How tricky is the Iraq inquiry for Brown/Blair?
June 24th, 2009Could a pre-election public grilling hurt Labour?
The main lead 
in the Guardian this morning is the news that both Blair and Brown are likely to face public questioning about their Iraq war role by the Chilcot inquiry.
Last week Brown announced that this would be in secret but after a wave a protests that has been changed. As the paper puts it “..the move to open up his hearings, which came on the eve of a Commons debate tomorrow on the inquiry, shows that a wholesale change of the terms has been carried out since the inquiry was established…”
It was widely reported that Tony Blair had been pressing for secrecy.
In a letter to Chilcot following a meeting with him Nick Clegg wrote: “I was pleased to see how much progress has been made from the initial position set out by the prime minister last week regarding the process of the inquiry … It was also good to hear you confirm that you will be seeking evidence from Tony Blair and others in high office at the time, and would want their evidence to be held in public except in very limited circumstances.”
The Tories have always been much more muted on the issue because their leader at the time, IDS, and most of the parliamentary party backed the war.
For the PM there are two difficulties: an apparent U-turn of the original inquiry decision which, no doubt will be highlighted at PMQs this lunchtime; and the dangers for his party if both he and Blair have to face public questions about their roles.
From the electoral perspective the 2003 Iraq invasion has, surely, declined in significance and Labour had been hoping that that many of the supporters who in 2005 switched to the LDs will return. The inquiry, particularly if Brown and Blair are summoned to be quizzed in public before the next election, could change that.
Maybe this is a reason for an earlier rather than later general election?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Probably not that tricky. Perhaps there’ll be some seemingly tough questions that we’ll get very excited about, but when the report is published it’ll turn out to be the BBC’s fault. Greg Dyke still hasn’t been punished enough.
This will narrow the window for a general Election considerably. After the Irish roll over and vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty in October, Labour/Mandelson have no further use for Brown who will be discared. Then they need to get Blair into the EU Presidency before the public enquiry. Let’s see how the piggies run….
Would it really be much worse than a bad PMQs?
No-one for whom this was an emotive issue will have their minds changed by the inquiry.
The answers won’t be under oath unless the Conservative opposition motion succeeds.
I suspect a lot of Blair’s evidence will be in secret. The political enquiries will be public but much of the intelligence enquiries will have to be secret.
Of course, Brown’s evidence certainly won’t be in secret - he merely has to justify how he funded it.
A lot depends on whether Chilcot lets Brown get away with his usual tactic of not answering the question. If he insists on answers then Brown could be in an awful lot of trouble.
As with everything else, things might be a lot worse for Brown than Blair.
Unfortunately everything I’ve heard suggests Chilcot isn’t a particularly forensic questioner. They badly need someone with fearsome cross-examination skills on the panel.
2. “They badly need someone with fearsome cross-examination skills on the panel.”
Step forward Keith Vaz.
This is going to be hugely tricky. Labour have made two gross policy disasters in their time in office: The Iraq War and tax / spend.
The Iraq War was launched on the basis of a lie. Blair wanted to support Bush and effect regime change. His objective was regime change pure and simple. But that would not fly in public opinion or in parliament as a cause for war. So he concocted a dodgy dossier and sold a pup to his party and the opposition in order to get a vote through.
Many people, like me, were OK with a war if it was clearly stated that the objective was regime change in support of a wider war on terror and with clear post-war rebuilding plans. I too was outraged when it emerged that the given reasons were lies and that no planning worth the name at all had gone into what would follow the fighting phase. The Tory support for war was predicated upon unequivocal guarantees given to IDS by Blair about Iraq’s WMD capabilities - which were simply falsehoods. I don’t blame IDS one bit for taking his party in that direction at the time.
If an unencumbered and free inquiry is allowed to take place in public it will surely force these issues out once more. Blair is at real risk. Furthermore Brown was right at the heart of it. He was part of the war cabinet, he saw the dossier, he signed off on the funding, he was not somehow magically uninvolved. A deep investigation will throw light on exactly what Brown said and did at the time. A proper investigation will reopen very deep and very painful wounds for the Labour party.
On the other hand, if there is any further attempt to limit the investigation there will be cry of ‘cover up’. It may be unfair but I suspect that any conclusion other than ‘Blair lied’ will be seen as just one more Labour whitewash. At the time of Hutton the public mood was not happy with whitewashes but could stomach them. Today, post expenses and McBride, I fear not.
This puts Labour in a lose / lose position - which is probably no more than they deserve for what they did. As the tax / spend disaster unfolds and the implication for public sector spending dawns on people it will become a double whammy, a perfect storm for Labour in the polls.
3 I fully expect Brown would lie. A significant part of the public expects him to, on that he would deliver. So yes, I think it would keep past voters away. However, timing is everything.. we do not know when either Brown or Blair would be asked to appear or in fact when an election would be called.
It will have second order impact because a large section of the media and chattering classes ( ” The West Wing people” as my Labour friend calls them ) will lap this up. Minor rekindling of any war protest groups etc. Cameron is happy for every day to end with nothing having happened. Labour ends each day on its knees praying for a game changer. All that the inquiry will do is burn air time that could have been used scrutinising cameron or talking about Green shoots raking over the coals of NuLabours Original Sin.
However surely every vote that left over Iraq has now done so. It may remind defectors why they left and do a bit for certainity to vote in the Orange and Green Columns but not much more.
There are four primary variables for politics in the next 11 months.
1. Job Losses. Its hard to see them peaking much before May 2010
2. Negative Equity. Many people I know have been stoic so far because they are still in there equity cushion. If they keep falling much more begin to see this issue move up the agenda.
3. More expenses. Remember we have the outside interest publications to come. I think we might well get a second shock wave when some of the per diem rates that MP’s get for out side work get published. Are there any MP’s who have just about survived the troughing apocalypse that will be sent under when you add Troughing + outside earnings ?
Also now that all the info is out local media can ferret away for stuff that the Telegraph missed or didn’t have space to print.
4. We are bound to have one more waive of ” Can we Kill Gordon ?” from the Labour party. A new leader bounce however short lived might stir things up. Even if not another bought of blood letting won’t do Labour any good.
5 - the 3 in front of my post wasn’t intended.
And another thing… Blair could be tainted for the EU Presidency if bad press resulted.
6 YS. Very good. You forgot debt and its implications - the argument about honesty vs lies, ‘cuts vs investments’.
4.Excellent post Patrick!
“The Iraq War was launched on the basis of a lie. Blair wanted to support Bush and effect regime change.”
Patrick, I think that this is the one fallacy in the whole story of Iraq. I don’t think that Blair was Bush’s poodle, but more a willing and eager partner who was just a bit more clever at spinning the diplomatic arguments. Like Clinton before him, Bush was being egged on by Blair to go down the military intervention route. Blair just didn’t need to persuade Bush as he did Clinton.
“Many people, like me, were OK with a war if it was clearly stated that the objective was regime change in support of a wider war on terror and with clear post-war rebuilding plans. I too was outraged when it emerged that the given reasons were lies and that no planning worth the name at all had gone into what would follow the fighting phase. The Tory support for war was predicated upon unequivocal guarantees given to IDS by Blair about Iraq’s WMD capabilities - which were simply falsehoods. I don’t blame IDS one bit for taking his party in that direction at the time.”
You echo my sentiments there. I really thought long and hard about the idea of regime change, and it was the humanitarian situation in Iraq which swung it for me. While sanctions were in place, Saddam found it difficult to rearm, but the Iraqi people suffered terrible.
And considering how long those sanctions were on the go, you have to wonder how the WMD argument ever got off the ground. And I cannot get angry at any MP who believed the word of the sitting PM and his government when seeking reassurances before casting their vote. I always thought the one thing that was sacrosanct and beyond lies or spin, and that was giving honest reasons for going to war. That is the most in unforgivable legacy that this government will leave the nation.
Just wish that IDS had sought John Major’s advice as well, what would have happened if Major had intervened in the way he did over Brown’s trip to Iraq during the Conservative Conference?
He has stated openly that he was gobsmacked when he heard the story of the 45 min warning, and waited in vein for Blair to dismiss it.
surely the biggest Labour policy disasters are the “equality” and “hate” crime laws together with mass immigration. These policies have directly hit the core Labour working class voter the most.
This leaves only the underclass, immigrants and the student politicians voting for Labour! This is why they are struggling to get 20% of the vote!
“The Tories have always been much more muted on the issue because their leader at the time, IDS, and most of the parliamentary party backed the war.”
Mike, I think you are wrong in that respect. At the end of the day, a full and open enquiry with a wide reaching remit might just exonerate their reasons for backing the government on this. We have had one enquiry after another, but none have brought closure to all those involved, and its because they have not been allowed to really delve deeply and thoroughly enough. Just look at the disgusting way the government have behaved over the individual deaths of the soldiers who died there.
On hindsight, maybe, just maybe, a new government without the baggage would have been able to set out and fulfil this? I wonder if that is the reason that Brown has finally decided to hold this enquiry at all? I don’t buy the argument that its to appease some of his own backbenchers or Labour voters.
10 Only a detailed investigation will reveal who was egging who on. FWIW I think Bush decided quite soon after 9/11 that he was going to smack some heads in the middle east. I don’t think he was being led by Blair at all. Maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t think that there can be any doubt, however, that Blair was vastly more articualte than Bush in being the spokesman for their joint strategy - and in the communications game he (with Campbell and Mandelson) played a leading role. Even Straw played an uncharacteristically good game in beating up his French counterpart at the UN (I saw that live on TV and was astonished). Blair’s key contribution to Bush was in delivering the second UN resolution.
