What do all three men have in common apart from their membership of the Conservative Party? They were all educated at elite public schools (Johnson and Cameron at Eton and Osborne at St Paul's) and all went to Oxford, where they were members of the same dining and social set, the secretive and selective Bullingdon Club.

They have all tried to play down their wealth and upbringing -- Johnson has even made an appearance on Britain's favourite soap opera EastEnders -- but there is no erasing the fact that Osborne is an Irish baronet, Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV and Johnson also has a sprinkling of royal ancestry, even if he has described himself as a "one-man melting pot".

Opponents have pointed to the wealth and clique of the Conservative leadership to suggest the party is out of touch with ordinary, working-class Britain and unfit to govern. What do you think? Does class really matter when it comes to running the country?

The mountains and deserts of southern Afghanistan are far removed from the elegant charms of Trieste in northern Italy, but there will be a link between the two this weekend.

Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight nations meet in the Italian city on the Adriatic on Thursday for three days of talks, with the state of play in Afghanistan, as well as developments in Iran and the Middle East, front and centre of their agenda.

Nearly eight years and tens of billions of dollars on from the U.S.-led invasion that overthrew the Taliban, the United States and its allies appear no closer to bringing long-term stability to the country, with the Taliban resurgent throughout the south and west and the instability expanding across the border into Pakistan.

One of the major areas of unrest is Helmand, a vast desert and mountain province in the far south where around 8,000 British troops have been deployed for 3-1/2 years and 10,000 U.S. Marines are steadily being sent in as reinforcements.

While 18,000 troops backed by helicopters, jets, Predator drones, armoured vehicles and endless advanced weaponry may sound like more than enough of a match for bands of bearded militants who usually aren't armed with much more than a Kalashnikov rifle, it's not always the case.

Helmand, split down the middle by the Helmand river, is larger than Switzerland and has a daunting mix of terrain that the Taliban and their followers are far more familiar with than foreign troops sweating in heavy, cumbersome combat gear. And it's not just the challenges of the topography, it's the sheer size of the area that stretches any army's capability.

When I was in Helmand late last year, British troops at a Forward Operating Base in the far north of the province told me that they didn't have enough troops or back-up to venture any further than three kilometres from their small fortified camp to take on the enemy.

"The Taliban know it. If we attack them, they go just over three kilometres away and we have to come back to base," an officer at the remote outpost told me.

The absurdity of that situation partly explains why Britain and the United States have acknowledged that Helmand is currently in a "stalemate", a position they hope will be broken with a new strategy and the increase in troops in the coming months.

But the deadlock in fighting and the need for more manpower-- there are 90,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 50 percent less than in now relatively more stable  Iraq -- is not the only concern on the agenda for the G8 foreign ministers.

As well as trying to agree amongst themselves how they can best support the U.S.- and NATO-driven effort, they need to assess the implications of non-cooperation from Iran, on Afghanistan's western border, and the widening instability in the Pakistan tribal areas on Afghanistan's eastern border. Iran was due to send a delegation to the G8 meeting, but in the wake of international condemnation of the fallout from its disputed presidential election, it has cancelled its participation.

Afghanistan's election in August, when President Hamid Karzai will seek reelection despite broad unpopularity in the country and among some of his Western backers, will also be a focus of discussion. Karzai's high-profile makes him stand out among the 41candidates registered for the Aug. 20 poll. That greater degree of visibility is likely to secure him enough votes for reelection, according to some opinion polls, even if many Afghans express frustration at the scare progress made during his past 5 years in power.

Politically, socially and militarily, Afghanistan remains hugely in flux nearly eight years on from the Taliban's overthrow. While army commanders admit there can be no military solution to the conflict, diplomats and development experts are struggling to find a political way forward either.

Three days of talks among eight foreign ministers in Trieste is unlikely to go very far in resolving what is becoming an ever more intractable conflict 5,000 kilometres away.

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffled his cabinet last week, fending off a challenge to his authority, a significant outcome was the creation of one of the most powerful ministerial jobs Britain has seen in years.

