Banged to rights

There can be no hiding place left for MEP Tom Wise, and it looks like he knows it, having been spotted back in the UK, leaving early after being suspended from the UKIP EU parliamentary group today.

Daniel Foggo of The Sunday Times has done for him, gaining an admission from the MEP that he used £6,500 of the money embezzled from his EU secretarial fund to buy a used car. The car was a dark green Peugeot 406 saloon and the W-registration diesel vehicle is still owned by Wise.

The admission contradicts previous UKIP statements that the cash had not benefited Wise personally. These first emerged following an earlier internal inquiry under the former party leader Roger Knapman, who insisted that, "On all the evidence that I have seen, I can say that at no time has Tom Wise personally benefited in any way nor has he ever intended to. His intentions have been honest and honourable throughout."

Even three days ago, Foggo was telling us that Farage was holding the line, insisting that MEP had not benefited from the scam personally. Now, he is suggesting that perhaps his earlier judgement was "generous".

In the context, the use of the word "judgement" might be considered generous especially as Wise, in addition to buying his car from taxpayers' funds, also made other payments from his EU account, including several four-figure sums. The words "cover-up" are being muttered in some quarters. Too many people were prepared to present the man as a fool when, in fact, they knew him to be a thief.

COMMENT THREAD

Wrongs and rights

Following on from its launch adverts in October last, the Speakout campaign in back in the fray with a second wave of ads in the national and regional press. The ad copy tells us how:

Without a debate or vote in Parliament our elected MPs have handed control of our borders to the European Union, allowing unlimited immigration into Britain from EU countries.

We are then told that "80 percent of you, the people", want a vote on getting your borders back.

So far so good, but a corresponding entry on the website talks of the "Free Movement of People directive" which:

…was subject to no debate in the House of Commons and no vote, but discussed in a secretive, and largely ineffective, group of mostly Labour MPs, called the European Scrutiny Committee. This Directive renders Britain – and all the other 27 once sovereign nation states that now comprise the EU - effectively borderless provinces in a new country called Europe.

The actual directive to which Speakout is referring is our old friend, with the snappy title of:

Directive 2004/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

But what is a little puzzling is that this is simply a directive which codifies and clarifies the "right of citizens of the Union…". It does not actually confer any rights.

These actually came with the EC/EU treaties and are currently expressed in: Article 14 (7a) ECT: establishing the internal market, which includes the free movement of persons; Article 18 (8a) ECT: Union citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; and Article 61 (73i) et seq: new Title IV, "Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons".

And, unless I am very much mistaken, all the treaties which currently apply to the UK were in one way or another subject to pretty extensive debate, both in the Houses of Parliament and outside. That is not to say that the debates were by any means satisfactory but the fact of them rather neutralises the point Speakout is trying to make.

This notwithstanding, the campaign got something of a kick when three newspapers, The Sun, The Daily Mail and the Daily Express, all refused to run the add because, they claimed, it was "potentially racist" and possibly "inflammatory". Coming from those three newspapers, says Speakout, "they've got to be having a laugh".

And in that, at least, the campaign has got it right.

COMMENT THREAD

UNder age

Both the story and the punning title come from one of our readers. He knows who he is and we are duly grateful.

The story, as related by AP (I think they must have got this right as there was precious little digging to be done), concerns the head of the UN intellectual property agency, (World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO) whose understanding of matters intellectual does not extend to being accurate about his age or, as it happens, qualifications.

Kamil Idris joined the agency in 1982, when the job he got required ten years of professional experience, clearly unlikely in the case of somebody in his twenties. But that did not matter as Mr Idris gave his date of birth as 1945, which would have made him 37. He also gave various rather interesting details of his qualifications and experience. None of these seem to have been checked up.

In 1997 he became director-general of the agency, which oversees world copyrights and trademarks.

Last year, however, Mr Idris suddenly noticed the mistake in his age and changed it to a younger one, assuring all and sundry that he was actually born in 1954. The internal auditor found this a little too difficult to stomach.

The audit said that by changing his age to the younger, Idris could "considerably benefit" by further building up U.N. pension credits before eventual retirement.

The audit also says the change could benefit Idris if he leaves soon because it would make him eligible for a severance payment that could be worth several hundred thousand dollars. The previous age would have made him 60 in 2005 and no longer eligible for severance if he left after that point.

All of which must be a complete coincidence. Needless to say, WIPO is defending the boss, pointing out that he corrected the mistake as soon as he noticed it, which took him well over twenty years but he had other matters on his mind. In any case, this is all about racism.

The new birth date raises questions of what Mr Idris was actually doing in the years before he joined the UN, something that ought to have been checked at the time of his joining but clearly was not.

According to the new birth year, Idris would have been 13 years old when he claimed to have held his first part-time and full-time posts at the national level in Sudan.

"Mr. Idris explained that these were temporary jobs that he assumed since his young age, in order to sustain his family and enable him to study," the report says.

He said in his application that, when he was 23, he was deputy director of the legal department in the Sudanese Foreign Ministry from 1977 to 1978. But at the same time, he was studying at Ohio University nearly 7,000 miles away in the United States.

Idris' 1982 application said he obtained a masters degree in international law from Ohio University in 1978. But Jessica Stark, spokeswoman for the university, told the AP Idris attended from Sept 12, 1977, to June 10, 1978, when he received a Master of Arts in African Studies.

Adding to the confusion, the audit said Idris registered at the university with a third birth date - August 26, 1953, a year earlier than the revised date.

Mr Idris appears to be incommunicado and WIPO tells all and sundry that the actual audit cannot be released as it is confidential. Given that we employ these crooks through our taxes (yes, they can sue if they like), I am not convinced confidentiality is quite what is required here.

COMMENT THREAD

The real rapid reaction force

The EU commission has announced that is setting up a veterinary expert team that can deployed at short notice to respond to animal disease outbreaks such as bird flu in Europe or elsewhere – the real rapid reaction force.

This was approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee and the commission is now to go ahead and draft a list of team members from across the EU. Experts will be drawn from the fields of laboratory testing, veterinary, virology, wildlife, risk management and other areas to be ready to move within 24 to 36 hours to affected areas.

EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou says recent and past outbreaks of bird flu, swine fever or foot-and-mouth disease in the 27-nation bloc "highlighted the importance of having well-prepared, well-trained personnel available to provide their expertise in dealing with the problem."

Under normal circumstances, we would have been quick to condemn this move as yet another underhand move to promote European integration. But, as experience has so often demonstrated, so utterly dire are British official vets that, by comparison, other EU veterinarians positively shine.

That, perhaps, is the true agenda of Defra – to develop incompetence to such a pinnacle of perfection that EU political integration is seen as a better option.

COMMENT THREAD

About as useful as anything else

As our readers will recall, I have always considered the entry of Romania into the European Union fraught with all sorts of possibilities.

Well, here is one. Ananova reports that witches in Romania (where it is a fully recognized profession probably with its own trade unions) have found a new outlet for their charms.

Witch Florica, from Pitesti in southern Romania, said: "It's a new type of spell that we had to work out of course.

"You cannot pretend you are a real witch if you cannot help a businessman get the European Union funds he wants.

"For example, only the other day I had a young businessman who came to me with his papers applying for European funds.

"I spread the cards on his documents, said my spells and splashed the papers with some potions. It only cost him about £40 for my charms but when gets the money thanks to my spells he will be happy and I will be happy because he will bring me new customers."

Perhaps, some of our businessmen and, especially, farmers could benefit from the lady’s efforts.

Another thought strikes one: if witches than why not vampires or werewolves? Could they be put to some use in the European Union?

COMMENT THREAD

Then there were nine...

Following the weekend publicity, now, according to a news release from UKIP, MEPs have today decided to suspend Tom Wise (seen here discussing his future with a colleague) from the UK Independence Party group in the European Parliament, "for failure to provide information regarding alleged financial irregularities that are now under investigation by OLAF (the European Anti Fraud Office)".

Party Chairman John Whittaker said, "This decision should in no way be interpreted as prejudicial to the outcome of that enquiry. The decision was taken at a meeting of the MEPs in Brussels," said Dr. Whittaker, "which was the first opportunity we have had to discuss this matter."

From the high in 2004, when 12 UKIP MEPs were returned by the electorates, this now reduces the number holding the whip to nine. And, by next week, there may be more in the frame.

Not entirely unrelated, Guardian is reporting that three of Party's MEPs are on the verge of walking out of the party, prompted by the decision to suspend Wise.

Sources indicate that these MEPs are concerned at the cracks in the previously solid front which had Farage maintaining, of Wise, "We did not believe there had been any intent of fraud."

Despite Whittaker's careful statement, Wise's suspension is de facto recognition that he was fraudulent in the appropriation of his EU expenses. But what concerns the MEPs is that the Party's action implicitly condemns practices which other have also been involved in, weakening any defences they may have in the future.

Whatever the outcome of further investigations, however, UKIP - as my colleague points out - is a very necessary force in British politics. Party officials need to get grip, firmly and decisively, before, like the ten green bottles, there are no MEPs left standing.

On the other hand, there was a variation of that old song, which substituted ten sticks of dynamite standing on the wall. And if one stick of dynamite should accidentally fall, the song went, there'd be no sticks of dynamite and no b****y wall. That may yet be the fate of UKIP.

UPDATE

The Times names two of the MEPs at odds with Farage over the suspension of Wise – Roger Knapman, the former Party leader, and Mike Natrass. The third is believed to be Gerald Batten, UKIP's London MEP.

COMMENT THREAD

Layered defences

Following our piece on the protection afforded to our troops from mortar attacks, I was sent a series of photographs taken by a serving soldier, of accommodation in the Shaiba logistics base, just outside Basra.

The top picture shows the basic 12-man tents, and the "protection" of a low, block wall around each tent. No more than three feet high, and not even cement bonded, this was the main "defence" against mortar attack.

The second photograph shows the scene inside one of the tents. When the mortar attack siren goes (after the first bomb has hit, without warning), soldiers on the top bunks are supposed to climb down and hide under the lower bunk. This is what you call "layered defence".

Virtually every day, British bases come under attack and, once our troops retreat to the one base at Basra Air Station, no one is under any illusions about what that will do to the intensity of attacks – they will increase. Of the current situation, one soldier said, "Going to bed was a lottery – you never knew if you would wake up". This is a lottery you do not want to win, but the odds are "improving" all the time.

That is the reality of service in Iraq. The use of the Hesco barriers provides only the illusion of protection as, in their final flight path, mortar bombs descend nearly vertically. All that lies between soldiers and death or disfigurement are thin layers of canvas and the thickness of a mattress

As we observed earlier, imagine how quickly action would be taken if the Houses of Parliament were being mortared each day and the MPs had to sleep in unprotected tents in Palace Yard.

Yet these self-same MPs - and their staffs - who ritually applaud the bravery of our troops, skulk behind their barriers and armed guards while – with a few honourable exceptions – they permit without comment our soldiers to be exposed to quite unnecessary risks. And the secretary of state hides behind honeyed generalities and vague assurances, while the media sleeps.

This is moral cowardice. It simply is not good enough.

COMMENT THREAD

The tide retreats

With the withdrawal of 600 British troops from Bosnia – announced by defence secretary Des Browne on Monday – we now learn that the EU force to which they were attached is also to be reduced. EUFOR, as it is known, is gradually to be cut from 6,000 to 2,500 troops, achieving its new level by early June.

The EU took over in December 2004 from a NATO peacekeeping mission and launched an operation called ALTHEA, backing up around 16,000 Nato peacekeepers in Kosovo. The reduced EU force will continue to operate under a UN mandate which was given a yearlong extension by the Security Council in November.

The operation was the first in which EU-badged troops were seen to operate, with even our own Grenadier Guards wearing the hated "ring of stars" (pictured above), although it is interesting to see that two of the lads seem to have lost their badges.

Such was the initial enthusiasm for the EU identity that, in April 2005 a demonstration of EUFOR helicopters, held on Camp Butmir (Sarajevo) saw Italian Army A-109 helicopters also badged with the ring of stars (right). British Lynx helicopters carried no such markings. However, with EUFOR equipped to insert 150 troops in one wave of helicopters, it was at times better equipped than British forces in southern Iraq.

Fortunately though, the British departure will now mean that there are no longer any of our troops bearing EU markings. With that and the despatch of 1400 personnel to the Nato force in Afghanistan, this marks a decisive shift from the EU sphere of influence to the Nato/US domain.

It is one small sign, but it could indicate that the high-water mark of British participation in European defence integration is past. The tide retreats.

COMMENT THREAD

Action this day

Defence questions yielded considerable treasure yesterday, and it keeps coming. One such was interesting enough for the Daily Mail to pick up, heading its piece, "Basra tent troops 'sitting targets' warns MP".

Actually, they have been siting targets for months, if not years, but it is nice to have an additional warning from Labour's Chris Bryant, who recently visited tented accommodation for troops at the Basra Air Station (pictured top left). In Parliament, this is what he asked:

Four weeks ago, four hon. Members were in Basra with British troops as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We saw the tented accommodation at the Shatt al-Arab hotel, which British forces were in until Christmas. It has been heavily bombed, and that is where several British troops have died. We also saw the new accommodation that the troops are now in, in the more secure circumstances inside the Shatt al-Arab hotel, but they will now all be withdrawn from the hotel to the British airbase. Does the Secretary of State worry that British troops will now effectively be a sitting target for insurgents? What is to be done to ensure that we have better ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—support and that we have more secure accommodation, not just tented accommodation, for British troops?

This, of course, is something we have raised many times - and we did not even have to go to Basra at the taxpayers' expense to find out - such as here and here. The issue was also raised last month by Ann Winterton, and she has not been to Basra either. This time, however, The Mail followed it, not that Bryant got anything from the secretary of state that we had not already heard:

Des Browne: All the issues that my hon. Friend identifies are being actively pursued as we speak. The military advice that I have received is that, as we concentrate our forces back into the Basra air stations, it will easier, and we will be better placed, to defend our troops. There are a number of reasons why that is the case. I do not want to go into them in detail. I am constantly torn when it comes to giving details in the House of the steps that we take to protect our troops, because I do not want to undermine their security.

I make my hon. Friend the same offer that I have made to other hon. Members: if he wants a private briefing in relation to this matter, I would be happy to give it to him. I am not prepared to discuss in public the steps that we are taking, but he can rest assured that all the observations that he makes I have made myself on my visits. My top priority for our troops is their safety. Daily, I am involved with the chiefs of staff and others to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to enhance the troops' protection.

From what we can see, all that is being done is limited protection using Hesco barriers as blast containment walls, to limit the casualties in the event of a mortar bomb hitting a tent or building. The second photograph shows a "welfare village" opened only in January at Basra Air Station, and the principle can be seen clearly there. The building itself is unprotected, but the Hesco prevents shrapnel from mortars or rockets spreading.

Nowhere do we see the layered measures that would constitute effective protection so, on the face of it, this is very far from "doing everything that we can to enhance the troops' protection".

Browne has been personally warned, in Parliament, three times now, - if one includes Gerald Howarth - so he cannot hide behind his generals and say he did not know. If it were Churchill at the helm, I am sure we would be seeing an "action this day" memorandum. Churchill, Browne clearly is not, but he is going to have to do a great deal more if he is to avoid having blood on his hands.

COMMENT THREAD

Shock horror! (Not!)

As the MSM fawns over Al Gore getting the Oscar for the best fiction .... oops ... sorry ... documentary around and the news goes round the world that the former Veep's (no, he did not win that election, no matter what the Hollywood luvvies say on the matter)

20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours,

which is not even being denied by the Gores, we get this shock horror news item in Britain: "Second Warmest Winter Ever Recorded".

Blimey, I thought. Is this for real? Actually, there is no need to get too panicky yet. It seems that the winter of 1868/69 was warmer than this one and those of 1833/34 and 1988/89 the same.

Temperatures averaged 6.5C (43.7F) this winter, from December to February, MeteoGroup UK - the weather division of the Press Association - said.

Well, that's quite warm, though not the warmest (and certainly not the driest, despite threats of overwhelming drought). But stay, the article finishes with the following comment:

The Met Office point out that this winter has been the second warmest in the UK as a whole since 1914.

Instead of a chilly winter, average temperatures hit 5.47C - only the winter of 1988/9 was warmer at 5.82C.

I assume the problem lies in different figures including different months.

Michael Dukes of MeteoGroup UK said: "This winter's exceptional warmth is made even more remarkable by that fact the preceding autumn was the warmest on record. Indeed, the non-calendar year from 1 March 2006 to the end of February 2007 is the warmest 12 month period England and Wales have experienced since temperature records began in the 1650s. Although not proof of human-induced global warming, these records are yet more evidence in support of a rapidly warming climate."

Well, no, this is no proof of human-induced global warming despite Al Gore's mansion and constant use of a private jet. It might be proof of a rapidly warming climate but, actually, it is proof that average temperatures go up and go down. In other words, we still do not know what is really going on with the climate, let alone how it affects the weather.

The "human beings cause global warming and it will destroy the planet" fanatics, just as their predecessors of "the earth is getting colder and it will destroy the planet" variety seem to have reverted to a pre-scientific attitude to the problem of climate and weather. Every change to colder or warmer is seen as catastrophic rather than cyclical or manageable. Will they think the end of the world has come at the next full solar eclipse, I wonder.

COMMENT THREAD

Is this the Third Man?

Contrary to what one might gather from the media coverage of the French elections there are more than two candidates around. Apart from Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy there is, of course, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who launched his campaign two days ago and who is going to be ignored unless and until he scores well in the first round. At least that is what happened last time.

Remember the slogan that brought out voters to put their crosses against Chirac's name? "Vote for the crook not the fascist." Isn't French politics so much more sophisticated than American?

There is, however, another candidate, generally described as the Third Man (making Le Pen the Fourth Man, presumably). François Bayrou, a former teacher and education minister, as well as a farmer, is running from the soi-disant centrist Union pour la Démocratie Française (UDF), created by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and completely marginalized by Jacques Chirac.

Now M Bayrou is fighting back by attacking both Royal and Sarkozy, left and right, offering the centre ground and claiming “that he will "rassembler" (bring together) the left and the right, posing as the successor to General de Gaulle and Pierre Mendès France”.

Last week’s polls have given him 17 per cent, six points behind Mme Royal. The problem M Bayrou thinks he faces (and he is probably right) is that the main media channels concentrate on the two main candidates, not giving him adequate time and exposure.

When he mentioned TF1 channel by name they responded by proving his point completely. He was invited to answer audience questions but not given the full two hours accorded to the main two candidates. Still, he seems to have performed reasonably well, despite the low audience figures.

(One wonders whether M Bayrou would fight for M Le Pen’s right to have equal time in the media as well.)

So what are these centrist policies? It is a little hard to work out from the usual reports but, fortunately, Nidra Poller, a novelist who lives in Paris and reports at length on various stories that do not seem to find their way into the French MSM, has written an article about M Bayrou and his politics in the Wall Street Journal Europe. Sadly, it appeared in the week-end issue and is available on the net only to subscribers.

Mr Bayrou, who accuses the two front-runners of making extravagant promises they cannot keep, equates the modesty of his own proposals with proof that they will be fulfilled. He promises to reduce government spending, balance the budget, encourage small businesses, reward the industrious, improve conditions in the universities and increase the research budget.

As all his promises seem to hinge on more government spending and interference, there seems to be a certain amount of contradiction there.

Applying the same values of reasonable moderation on the international level, Mr Bayrou would trust the EU for defense, the UN for world order, and a Middle Eastern Union, modelled on the EU, for peaceful coexistence in that troubled region.

Undoubtedly, the man is a chronicler of the Porcine Aviation Force. Still, as Ms Poller points out, this “emollient”, not to say half-witted, message appeals to people, who are seriously tired of their political establishment. That, after all, is Le Pen’s great attraction: he is an outsider.

The trouble with François Bayrou is that he is not really an outsider even though he has lost to Chirac in the power struggle on the right. He has been in politics for some time (though he is not an enarque but then neither is Sarkozy) rising to the position of Minister for National Education under Edouard Balladour and Alain Juppé.

Perhaps not being as good at politicking as his rivals on the right is something that will appeal to the French electorate.

COMMENT THREAD

You mean other countries ignore the ICC?

It is not that Tony Blair has no influence in the White House. He does have influence or did until John Howard became President Bush's best buddy. It is just that he has asked for all the wrong things.

Admittedly he could neither ask for nor accept the proffered free-trade agreement, it not being in his power to sign any international trade agreements. He is, after all, merely the elected Head of this country’s Government. Of no importance, whatsoever.

Blair squandered his extensive political capital in Washington on such matters as that painfully dragged out process of going through the UN before invading Iraq, pointless pleas that the United States sign Kyoto (already rejected by the Senate under Clinton) and join the International Criminal Court (which is against the US Constitution).

To listen to some of the moonbats and, even, relatively sane people, all the problems of the world stem from the United States not signing up to the ICC, whose legitimacy remains dubious despite 104 countries supporting it.

Apparently, not every other country in the world has signed up to it or bothers to obey its instructions. Sudan, for one, and thought it is hard for some people to imagine this, but their human rights record is considerably worse than that of the United States or, indeed, the United Kingdom.

According to Al-Jazeera:

Luis Moreno-Ocamp, the ICC chief prosecutor had said that Ahmed Haroun [an ex-state interior minister] and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd Al-Rahman were suspected of 51 counts of war crimes in Darfur.

But Mohammed Ali al-Mardi, Sudan’s justice minister [sic], told The Associated Press on Tuesday: “We are not concerned with, nor do we accept, what the ICC prosecutor has opted for.”

Opted for? Is that translation accurate?

As it happens, Abd al-Rahman, a militia commander, also known as Ali Kushayb is in detention in Khartoum “on suspicion of violating Sudanese laws” in connection with his actions in Darfur. Whatever his sins, he is probably paying for them.

Just to remind our readers, it is estimated that about 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million driven from their homes in Darfur since 2003. The numbers of those wounded, tortured, crippled and raped are unknown.

Khartoum says that about 9,000 have died, presumably of old age and pneumonia. The UN has done nothing and the vast amounts of aid pumped into Sudan by the European Union, allegedly to help the people of Darfur, has still not been accounted for.

COMMENT THREAD

The way our government works

Front page of The Times today (print edition) is a story headed, "Random breath tests to hit drink-drivers".

Repeated online, it tells us that motorists face random breath testing under government plans to reduce the toll of deaths and serious injuries from drink driving. Ministers, we are told, believe that giving the police the power to stop any driver, regardless of how they are driving, would be a powerful deterrent.

But hang on a moment. In May 2004, when this last came up, we had a robust statement from the Home Office, which insisted that random tests are not an efficient way of catching drink-drivers. Then, it saw no need for them to be introduced. What has changed?

What we do know is that the casualty rate from drink-driving has gone up in recent years, although many commentators put that down to the reduction in routine traffic patrols, as enforcement authorities give vent to their obsession with speed and replace uniformed police with entrapment robots, aka speed cameras. Random testing, therefore, is not the issue – the number of tests, and the need for routine patrolling is.

But, those with longer memories may remember that there is another agenda at work here. Back in May 2004, it was the EU which was demanding random testing. And, while the Home Office was resisting the idea, we wrote:

...and here is the crunch - the president of Tispol, the European Traffic Police Network, said the (EU) commission would attempt to make its recommendation a directive if it is not followed.

Says Ad Hellemons, also Dutch Assistant Commissioner of Police, talking to BBC Radio Five Live: "This is the first time the European Commission has made such a recommendation. The vast majority of member states already carry out random breath tests. We can’t understand why governments would want to protect drink-drivers".

"The European Commission has made it clear that they expect this recommendation to be followed. If not they will try to make it a directive". There you have it – you will do as we "recommend", or we will make it compulsory.

So, what does our government do? It leaves it a few years and then, out of the blue, it pops up with a proposal that just happens to bring it into line with the commission's demand. Coincidence? I think not.

But enough time has elapsed, however, for most people to have forgotten the original EU input, so it is seen as a UK initiative and the government can maintain the pretence that it is still in charge. Any EU involvement can be denied.

That is now the way our government works.

COMMENT THREAD

History in the making

How apposite that, when it comes, it arrives not in the main pages of any of the newspapers, where the defence correspondents are well and truly asleep, but in the business section – in this case The Times.

We are talking here of an item headed, "Treasury threatens to cut £35bn of defence projects" and even then, because it is about "business", David Robertson, the business correspondent, misses the huge political and strategic implications.

The thrust of the story is, as advertised on the label, that the Treasury is threatening to cut defence projects worth up to £35 billion in the Government's next spending round, the comprehensive spending review (CSR), which outlines spending for the next five years. And that means that key projects could be cut.

But the dynamite news is that the Army could be the biggest loser. The Treasury, says The Times is thought to be unhappy with Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), which the newspaper describes as "a £14 billion project for up to 3,000 armoured vehicles." It tells us that the Treasury is understood to favour buying a replacement off the shelf, possibly from a US company, rather than have the UK develop its own.

Whether this happens or not, this news tells us what we had already suspected… that the Army is fighting for its life, its "vision" of the future which is intrisically bound up in FRES. It thus goes a long, long way towards explaining why the Army brass has been so reluctant to rock the boat over Iraq and Afghanistan, and demand the new kit needed for these campaigns. One false move and FRES is toast, they must have been telling themselves.

It begins to look, though, as if the sacrifice imposed on the Army is in vain. But, if their vision of FRES is to be junked, then the Defence Committee missed the vibes completely. And, if the Generals do not get their toys, what then? Is the ERRF also toast?

For those of you who have the time, read our FRES thread. While the media and the politicos are so fast asleep you can here the snores from here, there is history in the making.

COMMENT THREAD

The black hole at the heart of our defence policy

It is no coincidence that, at Defence Questions yesterday, a line was developed trying further to elucidate where and on what grounds decisions are made concerning the purchase of equipment for our armed forces.

This time it was light assault helicopters, an issue we have been pursuing for some time on this blog and which re-emerged with a vengeance after the use of Apaches in Afghanistan to recover the body of a dead Marine.

It was following that incident that one of the better debates took place on the unofficial Army forum about the provision of "organic" close air support. On balance, it seemed, sentiment was in favour of such a provision, and a number of Parliamentary questions were framed, pursuing the matter.

One of the questions was from Nick Harvey, the Lib-Dem defence spokesman. He asked whether the Secretary of State for Defence had made an assessment of the potential for the use of small light assault helicopters in Afghanistan and other combat zones. This was the reply:

Mr. Ingram: We continually review our helicopter requirements to ensure that we have sufficient helicopter support to meet current and anticipated tasks. While we do not use the term "small light assault helicopters", our helicopters in Afghanistan and other combat zones include those suited to heavy-lift tasks, such as Chinook and Merlin; utility helicopters, such as Lynx, Puma and Sea King; and attack helicopters, such as Apache. No capability gap has been identified for small light assault helicopters.

Thus it was yesterday that Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, asked the Secretary of State who had identified that there was no capability gap? "Was it politicians, the civil service or the armed forces, and on what basis was that judgment made?" His effort elicited this reply:

Des Browne: A judgment would be made only on the basis of advice from the military and on no other grounds at all. I have no expertise to make such an assessment and I would depend entirely on military commanders to make an assessment for me. I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman — I do not believe that there is a shortage of attack helicopters in Afghanistan. Those Apaches that we deployed, despite the fact that many people said that they were a bad purchase in the first place, have turned out to be much more capable than anybody thought they would be.

If Browne can be applauded for his candour, he can also be condemned for his naïvity. Firstly, he has confused the concepts of the attack helicopter, with the different "assault" machine, a (usually) armed helicopter that brings troops into battle.

More seriously though – as we know – there has already been the debate within the MoD as to whether some of these machines should be acquired – and the decision was "no". So, Browne has gone to the very organisation that has made a negative decision, for reasons we know why not, and got a negative answer. But, given the aura of negativity within the department, the reasons could well have been ill-founded.

Browne should not have relied on that tiny little clique of officials (some in uniform) to tell him what to do. He should have widened the debate, listened to more voices and, if necessary, commissioned independent studies. He has no business outsourcing policy to his officials. There lies the black hole at the heart of our defence policy.

And the odd thing is that, despite its crucial importance in hampering the war effort, neither the "official" opposition nor the media are even aware of it. The real debate goes on without them.

COMMENT THREAD

Return to Eurohistory

We all need reminding in the midst of the present political controversy that UKIP has its uses and would be sorely missed if it disappeared (and not just for its entertainment value).

England Expects tells us that it was UKIP that fed the story to the media about the proposed common European history textbook, though it was Graham Brady, the Conservative Europe spokesman who managed to get most of the huffing and puffing in.

Actually, this is not a particularly new idea and, our readers might recall that this blog covered a similar story that emerged from Belgium a couple of years ago. There have been many attempts to create a European history textbook that would avoid all the – how can describe it – difficult passages, which just happen to be the most interesting ones as well.

While both the Sun and the Daily Telegraph blamed Germany for this idea, one imagines the French are not exactly averse to imposing a single European view of the past. But which past would that be?

There is, as the article in the Telegraph points out, a model for this hilarious idea, a Franco-German project, which would not surprise anyone.

The Franco-German Histoire Geschichte was launched last May, with a first edition covering history since the end of the Second World War. The text is taught as part of the higher curriculum in both French and German schools and has the expressed aim of overcoming old enmities.

Speaking at the launch event, Gilles de Robien, the French education minister, said: "The great lesson of this story is that nothing is set in stone – antagonisms that we believe are inscribed in marble are not eternal."

Much of the first book of Franco-German history is devoted to the creation of the EU. "Through its willingness to co-operate with the Third World, its attachment to multilateralism, its dialogue with other regions, the EU appears as a model on the international scene," says the text.

Ten historians, five from each country, contributed to the book, which is published in both German and French and retails for €25 (£17).

Of course, M de Robien is right in his statement that nothing is set in stone, not even the European Union. On the other hand, given the CAP, the CFP, protectionist trade deals and many millions of euros spent on subsidizing bloodthirsty kleptocrats in position of power, I would question the EU’s record as a good world team player.

Mind you, one cannot help laughing over the following:

But political differences between Germany and France have surfaced over the role of the United States in Europe. "For France, traditionally the US is considered a great power which is a sort of rival," said Peter Geiss, one of the book's publishers. "That's not possible in Germany. For Germany, the US after 1945 has never been a rival. The reconstruction of Germany is associated with American presence."

How to deal with Communism has been another problem. While the Communist movement was of political importance in France in the 1950s and 1960s, it was associated in Germany with dictatorship, the East German regime and Soviet expansion.

While 80 per cent of the book's content is identical in the two languages, assessments of the US and the history of the Communist German Democratic Republic differ.

Other areas where French and German historians could not agree was on French colonial history and the Christian church.

What on earth is left in the textbook to fill up that 80 per cent? Not, I presume, the two world wars, or not in any detail, the occupation of France or French collaboration, the Franco-Prussian War, the invasion of German states by revolutionary and Napoleonic France or the Thirty Years’ War at the end of which France managed to grab a decentish chunk of territory, such as Alsace and Metz.

Personally I cannot wait for the book to be published in Britain.

COMMENT THREAD

A matter of urgency

In our piece yesterday - Those generals and their "toys" - we began to focus more closely on the role of the Army brass (and MoD civil servants) in the procurement of urgent equipment, needed for Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we saw was the blocking effect, where requests for kit never got through the system so that they were never presented to ministers. Because of this, forces in the field simply weren't getting the kit because it had not "officially" been asked for.

Crucial in this process is the role of the so-called "urgent operational requirement", which is the mechanism for by-passing the often slow procurement process and getting equipment where it is needed, fast.

But, to clarify how the system works, once again Lib-Dem MP Mike Hancock has put in another question to the MoD, which was answered on 23 February:

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what (a) rules and (b) circumstances senior Army officers may raise urgent operational requirements; and if he will make a statement. [118887]

Mr. Ingram: An Urgent Statement of User Requirement can be raised by commanders in theatre during an operation or by commanders in the Permanent Joint Headquarters or Front Line Commands before or during an operation. Subject to endorsement by the chain of command, this is then progressed as an Urgent Operational Requirement.

And there we have the key qualifier, which makes all the difference: "Subject to endorsement by the chain of command…".

Revisiting one egregious example of this, we saw on 19 November a report in the Mail on Sunday where Brigadier John Lorimer, who is to take charge of British forces in Afghanistan in the spring, had issued a "shopping list" of requirements, only to be told by "senior MoD officials" that his requests would be denied.

This was flagged up in a graphic (above) alongside a statement from Tony Blair who had promised "Whatever the package the Army wants, we will do", the Mail on Sunday thus arguing, through the words of an anonymous officer, that this "shows how empty Blair's words were."

In fact, as we are beginning to see, things are a lot more complicated than that. Blair's statement was addressed in terms of the "Army". However important Brig. Lorimer might be, he is not the Army and it is through the chain of command that the corporate view of the institution is expressed.

Clearly – at the time – the Army did not support Lorimer's "shopping list", although now - with Des Browne's formal statement on additional troops to Afghanistan today – it seems Lorimer is getting most of what he wants.

However, while this is a particularly visible example of how the system works, many are not and many decisions are being made downstream, which are not necessarily getting to the political level. Thus, it seems, we need to know more about how UOR’s work.

We need, for instance, to know when a UOR formally becomes a UOR. If a theatre commander raises one, does it become a formal, recorded document the moment it is generated? Or can it be "lost" en route or does it only become a UOR when it is approved by the chain of command?

Can a commander who generates a UOR (or what he wishes to be a UOR) be instructed to withdraw it (possibly having been told that raising it was not a career-enhancing move), whence it disappears, unrecorded, from the system?

Are there any records of the numbers of UOR "requests" generated by theatre commanders which have not been approved by the chain of command and thence have not been submitted to ministers for approval?

Then, are there any records kept of the number of formal requests made by lower echelon commanders which have been submitted to theatre commanders for consideration as UORs and, if so, how many of those were subsequently became UORs. Of those, how many were subsequently submitted to Ministers for approval?

And, if records do not exist in any of the key areas, it would be interesting to know whether the secretary of state is thinking of setting up a more "transparent" system which will ensure traceability of documents. Ministers – to say nothing of Parliament – need to be "fully and properly informed" of requests for equipment made at all higher command levels, to ensure that there are no unnecessary (or politically motivated) blockages in the system.

COMMENT THREAD

Authors of their own misfortunes

Given the weight of adverse media coverage over the weekend, UKIP has emerged relatively unscathed today, with only The Daily Telegraph making anything of the stories in the Monday press.

However, while some of the focus has been on the machinations of the not very wise Tom Wise and the Bown donations by far the greater long-term threat is an investigation into the ways MEPs have spent their £125,000 annual assistants’ allowance.

Should they have been shown to have broken the rules, the ten UKIP MEPs could be individually liable for repayments, perhaps amounting to £200,000 or more, for each of them. By contrast, the Electoral Commission threat to recover £350,000 from the Party is relatively small beer.

This has not stopped a few die-hard UKIPites complaining that they are being unfairly treated, but on the UKIP Forum, there is also some recognition that the inept leadership is at least in part responsible for the woes the Party is currently experiencing.

That the Party hierarchy is largely the author of its own misfortunes is most evident in the treatment of its payments to Party workers using EU money.

That money is actually ring-fenced fund to pay for staff to assist MEPs in their duties. The sum is relatively high because it is recognised that they have to maintain offices in the EU parliament and in their home countries. Thus, an MEP is quite entitled to employ staff in the home country, to carry out a diverse range of functions.

What an MEP is not allowed to do, however, is spend that money on employing workers whose sole (or main) duties are party political - as has been the case with UKIP.

To an extent, every Party does "stretch" the system but UKIP have been rather blatant in what they have been doing, thus inviting a reaction. If that was their intent, they can hardly be surprised when it comes.

Had the Party been a little more intelligent in how it managed its affairs, it could have achieved the same end, without falling foul of the rules. For instance, there was no need to use the "assistants" fund directly to pay for Party staff.

One alternative would be to levy a large precept on the MEPs' salaries - which they are free to spend as they wish - and then have the individual MEPs hire close relatives (wife or some such) as an assistant, to make up the deficiency, the sums obviously going into the household budgets.