I note from Hansard that all three of Martin’s Deputy Speakers (Haselhurst, Lord and Heal) presided over the Commons yesterday. So it seems that no adjustments have been made and hence the government majority just went up by 1.
12. “a full and open enquiry with a wide reaching remit might just exonerate their reasons for backing the government on this”
How exactly? IDS achieved the impossible by being even more gung-ho than Blair. It’s difficult to imagine any circumstances in which he and the vast majority of Tories would not have backed the invasion. There were a handful of honourable exceptions, of course - Ken Clarke, and I recall John Randall made a very fine anti-war speech in the Commons debate.
14. Yes, I was wondering about that. I trust that’s only temporary, or it’s another constitutional outrage! I do hope Labour aren’t pretending to be generous by saying they don’t want to deprive Lord of his position.
11. Under the surface, I think that such laws, and the way they’ve been implemented, have been extremely unpopular. What kept Labour afloat, until recently, was economic success. Once that went, you removed any real reason for people to vote Labour, and people remembered all the things they disliked about Labour.
17 SF. That should read ‘the appearance of economic success’. The last 12 years were a debt fueled boom that is turning into a horrible bust. It’s not just the grim prospects that upsets people but the dawning realisation that the last 12 years have been a lie too (and that the liar in chief lives in No.10).
You’ll note that my contention that there have been two big policy disasters (Iraq / debt) under this government are both driven fundamentally by Labour’s blatant lying.
Yes all politicians lie to some extent - lies of omission for the most part - and always have done. But…there were always acceptable limits and getting caught out meant resignation. Thatcher, for example, was hated by some - but she never really lied about what she was up to. She enacted her stated policies quite openly, love them or hate them.
The lasting damage this Labour rabble have made has been to base their whole governing philosophy upon a mistrust of the electorate. Blair and Brown from day one never really believed that the voters would re-elect them and behaved in permanent campaign mode. Spin, lies, Campbell, deceit, Mandelson, headlines, tactics - that was all they were about. The culture of mendacity drove their agenda. The agenda led to disaster (twice).
They deserve to lose the next GE badly for the policy disasters they have inflicted. But for the culture of lies and contempt upon which everything they do is based the Labour party deserves to be destroyed for good.
18 Up till about 2003 or so, the economic success was genuine.
19 If Labour wins 25 per cent or so of the vote next time, it’s long term viability must be in doubt.
Tuition fees - Brown
Pensions - Brown
Iraq - Blair / funded ( badly ) by Brown )
Tertiary education - ( education education education = worthless degrees )
Unchecked borrowing
Means tested benefits for most families ( family tax credits )
… oh I’ll stop there it’s too depressing.
anyone nearing retirement stuffed ..
young families stuffed
kids - paying off Labours debts ( if they can get a job )
grandkids.. well who can afford them ?
Election NOW please.
20 - they weren’t doing too badly when they stuck to the Torys spending plans.. then they went “YIPEE lets go for broke..”
23 And didn’t they just?
24 Don’t they always ?
20 As I’m not a tim type I will graciously accept that up until the end of 2002 it was OK and the agenda hadn’t delivered any big disasters (even though the culture was decidedly niffy). Before 2003 Labour was livable with.
2003 saw the second gulf war and the abandonment of all financial sense - and it has been downhill all the way from there.
The current economic crisis originated in the financial markets and has nothing to do with whether Gordon Brown was a good or bad Chancellor.
It is entirely possible Brown’s PFI or housing bubble geese might have come home to roost in the fullness of time but that is not, repeat not, what happened here.
The distinction matters for two reasons (three if you count intellectual honesty). First, no-one has a clue how to stop it happening again. Secondly, the huge tax take from the City is no longer there.
20 - Not really, Sean. The debt bubble started way back in 2001 with the unleashing of lower than necessary interest rates - lead by the US to be fair - post the dot-comm bubble bursting and 11th September.
Already by that point, the only thing that had stopped Gordon running a deficit was the telecoms licence revenue from auction.
The cat was out of the bag re Labour’s growth myth by 2002 for those who wished to look closely enough.
By 2004, the fact that Labour somehow managed to win an election the following year proves beyond doubt that the electorate have to be slapped around the head with economic failure before they recognise it. Perhaps one day - assuming someday the electorate once again become stupid enough to let Labour hold the economic levers - it won’t take a complete collapse before the electorate looks more closely and pull the plug.
26 - the tuition fees and taxation of pensions change was in the very early days .. big disasters in my eyes. I remember vividly trying to explain the pensions impact to all and sundry and no-one would listen .. even my husband who is a CA. He’s all ears these days. What made it worse for me is, Brown thought he was being clever and no-one would understand the structural change he had made and didn’t bother informing people that they would have to make extra provision if they wanted to achieve the same pension .. oh no .. lets keep that under wraps.. savings actually plummeted when Labour came to power… safety net and all that.. so everyone went on a spending spree. Well if the government can do why shouldn’t we ?
20. Why 2003?
27 - John L, there’s not a polite way to put this but you’re wrong.
Whilst you might have a point that the tipping point was not directly related to Brown, interest rates in the UK were too low as a result of incorrect measurement of inflation (cause G Brown), poor banking regulation (cause G Brown), level of overall indebtedness in the UK (encouraged by G Brown and run up by him at a governmental level) and excessive reliance on taxation income from the City (as you say and not remedied by G Brown as Chancellor).
The UK crisis was always going to happen. It was delayed and delayed from 2001 forwards by low interest rates, excessive borrowing, excessive public spending giving the illusion of growth and consumer spending based on mortgage equity withdrawal which was another illusion.
Gordon Brown was a terrible Chancellor. He has been a worse Prime Minister.
Trying to shift blame for the state of the UK economy away from him when more prudent (to use his own word) management from 2001 might have led to a small recession in 2001-3 and not left the UK dangling as it is now with three lifetimes of debt extant for most taxpayers.
sorry folks.. having a bit of a rant this morning. LOL I guess it just feels such a long wait till we get our turn at the ballot box.
Iraq: it’s about votes, not embarrassment.
Iraq turned a lot of voters off Labour. The Chilcot Inquiry will remind these voters. The LibDems could do well out of this.
Of course, one reason the Brown bounce crashed is that Number Ten decided to stir Iraq up again with visits to Iraq, victory marches, and so on.
Id @ 31. No, I’m right.
Even if you are right that he was a dire Chancellor, Brown would have led to a British recession. What we have is a global financial meltdown.
34 Brown is principally responsible for the awful state of the public finances. I accept, his policies were not the immediate cause of the current recession.
27 John L. I would agree that intellectual honesty is a good thing. So let’s examine Brown’s record and its impact.
During the boom years both the USA and UK finance ministers drove a large expansion of credit. Interest rates were pushed low. Brown even changed the inflation index to accelerate this. Mortgages were offered to those who would formerly never have qualified. Banks were allowed to offer 125% mortgages. The regulatory regimes created by Greenspan and Brown saw no systemic risk. Wall Street and the City boomed like never before and were furhter allowed to create collateralised instruments that would boost profits during a rising market but left shareholders brutally exposed if asset prices fell. Governmental exposure to systemic banking risk was either ignored or never understood.
Asset prices soared, inflation fell close to nothing and tax take, predominantly from the financial sector, rose sharply. In both countries politicians decided to go shopping - for public services. In the UK spending soared and soared again. We even ran a 3% deficit during the height of the boom. Brown said he had abolished ‘Tory boom and bust’. Governmental and personal debts reached levels never before seen.
Eventually asset prices became so detached from the fundamentals that they could rise no more. House prices started falling. That triggered debt defaults across the sector and rapidly mortgage market panic set in. Banks came under unsustainable pressure as the asset values upon which they had borrowed disappeared. Retail depositors took fright and started withdrawing cash.
In the UK, the regulatory regime had allowed some banks to fund their lending operations with very short term rolling loans. First Northern Rock found itself unable to mett liquidity calls and the run on this bank killed it. Widespread banking panic set in and major banks failed. Lehmans was allowed to go under and that destroyed shareholder confidence in the value of their banking assets. Governments everywhere were forced to bail out insolvent banks. The banking collapses destroyed credit and pushed economies everywhere into recession.
Those are pretty much the facts. A fairly normal run of the mill boom and bust - only the scale of the risk was greater this time around.
JL you contend that Brown was guilt free in all this. I contend that he:
1. Screwed the regualtory regime by removing BoE oversight of markets
2. Horribly over extended credit
3. Dishonestly altered the inflation index, exacerbating 2 above
4. Allowed unsustainable mortgage lending practices
5. Devoured the surplus in a massive spending spree leaving nothing left to fight a recession with
6. Failed to act early in the banking run to prevent NR failing
7. Allowed unsustainable funding mechanisms for UK banks to prevail
8. Never realised it was a boom and believed he had somehow found nirvana
9. Spent, spent, spent, spent, spent, spent.
The UK is now more profoundly fuc*ed than other countries because of Brown. It is true that the US failings alone would have caused recession. The UK’s additional failings made the global recession alot worse (given the key importance of the City) and have rendered us uniquely poorly placed through unsustainable levels of debt to recover.
If Brown has copied Canada we’d be having a nasty recession but no more now. As it is we’ll need at least a decade of severe austerity to get back to a position of acceptable debt. Living standards will fall quite markedly solely because of Brown.
