From the times of ancient Greece philosophers have been trying to explain this relation. For Hobbes, the most important reason for the social contract is the escape from the horrors of nature. And nature in this meaning the human nature, the war of all against all. Hobbesian social contract is purely a form of control, whereas Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that in return for our sacrifice in losing some power over ourselves, we gain civil rights by becoming citizens in organized society.

Common for all of these arguments about social contract is that in order to give up something, citizens will gain something, for example civil rights and right to attend political decision-making or protection from the armed forces. It is a deal between me and my state. I pay my taxes, respect the laws and rules as well as other individuals and institutions. What do I get in return? I get the safety net the society provides in case of war, natural disaster or, on individual level, unemployment, sickness and anything that can come across in one’s life. So, the government has many duties for individuals well- being. It organizes health care, social security and education. It has the privilege and monopoly to use armed forces to control its borders and citizens.

Couple of weeks ago the leader of Finnish Institute in Athens, Mr. Matti Leiwo was interviewed in one Finnish economics orientated newspaper. According to Mr. Leiwo, there are signs of dismissal of the social contract in Greece at the moment. He explained that there are a vast and growing amount of sub-national activities going on all the time. For example,  since the state is not able to provide medical services in decent standard anymore, some of the doctors have started to offer their services voluntarily to fellow Greeks. Shortly put, there are signs of a rise of shadow society in Greece. This society is based on the civil society but has to take responsibility of governmental duties as well.

There is a generation of Greeks who do not have the future they believed they were going to have. They do not have jobs or any kind of hopes of employment. They cannot rely on their government and its benefits to support their living costs, rent, bills and food. They are not sure whether there is going to be any kind of education possibilities to their children. Basically, these people might just as well feel that their government has failed them and thus failed the social contract. The citizens might as well ignore their own duties, since the government is not able to fulfill its duties. After all, the idea of social contract is a two-way street.

And it is not just Greece where this might happen. It might happen in all struggling European countries, where people who have or are just about to enter the labor markets face the harsh fact: there might not be the future for us. No jobs, then no taxes, then no safety net. The question to be answered after the dismissal of social contract (or rather to be at least discussed before the dismissal) is what happens next? Are we going to get back to the nature where everyone are just for themselves or are we going to renew the social contract with our governments? Basically, if we think in Rousseauian way, individuals are the ones to legitimize the laws and politics of the government. Aren’t we the ones then who can change the system so that the government is going to be there for us?

It is well known that the population of the United States will grow to 400 million by 2050. This is in sharp contrast to the rest of Europe where the birth rate in many countries is well below replacement levels. The 2010 census shows a trend that has been occurring for some years. Taking the example of Los Angeles, the population of the megalopolis increased by 2.6% since the last census in 2000, to almost 3.8 million. Beneath this growth far more interesting figures abound. This contrasts sharply with the state of California as a whole with 37.6% classifying themselves as Hispanic. The percentage of Hispanics in the city is now at 48.5%. Related to this is the fact that 28.7% classify themselves as white people living in the city. This is mirrored in the field of business where, in 2007, 21% of firms were owned by Hispanics.

The city of Los Angeles is just one example of many. The coastal cities are, in general, growing while much of the interior, or “fly over states” are they are often referred to, are experiencing demographic loss. A comparable trend is the growth of non whites in major cities across the United States. Indeed, in much of the South this is happening at a faster rate than in the rest of the country, for obvious reasons. There is a parallel between what is happening within the Catholic Church and the United States generally, becoming more Hispanic and less white as the population grows.

This is bad news for the Republican Party as it stands today. Accurate estimates are impossible to ascertain, yet the number of illegal immigrants is estimated to be anywhere between seven and 20 million. The GOP has been the most vociferous anti-immigration party in the country. In January 2004, President Bush pushed for immigration reform to deal with an obvious problem that needed to be addressed. During his address that would pave the way for an estimated eight million immigrants to obtain status as temporary workers, he said “Over the generations, we have received energetic, ambitious optimistic people from every part of the world. By tradition and conviction, our country is a welcoming society,”, adding  “Every generation of immigrants has reaffirmed the wisdom of remaining open to the talents and dreams of the world”. In the same speech he said he opposed an amnesty, claiming it would reward those who broke the law.

