Rescheduling Gordon Brown's evidence deals the Chilcot inquiry a heavy blow

Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq war has just lost a great deal of credibility. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the decision to question Gordon Brown before the election.

How do I reach that conclusion when others see the move as a sign of Sir John's independence?  Look at the sequence of events. Sir John first said he'd decided that the PM and others still in jobs relevant to Iraq could wait until after the election, to avoid interfering with the electoral process. The argument was specious, but we were assured it was the view Sir John had reached. If so, fair enough: it's his call.

Then the Lib Dems, followed by the Tories and the SNP, piped up, putting pressure on Mr Brown. He duly wrote to Sir John, saying he'd be willing to give evidence before the election. Sir John, in turn, has changed his mind.

So look again at that original decision to defer Mr Brown's evidence. All that has changed between then and now is Mr Brown's public attitude on the timing. How can we avoid the conclusion that the original decision was affected by Mr Brown's attitude?

I've no doubt that Sir John will say his decision reflects the wider political context and not simply Mr Brown's preference. But the reality is that the idea of his inquiry's independence has taken a heavy blow.