Instead, it had sought to avoid allegations of a cover-up once the weapons scientist had come forward, and had a well-founded view that his name would not stay secret due to the high level of media interest, he said.

By contrast, the BBC came in for heavy criticism. The law lord said that the corporation’s management had failed to appreciate that Gilligan’s notes did not support the most serious of his allegations, and that governors should have recognised and inspected the differences between them.

Alastair Campbell was accused of “raising the temperature” of the government’s dispute with the BBC by the tone of his complaints.

But Lord Hutton said that the corporation’s governors should have recognised that their legitimate desire to protect its independence was not incompatible with investigating Campbell’s criticisms.

Lord Hutton said that the central 45-minute claim contained in Gilligan’s report could be proved to be wrong in future, but his allegation that the government knew it was wrong when the dossier was published was “unfounded” because intelligence chiefs did believe the source from which it came was reliable.

He described Gilligan’s report as a “grave allegation” and a slur on the government’s integrity.

Blair arrived in the Commons chamber soon afterwards, to a roar of support from his own backbenchers. He was cheered again as he rose to speak.

“The report itself is an extraordinary thorough, detailed and clear document. It leaves no room for doubts or interpretation. We accept it in full,” he said.

Judge considering legal action against Sun
Lord Hutton concluded his statement by saying that he “deplored” the Sun’s publication of leaked extracts of his report this morning “where it was known that, in the public interest, I sought to ensure that the contents of my report would remain confidential until it was published”.

The judge said he was giving “urgent consideration” to “what investigative and legal action I should take against the newspaper and its source.”

—–

The full text of the Hutton report can be found here.

And look! Just as the Keynesians predicted, the economy immediately slumped, apparently proving that the last thing a government should do in a weak economic climate is suddenly kick the legs out of the demand side of the economy. It could happen here, Obama should argue! It’s still too soon, and the U.S. economy is too fragile, to make austerity the watchword of the day.

It would be a risky gambit, to be sure. Not only is the appetite for a full-throated defense of fiscal stimulus virtually nonexistent among the American electorate, but there isn’t even any certainty that Britain’s woes can already be attributed to the austerity drive. Some commentators are blaming a bad winter for depressed construction activity. Others are noting that the bulk of the government cuts have yet to kick in, so the causal connection is thin.

But heck, if Republicans can already claim that their midterm election victory should get credit for recent signs of economic growth, than surely Democrats have every right to at least flash a caution light. The GOP has made its position clear — just hours before the State of the Union address, the House passed a resolution calling for an immediate return to 2008 spending levels, which, if enacted, could be a sucker punch into the gut of an economy just off the deathbed.

Of course, Obama most likely won’t mention the U.K.’s travails, as he tries to portray himself as a fiscal conservative who still wants to build high-speed rail and boost education spending. But the point at which all this will really get interesting is when the data start to come in on the next U.K. fiscal quarter. Because the backdrop to those numbers could quite likely be a fierce political fight over extending the debt ceiling in the U.S. It’s hard to see the likes of John Boehner and Eric Cantor trimming their sails because of anything that might happen overseas, but if the U.K. slips into full-on recession right in the middle of a swing to austerity, that’s going to make the politics of spending cuts in the U.S. a lot more interesting.

The Lib Dems may not form a full-blown coalition with the Tories. Another strong possibility is something called “confidence and supply,” which forms a minority government that isn’t in constant danger of a vote of no confidence dissolving the government.

You can follow BBC news live here.

And in case you want to know just how goofy Parliamentary democracy can get, make sure to read this Guardian article, which begins by inexpertly translating a slip of paper that Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg made some notes on and concludes by saying a Lib Dem/Labour pact was impossible because of bad body language by cranky Labour MPs.

Update: And Gordon Brown has stepped down, ending 13 years of New Labour rule in the UK. Brown’s driving to Buckingham Palace to formally resign. David Cameron will meet the Queen soon afterward to be appointed PM.

According to the Guardian:

Brown is proposing a “progressive” government, comprising Labour, the Lib Dems, and presumably the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Alliance. Electoral reform would be a priority.

