In denial

[Green Mango]

However much you dislike the war, and dislike Blair for his part in it, you are deluding yourself if you think a Tory government wouldn't have joined it.

Iain Duncan Smith (the then Tory leader) was one of the first people to suggest an invasion of Iraq, a year or so before the dossier was even released. He also lied on his CV, so the chances that he would have baulked at cooking up a few extra "facts" for a dossier seem fairly slim. The only thing that might have gone differently under a Tory government is that they probably wouldn't have been silly enough to put it to a vote and hence wouldn't have needed to present evidence of any sort to parliament in the first place.

Cameron, and in fact most Tory MPs backed the war. The bill would not actually have passed without Tory support, and the amended version stating that the case for war was not established would have passed if the Tories had backed it. The Tories were also unanimous in voting against the idea that a second UN resolution was required.

From what Cameron has said since it seems he would do it all again:

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war

December 2009 sky news interview

You forget the commons was deceived on the basis of a fabricated treasonous dossier .....

[doodab]

You forget the commons was deceived on the basis of a fabricated treasonous dossier .....

You're missing the point. Under a Tory government there would not have been a dossier because there would not have been a vote.

[MrMark]

Of course not, it was all due to

a) A "global recession"
b) Essential to overspend to address "years of underinvestment under the Tories"
c) Neccessary to keep overspending into eternity to "avoid a double dip recession"

Now most of this is just political rhetoric, but there are many, many Labour party members that actually believe this hype and still think that what they did was brilliant.

Yet in 2006 (and possibly even 2007) the Conservative party were quite happy with the financial spending figures of the Labour government, and said they intended to maintain current spending figures. Go figure...
Everyone at the time (well the entire political class it seems) thought that house prices (and thus revenues) would keep going up continuously. Luckily the current coalition are now prepared to see house prices fall and to concentrate on the productive side of the economy:
Coalition ready to let property values fall | News | Money Marketing

It's going to take 7-10 years though before things feel stable again, imo.

[Joe Bloque]

What gets my goat is - People had 2 years knowing full well that 2003 dossier was dodgy before elections in 2005. Now in 2010 people complain they've been hoodwinked into Iraq war. In fact I admire TB in convincing the country to vote Labour keeping tories at bay. Surely, people knew who they were voting. I voted Labour btw. I knew why I voted.

[centurian]

May 2005 - Labour get re-elected under TB with Full Majority

A lower percentage of the vote - and total number of votes - than DC got in 2010.

By Labour's commentary of how the 2010 vote went, Tony Blair would have "lost" the 2005 election.

Labour have fiddled the electoral boundaries over the past 13 years making it virtually impossible for the Tories to get an outright majority. I'll admit the tories don't have a perfect record on this either, but not to the degree that New Labour did.

[Joe Bloque]

A lower percentage of the vote - and total number of votes - than DC got in 2010.

It doesn't matter - Labour were given mandate to govern. Period.
What they clearly didn't have from my vote was GB taking over reins from TB.

Labour have fiddled the electoral boundaries over the past 13 years making it virtually impossible for the Tories to get an outright majority.

If you are Tory, you have my sympathy.

[centurian]

Yet in 2006 (and possibly even 2007) the Conservative party were quite happy with the financial spending figures of the Labour government, and said they intended to maintain current spending figures.

I think 'happy' is probably stretching it a bit - but you're right - they weren't jumping up and down about it.

Part of the problem goes back to losing the 2005 election where they said that they weren't going to let spending rise as much as Labour, so Labour (very successfully) labelled this as a cut compared to their plans. The Tories then got paranoid about stating they were going to spend a penny less than Labour.

[shaunbhoy]

In fact I admire TB in convincing the country to vote Labour keeping tories at bay. Surely, people knew who they were voting. I voted Labour btw. I knew why I voted.

Well good for you Bertie Big-Bollocks.
You are either a Public servant, or feeble-minded. Not a great deal of difference when it comes to voting preference apparently.

[centurian]

If you are Tory, you have my sympathy.

You jest (I think), but part of why Labour got stale is that they started to think they were invincible - the same happened to the Tories in the late 80's, but they managed to hang on for another 6-7 years.

It's never good for democracy when it becomes almost impossible to get rid of a government.

[Joe Bloque]

Well good for you Bertie Big-Bollocks.
You are either a Public servant, or feeble-minded. Not a great deal of difference when it comes to voting preference apparently.

Atleast I don't moan about NuLibour - when it doesn't matter after all the commissions and enquiries.