The Telegraph tries once again to prove that it is really just the Daily Mail printed on bigger sheets of paper today.  There is a rather ugly 'Tessa tells all' report (or at least 'close-personal-contacts tell all').  Also Liz Jones opines on the relationship problems of poor Sian and Lembit.

Celebrity in this way should hardly be the subject of a supposedly serious policy blog such as this.  However, we've blogged about personality politics before and the Jones piece is interesting in that it equates Lembit and Sian's difficulties with those of Jennifer Aniston, Nicole Kidman and Kylie Minouge:

"These wannabes [less famous male partners] are fine when the women are vulnerable – Jennifer with a failed marriage; Nicole distraught at Tom's proclamations of love for his new wife, Katie; Kylie battling cancer; Siân desperate to settle down. But it is a different story when the women are back on top. Suddenly, alpha woman is not such an attractive proposition, despite the lifestyle benefits she brings."

Liz Jones - The Telegraph

The piece is interesting, not because of what it has to say, but because the travails of a Lib Dem MP can be written about along side the likes of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.

By implication the piece also shows that Lembit will increase his bankability as a 'name' by this episode. It is impossible to underestimate how important this is in today's media culture.

The master of modern communications would be able to use this elevated position subtly to have influence the policy debate too.  Tony Blair managed this in the Cool Britannia years.  However, the position of Prime Minister gives you credibility coming out of your ears.

The line is much narrower and much trickier to walk when you have to compete for both the celebrity and credibility stakes. Its a position Charles Kennedy managed to acheive for some, but certainly not all.

Lembit's name is gaining more currency.  But his credibility mountain is now higher to climb than even Chatshow Charlie's was.

With the party of liberal democracy plunging in the polls (see below) - it is good that the Lib Dem leader opened up a new front on the policy debate.

Ming's speech to IPPR on welfare reform comes at a useful time.

The BBC picked up on the main nuggets that was trailed before hand in a piece that has been updated slightly since he made the speech:

"People should be given education and a chance to help themselves, but instead millions were being trapped into living on benefits, said Sir Menzies.

He said lone parents should return to work when their youngest child is 12 - not 16 as currently.

And he said he wanted to end the "bias" against couples in the tax system."

news.bbc.co.uk 19th December

What a shame therefore that there has been so little pick-up of the story in any of today's papers.

Few deny that it is hard for a third party leader to get coverage in the press - particularly when all they want to write about is a resurgent Conservative party.

Complaining about the media does us little good however. 

The political situation we're in demands an ever bolder, ever clearer message in order to capture the press' attention.

Also in today's news

• Those polls in full in The Guardian - Conservatives 40% (+3) Labour 32% (no change) Lib Dems 18% (-4)
  
• The Economist highlights some fascinating repercussions new insights in neurology are having on free will and liberalism itself.
  
• "Ipswich proves how badly we need Tory libertarians" according to Simon Jenkins in The Guardian today in his take on the drug and prostitution law reform debate.
  

Is it any co-incidence that Steve Bell's most realistic picture of Tony Blair is also the most disturbing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/archive/0,,1284265,00.html

Reform of the drug laws is in the air - or at least in the papers. Many liberals instinctively feel that radical reform of the drug prohibition would be a good thing.

More authoritarian people tend to suppose that this is because liberals believe that the individual should be able to do whatever s/he likes, no matter how harmful, as long as it doesn't effect others.  This argument they find flawed as there are clearly people in society less able to look after themselves and make sensible choices than others.

However, whilst certainly a factor in liberal thinking, it is far from the clinching argument. The practical effects of prohibition are seen as so awful that the continuation of the current regime seems to dogmatically ignore facts.  Bertrand Russell said:

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

So it is with the laws around drugs.  Whilst the evidence stacks up in favour of legalisation, liberals have no chimera's against not doing so.

