The clown leaves the ring

So, he's gone. Yesterday there were tears from his supporters and jubilant celebration from his detractors: Silvio Berlusconi polarised opinion like few other politicians.

The press will miss him: despite being almost universally critical, they know that other politicians can never be as colourful. You cannot imagine Chancellor Merkel holding a bunga bunga party, or David Cameron bluffing an underage prostitute out of jail by saying she was the granddaughter of the President of Egypt. Mario Monti, if he is the chosen successor, will never practice the rabbit-out-of-the-hat politics which caused a world summit to be convened in the rubble of l'Aquila and nearly built the Messina bridge.

As things get more difficult in Italy, and they will, the Italians are going to find him a very useful scapegoat. They may forget that it was not Berlusconi who piled the debt up to unmanageable levels: that was done long before, and it seemed, for a while, that Italy could manage them. And the people will find it useful to forget that whilst they publicly crave stability, before Berlusconi Italy had averaged more than one government a year since the war. They may forget, while shouting 'mafioso' as he went to see the President, that under his government there was more success against organised crime than ever before. And they may forget that, unlike his predecessors, he did not have his hand in the till. Silvio didn't want money, he wanted protection from his accusers and he wanted to be loved.

A statesman would have seen what was coming (how many did?) and warned his people that it was the end of the line for the way of life they had espoused, that tough measures would have to be taken to get them through the troubled waters ahead but that his steady hand on the tiller would guide them to safety.

But Silvio wasn't a statesman: he was an actor who stumbled, grinning, on to the world stage and had not learned his lines.

11th November

We now have more young war veterans than we have had for generations. They reintegrate badly into society and the Poppy Fund helps. Do give.

We have withdrawn from Libya but are still in Afghanistan. The Government is spear-waving in Syria and wondering what to do about Iran.

Things really don't look that good.

More news from the madhouse

Greece has a new Prime Minister. The man who drew the short straw was Lucas Papademos, a former governor of the European Central Bank, who will presumably command some confidence in Europe. They didn’t like Papandreou because he showed signs of dabbling dangerously with democracy.

In Italy the talk in the press and in the bars is that it is a done deal that Mario Monti – recently appointed a senator for life – will head up a new technical government. Monti is famous firstly for his researches in the 1970s into banks operating under monopoly conditions and secondly for having a fairly successful stint as competition commissioner in Brussels. Berlusconi seems to be accepting Monti although his partner Umberto Bossi seems to want elections. As of this morning Berlusconi is still there.

By the end of next week there could be two countries in Europe with governments run by non-elected appointees who are former EU officials. The meeting of the Italian Senate Budget Committee was interrupted yesterday so they could consult with the EU Gauleiters officials who are in Rome.

France suffered a bit of embarrassment when Standard & Poors, the ratings agency, let it slip that it was downgrading the country’s debt, only to announce moments later that it was not. A cock-up, but a careless and dangerous one.

However France is being closely watched by the markets and the rates it has to pay compared to Germany are widening.

Both France and Germany are separately reported to be studying how a new, core Europe could emerge, but both vigorously deny it, lending the reports credibility.

Meanwhile Klaus Regling, a German who is head of the EFSF, the bailout fund, says they are having difficulty ratcheting it up to the desired level of €1 trillion (even though €2 trillion or more was what was required).

Lastly, prospects for European growth have been revised down from 1.8% to 0.5%, which means some countries will fall into recession.

And still they persist with the idea that everyone can have the same interest rate.

   

What now?

Well at least Silvio Berlusconi can tell his grandchildren that Italy’s borrowing costs actually rose when he announced his promised resignation. 'They suddenly realised they couldn't do without me' he will say.

The reason the markets weren't happy is that what happens now is anyone's guess. First, let's deal with the 7%, which is the maximum rate a country is supposed to be able to pay before it goes under. Why? What did we all do when base interest rates were 7% or more and countries had to pay a premium over that?

The answer is that in those days countries couldn't borrow as much. When these countries joined the euro and got to pay German interest rates it was assumed they would simply be wealthier on a net basis: that they would allow that extra wealth to trickle down to their citizens, letting them reduce taxes on wealth creation, creating a virtuous circle. Instead they chose to borrow more.

