Hazel Blears: Telling it like it is

The tiny but perfectly formed figure of Hazel Blears has collapsed into giggles. I have just suggested that her department's new "£1bn housing market rescue plan" brings to mind the words "pissing" and "wind".

"I perhaps wouldn't have put it so graphically" says the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 52, when she recovers her composure. "I think that's probably a male way of putting it. Because women do it differently – we do, trust me on that."

Well, it is very easy to trust Hazel Blears: she is one of the small minority of politicians whom it is impossible to imagine saying anything she doesn't believe to be true.

Related articles

• Brown's stock rises as voters endorse handling of crisis
• Plan B: Truce is signalled, but Miliband (and Johnson) wait in the wings
• Gerald Kaufman: It could be worse. The schoolboys could be in charge
• Alan Watkins: It's the South Sea Bubble all over again
• Brian Brady: PM bats away underarm deliveries at Q&A session
• Joan Smith: Labour's women have gone where the men dared not
• Leading article: Hang on in there, Mr Brown
• Search the news archive for more stories

Or, as she puts it early in our conversation: "I personally think that you can't run government by pretending that your world is the right world and that the people out there are somehow saying something that's not true."

In other words, if the public is saying something you don't like, you shouldn't try to pretend that they don't know what they're talking about?

"Usually if the public are telling you something, they're right. And you should trust them. The most dangerous place for politicians to be is in denial and frightened of the public."

And what is the best place to be?

"I think that the original formulation of New Labour, which was for a vibrant, thriving economy in order to enable us to do the social things that we want – it's not gone away, it's not going away, and it's where we need to stay. That's where people vote. I personally am one of the few cabinet ministers who come from a very working-class background – a traditional Salford two-up, two-down terrace house. Mum and dad left school at 14; and I know that the old stateist system didn't work for the people I come from."

Blears's attack on those within Labour urging a jettisoning of the entire Blairite agenda – at a time when turbulence in the financial world lends plausibility to their rejection of the market economy – is heartfelt. But does she seriously think that some sort of return to the policies of "Old" Labour is likely?

"I wouldn't say so. But there are quite loud voices saying that because we're unpopular we must shift back to those halcyon days. Well, I can't remember those and I've been in the Labour Party 30 years. I don't remember this squeeze the rich, anti-business agenda ever being hugely popular."

But isn't it understandable that some Labour Party members should wish to shore up their core vote, as their opinion poll results head south?

"Cores are very small. Cores are not big enough. Yes, you need a bit of a core as a politician; you need values, and mine are very strong. But some of those siren voices would actually retreat into a very narrow and to some extent intolerant place ... I reject it because I think it's a simplistic, easy, lazy way of looking at life today. And it's out of date. And it's not coming back."

New Labour, of course, was not the sole property of Tony Blair. Gordon Brown was at the centre of its creation. But I was intrigued to know how Hazel Blears saw the differences in the two Prime Ministers' style of cabinet government.

"To be honest, Cabinet is more inclusive than it was under Tony; you all get your say, you last longer, and there is a bit more to and fro."

Too much?

"I don't think it goes on too long. But I like to talk. As anybody will tell you" – and Hazel Blears dissolves in self-mocking laughter again.

There have been countless reports from within the Government that the main difference between Blair and Brown is that the latter is much less decisive – a ditherer, in fact – and that this is causing great concern to those whose jobs are to keep the administration from becoming dysfunctional.

"Yes, I think that quick but rigorous decision-making is hugely important – I do. You have got to decide and you can't agonise. If people are telling you, Dominic, that the Government is dysfunctional on the basis of their tiny perspective... well, there may well be concerns that people have got. I do think that making decisions quickly and executing them is essential to good government, and I've learnt that over the past 10 years."

Complaints from within government apart, what are the people on the doorstep in Salford, Blears's constituency, saying about Brown?

"It divides into two lots at the moment. Some people are saying that he's a decent man, we're sick of all these attacks, pulling someone apart, we don't like it. But then there are concerns from people: do they really know him? I think there is a responsibility to try and connect more with people... If you're not careful, people think you're out of touch and you don't understand them, and I think that's a very bad place for politicians to be."

Isn't David Cameron proving very successful at demonstrating to the public that he, at least, is in touch?

"Some of the polling I've seen recently says that Cameron is likeable, and that's the most often-used word about him – but also inexperienced. When people think about Gordon, it might be that he's a bit serious and dour – but experienced... People make their political decisions not just rationally, but emotionally as well, and I think that our government needs to be more emotionally intelligent, and the bit that Cameron has got is a language...

I couldn't resist interrupting: "No one has ever accused Gordon Brown of having a high emotional intelligence, have they?"

