one. The earlier he spells out his real intentions, the better his chance of looking like an honourable democrat rather than a cynical control freak.

Likewise with Iraq. His task is to divide off the habitual anti-Americans from those who are willing to see Saddam Hussein toppled by force, but who harbour two specific doubts about what is currently planned. Doubt number one is that the military-cum-political strategy is not being properly thought through, and could make things worse, not better. Doubt number two is that, unlike the short war that overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan, Britain could end up taking part in an American-led action without the legal authority of the United Nations. Mr Blair does not need to divulge things that should properly remain secret in order to declare that Britain will abide by the principles of military prudence and international law.

Finally, on workers' rights, nobody in their right mind would accuse the Prime Minister of backsliding were he to insist that private contractors treat their workers at least as well as the public authorities they supersede. To be sure, there are details to be pinned down. Not everything can be set in granite for all time. But a clear commitment to protect the interests of people doing already low-paid jobs should not be too painful for Mr Blair to give.

Candour won't solve all of his problems. But they would give him a chance to regain the initiative on fox-hunting, Iraq and workers' rights. Not every voter, or Labour MP, will cheer his views. But they will know where he stands. As important, by levelling with us, Mr Blair can begin to dispel some of the cynicism that swirls around politics in general and, these days, him in particular. More than most politicians, the Prime Minister yearns to be trusted. A strategy of candour would allow him to rebuild his reputation for being a "pretty straight sort of guy", even with people who disagree with him.