Yesterday, Grauniad commentator Johnathan Friedland suggested that Mr B might not see out this year. "These first 10 days have disproved two of his core, pre-war arguments: that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that his people would instantly see foreign invasion as liberation." "Diplomatically he is being humiliated, running to Washington or Camp David or wherever Bush summons him, only to receive the most meagre reward." "Even a UN role after the war is too much for the US."

Today, there's a withering attack from Will Hutton.

Such phrases as "even eventual victory may not avert a political disaster", and "he knows his capacity to survive the diplomatic humiliations piled on him by the Bush administration is limited" give the clearest hint yet that there's dissent in the upper echelons of The New Labour Project. For those who won't see the words unless they're printed in six-inch high glowing neon letters, Hutton writes "For the first time his premiership is genuinely at risk."

This is made more spectacular by Hutton's close association - verging on the intimate - with the Blair-Brown-Mandleson axis, and his authorship of the seminal Blairite tome The State We're In.

I've deliberately not updated the BLAIR since war broke out, so that the initial reaction wears off, and we can take a more balanced view.

Just under a week in, and balance is beginning to assert itself. Even though he's a war criminal, Blair has become more popular. This is a strange phenomenon where a lot of people tend to rally round their leaders in times of national crisis. It doesn't matter that their leaders have deliberately precipitated that crisis, the popularity surge continues.

It's pretty much for that reason that the BLAIR was going to rise by six points: a whole host of people thought Blair was doomed, but now don't.

Then C4's poll came out, showing that a third of Labour supporters think Mr B should resign if there's no evidence of CBN weapons. So far, there's no evidence of CBN weapons.

Two points away today because he is now a War Criminal, and is liable to be arrested at any time for breaching various human rights laws.

And suddenly, there's light at the end of the tunnel for Blair. Last night's rebellion was "limited" to 139 Labourites, a mere 47% of the backbench non-payroll vote. This is "limited" in the same sense as a runaway lorry demolishing 47% of a house. Anyway, with this lack of a mandate, Blair is prepared to launch himself into war, become a war criminal, and retain the support of his party. All within 24 hours. Curious, non?

Main BLAIR loser of the day is Robin Cook's resignation statement last night. Edited highlights:

"I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support ... Neither the international community nor the British public are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq," he said.

Mr Cook said that Iraq's military strength was less than half what it had been at the time of the last Gulf War. It was illogical to argue, therefore, that Iraq presented a threat and moreover that that threat justified war. Furthermore, Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction in the "commonly understood" sense of being a credible threat that could be delivered on "a city target."

He drew a comparison over the impatience shown with Iraq over its failure to comply with the will of the UN and the situation in Palestine. "It is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories," he reflected.

The former foreign secretary went on to express alarm that the US administration seemed more interested in regime change that in Iraq's disarmament. "What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected we would not now be about to commit British troops."

Do not destroy oil wells. Do not use weapons of mass disruption. In that order.

Watch for junta spokesmoron Bish to twist his mouth around and bite his lip every time he says something untrue. That's one well bitten lip. And one well-wired spokesmoron: in this morning's routine, Shrub was clearly wearing a prompter wire, carrying the words of the junta into his mouth.

But the final word has to go to Michael Portillo: "My prediction depends on what happens."

Resignation of Robin Cook. He was foreign secretary between 1997 and 2001, and briefly championed an "ethical" foreign policy without actually making any significant changes to foreign policy. Claire Short sticks around for at least one more night; she's been internatonal development minister since 97, and appears to be swayed by sweet talk that she's going to make a difference in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Chances of a new UN resolution: zero.

Articles following up the forgery of a piece of evidence, dismissed by Blix last time out, linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons programme, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq: zero.

Number of mentions by Bruiser Prescott that Russia, not France, was first to threaten the veto: zero.

Number of times the US has used its veto on the Arab-Israel issue: 36.

Number of years since France last vetoed a US-sponsored resolution: 47.

Number of press and television interviews by Lord Goldsmith, the government-sponsored lawyer who is the only one we know that thinks war is legal: zero.

Goldsmith cites UNSC resolution 678 (Nov 90, authorising force to compel Iraq from Kuwait), 687 (Mar 91, ceasefire following Gulf War II), and 1441 (Nov 02.) Goldsmith claims that a breach of 687 brings 678 back to life, thus allowing the US to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Well, that's a decently trivial task. So trivial, I could do it myself in about five minutes. After that, let's prove Goldsmith's sophistry is a complete load of bullshit. Gee, that was even easier. Anyone want to use this Babelfish? Mr Dalyell?.

