UK posters: What will happen in the next 2 days?

[Shaun from Scotland]

With the most vital two days in the history of Blairs government coming up, will teflon Tony and Geoff Hoon survive the student fees vote and the Hutton enquiry?

Personally I think he will. However Geoff Hoon will be for the off.......

[demon]

Hi Shaun.
There are already leaks that Blair is off the hook. No suprise there then.
Hoon of course is the fall guy, it`s sayonara for him.
To my mind it`s all a lot of whitewhash to divert attention away from the fact that we got deceived into going to war in the first place.
Now, there lies the bones of a worthwhile inquiry. Think we`ll get one?

[JamesM]

The media love this Westminster stuff. I can already hear Andrew Marr.

THE WORST WEEK FOR THE PM IN LIVING MEMORY!

IT'S EXTRAORDINARY STUFF!

NO-ONE HERE CAN REMEMBER ANYTHING QUITE LIKE IT!

WESTMINSTER IS ABUZZ WITH RUMOURS!

BLAIR IS ON THE ROPES!

etc.

The next day, the papers have similar headlines, there'll be a cartoon of Blair with vultures circling overhead (optionally, the vultures will have Gordon Brown's head).

Then everyone forgets about it and carries on like the hyperbole never happened.

But I do think Hoon is on the way out, simply because this keeps getting repeated everywhere.

IN THE END THE PRESSURE WAS JUST TOO GREAT

IT WAS DECIDED HE WAS TOO MUCH OF A LIABILITY - HE HAD TO GO!

CRUCIALLY, THE PM REFUSED TO SAY HE HAD FULL CONFIDENCE IN HIS MINISTER

etc.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by demon
Hi Shaun.
There are already leaks that Blair is off the hook. No suprise there then.
Hoon of course is the fall guy, it`s sayonara for him.
To my mind it`s all a lot of whitewhash to divert attention away from the fact that we got deceived into going to war in the first place.
Now, there lies the bones of a worthwhile inquiry. Think we`ll get one?

Part of the enquiry regards the "sexing up" of the dossier teflon Tony used in Parliament. I guess we will have to wait and see what it says about that.

However, as the idea of Ministerial responsibility nowadays extends only to who gets first access to the HoC spa and swimming pool, the short answer is no..........

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by JamesM
The media love this Westminster stuff. I can already hear Andrew Marr.


Never mind Andrew Marr, what I want to see is the funky graphics Peter Snow will have.

The swingomemter will become a guillotine hanging over Teflon Tony "And this is the amount of rebels racing towards the finishing line for Tony Blair to be doing a King Charles Ist....."

[Darat]

Re: student top-up fees.

In my opinion most of the media has once again shown that they are not interested in addressing issues and providing information behind "the politics" but want to create a piece of high drama.

Can't believe some of the commentators an opinion leaders "Can Blair survive a Commons' defeat?". What the bloody hell are they going on about? This is a parliamentary democracy, the MPs are meant to debate, haggle and argue about policy and legislation, they are meant to tear into one another, including their own part if they believe it is the right thing to do. They should be going for “concessions” for changes that they think are for the better.

Re: Hutton

I find this very interesting in that there does seem evidence that the dossier at the heart of this matter was created from the information provided by the information services.

As for the "naming" of a source of information and did Tony Blair lie, well in just a few hours we should have the answer.

[mummymonkey]

The Government will win the debate & tax dodging students will have to stump up.
Hutton will lay in to Gilligan, the BBC managment, Hoon, the MOD and number 10's minute taker.
It will snow.

[Frankie]

A rough ride and a shake up will happen. That can be hoped at least.

[The Don]

Teflon Tony will survive

Loony Hoon will take a dive

The Variable fees bill will pass

To the chagrin of the middle class

[The Don]

I feel sorry for Geoff Hoon and the "body armour" issue. Apparently there was plenty in the theatre of war, it just didn't get to the individual units.

