This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Tony Blair says he was right to 'stand by America' in run-up to Iraq war – live
Tony Blair says he was right to 'stand by America' in run-up to Iraq war – live
(35 minutes later)
9.22am BST
09:22
Here is a Guardian video recalling some of the things Tony Blair has said about Iraq over the last 15 years.
9.18am BST
09:18
Tony Blair's Today interview - Summary
In his Today interview Tony Blair repeated many of the points he made in his two-hour press conference yesterday afternoon. But here are the new, or newish, points that emerged.
When you look at what we were presented with … It wasn’t that I wanted to believe it, I did believe it.
I can regret the mistakes and I can regret many things about it but I genuinely believe, not just that we acted out of good motives, and I did what I did out of good faith, but I sincerely believe that we would be in a worse position if we hadn’t acted that way. I may be completely wrong about that.
I understand that people still disagree but at least do me the respect - as I respect your position - of reading my argument. If all of these debates are conducted around character and good faith, if you are not careful you end up a casualty of a debate that is all about that type of invective, you are then unable to have a proper debate about the difficulty of dealing with this issue.
8.58am BST
08:58
Tony Blair's interview - verdict from the Twitter commentariat
Andrew Sparrow
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Claire.
I will post a summary of Tony Blair’s interview shortly. But this is what some political journalists and commentators are saying about Blair’s performance.
From Channel 4 News’ Krishnan Guru-Murthy
Blair will never give new ground on history. It's his view of the outcomes - that the world is better off - that should be challenged
From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn
Blair on #r4today, "I don't recall a single request" for equipment turned down. Awful evasion. #Chilcot riddled with ignored general' pleas.
From the BBC’s Norman Smith
So..Blair defence: 1) World a better place without Saddam 2) Our best interests to be close to US
From the Observer’s Tracy McVeigh
Blair throat - health condition caused by yelling at man trying to rewrite history on the radio
From the BBC’s Mishal Husain
Blair says by 2010 (after the surge) Iraq was relatively peaceful (@BowenBBC says not a proper day of peace in 13 years) #r4today
From the Guardian’s Tom Clark
On "With you, whatever", striking Blair doesn't deploy the obvious defence. Cd hv been "with you" in moral support. Implies was committed
Or, to make another point about the “with you, whatever” memo, it is very similar to what Blair was said publicly to America in his speech to the Labour party conference in October 2001, after 9/11. Referring to the US, he said: “We were with you at the first, we will stay with you to the last.”
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
Blair spinning narrative he had to make "binary choice" on March 18 2003. Implies it was snap decision but he had months to consider this
From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges
This is madness. Blair says in the memo "So, I'm keen on a coalition, not necessarily militarily but politically".
Blair now being accused of not second guessing the JIC on intelligence. The complete opposite of what he was previously being accused of.
From the Sun’s Steve Hawkes
So much of the questioning of Tony Blair is why we went to war, but lack of protection for troops and planning for afterwards is huge issue
From BuzzFeed’s Siraj Datoo
"The events in Iraq did not turn out as we wanted," Blair says, slightly understating what happened in the country after the war.
Updated
at 9.17am BST
8.42am BST
8.42am BST
08:42
08:42
Does he ask god for forgiveness, Humphrys asks him. Does he pray?
Does he ask god for forgiveness, Humphrys asks him. Does he pray?
Blair doesn’t answer this. He talks about his work in the wider Middle East.
Blair doesn’t answer this. He talks about his work in the wider Middle East.
I don’t think that this struggle was in vain in the end … I know that this debate can’t just be conducted in terms of whether my decision in Iraq was taken on right or wrong grounds, in good or bad faith. We’ve got to have a really deep debate about how we deal with these issues.
I don’t think that this struggle was in vain in the end … I know that this debate can’t just be conducted in terms of whether my decision in Iraq was taken on right or wrong grounds, in good or bad faith. We’ve got to have a really deep debate about how we deal with these issues.
That’s the end of the interview.
That’s the end of the interview.
8.40am BST
8.40am BST
08:40
08:40
Blair says he regrets that he did not interrogate the intelligence more thoroughly and accepts the mistakes in planning.