So the 'tipping point' is not an interest rate per se, it is what percentage of a country's income (GDP) goes on paying the banks. Some economists say that a figure of 20% is possible. So if a country borrows 100% of its GDP, it could pay an interest rate of 20% if it didn't have to repay anything. But of course each debt has a maturity and must at least be repaid and rolled over. Italy's average maturity isn't too bad at around 7 years (although Britain's is around twice that) so on its €1.9 trillion of debt, each year it has to come up with one seventh in repayments and 7% in interest, which comes to around 25% of GDP (the debt is 120% of  GDP).

The markets know Italy can pay the 7% for some time, but if it doesn't come up with that extra one seventh, it means default, and default on one debt is default on them all.

So can Italy live with having to come up with a quarter of its income on debt servicing? When I got my first job I spent half my income on rent. Everything is possible if you can cut expenditure to meet the available money. The problem in Italy is that there really isn't the will to cut. The middle classes have their vested interests, the poor think they have suffered enough already, and the rich think that only little people pay taxes. It is the job of a statesman to explain to the people how bad things really are, and to gain their confidence that, however bad the medicine may taste, it will make them better in the end. It is here that Berlusconi is culpable, more than the Bunga Bunga parties, more than the jokes, more than changing the law to keep himself out or prison. If he had explained eight years ago, when he came back to power, what needed to be done they would have trusted him to do it. But the showman didn't want to upset anyone.

One note of caution about the resignation, which will come into effect when Parliament has passed the budget. Does the draft legislation only cover the promises to Brussels? or are there any Berlusconi-isms, such as 'It will henceforth be illegal to say anything horrid, in court or out of it, about septuagenarian former Prime Ministers.' Perhaps I am being unfair and he will go quietly at the end of the week.

That, however, will not be the end of Italy's problems. It may be just the start of them.

On the out

John Taylor, the Conservative peer, is out of prison (this blog refuses to use his title; he is a criminal) although having to wear an electronic tag. He now proposes to go back into the House of Lords and claim his daily stipend.

Mercy.

I agree that when someone has served his punishment that should be the end of it but such a doctrine shouldn't apply to people making laws over us. The man is a fraudster. He fraudulently claimed expenses he wasn't entitled to, which we, the people, paid.

This system really does need shaking up. He comes out of the nick, expects to be called by the same word we give to the Almighty in Church, and helps make the law of the land.

And they wonder why people have no respect for our institutions.

A change for Italy?

Silvio Berlusconi has announced that he will resign when his austerity budget - the letter to the IMF with its promises of spending cuts and economic competitiveness - is passed into law.

Berlusconi has seemed like a fixture in office: Prime Minister for eight years out of the last ten and the only post war politician to hold the post for a full term. It is a measure of the man's tenacity that the first thing one thought on hearing the news was that it must be some sort of trick. Indeed, it does leave his opponents wit the problem of passing the measures, failing which, presumably, he would remain in power. And a promise might turn out to be a more flexible instrument than it sounds.

We shall see, but as I pointed out on the BBC yesterday, it doesn't really solve much: Italy still has exactly the same problems it had the day before, merely a political vacuum.

Oh, and by the way, he hasn't actually gone yet.

Sickening

I think most people will have been disgusted by the scenes outside a California courtroom, where people were whooping with joy that Michael Jackson's personal doctor, Conrad Murray, had been found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of the singer.

Why the frenzied scenes? Several said that they were glad that 'justice had been done' but this is wide of the mark. Dr. Murray has been convicted of a crime which carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, and these folk are not outside every courtroom in America celebrating the imprisonment of criminals.

Jackson was a drug addict, with all the grubby associations that holds. Most addicts can't afford to have a doctor present when they shoot up (the chief accusation against Murray was that he administered the drug and then left the room).

These people are fans of Michael Jackson who know he had feet of clay and that it is they who made him like that. They wish Conrad Murray had been found guilty of murder. It would have taken something off their consciences.

The end of Silvio?

As I write, on the afternoon of 7th November, there are rumours that Berlusconi is on the point of resigning, which would be a sad loss for political commentators everywhere.

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people are underestimating the man's tenacity.

Far from stories that the President will appoint a technical government, my understanding of the constitution is that Berlusconi would first have to lose a confidence vote, then elections would have to produce no clear result.

Kicking the Cannes down the road

Update from the madhouse

Nothing seems to have been agreed at the Cannes summit, even though you might have thought it was urgent.

