Martin Bright

The Chilcot Inquiry is already proving a hundred times more interesting than anyone expected. My only worry is that people already view 2003 as ancient history. There is a tendency to think we already know what we only suspected. I was an agnostic on the intervention. I hoped in would work, but worried that it would be a disaster. I still think it is too early to tell whether it was.  What is certainly the case is that most British journalists failed to hold the government to account at the time. Even at the height of excitement about the Hutton Inquiry, much was missed by those being paid to cover the hearings.

I was hugely impressed by a long article by my former colleague Rob Yates, in this weekend's Observer magazine. Rob went back to his roots in Walton, Liverpool, one of the most deprived parts of the country on any indicator, to examine the reality of the "broken Britain" rhetoric of the Conservative Party. It was about as far from a liberal whinge as you can imagine, but Rob recognised that not everything New Labour has done to alleviate the lot of the worst off has been disastrous. In particular he points to the popularity of the Sure Start programme for mothers and young children and improvements to school buildings and municipal space in general.

I can't help thinking that the Observer's Ipsos/Mori poll this weekend was something of a blip. What exactly has the Labour government done to narrow the gap in the last week or so? I hope I'm wrong, because I think the British people deserves a hung parliament, which would be the best result of the next election. I have been saying for some time that the Conservatives do not have the strength in depth to form a credible government and that the electorate faces the most unappealing choice since 1970. Nothing I have seen recently has made me change my mind.  Andrew Rawnsley has written the best of the political column's in the Sundays. He raises the possibility that the Liberal Democrats would demand the resignation of Gordon Brown as the price of an alliance.

I have written about the battle against the neo-Nazis and radical Islam in this week's Jewish Chronicle. This is such an important issue that I am cross-posting the two pieces. The JC's splash this week is the news that Barking and Dagenham Council could fall to the BNP next year. This follows the news that the party's leader will take on Margaret Hodge at the next general election. I also wrote a comment piece arguing that there should be a new anti-fascist alliance in east London to tackle the twin threat of the Islamist extreme right and the BNP.  We already have Britain's first neo-Nazi MEP and the first London Assembly member from the far right. By next year we could have the first BNP MP and first BNP-controlled council.

I can't quite decide whether there really is a return of ideas to British politics or whether the political columnists have just grown tired of writing yet another piece about just how bad things are for the Prime Minister this week.  Jackie Ashley's column in today's Guardian complements Janet Daley's in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. From opposing political perspectives they say the same thing: the two major parties are beginning to develop distinct political visions, which will allow the British public to make a genuine choice at next year's general election. Ashley suggests that David Cameron's speech on the role of the state and Ed Miliband's grasping of the environmental nettle mean that we are beginning to see arguments of substance about the key political issues of the day.

I happened to be on the phone to the Foreign Office press office late this afternoon when I heard a huge cheer go up. The press officer I was speaking to laughed nervously. "The Lisbon Treaty has been signed", she said. So who was cheering? It surely can't have been independent civil servants. I guess it must have been a large group of ministers and special advisers who just happened to be walking past the press officer at just that moment. Whoever it was, they were cheering at the expense of David Cameron. The Tory leader's twin strategy for appeasing the eurosceptic wing of the modern Tory Party has left him isolated at home and in Europe. His promise of a referendum is dead and his decision to leave the European People's Party is looking increasingly eccentric.

I can't expect anyone to bother reading another piece about Question Time, but bear with me here. In the build-up to Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, I was convinced it was a fuss about nothing. I still can't quite understand Peter Hain's objection to allowing an unpleasant fascist hang himself live on TV. Good box office, sure, but surely a spectacle worth paying good money to see. My only concern was the quality of the panel. But when it came to it,  I was pleasantly surprised. I thought Huhne, Warsi, Straw and Greer were really rather good. I have my doubts about Sayeeda Warsi's record on radical Islam and homosexuality but I was impressed by her performance.

The Guardian splash today puts some serious meat on my story in last week's Jewish Chronicle about growing US unhappiness about the Tories' new friends in Europe. Jonathan Freedland adds some important analysis. When I first put it to the Conservative Party press office that there might be an issue here I was told that it was unlikely the Obama government was troubling itself with such a parochial British issue. To me this demonstrates a fundamental failure of understanding that stretches right up to David Cameron himself. There has always been the suspicion that, for Cameron and his circle, politics is a game. The original ruse to leave the European People's Party was a ruse to attract the Eurosceptic ultras to his leadership campaign.

I am delighted to add my voice to those congratulating The Guardian's David Leigh and parliament's Paul Farrelly MP for fighting off lawyers Carter-Ruck over their absurd but spine-chilling injunction over the reporting of the activities of Trafigura in Ivory Coast.  For once the over-used phrase "a great day for freedom of speech" actually means something. Perhaps now the British journalistic community will take heart and stand up to this firm of lawyers that specialises in closing down discussion of the ultra-rich and downright disreputable. It is difficult to imagine an episode more damaging for the reputation of this firm. Hurray.  However, let's take a step back here.

The Jewish Chronicle this week landed an exclusive interview with Michal Kaminski, the Tory Party's controversial new Polish friend in the European parliament. He answered some pretty tough questions on his past pronouncements and offered a rebuttal of claims that he is an antisemite. I wasn't entirely convinced by some of his answers but I suggest any Tories who still haven't made up their minds about this curious alliance read the whole interview before they decide definitively on the matter. They may be baffled to read that in his eagerness to appease the Eurosceptics David Cameron has cosied up to a man who argued strongly for the Lisbon Treaty within his own party: "I was on the side of those who were in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It is well known in Poland.