Blair says he regrets that he did not interrogate the intelligence more thoroughly and accepts the mistakes in planning.
I think about it every day … It was the most difficult decision I ever took.
I think about it every day … It was the most difficult decision I ever took.
I feel, until I actually say to people I wish we’d never joined the American coalition, I wish we’d never got rid of Saddam, people won’t believe my regret.
I feel, until I actually say to people I wish we’d never joined the American coalition, I wish we’d never got rid of Saddam, people won’t believe my regret.
He can’t say that, he adds.
He can’t say that, he adds.
He rejects the accusation that he is deluded, insisting “there is an argument there”, which people are free to disagree with.
He rejects the accusation that he is deluded, insisting “there is an argument there”, which people are free to disagree with.
It’s not possible to have a proper debate about the difficulty of the issue, he says, because of the invective around it.
It’s not possible to have a proper debate about the difficulty of the issue, he says, because of the invective around it.
8.35am BST
8.35am BST
08:35
08:35
Blair says he does not “recall a single occasion” when the government was asked for more equipment for troops and did not say yes.
Blair says he does not “recall a single occasion” when the government was asked for more equipment for troops and did not say yes.
There is no resource limitation. if you tell us what you need, you will have the resources.
There is no resource limitation. if you tell us what you need, you will have the resources.
He says the first part of the operations was “a brilliant military success”.
He says the first part of the operations was “a brilliant military success”.
“Of course everything is my responsibility,” Blair says – but he insists he did not limit or delay the equipment available to the military.
“Of course everything is my responsibility,” Blair says – but he insists he did not limit or delay the equipment available to the military.
There was never anything other than full support from the political side for requests from the military for equipment and resources, Blair adds.
There was never anything other than full support from the political side for requests from the military for equipment and resources, Blair adds.
Updated
Updated
at 8.36am BST
at 8.36am BST
8.33am BST
8.33am BST
08:33
08:33
Blair says he accepts responsibility for the aftermath of the invasion. But he believes military action had to be taken to depose Saddam.
Blair says he accepts responsibility for the aftermath of the invasion. But he believes military action had to be taken to depose Saddam.
When you judge the wisdom of those decisions … it is important to ask ourselves what would have happened if we had taken the other decision.
When you judge the wisdom of those decisions … it is important to ask ourselves what would have happened if we had taken the other decision.
He says before the intervention, he was advised on the possibility of humanitarian disaster.
He says before the intervention, he was advised on the possibility of humanitarian disaster.
“I accept many of the criticisms on planning,” Blair says, though he insists there were “ad hoc committees” to think about the aftermath.
“I accept many of the criticisms on planning,” Blair says, though he insists there were “ad hoc committees” to think about the aftermath.
Updated
Updated
at 8.33am BST
at 8.33am BST
8.30am BST
8.30am BST
08:30
08:30
Ultimately, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth it, Blair says:
Ultimately, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth it, Blair says:
Whatever the difficulties of process and planning, it was still the right thing to do.
Whatever the difficulties of process and planning, it was still the right thing to do.
I agree the events in Iraq did not turn out as we wanted … But it is also true that in 2010 Iraq was essentially a peaceful country.
I agree the events in Iraq did not turn out as we wanted … But it is also true that in 2010 Iraq was essentially a peaceful country.
But after how many deaths, Humphrys asks. Blair replies:
But after how many deaths, Humphrys asks. Blair replies:
How many people were murdered before Saddam was deposed?
How many people were murdered before Saddam was deposed?
If he’d been left in power, he’d have gone back to his programs again … I agree you can’t say for sure. You can’t say what would have happened once you’ve taken a particular course of action.
If he’d been left in power, he’d have gone back to his programs again … I agree you can’t say for sure. You can’t say what would have happened once you’ve taken a particular course of action.
He says he believes if Saddam had been allowed to stay he would be behaving as Assad is in Syria.
He says he believes if Saddam had been allowed to stay he would be behaving as Assad is in Syria.
8.26am BST
8.26am BST
08:26
08:26
Chilcot found that Blair did not consult with his cabinet, with ministers not given the information needed to challenge the decision to go to war, John Humphrys tells Blair.
