The Rest is Politics and Alistair Campbell

We can but hope that his legal team have managed to shut him up. Contradictory statements are all very well in the media. They are far less useful when you are required to comment on each and every one under oath.

@Amythomasit really isn’t that simple. At the time the intelligence was presented as it was. All major powers believed that it wasn’t IF Saddam Hussein has WMD but there was debate about where they were.

There was a lot of flawed intelligence. But do remember this was in a period where 9/11 had just happened. Both the US and UK governments were acting quickly on intelligence and mistakes in understanding how accurate that intelligence was were made.

Believing intelligence and acting mistakenly on it does not make one a war criminal.

What galls me is the lack of admission in a clear and concise manner.

Same as for COVID. And austerity come to that.

If mistakes aren't made - especially when you are trying to err on the side of caution - you have probably done something wrong.

However when the shouting is over, a good look at what worked and didn't is essential. And especially as in both cases innocent people - too many to count - lost their lives; a grown up apology would be nice.

I used to listen. They are good broadcasters, but after the US election coverage it became clear to me that they don’t have any genuine insight at all. It’s just the usual echo chamber stuff. But very well packaged and presented.

On a separate note, they are both horrendous misogynists and I can’t get past that.

I adore TRIH though.

I agree that we have a culture now where mistakes are not owned up to and acknowledged and that is a huge problem.

Alastair Campbell is by no means the only offender here, but my god, the gall of the man sometimes.

This was not immediately after 9/11, the invasion of Iraq happened two years later. There was time to verify intelligence. That's not to say the picture wasn't unclear but let's not forget people like David Kelly who spoke out at the time and was hounded to his death.

I’m well aware when it was. 2 years after 9/11 things were still incredibly raw and unsettled. There is no point in pretending otherwise. It’s easy to sit here 23 years later and look back and not remember how it was.

If a government can't take measured decisions two years after a major event, they shouldn't be in power.

Sadly the electorate chose to ignore you.

My husband listens regularly and I sometimes hear it when we’re both in the car. I can’t get past Rory’s vocal fry, it’s like fingernails on a blackboard!

They did indeed. What a shame.

There probably is an humorous aside about The Rest is Science and Ms. Frys rather affected giggling. But I'm damned if I can find it.

I tried TRIP and the News Agents and found them both too smug. I do enjoy podcasts with differing views where they can discuss without raising their voices and clearly enjoy each other's company. Not Another One is Miranda Green, Ian Martin, Tim Shipman and Steve Richard’s. It meanders a lot but can be good. My favourite is How To Win an Election - Sally Morgan (ex Blair advisor) Polly McKenzie (ex Clegg advisor) and Danny Finkelstein (various Tory posts and speechwriter for William Hague) with Hugo Rifkind hosting as part of his Times Radio show. I find Matt Chorley’s podcasts from his show also good.

The government did take measured decisions based on the information available at the time. Interestingly Howard who was the Tory leader with access to the same information said he’d have made the same decision. His party also voted for the war.

I also enjoy How To Win An Election although it was much better with Peter Mandelson. Sally whats-her-name is a bit of a blank slate. I like Danny Finkelstein, he's a thoroughly good egg.

One of Camerons lost legacies is how he put fighting in Syria the HoC up for a whipped vote, and then abided by the decision.

Otherwise that would have been another war for the UK to get involved in.

It's clear from what's been revealed afterwards that there were detractors who had concerns, including David Kelly who I mentioned upthread. They were silenced. Blair was determined to support Bush come what may. He's pretty much said as much in interviews in recent years.

I don't doubt there was an appetite for war from many quarters based on what had happened in the preceding years but I don't think you can characterise that Blair government as measured.

But the leader of the opposition supported Blair. Whoever had been PM the result would have been the same.

@JimBobsWifeI agree, Mandelson was more insightful. I find Polly McKenzie’s views interesting and fun-her votes for babies definitely had valid points even if the actual practice is a non starter.

I agree OP. I was a subscriber and loyal listener for a while, but became really frustrated about their views on women’s issues and especially the GC debate.

It’s not so much that they take a different view on this than I do, but that AC proudly says that the only research he’s done is to ‘ask Grace’. It’s so insulting! On most other issues they seem to do plenty of research and appear to be well-informed, but AC’s attitude seems to be that on the GC debate he needn’t trouble himself to do any research, or gather a range of views - because it’s ’just women’ he can just go with whatever his daughter says. I cancelled my subscription over this and emailed them to let them know the reason, but naturally they didn’t respond.

Precisely. And it wasn’t just the US and UK who believed that SH had WMD. All the major nations did including Russia, China and Much of the western world. The debate was never about IF he had them it was where they were that was debated.
And whilst it was a horrid war and had horrific repercussions the alternative had he had WMD could have been devastating. What would have been said and done had there been an attack from Iraq?

The war didn’t happen in a vacuum and it’s important to remember those in leadership positions had to make horrible decisions based on the flawed intelligence that was available to them.

AC's attitudes and history do put me off TRIP. Similarly I'm put off Allison Pearson because she was at best wildly mistaken (perhaps not strong when it comes to science?) and at worst a wilful minimiser for political reasons over covid - at the time it seemed much more likely to be the latter and I swore never to pay a penny to the Telegraph after one of her columns at the time. This was not, I hasten to add, because I agreed with all the restrictions - there were things I disagreed with along with some I did. The Telegraph's minimisation at the time, as delivered by AP, was just too much though, too jaw-droppingly, manipulatively anti-science. The end result unfortunately is that I just can't see her as a reliable source of information, or even opinion. It's not a million miles away from the way I was put off the Guardian when I realised just how much manipulation and misrepresentation was going into their trans issue coverage.

It's not about being closed minded in any of those cases, it's about just not being able to look at a person or source the same way again once they appear to have been willing to wilfully misrepresent things because of an agenda. That's not just having a different opinion.

And my judgment of that government would be the same.

The Chilcot inquiry found that the government presented the facts in a more persuasive light than the facts on the ground merited.

It concluded that judgments about the WMD threat were expressed with unjustified certainty, given that weapons I I inspectors found no evidence of any WMD and that peaceful options had not been exhausted before Britain joined the invasion.

That is not the action of a measured government. It reeks of unconscious bias.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It has 20/20 vision.