Morning:
11°c
The day Sir John Chilcot's Iraq inquiry opened this week, a less sombre event was also under way in the evening.
A dazzling party was being held at the Regent's Park home of publisher Gail Rebuck and her husband, Tony Blair's former pollster and adviser, Philip Gould.
Rebuck, head of Random House, is the publisher of the long-awaited Blair memoirs - and Queen of the New Labour social scene.
The event was a celebration of her investiture as Dame and was, one guest remarked, "as if the clock had been turned back to the preGordon era".
The old Blair crowd sipped champagne and some muttered hopefully about the last chance to get rid of Gordon Brown.
A frisson went around the room when Sarah Brown entered. Peter Mandelson mingled with Cherie Blair and Jonathan Powell.
News International CEO Rebekah Brooks was still in demand, despite transferring The Sun's affections to David Cameron.
"This lot will be all right under Cameron," whispered one New Labour wife. "They're all doing very well in the afterlife, thank you."
The man himself was missing, which is not unusual. Tony Blair now spends a week a month in the Middle East and is usually away for a further week in America, lecturing or teaching at Yale.
Cherie, who has been overseeing the refurbishment of the couple's £4 million house in Buckinghamshire, often complains that she sees less of her husband now than she did in their days in No 10.
The shadow of Iraq, however, hangs over their halcyon existence: especially now the Chilcot Inquiry is gathering evidence on the decision to go to war and the inadequate preparations for its aftermath.
Gordon Brown hopes to escape a grilling on the grounds that as Chancellor, he was peripheral to the critical decision-making.
His predecessor, however, will be at the centre of the proceedings. "No one is on trial here," said Sir John in his opening remarks. But for many the inquiry is the long-awaited trial of Tony Blair.
The Blairs were "extremely anxious" that there might be a legally based inquiry into Iraq.
"It would have been a circus of lawyers and endless argument about how you decide if a war is legal or not," says one ally. "He was pleased it didn't go that way."
Instead, Chilcot is calling the officials and politicians: though many who know the informal modus operandi of the old No 10 doubt that the full truth will emerge.
"A lot of things happened as they did because of the personalities involved, how they interacted and their own agendas and beliefs," says one.
"There was a kind of force field between Blair, David Manning (a key aide and later Washington ambassador) and the intelligence chief Richard Dearlove. There were a lot of people further down the chain talking about decisions which were made higher up and much more secretively."
Another former ambassador notes that the best potential evidence may lie in the memories of the private secretaries in Downing Street and the Foreign Office.
"They knew everything," he says, "but strangely, they are never called to give an account."
The closed world around Blair still fascinates - one member of the old inner circle is even rumoured to be writing a play in which the run-up to the war and the interlocking personalities will feature.
How does the man who led Britain into a lengthy and still unconcluded conflict view it now? Friends such as Lord Falconer insist he does not see Blair's Middle-East role as an act of repentance.
"It's more about remaining involved in public affairs and contributing to something he thinks important," he says.
Colleagues say Blair has a strong relationship with George Mitchell, Washington's envoy to the region, and hopes to play a negotiating role if Barack Obama revives the peace process.
Another more critical member of the old No 10 gang says: "Tony always thought Iraq was a simple proposition. He misjudged its complexity."
Lord Falconer captures the ambivalence in the old Blair team about the investigation. "I fear public opinion won't be satisfied until some form of inquiry condemns Blair.
"I hope that this one is sufficiently authoritative to deal with that anxiety." At the same time, he says, Blair remains convinced that he was right to go to war.
A female friend senses "a kind of denial" about the level of the failures involved. "He made one huge mistake in being in awe of the Americans," she says.
That will begin to be explored when the first big name of the inquiry, former ambassador to Washington in the run-up to the invasion Sir Christopher Meyer, gives evidence tomorrow.
In his memoirs he argued that by the autumn of 2002 Britain should have made its participation in any war dependent on a properly worked-out plan for the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. The preparation, he said, was "defective and rudimentary".
Behind the glitz and confidence that was always his hallmark (and rather missed in the stumbling premiership of his successor), Blair has had disappointments.
The Middle-East job is essentially a holding operation until Obama decides to revive a peace process.
