This blog has been a bit quiet of late: we realise. In part it’s because I’ve had (probably) swine flu and have been in bed since Monday.

It’s also because Alex and I have been more or less off-diary for a fortnight to take a long look at Tony Blair’s multiple interests since leaving office – with the help of half a dozen colleagues.

Here is the fruit of our labours: “Inside Blair Inc”.

During the Tory party conference I went to watch the Tories’ controversial new allies – Michal Kaminski and Robert Zile – at a gathering. Afterwards I wrote a fairly neutral piece. Why? Because I didn’t know enough about Polish or Latvian politics to start repeating Labour-generated smears about certain MEPs: not without any first-hand proof*.

Afterwards, a Labour MP wrote to me to complain that I’d been too soft on Kaminski, leader of Poland’s “Law and Justice” party (and chair of the new rightwing alliance in Brussels which includes the Tories).

The email – helpfully cc’d to my editor – said Kaminski had been in the junior wing of a hard-right party when he was a teenager.

“Imagine the row if Labour MEPs were told to serve under some hard-leftist who had made odious remarks about Jews. We would be slaughtered,” the MP said.

“Double standards now seem to apply and I think FT conference coverage should state who Kaminski is, not relegate his presence as just another fringe speaker as seems to be case in today’s paper.”

It was thus fascinating for me to wake up this morning to an interview on the Today programme with Poland’s chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich.

(Schudrich’s supposed criticism of Kaminski, in the New Statesman, has formed part of the “case” against him in the media)

This morning Schudrich did indeed condemn Kaminski for - as a teenager – belonging to the far-right National Revival of Poland party (NOP).

But he then went on to say that Kaminski had over many years proved himself an anti-anti-Semite who had staunchly defended Israel on multiple occasions. He added for good measure that the Law and Justice party is seen as a mainstream rightwing party within Poland.

The chief rabbi’s comments (they were crystal clear and without caveat) will up the pressure on David Miliband, who has spoken out against the Tories’ new European allies in the strongest of terms.

* The Latvian question is equally divisive, as I pointed out on this blog.

A first-time voter next-year would have been just five when Labour won its landslide election in 1997. Imagine trying to explain the public excitement as Tony Blair was elected to office after two decades of Tory government.

Reading John O’Farrell’s “Things Can Only Get Better” brings back those expectations which could never – in truth – be met.

O’Farrell was a Labour activist. But even so:

“The vast majority of the crowd were now total converts to his (Blair’s) mission and those that were not still stretched their arms out as if to say, ‘ please touch me leader, and cure me of this Old Labour cynicism.’

“I would have liked to live that event ten times over.”

“With the dawn sun shining on the Houses of Parliament, the new gold paint glistening and reflecting in the Thames, it really did look like a completely different place. It was ours. I wouldn’t have been surprised if a giant rainbow had sprung out of the top of Big Ben and spinkled fairy dust as it formed a giant shimmering arc…..the British people had finally come good.”

“It already felt like a bright optimistic new country.”

The strange thing is – and I was a non-voting 22-year old at the time – there was a genuine sense of excitement in the air. If not quite to the extent that O’Farrell suggests. It is perhaps to Cameron’s advantage that he won’t suffer the same over-expectations.

The fact that the UK has seen six successive quarters of negative growth – meaning we are still in recession – is bad news for the prime minister. Not least because he claimed, only last month, that Britain was likely to return to growth by now. The implication was that his Pre-Budget Report would not quite so grim. Unfortunately he was wrong:

September 24, FT:

Gordon Brown appeared to override his chancellor yesterday as he suggested that Britain could return to growth in the third quarter of this year – months earlier than expected.

The prime minister broke the Treasury’s long-standing formula on the prospects for the economy, suggesting on BBC radio that “some economic growth” could be announced at the pre-Budget report (PBR).

This report is expected just after the publication of the third-quarter economic figures in late October. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, has been sticking to the Budget forecast that he hoped to see some growth by the end of the year.

Mr Brown’s comments came as Fitch, the credit ratings agency, indicated that Britain would put its top-notch credit rating under threat if Mr Darling did not announce further spending cuts or tax increases in the PBR.

Fitch said that since forecasts for growth in 2010 and beyond were improving, nations with triple A credit ratings should strengthen their plans to reduce budget deficits and provide greater detail on how those plans would be achieved.

While the prime minister hopes that any growth figures will show that his fiscal stimulus policies are working, the Fitch report indicated that any such announcement would come with a sting in the tail.

It said that “with growth forecasts for 2010 being revised upwards, and deflation fears easing, in Fitch’s opinion sovereigns should consider strengthening medium-term consolidation plans . . . and detail how this is to be achieved”.

MPs go home early for Christmas - but will they come back early?

Gordon Brown evades straightforward rugby question

UK economy shrinks

Gillian Tett asks if there is a return of irrational exuberance in financial markets

I agree with Kelvin McKenzie’s argument that the appearance of the gruesome Griffin on Question Time was not the BBC’s fault: blame the people who voted for the BNP.

But I have misgivings about the potential impact of the programme (watched by 8m people, about triple the usual). Firstly there is a danger that some viewers will be left with the impression of one man defending his views against the shrill “liberal elite” and a mostly hostile crowd.

Secondly, where were the positive arguments in favour of migration; the net economic benefits that immigrants have brought to the UK and – just as importantly – the benefits to our culture? Too may times it seemed that the other panellists were so keen to engage with potential BNP voters (ie “we share your fears, honest”) that they weren’t on the front foot

UPDATE

I have a lot of sympathy with Tom Harris‘s view that we should have just ignored the “event”. Would it have got so many viewers without excitable newspaper coverage?

I was a bit confused last Tuesday to be told I was wrong after writing there would be a meeting between the Tory backbenchers and Labour backbenchers over the Legg report. Especially given that the tip had come from some usually solid sources.

I’ve since learned that Tony Lloyd, chair of the PLP, was indeed urged at that meeting to hold a joint gathering with the 1922 Committee and he did agree to consider the demands. Unfortunately, by the afternoon – once the news had reached the Labour hierarchy – he was asked to kill off the idea.

Apparently senior whips told MPs afterwards that it had been a good idea…until it leaked to the media…

The Legg investigation starts to unravel

William Hague tells ambassadors to stay out of the campaign for Blair EU presidency

Sarkozy apparently among those not backing Blair