Peter Mandelson, a former European commissioner who has twice served in British governments in the past and twice been forced to resign, was reconfirmed as secretary of state for business, but also given greatly expanded authorities that make him a powerful if unofficial number two to Brown.

Much fun has been made of Mandelson's new title, which because he has been elevated to the House of Lords in order to serve in the cabinet now officially reads as:

"Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills."

But the length of the introduction aside, Mandelson's new post puts him at the heart of tackling Britain's worst recession in 60 years and planning for how the Labour government is going to rebound from a 20-point deficit in opinion polls to mount a challenge at the next election, due by June 2010.

Almost immediately it has also put pundits on watch about the possibility of Britain joining the European single currency, however unlikely that may be in the near term, since Mandelson is a committed European and euro-phile.

In comments in Germany last week, he described adopting the currency as "obviously" still an objective for the government.

"It is perfectly clear that the euro has been a great success in anchoring its eurozone members during this financial crisis," Mandelson said after a speech in Berlin.

"Does it remain an important objective for Britain to find itself in the same currency as that single market in which it interacts? Obviously yes," he said, adding: "That has to be a decision taken on the right terms, in the right circumstances and conditions, and therefore at a future time than we have now."

Despite his hedging, bookmakers responded quickly to his comments, shortening the odds on Britain joining the euro before the end of the next parliament to 10/1.

"Europe and the single currency is always a divisive issue," odds-maker Ladbrokes said. "But Lord Mandelson's increasing power base means that it may again rise to the top of the political agenda."

Surveys show that most of the British public does not favour giving up the pound for the euro, but many exporters and importers are keener on its adoption, which would neutralise exchange rate risks, even if it would also get rid of the comparative advantages sterling fluctuations can create. Almost 60 percent of Britain's trade is with the European Union.

Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair always sidestepped the euro issue, but Mandelson's newly influential role may allow him to nudge it back onto the agenda.

A former lieutenant-colonel in the Australian army and a senior adviser to U.S. General David Petraeus, he helped shape the "surge" policy that is widely credited with pulling Iraq back from the brink of chaos. He has just written a book entitled "The Accidental Guerrilla: fighting small wars in the midst of a big one" which closely examines insurgencies from Thailand and Indonesia to Afghanistan and Iraq, including what it takes to contain and quell them.

Far from being gung-ho or militaristic, Kilcullen takes an analytical approach, putting a heavy emphasis on the need for cultural and linguistic understanding. Without a deep appreciation of history, politics and anthropology, defeat is all but guaranteed  in complex foreign lands even for the world's mightiest of armies, he argues.

 Which is why it was particularly notable what he said at a book launch in London this week.

The U.S. military has about 1.6 million personnel all told, from frontline troops to cooks and drivers. But there are just 6,000 foreign service officers in the U.S. State Department, he said. That's about 260 soldiers to each diplomat, a far higher ratio than in any other major military in the world, according to Kilcullen.

"There are more members of U.S. military marching bands then there are foreign service officers," he said. "In fact, there are about ten times as many accountants in the U.S. military as there are foreign service officers in the U.S. State Department."

His point hardly needed reinforcing. The U.S. military spends vast amounts -- forecast to be $650 billion in 2009 -- on ensuring its armed forces are able to fight whatever threat may emerge anywhere in the world at any given time, but a tiny fraction of that amount on diplomatic and cultural liaison work that might help understand a conflict better or even prevent it.

While it's true that military officers have received a great deal of intensive training in recent years in understanding customs and culture in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the relevant languages, the amount spent is still miniscule alongside that dedicated to arms and weaponry.

Of course, a war is not won by words and diplomacy alone; Kilcullen was not saying that the United States should ditch its tanks and fighter jets and just sit down to talk things through. But what he did say was this:

"The U.S. military is fabulously well developed but is ready to fight the wrong kind of conflict... It is good at fighting state actors but not so good at fighting non-state actors." 

And in conclusion on Afghanistan he added: "I fear that in Afghanistan we are getting to the worst of both worlds. In the next year or two, we still won't have enough troops there to keep everyone safe, but we will have just enough to keep everyone pissed off. It's the opposite of a sweet spot. It's a sour spot."

Just last week more than 200 people were killed in suicide bombings across the country, while kidnapping and armed assault remain commonplace.

That said, more than 600 delegates still turned up to the Invest Iraq 2009 conference held in London this week, eager to find out what opportunities there might be in the oil, construction, petrochemicals, engineering, agriculture, transport and tourism industries, to name a few.

From City of London bankers to executives from Shell and Chevron, bosses from energy service companies and airport construction firms, management training specialists and security advisers, they were all there, milling around a west London hotel in their smartest suits, seeing what business they might be able to do.

There were plenty of Iraqis too. Mostly businessmen with operations outside the country -- in Lebanon, Jordan or Dubai -- and now looking to step up investment in their homeland.

Some of them, perhaps feeling more familiar with the lay of the land than Western investors, had already made sizeable moves into Iraq, but judging from the questions they were putting to the Iraqi officials speaking at the conference, they were concerned about a lack of legal direction from the government.

One Iraqi was particularly illustrative of the potential pitfalls that can befall investors.

During a seminar on Iraq's new investment law, which is supposed to make it quicker and easier to pour money into the country, he stood up to ask a question. Dressed in a smart pinstripe suit, he looked every part the international entrepreneur as he grabbed the mircophone.

"I am worried," he said, his concern audible in his voice. "I have $400 million invested in Iraq. I have built several hotels already and I am just completing the construction of a new 400-room, five-star hotel in Kerbala," he said, referring to a religious city in southern Iraq that is a popular destination for religious tourism.

"I am worried," he continued, "because I do not yet have planning permission for any of the buildings."

There was silence in the room as the audience digested just how out on a limb he was.

"Have you asked for it?" a government representative on the panel asked.

"Yes," said the man. "I asked three years ago and I keep asking but I have heard nothing."

After a pause the government official mumbled something about the issue being tackled: "This is something that regional authorities should be looking at. They need to speed up the process," he said, before moving on to the next question.

The businessman did not look particularly reassured as he sat back down.

But when it comes to giving something back once they have finished their military service, Britain has something of a mixed track-record on the Gurkhas and has even been accused of disloyalty.

On Friday, the government announced new guidelines for Gurkhas looking to settle in Britain, including the provision that those who served before 1997 must have done at least 20 years service, must have been mentioned in dispatches and/or suffered injuries during combat if they are to meet the residency requirements.

Campaigners for Gurkha rights have denounced the new guidelines calling them a disgrace and an "act of treachery" against the men, saying only around 100 of the 36, 000 veterans would qualify.  The government says campaigners have missed the point, arguing that the new guidelines will allow more Gurkhas -- up to 4, 000 -- to come and settle in Britain.

It fears that without any restrictions, some 100, 000 Gurkhas and family members would apply to settle and that it would set a precedent for thousands more colonial UK soldiers to apply.

What do you think? Is the government unfairly restricting Gurkha migration and setting up a double standard for those who served before 1997 and those who have served since, or should the soldiers be forced to retire where they come from -- Nepal -- despite dedicating much of their lives to fighting for Britain?

For the best part of 12 years, Labour has pursued essentially conservative (with a small 'c') economic policies, steadily underburdening itself of the 'fiscally unreliable' tag that some earlier Labour administrations were (wrongly or rightly) saddled with.

And for most of the past 12 years, as the global economy steadily expanded and Britain's along with it, with aggregate wealth rising smoothly, Labour looked strong at the helm each time the budget came around.

But since the global economic crisis hit in late 2007,  it has become much harder for the government to keep a tight rein on the fiscal strings as growth has taken a hit, unemployment has risen sharply, and tax receipts have declined. 

Last April's budget was a tough one for Labour, but Wednesday's budget may well go down as the one that really showed the government reeling as it tries to keep a grip on the purse strings in some of the most challenging economic circumstances imaginable.