Then, having been re-elected, in 2007 Bush proposed the bill that would have provided for eventual legal citizenship of illegal immigrants who were defined as high skilled. At the same time the bill contained increased funding for border security including cameras, towers and extra border agents. Many on the left criticised the bill for not going far enough, but some Republicans, notably Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said that no amnesty should occur and that immigrants should return to their country of origin first before any legal steps are taken to re-enter the United States legally.  In June 2007, a vote failed that would have ended debate and thus ended the possibility of a vote on the bill.

Such language, while politically popular, does little to solve the actual problem of immigration. As always a balance must be struck between security, law and what can be gained from allowing illegal’s to become US citizens. The GOP is on dangerous political ground in the future if a certain segment of the party refuses to see the change that is going on. The growth in the Hispanic population and the Democrats sincere endorsement of immigration reform, means that they have the most to gain from the stance of the GOP. Not only that, but the more extreme Republicans are looking like a pale version of the Know Nothing’s of the 1850s who tried to limit immigration from Catholic countries for religious reasons.

Even worse for the party, where their support is seen as solid, in the rural and Southern states, demographics are not in their favour. Indeed, it has gotten so bad that when the party bucks this trend it is considered newsworthy. The article notes that Romney having won the Illinois primary, gained support from the young and middle class.

Unless change is realised soon, the GOP could go the way of the Know Nothing’s.

In 2000, a Bush victory clearly meant a return to realism- specifically a unilateral, Clausewitzian one. It was hoped by many conservatives that the incoming Administration would wipe away the indecisive nation building of the Clinton era and enhance American hegemony. Of course, after eight years of Bush and the Neocons, we now know that did not come to fruition entirely. 9/11 and Iraq stood in the way of the ‘Reagan reloaded’ project. In 2004, John Kerry challenged Bush’s post-9/11 style of governance. Kerry had his flaws, his time in the Vietnam Veterans against the War movement –VVAW- came back to haunt him, but he offered a different direction for America, one determined to break from Bush. Prior to the 2008 election, it was clear that Obama would turn America away from its Neocon course. In government however, he has kept Guantanamo Bay open but withdrawn troops from Iraq, thus showing the complexity of the break and how naive his remarks possibly were. Nevertheless he offered a break and a conviction to steer America away from the Straussian influenced Neocons.

Now we come to 2012 and the ever-increasing chance that an Obama vs. Romney race is in the offing. Romney is, quite frankly, not presidential material. The only substantial move he has made has been his smile. He does not please the Tea Party; he even makes mainstream conservatives hesitate before giving their approval. He has not offered any stark break with the Obama Administration and seems to entirely rely on his wealth and his want for the job to get him over the finishing line. I am not a committed Obama supporter, but I am certainly not a Republican supporter given the poor field of Grand Old Party candidates. Santorum is a religious zealot, a man only fit for governance in Medieval Europe. He offers no future of aspiration, rather a path of fervent religious indignation. Newt Gingrich is too busy with the conquest of space. His grimace reminds me of arch-Bond villain, Hugo Drax and his plan to build a moon base will probably be just that, a plan. America, of course, must keep up with Russian and Chinese desires to explore the Moon and the Solar System, but it has substantial debt to tackle first. Ron Paul, for all his libertarian magnetism and debt cutting fervour believes ardently in isolationism. The isolationism he desires has no place in a globalised 21^st century world. America must work with its NATO partners to meet the challenges and threats posed by those who seek to undermine and subvert the authority of democratic and peaceful states. The world can only prosper with a stable democracy- naturally; the dream is to witness democracy in all states of the world. We know this has little chance of coming to fruition in the immediate future, but Ron Paul’s rigid isolationism would threaten the territorial integrity of those states on the long path to democracy and give malignant dictators, or in Gingrich’s case, Sith Lords, the chance to pursue their wicked desires. For Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, Cain and the other withdrawn candidates, all I can say is ‘good riddance to bad rubbish’.

Although Obama is in no way perfect, he’s better than Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. Some have compared him to Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and even Republican George H.W. Bush. Whilst the former makes me wince, the latter two I can live with. You may think I’ve been fooled by Barack’s smooth nature and slick oratory, but I have not. I recoil like you at some of things he has said and some of the policies he has advocated, but if I had a vote… I would vote for Obama, because Romney seems incapable of fulfilling the duties of President, Gingrich resembles Darth Sidious, Santorum’s a mad monk and Paul would rather sit in a corner, by himself, talking to a wall and shouting at flies.

Obama 2012!

