Regular readers might have noticed that I am not the Blair administration’s biggest fan. Yet some of the people I love the most and whose opinions I respect enormously still defend this Government, even ten tarnished years on. So, unlikely as it may appear, I do try to give “New” Labour the benefit of the doubt.

But let me walk you through BBC News’ reporting of just one issue from the last weeks of Bliar’s premiership to demonstrate precisely why I consider the administrator to be morally bankrupt, strategically incoherent and intellectually corrupt.

21 May

Rulings ‘weaken control orders’

Recent court judgements mean there is “inevitably” more risk that suspects under control orders will re-engage in terrorism or abscond, John Reid says.

The Home Secretary said the government never claimed the control orders system was “completely effective” and said they were not their preferred option. But, Mr. Reid told the Joint Committee on Human Rights, they were the “best available” way to deal with some cases.

23 May

Three on control orders abscond

Scotland Yard are hunting three men who are believed to have absconded from control orders imposed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Police say Lamine Adam, 26, his brother, Ibrahim, 20, and Cerie Bullivant, 24, have been missing for more than 24 hours and may be together. Members of the public are being warned not to approach them, but to call 999.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman declared: “We warned that this could be where we ended up and it’s therefore not a surprise that this is where we have ended up.”

If the men had been missing for “more than 24 hours”, is it too cynical to suspect that they had already absconded BEFORE our charming Home Secretary made his comments to the Parliamentary committee 48 hours earlier…?

24 May

Control orders flawed, says Reid

John Reid has said control orders are “far from the best option” to tackle terrorism, saying they could not stop determined suspects absconding. The Home Secretary was facing MPs in Parliament after three men suspected of wanting to kill UK troops disappeared.

Mr. Reid blamed political opponents and judges for stopping the use of tougher measures against terror suspects, and promised new measures within weeks.

The Tories accused Mr. Reid of failing in his duty to protect the public. But Mr. Reid said that when he outlines new anti-terror measures he hoped there would be “less party politics” and more concern “for national security”.

He will outline those measures – which could form the basis of a new counter-terrorism bill – before he steps down at the end of June.

He said he was not complacent about the risk posed by the three men – although they were not judged to be a threat to people in the UK. He added that he had consistently said control orders were not the best option, “or even the second best”, for tackling terrorism suspects.

But he added: “Under our existing law, control orders are as far as we can go. Unfortunately under these limitations, within the existing legal framework, it is very difficult to prevent determined individuals from absconding.”

He added that, if the government failed to overturn previous court judgements on control orders, they would “consider other options – including derogation”. This could mean effectively opting out of some aspects of European human rights laws, which have limited the scope of control orders.

And so it all comes back to the Human Rights Act 1998, which Labour and the Tories politicians alike agree is the most flawed piece of legislation ever to make the UK statute books. At least when considered in 2007, that is. Readers with a longer memory might recall the boasts of the government when the Act came into force in October 2000…

(Indeed, it is momentarily amusing to return to a comment in the Guardian‘s leader on the day the Act came into force: “The other night on television Jack Straw remarked that national lottery commissioners should think of resigning after their mauling at the hands of a judge. So doing he gave a large hostage to fortune. Sooner or later, the Home Office will feel the pain of the rights act and Mr Straw’s head will be demanded. It is not often politicians deliberately make rods for their own backs. The rights act will be an instrument by which executive power is held to account.”)

27 May

More stop and quiz terror powers

Proposed new anti-terror laws could give police greater powers to stop and question anyone in the UK. The proposal, allowing police to ask people about their identity and movement, is among measures being considered by Home Secretary John Reid.

The new legislation would be similar to that already used in Northern Ireland.

Where it has been such a resounding success… Go, Diplock! Go, Diplock!

Police are still likely to need a “reasonable suspicion” a crime may be committed. Anyone refusing to co-operate could be fined up to £5,000.

At present, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers already have the power to stop and search people or vehicles in an area seen as being at risk from terrorism even if they are not suspected of any breach of the law.

A Home Office spokeswoman said that the new proposals would give officers an automatic right to stop and question anyone in the UK about suspected terrorism.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Mr. Blair said the disappearance of the three suspects under control orders was a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror. The Prime Minister described this as “misguided and wrong” and said prioritising a terror suspect’s right to traditional civil liberties was “a dangerous misjudgement”.

3 June (1.41pm)

Brown plans new anti-terror laws

Gordon Brown has said he wants to strengthen anti-terror laws when he becomes prime minister this month. He wants new powers for police and a fresh look at whether material from telephone tapping can be used in court.

The chancellor also wants to revive proposals to increase the time terror suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 90 days.

He is also reported to be intending to ask the cross-party Privy Council to review the case for allowing intercept evidence in court.

The move has until now been rejected by the government amid opposition from the security services.

Mr. Brown is said to believe there could be a case for allowing it if a way could be found to protect intelligence sources.

Judges might also be allowed to take account of links to terrorism as an aggravating factor in sentencing. And police could be given new powers to continue questioning suspects after they have been charged.

In a speech on Saturday, Mr. Brown said stronger measures would have to be put in place to give the authorities the power to intervene at earlier stages of an investigation. He said: “That’s why I support, for terrorists suspects, post-questioning interviewing. That’s why we will need to strengthen the policing resources available.”

Ooh, he’s hard as nails, isn’t he, that Mr. Brown?

3 June (4.02pm)

Brown pledge to protect liberties

Gordon Brown has pledged not to put civil liberties at risk over plans to introduce new anti-terror laws.

Mr. Brown wants to give police more powers – including holding suspects without charge for more than 28 days – when he takes over as prime minister.

Civil liberties campaigners warn the plan amounts to “internment”.