The numbers tell the story and are in some cases eye-bogglingly huge.

Finance minister Alistair Darling says the government will have to borrow 175 billion pounds this year and almost as much next year (173 billion) as it tries to plug a widening gap in its finances. WIth the Debt Management Office already struggling to raise funds (if one recent debt auction is anything to go by), the borrowing requirement could be a very big ask.

At the same time, tax receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product are going to be down, Darling said, and growth is set to contract this year at the fastest rate since World War Two with unemployment edging relentlessly higher.

To try to boost government revenue, Darling has unveiled a new income tax band, although it's unclear just how much can really be raised from taxing the richest 1-1/2 to 2 percent of the population an ever larger portion of their income.

From next April, those earning more than 150,000 pounds a year will have to pay 50 percent tax, while their benefits allowances will steadily be cut, as they will be for those earning more than 100,000 pounds.

Those new tax policies represent something of a bust for Labour. For 12 years they've kept on the right side of business and the wealthy, encouraging entrepreneurship and positioning themselves as a partner with business. But the new top rate of tax suddenly begins to look like a Labour policy of old --  a "tax-the-rich" gambit.

It remains to be seen how the Conservative opposition -- now widely expected to win the next election, which has to be called by June 2010 -- respond, but on the face of it the high borrowing and higher taxation would seem to play ever more into their hands politically, while threatening them with a dire economic legacy should they win the next election.

For Darling, it may be the best that can be done with an awful hand. Maybe the borrowing can be met, the spending measures announced will have the desired effect, kickstarting economic activity and getting the wheels of commerce turning. Maybe. But it's a slim chance will little more than a year to go before an election.

Borrowing and taxing may be what's needed (or the only means available) to try to right the economy in this uncertain time, but it's unlikely to help Labour's prospects of holding onto power.

For the best part of 12 years, Labour has pursued essentially conservative (with a small 'c') economic policies, steadily underburdening itself of the 'fiscally unreliable' tag that some earlier Labour administrations were (wrongly or rightly) saddled with.

And for most of the past 12 years, as the global economy steadily expanded and Britain's along with it, with aggregate wealth rising smoothly, Labour looked strong at the helm each time the budget came around.

But since the global economic crisis hit in late 2007,  it has become much harder for the government to keep a tight rein on the fiscal strings as growth has taken a hit, unemployment has risen sharply, and tax receipts have declined. 

Last April's budget was a tough one for Labour, but Wednesday's budget may well go down as the one that really showed the government reeling as it tries to keep a grip on the purse strings in some of the most challenging economic circumstances imaginable.

The numbers tell the story and are in some cases eye-bogglingly huge.

Finance minister Alistair Darling says the government will have to borrow 175 billion pounds this year and almost as much next year (173 billion) as it tries to plug a widening gap in its finances. WIth the Debt Management Office already struggling to raise funds (if one recent debt auction is anything to go by), the borrowing requirement could be a very big ask.

At the same time, tax receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product are going to be down, Darling said, and growth is set to contract this year at the fastest rate since World War Two with unemployment edging relentlessly higher.

To try to boost government revenue, Darling has unveiled a new income tax band, although it's unclear just how much can really be raised from taxing the richest 1-1/2 to 2 percent of the population an ever larger portion of their income.

From next April, those earning more than 150,000 pounds a year will have to pay 50 percent tax, while their benefits allowances will steadily be cut, as they will be for those earning more than 100,000 pounds.

Those new tax policies represent something of a bust for Labour. For 12 years they've kept on the right side of business and the wealthy, encouraging entrepreneurship and positioning themselves as a partner with business. But the new top rate of tax suddenly begins to look like a Labour policy of old --  a "tax-the-rich" gambit.

It remains to be seen how the Conservative opposition -- now widely expected to win the next election, which has to be called by June 2010 -- respond, but on the face of it the high borrowing and higher taxation would seem to play ever more into their hands politically, while threatening them with a dire economic legacy should they win the next election.

