Has Cameron upset Rupert over the Iraq debate?
November 1st, 2006
-
Is this why the Times and the Sun are carrying similar editorials?
Probably the biggest risk that Cameron’s Tories took by voting against the Government in the Iraq debate was not the predictable charges of opportunism from the Labour benches but that he might have upset Rupert Murdoch whose News International corporation owns large parts of the media including the Times and the Sun.
-
For although the Telegraph under its news editor might be coming more on side the new Tory leader has precious few friends in the national press. Upsetting the owner of the Times and the Sun could be a big risk.
And, surprise surprise, both these papers carry very similar editorials this morning both making the same point. It is almost as though they were inspired by the same person.
This is what the Sun says: “THE Tory Party voted for war in Iraq. New leader David Cameron says he still agrees. So why is he backing ramshackle Scots and Welsh Nats in demanding an inquiry? Our troops have got a fight on their hands. They don’t need a morale-sapping probe into why they are there.Tony Blair has paid dearly for his courageous decision to support America in toppling Saddam Hussein. It may be tempting for the Opposition to twist the knife. It is a temptation they must resist.”
The Times editorial is, of course, much longer but it is biting in its criticism of the Tory leader.
“..The issue that confronted MPs three years ago was the principle of overthrowing the Iraqi dictatorship. Most Tory MPs assented and backed the Government..So what on earth was Mr Cameron doing yesterday standing shoulder to shoulder with such bizarre allies? The same Mr Cameron who at the Conservative Party conference a month ago affirmed his stance that “when the Government is right, we will support it”? The Mr Cameron who, in his several previous opportunities to make a statement on Iraq, saw no need to ask for any inquiry on any timescale? The Mr Cameron who seeks to be seen to have the qualities of a prime minister? The simple, shameful truth of the debate yesterday is that it was driven by spectacularly shallow opportunism…”
There is a long way to go before the next General Election and Rupert likes to back winners. But David Cameron might have to pay a price for yesterday.
Mike Smithson
-
Politicalbetting.com - at least 25,000 words of political news, comment and opinion seven days a week. Join Britain’s biggest political discussion.
MessageSpace Advertising
I’ve said it before, but the Opposition’s job is to oppose. We need to seek every opportunity to bring down this dreadful Government.
David Cameron is a canny operator, though, and he realises how influential News International can be. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him take the opportunity in the next few weeks to follow up with a more hardline approach on Europe (perhaps naking good the pledge to leave the EPP or expelling those MEPs who recently voted for the Euro?) which would enamour him to Murdoch and give us the high ground vis-a-vis the Europhile Blair/Brown axis.
“..The issue that confronted MPs three years ago was the principle of overthrowing the Iraqi dictatorship.”
No it wasn’t, the issue was weapons of mass destruction. There were none. We were deceived.
1 - Expelling MEPs who were following party instructions?
Having sat through the whole debate, the pitiful and threadbare arguments of the Government in defence of their policy were striking - especially Margaret Beckett’s speech. As for News International, their “traitor” label and slavish neo conservative toadying are badly out of touch with the instincts and common sense of their readership. The irony is that the Iraq debacle has actually weakened the liberal, democratic case from Morrocco across to Indonesia and that is a tragedy for Blair, the UK and the world.
The last time a Conservative Leader faced down insolent media barons - Stanley Baldwin in 1930 - he emerged utterly triumphant, and that at a time when the dead tree press had incomparably more influence than today.
The Iraq war is now massively unpopular, Murdoch personally is almost the perfect depiction for such an attack (arrogant, foreign, US located, slavishly pro Bush). Far from seeking to kow-tow this plutocrat, my instinct is that there would be considerable sympathy and support both within and outwith the Conservative Party for his bluntly denouncing the antics, threats, prejudices, and manipulative ambitions of the Murdoch empire. And contrast this with Blair, for whom the only answer when ordered to jump by the dirty digger, is a pitiful ‘how high’.
Stewart: I love the way that your website is carefully constructed to make finding out your party affiliation practically impossble
Agree with 4, btw.
1. Eleanor. You’ve swallowed the News International pill. Murdoch is known to be the EU’s power broker in Britain (Lance Price confirmed this). He has to keep onside with the EU Competition Commissioner or they will dismantle his football and TV privileges. As it is, as long as he plays EU-friendly in terms of keeping europhiles like Blair in power, eurosceptics like IDS and Thatcher out, his papers will maintain a guise of euroscepticism to cover up what they are really up to.
Murdoch is now backing Gordon Brown, which is a clear indicator that Brown is europhile, and has done deals with the EU to push through a programme on their behalf. It is thought possible by some he will go for PR, as only through FPTO could an independent minded conservative party win power. No coalition government would ever escape rule by brussels.
Murdoch’s problem with Cameron is nothing about Iraq. Cameron has refused to do deals with the media, and is going his own way with webcameron and so on. Gordon Brown does not look like a strong suit, so Murdoch’s getting desperate to get Cameron onside. He’s trying a bit of stick, no doubt to be followed by carrot. But Cameron is his own man. Murdoch’s worried.
The irony about criticising calls for an inquiry, with a subtext of “anti-Americanism” is that America is having inquiries all over the place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1936287,00.html
“The simple, shameful truth of the debate yesterday is that it was driven by spectacularly shallow opportunism…”
The recently adopted Tory ppc locally was publicly-described by the local paper editor as “the most shameless politica opportunist I have ever encountered (in many, many years).” The said ppc is not on the ‘A’ list. Perhaps there is a secret Tory ‘O’ list for opportunists who mirror their leader?
No sane person could deny that in any race to reverse-navigate the gastric tract of George Bush, Prim Minister (saints preserve us!) David Chamereon would out-sprint Tony Blair any day.
