Thursday, 21 January 2010

Which is the greater offence?

The media this week has discussed revelations about the late MP, and former Northern Ireland Secretary, Mo Mowlam. The crux of the story is that Mowlam misled the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, about her brain tumour, which was diagnosed in 1996. Mowlam seemingly told Blair and others that the tumour was benign, when in fact it was malignant.

So what if Mowlam did lie? It wouldn't be a first for a politician, and she certainly won't be the last politician to be, euphemistically, "Economical with the truth".

Together, Blair and Mowlam played a blinder in April 1998 in Northern Ireland. They were a briliant double act on that occasion. Could Blair have pulled off that accord alone? Could Mowlam have? We shall never know, but together they made it work better together than apart. Blair's record on the world stage after 9/11 was less illustrious. It is a pity he couldn't have used his undoubted huge charm, to try to have prevented the Iraq war. Unlike her former boss, at least Mowlam didn't mislead Parliament into voting for an illegal, pointless and unwinnable war, which sent thousands of young men to their graves


Blogger Adelaide Dupont said...

I'm really not sure.

I do think politicians, like the rest of us, should tell the truth about their health and how it affects them.

Was she going to drop dead from the tumour? She could have lived quite some time, a quiet life after politics.

(I was foolish to think you were going to compare it to the Robinson affair story.)

22 January 2010 at 07:03  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home