Wikileaks has this week given us further revelations about this nasty, lying little man who never was elected and never was going to be elected. He has been shown culpable over Lockerbie and culpable of gross politicking over the Military. This is what the latest Wikileaks material says in a diplomatic cable:
Mr Brown said that the British public needed to see more evidence of progress. “He repeated that the UK domestic audience needed to be able to judge successes 'month-to-month, not year-to-year’...According to the cable, Mr Brown said his challenge was “persuading the British people that there was a way forward and not a stalemate”. (Telegraph)
The implication, a fairly clear implication, is that Brown was obsessed with how Afghanistan was going to "play" with the domestic electorate, while the Military were for some daft reason obsessed with protecting our soldiers with basic kit and having the manpower necessary to finish the job.
So far I have said little to disagree with have I? So before you agree with me that Brown is a baddie, let us look a bit deeper.
Sir Gus O'Donnell was and is the Cabinet Secretary. A predecessor of Sir Gus, apparently coined the phrase "economical with the truth". It was the role of the Cabinet Secretary to facilitate, during those uncertain days of May 2010, the smooth transition of Government.
Ostensibly the role of Cabinet Secretary is not a political office of state, but of course they are appointed by the Government, so one makes an assumption of sympathy with the people who appoint him. So whereas it is not surprising that Sir Gus O'Donnell has witheld vital communications between Tony Blair and George Bush from the Iraq Inquiry, possibly for quite compelling reasons, he has "allowed it to be confirmed" that many of the "Gordon Brown is shite" stories, in particular, the contradiction between Brown's contemporary denials about his involvement over Lockerbie and the Wikileaks revelations, have substance. Sir Gus' said:
"the UK government had had an underlying desire to see Mr Megrahi released before he died" and that "Policy was progressively developed that Her Majesty's Government should do all it could".
I see a certain level of favouritism being applied; on the one hand a certain reticence over exposing Blair, but the canary-like singing over Brown. Of course, there is no parity between Iraq and Lockerbie, but nevertheless, this was an opportunity to throw Brown to the dogs, and that is what Sir Gus has done. As diplomatically as possible.
I would tell you that Sir Gus O'Donnell is a man of impeccable integrity and takes his role as the top civil servant very seriously. But if you had a madman living next door to you who made the last few years of your career absolute hell, would you not be tempted to get even? just a wee bit?
I say "absolute hell", but what's my evidence for this apart from a few broken bits of office machinery and weepy secretaries? O'Donnell had to admit it, as diplomatically as he could:
Don't think O'Donnell does not know what he is doing over his confirmation that "the Government" (read Gordon Brown) was complicit in the Al Megrahi negotiations. Gordon's denials of intervention are, like many of his public assertions, plain lies, or to be fair, economies of the truth and O'Donnell knows it and now no longer wishes to invest emotional energy in protecting a tyrant. And I don't blame him.
You might say that Sir Gus has done a Duffy and facilitated a flow of insight.