The ubiquitous Mr Blair has found a new line in messianic evasiveness

For the first time since 1997, I find myself siding with those who question whether the Government can be trusted

Tony Blair is more ubiquitous now than he was before the war. In theory this should be physically impossible. During the build-up to the attack on Iraq, Mr Blair's life was more or less played out in front of the cameras. One moment he was at a press conference with a world leader or two, the next he would be seen sweatily facing anti-war inquisitors in a studio then with barely a pause he would be in the Commons making the case for war. The nature of his arguments changed from time to time, but he was always there. It was like watching a reality show, "I'm a Prime Minister, Get Me Out Of Here".

Now the war is over, Mr Blair manages to be more than everywhere, a metaphysical feat that defies mortal ministers and the entire Shadow Cabinet, who contrive to be nowhere most of the time. He gives victory interviews to supportive newspapers in which he reflects on the trauma of possibly losing his job. Other cabinet ministers rush to declare that if Mr Blair had lost his job, they would have cast aside their ministerial briefs to join him. Adulatory newspaper profiles suggest that Mr Blair took his key war decisions when he was up a mountain last September.

Just as that quasi-spiritual image more or less settles in the mind, Mr Blair is no longer up a mountain, but in Moscow with Vladimir Putin, attempting to be the bridge builder without quite realising that many international leaders see him as one of those who broke the bridge in the first place. In case that is not enough, there is a book to come this summer and no doubt a film of the book before very long.

I am troubled by the nature of Mr Blair's post-war ubiquity, not the ubiquity itself. In many ways the ubiquity is to be welcomed. The Downing Street press conferences have raised the level of political reporting in Britain. Wall-to-wall Blair is better than wall-to-wall journalists purporting to know what is going on.

The problem lies in what is being said in the current bombardment of post-war propaganda. Given the messy and confused build-up to the Anglo-American attack on Iraq, it is all the more important to have clarity. Instead we get messianic evasiveness.

I was opposed to the war and continue to regard what happened as an historic failure in British foreign policy, the consequences of which will be played out for years to come. But this is about a broader issue of the Government, and whether it can be trusted.

Unlike the war, on the theme of trust I am normally on the side of Mr Blair and the Government. Mr Blair has been one of the more open political leaders, fairly candid about the limits of his policy ambitions and his aspirations. I have always regarded the obsession in some newspapers and parts of the BBC about spin as a great big irrelevant red herring. The alleged scandals such as "Cheriegate", the "Queen Mother's Funeral" and the unnecessary second resignation of Peter Mandelson were more to do with mischief-making in an hysterical media, and Downing Street's tendency to panic, than anything sinister.

Yet for the first time since 1997 I find myself on the other side of the trust argument, siding with those who are asking: "What are they doing spinning the war in a way that is both complacent and insensitive, underestimating the doubts and ambivalence felt by some key voters?"

Take the case of the cabinet ministers who declare now that they would have resigned with Mr Blair if they had lost the war vote in the Commons on 18 March. This absurd retrospective bravery, declared weeks after the hurdle was cleared, is presumably aimed at making them seem heroic and united. This co-ordinated exercise was meaningless and, in its evocation of political martyrdom made from the comfort of continued power, was also tasteless given the number of people who have been killed and continue to be killed.

More importantly, there is a curious tone being adopted about the weapons of mass destruction. With an urgent, impatient passion, Mr Blair declared in his pre-war phase that these weapons posed a threat to the world. Now Mr Blair insists that they will be found, but that the US and Britain are taking their time. At the very least this underestimates the need for the weapons to be discovered quickly.

A pre-emptive strike, that has killed thousands, demands almost immediate vindication. Why is there a delay? The scientists in Baghdad are available without their minders. Hans Blix is keen to spend further months in the desert.

In spite of the continuing uncertainties over the war, a similar messianic evasiveness permeates the domestic agenda, with foundation hospitals replacing Iraq as a new symbol of boldness. Mr Blair and his Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, warn opponents that it would be "disastrous to oppose reform". There are not many who would disagree with that. No doubt there are a few Labour MPs and trade unionists who believe that the vast NHS bureaucracy will become a Rolls-Royce machine with the additional cash being made available.

But most of those opposed to foundation hospitals are worried about the precise reforms being put forward by Mr Milburn. They are not against reforms of any kind. The key divide is between the coherent reformers and the incoherent reformers.

The more coherent reformers fear that the foundation hospitals have not been fully thought through and that one of two damaging scenarios will arise as a result. The first is that there will be an almighty row, a big revolt of Labour MPs, and then there will be so many restrictions placed on foundation hospitals there will be little difference between them and other hospitals. It would not be the first time that the symbolism of the row mattered as much to the ultra-Blairites as the precise policy details.

The other feared consequence is that there will be a big internal row, and the few privileged foundation hospitals will be given substantial powers to borrow money and attract the best staff from around the country. They would then have to pay back the loans through charging for services, thereby extending the private sector at a time when the Government is supposed to be persuading doctors to commit themselves to the NHS.

Those who make these points seek either more sweeping reforms or are genuinely alarmed that foundation hospitals challenge some of the Government's other supposed ambitious objectives for the NHS. Most of them have their own distinctive ideas for reform. But with a convenient sleight of hand, those who oppose the establishment of a few foundation hospitals are cast as weak-kneed conservatives opposed to all reform, while the romantic and bold modernisers march on. It is a lot more complicated than that.

I hope the next time some of the newspapers contrive to become hysterical about a non-scandal relating to Mr Blair, I will see through it. But in Europe, the UN and among some voters in today's elections, the question of trust and the Government hangs in the air for good reason.

s.richards@independent.co.uk