Let me put it another way. Either the PM has an intelligence service that can give him the basis for war, or he doesn’t (tautology). He can’t say “it is fit for purpose” (and “lets invade Iraq”) and then “it is not fit for purpose” (and “I was misled!!”). He is perhaps the only person in a position to make that decision since has access to the sensitive material they produce (out of the elected officials, AFAIK). My main point is: it is his responsibility to ensure the information he trusts is credible.

If I am generous, he was the victim of confirmation bias at least. (aren’t we all?) Firing the entire intelligence network would not be necessary. Asking them what they really thought rather than that they thought Tony Blair wanted to hear is necessary. There have been allegations that only those that towed the party line where promoted in the intelligence services.

Alternatively they could have planned war from the start.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387237.ece

AC1

I agree it is wrong to characterise TB as devil/saint, as he remarked in his closing speech to parliament, although sometimes the place of partisan politics or low skullduggery most if not all politicians go in to politics with good intentions and righteous motives. I think at the core of his many policies was a genuinely good appeal to meritocracy.

I also oppose University Student Fees on two particular grounds:
i) all education should be free to access, ideas cost nothing.
ii) Student fees apart from discriminating against poorer students also encourage loan taking. It is manifestly wrong to encourage a student (who is not at full earning capacity) to take on loans and debts, those who take on loans become enslaved to the lender in this case the banks and the government.
My solutions:
a) accepting that courses need funding at a high level I would encourage industry to either voluntarily or through tax forcibly finance a certain percentage of university students education.
b) I would encourage greater use of vocational courses or sponsored courses, where a student in return for a portion of their fees being paid gains upon graduation a guaranteed job by their sponsor for a specified period.
c) I would encourage humanities students to be involved in a compulsory one year post-graduate teaching role either in schools/college or higher education, passing on basic skills techniques and alleviating the pressure on vocational teachers.

I disagree with the war on Iraq on almost every reason given as a justification.

I do not disagree or rather I do not criticise TB for his relationship with Dubya. As Britain is a post-imperial and declining world power they face simple polarising choices as to with whom they should align. At present it would appear that the US, China, The EU and slowly re-emerging Russia are the big guns to consider. As AC-1 correctly stated to me over the weekend the problem is that of the above none of them essentially need the UK, but the UK needs them. Therefore with tied hands it is obvious that TB could not align with Communist China, Post-Communist Russia. Leaving him the US or the EU. The former has a traditional relationship and role, not forgetting the importance of a shared language and heritage. The latter is financially more beneficial to the UK but requires a long term commitment that will not always benefit British financial interests.
In brief: the UK needs the US. Therefore if anyone is to be blamed for the relationship between the two it is Dubya of the US.

Obviously I disagree with any move to the right in politics.

Controversially I have an open mind on ID cards. I disagree with the cards and the purposes with which they are currently envisioned as serving. But I do not believe that ID cards are necessarily an ‘evil’ or an affront to liberty. This however should be kept for a seperate discussion as my views on ID cards are complex.

I agree that TB and his government were too focused on style and not substance.

I disagree that he shouldnt be allowed to pass the buck. What are you suggesting AC-1? that he sacks the entire intelligence network? I have a feeling that sometimes we attribute too much power to the PM. In reality (and not a pleasant one at that) the PM is merely the executive director of a large elitist organisation of which only a small part is democratically accountable. I consider it wholly feasible that a PM could be largely hoodwinked by nefarious elements in the intelligence community (influenced by the US) into promulgating an unjust war. I also consider it feasible that a more sceptical (pacifist) PM would have found themselves under incredible pressure to bend to the will of the intelligence community under a barrage of false evidence.

Peace envoy to the middle east is a little hilarious. But on a serious note and in light of the Hamas inspired release of Alan Johnston TB is the prime minister who suceeded (not alone and not without luck) in finally persuading the diametrically opposed Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein to enter into a power sharing government in Northern Ireland.
I propose that he should receive some credit for that, and that he should be accepted as a viable ‘visible’ diplomat for the varying Palestinian organisations who seek respectability (i.e. Hamas) in the negotiating forum.
Only time of course will tell.

Some time we need to discuss the morality of Jack Bauer, who is often put into tough moral territory.

AC1