George Walden, writing in today’s Mail says: “I am convinced that (Cameron) will win the next election. No wonder so many people want to emigrate!”
Can we get rid of this “Anti-Americanism” labelling, please, when talking about criticism of the ‘Dear Leader’ and the ‘Even Dearer Lleader in Waiting’? It is George W Bush who the people of America increasingly think of as being ‘Anti-American’. We should know the precise extent of tier feeling a week today.
Although I have been a Labour party member of more than 20 years I cheer for Cameron for taking on Murdoch. For too long my party has bent over backwards to be accommodating to Murdoch and it has not been a pretty sight to see Blair, and, sadly, Brown acting as though they were at the media magnate’s beck and call. Duncan Smith and Howard both supported the war and look where it got them. On this issue I think that Murdoch is not in tune with his readership.
6 - Robert.
My website is about my work as the MP for Peterborough - representing all the people in my constituency, irrespective of party affiliation.
It is also taxpayer funded, so is not allowed to be party political.
That does not preclude me being proud to be a Conservative. Check out:
http://www.peterboroughconservatives.com
Well said, Stewart. A heartening post on a chilly morning.
10. Very true. Most presidents having served 6 years lose most of their influence as their ability to make things happen dries up; GWB’s may well drop off the scale if he loses both Houses.
On Murdoch: his influence is significantly over rated when there are big issues playing. People know what they think on it and don’t need editorials to tell them (how many people read editorials anyway?). Many Sun readers will know people serving in the forces themselves. John O is quite right; Cameron should tell Murdoch that he can win with or without him (whether or not that will prove to be true no-one yet knows, but it’s at least credible)and that he has no intention of changing his policy to suit the media, or certain parts of it. Done publicly, that in itself will make a nice contrast with Labour and should go down well with the voters.
Mike’s excellent article draws attention to an increasingly awkward dilemma for the Conservative Party and its supporters. How do they capitalise on widespread anti-war sentiment without opposing the current Government’s atlanticist policies?
The natural policy consequence of a thoroughgoing opposition to the war, the post-war maladministration and the atlanticist policies which associated the Government with both, would be closer alliance with Europe and the EU. That would be unpopular - and not just with conservatives.
Interesting piece in the Telegraph on the Deputy Leadership contest. Blairites obviously fear the momentum behind Jon Cruddas:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/01/nlab01.xml
Apparently No. 10 feels Hilary Benn has limited support and want to back David Miliband instead. I almost feel sorry for them.
11 Murdoch doesn’t give a fig for his readership. Murdoch sees himself as a power broker who can manoevre public opinion to where the powerful wish it to be. He acts as the glue that fixes deals between the EU and Blair, the EU and Brown…or on behalf of Bush. If you want the labour Party free of Murdoch, you should elect McDonnell as leader. That would provide some entertainment. A Murdoch free Cameron against a Murdoch free Labourer. I think that this is something in common between all parties now - to be sick of the influence of Murdoch on British life. Cameron was the first to step outside the corruption system. Maybe Labour will soon follow. But it will have to be McDonnell.
14. David, I agree with you that the influence of Murdoch and the press generally tends to be overestimated. If it were so influential, the Labour Party would not have been elected as often as it has been. However, it would be imprudent of DC to pick an unnecessary fight with the Dirty Digger.
As I implied in my previous post, DC is extremely unlikely to take Conservative Party policy very far away from the kind of atlanticism which both main parties have followed for a long while now.
Foreigners should not be able to buy influence politics in the UK.
Clearly Murdoch’s ownership of Times Sun, Sky etc is a clear case. Legislation is needed. Meanwhile, boycott Murdoch’s Propaganda.
Richard Littlejohn left the Sun and Sky because he was gagged by Murdoch.
Any newspaper that reports as one foreigner directs is not reading. Sky tv is rubbish anyway.
14 David - Good point. Why appease Murdoch any longer.
Conservatives need to call his bluff. Socialists find the courage to wade in also.
18. Peter, I agree that it’s unlikely that he’ll do it, but I still think that it wouldn’t harm his cause (it won’t improve his coverage in the News International press, but enough people get their news from elsewhere to offset that when combined with the boost he’d get). It would certainly be well received in large parts of the Conservative Party who might have some sympathy for Murdoch’s politics but don’t like his perceived influence or the fact that he’s backed Labour for the last decade.
21. You may be right, David. It is however one thing to dissociate yourself from Murdoch but quite another to disassociate yourself from the White House and its foreign policies.
Surely few Conservatives would want to go that far?
19/20 Postman Roger. Strange, I don’t recall Conservatives being too worried about “Digger” when the Sun et al were blasting Labour from morn to dusk in the 80s and early 90s !!
The fact is that this was a grubby piece of opportunism by the Tories that forced even some Conservative MPs to abstain. But then opposition is sometimes about getting down and dirty in the political gutter. You just have to pick your timing a little more credibly than this though.
15. Peter - think back to Labour over Maastricht. They supported it but voted against in the Commons on the flimsy pretext of the social chapter opt out. They did it to cause crisis and divsion within the Tories, and it was very successful. The same strategy is being used by the Tories now to try to reinforce the growing perception among the public that the government is losing its way and losing its authority. This is good politics.
As for Murdoch, I was entertained by the conspiracy theories earlier in the thread but we all know in the end he backs winners, not policy stances.
If anyone is interested the Scotsman has the first in a series of monthly polls from ICM leading up to the may elections.
They predict the following:
Labour - 41 seats
SNP - 37 seats
Lib Dems - 25 seats
Tories - 17 seats.
Not sure about the Greens & SSP though.
I still think it’s more likely Murdoch will back Brown, but it does depend on the polls ahead of the next election.
As I understand it some at The Sun and News International can’t stick Cameron, for reasons I believe go back to Dave’s days at Carlton.