Chilcot found that Blair did not consult with his cabinet, with ministers not given the information needed to challenge the decision to go to war, John Humphrys tells Blair.
Blair says he did not “keep back” information from colleagues.
Blair says he did not “keep back” information from colleagues.
There wasn’t really a doubt in most people’s minds … that Saddam had this capability.
There wasn’t really a doubt in most people’s minds … that Saddam had this capability.
Blair said ultimately he had to decide:
Blair said ultimately he had to decide:
Were we with America or not with America? … I genuinely thought it was the right thing to do.
Were we with America or not with America? … I genuinely thought it was the right thing to do.
Blair says Lord Goldsmith did not need to give written legal advice because he was in cabinet meetings and could give his reasons orally and answer questions in person.
Blair says Lord Goldsmith did not need to give written legal advice because he was in cabinet meetings and could give his reasons orally and answer questions in person.
I accept the process was far from satisfactory … It would have been better if he’d provided written evidence … [but] I don’t know what difference it would have made. He was there at the table.
I accept the process was far from satisfactory … It would have been better if he’d provided written evidence … [but] I don’t know what difference it would have made. He was there at the table.
It would have made absolutely no difference at all if he’d provided written advice.
It would have made absolutely no difference at all if he’d provided written advice.
Blair says that in fact cabinet members did not question Goldsmith, but they could have.
Blair says that in fact cabinet members did not question Goldsmith, but they could have.
Updated
Updated
at 8.44am BST
at 8.44am BST
8.21am BST
8.21am BST
08:21
08:21
On the flawed intelligence, Blair says he believed what he was shown:
On the flawed intelligence, Blair says he believed what he was shown:
I relied on the assessments that were given to me … It would have been far better to have challenged them more clearly.
I relied on the assessments that were given to me … It would have been far better to have challenged them more clearly.
When you look at what we were presented with … It wasn’t that I wanted to believe it, I did believe it.
When you look at what we were presented with … It wasn’t that I wanted to believe it, I did believe it.
Anyone can see the documents online, he says.
Anyone can see the documents online, he says.
8.20am BST
8.20am BST
08:20
08:20
Let’s suppose we hadn’t taken action, Blair says.
Let’s suppose we hadn’t taken action, Blair says.
He acknowledges that the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix does not agree with the actions taken, but says others involved backed it. Saddam Hussein was not complying, Blair insists.
He acknowledges that the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix does not agree with the actions taken, but says others involved backed it. Saddam Hussein was not complying, Blair insists.
Updated
Updated
at 8.24am BST
at 8.24am BST
8.18am BST
8.18am BST
08:18
08:18
Blair says the UK was America’s key ally “and it’s true that I sought to make it so”.
Blair says the UK was America’s key ally “and it’s true that I sought to make it so”.
8.16am BST
08:16
The whole purpose of going back to the UN “was to try to deal with this differently” – that is, not with military action – Blair says.
He says the memo was written less than a year after the 9/11 attacks.
Blair says he was very clear that there should be a coalition on action in Iraq as there had been for Afghanistan.
I wanted America to not feel alone, to not feel it had to go it alone.
He says he wanted the UK to be America’s “partner of choice”.
Updated
at 8.23am BST
8.13am BST
08:13
Blair goes on:
We had to be right alongside the US … I still believe that was the right place to be.
He says the memo meant that:
No political issue would get in the way of my support.
Blair says there was a “but” in the memo. He says it was written in the context of trying to persuade the US to go back to the UN “and resolve this peacefully”.
I can assure you what I meant was very, very clear and was clear to the Americans … let’s do it but do it the right way.
8.11am BST
08:11
Tony Blair on the Today programme
The former prime minister Tony Blair – after his marathon speech and Q&A with the media yesterday – is on Radio 4 for a further interview in the wake of the Chilcot report that savaged his role in taking Britain to war with Iraq in 2003.
Blair is asked about his 2002 memo to George Bush pledging:
I will be with you, whatever.
There could have been a point of return after that, Blair now says. He wanted the US to pursue the UN route.
It’s absolutely true, I took a decision and I stand by that decision, that we should stand by America.
But he says it’s not true that the memo shows an “irrevocable decision” had been made to go to war.