But in a speech earlier, Mr Brown insisted he would bring in safeguards, including a judicial review of detention every seven days.

Mr. Brown, who is due to take over as prime minister on 27 June, told a Labour leadership hustings in Newcastle he was ready to be “tough in the security measures that are necessary to prevent terrorist incidents in this country”.

He added: “We will have to consider further legislation to do so. I think that is where the public will need to recognise that we have got a new security problem.”

But he said he would make sure that “at no point will our British traditions of supporting and defending civil liberties be put at risk. There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability. We should give the police the power to question people so we can both prevent incidents and get to the bottom of some of these very, very strange dealings.”

Or maybe he’s not. Maybe he’s just a big, cuddly liberal softie. Maybe he’s going to be as reactionary (in all the senses of that word) as his predecessor, creating policy and legislation on the hoof, backtracking and confusing himself and everyone else in the process.

Fortunately for everyone, Mr. Brown is mercifully unencumbered by a legal education about due process that has so restricted barristers such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw, “London” Derry Irvine, “Lord” Goldsmith and “Charlie” Falconer from stamping their jackboot on our faces. Phew: no more pussyfooting around!

7 June

Reid to unveil anti-terror plans

Home Secretary John Reid is due to outline a series of tougher anti-terrorism measures which he hopes to win cross-party agreement on.

They may include another attempt to extend the 28-day limit on holding suspects without charge – and allowing questioning after someone is charged. He is also expected to say a committee of privy counsellors will look at allowing intercept evidence in court.

“I’m sure that of the range of measures that I’ll introduce today, there will be many on which, given the recognition of the level of the threat, that there will in fact be cross-party support,” he told BBC’s Breakfast.

“On other ones, where there’ll be more controversial views, and wider views, I’m hoping that the process I’m introducing, which is slightly different from what I’ve done before, will maximise the degree of support that we get.”

TOUGHER, STRONGER, HARDER, MORE. The dinosaur’s last roar. Fuck me…

Meanwhile, in Cloudcuckooland, Mr. Tony Blair is still trying to put himself about on the world stage, giving rise yesterday to one of the most laughable – yet intelligence-insulting – headlines I’ve seen in the Guardian for years.

I can persuade George Bush on climate change – Blair

Tony Blair insisted yesterday that he could persuade President Bush to agree for the first time to a global target for a “substantial cut” in greenhouse gases within a framework sanctioned by the United Nations. In an interview with the Guardian on the eve of the G8 summit, the prime minister said both elusive goals were now achievable and that America was “on the move” in its position on climate change.

Contemplating leaving the summit without a deal, or at least the framework for one, he acknowledged: “Failure is if there is not an agreement that leads to a global deal with substantial reduction in emissions at the heart of it.”

Mr Blair added: “You could have a situation where this is agreed at the G8 – which is my preference – or you could see how it is agreed in principle, but you have to work out the details of it later. The important thing is that if we get an agreement to the idea of a global target of a substantial reduction in emissions, and it needs to be clear that it is in the order of 50%. You are not talking about 20%.

“The important point is I will be going for the maximum and I will want more.”

As we all have learnt over this past decade, what Mr. Tony wants is far more important than anything else.

Does Blair REALLY not understand that he is (and has been for two years) Yesterday’s Man? He has only one instrument of influence left now – his Resignation Honours List, which I fully expect to make Harold Wilson’s ghost blush. Bush ain’t interested enough in an honorary knighthood to fuck his business pals up the arse just to let Mr. Tony walk off into the sunset declaring himself as the saviour of the world.

Simultaneously, over at BBC News…

Blair ‘will be frank with Putin’

Tony Blair has promised a “frank discussion” with Vladimir Putin over the Russian leader’s threat to point nuclear weapons at Europe. Mr. Blair told the BBC it was not in Russia’s interest to have a “scratchy” relationship with western countries. He also promised to discuss the alleged murder in London of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko.

Mr. Blair told BBC political editor Nick Robinson there was no danger of a “fresh cold war” developing but said that many people were “concerned about the direction Russia is heading. It would be very sensible for the Russians to give reassurance on that,” said Mr. Blair.

He said: “I think behind the scenes at the G8 there will be the opportunity for people to have a frank conversation about Russia, with Russia, because people want a good relationship with Russia but it is a relationship that can only prosper if it is clear that we share certain values and principles.”

As well as talking about the US missile programme, that frank conversation would include raising Britain’s request to extradite former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi over the murder of Mr. Litvinenko. “We have got to try and resolve it, we know what issues the Russians have there but we can’t have someone murdered on British soil in that way and nothing happen, so it is a discussion we will have to have,” said Mr. Blair.

On the US missile programme, the Prime Minister said: “The Americans have said to the Russians that they will share the technology, they will be completely transparent about it.

“The fact is this has always been about the danger of rogue states, the truth of the matter is that for all sorts of reasons it is not something that is really about Russia at all and yet suddenly it is put up by Russia in this way, in quite a confrontational way. Now I think the sensible thing and this is what I’ll do certainly when I meet President Putin is just to have a frank conversation about the state of the relationship, between not simply Britain, but Europe and Russia.”

Is our Prime Minister really so delusional, so out of his depth in that well-known Egyptian river, that he feels anyone with half-an-inch or more of brain believes that he can “persuade” Bush about anything or put the willies up Vlad “The Impaler” Putin, the man who controls most of Europe’s gas and oil supplies? If so, the man demonstrates – hopefully for the final time – that he is not fit to run a bring-and-buy sale, let alone the country.

Whatever my love and respect for my Blairite friends and relatives, I simply feel that the United Kingdom deserves much, much better.

Tough on soundbite politics, tough on the causes of soundbite politics.

Make paucity history.