No sign of the Cameron effect in Scotland then?
Here is a poll in today’s Scotsman, so the trend is continuing.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1615112006
Vital gains forecast for SNP in swing from Labour
but still 6 months to go
22. Conservative governments have successfully carried out foreign policy independent of the White House in the past and hopefully will do so again in the future. In fact this very willingness to act independently probably increases influence rather than reduces it as the White House can’t take No 10 for granted. Even so, British interests are similar to American ones and there would be no need to allow minor disagreements to undermine the relationship which has survived much bigger crises in the past. Besides, GWB will be out of the White House by the next election and is unlikely to produce a successor from inside.
7 - “Murdoch is known to be the EU’s power broker in Britain…Murdoch is now backing Gordon Brown, which is a clear indicator that Brown is europhile”…pause for hysterical laughter. It’s the way you tell them, Tapestry.
Leaving aside the debate on the merits of an inquiry, which we chewed over in previous threads, a problem about Eleanor’s view that “the job of an Opposition is to oppose” is that it is one of the things Cameron has repeatedly said he wouldn’t do. On the contrary, he’s claimed that where they agree with the Government, they will support it. The reason there were significant Tory abstentions yesterday is that the front bench was asking them to vote for the Nationalist proposal that the Tories agreed with the Government was a bad idea, on the ostensible grounds that it might force the Government to do something else. It was transparent nonsense and the Times isn’t alone in noticing.
25 – Having just had a quick look at the print version the Greens would be on 5 seats and others would be on 4.
29. I am sorry David but I think that is extraordinarily naive.
A ‘foreign policy independent of the White House’ would involve a radical realignment of our international alliances. The political and economic consequences would be enormous. They would almost inevitably involve a much closer relationship with the EU and greater dependence on our European allies.
Such a shift doesn’t appear to be on anybody’s agenda.
i thought yesterday showed once again that Hague’s political judgement is not the best. he makes good, funny and sometimes powerful speeches, but his political nous is poor. it’s one of the reasons he was crushed in the 2001 election.
31 Max. Do the “Scotsman” give the sample size?
Couldn’t see it Jack. The missing vote shares are Tories – 14% and 14%. Lib Dems 15% and 17 or 18% (although I’m not a 100% sure of that because the vote shares are shown in graphical form so I could be a pint or two out).
I’ll get a better look at lunch time and let you know!
35 - Sorry point rather than pint!
30: nick palmer mp is absolutley right - this was the most shamefull exhibit of blantant opportunism by any political party that I can recall - the tories should hand there heads in shame!!
i heard nick palmer on the radio and his remarks in the house were inteligent thoughtfull and supperb - an mp of principal in stark contrast to the tories and theie gruby point scoring….
this is a turning point for cameron and the tories :- the sun have seen through them the times have seen through them and so will the british public and will send them back to the gutter and irrelevanve of british politicals they deserve to be!
camerons’ flip-flopping is nothing short of a disgrace - contrast his actions with that of tony blair who has now liberated many countrys from tyrannies bondage!!!!!
Murdoch is on the wrong side of this debate. I expect his tone to cause him more problems than anyone else.
I also agree with much of what Stewart Jackson says at 4 which will no doubt shock many
Cameron has called this right, it’s not opportunist to speak up for the majority of public opinion (unless, according to Labour, in doing so you embarrass the Government) the sad but true fact is that we have a consitutional loohole that allowed one man (Tony Blair) to make a promise to George Bush that committed this country to war.
He promised that we would send troops in regardless of the fact that the British public would only support a war to remove Saddams weapons of mass destruction whereas in America they were happy to go in on the basis of regime change.
The inconvenient fact that there weren’t any WMD’s in Iraq has given rise to what is in my view the biggest scandal in British politics since Suez. Since the Prime Minister failed to have the decency to resign over it we must have an enquiry to ensure this can never happen again.
For spineless Labour MP’s not to have backed such a call, in the full knowledge that 70 or 80% of their consituents want one is proof positive that they don’t deserve their seats.
However the good news for DC is that the Telegraph is slowly becoming more friendly.
35- SSP at 4%, Solidarity at 1%
Marcus - a number of your own MPs didn’t even have the ’spine’ to turn up. Any thoughts on that?
37. ‘Tyrannies bondage’ sounds like something from an early modern text, complete with non-standard word order. Accident? or is the hand of a genuine scholar behind the entertaining ‘Brian Dead’ posts?
29 David, I would like to continue our interesting little debate but I have to go now.
Hope to catch up with you later.
P.
42. No Conservatives supported the Government in defeating the call for an enquiry.
41 - Andrea - I’m quite surprised the SSP are polling as well as that. Depending on how the votes are dispersed I could see them maybe retaining a couple of MSP’s.
Max fascinating poll. 51% supporting independence! Also although the SNP are ahead of Labour on the first vote, the even spread of their vote means they are still just the second party in terms of seats. Also due to the excellent performance of the LDs the Lab/LD coalition would still have a majority. The Tories are actually down on their dismal performance last time. Annabel Goldie is a pleasant enough woman but we desperately need a more effective leader.
35 Max. Pint sounds better.
…. many thanks Max.
39 Marcus. MPs are not delegates or sheep (Well most anyway) and we don’t run our Parliament on the basis of opinion polls.
I didn’t agree with the Iraq war but this squalid attempt to pluck an inquiry from thin air at this time is nothing more than parliamentary opportunism. Wait until the armed forces are home and then have a judicial inquiry if thought necessary.
Were the Tory MPs who abstained “spineless” too ?
where were the tories who didn’t vote with cameron and hague? are they spineless too?
Nick Palmer There were 12 rebel Labour members in the vote, so your majority was slashed to 25 because of ’significant’ Tory abstentions? Interesting arithmetic.