Mary Anne Sieghart in The Times today deals with some of the evidence in the drugs debate and quotes from Transform Drug Policy Foundation:

"Transform estimates that the prison population would fall by between a third and a half, ending overcrowding and the need to build more jails. Billions of pounds spent enforcing prohibition and coping with its consequences would be saved. Hundreds of thousands could be treated as patients rather than criminals. The number of drug-related deaths would fall dramatically. And desperate young women could be rescued from pimps, potential rapists and murderers."

Mary Anne Sieghart - The Times

These figures seem too fantastic to be true. Certainly drug-related crime accounts for much of our massive prison population, but few would seriously contend that by reducing the legal impact of one social ill - no others would spring up in their place.

Only by implementing these reforms would we really understand the impacts;  a fantastically problematic argument for those of us who advocate some of the most radical measures.

The broadsheets are seeking to intellectualise the Ipswich serial killer story.  Three commentators tackle prostitution head on in the opinion sections today.

Alice Miles in The Times and Deborah Orr in The Independent have similar views.  Rather than telling women to stay off the streets, Deborah Orr says:

"It might have been kinder for the authorities to have told the women at risk that they could go to their doctor and get prescriptions for their heroin, which might also be a way of keeping them off the streets more permanently. One study found that 98 per cent of sex workers on the street had a drug problem.

Alice Miles agrees:

"How much evidence does the Government need before it concludes that heroin should be prescribed on the NHS for addicts to short circuit the personal and public chaos an addicted life generates?"

Even Simon Heffer in The Telegraph agrees that drugs lie at the heart of the problem (though he pleads for an authoritarian approach to drive drug users and pushers into prisons.)

Surely though the commentators are getting ahead of themselves.  By being clever and focusing so much on drugs, the commentators have dismissed the massive market demand for sex.

As long as that demand exists there will be a supply - from willing or unwilling women.

Successful intervention in the drugs market, were it possible, would no doubt change the profile of the people on the streets.  But another reason the go out on the streets would soon arise as long as there is money to be made in selling sex. All other arguments merely over-intellectualises human behaviour.

Two major policy initiatives that Labour are likely to take into the next General Election were announced yesterday. 

The Prime Minister put his weight behind an NHS restructuring that would, amongst other things, see the closure of many A&E units. All papers provide extensive coverage (though it has been knocked off the front pages generally by speculation over the Pre Budget Report).  That the Telegraph is so lukewarm signals that the Government have a long way to go to win this argument:

"...the common-sense objection to this plan remains: the most sophisticated treatments will be of little use to a patient who has died before he arrives at hospital."

The Telegraph

Many people's experiences of A&Es - especially if they attend at the most critical times - are far from perfect.  But the sense of reassurance that people gain from being within striking distance of their local A&E will be more of a critical factor in the debate than the promises of superior care that accompany them.

Education is the other area that policy proposals now look set to become election pledges in the future.  The proposals contained in Lord Leitch's review of skills suggests, again amongst other things, that we should gradually raise the period of being in compulsory education or training to 18.  (See The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Times)

As this is one of Gordon Brown's own commissioned reports this will probably have more legs than the Tomlinson Report - which covered some of the same ground and was quickly dumped.

"Education for all till 18" from one side sounds like almost as interesting election slogan as "Save our A&E."

The Telegraph

Also in today's news

• Vince Cable develops the idea of independence for our financial institutions further in an article in The Financial Times.
  
• The Indepdendent reports that sales of 4x4s have fallen for the first time for 10 years both here and in the US - a reaction to policy or public opinion?

The Trident White paper will be available shortly after this blog is published.  Widely trailed in all the papers today (and many of yesterday's) none of us will be shocked when we hear Tony Blair announce the start of a process to replace trident.

CentreForum are hosting a timely debate in the House of Commons on this subject this evening (details available from the CentreForum website).  The two speakers, Dr Dan Plesch and Dr Jeremy Stocker will present alternative sides of the replacement debate. Though they differ on the need of replacement, it will be interesting to see if consensus on timing issues can be reached:

The white paper will also reject arguments urging a delay on a decision to commission new submarines by at least five years, as the Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and many independent analysts have proposed.

