Vote Dave – get Brussels

Dave "yes we have no referendum" Cameron has despatched the trusty Europhile Ken Clarke (pictured) to Brussels for a secret tête à tête with EU commission boss José Manuel Barroso.

The talks, we are told, are to assure the EU president that the EU "has nothing to fear from a Conservative government." And sending the most pro-EU member of Dave's cabinet-in-waiting is seen by European officials as a signal that a new Conservative administration will work with the EU "executive" rather battling against it.

It would be rather nice to think that the Boy Dave might spare a little time from his hectic schedule to reassure potential voters that they had nothing to fear from the Brussels government, but since that ain't so, it is just as well that he keeps his mouth shut and avoids uttering yet another pack of lies.

But it speaks a great deal of the Boy's priorities that, while keeping the British electorate almost completely in the dark as to his intentions regarding the EU, he should send his plenipotentiary over to the heart of darkness to grovel to our masters.

All too clear now is the evidence that should we have the misfortune to acquire Cameron as our prime minister, we will be set for another round of "more of the same" – yet another "Conservative" administration that talks big about being Eurosceptic to a domestic audience, while fawning at its master's feet and rolling over to have its tummy tickled.

Then, there are many of us who have never been in the least impressed by Dave's faux Euroscepticism. This little episode simply reinforces that which was obvious from the very start: "vote Dave, get Brussels."

COMMENT THREAD

Sooooo yesterday

"In normal times, a resurgent Conservative Party, the party of sceptical common sense, of fiscal prudence, would be assuring itself of a 300-seat majority in May by kicking to death Labour's discredited climate nonsense. Instead, Dave is doggedly pursuing his kamikaze course on Green policies. He and his cronies may be the last people in Britain to believe in AGW.

But that is consistent with the whole Cameron phenomenon, which is a slavish recreation of the Blairism of 13 years ago. Cameron's 'modernisation' amounts to a cunning plan to win the 1997 general election. Unhappily, this is 2010 and Dave is on course to make Conservatism history – alongside the superstition of man-made global warming."

Gerald Warner on his blog. What more can you say ... the Conservative party has been taken over by idiots. Heffer gets close, mind you: "I cannot bear to rehearse once more the inadequacies of the shadow chancellor, Mr Osborne ...". Quite!

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Delingpole is suitably caustic

There must be very few examples of rats climbing aboard a sinking ship – holed at the Stern, one might say. Delingpole rises to the occasion, the comments reinforcing the enormity of the blunder made by that idiot Osborne.

Strangely enough, there is no comment on the unofficial Tory party blog, while Tory wannabe MP Iain Dale is also silent on the matter. Having to go to non-Tory sites to get news of the not-the-Conservative party, one finds, is a very sure sign of problems.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Death wish

Lord Stern as a Tory advisor? There can be no other explanation – the Tories want to lose the next election. We will be happy to assist them in that endeavour, although from the look of it, they need very little help.

It is also covered in The Daily Telegraph - absolutely unbelievable ... just as the whole global warming scam is falling apart, the Tories re-affirm their commitment to it. You could not have better evidence that the hierarchy is completely out of touch with events.

At least in the United States, the Republicans (some of them) are beginning to stir, beginning to recognise that climate change is a major political issue - although the US media have yet to rise from their slumber. But here, with the media increasingly hostile to the scam, the Cameron tendency is living in a world of its own. I do not think I can every recall a time when the "disconnect" has been greater.

A political party has been reborn: ABC - Anyone But Cameron. You can't say "Conservative". By no stretch of the imagination is Cameron a Conservative.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The agendas merge

Regular readers might recall a time when a man called David Cameron – although we most often called him something else – was quite often the subject of our attention. But he is now rarely mentioned.

This, to a great extent, reflects his betrayal over the EU referendum, putting us in the position where have little interest in what he has to say and believe little of what he does. The very small residue of trust we had in Cameron's Conservatives has been totally and irrevocably destroyed.

If it were not for his destitute EU agenda, however, his obviously genuine enthusiasm for greenery – probably the only thing genuine about the man - would undoubtedly prove a similar barrier, as any man who can embrace the warmist creed with such gusto has to be all bad.

Yet another odious characteristic of the man is his insistence on a soft-left social agenda, draped in Tory clothes, demonstrating his credentials as a caring, family-orientated "leader".

But now, naked in tooth and claw, we are seeing the ugly side of "Compassionate Conservatism", where "call me Dave" is planning to combine his greenie obsession with his families package.

Thus we hear that motorists and air passengers face higher "green taxes" under Conservative plans to fund tax breaks for married couples. The money raised will be earmarked for a new "family fund" to cut income tax for families.

Options for taxation range from an increase in petrol duty to new levies on flights and firms that "pollute". But the Tories are also considering reintroducing the fuel-duty escalator - abandoned by Labour following widespread protests over the high cost of filling up.