One small change has been noticed by the Economist: several officials seem to have a badge marked 'Groupe de Francfort' which appears to be a loose structure of leaders, finance ministers and anyone they invite to their deliberations. More bureaucrats, still no result. The very fact that the whole thing was derailed by one member saying he wanted to consult his electorate is an indication of what sort of people we have here.

The anti-democrats immediately told Greece that the vote should be on whether they stay in the EU, even though it is not in fact necessary to be in the euro to be in the EU (Britain is an example). Then they told Italy to submit to IMF monitoring of its adherence to Berlusconi's 15 page letter presented to the previous meeting.

Both these countries, Greece and Italy, have now lost their democratic independence and are forced to be satellites of Germany.

And they say the EU is the guarantor of peace in Europe!

Hypocisy and protest

It is being said that the protesters outside St. Paul's Cathedral in London will now be allowed to stay until after Christmas. This is a curious tale: the protesters seem unable to articulate what they are protesting about, and must be reflecting now that their protest has caused a lot of damage to the Church of England and none whatsoever to the City of London.

There have been three resignations so far from the Chapter of St. Paul's, one of them saying that he could not condone violence against the protesters, even though no violence has been suggested or considered.

The truth of the matter is that they are in favour of the protests: the Church of England was long ago taken over by the political left, and the current crop of priests learned an almost Marxist philosophy at their seminaries. It is hard now to find anyone in the Church who talks about God or Christ.

One who does is the excellent Bishop of London Dr. Richard Chartres, who, although strangely he has no authority over the Dean and Chapter, has tried to inject some sense into the proceedings, something sadly lacking in the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as well as the BBC (as noted earlier).

Dr. Williams wrote an article for the Financial Times. He is as strange a correspondent for them is the FT is as an outlet for his views. He offers little in the way of suggestions and much of the 'something must be done' line of thinking. 'Everyone has been able to be wise after the event and to pour scorn on the Cathedral in particular and the Church of England in general for failing to know how to square the circle of public interest and protest.'

Since when was the Church's role to square the circle of public interest and protest? It is not, or at least shouldn't be, a political body. And speaking of being wise after the event, the Church was fairly uncritical of the Blair / Brown administration which failed to regulate the banks properly. And when things were going well, did we ever hear Williams praise the financial world for providing cheap mortgages, loans to the needy and a successful economy bringing wealth to everyone? I don't think we did.

Let the Church of England look to its own failings. Attendance has been dropping steadily for years, indeed ever since it decided to be a politicised branch of the social services rather than curators of men's souls. People don't like this wishy-washy social liberalism and cannot support the Church while it is a blatantly political organisation supporting a creed which has now been discredited. It used to have a creed of its own.

'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye and considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' I don't suppose they read the bible much nowadays.

Ask the people horror! Greece goes mad!

There is almost universal consternation in Europe at the decision of the Greek Prime Minister Papandreou to hold a referendum on the terms of the second bailout. Le Monde reports someone close to the French President as saying ‘Greece’s gesture is irrational and dangerous’.

Of course they don’t like democracy in the EU – it so often seems to interfere with their plans which as we know are for our own good. This blog, by contrast, does not find democracy irrational and dangerous and wishes the Greeks well.

Actually, it may well not go the wrong way for Europe. Papandreou is clearly fed up with being squeezed at one end by his people and at the other by his masters in Brussels and Frankfurt, and could well emerge with a mandate to go ahead. Polls suggest that whilst the people think the austerity measures are too harsh, they don’t want to leave the eurozone.

So what is good? The best thing would have been if Greece hadn’t joined the eurozone. The next best thing, for the Greeks at any rate, is if they had left in a controlled manner over a year ago. To appreciate what is going on it is vital to remember that the euro is first and foremost a political construct. Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs said that they had known at the time that Greece’s financial statements were cooked up. They went ahead, you see, because they felt the politics were more important than the economics. The idea was that every crisis – and they had enough warnings, they knew there would be the odd crisis which would put the euro’s bindings under stress – every crisis would lead to gradual political integration.

And so it seemed to them at the start of this crisis. The German sense of discipline would slowly seep into the minds of the South, and, in return for help, the eurozone would move gradually towards a fiscal and political union, each member’s budget being approved by Brussels.