Given the long lead times before operational availability - 14 years between the Trident decision and the day it replaced Polaris - it would be too risky. Delay would also not be cost effective, mainly because the nuclear reactors that propel the present boats need replacing soon.

The Guardian 4th December 2005

The costs of Trident are huge - but delaying the decision for short term political respite would almost certainly end up being even more costly.

Also in today's news

• William Rees-Mogg in The Times appears to agree with our blog entry last week about the ongoing threat David Cameron presents to the Liberal Democrat vote.  For this we apologise.
• Marcel Berlins warns of the threats to justice of Impact Statements read out before sentencing - such as that last week by Adele Eastman.  Someone commenting on the article sums it up even more succinctly than the esteemed professor:

"A drunken homeless man who is, as in recent cases, severely beaten up or set on fire, needs the same protection under the law as the devoted daughter or caring teacher. Without this, the law institutionalises an underclass (or untermensch) and violence against the vulnerable and despised will rise still further."

Kazbe commenting on Marcel Berlins "Why Victim Impact Statements should be axed" in The Guardian.

Its the start of a new month, so time to check on the polls.

Anthony King provides some interesting analysis of the Telegraph's latest poll.  The headline figures show that the Conservatives are at 37% (-2) Labour are at 32 (no change) and the Lib Dems are on 16 (also no change).

The main spin the Telegraph puts on it is Cameron marooned; must do better.  This is certainly true if he is to have a hope of winning an overall majority.  But King delves deeper into the figures and pulls out some worrying news for the Lib Dems.

"...the Tories' new concern for the environment may be having a positive effect. It may be helping to change and improve the party's overall image and it may also be helping to woo wavering Liberal Democrats. YouGov at the moment is not only finding that fewer voters now back the Lib Dems than in the past but that an increasing proportion of those who do still back it are in general more favourably disposed towards the Tories than they
used to be."

The Telegraph 1st December 2006

This is particularly worrying for the many Lib Dem MPs with small majorities against the Tories.  It may well be that although the 'vote blue to go green' message has had little effect on Tory voters it has resonated with the more environmentally conscious Lib Dem voters.  If you ask the same voters that divide 37,32, 16 how they would vote given only the two larger parties to choose between, you get 43-34 split in favour of Cameron.

The key to Cameron's parliamentary majority seems buried in the liberal centre ground.  Can Menzies Campbell defend it or will the prospects of backing a determindely centrist David Cameron prove too much?

There is mixed opinion in today's papers about the remarks of a US State Department advisor that the 'special relationship' gave the junior partner little or nothing.

The Telegraph gives the remarks full coverage - surprising perhaps given their traditional Atlantacist predilections in terms of the UK's foreign policy - however it avoids commenting on the remarks directly. 

The Times is less bashful and devotes its main leader to the issue.  Looking to the future it notes:

The man who is the favourite to succeed Mr Bush — John McCain — is a committed Anglophile, much as Mr Blair’s near- certain replacement — Gordon Brown — is an Atlanticist to his core. The title of the seminar at which Dr Myers spoke was “How special is the US-UK relationship after Iraq?” The correct answer to the question remains “very special”.

The Times - 30th November 2006

The debate will roll on and on.  Generally those that go gooey over the strength and power of the US say that the special relationship is strong and valuable.  Those that seek to challenge that power emphasise the neglected aspects of positive European links could bring.

This places David Cameron in a delicate position.  The State Department official said that he had been playing a canny game - but as previously mentioned here - he is surrounded by neo cons and Atlantacists - especially on his foreign affairs team.

Judging from that team -  Cameron's populist frosty approach to the special relationship with will be one of the greatest areas of tension in the Conservative shadow cabinet.

Although not everyone follows the delicacies of media ownership, yesterday's news of Michael Grade's defection were hardly delicate.  Instead, the haste of his departure was as rushed as the cancellation of Celebrity Wrestling, and from the tone of BBC reports on the night, achieved nearly as much grace.

