To all those politicians flocking toward the bright lights of the rolling news cameras this weekend to condemn the three MPs charged with theft and who are now looking to hide behind parliamentary privilege, ask yourselves this:

Why are these three gents in a position to do this in the first place?

Amid all the talk of a 'new politics' (copyright Gordon Brown) and the need for a transparent system (c/o David Cameron) there appears to have been little interest in dealing with the whole issue of parliamentary privilege.

TO ME, the one constant throughout Tony Blair's reign at Number 10 was that nothing was ever as it seemed.

That's not to say nothing positive came from Blair's time in charge - it did. It's just that Labour always seemed determined to put a shinier gloss on even the most positive of upbeat stories.

He was often accused of being false, and of trying to be everything to everyone - ironically, both allegations now put at the feet of David Cameron.

It would be wrong to even begin to try and imagine what the families of the two children sadistically tortured in Yorkshire have been through during the last 18 months.

The attacks inflicted on a nine-year-old and a 11-year-old boy by two brothers, aged just 10 and 11, are said to be so horrific that it is impossible to report them in a way which wouldn't offend.

For the parents of the two victims of such torture and sexual humiliation, Friday's court verdict - indefinite custodial sentences for the brothers - is only the beginning. Somehow, the parents of the victims have to try and rebuild the shattered lives of their youngsters.

Some people just don't know when to shut up. Geoff Hoon is one such person.

Back on Wednesday, when he was busy plotting to bring down Gordon Brown, he was keen to stress that this wasn't personal against Gordon Brown, it was about getting everything in the open once and for all.

He insisted it wasn't about toppling Brown, but sorting out the rumours once and for all.

If that was the case, he'd have shut up after his pitiful interview on Newsnight on Wednesday when it had become clear that he simply didn't have any support.

Sadly, that isn't the case, which is why he is out in tomorrow's papers revealing that Gordon Brown vetoed the call for more military equipment in Afghanistan while chancellor.

Whether this is true or not will emerge in the next week or so, I suspect. But given this is coming from the man who had convinced himself there were lots of MPs ready to rebel against Brown, I think we are entitled to treat what he is saying with some doubt.

If it is true, then Brown has some real questions to answer. But so does Hoon. As defence secretary, his main responsibility is to make sure troops are well equipped. If he can't get the money he needs, he's failing to do his job to convince the chancellor, and therefore failing to do his job.

But it's odd that it didn't bother Hoon so much at the time that he felt the need to go public about it, is it? Just as much as George Osborne is playing politics with soldiers, so it appears, is Geoff Hoon. But the difference between Osborne and Hoon is that Osborne has never been in a position to help troops. Hoon has - and he failed. Only now, when it suits his political motives, does he see fit to accuse Brown of not helping troops. It'd be shameful, if the man had the ability to feel shame.

One of the strangest pictures of the week I saw was the one in the Daily Telegraph which showed George Osborne eating in an Army mess in Afghanistan.

With him was William Hague. I can understand why Hague was there. He is, after all, the foreign secretary in waiting. But Osborne, presumably the chancellor in a Tory government? When was the last time the current chancellor, Alistair Darling, went out to spend time with our troops?

The line from Osborne's people is that the shadow chancellor wanted to see what life was really like on the front line to help determine spending policies on defence.

Now safely back in Britain - how David Cameron must be relieved that his weak link is back at his side - Osborne has promised that the children of every dead soldier will get university bursaries, a move which will cost £1.5million a year.

In other words, peanuts in the great scheme of things. That doesn't make it the wrong thing to do, but at a time when there's a hole of around £30bn in the Tories spending plans, it seems a little odd that Osborne is finding time to announce such small figures.

There is, of course, only one reason for Osborne's pledge to introduce these bursaries on the first day of a Tory government. And only one reason he felt the need to accompany Hague out to Afghanistan.

Yes, the general election campaign. Given the snow, and given Hoon and Hewitt's laughable coup attempt, it's no wonder Cameron's election war footing had been forgotten.

And it's important that defence spending is a key issue. But there's a difference between promising to support our troops and using them as a photo opportunity, and, indeed, conjuring up cheap policies on the back of fatalities in war.

Osborne is an important man. He needed protection and security. His visit will have been a distraction and a commitment our stretched troops didn't need. All for the sake of a photo opportunity.

If he really wants to be the man who cares for our troops, he needs to stop using them to show the Tory softer side, and start working out, in public, how he'll ensure they have the best equipment and be able to get on with their job without political distractions.

It didn't need a trip to the badlands of Afghanistan to find out what troops felt they wanted - there are tens of thousands of troops back home who'd happily have told him. But that's not as a good a photo opportunity is it? And certainly not a photo opportunity you can guarantee just for your favourite newspaper, the Daily Telegraph?

George, get on with your job and let our troops get on with theirs.