Another option is for the Party to take a substantial percentage of the "assistance" and office expenses funds to pay for head office costs and staff, who rightly can be said to be carrying out group administrative functions which have direct relevance to the MEPs. This is what the Tories do. Monies that would then otherwise be spent on head office functions could be diverted to pay for party workers in the regions.

However, the Party set up a system in 1999 which it knew to be against the rules but, on such a small scale that it felt (probably rightly) that it would not be noticed. With ten MEPs and a higher profile, that was never going to be the case. But instead of rethinking the system - and borrowing ideas from other (more experienced) parties - UKIP persevered with a scheme that was almost bound to cause them grief.

For them then to complain is rather akin to standing up in the middle of an active battlefield and waving your arms around and then protesting that you get shot. In short, UKIP's behaviour has invited what is very close to a self-inflicted injury.

COMMENT THREAD

The difference is taxing

I bet you didn't know that the largest Esso service station in the world is located in one of the smallest countries on earth, in Wasserbillig, Luxembourg - located on the motorway to Germany.

There are eleven multi-product pumps, twenty toilets, shower cubicles and a first aid room. The forecourt covers 2400 square metres and the small supermarket 260, where motorists can find everyday articles and can take a break with a rich assortment of drinks and snacks, from fresh bread rolls to pizzas.

The reason why this is the case is simple – fuel tax is lower in Luxembourg (as is the tobacco tax), so people come flocking for miles around to fill up their tanks and stock up on cheap baccy.

And László Kovács, EU tax commissioner, hates it. Starting with the truck drivers and those with diesel cars, is seeking to close down this "loophole", by upping the minimum duty, currently at €302 per 1,000 to €330 in 2010, €359 in 2012 and €380 in 2014.

This will not affect the UK which has the highest duty at €693 but Luxembourg charges a mere €285, compared with €470 per 1,000 litres in Germany, just across the border.

A study shows Germans are willing to drive two to four extra kilometres for each euro cent differential in diesel price compared with a neighbouring country, which means that a lot of Germans are doing a lot of miles in what is known as "fuel tourism".

However, according to the Financial Times, Charlie McCreevy, the Irish EU internal market commissioner, and Dalia Grybauskaite, the Lithuanian EU budget commissioner, have forced a delay an announcement that was expected this week "to allow further debate". It will be discussed by all 27 commissioners on Wednesday.

To gain approval for the tax change, voting must be unanimous, with all 27 member states in favour. But, in addition to Luxembourg, Poland and the Czech Republic are also concerned about the tax hike: both are popular destinations for truck drivers avoiding higher duties in neighbouring Germany.

"We are not happy," says a spokesman for Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg prime minister, he who so wanted the EU constitution.

Germany, however, would love the EU to have more power on this issue. A study by the European Commission found that fuel tourism cost Germany an estimated €1.9bn a year in lost tax on diesel, on top of which is the lost duty on petrol station sales of cigarettes.

Nevertheless, with so much opposition, László Kovács may be disappointed on Wednesday, proving the opposite of the current Inland Revenue slogan – that taxing can be very taxing indeed.

COMMENT THREAD

Did the Left lose its way?

Nick Cohen, the left-wing journalist who writes for the Observer, the New Statesman and the Evening Standard, among others, thinks the left has really lost its way by supporting the worst, most repressive and most ferociously right-wing ideology around: Islamism.

Then again, he seems to equate liberalism, in the British sense of the word, with leftishness, which is completely wrong. Liberalism is about freedom; left-wing ideology is about control. Perhaps, they did not really lose their way but have ended up in the most logical position. Here is why I think it is so.

COMMENT THREAD

Delusional, or what?

"UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf" screams the headline on the Telegraph website. The story tells us:

Britain's senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.

The extra firepower is HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. And this matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower?


As I wrote over a month ago when we covered the story, and the US were putting in two carrier groups (one illustrated above), who do we think we are kidding?

COMMENT THREAD

Those generals and their "toys"

Providing an antidote to the gushing tales of "derring do" that we see so often in the supposedly serious newspapers comes Booker in his column today in The Sunday Telegraph.

Based very much on the recent writings on this blog, Booker picks up the theme of how the MoD brass are so lost in their dreams of future wars, centred around the FRES (Future Rapid Effect System) project, that they have lost touch with the reality of the real wars in the here and now, that they are actually having to fight – and are losing.

Booker recalls how in July 2005 he reported on a hitherto completely unreported debate in Westminster Hall where then junior defence minister Don Touhig blithely announced to the only other MP in the chamber that the cost of FRES had increased from £6 billion to £14 billion, making it the most expensive single procurement project in the Army's history (and our Sunday "toy" - the SEP prototype platform).

That FRES was not reported then – or since – by the media (and especially the specialist defence correspondents) does much to explain why, when it comes to understanding and evaluating the current defence scene, they have lost the plot. Having not covered FRES before, and having not done their homework in the interim, there is a huge gap in their knowledge and understanding.

Furthermore – something we find covering issues on this blog – if you come into the story in the middle, the complexities are such that it is very often too difficult to summarise the issues. So it is with FRES. Correspondents are not even attempting to catch up and are tending to avoid it altogether.

When, as Booker does report, the Defence Select Committee appears to have very little idea of what the system is about (in common, it seems with most of the Army, which is still not able, clearly, to define what it wants), we have a recipe for confusion, if not disaster.

The fact is though that the Army and the MoD both, at just the time when they should have been concentrating on beating the insurgents in Iraq had taken their eye off the ball, instead mooning over plans for their new "toys", the purpose of which as, Lt Gen. Figgures (pictured) openly admitted, was to provide "the medium weight component of the Future Army Structure for the expeditionary force" – none other than the planned European Rapid Reaction Force.

No one who read the oral evidence given to the Select Committee (also linked from here) can come away with anything other than the impression that FRES had become the Army's "Holy Grail" and that it was not interested looking at kit needed to fight the insurgency.

Nothing can be more graphic in this context than Figgure's complaint (pg. 44) that the current equipment available would "enable us to fight as we wish to fight in the next 20 years" – a penetrating insight into the mindset of an organisation that has its own view of how it wants to fight and does not want to let the real world intrude.

But, as Booker wrote, not fully grasping this, the MPs seemed to think that FRES-type vehicles might eventually play the same role as the ragbag of semi-armoured and non-armoured vehicles that the Army is using in Iraq and Afghanistan, to increasingly dismal effect.

Thus, while the MPs were certainly highly critical of the FRES project in general, describing it as "a sorry story of indecision, constantly changing requirements and delay", they failed utterly to realise was that, even if the hyper-sophisticated FRES vehicles ever get built, they would be wholly inappropriate to the kind of low-grade, counter-insurgency wars our troops are currently fighting.

Then writes Booker:

The real tragedy gathering round the Army is that the generals are so taken with the glamour of these expensive and shiny new toys, designed to equip the Army of the future, that they have been reluctant to press for money to be "diverted" (as they fear) to buying the less glamorous sort of equipment needed to fight the campaigns our troops are already engaged in, and in serious danger of losing.

If there is one thing I have got regrettably wrong in my various reports on defence in the past two years it has been to suggest that the pressure for fitting our Armed Forces to play their part in the ERRF comes from the politicians and not the generals themselves. It seems it is now the backroom generals who are most gung-ho for the shiny toys of the future, often leaving the politicians amazed that they are not more concerned about the needs of our men on the ground. (Last autumn, for instance, when the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, offered the generals more Chinook helicopters for Afghanistan, his offer was turned down.)

This last claim is especially contentious but, if you think about it, no system could exist for long if politicians decided which equipment the armed forces used. It is up to the forces to define the equipment they need, and ask for it. That they are not asking is evidenced in this recent answer to a Parliamentary Question put by Mike Hancock MP:

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from military commanders in Afghanistan on the provision of (a) mine protected vehicles, (b) Chinook helicopters and (c) other equipment; and if he will make a statement. [111833]

Des Browne: Following my announcement on 24 July 2006, Official Report, columns 74-76WS, we have sent two additional CH-47 Chinooks to Afghanistan, making a total of eight, and increased the number of flying hours. This increased capability currently meets the operational commander's requirement and I have received no representations for additional helicopters. I have also received no representations for new mine protected vehicles. All requirements are kept under constant review. We regularly receive and action requests for a wide range of equipment. Some of these we can address through existing resources; other emerging requirements are met through the urgent operational requirement (UOR) process. The UOR process is an effective means of providing new capabilities or pieces of equipment for use in theatre; since the latest campaign started in April 2006, 261 UORs have been approved, of which 108 have already been delivered.

To compound the tragedy, writes Booker, "not only do we seem to be facing defeat in both the theatres where our troops are engaged, as a result of inadequate forces and equipment, but the future of the ERRF itself, with Germany and other countries appearing to lose interest, now seems more uncertain than at any time since Tony Blair signed us up to the project in 1999. Meanwhile, he has to disguise our defeat in Basra as some kind of a 'job done' victory, with similar spin having to be prepared to disguise our losing the war in southern Afghanistan."

I am not convinced we have yet lost in Afghanistan, but paper from the Washington Institute entitled, "The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq" and a shorter paper by Anthony H. Cordesman, entitled "The British Defeat in the South…" make it very clear where we are going in Basra.

Add to this, the piece in the Independent and only the wildest optimist could run away with the impression that our activities in Iraq have been successful.

Time and successive histories will lend perspective to what precisely went wrong but, while fingers will inevitably be pointed to the politicians – and Blair in particular – the generals on the spot and back in London do not come out of it particularly well either. This has not been their finest hour.

COMMENT THREAD

Un-wise affairs

It is a long while since we revisited the case of Tom Wise the UKIP MEP (pictured in the EU parliament chamber in Brussels with his friends), who was associated in 2005 with rather unsavoury financial irregularities amounting, effectively, to fraud.

Today, however, he is back in the news, this time in The Sunday Times, in a front-page story written by Daniel Foggo, headed: "UKIP in embezzlement scandal".

Much of the detail is similar to the original investigation into Wise's affairs in 2005, also by Foggo, then working for The Sunday Telegraph. At the time, this revealed that Wise had charged to his EU expenses £36,000 for the services of a research assistant, but had only paid her £6,000. A follow-up article weeks later, claimed that Wise was to pay back a refund of £21,000.

From Foggo now we learn that Wise is officially under investigation by the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF and that the sum he originally channelled into his own bank account was nearer £40,000

Potentially, writes Foggo, this is the most serious crisis to hit UKIP, more so coming after the action by the Electoral Commission. While that episode is being dismissed as a "clerical error", Wise's actions have the hallmarks of deliberate fraud.

What has been clearly established is that Wise set up a scam to circumvent EU rules preventing MEPs claiming their £125,000 annual staff expenses personally, by requiring them to be paid either directly to the employees or through a third-party "agent". MEPs are not allowed to handle the money themselves.

Wise, who before his election had been a paying agent for his then boss, Geoffrey Titford MEP - and therefore had been very familiar with the rules - pretended that his own bank account was actually that of his researcher, Lindsay Jenkins - who claims on her own website to be an "investigative author and journalist". From November 2004 until October 2005 he funnelled £39,100 of taxpayers' money into his own account with the Cooperative Bank from which he paid Jenkins just £13,555.

Bank statements obtained by Foggo show that the only money coming into the account was from the EU, ostensibly for Jenkins. Wise's method was simple. He supplied the EU payments office with a contract, obtained by The Sunday Times, which included Jenkins's name and details and stipulated that she apparently wanted her money to be paid into her account, entitled "Stags". In fact, this account, the full name of which was "T Wise trading as Stags", was a business account run by the MEP himself.

But the breach of rules did not stop there. Some of the £13,555 paid to her was actually for work done on behalf of other party members, including UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who had agreed to fund the publication of a book written by Jenkins.

Then, during the same timespan, more than £19,000 of the money was steadily paid out from Wise's account to other destinations, some of them apparently credit cards. One disbursement alone, made via a transfer to somebody other than Jenkins, was for £6,500. And it has now been established that Wise also applied for other assistants' salaries to be paid through his bank account before the period involving Jenkins.

Faced with the highly embarrassing situation of one of their own implicated in fraud, back in 2005, the UK Independence Party – which makes a big noise about exposing EU fraud – was given plenty of opportunities to expose the fraudster in its midst, and distance itself from him. Collectively though, the MEPs and senior party officials – with not a little rancour – chose to close ranks, effectively endorsing (or at least, condoning) Wise's action.

Now their neglect is rebounding on them, as Wise is shown to be a serial embezzler, having maintained his position in the Party only through the tolerance of his dishonesty by his colleagues. Collectively, therefore, they are tarnished by his actions, and the name of the Party (such that it is) has been diminished.

However, if this is the case against Wise – with more to follow – Foggo may be wrong if he believes this to be, potentially, the most serious crisis to hit UKIP. Additionally, he reports that the Electoral Commission is going to launch a full review of UKIP's internal systems for dealing with their financial affairs and handling their statutory reporting requirements, noting that UKIP systematically flouts the spirit of EU rules, which forbid party workers from being paid with taxpayers' money. This is the line taken by the Sunday Telegraph in its story, as well as Foggo, both pursuing the story that the Party has been paying its regional organisers by designating them "advisers" and "assistants" to its 10 MEPs. By using this ploy, salaries of up to £40,000 a year have been paid from the MEPs' EU expenses, relying on the further fiction that they do their actual jobs "in their spare time".

Further details are set to be exposed because Denis Brookes, one of the party's former officials, issued industrial tribunal proceedings against Mike Nattrass, the party's MEP for the West Midlands region (pictured). It is understood that Brookes has stated in his claim for unfair dismissal that he was being paid to do one job while actually employed to do another one entirely, so that the party could secure EU funding for him.

If this is established, the party could find itself having to dismantle its entire Party structure and, as damaging, repaying the salaries of the regional organisers, going right back to 1999, when three UKIP MEP were first elected. It was then that the system was first devised of using MEP's personal expenses illegally to pay Party workers, in the expectation that Brussels-based officials would never check on the activities of staff based in the UK.

Given a clear intent to defraud taxpayers funds for Party purposes, carried out by all UKIP's MEPs, not only will they face the prospect of returning millions of pounds, but the possibility of criminal prosecutions as well.

Ironically, the latest local publicity from Wise has been devoted to opposing a new passport office in Luton because he says it would lead to "data rape". Now, it transpires that he and his colleagues have been doing something similar to the taxpayers. "Gang rape" might be a better way of putting it. What's left of the Party they have systematically sought to destroy might certainly agree.

COMMENT THREAD

Arrogance or national interest?

Pamela Meister starts an interesting alphabet on American Thinker with her article, called “A is for Arrogance, B is for Baloney”. I wonder what C might be for? Condescension? Capriciousness?

The starting point of the article is a supremely ridiculous statement by Hillary Clinton, who took time off from bashing Barack Obama to tell the audience in Florida that

When I' m president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back - we're not the arrogant power that we 've been acting like for the past six years.

My guess is that people don’t know what arrogant is until and unless Hillary Clinton becomes President. Just remember how arrogant she was when she was merely the First Lady. Pamela Meister reminds everyone of the time she said:

I 'm not going to have some reporter pawing through our papers. We are the president .

I take it, once Hillary is in the Oval Office, if she gets there, poor old Bill will not be allowed to be part of that rather royal “we”. Is this what the American War of Independence was fought for?

What Hillary is talking about is that old chestnut: Bush ignored everyone but America in his foreign policy decisions. Apart from the fact, that this is not true, as anyone who can recall those endless and fruitless discussions in the UN would agree, as would anyone who can add up the number of allies the United States has in Iraq and Afghanistan, what else is he supposed to do? The task of the President of the United States is to look after that country’s and its people’s interests. He may get it wrong; he may make mistakes; he may get the country into a mess through wrong-headed policies (see Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter). But he is not supposed to look to other people first.

Pamela Meister refers to another article by Kyle-Anne Shiver, which recounts a conversation with, sadly, a Brit in New York City. Sadly, because one would like to think that such arrogant silliness and ignorance would be exhibited by other Europeans but we must all be realistic about the level of knowledge and understanding in this country.

I got into a bit of a verbal tussle with a Brit this past summer - in New York, of course. He was demanding to know why W didn't pay more heed to the European interests before starting a bloody war that involved the whole bloody world. At first, I could barely believe my ears, but then I simply reminded him that we, the citizens of the United States, pay our President to worry about us first - and everyone else after that. He bolted back that, well, Clinton had cared about them! I just said that perhaps that was one good reason why his party was out and the ones who put America first - and foremost - are IN.

One would like to know why the Brit in question thought that European opinion should be sought. Why not African? After all, the people of Africa really have a say in their own governance, do they not? So, they should be consulted about American politics. Or why not Chinese? Or any number of other countries, where governments just happen often in a far more bloody fashion than what has been going on in Iraq?

Then again, it was European interests that President Bush was supposed to have paid attention to. One wonders what those European interests are. Keeping bloodthirsty dictators in power? Perhaps.

Pamela Meister’s own rejoinder is good enough as far as it goes:

Another good rejoinder might have been to ask why Europe didn't pay more heed to American interests before starting two terrible wars that involved the much of the world. Neither World War I nor World War II were picnics, and it certainly would have been nice if someone in charge somewhere had asked what America thought beforehand. But most Americans are realistic. They don' t expect France, Germany, or any other country to play "Mother, may I? " with us when they make their foreign policy decisions. Alliances come and go depending on the needs of the day, but the reality is that it has always been every man for himself, and it always will be.

Who on earth are those international interests that the American President is supposed to consult, anyway? The United Nations, a rapacious organization in every sense of the word that is incapable of sorting out its own affairs and is completely unaccountable to anybody?

There is, however, another important issue here, that quite possibly the Brit in question had not grasped. It is one we have written about before. A good deal of the grousing about the United States and its President (particularly Bush) whose powers are so enormous come from sheer frustration, not with American arrogance but with the fact that we no longer have any control over our own governments.

The American people can influence their government at various levels through elections. We cannot.

The whole article reminded me of a conversation I had with a lady who had wandered in to some event at the Institute of Economic Affairs and found herself a little out of things. She harangued me, for some reason I cannot recall, about Bush being the most powerful man in Britain because Blair just agrees to everything he is told.

This is a commonly held and completely erroneous view. Blair has a great deal of influence over Bush. He has not used it wisely or in Britain’s interests. That is all.

I listened to the rant for a while then asked if the lady in question knew who legislated in this country. She was thrown for a moment but went back to the subject of Bush’s power and arrogance. No, no, I insisted, who legislates in this country. Whoever legislates has the real power.

Then I proceeded to explain to her how legislation is done and why it does not matter whom we elect to the House of Commons or who is in government. For some reason the lady lost interest in the conversation and wandered off.

Which European interests should the President of the United States consult? And while we are on the subject, when will the European Union consult the interests of the European people?

COMMENT THREAD

An interesting idea

As I recall, when William Hague, the Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary (for people who may well have forgotten this fact) made his last statement about what foreign policy might be like run by him and the Boy-King, he waffled a bit about us not needing the American alliance any more but having to look to Asian countries, such as India and China. What that sounded like was somebody desperately looking at the map of Asia and repeating names of big countries.

An alliance with India is, indeed, a very good idea, as the government of the United States has recognized some time ago. Those two countries, as well as Australia and Canada, are part of the Anglosphere, with many ideas similar (at least in theory) to Britain's.

China, however, is a somewhat different proposition, though I would not expect the Conservative Party spokespersons to recognize this fact. Naturally, we need to have political and trade relations with the country but a close alliance, one, moreover, instead of the close alliance with the United States, does not sound like such a great idea.

Perhaps, Master Hague would like to think about the recent news from that country he would so like to have a close alliance with. It seems the government is desperately worried about young (and, probably, not so young) people becoming addicted to the internet. After all, they might find things out and that would never do.

Steps have, therefore, been taken to cure people of the addiction, as described by Ariana Eunjung Cha in the Washington Post. Among the methods are mild (by whose standards?) electric shocks. Sadly, the WaPo seems to accept China's own boast that it has dealt with alcoholism and drug addiction better than any other country. Since there is no independent source of information about this we should really take it with a very large dose of salt.

Any point in sending this to Master Hague? Somehow I do not think so.

COMMENT THREAD

Devolution in reverse

Australia and the Canadian province of Ontario have done it – pushed ahead with a ban on incandescent light bulbs (although no one quite knows what made them so angry).

But now, according to Ian Johnson of The Scotsman, the Scottish Parliament is coming to terms with the reality that it does not have power to follow suit.

Even though switching to energy-efficient models would cut annual carbon dioxide emissions by about a quarter of a million tons a year and save £88 million, the Scottish Executive has no power to ban products. It says that lies with Westminster, a fact which, according to Stuart Hay, head of research and policy at Friends of the Earth Scotland, highlights the "limitations of the devolved powers Scotland has".

But Westminster says EU Single Market rules prevent the UK from acting unilaterally and only the European Union can legislate. And, at the EU level, the process stalls altogether, with countries expressing good intentions, but no sign of impending action.

Funny though, while the Scots seem to find limits on devolved power from Westminster tiresome, when "devolution" seems to be going the other way they seem somewhat less concerned. Yet, as it now transpires, a nation that once had an empire over which the sun never set no longer has the power to change its light bulbs.

COMMENT THREAD

The Saturday "toy"

Forget the hirsute Marine clutching the M2 (aka .50 cal Browning) and look at the bit of kit on the left. This is the "Saturday toy", a little gem that goes by the name of MSTAR, standing for "Man-Portable Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar", It was originally developed by Racal for the Army in the late 1980s and first issued to British forces in 1990 (replacing the replaced the ZB 298, which did sterling work in Oman and elsewhere) – and has been upgraded several times since, being currently produced by Thales.

Initially issued to artillery units, with which forward observation posts are able to monitor the fall of their own shot (seen here in the Gulf War), the radar has a much more interesting use of acting as a movement sensor, being able to detect a human figure at a range of up to five miles and vehicles out to about 20.

It is in this role that we probably see the example at the top of this post, in an official MoD photograph, showing India Company Royal Marine Commandos at work in Garmsir during operation Glacier 4, taken recently by Petty Officer Sean Clee.

The particular value of the equipment is that it gives coverage during the hours of darkness well beyond the range of optical night-sights, adding another dimension to the technical superiority that Nato forces maintain over the Taliban.

It is such as this that gives us the edge and, used effectively, with good tactics, good leadership and enough troops, does mean that we can prevail against an old enemy. This is not the British Army of the 19th Century, and nor is it the badly trained and equipped conscript army of the USSR.

Hence, one rather wearies of hearing the likes of Christina Lamb – as we did on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. Her great claim to fame is being embedded with a detachment of the Paras when it was bounced by Taliban fighters, recounted at length in The Times which now seems to qualify her to complain that sending more troops into Afghanistan means they are acting as a "magnet" drawing more Taliban into the fray.

What Christina and her follow travellers seem to have difficulty in coming to terms with is that the primary purpose of putting armed, highly-trained troops into theatre is to kill enemy fighters. If the presence of those fighters under the right conditions pulls them under our guns, whence they are slaughtered, then the purpose is served. Only when these people learn that they cannot get their way by force of arms will they start listening to saner voices.

As it stands, the real barrier to our overall victory seems to be our own generals, who seem to have more in common with the Christinas of this world than soldiers. If they had more confidence in our ability as a nation to deal with the likes of the Taliban, and properly used the resources available to them, we might all be better off.

COMMENT THREAD

Could we have better targeting?

It comes as absolutely no surprise to learn that, in the wake of the troop reductions in Iraq, the government is now to despatch another 1,000 troops to Afghanistan.

It was becoming evident that our forces were unable to occupy the ground they were taking, as a result of which gains are being negated when we withdraw and the Taliban re-occupy the positions.

The concern now is, however, whether the scale of capital equipment (such as helicopters) will be increased and whether we will see some heavy armour in theatre (I will do a more detailed analysis later today).

Of immediate interest, though, is the response of opposition defence spokesman Liam Fox, who complains that: "The government has failed to get our Nato allies to carry their share of the burden in Afghanistan… Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee but leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost".

That is a little bit off target, methinks. I seem to remember the Nato SecGen calling for more troops, to say nothing of the US defense secretary and, most recently, president Bush. It is a bit rich to pin the whole blame on this government, as our Liam seems to be doing.

Also, it is as well to remember that the Afghan venture is indeed a Nato operation. One would have thought that an opposition that is apparently opposed to EU defence integration and supportive of Nato, would be pleased to see our military assets being used to support that organisation. Would he rather they were dedicated to the European Rapid Reaction Force or, even, that they stayed at home, leaving the under-strength contingent to struggle on without reinforcement?

Opposition to this current government we do need, but slightly better targeting would be in order.

COMMENT THREAD

The Friday "toy"

Taken in a far-flung corner of Horseguards' Parade, Whitehall, today. The plaque reads:

TURKISH GUN – Made by Murad son of Abdullah, Chief Gunner in 1524. Taken in Egypt by the British Army 1801. The Gun is inscribed:

The Solomon of the age the Great Sultan Commander the dragon guns (to be made) When they breathe roaring like thunder. May the enemy’s forts be raised (sic) to the ground. Year of Hegira 931.

Those were the days… But just a thought. If Turkey joins the EU, will we have to apologise and give this gun back?

COMMENT THREAD

More news from the tranzis

When in doubt, have a look at what the UN and other tranzis are up to. Bound to find something entertaining there. Yes, yes, I know it is akin to shooting fish in a barrel but, occasionally, that is such fun.

Then again, it is important to recall that these organizations cost us a lot of money, which they tend to use to try to undermine democratic nation states. So, keeping a weather eye on them is of some importance.

First up, as ever, is the United Nations, now under new management and not a whit better for that.

It seems that UN peacekeeping troops will not be sent to Chad because the situation there is too volatile. Undoubtedly so, but I was under the impression that it is the peacekeepers’ job to ensure that the situation gets less volatile. I suppose, that would be called peacemaking.

The two SecGens have differed on what ought to be done.

Unlike his predecessor, Ban made no recommendation on whether the council should deploy a U.N. peacekeeping force to Chad and neighboring Central African Republic to help thousands of civilians caught in local fighting and the spillover of Sudan's Darfur conflict.

In one of his final reports, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan recommended against deploying peacekeepers to the two countries until all parties agree to a cease-fire and start talks aimed at a political solution. He cited the risk to troops and very difficult logistics.

There is a risk, said Ban Ki-moon, the new SecGen that the UN troops will be seen as interfering with the military agenda of the various groups, particularly Chadian rebels, based in Sudan and, therefore, legitimate targets for attack. And there I was thinking that it is only the evil Americans and British who could find themselves in such a situation.

Ban stressed that a lasting solution to the crisis in both countries depends on their leaders. He urged the governments "to move forward rapidly and to muster the political will and establish peace and stability in their countries and in the region."

Meanwhile, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a sensible website that, nevertheless, suffers from an idea that somehow the UN can be reformed and improved, published and editorial piece in the New York Sun.

In it he takes on Jeffrey Laurenti, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a former adviser to Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation, who finds the make-up of the “new” UN Human Rights Council, still packed with countries who would not recognize human rights if they met them in the street.

"The biggest institutional overhaul to emerge from outgoing Secretary-General Kofi Annan's U.N. reform drive," wrote Mr. Laurenti, "was the upgrading of the policy body overseeing human rights to a yearround Council, four-fifths of whose members are bona fide democracies; the Council's nation-specific focus on war-fighting excesses by Israel and Sudan, however, offended the West and Islamists respectively."

As Mr Neuer says, “never have so few words on a U.N. subject managed to convey so much misinformation”.

Firstly, it is not exactly accurate to say that the body has been upgraded. It may meet more often than its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights met but, so far, it has not even censured a single country with abysmal human rights record. Even the Commission managed to odd censure.

Secondly, Mr Laurenti shows himself to be part of the problem as he equates Israel’s defence against Hamas and Hezbollah attacks with the mass murder, torture, rape and ethnic cleansing that are being conducted by the janweed militias in Darfur with the full approval of the Sudanese government.

Instead, the council so far has devoted 100% of its condemnations — three special sessions and eight resolutions — to one-sided attacks against Israel, granting immunity to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism. The world's major Western democracies, Mr. Annan, and even harsh critics of Israel like Amnesty International have decried the council's politically motivated bias.

How bad were these condemnations if former SecGen Kofi Annan and Amnesty International have decried them?

Then there is the question of the bona fide democracies that, according to Mr Laurenti, make up the Council. Of course, a body that deals with human rights ought to be made up entirely of bona fide democracies and countries where the rule of law is paramount but even four fifths would be an achievement if it were true.

These are the 47 members:

Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Tunisia, Brazil, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Japan, Mali, Pakistan, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zambia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Germany, Jordan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Switzerland, Uruguay

A mixed batch, to put it mildly. According to Freedom House’s annual survey about half the members of the Council do not meet the basic standards of full democracy.
So, where does this assessment of four fifths come from? This is Mr Neuer’s idea:

He [Jeffrey Laurenti] apparently refers to the fact that 37 council members have signed on to the Community of Democracies, a loose association of over 100 countries, membership to which requires little. Under Mr. Laurenti's definition, "bona fide democracies" include Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan, Morocco, and Vladimir Putin's Russia — regimes that jail journalists, trample basic freedoms, or commit systematic torture.

The Community of Democracies is an interesting organization, since, at times, it has been suggested as an alternative to the severely discredited United Nations. Set up in Poland in 2000, its Council’s “mission statement” is as follows:

CCD is different from the many NGOs that promote democracy. We believe that an environment of cooperation among nations offers the best hope for resolving the critical problems of our age and that an organization of democracies acting in concert is a vital step in that direction. What distinguishes us is that CCD is the only nongovernmental organization in the world with an exclusive focus on the Community of Democracies. We believe that an effective way to consolidate the gains of democratic expansion is by strengthening that Community. We view this effort, which includes the creation of a Democracy Caucus in the UN, as a means toward our long-range goal -- consolidating democracy globally by constructing an enduring framework enabling democracies to act in concert on the issues of concern to mankind.

A good deal of it makes sense, though one cannot help wondering what a Democracy Caucus in the UN might achieve. Also, despite its desire to keep the international bureaucracy to a minimum, organizations and institutes seem to have been set up in various places.

The problem is, of course, the signatories to the original document that includes such democratic countries as Bangladesh, Haiti, Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela.

A secondary problem is the asserted principles of the organization, the first one being “our common adherence to the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” with only the fourth one mentioning “democratic values”.

The long list of democratic principles and practices are routinely ignored in several of the signatories and a large proportion of UN member states. For instance, does the Arab Republic of Egypt really uphold the principles of

The right of every person to freedom of opinion and of expression, including to exchange and receive ideas and information through any media, regardless of frontiers.

The right of every person to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Somehow, I find that hard to believe after yesterday’s news.

UKIP fine shock

The sum of £363,697 is to be demanded from the UKIP by the Electoral Commission, in an unprecedented move to recover "impermissible donations". The sum relates to 68 separate donations made by UKIP's key supporter, ex-bookie Alan Bown (pictured left), who gave the money for the 2005 general election campaign.

The Electoral Commission has established that, in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Bown was not on the UK electoral register for the period over which he gave the money – mostly through 2005. Under the Act, where parties receive donations which they are prohibited from accepting, the have 30 days from the date the donation was received to return, otherwise it is at risk of forfeiture.

The application of the law, made to prevent foreign backers bankrolling UK parties, has stunned UKIP. Bown had made his money in the UK, had paid British tax and, throughout the whole period, had been living in the UK.

The Commission has notified treasurer Bruce Lawson that it intends to apply to the Magistrates' Court for a "forfeiture" of the cash, which – if the Commission is successful - will then be paid into the "Consolidated Fund" and kept by the Treasury.

Technically, the treasurer has also committed an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a £5,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment. The Commission has not indicated that it intends to proceed with any such case.

UKIP leader, MEP Nigel Farage (right of picture) has indicated that the Party will fight the forfeiture claim, not least because, if it is forced to pay the money, it will be bankrupt. Insiders believe it would then be very hard for the Party to survive.

However, the demise is by no means certain as the Magistrates are afforded discretion under the law as to whether they make a forfeiture order. Under the circumstances, they may consider a technical offence not to warrant such an action.

The party also faces fines totalling £1,500 for filing its accounts "unacceptably" late – six months after an already extended deadline - while Farage's South East Region is to be fined £500 for being more than six months late with its accounts.. The Commission also said that it was to review UKIP's "systems for dealing with its financial affairs and meeting statutory reporting requirements".

And, in a separate move – reported by The Financial Times - a major Tory donor has withdrawn support for what he terms the "red herring" UKIP, in what is seen as a boost to the Boy King in containing threats of defections from his party's right-wing.

This is Lord Kalms, who had warned earlier this year that he would consider voting for UKIP. But he now tells the FT that he now considers the party "a bit of a red herring… I'm not going to give them money".

Under siege last weekend from two Sunday newspapers, and with further investigations threatened, from the police (over certain sexual irregularities) and from the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF, it is no understatement to say that the party is not having a happy time of things at the moment.

No wonder Nigel Farage has been seen tired and emotional in Strasbourg recently.

COMMENT THREAD

Sentenced!

Abdek Kareem Nabil has been sentenced to four years in prison.

Judge Ayman al-Akazi sentenced Nabil to three years in prison for insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and inciting sectarian strife and another year for insulting President Hosni Mubarak.

Nabil, sitting in the defendant's pen, did not react as the verdict was read and made no comments as he was led to a prison truck outside. Seconds after the door was closed, an Associated Press reporter heard a slap from inside the truck and a scream.

As I recall, Hosni Mubarak was one of the political leaders who had made tut-tutting and shocked comments about Saddam Hussein's execution.

Nabil's lawyer, Ahmed Seif el-Islam, said he would appeal the verdict, adding it will "terrify other bloggers and have a negative impact on freedom of expression in Egypt." Nabil had faced a possible maximum sentence of nine years in prison.

His conviction brought a flood of condemnations from international and Egyptian human rights groups, as well as fellow government critics on the Internet.

"I am shocked," said Wael Abbas, a blogger who writes frequently about police abuses and other human rights violations in Egypt. "This is a terrible message to anyone who intends to express his opinion and to bloggers in particular."

Indeed.

The State Department has made it clear it has no specific comments to make on the case though "the U.S. is always concerned when freedom of expression is infringed". Gee, thanks.

Then again, our own Foreign Office probably has not even noticed that this trial was going on or that bloggers are being arrested in various parts of the world, particularly in Egypt. It has been pointed out that other bloggers were freed after what must have been a distinctly unpleasant stay in prison but Kareem is being punished because he has attacked Islam.

Perhaps, international outcry will help him and others who must be very frightened. Here is the site through which everyone can help.

COMMENT THREAD

War is too important to be left to the generals

Famously said by the French politician and former prime minister Georges Clemenceau, this is becoming an issue in the prosecution of the war in Iraq – and war it is – as evidence begins to emerge that much of the current British strategy is increasingly being dictated by the military, with insufficient political input.

One of the many clues to this lies in an article in last week's Sunday Telegraph, which pointed out that the current Labour government front bench are "total strangers to front line".

The piece was by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, who pointed out that every prime minister from 1940 to 1963 had served as an infantry officer in the Great War. Even Winston Churchill, after he had resigned from the government in 1915, commanded a battalion in the trenches for several months. Attlee and Macmillan were badly wounded, one at Gallipoli, the other on the Western Front. Eden won an MC for rescuing his sergeant under fire.

By contrast, in the present cabinet, there is not a single member of the Government who has ever worn uniform, let alone heard the proverbial shot fired in anger. Tony Blair did not even serve in the cadet force at Fettes and, with the exception of "the preposterous Major Eric Joyce", there is no Labour MP with any military experience.

Wheatcroft, however, sees this in terms of "military virgins" who wage war now that they are too old to serve. "Never has there been such a gulf between the forces and politicians," he writes, "few of whom know any soldiers or sailors even socially. Never has there been such a breakdown of true responsibility."

What this conveys is an impression that the political novices are imposing on the military, dedicated professionals who are suffering the ministrations of the amateurs, and suffering as a result.