The reality is that you had a worryingly high abstention rate yourself despite the intense whipping.
Jack W This was not, as you put it “squalid attempt to pluck an inquiry from thin air”.
You said “Wait until the armed forces are home and then have a judicial inquiry if thought necessary” and I would be inclined to agree with you but the Government were yesterday refusing point blank to promise an enquiry at any time.
As William Hague has said since Des Brownes ‘unfortunate’ slip of the tongue - had the Government agreed to hold one at a future date the Conservatives would have been satisfied.
I am not criticisng any MP’s who abstained, Labour or Conservative. I am angry with Labour MP’s who filed through the voting lobby in blind obedience of the party whip to crush a legitimate call for an enquiry that the knew full well is what their electors demand and the country needs.
When MP’s put ‘Party’ ahead of ‘Country’ and ‘Constituents’ they know they are on the slippery slope.
It’s just a shame for the new Labour spinners and neo-con stooges in the Murdoch press that the bumbling Des Browne later managed to promise us an inquiry ‘when the time is right’, which the ‘opportunistic’ Tories were asking for all along. Oh dear…
is that Brian or Brain dead
19 / 20 - suspect Postman Roger is trolling here, but I’ll rise to it anyway. As far as I’m concerned, Murdoch can think and publish whatever views he likes. What are we to do - allow foreigners to come here as long as they don’t express an opinion? Any legislation of this sort would be entirely unworkable.
Anyway, I don’t buy the conspiracy theories on this one. Murdoch has his views, but what matters to him most is what will sell newspapers, and his editorial positions reflect this. He is no different in this to the owners of the Guradian, the Mirror, etc. - just better at it. I’m quite confident that if Murdoch decides that Sun readers are inclining towards the Conservatives at the next election the Sun will come out and declare for the Conservatives.
It isn’t the Sun wot won it, it’s Sun readers wot won it. And the views of the Sun merely reflect this.
Anyway - would rate last night as a draw. The debate was largely irrelevant - interesting, but won’t be remembered. Labour whips managed to garner enough votes to keep them ahead, only for a rather tired Des Browne to accidentally head into his own goal at the end of the night.
53. It’s Mr I. Rony
51. We have absolutely no idea of how long British forces will be in Iraq for, but almost certainly it will be for longer than any of those directly involved in the war remain in office. It’s already three and a half years; troops remain in Afghanistan getting on for five years after the action there started and with no immediate prospect of withdrawal.
If we work on the basis that we have to wait until the action is over in entirety before investigating the early stages, we could be waiting for years yet. How then can lessons be applied, either to Iraq itself or to anything else that might happen in the meantime?
47 – Blue moon I think we’ll do marginally better than the poll suggests and probably pick up around 20 seats including two or three constituencies. It’s a hard one to call though as a couple of %age either way on the list vote can make a huge difference.
55 ?
48. Ah Jack W, as usual you ride to the defence of the ’squalid’ Nu Labour government whenever it is on the ropes. What an admirable sense of fair play you have, must be the ‘breeding’.
58. Oh come on ! Brian is a regular poster btw - usually very sharp.
The sniping from Labour & Tories here about abstentions & opportunism simply highlights the principled stand by Plaid/SNP & the LDs.
Hardly surprising the SNP are doing so well!
Plaid/SNP must be looking forward to next Summer — the albatross of Bliar is still in place and the Iraq War is endlessly festering.
30 - well said Nick P (for once). The Tories were pretty pathetic in jumping on the anti-war bandwagon last night - as they were at the Dunfermline by-election. It didn’t work then and I can’t imagine it will work now.
I wonder how the neo-con pro war supporters like Rik Willis feel after the spineless knee jerk opportunism of the Tories last night?
Interesting poll from Scotland which continues to show just how irrelevant the Tories are north of the border and how.
Tories -1, Lib Dems +8, Nat +10, Labour -9, others (I assume) -8.
Good results for Lib Dems and Nats.
Slightly OT here, but weren’t there rumours that Osama had been captured/killed and the news was prevented from being released until right before the US elections?
Or is this just complete tosh?
All those Tories who are now moaning about Murdoch, are they the same Tories who cheered him on in the eighties. When ‘tits and Toryism’ was perfectly acceptable. When the Sun indulged in character assasination against anyone they considered to be on the ‘left’. When it was the ‘Sun what won it’. When senior Conservative politicians went down to Wapping and sat with Murdoch and Mackenzie to plan their election strategy. When Mrs Thatcher gave a kinghtood the the Sun editor Larry the Lamb in grateful thanks, is it that Murdoch we’re talking about. Quote of the year, tapestry 7 ‘Murdoch is worried about Cameron’: OH yeah!
I haven’t seen much of him before but in that diatribe his arguement had the characteristics of a six formers debate.
63. Tosh
65. Stuart, he is a spoof poster dear boy.
66 - Ah okay, I remeber reading about it a few weeks back and just remembered it. Oh well, the GOP only has 6 days to pull something out the hat.
Now back on topic…
67. Oh explains a lot then thought he was, along with Linguini as well I take it.
51 Marcus. “Blind obedience” to the party is part of the DNA of our parliamentary system and would not and has not been any different during Conservative administrations.
59 PM. I’m extremely critical of a whole range of NuLab policies, not least the Iraq debacle but I know a political rat when I see one and this Conservative ploy had large rodent written all over it !! …. so three cheers for the Tory abstainers who couldn’t swallow this Roland Rat of a policy body swerve.
70. “‘Blind obedience’ to the party is part of the DNA of our parliamentary system and would not and has not been any different during Conservative administrations” - and would be even worse under PR when MPs would be even more reliant on party backing to get elected.
