Your guess is as good as mine, and I think most of Britain is in the dark. Just the other night he got the slow hand clap on the television.

I know of no-one who argues that Hussein is an evil man, who needs removing for the sake of Iraq and the world, but we have been given no more concrete evidence of these weapons by Blair, than you have by Bush.

To go in to Iraq without UN sanction, completely negates the purpose of the UN, as much as Hitler negated the League of Nations. But I feel that the real truth is that that organisation was already as ineffectual when it had to face Germany, as the UN is now.

Blair is just an ego, he would like to think he is a Statesman of the order of Churchill, or an American style president of Britain. He thinks he walks large upon the world stage – he doesn’t, he’s just a blatant self publicist.

Unfortunately he’s got himself into an almost untenable position: If he proceeds against the wishes of his cabinet, probably of both houses of parliament – although that has not been established yet, his political party and, if you believe that the polls are correct, the vast majority of the British people, what has he achieved?

Well I think that he will have negated the value of our democratic system, often described as the mother of parliaments, as surely as the value of the UN.

I don’t think that the world needs this war, anymore than any other war, all wars destabilize, they have an action and a reaction, you reap what you sew. I can’t imagine where that leads you in the middle east, with different factions, religions and interests at play – and I don’t think Bush and Blair have the slightest concept of this.