However, the friend of Saddam Hussein, ex-TalkSPORT presenter, and self publicist extraordinaire has by his own admission set foot in Bradford almost as few times as the Southern Tories MP’s the constituents despise, so maybe it’s his personality oddly, not policies that got him the victory. Granted this is an embarrassment to Labour (was a “safe seat”) and the Lib Dems (so popular in Bradford they lost their £500 deposit, as they got so few votes). However Galloway paints the picture his influence is going to be marginal, and his impact not even that.

He won clearly on a protest vote, and given that the next General Election is not for 3 years, I would argue his seat will revert back to Labour hands after that. They will pump money into it, like it’s going out of fashion, as they will blow him out of the water on money spent on the constituency and need seats like these (inner city) if they stand any chance of winning an election to form our next government. Normal service will be resumed. However, in the nearer future, there also appears to be more teething problems.

The “Bradford Spring” is going to materialise to a more likely “Bradford Dribble” as the political process grinds down George’s influence. He is one of 650 MP’s all with equal votes in Parliament, and even when it was in Labour hands, one vote was not needed to change the direction of legislation. Galloway’s mandate is presumably based on his manifesto (which I admittedly have not seen) and he will be judged on how much he delivers, or more realistically gets to the floor of Parliament. For his pledges to become more than 10 Minute Bills, Adjournment Debates and other pointless exercises, he will need support. This is likely to come from left wing Labour/ Labour Co-operative MP’s who will clearly demand his support on their legislation in return, so he will gradually be worked into party voting logistics. Likewise, has occurred to Caroline Lucas of the Green Party in Brighton since her election to Parliament. So little has been heard from her, maybe she has stopped speaking, to cut down on her own C02 emissions.

This will of course cause a flurry of Independents trying to ride the anti political establishment wave, but they will fail, party whips and parliamentary organisers will see to that, and we will be lumbered again for the foreseeable future with party disciples, and friends of those in high places (like Jack Dromey, husband of Harriet Harman, who unless had a temporary sex change, miraculously nearly got elected via an all-woman shortlist). Galloway has a noble cause, but sadly our system is not set up in a way his influence will be recognised, and those reasons even given his considerable eccentricity, the whole adventure will eventually end in tears.

To deal with the argument that David Cameron is the worst politician since the late Victorian era is in some ways difficult, merely due to the fact that he has not reached the end of his career in British politics and therefore any judgement of him would be based on an incomplete picture. However, in just comparing him to previous occupants of No.10 since Gladstone, David Cameron would have to perform truly terribly and make numerous horrendous mistakes in order to match the sheer incompetence and awfulness of Gordon Brown, Anthony Eden, Neville Chamberlain, Edward Heath and Lord Roseberry. Therefore to claim that David Cameron is the worst politician since Gladstone is quite a leap of the imagination when you consider even just the people who have preceded him as Prime Minister let alone some of the dubious characters who have sat as a Member of Parliament in the last 118 years.

To answer the question of whether William Gladstone was a terrible politician the short answer is almost certainly not. This is not to say that he did not have flaws as a politician or as a person because he certainly did, for example he became obsessed with Ireland for the last 25 to30 years of his political career to the detriment of everything else, and by all accounts he was a sanctimonious prig of an individual. Adding to these flaws he almost certainly stayed on as Prime Minister for too long and lost control of his colleagues, his Cabinet and his party and therefore contributed to the destruction of the great Victorian Liberal Party which had dominated British politics for so long.

Nevertheless, Gladstone’s flaws and mistakes were more than outweighed by his achievements both as Chancellor of the Exchequer and as Prime Minister. Firstly, he believed completely in the principle of sound finance and therefore any reforms that he introduced throughout his career in frontline politics were costed and sustainable and therefore provided economic stability and certainty and allowed for long-term planning. Added to this Gladstone led between 1868 and 1874 one of the most successful and reforming governments of all time which helped improve the lives of most of the population of the United Kingdom. Admittedly this administration ran out of steam by the end of its time in office but what it had achieved while in office was pretty monumental and provides an excellent legacy for anyone assessing the reputation of William Gladstone. Finally, and perhaps most crucially William Gladstone was the dominant figure of Victorian politics with a career at or near the head of British public life spanning decades and more importantly he managed to retain a degree of popularity which allowed him and the Liberal Party to dominate politics for most of this period. A record such as that hardly sounds like that of a terrible politician, and therefore the alleged claim of Mr Mercer does not by any measure stand-up to serious scrutiny. William Gladstone was by any general measure a first-rate politician, a brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer and a very good Prime Minister and if David Cameron emulates even some of the achievements of the ‘People’s William’ then he will be a success.

