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.
  

I was reminded yesterday about how fascinatingly dense American politics is.  European eyes may swivel at the amount of money spent in US elections, and the extent of the political campaigning industry it supports, but with so many public servants subject to direct elections this is hardly surprising.

www.electoral-vote.com is a fantastic site that concentrates on the senate and major house races by doing a daily summation of that days independent opinion polls.

At the moment Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia all perilously close - but just in the Republicans camp.  With an overall prediction at the moment of 49Dem 51Rep such tight races could really make a difference.  Also worth while checking out is what's happened to the deselected Joe Liebermann in Connecticut (a strong lead in the polls that has narrowed only slightly since a new Democrat took over) and the story behind what's happening in Tom Delay's Texas-22 district now he's stand down with his name still on the ballot paper.

Also in the news

• Leo McKinstry foams against Richmond's decision (blogged on yesterday) in The Telegraph
  Though presented as an environmental measure, in truth this is little more than an act of class war against the affluent. It is a form of megalomania by the council to try to dictate patterns of car ownership within its boundaries.
  The Guardian leader seems to be coming from another angle!
  
• The Independent have a PA report on the Local Government White Paper - with the rather generous headline "Kelly to give local councils a bigger say"  More on this tomorrow.
• Peter Riddell in The Times gives his own version of the read-the-polls-with-a-pinch-of-salt story.
  

Its rare that a Lib Dem council proposal (or any other party - come to that) captures the headlines in the way that Richmond Upon Thames has done today.

Richmond's 4x4 parking charge story was the lead story on bulletin's throughout the Today programme this morning (though the 7:40 slot it managed isn't as good as the coveted 8:10 slot)

The local council's story nicely symbolises the national debate with both the Lib Dems and Conservatives claiming to be 'greener than thou' but with the Lib Dems proposing firmer policy measures to back it up.

The Independent have been quickest to pick up on the BBC's "scoop"

(As a councillor in Camden I'm very jealous as we're working up similar proposals and feel scooped by colleagues who were a bit quicker off the mark!)

Also in today's news

• Lab 29 (-3), Con 39 (+3), Lib Dem 22 (no change)
  The Guardian's ICM poll puts Labour at "lowest point since 1987.
  Also on the Guardian is Julian Glover's analysis.
• Our mildest autumn: so what's the Fall out
  The Telegraph skips through the effects of the very warm October we're having; revealing such nuggests as "feta cheese sales are 23% up on last year"

Amid the media frenzy over Margaret Beckett’s admission that history may not look kindly on the invasion of Iraq,

Financial Times, Times, Telegraph. Simon Tisdall had an interesting piece in the Guardian discussing the implications of federalism for Iraq, as the Iraqi parliament debates a bill that would partition the country into its three main regions. Given that the three regions were initially cobbled together by the British for the purposes of Empire, it is unsurprising that there is a move towards re-division, particularly on the Kurdish side. However, as Tisdall points out,  such a course of action is as fraught with danger as any of the political options open to Iraq.

“…two basic facts have not changed since Saddam Hussein's downfall. One is that any national Iraqi government, if it is to survive the withdrawal of coalition forces, will have to concede a significant degree of autonomy or self-rule to the country's three principal communities - Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.

The other is that giving physical and territorial shape to these prospective federal arrangements is fraught with existential danger. Without agreement on power-sharing, minority rights, borders, and crucially, resources, the creation of federal regions, as allowed by the new constitution, could irresistibly lead to further partition and sub-partition, secession, and the eventual fragmentation of Iraq into a mosaic of opposed and warring factions.”

Simon Tisdall – The Guardian

In the Independent- Sir Menzies Campbell called (again) for a new strategy on Iraq, listing six key elements and emphasizing the importance of engagement with the UN on this issue. - “New Strategy must come through the UN.”

Also in today’s news

Following up on previous blog posts, we have:

More on opinion polls in the Independent: 

“How much faith should we have in political opinion polls?”– Sean O’Grady

“Tories regain poll lead over Labour” – Colin Brown & Andy McSmith

More on the lack of prison spaces – this time for young offenders – also in the Independent:

“Custody spaces run out for young offenders” – James Watson

More on society’s fear of, and lack of engagement with young people:
 

“Lend an ear to what hoodies need” – Andrew O’Hagan, Telegraph

A string of polls today makes interesting reading for the budding psephologist.

Firstly a Ipsos MORI poll for the FT suggests that Cameron is gradually losing support.

