Agreeing with Tim Stanley, Diane Abbott writes:
I met Charles
Kennedy many times. He
was a remarkable politician with all the gifts: a great communicator, strong
principles and great charisma.
But his finest moment was in
2003. That was the year when he was the only mainstream political leader to
come out against the Iraq war.
In some ways it was a straightforward decision.
Some politicians who supported the war now cover their embarrassment by claiming
that “we did not know then what we know now” or “the real problem was the
post-invasion arrangements”. But actually, the facts were clear at the time.
The pretext for war was the existence of stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. However, more than once, the last UN weapons inspector to
Iraq, Scott Ritter, came to parliament to explain that, when he left Iraq, he
was confident that all the weapons of mass destruction had been eliminated.
He
always added that the possible exception was some chemical weapons, but that
they would have deteriorated by now.
So nobody who had paid attention all along
was surprised when no weapons of mass destruction were actually discovered
after the ill-fated invasion.
A desperate Tony Blair got his PR man Alastair
Campbell to produce the notorious “dodgy dossier”.
This was supposed to contain the case for war. But the dossier was just that – completely dodgy – with no new facts. It was a pretext for voting for war, not a fact-based argument.
This was supposed to contain the case for war. But the dossier was just that – completely dodgy – with no new facts. It was a pretext for voting for war, not a fact-based argument.
But politically opposing the war was still a very hard
decision for Charles
Kennedy to take. This
was because of the pressures on him.
You have to have been in parliament at the
time to know that there were strong rumours the Lib Dems would in fact come out
for the war because senior, and much more establishment-minded, Lib Dem figures
were pressing him to do so.
The argument was that a serious party had to
ultimately close ranks with the rest of the British establishment and get
behind our armed forces.
So you cannot overstate Charles
Kennedy’s bravery in finally coming to the right decision.
I was on the huge
“Stop the War” march and rally. It was the biggest ever and on
the platform at the end was Charles Kennedy.
He was not a regular on
left platforms, but his determination and convictions shone through and the
crowd loved him for it.
The Labour party is now in the midst of leadership and
mayoral selections. Most of the candidates supported the Iraq war, so try to
pretend that it was all long ago and not relevant to anything.
But the Iraq war
is still undoubtedly relevant in geopolitical terms. Much of the bloodshed and
killing we see in the region was precipitated by it.
In terms of domestic
politics, where you stood on the Iraq war is a test of both your principles and
your judgment. And these remain relevant issues for leadership in any party.
Charles Kennedy’s decision to
come out against the Iraq war was a great moment for him. It was also a great
moment for his party, which went on to get its best ever result in a UK
election.
But it was also a great moment for Westminster democracy. For one
brief, shining moment people saw a party leader ignore the spin doctors and
take a decision purely on principle.
If more of my fellow politicians were prepared
to do this, people’s confidence in Westminster would be so much greater.
No comments:
Post a Comment