Amid preparations for war with Iraq, and the ever-present threat of bio-terrorist attack, ordinary Britons are keeping their cool, writes Frank Millar, London Editor.
Another day, another battle for hardened Londoners. On Tuesday night we went to bed pondering that shock find of traces of the lethal poison ricin in a suspected terrorist hideout. On Wednesday we awoke to snow, a mid-winter wonderland which plainly took the providers of post and rail services by surprise.
Standing on station platforms it was too cold to read the papers while enduring the inevitable delays. Finally squeezed aboard the familiar cattle-trucks, opportunity to savour the headlines at least: "Find sparks terror alert.", "Poison gang on the loose." And the pictures: of policemen clutching sub-machine guns, and others behind masks in the now familiar protective garb against bio-terrorism.
Ricin - more likely instrument of assassination than weapon of mass terror. At least three other suspects still undetected, and who knew how much of the deadly toxin? Where were they now? And who their intended target? The Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet? Leaders of the Jewish community? The speculation inevitably ran ahead of the known facts, and it made for grim reading.
More immediately pressing, of course, the business of battling the elements, and the passing thought that we had been here many times before. At the height of the IRA bombing campaign it was often remarked that Londoners regarded the consequent disruption and inconvenience in much the same way as "leaves on the track", that well-worn annual excuse for the pre-Christmas commuter misery. Autumn leaves, winter snow: impediments to everyday life as predictable as the now almost-routine warnings of likely al-Qaeda attacks and the imminence of war on foreign fields.
Blasé? No, just the territory which goes with life in the often world-class/sometimes third world capital of a country which still defines itself by reference to the second World War and (thankfully) insists on punching above its weight on the international stage. Welcome to Blair's Britain in the sixth year of a New Labour government: public services still failing, taxes rising, fear on the newspaper front pages if not yet on the streets - with the official Conservative opposition still sinking and a Prime Minister, about to fight "an unpopular war" in alliance with his friend the Republican President of the United States, already seemingly assured victory come the next election.
It will seem to many that this simply doesn't add up. Certainly Blair's domestic failings and foreign adventurism would suggest the makings of a serious political dogfight. Yet the remarkable thing about the public mood in this gloomy and threatening first full week of a new year is how sanguine people seem to be.
That is not to say they are unconcerned. Anecdotal evidence suggests some are buying bicycles and scooters in resolution not to travel on the Tube, though some of this may reflect a determination to avoid the Mayor's imminent congestion charge. At some school gates this week anxious mothers wondered aloud what would happen, and how on earth the emergency services would actually cope, if there really was a bio-terror attack on the Underground.
Minority groups such as Liberty worry aloud about prejudicial publicity and the prospects of a fair trial for the steadily-rising number of international terror suspects - invariably described as of North African origin - languishing in British jails. But human rights and civil libertarian concerns are hardly the number one priority for British citizens understanding Blair's warning that the latest arrests underline real and present danger.
In his New Year message the Prime Minister confided he could not recall a time when Britain was confronted, simultaneously, by such a range of difficult and sometimes dangerous problems. Some thought it a bit rich that this wake-up call should be issued while Blair and his family basked under the Egyptian sun. Others inevitably thought the emphasis on danger a deliberate diversion from domestic difficulty, or a further attempt to manage public opinion still decidedly unsure about the legitimacy of an American-led war against Iraq.
Cynicism abounds in Blair's Britain, much of it admittedly the result of the government's own reliance on presentation and "spin". One colleague wondered aloud on Tuesday whether Blair's big speech to diplomats attacking anti-Americanism was deliberately timed to divert attention from a U-turn over statutory minimum jail sentences for the rising number of firearms offences. The cynicism is now spectacularly over-done.
Two things seem clear from Blair's speech to the British Ambassadors. First, he is acutely aware of the battle still to be fought inside his own Labour Party before he commits British troops to any assault on Baghdad. Second, that if and when President Bush finally decides Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution, Blair will be at his side. Anti-Americanism is "a foolish indulgence", he told his internal critics; it's the price of British influence that America should not be left alone to tackle the "tricky issues" of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The Prime Minister has been warned that opinion on the Labour backbenches hardened over Christmas against any military action without a second resolution giving explicit UN approval. There is renewed talk of rebellions and possible ministerial resignations, though it is hard to see a cabinet resignation of sufficient significance to turn a rebellion into a potent threat to Blair's position. Moreover, he is intent on using his influence with Washington to ensure that the processes of the United Nations are exhausted, and seen to be so, before any commitment to war is made. By such means Blair's advisers believe he will have significantly eroded internal Labour opposition come the moment of decision.
But as for the decision? While plainly hoping for a second UN resolution, and seemingly confident he can get one, Blair has conspicuously left open "the Kosovo option", when he and another US President much preferred by New Labour, Bill Clinton, chose to act when the UN would not.
As one close aide to Blair puts it, Labour's anti-war party faces the same problem now as then: "This Prime Minister believes that what he is doing is right."