Well here we are again, sitting back and watching the world's governments hammer out a "deal" at yet another climate change conference.

Yet whilst this is going on, we still have significant numbers of politicians in all the big polluting states who either don't understand the science or simply wish to ignore it or worse still lie about it, sadly this includes some members of the modern conservative party.

Yesterday at Copenhagen, the talks broke down because the more economically developed countries didn't want to give up as much as they really have to in order to save the planet, and thankfully the poorer nations of the world didn't let them get away with it again. After a long night of negotiations the talks re-started today, but inevitably with far smaller concessions than are needed.

As a Geology student with an interest in the environment, it sickens me to see so many powerful people simply ignore the imperative presented by the Science, and thanks to the so-called "Climate-Gate" they have another excuse to do nothing.

Climate-gate was a farce of the highest order, with many of the self proclaimed sceptics quote mining from stolen email correspondence to try and bolster their all but destroyed ivory tower, and it very nearly worked - even convincing the COP15 negotiators from Saudi Arabia - however the scientific and blogging community acted quickly enough in pointing out the errors in the argument and it only caused a ripple in the conference, rather than a tsunami.

just to go through one example really quickly, the "hide the decline" comment that was taken by many (and forced by some) to mean a decline in temperature was not a drop in temperature, it was a drop in the proxy record for tree rings, which the scientists acknowledge that they do not understand, because it is anomalous to all other proxies (coral reefs, ice cores, geological varves etc.) AND the observed temperature record.

In the wake of this farce, all the major scientific establishments including the IPCC, the Met Office and my own native National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have reaffirmed their support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming model.

Does this mean that the debate is over? Well; in purely scientific circles it was over years ago, politically however it is raging as fiercely as ever (which is beyond me to explain). Does it mean that we will get a legally binding, effective, Carbon reducing Treaty out of Copenhagen that actually will help to save the planet?

I fear almost certainly not.

Ben Brooks

** The views expressed herein are the views of one person, and not neccesarily those of the Conservative Party - Parliamentary or Constituency.**

I have just watched the BBC's Question Time in Salisbury.

From what I can gather, all three mainstream parties are clamouring to remove heredetary peers and move to a wholly elected House of Lords... needless to say I am horrified. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and now William Hague (hopefully soon to be our Foreign Secretary) calling for the Upper House in the bicameral parliament to be made fully electable by the public.

So now we see that MP's; whilst righting the lack of checks and balances in one area (MP's Expenses) are now trying to remove the checks and balances in another.

The House of Lords exists to act as a check and a balance to the government and parliament of the day. Peerages in the past have been given as hereditary so that when the Government trys to force through legislation that is only there to "please the electorate" and not for the good of the nation in the long term, the Lords can take time to think on, reccommend changes to and if neccesary overturn this legislation without worrying that the electorate will rebel against it.

The House of Lords of twenty years ago was a righteous and respected institution. And yet, after merely twelve years of a "New" Labour government we are seeing them misusing emergency measures to push through "popular" laws (such as the Fox-Hunting ban which only really had <50% of the UK populations support) and hereditory peers are being replaced by Life Peers, and now we are apparantly considering a fully elected upper house.

I am admittedly in the minority - even within the modern Conservative Party, and I accept that the House of Lords needs to change. If I were to chose how to change it I would say that Her Majesty the Queen should chose from a list of people given to her by the Government after every General Election and that no more than 10 Lords be replaced at any one time, but an elected house will just result in more partisan and "popular" laws being passed, just one more step toward Americanisation... which I am sure we do not want. How long before everyone is calling to join a Federated States of Europe... I wonder...?

** The views expressed herein are the views of one person, and not neccesarily those of the Conservative Party - Parliamentary or Constituency. **

This past two weeks has seen both a minister and shadow minister give up front bench positions, two Labour MP's suspended from the parliamentary party, and now the Speaker of the House has resigned. What has politics come to that we are told that MP's have tabled a motion of no confidence in a man whom they elected, and that is supposed to stand above the fray?

I must admit I feel awfully sorry for Mr Martin, he has done wonders for his constituents, and has tried to do a good job as speaker, even if he did midinterpret the role. Needless to say the man resigned his post and "jumped before he was pushed." David Cameron was quick to say that he had done the right thing, but that this country needed a General Election - but do we?

Well, my attitude is that we do need a General Election. After all we did not elect the current government, and now... much like John Major's conservative government before it... sleaze and corruption has brought the government (and politics) to the edge of oblivion. This government, or more to the point this parliament, has lost it's credibility and moral authority and as such has lost what every parliament requires - its popular mandate to govern.

Could the parliament do anything to fix this without a General Election? Well yes it could but no matter what measures those in Westminster Palace take; the public will look at the parliament as a Lame Duck... too full of scheming, "on-the-take" politicians who are all too interested in internal machinations. They will view the parliament as not focussed on the matters affecting the country today; in other words TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.

If for no other reason alone, Gordon Brown should formally request a dissolution of parliament so that those who have misappropriated funds in the extreme can be purged from Westminster, and hopefully the next Government will have regained some element of trust from the public. Gordon Brown is not Bill Clinton, Boris Johnson or George W. Bush - he cannot get away with this kind of political tom-foolery.

At least there MIGHT be a silver lining in that this whole fiasco might just remove some of the general public's political apathy, and get them involved in politics again!

Whatever happens, when the Election does occur, I will not be the least bit surprised if UKIP win seats (not neccesarily a bad thing on the EU front) and likewise I would not be surprised if the BNP or other far-out political parties gain seats - undoubtedly a disaster for democracy in this country.