The recent failure even to make the shortlist in the race for the new job of European President "did bother him", says a friend. "He really wanted the role. It wasn't a dry run."
He is not used to such defeats. His old aide Jonathan Powell had returned to work for him, trying to create a head of steam behind what was, in effect, a job application from a man who has never stopped wanting to lead.
"Tony's got one bigger job in him," Cherie confided to an old friend recently.
The "Iraq factor" loomed large in Blair not getting the European presidency but fear of his tendency to steal the show was also a bar.
Even generally sympathetic figures such as Germany's Angela Merkel, who has high personal regard for Mr Blair's pragmatic centrist politics and tough international stance, could not be persuaded that the EU needed the Blair factor.
His portfolio is diverse (some close to him think too much so).
Besides the Middle-East envoy role and his American trips he runs his inter-faith foundation and campaigns on climate change - recently travelling to China to try to persuade local leaders to curb emissions.
He oversees a northern sports foundation: his remaining link with the Sedgefield seat that propelled him to power.
The Blair Foundation in London is modelled closely on Bill Clinton's multiplicity of political and business interests after office. The restlessness of the two men is a similarity.
"He's always busy," says his old Sedgefield agent John Burton, "he's physically incapable of stopping work."
Burton adds with a hint of concern that he has "taken on a lot" in terms of financial commitments.
"He needs £5 million a year to pay for his offices and staff as well as his private living."
It's the treadmill of the relentless high-flier. The Blairs enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.
They have converted outbuildings on the Buckinghamshire estate for their sons Euan and Nicky.
Euan is in the City, Nicky teaches at a comprehensive - and is expected to follow his father into politics.
Kathryn, to everyone's surprise, decided to become a lawyer and has blossomed into a confident young woman.
On his New York visits, he stays at the Waldorf and the US side of his affairs is looked after by his agent there, Bob Barnett, who has always been coy on the content and timing of his memoirs, saying "we're looking forward to the book very much, but not talking timings right now".
London friends, however, say that Blair is working "flat out" on the autobiography which will be published soon after the election and is expected to give his side of the Blair-Brown tensions in power.
These were carefully excised from Cherie Blair's memoirs, published last year, but the book was sold to Random House and Knopf for between £5 million and £6 million - suggesting that he has agreed to a frank account of his years in power.
More than two years after he left office, the Iraq inquiry will be the first time the British public has seen him called to account for the most controversial aspect of his premiership.
But don't expect a mea culpa when the room falls silent and his moment comes.
"He genuinely believes that he was right to get rid of Saddam and that the Middle East is better off without him," says Lord Falconer.
The arguments will pursue him to the end of his days.
Reader views (26)
Any candidate, who promises to introduce selective conscription for the children of all MPs who voted to invade Iraq, will get my vote. Just picture Tony assuring Euan that he'll be perfectly safe driving a Snatch LandRover around Khandahar - he said that they were safe enough for all those other mothers' sons and daughters, didn't he?
- Wuffo The Wonder Dog, Barking, England
Its clear that throughout his premiership that Tony Blair was totally in awe of the US. This coloured his judgement and has damaged the special relationship. Sir Christopher Meyer's mentioning of Margeret Thatcher in his evidence just pointed up that Blair caved into Bush when it mattered most. Thatcher was never worried about squaring up to the US Administration when the British national interest was at stake just as she was happy to give the Europeans a right old handbagging for the same reason.
This then is Blair's legacy to the UK and will continue until we have a Premier with balls to conduct a robust foreign policy- rather than being the lapdog we are -eager to be at the US bidding.
- Renny, London
I predict that TB will seek US citizenship quickly, claim inability to attend Iraq Inquiry because of illhealth due to peace efforts in Middle East.
- Iraq Inquiry, Woking, Surrey
Probably the biggest scoundrel in the history of modern Britain
- Ricky, Hackney, London
NuLabout have lied about everything, immigration, spending, health, crime and of course Iraq. They are driven by hidden agendas, warped ideoloogy, self enrichment and have wrought untold damage on Britain as well as having the blood of the Iraqis and our soldiers on their hands. But the consequences of their lies about immigration and crime has also resulted in soaring violent crime here in the UK. Fr that they aso have blood on their hands. And their squandering of tax payers money (the frage at the bankers is just to deflect attention fromthemselves) has destroyed the wealth of those tax payers. NuLabour need to be brought to account for their lies and criminal negligence. If they were running a comppan they would already have been put on trial and in jail. But as politicisn in the UK they get away with it and are laughing all the way to the bank.
