I agree with you about the media. I agree with you that a sound bite is not a promise.

We. You and I and anyone else that wants to sign up, should try to make Gordon Brown live up to the open terms of reference he alluded to.

Democracy is down to us, really. If we allow politicians to pretend that they are our betters, then more fool us. Such is my wisdom or foolishness.

My point was that all sorts of things are mooted and the media is often misused as a very public soundingboard for policies by an out-of-touch government. Doing it that way also gives the false impression that promises have been made, which is not the case, and also enables the government to make a pretence of its intentions.

In which case, can you tell me why anyone should give two hoots about something that will never happen?

‘mooted’ in the sense that I used it, is a verb, which means, ‘raise or suggest (a question or an idea)’. Although I quite like the idea that it is a convention of lowing cows.

Still, Browns suggested terms of reference are broad enough to be meaningful. To the extent that the liberal left should have a steak, oops, stake in them!

Hindsight is a fantastic attribute, but that’s not what we want from our politicians. We demand foresight, though it isn’t a readily discernable commodity.

Brown has dug himself a pit which he can’t get out of, he can only hope it doesn’t end up as his grave.

The main point for me is that this is good news, and the right thing to do, and a necessary move for Labour politically to start to reconnect to anti-Iraq war Labour supporters. But I don’t think No10 has got the politics of this quite right. this is a positive development for them. They should say: yes, we think it is an important shift, not imply this was a Blair policy (when it wasn’t). Whatever people’s views on Iraq in 2003, it is now an obvious common ground position that the lessons need to be learnt. The practical arguments made would not prevent clarity about the timing, etc. They seem to me to be heading into an unnecessary political argument with the opposing parties, which an announcement would avoid.

I agree with Margin4Error: there is no possibility of a Blairite rebellion. For two reasons: there aren’t many Blairites, and the true believers would not want to be blamed for splits and divisiveness (assuming that one or two people remember that). Nor is there any significant prospect of a ‘left of Brown’ rebellion. Because there aren’t enough people outside the Campaign Group; because there are divisions even within that small group; and because there is no genuinely coherent alternative constructive agenda which goes beyond rhetorical oppositionalism.

Neither of those two groups could find 10% of the MPs to back a leadership contestant. (Between them, they may just about have 10%). The vast majority of the parliamentary party are new Labour as a necessary response, broadly loyal-ish to Blair and then to Brown, and with most wanting a The PLP is more comfortable with Brown than Blair in political/policy terms, though many acknowledge the particular star quality which Blair had, at least from 1995 until 2003/4. Very few were expecting Brown as PM to be somehow completely different from the Brown who has run economic and social policy so far. I don’t know anybody on the left who thought Red Gordon was secretly lurking and waiting to strike. But there is a sense that he has a stronger commitment to child poverty, inequality and public services.

There isn’t any significant constituency in the party for something completely different: there are plenty of arguments and pressures from within about the policy and political agenda, which are mainly about a (moderate but significant) tilt left in policy and politics (less uberblairite ‘reform’ rhetoric for its own sake; more focus on Labour arguments and constituencies; more social ends as well as means; less running against your own side to look tough), without ignoring the electoral constraints. And there is an important argument, which I have made, that sticking to the 1997 script/constraints too closely could also cost Labour the election, as the broad coalition must be rebuilt on all sides, not just with classic swing voters.

There is little concern about a blairite rebellion in Labour, or any rebellion - indeed plenty of non-blairites are starting to fret that the lack of that alternative powerbase in the party has made the Brown led government complacent and uninspiring.

But Brown has a difficult line to walk beyond party politics.

The military establishment and the inteligence service don’t want an inquiry, at least until their work is “done” in Iraq. Generals fear it would undermine troop morale in Iraq, and intelligence services fear it would fuel unrest as aspects of an inquiry would provide propoganda for insurgents.

And of course Brown needs to set something of a precident on this inquiry. Although he was hardly an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq, he wants to wait until we are out of there before an inquiry is held so that the same line can be maintained on Afghanistan.

The public still largely support action in Afghanistan and it was of course a perfectly legal war fought on sound principle (that of mutual defence of allies under attack). But once the low hanging fruit of Iraq has been picked, the anti-war movement will move on to afghanistan, and public opinion will start to turn on that too.

So both Labour and Conservatives (when next in power) would therefore benefit from a precident that puts off official inquiries until the end of the action. That would protect action in Afghanistan which is far more important strategically than Iraq.

Does Brown have anything to lose from pushing with an inquiry?

Of course! The inquiry will find that the invasion was a disaster, that it wasn’t properly thought through, that there were too many problems to speak of with the process, and that Brown was all for it.

If he thought an inquiry would make him (and the Labour party) more popular, he would start one today.

Usually, governments write terms of reference for enquiries that preclude the enquiry looking at the ‘interesting bits’. If Brown does allow an open ended enquiry along the lines mooted, it would be all to the good.

From my viewpoint it is easy to make arguments on all sides of what was right and wrong about the invasion, overthrow and occupation of the Iraqi regime (it was hardly a war), but Brown’s failure to commit to a principle suggests he is being dishonest about the bigger picture as he sees it.

We could do with some transparency to go with this latest promise to hold/be held to account.

I agree with your view that:
It is certainly true that the Brown letter does not go into any detail as to the nature of an inquiry or its timing. However, it would be more than pushing my luck to complain about that, and I hope that the government will set out more details of its plans as soon as possible.

But I still cannot fathom why Brown would be so coy about pushing ahead with this. Are the Blairites still so strong within government that any attempt by Brown to decisively break from the Blair agenda, and set out his own, means he will face a rebellion?

As we both know, this govt is changing its rhetoric on ‘the war on terror’, which should be welcomed. But why not be bolder on breaking from the past at a time when most Labour voters seem to be reaching the conclusion that Brown is really not that different from Blair.

I remember the Compass conference not long after Brown came to power. Neal Lawson was visibly enthusiastic and hailed it as the dawn of a new era almost. Now, I bet, he too is regretting his words.

Does Brown have anything to lose from pushing with an inquiry?