Sunday, July 13, 2003
8:39 pm
Under Scrutiny - 13th July 2003, 20.33
Parliament has rarely had a role in declarations of war or decisions concerning their strategy and outcome. The power of the House of Commons over war stems from its ability to halt funding for any military enterprise. Since a Prime Minister could go to war without a vote, Blair's decision to allow parliamentary approval may be viewed, in the long-term, as the key event when the Old Left smelt blood. As a short-term political strategy, there were sound reasons: demonstrating clear support for the war, shoring up public support and burnishing populist credentials to show that the administration did not act in a dictatorial fashion. However, in the context of fierce scrutiny that these decisions were taken, Blair has discovered that the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs has acquired a more public role. The media have bolstered the committee's claim to scrutinise the foreign and security policies of this government. The Blair administration has no choice in cooperation since any resistance to the Committee's vetting would vindicate its opponents. The Guardian has noted these unique events and develops their constitutional significance:
Yesterday's foreign affairs select committee report is above all an advance for parliamentary accountability over British foreign policy...As its first sentence says, the decision to commit armed forces to war is the most momentous that any leader can take. In the past, parliament never had a role in such decisions. That changed in 2003, when Britain only went to war in Iraq after a vote by MPs. Now the war is over, parliament is pressing its advantage further. The select committee report is another important first - a sceptical public probe into the heart of the most important decision that can be taken in public policy. As it makes clear at the end of its report, the committee now wants wider and stronger powers to go further. This is as it should be.
Their analysis of the report focuses upon the scepticism in which most of the government's claims are held. It is clear that the political credibility of this government, amongst the public and its own backbenchers, was squandered in a frantic attempt to justify the conflict. What long-term damage results from this is a matter of domestic politics.
Blair let parliamentary light shine upon his foreign policy. His actions provided the House of Commons with an enhanced role: as a source of legitimacy through a vote for any future conflict. Whilst Donald Anderson may savour his status as the Chairman who called Alistair Campbell to account, an expansion in the influence of his committee remains unproven until the next war, due to the peculiar political circumstances of the moment. It is ironic that one of the most centralised administrations Britain has known unwittingly handed power back to the Commons: all for short term political advantage.
Parliament has rarely had a role in declarations of war or decisions concerning their strategy and outcome. The power of the House of Commons over war stems from its ability to halt funding for any military enterprise. Since a Prime Minister could go to war without a vote, Blair's decision to allow parliamentary approval may be viewed, in the long-term, as the key event when the Old Left smelt blood. As a short-term political strategy, there were sound reasons: demonstrating clear support for the war, shoring up public support and burnishing populist credentials to show that the administration did not act in a dictatorial fashion. However, in the context of fierce scrutiny that these decisions were taken, Blair has discovered that the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs has acquired a more public role. The media have bolstered the committee's claim to scrutinise the foreign and security policies of this government. The Blair administration has no choice in cooperation since any resistance to the Committee's vetting would vindicate its opponents. The Guardian has noted these unique events and develops their constitutional significance:
Yesterday's foreign affairs select committee report is above all an advance for parliamentary accountability over British foreign policy...As its first sentence says, the decision to commit armed forces to war is the most momentous that any leader can take. In the past, parliament never had a role in such decisions. That changed in 2003, when Britain only went to war in Iraq after a vote by MPs. Now the war is over, parliament is pressing its advantage further. The select committee report is another important first - a sceptical public probe into the heart of the most important decision that can be taken in public policy. As it makes clear at the end of its report, the committee now wants wider and stronger powers to go further. This is as it should be.
Their analysis of the report focuses upon the scepticism in which most of the government's claims are held. It is clear that the political credibility of this government, amongst the public and its own backbenchers, was squandered in a frantic attempt to justify the conflict. What long-term damage results from this is a matter of domestic politics.
Blair let parliamentary light shine upon his foreign policy. His actions provided the House of Commons with an enhanced role: as a source of legitimacy through a vote for any future conflict. Whilst Donald Anderson may savour his status as the Chairman who called Alistair Campbell to account, an expansion in the influence of his committee remains unproven until the next war, due to the peculiar political circumstances of the moment. It is ironic that one of the most centralised administrations Britain has known unwittingly handed power back to the Commons: all for short term political advantage.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
July
(66)
- Turning back the Clock - 31st July 2003, 22.56 Th...