- Alan Parker, hong kong
I will be forever grateful to Tony Blair and the brave British troops for standing with us against the vicious dictator who killed so many innocents, the bodies are still being found in mass graves today. I am also grateful to the other 25 countries who stood with the USA and Britain in Iraq. You cannot have 27 countries decide to go to war and all be wrong. No, they were all right.
- Annie, California, USA
Hundreds of thousands of people killed mainly as a result of this man and George W Bush and still there are those who prevaricate the facts?
- Cyrjames, Berwick UK
For our democracy to get back on track Blair and many around him must be put on trail for treason. The unintended consequences of dictating to the people as apposed to listening to them. Furthermore, its not Blair and Co,s choice, It's us the people who will decide.
The Ceausescu's come to mind at this stage.
- Mike,, London
If these people are found guilty will they serve there time as we are...
- Garry Morrill, Brighton
Blair is a traitor to humanity! To the Tower with him! Off with his head!
- Jon, London
Blair is a traitor to humanity! To the Tower with him! Off with his head!
- Jon, London
Brown has ordered that many Government documents will remain secret. The Inquiry has talked of granting immunity from prosecution to some witnesses. Already the Establishment whitewash to end all whitewashes is getting under way.
- Neil645, Gloucestershire, England.
How will he react? by telling another sackful of rehearsed lies, thats how.
- James Hennessy, Manchester England
I cannot wait to hear Blairs evidence.
Already the inquiry has hit the ground running with the evidence of former U S ambassador: Sir Christopher Meyers. Dynamite seems a euphemism not really equipped to describe his version of events.
Granted it is not strictly 'Solid evidence' more his interpretation of events to which he was not personally privy. But still! for a senior civil servant to air his views as he did is surely groundbreaking.
I can still recall with amazing clarity Tony Blair justifying his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
His claims to have seen the evidence of WMD.
How, in the future, when all the evidence comes to light we will see that he was right.
How all the intelligence from MI5 and CIA categorically proved that Saddam was planning to use WMD against USA imminently.
Blairs chickens, really will come home to roost.
It seems that people in the know are ready to steadfastly refute any lies that he uses to justify his actions.
Bring it on
- Seenitall, London
Gordon Brown has already ordered most of the evidence not to be revealed. Has anybody mentioned David Kelly's name yet? If that wasn't a cover up I dont know what was. He found no weapons of mass destruction and the poor man paid with his life. Tony Blair has a charmed life and too many people around him protecting him. Until such times as the British public's voice is heard the farcical inquiries will go on and NOBODY will pay.
- Pamela Mckay, Dagenham Essex
It doesn't matter what evidence is presented to this enquiry - it will be a whitewash, just like everything else.
Justice no longer exists in the UK.
- Alex, London
"The Blairs were "extremely anxious" that there might be a legally based inquiry into Iraq."
I don't think the Blairs need to worry about a legally based inquiry - after all, they'll be acquitted and probably compensated for the inconvenience as is the way with British Justice.
What they *do* need to worry about though is the reaction of the people of the Middle East for which he's our Envoy. I know his failure to secure the Gravy Train position in the EU passed relatively unnoticed but I'm sure his allegedly illegal "contribution" to that war-torn region will maybe see justice of a different type served up. Don't be surprised if we see him spending less time in the Middle East again soon...
- Mhmedia, Guildford, UK
"He genuinely believes that he was right to get rid of Saddam and that the Middle East is better off without him," says Lord Falconer.
Lord Falconer (ex-room mate of Tony Blair), If I recall correctly, according to Tony Blair, Saddam had WMD's. If it was regime change (which the UN deem as illegal) then Blair and Bush should be charged.
- Nathan, LONDON
We are told by the Chaiman that is NOT a trial,we all know who is responsible,so why waste millions of pounds on an inquiry,these huge sums of money could,and should be spent elsewhere.
