what ed should have said on iraq

Is there any way Ed Miliband could have dealt with the issue of Iraq in his speech without pissing off the senior members of the last cabinet who were there when the decision was made, including and most conspicuously, his brother?

Maybe it was unavoidable. After all, he had to raise the issue and declare it a mistake, just as he'd been arguing during the campaign. He needed to draw a line under the debate, for the party and the country. Indeed, his ability to do so was a central reason for his victory (even it seems disingenuous of him to say he was against it when there's no evidence that he was).

But I think he could have handled it better - he could have showed his colleagues, and supporters of the war generally, a little more respect. He could have said something like:

There is no doubt that we ruptured our relationship with the voters over Iraq. I don't condemn those who made the decision. It was a terrible decision to make. There were, frankly, no easy answers or solutions; those on both sides of the debate had powerful arguments. My judgement was, and continues to be, that it was wrong. However, I respect those who took the opposite view. I know the decision was not taken lightly, and was made in good faith. But wherever you stand on this issue, I think we can all agree it's time to draw a line under it, to move on, and to begin rebuilding some of the trust we have lost.

Or something like that. As it is, it came off as "We all knew it a terrible idea, and those idiots did it anyway." Hence the stony faces in the front rows, and DM's minor apoplexy.

(To follow this blog - and me - on Twitter click here.)

Comments

[punkscience]

But we DID all know it was a terrible idea . . . . It was self-evident that the invasion was unjustified and the product of diseased thinking in the White House and Downing Street.

You had to be a mindless fucktard to have thought otherwise and the evidence that has arisen since reveals this to be the case. The "intelligence" was a joke, the rhetoric was exceptionalist and grossly hypocritical.

[Ian Leslie]

In that case, I'm a mindless fucktard, who barely deserves to be visited by somebody of your wisdom and prescience.

But even putting that aside: the question is, what's the smart thing to do as a new leader? Make a large part of your shadow cabinet feel like you're insulting them, or treat them with respect even as you disagree with them?

That seems to me to be a no-brainer - or a no-minder if you prefer.

[MW]

Wasn't it more Harriet Harman who annoyed David M, rather than Ed? David knows that if you take a decision in politics you live with the consequences. He is doing so and has continued to defend his decision back in 2003. Harriet is happy just to clap along with an opposite point of view.

I can cope with politicians who think about decisions deeply and come down on the other side oa decision to me - what is annoying is those who blow with the prevailing wind. Perhaps David M feels the same.

[Ben R]

Maybe Ed is trying to be put his Brownite past behind him and become the new Tony. I noticed this when he said bluntly that David "lost". Blair was not one for paying undue respect to predecessors or dissenters once his mind was made up. Incidentally, while I would of course not be so discourteous as to refer to you as a "fucktard" I think you using the passing of time to create a generous narrative about both Iraq and WMD. I really don't think it was an agonising decision (Chris Mullin's diary records funny conversation about why Blair did it based on his hatred of Hackney Labour) or that WMD was just a "mistake" given the extent to which it was needed as a pretext for a war that had already been decided upon in Washington. Next Blair's cavalier approach to franchised torture will be genuine innocence...

[Ian Leslie]

I think we're all tired of these arguments now, but I will just say that anyone who doesn't think that the decision on whether or not to go to war with Saddam was an agonisingly close call just doesn't know enough, or hasn't thought hard enough, about it. There were no good options.

(If you can bear it, read or re-read The Threatening Storm, an extremely cogent and powerful case for war by a very knowledgeable and sane guy, written in 2002. Turned out to be wrong)

[Ben R]

I don't think being "tired" of the arguments over something as massive as Iraq really counts for much. It's an ongoing catastrophe in which we played a huge part and "moving on" isn't really an option - I heard similar stuff from the Chilean right about human rights after the Pinochet years when I lived there. I simply don't agree that it was an agonisingly close call in which you could put a cigarette paper between wrong and right. I think it was decided upon for ideological reasons, I think evidence that went against invasion was discounted rather than considered, ditto legal arguments and the UN and a level of fabrication also took place to suit an agenda which had been decided upon in advance. I'm not a raving leftie, I don't think Blair was wrong on everything, but I think Iraq was a disaster on every level and you are trying to offer a cloak of respectability to a decision which shamed us and caused suffering on a truly epic scale. And there were clear and better alternatives. Thanks for the book suggestion - will certainly take a look.

[Ian Leslie]

Oh, I do enjoy being scolded.

[Ben R]

I can't help myself. Maybe it's being told that I don't know enough or haven't thought enough that brings out the scold (is this the noun?) in me.

[Ben R]

Although I'm in the politically dissonant position of opposing Iraq but preferring David. And I really can't bear Kinnock.