Following on Stuart's tirade below against the decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry in secret, we have Brown's turnabout saying it can be in public - if the Chairman so decides and that he is in favour of openness and transparency. The way he talked about it at the press conference in Brussels he made it seem it wasn't his decision to hold it in camera. Clearly, the concession that it can be held in public was not Brown's either. With the generals both retired and in post demanding their say in public, and Ken Macdonald's brilliant piece in the Times and even Ed Ball's saying open is better, he had to give way. The Spectator thinks the Balls intervention is a sign of a crumbling government, picking up the spin from Alistair Campbell. But I wonder at Campbell's motives.
The first person to say that the Inquiry had to be a secret one modelled on Franks Inquiry into the Falkland's War was David Miliband. When it was announced he defended the decision saying that Franks was "the gold standard" for inquiries, an absurd description. For those many too young to remember, the Falklands was a great success but... it should never have happened. While Thatcher emerged triumphant, she had personally ordered the withdrawal of Britain's symbolic naval presence in the island as a cost cutting exercise, an action that led the Argentine junta to belive that an invasion would not be resisted. Any objective investigation would have found her guilty of gross negligance. But this was unthinkable. So a bent investigation was needed instead - and provided.
All of which is relevant today. Because clearly both Blair and Campbell will have to be interviewed and, indeed, should be obliged to give evidence under oathgiven how many died. This is what they want to prevent. Perhaps David Miliband wants to prevent this too? Might he also need to appear. And could it possibly be the case that Ed Balls would like them to be called up in public?