"David Cameron has suffered a sharp drop in public approval ratings since becoming the UK’s Conservative leader, mirroring the slide in popularity suffered by his predecessors who took the party to three successive general election defeats, an opinion poll for the FT has shown."

Jean Eaglesham - The Financial Times

The Times publishes its Populus poll which shows voters preferring a Brown premiership to a Cameron one by a substantial margin.

"Asked whom they [swing voters] would prefer to be the next prime minister, putting aside party preferences, 51 per cent opted for Mr Brown, and 24 per cent for Mr Cameron, with 17 per cent saying they favoured them both equally. More see Mr Brown as “strong” and as having more “substance”. The interviewees put the pair neck-and-neck on whether they understand ordinary life and have integrity."

Philip Webster - The Times

The most interesting set of figures though comes from our cousins in IPPR.  Their study "Freedom's Orphans: Raising Youth in a Changing World" which is not yet published, points out that Britons are far less likely to intervene in Anti-Social behaviour that our European neighbours.

"The study finds that 65% of Germans, 52% of Spanish and 50% of Italians would be willing to intervene if they saw a group of 14-year-old boys vandalising a bus shelter - but just 34% of Britons would be willing to do the same. Thirty-nine per cent of Britons would avoid a confrontation for fear of physical attack."

Paul Lewis - The Guardian

IPPR also say there is a direct relationship between the take-up of structured activities for young people and the likelihood to stay out of trouble.  This surely has implications on our comments last week about the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill which will clear its remaining parliamentary stages today.

Regular readers will know that we're very excited about the Britain and the Broader Middle East conference for which six speakers are jetting in from the region to address key issues about how Middle East issues affect UK policy.
The Spectator today poses some interesting questions about how divisions in Cameron's Conservatives might be re-born by Middle East issues in general and Iran in particular.

Cameron is surrounded by hawkish neo-cons (Osbourne, Gove, Hague and Fox). But the Spectator suggests, with some justification, that Cameron is more open minded.  Therefore having to pick sides as new Foreign Policy situations arise could prove more tricky...

"If Blair and Brown were both to start declaring that the military option was definitely on the table when it came to dealing with Iran, the press would pepper Cameron with questions about whether he agreed or not. Sir Menzies Campbell would challenge Cameron to join him in ruling out a strike. If the Conservatives refused to do so, it would allow the Liberal Democrats to win back many of the affluent, southern voters whom Cameron has wooed so assiduously since becoming leader. Yet, equally, if Cameron were to set himself against the possibility of military action against Iran, it would place his closest lieutenant, George Osborne, in an extremely awkward position. Osborne is an unapologetic hawk and Bush supporter. A book review he wrote for The Spectator in 2003 stressed the ‘powerful lesson’ Bush had to offer British Conservatives. Read with the benefit of hindsight, it can be seen as laying out the road map that the Cameroons have followed these past 12 months."

James Forsyth - The Spectator (Full article requires logging on but subscription is free)

At the CentreForum conference Professor Karma Nabulsi, a member of the PLO from 1977-90 and a Palestinian advisor to the peace talks in Washington from 1991-1993 will debate how Palestine and Israel will look in 5 years time with Ha'aretz commentator, Daniel Ben Simon. 

If the UK Conservative Party is prone to being buffeted by outside pressures - one can only imagine how such pressures will play in the region itself.

Tax is still head-lining the opposition parties' policy agendas.    Predictably, the FT goes into greatest depth (unless you go to the Conservative's website itself to read the whole thing). 

Even the FT likes to jazz up the story with a process piece about the material being released onto the Conservative's website too early, allowing Ed Balls to get his rebuttal in before the report had even been launched; The Independent focus's on David Cameron's presentation of the piece ("Cameron rejects party's call for £21bn package of tax cuts")

However, The Times manages to get everything into the one story:

"The detailed 176-page study, which was accidentally put on the party’s website the day before it was due to be published, shatters the Conservatives’ uneasy truce on taxation.

The party leadership has been rejecting calls from rightwingers for tax cuts in order to shed the party’s image of being obsessed with the issue and to re-establish its economic credibility. Fears about Conservative tax policies have cost the party dearly in the past two elections."

Anthony Browne - The Times

Also in today's news

• "Mystery over slurring Charlie" - The Sun
  Also covered in The Telegraph and The Mirror

• PMQs sketch - The Telegraph:
  "as far as Iraq is concerned, it is the Ming emperor who holds the moral high ground. Not for nothing has he spent the greater part of his life, after youthful frolics as an Olympic athlete, among the mandarins of the Foreign Office, joining them in their rapt contemplation of the higher truths of international relations.

