Good heavens! Are we seriously expected to believe that simply because two candidates happen to share a similar name, the result of a democratic election should potentially be declared invalid? The extraordinary spectacle of the United States Department of Justice seeking to intervene in an election before a single vote has been counted raises profoundly troubling questions about the impartial administration of justice. The Alaska Supreme Court has already determined that both candidates are entitled to appear on the ballot. Surely the responsibility for choosing between them rests with the electorate, not with a federal administration seeking to challenge the result should its preferred candidate be defeated. Whatever happened to the fundamental democratic principle that elections are decided by the people, rather than by those already holding political power? Democracy cannot function if the rules are respected only when the result is politically convenient. And what conceivable business does the United States Department of Justice have interfering in an Alaskan Senate election, particularly when the state's own Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter? One is entitled to ask whether the Department of Justice is fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities or increasingly being employed as Donald Trump's personal firm of solicitors, advancing his political interests at the expense of the impartial administration of justice. The Department of Justice exists to uphold the law, not to protect the electoral fortunes of the President's political allies.

Unlike Piers Morgan and many others in this country, we should recognise a fundamental principle of fairness: Meghan should not be held responsible for the actions of her father, nor should she be subjected to public criticism over matters entirely beyond her control. Whether people like or dislike Harry and Meghan is a matter of personal opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own view. However, that does not justify dragging her name, her husband or, worse still, their children into controversies for which they bear absolutely no responsibility. Whatever her father may or may not have done is a matter for him alone. It is neither Meghan’s responsibility nor that of her family. Attempting to manufacture headlines by exploiting those family connections is deeply unfair, wholly unnecessary and, frankly, inexcusable. There comes a point when common decency must prevail over the pursuit of publicity. We should draw a line under this now. The actions of a parent are not the responsibility of their children, and no family should be made to suffer simply because their name generates headlines. Enough is enough. Leave Meghan and her children out of it.

Ordinarily, we would be among the last to defend the Secretary of State. However, regarding the PHP vulnerability, it is important that we distinguish a genuine technical security issue from an opportunity for political point-scoring. Following yesterday's disclosure of the vulnerability to the relevant parties, those responsible for maintaining affected systems have been faced with the urgent task of assessing the risks and implementing the necessary security patches. For many modern websites, upgrading to a newer, supported version of PHP may be relatively straightforward. However, the situation is considerably more complicated for legacy systems, many of which continue to operate on older versions of PHP and associated software. This is particularly relevant to government departments and other organisations operating critical infrastructure. Such systems are often maintained on established software configurations for reasons of stability, reliability and compatibility. Upgrading to the latest version is not always a simple exercise, particularly where doing so could disrupt essential services or introduce unforeseen programming faults. As previous major IT outages have demonstrated, even well-intentioned software updates can have serious consequences when compatibility and testing are overlooked. The disclosure has therefore created an urgent challenge for system administrators and security professionals, many of whom are now working to assess exposure, implement appropriate patches and verify that their systems remain both secure and operational. We should also recognise that applying a security patch is not necessarily the end of the process. Systems must be tested, dependencies checked and security controls verified to ensure that the remedy has not introduced further vulnerabilities or compromised essential functionality. This is a technical security issue requiring a measured, professional and coordinated response, not political opportunism. The priority must be to address the vulnerability thoroughly, carefully and correctly, while maintaining the reliability of the systems upon which businesses, public services and millions of people depend. So please, do not attempt to turn this into a political controversy, because that is most certainly not what this is about. This is a global cybersecurity issue affecting potentially vulnerable systems in countries across the world, irrespective of their governments or political affiliations. No country is inherently immune to flaws in widely used software, and the response must be driven by technical expertise, cooperation and responsible security management, not political point-scoring.

I believe you have overlooked the United Kingdom, which was a signatory to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances concerning its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Britain was one of the nations that made that commitment, and we have continued to stand by Ukraine through military, financial and humanitarian support. We have not abandoned Ukraine, nor have we forgotten the commitments made to its people.

