Few investigations can have begun with lower expectations than the Chilcot inquiry into Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.

Critics have been withering:

-- the Chairman Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall mandarin, has strong links to the establishment and is unlikely to rock the boat, they say.

-- there are no senior legal figures on the panel capable of addressing the key issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was legal. None of the panel members has spoken out against the war.

-- there is no political pressure for a radical result because the Tories voted for the invasion and the last thing they want is to let the inquiry rock the boat ahead of their expected general election victory in the Summer.

-- the scope of the inquiry is too broad, possibly leading to insufficient detailed inquiries into complex issues.

But Chilcot has denied that his report will be a whitewash, there is clearly a widespread public desire to have all the lingering questions answered and the government has granted immunity from disciplinary action to serving officials and military personnel giving evidence to encourage them to give frank evidence.

Do you expect to learn anything new from the inquiry?

The latest opinion poll in Britain showing the opposition Conservatives six points ahead of the ruling Labour party has raised the possibility of a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority and a return to the kind of political uncertainty not seen since the 1970s.

Kenneth Clarke, the Conservatives' business spokesman, said earlier this month that a hung parliament at this point in the economic cycle would be a disaster, an assertion his boss David Cameron was quick to try to play down after the latest survey.

The fact is that a landslide Conservative victory, which at one point had appeared inevitable with polls showing Cameron's party 20 points ahead, now looks far less likely after Prime Minister Gordon Brown's best opinion poll showing in almost a year.

The Ipsos MORI survey in the Observer newspaper showed Labour on 31 percent, the Conservatives on 37 percent and the Liberal Democrats on 17 percent. The last British election to deliver a hung parliament was called in February 1974 by Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. His decision to call a snap poll in the face of labour unrest and economic turmoil disastrously backfired. A second election in October 1974 allowed Labour's Harold Wilson to turn a minority government into a small working majority.

The fresh glimmer of hope for Labour came against a backdrop of confidence in economic recovery, a Labour by-election victory and signs the Conservatives were struggling to win over floating voters. Labour, in power since 1997, has suffered from the longest recession on record, a scandal over lawmakers' expenses and military losses in Afghanistan. A general election must be held by June 3. 

"I do think that in the middle of an acute national crisis a hung parliament would be one of the biggest disasters we could suffer ... that would be a bigger danger than a Labour victory," said Clarke, one of the heavyweights of the Conservative party and a former finance minister.

"Fear of City Turmoil if Election Delivers Hung Parliament," was the Daily Telegraph headline prompted by Clarke's comments over an article that referred to the "potentially devastating effect such a result could have on the financial markets at a time when the economy is on a life-support machine."

Asked whether he agreed with Clarke, Cameron told the BBC: "Not really, no. Ken has his own way of explaining these things. I think frankly anything is better than another five years of this Labour government." He added: "I am working night and day not for a hung parliament, but for a majority government."

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, which may hold sway in a hung parliament as the second main opposition party, commented after the latest poll: "It's a great thing that we're going to have a major debate where a lot is at stake."

What causes the greatest concern is the potential impact on the bond market, where the British government borrows by selling gilts, wrote Andrew Porter in the Telegraph. "A stalemate at Westminster could see market confidence drain away completely, leaving the U.K. facing a buyers' strike as no one is prepared to buy gilts. After that, the only place to go is the International Monetary Fund."

Do you think Britain is heading for a hung parliament? Would this undermine British economic recovery and what would be the consequences? Are critics of a hung parliament simply not used to a coalition government in Britain where a hung parliament is a rarity?

-Clare Algar is executive director of Reprieve. The opinions expressed are her own.-

Disappointed, but not surprised, was my first response to hearing President Barack Obama’s announcement on Wednesday that he would not make the January 22 deadline for closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay.

During attorney visits over the past few weeks, Reprieve’s clients in Guantanamo have expressed their doubts regarding whether President Obama can live up to his promise to close the prison within a year of assuming office. ‘What is he going to do,’ one man asked, “put 200 people on a plane on the 22nd?”

And it is true – the maths doesn’t work.  Around 245 prisoners were being held in Guantánamo when Obama was inaugurated in January of this year and only around 30 men have left since then. If releases continue at this snail’s pace, the prison won’t close until at least 2017.

Who are the people who are left in the prison and why is it proving so hard to close? First there are the 90 or so prisoners from Yemen who the United States will not repatriate because of the country’s instability.  Another 65 people are considered prosecutable in federal courts or military commissions, the details of which are still being hammered out (the latest development being the recent announcement of the future transfer of five men, accused of involvement in Sept. 11 to U.S. Federal Courts for prosecution).

Then there is a group of around 60 men - Guantanamo’s refugees - 18 of whom are represented by Reprieve. Many of these people have been “cleared for release” by United States authorities, meaning they have been deemed to present no threat whatsoever.  These men would be free to leave Guantanamo tomorrow but they remain stranded there because they cannot return to their countries of origin for fear of torture.