For MPs to become more independent is only possible if they have a stronger local base. For most this is not possible and they are utterly reliant on their party badge to get themselves elected. This is not necessarily a bad thing - the only alternatives that seem to work in practice are the American and French models: total seperation of government and parliament, something quite alien to Britain.
71 David. I didn’t mention PR .. but FWIW I favour AMS but with primaries beforehand !
71. But something that was not alien under the mixed monarchy we had until the early eighteenth century. The executive was vested in the Crown, with the monarch able to choose ministers from anywhere (although they were often members of the House of Lords). Parliament scrutinised the executive but did not also provide it. The US has preserved much of the old English system - substituting the President for the monarch of course - and retains the advantages of that system as a result.
73 Are you suggesting (at least the equivalent of) an elected head of state (executive)?
70, Jack, Jack, Jack, you’re slllliipppping into sanctimony: bah, bah, it’s just so not ewe ;).
72. I know you didn’t, but it’s something that others who favour it should think about.
73. It was possible in Britain through to the 18th century (and beyond - probably as far as the mid 19th century), because many MPs did not aspire to be ministers and had a seat they owed utterly to their own efforts, expenditure or influence. This is indeed retained by the US, albeit channelled through two parties. Under today’s political climate, which wouldn’t accept the sort of local expenditure that would be needed to reintroduce that (even if it could be found), the only alternative is the central party model with local representatives.
73. No. I think the Israeli idea of an elected PM is worth considering though.
PS More for 48, 70 we liked.
71, 73. It is traditional that on matters of War the MP’s don’t slavishly follow the party line. As my earlier post suggested MP’s know that they should vote in the interests of:
1) Country
2) Constituents
3) Party and
4) self.
What made me so despairing last night is that having fought for and won a rare opportunity to debate the Iraq war Labour Mp’s supinely followed the Party line.
I would argue that Labour MP’s have been uniquely gutless over a war they know full well neither their party activists or the country at large now support.
It is this kind of behaviour that discredits Westminster.
… and its interesting to note who is absent this morning and probably no surprise. I expect Roger, Tyson and other Labour posters are less than proud of their party just now and with good reason.
76. We slipped into the current system of executive dominance because party political machines became dominant. The original shift in the early eighteenth century was toward a model whereby the PM and ‘cabinet’ were expected to be members of parliament, and the government should be supported by a HoC majority.
That shift was not wholly unhealthy in that it ruled out the kind of extreme executive v. legislature frictions seen in the 17th century. In addition, a large chunk of MPs were outside the remit of party and patronage structures, meaning parliament retained some capacity for independent scrutiny of the executive. Once the party machines came to dominate the HoC, that was lost. We need to get it back.
One can support the Iraq war and disapprove of elements of the way it was conducted. Why is this so hard to accept? Why does there have to be only two points of view on the issue, either being a die-hard opponent from the very beginning, or being a hard core supporter of every single element of the invasion? Murdoch is being ludicrously simplistic, and DC had every right to join the demands for an inquiry, nothing hypocritical about it!
Marcus: Just for a moment imagine William Hague had been PM in 2003 (yes, difficult I know). Do you imagine for one second things would be any different? That Britain would have stayed out of the conflict? That Britain’s position in Iraq today would be any different? That the evidence for military action would have been presented any differently? No it would not. The Tories would have taken us into war, probably more enthusiastically than Blair did! IDS would have been defence secretary, Fox possibly Foreign Secretary, and Hague PM. Three neo-con Bush fans.
I’ll tell you what is spineless. Watching those who showed NO spine when it was obvious the Iraq war and WMD issue was a tissue of rubbish voting FOR th war. IDS, Howard, Hague, Cameron, Fox and the rest of them voted FOR the war. THAT was as spineless as Blair and Labour’s frontbench jumping into bed with Bush because they were scared the right wing press and Tories would crucify them if they didn’t. None of the present Tory front bench held the government to account at the time and it’s pathetic beyond belief to now pretend that hitching on to the SNP’s bandwagon has anything to do with anything other than trying to put pressure on Labour and Blair.
83. I support the right of you to drive a car. However if you smash it into a brick wall because you hadn’t bothered to learn to drive would it not be reasonable to review whether you behaved in a responsible manner ?
Murdoch is Blair’s man. Is the deal they made in 1997 is possibly so incriminating that the 2 must stick together or go down together?
Indeed if Conservatives stand up to Murdoch openly(??…
Murdoch would be left the only supporter of Tony Blair possibly the most unpopular person in the UK
Murdoch wouldnt care but it would kill off Sky, the Times and Sun.
jamie - i was against the war and remain so.
79, but this wasn’t a vote on the war itself though, was it? It was a vote on whether we should have yet another inquiry. As previous experience has shown you can have any kind of inquiry you like and people will still believe what they want to believe.
What about the Tory position: that they vote for an immediate inquiry even though they don’t actually think an immediate inquiry is a very good idea? Is that not a little spineless? Does that behaviour do Westminster credit?
84 Absolutely, but surely it would be wise to do it after rather than during the accident.
Perhaps the parmedics would be better left to do their job rather than appear in front of a committee.
Perhaps, a more objective informative outcome would be possible some time after the accident when the adrenaline levels have dropped and is it not a good idea to avoid setting dates until later?
83. Not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here: ‘because the Tories didn’t hold the government to account then, they shouldn’t do so now’? Just because IDS (and others) made a bad call in 2003, it shouldn’t for ever rule out holding the government to account for the events that have flowed from a result of that vote. Besides, it was won on the basis of lies and deception and is hardly a secure moral ground on which to start lecturing others about consistency.
83. What is wrong with putting pressure on Blair and Labour?
89. Indeed. And on his line of argument, Bally(hoo) should be condemning the Labour party as responsible for Black Wednesday in 1992 as Kinoock and co were even more enthusiastic about joining the ERM than Mrs. T.