34 - Not at all. You’re wrong. The proximate cause of the current problems - reduction in credit due to the banking system realigning - resulted at least in part from policies pursued by Brown as Chancellor.
Wrong inflation target.
Wrong interest rate as a result.
Poor banking oversight.
Each of the recessions is different in each country.
There are certain other countries - Canada springs to mind - which are not having to bail out their banks as a result of poor regulatory oversight.
For that reason, the UK is suffering more - as is the country whose lead it was following regarding deficit spending and interest rates that were too low.
It has everything to do with Gordon having been a terrible Chancellor.
31 - The current crisis was due to money supply being too high which was from interest rates being too low. The policy of following an inflation rate set up by Brown was flawed as it didnt take account of the massive deflationary effect of imports from China. Thus domestic interest rates were too low and domestic inflation, especially assets was significant.
Once the deflation from China ran its course then the only logical conclusion was interest rates rising and money supply being reduced to tame domestic inflation. End result = asset deflation.
Now they are trying to print their way back to the prior asset values but will find that money does not flow in the same way now as people know its being printed!
28. Id: The debt bubble started way back in 2001 with the unleashing of lower than necessary interest rates - lead by the US to be fair - post the dot-comm bubble bursting and 11th September.
Of course, had Brown permitted a mild recession then, the current one might not be so bad.
SBS
Last night I sent an e-mail to Sam’s wife, conveying everyone’s best wishes. Here is her reply:
Dear Augustus,
Thank you so much for your kind message. I went on politicalbetting and had a look at all the messages. They brought tears to my eyes, again. Just remembering all those evenings when I nagged Sam to get away from the PC and PB.
I am so pleased that so many people have so much good to say about Sam without ever having had the pleasure of meeting him. He is a wonderful husband, father and one of the brightest and funniest people I’ve ever met. I will tell him about the messages, although he may not be able to relate to them anymore. Luckily, his memory and speech started to be really affected only in the last 3-4 weeks.
Sam is getting weaker every day and there is no hope left, but he is in a good place, The Duchess of Kent House, [a Hospice in Reading] receiving the best care, surrounded by his family.
I will try to stay in touch and let you know how things are going. I am happy for you to pass on the information.
All the best
Elena
In case anyone asks, maybe you could refer them here for that information. It’s about 7:00AM on the Wednesday thread.
Thanks
36. And if he is to be believed he intends to carry on spending.
34 That financial crisis was incubated in London as much as in the US. Gordon Brown, who claims “I didn’t know”, stood up annually, right up to his last mansion House speech praising the bankers and financial institutions of the city for their innovative products (packaging & re-packaging debts). He was close to Greenspan, making him a knight and adviser, and modelling much of his policies on those the US was following, but with less regulation. Through tax policies he attracted the riskier operations to the UK, slapping down the Germans & French when they raised questions.
The reason others call it an Anglo-Saxon failure is that it was a failure in both UK & US. In the period leading up to the crash the expansion of sub-prime lending in UK was greater than in US (remember all those articles on the financial pages as new institutions entered the market), supplemented with 100% mortgages, huge market for second mortgages and mortgage deals.
It started after all with Northern Rock.
39 - See 31 - Exactly as I said. The putting off of the small recession was a disaster waiting to happen.
40 That’s very sad.
40. tears in eyes and lump in throat time. Gid bless Sam and his family.
40 That’s very sad. My heartfelt best wishes to Sam and Elena.
Gid = God naturally
40 Augustus, thank you. Lets hope that he is as comfortable and comforted as is possible and that his family are getting the support they need in this terrible time.
40 - Very sad news.
Indeed, best wishes to SBS and family.
‘We hoped for a scrap, but the Murphy and Swinney show was pure comedy’
Those reporters had arrived hoping, as reporters do, for a bit of a bust-up. Jim Murphy, Secretary of State for Scotland in Her Majesty’s Government, was meeting the Scottish Cabinet, a group of politicians with one aim in mind — the break-up of the Union so robustly championed by the indefatigable Mr Murphy.
… the two then went into a routine which, we hope, was not rehearsed. Mr Murphy, showing a certain lack of respect for Alex Salmond, the First Minister, ventured that Mr Swinney would make a fine leader of his party — a position occupied of course for now and the foreseeable future by Mr Salmond. Mr Swinney, laughing fit to burst and in a reference to his rather undistinguished time as SNP leader a few years ago, replied: “Oh, we tried that . . . it didn’t work.”
We hacks were missing the big picture.
What we should have been concentrating on was the undying affection which exists between Mr Murphy and his Nationalist counterparts in Edinburgh. It’s just that it would be rude to advertise it, wouldn’t it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6565537.ece
If the inquiry doesn’t come up with the “right answer”, it will be called a “whitewash” in any case. Nothing positive can come out of it for Labour.
In these tough economic times, perhaps an SNP/Labour love-in is exactly what’s needed to help beat the recession.
… Mr Murphy was asked if he liked Mr Swinney. “There’s nobody in Scotland who doesn’t like John Swinney,”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8115826.stm
I am very sorry to hear about SBS. He was a contributor of the cerebral variety. His was a distinctive voice, and a voice I always paid attention to.
40 Augustus Carp June 24th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Those words on Sam are very sad.
On the economy:
Lehman Bros was allowed to fail by the American government, not ours. Most now agree this was a mistake.
Canada’s unemployment is the highest for a decade, and rising. Canada has chucked billions of dollars at its banks. That country, however well run, has not escaped and that should be a clue this is not a local British crisis caused by Gordon Brown. Even if every single policy decision taken by Brown was wrong and would have led to a British recession, the causes of our actual, current, global financial crisis lie elsewhere.
40. Thanks for the update, Augustus.
So sad.
40. Incredibly sad, I enjoyed SBS’s contributions to the site, there’s no justice in this world I’m afraid.
Thanks Augustus - Not a good start to the day.
55. No one claimed Canada is perfect, just better off long term than we are.
55. John L.
You’re spectacularly wrong.
Yes, the US sub-prime crisis triggered our recession, but without the said crisis, some other trigger would have caused a recession this bad.
“It started in America” is intellectually dishonest.
On topic:
I note from the Commons order paper that today is an Opposition Day, with the motion being That this House, while welcoming the announcement by the Government of an Inquiry into the war in Iraq, believes that the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry should whenever possible be held in public and that the membership of the Committee should be wider and more diverse than the Government has proposed, and calls on the Government to revise its proposals for the Inquiry to meet these and other objections raised by hon. Members and to submit proposed terms of reference for it to the House on a substantive motion for full debate and scrutiny.
Is there any chance of the Government being defeated?
A bit difficult to write on the topical article after SBS words.
OGH “Could a pre-election public grilling hurt Labour?”
Depends on when. If undertaken by end of the year then maybe not much. If they delay it into the first months of 2010 then yes it could but we do not seem to have trained inquisitors asking the questions.
55 Brown was not the sole cause of the crisis for sure. He did though do his bit to make it worse. His main crime is that he spent all the money. When you’re in a financial hole of any description having some money is always helpful. We’re out. We’re screwed. If you compare the history of tax and and borrowing and spending vs what might have been if Brown had stuck to prudence it is clear that we have been shafted for an additional trillion pounds since Brown went to No.11. He pissed it up the wall. That’s a trillion reasons not to vote Labour.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that brown was the sole culprit in creating the global recession. Many, many people are saying he screwed our capacity to handle it. He never mended the roof.
Augustus. Thanks for keeping us all informed.
60 - Although of course most of our competitors will have had two recessions this decade compared to one.
And ours will be shallower.
Do the stats.
40 It is extremely sad news about Sam ( SBS ) with whom i exchanged a number of Emails . My thoughts are with him and his family .
As for PMQs today, the first six names on the order paper are:
Q1 Patrick Hall (Bedford)
Q2 Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South)
Q3 Dr Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland)
Q4 Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
Q5 Martin Salter (Reading West)
Q6 Barry Gardiner (Brent North)
Can anyone spot a trend?
Regarding Bercow, several journalists (Brogan, Waugh…) wrote about whether Bercow would tackle Brown at the first challenge yesterday on the principle of briefing media before the ministerial statement in Parliament.
No surprise to Bercow’s detractors that he let the Government off.
Where was the move to rebalance power between the Executive and Parliament? One principle down, how many more promises to be broken?
62.No doubt the original plan to have hearing in private results after 2010 was designed to remove any advers epublicity pre election so anything in public will amke things worse,particularly close to election time.
Mike mentions the Tories backed the war.Thats rather an understatement-Th eTories literlly cheered on the war and also IDS policy was to fully support a war irrespective of the UN.
r
Londonstatto, how can the first 6 all be Labour?
I too join in sending very best wishes to Elena and her family at this terrible time for them - to happen at such a young age is heart-rending.
70. TC.
I think the order paper is done by ballot, and the Speaker is supposed to call backbenchers in between them to keep the principle of alternation.
So in theory it could go Hall, Cameron, Cunningham, [*], Kumar, Clegg, Clarke, [*], Salter, [*], Gardiner, where [*] are C/LD/Oth backbenchers I guess.
Once again the 14 MPs listed to ask questions to the Prime Minister today are split oddly. 12 Labour, 2 Lib Dem and only 1 Conservative.
The only Conservative is at Number 7.
The theory is that morale on the good ship Cameron is not that happy (copyright N Palmer). It does seem odd that they cannot organise a few MPs to ask a question. Labour seem to manage to find them every week, and I cant believe Labour backbenchers are very happy at the moment.