There's lots of coverage in the papers today.  The FT have no fewer than 7 stories on the issue, including a leader column in which it describes the move as a "serious setback" for the beeb.

The Times takes a different line:

Michael Grade’s “defection” from the BBC to ITV has been treated in some quarters (not least sections of the BBC itself) as if it were the moral equivalent of Sir Alex Ferguson abandoning Manchester United for Chelsea. If there is an analogy with football here, it would be a switch to Everton — a club that was highly successful two decades ago, but which, with all due respect, cannot be compared with Manchester United now.

The Times - 29th November 2006

However, with News International only last week acquiring a 20% stake in ITV, making it the largest shareholder, and with the Times also being owned by News International, how certain should we be to trust their judgement on this matter?

Also in today's news

• Sarah Ludford and other MEPs condemn Britain's role in torture flights in The Guardian.
  
• Don Foster MP comments on the hurried departure of Michael Grade to ITV in The Guardian.
• Tania Branigan has written a piece, also in The Guardian on the latest party funding figures from the Electoral Commission which reveal that Labour have £23.4m of loans - of which they must repay £11 in 12 months time.  The Conservatives have £35.3m of loans and need to repay £20m by July (though the Conservative figures are somewhat distorted by their purchase of their famous Smith Square premises) and the Lib Dems owe £1.1m.

Women are in the in the papers today.  Whether its Polly Toynbee being more of an inspiration to Cameron than Churchill (The Guardian); Tories selecting some female A-listers (The Telegraph); women drivers obeying the rules of the road (The Times); or this piece in the Guardian about what women want from their politics.  As Indra Adnan explains:

As a feminist, I want to see more women in positions of power. But in order to create the conditions for more feminine politics, in which more women can feel free to express their difference rather than be pressured to compete on masculine terms, I consider the "soft" new politics to be crucial.

Indra Adnan, The Guardian

David Cameron is doing well in the polls and disproportionately well with women (see poll below). Gordon Brown will undoubtedly struggle to project a soft image.  One doesn't have to agree with Adnan's conclusion, that Hilary Benn has the perfect soft skills, to agree with her that Labour shouldn't be looking for John Prescott II as their next deputy leader.

Also in today's news

• Guardian/ICM poll Lab 32% (+3); Con 37% (-2); Lib Dem 22 (no change).  Report here and comment here
  
• Don Foster hits out at the soaring Olympic costs in The Telegraph.

Lord (Maurice) Saatchi has let out a cry for more ideology in his pamphlet launched today called "In Praise of Ideology".  There are (currently) scant details on the Centre for Policy Studies website, but the Telegraph have clearly been given a copy.  They quote a section about the centre ground:

"The myth grew and grew until it achieved the level of a dinner party platitude in London and New York, as in the popular injunction: You can only win elections from the Centre-ground. Even the Conservative Party succumbed. Hurt by long years of condemnation for ice-cold brutishness, and anxious to avoid contamination with the 'Spectre of Thatcherism', it attempted to shed its 'nasty' image with a simple move from Right to Left,"

In Praise of Ideology, quoted in The Telegraph

CentreForum has never sought to be a centre-ground think tank, instead boasting its liberal roots. However, its always interesting to read the work of other think tanks, especially when they talk about what is perceived as your own area.

Unfortunately, though we'll have to wait for the official launch before we see the full picture.

Also in today's news

• The child protection debate has broadened following the comments from the Chief Constable for Dyfed-Powys.  Lib Dem Roger Williams considers his comments as "unhelpful".  "The law is quite clear that having sex with somebody under 16 is an offence. By bringing doubt into the issue, I don't think he has helped the issue and he has made it less clear," he goes on to say in The Telegraph.
• The Times suggests that Sir Michael Lyons' report on the future of local government finances are to be delayed making it "the fourth time that ministers have ducked the issue since the first review into town hall finances was set up in 2003"

• The Telegraph is one of several that have been reviewing the impact of so-called 24 hour drinking a year after it was introduced.  A pleasing change in policy that seems to have contributed to a 14% drop in Grevious bodily harm and 11% in Actual bodily harm.
• Maybe another policy initiative reported in The Financial Times, to promote the use of bio-fuels by reforming the way they are taxed, could have an equally benign effect on behaviour.
  

