The UK Today

The number of people who are unaware that the UK has lost its prestigious triple-A rating with Moodys must be pretty damn near zero.

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.

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.

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.

Nope, I'm not questioning Tone's mental faculties (tempting though it would be), but just pointing out that this government could do with getting a bit more "with the program" in Intelligence matters. Skipping over the almighty s***w up that underpinned Iraq's alleged WMD and the reasons for war, first questions are now being asked as to why Katharine Gun was even charged under the Official Secrets Act. All she did was leak an email which contained nothing more secret than that intense focus was to be placed on the monitoring of UN communications. And now good old Clare Short comes forward to announce that the UK intelligence community was involved in bugging the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in the run up to the war in Iraq. Now was the case dropped because of lack of evidence as was claimed yesterday? Or was it to prevent the potential release of more embarrassing information? On past performance I know where my suspicions lie.

As Ann Winterton has the Conservative party whip withdrawn for making yet another racist joke - this time about the cockler deaths - in a public forum, Malcolm Rifkind looks set to return after being selected for one of the safest Conservative seats - Kensington and Chelsea.

Can't say I'll be too sad to see Winterton's departure as the woman, while not stupid, obviously lacks even a modicum of common sense. And there are already too many fools in Westminster. As for Rifkind, well he's a nice enough chap, though a bit of a lost sheep since he lost his Edinburgh seat in 1997. I do wonder if he has had his day, and would have better spent his time persuing other avenues within politics. One thing's for sure, he is unlikely to have quite the impact on the nation's psyche as his predecessors in the seat; namely messrs Portillo and Clarke.

One day, just possibly, we may see a slightly more mature approach to politics in Northern Ireland. But not, I fear, just yet. Why is it that leading figures from all sides threaten to take their bat and ball home at the slightest issue. Now I'm not belittling the incident in question, but I have to question David Trimble's attitude. The alleged false imprisonment involving Bobby Tohill happened less than a week ago, and the Independant Monitoring Commission as only just been asked to investigate, yet David Trimble wants Sinn Fein out now. Even that old firebrand Ian Paisley is being a tad more circumspect. Certainly if the IRA is proved to have been directly involved then Sinn Fein should face the consequences, but to prejudge the matter and threaten to walk out shows a level of maturity more suited to the school playground than the political playing fields of Ulster.

Over at Bloggerheads, Manic rails (if you'll pardon the pun) at the gross ineptitude of SWT and the other train operating companies. And he's perfectly right to do so. While he is organising a campaign, I'd suggest he widen his target to include the leasing companies which actually own all the shabby and poorly maintained rolling stock. Porterbrook for example (never trust a business who's site uses frames) is owned by Abbey (formerly Abbey National), Angel Trains is owned by RBoS and HSBC Rail is owned (unsurprisingly) by HSBC.

So all the operating companies lease their rolling stock from three banks basically who operate as an oligopoly. The punter pays his fare to the operating company, who also take a cut of the tax payers money as a subsidy. The operating company then pays the leasing company. And this is where the problem lies. For starters the leasing companies operate outside the control of the Department of Transport, so there is reduced accountability there. Throw into the mix the differential between the price paid by the leasing company to purchase the rolling stock, and the annual leasing charges they levy on the train operating company. Part of this is due to the fact that the rolling stock has a service life of 30 years, but the TOCs are given lease period of 6 to 8 years. Add in the high specificity of the rolling stock, and the lack of market competition, and it is no wonder that the system is a mess.

A national rail network is simply too large and critical to be privatised, especially in the manner implemented by John Major's government.

The UK Today would like to congratulate Katharine Gun, a GCHQ translator sacked for revealing the content of a secret email. She has today been cleared of breaking the Official Secrets Act. And her motivation for realeasing the email? She argued that she was acting to prevent the illegal war in Iraq. Good on her.

So you can't sell an armoured car to Zimbabwe, but you could sell the engine, transmission, body and armament as separate items. Well, that's all right then isn't it? After all as long as it is only weapons components you're exporting then you're not breaching the U.K.'s ethical trade policies. While I wouldn't go as far as to ban the sale of nuts and bolts, if you're going to restrict arms sales to unstable countries, then it must be all arms sales, regardless of whether they are components or completed weapons. Anything else is a double standard.

Tough question, and one for which I don't have an answer. John Reid clearly believes that the chance of being a parent is a right, although one round of IVF treatment will only have a positive result in 25% of cases. But should the NHS even be providing this treatment? £75 million doesn't sound a lot when compared to the total NHS budget, but it is still a considerable sum, and with the success rate being so low, is a pretty poor return on investment in purely financial terms.