Any number of Colonels and Majors are saying that it couldn't possibly have been Mr. Hoon's fault. But let's not let reasoned argument get in the way of a good news story

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
It will snow.

It will not snow in London
Its far too damned afraid
Of snowing on the Regent's park
And on Horse Guard's Parade.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat
In my opinion most of the media has once again shown that they are not interested in addressing issues and providing information behind "the politics" but want to create a piece of high drama.


I think that this has been most amply illustrated by all the coverage of the cannabis situation I've seen: it's all said "this will confuse people" but no-one has said "this is what it actually means" - which would end the "confusion" instantly.

I think Hoon might go, at most. The BBC can shrug off pretty much anything, being essentially non-political. Blair will become increasingly megamonomaniacal and eventually be forced out in tears, just like Thatcher. It's how he wants to go.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Well, teflon Tony scrapes through by five votes.....

This is apparantely the biggest backbench rebellion since WWII..

Anyone any opinions on where this leaves Blair's government? Has he got through or is this a sign of trouble ahead?

[geni]

His core team are holding together he got something very unpopular through. Unless Hutton drops a bombshell he will survive for now.

[Jon_in_london]

It still wont fooking snow.

[Jon_in_london]

Well, regardless of whether you think this was a good or bad thing, the fact is that it wouldnt have come through without Scottish MPs voting for something that will not affect Scotland.

Anybody willing to listen to me now when I call for an English parliament?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Well, regardless of whether you think this was a good or bad thing, the fact is that it wouldnt have come through without Scottish MPs voting for something that will not affect Scotland.

Anybody willing to listen to me now when I call for an English parliament?

And the MPs who abstained on the Labour benches. Good work, guys. Way to represent your constituents on a manifesto issue.

(And the fact that Nick Brown, the leader of the "rebels", backed down after his friend, Gordon Brown had a word. Presumably the word was, "not this time... make me leader after Hutton...")

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Don
I feel sorry for Geoff Hoon and the "body armour" issue. Apparently there was plenty in the theatre of war, it just didn't get to the individual units.

Any number of Colonels and Majors are saying that it couldn't possibly have been Mr. Hoon's fault. But let's not let reasoned argument get in the way of a good news story

Maybe in the case of the body armour, Don. But you cant deny that there is a systematic failure in getting the kit to the troops.

When squaddies have to shell out their own money for essential pieces of kit like desert boots, then theres a big problem.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Well, teflon Tony scrapes through by five votes.....

This is apparantely the biggest backbench rebellion since WWII..

Anyone any opinions on where this leaves Blair's government? Has he got through or is this a sign of trouble ahead?

As long as Blair keeps making stuff like this an implicit confidence vote, he's heading for trouble because he can't rely on the Scottish vote to pull him through. Unless they're playing some kind of long game, either on a promise or as a strategy to make Blair's govt. even more unpopular.

[richardm]

Originally posted by BillyTK


As long as Blair keeps making stuff like this an implicit confidence vote, he's heading for trouble

I've a feeling it'll be a while before he tries that again, after last night. Bit too close to the rocks for comfort, when you've tied yourself to the mast.

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillyTK


As long as Blair keeps making stuff like this an implicit confidence vote, he's heading for trouble because he can't rely on the Scottish vote to pull him through. Unless they're playing some kind of long game, either on a promise or as a strategy to make Blair's govt. even more unpopular.

I have been amazed at the apparent contradictions in the media approach to Blair.

Do you remember when he was accused of swaying in the wind, bending over backwards to please everyone and that was portrayed by the media as a sign of weakness? Yet when he takes a strong stand (right or wrong) he's accused of playing brinkmanship and it is seen as a weakness.

Just wish the media would report the politics!

Why aren't we being shown figures that show how this bill will effect the universities and students? Why aren't the “rebel” and opposition MPs & parties willing to say "And this is how we would do it" and for it to get prime time media news coverage? No all we get is "personality" driven and vacuous media reporting of the "media" story. No wonder people aren't interested in politics these days.

