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 senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's Eurosceptics should steer clear of loaded language

Phrases such as "wholesale importation" leave the impression Labour will not speak for migrant workers.

Nothing reflects Britain’s division over Brexit than the Labour party. Do we want soft or hard Brexit? What do we prioritise? The fractures within the party’s ranks is a portrait of the divisions splintering the country.

Labour’s ambiguity over Brexit helped it in the general election in appealing to everyone. It convinced Remain voters that they could hold the Tories to account while promising the Leave voters that the referendum decision would be respected. But now clarity is needed. 

The Labour leadership seems to be angling for a hard Brexit, wishing to leave the single market and customs union on the grounds that this honours the wishes of the 52 per cent. Ironically, they are at odds with everyone in this situation, from the general public – who favour access to single market over immigration controls – to a poll in LabourList showing that 72 per cent of readers prioritised inclusion within the single market.

Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm attitude to the EU is well documented. If the Labour Party are serious about their public ownership plans for the railways and energy, it’s likely they envision it being made difficult within the EU because of directives which create competition between the state and the private sector. There are unexplored alternatives to this, as seen in Germany and Italy where private companies are made and run the industries with the states acting as the major shareholders of the company. However it’s unlikely to see the hard left ever accepting this, given its disdain for both the private sector and the idea of it interacting with the state to deliver services.

But this is not all that should trouble progressives regarding the Labour leadership’s stance on Brexit. During a recent Andrew Marr programme in which he appeared on, Corbyn claimed that mass immigration had been used to denigrate the conditions for British workers, saying that there was a “wholesale importation” of workers from parts of Europe which would then undermine the rights of British workers. It’s an argument that has been regurgitated by British politicians consistently in recent years – but from the right, not the left.

The idea that migrants are taking British jobs and depressing wages does not hold up to evidence at all. The London School of Economics carried out a research which illustrated increases in migration from the EU did not result in depression of British wages. That’s not to suggest that wages have not stagnated, but rather the trend is linked to the financial crash in 2008, rather than migration. Corbyn’s defenders insist that there were no deliberate racist overtones in his argument, and that the villains are employers deliberately taking advantage of an easily exploited labour market. But the manner in which Corbyn framed his speech was worrying.

The reason for this is that Brexit has created an unbelievable sense of uncertainty, insecurity and fear amongst migrants. Their position in society is now being contested by politicians with different stakes in society to them. Xenophobic abuse – legitimised as an acceptable part of political discourse by Brexit – has been climbing swiftly. Immigrants are seen as threats to British jobs and that is a narrative consistently drummed out – not just since last year but for possibly the past decade.

This is not to say that Labour should not address how some employers might seek to cut costs by hiring foreign workers on a cheap rate. But phrases such as “wholesale importation” or even using the heavily demonised “mass migration” simply sketches the idea that Labour are swinging towards the hard Brexit voters, and in doing so leaving migrant workers to be defended by no one. If the intended idea was to castigate employers, it simply entrenched the idea of immigration as a problem. Rather than bringing British and migrant workers together, you know with that whole “workers of the world unite” idea, Corbyn’s framing of the argument keeps them pitted against each other.

If Brexit has shown us anything it’s that language matters in politics in how it transmits its message to people. Slogans such as “take back control” were attacks on multiculturalism and immigration, stoking white nationalism, even if the Leave campaign insisted it wasn’t about that. Likewise, Corbyn might insist it wasn’t about migrants, but his message sounded a lot like he was blaming freedom of movement for the suppression of wage growth in Britain.

Needless to say, Labour need a rethink on what kind of Brexit it pursues.