He was talking about the debate on the Iraq War in the House of Commons, a debate reluctantly granted by the Government, yet one which concerned, not so much the past and the rights and wrongs of it, but the future of Britain's role there, what it should involve and what kind of timetable should be set for withdrawal.
A vital debate, one might think, for the future of Iraq, for our troops there, for the whole so-called 'war on terror'. However the man who got us into Iraq, whose almost autocratic control of his own Party ensured that he got his way with the consequent dire results, chose to stay away from Parliament.
Instead of standing up and robustly arguing the policy for which he, and he alone, was responsible, Tony Blair chose to ignore the debate and instead go half a mile 'down the road' to talk to the Confederation of British Industry. He left the argument in the hands of his Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett.
Predictably, and correctly in my view, political pundits right across the spectrum referred to this decision as a slap in the face for Parliament and a complete abdication of responsibility.
Was Blair frightened to appear? Was he afraid of the criticism his past actions and his current inertia would undoubtedly draw from all sides? Frankly I doubt that. Blair is a skilled parliamentarian who has survived some regular ordeals of fire without flinching.
Was it therefore the metaphorical 'up yours!' finger in the direction of his critics? A gesture of boredom with the whole thing? A state of mind which says 'I've been there, done that and I'm leaving the job soon. I can't be arsed to go through all this crap again!"
Sadly I suspect the latter, but either way it was an unforgivable decision to make for a responsible leader. If that's the state of mind Blair is now in then it would be sensible for him to step down now.
No comments:
Post a Comment