It says something of the political claque that the issue of the moment is Eric Pickles' performance on the BBC's "Question Time" programme yesterday – on the vexed issue of MPs' expenses in general and the second homes allowance in particular.

Not having watched the programme – not last night or ever – we can only take it on trust that last night was "something of a train wreck" but it also says something of the political classes that they do not seem to be able to "park" this issue and move on to more important things. Why they cannot go for this elegantly simple solution is beyond me.

View full article here

I really like the front cover of the book. At the moment it is on pre-order at Amazon.co.uk for £19.99. Will that price come down closer to the release date? I will look forward to reading the book too.

Hope so ... they always reduce it on Amazon. Glad you liked the cover. We were really impressed with it ... the graphics boys have really trumped this time ... although I'm trying to get the Land Rover changed to a Snatch!

The debate about the "legality" of the war is a debate about it's ultimate meaning and intention, it's moral component, it's tenability. How do you motivate people to support a war if they don't even really know what it's about?

Amazon usually do send pre-orders at the cheapest possible prevailing price (I've recently pre-ordered "The Pub and The People: A Worktown Study" by Mass Observation, where I will try to work out where I went wrong in life when I left the licensed trade. )

However, I don't really like the cover of your book. It looks a bit like one of those "Sven Hassel" "books": putting myself in the place of a "browser" I'd probably glance at the cover and think, Oh, some scroat trying to pretend he "done his duty" out there.

(I *know* the name of the author would attract my own personal attention, but how many out there have ever heard of Richard? Not as many who have now heard of the Hannan man. Unfortunately.)

You might be missing the synesthsia-type phenomenon, probably strictly called associativity or something like that by the neuroscientists. There's another highly visible author who writes fiction under the name Richard North. Dale Carnegie of "How to make friends..." fame changed his name to his great success to match Andrew Carnegie the philanthropist for such associations.

The war officially finished on 1 May 2003. That is history. What followed was an occupation, disrupted by a major insurgency - which the British failed to contain and thereby were defeated.

While the history of the war and the lead up to it is of some interest - not that there is now very much we do not know about it - given that the Armed Forces are currently engaged in another counter-insurgency campaign, it might just be a good idea to explore why we lost in Iraq, in the hope that we do not repeat the mistakes.

It would seem to me that that is of somewhat greater priority, alongside a review of current strategy and tactics in Afghanistan. Do devote time an energy to an inquiry on the Iraq war, instead of focusing on the more pressing issues, seems to me to be lunacy.

Blimey! Do you come here often?

OK, I've had a couple of beers (etc) but honestly, I just copied the pic of your book cover to my desktop then opened it in IrfanView to kind of full size and it looks a mess. That is only my opinion. I am inebriated ATM, but trying to speak truthfully [1] through a befuddled thingy, that book cover is not worthy of Richard North.

"Ministry Of Defeat" is just so... so... ? Please change it.

[1] out of the mouths ...

Holy crap! I've heard of this speech, but this is the first time I've seen it!


Great balls of ire!

I look forward to buying your book.

But, I must say that guy Hannan (???) can become Conservstive PM of the UK tomorrow. Bring on the election; ditch propellor head - the useless idiot. This guy can win. Also, win in a meaningful manner as he will actually be Conservative.

I don't think it quite works like that. I mean, look how many "meaningful" speeches Churchill made, all of them very much to the point, but none of them meant much in the eyes of.. well, the eyes of the eyeballs or watchers or something like that.

I don't think anyone of importance was watching Mr. Hannan. They all seemed to be watching Mr. Brown to catch his reaction, hence all those "rictus" references etc.

Still, if Mr. Hannan keeps ploughing the same furrow, who knows? Maybe in a (quite a few) few years hence when Brussels stops sprouting he might be slightly remembered.

There is some mileage to be had from the fact it's a million people actively wanting to know what he said, as opposed to happening to see it on the telly or happening to read about it in their usual newspaper and receiving Hannan's message sullied by the influence of a journalist or editor.

I wouldn't say the internet has changed politics but the politicians themselves, and by effect the politics they perpetrate.(I appreciate that is probably too pedantic a distinction but I see politics as a symptom of the politicians more than the reverse.) They are massively more accessible if they wish to be. Those MPs who are in possession of their own mind then have a ready outlet for it. The machinations of Government and Parliament are more accessible too, and are increasingly appearing to be detatched from people's expectations on competency, fairness and common sense. And they know it.

Politics will always be a mostly tribal, point scoring affair even on the internet. Some of that is stoked by the media and always has been. Anything less than total obedience to The Leader will often be painted as some kind of leadership challenge or chaos in the ranks. However, the internet has brought about the chance for politicians to earn or lose votes by their own words and deeds throughout the life of a Parliament, not just at an election, and to do so without the nannying Party machine if they wish. Hopefully it will lead to parties that are a collection of similar minded individuals rather than a Leader and their automoton army.

Representation of the people is no longer a largely one-way affair and MPs will have to adapt or die.

Only while Party HQs hold sway. If we get a rise of Independents/minor parties then votes in the House are no longer about counting the sheep who pre-sold their opinion to a party HQ and we may even get real debate.