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'.

There’s no question that the United States provides great political theatre.  Yesterday, in a bid to embarrass Republicans blocking their demand for a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, Senate democrats held a rare all-night session.  Beds and sheets were brought in for senators, with democratic aides handing out bags with toothpaste and toiletries (emblazoned with ‘stop the war’).  They have a majority in favour of a firm deadline, but not the 60 votes required to hold a vote on the issue, and are turning up the pressure on more republicans to join them.  If republican's refuse, the democrats will happily portray them as obstructing the will of the American people and a majority of Congress.

With ever more imposing majorities of the American people supportive of a timetable, democrats like nothing better than holding the feet of Republicans up for election in 2008 to the fire.  Many in tight races are already feeling the pressure – Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, John Warner, and Pete Dominici have all endorsed a change in strategy.  Others, such as Jeff Sessions of Alabama, are said to be wavering.

And yet despite endorsing a change in strategy, few of them are yet voting with the Democrats.  But with increasing pressure coming from democrats and from constituents, a Senate vote to instigate a timetable for withdrawal seems only a matter of time.

Every so often this blog takes a punt on what Gordon Brown's 'Bank of England' moment will be.  The theory runs that when Gordo becomes PM he will reveal an unexpected secret policy to define a significant amount of his premiereship - much like making giving control of interest rates to the Bank of England when he first became Chancellor.

Policy in Iraq must form part of this.  So news in The Guardian that Lord Ashdown and Sir Jeremy Greenstock are working with the Foreign Policy Centre on a new approach to Iraq ("Ashdown helps prepare Iraq strategy rethink for Brown") is interesting indeed.  The story suggests that the direct link with Brown is less assured than the headline would have you believe, but its findings will certainly be listened to with more interest by Gordo than George Bush gave to the American equivalent last year - James Baker's much ignored Iraq Study Group.

Generally however, policy discussion continues to play second fiddle to election news so elsewhere in the papers...

• The Spectator looks to Wales and the prospects of a Tory/Plaid coalition ("A Tory-Plaid pact")
• Also in The Spectator is a more general piece in which Fraser Nelson tours the country and talks to the voters ("New Labour's final collapse").  Whilst none of it is new there is a nice vignette about Tim Farron and the Lake District towards the end.
• Several papers cover the spat between the SNP and Labour over oil yesterday.  The Telegraph gives the simple "Brown warns SNP over oil demand", while the FT enter the debate a little more fully with "SNP welcomes spending analysis".  But as the spending analysis is their own then they're really only showing off!
• We covered the CommunicateResearch for the Independent yesterday - but should also have mentioned a Guardian ICM poll which put Labour on 30 (-1), Conservatives 37 (-4), Lib Dem 21(+3), Others 12.
• The French elections are still on-going, of course.  Bayrou announced a new party yesterday - The Democrats.  The aim seems to be to reach out to centre-left voters who see the the UMF as too centre-right.  Several papers ponder what Bayrou is going to say for the rest of the campaign.  He is staying neutral at the moment, but The Times' report  suggests he might yet do a deal with Royal ("Royal hopes raised as kingmaker burns bridges") The FT say much the same  in "Royal and Sarkozy rebuffed by Bayrou".
• Finally, Matthew Parris in The Times believes that John Major should step into Greg Dykes' shoes to run for Mayor of London ("From Major to Mayor")
  

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."

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