What more can one say? The truth has a remarkable habit of revealing itself in the end, however determined some may be to conceal it. Political expediency may buy influence and favour for a time, but it cannot purchase integrity, nor can it silence the consequences of betrayal indefinitely. Ultimately, this is what happens when you sell your soul to the Devil: sooner or later, the price must be paid.

They must surely realise by now that the presence of Vladimir Putin at the G20 would create serious diplomatic difficulties, potentially prompting other world leaders to boycott the summit. The G20 is an international forum, not an institution controlled by the United States. Washington may exercise considerable influence as host, but it does not have the unilateral authority to determine who belongs to the G20 or to dictate its membership. Such decisions must be approached collectively, with due regard for the sovereignty and standing of every participating nation.

Seriously, Trump, what are you talking about? The United States is only 250 years old. You cannot have thousands of years of shared history with a country that didn't even exist. Surely someone in the room had enough sense to say, ‘Mr President, that's simply wrong.’

An absolutely excellent appraisal of the current situation by Kurt Volker, the former United States Ambassador to NATO and Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations during Donald Trump’s first administration. This video interview is well worth watching. Although some of the questions are distinctly leading, Volker’s responses are measured, factual and informed by considerable diplomatic experience. He possesses an invaluable understanding of how the Trump administration operates, the complexities of international diplomacy and, perhaps most importantly, the consequences of American foreign policy decisions. His observations are particularly pertinent given the extraordinary events of recent weeks, during which Trump appears increasingly to have lost all sense of diplomatic judgement. The spectacle of Americans reportedly denouncing their own President as a traitor at public rallies reflects the depth of anger his conduct has provoked. Meanwhile, America’s international reputation continues to suffer, not least from the extraordinary spectacle of those surrounding Trump appearing more interested in flattering Vladimir Putin than confronting the realities of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. What makes Volker’s assessment particularly compelling is that it comes not from an outsider unfamiliar with the administration, but from someone who served within it and understands both the personalities involved and the consequences of their decisions. At a time when serious diplomacy is desperately needed, his perspective is a valuable reminder of the difference between informed international statesmanship and the sycophantic appeasement that has come to characterise so much of the present approach towards Putin.

