Mr Howard worries much less about having coherent policies of his own. In theory Mr Howard should support the free movement of labour within the EU He and his party have been strong advocates of enlargement. Now the EU is getting larger Mr Howard rails against the consequences. Similarly the Conservative leader is an enthusiast for the free movement of capital. Now he is calling for severe restrictions on the free movement of labour. The Conservative leader is astute at recognising areas where Mr Blair is vulnerable or, to be more precise, feels vulnerable. The Prime Minister was more concerned about reassuring voters than changing greatly the original policy.Not for the first time Mr Blair has been thrown off course by the media To a lesser extent Mr Howard had also raised the stakes.

Mr Howard gave him several opportunities, but he would not do so.Ever since, Mr Blunkett has been in discussions with the Prime Minister, putting the case for the government’s original well-researched policy. In doing so Mr Blunkett has demonstrated that he is a more rounded figure than his caricature of an authoritarian populist suggests. But he chooses his issues carefully and on this one he knew that Mr Blair’s instincts were the same as his. On two separate occasions Mr Blair made no clear distinction between the potential abuse of benefits and the fears of Britain being deluged by unwanted labour. Even so Mr Blunkett was confident about the beneficial impact on the labour market of Britain’s more liberal policy and assumed that was the view in Downing Street as well.This was until earlier this month when Michael Howard, echoing the hysterical reports in some newspapers, raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions Time.

The Foreign Office was alarmed in particular when the normally liberal Sweden announced tough restrictions. Some alarm bells began to ring in Whitehall when other countries announced fairly rigid restrictions on migrant workers. When the policy was agreed more than two years ago Downing Street and the Foreign Office were united in their enthusiasm, partly for diplomatic reasons. So often lagging behind in the EU, Britain would be a shining example to others in the enlarged EU. Meanwhile Mr Blunkett had researched into the economic implications and concluded that they would be positive rather than a threat and that, anyway, only a few thousand immigrants were expected.It is worth stressing that this is broadly still the government’s position, but the presentational emphasis has changed. Much of the legislation has been symbolic: “Look we are responding to this story .. oh, and that story as well”. Mr Blunkett is normally so alert to Downing Street’s neuroses that he has learnt to announce an initiative in some policy or other on most days of the week.

But on this occasion he was not ready with a response or initiative of any kind.This is because Mr Blair had shown every sign of being fully in favour of the original “open door” policy for migrant workers. If Mr Blunkett had his doubts about such a strategy (which he does not) as Home Secretary he would not have much room for manoeuvre. Downing Street is in constant frenetic dialogue with the Home Office, more so than any other government departmentIt is one of the reasons why there have been so many asylum bills in this parliament and the last. Normally he is fully in tune with the Downing Street strategic approach to immigration and asylum policies: under no circumstances must the government be seen as a soft touch. In particular Mr Blair and Mr Blunkett’s heavy-handed presentational response to recent media hysteria underlines the degree to which this is a government that remains neurotically fearful of its own hold on office.Over this issue even Mr Blunkett was caught by surprise. Fine, if this is aimed at establishing a gold standard to be extended to other women But that is not what Ms Wolf implies. Ms Wolf finishes her piece by saying that if a Yale undergraduate came to her today having suffered the same encroachment, she would have to “with a heavy heart, advise that young woman, for her own protection, to get a good lawyer.”Even now, Ms Wolf would have been better off taking her own advice, than limiting her discussion of sexual harassment to such a narrow arena.