The longer this Iraq crisis drags on, the more it seems that Jack Straw is Blair's lightning rod. It was Straw on Radio 4's HODIE, having rings run round him by The Bard Humphrys. Straw's performance was pisspoor, and could have only served to convince people that he didn't understand what he was bibbling about. However, Straw could be the blood sacrifice that will appease enough opponents to keep Blair in a job.

Jack Straw says that a French veto increases the chances of war, as it prevents the UNSC from enforcing its decisions. Er, wha'? The UNSC decides against war, and suddenly it's not backing its decision against war?

Robin Cook indicates that he'll quit the cabinet in event of unbacked war. The incomprehensible gnome's position had already been weakened after Blair pulled the reform of the Lords from under his feet last month, and now he's out for revenge. This is only loosely linked to Iraq, but shows exactly how far Blair has come from his party.

BLAIR is down three points, following the resignation (actual) of Andy Reed, the MP for Loughborough, as PPS to Environment minister Margaret Beckett. The details don't matter; this is a resignation, and by the man who was the model for Pandora Braithwaite in the recent Adrian Mole books. Also forcing the BLAIR down: Claire Short's outspoken interview on Radio 4 last week, saying she would resign the Cabinet-level post of International Development Minister if the UK went to war without UN approval; and the threat by the large GMB union of "meltdown" over Iraq and the "Thatcherite" leanings of the Labour government.

Yesterday looked like being a very good day. Hans Blix delivers the most cheery report yet, saying that Iraq is being "active, even proactive" in this disarmament thing. One by one, the grounds for launching a war are being cut from under the feet of Blair and the junta. They're just not going to get a second resolution through now, the global public appetite is turning increasingly against war, and aggressive moves are going to backfire on the seemingly impregnable leader of the free world.

However, the buggers are going to give it a shot. Mr Straw submits a new resolution, setting a deadline of Mar 17. France and Russia stick their fingers on the "no" button, Germany looks like saying "no", China can't be counted for a "yes" over an abstention, and that only leaves three more to defect before the resolution is lost regardless of veto.

Interesting article from Johnathan Friedland in Het graun today. In a nutshell, he suggests that war against Iraq is another nail in the coffin of the sovereign nation. But then carry on too far down that road and we're facing a repeat of the 19th century imperial expansion.

Rules are needed. Let's try this lot, published by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty back in June 2001. There needs to be a threat of large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing; the prime motive of the interveners has to be averting suffering; action has to be multilateral; war must be a last resort and the means proportionate "to the magnitude of the original provocation"; and the consequences of action must not be worse than the consequences of inaction.

Compare the junta's activities against this yardsticl. Threat of loss of life is claimed, though not proven. Avert suffering: Blair claims that, again, the evidence is scratchy. Multilateral: nope. Last resort: not while Dr Blix is in place. Proportionate: depends on the actual threat being proven.

This is why the Blair / Rumsveld / Chainy junta is barking up the wrong tree. They don't have a diplomatic figleaf. Nor do they have popular support. Someone's career will end, and I reckon it's going to be Blair's.

I'm not concentrating on Blair's address to the MTV nation. Instead, the UK bows to the realpolitik of the situation, and starts circulating a more conciliatory second resolution, perhaps postponing war into the summer.

Nick Clegg MEP: "Psychologically, the Labour party has just broken free of Blair, for the first time. But it is less obvious what will happen next. Sullen weariness does not last for long. Voters, in the end, don't like being taken for granted. The spring in their step will return, and then there will be all to play for."

Richard Dawkins: "Regime change in Iraq would be nice for Iraqis. Regime change in Washington would do more good to the world in the long run."

Thought about putting the BLAIR up one point today, but then Russia determined that she would veto any war resolution. This knocks a rather large hole in Blair's support for the junta, and leaves Straw's bellicose meanderings before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee rather irrelevant.

Mr Blair likens the regime of President Sadaam to that of Herr Hitler, saying that he does not wish to make the same mistakes as his predecessor, Mr Neville Chamberlain.

By invoking the Nazi party, Godwin's Law comes into effect, and we can deduce that Mr Blair has lost the argument. This is an irretrievable situation, notthing that he can now do will reverse the decision. Mr Blair has lost, and he may as well resign now.

Iraq says it will destroy some missiles. The UN reckons these rockets can exceed the 150km defensive radius; while disagreeing with that assessment, Mr Sadaam's regime will knock 'em on the head. Turkey postpones a debate on the propriety of allowing US troops into its borders, and the Oil Junta is already treating the battle as a done deal. It's not, and this must surely count against Mr Blair, causing the Blair LIAR Index to fall one notch.

The vote against him in the Commons. 122 risked incurring the wrath of the whips and expressed their dissent against Blair's policy of backing the republican Junta in spite of evidence. Analysts suggest that should Blair push ahead without a further UN resolution, the Blair LIAR will collapse towards zero at a rate of knots.