Let us remind ourselves of a little political history that James Cleverly ought to know better than most. James Cleverly was a Conservative member of the London Assembly throughout Boris Johnson’s mayoralty and subsequently became Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, succeeding Brian Coleman, another prominent figure in Johnson’s administration and a convicted criminal. Although Cleverly chaired the fire authority rather than the police authority, he was nevertheless part of the Conservative establishment at City Hall during a period in which the Metropolitan Police suffered substantial reductions in funding, civilian staffing and operational support. And the figures deserve to be remembered. Between March 2010 and March 2016, the Metropolitan Police lost 4,658 civilian staff, a reduction of almost 33 per cent. Over the same period, the number of Police Community Support Officers fell by a further 3,019. Taken together with reductions in warranted officers, these figures represented the loss of nearly 9,000 members of the Metropolitan Police workforce. These were not simply administrative luxuries or unnecessary bureaucratic positions. They were the people who supported investigations, intelligence gathering, custody arrangements, operational planning and the countless essential functions that allowed trained police officers to concentrate on policing London's streets. Anyone with the slightest understanding of how a major emergency service operates should appreciate that removing such substantial numbers of support staff does not magically eliminate the work they performed. Those responsibilities remain, and when there are insufficient civilian personnel to undertake them, the burden inevitably falls elsewhere, potentially drawing warranted officers away from the very frontline duties politicians claim to be protecting. And let us be absolutely clear about where responsibility lay. The Metropolitan Police is not solely accountable to the Mayor of London. Its governance involves a statutory relationship between the Commissioner, the Mayor and the Home Secretary. The Home Office exercises significant responsibilities for national policing policy, central government funding and national security, while the Home Secretary also has a direct role in the appointment and accountability of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. During the period in question, London had a Conservative Mayor in Boris Johnson and a Conservative Home Secretary in Theresa May. Both occupied positions of considerable authority within the Metropolitan Police's governance arrangements. Indeed, both were directly involved in the appointment of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 2011. The financial framework within which the Metropolitan Police operated was therefore shaped by Conservative decisions at both City Hall and Westminster. Responsibility cannot conveniently be attributed to one institution while ignoring the statutory powers and financial decisions of the other. James Cleverly was not some distant observer of that administration. He was part of it. He sat within the political establishment responsible for London's governance and chaired the authority overseeing the capital's fire and rescue service. He should understand better than most the consequences of imposing substantial financial reductions upon organisations whose effectiveness depends upon experienced personnel, operational resilience and properly funded support services. Indeed, those of us involved in London's emergency services during that period remember only too well the arguments surrounding cuts, staffing reductions and the consequences for frontline operations. It is therefore remarkable to hear James Cleverly delivering lectures about the condition of policing in London without first acknowledging the record of the Conservative administrations with which he was associated. He is perfectly entitled to scrutinise the present Mayor and demand accountability for the Metropolitan Police. That is an essential part of democratic politics. But accountability cannot be selective, nor can political history be conveniently rewritten whenever responsibility becomes uncomfortable. If James Cleverly wishes to discuss the pressures facing the Metropolitan Police, perhaps he should begin by explaining how removing almost a third of its civilian workforce was supposed to strengthen the organisation, improve operational effectiveness or keep more warranted officers on London's streets. He might also explain why the responsibilities of the Home Secretary, particularly concerning police funding, national policing policy and the appointment and accountability of the Commissioner, should be overlooked when examining the consequences of Conservative decisions during those years. Those are legitimate questions, and they deserve serious answers. Before James Cleverly lectures anyone about the state of policing in London, he ought to acknowledge what happened when his own party controlled both City Hall and the Home Office, and recognise that responsibility for the Metropolitan Police has always extended beyond the Mayor alone. Those of us who witnessed that period have not forgotten it, and neither should he.

It is utterly sickening to witness the sycophantic fawning over Vladimir Putin by Donald Trump’s so-called peace negotiator, a man whose professional background lies in estate agency rather than international diplomacy. Had anyone suggested ten years ago that the United States would entrust negotiations of such enormous international significance to individuals with little diplomatic experience, rather than seasoned diplomats with decades of expertise in international law, statecraft and conflict resolution, they would have been laughed out of the room. Yet here we are, watching precisely that spectacle unfold. One can only imagine what Putin thinks when the doors close and the cameras are switched off. Does he sit there chuckling to himself, scarcely believing the extraordinary spectacle he has just witnessed? After all, Putin is hardly unaware of his own record. To hear an American representative publicly showering him with praise and admiration must surely leave him wondering whether the man sitting opposite him has the faintest understanding of whom he is dealing with. The whole spectacle reminds us of that wonderful scene in the American film Pretty Woman, when Edward Lewis, played by Richard Gere, is spending an obscene amount of money in a clothing shop. When the shop manager, Mr Hollister, asks how things are going, Edward replies, “I think we need some major sucking up.” Hollister immediately begins flattering Edward, only to be interrupted with the words, “Hollister. Not me. Her.” The difference, of course, is that in Trump's negotiations, it appears to be Putin receiving all the sucking up, and one suspects he is enjoying every minute of it. Unfortunately, this is not a Hollywood comedy. It is a war in which hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost or shattered, the sovereignty of a European nation hangs in the balance, and the future security of Europe is at stake. Diplomacy requires judgement, experience, integrity and an understanding of the adversary sitting across the negotiating table. It does not require flattery, personal admiration or the sort of obsequious behaviour one might expect from someone desperately trying to secure a lucrative property deal. Putin must scarcely believe his luck. The tragedy is that Ukraine and Europe are being forced to live with the consequences.