However, there are different ways of looking at this. In his book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime", published in 2002, just before the second Gulf War, Eliot A. Cohen – described as the (American) nation's leading scholar of military-civilian relations – argued for more not less civilian interference. In the history of warfare, all the great civilian war statesmen interfered in things military.

This, Cohen says, was unavoidable:

The goals of the military - the definitions of victory - are ultimately political questions; as Churchill wrote in 1923, "The distinction between politics and strategy diminishes as the point of view is raised. At the summit true politics and strategy are one." Not even military professionals have real practice employing military tactics: They spend most of their careers not fighting. "It is quite true that conventional war can hardly be made by complete amateurs," Cohen concludes, "yet neither can it be handed over to the professionals."

Cohen then cites examples of great civilian statesmanship: Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War; Georges Clemenceau in World War I; Winston Churchill in World War II; and David Ben Gurion in Israel's war for independence, demonstrating the need for a hands-on approach to military affairs.

He thus challenges the long-held view that military strategy should be a sphere wholly apart from civilian leadership, disagreeing that military strategy is a matter of technical expertise, which must inevitably be degraded by civilian, and does not accept that the political role is merely to set the goal and leave the military to decide how to get there.

Another clue emerges from a remarkable interview for Australian television of Dr Rosemary Hollis from Chatham House. She claims that the current British strategy is "one driven to a large extent by the advice of concerned military leaders in Iraq who have warned that British troops may be doing more harm than good in the country."

Other sources, of a diverse nature seem to confirm this, pointing out that, far from taking a hand-on approach to the day-to-day management of the war, the Tony Blair and his ministers, handicapped by their lack of military experience, are leaving too much to the generals. They are too willing to defer to their judgement, even when the outcome has profound political implications.

For sure, as even today another group of experts pointed out, the armed forces are undergoing a cash crisis, but this is largely long-term and related to the strategic objectives of the forces.

As far as the prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, the money is not actually drawn down from the defence budget, but found from contingency reserves, funded directly from the central budget.

One thing which has puzzled us is the continual refrain that that the armed forces are short of key items of equipment – ranging from armoured vehicles to more helicopters – all of any of which can be obtained through what are known as the "Urgent Operational Requirement" (UOR) process. Yet, we are constantly assured by ministers – who could so easily be contradicted on this, if they were not telling the truth – that all UORs, which have been approved by the chain of command, have been sanction by ministers.

Ministers themselves do not have the knowledge to generate orders for equipment, and neither does the system work that way. The armed forces have to trigger the process by asking for what the need. And, from this we must conclude, some of the reason why specific equipment is missing from the field is simply because it has not been requested.

That actually seems to have been the case with issue of armoured vehicles to supplement the "Snatch" Land Rovers, with the reasons why they were adequate coming, in the first instance, not from ministers but from the higher echelons of the military, who have been opposed to the idea of taking on new equipment.

We have explored what might be some of the reasons for this in an earlier post and sufficient emerges from that, and other posts (such as here and here), to confirm that the military has a far greater role in the running of its own affairs – and the current war strategy - than is popularly imagined.

Thus, while we see a growing legend, as expressed in one blog, that the, "Soldiers have done a sterling job under impossible political conditions…" the top brass, as well as the politicians, seem to have some of the responsibility for the current situations.

That is not in any way to exculpate the present government – ministers bear the ultimate responsibility for any failures (in theory at least). But, unfashionable though such a view might be, this post simply serves to offer a corrective suggestion. Simply, if we are going to be locked into that oft quoted paradigm of "lions led by donkeys", it is as well to remember that, when that phrasing emerged, many of the "donkeys" were in uniform. And that might apply with some force in this current situation.

COMMENT THREAD

Do we take that as a "no"?

The picture shows a scene outside the British embassy in Teheran, with protestors burning a US flag in an anti-British and anti-Israeli demonstration – which tells you something of their politics.

The "sponteneous" demonstration marks the finding by the International Atomic Energy Agency – to absolutely no-one's surprise – that Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program instead of complying with a UN Security Council 60-day ultimatum to freeze it, issued on 23 December.

The finding paves the way for the case to be referred to the UN Security Council, which may then consider further sanctions against the Iranian government.

And so, once again, "soft power" triumphs.

COMMENT THREAD

The Thursday "toy"

So, Harry is off to join the Flintstones to play with his Scimitar light tanks, leading his chaps into the, er… mud.

We do hope he enjoys the "romance" of the desert.

COMMENT THREAD

Neither one thing nor another

Loathsome though the newspaper is, it is very hard to disagree with the general thrust of the front-page headline in the Independent today, or the tenor of their story, which begins:

It is an admission of defeat. Iraq is turning into one of the world's bloodiest battlefields in which nobody is safe. Blind to this reality, Tony Blair said yesterday that Britain could safely cut its forces in Iraq because the apparatus of the Iraqi government is growing stronger. In fact the civil war is getting worse by the day…

And, while withdrawing troops seems to be in accord with the majority sentiment, according to a BBC online poll, which records 72 percent in favour – there is still a sizeable minority which agues that we should stay until the job is done, if necessary, increasing the number of troops deployed.

On reflection, though, what is actually happening is neither one thing nor the other. We are not retreating entirely. In fact, what is emerging is that the troop cuts were not as large as were expected – or the Army had planned-for – and the rate at which the garrison will be cut, over term, is not as fast as predicted. Some sources are suggesting that at least 4,000 troops will be kept in Iraq until at least 2012.

Furthermore, since the Shaiba logistics base is being shut down and operations from the other three bases in central Basra are being transferred to Basra Air Station (pictured), five miles to the west, a goodly proportion of the 1,600 cut-back will comprise the logistic and administrative "tail". The effective combat force need not be proportionately reduced.

Nevertheless, the force is not to be increased and, while Blair confidently asserts that it will be available to support the Iraqi security services "in an emergency", this might not be as easy as he appears to make out. Stuck out of town in a single location, with a very limited road network, British forces intent on intervention will be prey to ambushes and, given their distance from any action, their ability to react swiftly to events will be severely circumscribed.

We are thus in exactly that situation which we highlighted in May last year, when we published a piece entitled "Shape up or get out". I wrote, of the situation in Iraq:

As it stands, with too few troops on the ground to make a difference, in a hostile environment with no clear mandate, and with inadequate equipment that makes them extremely vulnerable targets, we cannot see what Mr Blair thinks he is achieving by having them there.

If this is just gesture politics, and there is no intention to send reinforcements and new equipment – and it is hard to see how this could be done - then our soldiers' lives are worth more than that. They should be withdrawn. In other words, Mr Blair, shape up or get out.

What is particularly troubling though is that, while Blair presents a glowing account of the success of British operations in southern Iraq, claiming also that Iraq has made "remarkable" progress, an article in The Times confirms that which our own observations already tell us, that security in Basra is worse now than it was three years ago. The report states:

On military charts, significant swaths of the southern city are security coded scarlet, for unsatisfactory. Other zones are marked green, satisfactory, or amber, between the two. Levels of violence and anti-coalition attacks are far lower in the Shia-dominated south than the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. But British casualties have been increasing over the last year, with more than ten soldiers killed and 60 injured since November.

It then falls to The Daily Telegraph to tell us that "violence will intensify" in the battle for Basra as Shia insurgent groups try to kill more soldiers than their rivals to show who is strongest. For the coming months, the soldiers in the three barracks in Basra will continue to present rogue militias with one potential target after another.

This is by Thomas Harding who has at least the value of faithfully echoing the Army establishment view.

Thus it is he who conveys the particularly noxious view that the Army's continued presence has now become part of the problem, inviting the obvious and intended conclusion that, if only all the troops ran away, the "nasties" would stop doing nasty things like shooting at them, mortaring them and blowing them up with concealed roadside bombs.

Thus does Harding quote, with not a hint of disapproval, how, under the recent leadership of Major Gen Richard Shirreff, some bold moves have been made that allowed the Prime Minister to announce yesterday's withdrawals. And one of those "bold moves" has been to desert the town of al Amarah, a stunning success that – as Harding acknowledges – has almost certainly left the town under the sway of the militia loyal to Moqtada al Sadr, with the Americans fearing it is harbouring insurgents.

Nevertheless, Harding faithfully repeats the establishment line, declaring, "…without thousands of extra troops there is little else the British could have done."

Therein lies a very part of the problem for, from being a "can do" organisation which had no problem bullying worried farmers at the height of the 2001 Foot & Mouth epidemic, the Army - in the face of an enemy that can shoot back - seems to have acquired the aura of a defeated force, exuding negativity. Thus, despite the technology and the tactics being well established (and successful), the Army is acting as if it has lost the will to win and is simply serving out its time, waiting to go home, where it can play with its new toys in peace and safety.

And bless us, it was Shirreff who briefed Cameron on his one and only visit to the theatre, which enables the Boy – with not enough experience of knowledge to know any better - to trot out the preferred party line, that the Army has done all it can usefully do. Such is the current definition of failure.

Thus it is that The Telegraph leader churns out its usual, Anglo-centric drivel, this time calling in aid Richard Dannatt who, we are reminded, has called for an early withdrawal "on the grounds that our military presence is exacerbating the security situation".

One wonders how Monty would have dealt with this fine piece of military logic on the eve of the final battle of el Alamein… "Withdraw your troops and those nasty Germans and Italians will stop shooting at you," the siren voices would have said. It is as well then that our forebears were made of sterner stuff. And, once upon a time, so was the Telegraph.

COMMENT THREAD

Some encouraging thoughts

No, there is nothing in today’s news stories (such as they are) to encourage anyone and the weather is so-so in my part of the world. Nevertheless, encouraging thoughts are needed and I have found some in a book I finished reading recently.

On another forum I said that John O'Sullivan's book "The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister", subtitled "Three Who Changed The World", will be the must-read book for all conservatives with a small "c". Conservatives with a big "c" do not seem to read anything these days.

Actually, it will be the must-read book for everyone who cares about liberty, twentieth century history and the last great battle that was waged against an evil system. That includes a lot of people. The book is already out in the United States and is due out in Britain in April.

Bringing his story to the end, O'Sullivan has this to say about his three protagonists and their reputation:

Yet will such a post-religious people be able to comprehend them? In all three cases – Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul – it is a spiritual element that best explains them and their achievements. All three, in subtly different ways, taught and embodied the virtue of hope.

John Paul’s sermons and speeches in Poland were injunctions to people not to despair in the face of overwhelming force, but instead to hope in God and trust their fellow man.

Reagan preached confidently of a coming age of liberty that would bring about the end of Communism. Thatcher believed in “vigorous virtues” that, once liberated from the shackles of socialism, would enable the British and people everywhere to improve their own lives. In very different styles, all were enthusiasts for liberty.

In the late 1970s they encountered difficult practical problems ranging from inflation to religious oppression to Soviet military power. Worse, the problems had coalesced to form a nightmare in people’s minds. A nightmare is a more intractable problem than the separate difficulties that compose it because it paralyses the will with despair.

John Paul, Reagan, and Thatcher all tackled the problems before them in a commonsense way; more important, they all were confident they would win. They drove out despair with hope, they dispelled the nightmare. With daylight the problems had become manageable. Eventually they were solved.

Alas, not all problems were solved and the British still have not shaken off the shackles of socialism. Another nightmare has overwhelmed us. Nevertheless, those are encouraging words, with which I prepare myself for this evening when I shall hear a talk on present day Russia. I need all the encouragement I can get.

COMMENT THREAD

"Europe" takes second place

Sweet harmony is not proving to be the rule when it comes to considering the EU constitution. And, while Merkel might have designs of her own, and Daniel Hannan has worked it all out, it seems that French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has just lobbed a hand grenade into the love-fest.

Chiding the 18 countries that have ratified the treaty for their recent meeting in Madrid, he express his "sadness" that for the first time since 1945, "European countries convened to discuss the future of Europe without France." Declared Sarkozy,"This is not my idea of Europe. To repeat that everything will be OK and change nothing will lead ... to a catastrophe."

The man himself was speaking in Strasbourg to a crown of thousands, unveilling his "European agenda" where, according to AP via IHT he warned that efforts to revive the treaty in its current form were bound to fail.

If he is elected French president, he told the crowd, he would propose a new, simplified treaty that would scrap decision-making by unanimity and create the position of an EU president that would rotate every 2½ years. That, of course, goes right against the grain of the "treaty-lite" and would involve changes that would require the signing and ratification process to start all over again – a huge can of worms for the "colleagues".

And, to add fuel to the flames, Sarkozy said Europe (he means the European Union) was in a "serious, profound crisis". But he rejected the idea that the crisis had been triggered by the French and Dutch "no" votes. The French rejected the constitution because they felt the EU no longer protected them and they were the victims of globalization.

Nailing the coffin down on any prospect of agreement, he then repeated that Turkey had no place in the EU "because it's not a European country". He also spoke against accepting more enlargement, telling the by now cheering crowd that "It is paradoxical that a constitution is being enforced on Europe while its identity is being diluted by enlargements that have no end."

Seem to me that those who see the EU constitution as being a done deal are being a little bit premature. Sarkozy, with a presidential election to win, is pandering to a national agenda and, as always, "Europe" takes second place.

COMMENT THREAD

Nine whole months?

Back in April 11, the newly elected Prime Minister, still in dispute about who is to form the Italian government, said:

We will always be united. We will govern for five years.

Did he believe it at the time? For ourselves, this blog expressed a certain amount of doubt on the subject, if for no other reason that the arithmetic did not give Prodi the chance to govern for more than well, let us say, nine months from when he finally took office. Not a bad record for an Italian Prime Minister but not really close to that of his hated rival, Silvio Berlusconi.

What will happen now to Prodi’s campaign to abolish capital punishment across the world (with the exception of China and various Arab countries that are not Iraq)?

Of course, you must understand, this does not mean that Signor Prodi will retire to the back benches. For one thing, the President, Giorgio Napolitano, has asked him to continue in a caretaker capacity. For another, it seems that there is a growing support for the idea of another Prodi government.

According to an AP writer (and I do think they must have got this right):

"We are ready to reconfirm our full faith in the Prodi government," said Dario Franceschini, a leader of the Olive Tree, the largest grouping in Prodi's coalition.

Oh that’s nice. I am sure Signor Prodi will sleep better for that knowledge. At least, none of them said that they were right behind the man. Not yet, anyway.

The problem seems to have come from a debate in the Senate on foreign policy, attended about as well as our own debates in the Commons tend to be, if the picture is anything to go by.

Under discussion was Italy’s military mission to Afghanistan, organized by Silvio Berlusconi, which is in something of a limbo at the moment.

Italy has 1,800 troops in Afghanistan, which were sent in by Berlusconi. The current government has agreed to keep the troops there, sparking opposition from its own Communist allies.

A decree refinancing the Afghan mission is awaiting parliamentary approval. It was passed by the Cabinet last month, but three radical leftist ministers walked out of the room to signal their opposition.

The Foreign Minister, Massimo d’Alema, tried to rally the coalition but failed. The vote was lost by two votes. In the Lower House, Prodi’s support is more secure and, we must assume, he will be able to negotiate another coalition for another government.

It’s great to have the old Italian politics back with us. Happy days are here again.

COMMENT THREAD

An important turning point

At the heart of the dishonest and inadequate Defence Committee report on "The Army's Requirement for Armoured Vehicles: the FRES programme" lies a failure of the Committee to explain what FRES actually is.

That, most likely, stems from the fact that the MPs themselves do not understand what it is.

Although I have done this before (not least, here, here and
here), let me attempt to summarise it in this post for, without that basic understanding, you cannot even begin to appreciate the issues involved.

Essentially, this is a child of the post Cold War period, when the US and European government started to confront the idea that dealing with the world's hotspots required highly mobile, air-portable forces which could be shipped out at very short notice to deal with trouble as it arose, rather than letting the situation deteriorate to the point where larger ground forces would be required.

The concept crystallised in 1998 when the MoD decided that the UK Army required a fleet of armoured vehicles to fulfil what was termed the "expeditionary role", which was envisaged in the Strategic Defence Review, and then formalised as the "rapid reaction force", aimed at serving both the EU and Nato requirements.

Now, the trouble was and is that the basics of armoured warfare were incompatible with the requirements of air-portable rapid reaction forces. In the former, this had evolved to spawn two main vehicles, the Main Battle Tank (MBT) and the Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV), the first providing the direct firepower, the second providing the infantry support.

In the MBT had evolved the optimum balance of three requirements: speed and manoeuvrability, armoured protection and firepower, emerging in its current form as the Challenger II (pictured) in the British armoury (and the Abrams in the US armoury), weighing in at around 65 tons.

To enable the maximum number of vehicles to be delivered, however, it was necessary to restrict weight to that which could be carried by the most common military airlifter, the C-130 Hercules, dictating a maximum weight of between 18-22 tons. This meant that military planners had to develop an armoured vehicle which could afford the same overall protection and performance of the MBT but came in at less than a third of the overall weight. (Pictured below is the "SEP" prototype platform, being considered for FRES: various versions will be produced, including an APC and a "direct fire" MBT equivalent.)

Ostensibly, this would have been impossible, except for the emergence of new technologies, enabling vehicles to shed weight, in the form of less armour, in exchange for three attributes: "situational awareness", "network capability" and high-precision stand-off weapons.

Using an elaborate system of high-tech sensors and reconnaissance systems, the new forces could detect the enemy earlier and at greater distances than before. With advanced electronic networks, that information could then be shared in real time, so that all mobile assets would be immediately informed of the presence of threats that could harm them, long before they came into range. Then, with those threats located, a whole range of weapons could be employed to destroy them, without their ever posing any danger to the lightweight vehicles.

That was the theory which drove what became known as the Future Rapid Effect System. But, by late 2003, the shooting phase of the Iraqi invasion had passed and the war had moved into an insurgency. There, the enemy's weapons of choice became the roadside bomb (IED) and the RPG fired by insurgents in civilian clothes who would not declare their identities until the moments they fired.

For dealing with this situation, any idea of relying on "situational awareness" and stand-off weapons, which underpinned the whole concept of FRES, became totally unrealistic.

Meanwhile, to deal with the insurgency, as we recorded, our then CGS Mike Jackson was trying to make do with "Snatch" Land Rovers. But, as the wider lesson of the insurgency were learned, planners were left to look at ways of improving the protection of FRES vehicles.

The task was effectively trying to square the circle, which they attempted by using additional sensors and self-defence equipment, plus increasingly esoteric forms of armour. Each added to the weight, eventually making the proposed vehicles too heavy for the C-130 and, possibly, too heavy for the A400M, should these ever be acquired.

Thus, at the heart of the conundrum is a conflict – which the Defence Committee acknowledges - where "the MoD", it says, "wants a vehicle which has sufficient armour to protect soldiers from IEDs and RPGs but which it also light enough to be transportable by air."

Now we come to the nub. The Committee says that seeking a perfect solution is "unrealistic" and that it is high time the MoD decided where its priorities lay. And that is where the dishonesty lies. The underlying decision is not one for the MoD but one for the politicians.

Essentially, what we are talking about are two different things – FRES-type vehicles for conventional warfighting, and completely different vehicles for counter-insurgency operations. It was never the case that "dithering" over the final shape of FRES cost any lives. The demands of the two types of warfare are so different that it is impossible to combine the requirements for both in a single platform. We need two completely different ranges of vehicles and the lives were lost because of the failure to provide suitable, non-FRES vehicles.

Currently, we still need the decision as to whether we are going to undertake "warfighting" or counter-insurgency operations – or both. And that, as we say, is a decision which must be made by the politicians.

Where the MoD has gone wrong, if it has, is in not making that abundantly clear to the Defence Committee - not that the MoD was actually asked. Now, it is left to Lord Drayson to explain the facts of life to the MPs. The FRES programme, he says:

…should not be confused with the recent urgent operational requirements to procure additional protected patrol vehicles to complement Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent and very rapid procurement of vehicles such as Mastiff, Vector and Bulldog, is not related to the FRES requirement. These patrol vehicles are important additions to the capabilities at the disposal of commanders, but are separate from the FRES programme.

But, in fact, it is not the MoD informing the Committee. It is the Army brass. They, collectively, want FRES. They want an army equipped for high-tech "warfighting" and do not want to buy counter-insurgency equipment that will affect their plans for acquiring their shiny new toys. Nor indeed do they want an Army which is primarily equipped for counter-insurgency.

That much was the real message CGS Richard Dannatt was giving last October, effectively a plea to pull out of Iraq, thereby saving FRES and keeping the Army in the shape the generals wanted.

For the political glitterati (aka clever-dicks), of course, all this will pass them by without disturbing so much as a hair on their carefully coiffured little heads. Yet, at those different levels, political and technical, the Defence Committee report marks an important turning point in the decline of this nation.

Future historians will see in it evidence of the total failure of the parliamentary system, a victory of the Army over the politicians and a retreat from any attempt by this nation to recognise what is needed to deal with the growing threat of militant Islam. For, what the report does is fail to recognise that the Army needs to equip to deal with the Islamic counter-insurgency, wherever it occurs, and that FRES is not the answer. More importantly, it fails to understand that role of the Army brass in sabotaging attempts to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped to deal with the job at hand.

Thus, the MPs have let the Army brass get away with it. Meanwhile, as ill-equipped troops are pulled out of Iraq in an ignominious retreat, the national interest – to say nothing of the interests of our troops in the field and those of the Iraqi people - has been put on the back-burner.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair's Iraq statement

As flagged up, last night, by the BBC and others, at 12.30pm today Blair made his statement on "Iraq and the Middle East".

What is happening in Basra, he told a crowded House of Commons chamber, is of "huge importance". But, he said, "The next chapter in Basra's history can be written by the Iraqis".

And to help them write it, Blair announced an initial reduction of our forces from 7,100 to roughly 5,500. With the exception of Basra Palace, the troops will be stationed at Basra Air Station. The bases at Shatt al Arab Hotel, the Old State Building and the Shaiba logistics base will be handed over to the Iraqis.

Over time, added Blair, we will be able to draw down further, possibly below 5,000 when Basra Palace has been transferred to the Iraqis in the summer. Increasingly our role will be support and training and the numbers of our forces can be reduced.

The Boy King immediately responded by welcoming the withdrawal of "1500 troops" but expressed concerns about the "safety and security" of the troops that will remain. Anyone who has been there can see how the security situation has deteriorated. What steps was the prime minister going to take to protect our troops, and would they be given the equipment they needed? And, said the Boy, we need the "soft power" of diplomacy as well as military force.

Blair, of course, waffled. "It is very important that we do everything we can to protect our soldiers - their capability remains undiminished and we will make sure that they have the equipment and protection we can give them."

Yeah, yeah. More, when we have the official transcript.

****

And, according to the BBC website, Denmark will withdraw its troops from Iraq by August. The troops, numbering about 460, will be replaced by a unit of nine soldiers manning four observational helicopters.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative Wednesday toy

Back to those Latin lessons and the innumerable battle formations that the Romans insisted on writing about.

Because Caesar's self-serving screeds were the first literary text pupils read in my day we all had to learn a huge amount about military tactics, the Roman army's structure and, of course, that never to be forgotten tortoise - testudo, testudinis (f).

And, as every school child knows, the Romans tended to divide conquered territories into three parts, calling them, according to that work of genius, "1066 And All That", weeny, weedy and weaky.

Various pictures of it in the posting, a bas relief, a diagram to show how it worked and a modern recreation, though possibly the police defending itself from stones and burning rags in the first two Notting Hill Carnival riots may make a more interesting comparison.

I understand from my colleague that part of the British counter-insurgency fight is still a form of that tortoise. Which just goes to show that you cannot outdo the Romans in military matters.

Stupid, stupid, stupid…

…stupid. What an utterly stupid, facile report. FRES is a totally different concept, intended to enable expeditionary forces to put armour rapidly into theatre. The vehicles, as originally conceived, are not designed for and nor are they suitable for counter-insurgency operation. They are not up-armoured Land Rovers and could never be a replacement for "Snatches".

What a total waste of time and space these MPs really are - I will comment on their work in detail when I have had my bacon buttie and read the papers.

Needless to say, the ignorant hacks have fallen for it, hook line and sinker. Here are tasters from The Daily Mail, the BBC and The Sun.

COMMENT THREAD

We the undersigned…

Well, the road charging petition finally closed at 1,791,363 signatures, ever so slightly more than the petition calling for a referendum on continued membership of the European Union. This closed on 15 February 2007, with the grand total of 4,805 signatures.

The gap is quite remarkable but, as we suggested earlier it is most likely to arise from the differences in perception as to the likelihood of success. Undoubtedly, what drove the road-charging petition is the mistaken belief that the issue has yet to be settled and the government can somehow be influenced.

That the government is beyond influence on the referendum issue is well demonstrated by its message in response to the petition which, coincidentally, arrived last night. In this, we are told:

Under UK's constitutional arrangements, while the Government may make a recommendation, it is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether to hold a referendum on a particular issue. Referendums in the UK are rare. Parliament - the elected representatives of the British people -has the right to take important decisions on their behalf. This was the case when the UK joined the (then) European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973.

There was, of course, a referendum on UK membership of the EEC in 1975 because the Labour Government was committed to seeking the approval of the British people for the renegotiated terms of membership which it had obtained. Thereafter, each Treaty change - notably the Single European Act and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice - has been ratified following the passing of an Act of Parliament. Subject to Parliament's agreement, the Government has committed itself to a referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe before its ratification by the UK. Following the 'no' votes in referendums in France and the Netherlands, however, the future of the Constitutional Treaty is now unclear.

And that is all we get, which makes rather apposite the comments by the Italian foreign affairs think-tank, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), which is carrying out a project with the aim of giving "a full comparative picture of debates on European integration and current developments in European politics" in each of the 27 member states in the EU. Of the United Kingdom, it says:

The UK government thinks that the debate on a Constitutional treaty referendum is one that Britain does not need to have. In fact, holding a political debate on the revival of the Constitutional treaty is harmful rather than helpful to the UK debate on Europe…

then adding,

The UK government has hinted that it does not think it is practical to revive the stalled ratification process. It has indefinitely postponed a referendum in Britain and will only look again at that question if the problems that were the heart of last year's French and Dutch rejection of the Constitutional treaty are sorted out and clarified.

The institute also remarks that:

It is striking how little attention the UK government seems to give to the commemorations of the 50 years of the Treaties of Rome. Partly, this is essentially due to the fact that Britain was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. But it is also a reflection of how the UK government is keen on avoiding debate on Europe.

As the anti road-charging lobby will find, though, it is not only on "Europe" that the government wishes to avoid a debate. "We the undersigned…" have been well and truly had.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair "to confirm Iraq timetable"

According to the BBC website, Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq. The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons tomorrow in which he is expected clarify the details. He is expected to say hundreds of troops will be running away return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later.

"Victory" is upon us.

COMMENT THREAD

Meet the Flintstones

From last Sunday's BBC Panorama programme, on the Army in southern Iraq, we learn that our land forces have been dubbed The Flintstones by the Americans, reflecting the antiquated equipment operated by them.

This is very much the preoccupation of the House of Commons Defence Committee, which is due to report tomorrow on "The Army's Requirement for Armoured Vehicles: the FRES programme". This is its idea of an inquiry on the FRES system, announced last October.

Already, we have seen one tranche of oral evidence and the signs that the Committee will come up with anything useful are looking extremely doubtful. We will, however, look carefully at the report when it is available, and the responses to it.

For the moment, however, it is interesting to look over the Atlantic at the US version and note that, while the British system has effectively come down to a matter of a family of armoured vehicles with network capability, in their own Future Combat System, the Americans are still sticking to the original concepts, complete with some high performance unmanned ground vehicles which look set to transform land warfare.

Despite the development of these systems, even the US military – with its far greater wealth and resources - is aware of the need to balance the modernisation of the future force with equipping the current force.

Hence, four of the 18 systems in the FCS programme have been deferred and the fielding rate for the system's prototype brigade combat teams, operating the Stryker APCs has been stretched out over five more years. Altogether, changes to the programme are set to reduce the budget by $3.4 billion over the next five financial years.

On the other hand, funds have been redirected in the programme to buy some more of the UAV classes, the prototypes of which have been successful in Iraq, and work on some light robotic systems has been brought forward. Furthermore, instead of waiting for the "big bang", some of the technology developed for FCS is to be introduced incrementally into the field, as and when it becomes available, particularly some of the intelligence-gathering and surveillance sensors.

That still puts the US programme cost at $162 billion with another $2 billion slated for "additional construction", which dwarfs the £14 billion to be spent on the British FRES system.

Therein is shown up the great divide. Despite equal or greater pressure to balance the modernisation of the future force with equipping the current force, the MoD is showing no signs whatsoever of cutting FRES funding to help pay for current needs. In fact, the reverse seems to be happening, with FRES ring-fenced while troops in theatre continue to live up to their enforced "Flintstone" image.

COMMENT THREAD

The perfect definition

I have just returned from the Memorial to Ralph Harris, aka Lord Harris of High Cross. I wrote an obituary of the great man at the time of his death, so I need not do so again, except to say that neither I nor anyone else who knew him has really come to terms with the fact that the world no longer has him in it.

It was, as readers can imagine, a gathering of the clans with many friends and acquaintances, all good allies in the fight.

Twelve people from different backgrounds and different countries gave brief talks about Ralph and their memories of him. In the middle about ten minutes of a Liberty Fund film, “Conversation with Harris and Seldon”, was shown. As the meeting was dedicated to Ralph Harris, it was almost entirely his words that we could hear.

The DVD of that discussion is available from the Institute of Economic Affairs and the text has been published together with comments by other eminent economists and writers.

What struck me was Ralph waving about his “bible”, Hayek’s “Constitution of Liberty” and quoting from its last chapter, “Why I am not a conservative?”. That was the book, incidentally, Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have pulled out of her bag when, as a newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, she met her policy wonks at Central Office. Dissatisfied with their waffling, she reached into her bag, took out the book and slammed it on the table with the words: “This is what we believe in”. I am surprised nobody asked her what she meant by “we”.

Anyway, Hayek’s words explain perfectly why a free society is preferable to the alternative and why looking for utopian solutions with super-intelligent and super-moral philosopher-kings is not the answer.

The main merit of the individualism which Adam Smith and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or all men becoming better than they are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexities, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent, more often stupid.

There you have the answer to all that wailing and gnashing of teeth. No, politicians are no better than we are; they were never better; and they never will be better. They reflect society as it is. Therefore, we must have a political system in which they can do as little harm as possible. All else is a mirage.

COMMENT THREAD

The Tuesday "toy"

Today's "toy" is a C-130 Hercules aircraft assigned to the 777th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, taking off from Balad Air Base, Iraq, on 11 February 2007. This is an official US Air Force photo, taken by Staff Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth.

No deeper message. Just a nice pic.

COMMENT THREAD

Who cares?

Daniel Hannan does a halfway creditable job today in the The Daily Telegraph trying to draw attention to the shenanigans going on with the EU constitution, and how the "colleagues" are attempting to rig it.

He also ups the ante with a new blog, or "clog" in the corporate DT style, re-visiting a well-worn theme of how MEPs are rigging their expenses.

Both subjects are meat and drink to Eurosceptics but, I suspect, apart from earning young Dan a generous stipend from the Telegraph, the articles are going to have very little impact. If people were sufficiently motivated to protest about them they could go rushing to the No. 10 petition site and sign up to the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act which, at the time of writing, stood at 162 signatures.

By contrast, the petition on road charging currently stands at 1,702,346 and will finish today somewhat higher than that and, while it has been going slightly longer that the ECA petition, I am willing to take any bets on the proposition that the Eurosceptics are not going to muster a fraction of that level of support.

Even if they did, what then? With 1.7 million signatures in the bag, the road-charge protesters are going nowhere because the government has already decided that it is going ahead with road charging, come what may. And the money has already been allocated.

This comes in the form of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) which was announced in July 2005, with the first annual tranche of funding to be allocated in 2008/9 of £290m, rising to £2.5 billion in 2014/15. In all, £9.4 billion has been earmarked and, as the West Midlands Transport Plan points out, the TIF is the only source of significant extra transport funding available for the foreseeable future.

The West Midlands was awarded £2.6 million of pump priming money from TIF in November 2005, but the largest share of funding awarded. £600,000 of this funding - matched by funding from the Metropolitan Authorities - is paying for the initial £1.2 million congestion feasibility study. The remaining £2 million of funding is a commitment from Government should the West Midlands continue with its congestion investigations beyond the first stage feasibility study.

To make this perfectly clear, on 8 February, the government issued guidance for local authorities in England, making it perfectly clear that the road pricing element was an integral part of the TIF programme

In this "guidance" the government tells local authorities that it is "currently looking at the feasibility of introducing a national road pricing scheme around the middle of the next decade" but, it says, "we do not need to wait for a national scheme…". They have thus been "focussing our efforts and resources on local schemes where congestion is already, or soon will be, a problem."

But the Department for Transport then goes into great detail on how these scheme must be compatible and interoperable, in accordance with the EC directive. from which the master plan is clearly apparent. The government intends to fund local authorities to set up theith own schemes which, by 2015 will be so numerous that it will be able to link them up to form one continuous national scheme.

This has been picked up by The Times today, with a rather ill-informed headline that refers to a mere £1.4 billion of the TIF. But the sustance of what it says is clear enough: "The Government is attempting to 'blackmail' local authorities into introducing congestion charging by refusing to fund public transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists."

Actually, scratch "attempting". The scheme has been set up and that is the way it will work. Local authorities do not have to take part in the scheme, of course, but if they do not, they will not receive any money from government.

Now… the point. If the government can so easily run roughshod over public opinion on such high profile issues as road charging, where 1.7 million people have very publicly nailed their colour to the mast, what price a reaction to a petition on the European Communities Act, which will only attract a fraction of the signatures? If it achieves anything, that petition will serve only to show how weak the Eurosceptic movement really is.

As to the rest, it is not, of course, that people don't care – as some of the more rabid Tories will claim. It is simply that people do not generally concern themselves with things that appear to have no direct relevance to them or which, they feel, they cannot change.

Thus, the European Union will only be taken seriously when one or other of the political parties take it seriously. And here perhaps is the opportunity that young Dan should be pushing for – a commitment from the Tories to a referendum against the "constitution lite" that seems to be in the offing, something which the "colleagues" are keen to avoid.

That, at least, will put some energy into EU politics that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. Even then, there is a catch. If the colleagues have their way, it will all be done and dusted by 2008, before the next general election, making any such a commitment irrelevant. Where do we go from there?

COMMENT THREAD

Mugabe's achievements may be recognized

Zimbabwe’s President has banned all rallies in the country as they were disturbing the peace. His peace. The opposition has vowed to carry on and to organize more of them, though the last one had to be abandoned because of the police firing teargas. (Funny, isn’t it, there is always money for teargas, rubber and other kinds of bullets, guns and other suchlike inedible things.)

The economy has been completely destroyed and only aid is keeping people in many parts of the country alive. Though, naturally, a good deal of the aid gets skimmed in Harare by Mugabe, his friends and relations, especially his wife.

The EU has decided to renew its sanctions against Zimbabwe but as these were constantly broken and never really worked, one can ignore it.

Now David Blair of the Daily Telegraph tells us that the UN agency, World Food Programme, who has been so active in North Korea, may well elect Zimbabwe to its vice-presidency, a step towards future presidency.

It seems that the seven African countries on the executive board all favour President Mugabe’s candidacy. No doubt they think this will be an excellent present for the old tyrant on his 83rd birthday tomorrow.

COMMENT THREAD

Some (relatively) amusing information

For our 5,001st post I thought I shall try to cheer some of our readers up or, at least, entertain them. Claudia Rossett sums up the politics of the last week and finds little enough to be satisfied with. However, both she and the commenters on her posting have some entertainment at the expense of journalists, scientists and scientific journalists.

Remember the global cooling and how we were supposed to do all sorts of things to prevent it as it might do terrible things to us, like flood the landmass, destroy the crops and whatnot? Well, Rossett and her readers provide various links to articles on that subject published in the 1970s. Enjoy.

COMMENT THREAD

Losing ground fast

We did observe, not two weeks ago, that there was a definite sense of the tempo in Afghanistan increasing. And so it seems to be.