What they had not taken into account is that the peoples of this continent are genuinely different. Those in the south are less disciplined, less protestant than those in the north. And because of this the south is less efficient. So unless steps are taken to improve labour market regulation, remove the vested interests that are barriers to growth and make everyone pay their taxes there will be a widening gap between the olive belt and the protestant north. A bailout can only staunch the wound, not heal it.

Greece has years of relative inefficiency in its veins and this is not a problem which can be dealt with in a hurry. It needs, and Italy, Portugal and Spain also need, a devaluation of one sort or another. The Germans and the bureaucrats think it should be an internal devaluation: that is simply to make the people poorer with higher taxes and less welfare. Greece would be left in an overvalued currency and its exports would be uncompetitive. Not even the tourists would go. In Italy I see German tourists complain about how expensive everything is – not just Gucci handbags but food in the supermarket. This is because the food is priced to include Italian levels of efficiency with German currency values. Greece is the same only worse.

So in my view the Greeks ought to reject the bailout and improve or not improve their economy at their own pace. This would mean defaulting on all its debts, except that held by its citizens, which would be translated into the new drachma. If in time they were to choose to go into this experiment again, they should be free to do so.

Just a big number

In a week when, it is supposed, the 7 billionth person is born, it may be thought that we should be thinking something other than the usual topics of the Euro, the BBC and the clocks changing.

However it seems to be we are hearing quite enough of this already, the disaster-scenario monkeys going into overtime. These are the neo-Malthusians, who can't wait to pronounce disaster for the earth by overpopulation, which can only be cured by... by what, exactly?

Thomas Malthus was born in the 18th century, when there were far, far fewer people. His thesis was that production (of food) increased on an arithmetic scale, ie 2+2+2+2=8, whereas population increased on a geometric scale ie 2x2x2x2 =16. If there had been any truth whatsoever in his allegations the human race would have been wiped out by the time of his death in the 1830s. But instead we keep finding ways of increasing production, of which genetically engineered products may be the next wave.

Let's hear no more of this nonsense. This blog welcomes the 7 billionth baby and hope it grows up in a world without politicians, artificial currencies and the clocks changing.

Render unto Caesar

I am still trying to work out what the protesters in America and London want. It seems they don't really know, either.

It would be a much more effective protest if they bore a single message and repeated it, incessantly, in front of newspapers, TV News and the rest. Some are saying we shouldn't have a capitalist system, which is silly, and some are saying the capitalists have made a bit of a mess of it, which seems to be exhorting them to further efforts.

Several, filmed the other day outside St. Paul's Cathedral, had placards saying 'What would Jesus say?'

Well, if I remember rightly, he threw out of the Temple all the people who shouldn't have been there.

Time to stop it

Mistakenly getting up a little before 5am this morning because I had forgotten the Government's absurd practice of changing the clocks twice a year, I read that there has been a bill before Parliament to change the time two hours, that is to say GMT+1 in winter, GMT+2 in Summer, as it is in Berlin.

This could only have come from a completely crazed Europhile, and apparently the culprit was Rebecca Harris MP, a Conservative. This blog will be keeping an eye on her with a view to detention under Section 4 of the Mental Health Act. Under her system parts of Scotland would still be dark at 10am, just so we can enjoy the same time as Angela Merkel.

Why would you want to do this?

Ms Harris has of course been supported by the Liberal Democrats who lost their sense of reality years ago.

Only now has Cameron said that he will not support the bill.

Sometimes I think we are all quite, quite mad.

The BBC up to its old tricks

I once told a friend of mine, who works for the BBC, that the reason I criticise it is that I feel as if I own it and care for it. There are two problems with the organisation. The first is that it is far, far too big. One or two TV channels, one or two radio channels, its excellent news service put out on multiple formats and that would be enough.

The other problem is its bias, which really must be addressed.

Two examples, taken at the same time on two separate days. There are others.

Yesterday on the Today radio programme, Evan Davis introduced a piece on Directors’ pay (in the news that day). Guess what the BBC line is on this – impartial and feeling it is a matter for the owners of the company? No, you are harking back to the days of Lord Reith. They gathered together two people who agreed it was too high and, just in case either of them differed from the BBC line, the presenter, Evan Davis framed his questions at such length that they could hardly get a word in edgeways. These were effectively short speeches to which he invited the contributors to agree.

