British troops in Iraq. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No matter how "punchy", the Chilcot report remains an afterthought

The findings of the long-awaited Chilcot inquiry are reportedly sending shockwaves through Whitehall. When will the Prime Minister start taking it seriously?

In an exclusive report, the Times reveals that draft reports of the Chilcot inquiry "have sent shockwaves through Whitehall".

According to the report, extracts from the long-awaited official inquiry into the Iraq war have spooked key figures who were involved, because it is far more critical and damning than expected. An insider is quoted saying, "it's much more punchy than people thought it was going to be".

The piece also quotes a government whip, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, saying that the consultation of lawyers could postpone the already severely delayed publication of the report until after the general election in May:  “We are all anxious that if it is not published by the end of February it would be inappropriate to publish it during the campaign period.”

The inquiry was announced by Gordon Brown in June 2009, and commenced in November that year. It concluded in February 2011, so we have now been waiting over three and a half years for it to release its findings. David Cameron said in May that he hoped the Chilcot inquiry would be unveiled by the end of this year, but this now looks highly unlikely. He acknowledged this last week, claiming that he did not know when it would come out, and insisting: “It is important in our system these sort of reports are not controlled or timed by the government.”

Although the PM has emphasised the importance of hearing the inquiry's findings, it is clear that the report remains an afterthought behind the scenes. And not just because of the repeated delays and prevarication over when we can expect it to be published.

I hear from a well-placed MP that it was only very shortly before a Westminster Hall debate on the Chilcot inquiry was called in October this year that the Cabinet Office minister for civil society, Rob Wilson MP, discovered that the Chilcot inquiry was even part of his brief. This low priority suggests No 10 not only sees the report as being very far off on the political horizon, but also reveals the lack of significance it lends the inquiry.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.