David Cameron has emerged from his tuscan holiday hangover with a classic tory response to crime – zero tolerance; which presumably means that he was tolerant of crime before. Politicians like to posture like this as a sign they are tough leaders. For the past few years Cameron has sought to distance himself from the traditional conservative stance on crime with his concept of the big society. Last week’s riot has seen a pivot towards the old positions. Whether this is a long term change or simple expediency… We will see.

89 year old Helen Thomas “was” the doyen of White House correspondents after reporting on every president since Eisenhower. No longer after she allowed her Lebanese ancestry to get the better of her and she criticised Jews in Israel. Now critics from every political persuasion are lining up to call for her resignation; cast her out.

Helen Thomas’ mistake, if that is the right way to term it, was to conflate judaism with Israel and thereby seemingly criticise jewishness when she may have intended Israel. Indeed criticism of Israel is so frequently viewed as anti-semiticism that few in the USA have the nerve to try it. Those that do, such as Noam Chomsky are fearless in their logic and rarely attack Israel from an emotional perspective as Helen Thomas did.

Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestors and few in Europe would be surprised that she felt such strong feelings about Israel. Many palestinians and Lebanese feel that they are victims of a pogrom all of their own and feel a burning resentment at their treatment at the hands of the Israeli State.

What should Helen Thomas do now? Step back or restate? I sense that if she steps back she will lose her reputation forever so she might be wiser to take the courageous line and restate and clarify her position concerning Israel and judaism. In managing reputation you always have two choices: the quick and easy or the long and hard. Which she will choose remains to be seen.

3 Labour MPs Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and a Tory peer Lord Hanningfield will face criminal charges over alleged misuse of their expenses. They will be charged under section 17 of the Theft Act relating to false accounting; if found guilty the four could land in jail for seven years.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer while announcing the charges said ‘that one other case was still being investigated, as there was insufficient evidence to charge the Labour peer Lord Clarke of Hampstead.

According to Sir Thomas Legg, who carried out the audit of the expenses, stated the system as “deeply flawed”. Hundreds of MPs were ordered to pay back a total of £1.12 million.

So what’s next?
Do we start thinking about reforming the British Politics and Democracy? High-time to give it a thought, the public fuming about the expenses scandal is justified, so faith needs to be restored.