Stepping into the House of Lords is a bit like stepping back in time. From the wood panelled ‘Women Peers’ toilets (just past Baroness Thatcher’s coat hook), to the three person cage lift that rattles up and down the belly of the Houses of Parliament, everything has an air of grandeur that feels long since lost in the modern world. Lord Paddy Ashdown is all too aware of the anachronistic nature of the institution, expressing his “outrage” that the Lords is still an unelected second chamber of Parliament.

“You can’t not be a Lord now,” he tells me. “Even if you behave appallingly badly you still stay a Lord. It’s an incredible thing. I think it’s a ridiculous place.” However, Ashdown is not one to waste an opportunity. As he explains, “I play my part here because since I’m here I ought to play my part for the party.” And it is this mix of principles and pragmatism that seems to characterise Ashdown throughout my interview with him – dedicated to serving his country, while fully aware of the practical limitations of being a Liberal Democrat politician.

The eldest of seven children, born in New Delhi to an army nurse and Indian Army officer, but brought up mainly in Northern Ireland, Ashdown’s path to politics is certainly not the usual one. After spending thirteen years in the Royal Marines, serving in Borneo, the Persian Gulf and the Far East, Ashdown moved to Geneva under the auspices of representing the UK to the various UN agencies there, while working in a “shadowy part of the foreign office [MI6]during the night”. It was a “fascinating job”, and a life that Ashdown describes as his “halcyon days”. What then made him leave all that to go into politics?

“I can’t answer that question without sounding particularly pompous and self-righteous”, Ashdown laughs, before plunging into an explanation of what, in his view, was wrong with Britain in 1974: the power of the unions, the three day week, the two elections in one year. This made him realise, he says, that he wanted to do something more for his country. “I said to my wife, ‘What a ridiculous thing, what a terrible way to waste your life living a sybaritic existence, if you weren’t doing something that was of benefit to your country.’”

It was a decision that Ashdown describes as “idiotic” and “irresponsible”, but also “the best” decision of his life. Going into politics though, as Ashdown admits, was not only “insane”, but “doubly insane to go in as a Liberal [when] the party was at 5% in the opinion polls”, and even more so to attempt to win Yeovil, a seat which had been held by the Tories since its creation in 1918.

But win it he did in 1983, after eight long years of campaigning, and shortly before becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats from 1988 until 1999. For a politician who was drawn into the profession by his ideals, does he think that the Lib Dems have compromised too much by going into coalition with the Conservatives? Ashdown is adamant. “Absolutely not. If you want any evidence go and speak to the Tory right, they’re bloody furious. I actually think that the Liberal Democrats have held this Tory party and firmly nailed it to the centre ground.”

It is when he is talking about coalition politics that Ashdown’s synthesis of beliefs and pragmatism is clearest. There is no point in being a Liberal, he tells me, “if you are just prepared to be a cosy, fluffy pet at the side of British politics. Our job is to take power and get power and use power for purposes in which we believed. And to take the compromises and tough decisions necessary to do that.”

Compromise, then, it seems is the lifeblood of Britain’s third party. But isn’t there fear within the Lib Dems of being consigned to the political wilderness at the next general election, as the polls seems to be indicating? “Of course there is,” Ashdown responds, “you’d be fools if you didn’t [worry].”

He continues, “There are going to be headless chicken tendencies in any party. But anyone who seriously believed that there was a political dividend to be delivered from this in the first year, or the second year, or probably the third, was just not living in the real world. If there is a dividend to be delivered in this it comes in the year before the election.”

Since Ashdown assures me that he believes that the Lib Dems will get their political rewards, you can’t fault his optimism. He is also unrestrained in his praise for Nick Clegg, describing his judgement as “outstanding”, adding that Clegg’s “capacity to remain a fully paid up member of the human race in the face of the shit that he’s had to face is astonishing.”

Ashdown is unsurprisingly a touch more measured in his praise of Cameron, saying, “I don’t think he’s as strong at resisting his right wing backbenchers as he should be if he was going to be a really good Prime Minister, but I think he’s a very competent Prime Minister. And I think he’s a decent man.”

Ashdown admits that, along with other former Lib Dem leaders Sir Menzies ‘Ming’ Campbell and Charles Kennedy, he was initially “very dejected” with the coalition deal. He attributes this, along with his change of heart to becoming “a passionate supporter” of the coalition, to misunderstanding what he believes Clegg saw clearly from the beginning: that the Conservative parties of Cameron and Thatcher were very different.

Ashdown also leaps immediately at the chance to praise the coalition government, describing its judgement as “spot on”. On Cameron’s veto of the EU fiscal treaty, however, Ashdown does not hesitate in calling it “completely disastrous’ and “a profound failure to understand what is necessary for Britain”.When I ask whether he thinks that Britain’s future remains within the EU Ashdown’s answer is simple: “Absolutely, where else would it be?” As our discussion ranges from  Europe to the American elections, Ashdown’s command of every issue we touch on is clear, and all the more impressive given that he never even completed A Levels, much less university.

