The UK Today

Well, that's alright then. Nick Raynsford is threatening to cap council tax increases to ensure that rises don't exceed 6%. While that is half the percentage increase of last year, it is still nearly 3 times the rate of inflation.

Looks like the Conservatives have come to their collective senses, and decided to pull out of the Butler whitewash. Taken them a while, but they finally seemed to have cottoned on to what the rest of us realised weeks ago; that the Butler Inquiry will achieve nothing with regards to revealing the truth.

Meanwhile the Government is doggedly hanging in there, still refusing to reveal the Attorney General's legal advice. In many ways Tony Blair now reminds me of HAL9000 from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Faced with trying to maintain a high-level deception, the poor thing became psychotic, much like HAL9000. However I do think it unlikely that Tony will resort to murder to maintain the lie, at least not directly.

This may give an insight into how the legal position was identified. After Foreign Office experts decided that war would be illegal, the US suggested that Tony find himself some new lawyers. So Lord Goldsmith wanders over to Professor Christopher Greenwood of the LSE, the most hawkish lawyer he could find, and based his advice to the Government on Greenwood's opinion.

John Major, himself no fun-loving fan of human rights, waded in on Breakfast with Frost yesterday, pointing out the obvious that country will remain divided as long as Lord Goldsmith's double side of A4 remains for the eyes of the Cabinet only. And although Tony Blair keeps falling back on the defence that the Attorney General's advice is covered by constitutional convention, there are exceptions to the rules defined in the parliamentary rule book, with disclosure occurring as recently as 1971. Besides which, Blair can't have it both ways. On previous occasions (most recently with the leaking of Dr Kelly's name to the press) he has shown himself to be no stickler for constitutional niceties. Either Butler's remit must be extended, or the inquiry scrapped and a new one set up in its place, with broader terms and members appointed by all parties. Until this happens, there can and will be no progress on other areas, not in health, education, welfare, transport, etc, etc. Instead this government will remain hog-tied and ineffectual, while the cancer of doubt gnaws at its heart.

And Tony has the temerity to be disappointed with Clare Short. Maybe he should take a look around him at just how disappointed we are with his performance.

As someone who has grown up hearing about the Troubles on the news as a child, being caught in bomb scares in London, etc, there always seemed to be a perception of the IRA and Sinn Fein as the bad guys. Even though I am older and more enlightened, there are times when the words of reason uttered by Sinn Fein still catch me out. And to be honest, I do sympathise with the Republican Movement in the latest squabble around restoration of powers. Even the DUP don't seem to be screaming and shouting as much as David Trimble's UUP. And from a purely demographic perspective, the various Unionists ought by now to becoming to terms with the fact that their historical dominance cannot last much longer.

Obviously the only thing green about the UK Armed Forces is some of the camouflage, especially if their objection to wind farms is anything to go by. Apparently any wind farm within 45 miles of a radar station interferes with signals, but only in the UK. In Germany it is only a problem if the wind farm is within 5 miles, and elsewhere it just isn't a problem. I can only assume that the MoD is still using WW2 vintage radar in an effort to make savings, as it is hard to believe that a modern radar system can distinguish between aircraft and missiles and ranges of 100s of miles, but gets confused by a windmill half a county away.

Westminster City Council and the Met have brought a new meaning the word Audit. According to them, auditing beggars in Westminster involves arresting, finger-printing, taking DNA samples and then bailing them. As if criminalising them is going to solve the problem. And it gets better. Apparently charities that run soup kitchens could be prosecuted for parking or environmental health violations. I kid you not!

So Tony once roughed it on a London park bench, having travelled there to try and become a rock star. Or at least that is what Cherie would have us believe. Once again, Tony is portrayed as a man of the people, who can empathise with the suffering in society.

What a load of bollocks. After all, we've been here before.

Anyone remember Blair's claim to have sat at the Gallowgate End, watching his teenage hero Jackie Milburn play football for Newcastle? The only problem being that when Milburn retired, our Tone was only four, and the Gallowgate End had no seats at the time.

Or the time when a 14 year old Blair attempted to stow away on a flight from Newcastle to the Bahamas? Which would have been tricky given that there were no flights from Newcastle to the Caribbean at the time.

And then there's his favourite dish. Is it fresh fettuccine with sun-dried tomatoes, or fish and chips from his local chippie in Sedgefield? Depends on whether you read the NSPCC Islington Cook Book or his local Labour Party news-sheet in Sedgefield.

Not bad for a pretty straight kind of guy. If he can't be honest about his own past, how in hell are we expected to believe him when he talks about the major issues.

Good old Clare Short. Not only does she recieve a threatening letter from Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull, warning her not to give interviews regarding the bugging of Kofi Annan, but she went on ITV's Jonathon Dimbleby programme to publicised the fact.

