Political anger
There are two vital debates being staged in the Commons this afternoon - , the other in private.
The first is over calls for an enquiry into the Iraq war. The second is likely to determine the result of the first, and will take place between Labour MPs, their whips, their friends and their consciences. It can be summed up simply - does my anger over the war in Iraq outweigh my political hatred of a coalition of convenience between the Nats and the Tories.
My guess is that for enough of them the answer will be that it doesn't, and that the government will win the day .
I'm 
Comments
The enquiry should start with the case for war. Was the case supported with factual truthful and detail evidence?
Was the information not placed before parliament.
As such the government is responsibile and as such they have standards to maintain.
Historically Ministers and Prime Minister has resigned for less.
Or put another way: Will I vote with my conscience, or against those not voting with theirs?
Nick,
If you are correct, this will show once more that Labour MPs are mere lobby fodder totally lacking in any principle other than protecting their own jobs. The time for the Commons to re-assert its authority is long overdue and Blair must be properly held to account for the Iraq debacle.
Of course, their question should be "Do my constituents want this?" and I'd guess the answer is a resounding YES!
Still, we voted for 'em, we've got to put up with the party-serving/self-serving so-and-sos.
Justin.
The last sentence of your report above neatly sums up all that is wrong with our system of governance. MP's no longer even give pretence to the idea that they are representing their constituents, they are, with very few honourable exceptions, in it purely for themselves. The current prime minister has held parliament, and therefore the wider electorate, in total contempt ever since he took office. Where is the accountablity? With MP's worried only about keeping their seats, and gaining promotions through favour, the executive does just as it pleases. Tony Blair has been more authoritarian that Oliver Cromwell. And to think that we call ourselves a democracy.
Agreement on one issue - particularly something like this without an ideological tilt merely asking that we call the government to account - does not a coalition make.
Anyway, surely the question is "am I more likely to keep my seat if I show my conscience and independence while damaging the government, or if I am supine but the government survives unscathed". It's a lose-lose for Labour MPs in marginals, and frankly, they're probably going to lose their seats whatever choice they make.
Dont lose faith yet Nick.I have a sneaking suspicion that anger over Iraq may win the day today.You may be in for a surprise!
I find myself in the somewhat bewildering position of agreeing with the Tories, an inquiry , but not yet.
As to whether the Labour MP's are angry enough to call for one, perhaps one of the debates they will be having is " Did the fact that EVERY major party supported the war in Iraq make a difference?"
Speaking of anger, I remember the time when this war started as one in which the west was still "really rather angry" (actual term too rude to print) about 9/11. Is it naive to think that may have played a part in all of this?
Odd is it not Nick,
that Iraq will not go away as an issue of principle, while we are still there and a Nation feels it has been lied to. People have long memories and Iraq has been a defining start to this new millennium.
Even the green debate in the media yesterday is not sustained strongly beyond 24 hours. Will it come back sooner rather than later?
Our government seems to pile on initiative after initiative. And all the time the big issues and principles still come to the fore. Health, Education, Law and Order and foreign wars.
When we look at the intolerance that the government have been leaning towards with undermining comments on veils and religious observance and their commentary, it smacks of things our country fought against in the second World War. Prejudice is prejudice.
Our Topsy Turvy political system, so abused by this government, and a bunch of wimpish New Labour MP’s, more concerned with their tenure and not the principles makes me wince.
Iraq is awful, but may be the way back to democracy in action in this country as people become sickened by government behaviour out of control and acting without accountability.
Before we know the outcome I would suggest there may be an inquiry, and when? When its too late, because our New Labour MP’s have no backbone and follow their leader as if mesmerised.
I hope Brown get’s in now, his silence speaks volumes about him. He may become Prime Minister for the length of this Parliament, he is not winning any friends or influencing the country right now, or for the future.
It is Blair’s fault he would have pre-empted this fiasco had he resigned after the last election and let Brown detach as we will have to from the US and its mess, much bigger than ours in the long run.
I would wish it were different and that politicians behaved as men and women of state. Now where am I? Cloud Cuckoo Land perhaps…
The first inquiry should find out why the the Tories and others who voted for war are now trying to wriggle out of responsibility. They had access to all the available information: if they did not get it they are incompetent.
One inquiry should determine whether any control of the Middle East, before we have alternative power supplies, could put our industries onto a one day week.
Finally any political infighting, in the form of an inquiry, while our soldiers are in mortal combat would be criminal.
nobody should be under any illusions on this matter. There is no way on this planet that labour back benchers would even consider voting against the whip on this. As i am sure that they are aware that this would almost certainly spell the end for not only Tony Blair, but also the labour party. Also, all the Brownites must know that 'there man' would get dragged into the debate. Mr Brown has been conspicuous by his absence in any matter to do with the Iraq war, but lets remember, he neither argued or voted against military action, and would be forced to do what he hates most..... Back up Tony Blair.
