With the latest news about Quentin Davies MP, the change over at No. 10 tomorrow, the closing date for constituency boundary changes occurring at the end of the week and the recent bounce in the polls for Labour, what price a General Election this side of the Summer? A long shot maybe, however, a date within the next 12 months is looking increasingly likely.

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

The Indianapolis motor-racing circuit in the American Mid-West was constructed in the early 20th century originally ‘brick by brick’. In fact, for that reason, the finish line today remains of brick construction. Yesterday, Britain’s Lewis Hamilton crossed that line first, thereby securing the second F1 victory of his career. A remarkable achievement for a man so young.

The meteoric rise of the young Englishman is the summer story of British sport. All informed sports commentators are in awe of his driving skill, wondering how he has climbed to first place in the World Championship so soon. The answer appears to be in the McClaren team’s driver-development programme. The team’s supremo, Ron Dennis, planned for Hamilton’s success many years ago. With his driver’s talent and the team’s hardwork, patience and dedication, Mr Dennis has now delivered the finished article. Laying a firm foundation a few years ago appears to have now provided ample returns for the McClaren team.

Conservative commentators could easily draw a parallel between Hamilton’s burgeoning career and David Cameron’s bid for Number 10. Today, I was fortunate enough to be at the Shadow Leader’s keynote speech in Tooting, South London. It had been billed, somewhat sensationally, as a ‘make or break’ speech for Mr Cameron. If it was, then I believe it succeeded in solidifying the foundations the Cameron team have been laying over the last 18 months.

David Cameron’s message was simple: “The British people have a clear choice. A choice between two different approaches to running the country”. By saying this, he has clearly drawn the battle lines for the next General Election. On one side stands the dour Scot, the old politician, the ‘top-down’ centralist. On the other side stands the new politician, the young man who trusts people’s decisions about their own lives and understands the limitations of government, the leader who is a true localist. Mr Brown trumpets state control whilst Mr Cameron advocates social responsibility.

By applying Conservative principles to the challenges of this new century, David Cameron has proved that his Party understands and is ready to lead this country. By emphasising security and opportunity for all he has successfully moved his Party firmly into the political centre ground. For he knows that it is there that the next General Election will be won or lost.

The Conservative leader, like the McClaren boss, has carefully built a new reputation ‘brick by brick’. Consequently, that reputation has got firm foundations. Today, those of us who were lucky enough to be present, witnessed the product of that dedicated and patient preparation. Ample returns at the ballot box should deservedly follow.

According to research by scientists from Durham University, published today in Evolution and Human Behaviour, a woman’s choice of partner may depend on her childhood relationship with her father. The team led by Dr Linda Boothroyd found that women who were treated well by their fathers during childhood are attracted to men who share a facial resemblance to their father. No such link was found in those where the relationship was poor. Such an apparent adaptive response appears to indicate that women are making the underlying assumption that people who look like their father might act in the same way as him.

Today’s PMQs provided further evidence, if any more was needed, that the Labour Party are going to miss Mr Blair. His performance was strong and, dare I say, displayed the extensive acting qualities he possesses. Maybe, when Cherie first caught a glimpse of the Prime Minister in 1976, she recognised familiar qualities? There is certainly a passing resemblance between the two men. Soon, both will be able to share stories of ‘past glories’ on the stage.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women – Alexander Litvinenko

The recent suggestion by Vladimir Putin that he may once again aim Russia’s nuclear arsenal at Western Europe has attracted much comment. The fear of a resurgent Russia bearing its military teeth has no doubt sent a few chills down the spines of Western foreign policy-makers. A cyberwar with Estonia, gas supply interference in the Ukraine and the on-going war in Chechyna are all reminders of Russia’s recent tendency to seek confrontation. The ex-KGB man, Mr Putin, has not been shy of talking and acting tough. The Litvinenko case, though unlikely to have been directly state-sponsored, is an unpleasant reminder of a Soviet past in Russia. Friends of mine who have working experience of the country talk of it verging on lawlessness, “a Wild West” in the East. This can hardly instill much confidence in Washington and London when formulating a diplomatic approach to the country’s foreign policy.

Not so long ago, Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union, straddled the world as a proper super-power. This is no longer the case. The problem for President Putin is that Russia now has all the appearances of an old heavyweight boxer returning to the ring: it is bloated on oil and gas revenue, less agile and apt to use under-hand (KGB-style) tactics to win each fight. Its economy is inherently weak, relying heavily upon revenues from mineral resources. With the G8 summit taking place over the next few days, what should the Western powers do in response to this Russian Rocky?

For Europe, a proper response is difficult. Our dependence on Russia for gas supplies is only going to increase over the coming decades. It is for this reason alone that building nuclear power stations is unavoidable. Indeed, energy independence for Europe would greatly aid our future relations with Russia. Furthermore, the mention of Russian missile targetting should sadly put to bed any question about replacing Trident.

For the USA, however, a proper response is more straightforward. American foreign policy of late has rightly “taken a kicking”. With Russia, they have a chance to re-establish their democratic, liberty-defending credentials. The democratic deficit, the apparent disregard for a proper legal process and human rights, in general, within Russia, should all be top of the agenda in US-Russia bilateral talks. A stable, democratic Russia will be good for both Russians and the rest of us. American and European foreign policy should be about achieving that goal. It should not be about tolerating a failing state simply because we need its gas. Our children and grandchildren would not thank us for that policy decision.