Alan Duncan obviuosly meant a Scottish MP and, in that, he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. How can an Scot MP be PM when the people that elected him (or her) will not be affected by 90% of his policies and actions. This would be unrepresentative government and thus wholly undemocratic. The Conservatives should make a huge issue out of the West Lothian question - its a sure fire vote winner!!!

Perhaps the Conservatives can use his company before supporting another war based on bogus intelligence.

The authors article is very one sided, not surprising give the nature of his trip. Israel would not exist if it were not for Jewish terrorists: the Ergun, Hagganah and Stern Gang. These terrorists (with one Ariel Sharon among their number) also targeted and killed many British soldiers and then went on to lead Israel for many years. So when the author refers to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, I don't disagree with him for a second - I merely point out the flawed logic. Its wrong for anyone to kill innocent civilians, and that includes Jewish terrorists as well as Arab! Israel faces a huge dilemma: democratic or Jewish. It cannot be a democracy as long as it effectively occupies the West Bank & Gaza; it cannot annex these territories without losing its Jewish character. Israel has to choose, and until it does, the conflict will continue. Its as simple as that. Here’s a proposal: Israel gives up all the Occupied Territories in exchange for NATO membership. The Palestinians get their own state, the Israeli’s get security with knobs on. Furthermore, the West forces the Gulf Arab states to finance the entire plan (especially Palestinian reconstruction). For far too long, the Gulf Arab governments have used this conflict to deflect internal criticism from their own brutal rule. Let’s please see some real ideas and debate on this, not the one-sided view of the author as well as Arabists.

Disillusioned: I didn't say that EACH individual media outlet in the UK is balanced or fair. Indeed, each one is surely biased one way or the other. The point is that, COLLECTIVELY, UK (versus US) media is more balanced. There is far greater debate and diverse opinion. In the UK, its still possible to constructively criticise the actions of Israel without being immediately labelled an anti-semite. SimonNewman: Whilst I disagree with the Hamas position on Israel, your "vow to destroy" point reminds me of the following quote: "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?". David Ben-Gurion speaking with Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress

There is a lot of rubbish reported about the Israel-Palestine conflict by both sides, especially in the US media (see the recent report on this by Chicago and Havard professors Mearshemeimer & Walt: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html). The UK media has a tradition of being more balanced and fair on this issue. I shall be watching your posts with interest.

Fox News is great entertainment...a conservative's equivalent to Playboy TV. As a provider of serious news, its complete tosh!

Nadim, Sounds like YOU want to be on the A list. Given your mean-spirited comment I don't think you have a chance, whilst at least Mo does.

Great move by South Dakota. It will take years for the abortion issue to reach the Supreme Court but atleast the train has now been set in motion. Hold on tight - it will be a bumpy ride, but well worth it. The sooner the US ends this abhorent practice the better.

Whilst I understand the point the Editor is making, in one significant way he is being totally disingenuous. Bush is no tax cutter - but a proliferate public spender. He has spent more on education, welfare, defence, a huge amount on white elephants and pork barrel projects - with future generations having to pay the bill through the largest public borrowing program the US has ever seen. (Wait till US interest rates go up - then the US will truly see the economic path Bush has laid for them). Whilst he has portrayed the actual image of a tax cutter, the burden on the US middle class has actually gone up since 2001 (see CBO report of Sep 04). Infact, the US "Tax Freedom Day" is rising once again. Bush has a very poor idea of economics - hate to say it, but in this field Clinton was more supply side the him! So if we are going to talk about what made Bush a winner, lets be smart and stick to the facts not the fiction.

Amongst the large EU nations we now have the highest tax take, and Cameron has no plans to reduce it. What a poor policy. Stability means more of the same - a stable productivity growth rate (one of the poorest in the OECD), a stable GDP growth rate, a stable tax take. Remember Brown's commitment to no more "boom and bust"? What the difference with Cameron? In fact, if you consider most of Cameron's policy indications thus far, can any one tell me whats the difference between him and the government?

Hi, I'm new to this site and it seems great. Well done. I understand some of the concern's raised about Cameron, he does seem to be firing in many directions at one time. However, the Tories really do need to re-consider ALL policy areas - there needs to be a fresh start, with core Tory principles as the only constant. Cameron is doing a far better job thus far than Hague or Howard, and infinitely better than IDS. Good luck to him for 2006!