'Tis the season for the new James Bond film.  Unlike other seasons that have become divisive (see the Christians getting upset with Winterville etc etc) the release of another dose of rather silly, chauvinistic, shaken-not-stirred entertainment can unite all Brits, or all British men; at least according to Ben Macintyre in today's Times.

"...the appeal of Bond is global, but in order to be both shaken and stirred by Bond (OK, that’s the last of the catchphrases) it helps to be British, male and slightly naff: interested in gizmos, sex without commitment, saving the world, clunking double-entendres, fast cars, drink, ironic self-mockery and, above all, embracing a particular sort of loneliness."

Ben Macintyre - The Times

On FreeThink we've been following many stories about British identity - a process that started with last year's Keynes Forum.  This analogy is quite entertaining, and whilst lacking the intellectual rigour that some would seek, does speak to some truths about British men.  He goes on to say:

Bond is the opposite of most British men. Where most of us are tongue-tied, sexually timid, ill-dressed, unfit, gentle, defined by friendships and family and generally anxious, he is violent, smooth, empty and supremely fatalistic. Nothing that happens surprises him; British men are, on the whole, allergic to surprises.

British males love him not because we really want to be like him, but because we know we never will be: the Bond model fulfils a sense of irony that is far more British, and fits us much better, than any Savile Row suit. British men and their sons will enjoy Bond together, forever, because he is not really British at all.

What a dissapointment.  We come together not to see ourselves reflected in the movies, but to laugh at the idea that we ever could.  I suppose we can live with it, but no doubt we will be hoping on this one that the world doesn't share our over developed sense of irony and conspires not quite to get the joke.

Jamie Whyte in the Times today makes a provocative case for political apathy. 

Democracy is required to defend our liberty and prosperity. When the people cannot remove a government, it is sure to descend into despotism, corruption and inefficiency. But we should not confuse our love of democracy with a love of voting and other forms of political engagement. Political engagement is worthwhile only when there are political problems.

Jamie Whyte - The Times

Also in today's news...

• Ultra-low turnouts in recent NHS trust elections have been put under the spotlight by Lib Dem health spokesperson, Steve Webb.

"These figures show Tony Blair's pledge to put local people in charge of his new foundation hospitals is just another New Labour sham," he said. "How can the Government claim that the health concerns of millions of people are being properly represented when only a tiny handful of people vote in these elections?"

The Telegraph

• The Arch-Bishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gets wide coverage for his interview where he complains about BBC bias - something our friends at 18 Doughty Street will be interested. 

• The 'big beasts' of contemporary politics lock horns over terror in most papers - but the FT do quite a good job of outlining the contenders.  Morland's cartoon in The Times sums up the issue most succinctly.
  

After tax, and the Green Switch, the Lib Dems open up a new policy/campaign front - this time the enemy is legislature itself. The Independent gives the story some coverage.  BBC online previewed it yesterday.

Also in today's news

• Ed Davey is preparing for an Autumn 07 election, according to a leaked report obtained by the BBC.
  
• Curious piece in The Daily Telegraph today (they so often are) from Annunziata Rees-Mogg who was recently selected to fight Somerton and Frome.  From her article its difficult to discern the fact that the seat is currently held by David Heath,  a Lib Dem - but that may be deliberate. 
  
• The FT takes a look backwards at the seven times since the second world war when the American electorate has voted out a President's majority in Congress - and whether we can expect greater participation or greater hostility.
  

The passage of the Marshall Plan in 1948, President Reagan’s dialogue with Mikhail Gorbachev in the last two years of his term, and President Clinton’s co-operation with congressional leaders to extend financial support to Mexico after the 1994 elections, provide examples of where the long view prevailed over short-term advantage.

The Financial Times

The Democrats took the house and might even take the Senate.  Coverage everywhere.  But who are the new Democrats who have won, and what sort of philosophy do they draw on?