It means Mr Speaker can pick the Conservatives he chooses - watch out for Peter Tapsell (who thinks the Speaker should be practically senile).
74. Icarus: Once again the 14 MPs listed to ask questions to the Prime Minister today are split oddly. 12 Labour, 2 Lib Dem and only 1 Conservative.
12+2+1=14: are you Gordon Brown?
70 - so 6 planted questions on new Conservative grouping in EU ? Yawn ..
73 Maybe the Tories are On Strike?
75 - make that 12. Bigger yawn.
Also interesting to note that Martin Salter (Lab, Reading West), a man not noted for speaking in the House, was, according to him, John Bercow’s campaign manager.
75 I think they get all their ‘inspiration’ from tim judging by the rubbish that was spewed in the HoC yesterday
40 - I am VERY sorry to hear the news about SBS.
He is a lovely guy and came along to one of my ward surgeries to say hello one time. If it is possible please pass on my very best wishes.
TC - not completely sure of my facts (no change there) but I thought that some documents about Brown’s statement had been given to MPs in the morning before the press were briefed. This, if true, would mean that MPs would be in a better position to question the PM.
LondonStatto @ 60 — you are spectacularly missing the point.
Yes, the US sub-prime crisis triggered our recession
Problems in the American mortgage market should have been easily — and locally — contained. That they triggered a global financial meltdown is the new factor which Brown’s critics need to address.
The trigger does not matter. If not American mortgages, perhaps it might have been our own housing bubble (for which we can blame the government) or Chinese trade imbalances or one of a hundred others.
A small problem that seemed to be confined to one part of the world, and one financial instrument, rapidly spread to all markets around the world, caused a liquidity crisis and plunged the world into recession.
That is what is new, what happened, and what needs to be addressed.
Quite how you prevent it recurring is beyond my ken, though I’m pretty sure that limiting bankers’ bonuses or Sir Fred’s pension will not help.
I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, whose early blunders include PFI, the manner if not the fact of gold sales, and the centrally-imposed targets culture, but to blame him for the current crisis fails to engage with reality. That the problem spreads far beyond our shores ought to be enough to give Brown’s critics pause.
OK, OK, 11+2+1 - Very picky - haven’t had my coffee yet.
No. It won’t be damaging - because most people are bored by Iraq and the media/activist obsession with who-did-what-when droning.
Unlike the expenses scandal it has no cut-through.
William Hill offering 4/9 on an overall Tory majority at the next GE. another license to print money!
LondonStatto tried to apologise for my arithmetic - it is early - no coffee yet etc. etc. My comment is awaiting moderation!
OK, OK, 11+2+1 - very picky - too early, no coffee yet.
Also managed to misspell my email, it is a pain having to retype every time, so goes to moderation!
74 - So its 1 in 15 rather than 1 in 14? Even more weighted against the Conservatives.
On topic, I don’t believe the Iraq enquiry is going to be significant politically. I think the final nail in Labour’s coffin will be unemployment in the public sector. That will hit the core vote very very badly.
82. John L: Problems in the American mortgage market should have been easily — and locally — contained.
It wasn’t because Clinton abolished Glass-Steagall, of course.
81 Icarus June 24th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I had not heard of that but Waugh and Brogan seemed sure that the principle had been broken.
re 73. Maybe the Tories think it’s better to focus on planted questions because there is nothing so nauseating as to see MPs comply to the whips in this way.
89. Expect a lot of ingratiating congratulations for the new Speaker from Labour benches spiked with lots of digs at the Tories.
On Mike’s topic. I have always held the position that one of the biggest failures of Parliament surrounding the Iraq War was the supine nature of the Official Opposition. The Tories’ inability to act as a proper scrutiniser of Blair’s Government was as tawdry as the massed ranks of Labour backbenchers whipped into line by their own side. Whilst the outside world had many serious questions to ask about the march to war, the House of Commons was dominated by two parties who were merely interested in not being outdone on the toughness front. The Tory retrospective claim that IDS was lied to, and if he had had the truth he would have been against the war is nonsense. Charles Kennedy was at the same meeting, and even possibly half cut, saw through that one.
Whether any of this is relevant, I do not know. But most people seem to forget the big decisions fairly quickly in this country, and unless there is a radical outcome proclaiming that the war was illegal, then it won’t really matter.
94. um - 89 was a mistake - I also need some coffee.
83 I think you’re mostly right - it will stir up forgotten resentment in those who weren’t for the war but who aren’t !!!! about it - they really are very tedious.
I am still perplexed at what Gordon thinks he’s going to get out of this - if he seriously thought that having a secret enquiry was a vote winner, he’s barking.
Perhaps as they say - the cupboard is so bare now that even recycled policies have run out.
re 90. Iraq is significant to the huge number of 2001 Labour voters who switched to the Lib Dems in 2005. The type that went on the marches.
These are voters who who have shown that they will switch who can make a difference in key seats
83 Colin re Iraq and voter apathy.
The people who care about Iraq, including an awful lot of muslim voters in many Labour-held constituencies, tend to care a very great deal.
re 95. I totally agree Paul. The Tories simply did not act as an opposition in the run up to the war. I often wonder whether things would have been different if Ken Clark had been Tory leader.
Iraq is still a massive stain on large parts of the Tory party.
98. True. What if the enquiry reveals that Brown was opposed to the war? Will that bring back some of those Labour voters who marched? Or will it enrage them still more that he didn’t speak out?
Are there any Labour seats where Respect are very active/likely to get a scalp?
I’m assuming Mr Galloway will romp home in his seat.
97 I assumed it was a price for support for his survival from one faction, maybe not a stark do this or else but inference that an Iraq inquiry would still some dissent.
94 - so a repeat of yesterday then!
95. Paul Lloyd.
What difference would it have made?
95…if the war was deemed to be illegal,what happens?
41. It’s very sad to hear of SBS’ condition and my thoughts are with him and his family. I met him at a pbc do and he’s as pleasant and thoughtful in person as his posts are on here - a valued member of the early pbc community and a top bloke too.
I’m not sure how much real effect the Iraq enquiry will have. Most people have already made up their minds on this, and in any case I rather suspect that the timetable will slip past the election.
I’d be very surprised if Blair says anything other than anodyne statements along the lines of “I’m regular sort of guy, the intelligence was ambiguous, and I just made the best judgement I could at the time.”
Brown will give us tractor stats and say it was nothing to do with him.
The Americans will be subtly blamed for everything that went wrong after the invasion - which is not unreasonable in the circumstances.
So overall it may reinforce people’s attitudes a bit, but I don’t think it will be a major new factor in shifting votes.
101 Would you believe an inquiry initiated by Gordon that found he was against it and it was all really nasty big boy Tony’s fault?
That would make Hutton look even-handed.
Gordon PR stunt = bad news day
http://lobbydog.thisisnottingham.co.uk/2009/06/vaz-and-hewitt-play-role-in-bercow.html
Meanwhile, I’ve learnt that the notorious Keith Vaz – who pops up in all sorts of newspaper stories – also played a role in Bercow’s campaign, though I’m not sure what yet.
100 Mike
That’s not fair. OK, IDS was naive, but he (like most of the rest of us) would have made the assumption that the PM’s word could be absolutely trusted.
Not a mistake any of us have made again in respect of Blair and Brown, but it would have been true for any other PM of the last couple of hundred years.
109. Would I believe it? No. Would Gordon try it? Yes he would! (I’ve already read something about Gordon’s friends trying to persuade him to have an inquiry because it will show his opposition to the war).
On topic, it’s worth having another look at the Mori chart Mike posts on the previous thread: from the beginning through to the end of Blair’s premiership, the Lib Dems run at 20% +/- a few. As soon as Blair formally announces that he’s going, in May 2007, the Lib Dems drop below 20% and don’t recover until the expenses scandal. Obviously, there are all sorts of dynamics going on and some Lib Dems will have gone Tory in that time during Cameron’s leadership but it still seems likely to me that at least much of the anti-Labour Iraq vote has gone home.
Iraq was Blair’s war. His being publicly grilled about it won’t do him many favours but is unlikely to affect Labour all that much - it’s a long time ago now and the dynamics resulting have already played out. Brown will probably have sustained more damage from the decision to hold it in private than from anything he’ll be asked there. We all know that cabinet was useless in scrutinising the decision even though Brown could have prevented Britain’s involvement in the war had he chosen to do so - he was one of a few who had the political power to prevent the deployment; Straw and IDS were the others, beyond Blair himself.
111. Except Eden.
OT question: how long does it take for a Betfair multiples bet to come through? I backed Hewitt, Tsonga and Murray yesterday. It’s still listed as a current bet though.
113. David Herdson: [Brown] was one of a few who had the political power to prevent the deployment; Straw and IDS were the others, beyond Blair himself.
There was no way politically IDS could have prevented the deployment even if he had wanted to. Blair only pretended the Parliamentary vote was binding because he knew he had it won.
41.”SBS
Last night I sent an e-mail to Sam’s wife, conveying everyone’s best wishes.”
Augustus Carp, I was hoping that someone would be able to do that on behalf of the posters here. SBS has been one of the nicest posters on this site, a real ambassador for PB.com at its best. My thoughts go out to him, Elena and their family at this time.
111
Ahem! IDS was calling for the removal of Saddam, by military action long before the, ‘dodgy dossier’ was published. At a PMQ’s prior to their publication IDS attacked TB for, ‘Being weak over the issue, and calling for maximum support for Bush2′ and was cheered to the echo by Tory MP’s.