Depending on which report you read, Afghanistan's Bakwa district in Farah province has either been taken over by the Taliban after being abandoned by the local police or was temporarily occupied by a "group of militants" who moved in and stayed for about 30 minutes, seizing three vehicles before leaving.

This latter claim is from provincial governer Muhajuddin Baluch, although Baryalaj Khan, spokesman for the Farah police chief, has confirmed his force had lost contact with police in Bakwa since 11:30 am on Monday. This seems to be endorsed by a report conveyed by AFP from another official who claimed 300 Taliban had stormed Bakwa, forcing out government forces. This was Moheedin Khan, also described as a "provincial governor", cited as saying, "The district has been captured by Taliban. We've no communication with our people down there."

This is not the first time Bakwa has been attacked. In September 2006 at least 150 Taliban were reported to have raided the police headquarters in Bakwa, "igniting a battle that killed two militants and two policemen" before they were driven off.

Bakwa (spelled "Bakva" on the map shown) is about 40 miles from the border of the Helmund province, in the British sector, about 100 miles due west of Musa Qala, with Washir roughly equidistant between the two – towns that have recently been occupied by the Taliban.

That makes at least three towns, including most recently Washir – that we know about – which have fallen under Taliban control. Yet this is at a time when, according to many pundits, campaigning in Afghanistan is supposed to be at a low ebb. The much vaunted "spring offensive" is still some weeks away.

Furthermore, although UK forces are claiming success in Garmsir, further south, it transpires that this merely involves holding the northern tip of the town and making a number of raids on targets further south. So far, we are told, they have not attempted to control the bulk of the town and are not trying to hold territory seized in the latest operation. And that is with a force of more than 250 British and Nato troops

Says military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Rory Bruce, "We don't need to hold that ground. The time will come when the Afghan national security forces are capable of moving out (into the area)."

We read the same legend from The Times about an attack to clear positions used by the Taliban on the north bank of the Helmand river, from where the insurgents threaten reconstruction work on the hydroelectric station at the Kajaki Dam.

Backed by American money, Chinese engineers are due to start work on the dam's power station before spring, but will not do so until a security zone with a radius of six kilometres (about 3½ miles) has been created around the area. The account of the attack, however, concludes with this:

Finally, having cleared their objectives, without the loss of a single Marine, the two companies regrouped and returned slowly to base as the night fell once more. It was a lengthy march back. The wadis had been filled with knee-high running water; the flat fields turned to rinks of sliding mud. Behind the Marines, the silent, abandoned compounds disappeared back into the blackness.

And just over 12 hours later, early yesterday afternoon, 14 rockets slammed into the area around the Marines' Kajaki base, fired from the north bank of the Helmand river. The Taleban were back.

The very next day, The Times was again reporting on Taliban activity, this time recording that, "Missiles drive US staff from dam that Royal Marines fought to save."

What comes over is that the shortage of troops (and other resources) is beginning to tell. It seems that UK forces can only mount limited offensive operations, and then only with the aid of massive air power – from the USAF as well as the RAF. But they are not able to occupy the ground taken and, as The Times recorded, it only took the Taliban 14 cheap rockets "to bring to a halt one of Afghanistan's most prestigious reconstruction projects", when contractors responsible for the dam's reconstruction were ordered to evacuate after the rockets had been fired.

Elsewhere the situation seems hardly better, for instance, in the sparcely populated province of Oruzgan, north of Kandahar. This is a remote corner of the sector policed by a Dutch-Australian unit and the situation has had Mullah Maulwai Harmdullah complaining of his region being "virtually surrounded by Taliban", and calling for "more security". Yet, where the Dutch have adopted an aggressive strategy, they report having to scale back operation because of lack of support from Afghan troops and police. "It's all going more slowly than planned," a spokesman said.

That also applies in the British sector, with The Telegraph reporting that the reconstruction effort in Helmund has virtually collapsed because of the scale of the insurgency. Still from the British media though, we are getting derring do reports, but these are not balanced by more comprehensive reports of the bigger picture, or any intelligent analysis.

And while president Bush may be promising "a new offensive" in Afghanistan, with an extra 3,200 US troops already in theatre, nothing in the current crop of reports begins to suggest that the situation in Afghanistan is under control. In a sombre parallel with our experience in Iraq, we seem to be losing ground fast.

The worrying thing is that, if we were to rely entirely on the British media - and certainly any one newspaper - for our information, we would not have an inkling of just how badly the situation appears to be deteriorating.

Photo credit: last three photos courtesy of the MoD, the first two of the Kajaki area, and the third showing a Scorpion light tank at Garmsir.

COMMENT THREAD

What is to be done?

The picture is that of General Dan Haretz, former Chief of Israeli General Staff, and Miri Regev, the lady he had appointed to deal with the IDF's relationship with the media.

Of the two, she was probably more disastrous but that may be simply because I understand the media and propaganda better than toys and whether armies are victorious.

Here is a discussion of the propaganda war and how it was lost by Israel. Oh yes, and why it matters to us.

COMMENT THREAD

Special delivery

But for the California plates, this septic tank emptier could be on its way to make a delivery to Conservative Central Office (as it was once called). As it is, it is probably fully employed in the Golden State.

And don't you just love the number-plate?

I wish...

Experience on the Google search engine today ... unfortunately, it didn't last.

When parents are brainwashed

We all know about children being brainwashed by political regimes. Here is an example of a father who seems to have been so brainwashed as to have rid himself of all natural feelings.

In line with our attempts to keep track of journalists and, especially, bloggers who suffer for doing what we are free to do with impunity, we link to Rantings of a Sandmonkey, and the latest twist in the Abdel Karim saga.

Abdel Karim is a blogger who is in Egyptian prison for blogging opinions that are not much liked by the government. His family is not precisely supportive. I should like to give them the benefit of doubt and say that the father is worried about the fate of the other children, which is why he made those preposterous statements. But Koran-memorizing? Four young children? Oh boy!

Read the whole piece. It is very short.

COMMENT THREAD

The Monday "toy"

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the death of an unsung genius of warfare, Major-General Percy Hobart, the man best-known as the commander of the 79th Armoured Division, famous for its range of specialist armoured vehicles used in the invasion of Normandy and afterwards, collectively known as "Hobart's funnies".

The photograph above shows a surviving example of one of them, the Sherman DD tank (the DD standing for Duplex Drive, the vehicle being driven by propellers once in the water.)

The idea was for this 40-ton tank to be kept afloat by the huge canvas, collapsible "skirt" so that it could swim ashore to an invasion beach, giving troops vital tank support in the first minutes of the landing, when they were most vulnerable. The idea was highly successful, catching the Germans off-guard and undoubtedly saving the lives of many Allied troops.

Readers will recall the great hullabaloo over the bravery of the soldiers who strapped themselves onto the sides of Apache helicopters in an attempt to rescue one of their colleagues, but for sheer raw bravery, there can be little to compare with being a driver of one of these tanks, driving blind over the ramp of a landing craft into the sea, in the certain knowledge that, if anything at all went wrong, it would sink like a stone, taking you with it – as indeed happened many times.

It is a matter of sadness that none of the media could bring themselves to remember today, taking the opportunity to commemorate the bravery of these men.

As for Percy Hobart, his story is told here and especially here. Even at this distance in time, it has the power to shock and anger and tends to reinforce that old saw that the greatest enemy of our armed forces was the War Office and is now the same institution in its modern guise as the MoD.

An armoured warfare specialist and an engineer, at a time when the Army was still hankering after its cavalry, one would like to think that Percy Hobart would understand today's military environment, recognising the need to restructure and re-equip the army to deal with the real enemy, as it presents itself, instead of the fictional enemy that the army brass would like to fight.

One can imagine also that he would be having the same difficulties convincing the brass of the need to change, the difference being that, without a champion in the form of Winston Churchill, he would most assuredly have failed. And that is perhaps the tragedy of today. We seem to lack the military thinkers of the likes of Percy Hobart, and his contemporary, Basil Liddel Hart, to say nothing of J.F.C. Fuller.

Interestingly, Liddel Hart, as war correspondent for The Times and The Daily Telegraph was a great supporter of Hobart, and was instrumental in getting him returned to the Army after he had been summarily dismissed by the War Office. And it is a reflection also of modern times that not only do we seem to lack the military thinkers, but also the defence correspondents of the calibre of Liddel Hart.

The world is a sadder and more dangerous place for that, but at lest we can be profoundly grateful that men of their calibre did exist at our time of need.

COMMENT THREAD

One step closer

Following in the wake of The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph, in an "exclusive" story, the News of the World is now claiming that thousands of British troops in Iraq are to return home in May, reducing the 7,000-strong contingent to 4,000. But this has been flagged up so often that one wonders where the NOTW has been all these months.

Nevertheless, the newspaper is declaring that at least four battalions which had been due to go to Iraq in May - replacing troops returning home - will stay here and that Britain will hand control of Basra province to the Iraqi army and police within months, with the remainder of British forces in Iraq withdrawing to their permanent base at Basra International Airport.

The British forces which remain, we are told, will help to protect the vulnerable supply routes from Kuwait used by US forces. But they will have almost no presence in Basra.

But, as we have pointed out, Basra is very far from being pacified or under control. Even a few days ago, on 15 February, one Iraqi was killed and two British soldiers were injured – one seriously - when an armed group using RPGs and light weapons attacked a British force at one of the checkpoints in the city.

Owing to heroic intervention by world class medical facilities, so many of the soldiers who are badly injured actually survive, which means that the death rate is perhaps lower than it might otherwise have been. This is extremely helpful to the government, faced with a media that only tends to record fatalities. Thus this incident, like so many got little media attention.

That will almost certainly be the case with another battle in Basra yesterday, reported by Reuters, when British forces fought with gunmen armed with machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades, killing at least three. Soldiers had been supporting Iraqi troops on a "strike operation" in the northern slum area of Hayaniya when they came under attack.

There is more to this than meets the eye as it is suggested that the combined forces were taking part in an operation aimed against at least one person suspected of roadside bomb and mortar attacks on British forces. In the past, when these operations have been successful, the MoD has been quick with the publicity, indicating that this one might have achieved less than was desired.

The operation, however, definitely sets the tone for the future as the BBC reports Blair claiming that the operation to hand over frontline security in Basra to Iraqi troops had been "completed" and has been "successful". Iraqi forces, he said, were in "control of frontline security in the city".

That, according to The Guardian/AP just leaves Tony Blair Britain's to make a statement on his future Iraq strategy. Why he should bother is not immediately evident as it is quite clear that the policy has already been decided.

But, in a rare moment of agreement with Simon Jenkins, we accepted his assertion that, "for retreat to be tolerable it must be called victory."

We are now one step closer to that "victory".

COMMENT THREAD

Strange bedfellows

What does the Conservative Party and the BNP have in common? Well, this week, both took a potshot at the UK Independence Party over its voting record in the EU parliament.

Said the Tory website, “UKIP's Farage is far from dolphin friendly”, pointing out that the Party had voted against proposals to introduce a uniform definition of driftnets to help control and enforce restrictions and so further protect dolphins and whales.

Fisheries spokesman for the Conservatives in the EU parliament Struan Stevenson said: "Driftnets have been banned in the EU for several years now. This proposal tightens up procedures. UKIP clearly doesn't care for dolphins."

Then along came the BNP with an article on its website headed, “UKIP votes against dolphin protection!”

MEPs representing the increasingly discredited and irrelevant United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have, incredibly, voted against an animal welfare measure designed to stop dolphins and porpoises being needlessly killed, intoned the site.

With two of the Sunday broadsheets also featuring UKIP this weekend, members could be forgiven for feeling that they are being got at. But when the Tories and BNP get together, that has to be a first.

COMMENT THREAD

A tale of two planets

In two different newspapers, by two different columnists – contemporaries both – are two different stories, both about road charging. One is by Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph and the other is by Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times. And few things better illustrate the growing divide between rhetoric and reality, so much so that, although they are writing about the same things, the two columnists might just as well be on different planets.

As to the rhetoric, it is Simon Jenkins who thinks that Britain will have some form of road pricing, like it or not, sooner or later. The idea, he writes, has been about for decades and now its time has come. But, as he explores the options, it is very clear that he has absolutely no understanding of the fact that future provision will be governed by EU law.

The task of explaining this, in a fraction of the space, is given to Booker in his column, where he tells us that new systems will have to conform with EC directive 2004/52 on "the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems", to ensure that all the EU's planned road charging schemes are similar.

Booker then goes on to tell us that there are substantial problems arising from this. Firstly, Brussels is committed to drawing up a "technical standard", to which all national systems must conform, and so far, due to the huge technical problems involved, there is no sign of it emerging. Secondly, the EU scheme is to be based on Galileo, its rival satellite system to the US Navstar. And Galileo, despite the fanfares which greeted the launch, courtesy of a Russian Soyuz rocket, is a shambles.

Now, the difficulties outlined by Booker are not fiction and they are going to have a profound impact on the rollout of electronic charging schemes. The trouble is that, despite the government being well aware of the implications, politicians like Douglas Alexander are currently in denial.

When lightweights like Jenkins then fill up space in a leading national daily, chuntering on as if the EU did not exist, as if we were masters of our own domain, and as if there were no overwhelming technical and political problems, it is no wonder the public are so ill-informed.

COMMENT THREAD

The real Sunday "toy"

This is the other half of yesterday’s pic. I couldn't resist putting it up: different colour, different location and different troops, but the same toy – the Turkish-built Otokar APC.

The location is Kabul, Afghanistan, the picture was taken in September 2004 (I know not by whom) … and the vehicle is Turkish-operated. We sometimes forget that Turkey is in Nato and I bet most people are unaware that Turkey has a sizeable presence in Afghanistan. My colleague – and many others – think that they should take over the policing of Iraq as well, to say nothing of Gaza, Lebanon ... we are talking Ottoman empire here.

She could be right.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative week-end toy

All this talk about toys with wings and people flying at incredible speed but where did it all start? With balloons in eighteenth century France.

The Montgolfiers were successful paper manufacturers but two of them were also scientific inventors. Actually, the two are not mutually exclusive as you had to be a scientific inventor to keep ahead in the paper business.

Joseph was the one who realized that heat lifted objects though he thought it was because smoke contained a special gas, which he named Montgolfier gas. Incidentally, this is a much better use of smoke than lining your lungs with gunge and making eveybody else's life difficult because I got me rights, donni.

On June 4 1783

they flew this craft as their first public demonstration at Annonay in front of a group of dignitaries from the Etats particulars. Its flight covered 2 km (1.2 mi), lasted 10 minutes, and had an estimated altitude of 1,600 - 2,000 m (5,200 - 6,600 ft).

The balloon, which was used for a demonstration before Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette was made of taffeta with the collaboration of the wallpaper manufacturer Jean-Baptiste Reveillon.

On September 19, 1783 the first flight with animals (it was decided to send animals before chancing humans, a sheep, a duck and a rooster, was demonstrated at Versailles before the King and Queen and sundry others.

The flight lasted approximately 8 minutes, covered 2 miles, and obtained an altitude of about 1500 feet. The flight would have been longer but the craft was unstable. It tipped wildly just after launch which allowed a considerable amount of hot air to spill from the mouth. The animals survived the trip unharmed.

On November 21 the first manned flight took place above Paris. The balloon with two passengers hovered for about 25 minutes and caused a sensation. The flight was much reproduced in illustrations.

Smoke signals

By the time the "colleagues" have finished with their smoking bans all over Europe, it looks as if the only place smoking will be permitted inside a public building throughout the whole of the EU is in … the EU Parliament.

That the parliament buildings are now havens for smokers is not for want of trying. On 1 January, the 16-strong committee of presidents actually banned smoking, only to find that the ban was extensively flouted by both MEPs and staff. Bowing to reality, therefore, the committee – which has 12 smoking members – voted to rescind the ban.

This action is hardly surprising – the parliament has always had an ambivalent attitude to smoking. The first time I ever visited the building in Brussels, way back in 1996, the first thing to greet visitors was a reception clerk sitting under a "no smoking" sign, with a cigarette on the go.

Now, the Sunday Times has picked up the story and records Deborah Arnott, director of the antismoking campaign group, Ash, describing the latest decision as "scandalous". "There can be no justification for politicians to place themselves above the law and it makes a mockery of the commission's proposals for an EU-wide smoking ban," she says.

One unrepentant rebel is UKIP leader Nigel Farage who told The Times: "I have been ignoring it since January 1 and I have smoked in more places than before. I don't want to be told by PC people what I can and cannot do." But then, as both the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph record today, Farage leads a party that is no stranger to rule-breaking.

COMMENT THREAD

Do we want politicians of principle?

Who could deny that Edmund Burke was a politician of integrity and principle? Well, actually, quite a lot of people do, his personality being capable of exciting screams of frustration 210 years after his death.

Nevertheless, his words, quoted in the posting seem a good discussion point when trying to resolve that vexing question: what is a politician of principle and do we really want them?

COMMENT THREAD

The Saturday "toy"

Believe it or not, I found this rather amusing – not the picture, as such, but the whole package, including the caption.

The latter, presumably written by USAF Staff Sgt. Stacy L. Pearsall, who took this official DoD picture, records "US Army Soldiers from the personal security detachment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team" and they are providing "security for team commander Col. David Sutherland at an Iraqi army compound in Baqubah, Iraq, Jan. 31, 2007."

She does not name the "toy" in the centre of the frame, yet this is more than usually interesting, if only for its novelty value. Our readers will know it to be a Turkish-built Otokar Armored Personnel Carrier, a conversion based on the Land Rover Defender 110 chassis.*

Overall, it is probably no better protected that the "Snatch" Land Rover (I do not have the technical specs) although the "top guard" undoubtedly is, with an armoured turret rather than a hole in the roof provided for our troops.

There is another feature of this vehicle which, in comparison with the "Snatch" tells you a great deal about the British Army – this vehicle has side windows and gun ports for the passengers, so that you can observe and fight from the vehicle.

The superior British do it a different way. A feature of all their tactical personnel transports is that they do not have side windows and, as demonstrated by their conversion of the Cougar to the Mastiff, we go to great lengths to cover them up, even when provided in the original vehicle (the pictures show the "before and after").

This actually is not a trivial point – it reveals something of the character of the British and the British military. It seems that the brass do not like ordinary soldiers knowing where they are or what is happening around them – so called "situational awareness". Instead, they like them to be kept in the dark (quite literally), relying on them to respond to their training when they are ejected from their vehicles, blinking into the light to face the enemy.

To that effect, British soldiers are taught a limited number of drills, which are repeated again and again until, with all the fidelity of trained seals, they can perform them flawlessly. But the one thing soldiers are not taught to do – and in fact are actively discouraged from doing – is thinking for themselves.

This was characteristically a feature of the Armies of the Second World War, where, typically, even junior NCOs in the German Army were included in the tactical briefings, while British NCOs were not. In the event of the loss of their officers, German NCOs were expected to take command, whereas the standing instructions to German troops, fighting against the British, was to target the officers, whence their attacks would often stall.

For the future, this is going to become more and more of a problem for the British Army, as equipment of greater sophistication and complexity is introduced into theatre. Not only is the educational attainment of the average solider such that they are going to have difficulties exploiting it fully, but the culture of the British Army is such that, as it stands, it does not want and cannot cope with educated soldiers, who can think for themselves.

Perhaps though, when we see British Army vehicles with windows in the sides, we will know that times are changing.

*edited 18 July 2007 to remove offensive references.

COMMENT THREAD

The other 2008 presidential election

While everybody is watching the developments in the United States (and yes, this blog will have a summary of what has happened so far) let us not forget that another country, one considerably closer to us geographically, which has a greater influence on European development because of its reserves of gas and oil. I am, of course, talking about Russia where a presidential election is also due in 2008.

Unlike the vulgar Americans the Russians are not likely to have any razzmatazz. There will be an election and the man nominated by President Putin will win unless there will be a change in the constitution and he will stand again as a saviour of his country.

The BBC reports that former KGB officer, close Putin ally and until recently pugnacious Defence Minister, Sergey Ivanov, has been promoted to the position of first Deputy Prime Minister. This puts him on par with the front runner, the other first Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev. What jolly Cabinet meetings they must have.

The BBC also suggests that Ivanov is at present unpopular as Defence Minister, because of the many problems with the armed forces, in particular behaviour within the army. This would indicate that the BBC thinks all Russians have an extremely low IQ and are likely to forget within a year who the Defence Minister was for a long time.

The truth is that it does not matter. Whoever is anointed will be elected. Even our next Prime Minister, groomed for the post as I write, will have to stand in a real election some time.

COMMENT THREAD

Turning into Belgium

The First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathan Band has, according to The BBC, claimed that Britain faces a choice between remaining as a first division sea-going nation or "turning into Belgium".

This was at a press briefing where he told the assembled journalists that his price tag for avoiding this horrible fate was "another £1bn" to safeguard future capabilities - and the delivery of extra two aircraft carriers.

"The navy is a very special asset, and if you want to use it, it doesn't come for nothing," he is said to have told the journalists, adding, "We're at a scale now that requires a certain amount of investment to maintain … You can't do deterrence unless you are a really professional outfit."

He summarised his position to journalists: "Give me two carriers and just less than a billion and I will be off your back, a happy boy".

No sooner was the news out, however, than Sir Jonathan was backtracking faster than a French tank in reverse. Up on the MoD website went a statement declaring:

I do not think, and have not said, that the Royal Navy needs a £1bn-a-year extra to do its job or to keep ships at sea. Today's Royal Navy is funded to do what is asked of it – not least thanks to a current investment programme of £14bn, and the delivery of 28 new ships in the last decade alone.

And this is a day after the House of Commons Defence Select Committee warned that the Royal Navy could be left without working aircraft carriers because of continuing delays and doubts surrounding the MoD's management of the £3.6 billion project to buy new vessels.

The Scotsman, being the only newspaper to carry the item, cited the Committee as saying that the whole future of the navy as a fighting force was uncertain and hung on decisions ministers will take in the next few months. The biggest of those concerned the formal placing of the order to build two new aircraft carriers, which was by no means assured.

Anyhow, the next day, Sir Jonathan up and socks it to 'em, and then backs off immediately. You really have to admire the intestinal fortitude of the chap, don't you.

COMMENT THREAD

What is it we are fighting for?

Time for a rant, methinks, and a move away from toys of both real and alternative kinds. Only temporarily, of course, as this blog cannot stay away from toys for very long.

As this is a very pugnacious blog with rottweiler-like readers, it is time to ask ourselves, what it is we are fighting for? Not against, but for. (All flip and silly comments along the lines of "well I know what I am fighting for and I do not need to define it" will be ignored as unworthy of interest.)

So, let the debate begin. Here is the opening (prolonged) salvo.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative Friday toy

Well, the last lot of toy discussions went down well, didn't it. We had to lock the thread on the forum. And that just goes to show that serious alternative toys are no more popular among some of our readers than the ordinary ones.

So, back to basics. Here is Behemot again, clutching a pistol this time. I believe this is closer to the original text but, somehow, I prefer the other picture.

For one thing, Behemot is supposed to be a slick and elegant cat, who powders his whiskers with gold and hangs elegant opera glasses round his neck before the Devil's grand ball. The cat in this picture is a muscular tough.

Anyway, this one is dedicated to all those readers who have read the novel and liked it. It is also, I hope an inspiration for the others to read it.

The wonders of Europhilia

A quite remarkable illustration of how desperately doth the Europhiles cling to their little myths is offered in The Telegraph today, this one from Walter Blanchard, former adviser to the EC on satellite navigation.

Viz-à-viz the use of the free-to-user "Navstar" GPS system as the basis for road charging, he tells us that, "GPS (he means Navstar) cannot ever be used to enforce anything in this country because it is an American-owned, -operated and -controlled military system."

Er no. For sure, the system is operated by the military but, since 1996, the operational policy was defined by the Interagency GPS Executive Board.

Currently, it is managed by the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Executive Committee. This was established by Presidential Directive in 2004 to advise and coordinate federal departments and agencies on matters concerning the GPS and related systems.

The Executive Committee is chaired jointly by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Transportation. Its membership includes equivalent-level officials from the Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and NASA. Components of the Executive Office of the President participate as observers to the Executive Committee, and the FCC Chairman participates as a liaison.

Apparently unaware of this, former EC advisor Mr Blanchard goes on to say that, "America has repeatedly refused, rightly, to allow foreign participation, much less legally enforceable control (of Navstar). It advises civil users that it accepts no responsibility for its accuracy, availability or reliability, and it does not guarantee anything." He therefore concludes that:

It is quite obvious that, if this does not change, it will be impossible to make British law around it. This is the main problem that led to the initiation of the European civil-controlled system Galileo. Road-pricing enforcement using a satnav system will have to wait until Galileo is in fully certified operation, which perhaps may not be until 2020 or later.

Interesting that: "…2020 or later." It was supposed to be up and running by 2012 and Alexander wants road charging in place by 2015. Anyhow, as to the substantive point about enforcement – that simply does not compute. How is it that the Germans have a Navstar-based road charging system and are having no problems with enforcement?

If the letter to the Telegraph reflects the quality of advice Mr Blanchard had to offer, no wonder the Galileo system in trouble.

COMMENT THREAD

The Friday "toy"

No one, but no one who has every been to an airshow and seen this mighty beast, the Lighting F6, take off could ever fail to be impressed. The re-heat lights, consuming more carbon credits in seconds than Tony Blair consumes in a year, and it hurtles along the runway. The nose lifts and points skywards and the thing climbs near vertical until it is but a dot in the sky, while the hills around still echo to the thunder of the engine.

Perversely, the aircraft came to mind this morning when I read that the government was giving £30 million to local authorities to spend on anti-smoking police and "re-education" measures.

The link is not entirely tenuous. Back in the late 60s, I visited RAF Binbrook to see an operational Lightning squadron at work, at a time when the aircraft was equipped with the Red Top air-to-air missile.

That piece of kit was fitted with an incredibly sensitive infra-red seeker, which enabled it to home on the tailpipe of an enemy jet. But that party trick of the technicians was equally impressive. With the seeker switched on, one of them would light up a cigarette and walk along to the end of a huge hanger. The missile would follow his every move.

Of course now the very idea of lighting up would be verboten, but it struck me that here was a piece of kit that the anti-smoking police would love. Touring the streets in their "Snatch" Land Rovers, fitted with Red Top infra red seekers, they could pick out the errant smoker with consummate ease.

Come to think of it, some of the infra red detection kit on modern UAVs is just as sensitive. Now, there's a thought …

The pic is "borrowed" from the Jet Photos website. Another one worth a visit.

COMMENT THREAD

Yet another war?

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day, says The New Statesman. If that is the case, and an attack is made, it will completely fit with the prediction made in November and highlighted by this blog, that there was a window of no more than six months left in which a strike could be made.

However, the magazine claims that operations will extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

This has been planned for over four years and the US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". The US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

So it goes on – left wing ranting maybe, except that numerous commentators are saying the same basic thing, that the US is gearing up to hit Iran. This has also been one of the explanations for the recent US condemnation of Iran for supporting the Iraqi insurgency.

One usually reliable unpublished source claims that the US has signalled Gulf allies that attack on Iran is possible this year and a "diplomatic source" has said the Bush administration has raised the prospect of a US strike on Iran over the next few months. The sources said US Central Command and the US intelligence community have conducted discussions with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states.

Preparations to defend GCC states against Iranian retaliation have been discussed and Washington has reportedly offered the PAC-3 missile defence system to several GCC states, including Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The source said Bush and Cheney have advocated a U.S. attack on Iran over the next few weeks in an effort to facilitate British support. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a strong supporter of the United States, has pledged to resign by May 2007.

We are told also that, the United States "and its allies" will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran, ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after-effects. The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democracy project.

And, for once, the role of the SA-15 air defence system from Russia is highlighted, an issue we have raised several times, notably in January last year and again in the same month.

What few assessments appear to be dealing with is the economic implications, not least the effect on Japan if Iranian oil supplies are interrupted. But, if a strike is made, there will be plenty of time for the MSM to catch up. For the moment though, we will have to watch and wait, in the knowledge that, any day now, we could wake up to find we are spectators of yet another war.

COMMENT THREAD

A toy to end all toys

For our real Thursday toy, we publish a photograph of a US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, dropping live ordinance (sic) over Point Bravo, Nevada (NV), during a firepower demonstration.

The photograph is taken by SRA Brian Ferguson, USAF on 12 May 2004. Unusually, we have also been able to obtain the Reuters version of the same photograph, credited to Adnan Hajj, which is published here on the right.

The bombs, incidentally, are retarded, the little thingies at their ends designed to slow them down in order to permit dropping from lower heights. I suppose, though, in this PC world, we are not allowed to use the word "retarded". Suffice to say, therefore, that they are bombs with "learning difficulties".

COMMENT THREAD

A temporary expedient

Over at England Expects you can read a disturbing account of the state of play on the EU constitution, and the role of German chancellor Angela Merkel in pursuit of a resolution to the issue.

But, whichever way you cut it, hers is a high risk strategy with only a limited chance of success and, set against that, are the risks of re-opening old wounds which emerged during the French and Dutch referendum campaigns. It is something of a mystery, therefore, as to why she should be expending so much political capital on such a hazardous venture.

Part of the reason, however, may rest with the original reasons why the EEC was set up in the first place. And, to understand this, one must go back to 1950 when the "father of Europe", Jean Monnet, launched what became known as the Pleven Plan for a European Defence Community, held together by a European Political Community. This was to be bound together by the first version of a European Constitution, which is very similar to the document on offer today.

Monnet's action at that time was calculated specifically to anticipate Chancellor Adenauer's ambition to re-arm, building afresh a new German army. With memories of the Second World War still raw, Monnet (and indeed Adenauer) knew that the French would not permit German re-armament, except within a European framework, and that was precisely what Monnet proposed.

Ironically, in 1954 the French Assembly rejected the plan, but Adenauer still got his way, having demonstrated his European credentials. But, to reassure the French and other member states, each of the successive German leaders have had to re-affirm their personal credentials – and commitment to the "project". And now it is Angela Merkel's turn.

What is not properly appreciated in all this though is that the need for Germany to re-affirm its European credentials is more urgent and more necessary than it has been since that first affirmation by Konrad Adenauer. And the reason here is that, for the first time in its post-war history, Germany is beginning to develop a truly independent and assertive foreign policy – the very thing Monnet's original process of European integration was designed to prevent.

The most visible sign of this is the number of foreign expeditions in which German armed forces have participated, starting with the former Yugoslavia but including most recently, sending warships to Lebanon to work alongside the UN, leading the EU force in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and membership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

As we pointed out in an earlier post, it is in Afghanistan that the independence of Germany is coming to the fore as her participation is not through European institutions but as part of a Nato force, currently led by the United States. And her decision to send Tornado bombers to Afghanistan, equipped to carry out reconnaissance has merely reinforced that independence.

However, as it was in 1950, any independent military capability exercised by Germany is a direct challenge to France, which since 1999, has given European military integration high priority, with the development of the European Security and Defence Policy and the establishment of the European Rapid Reaction Force.

Part of that programme was the integration of the French and German military transport fleets, to form a single European airlift command, based on the Airbus A400M military transport. But this aircraft had been delayed by the troubles over the Airbus A380 "superjumbo", leaving the Luftwaffe with ancient and inadequate Transall airlifters that must be replaced. Even without that, it was turning to the Americans to lease and possibly buy C-130 Hercules transporters, putting at risk the whole idea of a European airlift command.

It is not only here that close military co-operation is beginning to unravel. At the leading edge of military technology is the development of unmanned aircraft, which the newly formed European Defence Agency declared a priority for EU defence manufacturers. And hoping to lead a common European programme is the French with the expensive and ambitious Neuron programme, in which it would have hoped for German participation.

Almost as a snub to France, though, last week, the German Ministry of Defence (MoD) awarded a €430 million contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman for a joint venture, developing the US-designed Global Hawk long-endurance UAV as a Euro Hawk unmanned variant to carry out electronic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Not only is this system US-designed but it meshes with a similar system being considered by Nato, taking Germany further away from the French camp and its ambitions for a European Army, and into the US sphere of influence.

And, as we previously recorded, in Germany, there is a school of opinion that sees this as advantageous. It also sees the war in Afghanistan is a great opportunity for Germany – an opportunity to join the Anglo-American alliance. This harks back to the dream of Bismarck, which puts Germany taking over from France and leading Europe.

Such a view is undoubtedly worrying the French who are seeing their grip over Germany beginning to weaken – more so since Jung has told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that he has not ruled out sending German special forces to the more violent southern regions of Afghanistan, where they would be directly invoked in fighting alongside Nato (but not French) allies.

It is developments such as these that create the pressure for Merkel to re-affirm that the Germans are, after all, "good Europeans". Thus Merkel must enthusiastically pursue the constitution as it is only this now that can demonstrate that German military expansion can be contained within a pan-European framework, reassuring the French that Germany is still under control.

The looming problem for Germany though is that her foreign policy and military ambitions are not compatible with total commitment to European integration. Going along with the constitution, therefore, can only be a temporary expedient. It is putting off the day when Germany is going to have to consider whether it is going to remain bound by Europe or strike out once more on its own. That day cannot be long in coming.

COMMENT THREAD

Those dark days may be back again

A couple of days ago we wrote about the delirious joy with which the accord, signed in Mecca, between Hamas and Fatah was greeted by the leaders and activists in Gaza. As our readers will recall we questioned the reason why those days of darkness, i.e. murderous struggle between the two groups, had descended on the Palestinian people but could find no answers.

Sadly, those days may be back again. Al-Jazeera reports that “Cracks appear in Palestinian unity”.

It seems that Mahmoud Abbas has postponed the speech he was going to make to the people before travelling to Gaza to meet the Prime Minister of the Hamas-led government, Ismail Haniya.

The idea was that today the Hamas-led government would resign and, in the fullness of time, a new unity government be formed. This has run into difficulties because of the conditions Hamas has laid down for their resignation.

Most problematic for Abbas is likely to be a Hamas demand that he approve the Executive Force, a 5,600-strong militia set up by Hamas last year despite the preisdent’s objections.

Hamas also wants Abbas to approve the appointment of dozens of Hamas loyalists to senior civil service positions, [Abbas aide Nimer] Hamad said. Abbas in the past refused to certify the appointments.

Hamas is also said to be asking Abbas commit to a candidate for the post of interior minister. Hamas proposed two names for the job, but Abbas has said he wants to review more applicants.

As all students of authoritarian and totalitarian states know, the position of interior minister is key to the survival of the system. No wonder they are fighting over it.

COMMENT THREAD

A serious alternative Thursday toy

Sad to say but some of our readers have not taken kindly to my alternative toy series. My suspicion is that they have an alternative IQ.

Normally I would say that this is my blog and I post what I like on it. When I last looked there was no legislation that forced anyone to read it. There are many blogs out there. Let the market rule.

However, just for once I have decided to pander to their alternative ideas and put up a serious alternative toy.

This is a row of T-54s rolling down the streets of Budapest in November 1956, watched by a sullen (one assumes) crowd and photographed by someone who just happened to be there. As a child I saw brothers of these toys rolling down other streets, watched by very silent people. The third tank is somewhat different and it has been suggested to me that it is probably a PT-76, an amphibious tank, which would explain the boat-like shape.

Having pandered to those of alternative IQ, I shall return (just as soon as I can be bothered) to the original concept of the alternative toys.

COMMENT THREAD

A window on the world

I was rather taken by the recent news that a Canada-set thriller won the lucrative Costa Book of the Year Award, despite being written by an agoraphobic British novelist who had never visited the country.

Stef Penney won the $49,000 prize for her first novel, "The Tenderness of Wolves" but, having developed agoraphobia after leaving university, could not travel to Canada to research the book. Instead, she studied maps and texts in the British Library, near her London home. Canadian readers were said to have been convinced that she must have had direct experience of the locale, so fresh and vivid was her writing.

This does not actually surprise me. Many journalists write their stories from the safety and comfort of their offices or hotel rooms, miles from the action, yet are able to describe things they have not personally seen. All too often we read of events in distant corners of Iraq and Afghanistan, the copy bearing the dateline Baghdad or Kabul, which has been edited by people in London or Washington, in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away.