  
  "These truths include the inadvisability of invading sovereign countries, even when they happen to be run by very nasty people. Mr Blair had no time whatever for the wisdom of the mandarins, which stood between him and his mission to make Mesopotamia a paradise on earth."
  

The Protecting Vulnerable Groups Bill is set to be debated and approved on Monday. 

Liberals have spoken up for some controversial issues lately - but is anyone else going to question the way in which we are regulating out of existance adult/child relationships?

The FreeThink discussion is awaiting comment here.

The Times reports today, “The Defence Select Committee, which has a majority of Labour MPs, is to begin a second inquiry on the case for replacing Trident, having accused the Ministry of Defence of failing to participate in its first such exercise this year.” MPs from both sides of the debate are concerned that the Government is determined to allow discussion only once a decision has been made. “Opponents of replacing Trident, say Mr Blair’s plan for a Cabinet decision first, followed by a White Paper setting out the Government’s recommendation to Parliament, would pre-empt the promised debate.”

            Messrs Blair and Brown have made it clear they support the replacement of Trident but the Prime Minister also pledged a full public debate on the issue, which is the very least that such a divisive and expensive project demands. However, MPs are right to be concerned that the discussion looks set to be conducted in the media rather than in Parliament.  Regardless of the specific arguments  surrounding Trident, which have been further complicated by North Korea’s recent nuclear tests (and which will be discussed in a forthcoming CentreForum pamphlet),  failure by the government to co-operate with the Defence Select Committee would represent a unacceptable stifling of debate amongst our elected officials.

 Pressure mounts for decision on nuclear deterrent By Greg Hurst – The Times

Also in today’s news:

• MPs Warn on School Failings

Nearly one million children in England attend schools that provide a "poor standard of education", the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee has warned.

• ‘Even Muslims Look at Me’

The Guardian’s Zaiba Malik provides insight of a day spent behind the veil.

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill hasn't recieved much attention yet - but is something of which liberals should be wary.  The child protection industry has vetted over 10 million individual cases.  Adult/child interactions are now subject to intense scrutiny and are changing the culture of how children view adults.

A rather eclectic group of people (including myself) have written in the Times today:

"...Such child protection procedures do little to protect children from the small number of individuals who would do them harm. Instead, they damage adult-child relations and undermine the capacity of adults to contribute to children’s welfare...

Children become a “no-go” area: local sports teams and youth groups are struggling to find volunteers; some teachers are scared to put a plaster on a child’s knee; and there are worrying cases of adults passing by injured or endangered children. We call for a more rational approach to adult-child interactions."

Letter - The Times

More on this issue, including a full report, is available here.

Also in today's news

• Challenge to repay £2.4m - The Times
  Labour challenges the Lib Dems over Brown loans
  
• Army chief still facing political attacks - The Financial Times
  "He may be accurate in what he said, he may be cheered to the echo in the army, but he certainly shouldn't have said it," says Paddy Ashdown
• Lib Dems urge Kelly to drop equalities brief - The Guardian
  The Liberal Democrats yesterday urged Ruth Kelly to give up her responsibility for equalities, claiming her personal beliefs were incompatible with defending gay rights.
  

General Sir Richard Dannatt made some perfectly sensible comments in the Daily Mail and on the Today programme this morning.  Only thing is... I'm sure the generals in Thailand has some perfectly sensible ideas that they tried to express.  They eventually did this by replacing the elected government with the military's own particular form of direct action.

Yes, Prime Minister has many lessons for any observer of the political world. Every episode was instantly quotable but none more so than the time Sir Arnold, the grand wizard of the Civil Service, advised Sir Humphrey about Politicians' Logic.  It goes like this: All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs; therefore my cat is a dog. Politicians, Sir Humphrey translated, think: Something must  be done about this problem; this is something; therefore we must do it.

Politicians' Logic is even more prevalent when analysing the causes of problems - such as explaining why our prisons are full.  Much of the comment has been about the impact of tougher sentences, the rise in violent crime and tabloid campaigns to let the punishment fit the crime.

The Economist - whilst acknowledging all these factors - reminds us of one devastatingly simple reason that the Government ought to be crowing about:

"One reason the prisons are full is that there are more police officers—141,000, compared with 122,000 in 2000. They can now go after crimes that are hard to crack but attract long sentences, such as drug-trafficking."

