PM's replies fail to reassure 'IoS' panel

A fortnight ago, 'The Independent on Sunday' had a massive response to its appeal for questions to the Prime Minister. Hundreds of our readers faxed, phoned and wrote in. We selected a representative seven individuals who put their questions to Tony Blair, to which he replied fully and in detail.

So, have their doubts about the impending conflict been soothed – either by Mr Blair's initial response to their queries, or by events since? They haven't, it seems.

In some cases, Mr Blair does seem to have won hearts for his intentions – if not for what people expect his final decision to be. Dr Judy Moore, the director of counselling at Norwich's University of East Anglia says: "I appreciated the fullness of Tony Blair's response to my question and, indeed, the fact that he has been willing to engage openly and publicly with those who disagree with him. The only thing I feel clear about is that Blair would do well to step back from the US at this moment and keep working for a peaceful solution."

For Clare Short's threat to resign unless a second UN resolution was forthcoming, there was praise. Mike Wilmott, a council planning officer from Wiltshire, says: "It is refreshing to hear a principled person speak her mind. It has had a great impact. I voted Labour, but I don't recognise this party as mine any more."

But, as yet, most of the panel would not like to see Blair replaced as Prime Minister: "I think he's done the best he can to press for a second UN resolution and to win public support. He seems to be facing some impossible choices right now, all of which could potentially lead to the loss of innocent lives," says Judy Moore.

The concerns of our panel spread far beyond our own shores. Much of the worry is focused on George Bush and the America''s dominance as sole world superpower. The effects on the UN concern our panellists, too. As fractures grow in the Security Council, some fear the demise of the entire peace-keeping system. "The UN has been badly undermined," says Mike Wilmott. "The politicians may well try to patch the institution up, but it has been weakened and badly damaged by the divisions within it."

Another major concern is the wider effect on the Middle East that conflict could have. Many of our panellists saw George Bush's new-found interest in the Palestinian peace process as nothing more than a short-term tactic. Dr Terence Moore, a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, notes wryly: "George Bush's conversion is welcome. But he's got the order wrong. Sorting out Israel and Palestine should come before a war with Iraq, not during or after."

France is not just our partner on the Security Council, of course. Along with Germany – another war opponent – it is a central powerhouse in the European Union. Will enmity within the EU store up trouble for Britain in the future? Some of our panel fear so: "Blair has wrecked any chances of us being a leading player in European politics," worries Ann Keith, a librarian from Grantchester.

It is a measure of Mr Blair's failure to convince our panel of his cause that they still question even the first principle of his actions, namely, the urgent necessity of disarming Baghdad. After Saddam Hussein's claims to Hans Blix that his stockpiles of VX gas were destroyed in 1991, our panel all want more time to allow his claims to be tested. "It seems war is inevitable, which is a great shame, especially at a time when the UN inspectors are making real progress," says Helen O'Sullivan, a veterinary PA from Hertfordshire.

"We're on a downward, depressing spiral to war. It won't be stopped now," says Barbara Jones, a primary school teacher from Bangor, resignedly. So the best they can hope for is a quick campaign with a minimum of casualties. Of all our panellists, Londoner Becky Horne has the most urgent need for this: "My brother's there on HMS Ocean. I want him back. Safe. Soon."

Charlie Courtauld