But, as Stef Penney demonstrates, distance is not necessarily a bar to accuracy, as an account can be reconstructed from the testimony of witnesses. Given a certain skill, a fair representation of events can be pulled together.

I had personal experience of that self-same thing some years ago, which made the front page of the local newspaper after I gave evidence to a coroner's inquiry on the cause of death of an unfortunate gentleman who had succumbed to food poisoning in a Midlands nursing home.

Contradicting the testimony of the local investigators, who had crawled all over the home, I had come to a different view, having pieced together events from reading the reports and carrying out telephone interviews of the "players", and especially the chef involved – getting him also to send a few items to the laboratory for testing. The newspaper complained that I had never visited the premises, and indeed I had not, but it was my testimony which prevailed, offering a coherent and plausible explanation for the outbreak which the men on the spot had not been able to provide.

In a way that should provide some small comfort for many blogger, sitting isolated in their garrets, miles away from the action, commenting on world affairs. Through the wonders of technology, we are able to use the miracle of the internet to garner information from the four corners of the world, and piece it together along with the best of them and provide a coherent and plausible explanation of (some) events.

However, while the computer provides a window on the world, the vision remains flawed. In some things, information is frustratingly limited, in others, it is heavily distorted and in yet others it is submerged in a welter of detail that makes analysis and comprehension difficult.

That is actually why we need journalists – good journalists – and why the MSM will never actually be replaced or even seriously challenged by bloggers, no matter what their pretensions might be. We need their skills to interpret for us and, more especially, we need the combined skills of the MSM teams to tell us what is important and what we should concentrate on.

The trigger for these reflections today, of all days – when there is an incredible amount to report and analyse, and the day-job is more than usually pressing – was this piece here, in the online version of the Wall Street Journal, which editorialises on the debate in congress on the Iraqi war. "Congress," it says, "has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history."

This, I thought, is incredibly important and, although I was very dimly aware of it, until now it had passed me by.

Similarly, late yesterday, I picked up this piece of news, reporting that the Taliban had taken control of their second Helmand district in less than two weeks. They had, according to district officials, captured the police chief of Washir district and 30 of his officers when they were out on patrol Sunday, 11 February. They then went to the district centre, where they took control, disarming the rest of the police," said the official.

The loss of Washir follows close on the collapse of Musa Qala, a district slightly to the south of Washir, and indicates that the Taliban might be consolidating its grip on the region.

Yet both issues are absent from the British media – these and many others. And while, in today's Telegraph, we appreciate reading the account of Col Jorge Mendonca's court martial verdict on the front page, I am not sure it warranted two further pages inside the book, and a leader.

It is this that worries me about the contemporary media, its inability to prioritise and thus its failure to bring us a more comprehensive view of what is happening in the world.

Unfortunately, we bloggers cannot do it. Too many are simply chasing the trivia or very narrow interests while, for the rest of us, we do not have the time. There must be an answer to this conundrum but, if there is, I – for one – have no idea what it is.

COMMENT THREAD

William Tell rides again

Well, OK, maybe he shoots apples again. Whatever it is, the Swiss are once again proclaiming their right to run their own country as they see fit, which includes the various cantons setting their own tax levels. And guess who does not like it. Yes, that's right the EU Commission.

We have followed the saga of the Commission's spat with Switzerland about those taxes and have noted that a number of firms have decided to move to Zürich to take advantage of the fiscal atmosphere.

As the BBC reports, the Commission (for some reason, with a small ‘c’) has decided to get tough.

The commission said the tax breaks were "unfair" as they differentiated between domestic and foreign income sources.

However, Switzerland said the argument was "unfounded".

There were no regulations between Switzerland and the EU on harmonising tax arrangements, so it was impossible to infringe rules, the Swiss government said.

Well, of course, it's unfair. I mean, here are the Swiss, letting their cantons decide on levels of taxation, exercising local democracy rather than subsidiarity; and here are the cantons setting tax levels that would be attractive to businesses. Sheesh! How unfair can you get?

"Switzerland enjoys the benefits of privileged access to the internal market and must accept the responsibilities that go along with this," said EU external relations commissioner, Benita Ferro-Waldner.

"The decision the commission has taken is not about tax competition, but about the state aid undermining the level playing field necessary for partnership and trade relations between Switzerland and the EU."

Actually, she is wrong. This is about tax competition – an unfair concept for the EU.

The Commission has warned Switzerland to stop undermining the EU's own high-tax economy (as if it needed outsiders to undermine it) and stop cantons from setting their own, advantageous levels. It is not, however, clear what the Commission will do, if Switzerland refuses to comply with these demands.

Will the European Rapid Reaction Force invade the country? I wouldn't advise it. Despite falling off Machiavelli's standards a bit, they remain "armatissimi e liberissimi" – most armed and most free.

COMMENT THREAD

Parochial or what?

Last week, two US generals say it. The US defense secretary says it. Afghani national security adviser, Zalmai Rassoul, says it. And the British media is silent.

This week – yesterday, to be precise – Lieutenant General David Richards, the British former commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, says it: "International troops have been warned to expect a spring offensive from the Taliban."

The report goes straight in The Telegraph.

COMMENT THREAD

European politics just got more interesting

This is Lavinia Sandru, a candidate for May's MEP elections in Romania. She is currently an MP in the Partidul Initiativa Nationala (PIN). Without a blush, therefore, we can say that she is set (we hope) to become the EU parliament's newest PIN-up.

If that happy event occurs, she will also one of the newest recruits to the Eurosceptic Ind-Dem Group in the EU parliament, home of, amongst others, the UK Independence Party MEPs, headed by Nigel Farage.

There is already, we understand, considerable competition amongst the male members of the group to obtain a specimen of Ms Sandru's business card.

There has been no reaction from the Europhile Lib-Dems in the EU parliament, who recently had to resort to a comic book heroine in order to inject some glamour into their lives.

Thus they have invented the fictional Elisa Correr, an MEP who gets embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure whilst in pursuit of her parliamentary activities.

When it comes to glamour though, it seems the Eurosceptics are ready to upstage them by producing the real thing. Why, they might be asking, should the Devil have all the best figures?

COMMENT THREAD

We really are not that stupid…

If politicians wish to find out why we hold them in such low regard, they need go no further than look at the wunderkind transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, who is trying to tell us that the satellite road charging system he proposes would not involve an invasion of privacy.

It is The Register, however, that notes that Alexander has also promised there would be "safeguards" to deal with the privacy issue.

Observers of the government data kleptocracy, The Register continues, will be familiar with the "safeguards" gambit, and of course one would not need to implement privacy safeguards if one were not threatening privacy, right? "So it's not exactly a denial", it concludes.

In fact, anyone familiar with the workings of satellite-based road charging systems will know that the privcy issue lies at the heart of the proposedsystem. Its central feature is differential pricing according to location, time and distance travelled, which can only work if the whereabouts of vehicles are known whenever they are on the move.

As far as safeguarding data goes though, as we noted earlier, promises on protection of data are not Alexander's to give. All we need is an EU agreement that information should be "shared" (i.e., given to government agencies) and the game is over.

And, when the technology exists for police to interrogate the on-board computer of any car – in real time - one can see that the attraction of the system would make it irresistible to enforcement agencies and sundry government officials.

But then, as the Telegraph tells us this morning, the "debate" – if you can call it that - is a sham. The decision has already been made.

Furthermore, un-recorded by the media at large, the Department for Transport has already expended massive sums on the EU's Galileo system.

To September last year, in addition to a contribution of €31 million then planned, specific UK contributions to the programme have been €15.3 million (at 1998 prices) for the definition phase and €95.7 million (at 2001 prices) towards the development and validation phase. That is on top of the normal contributions to the EU, some of which have been used on Galileo.

In all, taxpayers have already "contributed" an estimated £200 million to the system at the heart of the road charging system. The government is not going to be expending that sort of money without looking for a payback and, as we know, it is already in discussion with a German technology company about implementing systems.

Slowly, therefore, people are getting the picture, and they like not what they see. That is undoubtedly why the petition is now up to 1,401,511 signatures - from 1,369,970 last night. And it looks set to reach two million by the time it closes on 20 February. The government is going to have to come to terms with the fact that we are not all as stupid as it thinks.

COMMENT THREAD

The real Wednesday toy

Soldiers send a 105 mm howitzer round downrange during a fire mission outside Forward Operating Base Kalsu, Iraq. That's all the detail I have on this pic. But hey! It's a real toy!

And is that a field kitchen in the background, just under the gun barrel? What's it doing there, and why is it painted white? Not a UN field kitchen, perchance? Come back Kofi - all is forgiven.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative Wednesday toy

Well, if we are talking toys, here is one to cheer every heart.

This is the advertisement for "Flying down to Rio", not a particularly memorable film except for two things: Dolores del Rio's stunning looks (coupled with a total inability to act) and the dancing of Astaire and Rogers, together for the first time. The latter makes it a classic.

Oh yes, and those ladies on the aeroplane wings.

COMMENT THREAD

Privatization Polish style

Say what you will about the new intake but they are quick learners. Gone are those wonderful economic ideas they were going to bring into the EU to revive its somewhat sclerotic economies.

I am talking about Poland, which has, of course, had an election since then with the Law and Justice Party, headed by President Lech Kaczynski and his brother, Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, coming to power and recently distributing as many ministerial positions as possible to their various buddies.

One of them, the Treasury Minister Wojciech Jasinski announced recently that the Warsaw stock exchange is to be privatized. Well, after a fashion. The government will retain 51 per cent of the shares and will subsidize its expansion into other countries in the region if it felt like taking over parts of any other stock exchange.

As the International Herald Tribune reported

In his speech Jasinski also outlined a plan by which the Polish government would back the Warsaw bourse's expansion outside Poland. The exchange has already expressed interest in buying stakes in markets in Bulgaria and Slovenia. Jasinski said that the Warsaw exchange could issue nonvoting shares to "acquire enough capital to purchase other European exchanges" and that any company that participated in the initial privatization would be compelled to purchase these nonvoting shares later.

This is rather an odd view of privatization and is not regarded with any favour by such institutions as the Wiener Börse.

That policy would run directly counter to efforts by Wiener Börse to nurture a network of Central and East European exchanges through cooperation agreements on things like financial data distribution and product development.

The Vienna exchange has also taken a direct stake in the Budapest exchange, and its co-chief executive, Michael Buhl, has said that it is interested in a similar arrangement with Warsaw "if we are welcomed as a strategic investor."

"We are in any case interested in a stake in the Warsaw exchange," Buhl said. "But we would under no circumstances take part in an unwanted takeover."

Jasinski dismissed the pretensions of the Austrian stock exchange as being of no significance. Austria’s population is only 8 million, while Poland’s is 38 million, he pronounced and any sale of the stock exchange should go the other way. This is an interesting view of economic development, not shared by all that many people. Presumably, using that argument, should Nasdaq be foolish enough to display an interest in the Warsaw stock exchange, its shares ought to be made available to the organization that is based in a country far larger than Poland.

Actually, according to Jasinski, foreigners will not be able to buy shares in the stock exchange when and if it is privatized.

Jasinski outlined

…a strategy by which the Polish government would sell some of its holdings to "Polish investors" in blocks of 5 percent to 10 percent, while retaining a 51 percent stake itself.

Warsaw, he said, also intended to introduce regulatory changes to prevent companies listed on the exchange from being taken over by foreign companies "to ensure that the stock exchange will retain its Polish character."

"A sale to foreign interests is out of the question," Jasinski said. "I think that such a sale could risk reducing the stock exchange to the subservient position of taking orders from one of the major European exchanges."

Surely not. Not Poland with all those people.

As it happens the Polish government may run into difficulties with the Commission over that, as restricting who shares go to in privatization along national lines is against EU rules, something that, it is assumed, Jasinski does not know.

So far the Commission seems not to have heard of this plan. Jasinski's own office is busy backpedaling:

"The advisors still need to prepare the company for privatization," Jasinski's spokeswoman, Agnieszka Dluska, said. "There is still much analysis to be done."

By which time there might be another government in the country.

COMMENT THREAD

A small boring detail

Very much on the back foot of late, transport secretary Douglas Alexander is pledging to "listen, deliberate and discuss" the issues raised by the petition on the No. 10 website urging Tony Blair to "forget about road pricing".

Standing at 1,369,970 signatures (at the time of writing), with seven days to go, the petition has proved a huge embarrassment for the government, which is having one of its main policy ideas on transport – in fact, virtually its only idea – comprehensively trashed.

We look at Mr Alexander's options, here.

COMMENT THREAD

"Lift high the flag of Ghana"

This was the first line of the Ghanaian national anthem when it became an independent country fifty years ago, the first of Britain's African colonies to do so. The words were wonderfully solemn and old-fashioned, with much emphasis on duty, work and freedom. Ghana was going to be a shining example to the world of a post-colonial political entity.

The words were changed in 1966 after its Marxist dictator, Kwame Nkrumah, who had gradually destroyed the democratic and economically relatively free (this was the 1950s and 1960s after all) structure, had been ousted while on a visit away from the country.

The new words are more modern and less specific with more emphasis on advancing and African unity.

In 1957 when Ghana became independent it was a relatively wealthy country. Its present and future was contrasted advantageously with that of South Korea by all the pundits. Ghana was rich, democratic, full of natural resources. South Korea was none of those things and what was going to happen to the country.

Well, fifty years on, we know the answer. By African standards, Ghana is not doing too badly. South Korea has shot ahead to become one of the world's fastest developing economies and a serious threat to the sclerotic economies of Western Europe. Presumably, when Segolene Royal promised to introduce measures to control globalization, South Korea was one of the countries she had in mind (if she had anything specific in mind, that is). It was not Ghana, you may be sure.

So many things went wrong that it would be hard to enumerate in this posting. In any case, the arguments have been put far more cogently by Franklin Cudjoe, Executive Director of the Ghanaian free-market think-tank IMANI, and Evans Selorm-Branttie, its Communications Manager.

IMANI and its small staff have been stalwart fighters for economic freedom in Ghana and in Africa as a whole.

There can be no question about it, the twin causes of Ghana's downfall from its advantageous position fifty years ago are the Marxist, socialist experiment that was imposed on it in the name of something called "the African way"; and the indiscriminate aid that poured in from Western countries whose leaders were trying to assuage historic "guilt" without bothering to find out what actually happened to the money.

Both of these are now so ingrained in geopolitical calculations that one wonders, rather despairingly, whether the African countries, so rich potentially, will ever climb out of the mire.

A cause for shame?

An old story re-emerges in The Telegraph today – but with an added twist.

The original story, broached in December 2005 by the BBC, amongst others (with the Telegraph following in January) was that the Austrian government had authorised the sale of 800 Steyr Mannlicher HS50 rifles to the Iranian government, supposedly for use by the National Iranian Police Organisation, which claimed they were for anti-drug smuggling operations.

It now appears that, less than two months after deliveries began to Iran, an Iraqi insurgent shot dead an American officer in an armoured vehicle, using the weapon.

Now, according to The Telegraph, in the last six months US forces have discovered small numbers of the rifles but, in the last 24 hours, a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100 seized from Iraqi insurgents.

The fact that these rifles were sold directly to the Iranian government strongly reinforces the US assertions that Iran is actively providing aid to the insurgency in Iraq – a claim made last Sunday by "senior US defence officials" who claimed that at least 170 US and allied soldiers had been killed since June 2004, using Iranian made or supplied weapons.

The US officials presented their evidence at a background briefing in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, backed by an array of photographic material showing anti-tank rounds and mortar bombs of Iranian origin, plus captured IEDs designed to produce explosively formed projectiles (discussed here).

The figure of 170 is relatively modest compared with the 3,113 US troops who have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, and the 132 fatalities suffered by Britain over the same period. Furthermore, the charge was soon rejected by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "baseless", the release of the evidence by the Americans being attributed to a ploy to rack up the tension between the US and Iran, to justify a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

This was very much the line taken by the BBC, with "world affairs correspondent" Paul Reynolds asking, "why now"? He pointed out that these were old charges. In October 2005, the then British ambassador to Iraq William Patey told reporters in London that Iran had been supplying technology used to kill British troops in Basra. Then US officials made similar claims over the last year. General George Casey, the then US commander in Iraq, said so in June 2006.

If you take the claims at face value, Reynolds wrote, the reason is that only now has the evidence become substantial enough to be made public. "The number of attacks is said to have grown as well, so that is another explanation put forward for going public now. A trend has been identified about which information should be given."

But, the man from the BBC added, it could also be that the US is softening up world opinion for an attack on Iran. Such an attack would be aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities. At the moment, Reynolds observed, the US lacks a casus belli and by claiming that Iran is responsible for killing USA troops, it could be laying the groundwork for a "self-defence" justification.

In the murky world of Middle East politics, any of this could be true, and more. It rarely pays to take things at face value. But one thing is evident. The US was perfectly right to protest at the sale of the rifles to Iran and to impose sanctions on Austria in December year last.

And how typical it was of those wonderful, peace-loving "Europeans" at the time to complain that the US action "could hinder diplomatic efforts by the EU to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme."

No doubt they were thinking that it was totally unreasonable to object to Austria being allowed to sell these murderous weapons in circumstances where they could be used to kill US soldiers. EU officials are doubtless thinking that these gung-ho Americans should be thoroughly ashamed. The surprising thing is that the Telegraph has not made that point for them.

COMMENT THREAD

The Tuesday "toy"

Ambush anyone?

This official USMC photograph taken by Sgt. Robert M. Storm shows vehicles from E Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. They are patrolling an area in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan where, according to the full report, marines were subjected to a platoon ambush. To this, "they responded with both direct and indirect fires, killing at least two and causing the enemy to break contact."

This is one case where the picture is worth the thousand words – illustrating the formidable problem conventional land forces have in dealing with insurgents. No matter what the technology, they will always be at risk.

COMMENT THREAD

Ségo’s pact with France

Harriman House, which has just published the English version of Nicolas Sarkozy’s autobiography, is bringing out a biography of his rival Ségolène Royal in March. Naturally, they are interested in many things to do with the lady and have very usefully provided a full translation of her pact with France and the “hundred propositions so that France can rediscover a shared ambition, pride and fraternity”.

In the way politics seems to be done these days (though not, one must admit by Sarkozy) Royal has consulted many people and have come up with a distillation of what they told her.

More than 6000 debates have been organised throughout the country. I have received over the internet 135 000 contributions. I have listened to the employers and the trade unions, I have met with associations, I have consulted experts.

Many of you have wanted to take part in this joint effort. I wanted this work of listening and confrontation of ideas. I wanted citizens to speak again so that I might be their spokeswoman: you no longer accept the composition in private of projects that are forgotten as quickly as they are written. Promises must be kept and they must be credible.

Well, that’s nice. So what are these 100 promises?

Well, to start with, they promise no reforms to a country that is in serious economic difficulties, with high unemployment and is constantly haemorrhaging some of the brightest and the best to other countries.

Massive investment in research and development; Put in place an industrial policy that prepares for the future and reduces the risks of delocalization; Support small and medium-sized businesses through the creation of regional participation funds and by reserving for them a percentage of public contracts; Give priority to business investment by lowering tax where the profit is reinvested and increasing it where it is distributed to shareholders.

In other words, more government control and more interference. The lady shows no signs of understanding how an economy functions but prefers to follow her very French instincts: nobody can possibly do anything unless officials tell them how to do it.

It doesn’t get any better with increase of the minimum wage (that should sort those unemployed in the banlieux out) and pensions. The 35 hour week to be kept on (to be fair, even Sarkozy has not dared to touch that).

Something called housing security for life, which involves building 120,000 “social dwellings”, possibly of the kind that are already pitted round the big cities, a year with rights to buy after 15 years.

What she does not explain is how she is going to pay for all this.

Job security for all is to be provided through expensive schemes, which are unlikely to create jobs. Globalization is to be fought at all costs. Various taxes to be increased and so on and so on. She even commits the cardinal mistake of assuming that she can somehow change the remit of the European Central Bank.

Read the whole thing and start worrying that this woman might become President of France, thus becoming part of our government as well.

COMMENT THREAD

Oh dear, not again!

The Euroweenies are at it again, ratcheting up the pressure on waste generation.

This comes from MEPs who are expected to vote today in favour of binding targets to reduce the amount of waste produced in the EU, amending the commission's proposed waste framework directive – which does not set any specific targets.

Needless to say, the paranoia over using landfill is being perpetuated, while recycling is very much to the fore. There is also expected to be some controversy about the commission's love affair with incineration.

For those who wish we could inhabit a saner world, however, there is always this over on Little Green Footballs. Well worth watching. Now offline - damn. A humorous exposition, demonstrating that much of the current mania for recycling is based on nothing more than a desire to feel good and has little to do with saving the planet. It actually damages the environment.

COMMENT THREAD

Early warning?

It is too early yet to focus the blame on anyone in particular but, if there are any officials with brains and a sense of self-preservation in the EU commission's transport directorate, they will be looking very closely at the latest figures for road deaths in the UK.

These have been released by the Department for Transport and indicate that, in the 12 months to September last year, these deaths increased to 3,210, compared with 3,177 in the same period a year earlier. Much of the rise was concentrated in the summer months between July and September, when 840 people died on the roads, compared with 818 in the corresponding period in 2005 - up three percent. During that time, the number of fatal accidents rose by five per cent, from 745 to 780 crashes.

At least one media report notes that this increase has occurred "despite the proliferation of speed cameras", although some might argue that the increase has occurred because of the proliferation of speed cameras.

It is Kevin Delaney, former chief of the Metropolitan Police traffic division and now head of road safety at the IAM Motoring Trust who is sounding the alarm, declaring that, "Any figures that show an increase against a downward trend ought to be ringing alarm bells in Whitehall, in local authorities and in police headquarters."

Typical of his kind though, he does not seem to have appreciated that the European Union has, since 1991, gained competence over road safety and has recently started flexing its muscles in this policy area.

Why the figure should be of such great interest to DG Energy and Transport is that the UK is the "safe man of Europe" with historically the lowest fatality rate of the EU 15, standing at 6.1 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001, compared with 13.8 in France and a horrendous 21.0 in Portugal.

However, it is also the UK which has bought in most heavily to the "Speed kills" message, the government focusing most of its road safety effort on this single factor.

The rot started in 1991 when the then Conservative government launched its £1 million "Road Signs" TV advertising campaign in the October. The advertisements used "travelling" road signs to illustrate the different survival rates of being hit at 20/30/40 mph, promoting the slogan: "Kill Your Speed. Not a Child".

This progressed to a £2.3m TV campaign spend in September 1992, £1.5m in April 1993 and another £1.5m in September 1993, followed by a further £1.5m in April 1994 and £1.2m in September 1994. It was in that last September campaign that the advertisements carried the new slogan that has become so familiar: "Speed Kills. Kill Your Speed".

The spending continued, backing up the new slogan, with £2.5m allocated in 1995, and nearly £3m in 1996. The slogan transmuted into: "At times we all drive a bit too fast ... Kill Your Speed" and in 1966, for the first time a kill your speed "hand symbol" was designed and used in television advertisements and publicity literature.

With a change of government in 1997, spending increased to £3.5m for that year, but the "Kill your speed" theme continued. Currently, the spend is £2.1m, with the campaign focusing on counteracting "the widespread public perception that smaller increases in speed will not have the same repercussions as larger ones."

But the new government did not confine itself to mere advertising. Imbued with the "Speed kills" message, in December 1999 it announced the formation of what were to be called "camera partnerships" where local authorities, the police and the courts banded together in their areas, to run speed cameras and collect the fines, the bulk of which revenue they were allowed to keep. Eight trial areas were announced which began on 1 April 2000. The trials soon became permanent and now there are (as of April 2006) thirty eight camera partnerships in England and Wales covering forty-one police force areas out of a total of forty-three.

In 2004 - the latest year for which Home Office figures are available - 2.1 million motorists were booked for speeding. Drivers forked out £114.5million in fines last year, with a £60 ticket issued every 15 seconds. The number of cameras, from a mere handful in 1999, has grown to over 60,000, earning on average £36,000 each year.

The results have been all too obvious. From an annual level of 4,753 in 1991, deaths had dropped by over 1200 annually in 1999, to 3,564. But, in 2000, the decline started slackening off to 3,580. In 2001, it increased to 3,598 and in 2002, the figure was 3,581, still higher than the level in 2000. By 2003, it had only reached 3508 and the figure stood at 3,221 in 2004.

While some will blame the effect of speed cameras, there are obviously complex effects at play, not least the fact that as robotic speed enforcement has increased, there has been, according to the RAC, an 11 percent reduction in traffic officers between 1996 and 2004. Other estimates suggest cuts of up to a fifth in some forces between 1999 and 2004.

Furthermore, there has developed a kind of motoring "underclass" of two million drivers who evade camera fines by driving unregistered and uninsured vehicles.

Then, others – such as campaigner Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed – argue that the emphasis on speed and an over-reliance on cameras for enforcement is making our drivers worse. Speed cameras and "speed kills" policy is badly affecting driver skills and driver attitudes, he says. "Drivers are so concerned about getting a speeding ticket that they are less likely to concentrate on the road ahead."

With opposition to speed cameras quite clearly growing, the EU has thus walked into a situation where, progressively, it is taking over a road safety policy that is not only highly unpopular but also – if the present trend continues – as failure. But rather than the government being seen as turning a success story into failure, as the EU increases its profile on road safety, it will undoubtedly attract some – and then an increasing amount – of opprobrium.

This is something we pointed up in April last year, when the EU commission had signalled its intention to take a much greater role in road safety.

But what signals in turn the inevitable failure of the commission - which has set as its target the reduction of read deaths across the EU in the ten years to 2010 – is an evaluation of the variations in road death rates across the UK.

In Glasgow, for instance, deaths have increased but the toll is in the number of elderly people knocked down and killed. This has almost doubled in a year, with Glasgow City Council reporting 11 pedestrians over 60 dying as a result of road traffic accidents in 2006. The year before, the total was six. The elderly deaths helped to push the overall death toll from road accidents in the city up to 18 pedestrians from 13 in 2005.

In Mid Devon, there is also a doubling of road deaths, with 11 people dying. The police report the single most frequent problem involved drivers or motorcyclists losing control while negotiating bends.

North Yorkshire, however, reported road deaths down by a fifth and, in this county, the success is put down to "an increasingly successful campaign" to drive down the number of fatalities after a concerning rise in deaths, especially among bike riders. Road deaths fall from 85 in 2005 to 68, while fatalities among motorcyclists have been reduced by 38 per cent – 13 died last year, compared with 21 in the previous 12 months.

Shropshire also bucked the rising trend, with 23 people dying in the year, compared to an average of 27 deaths per year between 1994-8. But the police were not abler to offer any specific reason for the fall.

The point here is that the actual causations of deaths throughout the UK are likely to differ significantly from area to area, so control strategies will also have to be different. Even in the UK, away from the "Speed kills" mantra, there is no "one-size-fits-all" quick-fix answer to road safety. For the 27 member states of the EU, the picture is even more varied, making road safety even less amenable to centralised EU treatment.

For the commission, therefore, the UK experience should serve as an early warning of what happens if its gets it wrong. Not, of course, that it will.

COMMENT THREAD

Do they know something the British population does not?

This lunchtime I listened to Gia Jandieri, the Vice-President of the Georgian free-market think-tank, the New Economic School. He was addressing a good-sized audience (for a lunch-time discussion) at the International Policy Network (IPN).

The talk and most of the discussion afterwards was about Georgia’s internal developments, the reforms and the need to find alternative sources of energy and alternative markets to Russia. More of that in another posting.

Towards the end somebody asked Mr Jandieri when he thought Georgia would join the European Union, something I had not realized was on the cards, anyway. His reply was instructive.

Quite cynically, he said, I hope never. The government wants it, in his view, but a free-market think-tank like his does not. They have been watching the palaver with other applicant countries and want none of it.

What they would like is free trading agreements with the EU and its member states and ability to travel easily back and forth. As somebody in the audience pointed out, they want the good bits but not the bad ones. Mr Jandieri cheerfully agreed and nobody faulted him.

This is not the first time I heard similar sentiments from people that come from supposedly aspirant countries. Joel Anand Samy and Natasha Srdoc of the Croatian Adriatic Institute for Public Policy were similarly sceptical about the EU and its possible good influence.

They, too, had noticed that the European Union is not precisely the free-market, liberal entity they would like their countries to become. Furthermore, the EU refuses to live up to its own supposed principles and does not support those who advocate real reforms in the former Communist states.

According to Oleg Manaev of the Independent Institute of Socio-Economic & Political Studies in Belarus, whom I actually interviewed on behalf of EUReferendum (still to be written up), expressed the view that about a third of his country’s population was supportive of western-style democracy and free market reforms. These people, in his opinion, were disenchanted with the European Union and its members for all sorts of reasons, not least their lukewarm attitude to the war on terror and were looking more and more to the United States as the real leader of the West.

In practical terms that means very little at the moment. But one cannot help asking a question: do these people know something large proportions of the British public and establishment do not?

COMMENT THREAD

The Monday "toy"

Let no one say that we do not offer you variety - the latest toy to be procured by the US Army.

Maj. Heidi Kavanaugh, Fort Monroe Provost Marshal, proudly demonstrates the capabilities of her office's new Neighborhood Electric Vehicle that was delivered last week. The four-seater uses about the same amount of power as a 75-watt light bulb. It can travel up to 35 miles on a full charge.

If you really, really want to know more, you can read the blurb here.

COMMENT THREAD

A sky black with chickens...

It was in 1976 when I and a handful of colleagues – all of us environmental health officers – woke up to the enormity of what the government had done in signing us up to the EEC.

We had only been in a couple of years and a programme was under way of integrating into UK law all the EEC directives that had been passed before we joined the community. One of those was the now infamous (to us) poultry meat marketing directive (Directive 71/118/EC) which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was proposing to transpose as the Poultry Meat (Hygiene & Inspection) Regulations 1976.

From a strictly selfish point of view, we saw in the regulations a threat to our own profession. This stemmed from our own very history as a nation in that, in Europe, the institution of the environmental health officer (EHO) was unique to the UK. For historical reasons, our public health system had evolved within a framework of local authorities and Medical Officers of Health, with the EHOs doing the field work, including the all-important inspection of meat and poultry production and the control of imported food.

On continental Europe, by contrast, the system was invariably managed by central government , with the field work carried out by veterinary officers – usually qualified veterinary surgeons. And, because EHOs did not exist on the continent, we were being obliged to scrap our system and adopt the continental system.

As our campaign against the regulations developed and matured however, we needed to attract allies, so the scope of our attack widened, with the state of play being summed up in an article I wrote for News Scientist in July 1976, published, by coincidence, on my 28th birthday. (Click on each page facsimile to read the full paper).

For all of us closely involved in the campaign, which we called F.L.A.G (Food Law Action Group), the learning curve did not stop there. In what was our first substantive contact with EEC we found that this was more than just a technical directive. It sought to change fundamentally the whole nature of the food control system in the UK.

As far as imported food controls went, the philosophy was one of inspection according to a harmonised regime by national authorities at the point of production, with no further inspections when produce crossed any borders, as opposed to our system which relied largely on inspection at the point of entry.

The two different systems each have their own merits but the point of issue was that the "point of production" system was more attuned to continental trade, where border controls were difficult to enforce – as opposed to our system which worked because we live on an island. In other words, we were being forced to dismantle a system developed for an island economy, in favour of one developed for a continental land mass, all in the name of political integration.

Despite a spirited campaign, when we actually forced a "prayer" against the regulations and a debate in the House of Commons, we lost the vote when the Tory front bench, with the support of the NFU, changed sides and supported the then government, casting its vote in favour of the regulations. Without that betrayal, we might have won the vote.

With that, we have seen a slow but inexorable revolution in the way our public health system is managed, and in the way our border controls are applied, with the outcome which is now only too evident - as lamented at length in the The Daily Telegraph today.

Thus it is that we are told that even if the government was convinced of a link between Hungarian imports and the Suffolk bird flu outbreak, ministers say their hands are tied by European laws that prevent countries imposing unilateral food bans. In this particular instance, it is the EU Directive on Avian Flu lays which sets down the limits of our government's powers, but this Directive stems from the same wellspring as did 71/118/EEC – the Treaty of Rome.

So it is that next month, the Europhiles will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of that Treaty. And, when they do, then perhaps will be an appropriate time to remind people that it was that instrument, which the government signed up to in 1972, which robbed successive governments of the power to protect their citizens (and industries) from the risks of imported infectious diseases.

The worst of it is, though, that so few people understood how the old system worked, and even few have any idea how the EU system operates – and why it is fundamentally flawed – that the moment will be lost. Advocates of the EU will tell us that one of the benefits of our membership is "improved safety", when the reality is that it has created an open door and a welcome mat for potential killers.

But it was the same back in 1976, when it first dawned on us what our government had done. Ever since, I have been writing, speaking and doing all manner of campaigning, to get the central message across that we have given up important powers, to the detriment of our own society.

On seeing the "born again shock" of the likes of the Telegraph, as a new generation of journalists learns of the reality of the EU, one has this weary sense of déjà vu. We have seen it all before – nothing has changed in the 30 years of our membership. That was what our government signed up to. That's what our MPs agreed to and they continue to agree to this situation to this very day.

However, in a few days time – unless the unlikely does happen and there is a epidemic of human host-adapted H5N1 – all this will be forgotten … until the next time. Would that we could have a "Soylent Green" moment, when the whole population woke up to the enormity of what our governments have done. But it ain't going to happen - yet. It is going to take bodies in the streets, and it is unlikely that bird flu will put them there.

Needless to say, if you look up today, you will see the sky black with chickens … coming home to roost.

COMMENT THREAD

Opportunity cost

Newspapers only have so much space and broadcasters only have so much time. If they expend it on chasing after 15-year-old David Cameron's drug using habits, or other such trivia, neither time nor space are available for other, more weighty issues. That is the so-called "opportunity cost". By focusing on one subject, you lose the opportunity to deal with another.

Despite the obsession with young Cameron and all things trivial, however, I fully expected at least the heavyweight end of the Sunday media to devote some time to the Nato ministerial meeting in Seville, which has been entirely ignored by the dailies. That used to be something of a speciality of the Sundays – sweeping up after the dailies, addressing some of the issues they had missed.

However, this was not to be, despite the ominous signs of trouble emanating from Afghanistan and the failure, once again, of Nato ministers to agree to more troops for the region.

Read more here.

COMMENT THREAD

The big lie or many small lies?

Time to talk a little (or a lot) about propaganda and what it can achieve.

The picture is of the Reichstag burning in 1933. It was an important turning point in German history but it was also a huge propaganda success. No, not for Dr Goebbels and his "big lie" but for a man whose name few can recall, Willi Munzenberg, who believed in many small lies.

A long piece is posted here.

COMMENT THREAD

Meanwhile…

One of our readers has already pointed out on the forum that the Booker column today contains rather more than a condemnation of the odious Defra.

The lead item in the column is in fact an account of "the extraordinary secrecy and lack of democracy pervading the way that laws that cost our economy billions of pounds a year are imposed on Britain by the European Union."

This is about the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, the body that is meant to examine every law proposed by the EU before it can be approved by British ministers and civil servants in Brussels.

Read the piece and weep.

COMMENT THREAD

So what?

On BBC1's Politics Show, Home Secretary John Reid said: "I think it was Andy Warhol who said most statements could be answered with the question 'so what?'. I think this is one of those 'so what?' moments."

Much as we would like to see the Boy King go down, his behaviour at the age of 15 is not an issue. That it has become a headline issue is more a measure of the contemporary media than it is the seriousness of Cameron's behaviour.

Unlike the increasingly dire and trivial MSM, therefore, we will not be referring any more to this colossal non-event. We will stay with the real business of politics.

Nor do we intend to discuss it on the forum. For anyone with a burning desire to get stuck in, there is always Tory Diary.

The heart bleeds

Graham Watson, British MEP and leader of the EU parliament's Liberal group is warning that he and his colleagues do not have enough work to do to keep them busy over the forthcoming year.

