Anthony Barnett is the founder of openDemocracy.net.

A social entrepreneur of wide experience, Anthony helped launch Charter 88 in 1988 and was its first Director. Generating widespread support he turned it into a movement for the democratic reform of Britain (at the end of the 90s the Telegraph described it as the UK's "most influential pressure group of the decade"). Anthony is also a writer and journalist. He is the author of Iron Britannia; Soviet Freedom and This Time; and co-author and editor of among other books, Aftermath: the Struggle of Vietnam and Cambodia; Power and the Throne, Town and Country and a considerable range of articles and pamphlets covering politics and culture, such as (with Peter Carty), The Athenian Option – radical reform for the House of Lords (Demos, 1998) and the television film, England's Henry Moore. He writes regularly for openDemocracy and contributes to many of its debates.

Recent articles

Yesterday, I learnt from watching the news, was our first ever Armed Forces Day. According to the official website "The first Armed Forces Day is 27 June 2009, and is an opportunity for the nation to show our support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community"

The tradition in the United Kingdom has always been that we do not celebrate the military or have parades of armed men in our town centres if we can help it - unless we are in Northern Ireland. We conquered, or not, when duty called, and commemorated the actions and their dead.The Colour was trooped annually with pomp and well drilled display to demonstrate the special relationship between the Crown and our armed might - a relationship  being assiduously cultivated with William and Harry. We also, of course, have Rememberance Sunday. Without undue modesty, therefore, we were 'quiety proud' and all the more deeply military in our attitude because of this. Not for us, up until this weekend, the boastful mobilisations of state force down 200 high streets (and the risk of protest that might politicise them and break the spell of monarchy - and Republican protest there was in Strathclyde, described by Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy aa a "sickening spectacle".)

But at the request of Gordon Brown, the one-time Tory MP Quentin Davis recommended that veterans day be turned into a 'national' event as part of the Prime Minister's Britishness programme. The Queen boycotted all the "main events" according to the Times.

Claims that the Queen and the Prince were both invited to Saturday’s event were denied by both royal sources and the Ministry of Defence

And the paper also reported,

Phil Cooper, the father of Britain’s youngest soldier to be wounded in Iraq, Jamie Cooper, told the Daily Mail: “When you sign up, you take an oath to serve the Queen and country, laying down your life for the monarchy if necessary. Surely it’s not too much to ask for a senior royal to be bothered to turn up and take the salute.”

But perhaps the Queen knew what she was doing as the real tradition has been cast aside. Perhaps this too should added to Peter Oborne's list of New Labour's shredding of the constitution. Meanwhile a most peculiar chopped off version of the Union Jack has been created to 'brand' the event, with attractive service girls holding it aloft on its Flickr page. The website also has a button you can click to show your support. So far there are 61,152 impressions, considerably less than the armed forces themselves, not to speak of their family members.

Maybe the real question is why so many events have taken place at all - given hat they are blatently a New Labour ploy. I suspect there is a slightly subversive defiance taking place. Everyone knows that the Iraq deployment was a military humiliation born of mendacity, while Afghanistan is  serving US strategy not the UK's. For the first time while they are serving, soldiers are publically percieved as the victims of government policy. If so, the cheerful applause for them is also an expression of patriotic opposition to the government.

Nonetheless, a battle over Britain has been declared if this usurpation of vetrans day continues to be claimed as a "national" celebration of the UK.   

