 | |
Iain Watson, our Political reporter writes this week's newsletter.
John Cleese has a lot to answer for.
His line – ‘don’t mention the war‘ - was a hilarious way of exposing Basil Fawlty’s prejudices when he struggled to serve with any civility some German guests at his rather insular Torbay hotel. But ever since the seventies this phrase has been trotted out by schoolboys and scribes alike, in varying circumstances, in lieu of original wit.
In the early weeks of the election campaign, this trend appeared to have reached new heights/plumbed new depths* (who says we are anything less than impartial here?) - the number of journalists deploying this phrase probably far exceeded the number of service personnel we have in Iraq. So it was with some relief that the LibDems finally held a press conference on Iraq on Monday if only to consign this well worn Cleese-ism to the dustbin of history*.
The dog that hadn't barked* was about to turn rabid.
Although it's clear that most voters are concerned about the economy, health, education and immigration, it was only really when the war was finally mentioned that there was some feeling, amongst the press pack at least, that the campaign was at last taking off. The dividing lines between the parties were no longer hazy but sharply in focus. On Tuesday, we had the defection of Brian Sedgemore, the former left wing Labour MP who joined the LibDems not just because of his opposition to the war but because he's worried that civil rights are no longer safe in the government's hands*.
LISTEN AGAIN
I took myself off to the highly marginal Medway constituency in Kent to see how Brian Sedgemore's close political friend Bob Marshall Andrews was campaigning as the Labour candidate. He was officially the fourth most rebellious MP against his own party leadership in the last parliament.
LISTEN AGAIN
But wouldn't the Libdems tell disillusioned voters that the only way to send Tony Blair a message is to dispatch anyone sporting a red Labour rosette even if they are about as pro-Blair as Michael Howard (or should that be Gordon Brown?) And how would Labour counter this?
While Bob Marshall Andrews has no intention of leaving the Labour Party - despite the fact that he would make Wat Tyler look supine in the face of authority - he appears to have licence to run a very different campaign locally than the Blairite campaign nationally. As well as making his position on the war clear, he has also customised his Labour pledge card, deleting all references to ID cards. Now, tampering with the sacred Blairite text of a pledge card, a contract with the British people, would have met with swift retribution back in 1997 but now it seems, anything goes*. I asked around in other constituencies and found a high degree of freelancing from some other Labour candidates, too many of whose previous record of rebellion extended no further than purchasing a Sex Pistols record with their pocket money a quarter of a century ago.
A usually loyal former minister was tailoring some literature to the anti-war vote; another equally loyal former minister has erected a kind of invisible force field around the constituency designed to repel the Prime Minister should he wish to campaign in the vicinity.' He Shall Not Pass'* is very much the attitude of this person who used to wax lyrical* about his attributes. Bob Marshall Andrews thinks all this is a sign of a healthy party which is now willing to tolerate dissent. Others will be less charitable and see it as a symbol of Tony Blair's loosening grip on his own party. On Wednesday night, the skirmishes over Iraq escalated into a full scale battle.
We finally got to see what the cabinet hadn't seen before British troops were sent in to battle - the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith's, confidential legal advice to the Prime Minister, dated 7th March 2003 - eleven days before parliament decided to back the conflict.
LISTEN AGAIN
I immediately cast my mind back to a conversation I had had a few days later with someone close to the attorney general who had seen this legal advice. And I was now for the first time able to compare what I'd been told with the actual words, in black and white.
I was pleasantly surprised to see just how accurate the account I'd been given was in practice. I'd been told that the attorney general, like any lawyer, would have weighed up the pros and cons* of the case and would have tried to find a way of keeping his client - in this case, the PM - content. But, like any sharp legal eagle*, he would have left any final decision on a course of action to the client himself. I was also told that the Attorney General had concluded there was an 'arguable' case for war based on previous UN resolutions. So why in the subsequent two years have we seen so many stories suggesting that the Attorney General had said that war would be illegal without a second UN resolution?
I think part of the problem was due to the government's handling of this. They steadfastly refused to publish the advice, possibly because it would have exposed the Attorney General's caveats, though they say they were only following conventions. But this raised the suspicion they were involved in some sort of cover up. Not trusting the people* or their fellow parliamentarians has been repaid many times over by a loss of trust in the government, and the Prime Minister in particular.
And while the government will take comfort from the fact we now know the Attorney General didn't say the war would be illegal, as I write, they are still facing tough questions as to why, ten days after the Attorney General submitted his confidential advice to the PM, he provided a far less equivocal statement on the legal position to the House of Lords - if you like, all the 'cons' had been stripped out and the 'pros' highlighted. Labour strategists are probably right that, this late in the campaign, the Iraq issue won't shift that many votes. Most voters who've decided not to back the government this time because of the war have probably made their minds up already. But the real cost could be in tight marginal seats because so much time will be spent talking about the war and not about the 'bread and butter'* issues that might encourage reluctant voters to get out of their armchairs and take a stroll to the polling station. On Thursday the launch of Labour's manifesto for enterprise was overshadowed by the events of two years ago. The press conference focussed not on lifting burdens on business - but on the burden of proof that Iraq wasn't disarming when we decided to attack. Back at the battle of Medway, I was surprised to see how subtle the Conservative message in that marginal seat was. They are telling people that a win there won't lead directly to a change of government, but to a reduced Labour majority of about sixty, on a uniform swing.
This idea that voters can send a message to Tony Blair is striking fear into the hearts of Labour's strategists. Possibly more fear and terror, in fact, than they experienced when the PM told them there was a 'serious and current' threat from Iraq two and a half years ago. They think it’s just possible that so many 'messages' are sent, that their majority could disappear quicker than all those alleged Iraqi WMDs. Maybe it's just last week nerves. But for the first time in ages, there's a feeling that the conclusion of the election campaign could be more exciting than we’d anticipated. That is, now the war has been mentioned (oops, I'm doing it now. But I've restrained myself from talking about deceased parrots!)
* Having banned one famous phrase that's become a cliché, I thought I'd add a few other favourite hackneyed sayings to compensate. I toyed with running a competition to ask you to guess their origin but the Today programme doesn’t have any cash for prizes, what with the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ cuts. But if you want to point out what cliches I've used, and haven't managed to identify myself, you deserve a special order of merit.
Iain Watson
___________________________________________________
|
|
