Bliar and Reflections on the Hutton Inquiry
Bliar and Reflections on the Hutton Inquiry
Joe Hendren (8/1/04)
On the 22nd of July Tony Blair was asked by a journalist why he authorised the naming of Dr David Kelly. Blair replied 'That is completely untrue'. The circumstances of Dr Kelly's apparent suicide are now the focus of the Hutton Inquiry. Interesting news tonight that Tony Blair has chosen not to repeat this assertion in Parliament.
Instead, Blair is now maintaining that he did not authorise the 'leaking' of David Kelly's name. Since Blair's remarks on the 22nd of July, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence has indicated that the key decisions about naming Dr Kelly were made at No. 10. So while Blair refuses to take responsibility for the way Dr Kelly's name came into the public arena, he now fails to answer whether he authorised naming Dr Kelly in the first place.
Blair could well be running scared. Parliamentary privilege gives MPs the right to make statements in Parliament free from threats from the outside (lawsuits and overruly kings). But if an MP is found to have knowingly mislead the house they can lose their seat, if they don't resign first. In cases where MPs refuse or fail to repeat statements they have made outside the house it is usually a pretty good bet they are on shaky ground.
I don't think I will be surprised if the Hutton Inquiry comes out against Blair, especially as the events leading to the death of David Kelly can be seen as a threat to the establishment. And by the establishment I do not mean Blair. In contrast to the US where the public service is based on political appointees, the British public service aims to be an apolitical service, where a team of career public servants provide 'robust' advice for the government of the day. A key principle in the system is that public servants are protected from public scrutiny, so long as they refrain from making public statements contrary to policy. While Dr Kelly did make some inopportune comments to a journalist, the fact that he voluntarily made an admission to his employer that he had done so shows that Dr Kelly was still working within the spirit of this public service principle. The leak of Dr Kelly's name to a journalist, apparently for the reasons of 'presentation' is a direct threat to this principle. Lord Hutton, a public servant due to retire, may have no hesitation in defending the memory of a public servant that was thrown at the mercy of the media by his Prime Minister.
During my time in the UK the public debate about the War in Iraq was in full swing. Since the war I heard a lot more people talking about who might take over from Blair. Even from 'not very political' people. Not that I see Gordon Brown as the replacement - his doctrinaire driven privatisation of the tube showed his politics could only be one left inch away from Blair. He will attempt to use the language of the 'old' labour party to sell old Thatcherism. In this way, he reminds me of Mike Moore, Prime Minister of New Zealand for a whole six weeks before being dumped by the electorate, who went on to be Director General of the WTO (New Zealand ought to give the world an apology).
Leaders are helped greatly if they can sustain a myth that they are irreplaceable. The bubble for Blair has certainly burst.
Guardian - PM's mid-air change of direction
Joe Hendren (8/1/04)
On the 22nd of July Tony Blair was asked by a journalist why he authorised the naming of Dr David Kelly. Blair replied 'That is completely untrue'. The circumstances of Dr Kelly's apparent suicide are now the focus of the Hutton Inquiry. Interesting news tonight that Tony Blair has chosen not to repeat this assertion in Parliament.
Instead, Blair is now maintaining that he did not authorise the 'leaking' of David Kelly's name. Since Blair's remarks on the 22nd of July, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence has indicated that the key decisions about naming Dr Kelly were made at No. 10. So while Blair refuses to take responsibility for the way Dr Kelly's name came into the public arena, he now fails to answer whether he authorised naming Dr Kelly in the first place.
Blair could well be running scared. Parliamentary privilege gives MPs the right to make statements in Parliament free from threats from the outside (lawsuits and overruly kings). But if an MP is found to have knowingly mislead the house they can lose their seat, if they don't resign first. In cases where MPs refuse or fail to repeat statements they have made outside the house it is usually a pretty good bet they are on shaky ground.
I don't think I will be surprised if the Hutton Inquiry comes out against Blair, especially as the events leading to the death of David Kelly can be seen as a threat to the establishment. And by the establishment I do not mean Blair. In contrast to the US where the public service is based on political appointees, the British public service aims to be an apolitical service, where a team of career public servants provide 'robust' advice for the government of the day. A key principle in the system is that public servants are protected from public scrutiny, so long as they refrain from making public statements contrary to policy. While Dr Kelly did make some inopportune comments to a journalist, the fact that he voluntarily made an admission to his employer that he had done so shows that Dr Kelly was still working within the spirit of this public service principle. The leak of Dr Kelly's name to a journalist, apparently for the reasons of 'presentation' is a direct threat to this principle. Lord Hutton, a public servant due to retire, may have no hesitation in defending the memory of a public servant that was thrown at the mercy of the media by his Prime Minister.
During my time in the UK the public debate about the War in Iraq was in full swing. Since the war I heard a lot more people talking about who might take over from Blair. Even from 'not very political' people. Not that I see Gordon Brown as the replacement - his doctrinaire driven privatisation of the tube showed his politics could only be one left inch away from Blair. He will attempt to use the language of the 'old' labour party to sell old Thatcherism. In this way, he reminds me of Mike Moore, Prime Minister of New Zealand for a whole six weeks before being dumped by the electorate, who went on to be Director General of the WTO (New Zealand ought to give the world an apology).
Leaders are helped greatly if they can sustain a myth that they are irreplaceable. The bubble for Blair has certainly burst.
Guardian - PM's mid-air change of direction