Howard when leader, voiced some criticism of Blair, was contacted by the White House and was told, ‘Don’t bother too visit, there won’t be a welcome on the mat’ next thing he’s on the TV saying he believed in, ‘Regime change plus’ which is what he was saying in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/218970.stm
For the Tories to say, they wouldn’t have supported the US and joined in an invasion, is just laughable.
Anthony Wells dumps his economic optimism theory:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2187
Still some relationship there at the early stages - Labour went down at about the same time, recovered a bit at about the same time and so on. The relationship seems to break down entirely though from the start of this year: economic confidence has returned, but doesn’t seem to have done Labour any favours at all. It appears economic troubles dragged the government down, but there’s no sign yet of economic recovery picking them up again.
117, what about setting up an annual betting event (on Wimbledon perhaps) whereby the profits are donated in part or whole to a hospice or similar charity?
For those of you who, ‘can’t or won’t click on the link.
Mr Howard urged Western leaders to take a firm stance and criticised the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, for making “empty threats”.
“It ought to be a prime objective of western policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to be studying “extremely carefully” Iraq’s refusal to hand over the documents. “We regard this response as a bad sign,” said a Downing Street spokesman, who stressed that the UK was fully behind the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) team.
“We are monitoring the situation extremely carefully. Iraq’s already chalking up black marks,” added the spokesman.
‘Cook walks tall, acts small’
But Michael Howard insists that action is required.
“Nothing is easy in this matter but the trouble is that throughout a long time now, particularly from Robin Cook, we have had far too many empty threats,” he said.
The former home secretary also said a lack of firm action in the former Yugolsav republic of Kosovo had led to “so many people being raped and killed and driven from their homes”.
Mr Howard said Mr Cook had “walked tall and acted small”.
He stressed the danger of situation and the urgent need to address it immediately and resolutely.
“We are talking about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a rogue regime which has shown it is ready to act in the most brutal way.
“If the West is not resolute, the consequences … would be absolutely dreadful for humanity,” he said.
Howard in ‘1998′
——————————————————————————–
morning all and on thread, probably not. Does Labour have any further to fall?
Blair will no doubt refuse to answer many questions unless he is guaranteed immunity from subsequent prosecution. Brown will lie and hopefully then get caught out. Presbyterian principles my *ss.
Watched the Bercow-Bradby spat on the 10 o’clock news last night. Bercow has not made a good start. As Brown can testify, Bradby is not someone to fall out with. He is far more clever than Toenails or Boulton.
40 Augustus, such sad news about SBS. Thanks for the update I will ensure ChristinaD sees it as she was very upset about the news last night.
The Iraq War didn’t arise out of a vacuum, there was unfinished business from the Gulf War, continuous action by US & UK air forces, sanctions & sanctions busting, rumours of chemical & biological weapon developments once the inspectors were withdrawn. Add in 9/11 and a perception in US that it had to change the facts on the ground to destroy islamist fundamentalism (a friendly regime in Iraq would pressure Saudi & Iran) and the stage was set.
Blair was a declared interventionist. I doubt he took much persuading and it then became a problem of selling intervention to the electorate & the UN. IDS was of same mind - Saddam was a bad man running a dangerous regime and needed to be toppled. What Bush & Blair didn’t recognise was what else had changed since 1990. Russia under Putin was not the ally it had been under Yeltsin, China now an economic giant was no longer inward looking post Tiananmen Square, Chirac’s interests in French influence in Arab states made France opposed.
Worst still was that the Secretary of Defense confused overwhelming power with ability to change regimes - the patience with which Thatcher & Bush assembled a coalition was matched by the huge logistical planning that the US & other forces put in.
Initially it looked as though the threat would be enough - Libya gave up its atomic research and made reparations, Syria was keen to talk and I think that gave Bush and Blair added confidence in their strategy. Those who opposed the interventionist strategy that Blair, not Bush, had proclaimed in his Chicago speech, were thought to be malleable, until it was too late.
It was a failure of politics more than a failure of morals. The Liberal Democrats said that if the UN agreed a second resolution they would support the War, the argument was on basis of international legality not opposition to the case for intervention.
It was very gracious of Elena to allow Augustus to copy her response to us. Sam clearly will end his life in as dignified a manner as he conducted it. We will miss him. Such a fine mind and one who always pursued his line of debate with the greatest of clarity.
122, I agree with the ‘can they fall any further’ sentiment, but we’ve been surprised by how low they can fall before.
I also saw the interview, and Bercow, out of a not very exciting interview, decided out of the blue to make his cocktastic personality plain for all to see.
118 To be honest - I was tentatively pro-war for regime change but not for what felt like dubious WMD motives.
What appalled me was the duplicity over the reasons given when the whole dodgy dossier story broke and the complete absence of a post-invasion plan.
I remember at the time some sensible heads saying that bombing Iraq would make the hawks feel better for a few days and then what…
So sorry to hear the news about SBS. The gentle dry wit in his postings here since his illness was diagnosed have been uplifting and often highly moving.
O/T 317 From previous thread:
Interesting reply by Nick P to concerns some of us raised over the proposed new external standards body for MPs. Nick says:
My understanding, at least, is that the external body will be able to recommend penalties to Parliament for a very short list of (financial) offences.
I’m not sure that it right, based on the newspaper reports, but Nick may know better. Certainly the bill will create three new criminal offences: Knowingly providing false or misleading information in allowance claims, failing to comply with the rules on registration of interests, and breaching the rules which ban paid advocacy. (Incidentally I don’t understand why the first of these is needed, since normal fraud laws should be enough to deal with dishonest expense claims, but Labour never misses an opportunity to create unnecessary new criminal offences).
But the key point is whether the new arrangement will remain limited to matters of expenses and remuneration. The key concern is that the Bill will put the MPs’ code of conduct on a statutory footing for the first time. What will be in that code of conduct, who will have the power to change its scope, and what is to stop it gradually creeping into matters which go well beyond financial matters?
It may be that there is nothing to worry about here, but given Labour’s record I think it is wise to be cautious. Certainly the precedent of Prescott’s meddling with standards in local government is not encouraging.
Just done a YouGov poll - voting intention plus questions about public spending and the Speaker. Survey code started TEL, so guessing there’s a Telegraph poll due in the next few days.
40 Augustus. Shocking news about SBS. The words “no hope” sent a chill right through me.
SBS’s transparent decency makes it all the more difficult to rationale.
My thoughts will be with Sam, Elena and their family.
God bless.
Update from Waugh
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/06/a-notch-further-from-brown-on-the-iraq-inquiry.html
118 coldstone
Not right. Yes, IDS supported invading Iraq - but for honest reasons: regime change. Most of us would disagree with that position, but at least he was honest about it.
What swung Conservative (and indeed Labour) doubters was the WMD lie.
133, you mean you think lying at the dispatch box to trick the Commons into participating in an elective war is morally wrong? You’re such a square.
41 - What appalling news.
Puts a few things in perspective. Thanks for passing on the message.
I will say a little prayer for Sam.
As I see it there are 2 problems with Iraq War II.
Firstly Sadaam Hussein had ceased to be of use to Britain, France and the US when it effectively lost the Iran-Iraq War. His invasion of Kuwait and the refusal of Bush Snr to allow the British and US forces to remove him meant there was unfinished business.
Very few people would claim that Hussein was anything other than a very bad man who had committed genocide upon his own people and for that reason he deserved to be toppled. However he was no different from around a dozen African dictators, Mugabe, the Burmese Generals and assorted other “world leaders”. Everyone knew it was nothing to do with WMD. Those who claimed otherwise were either niaive or holding their collective noses and turning the other way.
Secondly however, Regime Change is outlawed under the UN Charter and over the past several decades at the insistence of Britain, France and the US, assorted Heads of State have been taken before the War Crimes Tribunals facing allegations of removing a rival administration by force or putting down a legitimate (i.e. democratically appointed) attempt to break away. Accordingly in the absence of the 2nd UN Mandate approving the invasion of Iraq and tacit approval for the removal of Sadaam Hussein, the actions of Blair, Bush, Cheney and co effectively put them in the same camp under international law as Milosovic, the Burmese Generals and Mugabe.
A public enquiry will suit the Tories. They can show that they were niaive in believing Blair and his dodgy dossier and had they known there were no WMD they would not have supported Blair IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES which were presented to them.
Harris/Metro poll tables:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/europe/pubs/Metro_UK_elections_final.pdf
Breakdown of the 29% others was UKIP 10, Grn 6, BNP 4, SNP 3, PC 1, Res 1, Oth 3.
Best PM: Cameron 34, Brown 13, Clegg 11.
Brown as PM: 55% “not at all satisfied”.
Confidence to run the economy (Extremely/Very/Fairly/Somewhat/not at all): Brown 3/7/13/18/59, Cameron 4/10/23/25/38, Clegg 1/4/17/31/47.
Best to represent UK to the rest of the world: Cameron 38, Brown 17, Clegg 10.
118 Coldstone.
It would seem crystal clear from what Howard said that he thought Saddam had WMD.
Perhaps the impact of the grilling may be more subtle than difficulties in defending their actions. Brown when under pressure repeats himself and looks every inch the bumbler. Blair on the other hand is more likely to present himself more calmly, and produce an unwelcome contrast for Labour. We may too hear about some of the infighting that Brown and his cronies conducted. I don’t think it will greatly influence the election date though as I can’t see any likely early window of opportunity where there is any possibility of anything other than a monumental drubbing for Brown, and unless a blip occurs I find it hard to see a GE before virtually the last possible moment in June.
