Robert Kennedy – firmly believed in decentralizing power and the importance of social justice. A strong advocate of civil rights.

Margaret Thatcher – for taking Britain from being a potential “basket case” to a position of international respect.

Otto von Bismarck – blessed with an array of diplomatic and strategic skills. Successfully managed the unification of Germany.

Winston Churchill – for obvious reasons.

Michael Heseltine – both a successful businessman and politician. Flamboyant, ambitious and principled. A lover of trees.

Benjamin Disraeli – the father of a political creed (One Nation Conservatism), a brilliant Commons performer, not to mention a colourful private life. Furthermore, he was the Earl of Beaconsfield.

William Wilberforce – for ridding Britain of slavery.

Clement Atlee – a Labour Prime Minister who undeniably transformed the British, post-war political landscape. Oversaw the creation of NATO.

Abraham Lincoln – a Republican and arguably the greatest American President. The Gettysburg Address alone would be a reason for inclusion. Brought about the abolition of slavery and managed to preserve the Union.

Thomas Jefferson – one of the “Founding Fathers” and Third President of the USA. The principal author of the Declaration of Independence. A strong advocate of the separation of church and state.

The effect of 10 years of the Blair government is that Britain has never seemed so uncritically aligned with the United Sates yet seldom found it so difficult to gets its way – William Hague

I strongly welcome William Hague’s speech today. To broaden the list of countries with which we have close relations has to be in Britain’s national interest. To Japan and India, I would also add Germany. China, on the other hand, is a more difficult issue. Despite obvious increasing economic might, its stance on climate change and human rights, along with the absence of democracy, should not be forgotten.

Forging closer ties with developing global powers should not necessarily mean diluting our historically close relationship with the USA. That “special” relationship is based on many principles, chief amongst them being mutual respect. Rather sadly, this appears to have been lost in recent years. We have been given no evidence that Tony “Yo” Blair’s concerns pre- and post-Iraq were seriously considered by our American allies. Compare that to Mrs Thatcher’s response to the invasion of Grenada in 1983. Despite the then obvious closeness of the Prime Minister (PM) and President, her dismay at the invasion was made public. In contrast, the “special relationship” over the last decade has been made weaker by the apparently unquestioning approach of the Mr Blair. Perhaps by being less fawning, a Conservative PM would secure more American respect.

This is not an article about more woes at the Home Office. I am a long-time fan of this band, having been fortunate enough to have been taken to see them in Milton Keynes aged nine in 1980. According to the BBC, they are reforming for the Grammy Awards next month. There are also rumours of a tour to follow that appearance. For that reason, I have an excuse for posting the following live performance:

We all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men who can provide a loving home for children – Ruth Kelly

In Britain we have an established church. In the USA there is a constitution that formally separates church and state. And yet, until recently, religion hardly played a part in British politics, whilst in America, ‘values issues’ increasingly make the difference between winning and losing elections.

Not so long ago, we had the issue of faith schools. On that occasion the Catholic church was felt to have ‘won’ the day. Now we have the issue of adoption agencies. It would appear that this time around enough members of the cabinet (not the PM) are determined that the government does not ‘lose’ to the Bishops again.

On Radio 4 this morning, David Cameron signalled that he would be supporting the government’s position. Interestingly, the Conservative Party has made the vote on this issue free, as it is views it as a question of conscience. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, indicated on yesterday’s Sunday AM programme that he would be voting against the legislation. So it would appear that both major political parties have differences of opinion over this issue.

Instinctively, I would side with the government’s position on this issue. I am not a social conservative and would be happier if church and state were formally separated in this country. What amazes me, however, is that it is upon this issue that the Labour government has chosen to pick a fight with the bishops. Most of us would agree (I hope) that finding stable homes for disadvantaged children is of paramount importance. I am not aware that there were thousands of gay couples contacting Catholic adoption agencies offering their stable homes for placement. So why create the confrontation? Why has a compromise not been agreed?

Great strides have been made in the last two decades over the issue of gay rights, and rightly so. By pressing this issue now, the Labour government is in danger of pushing the train off the rails. I am not so sure that the majority of Britons are ready “to go into bat” for gay rights over this issue. I have no doubt that, with time, society (and indeed, most faiths) would accept the legitimacy of gay parentage. To push this issue too hard now could potentially undo the good work that has been undertaken to put gay relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.

Over time, the Catholic Church is going to have accept the law of the land. Discrimination laws will never work if religious and other organisations are allowed to pick and choose what they will accept. A more reasonable solution would have been to have given the Catholic Church time (perhaps a decade) to contemplate, and if, as has been indicated elsewhere, they are still unable to accept the law, go ahead and close the agencies. The sad reality is that if the government had been stronger over faith schools a few months ago, I suspect they would not feel such a need to be so dogmatic over adoption agencies now. Politics can be about idealism. Occasionally, it should also be about pragmatism and compromise. Good politicians should know this.

Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats put forward their policy on disengaging from Iraq. They called for a timetable to be set for the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, naming October 2007 as the target month.

To be fair, the Liberal Democrats have held a consistent line on being against our joint invasion of Iraq with the US in 2003. In contrast, the majority of Conservative MPs supported the government in invading Iraq. At the time, if I had been am MP, I would have also supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

British public opinion has always appeared sceptical about the government’s policy on Iraq; the famous rally in London was a vivid display of significant public dissent. In recent months, US public opinion has also changed to reflect a more suspicious attitude of likely success in Iraq. Most polls in America now indicate a majority in favour of getting out of Iraq soon. There appears minority support for George Bush’s “troop surge”.

It is more than understandable that people have concerns about what we are achieving in Iraq. Daily suicide bombings leading to countless civilian deaths are hardly a sign of imminent success in the democratisation of Iraq. Continuing British and American deaths also contribute to a sense of a seemingly futile situation. The apparent increasing involvement of Syria and Iran in the internal affairs of Iraq hardly bodes well for the medium and longer term.

Despite all this bad news, my problem with the Liberal Democrats’ position is that it advocates the British government abrogating responsibility for the current crisis within Iraq. I do not believe it is right for a British political party to demand the removal of British forces before the stabilisation of Iraq has been achieved. The Iraqi government has not called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, indeed it has indicated that the presence of foreign forces is a necessity to maintain what control they presently have. To set a date to leave now would be plain wrong. To be engaging in private discussions with the US government in order to formalise a plan to disengage slowly over the next year or so would be a sign of responsible government.

For the Liberal Democrats to call for a fixed date of withdrawal is to go against what is morally right and that which is expected of us by the democratically-elected government of Iraq. As IDS argued yesterday, “If we cut and run before they (the Iraqis) have time to build up their forces, it is shame on us. I do not think that a British Government worthy of the name should possibly be allowed to cut and run.” To advocate flying home to relative safety whilst leaving others to suffer is not a policy I would be proud of supporting.