Londinium

The most dramatic moment in the film A Few Good Men comes when Jack Nicholson’s character is in the courtroom, giving evidence and faced with a hostile lawyer.

He screams: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

It’s unlikely Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues on the Iraq War inquiry will elicit a similar response from Tony Blair, when they summon him for a grilling.

But perhaps the former Prime Minister would be justified if he did decide to recreate the Hollywood scene.

There is already a view developing that the purpose of the inquiry is to convict Mr Blair of misleading the country in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. See Matthew d’Ancona’s latest column in the Daily Telegraph for an example.

But the truth is that Mr Blair did not take the decision to send British troops into Iraq alone.

He had the support of the Cabinet – including Gordon Brown.

Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary, has complained that there was little real debate in Cabinet. This may be true.

But any member of the Government had the option of resigning, if they did not support the invasion, as Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons at the time, memorably did.

It’s true that being in Government involves making compromises, and sometimes accepting things you don’t like. But the issue here was whether to go to war. If there was ever a time to make a principled stand, this was it.

Londinium

She finished eighth in I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

But Esther Rantzen is hoping to do rather better when she asks the public to vote for her again – in the general election.

The former That’s Life presenter has announced she will stand as a candidate in Luton South, where sitting MP Margaret Moran is caught up in the expenses scandal.

But what does she hope to achieve?

Ms Moran claimed £22,500 to treat dry rot at a property in Southampton, 100 miles from her constituency.

There was no justification for asking the taxpayer to foot that particular bill. Britain will be better off when Ms Moran leaves the Commons.

But she’s going anyway – after announcing she plans to quit at the next election.

It seems that Esther Rantzen still feels the public should have the chance to vote for an “anti-sleaze” candidate, to show their disgust at the behaviour of the political establishment.

Frankly, the public’s feelings are clear already. Some politicians may have been slow to get the message, but they know by now that voters are appalled by their behaviour.

Some independent MPs do a good job. Look at Wyre Forest’s Richard Taylor, for example, an independent who uses his experience as an NHS consultant to speak out on health issues.

But what would not be good for this country is a wave of celebrities sweeping into Parliament.

Being an MP isn’t about being on the telly, or simply demanding that things get better.

For those MPs who care – and there are plenty of them, despite the scandals that have appalled us all – it’s a long hard slog  to try to make a difference, however small, in the knowledge that you will probably fail.

A seat in the House of Commons doesn’t provide much real power. It doesn’t even guarantee that anyone is going to listen to you.

MPs who have achieved things from the back benches have been the ones that kept on trying, and refused to be discouraged by the lack of visible progress in whatever they are trying to do.

Do celebrities like Esther Rantzen have the tenacity and humility to serve their constituents properly, once confronted with the realities of life as a backbencher?

In the unlikely event that Ms Rantzen is elected, she may learn that being a good MP is much harder than she thinks.

Londinium

Why is Jacqui Smith so determined to assert her authority over our Mayor in the appointment of the next Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police?

The Home Secretary has turned down Boris Johnson's suggestion that he should have the final say over a replacement for Sir Ian Blair, the outgoing Met Chief.

She told him, in a letter which made its way to the newspapers: "I would make the decision on who to recommend to her majesty after interviewing one or more of the candidates."

Now, the Evening Standard reports that a battle of wills is taking place behind the scenes - extending even into disagreements over the wording of the job advert.

Boris no doubt has his flaws. But he is the person directly elected by Londoners to run our city, and one of the things we expect of him is to make our streets safer.

He may succeed or he may not. However, he must be allowed the powers he needs to give it his best shot - and if he fails, we'll kick him out in the next mayoral election.

Londinium

Our party leaders are racing to jump on board the Obama bandwagon.

David Cameron taunted Gordon Brown in the Commons by asking whether he still believed it was "no time for a novice" - a reference to Brown's speech to Labour's annual conference.

The Tory leader sees the election of Barack Obama as proof that change can be a good thing.

From his point of view, it shows that what people want is a fresh face, like the US President-elect or, indeed, Mr Cameron.

The Prime Minister draws a different lesson. Writing in the Observer, he argues that Obama's victory reflects "the collapse of a failed laissez-faire dogma" and what he calls "the old free market fundamentalism".

In other words, it's a victory for the left.

We also read in the Sunday Mirror that Labour is planning massive tax cuts, apparently costing the Treasury £15 billion.

This is in keeping with Mr Brown's admiration for Obama, who also promised tax cuts during his election campaign.

At the same time, Labour is boasting about its plans to continue massive levels of public spending.

There's been a lot of speculation about what Barack Obama's victory will mean Britain.

But it looks like the immediate effect will be to give the Government an excuse to borrow even more.

Londinium

Lots of people like to bash the Daily Mail for being a scurrilous right-wing rag, but all credit to them for uncovering the way councils are using legislation nominally aimed at terrorists to spy on ordinary residents.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allows public bodies to use "investigatory powers" such as "the interception of communications" and "covert surveillance" to gather information. In practice, this means things like opening people's mail and putting up hidden cameras to record their movements.

Officially, the Act is there to help "the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and other public authorities" do their job. Which sounds reasonable enough.

Even in these cynical times, most of us would assume the security and intelligence agencies focus their efforts on fighting terrorism or serious organised crime, and if a little phone tapping or secret filming is going to help then all power to them.