HI DE HI..



In a week that more and more resembles a vaudeville, the star turn has yet to arrive on stage.  We`ve already had the high camp of Elton, David and their baby, we`ve had the Ross family photographed en masse displaying their multi-coloured look-at-me hair and their unbounded joy that their 19-year old daughter has vowed to follow the leanings of Sappho.  

As almost the perfect counterpoint to those right on examples of modern day society (or is it just a London thing?) we also had the extraordinary outcome of the court case which decreed that deeply held Christian values must, in law at least, come second to the rights and values of certain minorities.

But tomorrow, cue drum roll, we will see Tony Blair once more as a witness to the Chilcot Inquiry into the events leading up to  the Iraq invasion.   Now, I`ve some time for the Chilcot Inquiry.   It`s been going for 14 months now, has interviewed loads of witnesses and read through forests of paper.   There`s something almost patrician about the Inquiry`s members and so far they have conducted themselves with a quiet, restrained dignity.

But I wonder if quiet, restraint and dignity are really what are needed now we`re approaching the end game.   We already know there were no WMDs, despite Blair`s assurances to Parliament.   Dark uncertainties still hang over the death of Dr. David Kelly and now that Blair is back and walking among us again, now is the time for Chilcot and his chums to not only really get to the heart of the issue but also to be seen to be doing so.

It seems there are two major issues that need to be clarified once and for all.   The first is whether Blair chose to ignore the Attorney General`s advice, along with the Attorney General being marginalised because Blair didn`t like what he was being told.   The second is why on earth the messages passing between Blair and Bush, which have been seen by the Inquiry members,  should not be made public.   It smacks of something to hide and I can`t see why the decision whether to publish should be left in the hands of a paid official, albeit the Cabinet Secretary.  

But tomorrow I expect we will see yet another `performance` from Blair;  one that in the past may have been convincing but that these days may simply be viewed for its shallowness, for Blair is no longer seen as a strident politician, no longer the potential saviour of the Middle East conflict, no longer the `straight kind of guy,` he once proclaimed.   Instead we have a showman, an illusionist, a purveyor of smoke and mirrors, whose priority seems more and more to lean towards self-preservation, self-gratification and self-assurance.   It`s all self, you see.   But then it may always have been thus.

If tomorrow, like last time, turns into yet another fol-de-rol, another stage for Blair to display his theatrical bent, another in a long line of vaudeville acts, then that should not be condoned or accepted either by Chilcot or anyone else, for too many lives have been lost over Iraq, too much blood spilt in a dubious adventure and too many questions left unanswered.  Somehow I suspect I`ll be disappointed again. 

 Ho de Ho.