- Following Saddam's example Another way in which t...
- How unreasonable is Red Korea? Close your eyes an...
- Why Hutton? - 30th July 2003, 22.50 The name of L...
- Robertson goes bonkers What is George Robertson, ...
- Brits do it better At least according to Salam Pa...
- Carving "4REAL" on their arms - 28th July 2003, 22...
- Euro-sense What the hell, here's another site on ...
- And this is how they did it in Romania This nice ...
- Is the Beeb the main story? The main fight on the...
- Pointing the Finger - 25th July 2003, 12:04 Some ...
- Gilligan's Island Boris Johnson writes in defence...
- The Heart of Europe - 23rd July 2003, 23.54 Once ...
- Why the Yanks should never run an Empire Excuse m...
- Have you seen this man? Poor old Ali Campbell...
- Between the Lines "I did not authorise the leakin...
- Sack Bernard One odd thing in all this Dr Kelly s...
- Too wide for handshakes... - 21st July 2003, 23.05...
- Compare and Contrast "In the meantime, our attitu...
- Cack handed Query I'd be interested to know if an...
- Of Little Note Isn't it funny how they've not fou...
- Hit counter Is there any package out there that c...
- Why don't they love us? The War Nerd writes a goo...
- Courtesy of Steve Sailer: "If the French were our...
- Damaged Goods - 19th July 2003, 23.15 Some are ca...
- Best of British? Samizdata moans that the Guardia...
- Questions on Kelly I am neither a medical man, so...
- Plagiarising the War Powers Act - 18th July 2003, ...
- Nary a Hint... - 18th July 2003, 22.48 Perhaps it...
- Conspiracy Corner It seems that the body is David...
- Out of the Blue Dr David Kelly, the man erroneous...
- Who needs a trial? Toby Studabaker is to be extra...
- Post-Libertarianism This article in Samizdata is ...
- Liberal Liberal Democrats? Lack of consistency m...
- Last year's war, ctd It looks like Pakistan have ...
- The Strong or the Weak? Our friend Christopher Mo...
- Where's Osama And where's Saddam? And what happe...
- So where are our chips? Anne Applebaum says that ...
- Zimwatch: Mugabicle Chairs Just a thought. Does ...
- Roots of the Right This column from George Monbio...
- Under Scrutiny - 13th July 2003, 20.33 Parliament...
- How many reasons do you need? Junior minister Mic...
- Aren't bald men supposed to be evil? - 12th July 2...
- New Links Another pot pouri of new links: Anthro...
- Burying Shaka Gene Expression wonders whether Tha...
- From Baghdad As the man who missed Salman Pax I'm...
- Are they serious? After sniping at the unoriginal...
- Why the Bloggers won't inherit the earth The Spec...
- The Benefits of leaving the EU This was originall...
- The Spanglosphere Yes, beating the Anglosphere is...
- Quitting Time And now an old column from Peter Hi...
- Surprised? According to the Torygraph: Germany a...
- We Object - 8th July 2003, 22.40 On the question ...
- Not in the Clear The government are furiously spi...
- Bae's Future Prospects - 7th July 2003, 23.01 Lik...
- Now we bribe them The Afghan provinces are going ...
- America's Peacekeepers - 6th July 2003, 23.03 Mar...
- Evidence emerges that the British Army was unprepa...
- The real face of the Guardian The Guardian longs ...
- Brer Tory Christopher Booker speculated a month a...
- When the chips are down With the Yanks planning t...
- The Western European Union - 5th July 2003, 14.25 ...
- Warmed up Leftovers - 5th July 2003, 11.27 David ...
- Kraal Watch Troops may still be in danger in Meso...
- Into Africa: Now the Yanks want to join the party ...
- Zimwatch: The Grind - 1st July 2003, 23.21 Zimbab...
-
▼
July
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment