A WEEK after 'Sleazy Thursday', what strikes me is Tony Blair's remarkable inability to get his stories straight on his most dishonourable day in office.

Whether its cash-for-honours or kowtowing to the Saudi Arabian government, why can't the Prime Minister and his inner circle spin a tale that is at least half-convincing?

I was one of the half-dozen lobby journalists who attended the impromptu briefing with Mr Blair's spokesman last Thursday that revealed he had, at last, had his collar felt by Scotland Yard.

When the statement was read out, there was instant astonishment that the Prime Minister was claiming the infamous peerages had been handed out for "party service".

The one thing the four Labour nominees had in common - apart from making multi-million pound loans - was a complete absence of dedicated service to the party.

In fact, one of the four, retired property developer Sir David Garrard, used to be a Tory donor, while 'curry king' Sir Gulam Noon has also given cash to the Liberal Democrats.

Sure enough, just three days later, the nominees popped up to insist the awards had been proposed for "public service" - directly contradicting Mr Blair. Furthermore, secret No 10 papers emerged to make clear the citiations were for health, education and charity work, with no mention of "party service".

It was a new twist to the cash-for-honours affair that left the Prime Minister wide open to the charge that the only party service performed was the loan of millions of pounds.

Yet, surely No 10 must have seen that coming? After all, it was obvious the citations would be published at some stage.

In the case of the abandoned serious fraud office inquiry into alleged Bae bribes paid to Saudi Arabia - the other 'bad news' buried on Diana Day - the Attorney General managed to contradict himself.

Slipping out the news late on Thursday, Lord Goldsmith told the House of Lords it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.

Yet, the very next day, in a radio interview, the Attorney General suddenly said the decision had been taken on the grounds that no successful conviction was likely.

Was this change of tack entirely unrelated to the critical response of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's working group on bribery? The OECD quickly pointed out that, under its convention, political and economic interests were not legitimate reasons for failing to investigate alleged corruption.

It is formally asking ministers to explain their decision, yet - once again - the Government, as a signatory to the convention, should have seen that coming.

Meanwhile, in a news release just days later, International Development Secretary Hilary Benn was busy boasting of his commitment to "prosecuting foreign bribery".

Mr Benn said: "Tackling corruption, wherever we find it - whether here or abroad - is essential. We will not tolerate those who extort, corrupt and deceive." So that's clear, then.

The muddle added to the impression that Mr Blair had touched on the real reason when he told reporters: "Leave aside the effects on thousands of British jobs........"

Apparently, even after years of practice, it's not easy being sleazy.