(I'll get down from my second hobby-horse of the day now :) )

Fundamentally I believe this leaves Blair and his government in a much stronger (Parliamentary) position then before because he has proved that his government can despite ferocious party objections push through government policy. And that "rebels" - hate that emotive term as well - can gain concessions but not block the government.

(Mind you I wonder what the bill will look like when it next comes out of committee?)

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Maybe in the case of the body armour, Don. But you cant deny that there is a systematic failure in getting the kit to the troops.

When squaddies have to shell out their own money for essential pieces of kit like desert boots, then theres a big problem.

Agreed. It's like going back to the 19th Century. But, if Hoon laid into the army and tried to sort the supply problems out, the press would be full of "Minister Interferes" stories. There'd be complaints about micromanagement by government. If the procurement process was sped up, the first death caused by defective gear would be blamed on "Cost-cutting bureaucrats not testing things properly". So there'd always be something else to complain about.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Maybe in the case of the body armour, Don. But you cant deny that there is a systematic failure in getting the kit to the troops.

When squaddies have to shell out their own money for essential pieces of kit like desert boots, then theres a big problem.

But is this a government Minister's fault? (Not saying it isn't just wondering.) If the armed forces have the necessary funds, if allocated correctly, and the "generals" have screwed up on the ops side for distribution and procurement is it right to blame a Minister?

If it was a government imposed policy, say for instance a procurement freeze imposed by the ministry then I would say it is a Minister's responsibility but not for operational screw-ups.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Darat


But is this a government Minister's fault? (Not saying it isn't just wondering.) If the armed forces have the necessary funds, if allocated correctly, and the "generals" have screwed up on the ops side for distribution and procurement is it right to blame a Minister?

If it was a government imposed policy, say for instance a procurement freeze imposed by the ministry then I would say it is a Minister's responsibility but not for operational screw-ups.

I understand that procurment is the responsibility of the ministry not the Really Large Corps.

Plus, overall responsibility for what happens must be borne by the minister of defence and the armed forces minister.

As I said above, not refering to the body armour issue as there seem to have been enough in theatre but werent distributed by the RLC. But to things like boots and NBC kit....? Our soldiers already have to fork out for 'comfort' items like scarfs, extra webbing pouches, extra waterbottles etc...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I understand that procurment is the responsibility of the ministry not the Really Large Corps.

Plus, overall responsibility for what happens must be borne by the minister of defence and the armed forces minister.

As I said above, not refering to the body armour issue as there seem to have been enough in theatre but werent distributed by the RLC. But to things like boots and NBC kit....? Our soldiers already have to fork out for 'comfort' items like scarfs, extra webbing pouches, extra waterbottles etc...

I vaguely remembered something about kit being purchased, but disappearing in storage (?).

Anyway, the Hutton Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434661.stm):
BBC guilty of "unfounded" accusations of government "sexing-up" and should have properly investigated Downing Street's complaints;
Dr Kelly killed himself as a result of being in the media spotlight, not because his name was leaked;
Govt. exonerated for leaking Kelly's name but MoD at fault for not warning Kelly that his name would be leaked;
Tony Blair telepathically influenced JISC chairman to <del>sex up</del> strengthen the wording of the 45 minute claim;
Blair recommended for beatification by the Vatican.
Well, I'm glad we've got that little lot cleared up then.

[richardm]

The chairman of the BBC has already resigned. Quick off the mark!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It will not snow in London
Its far too damned afraid
Of snowing on the Regent's park
And on Horse Guard's Parade.

Apart from the surprise at the strength of the comments regarding the BBC’s editorial controls the biggest surprise of the day has to be that it is indeed snowing!!

[mummymonkey]

I don't want to say 'I told you so' but...

Originally posted by mummymonkey
The Government will win the debate & tax dodging students will have to stump up.
Hutton will lay in to Gilligan, the BBC managment, Hoon, the MOD and number 10's minute taker.
It will snow.