And now it seems that the Ministry of Defence is facing legal action of the deaths of 13 Iraqi civilians. It seems that Public Interest Lawyers (bit of an oxymoron there methinks) are preparing to sue the MoD for compensation on behalf of the victims' families. So the lawyers will get richer (at our expense), the victims' families will get a modicum of compensation (at our expense), but meanwhile the families of servicemen killed in Iraq will still get bugger all in real terms. And all this for participating in a war of dubious legality.

Meanwhile, I wonder if Tony has any regrets about signing the Treaty of Rome which set up the International Criminal Court? With all the debate around the legality of the war, it would be ironic were Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon to be hauled up in front of the ICC for waging illegal war in Iraq. After all, if the justification was the location and destruction of WMDs then any military action that did not relate to such activities (e.g. use of cluster bombs, hitting restaurants in Baghdad, etc) could be deemed illegal under the terms of the ICC. Funnier still, that the US didn't ratify the Treaty and thus is not bound by its terms.

Part of the problem stems from Tony's desire to be liked by, and have the support of the majority of people. Fully aware that there was no consensus of support for regime change, yet convinced of the moral rightness of his cause to remove Saddam, Tony had to find an issue upon which he could build his support. He settled - in a decision which will stay with him forever - on alleged WMDs. From that point onwards, the die was cast and so the case for war was built from lie upon lie, mis-direction upon mis-direction, until even tony himself was most likely no longer aware of what was truth and what was falsehood. For a pretty straight sort of guy, he now appears incapable of talking in anything but lawyer-speak, full of evasions and meaningless phrases.

Until the Attorney General, along with Blair and co, comes clean on, this issue is going to drag on and on. What is needed is not another whitewash - this time headed by Butler - but rather a comprehensive public inquiry into the whole case for war. Until that point, it is the duty of all people to challenge and question the Prime Minister on his actions, and to hold him to account.

Each week I will try and find the most pointless, ill-defined or biggest waste of money public sector job. Because although there are many necessary roles in the public sector, there are also those which are in many ways unnecessary. Feel free to add your own suggestions for "tax wasting job of the week". 

Employer: Haringey Council
Title: Deputy Democratic Services Manager
Salary: £31,347 - £35,928
Description: As well as being second in command (of what - ed) , this key position will be responsible for supporting several high level bodies, assisting with full Council meetings and supervising a number of support staff.

Nice salary, but just what are the duties and responsibilities? What skill set is required? Totally vague and ill defined job posting.

But then this job caught my eye. A Benefit Realisation Consultant for the NHS earning between £35,000 and £60,000 + extensive benefits.

Try reading the job description and work out just what - if any - added value that role brings to the NHS. If you plough through the b*llsh*t and doublespeak in the description, it seems to be a high level bean counting job. Nice work if you've the stomach for it, but will it really improve the standards of health care in this country? Especially when compared to a 'G' Grade Mental Health nurse with 2 years experience who's upper salary level doesn't even reach the lower level of our Benefit Realisation Consultant.

This country must really hate people who apply for citizenship. Why else would we subject them to a brass band playing Phil Collins songs? That constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in my book. Perhaps that's the real reason why the asylum numbers have decreased, the thought of Easy Lover blasted out by a brass band. It would certainly make me think twice about sticking around.

Whether or not you agree with breaking into a military base, surely there is something wrong with the legal process when a person can spend more time on remand awaiting trial than their actual sentence. I bet Susan Brackenbury is more than a bit pissed off at spending 8 months on remand for criminal damage, to only be sentenced to 6 months when found guilty.

Who the hell paints the inside of their airing cupboard? Ours is probably typical, stuffed with a hot water storage tank, a tangled mass of pipework and shelves loaded with horrible pink towels and eternal beau bedding given as a wedding present by great aunt Maud. So one has to question the sanity of Christine Mulliss who spent 14 hours trapped in her airing cupboard whilst decorating.

So Robin Cook believes Clare Short was wrong to make the UN bugging allegations. Does he truly believe this, is it more a case of sour grapes that Clare has upstaged him as the voice of opposition to the war from within the Labour Party.

The legacy of the war in Iraq will probably haunt Tony Blair to his dying day. Every day something else seems to emerge from the shadows. Now we have a deputy legal advisor from the Foreign Office who quit her job because she did not believe the use of force was legal. Does anyone apart from Tony Blair really believe in the legality of the actions taken by the UK and US in Iraq? I for one would love to know what exactly was the Attorney General's advice to Tony Blair on the legalities of the war.