The memo was written in July “and we went to the United Nations in November”, Blair points out.
When people say we were irrevocably committed in July, we weren’t, of course.
Updated
at 8.23am BST
8.05am BST
08:05
Here is that text from Gove’s campaign manager, Nick Boles, encouraging May supporters to help “stop AL”:
Extraordinary text messages emerges from Nick Boles, campaign chief of Michael Gove urging May supporters back him pic.twitter.com/ckAFOnghs9
8.04am BST
08:04
Michael Howard backs Andrea Leadsom for leader
Michael Howard – now Lord Howard – is on the Today programme and says he is backing Leadsom for leader.
It doesn’t matter that she hasn’t served in the cabinet, he says:
I don’t think experience is hugely important.
She’s been in government, she’s in tune with the maj of ppl in this country … I think she would be an extremely good prime minister.
She understands our relationship with the European Union very well.
Howard says he is “dismayed” by fact that Theresa May has not pledged to guarantee the rights EU citizens living in the UK and is using them “as bargaining chips”.
Asked whether he would have backed Gove, Howard acknowledges that the about-turn with Boris Johnson and the anti-Leadsom texts from Gove’s campaign manager have played a part in his decision to support Leadsom:
I would have found it a much more difficult decision had those events not happened.
Updated
at 8.05am BST
7.54am BST
07:54
As well as questions over her CV and her tax affairs, Andrea Leadsom now also faces some queries about her Wikipedia entry.
As my colleague David Pegg reports:
Andrea Leadsom faces questions over her Wikipedia entry after it emerged that embarrassing media stories had been removed from the page. The changes appear to have been made from Towcester, where the Conservative leadership contender’s constituency office is located.
In 2015, references to media reports about the Leadsom family’s use of trusts to own a buy-to-let company and details of financial donations from Leadsom’s brother-in-law, Peter de Putron, were deleted from Leadsom’s profile on the website.
Asked to comment on whether or not she or her team had deleted the passage in question, a spokesperson for Leadsom did not respond.
And you can read more about Peter de Putron here.
Updated
at 8.10am BST
7.44am BST
07:44
Michael Gove spent Wednesday evening – leadership hustings aside – at the City of London’s Dinner to Her Majesty’s Judges at the Mansion House. Amid the prime ministerial campaigning and the Brexit campaigning, Gove is still the justice secretary and Lord Chancellor.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg was among those present and said Gove joked with fellow diners that he had almost skipped the event to watch Wales v Portugal.
Less joshingly, Gove also, Rozenberg tweeted, described prison conditions in the UK as:
squalid, inadequate, wicked.
But there’s no escaping the Brexit after-effects:
Overwhelming applause for Lord Mayor of London as he tells Michael Gove at judges’ Guildhall dinner that City wanted to remain in the EU.
Updated
at 7.47am BST
7.31am BST
07:31
Former Tory party chairman Grant Shapps has written a letter – reportedly backed by around 30 fellow Conservative MPs – arguing that the leadership process ought to be chivvied along to take weeks rather than months.
The present timetable would see a new leader – and prime minister – installed on 9 September after party members vote on the two-person shortlist determined by the MPs’ vote today.
But Shapps says in the letter:
Given the exceptional post-Brexit times in which we are living, I firmly believe it is now wrong to wait for a final decision to emerge next autumn.
Ongoing instability on the markets now risks uncertainty with investment decisions being delayed. This in turn will have real-life consequences for jobs, livelihoods and the security of families across Britain.
We are living through unprecedented times and, unusually, this leadership election is occurring whilst we are in office; meaning that we are electing a prime minister.
The country desperately needs post-Brexit direction in order to avoid a political vacuum bearing serious consequences for all those we represent.
He says a three-week period for voting would be long enough for candidates to make their cases to party members – but denied that this would benefit Theresa May (who, coincidentally, he backs in the race) to the detriment of the less well-known Andrea Leadsom:
This is not some clever plot or wheeze but we have a responsibility to our constituents to give some direction to the party and get a prime minister in place.
