I've had enough..

.. enough, that is, of the fruitless harrowing of Tony Blair over Iraq. I shall not be writing any more on the subject, for a long time. Because it is now quite clear (at least to me) what happened. Blair did not in my view lie, in any ordinary sense of the term: there was no deception, either deliberate or gratuitous. There was recklessness in argument, certainly, but many advocates run such risks.

The problem was that, quite early on, Blair had become committed, psychologically and emotionally, to the American cause, and personally to George Bush: the Guardian's Hugo Young argues this convincingly. He came to see it as his destiny to be the bridge between America and Europe.

I am satisfied that his conviction was genuine, albeit profoundly misguided and ill-judged. And as a professional advocate, he then set out to craft a legal argument which would justify his position - that is what lawyers conventionally do, ordinarily to the advantage of their Clients.

But political and legal conventions are not the same. And that is where Blair came unstuck - in particular, when trying to demonstrate that the UK was under "imminent threat" from Iraq. As a good advocate, he bust a gut to prove the point - but he went too far. There can be no doubt that he grossly exaggerated that threat. The key charge against Tony Blair, however, is not of dishonesty: it is of gullibility, self-delusion and poor judgment.

This is what I think happened.

< Back to Home Page

733 11 June 2003

comrades in conflict

I would not ordinarily trouble you with Welsh tea-cup storms. But this one exposes a key faultline in Labour's devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. In neither country did New Labour take proper account of the country's great cities - Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, Swansea. Relations between these cities and their new masters are fraught with tension and apprehension. And John Prescott shows no sign of learning the lesson, in formulating his plans for the English regions.

As the superior planning authority, the Welsh Assembly has decided to intervene in the process of developing Swansea Airport, now the subject of increased attention as a secondary "spoke" airport, within developing European networks. The City Council has been assiduous to welcome commercial investment. But the most recent commercial planning applications, due to be decided by the City Council next week, have been "called in" - for decision by the Assembly itself.

Now let me make it clear. In this case, the Assembly is entirely justified. The expansion of Swansea Airport, located as it is at the centre of the Gower Peninsula (the first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to be designated in the UK) is bound to be a matter of the highest sensitivity. There remain fiendishly difficult questions, arising from the original mandatory requisition of the land as a Spitfire aifield, during WW2. And the City Council, as previous owner of the Airport (prior to its enforced privatisation under Thatcher), could easily be seen as parti pris. So I sympathise with the Planning Minister's decision (Carwyn Jones) to call the Applications in, for Assembly determination.

But that is not the end of the matter. Nor is the beginning. For the political relations between the Assembly (as the "new" central Government) and the city authorities are at a low ebb, both in Cardiff and Swansea. Conflict is endemic, the rule rather than the exception. Common Party allegiance does nothing to alleviate the conflict. And in the next stage of devolution, all Parties will have to address - throughout the UK - the constitutional discontinuity which exists, between provincial and city government.

What do you think? Drop me a line

< Back to Home Page

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal? Roger WE