Blears emitted a little sigh. "No. Quite. But the ultimate irony is that you could – and I'm not being a class warrior here – get people with a very narrow background, which is privileged, actually looking like they've got more empathy with ordinary working people than people like me and Alan Johnson, people who absolutely share their experience; it's a challenge to us – not to parade our working-class credentials, because I'm never into that – but actually to get people saying, look, you're like my mum and dad, you're like my sister, my brother."

Like Sarah Palin in the US?

"Yes... but there are strange things going on where odd people end up looking as if they're more egalitarian and they're not. I genuinely do not think that this Tory party suddenly has converted to a more egalitarian society. But it's a challenge to us – and I said this to the Prime Minister, I think every minister should spend the next 12 months out with the community, not just making grand overarching plans."

I remarked that perhaps the sense of being out of touch is the curse of any government that has been in power for too long; is it realistic to expect people to have so much residual affection for Labour that it will be elected for a fourth successive term?

"Yes, it's a real struggle to say to people, you've had us for 12 years, have us for another few years... but equally, I'm always amazed why we have Tory governments in this country, because the vast majority of people are not rich, they're in that block of the population who broadly share the values that I have, which is wanting to do well for themselves but at the same time being quite caring and wanting to look after the people."

Tories can actually be caring too, I suggested. This caused Hazel Blears almost to fall off the sofa with mirth.

"Hmm ... I'm sure you're right, I'm sure you're right – because I'm a nice inclusive person. But neither am I going to say that some of my best friends are Tories – because they're not."

But if things carry on as they are, the party for which Hazel Blears has such a visceral dislike will become the Government. On the other hand, a general election can be deferred until May 2010 – plenty of time, one would have thought, for Labour, if it wishes, to establish another leader. So I asked Blears: is it your position that Gordon Brown remains the only person who can lead the country at this time?

"My position is that, at a time of economic global turbulence, I think that the Labour Party needs to get on with the job of trying to protect ordinary people as they go about their lives." You will observe that Blears chose not to answer a simple question with the simple answer: yes.

In 1990, the Conservative Party ditched Margaret Thatcher – at the depths of unpopularity over the poll tax, rather as Gordon Brown's reputation was cratered by his removal of the 10p tax rate – and replaced her with John Major. Result: in 1992 the Conservatives managed to win a fourth successive term. Wasn't that devastating for Labour – and isn't that a trick that Labour in turn would like to turn on the Tories?

"I was a candidate in a marginal seat in that election. I lost it by 500 votes after being a candidate for three years. It was pretty devastating, yes." So there you are – that's how it's done!

"Political cycles might repeat themselves" – Blears laughed as she said this – "but I don't think history necessarily repeats itself in an identical fashion."

Maybe not, but hadn't a number of Labour MPs over the past few days – including a minister – called for an election for a new leader of the party? What does Blears feel about them?

"They are people who have been my friends. They are still my friends. They are people who have been part of our Labour government – and have worked incredibly hard."

And care as much about Labour's best interests as you do?

"They are just as passionate as I am. And they don't just care about Labour. They care about their communities. And they are very close to their communities. So I feel very sad that they have put themselves in this position."

Did they talk to you before taking their decision?

"No, they didn't. I had no idea."

But you wouldn't criticise them?

"No, I wouldn't".

I pointed out that all those who have called for nomination papers for a leadership election appear to have something else in common. Joan Ryan, Siobhain McDonagh, Janet Anderson, Jim Dowd, George Howarth, Barry Gardiner – all voted for Hazel Blears in last year's deputy leadership election.

"I don't think you should make anything of it, really."

But these are people who believe in you, Hazel. That's the point.

"Yes... and they are people who want to see us do well."

But you're their candidate.

Blears's face at this point seemed to be turning almost as bright a shade of red as her hair: "In the deputy leadership election I had lots of support from lots of people across the whole range of the party. I even had John Spellar at some point."

I pressed on: Hazel, you're everything these people who are calling for change believe the Labour party needs at the top.

Hazel Blears's characteristically expressive countenance became suffused with a remarkable combination of pleasure and discomfiture.

"I, I, I... they've made their position. I'm sure that they've gone through agony to get to where they are. But I genuinely think at the moment that if we have a big bloodbath in the Labour Party... I would rather we didn't get into that sort of internecine warfare. And if the party can find another way through and face its challenges, then I think it will be in a better place."

As I said, Hazel Blears is one of those rare politicians who find it almost physically impossible to dissemble. Perhaps this is why she is able to remain so cheerful at such a difficult time: unlike some of her colleagues she is not burdened by the constant strain of denial. Telling it like it is makes life so much easier.