I agree entirely. It's easy to repeat the age-old conspiracy theories and to dwell on what might have been but if one sifts-out all the gossip, misinformation, rumours and sentiment, there's nothing to support any conlusion other than that the project was mis-managed (at a company and Governmental level) and was hideously expensive. Okay, it would have been a bargain by modern standards (as would have been the F-111 to be fair) but the decision-makers didn't have the luxury of a crystal ball.
Ultimately, it's simply a rather sad story of a project which had great potential but which came along at the wrong time. Same applies to other projects which suffered similar fates. The infamous 1957 Defence Review is another classic tale of how commentators and pundits lazily heap blame on Duncan Sandys for destroying so many promising projects but again, it's unfair to assume that he could have done anything differently. Clearly, he was given a great deal of inaccurate (or at least unfounded) information on which to make his decisions but no matter how good some of the abandoned projects might have been, the simple truth is that Britain didn't have the resources to pay for them.
Fundamentally, the TSR2 story (like many other similar projects) is inevitably re-told as an act of political vandalism. But this is simply lazy journalism. Superficially, this notion might seem plausible (and of course it makes good reading) but in reality the inescapable fact is that post-war Britain was proverbially punching above her weight, developing and supporting ambitious projects which simply couldn't be afforded.