There are some interesting 'Conservative Democrat' blogs (here and here) worth investigating, and the New York Times previewed the profile of many Conservative Democrat candidates on 30th October:

Collectively, [conservative democrats] could tilt the balance of power within the party, which has been struggling to define itself in recent elections. The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues; some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, some are the reverse. They could influence negotiations with Republicans on a variety of issues, including Social Security and stem cell research.

New York Times (requires free subscription)

Also in today's news

• Sacked or resigned?  The Tories have troubles with non-white, non-middle class candidates as reported in The Guardian and The Telegraph.
• John Reid has addressed shortcomings in the probation service in The Independent.  Not much detail - but offers vague hope for those wanting to see much greater reform in our penal system.
  

Arch right-winger, Danniel Hannan is often regarded as a rabid neo-con outrider. His piece in today's Telegraph gives ample justification for this.  Along with his rather lazy attitude to basing his arguments on facts – much of his opinion is equally misplaced.

However, in the same article, he raises some more interesting points apposite to the CentreForum Middle East conference on Saturday. 

He then states that:

"The 1979 Iranian Revolution will one day be seen as an epochal event, on a par with the 1789 French Revolution and the 1917 Russian Revolution. Like them, it immediately burst out from behind its borders, seeking to replicate itself across the world. Before 1979, it would not have occurred to most Muslims that there might be a tension between their religious devotion and their civic loyalty. Today, that notion is becoming commonplace."

Danniel Hannan – The Telegraph

This intriguing interpretation is attractive – and one that he believes explains why some first and second generation Muslim men are less patriotic than their parents.  He also suggests that the fracturing of ‘British’ identity into ‘the four constituent nations’ leaves people who can’t identify Scottish or English routes rootless.

Mr Hannan’s remedies are as predictable as they are un-interesting (pulling out of the EU and ending ‘squalor of welfare dependency’.)  But that’s not to say that his initial observations are necessarily misguided.  

Also in the news today:

• http://www.electoral-vote.com/ – Dem 50, Rep 50 – New Jersey is looking safer for the Democrats again despite the massive media-buy the Republicans have lavished on the state.  Tennessee is looking more distant for them.

Few would disagree that the Iraq war is amongst the most pressing political issues facing Britain and its political leaders today. It therefore seems remarkable that the government has succeeded in avoiding debate and even more significantly any form of vote on the issue since before hostilities began. Today, a SNP-Plaid Cymru motion calls for a full review into the way the government's responsibilities were discharged in relation to Iraq before military action and afterwards.

The Independent reports:

• Alex Salmond leader of SNP said "This is an opportunity for the House of Commons to bring to account a government which has led us into this bloody quagmire."
• ‘The suggestion of any investigation is being fiercely opposed by Downing Street, which argues that it would undermine the British forces and give succour to Iraqi insurgents.’

This vote raises some fascinating issues about party political policy towards Iraq and the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account on matters of foreign policy.

Brown, Cameron and Cambell have each acknowledged that the March 2003 Commons vote has established a de facto precedent that in the future will compel governments to consult Parliament before committing British troops to a major military campaign. However, this reinforcement of Parliamentary authority is devalued if MPs are subsequently prevented from holding the government to account for the conduct of military operations.

The Liberal Democrats have enthusiastically supported the motion, Michael Moore, foreign affairs spokesman, called on the Government to follow the lead of the White House, which has established the Baker review into the situation in Iraq. "This is an important debate which ought to be the starting point for government accountability on Iraq," he said. "It is unacceptable that the Government has not allotted time to debate this important issue for over two years and that we have had to rely on an opposition day debate before MPs can discuss this in Parliament."

Despite a likely rebellion from a number of Labour MPs, the government seems confident that it will not be defeated in today’s vote. The motion poses the greatest test to the Conservatives who seem utterly bemused about where they should position themselves on Iraq. William Hague, called for a probe similar to the Franks inquiry into the Falklands that would focus on the lead up to the war, thus dodging any accusations that the Tories do not support British troops. Yet, he has also warned that his party may vote with the rebels and the Lib Dems today but rather cryptically added “We are not asking for such an inquiry to be established immediately, only that one will be established eventually.”

