I will come to your points, Peter T, but first McG: Blair is about as "one nation" as Thatcher was. (Thatcher was his first guest at No 10, of course.) He's as self-serving politician as I have ever seen, whereas John Major, though a Tory, was indeed a straight and decent guy.

Look at Blair's twisting and turning on hunting (after his TV promise to ban it). Or consider his inability to answer the simple question - put to him repeatedly before the last election - whether it was OK for the gap between rich and poor in the UK to be getting wider under Labour.

Recall the breathtaking deceit of the so-called "consultation" on clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution. Nearly 2,000 Labour Parties, branches and affiliates were asked to submit qualitative, completely uncodifiable proposals, and within two days of the closing date for responses, a new Clause 4 was issued. No-one ever reported back the nature of the responses, or their broad drift, nor gave any indication of the extent to which all or any responses had been taken into account in preparing the new clause. It was a crude fait accompli.

Remember the way his front-bench spokesman on education (Blunkett) said "Read my lips - no selective education" at the very time that Blair was choosing for his kids one of the most selective state (church-aided) schools in London - bypassing other catholic schools nearer his Islington home, one of which - St Richard of Chichester - closed as a result of his vote of no confidence.

Above all, remember his commitment not to support the US assault on Iraq without the "second resolution" - unless the resolution was thwarted only by unilateral and capricious action by France. (In the event, there was so little support that no such resolution was even tabled.)

But back to the thread. Don't be too quick to assume the BBC will be damaged by the inquiry, Peter T. As I said at the outset, including here at Mudcat, it may yet emerge that Kelly's pants were on fire. It is already clear that when he went before the select committee he could not bring himself to disclose the extent of his indescretions with two BBC reporters. My guess is that, as a man of some honour as he evidently was, he could not live with his economy with the truth.

But even after Kelly's suicide, Downing Street (the PM's office) never paused in its deceptions, one of Blair's two spokesmen describing Kelly as a "Walter Mitty" fantasist. When this was duly reported, the remark was at first flatly denied. When that didn't work, the PM's office had to come clean, but protested that the remark had been made in an "off the record" briefing to several journalists. So in Downing Street minds it had been a legitimate attempt to poison journalists against Kelly's legacy, and the press should have shown its gratitude for such a gossipy tit-bit by using only the vaguest allusions to a source.

Admittedly this cosy relationship with the press, in which any lie can be pedalled if it is merely "...according to one senior figure close to the prime minister," says as much about the UK press as about Blair & Co. Bravo the Independent and its deputy political editor Paul Waugh for breaking ranks and blowing Downing Street's cover. The so-called "lobby system" of off-the-record briefings is a charter for government by inuendo; never more so than by the present government.

(Waugh, incidentally, quoted me as saying Blair was "smarmy" as far back as 1995. In the cold light of day, and perhaps fearing for my position in the Labour Party, I subsequently sent in a letter retracting "smarmy" but standing by "sanctimonious" and several other adjectives. Somewhat to my amusement my letter appeared under the headline: Blair not smarmy shock!)