Ironically, this situation has developed just as the number of MEPs rose from 732 to 785, to accommodate the entry of Romania and Bulgaria. Thus, as numbers go up, work goes down.

This is attributed, according to Watson, to the commission "pushing ahead with efforts to slash business red tape" and its attemps to "cut the burden of regulation for European companies". "We have all these people, and the commission has taken its foot off the accelerator," Watson complains. "There are very few substantial pieces of legislation this year."

However, Italian MEP Monica Frassoni - co-leader of the parliament’s Green group - thinks she has an answer. In addition to responding to commission proposals for new law, the parliament should propose new legislation to the commission. These are the infamous "own initiative" reports which have no legal status (even in community law) but they are often used by the commission to test the water when it is considering new legislation.

Watson wants to go further, arguing that it was high time for the EU parliament to get more say in areas such as the fight against terrorism and foreign policy – second and third "intergovernmental" pillars from which the parliament is currently excluded.

Parliamentary involvement would have increased had the EU constitution been approved but, with the rejection by the French of Dutch, the status quo is keeping the EU parliament idle. "This has to change," says Watson. "Then there could be real progress in democratising Europe."

Thus is the myth that the EU parliament has anything to do with democracy perpetuated. In fact, Watson, Frassoni et al would serve their fellow "Europeans" by extending their period of idleness as the only democratic EU parliament is an empty EU parliament.

COMMENT THREAD

"Shambles" is too mild a word

The newspapers have much to say about the continuing developments in the Bernard Matthews avian flu outbreak, typical of which is the coverage in The Sunday Times which highlights the "Scandal over bird flu imports".

Says the newspaper, the government allowed Bernard Matthews to continue importing turkey meat from a bird flu-hit region of Hungary even though it suspected the area was the source of the British outbreak. We are told that a consignment of 20 tons of turkey was imported last Tuesday from a slaughterhouse in Hungary, three days after avian flu was confirmed at the Bernard Matthews plant in Suffolk.

Government inspectors knew in advance that Bernard Matthews intended to import the meat from a slaughterhouse only 30 miles away from the Hungarian outbreak – but did nothing to stop it.

We are also told that a spokesman for Defra yesterday admitted that it had the power to block such meat imports but had decided not to do so. Ben Bradshaw, the agriculture minister, is said to be blaming the failure to act on fears of retaliatory action against British exports by other European Union states. "There was a fear that if we were to ban imports from Hungary, other countries could treat British exports in the same way," he is cited as saying.

Booker, in his column, has a different "take" on the affair. He remarks that, since the operation was supposedly supervised at both ends by vets acting in accordance with EU procedures, it marked a serious failure of the EU's system for controlling the spread of animal diseases.

Such are the joys of the Single Market, he writes, since those controls rest largely on paperwork which cannot necessarily be relied on. Gone are the days when teams of health officials were stationed at our ports to inspect each consignment of food or animals as it came in.

Booker also adds that what is most shocking about this latest episode is how it recalls the Government's astonishing mishandling of foot and mouth in 2001.

The reasons why that episode was ramped up into an unprecedented crisis stemmed from a fatal combination of our need to comply with EU laws and the almost insane refusal of our own officials (then in the Ministry of Agriculture, now transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) to heed the pleading of all the genuine experts that the way to halt the spread of a viral disease is to use the same technique that is used by almost everyone in the world outside the EU: namely mass vaccination.

In 2007, as six years ago, we have seen the Defra officials imposing the EU's "3km protection zone" and "10km surveillance zone" round the Suffolk plant.

As in 2001, says Booker, we have seen Defra rushing for its atavistic solution to all problems of animal disease: an orgy of killing and destruction. He continues:

Again, under EU rules, we have seen the same transporting of thousands of potentially infectious dead animals across miles of countryside, under plastic sheeting which defies proper "biosecurity". And again we have expert virologists, such as Colin Fink of Warwick University, staring open-mouthed as they point out how Defra could hardly be getting everything more wrong, above all in the absurdly unscientific misinformation it spreads about why we cannot use vaccination.

What makes all this still more pitiful is to recall how, after the F&M crisis, we had that raft of bogus official inquiries - remember "Lessons Learned"? - from which we were supposed to learn how not to repeat 2001's mistakes.

As has become horrifyingly clear in the past few days, neither Brussels nor Defra, with its insatiable lust for mass-slaughter, have learned anything. Given the chance, they would make just as much of a shambles now as they did last time.

For those of us who are used to dealing with the loathsome institution that is our government, we note an interesting phenomenon in that people who specialise in dealing with one particular ministry always rate theirs to be the worst. Yet, when it comes to sheer consistency and scale, it would be very hard to beat Defra. The combination of this dire ministry's innate characteristics and the dead hand of Brussels seems to have created a monster of absolutely terrifying incompetence.

For an organisation which leaves in its wake the wreckage of a farming industry - after the collective disasters of salmonella in eggs in 1988, the listeria crisis and the treatment of the cheese industry, the catastrophic handling of BSE, through to Foot and Mouth, the total incompetence in its handling of Bovine TB and now, avian flu - "shambles" is far too mild a word.

COMMENT THREAD

There's always somewhere else you can go

A young Muslim gentleman by the name of Abu Bakr seems to think we are a police state against Muslims. But, if he feels that way, there is always somewhere else he can go where, according to the Sunday Times, Muslims are especially welcome.

Mind you, if he really wants to know what a police state is about, he should perhaps try not paying his Council Tax.

I suspect though that a lot of Muslims will never have this problem, especially those who are on benefit and are thus exempt. Whitey, middle-class, male Christian, however, gets the police through the window at midnight.

The Abu Bakrs of this world don't know they're born.

COMMENT THREAD

On the road to disaster

The Times must be congratulated for its report today on the two attacks on the British Army in Basra yesterday, one on an Army convoy and the other on the Basra Palace base (pictured).

By contrast, the Telegraph devoted the bulk of its time and space to picking at the wound of the US A-10 "friendly fire" incident and, a long "soft focus" piece on the death of Second Lt Jonathan Bracho-Cooke, the last but one soldier to die in Iraq. It gave short shrift to the attack on the Land Rover, not even bothering to report the second of the attacks.

Meanwhile, Richard Beeston and Michael Evans, defence editor of The Times, were exploring the possible effects of the attacks on the hopes of bringing home thousands of troops within the next few months.

Read more here.

COMMENT THREAD

Not a pretty sight

Another, hitherto unseen photograph of last year's Qana tragedy has emerged, courtesy of Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, attracting from him the label "media swarm".

The photograph is taken by Jeroen Oerlemans, The Netherlands, Panos Pictures, and the caption reads: "Paramedics show the dead body of a baby to the press after Israeli bombing of Qana, Lebanon, 30 July."

At first sight, it appears to be the reverse view of the now infamous dead baby shots (see below right), where the eponymous "Green Helmet" lifts the baby for the world to see, immortalised by Associated Press's Cathy Gannon, who described the scene:

After hours of digging in the blistering heat, Salam Daher emerged from the wreckage with the body of a 9-month-old baby, a blue pacifier still pinned to its nightshirt. He held the infant up and, click, an Associated Press photographer snapped another picture of Daher, in his trademark green helmet, displaying a civilian victim of Israeli bombs for the world to see.

However, on close scrutiny, this cannot be the original "dead baby" staging. That was set up immediately outside the basement. There is only a narrow strip of ground there, before the land falls away in a precipitous cliff. Yet the background in this new photograph is flat – you can see two figures in the distance.

The real giveaway is the cast of characters. The baby is being held by a man we call the "senior Red Cross worker". We see him many times in the Qana shots, but he is not in the original "dead baby" scenes, where the baby is held aloft for the cameras.

We do have "senior Red Cross worker" in another scene though. But this is round the corner from the basement opening, to the front of the house, where "Green Helmet" and sundry others pose with the baby, before its body is put on a stretcher for another pose and camera shot.

From the look of it, therefore, this shot, where the baby is held aloft, is an entirely new sequence which we have not seen before. That none of the shots seem to have been used seems unsurprising. The photographers are crowded in so tightly, they are spoiling the shot.

Charles Johnson offers an explanation as to why they could not be used. "Because," he says, "it really wrecks the suspension of disbelief that actors need to convince the audience. It's like seeing the scaffolds and lights and fake landscapes behind the scenes at a theater, in the middle of a performance."

With these, there must be hundreds if not thousands of unused shots, the sum of which would readily confirm that which we have long argued, with the limited, poor quality material available to us. But it is highly significant that, through the height of the controversy and subsequently, not one of the photographers who had been at Qana on 30 July – or any of their editors – broke ranks.

Bearing in mind that more material could only have strengthened our thesis - so strong is the evidence already gathered - the silence tells its own story. This is the omerta of the media mafia. As Charles wrote:

The Qana photographs are some of the most gut-wrenching, heart-breaking images you could ever imagine. And that's why it's important to recognize that there are people with souls so dead and intentions so evil that they will cynically use these photographs to manipulate your feelings.

And the oh sooooo responsible media not only went along with it but denied it had happened, and their role in it. The photograph we show today provides a tiny window into their dark world, and it is not a pretty sight.

COMMENT THREAD

Failures galore

As poultry producers nervously watch the sales figures through the supermarkets this weekend, after Defra's admission that the current outbreak of avian flu could have been brought from Hungary in turkey meat, the betting is here that the one thing the media will not be doing is putting the blame where it properly belongs.

That blame, as readers might guess, properly belongs to the European Union, and in particular the EU commission, which has almost dictatorial powers when it comes to regulating inter-community trade in commodity products such as poultry meat.

EU poultry meat hygiene laws were in fact one of the very first sets of law to apply to our food trades, having been promulgated as Directive 71/118/EEC, now amended and updated by Directive 92/116/EEC. These laws have been augmented by others over the passage of time. To include such as Directives 2002/99/EC and 2003/99/EC, right up to and including the new Avian Influenza Directive 2005/94/EC.

It is fair to say that every aspect of poultry production is regulated to the most minute level by EU law, from the very food and housing of poultry flocks to the labelling and final packaging of the product on final sale in a retail store. Even the details of how the product is inspected, and by whom, is specified and so advanced is the system that the EU even has its own inspection authority in Food and Veterinary Office, which monitors national inspection programmes and control arrangements.

And, of course, all this law, this torrent of regulation, the billions in expenditure and the most draconian of restraints, are all designed to prevent the very thing that seems to have happened to Bernard Matthew’s bootiful Norfolk turkeys.

Furthermore, this is not just a question of the failure of EU laws and systems. The EU is a jealous god and does not permit other laws and controls to co-exist alongside the true religion.

Thus, even if our lamentably inadequate Defra officials had been aware of and concerned about shipments from Bernard Matthew's Hungarian firm to the UK, under the current EU law, there is absolutely nothing they could have done about them. As long as EU laws are complied with, officials cannot intervene on any consignment, whatever their concerns might be.

The irony is that the EU, so full of itself in advance, telling us what a wonderful job it is doing to protect our health, is always totally silent when it comes to its own failings after the event. As these emerge, its response will be to demand still more laws and more powers.

And so will the failures multiply.

COMMENT THREAD

I read it in the papers...

...so it must be true!

If you are still able to say that with straight face, enjoy the contrast. Here we have the top of our street, taken about seven this evening after several hours of snow - and absolutely no sign of it abating. And then there is the newspaper forecast... which, of course, must be true.

Which explains why, more than two hours later - well past nine - it is still snowing just as heavily.

And if the media are so confident of the forecasts they publish over a span of 18 hours, what price global warming in five, ten, twenty years...? They really must think we were born yesterday.

COMMENT THREAD

Another "Snatch"

The Times is reporting that several British troops "are believed to have been injured" in two near-simultaneous attacks which today struck in Basra today.

One incident is said to have involved a roadside bomb striking a British convoy south of Basra, causing a number of casualties. The BBC website is saying that one soldier has been killed and three others are injured. One is in a critical condition. All three have been airlifted by helicopter to the hospital at Basra air station.

The Associated Press calls the vehicle an "armoured personnel carrier" - as does The Daily Telegraph (nice one, really helpful, that) but a photograph (above left) of the scene shows a damaged "Snatch" Land Rover, the caption reporting four soldiers "injured". The BBC report on the fatality thus looks to be accurate, and it is confirmed by the MoD.

Other reports indicate that the attack took place around 1pm local time at an intersection about three miles south-east of Basra. An updated BBC report confirms that the men were all travelling in a "Snatch" Land Rover, which it describes as "lightly armoured vehicles".

The Times quotes "military sources" saying the target of the roadside bomb was an armoured Land Rover – "a vehicle considered vulnerable to attack, and subsequently being used less and less than the heavily armoured personnel carriers which provide more protection." However, as the picture (above right) - and the many others we have published recently on this blog - shows, these vehicles are still in widespread use.

As to the other attack, this was a mortar or rocket attack on the Basra Palace complex. A Times reporter in Basra witnessed a medical helicopter flying from the city centre to Basra airport, where the main military hospital is based. Usually, the paper says, military helicopters do not fly in Basra in daylight as it is too dangerous – a rule which is only broken in emergency situations.

In two areas, therefore, where British troops are known to be vulnerable, insurgents have again struck to cause death and injury. However, since this is clearly not "friendly fire" by the Americans, one expects it will get minimal media coverage. Nor do we expect the media to ask what happened to the Mastiff mine and blast protected vehicles, which were supposed to be in place by now.

Meanwhile, after this, Sue Smith, whose son Phillip Hewett was killed near Basra in July 2005, is according to The Independent, planning to take legal action against the Ministry of Defence over its failure to protect combat troops with the right equipment.

She says military commanders are exposing soldiers to unnecessary danger by continuing to use ageing "Snatch" Land Rovers instead of armoured vehicles. "I want them to accept that Snatch Land Rovers should not be used on patrol. These vehicles are death traps," she says.

The Army has refused to launch a board of inquiry into the circumstances of Hewett's death – in an incident where two of his colleagues also died – describing it as an unavoidable "accident".

Yet the inquest in Oxford heard that the three men were dispatched to al Amarah in a "Snatch" Land Rover, even though just weeks earlier a roadside bomb had killed two soldiers near the town.

Mrs Smith said the Army told her that the men were hit by a previously unseen kind of explosive which would have penetrated even a heavily armoured Warrior vehicle. But photographs submitted to the inquest showed that the bomb entered the Land Rover through a window protected by nothing more than a steel mesh.
Said Mrs Smith, "There has been no proper investigation and the truth still hasn't come out. It took 19 months to get the inquest, and all I have to show for it is a three-page report and a patronising letter from the Army saying it was an accident."

According to Mrs Smith at least 20 servicemen have been killed in "Snatch" Land Rovers by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan since her son's death. She said: "I just want the Army to stop using these bloody vehicles. How many more people will have to die for them to change their minds?"

Quite.

COMMENT THREAD

The minnows march

In a council by-election in Nuneaton & Bedworth yesterday, the "extreme right wing" BNP came in second with 31.15 percent of the vote, only narrowly beaten by the incumbent Labour, which took the seat with 37.54 percent.

One should never draw conclusions from one set of results – especially from local by-elections. But this was a hard-fought contest, where the turnout was 36.08 percent despite the heavy snow, compared with the 20 percent that might have been expected.

The Conservatives managed a mere 17.17 percent, the Lib-Dems 6.79 percent and UKIP a pathetic 0.45 percent, accounting for exactly eight votes. They were even beaten by the English Democrats, who pulled 75 votes.

BNP's vote compares favourably with its share of the vote in Bradford during last May's local authority elections, when it achieved 27.5 percent of the vote in the wards which they contested.

As results like this continue to drift in, we are seeing more and more a broad-based rejection of the mainstream political parties, with voters turning to the minnows. In the north and the midlands (and some parts of London), BNP is the front-runner. Elsewhere, UKIP is getting some of the votes.

Yet again, the Boy King, who must capture these disillusioned voters, if he is to form a government, is not making the progress.

COMMENT THREAD

This truce is an accord

The leaders of Hamas and Fatah have agreed to stop killing each other and to form a unity government. Sadly, the European Union, the self-proclaimed force for good in the world, was not involved. The agreement was signed in Mecca and was negotiated or forced on the participants, by the Saudi rulers.

Khalid Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas spoke about the importance of the accord:

"These dark days will be completely gone," Mr. Meshal announced in signing the agreement. “Our Arabic, Islamic unity has brought us together, shining again.” He added that having signed the accord in the holy city lent it greater significance.

One wonders who caused all those dark days and why there is so little shining of the Arabic, Islamic unity.

However, the question of international relations between the Hamas-led government of Gaza and the rest of the world remains moot. Of the three conditions: recognizing Israel, ceasing terrorist activity and abiding by previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements only the last one has been written into the accord.

Any suggestion of Israel being recognized brings forth indignation and bad-tempered whining:

Hamas officials in Mecca bristled at the insistence of accepting Israel, insisting that any concessions they offered would not be enough.

"I wonder why the issue of recognizing Israel is the key to everything?" Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas government, said earlier Thursday. "We are interested to end the siege but not at any cost."

He added: "We try to balance between our Palestinian national constraints and our opening up to the international community. Israel is not ready to deal with any Palestinian side unless the Palestinians deal with the Israeli conditions."

The condition of recognition is basic, one would have thought. Hamas remains wedded to its idea of total destruction for Israel.

The two factions celebrated the signing of the accord, which would not have been necessary had they not spent several weeks killing each other, by waving their own party flags, as the picture shows.

COMMENT THREAD

A "little bit pregnant"

A major political row has broken out in Germany following the news that the Cabinet has agreed to send six reconnaissance Tornadoes to Afghanistan.

SPD parliamentary leader, and former defence minister, Peter Struck, is claiming that the Tornadoes are being despatched on a war mission, while defence minister Franz-Josef Jung is arguing that reconnaissance isn't a war mission.

Pending parliamentary approval, Deutsche Welle is recording the reaction of the German press which, it says, is also questioning the nature of the mission and whether it breaches its "reconstruction mandate" in Afghanistan.

Up front is Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which has run several articles (accessible here) followed by a caustic commentary headed: "A Little Bit Pregnant". "Behind all the efforts to limit the Tornados' task and not let it look like a war mission is the hope of being a little bit pregnant in international politics," the paper sneered. It did not approve of "Participating in what is considered an unavoidable fight (for the closest allies) against transnational terrorism and its supporters without having to get one's own hands too dirty, or even burn them."

Moreover, it added, while the aircraft can photograph also the flowers in the garden of the secretary of defense, in Afghanistan they are to locate the enemy so that it can be fought. The terrorist with a shoulder-launched air defence missile will not be making a fine distinction between the "good" reconnaissance planes and the "bad" bombers called up by them.

Berlin's Tagesspiegel noted that the politicians were not helping to clear up the matter with their ambiguous statements, asking, "So is it a war mission or not?" the Tagesspiegel questioned. "Probably both are right somehow,” it concluded. "Jung, when he says that the Tornados won't directly intervene in the fighting with their canons. Struck, when he says that the overall mission in Afghanistan is a war mission. It just gets a bit complicated when the government means two different things with the same word."

Die Welt commented that the Tornados "would not alter the character of the existing mission," arguing that sending the aircraft was a simple decision. "The government's decision to send the jets is practically a matter of course," it wrote. "They will contribute to improving reconnaissance in the Hindu Kush for the Bundeswehr, its threatened allies and the civilian population. Even more than that: it underlines the fact that Germany isn't ambivalent to the fate of its partners."

The Leipziger Volkszeitung took up the issue of Germany's responsibility as a Nato member. "The Tornado decision is a reaction to pressure from Brussels and Washington, but it's also a necessary consequence of solidarity with the alliance," it commented, adding that it would be irresponsible to leave the country in the Hindu Kush to the mercy of the Taliban."

With the parliament still to rule, it is by no means certain that final approval will be given, and the political strains arising from the debate could further weaken chancellor Merkel, who is looking increasingly disconnected.

And there is far more to this than just the deployment of a handful of combat aircraft. Their use in an overseas theatre goes to the heart of Germany’s emerging ambitions for an independent foreign policy, as well as being a yardstick against which her post-war rehabilitation can be measured.

Readers comments in Deutsche Welle are, therefore, of special interest and I was especially taken with this one from Charles Ritzel. He writes:

The war in Afghanistan is a great opportunity for Germany. It is an opportunity to join the Anglo-American alliance. This was a dream of Bismarck and could propel Germany to the leadership of Europe. The German people should not sit on the fence.

I suspect that this is not a mainstream view, but it is a view and it must worry the French who are seeing their grip over Germany beginning to weaken – more so since Jung has told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that he has not ruled out sending German special forces to the more violent southern regions of Afghanistan, where they would be directly invoked in fighting, alongside Nato (but not French) allies.

In some respects, these developments are far more significant than Merkel's new-found but ultimately futile enthusiasm for the EU constitution. On the other hand, they may be connected. It has always been at the core of the post-war settlement that Germany military expansion should be contained within a pan-European framework, as is discussed in my colleague's prescient piece on the German national identity.

In that context, it would certainly be consistent with Germany's recent past if it sought to balance overseas military intervention with a commitment to greater European integration, in order to reassure the French that they remained under control.

But, to borrow from FAZ's line of thinking, you can't be "a little bit pregnant" when it comes to European integration either. It looks like we are creeping towards the point where Germany is going to have to consider who it wants to father its foreign policy.

COMMENT THREAD

Needed: German national identity

My colleague's posting about the Luftwaffe in Afghanistan and some of the subsequent discussion reminded me that my long-planned piece on the need for German national identity was still unwritten.

Matter rectified. Here it is.

They keep on making encouraging noises

You definitely get the sense that the tempo in Afghanistan is increasing. Supreme Allied Commander Europe US Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, along with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, is in Seville today pleading with Nato allies to send more troops to crush an expected Taliban offensive in the coming weeks.

A senior US defence official sums up the situation as it is seen in the American camp, declaring, "We think the upcoming spring in Afghanistan is a pivotal moment in the conflict and we're encouraging the allies to do as much as they can, as soon as they can."

But, while several allies had made encouraging signs about possible deployments at a NATO summit in Riga last November, they had still not firmed up their offers. "What are they doing? They keep on making encouraging noises…," the official added.

That November was a time when even The Sun was in full spate about the need to support "Our Boys" in Afghanistan, complaining that, along with Canada, Holland and a few others, "Our Boys are the only ones actually fighting."

We remarked at the time, that Nato was going through a rough patch and eventually concluded that the organisation was proving as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

The fact of the Nato meeting today is, therefore, of some importance – and was certainly carried by some notable journals like Daily India, which noted "tensions quietly simmering over its (Nato's) future status."

The even also triggered the publication of a broader analysis of the situation in Middle East online by Observer journalist Patrick Seale.

Under the heading, "Afghanistan: The Unwinnable War", he writes that, in Afghanistan, Nato is facing a tough, indigenous guerrilla force and the mission is not clear. "Why is Nato in Afghanistan? And what is it trying to achieve?" Seale asks, then noting that defence ministers of the Atlantic Alliance will be wrestling with these questions at their meeting in Seville.

Not for the British media is there such profundity, however. Still wrapped up in its increasingly unhealthy obsession with the A-10 "friendly fire" incident, it has little room to do its job (not that many outlets are capable of doing it anyway), and no time for reporting such issues.

Interestingly, The Telegraph does find room for an interview by Tom Coghlan of Taliban leader Haji Aghar Mohammad, known by the nom de guerre of Haji Mullah.

This is feature-like material rather than hard news, but it does elicit the intelligence that Haji Mullah was "arrogantly" (so we are told) "dismissive about the British presence in his country." He tells Coghlan:

The British are not such tough fighters. They tend to sit in their bases and not move outside. Even with all the technology they have at their disposal they only control a 2km radius around Gereshk. They have lost control of all the rural districts of Helmand. This area for instance is under our control. You can see that the local people know us.

Elsewhere, the IHT tells us that Nato is beginning to focus on delivering infrastructure improvements and social services to the people with officials saying that, for their mission to succeed, the lives of poverty-stricken Afghans need to be improved so they aren't tempted to side with the resurgent Taliban.

This may be too late, or it may no – we simply do not know. ISAF leaders – in public at least – seem genuinely confident that their forces will be able to deal with the Taliban spring offensive, although to press they have seriously under-estimated the insurgents' capabilities.

Certainly, they can draw no comfort from Col Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military academy lecturer in guerrilla tactics in the old Yugoslav armed forces. This army was unique among conventional armies because its doctrine called for it to wage guerrilla war and now Stojadinovic takes the view that the spiralling violence has exacerbated tendencies among the government and its international backers to favour short-sighted, quick fixes,

He predicts the insurgency will be tough to beat, blaming both the United States and Nato for allowing it to develop past the initial, preparatory phases and to put down roots in parts of the population. Nato forces now risked falling into "a permanent strategic defensive" because the alliance lacked the manpower to establish physical control over the entire country, Stojadinovic says.

"Despite the overwhelming technological advantage that modern armies can bring to bear, according to classic guerrilla doctrine, the Islamists are winning simply by not losing," he concludes.

The alternative scenario, of course, is that the Nato forces can win by simply staying the course, extending their control first over the major administrative centres and then their hinterlands. But, with the loss of Musa Qala and the failure to gain Jugroom Fort in Garmsir, success looks by no means assured.

For many months, the situation has not been looking good. Now Mr Coghlan's charge of "arrogance" laid at Haji Aghar Mohammad may be even more misplaced. Haji Mullah may simply have been stating the obvious.

Perhaps Nato members should make some more encouraging noises... quickly.

COMMENT THREAD

The Thursday "toy"

I rather like this picture. It is a sort of modern-day version of beauty and the beast - the great, growling war machine, bristling with weapons, counterpoised with the children at play. But there is no terror here. The children are not cowering from the "trigger-happy" Yanks, that some sections of the media would have you believe populate the entire US military. They are clearly familiar with the vehicle and the little girl on the right of the picture seems quite pleased to see it.

The caption reads, in part, "Iraqi children run out to greet US Army Soldiers returning to base in a Stryker armored vehicle after conducting a patrol in Badush west of Mosul, Iraq, June 16, 2006. The Soldiers are assigned to Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Wainwright, Alaska."

This is another DoD photo and it was taken by Tech. Sgt Jeremy T. Lock, US Air Force on 21 May 2006. It affords a little relief to the gloom and unpleasantness of the last few days. As always, click on the picture to enlarge it.

COMMENT THREAD

Second time around

The thing about the EU is that, if you miss an issue first time round, you can almost certainly pick it the next time, or the next … and so on. The problem is that, after a while, you get that this terrible sense of déjà vu – especially if you didn't actually miss it first time round.

The issue is the EU commission's right to propose mandatory criminal penalties to certain actions designated as offences in community law. Its first outing was in September 2005 when both I and my colleague did it, here and here after an ECJ judgement.

Now, says the Independent, the commission is flexing its muscles and today is to propose that activities such as releasing toxic chemicals into the environment, dumping hazardous waste and other serious "green crimes" should be punished by up to 10 years in prison and a €1.5m fine anywhere in EU.

The proposal is likely to invoke some opposition, and not a little ill-informed comment, on the lines of "Brussels imposes…". But, when push comes to shove, Brussels can only propose. It is up to the member states to agree the proposal and, if enough tell the commission to get lost, that is the end of the matter.

However, according to commissioner Franco Frattini, the public is so concerned about damage to the environment that the measure will be popular across the continent and few members states will want to be seen in opposition.

Be that as it may, if this development is approved, it will be the governments of the member states that are responsible. It is not what Brussels does to us, but our own political classes.

Still though, the rabid Europhile Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the not-the-Conservative Party MEPs, argues that:

This appears to be a worrying erosion of British sovereignty. Notwithstanding our support for environmental protection, this is a blow to Britain's ability to decide things for ourselves. I fear the Commission sees this as an opportunity to extend its powers and start interfering in the criminal law of member states.

Well now Timmy. This will be a qualified majority voting, so it will be the other member states forcing us to do this against our will, if it ever comes to that. But you are in favour of that aren't you?

That notwithstanding, if the proposal is agreed, we will have the first, specific Euro-crimes. In celebration of that, perhaps we should have dedicated Euro-nicks. With a bit of luck, we could get the one pictured designated as the first - it actually looks quite comfortable. And yes it is a prison - it's the new nick at Doncaster.

COMMENT THREAD

Luftwaffe to the rescue - not

In response to the call for more military assets to be sent to Afghanistan, the German cabinet has agreed to send six Tornado aircraft to the region to help boost intelligence gathering ahead of an expected spring offensive by Taliban insurgents.

About 500 crew and maintenance staff will accompany the aircraft to Afghanistan where Germany already has about 3,000 troops stationed, mainly in Kabul and the relatively stable northern region, as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping mission.

However, while Tornado pilots will be authorised to provide intelligence for Nato attacks on Taliban formations, they will not be allowed to use their bombs or missiles to carry out attacks, an official said.

By this means, they will be able to demonstrate the total moral superiority over the Americans, in avoiding any form of "friendly fire" incident. Furthermore, they will not in any way be able to cause any collateral damage. And if things get desperate, I suppose they can always bail out and give the Taliban a hug.

COMMENT THREAD

Good to hear sense from somebody

As it happens, I was not thinking of any media outlet in this country, let alone any politician. The Big Pharaoh is an Egyptian blogger of exceptional interest. (I know, I know, I keep finding all these interesting blogs and all in other countries. Well, what can you do? C'est la vie.)

This posting is called The Curse and deals with the deafening silence in the Muslim world about suicide bombers who have killed far more Muslims than Jews (or anyone else). Come to think of it, one could turn it the other way round and say that far more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims than by anyone else, including Israelis.

Whenever a Muslim blows up himself to kill hundreds of other Muslims I always tend to call that "the curse of the Jew". We allowed and justified suicide bombings against innocent Israelis in cafes and malls. We religiously sanctioned the actions of every Palestinian suicide bomber who killed and maimed Israelis. Now it seems the suicide bombers are killing far more Muslims than Jews.

The deafening silence of the Arab/Muslim world towards the mass slaughters in Iraq indicate one thing: this region will stay in the abyss of darkness, ignorance, and backwardness for a very long time until someone really rises up, takes it by the neck, and forces it to look in a mirror and see the ugly reflection.

Read the whole posting and the comments on it.

COMMENT THREAD

Interesting news from North Korea

Why are we so obsessed with North Korea some of our readers must be asking. After all, it is not about to enter the European Union.

There are, of course those stories of the UN money being effectively handed over to Kim Jong-il and UN money is our tax money. Every penny that goes to North Korea is a penny more for one of the worst totalitarian tyrants in the modern world and I, for one, object to my money making his life easier.

Over and above that there is the question of freedom, which is indivisible. People in North Korea cannot do what we do, cannot speak their opinions, cannot blog, cannot read websites. They need our support even if they do not know we exist.

Therefore, it is of great interest to read on One Free Korea, courtesy of Gateway Pundit, the following story:

Sources residing in the district of Chongjin, North Hamkyung informed on the 1st and 5th “On December 20th, a mass group of 120 prisoners from the camp in Hwasung escaped and so the National Safety Agency and the People’s Protection Agency are in a state of emergency” and said “Lately, additional checkpoints have been established at various locations in North Hamkyung inspecting permits for both vehicle and personal travel.”

This is the first such story to come out of that hell-hole in twenty years.

The map above shows the position of Camp 16. It is a long way from China, it is a long way from anywhere. If these people managed to escape and stay escaped then, as One Free Korea says, they must have had help. Is there really an organized underground network in that country?

We shall deal with it

We are aware of the fact that this blog has not dealt in any detail with the summary of the forthcoming UN Report on Climate Change and the fall-out from it (if one may use that expression). It will be done, honest. M

Meanwhile, over at One London there is some discussion about the way ordinarily and not extremely bad weather affects London and other parts of the United Kingdom.

A great lady

Booker Rising is a favourite blog of mine. As an outsider, deeply interested in American affairs I find it highly refreshing to read discussions of issues to do with Black Americans that are not based on endless demands and complaints. (Of course, it is not as good as La Shawn Barber's Corner but few things on the internet are.)

Today's Quote of the Day comes from that very great and courageous lady, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the United States (more shame on the Netherlands), one of the most outspoken and incisive critics of the "all civilizations are equal" thesis and a thorn in the flesh not just of Islamists but of cultural relativists like our old friend Tim Garton Ash.

Booker Rising publishes her comments about different cultures and her assertion that there is no equality between those cultures that value the individual and those who deny that.

Human beings are equal; cultures are not. A culture that celebrates femininity is not equal to a culture that trims the genitals of her girls. A culture that holds the door open to her women is not equal to one that confines them behind walls and veils. A culture that spends millions on saving a baby girl’s life is not equal to a one that uses its first encounter with natal technology to undertake mass abortion simply because baby girls are not welcome. A culture with courts that punish a husband for forcing his wife to have sex with him is not equal to a culture with a tribunal that decrees a young woman be gang-raped for talking to a boy of an allegedly higher caste.

Read it all.

COMMENT THREAD

Why should it?

We cannot leave the reporting of the A-10 "friendly fire" incident without noting the front page story in The Telegraph today, headed, "Pentagon will not discipline 'friendly fire' death pilots".

This is the offering – better described as the "dropping" – from Thomas Harding, defence correspondent, Richard Savill and Alex Massie in Washington.

The inference of the story, of course, it that these pilots should be subject to disciplinary action and that the Pentagon is somehow remiss for not taking such action. Thus writes the Harding-led team:

Despite the leaking of graphic cockpit video and voice transcript evidence of the 2003 strike, Washington said the officers were cleared in an inquiry held within months. It did not have to re-evaluate its position.

Are these issues related? Because The Sun leaks the cockpit video and the media go into feeding frenzy, this is a good reason why the pilots should be subject to some further action?

If I was Mr Harding or any of his sad little crew, I would be looking very hard at the words printed under my name today and be feeling very ashamed. British journalism, the Daily Telegraph included, has reached a new low.

Perhaps the most appalling thing about this whole episode though is how these people, who do their own jobs so badly, can be so critical of other who put their lives on the line to do far more arduous and dangerous jobs. There is not one of these journalists fit to polish the shoes of those A-10 pilots.

COMMENT THREAD

No shame, no honour

It was on 1 February last year that the media collective indulged in its lavish, overwrought reportage to mark the death of the 100th serviceman in Iraq, as if the number was somehow a magic figure or had any great meaning.

Now, just over a year later, they are back again marking the death of the 100th serviceman in Iraq, this time excluding the 31 souls who died from accidents or other causes – as if they were somehow less dead than the others.

There is something particularly offensive about the way such issues are dealt with by the contemporary media, as we remarked the first time the media tried this.

But there is nothing more vile than that way The Independent exploits those deaths to pursue its anti-American agenda and its hatred for Blair and the Iraqi war.

It prints on its front page representations of 100 tombstones, each with a name of one of the service personnel who have died in action, the inference to be taken from the headline, citing Blair, saying, "The relationship with America is what opens doors everywhere".

Not a few of the parents of those who died would entirely disagree with the stance of the Independent and one wonders whether the newspaper checked with all the relatives before its decided to exploit these deaths for its own political ends.

Whichever way you cut it, that is what this ghastly excuse for a newspaper is doing – exploiting the dead. It has no shame, and no honour.

COMMENT THREAD

An opportunity?

The BBC website tells us that Airbus is taking the world's media for a flight in its new A380 superjumbo as it fights back against bad publicity.

The flight - the first carrying passengers who are not Airbus staff or their families - will take off from Toulouse, we are told. It will fly over the Atlantic before landing again in the French city (shurly the airport?).

Anyhow, all those journalists … in one aeroplane? Hmmmm…

COMMENT THREAD

A fight over principles in France

As we have pointed out before, it is not the Continental countries that were found wanting in the War of the Danish Cartoons, but Britain. To be quite precise, the British media, not a single one of whom dared to reprint the cartoons, bleating idiotically about not wanting to upset people. Especially people who might come after you, one suspects. The Guardian and the Independent have had no problems about printing anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that could have come out of Der Stürmer.

One of the magazines that did do the right thing was the French Charlie Hebdo, now sued by the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of French Islamic Organizations for inciting racial hatred.

