It was during a two-hour interview with Channel 4 News that Mr Blair gave the first signals. He did not start to attack the US president: far from it. This is a more nuanced operation. The Prime Minister has decided to answer questions which, not so long ago, he would have avoided.

When challenged about the events at Abu Ghraib prison, where US soldiers had been photographed abusing Iraqi prisoners, he used language far more frank than had been heard before.

It was "revolting", he said, the "single most damaging propaganda victory for the terrorists". It was an American error - and he, as a British prime minister, was making no bones about his abject criticism.

At the Iraqi press conference, Mr Bush avoided the question as to whether Iraq would return to martial law.

Mr Blair listened to the US president, then decided to put him right: "There will not be martial law."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was beginning to make his differences known. When asked to defend the US logic for invading Iraq - that democracy would follow invasion - he said it was "for them to defend themselves".

And he went further. "It’s hardly a great surprise that I don’t subscribe to a neo-conservative view of life," he said. As a Labour Foreign Secretary, the statement is - in itself - not controversial. The point is that Mr Straw would not have said that a year ago. Then, he would not have allowed a hair to be put between the United Kingdom and the US over foreign policy. Now, the Foreign Secretary is quite happy to draw the dividing line.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=746472004