- Stan Hopgood, London
Source Iraqi casualties March 2003 to...
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths.June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths April 2009
Iraq Body Count 92,489 – 100,971 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. June 2009
My comments directed @ Richard, London, Uk.
the deaths of 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqui's under Saddam's Ba'athist regime not really that important to you then? Then what about the Million deaths this war has cause by the illegal invasion of the US/UK Bush & Blair regime not really that important to you then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
And thats just for starters. Want to learn more richard then wake up.
Richards Quote "Two wrongs may not make a right, but here its a case of the lesser of two evils. War is sometimes the only possible option to dispose of tyranny, however much we may want to pretend that we can talk everything out." Then my friend i think you chose the more evil Side.
It's funny when Saddam decided to drop the Dollar for the Euro.
Please dont expect the Main Stream Media News Corp to give Truth.
- Jonathan, London
Richard, I don't know why you assume that the people that were murdered and tortured under Sadam mean nothing to me, actually the opposite is true.
You correctly point out that the UN were addressing mine and countless others concerns when Bush decided to go to war with Iraq. That wasn't illegal but it was illegal for Blair to take this country into war because unlike the US, Regime Change is not a valid reason for the UK to go to war.
Two wrongs don't make a right but war is a last resort, the UN should have been given more time but the outcome the UN was working towards did not suit Bush, his reasons for the invasion were complex but high on the agenda was gaining oil security for the US.
The point I was making is that Blair has demonstrated contempt for the Christian views he espouses and therefore that inner conflict may indicate he is actually mentally unwell.
Sure if Britain hadn't joined the war those victims are likely to have been killed anyway but Britain's involvement means Britain and the other allys are equally responsible for the deaths of the innocents. But Blair more than anyone in Britain is responsible because he lied to Parliament in order to get the vote for war and got his mate the Attorney General to change his advice for the legality of the conflict (which incidently was correct at the first serving!)
- Peter B, Hants
Champagne guzzling socialists who just do not care about the rest of the country. The collusion between Blair, Campbell, Brown and cronies resulted in a pointless war that cost lives and wasted billions of pounds. Iraq is now in a worse mess than under Saddam. These people should be brought to justice.
- Simon Walters, London
Peter - the deaths of 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqui's under Saddam's Ba'athist regime not really that important to you then. After all, it was a very long way away and we never heard too much about it here, so way bother about them, eh?
The constantly churned-out phrase "illegal war" is really quite meaningless in practice. What one represenative body says is not right morally, another will say is absolutely justified. The more powerful body usually gets its way. The UN didn't approve of US/UK intervention in Iraq - but since when has the UN had the final say in
international politics. It is, and always had been, only a talking shop. There is not the slightest chance that Bush or Blair will ever face serious legal proceedings for taking their nations into this war. And indeed, why should they ? Should all the millions who democratically voted them in to their positions of power also face legal action? Equally silly.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but here its a case of the lesser of two evils. War is sometimes the only possible option to dispose of tyranny, however much we may want to pretend that we can talk everything out.
- Richard, London UK
"The trial of Tony Blair
He will soon have to justify taking Britain to war at the Iraq inquiry. So how is the former Prime Minister likely to react?"
...For a start, it has already been stated in this paper that this inquiry is not a trial.
Secondly, how will he react? How do you think? He is the politician that lied to Parliament in order to take us into an illegal war with a country that has never done us any harm.
Lying to this inquiry will be a walk in the park compared to his previous efforts.
- Kate, London
If Blair, the good Catholic, thinks it's OK to cause the deaths of 10's of thousands of innocents through an illegal war then it's a psychiatrist that he needs not a priest.
He can argue the morality, his brief can argue the legality but the desecration to the sanctity of life is off limits to mere mortals, but there again does Bliar think he's a mere mortal?
- Peter B, Hants
"Hey - as everyone I've ever paid will tell you - I'm a pretty straight kinda guy - and, in every real sense of the word, Right is on my side - and, hey, some guys aren't cool, moral-wise you know, they need, in every real sense of the word, to be re-moralicated, and..." (continued ad infinitum in memoirs...)
- Clovis, London
