TONY Blair wants to engage us all in a 'Big Conversation' and the scoffers are at it already.

This is fairly typical of cynics these days, all too ready to sniff and snipe. The trouble is, it's so damn easy.

So let's give Tony's 'large chat' a chance. Do not rush to dismiss this latest political wheeze by going for the obvious abbreviation, turning the Big Conversation into a Big Con. I'll put my inky fingers up and admit that such a truncation popped into my mind straight away.

This was alarming because for the first time in my life I had thought like a knee-jerking Conservative. This will clearly have to stop immediately.

So what is the point of this latest New Labour exercise in democracy/boring the pants off the voters? Oh, look, it's happening again. That old cynicism keeps staining through.

Mr Blair's words on launching his public debate deserve repeating, although not at length or else we'll be at it until the sports pages. He does go on so. Buried within the reams of material was one telling section, in which Mr Blair said: "The reason I call it a conversation is that I don't believe, contrary to popular myth, that I or the Government know it all, or have all the answers. We are as fallible as any other group..."

This admission of imperfection was welcome. The popular myth Tony Blair referred to is strong, not least because the prime minister himself can sometimes give off an aura of know-it-all certainty, a righteous unwillingness to bend.

So a pliable Tony is an improvement. If he wants to listen and to learn, that is surely good. The trouble is, politicians only want to listen when matters aren't going their way. The political listening ear is either needy or after something.

If Mr Blair truly isn't engaged in another public relations exercise, his eagerness to listen is encouraging. As the saying goes, it's good to talk. And wise sometimes to listen. But what, wonders the old cynical voice, squeaking away in agitation, does Mr Blair hope to get out of the exercise?

The most likely answer is that the Prime Minister will use this listen-and-talk show as an excuse to smile, put up his hands and say: "Well, what would you do?" He has tough decisions to take and his Big Conversation is one way of pointing out his dilemmas. He is saying: this is a painful job, share the burden with me.

This is fair enough up to a point, and has the benefit also of flushing out the Conservatives, who will be forced to say what they believe in nowadays.

Yet never forget that Tony Blair seems to enjoy confrontation, especially with his own party, picking potentially destructive issues - tuition fees, foundation hospitals - for a good old fight. He may be willing to listen but will he hear anything that's said?

There is another sort of Big Conversation that some voters will be having with themselves. This one has been conducted in my head for a while now. It goes something like this...

"Who on earth can I vote for at the next election? The Tories are out for a start. Some things are just beyond imagination. So no Tories, for ever and a day, please. That leaves the Liberal Democrats and Not-So-New Labour.

"The Lib Dems are a possibility certainly, but will a vote for Charles Kennedy's crew end up helping the Tories? And besides, what exactly do the Lib Dems stand for?

"So that leaves Labour. A social democratic party, so that's good. A party that says it wants to create a fairer society underpinned by public services, which is good. Yet why do they have to find all their ideas at the bottom of one of Mrs Thatcher's old bins?

"And look, I've not even got round to mentioning the totally infuriating David Blunkett, who seems determined to be the most reactionary Home Secretary in decades (including all those old Tory terrors), with his inflammatory remarks about immigration and an unfortunate taste for macho posturing.

"So what's a poor, liberally-minded voter to do?"

This internal Big Conversation is likely to continue for a while yet, I fear.

Updated: 11:29 Thursday, December 04, 2003