One thing I'm not sure of - and it's a very open question - is whether the type of politics that I represent really has had its day or not. Now I obviously believe passionately it hasn't, that it's still the answer and not the problem, and, you know, the evidence points both ways.

The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighbouring countries.

I had discovered long ago the first lesson of political courage: to think anew. I had then learned the second: to be prepared to lead and to decide. I was now studying the third: how to take the calculated risk. I was going to alienate some people, like it or not. The moment you decide, you divide.

It is not an arrogant government that chooses priorities, it's an irresponsible government that fails to choose.

There are those people who basically don't like those who are different. Now, that is a prejudice and it's a prejudice that's dangerous because in the world today, the world works through connectivity. It works through going across the boundaries, but faith and culture and race in a nation.

And the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

Because I happen to believe that the best policy solutions lie in the center ground, then I want to see, how does the center revitalize itself? How does it develop the policy agenda for the future? And how do we link up people who have the same basic ideas and attachments to the same basic values across the world?