Toward the end of our discussion, a man introduced to me as a “Suffolk radical”, Lord Andrew Philips, pokes his head into Ashdown’s office, asking for Ashdown’s help to get him “in” on an Iran discussion group. While my putative journalistic query about the nature of this group is, understandably, rebutted (“Mind your own business!”), Ashdown still doesn’t hesitate to give me his views on Iran. Though events have moved significantly since we spoke a few weeks ago, his affirmation that “sabre rattling is just not sensible”, and that we “need to be playing a much more subtle game with Iran than we currently are” still seems far more realistic than the shock headlines in the press of late.

As for his own future, Ashdown maintains that he has “no particular desire” to be a government minister, and even said to Blair that he wouldn’t join the cabinet in a Lib-Lab coalition. “I’m very happy as I am”, Ashdown tells me, citing writing his seventh book, his role as President of UNICEF UK, his continued interest in Bosnia, where he served as UN High Representative from 2002-2006, and his garden as keeping him busy beyond his role in the House of Lords. No small feat for someone now in their 70s, but then Ashdown has “never been terribly attracted to carpet slippers”.

Ashdown does admit that he would’ve liked to have been Prime Minister, half jokingly telling me, “It really spoiled my whole afternoon when I thought ‘I can’t be Prime Minister because none of you bastards voted for me!’” Despite this blemish on an otherwise unsurpassable CV, Ashdown is still certain that his greatest achievement has been not in Bosnia but in being an MP, “because there is no privilege in the world greater than serving your community.”

Am I the only one getting a sense of deja vu? Grainy satellite images of weapon development sites, endless video footage of bearded men in lab coats and dubious terrorist links – this all feels rather 2003. Almost nine years have passed since the catastrophic invasion of Iraq and it appears we are none the wiser. After 100,000 civilian casualties, $750bn of expenditure and seven long years of war, Iraq is only marginally freer and considerably more unstable. Talks of air strikes against Iran shamelessly forget our recent history.

The conflict between Iran and the West is hardly new. Most recently, the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in early February had Mossad’s fingerprints all over it. Retaliatory attacks on Israeli diplomats earlier this month in India and Georgia were widely attributed to Iran. Threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz were met by the US conducting its biggest ever amphibious military exercise. Just yesterday an Iranian battleship provocatively entered the Mediterranean Sea.

The development of nuclear weapons has been at the heart of tensions and provocative claims have been flying around in the last few weeks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reported that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor and Israel’s Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, claimed that Iran will soon be conducting its uranium enrichment activity in an underground facility making it invulnerable to attack. But for all these strong words, we have yet to be shown any convincing evidence that bomb-making is taking place. In fact, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, said they don’t believe Iran has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state. Sensitive military intelligence of this nature is, of course, confidential and many sources can only be quoted anonymously, but are we really willing to trust anonymous intelligence reports after they disastrously failed us in 2003?

One thing we can ascertain is that the media on both sides of the Atlantic are working themselves into a frenzy. On Wednesday, Sky News claimed that Iran and Al Qaeda ‘have established an operational relationship amid fears the terror group is planning a spectacular attack against the West.’ The Daily Telegraph published a similar story attributing the link to what ‘officials believe.’ Coverage on the other side of the Atlantic is more extreme and even Foreign Affairs jumped on the bandwagon with a piece entitled ‘Al Qaeda in Iran: Why Tehran is Accommodating the Terrorist Group.’ Much like with Iraq in 2003, news reports shamelessly paint Iran as the root of all evil and a serious aggressive threat to Israel, Britain and the United States.

But there is a crucial difference between the coverage of Iran and Iraq: whereas in 2003 the media outlets followed the drumbeat set by the British and American governments, the media today seems to be set on war despite conciliatory views expressed by Washington and London. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a television interview last weekend that it was ‘not prudent at this point’ to attack Iran. Similarly, the Foreign Secretary William Hague told Andrew Marr on the same day that any action against Iran ‘would not be a wise thing’.

So what is motivating such aggressive coverage? In part, the cultural shift towards the dramatization of American news reporting has increased the pressure on outlets to keep viewers’ attention and match the intensity of rival broadcasts. But more powerful is the influence of Israel and Israeli sympathisers in many of the agenda-setting American newspapers and television stations alongside an ever-present neo-conservative voice in US foreign policy circles. The Iranian conflict also fits nicely into an Islamophobic narrative that some have constructed to explain the threats to British and American security since 9/11.

The transatlantic media needs to reassess its position on the Iranian question. Above all, it has vastly overestimated the threat from Iran. In the past six months, a combination of stiff Western-backed economic sanctions, covert action by Israel and other nations’ intelligence agencies as well as the continuing Arab Spring have tested the regime’s ability to hold together the domestic constituencies that keep it in power. Furthermore, its pathetic attempts to assassinate Israeli and Saudi diplomats, continued defence and support of the bloodthirsty Syrian regime, a slew of incompetent economic policy moves and a dangerous bluff over closing the Strait of Hormuz all suggest Iran is not nearly as formidable an opponent as many believe.

