Digital journalism's inclusion in the new press regulation system came out of nowhere.

No-one paid any serious attention to websites during the Leveson inquiry and the judge himself spent precious little time discussing them in his report. For online writers, the proceedings were akin to watching an incontinent uncle marvel at a VHS tape. But when the royal charter on a new press regulator was published yesterday it included a reference to "relevant publishers" – a term which included "a website containing news-related material [including comment]" as well as newspapers or magazines.

Twitter proceeded to lose its cool, but the references to "relevant publishers" seemed to be exclusively about who could work as staff or on the appointments committee of the new regulator.

The story didn't end there though. Shortly afterwards, the amendment to the crime and courts bill was published. This second "dab" of legislation forces publishers to face exemplary damages if they are taken to court

This is awkward for both of us. Radicals like Carswell are not accustomed to receiving accolades from the system. "I don't win that many awards in the House of Commons. I certainly don't get any from the whips' office," he says. Nor are lobby journalists supposed to spend their time feting the elected representatives they report on.

But it is precisely because this particular MP is so different from the mainstream that I am now sitting opposite him. Carswell has emerged as the winner of a Politics.co.uk project seeking to find the MP who has liberated themselves the most from the straitjacket of the party system. Our jury members praised his ability to foster his trademark independence of spirit while maintaining all the fundamental views which make him a Tory MP.

I'm speaking to Carswell in his office in Portcullis House, the despised modern block for MPs which provides our parliamentarians with utterly anonymous office spaces. Lots of the inmates here, inspired by their surroundings,

Photo: Rasiel SuarezBy Hugh Bayley MP

Richard III died in battle on August 22nd 1485, and Henry Tudor became King of England. Richard's body was buried hurriedly by Franciscan Friars and was lost for over five centuries.

His reputation was trashed by a pesky playwright from Stratford-on-Avon, but I suppose Shakespeare needed to curry favour with the Tudor royal court in order to get the licences necessary to stage his plays. That's politics! History is always written by the victor. But people in York stuck up for Richard – a pious man who championed the north of England and often judged civil cases in favour of the common people and against the aristocracy – many of whom turned against him, of course, in the War of the Roses.

In February, following the archaeological excavation, the University of Leicester confirmed that a skeleton found was, beyond reasonable doubt, that of Richard III.

Since then there has been a huge debate over where his remains should be finally laid to rest. Twenty-five thousand

By Nick Spencer

The universe has been re-balanced, its yin and yang restored. Having lost one election this week, by a margin that would have been suspect in most countries on earth, Argentina has now won another, by fewer votes, but to greater effect.

March 13, 2013 was a day of firsts. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the first Pope Francis, the first Jesuit Pope, and the first Latin American Pope. A contender after John Paul II's death in 2005, many thought he was too told, at 76, to ascend Peter's throne this time round. Bergoglio was not technically an outsider, if only because there were no real insiders, but he is nonetheless a surprising choice.

The 266th pope was born in Buenos Aires. Originally intent on becoming a chemist, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1958, and began studying for the priesthood, to which he was ordained in 1969. Having studied in Germany and in South America, as well as being of Italian descent, he knows, and to some extent unites, Old and New

By Madsen Pirie

The proposed mansion tax is a wealth tax, and wealth taxes are among the most pernicious and damaging of all taxes. The proposal is not to tax people for doing anything with a house such as buying it or selling it, but simply for owning it.

One of Adam Smith's canons of fair taxation is that it should be levied in a way that is convenient for the person paying it. A tax on rents should fall when the rent has been collected, he said.

In general we tax transactions so that a little of the money changing hands makes its way into the state coffers. We tax money when it is earned, or when it is used to buy things. We do not tax it simply because people have it, otherwise we are simply confiscating it from them in installments, undermining the very basis of property rights.

People generally react to wealth taxes by moving their wealth abroad, or into areas not subject to the tax. If a mansion tax is levied on homes valued in excess of £2m, fewer of them will be bought. Some

Argentina's comments about the Falklands Islands are rarely right. The country's entire claim to the island is that of a pirate. It can be distilled to the most basic and barbaric concept in international relations: owning something because it is close to you.

But today we find ourselves in the curious position of hearing sense from Buenos Aires. They're right about the Falklands Islands referendum. The vote returned 99.8% support for remaining an overseas territory of the UK on a turnout of 92% (enjoyably, somewhere on that island are three people who side with Argentina and who presumably keep it very much to themselves).

The Falklands referendum is an answer to a question which was not asked. No-one questions whether the Falklands islanders want to remain British. They question the legitimacy of self-determination as the guiding principle of a territorial dispute. Holding a referendum is a prime example of answering the question you wished you were asked rather than the one which

By Charlotte Henry

Yesterday I reported, half jokingly, that the Lib Dems were gathering in Brighton for a weekend of group therapy. After a stand up row at Nick Clegg’s question and answer session yesterday, today was the emotional break down.

Apologies if this column is a bit angry today, but I'm writing it having just watched a close friend, lawyer and parliamentary candidate Jo Shaw, resign from the party. Along with another former candidate, Martin Tod, I've been working with Jo on her campaign against secret courts.

She has been the lead and the inspiration, tirelessly campaigning to get Lib Dem MPs to do the right thing and kill part two of the justice and security bill – the provision for secret courts in civil cases relating to national security.

Today she took the decision that if the bill was going to be rammed through, it was not going to be in her name, and used a platform speech to end involvement in the party. Dinah Rose QC resigned yesterday over the same issue.

There

The hypocrisy of politics can sometimes be startling. British and American commentators – most of them on the right, some on the left – have taken to the airwaves to libel Hugo Chavez as just another tinpot dictator, hated by his own people, a tyrant who imprisoned judges, closed down TV stations and hated America.

Chavez, who died of a severe respiratory failure yesterday evening, was a complex and layered figure. He had his weaknesses. But the attacks on him are not motivated by concern for free speech or human rights. They are motivated by the unlimited fury of the west when a third world leader exerts control over multinational corporations and directs resources towards their own people.

Here is a simple, incontestable fact about Hugo Chavez. He was not a dictator. Anyone who suggests otherwise has not grasped basic political concepts. In fact, Chavez won the presidency four times in elections which were monitored by international observers. He brought forward a constitutional