In 2008, Barack Obama like Thomas Dewey came through a hard nomination battle to win the candidacy of a party unsure of what direction in which to go. He was also facing an opposing party which had been in power for a long-time and was increasingly unpopular. In 1948 because Thomas Dewey was the heavy favourite after gaining the Republican nomination he ran an election campaign which has been criticised heavily because it was based on vacuous and meaningless slogans and a lack of definite policies. Obama in 2008 ran on such empty campaign slogans as ‘Yes We Can’ and ‘Change You Can Believe In’ and offered no real hard policies. The crucial difference however, is that Barack Obama won, and his campaign despite its lack of hard substance and its reliance on glib catchphrases has been lauded in books and articles ever since.  Thomas Dewey’s campaign and failure however, defined his career, and although he would remain an important figure in the Republican Party based on his record of achievement in public life in New York he would never again lead his party into an election campaign and also more pertinently his defeat would mark the first stirrings of the post-war conservative movement in the GOP.

If Barack Obama wins in 2012 which I think he probably will he will deserve the accolades for becoming only the second two-term Democrat President since the war however, at the moment in terms of elections he is in my opinion a luckier version of Thomas Dewey. In other words a politician of moderate views whose defining electoral campaign consisted of very little of substance and a preponderance of meaningless catchphrases.

The current Coalition government in the United Kingdom and its policies are always being compared to what has gone previously. Some commentators use history to make unfavourable comparisons and to suggest that the current administration is just a continuation of Conservative governments of the past. Others mainly on the right however, use the past to provide examples of regimes which the Coalition should use as a blueprint to follow, the most popular suggestion that I have seen is that the current government should follow the example of the Thatcher administration which like the current government inherited a country which was economically on its knees and through its policies fundamentally changed the United Kingdom.

In my opinion though, there is a much more apt example to follow for the current government that of the administration of Sir Robert Peel between 1841 and 1846. On an administrative note the government of Peel in the 1840s due to the lack of party and parliamentary organisation was much more like a coalition than the Thatcher administration of the 1980s and therefore is a more pertinent comparison for the current regime, they would nevertheless though wish to avoid the disastrous way in which the Peel government collapsed. However, this is not the only reason why I believe that if the current government is going to follow a historical precedent, it should follow that of Sir Robert Peel.

Firstly, both the Coalition and Peel’s government inherited large financial problems and pretty stagnant economies. The administration of Peel moved very quickly to deal with the problems that they inherited and was able to turn a sizeable deficit into a surplus which could then be used for investment and spending. Added to this they also got the economy moving again by simplifying the tax system and reforming banking in such a way as to make it much more stable therefore creating confidence and also allowing enterprise and entrepreneurship to flourish. In so doing the Peel administration was able to create the conditions for massive economic growth and thereby helped bring about the mid-Victorian economic boom. If the current government were half as successful in economic affairs as that of Sir Robert Peel’s then they will have done the country a great service.

The Peel administration like the current government was also faced with mountains of regulations which blighted not just the economy but everyday life, but again they acted swiftly and were able to deal with the problem. This was partly because Sir Robert was a practical man who believed in the value of simplification and efficiency and had shown this when he was Home Secretary in the 1820s. (This was another role where he excelled and was also arguably the greatest holder of that office). When his government was elected in the 1841 election the mountain of regulations and guidelines were reduced and simplified therefore making government much more efficient and reducing the burden on business and ordinary people. If the Coalition government fulfils its commitment to reduce regulation it will certainly be following in the footsteps of its illustrious predecessor.

The government of Sir Robert Peel followed an administration which liked to interfere in foreign affairs which caused problems of cost and problems with other nations. Lord Aberdeen, Peel’s Foreign Secretary on the whole kept out of interfering and ran a much less bellicose foreign policy which helped to save money plus was in many ways much more successful than his predecessor Palmerston. Unfortunately it would appear that the current government cannot seem to grasp the fact that the United Kingdom does not have the right or the resources to go around interfering in the affairs of other nations and therefore is not following the example of the government of 1841-1846.

The government of Peel also like the Coalition followed a hyperactive government which liked to reform for the sake of it and introduced large amounts of legislation. Sir Robert though was a great believer in only reforming when necessary and in fact had laid this out in his seminal Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 and this therefore meant that his government was not dominated by the belief that something always had to be done or that at the very least that had to give the impression that they were doing something. Again unfortunately the present administration seems to be obsessed by being seen to be doing something and therefore is introducing legislation and reforms which are neither necessary nor demanded.

