Politics

So far so good for John Rentoul: Blair’s walking it, but there have been intriguing moments. The suggestion that Blair’s foreign policy was motivated solely by vanity is false. The former Prime Minister’s thinking is extremely coherent. That is not to say that he is right nor to deny his obvious vanity, or to overlook that this may simply be Blair in matinee idol mode. But he subscribes to an ideology. He stated, once again, that he saw 9/11 as an attack on “us”, not just America. The language is redolent of Samuel P. Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilisations. Blair perceives a band of religious fanatics and a crucible of oppresive

News reaches me of a surprising meeting in the lobby of Portcullis House today, Goldie Hawn — of Private Benjamin fame — swept in to Westminster wearing big shades and more fur than a member of the Household Division. She was in the Commons to meet with Michael Gove’s chief of staff, Dominic Cummings. Gove’s office won’t be drawn about what was on the agenda. But Hawn has an educational foundation specialising in how neuroscience and social and emotional learning techniques can be used to transform teaching techniques so we can presume that this was the main focus of discussions. However, the real publicity coup for the Tories would be

Yesterday, I wrote that Jack Straw’s savagery in response to Goldsmith’s original advice bespoke of personal animosity. That may well be so, but Goldsmith’s testimony reveals that he was long convinced of his initial advice’s validity. Blair was exasperated with his friend’s stubbornness: “your advice is your advice,” he said pointedly. Yet eventually Goldsmith changed his mind. Why? Well plainly the government wanted him to because they thought he was wrong. Chronology is important here. Goldsmith wrote a note to Blair dated 12 January 2003 (three months before the invasion) reiterating his objections. Later in the month and at someone else’s suggestion, Goldsmith met Greenstock, who wanted to put the

The Chilcot Inquiry has at last disclosed something novel: Lord Goldsmith believed at one time that a second UN resolution would be a pre-requisite for legitimate military action. Goldsmith may well have been right, but not on the grounds he stated. A letter from Jack Straw reveals that Goldsmith misunderstood the wording of 1441. For a man who presented himself last week as a cipher amid titanic events, it’s an extraordinary letter, and its tone, phrasing and even the punctuation are crushingly condescending. The Attorney General had argued that ‘he did not find much difference between’ the French proposal and 1441’s final wording. Straw replied: ‘With respect, there is all

He never deviates and he never hesitates; if he stopped repeating himself Brown could be the star of Just a Minute. He was at it again today: “We must reduce our deficits steadily according to a plan, but we must do nothing this year that will put our recovery at risk.” The cuts-investment dividing line has been nuanced into a question of timing. Brown cited Ken Clarke among the “major world leaders” who lend his policies authority. Brown has overreached himself. Clarke did not dissent from the party line; he stated the obvious truth that if cuts are too deep or ill-applied then recovery may be impeded: “It is no