JANUARY 6, 2009: A date which might go down in political history for one of two reasons. Hindsight in June may tell it is was the day that Gordon Brown's - and Labour's - fragile fightback against David Cameron was scuppered from within.

Or maybe we'll look back at today in years to come and cite it as the date the world's most pathetic and shallow political coup was staged.

One thing is for sure. Today was the day we saw the true colours of Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt. Two failed ministers, smarting at the sidelines of politics, seem by their actions to be telling us that if they can't run Labour, then Labour shouldn't be in Government.

Their credibility couldn't have been more damaged if they'd decided to hold hands and march across the floor to join the opposition parties.

This pair aren't thick. Their actions today - reminding the public of the division in Labour just at the time when Cameron seemed to be cracking and Brown was hitting form - appear to be the actions of stupid people, but they aren't. They knew what they were doing. But they clearly think the rest of us are stupid.

So David Cameron is the man to save the NHS. After announcing a new announcement a day, every day, until the general election, Cameron started off on the NHS.

Usual stuff fell from his mouth. Less central control, fewer targets, more power to the people.

But Cameron also seems to contradict himself. He promises to reward those parts of the NHS in poor areas which improve the most, but says he'll do away with targets. But those in the NHS say that it's not the targets which cause the problems, but the management of the statistics and data which need to be collected to compare with the national targets.

The voters. All of us. Not a single one of us will benefit from the plan to have three televised debates between the leaders in the run up to next year's general election.

Don't get me wrong, the principle is sound. The main parties like nothing more than charging around the country, carefully avoiding each other, pushing their message forward to a sympathetic crowd and hoping that no-one asks too many questions.

The hard work convincing the voters tends to go on away from the cameras. Hard-pressed party volunteers - whose enthusiasm for the job varies from straining-on-the-leash to pushed-into-it-through-emotional-blackmail - knock on the doors and try and convinced people to vote. And then try to convince them to vote for their party.

So getting the three party leaders to go head-to-head in front of the lot of us, on live TV, warts and all, seems a sound idea. And, as at least a million people (or so it feels) appear to have said: "Well, it works in America."

But here's where it goes a little bit wrong.

Three days before Tony Blair called the 2005 General Election, I was sat with him in the cabinet office. What do you think we discussed? The war in Iraq? Rising interest rates?

Nope, he was talking about leylandii trees and insisting his government's decision to give councils the power to tell people to chop them down was proof his was a listening government.

I can't profess to a close relationship with Tony Blair. We've only ever met six times and wonderful that it was that on the latter three occasions he always began with 'David, great to see you again' I'm pretty certain that's more to do with the fact he had a good press office around him.

The only reason I was inside the very heart of Number 10 - so close to the sofas on which Blair and his team made all their undocumented decisions - was because the election was about to be called and the paper I worked for then covered several constituencies Labour was keen to keep hold of.

Whether Blair's sudden interest in leylandii trees - an issue among a batch of questions he answered on behalf of readers - ensured Labour kept that seat, we'll never know.

But with less than six months to go until a we have another election, I can't help but suspect current PM Gordon Brown's sudden interest in Everton's aborted move to Kirkby has more to do with votes in Merseyside than it does ensuring the Toffees have a ground fit for the 21st century.

Just days after one of his ministers - John Denham, responsible for the planning inspectorate - kicked out the tie up Tesco in Knowsley, Brown appears to have instructed 'minister for the north west' Phil Woolas to find a way for the plan to happen.

The official reason is that Brown is worried about the impact not having Kirkby would have on England's bid to win the 2018 World Cup.

Now, much as Everton's new stadium looked nice, I can't help but think sorting out the bickering among the 2018 bid team would help swing more FIFA votes. After all, the South African bid team managed to win 2010 despite including pictures of Preston North End's ground.

So what motive does Brown have here? I suspect this is the first of many interventions we suddenly hear of from the prime minister, and I dare say David Cameron will add his weight to a campaign if he feels there are enough votes in it.

Oddly, he appears to have picked on an issue which not even Everton seem particularly keen to pursue, and which still has a lot of local opposition.

But just as in 2005, beware politicians suddenly professing a sudden interest in local issues. The interest tends to wane once your vote has been cast.

I must declare an interest before I continue with this blog post: I'm not going away on holiday for Christmas, and even if I was, I certainly wouldn't be able to afford to fly British Airways.

But even with that level of envy towards those who can afford to jet off with BA, I can't help but think Unite has delivered perhaps the most spiteful industrial action in recent history, if not ever.

There are some professions you have sympathy with instantly, some workforces that you're prepared to stomach personal disruption for, knowing they are fighting a good fight.

Firefighters, yes. Nurses, yes (if, indeed, they can strike.) Teachers, even, once you get beyond the "12 weeks holiday and a 3.30pm daily finish" myth.

Air hostesess, maybe not.