Needless to say, "call me Dave" and boy George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, are cautious about discussing these taxes "after earlier plans backfired," and not least because some MPs (rightly) fear they could lose the party votes.

But this dire pair remain insistent that, in time, "green taxes will be necessary". Osborne even says: "Green taxes on environmentally-damaging activities and consumption will fund our family policies in the long term. We are committed to them."

Despite all that has happened in the last few months, and the very obvious signs of a change in public sentiment on "global warming", this pair have not yet cottoned on to the fact that green taxes will be about as popular as a Moslem fundamentalist at a BNP meeting.

But the ultimate stupidity, which clearly has not percolated into what passes for brains in this dire pair, is the failure to join up the dots, and understand that the "families" they purport to want to help are the very ones which will be hit hardest by "green" taxes under consideration.

Only thus could they come up with such a moronic idea of easing the financial plight of [some] families, only to claw it back in accordance with a greenie mantra that is long past its sell-by date. The only possible explanation for this is that, stupid as Cameron and Osborne undoubtedly are – they believe they are smarter than the electorate they are trying to con.

Poster courtesy of Andy Barefoot.

COMMENT THREAD

Unsurprising

As we fully expected the Czech Constitutional Court has found that the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is entirely in agreement with the Czech Constitution. What a surprise, eh? As President Klaus has already been given those meaningless promises (here and here) from the EU, the chances are he will sign and claim a victory for the Czech Republic. In this he will be supported by the majority of the Czech people who will eventually find out how little those promises mean.

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, is unhappy. Klaus, they feel, should have saved them and saved their leader's blushes. For today is the day when the Boy-King of the Conservative Party who is said to be "disappointed" by the Czech court's decision, will set out his party's plans on Europe. It is certain that they will not include a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty. It is also likely that they will include a great deal of vague blather that cannot be turned into hard policy. I suppose, I could be surprised for once.

Tim Montgomerie tells his readers that the Conservatives must have a European policy and announce it as soon as possible.

COMMENT THREAD

It is official

The Tories will NOT hold a referendum on Lisbon but seek a 'manifesto mandate' to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU - so says Conservative Home in a shock announcement. And I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

So where do we go from here? Or to be quite precise, where does the Conservative Party go? According to Tim Montgomerie, there is no point in holding David Cameron to his "cast-iron guarantee" as it was nothing of the kind. Once again, I am shocked, nay, stunned. A politician's cast-iron guarantee means nothing of the kind? Quick, somebody bring my smelling salts.

As it happens, I never believed that guarantee and have always assumed that Cameron would find some way of wriggling out of it. It was, Mr Montgomerie informs us, merely a promise to hold a referendum if the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty had not been ratified. As they did their best to make sure that the ratification went ahead their hoity-toity attitude now is unimpressive.

Nor am I terribly impressed by the implication that it was all the fault of the u-turning Czech President. He withstood a great deal of pressure with very little support from the Conservatives. I don't think he got much in that funny little agreement but that's another story. What happens in Britain does not depend on what the Czech President does or says. Blaming Klaus for Cameron's prevarications is low. I am surprised at Mr Montgomerie who is an honourable man.

What is it the Conservatives will be offering? What is it that makes Mr Montgomerie say that "DAVID CAMERON DESERVES THE CONTINUING SUPPORT OF EUROSCEPTICS"? Well, he took the Conservative Party out of the EPP and withstood the childish taunts produced by David Miliband, which were of no significance whatsoever. That's it. There is nothing else anyone can point to that would make us the people think that this man actually understands either the EU or Britain's role in it or, for that matter, what should be the next step.

Let us not forget that one of his first moves as leader was to drop the carefully worked out fishing policy that would have taken Britain's fisheries out of the devastating CFP and rebuilt the industry.

What they want to do is to get a mandate to repatriate certain powers. This would mean unravelling the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Constitutional Lisbon one, rewriting the whole lot and getting all the members to agree. Child's play for people who do not think they can unravel the Lisbon Treaty on its own. Particularly as the ultimate threat is not on the cards.

There is, of course, no need for a referendum about whether to renegotiate the treaties or not. It can be simply put into the manifesto, as one remarkably intelligent (I have low expectations) Tory backbencher told Mr Montgomerie. But simply saying that we shall go to Brussels and negotiate something or other gets us no further forward.

What will be renegotiated? Key powers, apparently. What are they, when at home? Well, errrm, the Social Chapter. That no longer exists, the various articles having been integrated into the treaty. What of the most important issue, the superiority of European over British legislation? So far, Parliament, who made that law can unmake it. What happens after Lisbon? More to the point, what is the Conservative Party's intention over that? Is that one of the key powers to be negotiated?

With whom is Mr Cameron going to negotiate? Does he even know? What he has in mind requires an IGC and unanimous agreement? Does he know that? Do any of them know how an IGC is called and how the negotiations are set up? More importantly, what will the Conservatives do if the colleagues do not want an IGC or, having gathered for one, refuse to accept British ideas? Will they start running around, negotiating, offering deals to the other member states?

