Listening to her on the Today programme and elsewhere recently has been to hear a woman aching to be put out of her misery. Beckett deserves to be acknowledged as a formidable politician, underestimated by the media and admired by all who have worked with her. Instead it will be the sight of her trying vainly to defend a foreign policy with which she plainly disagrees for which she'll be best remembered. Sadly, it is not just Tony Blair's legacy that will be defaced by Iraq.A wave of sympathy completely fails to stir within me.
It can only be that she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired, responsible for a policy she finds close to impossible to defend.
The problem is the notion that "she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired".
Blair: Margaret, do you want to be Foreign Secretary? I know it'd mean you'd have to defend a policy which you plainly disagree with but go on. It'd look good on your C.V. and it'd help me keep power for a bit longer. You know I want to leave with dignity at a time of my own choosing...That wouldn't have been so difficult. There would have been no need to "vainly" defend Blair's policies if she'd taken that path.
Beckett: No Tony. Your foreign policy has been a disaster. The world is more dangerous, British interests have been damaged, Iranian power in the Middle East has been hugely boosted and an uncounted number of people have been killed as a result of your policies. For that, you deserve to by hounded out of office at the earliest opportunity. I hope my resignation from your government helps bring that about.
Instead, she decided to put career and narrow party interests above principle and country. She decided to continue to support Tony Blair. She decided that she would remain part of the cabal which enables Blair to continue with his failed foreign policies despite her obvious opposition to those failed policies.
As a result, she can now regularly be heard making an arse of herself on the Today programme and elsewhere. That's what happens when you decide you're willing to defend the indefensible.
Given that that was a central theme of the article, you'd think Lance would have realised that he should avoid doing the same.