The Economist

That part of the cause is rather obvious when you think about it - and could be presented as a great success to be trumpeted loudly by Ministers.  However, to be wholly logical the Government should also have anticipated such a rise, especially as their own departments predicted it quite accurately.  Maybe then, Ministers would rather keep quiet and hope people's attention drifts elsewhere.

Some of the grandest fromages of the political blogging world are about to launch their new vehicle in order to opine to the world.

Doughty TV is the rather odd name for a new internet video chanel that promised 4 hours of original programming a night.

The blogging world will no doubt take an active interest.  Can they produce the same magic that worked so well for Conservative Home and YouGov?

Unlike Conservative Home - which was expressly linked to one political philosophy and one political party – Doughty TV's (stated) political purpose is much grander.  Even their name is as politically neutral as it be.  Named after nothing more than the address from which much of the output will be filmed. 

Their main enemy is the Media Establishment itself. Like the shock jocks of the USA, they want to change the tone of political debate.

Its an interesting proposition - and you can see why it is so attractive to the right wingers who are behind it.

Their main bug bears can be seen from their chosen graphic (above) which, in the words of Tim Montgomerie "More than anything else, it summarises - for me - what 18DoughtyStreet Talk TV stands for."

As you can see - the plucky hero, at home in a green and pleasant land, takes aim at the Iron Men (the UN/EU, The BBC and Consensus Politics) that threaten to crush him, with the aid of some pretty nifty satellite technology.

However, my Iron men would have different labels on the front.  The 27 minute slot; soundbite culture, Ya-Boo politics and Westminster centric outlook are all equally establishment and equally pernicious, if not more so.

Whilst tilting at their particular windmills I wonder how long they will be able to carry frustrated politicos of other political persuasions with them.  By framing the Media Establishment’s ills so narrowly, how long will they keep the liberals and left-wingers watching?

For a few alternative views - check out Dave Hill and Doughty TV itself.

   Widely reported today was the formal unveiling of the Conservative party’s proposal of an independent board for the National Health Service. Mr Cameron, speaking alongside his health spokesman Andrew Lansley, insisted it was time to “move away from the idea that the Government's role is to micro-manage the delivery of health care and moving towards greater professional responsibility for those who work in the NHS."

   The reception for Cameron’s first concrete policy proposal since promising to make the NHS his priority at the party conference has been encouraging. Rosie Winterton, minister of state for health, said that the idea was "worth looking at". The Telegraph noticed it “sounded uncannily like the plan put forward by Gordon Brown only a few weeks before.”

   However, Steve Webb the Liberal Democrat Health spokesman has joined other experts in questioning the wisdom of introducing an extra level of bureaucracy that is devoid of accountability. He is quoted in the Financial Times: "We should not be handing power over to an unelected quango - independent of politicians, but accountable to no one,"

     Many people would agree with the sentiment that politicians should be less involved with the day to day running of NHS, which is best left up to the health professionals who understand these challenges, through a lifetime of working within the system. Yet Steve Webb is absolutely correct to question whether Cameron’s proposal (or Brown’s before it)  is the best means to facilitate this administrative shift.

Mary Dejevsky offers some disturbing conclusions about recent European election results in the Independent. Close scrutiny of polls in Belgium, Sweden and Austria suggest that far right movements are gaining traction at the expense of those  political parties rooted in the prevailing consensus of centre ground appeal.

            Dejevsky asks if Cameron’s efforts to reposition the Conservatives on the terrain mapped out by Blair may be an example of "generals planning for the battle they have just fought rather than the real battle that lies ahead?"

            Austria’s election ten days ago resulted in a defeat for the Centre-Right government of Wolfgang Schussell and is likely to produce a grand coalition of the main parties led by the Social Democrats. Surely an encouraging result for all European liberals who remember the rise of Jorg Haider’s Neo-Fascist Freedom party to a power sharing  coalition with Schussell in 2000. Unfortunately, Dejevsky points out that the greatest winners in percentage terms were in fact Haider’s heirs.

            “The reason that Mr Schussell is no longer Chancellor is that his centre–right government was not far enough right for many of its former supporters… And - lest there be any confusion – their electoral appeal resided on one thing: hostility to immigration… The combined message is disturbing. It is that the issues clustered around immigration, Islam and cultural difference are issues on which people are voting.

            By hewing with such determination to the centre ground, Mr Cameron may be missing the evidence from Europe that shows the political centre ground is moving.”