He didn't give Hoon the kicking that I expected but other than that spot on. I was also surprised he didn't make any recommendations.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Tony Blair telepathically influenced JISC chairman to <del>sex up</del> strengthen the wording of the 45 minute claim;
This was what the Tories picked up on of course. I think this is Hutton giving a shot across the government’s bows. There was not enough evidence to state implicitly that Blair ordered the dossier 'sexed up'; but enough for Hutton to fire this warning over future relations between the intelligence services and government.

[Darat]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
I don't want to say 'I told you so' but...



He didn't give Hoon the kicking that I expected but other than that spot on. I was also surprised he didn't make any recommendations.

He didn’t make explicit any recommendations but made the comment:

From 472.
...snip...

and I have decided that it is unnecessary for me to make any express recommendations because I have no doubt that the BBC and the Government will take note of the criticisms which I have made in this report

...snip...

[Jon_in_london]

The problem with the Hutton report is that its pretty much concerned only with the Kelly/Gilligan affair and a small aside to whether Bliar pressured the JISC to sex it up a little.

As far as the former is concerned, it soon became apparent that Gilligan had been stretching the truth and as for the latter, nothing can be proven.

However! There is still this little problem of there being no WMD in Iraq. This leaves us with two options-

1 The intelligence services are pants.
2 The politicians twisted arms to make the intelligence services say what best suited the case for war.

In the first instance, this is drastically alarming and suggests the urgent need for serious re-vamping of our intell services.
In the second instance, someones head should be chopped off for treason and the murder of 50+ British troops.

[Zep]

I'd say there is a third option, JIL.

3. That the politicians IGNORED the intell service and went with their pre-arranged legend.

What Britons might care to say or do about that and the consequences is up to them...at or before the next election, I suppose!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Zep
What Britons might care to say or do about that and the consequences is up to them...at or before the next election, I suppose!

Great, we have a choice between
1. labour- see above.
2. Tories- just dont understand what the public wants and have a bunch of crap policies
3. LibDems- Woolly minded and opportunistic
4. Odd-bods who are only good for a protest vote.

I suppose the best possible outcome would be to have a majority of votes going to weirdo fringe parties and independents. That'll teach the big guns a lesson or two.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I suppose the best possible outcome would be to have a majority of votes going to weirdo fringe parties and independents. In which of these categories would you place the UK Independence party? ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
In which of these categories would you place the UK Independence party? ;)

Weirdo-fringe odd-bods! :D

[Lothian]

Jon

Given Mr Bliar's obedience to GW surely the choices are

1. Republican- see above.
2. Tories- just dont understand what the public wants and have a bunch of crap policies
3. LibDems- Woolly minded and opportunistic
4. Odd-bods who are only good for a protest vote.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The problem with the Hutton report is that its pretty much concerned only with the Kelly/Gilligan affair and a small aside to whether Bliar pressured the JISC to sex it up a little.

As far as the former is concerned, it soon became apparent that Gilligan had been stretching the truth and as for the latter, nothing can be proven.

However! There is still this little problem of there being no WMD in Iraq. This leaves us with two options-

1 The intelligence services are pants.
2 The politicians twisted arms to make the intelligence services say what best suited the case for war.

In the first instance, this is drastically alarming and suggests the urgent need for serious re-vamping of our intell services.
In the second instance, someones head should be chopped off for treason and the murder of 50+ British troops.
I'd go for the latter, simply because of the change of the text from of the 45 minute claim from a conditional—which indicates acknowledges possible contingences, such as Saddam Hussein actually possessing these weapons—to an absolute—that Hussein does have these weapons in a condition which can be used. It struck me that Hutton may have been very careful about this conclusion because of the very seriousness of such an allegation against the government.

[Lothian]

I think Hutton came to the right conclusion. He had to decide whether the Government included the 45 min claim knowing it was incorrect.

If you take the sceptical viewpoint you don’t make definitive statements. You go on the evidence.

i.e. I am not saying there is no God just the weight of evidence is against it.

Gilligan said the government knew the statement to be wrong. That is 100% knew it was false.