They are from places like Uzbekistan, Syria, China, Algeria and Tunisia, countries where their being branded “terrorists” - despite them having been cleared - will make them sitting ducks for authorities with Kafka-esque human rights records.

In June, there was optimism that European states would offer homes to these men, but only a few countries have moved from talk to action. France, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium and the United Kingdom have accepted former prisoners, as well as the unlikely resettlement locations of Bermuda and Palau.  Why has Europe been so reluctant to assist?

Congress’s refusal – stoked by a scaremongering media - to accept any former prisoners onto American soil, has presented a huge stumbling block that Obama is struggling to scale. It is much more difficult for the U.S. (and Reprieve) to persuade European countries to take former prisoners when the U.S. refuses to do so.  In addition, governments have been hugely wary of the reactions of their political rivals and publics in determining whether to take former prisoners.

It has not helped that Obama himself persists in talking about “The Terrorists” and does not differentiate between the men held in the prison, the bulk of whom were sold for bounties and are far from being the hardened “worst of the worst” some paint them to be. It is worth making the point that the U.S. government has lost 30 of 37 habeas cases – that means that, in 30 instances, a judge, on reviewing the evidence against a prisoner, has found him not to be a threat to the U.S.

It is also worth mentioning the splendid Amherst, Massachusetts, which passed a resolution stating that that the town would welcome ex-Gitmo-prisoners.  This has not and will not happen, but the town’s spirit is commendable.

If European States want Guantánamo to be closed they must do more than continue to shake their collective heads and mutter about Obama’s naivety and optimism in setting so short a deadline.  It is true that it was a meet-able deadline.  But Obama not only needed support from Congress but also from his European allies.  Europe needs to step up and offer a home to the cleared prisoners and perhaps then the U.S. will follow its lead.  Only then can Obama’s promise of change really begin.

Ahead of a U.N. summit in Copenhagen next month, scepticism is growing that an agreement will be reached on a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012.

The protocol set targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are believed to be responsible for the gradual rise in the Earth’s average temperature. Many scientists say that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is key to preventing climate change.

But authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner argue in their new book SuperFreakonomics that humanity can take an alternative route to try and save the planet.

“If the goal is to stop warming then geo-engineering solutions are worth considering because they are far cheaper, probably much more do-able and easily reversible,” Dubner told Reuters before a talk at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London.

Related vlog: How to become a freakonomist

Scientists argue that rich nations must make drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change. The way energy is used, priced and created would have to change in order to institute these cuts.

Ahead of elections in Britain, which must be held before June 2010, Dave Timms of Friends of the Earth shared his thoughts with Reuters on what the group thinks the next government needs to do in order to build a low-carbon economy.

This week, hundreds of thousands of people will join the annual act of remembrance to commemorate those who have died in war, proudly wearing a poppy to honour the fallen.

However the simple flower emblem, which has been used since shortly after the end of World War One as it was the only thing to grow on the devastated battlefields of Belgium and northern France, has once again become an issue in itself.

Is the decision to not wear one an act of disrespect?

The Daily Mail newspaper is running a campaign, demanding that Premier League football teams have a poppy embroidered onto the shirts they wear this weekend. Twelve clubs initially said they would do so, but as the Mail turned its ire on those that didn't, all bar two -- Manchester United and Liverpool -- have now agreed to make the gesture.

The Mail said football teams wearing the poppy sent out a "powerful message of solidarity" to Britain's armed forces.

"All too often footballers - on and off the pitch - set a dreadful example to their young supporters," the paper said in its editorial. "It would be to their eternal shame if Manchester United and Liverpool snub the opportunity to demonstrate that their sport can be a force for good."

Footballers are by no means the first to be criticised for failing to wear a poppy. BBC, ITV and Sky News presenters and reporters all wear a poppy when they appear on our screens following complaints in the past, and even producers on "Strictly Come Dancing" have come in for criticism this year for suggesting contestants should not wear the emblem because of health and safety fears. They have since backed down.

A few years ago, Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow described such insistence as "poppy fascism". He said he wore a poppy off air but would not wear one or any symbol -- such as an AIDS ribbon -- while broadcasting.

Guardian columnist Marina Hyde described the outrage of the Mail and other media commentators as "phoney poppy apoplexy".

"The point so often ignored is that the second world war, in particular, was fought to allow people the choice in this and many other matters," she wrote. "Victory meant freedom from fascism, which makes Jon Snow's choice of words for this annual hounding of any public figure pictured without one – "poppy fascism" – particularly significant."

The Royal British Legion which runs the Poppy Appeal itself says that wearing a poppy was a voluntary gesture. But with British troops fighting, and signficant numbers dying or being wounded in Afghanistan, many argue that it is more important than ever to show the soldiers have the support of the public -- and the best way is by wearing a poppy.

Government plans to split and sell state-owned Northern Rock have met with mixed reaction.

The plan is to create a new savings and mortgage bank, called Northern Rock Plc, which will take deposits and offer savings and home loans.

