The former Prime Minister will spend the entire day being questioned by Sir John Chilcot and the inquiry panel on what is likely to be a day of high drama at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminister.

Interest in Mr Blair's appearance has been so high that the inquiry has had to organise a ballot to allocate the 40 seats in the public gallery of the inquiry room, with a separate ballot for 20 seats set aside for relatives of those who died in the conflict.

In what promises to be the most explosive week of the inquiry so far, the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will give evidence on January 27, when he will be asked what made him change his stance on the legality of the war.

In 2002 Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair military action would not be legally justified without a second UN resolution against Saddam Hussein, but by the time the conflict started in March 2003 he had declared it legal.

Mr Blair denied in a recent TV interview that he had "bullied" Lord Goldsmith into giving his blessing to the invasion.

Two former defence secretaries, Des Browne and John Hutton, will give evidence on January 25 and Margaret Beckett, the former Foreign Secretary, will be questioned on January 26.

One of the key questions which the inquiry must answer is whether Mr Blair misled parliament over the reasons for going to war before it narrowly voted in favour of military action.

Several witnesses, including the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Turnbull, have suggested that Mr Blair was intent on regime chance in Iraq from the spring of 2002 onwards, and used Saddam's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction as a smokescreen to justify military action.

Mr Blair will also be questioned intensively on why he claimed intelligence had "proved beyond doubt" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when some witnesses have said the facts suggested otherwise.

Jonathan Powell, who was Mr Blair's chief of staff in Downing Street, will give evidence this afternoon.

There have already been so many inquiries into the Iraq war (including one in the Netherlands that this week judged the invasion to have been illegal), and it was all so long ago, that many people thought the latest British probe, under Sir John Chilcot, would prove pointless. In fact it has already been informative, not least because some of the soldiers, spooks and diplomats who have given evidence have grown franker since retirement. On January 12th Sir John’s panel questioned Alastair Campbell, formerly the government’s main spin doctor. His testimony was a telling rehearsal for the imminent appearance of the star witness: his old boss, Tony Blair.

Despite his nominal job description, Mr Campbell helped to construct and purvey the controversial case for war. “Nobody was really saying that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction [WMD],” he observed this week. That is true. Saddam’s record of making and using such weapons, the hunches of UN inspectors and the fact that the dictator continued to frustrate them and act guilty until the very end all made it seem that he still retained some WMD.

But there are weapons and there are weapons. The nuclear kind is by far the most terrifying; and the evidence presented by Britain and America that Saddam was actively and rapidly pursuing a nuke has come to seem especially dodgy. When they question Mr Blair about WMD, Sir John and his colleagues should concentrate on nuclear weapons—and in particular on the government’s assertion that Saddam might develop one “in between one and two years”. These nuclear allegations, which helped Mr Blair call the threat from Iraq “serious and current”, need further probing.

A second focus should be on how raw intelligence was changed. Mr Blair described as “extensive, detailed and authoritative” intelligence that was, in fact, patchy and old; he described conclusions that were speculative as “beyond doubt”. At the inquiry, Mr Campbell drew a distinction between shifting lines and paragraphs in dossiers and actually fabricating intelligence. Again, fair enough; and it would be futile for the inquiry to try to prove outright lying in Mr Blair’s statements about WMD. Their focus should be subtler: on his government’s negligent approach to the sources of its claims, its failure to confess uncertainty and its urge to overstate.

There is also a string of outstanding questions about the conduct and aftermath of the war. For instance, why did some British troops seem not to have been fully equipped for the task? Indeed, why did the Treasury, overseen by the man who was then chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, fail to put its money where Mr Blair’s mouth was? (Mr Brown himself has dubiously been excused from testifying until after Britain’s pending general election.) Another concern is the increasingly vexed issue of when, precisely, Mr Blair committed British forces to the invasion—and whether he simultaneously said different things to George Bush and the British public. And why did he enter the war without much assurance that the Americans had a plan for post-war reconstruction?

These worries have not arisen because of a petty dispute between Mr Blair and his critics in the media—as Mr Campbell seemed to argue at the inquiry this week. They are important because Saddam turned out not to have any WMD, and because the post-war occupation of Iraq has been disastrous (and for Britain, militarily humiliating). And they are not merely historical curiosities. The unravelling of the case for war, and the calamities of its aftermath, have discredited politicians in the eyes of many Britons, and may inhibit the country’s future foreign policy, not to mention the cost in blood and treasure. Mr Blair’s turn at the inquiry may be the last, best chance to explain those mistakes and allay some of the anger they provoked—if he is asked the right questions.

That's what I was thinking. If Salmond wants to champion a independent Scotland, then moaning about not being part of a British election debate is a bit rich.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Until the SNP get to realise their ambition, they have every right to ensure fair treatment on an equal basis with other parties in the system in which they currently operate.

Of course it's unfeasible to have all the leaders involved in the debate, and I can't see it happening any other way but for the 3 main parties.

It's all about keeping the SNP in the public eye though isn't it. Everyone knows that by rights, the SNP should be there, as in many seats, the SNP will contenders.

Can the electorate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote for the SNP?

No, but that's where the difficulty lies. It's unreasonable to expect the SNP to appear on the national broadcast, but yet to not appear on it will cause them a disadvantage in Scotland as it's bound to garner higher viewing figures than any additional show that includes the SNP.

Interesting to see how there was all the fuss about Nick Griffin being on Question Time, but no real complaint about Gerry Kelly who "was convicted of causing explosions and conspiracy to cause explosions and received two life sentences plus twenty years" after a bombing that killed one and injured 200.