Mary Dejevsky - The Independent

            It is important to recognise these alarming trends in the mood of European voters reflected in the governments or more commonly the local councillors that they choose. But Dejevsky is also correct to emphasise that the far right remains on the fringe of political power. To do otherwise is to contribute  to the scaremongering favoured by the very movements we deplore and perpetuate the myth of an impending clash of civilisations. Michael Howard’s tactics at the last General Election revealed that in the most part “We are not thinking what right-wing politicians are thinking” on issues such as  immigration. The focus of sections of the media and in recent weeks from senior politicians such as Jack Straw and John Reid upon the issues of immigration, Islam and community divisions, risks whipping up a cultural and potentially an electoral crisis which is in no way inevitable. In this respect, Cameron’s arrival in the centre ground is wholly welcomed.

Madeleine Bunting of Demos raises some well considered points (and less well considered) in opposition to Jack Straw's viewsabout the veil. 

Describing a childhood trip a convent she says:

"we talked to the gentle, warm mother superior through the bars of a grille that symbolised their retreat from the world. No one accused these nuns of "rejecting the values of liberal democracy" - yet they were co-religionists of the IRA terrorists of their time.

The point is that within all religious traditions there are trends emphasising the corrupting influences of the world and how one must keep them at a distance. Catholicism and the celibate monastic tradition of Buddhism interpret this in one way. Salafi Islam interprets it in modes of dress and behaviour in public places. Since when has secular Britain become so intolerant that it can't accommodate (no one is asking them to like) these small minorities of puritanical piety?"

Madeleine Bunting - The Guardian

The sheer volume of current Islam vs West (or The Pious vs The Secular) stories must at some point lead to a greater political expression of this tension.  John Prescott and others spoke out against Straw's position at the weekend.  Prescott was giving the oficial Labour line and Cameron will avoid this issue like the plague.

Robert Kilroy Silk, during his short-lived revival of his political career is one of the few people who spoke directly to these concerns.  He modelled some parts of his platform on Pim Fortuyn's "defence of liberal values" platform that sought to counter Islam's influence in Europe.  Merficully few others have built on this legacy.  Now the UK tabloids are now falling over themselves to publish polls showing support for Straw's comments.  How long will it be till others pick up and run with this agenda?

As a young liberal throughout the 1990s and the fiercer days of Conservative dogma (think of Michael Portillo's SAS speech and Michael Howard's Prison Works) it was always comforting to look to neighbouring countries and see plucky European countries that were able to negotiate their politics without the macho posturing that led almost directly to illiberal measures.

It is therefore disconcerting when the political systems that have historically inspired so much trust come out with some rather alarming results.  The local elections in Belgium are one such cause for alarm.

As outlined in The Independent and others today, the a new kind of far right is emerging that seeks to use a misunderstood form of liberal values as a recruiting sergeant.

" The success of the far-right party ­ which has appealed to Jewish voters to become allies against Islamic fundamentalism ­ has polarised Belgium."

Stephen Castle - The Independent

One of the problems in Belgium is that everyone is compelled to vote.  Democrats who are generally obsessive about democratic procedures are generally supportive of compulsory voting.  Liberals should be more sceptical.  It is natural that the state and politicians believe that all citizens should pursue an active interest in who governs them.  However, that is not the case.  By compelling people to vote you force the expression of views that otherwise wouldn't find much traction.  A similar ugly by-product of compulsory voting could be seen in the UK if we press adopted such a measure.

People who talk about the north/south divide generally irritate me - mostly because I grew up in the Midlands.  Positioning yourself in the north/south axis for a midlander is similar to being a second generation immigrant - caught between two communities - neither of whom accept you as a true member of their community.

This is the second time this week I've picked out the north/south divide from the newspapers.  The Tories after all have a big north/south divide of their own.

The FT try giving their take on how Cameron's message is playing with the voters of Cheadle Hulme today.  Cheadle is hardly typical of many places north of Watford Gap.  Indeed, the houses, streets and incomes would fit many a southern county.  However, Cameron seems to be struggling with the same demographic that he is succeeding with further south.  Maybe you need more regular acquaintance with the sunshine to get him.

"If the Tories are to put down fresh roots in the Conservative desert that is the metropolitan north of England David Cameron will have to win back well-heeled towns such as Cheadle Hulme on Manchester's affluent fringes.

The Liberal Democrats have cemented their hold since they took the constituency by just 33 votes in 2001, and the views expressed by local voters before yesterday's speech gave a measure of the ground Mr Cameron still has to make up - despite a campaign aimed at presenting him as the energetic and environmentally friendly new face of a venerable party."

James Wilson - Financial Times