91. PS To which the Lady herself was adamantly opposed.
IDS was responsible for much more than a bad call. Note the date 2002 not 2003! Tories certainly cannot claim that they were misled by dossiers.
House of Commons debates
Wednesday, 10 April 2002
Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green, Conservative)
In the future, if left unchecked, Iraq will be able to deploy its weapons of mass destruction against targets in western Europe, including the United Kingdom. As the last head of the United Nations inspectors makes clear, development of those weapons continues unchecked. Given that, will the Prime Minister confirm reports that he told President Bush over the weekend that if military action is needed against Saddam Hussein, the British Government will support and, if necessary, contribute to it?
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)
The time for military action has not yet arisen. However, there is no doubt at all that the development of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein poses a severe threat not just to the region, but to the wider world. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, in my first statement to the House a few days after 11 September, I made it clear that the issue of weapons of mass destruction had to be, and should be, dealt with. How we deal with it will be a matter for deliberation and consultation in the normal way. After11 September, we proceeded in a calm and sensible way, and we shall do so again, but we must confront the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green, Conservative)
Not only is Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction, but it has also become apparent that it is a major sponsor of terrorism in the middle east, bankrolling many of the families of suicide bombers and providing terrorists with bomb-making equipment. In the United States, the Prime Minister spoke about a “regime change” in Iraq. Given his reported comments, will he confirm that getting rid of Saddam Hussein may now be an objective of the Government?
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)
As I said in Texas, there is no doubt at all that the region would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. It is worth pointing out that the Iraqi people themselves would rejoice most at Saddam Hussein leaving office. We should never forget that that regime has a particular record: the Iran-Iraq war in which1 million people lost their lives; the annexation of Kuwait, which precipitated the Gulf war; and perhaps the most appalling act of all, the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish people. There is no doubt whatever that the world would be a better place without Saddam. However, the method of achieving that is, as I said, open to consultation and deliberation. When the judgments are made, I have no doubt at all that this House—indeed, the whole country—will want to debate the issue thoroughly.
Sorry Marcus, you are way off base. I was against the war, but agree with the government that now is not the time for an inquiry.
Any inquiry will have to look at the post April 2003 operations, in particular the relationship between the British commanders and the American ones - remember that our troops were fighting under an overall American command. Then the relationship between the civilian elements of the occupying authority needs to be examined - why was the relationship between Bremer and Jeremy Greenstock so poor that Greenstock resigned? And how can we prevent such a breakdown in the future? Then issues of troop strategy will have to be looked at too - what worked and what didn’t - eg how do you prevent militias infiltrating the Iraqi police force, did we need more linguists, etc etc.
It’s all impossible to do without access to documents and people in Iraq (including Iraqis in the green zone - do you really believe that any will give candid evidence while a war is raging and they have a vested interest in telling Britain what she wants to hear so she stays on?)
I guess it depends on what you believe the purpose of an inquiry is - a political football or to find out what went wrong so it doesn’t happen again in the future.
The only way to have a really thorough inquiry while war is still raging is to have a closed one (and the post-Falklands inquiry was closed) - but is that what you and others really want? I suspect that most people want an open inquiry, which means waiting till the troops are home.
Some have cited the fact that an inquiry into Gallipoli was held while WW1 was still going on - but communications in those days were so poor that it was hard to tell what was going on at the front, so there was absolutely no chance that the enemy would find out what the inquiry concluded were the weaknesses in the British military strategy.
It’s different now - modern communications, internet, Freedom of Information Act mean that all evidence will be posted on-line in the way the Hutton inquiry pioneered - and anyone in the world will be able to read it. This is fine after the troops have been brought home, but not ok to have their weaknesses posted onto a website for their enemy to read while they are still fighting them. I’m truly amazed that people can’t see this.
89, “it was won on the basis of lies and deception”
And your leader was telling us we weren’t making the case for war strongly enough!!
The Conservative position now as I understand it is that the war would still have been justified even if everyone had known there wasn’t a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. So people were decieved into doing the right thing? How on earth can anyone take your party seriously when it’s position is so ludicrous?
Ian G:
“Yet another inquiry” - so you’ve swallowed the line that the inquiry into David Kelly’s death counts as the Iraq war inquiry?
Or is it the inquiry into the Dodgy Dossier that’s the Iraq War inquiry?
The Tory line (as I understood it yesterday) was to push the Govt to commit to an inquiry after the troops returned (if so, they’d have abstained). Without that, they wanted to pile pressure onto Blair to commit to an inquiry at some point. So, Jonathon at 88, “84 Absolutely, but surely it would be wise to do it after rather than during the accident.” - you’re agreeing with the Tory line there.
re: 77.
Israel got rid of Direct election of the PM. It was a stupid idea. You ended up with a PM who couldn’t govern and a ridiculously divided parliament.
Im in favour of PR. But the PM needs to be chosen by the MPs elected not by the public.
IDS’s leadership of the Tory party is the best example of why that system won’t work.
95 Indeed, The Tories have no right to moralise about Iraq whatsoever. The Labour party in Parliament has a better anti-Iraq war record than the Tories! Just read my post (93) to see how they were more hawkish than Blair.
96 I support the idea of an inquiry 100%, but not yet and don’t accept that this issue was pressing for legitimate reasons now. If the Tories really believe in what you say, they probably should not have backed the call for an immediate one? What if they had won?
As Ken Clarke (A rare Tory with integrity on this issue) pointed out, there will inevitably be an inquiry at somepoint. All this fuss, is just electionering.
96, I think between the Hutton inquiry, the Buttler Inquiry and a couple of Inquiries by parliamentary committees I think the justification for the war has been looked into as well as it is ever going to be, yes.