Yeah, I like that video. Though the cameraman really did pick that fight a little, he's pretty antagonistic to a couple of young officers.

People love knocking the police, but I wouldn't want to do that job. It's a thankless task and we expect them to always be on our side in any situation.

It would also seem that in the months since Griffin was on Question Time the BNP's membership hasn't "went through the roof"

The police, who we pay for via council tax, not doing their job correctly.

That's because they stopped accepting new members due to them being forced to stop being a white only party.

And if that hadn't happened there would have been shitloads of people saying "fucking Hell, that guys right! Sign me up!" after the QT appearance?

They wouldn't have used those exact words but yes, there would have been a rise in membership for the party you voted for.

Nice attempt to try and restart old shenanigans there lad

An Asian man has said he could become the first non-white to join the British National Party.

The BNP lifted its whites-only membership rules for fear of legal action and 78-year-old Rajinder Singh has voiced his support for the party.

"If they ask me to join I will not say no," the retired teacher told BBC Asian Network.

BNP leader Nick Griffin said: "I will be absolutely delighted to shake his hand and give him his membership card."

Mr Singh was born in West Punjab in India before moving to the United Kingdom in 1967.

"The only reason (for not joining the BNP) will be that I don't have the guts to stand up for my beliefs," he said.

"I do like to support them for their policies, as they want to save this country."

He added: "Once they have saved it for themselves it will be safe for me too."

The BNP held an extraordinary general meeting in Essex on Sunday where it voted to allow black or Asian members to join after the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Mr Singh expressed fears over Muslim extremism and said he had been impressed by Mr Griffin.

"I have met him several times and he's very friendly," he said.

"He's a genius who stands out as Nelson did on the battle field. He's a great hero and he's taking on the whole storm of leftists."

Mr Singh added: "I think the BNP are down to earth, practical and for Britain in every sense.

"Nick Griffin got the idea that there are threats from extremism from somewhere and he's the one who stood up. I admire him for that."

Mr Griffin has said the party had been forced to drop its whites-only policy "for legal reasons," although he added that "many of our members think it's a good thing".

In an e-mail to party supporters, he said: "We continue to avow the right of the indigenous British to be recognised, accorded our full rights as an indigenous people, and to organise ourselves and our non-indigenous friends to fight politically and legally to secure and defend those rights.

"The fact that a few of those non-indigenous friends (let's be realistic, there is not going to be a flood) will henceforth be card-carrying members instead of watchers from the sidelines, will change very little.

"Except that, as some of our less bigoted and more intelligent opponents are already complaining, our enemies will have far more trouble making the 'racist' tag stick against us."

That's because they stopped accepting new members due to them being forced to stop being a white only party.


Don't they pay council tax too? Isn't that like going up to a BBC employee and saying "I pay your wages" when they do as well.

Yeah, I like that video. Though the cameraman really did pick that fight a little, he's pretty antagonistic to a couple of young officers.

People love knocking the police, but I wouldn't want to do that job. It's a thankless task and we expect them to always be on our side in any situation.

Did you? What was his name?

Of course they pay it too, what's your point though?

He said his name was Bobby.

I'm just guessing he doesn't know, because it's just one of those Daily Mail things people say about some mythical England that existed before now that is actually total bollocks.

I think he's in his late 30s..? Maybe 40s?

Don't bother, I doubt he'll be back to answer, like all the conspiracy threads he starts.

I'm just guessing he doesn't know, because it's just one of those Daily Mail things people say about some mythical England that existed before now that is actually total bollocks.

Yeah, except you come back to threads, yet still didn't acknowledge previous questions and just start posting something new.

So I don't know if you intentionally avoid questions or you just post stuff with no intention of ever reading responses or the rest of threads. Either way it makes what you post worthless, and trying to have a discussion with you incredibly frustrating. Seriously. So frustrating.

Loki, I don't see the point in questioning me to be honest, why would I lie that there used to be a local copper you would recognise and know the name of. It's a bit daft. I couldn't tell you the name of the policeman when I was a kid because it was bloody years ago!
I'm 34 mate. Lived through 4 different prime ministers so old enough to have noticed changes like this through life's experiences.

The fact we often don't know or at least recognise by face our local copper just goes to show how things have changed. We live in a faster paced world with a bigger population and less of a village way of life with a lot of people needing to commute to work spending more time away from their local area.

Yeah, but the point is he got his face out there somehow. So obviously it did happen in some areas, and didn't in others.

Kiffy is just being an aggro dickhead again.

I'm with Kiffy on this. I'm also mid 30s and I don't ever remember there being a local bobby that knew everyone's names and all that. I think that happened in Dixon of Dock Green in the 50s, but I reckon it's pretty much a race memory now.

Each generation thinks things have got worse because life as a kid is always sheltered from the realities of that era. The media bang on about asbos and hoodies now, but they were banging on about yobs in the 80s, punks in the 70s, mods and rockers in the 60s and Teddy Boys in the 50s.

Britain hasn't got worse in the last 50 years, it's got infinitely better. People generally don't die of rickets and polio, the mentally ill don't languish untreated in loony bins, there aren't food shortages and mass flu epidemics. Hotels don't have signs outside saying No Niggers, No Irish. Women aren't laughed out of the workplace. Everybody has a phone, a car, a tv, internet, a microwave. Of course there are things that we've lost, and that are worth lamenting, but this whole idea of Broken Britain, or "England's gone to the dogs"... it's just bollocks!

No I'm not, well yes I am a bit but the points still bollocks.
Cops going into schoolds and giving talks on drugs is not a local bobby everyone knows the name of.