It's almost impossible to imagine the Labour backbenchers will vote against Blair.
They're so scared of giving the opposition a 'victory' that they'll allow him to escape being held to account.
Side point, having watched the debate in full the best contributions by far have come from Charles Kennedy and Alex Salmond.
Should there be an inquiry? We sent the army in to remove an evil dictator who was gassing Kurds, killing all who stood against him and threatening the free world with threats of destruction. Can imagine the scenario in UK 1945 if some of today's whingers were around? They would whine about the UK going to war against Hitler despite the letter Chamberlain brought back from Munich promising "peace in our time". They would weep that Bomber Harris destroyed civilian housing, and flattened Dresden; no tears of course to spare for Coventry, London, etc. They would be dismayed that a few top Nazis were given capital punishment, need I go on?
This call for an inquiry is just immature opportunism. Behind the accusations and pretensions lie personal ambition. If this inquiry led anywhere close to truth that would be an accidental by product of vanity. I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war. While some say it was a failure of the system, I believe, it was a failure of people.
In my personal life I’ve been dealt a blow of epic proportions and seen the same thing. Politicians believe what they want to believe and distort truth to serve their own ends. Unless they start developing their own characters they will continue to set a poor lead and be bad scrutinisers, and the whole of Parliament will remain a joke.
I have never voted for the Labour Party or know anyone in it, yet, I believe the core of the governments thinking, some of the qualities being displayed by ministers, and the outcomes that are being generated are very respectable. In what way do the opposition parties think their self-serving ambition is a suitable replacement?
Actions count for more than words.
And so, once again as expected, MP's have not taken the chance to rebuild the trust with the british people that has been eroded over the last 20 years of politics.
If politicians really want the public to engage again in politics in this country, they have to understand that voters value principals above anything else.
The whole police inquiry into cash for peerages could easily have been avoided if politicians had finally grasped that it doesn't need £14 million to win an election. It doesn't matter how many glossy adverts or mailshots you send out, there is one simple way of engaging the public, a way that doesn't cost a penny. Stand up for your principals and hold government accountable when it invariably makes mistakes.
p.s. Is this the democracy we are trying to force onto peope in Afghanistan and Iraq?
What an outcome Nick,
a bunch of the UK's finest cannot make a case to debate Iraq, because of timing. Well it seems to me the time is right to remember this bunch of no hoper's. As they have scuttled away, having had their debate to debate, they can go away and feel they have done a job today.
What a bad miserable useless job they have done. The magic carpet which is used to sweep the crap under must be truly magic, and truly enormous. To hide their shame and sensibilities, they sweep away lies, falsehoods and their honour. Shameful sad bunch of hypocrites.
Timing, when will it be time to stop the horror in Iraq? And when they walk away from it, who will they blame, certainly not themselves, it will be Iraqi's they blame and others and not themselves.
We know who is accountable and we watch it every day. The truth is with us and cannot be denied, unless your name is Tony Blair, a man blind to his own history and stupidity.
Justin makes an interesting, if flawed, point. It infers that MP's are elected to represent their constituents. If we follow Burke, we should note that MP's are elected to express their views and represent the constituency, not their constituents. We (surely) cannot have MP's doing plebiscites on every issue before voting in Parliament? I guess this is why we should vote for individuals and not parties... Good to note that MP's have once again let Blair off the hook. History will condemn him as the LBJ of British politics. So much for the great society - subsumed within another quagmire.
I read yesterday that in 1956 the US Government under General Eisenhower had forced the Suez ceasefire on the British Government by a series of economic threats, including that to sell the US reserves of sterling, which would have precipitated the collapse of the British currency. I was not previously aware of this.
In 2002/03, when the air was full of the impending crisis in Iraq, I can remember quite clearly saying to myself, and to anyone else who was willing to listen, that the grounds being given by the British Government for supporting an invasion of Iraq were so thin that there must be a more compelling reason that the Government was unable to disclose.
It's clear to me that the overriding reason for the UK's support for the Iraq invasion was and is the fear of losing favoured nation status in the USA and the economic and political consequences of this. The debate needs to be about our relationship with the USA, not about the rights and wrongs of a decision taken under force majeure.
We've had far too many enquiries and we've re-elected the government since the start of the war. We could have thrown them out of office, but we didn't.
It would be a waste of public money.
Why is "How would the majority of my constituents, who I am here to represent, want me to vote" never considered in these choices?
