The constant bickering between and within the great Houses, led by the Brexiteers, could in the end result in the devastation of our economy to the massive detriment of everyday people, while the main characters continue to enjoy their extravagant lives.
George Osborne and Michael Gove have shown that they are not averse to adopting Labour's policies where it suits their image as one nation conservatives. We are more than prepared to work cross-party to achieve change, if that is their genuine intent. But as is too often true with this Government, this seems another case of rhetoric not being reflected in reality.
"Unelectable", "inexperienced", "would lead the party over a precipice", the efforts of the Labour establishment to discredit Jeremy Corbyn's leadersh...
This week, the Home Secretary launched the new National Crime Agency, along with a Serious and Organised Crime Strategy. Only last week, Transparency International published the Anti-Corruption Scorecard - an assessment of the UK's performance on a range of corruption indicators. If the Government delivers on its new strategy, the scorecard will soon look dated.
Do you know Bilderberg? Nope? Well given the dark cloak of secrecy shrouding the shadowy annual conflab don't feel bad for not getting the memo. For the uninitiated, each year the world's elite bankers, royalty, parliamentarians and CEOs self-imprison themselves in some of the most luxurious hotels in the world for a weekend of, well, who knows...?
Last night I ... tuned into the BBC's coverage of the House of Lords debate on the Justice and Security Bill via Democracy Live's excellent website. (Yeah, I know, online parliamentary debates are the new rock 'n' roll). Anyway, here's the short version of what happened: the government won, human rights lost.
The bill, under this light, can be seen as an effective and convenient way to get rid of claims which shines scrutiny over British intelligence agencies. This will no doubt be a win for the security establishment as it will become harder for accountability and transparency to be reached amongst claims against them
The Legal aid Bill gave the coalition government the most defeats of any bill in parliament for the last sixty years. In the end government only won by one vote in the house of Lords. A vote they would not have had if Lord Newton was still around to vote.
Last week, lawyers for the police were partly successful in pushing a case concerning what has been described as the "sexual and psychological abuse of campaigners for social justice ... by undercover police officers" into a secret tribunal, from which little if any evidence of just how this was allowed to happen will emerge.
Wednesday sees the formal dispatch from the House of Lords of what the wilder critics have named my "Secret Courts Bill". The Bill's passage has so far aroused great passion and debate - as any Bill which seeks to deliver the twin imperatives of justice and security must always do.
To appeal to a broader electorate, Cameron needs people in his Cabinet in the mould of Ken Clarke. But keeping Ken in Cabinet for his easy and affable way with the voters is insulting to him and to many of the views he holds.
Julian Assange is accused of rape. I thought this whole 'it was only sex without a condom!' thing was cleared up by now, but I've still been seeing tweets to that effect over the weekend. You can read a list of the accusations here, but to summarise: he's accused of holding a woman down in order to have sex with her, penetrating a woman in her sleep, and having sex without a condom against the woman's wishes.
People are bonkers. I know this. I witness it on a daily basis and have learnt in recent years that 'normal' is not something that happens in humanity.
In 1942 William Beveridge, an economist, published the 'Beveridge report which identified five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idl...
This week, after the eight defeat on the legal aid bill in the house of lords a source close to Ken Clarkes responded by saying: "It's yet another example of Labour peers behaving like they're in the Greek parliament, not the House of Lords." This is wrong and its not Labour.
Today peers will vote on amendments that will decide the future of the legal aid budget for over 645,000 women, children, families, pensioners and citizens in England and Wales. Sound off for Justice and the group campaigning against the bill all recognise that we must save the taxpayer money. This has never been and issue and we know how to save £40 million more than the government. What is in contention is how we do this and what is 'fair and reasonable'?