The Iraq War and its political consequences will be discussed at the KeynesForum Conference on Britain and the Middle East this Saturday. Places are still available, please contact info@centreforum.org.

Also in todays news

• The fall-out from the Stern report on Climate Change dominates todays news agenda. The Financial Times notes how remarkably the political climate could not be more benign. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are committed to raising taxation in order to deal with climate change.
• David Cameron has called for more uniformity over coming of age, by standardising the age at which different rights and responsibilities, such as driving/voting/marriage are conferred. But as the Guardian reports he may still be struggling with the youth vote, as one young member of the audience announced his thoughts on Cameron, "You do not know your arse from your elbow, you bastard."

The political zeitgeist is certainly with those who are arguing for more action on safeguarding the environment.  Sir Nicholas Stern, a Chief Economist at the World Bank, is publishing today his weighty report on the likely economic impact of climate change.

"The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.

It warns that if no action is taken:

• Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people
• Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population

• Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct
• Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees'"
  BBC News

At a recent CentreForum event, Peter Riddell and Polly Toynbee were asked what they thought Gordon Brown's "Independence of the Bank of England" moment would be - i.e. the un/planned announcement that signals a new change of direction at the top when he takes on the new job of PM.  Both Riddell and Toynbee looked towards constitutional changes such as voting reform.

However, will Gordon sense the direction of travel on this issue and take on the implications of this report as his "Bank of England" moment?

He's hardly known for his environmental credentials, and green taxes have fallen as an already small proportion of tax take every year since the fuel protests.

However, he did commission Sir Nicholas in the first place - and Gordon's never been very actively associated with electoral reform either!

Also in today's news

• Scotland's voting systems are "a world-beating mess that only mass boredom with the intricacies of democracy, inflicted by too many Liberal Democrat party broadcasts over the years, prevents us from recognising as absurdity." A rather jaundiced view of recent Scottish electoral reform." according to Peter Preston in The Guardian.
  
• "The Liberal Democrats may be forced to hand back £2.4 million donation" The Independent and the BBC cover the story.
• www.electoral-vote.com - Senate Dem 48 Rep 51 Tied 1
  A political mess in New Jersey isn't helping the Democrat's prospects of gaining the Senate.  The latest poll puts the Republicans in this crucial seat which would see them gaining this normally rock-solid Democrat state.
  

Government proposals have been met with a warmer welcome than the Local Government White Paper.  Many have also been greeted with more outraged cries.

The FT outlines the mixed reaction from lukewarm to wearied disappointment - whereas the Guardian Leader manages to get more worked up:

"Yesterday's white paper contained some worthwhile ideas, but was silent on so much that it is most unlikely to rescue councils from the anonymity and obscurity to which they have been consigned by decades of centralisation under governments of both stripes."

Considering the many ideas that have been floated around for so long (see our Local Heroes debate) people should be more angry by the half-baked proposals here.  Local Government needs a radical make-over.  With its further proposals for stronger (and longer lasting) council leaders - what is presented here is more a completion of the reforms Labour proposed in 2000.

Why rush these minor reforms through now, instead of waiting for Sir Michael Lyons' review of finance and treat the whole thing as one?  Has real progress been blocked so that, as the Guardian suggests, the Chancellor can put more of his own vision onto Local Government when he takes control as a future PM?

• Lab 32 (+1), Con 39(+1), Lib Dem 16(-2)
  Poll in the Telegraph - Also audio commentary from Anthony King available.
• Israsel: a nation under siege in depth report from John Kampfner in the New Statesman.
  
• www.electoral-vote.com says the Senate is still looking like a 49-51 balance with New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia eye-wateringly close.
  
• Oh - and Belinda Oaten has written the most appaling open letter to Celeste Barker possible in the Daily Mail.