It is not that they want censorship, they whine, but they do not think cartoons that make fun of Islam should be published.

A televised debate between Charlie Hebdo publisher Val and Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris Grand Mosque, broke up acrimoniously on Tuesday after they squabbled over the limits of free speech.

"If we can't criticise religion anymore, there will be no women's rights, no birth control and no gay rights," Val said in the raucous TV debate.

Boubakeur said the controversial cartoon showing Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban was not simply satire, but an insult against all Muslims by suggesting they were all terrorists.

"We don't want censorship, we don't want the sacred to be protected by blasphemy laws or medieval jurisdiction," he said.

Boubakeur said last week he wanted to show that reprinting the cartoons was a provocation equal to acts of anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial, which are both banned under French law.

Um, well, of course, anti-Semitic attacks have gone up in France (and in Britain) in the last few years and many of them originate with the Muslim community. Those attacks are not simply words or cartoons but actual physical acts against people, schools, cemeteries and synagogues.

To repeat for the benefit of those of our readers who do not bother with most of what we write: this blog does not believe Holocaust denial should be illegal in any country.

It seems that the case may well be one of the seminal ones in French legal history, though in a different way from the Al-Dura one, which we wrote about here and here.

Politicians, intellectuals, secular Muslims and left-wing pressure groups have lined up behind Charlie Hebdo, arguing that Muslim groups have no right to call for limits on free speech.

"I just cannot imagine the consequences not only for France but for Denmark and Europe if they lose the case," Fleming Rose, the Danish editor who first published the cartoons, told a news conference with Charlie Hebdo publisher Philippe Val.

The left-wing newspaper, Libération has reprinted the cartoons, saying quite firmly that it is not words or pictures that kill but bombs. True enough and time it was said forcefully. Are we going to see a similar outburst of bravery in our media or will it all be left to the blogs again?

COMMENT THREAD

The real enemy

In these days of heightened sensitivity about Muslim extremism, I sometimes suspect that we are forgetting who the real enemy is.

Very few people, for instance, took much notice about my comments about giving a talk in a school where easily 50 percent of the students were Muslims, yet I had cause to observe that these were just kids, delightful, clever English kids.

The great genius of the English nation is its ability to take on board the disparate peoples of the world, to absorb them and, in the space of a few generations, to turn them into English people. To that extent, we are a mongrel nation – a society of hybrids, from which we get our vigour.

Living in an area with one of the highest proportion of Muslims in England, I thus have no long-term fears about integration. There are the hotheads, the disaffected, the bigots and the fools, but the general trend (away from the self-serving race-relations industry) is towards greater integration, led by the growing band of liberated, intelligent young women, who will not take the crap dished out by the dinosaur Imams for much longer.

In strictly practical terms, therefore, the greater long-term threat to the well-being and liberty of the greater number of people in this country are not the Muslims but our own officials. They have been waging war against their own populations for as long as I can remember, and will continue to do so long after the Muslim threat has receded.

In the front line of the ranks of these jobsworths are the traffic wardens and the "speed kills" zealots who maintain an inventory of yellow-painted cash machines called speed cameras. These people who steal our money are more loathsome in some respects than terrorists as they do their malign work in the name of the public good yet will go to any lengths to ensure that their writ applies, up to and including depriving us of our liberty and wrecking lives.

One cannot help, therefore, but feel a certain uplifting of the spirit at the news that a "militant motorist" might be on the loose, sending letter-bombs – including the hated Crapita - to firms linked to speed cameras.

Yes, I know that such joy is totally irresponsible – that it is disproportionate, that the victims are innocent people and nothing at all justifies breaking the law.

But then, anyone who has experienced that "red-mist moment" as they open that little brown envelope - or had to deal with an implacable bureaucracy that is interested only in feeding its own lust for money – will know exactly how I feel. I cannot be the only one who has fantasised about breaking into the local camera partnership office and spraying the occupants with a Kalashnikov. And would I report someone who I saw in the act of burning down a camera? Most definitely not.

As to the current bombing "wave", with more than two million fixed-penalty tickets handed out last year, generating around £120 million in licensed theft fines, triggered in the main by the more than 6,000 speed cameras, there are plenty of suspects.

Says anti-camera campaigner "Captain Gatso", director of Motorists Against Detection: "We're not responsible for these attacks and do not condone causing injury. "However, there is a war against motorists and it seems this is an act of retaliation."

That irresponsible part of me that should never be let out, says, "bring it on". Today, it is under control. Tomorrow? That is another day.

COMMENT THREAD

Media tarts

While the British media are obsessed with the A-10 "friendly fire" incident, it is left to Radio Netherlands to tell us that NATO is soon expected to launch an offensive aimed at clearing Taliban fighters out of Musa Qala.

However, despite the confident tone, the task may be less than straightforward. When the town was first taken over by coalition forces in August last, it took more than 500 troops from 3 Para Battle Group, and Afghan forces, to achieve the objective.

Recalling also that the British attempt to recover Jugroom Fort in Garmsir, with 200 Royal Marines last month, was a failure, we now learn that, three weeks later, the force has grown to 350 yet, despite heavy fighting by the Marines and soldiers of the Light Dragoons, the Taleban has yet to be evicted from Jugroom Fort.

Furthermore, so parlous is the situation there that the RAF had to carry out one of its biggest air drops of recent times to provide food, ammunition and fuel for the soldiers fighting in the town.

These developments, you might have thought, would have been reported by the MoD – but this is not an organisation that dwells on its own failures. Instead, on its website, we get a detailed account of how the Royal Marines have cleared a Taliban base, consisting of 25 compounds, near the Kajaki hydroelectric dam.

Now, we have no problem with the MoD indulging in a spot of propaganda to boost its own morale, and we would not in any way wish the play down the achievements of the Marines in this operation, codenamed "Volcano". The problem comes when the media, instead of reporting the wider situation, takes the easy option and follows the MoD line.

Stepping up to the plate on this one is our old friend the Daily Telegraph. Offered the free use of some action-packed photos, it rolled over and printed the MoD "puff", ignoring the serious developments in Helmund province.

Only too well does the MoD understand the "media tarts". Give them some pictures and a Boys Own tale of derring do and they will roll over and have their tummies tickled. Not for them serious reporting. That costs money and, more to the point, might upset the provider of the free goodies that do so much to fill up space.

Occasionally though, it would be nice to have some decent analysis instead of having to work it out for ourselves.

COMMENT THREAD

Trouble on the eastern border

Two items of news from Estonia, apart from its unexpectedly high position in the European crime charts: Andrus Ansip, the Prime Minister has finally decided not to bother to negotiate a border treaty with Russia and the Russians are accusing the Estonians of nurturing neo-Nazism because the parliament has voted to remove the bronze statue of the Soviet soldier from the centre of Tallinn to a cemetery outside the city.

Those border treaties between the former Soviet Baltic republics and Russia have been somewhat problematic since the Balts would like some kind of an acknowledgement of the fact that they had existed as independent states between 1918 and 1939, were then invaded by the Soviet Union twice with a Nazi invasion sandwiched between the two.

The Soviet invasions, at least one of which is called liberation, have been responsible for the destruction through death and deportation of roughly a third of the population of the tiny Baltic States. When the Russian population of those countries complains about being discriminated against one must not forget that most of them moved there or were moved there to take up the jobs and homes of those who had gone east.

Convinced that they were there to rule for ever the Russians did not bother to learn the languages of the republics they lived in. The break-up of the Soviet Union did cause a great deal of displacement and bewilderment but of them all, the Russians in the Baltic States deserve less sympathy than many others.

What went wrong with the agreement between Russia and Estonia?

The two countries signed border agreements on May 18, 2005, and the Estonian parliament ratified the documents on June 20, but with additional demands linked to the 1920 peace treaty between Soviet Russia and Estonia.

On September 6, Russia notified Estonia that it was revoking its signature from the treaties because the 1920 document was no longer valid.

Moscow said the new provisions in the ratification law could be seen as legally entitling Estonia to make some territorial claims on Russia.

Moscow proposed including a provision "that all the previously signed agreements and treaties in bilateral history outlining the border are invalid" in mid-2006, but Estonia replied that it had no intention of resuming negotiations.

So that seems to be that, though as Mr Ansip points out, it is perfectly possible to live next to a country and have cross-border co-operation without any formal agreements. Most likely President Putin agrees with that and will go on doing so until it becomes convenient for him to blame the Balts for something or other.

That brings us to the bronze soldier. After the second invasion … sorry, liberation … of the Baltic States, there were referendums in all of them and by an overwhelming majority they all voted to become part of the Soviet Union. Presumably, even the people who went off into the forests to fight a ten-year long civil war, also voted to join.

To celebrate the liberation of these countries and all East European ones, large monuments were erected to the Soviet soldier, popularly known in most of those places as the monument to the unknown rapist.

The Estonians would like to remove their bronze soldier to a cemetery outside Tallinn and President Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Mironov, speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament, one and all see this as a development of neo-Nazi ideology in Estonia.

Estonian arguments that Nazi insignia has been legally banned in the country cut no ice. Just to acknowledge that the Soviet invasion of 1944 was not the liberation longed for by the local population shows that the country is becoming neo-Nazi.

The EU has an interesting problem on its hands. Presumably, if the German proposal for making the denial of racist and xenophobic genocide illegal will go through, nobody will be allowed to say that the Nazis had murdered Jews and Slavs in the Baltic States. But, given the scale of Soviet activity, it, too could be called genocide. Was it on racist and xenophobic grounds? Did they simply feel the need to destroy large parts of the Baltic middle classes, intelligentsia and peasantry? Or did they really hate the Estonians? Some lucky lawyer is going to have to decide these matters.

COMMENT THREAD

Our fundamentally unserious media

Whatever the underlying issues relating to the US "friendly fire" on British forces during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the glee with which The Sun today published the A-10 cockpit video and transcript is evident.

It is a worrying demonstration of the nascent anti-Americanism in the British media, as is the highly tendentious article by Sun "defence editor" Tom Newton Dunn, purporting to offer an analysis of the video.

As is often the case, one of the commenters, noting that the pilots twice got confirmation from the forward air controllers that there were "no friendlies" in the area where the attack was made.

For once, shadow defence secretary Liam Fox, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's PM programme today, got it right. "It is easy for us to pontificate," he said (demonstrated more than adequately by The Times) "… there was confusing information on the ground and in the air … it wasn't as if there was an intent to harm British servicemen."

Listening to the radio exchanges between the pilots and their controllers, and watching the video, one can only conclude that this was one of those tragic mistakes that happen in war. In hindsight, it could have been prevented, but these things do happen.

But what is even more worrying is the evident strain of anti-Americanism within the British military that is brought to the fore by incidents such at these. At the time of the incident in April 2003, The Telegraph gave a platform to L/Cpl of Horse Steven Gerrard, the commander of one of the Scimitar vehicles attacked. He said, of the A-10 pilot who attacked the convoy: "He had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy."

Speaking from his hospital bed on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Argus in the Gulf, he had added: "There were four or five aircraft that I noticed and this one broke off and was on his own when he attacked us. He had just gone out on a jolly."

Then today, we get from Sky News Online the views of a friend of Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, the soldier who was killed by the American pilot.

He told Sky News Online: "They murdered a very good friend of mine and should be made to pay a price." Identified only as Tom, he added: "I'm not surprised the Americans are trying to worm their way out of this… The US admit nothing because they live in their own world and don't care about anyone but themselves."

This, as we have pointed out recently (here and here) can so easily translate into an entirely unrealistic sense of superiority about our own forces, and an unhealthy refusal to accept that our allies have anything to teach us.

On a darker note, there is some speculation as to who precisely released the A-10 cockpit video to The Sun, with suggestions that the hand of the MoD is detectable.

That may or may not be a slur but, as the Coroner's inquest into the death of Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull descends into a lurid soap opera and the media move into the all too familiar feeding-frenzy mode, this has completely diverted attention of the earlier inquest into the deaths of Pte Phillip Hewett and his colleagues in a "Snatch" Land Rover.

Whether intentional or not, this is highly convenient for the MoD and the people who made the decision to palm our troops off with sub-standard equipment. The excessive interest in the A-10 tragedy, therefore, is simply another indictment of our fundamentally unserious media. But then, given the choice between soap opera with an anti-American tinge and some serious reporting, we can expect nothing more than the dross on offer.

COMMENT THREAD

This has to be copied out

Further on the infantilization of political life: today's Evening Standard, whose website is probably the worst of all newspapers, carries a column by Francis Wheen, who is always good value. Though very much a man of the left, his generally splenetic attitude means that I agree with much of what he says.

He seems to have picked up another great pronouncement from the Boy-King of the Conservative Party. Let me quote his short item in full:

According to David Cameron, everyone in the country is saying the same thing about Tony Blair: "Hello? It's over." Way to go Dave! I hope he tries out his teenspeak at PMQs tomorrow, if only to provoke the PM into replying, "I'm, like, so not over", followed by an exchange like this:

"Yeah, right. The Rt Hon. Gentleman is rinsed. He's rank!"
"Your mum! I'm buzzing, I'm mint, I'm proper nang. Innit?"
"Yadda, yadda, yadda. Talk to the hand, 'cos the face is in Spain."

Whereupon the Speaker intervenes with a cry of "Order! Keep it real." And a sulky murmur comes from the chastened leaders on the front benches: "Whatever..."

Then again, this would be a good deal funnier if I could not imagine it happening with more or less those words.

PS I have had complaints from some readers about the plethora of pictures of the Boy-King on this blog, which causes nausea in said readers. So, I have provided a picture of Francis Wheen speaking in Budapest at a conference on Karl Marx. There's glory for you.

COMMENT THREAD

At least somebody has noticed

As the so-called quartet in charge of peace in the Middle East, that includes the EU, the United States, Russia and the UN, run around calling for the creation of a Palestinian state, the people of what is already in existence, Gaza, have noticed that what is going on there does not help their cause.

"What is happening now is damaging our reputation and our standing with Arab public opinion and with Arab officials," said Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University in Gaza. "My feeling is that Arab support for the Palestinians is beginning to evaporate. Arabs are looking at us as fighting ourselves now, not the Israeli occupation, and Arab officials are saying that we're not very serious about establishing a state."

Ahmed Abdel Rahman, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat and a member of Fatah's Central Committee, said that "the Palestinian national enterprise is in danger now."

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian analyst who teaches at Al Quds University here, said: "This fighting affects everyone's morale. We always felt we had this one big asset, our social unity as Palestinians, but to see it shredding, with lives being shed without much concern, is horrible."

Since the Israelis pulled out of Gaza in the autumn of 2005, Kuttab said, "there has been a lot of hopelessness and frustration and disappointment, with people thinking they can solve everything with a rifle." The political and diplomatic impasse, he said, has fostered violence, with Fatah and Hamas not even sure why they are fighting each other.

"Unfortunately, power and violence do produce results in this part of the world," Kuttab said. "Talk of peace and nonviolence doesn't get us very far, unfortunately."

All of that is true. Nor is it particularly surprising that Palestinians are thinking of moving to Jordan (and some, possibly, to Israel).

Two points occur to me. One is that violence does not simply happen - people cause it. Guns do not kill - people who use them kill and the same is true about bombs. Is there, therefore, some reason why the Palestinians cannot stop fighting each other but turn their attention to building up their state. After all, let's face it, the Jews did it despite the constant attacks from outside.

Secondly, I cannot help wondering as I often do about the lack of public outcry. Innocent civilians, teenagers, women and children are being killed and wounded. Why do we hear so little about it? Do we not care about the Palestinians after all?

Ignorance on parade

It was yesterday that the MoD informed us with great regret that another soldier has been killed in action in Iraq. Yet another from the 2nd Battalion, The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, the soldier is un-named as yet. But he was the 131st to die in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 and the 100th to die in action.

According to the MoD, the soldier died after a "routine patrol in Basra" was hit by a roadside bomb. It is understood that he was part of a Warrior patrol although, as before when Warriors have been involved in bomb incidents, there has been no confirmation as to whether the soldiers have been riding in the vehicle, or have been dismounted.

However, this now makes the third fatal incident involving Warriors since the end of December and may mark a new development in the insurgents' campaign against British troops.

Certainly, it has been practice for some time now for the more vulnerable "Snatch" Land Rovers to be escorted by Warriors and, in high risk operations, Warriors are to the fore. Thus, it stands to reason that the insurgents may have changed their tactics. The trouble is that us mere mortals are not given enough information on which to make a judgement and the media is not giving us any detail.

What we do know about the Warrior though is that it is a fighting vehicle designed to work alongside Challenger tanks in a northern European theatre, on conventional operations. As such, it is not equipped to deal with the IED threat, as we have repeatedly observed on this blog (see, for instance, here and here).

Thus we do await the delivery of the Mastiffs in theatre, which are better equipped to deal with this threat. But, as the delays mount (no doubt in part arising from the insistence on carrying out modifications which could and should have been done in theatre - or even on the ship coming over) can it really be a coincidence that, on the same day that another soldier is killed while taking part in a Warrior patrol, the MoD posts a long "puff" about the newly introduced Bulldog (pictured)?

Once again, also, one worried out the MoD writers. The describe the Bulldog as an FV430 Mk3. But there is no such thing as an FV430 – there is the FV430 series, or family of vehicles, of which the Bulldog is one, an up-armoured FV432. And then we get Associated Press, which published the picture of the Warrior shown above, giving it the caption: "A British soldier stands in front of a tank in Basra …".

With such ignorance on parade, it is hardly surprising that the media finds it hard going dealing with military equipment issues - and that the MoD gets away with so much.

COMMENT THREAD

That's not a piranha

My colleague is deluded... This is a piranha!

Lots happening - I'll post properly later today.

The alternative Tuesday toy

My colleague is somewhere between London and Bradford (though not, I hope, by way of Beachy Head), so I can get back to basics on the matter of dangerous toys.

What could be more effective than teeth as displayed by this little fellow? Not a shark with pearly teeth - we'll come to that eventually - but a piranha. I now have a special affinity with the beastie as I was called a piranha on 18 Doughty Street when I took part in Vox Politix on Friday.

All I did was to explain to the chap on my left, who happened to be a young Toryboy, the real situation about the European Union and Britain's membership of it. I also challenged him to tell us how the Conservatives would go about changing or reforming the EU. And for that I was called a piranha. Heh!

A damp squib?

Farage says he is going to re-name UKIP to pick up the disaffected Tories, the disaffected Tories are planning to publish an alternative manifesto and the population at large (or some of it) is telling the politicos "a plague on all your houses".

Any which way you look at it, the Boy isn't exactly setting UK politics alight, is he?

COMMENT THREAD

The root of all evil?

Margaret Beckett who, I am told is our foreign secretary, has warned that climate change poses a serious threat to world peace.

"What is becoming clear is that this is not just another environmental threat but that international peace, prosperity, security and development are at stake," she says, adding: "We are already experiencing human-induced disruption of the global climate and its effects now."

This, presumably, is why she is now in Israel, with "prospects for progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace" on the agenda.

For all those years, we have been labouring under the impression that the fighting there had something to do with Arab-Jewish emnities, or some such. But, all along it has been global warming. Reduce the CO2 and we are looking at an instant outbreak of World Peace.

Pity about the civil war in Gaza. What's that caused by?

COMMENT THREAD

The Monday "toy"

Mixed messages methinks. Love the "smiley" on the truck, but the effect is rather spoiled by the man in the mask with a machine gun.

We are in fact looking at a vehicle operated by a Polish Civilian Military Cooperation (CIMIC) unit, in AL Diwaniyah, Iraq. Believe it or not, it is a Honker Type series 42 4x4 assault vehicle, part of the Polish contribution to the coalition forces - a reminder that "new" Europe is doing its bit.

The photo is taken by Sgt Arthur Hamilton.

COMMENT THREAD

Realism 2

As the command of Nato forces in Afghanistan passes from British Army General David Richards to his American successor, General Dan McNeil, you can take your pick of what to believe as to how the campaign is going.

In the second of our pieces on this issue, following our piece on Saturday, we do our own evaluation of the situation, and come to some sombre conclusions.

Read more here.

COMMENT THREAD

By their friends shall you know them

Robert Conquest will be ninety this year as he was born in year one of the Russian Revolution. This is slightly incredible if one reads the account Christopher Hitchens gives of the man's activity and medium-term plans:

When I called, he was dividing his time between an exercise bicycle and the latest revision of his classic book "The Great Terror": the volume that tore the mask away from Stalinism before most people had even heard of Solzhenitsyn. Its 40th anniversary falls next year, and the publishers need the third edition in a hurry. Had it needed much of an update? "Well, it's been a bit of a slog. I had to read about 30 or 40 books in Russian and other languages, and about 400 articles in journals and things like that. But even so I found I didn't have to change it all that much."...

His diffidence made me inquire what else might be keeping him busy. "My publisher wants me to do a book called 'How Not to Write About History,' and I thought, yes. Then I'm doing an essay on the importance of India, and something about the U.N. and internationalism." ...

On top of that he is putting together another volume of poetry, planning a book of limericks and is about to start writing his long-awaited autobiography. Makes you tired just to read about it.

So what is so special about Robert Conquest? Apart from being a poet, a literary critic and a writer of science fiction he is one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union. As Hitchens mentions, the first edition of his seminal book "The Great Terror" came out forty years ago next year.

He produced other important studies of the Soviet horror, notably "The Harvest of Sorrow", the first remotely accurate analysis of the collectivization and the famine that was deliberately created by Stalin and his henchmen in the villages of the Soviet Union.

The latter book has been translated into Russian and Ukrainian and is being distributed by a Ukrainian charity. Conquest's importance has been acknowledged the length and breadth of the former Soviet Union. In fact, it was acknowledged even before, as he tells it himself:

"There was a magazine in Russia called Neva, which found its circulation went up from 100,000 to a million when it serialized 'The Great Terror.' And I later found that at the very last plenum of the Soviet Communist Party, just before the U.S.S.R. dissolved, a Stalinist hack called Alexander Chakovsky had described me as 'anti-Sovietchik No. 1.' I must say I was rather proud of that."

As well he might be.

When "The Great Terror" came out Conquest was vilified by all the bien pensants in the West for "exaggerating" the numbers of victims. Since then he has not just been proved right (as have other people like him, all attacked at the time) but he found himself in the odd position of being told by Russian historians that, as a matter of fact, he had underestimated somewhat.

As I have written before the debate about the Common Market divided the so-called Cold Warriors. Conquest was one of those (as was my father) who was against the very idea of it, preparing rather reluctantly to vote for Douglas Jay in his constituency on that one topic. Then, as now, there was little distinction between the parties on any subject.

He has continued to be an opponent of the European idea and, in particular, of Britain's participation in the project. In fact, he is one of the first Anglospherists, seeing a great future of the countries who have taken their law, politics and economics from Britain.

As Hitchens says a little ruefully:

In his most recent books, "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" and "The Dragons of Expectation," he goes beyond the usual admonitions against Jacobinism and more recent totalitarian utopias, and argues for "the Anglosphere," that historic arc of law, tradition and individual liberty that extends from Scotland to Australia and takes in the two largest multicultural democracies on the planet--the U.S. and India.

There was a time when this might have seemed quixotic or even nostalgic (at least to me), but when one surveys the wreckage of other concepts, and the increasing difficulties of the only rival "model" in the form of the European Union (of which he was an early skeptic) the notion seems to have a future as well as a past.

One always welcomes prodigals and Christopher Hitchens is one, most definitely. Over the last few years he has become the scourge of the anti-Western left. His admiration for Conquest shows his essential intelligence and understanding. His burgeoning Anglospherism puts him definitely into the camp of the good guys.

COMMENT THREAD

Booker

You could say the column is about Euro-trash today. What continues to amaze is that, after the total shambles of EU environmental policy to date, anyone can possibly think that the EU is "good for the environment".

Then "think" – as in "not" - is the operative word. One does not think about the European Union, the "environment" and especially "global warming". They are all part of an increasingly complex belief system. To stay on board, you just keep taking the mantras.

COMMENT THREAD

Unfit for office

Although the Sunday Telegraph is trying to spin it in a way that makes it sound as if the Boy King has taken a firm line of the EU constitution - and thus lay claim to Eurosceptic credentials - he also writes his own opinion piece.

There, the Boy writes: "With reform, Europe can be a force for good." He actually means the European Union, so the man is either being deliberately obtuse, or is genuinely stupid, in not making the difference clear.

Next month, he goes on to tell us, the European Union will mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community, the forerunner of today's EU. "Exhausted by war, fearful of Soviet Communism on Europe's doorstep, and with economies in a state of collapse, the EU (EEC shurley?) was the post-war generation's response to the realities of the day."

Actually, it was the response of some tired old men – the post-war generation was never consulted – but we'll let that one pass. Says the Boy, half a century later there are new realities … but "sadly, there is no new EU".

But, he tells us. "Europe can change", and "I believe that Europe has a responsibility to change. It has a responsibility to its own people - to help foster the conditions for economic success in an age of fiercely competitive globalisation; and it has a responsibility to the wider world - to be a force for good in tackling global challenges like poverty and climate change."

Excuse me Boy… "its own people"? And just who might they be?

Anyhow, the Cameron "big idea" is that "we have a great opportunity to lead Europe in a new direction." We can "move away from the culture of centralisation and regulation towards a new flexibility and dynamism." We can "reform the EU so it that it looks outwards to the world, not inwards to itself."

All that has to happen, people, is that, "The EU must end its addiction to regulation and embrace the habits of prosperity and enterprise," it must "push the WTO to reduce tariffs and stand up unequivocally for free and fair trade for the developing world" and then… "it must become a force for a cleaner, greener planet."

Those of us who care about Europe's future, he says, "must make the EU confront its endemic flaws." And to do that, he has the "European Reform Commission". It will do just that…

In March we hold our inaugural conference in Brussels, where some of the EU's leading politicians will listen to, and learn from, a range of public policy experts. Together we will set out an agenda for European reform, and explore practical reform proposals.

The conference will also launch a comprehensive and detailed review of the EU's policies, priorities, institutional capabilities and budget based on the Movement for European Reform's three commitments: open markets, a Europe of nation states and a strong Atlantic relationship.

The European Reform Commission will publish its recommendations in 2008, and it will be open to all those individuals, organisations, businesses and political parties in Europe who share our determination to make the EU work better.

Please, please, please tell me that he doesn't believe this guff … that it is just a wind-up. Please tell me that he knows about Intergovernmental Conferences … that he knows about the need for unanimity to achieve treaty changes … that he knows that all he suggests would require treaty changes …

But the sad truth is that he probably doesn't. Like so many dismal Tory fantasists before him, he is locked in never-never land where he thinks that all he has to do is toddle off to Brussels and say "pretty please" - and the "colleagues" will immediately roll over and give him everything he wants. So, in that never-never land, he trots out the same mindless Europhile drivel that his predecessors have done for so many decades.

This is the man who, as prime minister, would represent us in "Europe". If he believes that drivel, he is a dangerous cretin, and unfit for office. He doesn't believe it, then he should not be saying it. That makes him unfit for office. Either way, then, he is unfit for office.

COMMENT THREAD

The Sunday "toy"

The Canadian government has announced that it is to buy four C-17 military transports from the Boeing Co. This follows the interim notice given to the company in July and the rejection in August of a plea by Airbus for its A400M to be considered.

Rather predictably, Airbus Military senior vice-president Richard Thompson is a seriously unhappy bunny. He had dismissed the C-17 and the C-130J – which the Canadian are also to buy - as obsolete "Cold War" designs, while pitching Airbus Military's A400M as a "21st Century aircraft" with better versatility, performance, crew protection and aircraft survivability.

Despite that, the Canadians were distinctly unimpressed and – rightly as it turned out – cast doubts on the ability of Airbus to deliver by 2010, when the aircraft are needed. But, to ensure the decision went the right way, the military also made some adjustments. Originally specifying a requirement for a lift of 19.5 metric tons, planners increased this to 39 metric tons.

By some strange coincidence, the maximum payload of the A400M is 37 metric tons.

In recognition of this heroic decision, we have made the C-17 our Sunday "toy". The photograph shows a C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, taken as preparations are made to offload wounded personnel from Balad Air Base, Iraq, at "an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia". This is an official USAF photo taken on 17 January 2007. The photo credit goes to Staff Sgt. Edward D. Holzapfel.

As before, click on the photo to enlarge.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative week-end toy

Hey, I am right on top of this one. Cats fighting duels is a speciality but we shall go on to other alternative toys. One or two in my mind already.

This is the original Puss in Boots, as described in Charles Perrault's tale, dressed in every child's book as a musketeer. Well, actually, yes, I do recall what the three were called: Athos, Porthos and Aramis. With D'Artagnan as the fourth one, eventually, Puss must be regarded as the fifth musketeer.

We shall get more up-to-date tomorrow.

A little bit of realism is needed

Reporting on the lightning capture of the town of Musa Qala by the Taliban on Friday morning, the online news magazine First Post argued that the British Army's Afghan strategy was "in tatters".

Even the somewhat tarnished authority of the Telegraph conceded that the capture was a "setback".

The town of Musa Qala was, of course, the scene of a controversial deal, approved by Lieutenant-General David Richards, the Nato commander in Afghanistan, and agreed on 17 October 2006.

When British troops had first been sent to Afghanistan it was hoped they would help kick-start the country's reconstruction. But under pressure from President Hamid Karzai they were detached to defend Afghan government "district centres" at Musa Qala, Sangin, Nowzad and Kajaki.

This was the so-called "Platoon House" concept, with critics complaining that planting small numbers of troops in the centres was an open invitation to the Taleban. The move - opposed by General Richards - turned the bases into what he called "magnets" for the Taliban.

By late summer there was real fear that one of the platoon house fortresses would be overrun altogether and their garrisons massacred. At Musa Qala and Sangin, mortars and heavy machine guns were fired at point-blank range. In Now Zad, a Gurkha platoon fought a long night battle, throwing grenades at an enemy only ten feet away. And, as these intense and bloody battles developed, 16 British troops were killed in action.

At that point, the British had only 1,000 or so fighting soldiers in Afghanistan, and they lacked sufficient helicopter resources to bring in reinforcements to relieve the siege. They had a maximum of seven Chinook heavy lift helicopters, and eight Apache attack helicopters to escort them.

In early September, however, the local tribal elders of Musa Qala approached Governor Daud of Helmand province with a proposal for a new start within the district. The proposal looked for a form of self-policing, with a locally-raised Militia trained and equipped by the Government of Afghanistan. Then, on 12 September, the elders instigated a form of ceasefire and prevented the Taliban from attacking the district centre.

After the personal involvement of Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, a deal was struck whereby the tribal elders would guarantee the security, stability and governance of the district. British troops would pull out and so would the Taliban.

The American military were said to be "absolutely furious" at what they saw as a pullout by their principal partners, complaining that it left Musa Qala under Taleban control. A persistent critic was US General Dan McNeill, who currently is about to take over as commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan. He called the deal, "a tactical mistake - and a strategic disaster."

Events seemed to prove him right. In December, Danish and British troops came under a large-scale Taliban attack near the Musa Qala, fighting a four-hour battle before a series of airstrikes killed 80 Taliban fighters. The suspicion was that Musa Qala was being used as a safe haven by the Taliban.

There was then another major incident at the end of December when a number of high ranking Taliban leaders were killed in an airstrike in the Musa Qala district.

Back in Musa Qala itself, it is reported that there has been fighting and tension in the town for more than a week. The elders had demanded that a known Taliban commander, Mullah Gaffur, leave the town. Nato aircraft then carried out a precision strike on his house, but he left a few minutes before they bombed. Surveillance aircraft then tracked his car, and last sighted it abandoned in a ditch. The elders put a price on his head and told the Taliban around the town to surrender weapons.

Their response was to move into the town and take over the police station. Nato surveillance aircraft have reported Taliban marauding through the town burning and looting compounds. Witnesses said most of the elders had fled.

General McNeill, it is reported has now declared that he is ready to order US troops into the town, to restore Nato control – arguably cleaning up the mess left by the British.

At the time of the October deal though, Mick Smith of The Times completely approved of the move. "So far so good," he wrote:

…the whole policy of putting troops into remote outposts in the north - and the tragedy of 16 British soldiers who have died as a direct result - have provided graphic evidence as to why politicians should not interfere in the business of soldiering. Is it too much to hope that British commanders will now be allowed to get on with their job?

Even with the reinforcements announced by the government last week, however, the British have insufficient resources to take on the Taliban throughout Helmand. "We just cannot carry out a pacification campaign," said a senior British officer. "That's not what this is about."

They are further hampered by the government's claimed refusal to provide adequate helicopter support, armour and other resources. Thus, we are told, a stunned British command in Helmand was holding a series of emergency meetings today. "We need to work out what to do next and there are going to be no quick and easy answers", said a spokesman.

Whatever solution is decided upon, it will not be entirely British. Yet, defence minister Adam Ingram still describes our forces as "the best in the world". It is also rather ironic that Dr. Julian Lewis should believe that the achievements of our armed forces in counter-insurgency campaigns in the past "feature lessons that can usefully be learned by our allies". There is no doubt that he was thinking of the US forces – and Lewis is not entirely sure that they are always prepared to listen and take those lessons on board.

Yet, whatever solution emerges to the situation at Musa Qala, it will rely heavily on the Americans. On our part, therefore, we are not entirely sure that we can go on claiming that our armed forces are the best – or indeed that the Americans have any lessons to learn from us. It seems that our claims are coming from the same well as the "NHS is the envy of the world" mantra. There, as with the status of our armed forces, it seems that a little bit of realism is needed.

COMMENT THREAD

The Boy speaks

Mr David Cameron is telling us that, at the next election, people have a choice.

They can, he avers, have a Conservative Party which, as a very important part of its make up, does not want a European constitution, wants to keep the pound as our currency and wants to see powers returned from the EU to nation states rather than the other way round.

Or they can have a Labour Party that has campaigned for the constitution, says it is absolutely essential and would still like to give up the pound and see transfer of powers going further.

That, he claims, is the choice. To him, the rest is just a side show and irrelevant. He does not spend his nights thinking (sic) how do we get another hundred votes of (sic) UKIP. He thinks about how to win the great battle for the centre ground of British politics - who's going to improve the health service, who's going to get the basics right in education, who is going to build a stronger society by scrapping the multiculturalism approach and having a greater emphasis on integration, all subjects about which the fringe parties have nothing to say.

Just how much of this is wishful thinking is debatable. But any realistic analysis would tell you that there are more scenarios than just the two the Boy would have us believe exist. As credible as the Tories winning the next election (more so, some would argue) is a hung parliament, the Conservative support having been fatally weakened by the stay-at-home vote and by those who opted for the minnows.

Cameron's bigger problem is that he has a very poor understanding of human psychology – and even less of his fellow countrymen. The moment he tells people they only have two choices, or that their choices are "irrelevant", they will immediately look for a third, and a fourth, and a fifth… and then exercise one of those choices just to prove him wrong.

What people are reacting against is the arrogance – their unspoken message is: "you are not going to tell me what choices I have – how dare you assume you can". Put in more simple terms, their answer is, "Up yours!"

COMMENT THREAD

And the real Saturday "toy"

This is the real thing. Do not put up with imitations.

You can guess what I was looking for when I stumbled on this. It is a vintage P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft named "Glacier Girl", piloted by Steve Hinton. It was dug out from 268-feet of ice in Eastern Greenland in 1992.

Glacier Girl is now part of the Heritage Flight – the US equivalent of our Battle of Britain flight. The photo – another official DoD image – was taken during the Airpower display over Hampton Roads at Langley Air Force Base, on 21 May 2004.

Tech Sgt Ben Bloker is credited with the shot. As always, click to enlarge.

COMMENT THREAD

The real big brother

There is an interesting photographic essay here on the enforcement of road charging in Germany. This is the sort of thing from which your average journalist could benefit - but won't.

I didn't realise, for instance, that the enforcement agency can interrogate your OBU, via an infra-red link, using a hand-held monitor. In theory (and practice) therefore, police can carry out real time roadside checks on cars fitted with road charging equipment – without stopping the drivers – to find out where they have been. Unless the drivers are subsequently told, they would be totally unaware that their movements had been checked in this way.

