Reported inconsistencies between the testimonies of generals, civil servants and the Prime Minister given at the Chilcot Inquiry have resulted in a majority of GB adults (61%) believing that these same individuals should be recalled so that the ‘truth’ surrounding the army’s wartime funding might be clarified. Brown is the latest of a series of high-profile politician to go before Lord Chilcot in the Iraq investigation.
On the 5th March 2010, Gordon Brown went before the Committee of Privy Peers to give details regarding military funding during his tenure as Chancellor. Amid allegations by former military generals and civil servants of gross underfunding, Brown distanced himself from the suggestion that he underfinanced the armed forces, stating that during his chancellorship he agreed to every request the armed forces filed to him during wartime. He appeared emphatic that the defence budget had risen ‘in real terms’ every year.
However, the PM has recently admitted to the Commons that he was wrong to tell the inquiry that he had increased defence spending ‘in real terms’. This about-turn comes as the House figures show that while Brown was Chancellor, the MOD’s defence budget fell no less than four times in real terms.
The result is that many have been left questioning Brown’s credibility. 61% of GB adults state that Brown ‘knew the truth all along but thought he could get away with twisting it’, while a further 17% stated that they ‘didn’t know’. While we cannot be certain that the entirety of this 17% are actively unsure about Brown’s integrity, these figures could potentially represent a sizeable 78% among the British public who doubt the PM’s honesty.
If the allegations surrounding underfunding are proved true and Brown is found to have intentionally mislead the inquiry, (thereby effectively admitting that the armed forces were underfunded during wartime) 39% of the public believe that such an admission indicts Brown as personally responsible for many avoidable deaths of British troops in Iraq.
With an impending election on the horizon, doubts surrounding Brown’s integrity and credibility, whether unfounded or not, could prove to have disastrous implications for the Labour party.