Today, at around the same time, Jim Naughtie, who to be fair is known to have left-wing sympathies, I just don’t understand how he is allowed to present a news programme, did a piece on the protesters who forced the closure of St Paul’s Cathedral for the first time since the war. He gathered together two people who thought, extraordinarily, that the Church of England should be involved in the purely political matter of the worth of the City of London, and again pronounced the BBC line, inviting them to agree. They did, of course.

These two pieces were presented as impartial comment. They are two egregious examples, and you can see and hear them every day, of appalling, politically motivated journalism. People complain about the American Fox News being biased to the Right Wing but this is exactly the same coming from the other direction, and at least Fox doesn’t pretend to be anything other than it is.

It is not the function of the taxpayer-funded broadcaster to disseminate left-wing  opinion. For years it has advertised positions only in the left-wing Guardian newspaper and we are now suffering from the results.

Another malevolent ‘line’ from the BBC is its support for, indeed almost complete lack of criticism of, the European Union. This topic is highly relevant now, in that (a) it seems to be falling apart and (b) a large number of MPs, to say nothing of a majority of the people, want us to leave the EU. What sort of debate do you think the BBC is going to offer when its Chairman and his deputy have both often mouthed their contempt for anyone who even criticises the EU?

It is with great regret that I say this, but I am coming to the conclusion that unless things change dramatically in this organisation, we are going to be forced to get rid of a wonderful institution, rooted in, but no longer supporting, a superb set of ideals. But what else can we do?

We can't let it go on.

Maserati outrage

It’s an outrage, cried Ignazio la Russa, Italian Defence Minister. He was referring to the question, posed by Emanuele Fiano of the usually silent Democratic Party, as to whether it was appropriate in the economic circumstances for the staff of the defence ministry to take delivery of 19 armoured Maserati cars. In their basic form these cars cost more than £80,000 but we are talking about a fair bit more for the bullet-proofing and so on. I remember when these cars came out that the then President, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, took delivery of one and said what a luxury it was. Now they are available to mere officials.

Ignazio La Russa

La Russa, in his fury at finding his absurd largesse with other people’s money criticised, pointed out that Maseratis were an Italian brand (he forgot that so were FIAT 500s and a nice range of scooters).

At the same time we learn that the French President has taken delivery of a aeroplane costing €300 million. At least the aircraft itself only cost €50 million, the rest being ‘optional extras’. If you’ll excuse me I am just going to repeat that. The aircraft cost €50m, and there were €250m of extras.

What these two examples, shocking in their own ways (the Maseratis aren’t the only government cars in Italy, there are 300,000 of those, yes, 300,000) is the liberties the political class take with our money.

Why do they do it? Two reasons. One is because they have an inflated sense of their own importance, normal with this type of person but brought down to earth by democracy (the French President has enormous unchecked powers, perhaps more than any individual in the world, but at least he can be got rid of, and indeed, may well be). None of these new Maserati class, of course, have been elected.

The second reason is that they are too often unchallenged by the press and the people.

We see the stirrings of change now in Italy. I do hope that will continue.

A deal!

Well, there's a deal, and the markets have rejoiced. I confess I didn't think they'd do it in time. Some time ago I wrote 'the only people who can't see that Greece will default are the people who matter' and now they have seen it. The 'haircut' is 50% which may not be quite as much as it should be, and may be less when the technical calculations come out, but they have recognised that there should be a haircut.

The leveraging of the EFSF, again, is not as much as people wanted, at around $1 trillion. The markets wanted a 'big bazooka' but it is at least a small one. The increase will not be underwritten by the European Central Bank, which many wanted.

Lastly, the recapitalisation of the banks is simply a recognition that Greece isn't going to pay and in the future some others might not, either. Of course banks have to write down their investments to their market value.

So where are we now? Although the Italian set of promises included a provision to make it cheaper to lay workers off, there is little or no addressing of the fundamental issue here: that Southern European economies are less efficient than northern ones. The Germans simply seem to be saying that they should live within their means. But this will not work: if we are not to have a similar crisis in a year or two they must change even their labour laws.

Again the fundamental problem is simple and well known. Many of us said when the euro was formed that a currency union would not work without a political union. Britain could never join a political union and was wise to stay out but the others have implicitly agreed to it. What will happen when, say, the Italians get a letter from a financial President (for, yes, one is envisaged) that they have to adjust their trade union legislation, we can only surmise.