For Darling, it may be the best that can be done with an awful hand. Maybe the borrowing can be met, the spending measures announced will have the desired effect, kickstarting economic activity and getting the wheels of commerce turning. Maybe. But it's a slim chance will little more than a year to go before an election.

Borrowing and taxing may be what's needed (or the only means available) to try to right the economy in this uncertain time, but it's unlikely to help Labour's prospects of holding onto power.

In an effort to pump more money into the financial system and encourage banks to get lending again, the Bank of England has been given the green light to basically create more money.

 It will use the electronic funds to buy short- and long-dated gilts and a host of commercial debt in the hope that that will free up other capital to the banks, allowing them to lend more.

At root, the exercise is based on MV=PT, known as the Fisher equation of exchange and a mainstay of Keynesian monetary theory.

In the equation, M is the quantity of money and V is the velocity at which it travels around the economy. P stands for the general level of prices and T equals the number of transactions performed over a given accounting period.

In theory, V and T are more or less stable, meaning that all other things being equal, the amount of money in circulation has a direct impact on prices and/or the number of transactions.

By pumping more M into the economy (or at least making more M available), the central bank is hoping that economic activity will pick up (T will increase) and the economy will be reflated (P will pick up). In theory.

The problem will come if those who have more money made available to them -- the banks, commercial borrowers, companies and ultimately individuals -- end up sitting on it rather than using it. That would effectively mean that V falls.

That has always been the unquantifiable in monetary theory as precisely measuring the velocity of money is extremely difficult, not to say open to interpretation.

If it works, quantitative easing will push up M, P and T and a corner may be turned in the credit crisis. Maybe. If it doesn't, then M may go up, but V, T and P will all go on falling, causing More Very Tricky Problems indeed.

But beyond the raw realities of war -- more than 1,100 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead -- the three-week conflict has also created a peculiar intersection with music, literature and cinema, in the surreal way that wars sometimes do.

The latest away-from-the-headlines development is that Israel's entry for the Eurovision song contest, the annual pan-European song-fest that pits some 40 nations against one another, is suddenly under pressure because of the war.

Israel, which has won the competition before and takes it very seriously, is hoping to enter a singing duo -- Mira Awad, a Christian Arab Israeli, and Achinoam Nini, better known as Noa, a Jewish Israeli of Yemenite descent -- for the event to be held in Moscow in May.

But some Arab and Jewish artists and intellectuals are calling on Awad to pull out of the competition, saying her participation would play into the "Israeli propaganda machine" that seeks to convey an image of national coexistence -- Jews and Arabs living happily under one banner.

"What allows the international community to provide support is Israel's image as a 'democratic', 'enlightened', 'peace-seeking' country," a string of signatories wrote in an open letter to Awad, posted on the website of ynetnews.com.

"Your participation in Eurovision is taking part in the activity of the Israel propaganda machine," they said, with one describing Awad's role as that of a "fig leaf" for Israel.

Neither Awad nor Nini has commented on the letter but Israel's broadcasting authority defended their participation, saying it "expresses the aspiration for coexistence which transcends politics."

Another quirky overlap between the current conflict and art has been created by the successful Israeli film "Waltz with Bashir", an animated documentary that examines the futility of Israel's war in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

The film, which takes a critical look at the role Israel played during the massacre of Palestinians by Christian militias in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982, won a Golden Globe last week and is tipped for best foreign film at the Oscars.

Playing on those hopes, a cartoon in Haaretz newspaper on Thursday depicted a group of Israeli soldiers hanging around a tank outside Gaza as the city burns behind them. One of the soldiers says to the others: "I have an idea for a movie that could win an Oscar."

The 24/7 coverage of the war in the Israeli media has also given publishing houses a good reason to crank up their war-book promotions.

Gefen, an Israeli publisher, took out advertisements in the Israeli press this week to tout new and re-issued titles including: "Shackled Warrior", "Mossad Exodus", and "The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu", the military commander brother of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is tipped to win Israel's next election on Feb. 10th.

It may not be art imitating life, but it is certainly life re-lived through pop culture.