Updated
at 7.34am BST
7.09am BST
07:09
Chilcot briefing
Claire Phipps
US ‘pushed UK into war too early’, says ambassador
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK’s ambassador to the UN in 2003, has told the BBC that pressure from the US propelled Britain into military action before Tony Blair had wanted to:
I felt that at the time, the British felt it at the time, I think the prime minister felt it at the time, that the Americans pushed us into going into military action too early.
Greenstock said senior figures in the US thought a further UN resolution was a “waste of time”:
The Americans weren’t genuine about it – but the prime minister was genuine about it because he thought there was a chance that Saddam could be made to back down before we had to use military force.
And George Bush for a while agreed with him. But other people behind George Bush didn’t agree with him and thought it was a waste of time.
Chilcot: the front pages
A flavour of the #Chilcot #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/YWlRioeAG3
No doubt at all about the key conclusions from yesterday: Chilcot’s damning assertion that “the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted” and Blair’s response:
I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever know or believe …
I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer.
What to read: the report
With a report so vast, conclusions so wide-ranging, and reaction so expansive, I won’t try to recap it all here, but will instead point you in the direction of the key distillations of what we learned from Chilcot on Wednesday.
What to read: analysis
What to read: comment
The defining sting was conveyed in just six words penned by Tony Blair himself, in a letter to Mr Bush in July 2002 – ‘I will be with you, whatever’.
Here, in essence, we have the private promise from which every abuse of public process would flow, as well as that pervasive, poisonous sense that the government was not playing it straight. The prime minister was not bone-headed, his letters to the president warned of deep doubts on the part of both MPs and the public, and shrewdly anticipated great difficulty in whipping Europe into line. But he negated the value of all this insight, and fatally compromised his own preference for constructing a UN-blessed route to war, by preceding it all with the bald vow that Washington could count on him.
Some will say that none of this is really new, that Chilcot simply repeated everything the critics had said about this war from the beginning. But that means a lot. This was the voice of the establishment, not a placard at a demo or a trenchant Guardian column. The Chilcot report is the official judgment on the 2003 invasion. For those who stood against the war, including the families of those who lost their lives, that represents belated vindication. For Blair it means a verdict that damns him for the ages.
Blair and other leaders misrepresented reality, urging a war over the faulty picture they had created. I do not see evidence of bad faith, but I do see a disastrous failure of judgment.
Chilcot was not a court of law and it was not in his remit to look at the legality of the Iraq war. But as far as I am concerned this inquiry was judge and jury. Tony Blair, the man who misled parliament and manufactured and massaged the intelligence underpinning the decision to send our troops to war, stands morally convicted. He is guilty as charged. For me, that will do.
Since 2003 more secrets of this evil and despotic regime have been revealed – I have stood on a huge mound in Hilla, near Babylon, where about 10,000 bodies in a mass grave were being disinterred, mostly Shia Muslims. On one of my more than 20 visits to Iraq as special envoy on human rights, I opened in Kurdistan the first genocide museum in Iraq. It was snowing, the sky was black, and people crammed into the building. Their relatives had been tortured – many to death – there. There were photos of skulls and shreds of clothing. Former detainees had written messages on the cell walls. Sometimes the writing was in blood …
No one will ever be able to convince me that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime in power.
The global response
Martin Chulov in Baghdad reports that the report’s findings bring little solace to Iraqis still reeling from one of the worst atrocities in postwar Iraq, in which 250 people died in an Isis bombing on Saturday:
Bystanders in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Karrada seemed oblivious to the release of the Chilcot report, which roundly condemned Tony Blair’s decision to commit Britain to the war, but which was little more than a footnote to most of the crowd. For the mix of mourners staring into the middle distance, desperate relatives wailing for help, forensic officers crouched near puddles and others who stood bewildered by the scale of destruction, it would merely tell them what they already knew: that the war and its aftermath were both grave mistakes.
The few who had seen brief reports from London on Iraqi television shrugged and pointed at the damage, when asked what they made of what was effectively Britain’s mea culpa. ‘This is the reason for all this chaos,’ said Bassam Jaber Abayati, a Karrada local. ‘They should have known better. They should have done this [apologised] earlier. The west should be accountable for all this misery.’
In the US, a spokesperson for George Bush said:
President Bush continues to believe the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power … There was no stronger ally than the United Kingdom under the leadership of prime minister Tony Blair.
