Away from the donor scandal encircling British politics, 49 countries and organisations are meeting in Maryland in an attempt to re-invigorate the Middle-East peace process. Opinion on the significance of the conference varies.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post sees grounds for hope:

For starters, the document commits the parties to begin negotiations on a peace treaty "resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception." The text unfortunately doesn't specify what these unmentionables are, but negotiators understand that it does mean the two deal-breakers: Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The prayers of Israelis that they wouldn't have to talk about Jerusalem, and of Palestinians that they wouldn't have to discuss the right of return, have not been answered.

The most contentious passage was the last paragraph, which concluded that "implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States." The Israelis won an important concession here, in the understanding that a treaty won't happen unless there is security on the ground, as the road map mandates. But they gave up something important, too, in specifying that America will decide whether the road map conditions are being met.

The New York Times editorial also takes an optimistic line. Nonetheless, profound challenges remain, and as Gideon Rachman points out, the record of Middle East peace summits is almost uniformly one of failure.

Last time I visited Jerusalem, I sat down with a colleague and tried to see how many Middle East peace plans and conferences we could list. Within a couple of minutes we had scribbled down Venice, Madrid, Oslo, Camp David I, Camp David II, Taba, the Rogers plan, the Annan plan, the Reagan plan, the Tenet plan, the Saudi plan, the Mitchell report, the Geneva accord and the road map.

Nonetheless, with moderate arab states concerned about Iran's regional ambitions, and with President Bush desperate for a legacy in the Middle East which is not related to Iraq, could Annapolis offer a new hope?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in US politics, Karl Rove ludicrously claims that the Bush administration was rushed into war by the US Congress. For a full debunking of this outrageous re-writing of history, watch Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington here: 'The reason it was untold is because its untrue'.

Its always interesting to compare the opinions of different commentators from different papers on the same story.

Today we get to compare and contrast responses to the Government's current difficulties.  The writers are Bruce Anderson - a Tory writing in The Independent, Jackie Ashley an old lefty in The Guardian and Time Hames, who is quite keen on the Lib Dems.

Bruce Anderson is also clear that the Government is in trouble and things are likely to get worse before they get better.  He wonders why the Tories are therefore not doing much better.

The voters do not know enough about [Cameron's] beliefs and his philosophy of government. It will not be enough for Mr Cameron to assert that his administration will be much more competent than Gordon Brown's. Unless he gives disillusioned voters grounds to believe in him, they might just wish a plague on both your parties.

Cameron must do more to get his message across, even as the Government flounders - Bruce Anderson - The Independent

The depth of Labour's current problems is put most eloquently by Jackie Ashley:

Once utterly loyal Brownite backbenchers, senior ones, tell me they don't expect him to fight the next election. Blairites who kept their mouths zipped through the first months are plotting again to replace him. I have almost lost count of the number of non-political friends who say: "Sorry, I just don't like him."

Summon the courage to be the man you promised us - Jackie Ashley - The Guardian

Her prescription is for Gordo to go back to his magisterial demeanour that he successfully deployed over the summer - ie presenting himself as above politics.

A market exists for an antipolitics politician if someone is slick enough to claim it. There is a chance, therefore, that if Mr Clegg were to wager everything, as he should, on relentless, even reckless, candour – introducing a frankness into public life on every topic, including his party's failings – he could secure an audience. Honesty in politics is the principle that should be his watchword. It also chimes with his personality and his policy instincts.

And on lead guitar and vocals, welcome Nicky Clegg - Tim Hames - The Times

The contrast between the suggestions proffered are interesting.  Labour and the Conservatives are both urged to play the politics game more seriously - the Lib Dems urged to play it more recklessly. An interesting proposition for both Lib Dem candidates to bear in mind over the next few weeks as they both plot out their first 100 days in office.

Iain Martin in today’s Telegraph lauds the Conservatives’ plans for schools.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PBT00JS0UMSG3QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/11/22/do2203.xml

 The Tory plans for schools…are genuinely exciting: the Tories promise to unleash a wave of reform in our moribund state education system.