137, interesting just how low Cameron’s stats are. He’s far above Brown, of course, and Clegg manages to be less popular than the worst leader since Olaf, High Chief of all the Vikings, but the figures are still low.
137. Easterross: the actions of Blair, Bush, Cheney and co effectively put them in the same camp under international law as Milosovic, the Burmese Generals and Mugabe.
Because that latter group have all tried to get UN resolutions only to be thwarted by the selfish interests of the French and the Russians.
When this inquiry was announced by Brown I thought it was yet another mistake by the PM in his quest to seize the headlines. The longer it goes on, the more it looks like a big mistake.
138. Patrick: It would seem crystal clear from what Howard said that he thought Saddam had WMD.
I always thought that even had he surrendered his WMD, the knowledge that he had possessed and used them would by human nature have eventually caused him to want to regain them as soon as the West’s attention was elsewhere.
I think this enquiry has the potential to further damage both major parties. Most of the people - I was one of them - who were bitterly opposed to the war in the beginning are still opposed to it and many believe that they have been vindicated by events. Other events have now intervened (including another unwinnable war)so that it may look as though it’s been forgotten but I don’t think it’s ever gone further away than the back burner. When all Brown’s silly posturing has been forgotten and when the pain of the recession has eased, Iraq will still be the defining failure of the New Labour project.
But because the Tories backed the war, they won’t gain much from any damage this enquiry does Labour. They can and no doubt will claim that they supported it on the basis of information given to them by Blair which later turned out to be untrue. But that argument doesn’t really wash. The marchers saw the flaws in the arguments being put forward and so, to their great credit, did the Lib. Dems. So why didn’t the Tories?
I don’t think, incidentally, that there is a cat’s chance that Blair will give evidence in public. And even if, against all the odds, the cat gets lucky, he won’t say anything on public record that differs one iota from the well-rehearsed line we’ve all heard from him a hundred times before.
So people think Clegg is better at running the economy fairly well compared to Brown?!
I couldn’t tell you a single LD economic policy right now.
110.He provided the cushions
140. Morris Dancer: interesting just how low Cameron’s stats are.
There seems to be a big block, maybe 15%, who are just in anti-politics mode, thus responding “not at all” to all satisfaction/confidence questions.
Right now they might be being scored as Others, but come the GE they’ll be with the Stay At Home party.
138 Patrick
Quite - and look at the date: 1998. Hussain did have WMD programs at that time; that’s why there were UN sanctions, and UN weapons inspectors crawling all over the country until just before the invasion of Iraq.
The policy of containment and strong action advocated by Howard and others had worked.
Indeed Hans Blix made this quite clear at the time.
143 Indeed. With the wisdom of hindsight it would seem Saddam was a muppet. If he really had no WMDs he should just have invited in a million US inspectors and laughed while they found nothing. He could have avoided his own demise. I guess dictators don’t think like that though. MAybe he did have something we still don’t know about.
More good news on the immigration front for Gordon
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195126/The-scandal-1m-failed-asylum-seeker-scheme-helped-just-family-return-home.html?ITO=1490
149 A space cannon?
145, it’s a Wednesday, so I think it’s taxes must be lower day.
147, I agree, and it will be interesting to see if this persists to the GE and maybe delivers a few surprise results, like the English Democrats gaining Doncaster’s mayoralty.
Hmmm the two Davids at loggerheads.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/5620743/Bring-back-grammar-schools-to-rescue-next-generation-says-David-Davis.html
145, hey use a bit of personal initiative and look on the Lib Dem web sites and read their literature.
151, that’s a vicious lie, or my name’s not Morris Al-Dancer!
Further to my 147, arbitrarily removing 15% from the Others and rescaling to 100% gives C 41, Lab 24, LD 19, Oth 16. That’s not an implausible pre-campaign position.
153, this is a very damaging split. I’m not sure the public will back a party that’s disunited.
154. dave (s): read their literature.
I would, but I’m allergic to bar charts.
154 It is an observation on their failure to communicate it to the general public - if a nerdy watcher like me doesn’t know what they are…
136
Just arse!!
The Tories believed it, because they ‘WANTED TO BELIEVE IT’ there is no way, no way at all, would the Tories, (in the main) have opposed supporting the US in that invasion.
I supported the invasion for one reason, to get rid of Saddam, and I didn’t care how it was done, still don’t. I didn’t need all that 45 mins/WMD guff, giving Saddam a good slapping, was good enough for me.
There comes a time, regardless of all the arguments, the pain and the suffering, and associating yourself with a moron like Bush, you’ve just gotta do it.
If Saddam Hussein really did “have something we still don’t know about,” he managed to keep it secret from his generals, his scientists — all of whom were offered major incentives, post-invasion, to ‘fess up to anything substantial — plus not to mention over a hundred thousand occupying troops.
160, you’ve just gotta lie to Parliament and take us into a needless war?
Funny how a decision taken by a Labour Government with a three-figure majority is the fault of the eeeevil Tories.
161. Yes. Very odd. I think he probably had nothing worth getting himself killed for. Why on earth didn’t he just let the yanks in to have a good old snoop about? Maybe it was just his arrogance that got him in the end.
“There comes a time, regardless of all the arguments, the pain and the suffering, and associating yourself with a moron like Bush, you’ve just gotta do it.”
How can I argue against such masochism?
162 Indeed.
162 You can’t deny that IDS had a more hawkish stance on Iraq than the govt. Just look at Hansard.
On thread - I really doubt Iraq has much resonance for many voters now, though there is a small minority for whom it will remain a touchstone issue.
119. Anthony confirms what I have said several times on here - the relationship between economic confidence and Labour support has broken down. We can’t tell at this point whether it has done so irrevocably, but there isn’t much time left for Labour, so this should be sending a chill down the spine of most of their MPs…
I still don’t really understand why Blair went through the charade of a Parliamentary vote. Without it, WMD would never have been an issue (Bush only started talking about it when Blair told him that regime change wasn’t a sufficient casus belli to carry the PLP with him).
The conservative stance on Iraq was based on the publicly available information wasn’t it? The government on the other hand knew that some of the evidence was a bit flakey.
166, you can’t deny IDS wasn’t Prime Minister, never lied to the House of Commons to trick waverers into backing an entirely elective, not defensive, war, and that he never had a three figure majority.
Just seeing Gordon Brown in the dock, being put in a position defending the government’s actions in the lead up to the war will be amusing. He cannot say he knew nothing - he was writing the cheques - and if he tries that tactic, he will surely be embarrassed as a Cabinet Minister why wasn’t he asking questions?
The Attourney General’s advice will be the most important revelation:
Q) Mr Brown are you a trained Barrister?
Brown: No
Q) Do you have any legal training?
Brown: No
Q) Were you satisfied before voting for the war, that it was legal?
Brown: Yes
Q) Did you ask to see the written advice of the Attourney General then before the fateful vote?
Brown: erm….
I think getting soldiers to publicy testify that they were not issued with the correct body armour & vehicles which gave no cover in the event of an attack, might not go down too well either…and all in the run up to the General Election…
149. Saddam needed to keep two contradictory policies running:
- He needed to convince the Western powers that he didn’t have WMD
- He needed to convince his neighbours that he did have WMD
Saddam had few friends in the region. Even Syria, with its fellow Ba’athist leadership wasn’t what you’d call an ally. To protect himself and his regime it was essential to him that Iraq’s neighbours (who knew that he certainly did have WMD in the past) didn’t know that he no longer had the capability, even if he didn’t.
By contrast, it was equally essential that the West couldn’t confirm that he did, in contravention of the UN resolutions. Hence the apparent policy of scrapping them but not telling: they were essentially useless anyway (as using them would prove to the West that they existed).
I hope we can all agree on one thing: if the the prolonged post-invasion chaos is blamed on the arrogance and ignorance of the American NeoConservative administration, overriding the military advice of experienced generals, then the inquiry won’t have been completely wasted.
171 The soldiers families will be the clinching point - it stops it from being a dry argument and will bring it home big time.
What I find nauseating is Brown claiming cheap PR stunt points by ringing Cowell/Morgan and not calling the families of the fallen or even those murdered hostages last week.
And to think Ken Bigley got a minutes silence at Anfield - they must be so hurt that their loss was barely given an inch in comparison.
171 You can’t possibly expect Brown to answer 4 questions in a row without saying ‘getting on with the job’
No green shoots here - OECD downgrades UK economic forecasts this morning which simply means the budget deficit will be worse than Treasury forecasts.
“Gross domestic product will drop 4.3 percent this year,
compared with a March forecast of a 3.7 percent contraction, the
OECD said. The economy will recover “only mildly” next year,
with the organization forecasting stagnation compared with its
previous projection of a 0.2 percent contraction.”
Meanwhile ….
Heffer in the “Daily Telegraph” calls for Speaker Bercow to be ousted immediately after the next election and a more suitable Conservative MP be selected to replace him.
So with Heffer’s track record Bercow safe then !!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/5614822/Labour-seems-bent-on-insulting-the-voters-until-the-very-end.html
162
Oh c’mon do me a favour, when have Tories ever balked at slapping Arabs, been doing it for centuries, Labour do it, ooooooh its dreadful.
Easterross’s compatriot ‘Mad Mitch’ (like all the best Scots, Surrey born-n-bred) made a career out of it, got himself elected ‘cos of it.
The British Armed forces, for two hundred years, was in the main, ‘The Royal W*G Bashers’
Well there was that infamous Brown (N) tweet that Speaker Bercow would only have a few weeks to keep the chair warm. So maybe the election will be in October.