Paul Bremer, the US diplomat who headed of the coalition provisional authority in Iraq post-invasion, backed the report’s findings, but others disagreed.
And a former head of Australia’s defence department says the country needs its own version of the Chilcot inquiry to probe why then prime minister John Howard decided to commit Australian troops to the war in Iraq.
Thursday's International NY Times:Report on Iraq war unsparing of Blair#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #chilcot pic.twitter.com/WNOTKReaWl
Updated
at 7.12am BST
6.51am BST
06:51
Morning briefing
Claire Phipps
Welcome back to the daily politics live blog.
With the dust far from settling after Sir John Chilcot’s devastating critique of Britain’s role in the war in Iraq – and Tony Blair’s emotional but defiant response – I’m once again dividing the morning briefing in two.
Here’s the regular briefing covering all things politics; shortly I’ll post separately the latest Chilcot news and fallout.
Andrew Sparrow will also be on the live blog later, so do come and chat in the comments below or find me on Twitter @Claire_Phipps.
The big picture
The two finalists in the competition to be prime minister will be revealed this evening, after one more knock-out round in which two of the candidates seem to be vying to be the first to knock themselves out.
In the “I voted leave plus know how to do governmenty things” corner is Michael Gove, whose campaign manager Nick Boles has been forced to apologise after texting MPs to tell them he was “seriously frightened” that Andrea Leadsom, and not Gove, might make it on to the final ballot. Why so scary?
What if Theresa [May] stumbles? Are we really confident that the membership won’t vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about much of modern life? Like they did with IDS.
We don’t yet know what the Tory party membership and their “attitudes” make of it all, but the slighted Iain Duncan Smith (a Leadsom supporter) was roused from his quietude:
People with knives will end up stabbing themselves … I do think emails and texts like that are failing to smell the coffee.
(I know there are apps that can order coffee, but a text that can smell it would be even better.)
Boles has apologised, saying Gove was unaware of the courting campaign:
He did not know about it let alone authorise it. And it does not reflect his views.
But at a leadership hustings in Westminster yesterday evening, Gove is reported to have “giggled” when asked about the texts.
No giggling from frontrunner Theresa May, who issued a statement saying she did not encourage tactical voting:
I have been clear from the start: the party and the country deserve an open, honest, robust debate – and the next leader needs to have won a mandate to lead. So there should be no deals, no tactical voting and no coronation.
You can read the full Boles text here, courtesy of the Times’ Sam Coates, but here’s its unsetting conclusion:
Michael doesn’t mind spending two months taking a good thrashing from Theresa but in the party’s interest and the national interest surely we must work together to stop AL?
And what might stop AL, over in the “I voted leave plus used to be a banker but not the kind nobody likes” corner? That banking experience for a start.
More creases have appeared in Leadsom’s CV, which her team published yesterday after what supporter Penny Mordaunt called “a concerted effort to rubbish a stellar career”. As Guardian colleagues report:
Leadsom’s CV has raised a number of further questions because it omits some company directorships, alters existing claims and fails to clear up question marks over sections of her City career.
See here for those questions in full. Also missing is Leadsom’s tax return – May and Gove have published theirs – which she says she will share only if she makes the final two. Don’t read anything into that, mind. Leadsom told the hustings her tax affairs were “very boring”. Perhaps she’s simply sparing us all the tedium of reading it.
There’s a Labour leadership scuffle going on too, right? Maybe not, for now. The Telegraph reports today that the resigning rebels are “in retreat”. At a Momentum rally in support of Jeremy Corbyn yesterday, Jon Trickett, a close ally of the Labour leader, told the crowd:
Our party must never again be led by someone who is unrepentant in their record supporting war.
Angela Eagle, widely considered the most likely candidate to try to topple Corbyn, voted for the war in Iraq in 2003.
Corbyn yesterday apologised on behalf of the Labour party for “the disastrous decision” to go to war. And he later won a (little) vote of (mostly) confidence in his own Islington North constituency, where the members in St George’s ward backed him by 36 votes to 27.
Does anyone have a Brexit plan yet?