If the current government does take inspiration from the past it could do a lot worse than follow the example of the government of Sir Robert Peel because in many ways it was a great success. The economic reforms it introduced helped to create the mid-Victorian economic boom and on the whole it created a country more at ease with its self by the time it lost power in 1846. The success of this administration has led many to regard Peel as amongst the greatest of all Britain’s Prime Ministers and therefore why wouldn’t the current government want to learn the lessons of this highly successful regime.

Many in Europe are amazed at the vitality of religion in the United States. They are amazed not just at the levels of participation, but the role many of these religions play in the civil discourse in the United States itself on a day to day level.

The Catholic Church, like many of its counterparts across the United States, run its own schools, hospitals, adoption services and homeless shelters as well as a host of other services that would be provided by the government in many European countries. Yet, some commentators are saying that the Church in America is becoming more “European”, with declining levels of attendance and falling levels of commitment among those who practice. Their main argument is the sexual abuse scandals that were found out in 2002, in the Archdiocese of Boston under Bernard Cardinal Law with reports of abuse cover up spreading across the country.

Cardinal Law, like many other Roman Catholic bishops in the United States, and indeed across the world, put the reputation of the Church first. It was a deliberate action of the bishops to ignore, obfuscated and block the truth, covering up priests who abused minors. Many thought the scandals were finished. However, sadly this was not the case.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia, led by Justin Cardinal Rigali, was investigated in a 2005 by a grand jury report. The report accused him and other diocesan officials, of a pattern of protecting abusive priests while taking little or no measures to protect minors or remove priests from ministry. No charges were brought however due to an expired statute of limitations. In February 2011 a second grand jury report was published which detailed the total lack of action of Cardinal Rigali into removing suspected abusive priests from ministry. The second grand jury report noted that as many as 37 priests had credible allegations brought against them. Much of the blame for the cover up has fallen on Cardinal Rigali and Msgr William Lynn who served as, Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua’s, “vicar for clergy”, effectively, head of personnel.

On 26 March 2012 the trail of Mgr Lynn began in a Philadelphia courtroom on charges of endangering the welfare of children. This is the first time that an American Church official has had to stand trial in a criminal court. Lynn says that he told Cardinal Bevilacqua about the allegations but was ordered to shred the documents. Cardinal Bevilacqua died on 31 January 2012, aged 88. The report that was shredded was witnessed by Fr. Joseph Cistone, now bishop of Saginaw. The trial is expected to last three months. Lynn, if convicted of all three counts, faces 28 years in prison. Matters are made worse for what little remains of the reputation of the Church when a ruling in February 2012 allowed the prosecution to admit evidence of 30 other abuse claims beyond those of the time of the trail.

The Church is at its lowest ebb, with one commentator noting that the scandal was “Boston, reborn”. Indeed, looking at the sinful and immoral acts of the clergy and bishops of the diocese, one could see the future of Catholicism in America as bleak, following the trend of the Old World.

However, almost at the same time as the events in Philadelphia are occurring, events in Washington DC are giving those who doubt that Catholicism in America has a future, second thoughts.

In January President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius announced as part of the new Federal health care law that religious groups would not be allowed opt out of offering contraceptives and sterilisation to their employees. The single concession given to religious groups by the administration is that they have one year to alter their teachings to conform to the new law. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) mobilised a broad coalition on the Catholic Left and Right to oppose the mandated change on the grounds of freedom of religion.

However, after weeks of lobbying from a range of Catholic groups, on 10 February President Obama said, “I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this”. He added that a women’s employers who have religious objections to providing contraceptives will no longer be required to fund them. Instead he said that insurance companies would provide and pay for the requirement, this he said would mean “that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly”.

After this the USCCB issued a statement on 14 March, which said that forcing “virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for ‘religious employers’ that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future ‘accommodation’ for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption”. Echoing President Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston to Protestant ministers, the USCCB statement mentions how “This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block”.   It goes on to say that the “mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a ‘religious employer’ deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry”.

Anyone who says the role of the Catholic Church in America will inevitably fade and die have been proven wrong. Whether one agrees with them or not, the bishops are arguing for religious freedom and against a dangerous, intolerant secularism. Whatever happens with the administration people should be thankful for their efforts.