The civil liberty implications of this are horrendous.

COMMENT THREAD

Raising the game

A tome of nearly 45,000 words would qualify as a small novel but it is also the typical size of modest debate in the House of Commons. And such was the length of the defence debate in the Commons on Thursday, under the title "Defence in the World".

This was an adjournment debate, which means there was no vote. With such a broad title, this conspired to make it a dull, shapeless affair which came to no conclusions and produced very little of consequence – and certainly little that we had not heard before.

However, while the media failed to take any notice of the debate, there was at least one sub-agenda, which emerged when secretary of state Des Browne offered a spontaneous comment "on the increasing threat to our bases from indirect fire, principally rockets and mortars." He told us:

I discussed that with commanders in Basra on Tuesday. The increase in indirect fire is a worrying trend. The threat is becoming more sophisticated and dangerous, and the links to Iran and Hezbollah are more evident. Our forces are not standing idly by as the threat develops—they are taking steps to deal with it by targeting the terrorists through intelligence-led operations, and with some success. We are also always looking to strengthen our defensive measures, but Members will understand that for reasons of operational security I am not in a position to say much more than that on the subject, other than to assure the House that we take it very seriously and that we acknowledge the risk our brave men and women face.

This was picked up by Gerald Howarth who noted that there was a system called the Mamba "which is able to track incoming mortars and provide an accurate fix on their source." Could he, asked Howarth, "reassure us that sufficient such devices are available to our armed forces in Basra to ensure that we have the maximum protection?"

As he did with his response to Ann Winterton, Browne took this seriously but refused to put information into the public domain that would jeopardise operational security.

You would have had to have had a journalist in the gallery who understood the issues to pick up on this and, inevitably, no such creature existed. Somebody, some time later, might take one of the poor little dears aside and spoon-feed them with the details but, until then, nothing will emerge.

Anyhow, it would be wrong of me to say that there was much more of interest. The trouble with debates of this nature is that they are so wide-ranging that they tend to be highly superficial, no more so than the response by the shadow secretary, Liam Fox.

One would actually like to be complimentary, if only because it is not always a good idea to be negative. A little bit of encouragement goes a long way. Unfortunately, we cannot do this – even if the problem was not what was said, but what was not.

However, rather than inject our own words to illustrate the nature of the deficiency, we shall use some from a US Department of Defense press release yesterday, citing the new defense secretary Robert W. Gates. "Debate about operations in Iraq is completely appropriate,” he says, adding that he believed the debates centred "not on whether there's any option except to win, but on the best way to reach that objective."

That was what was missing in this debate. We are a nation at war and, by any candid assessment, things are not going well. Nor could anyone sensibly say that the government is entirely on top the situation, or is completely in control. The debate, therefore, was wide open for some constructive suggestions as to how best to win the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In terms of any specific detail, there was nothing on offer. For sure, we had ritual complaints about a wide range of issues and a few generalities - but nothing bankable, nothing that you could mark down and say was a good, workable idea.

What we did get though, from another member of the Conservative defence team, Dr. Julian Lewis, was an illustration of the dangerous complacency and arrogance that pervades some parts of the establishment. Said Lewis:

I mean no insult to the record of the American armed forces when I say that Britain's achievements in counter-insurgency campaigns in the past feature lessons that can usefully be learned by our allies, and that, along with some of my colleagues, I am not entirely sure that they are always prepared to listen and take those lessons on board.

This is from the representative of a nation that is struggling to put 20 Mastiff mine protected vehicles into Iraq, when the US is looking at better than 4,000 RG-31s.

There lies the disappointment. It was all very well for minister of state Adam Ingram to declare of our armed forces that, "we really do recognise that they are the best in the world", except that they are not. We may – and in fact do – have some good elements, some good people and some very dedicated and brave service personnel, but that does not make for the best armed forces in the world.

But we also have poor equipment, poor structures, poor administration and some singularly bad leadership. We are far from convinced that the top Army brass have got a grip on the situation or are acting in the national – as opposed to their own sectional – interest.

How things could be made better though is not clear. This is why we really do need a debate – a serious, intelligent debate, not just ritual offerings and point-scoring. Not for the first time, therefore, do we suggest that the opposition needs to raise its game.

COMMENT THREAD

Here comes the next truce

Back in the days of the Bosnian stage of the Balkan Wars of the nineties, with all sorts of worthies, such as Lord Owen, running around desperately trying to pretend that you could a plaster on that gaping wound, Matt in the Daily Telegraph drew one of his brilliant cartoons.

It showed a man looking at his watch and saying, "And the time according to the next cease-fire will be …". I felt the same way when I read the news that the truce between Hamas and Fatah has broken down but there will be another one today.

Though this does get reported a bit, there is, as ever, very little general interest and no protests whatsoever, despite the fact that, as the BBC World Service website reports:

Fourteen people - including a woman and two children, plus at least two gunmen from either side and a senior member of Mr Abbas' intelligence service - were killed in clashes on Friday, bringing the death toll over 24 hours to at least 20.

Imagine if Israel had been responsible or deemed to be responsible for the death of a woman and two children. We’d have riots on the streets of London.

The truce had been agreed on Tuesday and sort of held through Wednesday, though there was one casualty. Then, on Thursday it all broke down. Hamas accused the United States (naturally, who else could be at fault) of encouraging trouble by supplying Fatah with arms. They then ambushed a truck that, they said, was carrying some of those arms. Fatah has denied this. But, as Al-Jazeera reports:

Six Palestinians were killed and another 70 wounded on Thursday after Hamas ambushed a presidential guard supply convoy from Egypt.

One guard was left dead although Fatah denied the trucks were transporting weapons.

Reuters gives yet higher figures and describes a greater mayhem today:

Fighting between rival Palestinian factions escalated across Gaza on Friday, killing at least 17 people, as Hamas overran compounds used by President Mahmoud Abbas's forces and two major universities were set ablaze.

The same report talks of further efforts to restore some semblance of peace:

Following a telephone call by Hamas's political leader Khaled Meshaal to Abbas and Egyptian-mediated talks in Gaza between Abbas's Fatah group and Hamas, a senior Fatah leader said the two sides had agreed to attempt another cease-fire and withdraw their gunmen from the streets.

"A meeting will be held on Saturday to continue laying down the mechanisms to reach out for a comprehensive calm," Samir al-Mashhrawi told reporters in Gaza.

At the urging of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, Abbas of Fatah and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal agreed to hold meetings in the holy Muslim city of Mecca to try to renew unity talks. Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah said they would meet on Tuesday.

Of course, nobody has had the bad taste to call it a civil war.

COMMENT THREAD

Ahmed Abu Laban dies

Who dies, I hear readers asking themselves. Ahmed Abu Laban, the Danish imam who engineered all those cartoon riots. His death has been reported on Al-Jazeera.

Let me recapitulate very briefly. Ahmed Abu Laban who had fled from Egypt and found sanctuary in Denmark then proceeded to spend his time there attempting to introduce notions of sharia law in various parts of that country. When the Mohammed cartoons first appeared in Jyllands-Post in September 2005, Laban tried to stir up trouble in Denmark.

When this did not work out he, and some colleagues, went on a trip round some Middle Eastern countries (though not Egypt, which would not let him in) and showed the rather mild cartoons to all and sundry.

Among the original 12 drawings he had slipped three others that were considerably more offensive. One of them showed Mohammed with a pig’s snout. This was a lightly doctored picture of somebody winning the annual pig-squeaking competition in France.

Eventually, Laban admitted that he had falsified the evidence on Danish TV but pretended that he had received these pictures and messages in the post. The missives were never produced.

One way or another Laban achieved his aim: there were riots in various parts of the world and the Danish cartoonists and journalists went into hiding. The Danish government, despite pressure exerted by the UN and the EU, refused to close down the newspaper or apologize for freedom of the press.

Most European countries had one or two brave publications that put out the cartoons and they were published even in Egypt and Yemen, with unhappy results for the editors. The one country, shamefully, where no MSM outlet dared to reproduce the cartoons was the United Kingdom. This is something we shall not live down in a hurry.

Ahmed Abu Laban was next noted in Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer, when westerners were being evacuated from Beirut. It turned out that he had been given Danish citizenship and, therefore, he was rescued by the Danish embassy.

Curiously enough, this man who held Muslim thought and culture so dear to him turned to the, undoubtedly first-class, Danish medical facilities during his last illness.

Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs analyze AP's obituary piece, which has some curious omissions.

COMMENT THREAD

Wouldn't it be nice for this country to be first again in something

Well, I guess that is not a particularly accurate wish. We were first in something not so long ago. The United Kingdom is proud to announce that it was first in having a TV programme, now world-famous and, unlike the NHS, imitated by many other countries. It was called Big Brother. Some of our readers might recall it.

What I would like to see is for Britain to be first or, at least, close second in something important and advanced in the modern world. For instance, we have blogs but do they play any serious part in the country’s politics?

I am sure Iain Dale (who is a friend, as I had better admit, while my colleague is otherwise occupied) and Tim Montgomerie, whom I also know, would tell me that their blogs play a very important part in Conservative Party politics and that may well be true, though I have yet to see David Cameron take any of their ideas on board.

There are similar blogs on the Labour and Lib-Dim sides and, no doubt, they have some influence within the parties. The problem concerns the wider field of politics, which is more likely to be of import and interest to the people of this country.

The assumption that the blogosphere has an existence and growing importance of its own, so widely recognized in the United States, is almost completely missing in this country. Newspaper readership may be going down, TV viewing is certainly not growing and, as far as the BBC is concerned, actually going down but they are still the measure of all things.

Even on the forum that is attached to this blog we get periodic comments about the need for us to try and get into the MSM or to be nice to journalists. Of course, if the blogosphere were taken seriously in Britain, the MSM would want to publish what this blog puts up often ahead of them. (The Daily Telegraph has finally managed to notice that Germany is proposing EU-wide legislation to make the denial of genocide carried out with racist and xenophobic motives illegal. Duh!)

Instead, our journalists run their own p**s-poor blogs in which they assure the world that the real, independent blogs never have an original story. And the readers nod their heads, the definition of a story being something published in a newspaper, no matter how late in the day.

Going back to the United States, I note that a number of bloggers formed a Media Bloggers Association and this organization has been "credentialed" to cover the Libby trial. As a result, a number of them, from different parts of the political spectrum, are live-blogging. To be fair, it took two years for the Association to negotiate this but they have made it.

Both the Republican and Democrat Conventions last year gave bloggers accreditation. And no, that is not the same as choosing one favoured blogger, as our parties do, and letting him or her produce an official version of what is going on. (On the other hand, party conferences in this country are so dull that live-blogging becomes an oxymoron.)

One of the recent developments on the blogosphere has been the growth of what my colleague calls "clogs", that is corporate blogs. Then there are the various blogs and blogger communities that are being created by news and media outlets. What they are trying to do is to institutionalize and, thus, control this so far unpredictable phenomenon.

As it happens, I do not think that can happen. The essence of the Internet and the blogosphere is anarchy and it has empowered, to use that seriously overused word, more people faster than anything has done since the invention of printing.

Only then England was ahead in the game.

COMMENT THREAD

The alternative Friday toy

Time for us non-toy fanatics to reassert ourselves and to produce the alternative toys series.

First off is an excellent illustration to one of the greatest of the twentieth century novels, Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita". This is an updated version of the Faust story, as well as a hilarious satire on the Soviet Union, interspersed by chapters that give a completely new interpretation of what happened before, during and after the Crucifixion.

The cat in question is Behemot, part of the Woland's (the Devil) entourage. His adventures alone make the book worth reading. Here he is having a "duel" with assorted police and NKVD officers who are trying to arrest him.

COMMENT THREAD

We already have joined

Liam Fox writes in The Telegraph today, telling us, "Britain will never join an EU army".

What he does not seem to understand is that this current government has already committed the UK to joining it. In that sense, we already have joined an EU army. Fox is way behind the curve.

Furthermore, the defence establishment is already working to fulfilling that commitment in the name of the the European Security Strategy, which was agreed in its current form in December 2003.

It was then that Member States (including the UK) decided to set themselves a new headline goal reflecting the evolution of the strategic environment and technology. In May 2004, EU defence ministers (including the UK defence minister) adopted the Headline Goal 2010 (HG 2010), which was later endorsed by the European Council held in Brussels on June 2004.

The HG 2010 calls on EU Member States to "be able by 2010 to respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty of the European Union." Among the milestones identified in the 2010 horizon are:

• Establishing a civil-military cell within the European Union Military Staff. The cell should have the capacity to rapidly set-up an operations centre for a particular operation. [currently operational]
• Establishing a European Defence Agency. [operational as of July 2004]
• Implementing EU strategic lift joint coordination. [process initiated in 2004]
• Developing a fully efficient European Airlift Command for those member states who want to be part of the EAC. [process initiated in 2004]
• Completing development of the rapidly deployable EU Battlegroups. [full operational capability reached on 1 January 2007]
• Ensuring the availability of an aircraft carrier with its associated air wing and escort by 2008.
• Improving the performance of all levels of EU operations through appropriate compatibility and network linkage of all communications equipment and assets (terrestrial and space based) by 2010.
• Developing quantitative benchmarks and criteria that national forces declared to the Headline Goal have to meet in the field of deployability and training. [a process for 'scrutinising, evaluating, and assessing' capabilities is presently employed].

This is the core of the integration process and, as the notes affirm (updated last month) that process is continuing, unabated, with the full assent of the UK.

It is all very well, therefore, for Liam to preach about his response to the European Defence Agency, but there is a lot, lot more to defence integration than this organisation.

What Fox and the rest of his fellow Tory travellers must get their brains around is that a lot of us are better informed than they give us credit for – and we no longer have to rely exclusively on politicians to tell us what is happening. We have this thing called the internet. They may even have heard of it themselves.

Thus, before Dr Fox even begins to convince us that, as part of a Tory government he would arrest the progress of European defence integration, he must convince us that he understands what is going on. To succeed in that, he needs to do more than write patronising, superficial little pieces in the Torygraph.

This is the sticking point. We will not tolerate being patronised. Engage in an honest, informed debate, or suffer the consequences.

COMMENT THREAD

The Friday "toy"

"Mom! Look what I found!" This is the sort of whimsical pic where the caption-writers could have a field day... all suggestions welcome.

The official caption, however, tells us that Sgt. Diego Sarracino is not about to go shopping in downtown Baghdad with his trolley (cart). He is in fact towing the USMC RQ-2B Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle to the hangar after it has completed a five-hour mission at Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on 28 Feb 2006.

UAVs are turning out to be the "secret weapon" of the Iraqi war, providing eyes for the ground forces in a way that has never been experienced in any other campaign. Not, of course, that the British forces would know anything about that. Our tactical UAV, the Phoenix, sort of crashed and burned - and never rose again from the flames.

An official DoD pic, photo credit is given to Lance Cpl (then) Brandon L. Roach. I bet he had a hard time as a kid.

As always, click to enlarge.

COMMENT THREAD

A demonstration of commitment

According to the MoD website, day to day control of Operation Sinbad has now been handed over to the Iraqi authorities, with British forces now relegated to a supporting role.

This marks the penultimate step in the process of "managed retreat" from Iraq which has been evident since August last. There are now only a few more months to go before large numbers of British troops leave the theatre with no replacements planned.

The news coincides with the announcement by secretary of state Browne that a further 800 British troops will be sent to fight the Taleban in southern Afghanistan, although this only increases the commitment by 300 as 500 British personnel are to be pulled out of Kabul.

So well has the ground been prepared for this strategic realignment – not least by the apparently spontaneous statement by the CGS Richard Dannatt in October last - that the media (and opposition politicians) have not raised even a murmur.

As regards Dannatt, he said then that his comments were not "substantially new or substantially newsworthy" and we said that he was simply preparing the ground for the eventual withdrawal from Iraq, acting entirely in accordance with government policy and intentions.

So easily have the gullible media fallen for it though that, currently, their main obsession is with the "friendly fire" incident in 2003 when two US A-10s fired on British forces, causing the death of one soldier.

This gives a convenient cover for a bit of Yank bashing, which is much more enjoyable than getting to grips with the equipment issue, over which the media has completely lost the plot.

Funnily enough, even though this means Browne has got away with posing on top of a Bulldog APC and not a single journalist has given him a hard time over the delay in introducing the Mastiffs, the government is getting sickened by the superficiality of the approach to defence issues. One of our family cats (pictured top left) offers more perceptive comment than the entire press corps combined.

One response to the more general lack of debate is the lament by defence minister Adam Ingrams at the end of the British Army debate, where he agreed that we should have more defence debates, but – to an empty chamber – said that he just wished "that more hon. Members would participate in them."

We have there a vicious circle. MPs do not attend because there is no media attention, and there is no media attention because so few members attend.

But perhaps the media - having recast itself as part of the entertainment industry - have it right. Apart from the "Boys Own" garbage trotted out by the media, there is very little appetite for serious defence reporting so anyone interested in maintaining readership levels – whether old or new media – will avoid the issue like the plague.

It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that you will read in either media the news that the US Marine Corps Systems Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and an initial delivery order for the testing, production and support of four Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

The MRAP vehicles will provide improved protection for troops from mines, improvised explosive devices and other threats. A possible follow-on production contract could call for the delivery of up to 4100 vehicles.

And guess what. The MRAP vehicle is based on the highly successful RG-31 Mk5 - which has saved so many lives. US forces have already ordered or received 424 RG-31s and the decision of the USMC to go for another 4,000 demonstrates their commitment to winning the war in Iraq.

By the same token, that it will be later this month before we have just 20 Mastiff "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicles in Iraq, demonstrates the level of British commitment. And the failure of British journalists even to notice demonstrates more than words can ever say, their level of commitment to good journalism.

COMMENT THREAD

The anti-NGO law begins to bite

Last year when the Russian parliament was passing the legislation that, in effect, imposed a much stricter control on all non-governmental organizations and charities, there was an outcry about the western ones, such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Seemingly, Putin relented and eased the controls.

Of course, the real target was never the western NGOs but the Russian organizations that wanted to preserve their independence from the state and might even have found themselves in opposition to it.

The Russian Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that shut down the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. This organization, whose survival until now is astonishing enough, was funded by the European Union, the National Endowment for Democracy (US government funding) and the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.

That would have been part of the problem. The other part is that it challenged the Kremlin’s interpretation of what was going on in Chechnya and around it.

Let us recall that journalists are not allowed into Chechnya and those who manage to break through come to a bad end. See Politkovskaya. Incidentally, the official enquiry into her murder seems to have stalled. I wonder why.

Last February Stanislav Dmitrievsky, the society's co-chairman, published in a newsletter Aslam Maskhadov's call for negotiations to end the Chechen conflict. Maskhadov was blamed by the authorities for the Beslan horror, though it was Shamil Basayev who gleefully claimed "credit" for it. One of the many investigations that should be happening but is not is into the Beslan siege and how it could have gone so wrong. Nobody in Russia or Dagestan believes the official version and all of us have seen enough footage to know that there were many actions there that need to be looked at. To say this, however, is to risk the wrath of Kremlin.

For his pains Mr Dmitrievsky was charged with inciting racial hatred, tried and given a two-year suspended sentence.

The article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal Europe [subscription only] continues:

The Russian-Chechen Friendship Society was later prosecuted for failing to remove Mr. Dmitrievsky from its board and membership roll. Moreover the society was supposed to publicly denounce Mr. Dmitrievsky within five days of his conviction, which it refused to do.

How wrong we were to assume that the days of required public denunciations have gone.

COMMENT THREAD

Guess who has been nominated for the Peace Prize?

Well, no, not the Lenin Peace Prize of blessed memory but something almost as good. Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize "for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday".

Of course, wittering on ignorantly about global warming is not quite what the Peace Prize is supposed to be about, the official citation being that it should go

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Such as Yasser Arafat, for instance, or Kofi (father of Kojo and brother of Kobina) Annan, or Jimmy Carter or numerous other people and organizations that had achieved absolutely nothing though they did so while spouting happily the sort of leftie rubbish one expects from Nobel Peace Prize nominees. (Actually, to be fair, Arafat just whined and threatened Israel and Jews in general.)

Beyond the scandals of commission there have been scandals of omission. Gandhi did not get the Peace Prize, though, I suppose one could argue that his own assassination indicated a certain lack of success in what he preached, as did the communal massacres of 1947 as India and Pakistan became independent.

Those who helped to bring down Communism, Pope John Paul II and President Reagan would not even be mentioned as potential candidates.

And, of course, there is the unfortunate episode of Rigoberta Menchú, who had received the Prize in 1992 and whose autobiography has turned out to be largely bogus. There were suggestions that her Prize should be revoked but nothing much came of it.

So now, it may be Al Gore, whose achievements as a peace maker are non-existent (though there is the invention of the internet that he rather hilariously boasted about).

During eight years as Bill Clinton's vice president, Gore pushed for climate measures, including for the Kyoto Treaty. Since leaving office in 2001 he has campaigned worldwide, including with his Oscar-nominated documentary on climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth."

A conservative Norwegian member of Parliament, Boerge Brende, said that a prerequisite of winning the Nobel Peace Prize is "making a difference" and Al Gore has made a difference. Of course, on that basis, it should be awarded posthumously to the plane-flyers of 9/11 because they have made a great deal of difference to the world.

Al Gore has also made a difference, especially by all those air miles his private plane has eaten up as he criss-crossed the globe to promote his gospel. Anyone would think Kyoto has been a success.

COMMENT THREAD

It just got a bit more complicated

It has been done by The Sun and now The Scotsman has picked it up.

We are told that patients in Scotland will die as a result of European (EU) rules governing work breaks for ambulance crews. This was claimed yesterday by union leaders, who are warning that huge swathes of country were being left without adequate emergency cover in the wake of a new pay-and-conditions deal.

The paper cited an incident that occurred yesterday when an ailing elderly woman, who later suffered a stroke, waited almost two hours for an ambulance to arrive. The closest ambulance crew was on a rest break in Duns - about 16 miles from the patient’s home in Eyemouth so a vehicle had to be sent from Kelso, more than 30 miles away. Its crew had difficulty finding her home.

It is also understood by the newspaper that last week, an Aberdeen-based crew could not be dispatched to assist a heart attack victim only a few hundred yards from a station where they were on a break.

All of this is good propaganda for the Eurosceptics, so who are we to complain at the prospect of headlines declaring: "EU rules kill patients" (even if the NHS is quite capable of doing that unaided).

However, as we reported in our earlier piece, it is a lot more complicated than is made out. Not least, some ambulance authorities are unaffected by what is supposed to be a law with uniform application throughout the EU.

There are plenty of things for which we can blame the EU but this, on careful examination, does not appear to be one of them – although the Working Time Directive is a complicating factor. And as we have found to our cost, wrongly putting the EU in the frame sometimes backfires.

So, if life is already complicated, it just got a bit more so.

COMMENT THREAD

Dignity

From the parent of a soldier killed in Iraq: not a few politicians would benefit from reading this.

COMMENT THREAD

Go, go, go

We have it on the best possible authority – a BBC story – that its journalists (for such they style themselves) are thinking of a 24 hour strike some time in February unless the plans for eight compulsory redundancies (only eight?) are scrapped.

All I can say is: go, go, go. Go out on strike. Why stop at 24 hours? Why not make it a week, a month, a year? Or, perhaps, keep on striking until they double, treble and multiply by ten those compulsory redundancies, starting from the top.

Here is another thought: if the BBC stays out on a strike of indefinite length, can all those benighted licence-holders claim part of their money back?

COMMENT THREAD

Do they think we are all that stupid?

Abraham Lincoln, a somewhat controversial political leader but, nonetheless, an infinitely greater man than any of our own present-day pygmies (with apologies to the real Pygmies who probably do not want to be compared to David Cameron or Gordon Brown), famously said:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Alas, there seems to be a conspiracy among the politicians, the media and great and the good to believe that this is not so. You can fool all of the people all of the time, they say, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Given that politicians need our votes and newspapers need our money, one would think they might try a little harder to understand what Lincoln actually meant. One would be wrong.

On page 1 of the Business section of today's Daily Telegraph, usually the only readable part of the benighted newspaper, is a picture of the Boy-King and his usual half-smirk (as opposed to his usual serious frown with lower lip pushed out) handing over some sort of a prize to a much more presentable young lady. Well, let's face it, most people are more presentable than the Boy-King.

The title of the article? "Anti-business sentiment" attacked by Cameron. Excuse me? This is the David Cameron who at a moment's notice decided not to address the CBI, preferring to get some photo-opportunities in Iraq? The CBI may not be all that one would wish but it is one of the most important business organizations in this country.

Is this the David Cameron who told us in his plummy accent that he was not going to support big business? Is this the David Cameron, whose Shadow Chancellor, Georgy-Porgy Osborne, refuses even to consider cuts in corporate taxation?

I very much fear it is the same David Cameron, who, for some reason, believes that none of us will recall any of this and, therefore, will simply nod our heads as he attacks anti-business sentiments.

He is not alone in his firm belief that everybody in this country, apart from him and his friends in Notting Hill and among ever fewer Toryboys of both sexes, is completely stupid and suffers from permanent amnesia. (You don't believe me? Well, how do you explain him publishing an article, not written by him, natch, that assured us all that he was Thatcher's rightful heir, just a few months after informing us that he saw his task as moving the party away from Thatcher's ideas?)

As one reads further, one finds that the very presentable young lady is receiving the Daily Telegraph/Jaeger-Le Couttre Business Personality of the Year award.

What has this young lady done? As it happens, she suffers from a number of physical handicaps and seems to have overcome them in a highly admirable fashion. But that is not what the award is for.

She was nominated for her work at Somerset county council, where she has spearheaded a programme to improve facilities for disabled staff.

Very admirable, I've no doubt, but how is that a business achievement? Let us see what the Boy-King mouthed on handing out the award:

I think one of the ways we get over that is by building up business heroes and heroines, entrepreneurs who have done great things to show the power of creativity and enterprise in a market economy.

Miss Lucy Wilkins (pictured - on right) has shown no powers of creativity and enterprise in a market economy.

In 2005, our Lucy was on Somerset County Council's Apprenticeship programme. She now works as a clerical assistant in the Council's "Frameworks" team and has completed her Advanced Apprenticeship in Business & Administration. She is the Disability Representative at Somerset County Council.

Worthy though this may be, she is wholly taxpayer-funded, working on various projects that may or may not have been useful. Money wrung out of those who are trying hard to show powers of creativity and enterprise and are thwarted at every turn by high taxes (to pay for local council projects, among other things) and high regulation.

Nor, indeed, is she any stranger to awards ceremonies. Last year, she gained the LSC annual Apprenticeship Award and was feted at the London Hilton Hotel on Park Lane, where her award was announced by the BBC Breakfast's Natasha Kaplinsky and Top Gear's Richard Hammond.

Now, does the Boy-King as well as the Daily Telegraph and Jaeger-Le Couttre think we are all so stupid as not to understand the difference between a business persona and a county council employee, however admirable?

Out of interest, I had a look at the others who had been short-listed. What power of creativity and enterprise have they shown?

Derek Browne has had "a successful career as an investment banker", not necessarily a sign of creativity and enterprise but at least it facilitates business. However, these days he “spends his time helping young people learn about the business world so they don't miss out on the opportunities available to them”. Hmm. Well, all right, it is quite useful, though one assumes that it is more taxpayers’ money being spent. And, of course, we do not actually know how successful he has been in his activity.

Sean Sutcliffe, who clearly never stood a chance of winning the award, is co-owner of Benchmark, "which started as a small design and woodworking company in the 1980s and turned into a company with a multi-million pound turnover". Now that is the sort of person this country needs to honour and encourage.

Julia Felton and Polly Gowers, who have set up a search engine, which seems reasonably efficient and donates fifty per cent of its gross income to charity. Well, fine, that is their business but they actually ask the searcher to nominate a charity of his or her choice. Seems rather a cumbersome way of giving money. If I want to donate to a charity, I do so. Surely, that is the point of giving.

Ram Gidoomaal, a Kenyan-born businessman (business unspecified), who "retired at 40 to dedicate his life to charity and last year became chairman of the Refugee Council". More quangocracy.

Professor Peter Guthrie (what does he profess, I wonder), "a civil engineer, 25 years ago set up RedR (Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief), which supplies trained staff for governments and NGOs around the world".

Terrific. Of the six short-listed candidates only two can be said to be in business. The rest are in the business of spending taxpayers' money.

Do they really think we are all that stupid?

COMMENT THREAD

That clod Hague

I was going to do a quick piece about William Hague and his latest stupidity. However, Eursoc has already done it, and done it well – a taster:

The spineless Tories are, as usual, happy to live within the remit set out by the Guardian and the BBC and to indulge their own peculiar fantasy that somehow we are by right more "sophisticated" than the "yanks" in foreign policy and dealing with terrorism and war.

Music to my ears… Go read.

COMMENT THREAD

The Thursday "toy"

This is a US Army OH-58D Kiowa helicopter of the 7th Cavalry Regiment. The caption says it is hovering over the tree tops. That is something of an exaggeration - which sort of makes it an understatement. It can't be a proper understatement though. Only we Brits can do that - like when we say we have "the best army in the world".

The photo is quite old, taken at the Korea Training Center, Republic of Korea on 25 October 1998, but it loses nothing for that. The skills developed here, and honed over nearly a decade since the photograph was taken, can be seen constantly in use in Iraq and elsewhere.

Tech Sgt James D. Mossman is credited with the shot.

COMMENT THREAD

One does wonder about the French

One wonders about the French in various ways but, in particular, one wonders about their choice of the first woman who might be President. Where did they find this ditzhead?

There have been some extraordinarily smart and hard-hitting women politicians in the twentieth century. The Israelis still mourn the passing of Golda Meir. Indira Gandhi was tough but, one must admit, a somewhat poor politician with an unfocused view of what was right for her country. But she did not make the sort of gaffes that Ségolène Royal appears to specialize in. I need not mention the woman who is regarded by many as the best British Prime Minister of the century. Even Hillary Clinton, who has refused to meet la Royal, is a serious politician, despite her recent incursion into paste-shaded mommihood.

As Nicolas Sarkozy pulls ahead in the polls both in approval of his policies and of his campaign (though whether visiting Tony Blair will enhance that campaign or not remains to be seen) Ségo runs into one problem after another.

First there was her unfortunate visit to the Middle East where she cheerfully agreed with Ali Ammar, a Lebanese Hezbollah politician that Israel was Nazi state and that American foreign policy was "unlimited madness", explaining afterwards that she did not hear the comments properly.

Then came the fiasco of her partner’s intervention into the tax debate. François Holland is clearly on the left of the Socialist Party or, at least, being its leader, likes to ingratiate himself with that wing.

A week or so ago he floated a plan, possibly to be presented as part of Mme Royal’s manifesto to raise taxes on people earning more than €4,000 a month. Given the state of the French economy and its ever high unemployment, given, also, the number of French with various levels of education, training and qualification who have chosen to vote with their feet (estimates of economically active French residents in the UK hovers around 500,000) hiking up taxes for the middle classes, as it was described immediately, is not a particularly attractive idea.

Mme Royal disassociated herself from this proposition then found herself in hot water because her spokesman, Arnaud Montebourg, made some comment about her greatest handicap being her partner. He was promptly suspended.

In the midst of all this, Sarkozy has been unrolling some, relatively interesting policy ideas, though he has not touched the biggest holy cow of all, the 35 hour working week. According to Thursday’s Wall Street Journal Europe editorial [subscription only]:

Mr Sarkozy says he would cut payroll taxes four percentage points, bringing France closer in line with its European neighbours. Each French household would get an extra €2,000 a year to spend as it wishes, he says, which could go up to €4,900 if his proposals on loosening up restrictions on working hours are adopted. … He also wants to reduce the widely disliked inheritance tax for all but the very rich.

Not precisely the most radical ideas but even our own Not The Conservative Party could take some lessons from that.

What of Mme Royal's proposals or counter-proposals? Ah, she says, in words that we are all too familiar with on this side of the Channel. We have to wait till she unveils her policies, supposedly on February 11. How are these policies being put together? Interactively, it seems, by taking into account and analyzing all the various suggestions posted on her website by the populace or that part of it that can still be bothered to become involved.

Meanwhile the Royal-Holland ménage is under the spotlight about its own income and tax returns, reminding us all rather forcibly of the Theresa Heinz Kerry scandal in the last American presidential election.

Ségo is trying to establish her credentials round the world. The success has been patchy and that is putting it mildly. She has been written off as a player in the Middle East. In Canada she managed to infuriate most politicians by apparently supporting Quebec separatism.

Then came the story of the "Corsica hoax". It seems that a comedian Gérald Dahan, who is close to the Sarkozy camp telephoned Ségo, pretending to be Jean Charest, the Premier of Quebec. Allegedly wishing to discuss the presidential candidate's earlier comments about "Québec Libre" he prodded her for a further pronouncement.

Dahan struck pay dirt, as they say. Mme Royal expressed the view that this is similar to some people's view in France. They would be happy to grant Corsica independence. But, don’t quote me on this, she added.

Telephone hoaxes are not very pleasant and the French campaign is shaping up as being one of the dirtiest on both sides in living memory. Nevertheless, making that comment about the possibility of Corsican independence, a rather touchy subject in France, shows a certain lack of flair.

And so to China. Ségolène Royal was packed off to visit the tourist sights of China (which are many and splendiferous) in order to wipe out the memory of her gaffe in the Middle East. Apart from her sudden propensity to mangle the French language, there was the unfortunate statement about the Chinese judicial system.

Mme Royal, naturally enough, was pressed on the subject of Chinese human rights. Well, yes, she would raise the question of journalists being arrested but really she was not going to the country in order to lecture the government. This she repeated when she was actually in China, being photographed at various extremely impressive sights.

According to Le Figaro, however, she went further than that. We ought not to lecture the Chinese on these matters but look to what we can learn from them, she explained during her press conference.

I met a lawyer who told me that the Chinese courts worked a good deal faster than the French ones. So, you see, instead of lecturing people we must look at matters of comparison.

Given the standard of justice in Chinese courts this throw-away remark caused something of a hullabaloo. In fact, Sarkozy’s camp can give up on those dirty tricks. According to the International Herald Tribune, his lead over Mme Royal is growing.

It seems that even left-wing intellectuals, whom he has been courting assiduously, are throwing their weight behind him, though, again, their influence outside Paris is questionable.

Still, politics has shifted somewhat in France if this can be said:

One of the strongest statements came from the philosopher André Glucksmann, who declared in a commentary in Le Monde this week that the French left had been "stewing in narcissism" rather than taking stands on important moral issues and that the battle of ideas was in fact being conducted on the right. He complained that the left had failed to learn anything from its debacle in the 2002 election, when the Socialist Party's candidate was eliminated in the first round by Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front.

Glucksmann praised Sarkozy for taking account of France's changed demographics by advocating affirmative action and state aid for the construction of mosques. He called Sarkozy "the only candidate today" to have committed himself to humanitarian positions, notably by denouncing the war in Chechnya, in contrast to President Jacques Chirac, who in September awarded a medal to President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

As things are going, our politicians may find themselves furiously trying to imitate the French ones. Well not Ségolène Royal. Gaffes like that they can manage on their own.

COMMENT THREAD

It always was going to be trouble

You can ignore gravity if you like, but I would not suggest jumping out of an aeroplane at 10,000 without a parachute, to show your disdain.

The political equivalent for the Conservative Party is to ignore the Common Fisheries Policy. Anyone with half-way sensitive political antennae would know it is trouble.

Unfortunately for the Boy King, imprisoned in his Notting Hill bubble, his political antennae do not reach beyond the M25, which means he has failed to appreciate the significance of the Common Fisheries Policy.

But it means that David Cameron has been flying false colours and now the CFP has risen up to bite him where it hurts.

Reaction is beginning to trickle in on the Tory boy diary, poisoned slightly with the first posting by a self-important prat who clearly has not read the Green Paper.

COMMENT THREAD

Wheel meet again

The London Eye, taken from Westminster Embankment last night. We'll blog properly in the morning.

Looks like the Fuzz dun good though!

COMMENT THREAD