According to some newspaper reports, Palin has announced to ‘close’ friends that she is ‘out of politics. Period.’ She has found public life exhausting and feels like she needs to raise her family. On the other hand, some political experts say this is the time to resign to begin laying the groundwork for 2012. Alaska is too far away geographically, and could cause negative press as she would have to be away from her home state too much. But this is all speculation. Palin has again left the world baffled at her actions. Nobody leaves office the day before July 4th without good reason. We just have to wait and see. One thing is for sure; I am glad she is back. Politics is boring without her, but she really shouldn’t take this as a compliment.

However, there is no proof that the election result has been manipulated. And there wont be any proof, since no one has access to the full election results, most likely because the ballots haven’t actually been counted. But Obama, and Brown and everybody else, focus their comments on what they can condemn, and that is the Iranian security services heavy handed way of dealing with the demonstrators.

Two points I would like to make here: 1) Condemning the violence isn’t going to make them beat and shoot their people any less. All it will perhaps do is tell the demonstrators that the outside world cares. However, the opposition in Iran probably already knew this. 2) Am I the only who thinks that considering the forms of punishment Iran has for crimes not even considered crimes in our part of the world, their reaction to these demonstrations seem, in comparison, mild.

The prime minister said that he was determined to continue his in his job, despite comments he made only last week, indicating that he would be happy to leave Downing Street and become a teacher. In an interview with News of the World, Brown said that he was ‘just getting on with the job’ and that he would lead Labour in to the next general election that ‘we must and will win’. He continued to say that it is important for people to realize that Labour is not just a party, but a cause.

I think Mr. Brown now proves that he takes himself just a tad too seriously. There are three major political parties in the UK; Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. They all have different values and thoughts on how to best run the nation, but to call it a cause is a bit much. It is like saying that the job as prime minister is a calling. It is not. It is called ambition.

They have been falling like flies, all day. Not all have left with their tails between their legs, but this mass exodus must be the clearest sign so far that senior Labour MPs are not happy with the way their party is run. So I think it is time that Gordon took one for the team and stepped down. And that wouldn’t just be for the team, but for himself as well. If he stays until the bitter end, he won’t have a shred of credibility left. All the good things he did as Chancellor will be forgotten due to his short, and disastrous reign as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party. Is a few more months really worth his future? Or does he truly believe that he can turn things around? If he does, he is more disillusioned than I thought.

With this minimum sentence she will serve her five years. Then the Parole Board will see her case, and if the Board refuses to release her, she will remain in prison for another two years before the Parole Board reviews her case again. If still refused, another two years. And so on.

There can be no doubt that baby P’s mother has some severe mental issues. A traumatic childhood was described in court, but the judge described her as manipulative, self-centred and calculating. I doubt we’ll ever know why she allowed this to happen, what kind of spell her boyfriend had on her to not make her act in defense of her defenseless child. This case leaves so many of us with a sense of disbelief and immense sadness. The only thing coming out of this that can be seen as good, is the review of children’s services in Britain. Not too little, but way too late.

If the trust in politics is in pieces, will it really help to hold a general election one year ahead of schedule? Who should people vote for? All parties have shamed and greedy MPs, and all part leaders have behaved in a similar way, so distinguishing the three main parties on the expenses scandal alone is close to impossible. And will an election restore the public trust? I don’t think so. I think Parliament need to show us that they can deal with this swiftly and in dismiss any MP that has claimed for something he or she shouldn’t have. Furthermore, Parliament need to change the expenses system so it cannot be abused, so there are no rules to be bent and so that there are no loopholes where someone can claim back the cost of a massage chair.

Before this is all done, a general election is of no use to us. So Mr. Cameron, use your voice on something else. Like putting things right.

Who would win? The parties are as bad as each other when it comes to the MPs expenses. Some have claimed for the upkeep of their gardens. Some have claimed for cleaning their moat. Others have claimed for mortgage interest payments. Flipping has become a hot topic, and the first minister has been sacked. Justice minister Shahid Malik got the boot when it emerged that he had claimed for £750 for a massage chair and £2600 for a home cinema. The straw that broke the camels back and the official line from Downing Street was the allegations Malik was letting out his Dewsbury home, which is a breech of the ministerial code.

Amid the political fallout, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police have said they will set up a special investigations team. A senior from the Met said they would assess allegations in order to decide whether criminal investigations should be started. This must be music to the outraged public’s ears, as a majority wants the shamed MPs to stand down and face the consequences.

Calls are being made for Hazel Blears to stand down from the Cabinet after she was told by a colleague that any Labour MP who avoided paying capital gains tax ‘should not be a Labour MP’. The Communities Secretary is one of many MPs who has avoided paying tax on property funded by parliamentary allowances. In short, Blears ‘flipped’ her second home three times in one year to be able to purchase goods for multiple homes, all at the taxpayers expense. She was also able to avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of one property she had designated her second home by telling the HM Revenue and Customs it was her primary residence. She told the Commons that this residence was her second, and claimed expenses on it.

When confronted by the media, Ms Blears said that she has not broken any rules, but that the system is wrong. And it is. But I have no problems with MPs claiming £2 for a mascara, but when you deliberately swap between homes to maximise your own personal gain whilst making the public pay, you don’t deserve to serve us.

That was not the only piece of bad news for the prime minister. For the first time, a majority – 52% – believe Brown should stand down. The government has been weakened by a deluge of negative headlines over the last month. The row over MPs expenses has been particularly damaging as voters are tightening their belts. The Damien McBride affair did nothing good, and this week Labour suffered an embarrassing defeat on the right of Gurkha soldiers to settle in Britain.

Labour faces local and European elections on June 4th, and a bad performance is likely to fuel speculations about whether Brown should lead the party in the next general election. He has taken several beatings, that is for sure, and with the lack of charisma and good looks, mixed with a difficult financial time, I don’t think he stands a chance.

Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell said that the Forfeiture Committee usually acted upon judgements by courts or relevant regulatory or professional bodies, not by public disdain. His views are not shared by all MPs. Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice said “Sir Fred was the central figure in the collapse of a major Scottish institution. In these circumstances, retaining a knighthood awarded ‘for services to banking’ strikes me as bizarre.”

So what has Sir Fred done to deserve a possible strip of his knighthood? In previous cases where an honour has been revoked there has been a clear determination of guilt. Sir Fred is guilty of several things; greed, immorality and lack of respect, but none of those are illegal. Can we just demand to punish someone simply because we don’t like them? shouldn’t we dig a little deeper within and put ourselves in Sir Fred’s shoes and acknowledge that a £700,000 pension sounds so tempting that we might have done the same thing?