172 This brutal dictator business. Maybe it’s not as much fun as it’s cut up to be!
176, I’m hearing unconfirmed reports that Chilcot[sp] is to be replaced as leader of the inquiry by John Bercow.
170 MD. Which makes it all the more bizarre why IDS was so hawkish !!
159. I’ll call the Beeb then, tell them Cable needs to be on more often.
178 I’m sure soldiers from all over the Commonwealth will appreciate your kind words.
178 coldstone. The British armed forces have never had the slightest problem with WIG wearers !!
178. So in summary coldie - Howard should be sent to the War crimes tribunal for “agreeing with Blair” ?
173. RBH: if the the prolonged post-invasion chaos is blamed on the arrogance and ignorance of the American NeoConservative administration, overriding the military advice of experienced generals, then the inquiry won’t have been completely wasted.
Agreed. We ended up with the worst of all worlds: an invasion without a proper plan for what to do when it succeeded (as it inevitably would).
186, obviously. Without Howard’s agreement Blair simply wouldn’t've had the confidence to declare war. In fact, some say that it was Howard who persuaded Blair to go to war, using hypnosis whilst Brown was locked in the toilets by Nicholas Soames.
So Blair’s not guilty at all. He was acting under hypnotic suggestion.
I suspect coldstone is suffering from an acute attack of ‘Big Boy made me do it’
re 95 well the Tories perhaps want ot keep quiet that they elected such a useless non-entity to lead them. If they had had the courage to elect Ken Clarke and opposed the war we would not be suffering Brown as PM at the moment.
188. Those nasty Tories !
Also if they hadn’t created growth pre 97 - Brown would never have been under pressure to continue it and then been forced into creating a debt based culture - so string Ken Clarke up too.
I believe one can find a quote from Ming Campbell at the time of Iraq in which he states that the fact they have WMDs is beyond doubt. But the real question I have is that the position of the LibDems at the time was that if the UN okayed it, then they would support the war. Why does a vote from the UN make a war right? Particularly when you consider that the UN is made up of states like Syria, Russia, China, Libya etc etc.
185
Which may explain this?
The Royal Marines group exists to ” promote the understanding of the activities of the Royal Marines. ”
Joint chairmen: Michael Fabricant
Joint chairmen: Syd Rapson
Joint vice-chairmen: John Burnett
Joint vice-chairmen: Peter Pike
Joint vice-chairmen: Claire Ward
Treasurer: John Wilkinson
Royal Marines provide occasional transport and hospitality.
Mickey Fab, Royal Marines, Yep!
It is quite amusing in a way to see the Conservatives contorted with rage at being “misled” over Iraq when it is perfectly clear from Hansard that their support was not based on the “dodgy dossier” or anything of the sort. Their argument was that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions (as he was) and that giving further chances would weaken its authority and risk a loss of momentum and resolve.
But that doesn’t make them the villain of the piece - just the comical interlude. As has been said, they were not in power at the time.
I’m not sure if this will have much effect. The war is now widely seen to have been initiated on half-truths, disinformation and outright lies - what more can the inquiry show that isn’t already known or suspected?
We know from widespread coverage and commentary at the time that Brown’s support for the war was muted to non-existant. He supported it through cabinet responsibility, but his lack of open support was a major pain in Blair’s side at the time. Hard to pin the blame onto Brown - its Blair who should be worried. Its pretty clear that he was the cheerleader for this, pushing Bush as hard as Bush pushed him. Morals and convictions are fine things - except when they lead you off to an unjust and arguably criminal enterprise.
And the war has proved not to be a party political issue the way that it could have been. There was a small protest vote towards the Lib Dems, but certainly nothing towards the Conservatives. hard to desert Labour for the Tories over the war when as widely noted IDWho was more hawkish than Blair. Was it he or Howerd who said that even now that they understand that the 45 minutes dossier was a lie that they’d have voted in favour of war anyway?
What I believe the outcome will be will be a widespread sense that the war was a terrible mistake, that the war in Afghanistan is also a mistake, and that Britain’s desire to be involved in future regional Theatre Wars will be almost non-existant. That being the case we won’t need armed forces on the same scale that we now do, and just like post-Suez we’ll cut numbers in a big way.
190 and perhaps the Labour party ought to keep quiet about the useless leader they chose two years ago?
I see - it is actually the fault of the whole Conservative Party that we went to war in Iraq!
190. I’m sure that is wrong - Labour would still have won in 2005. House prices were still rising, unemployment low.
The simple truth is Iraq didn’t annoy nearly enough people to bring the government down. For most voters it just didn’t resonate, even if it was hugely important for a small minority.
Perhaps Chilcott will strengthen Brown by ending backbenchers’ nostalgia for Blair.
161, more likely, Saddam falsely believed he had stocks of chemical weapons and was close to gaining nuclear weapons, because his generals had long told him what he wanted to hear - a common problem in dictatorships. Telling him the truth might have let him stay him power, but who in Iraq would have wanted to admit they’d been deceiving Saddam for ten years?
192. David: Why does a vote from the UN make a war right?
Always my point. Rightness is independent of legality.
UK to sink further into red than any major country, warns OECD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5621678/UK-to-sink-further-into-red-than-any-major-country-warns-OECD.html
Will we hear about this at PMQ’s I wonder?
179.ChrisA, if I was being cynical, the timing of that little twit certainly played into the hands of the Brownites.
173 - I somehow think that some of the chaos can also legitimately be laid at the feet of unholy alliance of fascist Baath adherents along with their theocratic pals in AQ in Iraq funded by Iran.
199. Saddam had a very twisted mind that had its own ideas of deterrence. He had acquired chemical weapons to fight Iran. Iran was still a threat. He needed to deter Iran but post 1991 he couldn’t risk being found with any because that would give the Americans cause to invade and kill him. So he decided to secretly destroy the chemical weapons but pretend he still had them, hoping the uncertainty would deter Iran (sanctions only hurt the people, not him). What he hadn’t banked on was the Americans making up the evidence and invading anyway.
201 I’m sure Gordon will delight in telling us that unemployment of 19.6% in Spain shows how well we are doing as our figures just reach a 12 yr high
197 Personally I think Michael Howard was unelectable as PM. If the Tories could have stomached Ken Clarke somehow they would have deprived Blair of his majority.
193 coldstone. I always suspected that Michael Fabricant had a Field Marshall’s baton in his knapsack …. together with sundry artificial follicular head coverings !!
Precisely because “the UN is made up of states like Syria, Russia, China, Libya etc etc.”, David.
If they were convinced, there would have been no moral argument against invading Iraq.
193.Coldstone, that’s a bit desperate. Is that your version of ‘go tell it to the marines’?
192. I know what you are saying, but such an argument cuts both ways. If we stick two fingers up to the UN, so can Russia and China. Either major powers obey international law of the whole system falls into disrepute.
I some respects I think the greatest damage done by the Iraq war will be seen in the future, the next time the world teeters on the brink of global conflict how will the US, or UK, form a coalition? Our credibility is shot to pieces.
206 Really? When the Tories were in complete euro disarray? Vote for Clarke?
You can’t pick Clarke for his personality and leave out the one thing that would make him deeply unpopular with a huge section of his party…
206. I doubt it. Where’s the polling evidence?
I don’t think the voters wanted Labour to lose in 2005, although they may well be repenting of that attitude now.
And actually I’m glad the Conservative lost in 2005 as they would have had to (unfairly) shoulder the blame for today’s economic mess. It was too late to have stopped it happening by then, even had it been correctly diagnosed.
The only way we might have ended up with a less serious mess than we are in is if Labour had lost in 2001 and Brown’s wildly irresponsible spending splurge had been stopped.
191, not to mention under the Tories we had too much gold. And everyone knows having too much gold is VERY dangerous. We really should be grateful to Mr. Brown for swapping it for 3 bottle caps, a shiny pebble and a shell that sounds like the sea.
201, not if Speaker Bercow can help it.
“Questions to the Prime Minister should be asked in courteous silence.”
The oecd have the uk with flat gdp for 2010, so worse than the governments projections by 1.5% and although they don’t forecast 2011 it’s quite hard to see 3.5% growth occuring. Other major european countries are a little better for growth. What really catches my eye though are the projected unemployment figures - 9.7% in 2010. Mind you Spain is projected to have 20% unemployment. All in all it’s pretty grisly.
210 Personally I’d like to see rather fewer of our troops out in theatre, and when they are - supplied with the right gear for a change.
“There seems to be a big block, maybe 15%, who are just in anti-politics mode, thus responding “not at all” to all satisfaction/confidence questions.
Right now they might be being scored as Others, but come the GE they’ll be with the Stay At Home party.”
Not necessarily, I’d put myself in that bracket (not that you would be able to tell
) and I will vote, as always. Just that my vote may stay, after the Euros, with the greens and that’s purely as a protest at the troughing in all main parties and the seeming lack of atonement (as exhibited this week).
Thanks Augustus for the update on SBS, we may just be words on a screen for most of the time but our shared passion makes anyone who posts here a traveller on the same road, even if we don’t always agree on the direction. May all our journeys end contentedly and in peace.
210 But Russia, China, Iran, North Korea - they do stick two fingers at the UN. Russia fabriacted a reason to bully Georgia (even though their stupid leaders were all but asking for it). China doesn’t exactly ask for permission do what it wants - it just quietly gets on with things.
