Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war yesterday was inevitably controversial. Equally inevitably, it revealed little or nothing that we did not already know.
If anyone had hoped that the former Prime Minister would recant his decision to take the country into a war that was almost certainly illegal, he would have been disappointed. There was no apology, no regret; the bereaved parents of servicemen who filled the public gallery would undoubtedly have left feeling cheated of the “closure” that they hoped Blair’s testimony would bring them.
Watching Blair yesterday evening on Newsnight, I was struck by how much he had physically changed since that 1997 May morning, when he swaggered into Downing Street, clasping the extended palms of the flag-waving Labour staffers who lined his way.
Here was a grey, haggard, drawn-looking man, with a hunted look in his eyes, almost unrecognisable as his former self. His hands, reported Newsnight, shook as he opened the bottle of water at the start of the six-hour evidence session. He looked deeply ill at ease.
The old Blair communication devices, however, were still on display: the widened eyes (sincerity), the answers prefaced with “Look” (authority), the catch in the voice (emotion).
But, truth is, we all know those tricks now and they just don’t work any more.
The only wonder is that they ever did.
5 Comments
January 30, 2010 at 9:05 am
Why was this enquiry not conducted in the manner of a court hearing whereby witnesses would not know what previous witnesses have said? Blair, a clever lawyer, has the benefit of all previous evidence to present his case, making New Labour appear united, and putting the best possible face on what we now know was illegal agression and occupation on another state for which we are all paying, thousands with their lives? Will it be another whitewash?
The only thing he is saying which carries any semblance of conviction is that he really believed it was the right thing to do. Does this amount to criminal intent?
January 30, 2010 at 11:22 am
He would still have the ability of making Labour a more electable party than Brown.
He would also still give Cameron a run for his money, I say this not as a Labour person, but as a Conservative.
January 31, 2010 at 12:29 am
Didn’t the tories in 2003 and right up to the current point fully support the invasion and current occupation of Iraq?
January 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous (above) is right. We have no conviction polititians now of the calibre, individuality and honesty of Thatcher or Churchill to rally the passions of the ordinary voter. At least Blair had the conviction to remove the heart of Labour (Clause 4) before mesmerizing disillusioned Conservative voters to support him.
Removing Clause 4 was as dishonest as the implantation of false evidence re W.M.D., but he made them both work with the assistance of spin. What we need now is some HONEST conviction, which I do not see in Mr. Cameron. A hung parliament will be a nightmare for this poor country. The troops need rallying with some basic home truths.
February 2, 2010 at 10:52 am
You’d better hope they still work, David, because your leader has carbon-copied them.