Is there no end for Bliar's misery over intelligence and Iraq? Hopefully and in a word, no. Had he been open and honest about the reasons for war right from the beginning, then more people would have been prepared to believe him now. As it is, there is an air of shabby dishonesty surrounding all his pronouncements on these matters. At lot of debate has gone on regarding whether or not Claire was right to speak out, and most of the papers seem to think that she should have kept quiet. Certainly as a member of the government, she had a duty as part of collective responsibility to say nothing. And at this point it should be noted that as a minister she actually voted for the war. However, on the other side of the coin, she was - like Katharine Gun - a public servant aware of a potentially illegal act, and therefore almost obliged to speak out. So damned if she did and damned if she didn't. And today it comes out that Hans Blix had his mobile phone tapped whenever he was in Iraq. And Richard Butler's phone was tapped as well. So not only did the US and UK undermine the authority of the UN by riding roughshod over resolutions and ignoring diplomatic efforts, but now they appear to have gone further by bugging the UN. If diplomats can't hold discussions in confidence within the portals of the UN, then what hope is there for international trust and cooperation in future. Whether he likes it or not, Tony Blair must accept more responsibility for this state of affairs than George Bush. After all, it was Blair who repeatedly tried to justify the war in terms acceptable to the Labour Party. Had he not raised the profile of intelligence information (and its misuse) then it may very well be that these issues would not have been thrust into the spotlight. The only way forward now is to be open and honest. This should fall under the remit of the Butler Inquiry, but somehow I doubt that it will be anything more than another sanitised whitewashing exercise.

So the decision not to prosecute Katharine Gun was not political. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. If she'd broken the OSA then that would have been grounds for prosecution, and after all she wasn't denying leaking the email. Now I'm no lawyer, but given that the legality of the war in Iraq remains ambiguous, then surely a defence of acting to prevent an unlawful war is no real defence at all. Whereas leaking an email in breach of the OSA was a criminal act. So the reasons for not prosecuting must surely be political. Now the actual political reason is open to question. One option is that Blair wanted to draw a line under Iraq and British Intelligence, and a trial would just have kept a running sore in the public eye. Or perhaps a trial would have forced discussion of the legality of the war and revelation of any incriminating documents. But either way, to deny a political motivation is disingeneous at best. Or maybe, just maybe, the government was concerned that any random selection of 12 good persons of the jury would be almost guaranteed to be anti-war and thus rule for the defence. If that is the case, then it either shows how little respect the government has for the public to believe that a jury could not be impartial on such a matter; or shows just how comprehensively Tony Blair has lost the battle for hearts and minds over war in Iraq. And Blair's discomfort has been further increased by Clare Short's bugging claims made earlier today. She is often referred to as the "conscience" of the Labour Party, and perhaps now and again it would do Blair good to listen to his conscience. He will undoubtedly get revenge via the Labour Party disciplinary processes, although only a fool would be too bloody minded. Just as Margaret Thatcher was condemned to spend her remaining days in power tarred with the brush of the Poll Tax fiasco, so Tony Blair should resign himself to the fact that he will be perceived by many to be a war monger who acts on weak and twisted intelligence information. So much for the legacy of Things can only get better.

Got to smile at this story from Wales. Not so much for the trial by media aspects, but for the fact the each of the 4 main parties in the Welsh Assembly had an AM involved. It does like one benefit of the Welsh Assembly is the increase in employment, albeit in non-revenue generating jobs. Can't wait for Prescott's regional assemblies. Then we'll show the Welsh and Scottish what true waste and inefficiency are.

I thought hospitals were places where you went to get better. Over the last 10 years, the risk of getting worse has gone up with the increase in cases involving MRSA. I wonder whether such an increase would have been seen had the traditional matron still ruled the wards? Instead, the best we get is a Director of Infection for each hospital, and a raft of statistics and targets.

At a time when every media article about the BBC seems to highlight either past failings or future uncertainties, a bit of good news. The BBC has won the Zayed Prize, an environmental award worth $0.5million. Whilst some broadcasters would make a big song and dance about winning such a prize, good old Auntie remains quietly reserved, refusing to crow about exactly the sort of thing it does best. Could you imagine any commercial broadcaster winning such an award? Of course, no profit in it.

Getting communities involved in promoting local branch lines is good, and will undoubtedly benefit the routes in question. At the end of the day though, it is still window dressing which fails to address the major issues facing Britain's rail network.

So today, in Brent Town Hall, the UK will hold its first ceremony for immigrants granted British citizenship. Seems like a pretty good idea, though it does make one wonder about all the people previously granted citizenship. Are they any less loyal? Probably not. And what about people born British citizens? The concern is not with the ceremony itself, but with the way some sections of society may present it. With hindsight those involved may wish that it had been a more low key event. And why suggest that ceremonies in Scotland and Wales would involve singing something more appropriate than the National Anthem? They are - after all - becoming British citizens, not Welsh or Scottish. What would they sing anyway? The Scots haven't even settled on a national anthem themselves, though the Welsh have Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau. Imagine having English as your second language and having then to sing in Welsh....