Blog Posts by Alex Stevenson

Getty Images

Britain has a long history of blunt, bullying diplomacy. The Assange standoff at the Ecuadorian embassy suggests that things haven't changed much since a century or more ago, when our preferred method of resolving a diplomatic dispute was to send in a gunboat or two.

Just south of Knightsbridge tube station in central London, close to the Albert Hall, a Harrod's and in the midst of some of Britain's most expensive real estate, there nestles a small slice of South America. Like every other embassy, flat 3B in Hans Crescent, London is not legally a part of Britain. Here the government of Ecuador is sovereign.

For the past 57 days it has also been the sanctuary of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder wanted by the Swedish government for questioning over alleged sexual offences. Britain has committed to extraditing the 41-year-old, but - because of the inviolable embassy principle - has not been able to touch him.

Now that may be about to change. Halfway across the world, in the

A Labour leader striking up an unexpectedly warm relationship with a Republican president: haven't we seen all this before?

It's a sunny, sweaty morning in Westminster. The place is deserted now MPs and peers have flown off for their summer holidays. Well - almost deserted. In the leader of the opposition's office, an American presidential candidate is shaking hands and smiling.

Your correspondent wasn't in the room when they entered. This delay had nothing to do with the Olympics: Ed Miliband's office is nigh on impossible to find at the best of times. And, as it happens, I wasn't late. But something extraordinary was happening. This meeting was taking place on time.

Two burly looking men in sharp black suits, out of which emerged earpieces, muttered to themselves. Staffers peered into the room. A line of journalists, some familiar and some not, mixed in with Labour officials looked on at the unseen pair. Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander was among them, looking sage and

Stable and united, that's what we were told — but the realities of this hung parliament are much more acrimonious than we've been led to believe.

Everyone was surprised during the first year of the coalition government. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats strained every sinew to impress journalists, voters and the markets that they were a credible team. It took several months for fears about the instability of coalitions, stoked by the Tories during the 2010 campaign to counter Britain's brief bout of Cleggmania, to be put to bed. But put to bed they were.

It was as if the hung parliament had never happened. Coalition government became the norm. More meetings and internal negotiations were needed to keep that front united, but the 'businesslike' cooperation between Tories and Lib Dems succeeded in maintaining that illusion. Where trouble spots did develop, steps were taken behind the scenes to prevent them happening again.

Such was the overwhelming prominence of the spending cuts

Lords reform is closer than Nick Clegg thinks — provided he can jump over the series of ten-foot high hurdles that blocks his path to the finish line.

Most academics who have been following the Lords reform story are in a gloomy mood. They see the largest coalition rebellion yet, with 91 Tory MPs revolting against the very idea of an elected second chamber. They see the politicians failing even to agree on the process by which the legislation is going to be debated. And they've learned the lessons of their history books: for a century different generations have tried, and failed, to end the unaccountable, unelected second chamber which helps make Britain's laws.

Not much to raise their hopes of a genuine reform being achieved, then.

But if the coalition has learned the lessons of the past, this latest attempt doesn't have go the same way as all the others. There are signs that the ministers pushing for this reform have the right approach. They're playing a long game, using the full

Getty Images"Why are you so reluctant to tell us?" Andrew Tyrie asked Bob Diamond at the start of today's Treasury committee grilling. "I'm very suspicious," Tory Mark Garnier declared, three hours later. Nothing much emerged in the interim.

By the end of those three hours brains in the crowded committee room had turned to a dull sludge. Politicos are not entirely au fait with the intricacies of Libor at the best of times, and after an afternoon of detailed questioning much of it became blurred and confusing. This was a triumph for Diamond, whose refusal to engage in any kind of detail simply stymied frustrated MPs.

For a man who was supposed to be Public Enemy of the Week, Diamond looked remarkably smooth. He is very American, whether calling former minister Shruti Vedera "Shrew-dy", repeatedly declaring his love for "amazing" Barclays, or calling the MPs questioning him by their first name. None of them dared to correct him on the latter. Sometimes it got very confusing. "My first reaction was

Here's David Cameron's referendum dilemma is not a simple question of 'yes' or 'no'.

Up and down the country, those desperate for a referendum on the EU will be asking themselves: is David Cameron really going to let us have a vote on Europe?

Even by the prime minister's standards his article in the Sunday Telegraph is a confusing one. He's not saying 'no' to a referendum, but he's certainly not saying 'yes' now. A general election might work just as well, Cameron suggests.

A cynical response to prospects for a referendum could be forgiven. Those responding with scepticism are probably right.

Cameron is laying the groundwork for a renegotiation with Brussels politicians. He knows he must build up the political capital to make this process worthwhile by getting some sort of mandate from the British people.

How to get it? A referendum is one option, but — as both Cameron and William Hague have explained this morning — either an 'in' or 'out' result have real disadvantages for the UK.

It might sound like a cliché to say that the Palace of Westminster is a hotbed of intrigue, but that is very much the case as the Lords reform battle begins in earnest.

There isn't actually that much to report from the Commons itself. A minor government official stood up and announced the first reading of the House of Lords reform bill. There were no debates and no divisions. Another long Westminster day wears on.

Outside the chamber the atmosphere is undeniably different, however. Copies of the government bill were available almost immediately after prime minister's questions. Journalists, politicians and their researchers have scurried away, clutching the much-anticipated papers, scanning the fine print for black-and-white evidence of government concessions (actually it's black-and-green, as bills are printed on coloured paper). David Cameron, Nick Clegg and co want to replace the appointed Lords we've got at the moment with a mainly elected second chamber. Its size will be cut down

Cameron's welfare speech marks the beginning of the end for the coalition. But it could help extend its life as well.

This is, at least, the beginning of the endgame. The Conservative leader's speculation about what his party might do in government after 2015 begins a process which will dominate the run-up to the next general election.

'Policy differentiation', as the academics call it, is a subject which until now has troubled the Liberal Democrats more than the Tories. That's because the Lib Dems are seen as getting a rawer deal from the coalition than their senior partners.

Now that is changing. Cameron's first overt move to distinguish himself from the Liberal Democrats shows that his mind's focus is now no longer solely on keeping the coalition intact. He has more than one eye on what lies ahead - and is modifying his behaviour in 2012 as a result.

The prime minister's subject matter is no coincidence. Benefits is one of those touchstone issues that fires up the Tory right, which