Stephen Addison

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?

LibDem leader Nick Clegg had called for the speech to be cancelled because he says there is little chance of much legislation getting through before the coming general election. 

"The speech will be dressed up as the way to 'build Britain's future' when it will be little more than a rehearsal of the next Labour Party manifesto, an attempt to road-test policy gimmicks to see whether they might save this Government's skin," he said.

"It is a waste of everyone's time, and should be cancelled in favour of an emergency programme of political reform," he added in the Independent. "That is the only job this rump of a Parliament is fit for."

The Conservatives piled in too, with their leader in the upper House, Lord Strathclyde saying that if the measures outlined were so important they would have been in the government's legislative programme last year rather than being left to the last moment of the fifth term.

Downing Street however called the speech a "very focused programme" of legislation, while Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman said it contained important plans to foster economic growth and make the banks more accountable.

What do you think?

Yes, I remember Clapham Junction, the name, because one rainy morning this week the (very) slow train drew up there unwontedly -- and stayed for ages. Plenty of time to take in the dismal scene.

No blackbirds singing around there, just huge numbers of cross people huddling in door-aligned bunches on a forbidding station that seems in parts like a throwback to the days of steam. 

Britain's busiest railway junction, in southwest London, on the line to Waterloo, has been named as one of the 10 worst stations in Britain, a richly deserved honour which will however entitle it to a share of 50 million pounds of refurbishment money.

The others have been named by a group of "Stations Champions" as Barking, Stockport, Manchester Victoria, Preston, Wigan North Western, Liverpool Central, Warrington Bank Quay, Crewe and Luton.

Are there any others that you would like to see included on the list? 

Manchester City's Brazilian star Robinho is not a happy bunny.

The Guardian newspaper reports that England's most expensive footballer is reported as saying  he does "not want another day in Manchester."

He hates the climate, he hated the neighbours who objected to his playing of Brazilian music and he misses his mates.

Like Ronaldo before he left Manchester United, he talks about his "dream" of getting away.

Nemanja Vidic was another United player who couldn't wait to leave. "I will never stay to live in England, that's for sure," he was quoted as saying last year.  "You get only a brief glimpse of sunlight before it's all cloudy again. The winters are mild, but in summer the temperatures seldom go higher than 20C. And it rains, rains, rains."

These people are being paid huge amounts to be there but even that can't tempt them to stay.

Is Manchester really all that bad?

It's bonfire night, and once again poor old Guido gets it.

Up and down the country he will be burned in effigy for the dastardly crime of trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament over 400 years ago.

But wait -- after all the moats, duck houses and house-flipping of the past 12 months, should it not now be conceded that he might have had a point, even if his methods were a little extreme?

With Westminster held in little more than contempt by many people who have been appalled at the greed and sharp practice of some of our MPs, surely Guy Fawkes should -- maybe for just one year -- be regarded as more of a hero than a villain. A sort of sabbatical from the day job.

That of course would leave a vacancy on top of all the woodpiles stacked waiting and ready for tonight.

Who should we put there instead?

[CROSSPOST blog: 19 post: 4751]

Original Post Text:
Fight them there or fight them here?

Former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells poses the question in the Guardian in a piece made grimly relevant by Wednesday's shooting dead of  five British soldiers by an Afghan policeman.

Howells says troops should be brought back from Afghanistan and that the billions of pounds saved should be used to beef up homeland security in Britain -- drawing the front line against al Qaeda around the UK rather than thousands of miles away in Helmand province.

He accepts that such an approach would result in "more intrusive surveillance in certain communities," a tacit acknowledgment that Britain's Muslims would be subject to greater scrutiny by police and intelligence services.

His "Fortress Britain" theory takes into account indications that a growing number of experts feel the war against the Al Qaeda's supporters the Taliban in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

It also makes the point that not all Al Qaeda training camps are in Afghanistan anyway.

Howells is Gordon Brown's intelligence and security watchdog and his theory goes counter to the prevailing wisdom in Washington and London, both of which are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Do you agree with him?

Fight them there or fight them here?

Former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells poses the question in the Guardian in a piece made grimly relevant by Wednesday's shooting dead of  five British soldiers by an Afghan policeman.

Howells says troops should be brought back from Afghanistan and that the billions of pounds saved should be used to beef up homeland security in Britain -- drawing the front line against al Qaeda around the UK rather than thousands of miles away in Helmand province.

He accepts that such an approach would result in "more intrusive surveillance in certain communities," a tacit acknowledgment that Britain's Muslims would be subject to greater scrutiny by police and intelligence services.

His "Fortress Britain" theory takes into account indications that a growing number of experts feel the war against the Al Qaeda's supporters the Taliban in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

It also makes the point that not all Al Qaeda training camps are in Afghanistan anyway.

Howells is Gordon Brown's intelligence and security watchdog and his theory goes counter to the prevailing wisdom in Washington and London, both of which are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Do you agree with him?

[CROSSPOST blog: 19 post: 4736]

Original Post Text:
Prince Charles is in Canada, the Queen is expected to go there next year and William is preparing to go to New Zealand and Australia -- but are there signs that the locals are revolting?

Polls published in advance of Charles' visit show support for Canada's constitutional monarchy is weak, even if the public's frosty opinion of the Prince of Wales himself has begun to warm just a bit.

Sixty percent of Canadians felt the constitutional monarchy was outdated, although 80 percent said it was an important part of Canadian history.

Polls in New Zealand show people generally in favour of the monarchy even if it seems to have little relevance to their lives but when William heads off afterwards to Australia he will find a much more developed republican movement.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is an avowed republican whose announcement of William's trip made it crystal clear that the young royal was coming because because he asked to, not because he was invited. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says a split from the monarchy is inevitable in the next decade.

William, travelling without girlfriend Kate Middleton, can expect to bask in the lingering "Diana factor," but this enduring phenomenon may actually work against the older couple in Canada.

Do you believe such royal visits have any point?

Prince Charles is in Canada, the Queen is expected to go there next year and William is preparing to go to New Zealand and Australia -- but are there signs that the locals are revolting?

Polls published in advance of Charles' visit show support for Canada's constitutional monarchy is weak, even if the public's frosty opinion of the Prince of Wales himself has begun to warm just a bit.

Sixty percent of Canadians felt the constitutional monarchy was outdated, although 80 percent said it was an important part of Canadian history.

Polls in New Zealand show people generally in favour of the monarchy even if it seems to have little relevance to their lives but when William heads off afterwards to Australia he will find a much more developed republican movement.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is an avowed republican whose announcement of William's trip made it crystal clear that the young royal was coming because because he asked to, not because he was invited. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says a split from the monarchy is inevitable in the next decade.

William, travelling without girlfriend Kate Middleton, can expect to bask in the lingering "Diana factor," but this enduring phenomenon may actually work against the older couple in Canada.

Do you believe such royal visits have any point?

The government's attitude towards science is under the microscope this week over accusations that expert advice is being ignored if it fails to fit prevailing political agendas.

The row has been prompted by the sacking of the government's chief drug adviser, Professor David Nutt, who has been making statements that do not fit in with the government's hard line on drugs. Two of his colleagues resigned in protest over the weekend and more may follow.

Nutt has criticsed the Home Office decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug, saying it is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine. He has previously said taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding and that consideration should be given to downgrading the classification of both ecstasy and LSD.

Liberal Democrat science spokesman Dr Evan Harris says: "I fear there will be many more resignations unless the government acts to restore confidence among its independent scientific advisers."

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says Nutt was sacked because he crossed the line between an advisor and a campaigner. "You can do one or the other. You can't do both," he insisted.

Do you think Johnson has a point?