The second part will become Northern Rock Asset Management, holding existing mortgages and unsecured loans, and closed to new lending.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms, speaking on Wednesday after European regulators gave clearance for Northern Rock to be broken up, said it was still the government's intention to sell both arms of Northern Rock, saying it would maximise taxpayers' gains.

The bank received billions of pounds in state aid and deposit guarantees.

One camp believes that rather than being sold, the bank should be turned into a mutual owned by its customers, while another camp thinks it's fine to sell it off as a publicly listed company.

What would be best for taxpayers?

Once he was regarded as an obvious front-runner for the job of EU president, then it was pointed out that it was unlikely anyone would be chosen from a country that is not in the eurozone, not in the Schengen border-free area and which has an exemption to the bloc's charter of fundamental rights.

Ah, but if you don't choose someone with proven political clout to fight Europe's corner, a G2 of China and the United States will have things all their own way soon, declared Foreign Secretary David Miliband over the weekend.

You need someone with a high profile who will stop the traffic in world capitals, he added.

Oh no, we don't, several EU countries say. We want someone with a lower profile who will be better able to secure consensus among members states than Tony Blair.

Other detrators say they don't want Blair because he backed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Conservatives in Britain have said that appointing him would be viewed by an incoming Tory government as a virtual act of war and that he runs the risk of being almost immediately thrust into controversy as the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war begins.

The actual decision is likely to be made at a summit next month. Meanwhile Blair himself seems to be standing on the sidelines, so much so that some of his supporters are urging him to launch a more dynamic campaign.

Do you believe Blair's the man for the job?

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne says British retail banks should be stopped from paying big cash bonuses and use the money instead to support new lending.

"I am today calling on the Treasury and the FSA to combine forces and stop retail banks -- in other words the banks that lend directly to business and families -- paying out profits in significant cash bonuses," Osborne said during a Reuters newsmaker event.

"That includes their investment banking arms."

As the Conservatives begin to set out their platform for a general election due by June, they are looking to bolster Osborne as the person who can lead Britain out of recession. Bank reform is high on the political agenda.

Despite governments injecting trillions of dollars into distressed banks to prop up the global economy, some banks are preparing to step up bonus payments.

That state of affairs has angered consumers, who face high service charges and receive low interest rates.

What do you think of Osborne's bank bonus proposal? Does it go far enough?

On Thursday night, BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's leading current affairs programme "Question Time", an appearance that has provoked much anger and debate.

Griffin is no stranger to the airwaves or TV screens, regularly appearing this week alone after four leading former generals attacked his party for using military imagery as part of its campaigning

But to some politicians, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Cabinet minister Peter Hain, the BBC's decision to allow him on Question Time was totally wrong, giving a much higher profile platform to Griffin and his far-right views.

They also say that a recent court decision to order the BNP to open up its membership to non-whites meant the party broke race relations laws and was therefore unlawful.

One academic has said that a similar TV appearance by French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 1980s led to a huge increase in support for his Front National party, generating concern that Question Time will do the same for Griffin.

There is no doubt that support for the far-right is growing in Britain at the moment, although it remains very much at the fringes of mainstream politics. The BNP has dozens of councillors across the country, a seat in the London Assembly and most notably won two seats in European Parliamentary elections earlier this year.

BBC bosses argue that for that reason it is only right that Griffin is invited onto the flagship politcal show to answer questions about his party. They say it is for parliament and not for the broadcaster to censor political parties.

However former London mayor Ken Livingstone has warned that the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any rise in racial attacks, saying the presence of the BNP always led to a rise in such incidents.

Community relations experts have also expressed fear about the impact a rising far-right will have, especially in the run-up to what is predicted to be a tense election. However many say that trying to muzzle the BNP was counter-productive, and that the group should be challenged head on.

"I think we've got to have a more sophisticated approach to the far right where we do use reasoned arguments to defeat them because there's no doubt in my mind that those reasoned arguments will work," said Ted Cantle, who led the government's review into the 2001 race riots for which the far-right was held partly responsible.

"I do feel they have to be taken on and defeated in the public eye. For the most part, their arguments are completely ridiculous and people have to see them for what they are," he told Reuters. He said the unwelcome truth for mainstream politicians was that there was a "grain of truth" in some of the things the BNP said, and censoring them gave the impression this was being covered up.

However the Unite Against Fascism group said the BNP should not be treated like any ordinary political party because its views were racist (it campaigns for a halt to immigration, voluntary repatriation of immigrants and Britain's withdrawal from the European Union).

"Griffin isn't interested in impressing people with his arguments - he just wants to build the BNP by using Question Time as a platform to whip up race hatred and bigotry," the group says.

Griffin himself says the "hysterical" furore over his appearance has already been a shot in the arm to his party. "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid," he told the Times. "Thank you, Auntie."

Reuters UK will be live blogging Griffin's appearance on Question Time at 22.35 BST.