I honestly don't care whether there is an enquiry, and I'm sure there are those who would like to keep their jobs who feel the same.
It is poor that no-one seems to be held accountable these days. But time, energy and money will be wasted on this, detracting from the goal of clearing up the mess that we started.
We should try and patch up some of their infrastructure that the americans annihilated and pull out. Hopefully leaving the rebels with 1 less thing to push against.
You called it right Nick,however the idea that Alex Salmond would put the final knife into Tony was nonsense and yes there has got to be a commons inquest about the war in Iraq,just not right now,so we continue the epic "et tu brutis" until the final long knife is plunged.
What about the Conservatives, their whips, their friends, and their consciences debating, band wagon jumping, an old favourite of William Haque.
The Government will win the day, that's a racing certainty, but the losers will still be punch drunk and spend the next few days, weeks, Months and years telling us of 'illegal wars' and conspiracies.
There are too many has beens in Parliament with a book ready to made available in 'all good book shops'.
I count this as a five times victory for Tony, the majority and for reasoning. The Losers will continue to claim that just because they can't get out of the starting blocks, doesn't mean they can't win the race.
A loser is a loser at the end of the day.The biggest losers of all are the Labour rebels whom have a standing order of discredit.
Gary
All I can say is refer to the:
1. Flood report in Australia
2. Parliamentary Jull Committe of Inquiry Australia
3. Robb Silberman Commision US
Then the cover up in the UK regarding Hutton and Butler.
Other reports in the UK that tally with the US and Australia
1. Foreign Affairs Committee in the Decsion to go to war
2. Intelligence and Security Committee on WMD
Open and honest government please.
20. At 12:57 AM on 01 Nov 2006, Mark Stack wrote:
Why is "How would the majority of my constituents, who I am here to represent, want me to vote" never considered in these choices?
Well it`s not Mark look what happened to Oona King who thought her view was the only one that counted and NOT that of the people that put her into parliament.Thankfully her constituents done us all a great service and voted her out.
Having watched the debate in full on 91Èȱ¬ Parliament, I was once again struck by the fact that, as with all previous major debates on Iraq, there was not one single compelling speech from front or back bench in support of the Government's position. This time, those supporting the Government didn't even try to make a case - we just had the (obviously briefed) usual suspects like Chris Bryant intervening to parrot the fatuous question of whether the speaker supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq or whether their comments were going to destroy the morale of our troops. I was interested that George Galloway, although certainly there at the beginning of the debate, didn't speak. I read this morning that Labour MPs voted the way they did so as 'not to embarrass the Government'. Ha! If 600,000 Iraqi dead, not to mention a hundred of our own troops, can't bring so much as a hint of a blush to Blair's cheeks, I don't think they need overly concern themselves on that score.
The most interesting thing about this debate was how much of a damp squib it proved to be. It was the wrong debate at the wrong time about the right inquiry at the wrong time. And why was it such a damp squib? Because the government has already largely caved in on Iraq, that’s why. It is well accepted now that the situation is pretty dire, although our troops seem to be making sterling efforts in the south. In ‘agreeing’ with General Dannat, Tony Blair effectively admitted that the aims in Iraq need to be moderated. He has even accepted that terrorists have used the war in Iraq as an ‘excuse’ for terrorism. Now, I’m not aware that any terrorist has ever sought to be excused for what he has done, thus the word as it is used here really means ‘reason.’ Thus Downing Street has effectively accepted that the British and US presence in Iraq has fuelled terrorism. That’s almost a full house, I think.
Most people also seem to be accepting that the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq needs to be done in a phased and planned way. It cannot happen immediately. There would seem to be some concordance that, with all the mistakes that have occurred, there is a need for a full inquiry, following the precedent of the Falklands – it would be almost impossible to refute it. Des Browne, if no-one else, has publicly accepted that it should happen at the appropriate time.
The big question now is whether an inquiry will be allowed to uncover the real reason for Britain’s collaboration, at which Simon Stephenson (18) hints. That, of course was a vain attempt to retain some influence with the USA, believing that if Britain did not, George Bush’s Washington would act wholly irresponsibly if left to its own devices. Will that ever come out, I wonder?
The tories and lib dems are absolutely right to call for an inquiry, it wouldn't undermine the troops, we live in a democracy, here's an idea Blair - listen to the public. There have been inquirys during other wars like WW2, so why not this one??
Quentin Davies is one of the first senior Tories to admit their hypocritical actions in unreservedly voting for war in Iraq and now voting for an inquiry.
His motive is not of the best. He can see the damage the u-turn will do in such a serious matter.
The Tories could not have stooped lower in using their joint responsibility to discredit the Prime Minister.