But they have done fairly well. The dogs are at least staved off. For a bit.

News from the madhouse 26th October

It's Wednesday, which means it must be final summit day!

Yes, I know, that was 21st July, and then they all went on holiday and then at the beginning of October they said they had reached an agreement but they weren't going to tell us what it was for 3 weeks and then the final summit was last weekend but in the end they couldn't come to an agreement so it was going to be today, Wednesday 26th October.

Today Chancellor Merkel was due to take the complex agreement, Greece bailout, bank bailouts, contingency fund to protect Italy and Spain, to the German Parliament, get it approved then fly back to Brussels to sign off and have dinner.

But no, it looks as if it is all too much and the next final solution development will be 7th November. Speaking of final solutions, as we weren't, some wag has suggested that the German money would be put to better use financing a military coup in Greece, which would then have to leave the EU.

By November the Greek economy will be slightly worse and my guess is that Berlusconi will not have put in place the extra measures required so there may be more summits to come.

Still, no hurry; after all it's not as if there was a crisis.

Oh.

The Europe dilemma

It may be said to have started when Mr Cameron came up with the wheeze of allowing petitions with more than 100,000 signatures to be voted on by Parliament; they didn't have to have a vote and if they did it wouldn't be binding on the Government but you could guess some people scented some sort of possible victory.

If Mr Cameron hadn't realised, I think most people could have told him what the first two petitions would be: restoring the death penalty and leaving Europe. Whilst a majority of the people are in favour of both of these, a majority of parliamentarians are against them. They are two areas in which Parliament is out of synch with the people. Parliament decided not to vote on the hanging petition but to have a vote on Europe and that took place last night, the motion being that there should be a referendum on leaving.

For myself, I became certain around 20 years ago that Britain would be better off both financially and democratically if we left the EU. Financially, in part because of the amount we pay into it. Don't be fooled by people who say we should be talking about the net amount we pay in, net of what we get back. Currently the Government would like to apply what we get back towards reducing the deficit but the EU won't allow that. When we talk about income tax we don't say the net figure is zero because we get it back in schools, hospitals etc. The amount we give them is around £12.5 billion a year. The other financial cost is the stifling regulation introduced by the EU over the years, which reduces employment and tax revenues. Most industrialists say we would be better off leaving even the single market.

Democratically, we only have to see that more than 75% of our laws come from Europe, the majority of which we have no veto over.

So I might have been in favour of the motion last night, but my problem would have been that I don't much like referendums. The best thing to be is the guy who writes the question: if it had been 'Should we stay in the EU with all the democratic and financial costs that entails, or leave for a new life of freedom and let the blighters stew in their own juice?' it would have been favourable to my own side. What it would probably be is including a third option of renegotiation, which would catch the slightly undecided.

So a referendum might be lost.

When I blogged on the petitions on 8th August (also on 2nd October) I said 

Neither of these motions has the faintest chance of success and nor have any of the others. The political class is revolted by the idea of the country being run by popular outcry. But I think Cameron may have made a mistake in raising the hopes of the British people only to dash them

The result is that the vote was lost, but more than half Cameron's backbenchers disobeyed his petulant instruction to vote against. Now he has the worst of both worlds. He will try to resolve the situation by promising to renegotiate the terms of our membership, but neither the Conservative Party nor the people will trust him to do so.

His only viable way out is to put to the EU before the next treaty change the things he wants to opt out of, and make that list public. Then when they want to amend the Treaty and need our vote, he can simply refer them to that list.

Has he got the courage and integrity for this? Personally, I don't think so. Let's hope I am wrong.

PS I know there is a movement towards the Government issuing a White Paper on renegotiation, but this is quite wrong. We send the government into these negotiations (which usually come out for more integration) without the detailed approval of Parliament, and this is no different. Also Cameron would say it tied his hands (Nye Bevan's term 'sending them naked into the conference chamber' has already been bandied about). Cameron just needs to get the Tory party onside and call the Liberals' bluff.

Tunisian Elections

Today sees the first proper elections in Tunisia since the French were in charge.

This blog wishes the Tunisians well, and I must say I envy the feeling that one is taking part in something ground breaking.

Democracy, which we take for granted, can be an exciting thing.