Iraq, Iraq, Iraq: an educated guess would say that heckler had a point

Hecklers choose their moments. It was after a few words of waffle during Tony Blair's speech to an invited audience in north London on Thursday that one gatecrasher evidently decided that enough was enough. The prime ministerial speech largely focused on his rather vague plans for secondary schools and his more detailed proposals for university funding. On the whole, it was a meaty speech, but at one point he declared: "We have reached a critical stage in our reform journey. We must continue on our journey." Why is it a critical stage? What precisely is the journey? A heckler stood up at this point and shouted about the possible war against Iraq.

From the reports it was not entirely clear what the heckler was saying beyond the obvious point that he was against the war. But the precise words do not matter. The moment was emblematic. The Prime Minister was talking about his journey in domestic policy. The heckler was too worked-up over Iraq to be exhilarated or provoked by the controversial policies for schools and universities. It was emblematic because Mr Blair's domestic ambitions have become intertwined with the war. More than ever before he is placing his personal stamp on domestic policies. Similarly, Britain's unswerving support for the US in the build-up to war has been driven, shaped and determined by the Prime Minister personally. On Iraq, there are several ministers sitting around the Cabinet table who share some of the heckler's doubts, although they do not express them in quite the same way.

Briefly – and I promise it will be for a single paragraph – we must return to the foggy hypotheticals that surround the route to war. If Mr Blair is vindicated by events – a short war resulting in the removal of Saddam, the implosion of the Iraqi regime because of the threat of war – his chances of realising his aspirations, as far as they are clearly defined, on the domestic agenda are hugely enhanced. If not, there are formidable internal opponents coalescing around his domestic policies. If they detect weakness in his personal authority because of Iraq they will be much more inclined to strike.

On the domestic front, parts of Mr Blair's vision are still far from clear. Much of his speech last week centred on the future of secondary schools. Some of it was well argued and ambitious, including proposals to allow well-run schools to take over others that are badly led. I would go further and pay the most talented heads and teachers "David Beckham-like" salaries to improve the schools in poorer areas. But there is an important qualification. Some of the "best-performing" schools achieve higher standards simply by selecting the brighter and more motivated kids. Many of them have dull, old-fashioned teachers, but they "succeed" because of their intake. So what does Mr Blair mean by the following section of his speech?

"Why shouldn't parents choose from a range of schools: from specialist schools to the new city academies, to faith schools, to sixth form colleges? Across secondary education we want to eliminate the unreasonable barriers to high-performing schools expanding the places they offer."

Here is the problem: so far it is often the specialist schools who "choose" the parents rather than the other way around. And if the "high-performing" schools are given the "freedom" to select more kids the only result will be that the other schools in the area will sink further. Intake of pupils determines the quality of a school more than any other factor. Whenever I raise this with some of the ministers involved I am told that I have got it all wrong, that the aim is about raising the standards of all schools, that they will all be "equally specialist". We shall have to wait and see whether some do not become more "specialist" than others.

In his speech Mr Blair was much clearer on university funding. He was speaking the day after Charles Clarke had published his White Paper on the subject, a paper that has provoked a range of responses and the formation of curious alliances. The reform of public services is becoming the issue in which politics is proving to be unpredictably fluid. Fluid politics are potentially dangerous politics for Mr Blair.

Top-up fees are supported by some Blairites and several Tory MPs who warmly congratulated Mr Clarke when he made his statement in the Commons. The proposals are opposed by Gordon Brown and some Cabinet ministers, but Mr Brown is not seeking an old Labour solution. For him the universities should commit themselves to more wide-ranging reforms, including raising money from the private sector, before the Government announces a policy that guarantees additional funding until the end of the decade. In the longer term he is a qualified advocate of a graduate tax. Contrary to reports, the Chancellor is wary of an access regulator, a proposal that was inherited by Charles Clarke from his predecessor, Estelle Morris, and one that Mr Clarke decided to retain after discussions with Mr Blair.

On some policies recently the Chancellor has found common agreement with the likes of the former health secretary Frank Dobson. For example, both are opposed to foundation hospitals. But Mr Dobson's position on the funding of universities differs slightly from Mr Brown's. He argues that any spending increases should come out of general taxation. That is also the view of the Liberal Democrats' Shirley Williams, who has ruled herself out of the unofficial contest to replace Roy Jenkins as chancellor of Oxford University in protest at top-up fees.

By implication at least, the Dobson/Williams position is supported by some Conservative MPs, several of whom criticised Mr Clarke and suggested there was no need for top-up fees or a graduate tax. It seems the Tories continue to follow more or less the William Hague strategy of proposing big public spending cuts while supporting increases in public spending.

Mr Clarke remains confident that he will be able to sell the package to a Labour Party that is more restless now than it has been for a decade. He and his team of ministers – one of the more formidable ministerial teams – will be heading for the campuses and the regions of England to put their case. Mr Blair plans to join them at a campus or two.

For once, though, Mr Blair's persuasive powers will not on their own be a significant factor. More pivotal is what happens in Iraq, as the heckler implied. The Prime Minister's domestic aspirations are high: reviving public services and possibly even joining the euro. Whether he succeeds depends as much on President Bush, Jaques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein as anyone running the Government in Britain.