News outlets have also overestimated the desirability of an airstrike. Iran is a major oil producer and rests right by the most important petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. An oil price shock could destroy the delicate economic recovery in Europe and the United States. No one wants a land war, but once bombs and missiles start flying, it is hard to see where the conflict might end. An air assault is more likely to consolidate support for the current regime and invigorate the nuclear program.
I got off the train at Oxford on Thursday onto a platform crowded with British soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Their faces looked as drained as their helmets looked worn. Years after a glamorous intervention, the costs of modern warfare remain high. Let this not be forgotten too quickly.

Why do you think the Conservatives’ support has remained relatively high, despite spending cuts and continuing high unemployment?

I think the Tories are ahead for a variety of reasons that include the voters’ willingness to blame the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives for unpopular coalition policies which they opposed when not in power, student tuition fees, for example. Contrary to the frequent complaints of frustrated right-wing Tory MPs and activists, their own party dominates the coalition and David Cameron talks with an optimistic ‘I’m in charge’ tone, one which voters respond to until they turn against a government. This hasn’t happened – yet.

On the crucial political and economic judgements which will decide the coalition’s eventual fate, voters seem more persuaded by the narrative it has promoted since day one: that a return to sound banking and fiscal prudence is the priority which will create the best conditions for growth, and that Labour’s alternative, one which seeks a less austere balance between growth and fiscal retrenchment, is wrong.  It helps that Ed Miliband hasn’t made much of a personal impact and Ed Balls is widely mistrusted as the brains behind Gordon Brown who got us into this mess.

It may be unfair, but life is very unfair at present. In reality the coalition has solved one problem, market confidence, at the expense of creating another, flat-lining growth, which is starting to undermine, yes, market confidence.

Do you think that the Conservatives’ support will stay steady as government austerity continues?

That depends on a lot of factors, including many far beyond the coalition’s control. George Osborne is already blaming the protracted Eurozone crisis (on which his policy and Labour’s have been both similar and broadly correct for several years) for the problems of the UK economy. It’s true, up to a point, but not what he said in opposition.

Has Britain bought into Cameron’s ‘Big Society’?

No. It might have been more acceptable and boosted the voluntary sector in positive ways if the boom had continued. When it didn’t the Big Society was used to justify cuts or the transfer of social functions to voluntary agencies – just at a time when vital state support for such activities was being cut back. That’s what the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) told me when I asked it in the PM’s own Witney constituency just up the road from Oxford. So the big idea, which was always a bit airy-fairy, got tainted by reality on the ground.

Do you think that the Lib Dems have made the government’s policies more centrist?

In a few areas, yes, and the Lib Dems have also prevented the Tory Right exercising more influence than it might have hoped for – not to mention having 20 more jobs in government. Europe is the obvious example, tax policy too. If you were Cameron would you prefer to depend for power on the herbivorous Lib Dems or the carnivorous Euro-sceptics ?  Precisely.

Do you think that we will see a coalition government at the next election?

The two parties will probably – probably – fight as rivals with the Lib Dems not ruling out a coalition deal with Labour and the Tories not cutting local deals to help Lib Dems save their seats. That’s what EU parties do in states where PR voting systems create coalition politics as a matter of  design. For some reason which has always escaped me it’s thought to be more democratic. Watching Danish coalition politics via the TV series, Borgen, has not changed my mind  – far from it.

Michael White is Assistant Editor of The Guardian, having written for them for over 30 years, and was Political Editor from 1990-2006

In a small piece on the BBC website this week, I discovered that a naturist walking in a “popular Yorkshire beauty spot” has been convicted of a public order offence and fined £315. He was stopped and arrested by an off-duty police officer who noticed the “disgusted look” of a woman walking her dog. Apparently the chivalrous officer in question “could tell [the woman] was upset about something.” The presiding judge commented “I note with some interest that he would not walk with his clothes off in the city centre of Leeds … on this occasion, a lady was clearly distressed by what she had seen going on.”

This is fantastically idiotic. It’s a ridiculous waste of public money for starters, but more than that, the judge’s comments are plain stupid. As far as I can tell, being in the great outdoors is part of the point of naturism. You wouldn’t wander round the Rad Cam in just your swimming trunks, but that doesn’t stop it being perfectly acceptable on the beach.What is really maddening, however, is the idea that this lady was actually disgusted. Are we seriously implying she’s never seen a naked man before, or maybe that she has some kind of aversion to willies? Either way she should be barred from any kind of museum or art gallery, lest it offend her delicate sensibilities. I heard a young boy ask “daddy, what is orgies?” at the Ashmolean last week. Clearly he’d survived the onslaught of naughty bits with his wits intact. Apparently, this disgusted lady would not be able to achieve the same feat.

If the naturist were doing something sexual, then fine. Maybe you can be disgusted when he gets out the KY Jelly and a novelty-sized cucumber. But a man wandering round with his knob out? In an age where sex is used to sell every consumer product you care to mention? Grow up. That wasn’t disgust. Shock, maybe. Surprise, perhaps. But I refuse to believe that anyone growing up in modern society can be disgusted by a penis in public. And if you are, get over it. It’s a stupid day indeed when we need the courts to protect us from seeing our own bodies.