There are arguments for an operational inquiry to look at what has gone wrong in the post-war phase. However there’s absolutely no point in doing this now while troops are still in the field. This may be the Tory position, in which case I have no problem in agreeing with it, but it’s not the one they voted for last night. MPs vote on the motions in front of them, not what William Hague says they mean.
If the Tories are so opposed to the war, why didn’t they generate the motion. why did they skulk behind the nationlists. Marcus Wood has taken this anti-war position because he is hoping to replace a Libdem in Torbay. At least the Libdem’s are consistent, agree or not, they were opposed to the war, they can make political capital on this issue, the Tories can’t. The Tories were hot for that war, Howard was calling for military action against Iraq back in 1998 when shadow foreign secretary, and chiding Clinton and Blair because they were reticent. IDS was urging Blair on and attacking him for not being gung ho enough, weeks before the dodgy doossier was even produced. The record can’t be denied, no use Tories trying to re-write history now.
93/95. IDS was a useless leader and the country was unlucky to have had an ineffective opposition at that time (I personally voted for Clarke in 2001). He was dumped at the first opportunity for his failure and should never really have stood.
I don’t really care what my party’s position is and I’m not going to defend it. I was against the war in 2003 and still think it was a bad idea, particularly as there turned out to be no WMD. I hold the view that invading other countries is an absolute last resort against a genuine threat (which may still be developing), but regime chance for its own sake is not.
Be that as it may, the longer it drags on the less likely it is that those responsible for errors and worse can be held to account.
Sorry Marcus, you are way off base. I was against the war, but agree with the government that now is not the time for an inquiry.
but the government line was that NEVER was the ideal date for an enquiry and it’s only because Des Browne slipped up at the despatch box that we now know an enquiry can be held at the appropriate time. The tory party were clearly backing the motion to put pressure on the government to acede to the idea of a public investigation into the whole sorry mess. Beckett could have got the tory troops into the government lobby by promising an enquiry at the appropriate time. Ministers spent the whole of yesterday saying there had been enough reviews and nothing more was needed.
The tories basically got what they wanted in the end; quite why the government let it go so far as a vote I’m not sure. The fact it’s getting mixed up with the question of whether the war was a huge mistake carried out on the back of a mass deception or not is unfortunate but not surprising.
And another thing. Why is it that politicians are the only people who can’t change their minds? Many of the public have changed their minds about Iraq as about other things as new facts come to light and as experience develops. Or is some great thing called ‘consistency’ - with a leader now replaced in a parliament since re-elected - more important?
102. ‘quite why the government let it go so far as a vote I’m not sure’
A very good question, and the answer is - because they have lost the plot.
102. I think Margaret Beckett made the position very clear when she said “Now is not the time”. In addition, the motion people were voting on called for an immediate inquiry, starting today - sorry but you are spinning when you say the Tories didn’t really understand this and wanted an inquiry after the troops were brought home. (At least some tories were honourable enough to abstain).
102 Being politically “clever” (aka devious) is not always the best or most honourable route. Why don’t Tories just vote for what they believe in? If there is enough strength in their argument for an inquiry, they will get there eventually. I am pleased that HM Govt. didn’t really get involved in trying to work with these student politics tactics. A vote was necessary and the motion was defeated. Democracy did its job.
There should be an inquiry, but this is NOT they way to get one.
103 You CAN change your mind, but you just can’t criticise someone for taking actions that you asked for two years ago. That is what people are doing in the name of the Tory party. The parliamentary Labour party has a better claim to be anti-Iraq war than the Tories.
105. 106. Hard to decide whether these posts referring to ‘honour’ etc. are cack-handed attempts at spin or just incredibly naive. But either way very comforting from a Tory perspective.
Coldstone - your point earlier is offensive. “Marcus Wood has taken this anti-war position because he is hoping to replace a Libdem in Torbay” how dare you tell me or others why I take the views I do?
How dare you cheapen my honsetly held viewpoint and drag it down to a question of winning votes?
I have made absolutely clear at every available opportunity that I opposed the war - in the teeth of some very great pressure from the party in 2003 - I held the view long before I was selected when invasion was first suggested.
You are smearing my view for party political advantage when our soldiers and thousands of civilians are being literally blown to pieces.
You may be prepared to go that low but I bitterly resent the suggestion that I do and I demand you reconsider that post.
I am very, very angry.
79 by Marcus Wood “What made me so despairing last night is that having fought for and won a rare opportunity to debate the Iraq war Labour Mp’s supinely followed the Party line. I would argue that Labour MP’s have been uniquely gutless over a war they know full well neither their party activists or the country at large now support.”
True. The irony is that if they had voted against Blair then his end could have been in weeks rather than months. By abstaining the MPs keep Blair beyond next May and undermine their own chances of re-election.
105. Margaret Beckett put in a cringeworthy performance at the despatch box last night. I’m not sure how she managed it, but she came across as incompetant, ill-prepared and patronising. Not once did I feel she really understood the situation, the motion or what was really going on in Iraq. She is out of her depth and floundering. I am going to stand by what I said last night and say that she is the worst foreign secretary we have had for quite some time - at least 40-50 years.
Marcus, you’ve accused lots of Labour MPs of being ’spineless’ ‘uniquely gutless’ and of ‘blind obedience’ also while ‘our soldiers and thousands of civilians are literally being blown to pieces’.
In fact all they did was vote down a silly motion for an immidiate inquiry which even your party didn’t think was a good idea.
If you can question the motives of others, why should your own motives be above question?
Cameron is concentrating on bashing Brown at PMQs.
OT — the time on the pb.com server is about ten minutes slow. Has it lost touch with its ntp servers?
Gorbals Mick being as impartial as ever, I see. God, what an embarrassment that man is!
Is there a way to get rid of a sitting speaker? He really is poor.