Had he said the government included the (un verified single source) claim knowing that all available evidence pointed to it being incorrect, there would (hopefully) have been a different conclusion.

The problem was Hutton was asked the wrong question.

He should have been asked. Should the government have put so much emphasis on a piece of intelligence that was considered by leading experts to be dubious at the time and that now only one person in Britain maintains was an accurate assessment.

[Mr Manifesto]

A bit of controversy surrounding the Hutton Inquiry (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1034300.htm)

"We're faced with the wretched spectacle of the BBC chairman resigning while Alastair Campbell crows from the summit of his dunghill. Does this verdict, my lord, serve the real interest of truth?" asked the Daily Mail.

I must say, I do enjoy a bit of British political squalor. It's like watching cricket on a Sunday afternoon with a pint and a roast carcass.

[mummymonkey]

I see the DG has now resigned also.
I think the BBC will take a while to recover from this. It will be interesting to see what changes are made to the management and editorial structure. I hope the government isn't tempted to kick it while it's down.
In a way, the way that Hutton chose to narrow his inquiry is both a weakness and a strength. Yes, it appears the Government got off lightly and important issues weren't considered. However I think that the fact that so much was left untouched, leaves the door open for a fuller inquiry in the future. One that looks into what return we get from our vast spend on the intelligence services; and the relationship the services have with government.

[Jon_in_london]

I cant say Im sorry to see the back of Dyke. Under his leadership we have seen the launch of such marvels as BBC3- non-stop celebs! celebs! celebs! Im sure there are better things to do with the license fee than waste it on the brain-rotting crap.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Well, regardless of whether you think this was a good or bad thing, the fact is that it wouldnt have come through without Scottish MPs voting for something that will not affect Scotland.

Anybody willing to listen to me now when I call for an English parliament?

Jon - I'll back you. However, it will be subject to the normal waiting period before anything actually happens. Look forward to the opening some time around 2300, in a building originally estimated to cost "couple of grand" (actual cost on completion 8 squillion euros) and be finished "next Thursday - definite" (actual completion date not yet known or estimated, we appear to have some minor technical problems in that we forgot to put the windows anywhere that would let in daylight).

You did of course make the same points when the Scottish fisherman were being sold out (oops I appear to have misspelt represnted) in European negotiations by an English minister despite the majority of the UK fishing industry being in Scotland, didn't you?

[Reginald]

During the inquiry, the thing that struck me the most (and I commented about it in another thread) was that when the inquiry was grilling the BBC, the actual reporting of said grilling was played down. Not only by the BBC but by the press in general (there but for the grace etc..). When the inquiry got stuck into the politicals, suddenly the volume of reporting went way up.

The reason this result seems somewhat surprising is because the level of condemnation for the BBC far outweighs the perceived level of it's participation. That perceived level being due, in no small part to the very same "underplaying" of the reporting at the time.

The press in general now feels threatened, they are rallying to the cry of "unfair". The BBC has, IMO handled the whole thing very poorly, and continues to do so. I do not want the BBC to become just another political organ, however, if the complacent management there holds the view that freedom of the press can somehow excuse p!ss poor journalism then they are very much mistaken.

There is more to this than is even evident in the inquiry report. The Today program on BBC has something of a reputation for questionable practice even within the world of news reporting.

Wait for the requests to have an inquiry into the Hutton inquiry.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Reginald
During the inquiry, the thing that struck me the most (and I commented about it in another thread) was that when the inquiry was grilling the BBC, the actual reporting of said grilling was played down. Not only by the BBC but by the press in general (there but for the grace etc..). When the inquiry got stuck into the politicals, suddenly the volume of reporting went way up.

The reason this result seems somewhat surprising is because the level of condemnation for the BBC far outweighs the perceived level of it's participation. That perceived level being due, in no small part to the very same "underplaying" of the reporting at the time.

