Britannia Radio

The Chilcot inquiry will be seen as one of Brown's bigger blunders

It has become increasingly clear that the PM was fully signed up to the overall Iraq war plan

• 
• • Toby Helm political editor
  • The Observer, Sunday 31 January 2010
  • Article history

Gordon Brown was in meetings for most of Friday and only caught glimpses of Tony Blair's televised appearance before the Chilcot inquiry. But with his own appearance only a few weeks away, he will have read the reaction to it in yesterday's press with intense interest.

It was, as ever with Blair, a smooth performance, in which the former PM managed to swerve around awkward questions by asserting, with total self-belief, that he did what he thought was right and that the world was a better place as a result.

Unusually for Blair, however, he failed (or refused) to do what he always did so brilliantly while prime minister. He failed to capture the emotional mood, and to empathise with those most closely involved.

In the final session, chairman Sir John Chilcot drew to Blair's attention something of which he was all too acutely aware: that members of families who had lost relatives in the Iraq conflict were in the room. In effect, he asked Blair if he had anything to say to them.

Rather than taking his chance to reach out and sympathise, to say he shared their grief and their pain, Blair simply reiterated his previous arguments that he had done what he thought was best by taking their sons to war. When Chilcot again asked if Blair had anything more to add, he merely said: "No."

For a politician who had articulated the nation's emotions so profoundly on numerous occasions, whether it was after the death of Diana or the terrorist attacks of 9/11, his approach was striking.

"I think he has lost touch. He is out of it these days. He doesn't get it any more," said one Labour MP. "He completely failed to judge the mood."

Another theory, however, was that Blair made a deliberate decision not to reach for the emotional button for fear of the headlines that would ensue. "Just imagine it," said a government source. " 'Blair pleads for forgiveness'."

Instead, and knowing this was almost certainly his last chance to make his case, he opted for a hard-nosed assessment of the crude realities. Wars were about tough decisions, leadership. The passage of time would vindicate him. It was not a time for emotion. This was about his legacy, not short-term political necessity or the courting of popularity.

When Blair left the room, two mothers were crying. The former PM was branded a "liar" and a "murderer" by the families. They had come from all parts of the country to hear contrition – and he gave them none. "To gasps from the gallery, Blair said we should be proud of the war" said theIndependent yesterday, summing up the feeling of intense anger inside the room.

Those who know Blair well said yesterday that the former PM will have known what he was doing. "It was not a mistake. It will have been his decision. This was about giving a tough message in a tough way. He could not be accused of spin."

When Gordon Brown appears, however, the challenges will be different.

The prime minister will come before the inquiry only weeks before a general election. During the inquiry, he has been accused by some of having, as chancellor, failed to provide funds for British soldiers to ensure they were properly equipped. It has also become increasingly clear that he was fully signed up to the overall project, even if he was not as closely involved in the key decisions as some. Brown will have awkward question to answer. He will also, for political reasons, need to be more aware of how he comes over to the public.

So will he offer just a little of the contrition that Blair failed to show? Will he try to empathise where Blair refused to do so?

One Labour source said the aim would be to appear more reflective than Blair and to talk more of how he respected those with different views, and felt the pain of those who had lost loved ones. But to offer any form of apology would be a mistake. "If you apologise in politics, it never puts you in a better place. In this business, it is really about conveying conviction." Another disagreed, saying Brown had to show contrition. "I think it will show strength if he does. It will be cathartic."

Whatever tone Brown adopts, his appearance carries high risks. If he is too supportive of everything the Blair regime did, he will be identified more closely with the entire controversy. But if he tries to distance himself from it, he will be seen as rewriting the past.

The inquiry is already seen in Labour as one of Brown's bigger blunders. When he decided last year to set it up, the issue of Iraq had begun to drift out of voters' minds. It was the past responsibility of a past prime minister. But Brown – against the advice of some of his most senior aides – believed a decision to grant the opponents of war the independent investigation they had always demanded would earn him the respect that Blair had lost, and help distance his own administration from Blair's.

But most Labour MPs say the decision has blown up in his face, as witnesses from government and Whitehall have revealed, in public, the true extent of disagreements at the highest levels about the most important decision of Labour's time in power.

Blair's appearance was preceded by the extraordinary spectacle of the Foreign Office's two most senior legal advisers saying that the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the prime minister ignored their judgment that the war was illegal. This week there will be more fireworks when Clare Short, the former international development secretary and outspoken critic of the conflict, will take the stand.

Short lost the Labour whip in 2006 after saying she was "ashamed" of Blair's government, mainly because of Iraq. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's communications director, has already told the inquiry Short was "very difficult to handle", in comments that were then condemned as "extraordinary" by Sir Suma Chakrabarti, former permanent secretary at the Department for International Development from 2002 to 2007. He told the inquiry: "I think what Alastair Campbell said was unworthy, actually. He talked about Clare Short being untrustworthy and so on." Short, he added, had been left out of key discussions just because she had different views. "I think it's bad management practice generally to exclude from your discussions those who disagree with you. You don't get your arguments tested enough and you also then don't find the collective guide that you might get."

Short will, no doubt, have much more to say on these subjects. Day after day, the history of Labour's internal warfare over Iraq has been trawled over in public, as those involved have tried to settle scores and put the record straight to their own personal advantage. Now it will be left to Brown – the man's whose idea the inquiry was in the first place – to try to clear up the mess he created.