I see that David Miliband is warning Telegraph readers that while he can win the next election his brother or any other candidate threatens Labour with three terms out of office. My view is that David himself can't win. Whatever his undoubted political qualities he is too implicated in Labour's abuse of the state and failed to take the opportunity to redeem himself when he could have. It's not just that Iraq was a moral issue, it remains a defining political issue. Jason Cowley, New Statesman editor, asked me to write a column on this. It turned into a careful argument and you can read it at full length here on their website. There are two key points: by saying he'd not support the war if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq David perpetuates the unprincipled manipulation of opinion that asserts this was the reason for the invasion when it wasn't. Second, and this applies to Ed Balls too, saying that one was "wrong" to have supported the invasion isn't the point. What is needed from one-time supporters is their explanation of why the public as a whole was right when they were not. It is more than 'trust' that is at stake here. It's democracy. The political class might like to think that we should all 'move on' irrespective of right or wrong. I see there is a lot of talk now about the Coulson affair lasting more than "eleven days" - a genuine internalisation of spin-doctor cynicism. Well, Iraq is going to last eleven years.
This year’s COP26 meeting in Glasgow has been hailed as the most significant climate event since the 2015 Paris Agreement. But what action must world leaders take to put the planet on a sustainable path? And what does this mean for the future of global capitalism?
Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 15 July at 5pm UK time/12pm EDT
URL copied to clipboard
Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy?Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why?Sign up here to find out.