It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| October | 31 |
| 2006 |
For the life of me I can't understand why those of who supported the Iraq war - and who continue to argue it was and remains the right thing to do - should oppose an inquiry.
What is there to hide? Opposition to it can only come across as defensive and shifty and add (surely spurious) credence to the idea that there was something amiss with the basis of the decision.
Iraq should not be unique in this respect. It’s important that there is a full inquiry after most armed conflicts which cost British soldiers' lives, just as there was after the Falklands.
I don't often think the Prime Minister is wrong in regards to the war, and I'm ready to label David Cameron an opportunist when it's appropriate, but in this instance Mr Blair is wrong to veto the very idea - the only dispute should be over the timing of an inquiry - and Mr Cameron is quite right to press for one.
MessageSpace
Blair doesn't want it because he lied about the reasons for going to war.
Kicking out Saddam was a good job, but he didn't say that was the purpose, nor did he say he had made a deal with George so to do. He had to come up with a dodgy dossier to convince his unbelieving backbenchers.
Sending men to their death in those circumstances is unforgivable. Don't get me started on the national interest angle.
"Sending men to their death in those circumstances is unforgivable"
When trying to get the Americans to join the war, Churchill lied on many occasions to Roosevelt directly and indirectly though a network of spies. In turn, Roosevelt lied to the American people about the need to come to Europe's aid before the U.S. had finished off Japan.
Are you saying then that the many deaths the Americans suffered on the European continent in that conflict are unforgivable?
A bit of history. In the year of revolutions, 1848, the kingdom of Sardinia, after much hesitation, granted a Constitution, summoned a Parliament, and declared war on the colonial oppressor of Italy, the Austrian Empire. The war lasted until the following year and was eventually lost. Nevertheless, the King decided to stick with his new Constitution and new Parliament.
As soon as the war was over, Parliament set up an inquiry into its conduct. This barely-invented assembly took on itself to assess how the war had been fought and why it had been lost. It did not look for scapegoats, but released some authoritative reports full of useful suggestions. The Sardinian army was reorganized, Ten years later, Sardinia went to war with Austria again. Although this time it had a powerful ally - France - it is a fact that the Sardinian army performed much better this time. Austria was completely defeated and lost most of northern and central Italy; and within a year the small kingdom of Sardinia had become the vast Kingdom of Italy - with the same Constitution and a Parliament elected by the same rules. The Parliamentarians of the time, in Turin, knew that they were in training to govern all Italy, and did an outstanding job of it.
But what do we have to say of a Parliament seven hundred years in existence, which is prevented from scrutinizing a major war, when a Parliament barely two years in existence had done such a good job of it?