MPs in the Commons yesterday voted to “commit today that EU nationals currently living in the UK shall have the right to remain”. The government – which isn’t compelled to take any notice – abstained, but others voted 245-2 in favour of the guarantee. Boris Johnson (still an MP, remember) spoke in support of the motion, saying Vote Leave had obviously intended all along that EU nationals should feel totally relaxed about their future in the UK.
Not feeling relaxed are property funds, with three more suspended yesterday after a rush on withdrawals. And France said it would lure banking firms from London to Paris, with prime minister Manuel Valls saying:
We want to build the financial capital of the future. In a word, now is the time to come to France.
(Which is not “a word”, even in French, so how good is he with numbers, really?)
The stories you might have missed yesterday
John Chilcot might have been releasing his mammoth, attention-consuming report, but there were some decisions the government just had to make on Wednesday.
You should also know:
Poll position
Survation polling of voters (before Liam Fox and Stephen Crabb retired from the running) gives quite a boost to Theresa May and quite the kicking to Michael Gove.
NEW POLL: Theresa May “Most Favourable” of Conservative Leadership Contenders https://t.co/eEpQ4IOTvQ pic.twitter.com/8J5pcTaDSc
Among Conservative party members only, Survation adds, May’s approval rating leaps to +69, “where Michael Gove’s in particular was as low as -50”. Still, the only way is up. Or actually, no. It could go to -100? Statisticians, please advise.
Diary
Read these
Jacob Rees-Mogg, writing in the Telegraph, thinks Michael Gove could be the new Winston Churchill. Or perhaps a new Margaret Thatcher:
Churchill had an indomitable belief in the country and Margaret Thatcher was similarly willing to take political risks to do what she saw as right. A comparable figure is needed today not because leaving the European Union is risky but because it opens up a golden chance for our nation …
Michael Gove has shown all these qualities … He put his country before the easy life of Notting Hill friendship and when he believes he is wrong he has the courage to change his mind. These are the qualities needed at this most exciting of times.
Lord Young, in the Times, however, thinks it’s Theresa May who could grab the Thatcher mantle:
Just as Margaret was the leader for her time, so I believe that Theresa is for ours.
No word on whether she can also do a passable Churchill.
Suzanne Moore in the Guardian thinks both May and Andrea Leadsom are Thatcher MK II:
Neither of these women is liberal, despite May’s late conversion to gay marriage and Leadsom’s concerns about mother/baby bonding. They are extremely rightwing and May has repeatedly used fear of immigration to ramp up her own leadership bid. The fact remains that Leadsom, with her overdeveloped CV, reluctance to publish her tax returns, the backing of Arron Banks and previous remarks on the total deregulation of small businesses so that workers might lose many of their rights, including maternity leave, is even worse.
Back in the more recent past, a vote was won for Britain to leave the EU. In the New Statesman, Ipsos Mori’s Aalia Khan assesses why immigration was key:
Ipsos Mori’s longitudinal study on attitudes to immigration revealed that there is huge amount of churn in the people who are more positive about immigration and want to see it increase. Contrary to expectations of this group of people being a stable core of liberals, their views are more likely to change than those who want immigration to decrease.
Only four in 10 of those who said they would like to see the number of immigrants coming to Britain increased in February of this year held the same position in June. Over a third changed their minds to say that they wanted the numbers reduced.
Zinger of the day
Theresa May is getting this printed on a T-shirt:
Ken Clarke might have found me to be a ‘bloody difficult woman’. The next person to find that out will be Jean-Claude Juncker.
Baffling claim of the day
The Paris Ritz hotel has reopened, and Lady Amanda Harlech – described as a “writer, creative consultant and muse of the Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld” – told the New York Times how dreadful the period of closure (since 2012) had been:
There was a sense of devastation and loss – not unlike Brexit – a sort of grief.
The day in a tweet
London stands united to remember the victims of the 7/7 bombings #WalkTogether pic.twitter.com/cUHAiyoEzF
If today were a song
It would be Back Stabbers by The O’Jays. “What they do/They smile in your face/All the time they want to take your place.” And compare you to Iain Duncan Smith.
And another thing
Would you like to wake up to this briefing in your inbox? Sign up here.
