[A-List] UK state: palace coup in prospect?

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Andrew Grice: Mr Cook has laid foundations for a Labour revolt
The prospect of a long conflict alarms MPs. Most have held their fire - but
how long until others put their heads above the parapet?
The Independent
01 April 2003

The prospect of a war in Iraq lasting months is changing the mood at
Westminster. Most anti-war MPs have maintained a respectful radio silence
since the fighting began, anxious to avoid doing anything that could
undermine British troops in Iraq. But there is rising concern about events
on the ground. Many Labour MPs who were persuaded to support a war in the
crucial House of Commons vote two weeks ago did so with a heavy heart and,
moreover, after being assured by ministers that the conflict would be
relatively short.

Although ministers deny saying in public that the war would be over quickly,
one Labour MP who backed the Government recalled yesterday: "They certainly
pushed that message hard in private. They hoped it would be brief and
clean."

It is true that the war is less than two weeks old, but, as Tony Blair
admits, it feels much longer because most of us are glued to our televisions
round the clock. As MPs gathered in substantial numbers at Westminster
yesterday for the first time since Mr Blair's visit to Camp David, there was
a mood of concern about President Bush's statement that the war would last
"however long it takes".

Glenda Jackson, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, said: "I do think
that we should be asking our Government what it expects the next phase of
this war to be. We were told that once our troops got into Iraq, they would
be greeted with kisses and flowers. It hasn't happened."

Ministers are now trying to reassure worried MPs that the longer than
expected campaign stems from their desire to avoid "carpet bombing" the
Iraqis into submission. One minister said: "People should realise that we
are targeting the regime, not civilians. That will require patience, but it
is the right thing to do."

But MPs remain worried. How will coalition forces "minimise civilian
casualties" if they are drawn into street-by-street fighting in Baghdad,
they wonder. Current conditions in Basra do not bode well for a siege of the
Iraqi capital, they argue. "If we are there for a long time, there has to be
some means of ensuring that innocent Iraqi civilians are not going to be
starved or dehydrated to death," said Ms Jackson.

MPs also noted that Mr Blair declined to make a Commons statement yesterday
on his talks with President Bush. Downing Street says the meeting was never
going to have "a menu of decisions and announcements". But MPs smelt a rat;
they suspect the Prime Minister did not want to face an hour of questions
about the role of the United Nations in post-war Iraq - on which he and
President Bush disagree - and the Middle East.

On 14 March, the Bush administration promised to publish the "road-map" that
is expected to take Israel and Palestine to peace by the year 2005. But it
has still not appeared, and Labour MPs are starting to think it was a
cynical pre-war manoeuvre. If they think that, what on earth does the Arab
world make of it?

How will the growing fears of MPs about the conduct of the war surface?
There will be another Commons debate at some point, but the Government is
unlikely to offer a formal vote. Hard-line opponents of war, mostly confined
to the 40-strong Campaign Group, might stage a symbolic protest by voting
against a technical motion for the House to adjourn. But anti-war MPs admit
that there is no prospect, with our military in action, of repeating the
record-breaking rebellions of the last two Commons votes on Iraq - by 121
and 139 Labour backbenchers respectively.

"Most of us are keeping our heads down - for the time being, at least," said
one organiser of the rebellions. "Everyone is wary about undermining the
troops' morale and - whether we like or not-- we have to trust Blair now. We
can't become armchair generals." However, that view could change if the war
drags on. The prospect of Iraq turning into another Vietnam has already been
raised - prematurely, perhaps - by Doug Henderson, the former Armed Forces
Minister. After two or three months of war, many more MPs will be ready to
put their heads above the parapet.

Robin Cook, the former Leader of the Commons, has at least kickstarted a
debate after two weeks in which many MPs have been reluctant to mention the
war. It was a pity that Mr Cook's searing criticisms of the campaign were
overshadowed by his cack-handed call for British forces to be called home,
which he hastily withdrew when Cabinet ministers asked whose side he was on.

The former Foreign Secretary should have realised that his words - "I want
our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed" - would
play right into the Government's hands. If he had omitted this sentence from
his article in a Sunday newspaper, ministers would have been in trouble. The
follow-up stories would instead have focused on his revelation that Cabinet
colleagues had told him shortly before he resigned that the war would be
finished long before the council elections in May and that Saddam Hussein
would be overthrown by his associates. His comments gave the lie to the
claims by ministers that they had never hoped for a short, sharp war.
Another sign that they had done was Gordon Brown's decision to postpone his
Budget until tomorrow week (9 April); it was probably supposed to take place
when the war was all over bar the shouting.

Mr Blair, frustrated that the 24-hour media is not portraying what he calls
the "big picture" in Iraq, is adamant that all will come right. His
officials have dusted down the archives of press briefings held during the
Kosovo and Afghanistan campaigns, when remarkably similar questions were
raised; the "it-will-all-be-over-in-a-matter-of-days" phase was followed by
the "it-will-take-years-and-years" approach. Godric Smith, Mr Blair's
official spokesman, said yesterday: "He does not get carried away by the
successes we have had [in Iraq]. Nor has he been overwhelmed by the
difficulties and problems."

Domestic politics cannot be put on hold for ever. A prolonged war is bound
to affect the local authority elections, though exactly how will depend on
the state of the conflict in May. The unease on the Labour backbenches may
spill over into other issues. Significantly, the Government has postponed
the second reading of the Bill creating foundation hospitals. Labour whips
fear that, once MPs have lost their political virginity by voting against
the Government, they are more liable to do it again. For all the talk about
rebuilding the Labour Party when the war is over, many Labour MPs believe
that relations between Mr Blair and his party can never be the same again.

The longer than expected war is also causing headaches for the other party
leaders. Charles Kennedy, who opposed the war but then changed tack once
"our boys" were in action, may want to take a more critical stance if the
coalition forces become bogged down and there are large-scale civilian
casualties.

Conservative MPs wonder whether Iain Duncan Smith's strong support for Mr
Blair will return to haunt him in a prolonged war. "Iain hasn't left himself
much wriggle room," said one Tory frontbencher. "He's tried to be more
hawkish than Blair. If it goes wrong, he'll have nowhere to go." Mr Blair
will be in the same boat.