London Briefing: There are few less edifying sights than the British media going through one of its periodic puritanical fits of rage over government spending. An inability to discriminate between the truly wasteful and the sadly necessary seems to infect most newspapers, along with an inability to credit readers with any modicum of good sense or judgment.

Much as it seems to annoy certain inhabitants of the east end of London (is Canary Wharf the new Fleet Street?), the prime minister has to travel. Many of Tony Blair's journeys are overseas and most weeks see him taking at least one trip.

In Blair, we see a lot of arrogance and a certain tendency to lose more of the plot the longer he has stayed in office, but he has not found a way from getting from A to B without getting on a plane, train or automobile. Many of his cabinet colleagues have similar habits.

Travel costs money and the business of government necessitates travel.

Really, the debate should end there. Instead, we observe a catchy headline that generates a hundred non-stories. "Blair Force One" has been the considered response of too many journalists to the suggestion that the prime minister wants to spend around £30 million (€43 million) replacing what used to be called "the Queen's flight".

The new aircraft will be available to the Queen, the prime minister and senior cabinet members for travelling on official business.

Why the fuss? Why the long "exposés" of years of travelling by the likes of Blair and Margaret Beckett, revealing - wait for it - tens of thousands of pounds spent on foreign travel.

At one level, it is clear that editors think that "Minister spends taxpayers' money" is, on its own, enough of a story to enthral readers. And these same people wonder why their circulation is falling.

As any road warrior could have told these investigative journalists, a few days away anywhere will cost a fortune.

Try flying to the US for five days (business class, not first class) and not spend at least five or six thousand quid. Take a colleague or two, throw in some heavy-duty customer entertaining and the bill can quickly run to 25 grand - all fully audited, with receipts, without raising a murmur back at head office.

Most road trips are essentially marketing functions, and the better companies are the ones that lean on salesmen when they aren't out and about meeting customers.

In many ways, ministers are just salesmen for their country. While most trips can look devoid of any meaningful content from back home, one or two local businessmen will have had their backs slapped and there will be plenty of approving column inches about the visiting dignitaries.

The easy call is to shout junket. And some trips are indeed a taxpayer-financed holiday. But it makes no sense to shout abuse at a minister for spending small fortunes on dozens of trips abroad: as any travelling executive will tell you, the joys of travelling at the front of the plane and staying in five-star hotels soon fade after about the 15th or 16th trip in as many months.

Criticism should be directed at the minister who makes the suspicious one or two trips a year, not at the ones who make one or two dozen: there is nothing jolly about that kind of travelling.

Blair has been accused of flying at the taxpayers' expense when going on holiday. Unlike journalists, I suspect that the electorate is able to work out that prime ministers drive their families nuts by continuing to work while supposedly taking a break. At least, in Blair's case, I hope this is true; if not, it means that Prescott has been in charge.

Most executives will be able to relate to this: the phone and the Blackberry, at the very least, mean that few of them take proper holidays.

And most companies recognise this, even if journalists do not.

Indeed, the inability of editors to spot a non-story suggests that they are one of the few professions still able to get away from it all (albeit at their own expense, of course).

A few years ago the Blairs were spotted on a Ryanair flight to somewhere exotic. Most of us felt vaguely embarrassed for them. Security types were undoubtedly apoplectic. Just imagine Cherie and the kids in the scrum for free seating, trying to keep the family together.

Chris Johns is an investment strategist with Collins Stewart. All opinions are personal.