Here we have yet another example of what appears to be a troll or automated account spreading misinformation, potentially originating from outside the United Kingdom. Whether the individual is based overseas or operating within this country, the important question is who is behind such claims, what their motives might be and whether the information they are circulating bears any resemblance to the truth. We need to challenge this misinformation at its source, beginning with the facts surrounding public sector pay. During the fourteen years of Conservative government, public sector workers endured prolonged periods of pay restraint, freezes and increases that frequently failed to keep pace with inflation. In real terms, many experienced a substantial erosion of their earnings and purchasing power. The more recent pay awards must therefore be understood, at least in part, as attempts to correct years of lost ground rather than the extravagant increases some commentators would have us believe. Even now, these settlements do not necessarily restore everything that has been lost. More importantly, we should remember something fundamental about the country in which we live. Public sector workers are not an unnecessary burden upon society. They are the very people upon whom the functioning of our nation depends. From the blue light services and healthcare to education, local government, public safety and the maintenance of essential services, their contribution touches virtually every aspect of our daily lives. Yet there remains a disturbing tendency among some commentators to portray these dedicated men and women as unproductive, overpaid or somehow undeserving of reasonable remuneration. The reality is considerably different. Across our public services, people are being expected to deliver increasingly demanding services with resources that have been stretched, reduced or exhausted over many years. Our blue light services, particularly the fire and rescue service, the police and the ambulance service, confront these pressures every single day. They are expected to protect lives, respond to emergencies and maintain public safety despite mounting operational pressures and increasingly constrained resources. In many areas, the standards of service that were achievable ten or twenty years ago have become increasingly difficult to maintain, not through any lack of commitment from those delivering them, but because the resources available have failed to keep pace with the demands placed upon them. These are people who continue to serve the public under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, often carrying responsibilities that most of their critics would struggle to comprehend. So, when we encounter accounts seeking to undermine public servants through misleading claims about their pay, conditions or contribution to society, we should examine the evidence, question the source and consider whether the account itself is genuine. Not every anonymous or hostile account is necessarily a foreign operation, but coordinated misinformation and deliberate attempts to undermine confidence in public institutions are genuine concerns that deserve scrutiny. We should never allow those spreading falsehoods to turn the British public against the very people who protect them, care for them and keep this country functioning. Our public servants deserve informed debate, fair treatment and respect, not to become convenient targets for misinformation and political resentment.

Surely the time has come for Britain to reconsider the ownership and control of its natural gas resources. We are now being told that gas extracted from beneath British waters will supply British homes and businesses, yet somehow this additional domestic production will make no meaningful difference to the price consumers pay. That raises a fundamental question. If these resources belong to the nation, why should the principal financial benefits flow to private energy companies rather than the British people? We need only look across the North Sea to Norway, which has demonstrated how a country can manage its natural resources in the national interest. Through substantial state ownership, direct participation in oil and gas production, and its sovereign wealth fund, Norway has ensured that an extraordinary proportion of the wealth generated from its natural resources benefits the nation and future generations. Britain, by contrast, has largely entrusted the commercial exploitation of its resources to private companies, collecting taxes and licensing revenues while leaving consumers exposed to internationally determined energy prices. Energy is not merely another commercial commodity. It is a strategic national resource upon which our households, industries and wider economy depend. We should therefore be asking whether the time has come to establish a publicly owned national energy corporation, following the principles of the Norwegian model, ensuring that the wealth generated from Britain's natural resources is used primarily for the benefit of the country. National ownership would not automatically guarantee cheaper bills, but it would provide greater control over production revenues, domestic energy policy and the distribution of the financial benefits. It would also offer the opportunity to establish a sovereign wealth fund, investing the proceeds for the long term prosperity of Britain rather than allowing the principal commercial rewards to remain with private shareholders. The purpose of exploiting Britain's natural resources should be to strengthen our economy, protect households from excessive energy costs and secure our long term national interests. Private enterprise may have a role in delivering that objective, but corporate profitability should never take precedence over the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Norway has demonstrated that natural resources can create lasting national wealth. The question is why Britain should not pursue the same principle, placing the interests of its people before the profits of private energy companies.