The press in general now feels threatened, they are rallying to the cry of "unfair". The BBC has, IMO handled the whole thing very poorly, and continues to do so. I do not want the BBC to become just another political organ, however, if the complacent management there holds the view that freedom of the press can somehow excuse p!ss poor journalism then they are very much mistaken.

There is more to this than is even evident in the inquiry report. The Today program on BBC has something of a reputation for questionable practice even within the world of news reporting.

Wait for the requests to have an inquiry into the Hutton inquiry.

I think the increased reporting when the politicians were questioned is understandable. Nobody really cared/cares if the BBC made errors/lied and most people couldn't have told you the name of the Chairman or DG. If the BBC was at fault then some people they didn't know would have to resign and be replaced by someone else they didn't know. If the government were to be shown to be lying....

Same goes for reporting today, there would have been a massive amount more if the report had criticised Blair and/or Hoon because it would have been a bigger story.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

You did of course make the same points when the Scottish fisherman were being sold out (oops I appear to have misspelt represnted) in European negotiations by an English minister despite the majority of the UK fishing industry being in Scotland, didn't you?

Alas, I was overseas when that little number went ahead, so it went rather unnoticed by yours truly.

I would firstly like to point out that Im no fan of the EU and I think most UK MEPs need a good kicking, just as a gentle reminder that they are supposed to be defending our interests instead of squandering them while raking in the brussels & gravy.

Anyway, fill me in- didnt the Scottish parliament protest this? Or did all the Scottish Labour MPS follow the leader?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Reginald
Wait for the requests to have an inquiry into the Hutton inquiry.

Nearly. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3441035.stm)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Alas, I was overseas when that little number went ahead, so it went rather unnoticed by yours truly.

I would firstly like to point out that Im no fan of the EU and I think most UK MEPs need a good kicking, just as a gentle reminder that they are supposed to be defending our interests instead of squandering them while raking in the brussels & gravy.

Anyway, fill me in- didnt the Scottish parliament protest this? Or did all the Scottish Labour MPS follow the leader?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2378903.stm

Basically, the Scottish fisheries minister claimed he would "lead" negotiations and then "clarified" his position when the UK government pointed out that he was talking nonsense. Not sure if there was a formal vote, but if there had been "Union Jack" McConnell would no doubt have whipped his minions through to support it - the Labour and Libdem backbench MSP's must be the tamest bunch ever.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Reginald

Wait for the requests to have an inquiry into the Hutton inquiry.

Perhaps there will be an inquiry into wether or not there should be an inquiry into the hutton inquiry?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Perhaps there will be an inquiry into wether or not there should be an inquiry into the hutton inquiry?

Well there is already (isn't there?) going to be an inquiry into the leaking of the report. :)

[E.J.Armstrong]

It seems that mummymonkey wins hands down. Must be psychic.

Blair claimed that Hussein's '... military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.' http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page284.asp
No 'might be' or 'could be'.
I wonder which WMD that was exactly?

Blair claimed that he did not authorise the leaking of David Kelly's name to the press. He was however in overall charge of the process in which the name came out and had considered other ways of issuing the information. http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter09.htm#a69

Blair headed the process under which the dodgy dossier was released.

Blair claimed that there was 'massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories'. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1113227,00.html

Untrue.

Blair asserted that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed compelling evidence that showed Saddam Hussein had attempted to 'conceal weapons'. (from the above site)

That was also untrue.

Many argued that the reason for the war in Iraq war had a tad to do with oil. Halliburton (no relation) has been awarded many lucrative contracts relating to the oil industry in Iraq. Some of them where they didn't even have to go through what the world would recognise as a bidding process.

Three BBC people have so far resigned.
No-one from the government has resigned (excepting conscientious objectors).

How much 'sexed up' information can a government feed its people before falling foul of indecency laws? (All guesses in units of Blies/day please. 1 Blie = 1 sexing up. Small sexing ups can be expressed in milliblies (non-SI unit).)

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Lothian


Gilligan said the government knew the statement to be wrong. That is 100% knew it was false.



You don't seriously believe that they didn't do you?