It’s a bit like our relationship with the EU. We try to stick to the rules while others just laugh and do what they want.
Who loses? Who is the chump at the end of the day?
“And everyone knows having too much gold is VERY dangerous.”
For the sake of Shirley Eaton, get rid of our gold!!!
216: I think thats probably the case. Remove those 15% from the figures as being not-voting, and 40,25,20 becomes something like 47,29,24. Which, although overstating Lib-Dems most likely is back to almost the ‘underlying’ situation….
May I please add my name to the many who have posted about SBS
I send my best wishes to his family and friends
News like that puts all our other silly little squabbles on this site into their proper context
OECD 2010 GDP % change projections:
China 9.3, India 7.2, Brazil 4.0, Russia 3.7, Korea 3.5, Slovakia 3.1, Chile 3.0, Mexico 2.8, Turkey 2.6, Czech Rep 1.4, Australia 1.2, USA 0.9, Finland 0.8, Norway 0.8, Japan 0.7, Canada 0.7, Slovenia 0.7, New Zealand 0.6, Poland 0.6, Italy 0.4, Greece 0.3, Germany 0.2, France 0.2, Sweden 0.2, Israel 0.2, Denmark 0.1, UK 0, Austria -0.1, Switzerland -0.2, Luxembourg -0.4, Netherlands -0.4, Belgium -0.5, Portugal -0.5, Estonia -0.7, Iceland -0.8, Spain -0.9, Ireland -1.5, Hungary -2.2
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/26/2713584.xls
Iraq is an embarrassment for the Tories; it is catastrophic for Labour.
Who cares - or cared - that Labour also supported ERM membership prior to Black Wednesday? The Tories got the rap for that, and rightly. Labour will take the hit for Shock and Awe.
The inquiry will be gruesome for the government merely because it reminds people of the Iraq disaster. But it could go further than that: the public pressure for a proper reckoning will be intense. The ability of Labour to resist this is ebbing.
We may see some kind of Guilty verdict. At last.
Iraq won’t change any votes now but we should still not be allowed to forget. Those who do not learn from history…..etc. etc.
“If they were convinced, there would have been no moral argument against invading Iraq.”
So what you are saying is that LibDems can’t make up their minds whether something is right or not? Their argument was that they’d have supported the war if the UN voted for it. That’s not the same as saying the case as it stands is that war is not justified at all.
149 “If he really had no WMDs he should just have invited in a million US inspectors and laughed while they found nothing.”
More likely Saddam would have had a house call from a million Iranian troops. They were the target for his “weapons of mass destruction” programme posturing. Iran with Iraq’s oil reserves would indeed be a mighty power.
Imagine if in the middle of the Cold War, Russia had discovered that the US didn’t actually have any working nukes…
212. Don’t buy that for a minute. According to the Tories post last September Brown’s biggest mistake was a lack of regulation. According to the Tories pre-last September Brown’s biggest mistake was too much regulation.
How would further deregulating the financial sector - as loudly demanded by both Cameron and Osborne - have helped regulate the financial sector and thus allegedly avoid this disaster?
And if its all about regulation then why are countries like Spain and germany - with tight financial regulation - in a bigger mess than we are? Why are German Landers banks with their state regulation also falling over? The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that financial regulation of whatever model was not the cause of this crash.
223. Yes Paul, right on both counts.
“Youth unemployment ’set to treble’ …. a study by research institute Centre for Cities found.”
“The group estimated that 1.18 million young people will be unemployed by 2011, with almost a third out of work for longer than a year. Under 25s make up one in five of Britain’s working population but two in five of the unemployed, according to the research”
All very disturbing, already our NEET numbers are higher than 1997.
http://tinyurl.com/l8gekn
222: Ultimatly it was the government which said ‘We have the intelligence, we should go to war, do you support us?’. Even if the tories had doubts (which was probably a minority certainlly), then that is a different situation to be in that the ones in the driving seat.
Clearly the Tories made a mistake. But that would misplaced trust in the government, and in the intelligence services. But thats a very different one to the sins which Bush,Blair,Brown and Labour may have made.
Very sad to hear of SBS’s outcome. A worthy adversary for anyone who wishes to post on here. The best that pb.com can be.
Odd how we can get emotional over a person we only know from their exchanges on here. A true testimonial for the community that you have created here, Mike.
I notice that Gordon can’t cite Japan as doing worse than us again at PMQs.
And my what great economic titans are faring worse than we are. I bet on him mentioning Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium at PMQs!
221. This is also crucial. We are now seeing the first tentative signs of a double dip recession:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aad398c8-5fd6-11de-a09b-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
If the Eurozone recovery stalls - or goes into reverse - will the UK really be able to beat the trend? I doubt it, especially with our monstrous levels of debt.
Darling’s forecasts of growth for 2H2009-2010 are looking decidedly fragile. This could be a long nasty slowdown. How low will Labour’s support go, if the recession is prolonged?
Ulp.
Ian Bailey - I do not think that the unemployed will see it as an issue of regulation. More a matter of “its the economy stupid”.
NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD ****
Is Jack W an East German Swimmer ?!?!
192: I wonder how Ming Campbell could have known about the existence of WMD one way or another - surely he cannot have been briefed on Privy Council terms with false information.
201 Oracle - Hmm, strong ‘Vote Conservative to save the economy’ and ‘Osborne was right’ messages from the OECD:
The OECD warned that “public finances have deteriorated sharply” since the beginning of the recession and called on the UK to continue to develop “a strong and credible” framework for reducing the ratio of debt to output.
“To improve stability, the government should continue to develop a concrete and comprehensive plan to ensure that debt is on a declining path once recovery takes hold,” the OECD said.
The organisation said the state of the UK’s balance sheet meant the possibility of extra stimulus to the economy was curtailed.
I don’t think Labour won the 2005 election because insufficient numbers of people were opposed to the Iraq War. I think they won it because, pre-Cameron, the Tories were simply not electable. As a result there was a lot of voting for Labour as the best of a bad lot at that election.
195 Ian Bailey’s final paragraph is absolutely spot on. Taking the very long view, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are going to continue the painful lesson about our position in the world that we had to begin to learn at Suez. While Suez was washing round our ears and driving my parents to despair, yours truly was mugging up ‘The Eastern Question: War in the Balkans’ for O level history. And I grumbled about it dreadfully. ‘Why do I need to know all this stuff about about Bosnia and Montenegro?’ I argued. ‘Nobody’s ever heard of them and it was nearly a hundred years ago anyway. It’s not as though it’s going to happen again, is it?’
I now hold the view that if we knew more history, we might make fewer catastrophic foreign policy mistakes.
229 Can you imagine the fuss there would have been if the Official Opposition hadn’t supported HMG unless the case was really flakey?
Unpatriotic/undermining our place in the world blah blah wouldn’t come close to the insults that would have been thrown at them.
I see no upside for Labour holding this enquiry. It seems to be the result of some internal tussle and is being driven by Ed Balls.
Cameron lost a golden opportunity to position himself well on Iraq by blindly supporting it all.
It does worry me a bit that Cameron and team miss open goals like this, for all Blair’s faults he was a superb political strategist.
Oh look at the BBC spin on OECD report!
OECD says recession ‘near bottom’
233. Damn right its the economy stupid. And stupid is a good way to describe the Tory economic policies on offer to the growing ranks of the unemployed - “to make it easier for you we’re going to do not very much you’ll like as the longer and deeper the economy is the better for us to be able to back Labour with. BTW you will qualify for our IHT cut won’t you? No? Too bad”.
When you’re down self-preservation becomes the main factor. The Tories need to show how they are going to aid people stuck in the gutter if they want to win their votes. Yes, a lot of people will be angry with Labour finding themselves on the dole. But will they really vote for a party offereing to do nothing for them? As the economic recovery continues - and we’ll be officially out of recession by the end of the month - the Tories are going to have to explain why they opposed all the policies that have pulled us out so quickly.
241 : Ian Bailey @ 10:54
“we’ll be officially out of recession by the end of the month”
Are you sure the recession will be over by next Wednesday?
I would be very happy if that is the case, but I can see no evidence that it will be.
145.
“I couldn’t tell you a single LD economic policy right now.”
How refreshing of Plato to proclaim his ignorance in such a forthright manner. Is this to prove to us that he can’t be GideO (who doesn’t know a single Tory policy for the economy)?
“My user name is Polpunter.”
Why only one ‘l’ Mike? Your choice suggests that you make your betting judgements using pol pot luck!
1243
wage slave
even an ignoramus like me knows Plato is a “she”..:-)
241
“As the economic recovery continues - and we’ll be officially out of recession by the end of the month - the Tories are going to have to explain why they opposed all the policies that have pulled us out so quickly.”
Lets see: end of recession = one quarter’s GDP growth = +ve
Have we had that? Nope.
Absolute bullsh1t
Well we’ve had growth in April and May. Any sign that June has abruptly worsened?
I know that many of you will hate the idea that the economy isn’t a complete disaster, but sadly the facts appear to disagree with your political views
237.”I now hold the view that if we knew more history, we might make fewer catastrophic foreign policy mistakes.”
I remember being deep in middle East modern studies just after the Falklands war, and it was not rocking my boat at all. My dad warned me to take a serious interest, and he predicted that the next war we fought in would there, and all because black gold would come to dominate Foreign policy.
One question which has troubled me since the start of the Iraq war is this: How many soldiers were equiped with protective suits against the biological weapons they were expecting to face? I don’t ever remember hearing this question raised or answered. The answer would surely show if they were truly expected to face WMDs