So many questions, so few answers. Well, only one, really: you must trust the leader and his wisdom.

COMMENT THREAD

Letters in the Daily Telegraph

Today's Daily Telegraph has its usual crop of variable letters on the subject of the Conservative Party and that referendum that is disappearing into the far horizon. Most of them are variations on the same old themes; the one that gets to the core of the matter is by Lord Willoughby de Broke, the other UKIP peer (who is not standing for the leadership).

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, October 3) says that he does not support Ukip because "only the big, old parties contain the DNA to govern".

Whichever party forms the next government here will not "govern". Most of our national law is now made in Brussels, where Britain has 8 per cent of the vote.

Do we want to go on being governed by the unelected and unsackable Brussels bureaucracy with its endless flood of suffocating law? Do we want to go on seeing a largely discredited Parliament acting simply as a rubber stamp for EU legislation?

Our parliamentary democracy worked when our elected representatives made our laws. The only way now to restore that democracy is to give the people of Britain the power of binding local and national referendums, as in Switzerland.

I have introduced a Bill in the Lords to give them that power. I look forward to the howls of protest from "the big, old parties".

Lord Willoughby de Broke

We are all looking forward to those entirely predictable howls of protest from "the big, old parties" and from all soi-disant experts on the British Constitution.

COMMENT THREAD

Conflicting concerns

Which is more important? On the one hand, we have the devastating personal tragedy of Fiona Pilkington, driven to the unlawful killing of her daughter and her own suicide, acts of desperation in response to the lack of police and official support against a regime of bullying from local thugs.

On the other, we have Afghanistan. By common accord, the war is at a "decisive" state, with a very real risk of failure, made worse by strategic stasis in the White House. There, in what is being seen as a "remarkable parallel" with a turning point in the Vietnam War 44 years ago, Obama is to preside over a series of meetings that will determine whether the US will proceed with an escalation of the war or reduce the US military commitment there.

The question is, of course, absurd. Both issues are important – but of a different order. No more can you rank them in importance than you can rank the myriad of other issues that assail us daily – whether Iran is serious about building the Bomb, which way the Irish will vote on Friday, whether the apparent economic recovery is real or simply a precursor to a "double-dip" recession ... and so on.

Dealing with them - all of them - though, is the stuff of politics. That is what politics is all about. It is the art of giving due attention to the competing and conflicting demands on time and resources, affording enough to each without becoming obsessed or trapped by any one issue or event, however intrinsically important it might be.

And that is where the Conservative Party – and its membership – seems to have a problem. Dealing with the growing crisis in Afghanistan, we had yesterday the shadow defence secretary Liam Fox talking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, apparently oblivious to developments the other side of the Atlantic, delivering a speech which failed in any way to acknowledge the depths of the political crisis which is taking shape in Washington.

But as instructive was the reaction of the website Tory Diary. If it can be taken as a weather-vane, representing a certain sector of Conservative thought, it is instructive that it chose to feature Fox's speech in advance of delivery, focusing only on his narrow – and largely misplaced – attack on the Labour government.

It did not revisit the speech after the event, to discuss the content and the wider issues raised. It did not thus address the manifest limitations of the shadow defence secretary, and his failure to explore the broader strategic and political implications of the events in Washington, in what is a fast-moving and worrying situation. Equally instructive is that fact that, from the Leader, on the whole issue of Afghanistan and recent developments, comment there is none. This is a matter which can be left to the minions.

Then compare and contrast David Cameron's response to the Pilkington affair. He is out in front this morning, with a storming indictment of Labour Party policy, and – to the obvious approval of Tory Dairy - tells us "everything will done be differently by a Conservative government".

This is not intended as criticism. It is an observation, one that reveals where the priorities of the Conservatives and some of their supporters lie, and possibly gives us a clue as to how a future Conservative government might perform. Great international issues are lower down the ranking of importance than the "social agenda" which the new "caring" Conservatives have made their central platform.

What is disturbing is that we expect more of a government than a narrow focus on a limited range of preferred issues. We do not expect it to "park" the rest of the agenda, or leave it to the minions to deal with. Government is more than delivering just enough to keep the faithful happy and – more particularly – making sure awkward issues do not intrude on the areas where the party has chosen to devote its attention.

In short, we expect a government to be able to deal with the multiplicity of issues which demand attention, giving to each the necessary thought and prominence, coming up with considered and appropriate responses in line with the seriousness that the situations demand. We do not expect a government to pick and chose issues it will deal with, and "park" the rest because they do not fit with its political agenda.

Looking at the disparate treatment of the Pilkington affair and Afghanistan, it is not possible to determine that, in "power", we will have a Conservative government which is capable of properly ordering its priorities. There is more to running a government than putting on a "caring" face.

COMMENT THREAD