Today’s developments that Peter Cruddas was essentially caught allegedly trying to wheedle money from wealthy foreigners (in certain cases banned under British Electoral Law) is going to do the image of Politics and the ruling Conservative Party no favours at all. Despite disputing the claims of impropriety, the video transcript of the Sunday Times sting seems pretty self explanatory, unless Cruddas is using those words in ways, as yet not interpreted by the Oxford English Dictionary. This sees the ugly face of party funding rearing its head again. We have got to a point where as a political commentator, its far more interesting to write about this, than the policy issues that institutions like the Conservative Party ( and other parties) are set up to enact on behalf of the British people. This is kind of sad.

Firstly, and most obviously, episodes like these do absolutely nothing to reassure the public that policy is developed with them in mind, and not the backing of rich businessmen and powerful trade unions is clear. To many, it seems irrational to donate such large sums if nothing in exchange is sought in exchange, a claim which politicians refute, almost incredulously in my opinion. Meeting with politicians in secret over dinner away from civil servants and officials further thickens the mud, when assessing the transparency and accountability of our elected officials. This from a politically scientific level creates an even bigger democratic deficit. The PM whoever it is, is elected only by his/her local constituency (circa 90,000 people, often in a safe seat) not the35/40 million entitled to vote, and if he/she is following some policies that financiers slip across to them at their private dinners, then it is right to ask what’s the point of having an election in the first place? The indirect nature of our system, means once elected,
representatives have a relatively free reign on what to pursue and from whom, with little accountability.

Secondly, bringing it back from the theoretical implications, this news could not come at a worse time. George Osborne’s(Chancellor of the Exchequer) Budget was leaked so much, I for one didn’t even bother watching it, as I knew the main points, and the abolition of the 50p tax rate will further drive home the implication that the Tories are enacting legislation for their friends in the City (even before the monetarist argument, and even Keynesian (as Sky News reported yesterday) ideas of cutting rates to increase tax yield is wheeled out). The leaks caused the emphasis to be on the cutting of the top rate and “granny tax” rather than according to Osborne, the “good news” of rising starting income tax thresholds.

Francis Maude (Cabinet Minister) did his best to drop Cameron in it, arguing in the Telegraph that “party donors should be able to get access to the Prime Minister which he claimed was neither “improper or new” “. An appeal to history like this doesn’t make an action right, the abuse of women has gone on for years, and not even Dennis Waterman would say it’s right. “Mr Maude repeatedly dismissed calls for Downing Street to publish a list of those donors whom Mr Cameron privately met at No 10”, which he said happens rarely. If he’s telling the truth, publish the list and we’ll judge that for ourselves. I’m sure no one will begrudge the Cameron’s having one or two people round for tea at No. 10, if the occasions are purely social. High office can be a lonely place, and everyone has the right to invite friends around. The reluctance to release the information, will further add to the speculation that, a little more than appears is going on.

This also brings into perspective the appalling judgement of men who are meant to be seen as the some of the cleverest in our country. David Cameron and William Hague, Wikipedia informs me are proud holders of First Class Honours degrees in PPE from Oxford University, so they must have something between their ears, but when you hear Hague calling Jeffrey Archer a “decent man” (shortly after jailed for perjury) and Cameron appointing people like Andy Coulson as a spin doctor, it makes you wonder whether this stuff between their ears sometimes is mush. Cameron himself said on the record that lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen, yet he put himself in a position to be at the centre of the latest scandal. We have had Cash-for-Questions, the F1 sponsorship debacle, Blair allegedly raffling off peerages to donors, the Deripaska affair, the “Cab for hire” fiasco, now this in the past 20 years it beggar’s belief that anyone is still trying to raise money in this way, when there has been so much bad press about it.

The answer of state funding has been put forward, which on the surface I would say is the better scheme. Figures put this at around £23m annually (or 50p a voter), with the Tories objecting it on grounds of expense (and probably their backers/Labour unions wouldn’t like it either, as their influence would plummet) to the public purse and no doubt other parties using similarly flimsy reasons. This is the country that spends £45m a day being in the European Union; debt interest (not the debt itself) of £42bn in 2010, so spending what is comparatively a small amount to clean up the whole system seems to me a much better allocation of public resources than parties claim. Who knows, once free of the shackles of financial backers like unions and businessmen, genuinely new policies in the interests of the people may be introduced and real progress on problems made? Or maybe that’s just too wishful a thinking…..