115 - The man has clearly lost all touch with reality, ruling that the Leader of the Opposition can not ask questions on the floor of the opposition about the succession that will mean the next leader of the Labour Party is automatically the Prime Minister of this country. Unadulterated bollocks.
116 - On the floor of the House of Commons, rather.
116 - This Parliament is definitely a very poor one. Seems almost apt that they have a very poor presiding officer.
Only saw bits of PMQ’s. Did Tony Blair answer any of the questions asked by David Cameron? And what was the speaker up to today?
119 - No, and doing the Labour Party’s bidding.
111 I am entitled to question those very many Labour MP’s who object to the war, who have privately criticised their Government and their Prime Minister for starting it, and who have been saying (mostly behind closed doors) that ’something must be done to prevent it happening again’ who nonetheless voted with the Government against having an enquiry.
I don’t mind having my motives questioned, that is part of the territory. It is Coldstones suggestion that I had changed my view on the war to win votes in Torbay which I find offensive; I have never supported the invasion, indeed I am one of the very few people who believe George Bush Snr was RIGHT not to invade Baghdad last time.
The ruling from the Speaker was a shocker.
A good speaker has to be impartial. This speaker is not.
His lack of breeding is showing, I’m afraid.
Perhaps we should welcome the Speaker’s ruling. His predecessors were (iirc) more strict about stopping the Prime Minister talking about opposition policies.
PM Naughty, naughty, wind up.
124 - I don’t remember similar rulings being made in November 1990 when Mr Speaker Weatherill rightly recognised that the succession of leadership within the governing party is a matter of national interest - or in June 1995 for that matter under Madam Speaker Boothroyd.
125. Me? never!
I just thought what happened today was fascinating. It was bizarre - is the speaker honestly trying to say that the future of the Labour party and the future of government is not linked?
116 Alastair. “Unadulterated bollocks.”
Haven’t heard you so wound up since Labour had the front to score three figures in some Beaconsfield local wards !!
IDS is tough on the causes of crime.
Not in the least 2Blue2Win (125). PM´s comment is not a wind up at all, but clearly his sincerely held opinion, just as Eleanor´s was yeterday. Lots of older Tories still think that breeding counts. You can see the same thing too in Matlock´s sneers about “Gorbals Mick” at 114.
129 -
That was shocking, Jack, but we have managed to track down the perpetrators of that crime. What is to be done about Mr Speaker though? 
128 matt. Strictly speaking and constitutionally it’s true. The Queen and her appointment of a Prime Minister is the barrier. In the past Churchill was PM and not Conservative party leader.
The practical reality is a different matter and IMO the Speaker made an Alastair Matlock phrase of the whole issue at PMQs.
whatever gorbals mick said, cameron was crap at PMQs today. Again.
I haven’t been watching PMQs recently but I have to admit that Ming’s got better. No piece of paper clutched with trembling fingers. The independence from US line will have gone down well with a large slice of the electorate as will the withdrawal of UK troops line. I didn’t agree with his points but they were better delivered and well targeted.
134. He was so rubbish that the speaker had to come to TBs rescue - all of his on valition I’m sure…
131: Didn’t Michael Martin sack a secretary for being too posh? So old Gorbals isn’t immune from a bit of snobbery himself - albeit of the inverted variety.
I imagine the Speaker will get a mauling from the sketchwriters tomorrow. Quentin Letts in particular will have a field day….
132 AHM. Not too sure about the Speaker. There’s no recent precedent for dumping a reluctant Speaker. If he chooses to go on after the next GE they’ll be some disquiet on the Tory benches but it’s not too smart politics to be seen replacing a sitting Speaker with your own party placeman.
132. IDS on The daily politic’s got it right, also dismayed at the new stop watch timings for minister’s speaking in debates. Why should the government get 10mins while the opposition get 5/3mins? Talk about shutting down the opposition! Soon the speaker won’t have to intervene we can just listen to the govenment line and go home.
There is no constitutional barrier to challenging the Queen’s appointment of a PM. Indeed, the very opposite. A vote of confidence is essential in direct terms or by approving the Queen’s Speech.
As the PM is the leader of the Labour party then that of itself effects government business as he relies on his party support to maintain the confidence of the House.
So the Speaker’s ruling seems bizarre and can only really be explained by the fact of him having constantly to remind Blair to respond about government business and not to constantly create a fictional Tory manifesto. So he thought he needed ‘balance’. Odd.
Doubly odd as traditionally the Speaker forewarns leaders and senior MPs of any ruling that would effect their behaviour in order to avoid embarrassment all round. Clearly he did not bother to follow that convention.
Why? Is he losing it?
The ruling while possibly technically correct counts for nothing as all DC has to do now is to rephrase his questions to ask about who the next PM will be. I don’t feel sorry for TB though as it is him who got himself into this mess by his procastination about when he was going to resign.
I think the problem with the speaker is that he is the most blantant political appointment to the Chair since perhaps the 1960s/70s having been a complete non-entity in the house before hand. Following recent convention there shouldn’t really be a labour speaker at all, it should be an opposition MP as Betty Boothroyd was the last speaker and a labour MP.
143 Out of interest, when was the last Liberal speaker? IMO Ming would really suit that job.
ming wanted the job when martin got it, iirc. martin is a very, very poor speaker.
139 - The issue is whether the Opposition front bench feels that Martin has become so biased, and they let that be ‘known’ to the media, such that his position effectively becomes untenable. Of course, they’ll be no formal motions etc, he will just ‘retire’ early to his berth in the Lords.
Under the old tried and tested system of the Speaker being drawn from the Government ranks, if Martin left mid term, his successor would be a Labour MP. But now the feeling may be for alternation. Naturally, the ideal candidate with be Sir Menzies Campbell :wink:.
If Cameron wanted to, could he of led his Mps out of the House in protest to the speakers desicion?