The Sketch: Blunkett line on terror is as clear as mud

When the infinitely intricate politician died, I forget his name just now, they said when they heard the news: "Died? I wonder what he meant by that?"

Why, when the case against Saddam is so clear, do warmongers like myself find government pronouncements so dissuasive? With their history of deception, the only rational response to the Government's most unambiguous utterance is: "I wonder what they mean?" Here's David Blunkett yesterday reacting to a question about the fortification of Heathrow. He wasn't going to say anything about it because "terrorists must not be able to assess what we know and how we know it." He said this several times. But there was something very large, and he hinted, very specific behind the tanks. What do you think he meant?

In the autumn debates before his anti-terrorism Bill he told the House he knew of a specific atrocity that was being planned and would be executed before Christmas, and that only the passage of his Bill would allow him to stop it. Opponents of the Bill, he implied, would have blood on their hands. The Bill passed but no such atrocity occurred; nor were any arrests made.

Oliver Letwin charged the Home Secretary with the fact that Whitehall was dragging its feet. This doesn't need proving; it's axiomatic. Mr Blunkett replied: "I seek entirely to refute the allegation that the security services are not prepared because patently they are." What did he mean? When peacenik protesters can walk into any nuclear power station they choose, armed with six bottles of Guinness and a stink bomb? How about smallpox vaccines and while we're about it, where's my chemical suit?

But there's something fishier than this. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem spokesman, buttered Mr Blunkett up by saying he didn't doubt the Home Secretary's integrity or judgement (that must have stuck in his throat) and asked who was responsible for the decision to send tanks into Heathrow? Mr Blunkett said it was an operational matter, that the police had been responsible for calling in the military, and that the security services didn't take direction from politicians. Didn't take direction from politicians! What did he mean?

If the tanks are at Heathrow on account of specific intelligence, the Prime Minister would have been notified before anyone else. He would have consulted with Mr Blunkett and the two of them would have called in the police leadership and told it to call in the military. Did the Prime Minister suggest tanks? We can at least be sure that if the Prime Minister didn't want tanks, there would be no tanks.

Asked whether other airports, including Manchester, were safe, Mr Blunkett recalled John Gummer's defiance of BSE (he gave his daughter a burger) and said his son flew out of Manchester airport that day.

Francis Maude asked whether Gatwick was safe from a terrorist attack. "If I answered that," Mr Blunkett said, "would that help or hinder those who want to hurt our country?"

That can only mean one thing. But what?

Simoncarr75@hotmail.com