Powerful article in the Glasgow Herald by Iain Macwhirter on the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution which everyone in London who is interested in UK politics should read . He reports that Calman is "arguably as important as the 1988 Claim of Right and the 1997 Devolution white paper. By making the intellectual case for a degree of fiscal autonomy so cogently, it has set Scotland on a new course which should lead, at the very least, to a new federal United Kingdom within 10 years."  Macwhirter says he is astonished that the Tories have agreed  to it and set Britain on course for new settlement. Is Cameron ensuring the English card remains in play despite his professed unionism? (Hat tip Tom Griffin)

In an earlier post I said that Brown had kept the Iraq inquiry hearings secret because Blair and Miliband did not want to be obliged to give evidence in public. Bingo! The Observer has confirmed the first part of my judgement. But there is more to it than this. Team Blair, which includes Mandelson, Miliband, Campbell, Angi Hunter, are doing everything they can to fix the presidency of Europe. (According to Peter Oborne in yesterday's Mail they have succeeded in recruiting Blair-lover David Cameron to the cause). Blair is slippery enough to know that he could survive a public interrogation on his Iraq mandacity. But even the prospect of such a hearing would damage his standing as a candidate for becoming our president. This had to be prevented at all costs.

The cost was Brown looking ridiculous, Having just declared for transparency and against rule by a "gentleman's club" he was obliged to announce that the Iraq inquiry would be a gentleman's agreement, meeting in private without witnesses having to give evidence on oath. 

Why on earth did Brown protect Blair like this? Well, ask yourself why Mandelson so insisted. Mandelson, who would like to be our president's chef de cabinet, is determined to keep Brown in office to lock in British support for Blair's elevation. In his conversation with Miliband at the hight of the coup Mandelson threatened him with the consequences of disloyalty to this new form of the project: walk out of the Cabinet with Purnell and you will find yourself in the dock under oath telling the world what you knew about the Iraq decision and no prospect whatever thereafter of either winning the Labour leadership or having a fallback job in the Blair presidential entourage.

Yes, folks, the fix is in.

Following on Stuart's tirade below against the decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry in secret, we have Brown's turnabout saying it can be in public - if the Chairman so decides and that he is in favour of openness and transparency. The way he talked about it at the press conference in Brussels he made it seem it wasn't his decision to hold it in camera. Clearly, the concession that it can be held in public was not Brown's either.  With the generals both retired and in post demanding their say in public, and Ken Macdonald's brilliant piece in the Times and even Ed Ball's saying open is better, he had to give way. The Spectator thinks the Balls intervention is a sign of a crumbling government, picking up the spin from Alistair Campbell. But I wonder at Campbell's motives.

The first person to say that the Inquiry had to be a secret one modelled on Franks Inquiry into the Falkland's War was David Miliband. When it was announced he defended the decision saying that Franks was "the gold standard" for inquiries, an absurd description. For those many too young to remember, the Falklands was a great success but... it should never have happened. While Thatcher emerged triumphant, she had personally ordered the withdrawal of Britain's symbolic naval presence in the island as a cost cutting exercise, an action that led the Argentine junta to belive that an invasion would not be resisted. Any objective investigation would have found her guilty of gross negligance. But this was unthinkable. So a bent investigation was needed instead - and provided.

All of which is relevant today. Because clearly both Blair and Campbell will have to be interviewed and, indeed, should be obliged to give evidence under oathgiven how many died. This is what they want to prevent. Perhaps David Miliband wants to prevent this too? Might he also need to appear. And could it possibly be the case that Ed Balls would like them to be called up in public? 

Henry Porter tipped me off about this fascinating column by Steve Richards with a conclusion that implies Brown has agreed that if he can't raise Labour's poll ratings off the bottom of the sea he will leave in the Autumn. This suggests that Mandelson's conversation with Miliband went as follows: too wild and destructive for Brown to go now, with an implosion of divisions. Bleed the discontents and flippers like Hoon. Hold on for now with a clap of unity and prevent an Autumn election Labour is certain to lose. But if there is no bounce in support for Brown and Alan Johnson (or whoever) clearly emerges as a favoured leader, use the Party conference to give him a coronation with the election safely in May - and aim for the John Major scenario. This is burnt into Mandelson's memory, as Kinnock's lead collapsed after Thatcher was forced out. But, this is the implication, Brown has agreed to this scenario. He won't be humiliated but will appear as its generous and far-sighted architect, offering Labout the 'unity' he has always insisted on when he steps down.