As bad news days go, Thursday 14 December 2006 must rank amongst Tony Blair's worst.
He was interviewed by police probing corruption claims in the cash-for-honours affair, and he pulled the plug on a fraud office investigation into corrupt dealings between BAE Systems and the Saudi government.
No wonder then, that he left Britain for an EU summit, and a later "peace tour" of the Middle East, to headlines accusing him of trying to bury bad news and even, through his spin doctors, lying to a London newspaper about the timing of the police visit to Downing Street.
The claim was he had deliberately timed these events for the day the long-awaited Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana was published.
But, as Downing Street flatly denied the allegation, it was apparent that these bits of bad news were refusing to be buried.
The best that could be said from the government's point of view was that they got them out in one big bang.
Defence customer
Of the two, it is probably the row over the Saudi corruption inquiry that has caused the greatest shock, and not a small amount of relief, in Westminster.
After a two-and-a half year long SFO investigation, and just at it was about to probe Swiss bank accounts, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced late in the day and to a sparsely-attended House of Lords that the investigation had been stopped in "the wider public interest" and national security.
The claim was that Saudi Arabia - Britain's biggest defence customer and its most powerful ally in the Middle East - might withdraw diplomatic, security and intelligence cooperation if the probe was allowed to go ahead.
"The very last thing the UK government wants is to fall out with its strongest regional ally"
And that at a time when its intelligence and influence is deemed crucial in helping the fight against Islamist terrorism.
The Liberal Democrats and others, however, believe it was a simple case of economic blackmail because the Saudis were threatening to withdraw a £6bn order for warplanes, threatening thousands of jobs in the UK, if the investigation was allowed to continue.
But to have made the decision purely on economic or commercial grounds would have likely walked the government into an international legal minefield, while the Attorney General is entirely within his powers to rule on the national interest.
Peace moves
He is not even required to spell out what those interests are.
MPs are now demanding further explanation of the decision and it is another black cloud cast over the prime minister's last months in office.
It is particularly sensitive as it comes when he is set to visit the Middle East in an attempt to re-start peace moves and, finally, move on from Iraq.
Critics are already unhappy at Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia, a non-democratic state with a controversial human rights record, but which is probably the most powerful and certainly one of the most oil rich in the region.
Successive government have been well aware of the dangers in putting relations with the Saudis under too much strain.
And it is, therefore, no surprise that former Tory ministers have welcomed the government's decision.
It was, after all, Tory minister Michael Heseltine who in 1985 signed the Al-Yamamah deal at the centre of the alleged corruption claims.
Tension
Former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken whose own career was ended amid allegations over his own dealings with Saudi Arabia a decade ago has also welcomed the decision.
But so have many Labour MPs and others who believe the investigation was threatening thousands of jobs in their constituencies.
So was this a simple piece of Realpolitik and was the prime minister right to act "in the national interest" because of the near certain reaction which would have followed from the Saudis if the investigation had been allowed to continue to its conclusion?
It is almost certainly the case that, at this time of high tension in the Middle East and against the background of the on-going battle against Islamic extremism, the very last thing the UK government wants is to fall out with its strongest regional ally.
But, combined with the cash-for-honours inquiry, this is another episode that may taint Tony Blair's remaining period in power and when he continues to struggle to find a legacy.
And, while it may ultimately be shown that he has acted entirely sensibly and legally in both affairs, his 1997 hope of cleansing British politics from the taint of sleaze is once again being challenged, even ridiculed by his critics.
^ Back to top | BBC Sport Home | BBC Homepage | Contact us | Help | ©
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~03~RS~)