 Iain points out that the Conservative’s green paper on education, ‘Raising the bar, closing the gap’ promises:

 a supply side revolution, stripping away the monopoly power of local education authorities, the state monoliths that strangle diversity of provision and competition. Would any parents want to open and run schools, as they would be allowed to under Tory plans? Perhaps. They did in Sweden, when such a scheme was a trigger for widespread improvements.

 From the perspective of CentreForum, however, the most interesting aspect of the Conservative proposal is to recommends a pupil premium: an increased per capita funding for pupils from deprived backgrounds. This measure would incentivise schools to accept less advantaged pupils. This is, of course, the policy CentreForum proposed and articulated in the recent pamphlet ‘Tackling Educational Inequality’. It is interesting and positive that the Conservatives are now proposing a genuinely liberal vision for school reform.

In today’s Independent Dominic Lawson furthers the progressive case for imprisonment which he made at our conference, “Britain behind bars: the struggle for law and order.” http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/dominic_lawson/article3177029.ece As he points out, imprisonment is currently out of favour with many judges.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips, has declared that too many people are being sent to prison, and that the system cannot cope. "We can not go on like this"

 This reluctance to pass custodial sentences reflects the lack of capacity in the UK’s prison system. As Dominic argues, there is something troubling with the notion of judges meting out punishment in accordance with current pressures on prison as opposed to basing sentencing on a detached interpretation of the law.

To refrain from giving a custodial sentence on grounds which have nothing to do with the law is not justice but hotel management

 The root cause of this problem lies ultimately with the government’s thinking on crime and punishment. As the column continues:

The government has decided to maintain the approach to dealing with crime pioneered by Mr Michael Howard – "Prison works" – while cutting back on the prison building programme which the Conservatives had planned.

 To alleviate this tension the government must either drop its “prison works” rhetoric or honour it in penal policy. The latter is often viewed as reactionary, but Dominic shows that the distributional impact of funding such a policy means that a progressive case can be made for expanding prison places.

 Crime and its costs fall disproportionately – massively so – on the poorer areas of our towns and cities. Given the undeniable fact that when a criminal is in jail he cannot continue to attack his community, it is clear that an increase in prison spaces is the most dramatic way in which the better off in society can pay to make the lives of the least-well-off more bearable.

The launch of CentreForum’s pamphlet, ‘Globalisation: a liberal response’, provided a platform for Sam Brittan and Vince Cable to sketch out the themes of a liberal perspective on globalisation. The speakers were united in their calls for free trade and relaxed immigration. Sam made a typically cogent justification for allowing EU migrant workers into the UK labour market. Vince in particular urged for an ending of reciprocity in trade:

This apparently ‘tough’ or ‘common sense’ approach conceals a logic of remarkable stupidity: we insist on continuing to harm ourselves unless you agree to stop harming yourselves.

The sound of the royal procession outside reminded listeners that Vince could otherwise have been attending the state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  Instead he opted to boycott the event on account of Saudi Arabia’s less than impeccable human rights record.

Jon Bright writing on Open Democracy’s  blog  questioned the compatibility of Vince’s boycott and his espousal of economic liberalism:

Is support of free trade compatible with this type of ‘moral foreign policy’ approach? http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/10/30/should-britain-trade-with-saudi-arabia/

In an ideal world, guided by a universal respect for human rights Vince’s gestures would be otiose. However, such an international order bears little resemblance to our own. In the context of our creaking international legal and moral framework it could be argued that such gestures are positively called for. As Philippe Sands and Blinne Ni Ghralaigh assert later in the pamphlet:

There must be a renewed commitment to international law on a national and international level. Its fundamental importance must be reasserted and its reputation restored.

Vince’s refusal to attend the state visit embodies such a commitment, if only on a small scale. Returning to Jon Bright’s question, there may be a superficial tension between advocating free trade and a moral foreign policy. As he suggests, one of the main purposes of visits from foreign heads of states

is to strengthen relations, particularly trade relations.

However when Vince’s actions are viewed in a wider rubric of liberalism, political as well as economic, his actions display consistency. Rather than have an a la carte liberalism he has recognised its economic as well as political prescriptions.