Labour slither off enquiry's hook.

So Blair survived calls for an enquiry into the political decisions that led to the Iraq war by twenty five votes.

It was a debate, the first parliamentary debate on Iraq for two years, that Blair chose not to even attend. In his place was a rather testy Margaret Beckett, who conducted herself throughout like a school mistress facing an unruly mob who didn't understand school policy on such matters. It was, in short, pitiful.

Her main, and quite extraordinary defence, was that any enquiry would be unwise whilst our troops were still engaged in Iraq. The Tories made short shrift of this argument very quickly:

But Mr Hague ridiculed the argument that having a debate would harm the morale of British troops.

"I don't believe that it is possible to argue in a House of Commons which 80 years ago instituted an inquiry into the Dardanelles while the first world war was still raging that to raise even a suggestion that an inquiry in the future is to undermine the British army."

Indeed, Beckett's main defence was built only by ignoring that the most vocal criticism's of the Iraq war had come from the army itself in the shape of Sir Richard Dannatt who has called for the troops to be called home "soon".

Redwood, the Martian, made a very good point when he said that if we were fighting in Iraq to export democracy, then surely it is only democratic that we are able to discuss this war in parliament.

The Tories then offered to make the whole argument go away of Beckett would agree to an enquiry once the troops have returned home, an offer that Beckett slithered around without accepting.

The most extraordinary intervention for Labour came from Blunkett who argued that people did not complain when the coalition went into Kosovo without a UN mandate and that we never complained then that the Kosovo campaign was "illegal". He appeared at this point to be admitting that the Iraq war was illegal.

The arguments of the opposition were by far the most persuasive:

Charles Kennedy, the former Liberal Democrat leader, making his first Commons speech since his forced resignation in January, said that there was a "suspicion" that the Government never had any plan other than to join the Americans in invading Iraq.

But he was also scathing about the "convoluted consensus" now being sought by the Conservatives, and reminded MPs of how vehemently they supported the war at the time. "The Conservatives have not exactly played their part in asking questions, which is why inquiries remain outstanding," he said.

He added: "The goalposts kept moving through this whole tragic episode. It was a moral case at one point; at another point it was a strategic defence of our interests because Iraq had a 45-minute threat of potential obliteration and all the rest of it. Yet in the final debate what did he [Blair] say? - 'even at this late stage, Saddam and his sons can save their regime if they comply with United Nations resolutions'. So much for the moral argument. The truth will out one day. We will never know how many people lost their lives, but on the political tombstone of this Prime Minister will be the word, Iraq."

Malcolm Rifkind, the former Tory foreign secretary, described the conflict as worse than Vietnam, because there America had intervened in an existing war.

Gavin Strang, a former Labour minister, said Iraq had not been a war against terrorism but one that "fuelled and fed" terrorism. "We have to probe the extent to which British troops' presence is part of the problem."

It was, all in all, a tawdry affair; with Beckett and the Labour side pretending that they were facing calls for a debate from an opportunistic opposition. The truth is that Blair is a Prime Minister who misled the house on several occasions and were an enquiry to go ahead it would probably signal the end of his leadership.

The simple truth is that if we believe in the democracy that Beckett, Blair and others think they are exporting, then that democracy surely begins at home. One of the first signs of a healthy democracy is the ability to question the executive.

Labour denied parliament that opportunity yesterday and they did so behind an argument that was notable false; their supposed concern for the troops that they sent into a needless battle.

Yesterday marked a new low for this Labour administration, who are running as fast as they can and using any argument available to avoid ever being held to account for their past actions.

But the day of reckoning will come. Blair may well have left office before his crimes are fully exposed, but the simple truth is that Britain will not be able to "move on" - as Blair so often asks it to - until this particular boil has been lanced.

Simon Jenkins, as always, hits the nail on the head:

Charles I would have been proud of today's Commons. Even yesterday's debate required the initiative of the separatist Scots and Welsh nationalists to get on to the order paper.

There cannot be a more serious moment for democratic scrutiny than when a government is involved in a controversial and dangerous foreign war. It is the more urgent when troops seem trapped and facing defeat on two fronts. There is nothing to stop MPs debating what they like. There is nothing to stop a grand committee being appointed to inquire into the war. It can demand "persons and papers" and subpoena anyone it likes. Even if select committees are too scared of the whips to act, parliament is sovereign. It need not ask Downing Street's permission to scrutinise. Parliament even has a second chamber, albeit one too terrified for its future to do more than rap the government's knuckles.

Britain's debate on the Iraq war is taking place in the media. It should be in parliament.

Labour scraped away from allowing their actions to be scrutinised by Parliament yesterday. Read that last sentence again.

It's hardly an honourable victory, is it?

Related Articles:

When will they learn?

tag: Labour, Conservative, Tory, enquiry, Iraq war,