And it’s been revealed that Labour has been having semi-secret meetings with the Lib Dems already, which will probably not help those Tory negotiations.

So! After the so-called “Americanisation” of the recent British elections, including live televised debates between the three party leaders for the first time in British history, it’s now entirely possible that the next prime minister won’t be any of those three people.

Amusingly, the BBC asked a “bookmaker” to predict the next Labour leader, who very well might be prime minister of the U.K.:

Bookmaker William Hill has David Miliband odds-on favourite – at 4/7 – to be the next Labour leader. Also on offer: Alistair Darling at 8/1, Alan Johnson at 10/1, Ed Miliband at 11/1 and Ed Balls at 12/1.

David Miliband is the 44-year-old foreign secretary. He’s the son of Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband. Ed is his brother (his support runs to the left of David’s). Darling is the chancellor of the exchequer. Johnson is the home secretary. Ed Balls, a longtime Brown advisor, is the longtime secretary of state for children, schools, and families. He also has no shot at becoming the prime minister, because, come on, his name is “Ed Balls.”

But a new leader most likely wouldn’t be selected until September, which means the Liberal Democrats would have to join a coalition with the incredibly unpopular Brown as prime minister for the time being, followed by someone the nation didn’t “vote for.”

You can listen to Brown’s statement here, and right now the BBC is live streaming its news broadcast here.

Thursday’s elections in Britain could be a harbinger of what is likely to come to America in the not-too-distant future: new movements and even parties that shake up the political system. Cleggmania shows that even the most tradition-bound electoral systems are facing the pressures of rapid change made possible by modern communications. These movements may not win out of the gate, but they will become significant political factors.

And:

Nick Clegg is a dynamic leader who was able to increase support for his Liberal Democrats through the country’s first televised debates. And he set off a firestorm.

And after that firestorm, everyone went back to voting for either the Tories or Labour. Nick Clegg’s Liberal-Democrats (whose platform is basically the Penn ideal of what American Democrats should look like: socially liberal and fiscally capital-L Liberal) actually suffered a net loss of five seats in the UK’s general election.

Later on, Penn moves to the traditional “pox on both houses” portion of the monthly call for a Third Way:

Today, strong reassertions of ideological extremes are taking place in the Democratic and Republican parties; witness conservative and liberal primary challenges arising against incumbents. While the country is moving to the center and record numbers are registering as independents, the Republicans are effectively being driven, and pressured, by Sarah Palin, and the Democrats by MoveOn.org.

Several factors could trigger the growth of these kinds of movements here. The Supreme Court has made it easier to launch massive paid political advertising campaigns; the Internet has made it possible to mobilize millions of voters quickly. From Connecticut to Pennsylvania to Florida to Utah, the pattern is emerging that when the left or right extremes mount a primary challenge, the incumbent can move outside the party — and win. More and more candidates, especially self-funders, are considering the independent option

This is a mantra for the sort of people who write columns in the Washington Post. “Both parties,” we are always told, are controlled by the extremist fringes. America is full of moderates who fall precisely in the middle of those two parties, ideologically.

That’s absurd. There’s party polarization, but that doesn’t mean there’s an extreme-right party and an extreme-left party. You take a look at the roll call vote on the Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Amendment and tell me there’s a left-wing party battling a right-wing party.

The Republican Party has proven that in a two-party state, you can let the ideological fringe take over and still win elections about 50 percent of the time. The Democrats have proven that there’s no consistent electoral reward for giving in to the mushy middle.

As Jon Chait pointed out, these hordes of socially liberal, fiscally conservative independent voters are entirely the fantasies of the Washington elite, which is largely made up of wealthy, educated people who do hold those rare views. (Basically the vast majority of these moderate pundits are old-fashioned New England Republicans. And D.C. must have more libertarians per capita than a Rush concert.) A shitload more Americans, in fact, would love to break up the banks and soak the rich and and get free healthcare from the government. But they’re uncomfortable with gay marriage.