EU Referendum

This morning, we saw a cynical attempt by the Conservative Party to extract party political capital from the Iran hostage situation. Fronted by the increasingly lacklustre Tory defence spokesman Dr Liam Fox, the attack started on the Tory Party website, and went from there.

Silent on the substantive issues, the website homed in on the "soap opera" of the "government incompetence over returned hostages", pointing the finger of blame at government ministers, following the "appalling" decision to allow the Britons held hostage in Iran to sell their stories to the media.

The bleating was picked up by the BBC although even it could not cope with the limited focus of the Tory "attack". It led its piece with the news that Fox was calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of the hostages' capture. But the thrust of the report was nevertheless on the "cash for stories" issue, with a demand that defence secretary should give "details of who was involved in the decision" and when.

The report had Fox squawking about "complete ministerial incompetence", charging that "New Labour's obsession with news management trumped issues of dignity, professionalism and discipline."

This was backed up by a turgid editorial in The Daily Torygraph which could have come straight out of the Janet and John book on Tory defence policy. It too homed in on the "fiasco following the release of the service personnel captured by Iran", asserting that "the sailors and marines were … enlisted as part of a despicable spin operation" by the government.

Pointing to where the Tory attack would lie, it then declared that, when Parliament returned next Monday, "Mr Browne had better go to the Commons and give a full and honest account of what led him to sanction the selling of the captives' stories to the media."

The Dail Mail also fell into line, with a ridiculous commentary, citing that great political commentator, General Sir Michael Rose (now fortunately retired). Sir Michael, who provokes derision even in his own former Service, also had it that the decision to allow the captives to sell their stories was "part of a crude government spin operation".

By lunch time, however, the attack was contained. On the BBC Radio 4's World at One programme, Browne was on the air, accepting "full responsibility" for the decision. It had, he said, been made originally by the Navy on Thursday, when the hostages had been released and endorsed by him on the Friday, following a briefing by an MoD official. Browne's full statement is here.

The secretary of state was followed by Labour MP David Crausby, a member of the defence select committee, who affirmed that it was "pretty clear" that it was a decision taken by the Navy. He had questions on whether Browne should have vetoed the Navy but, he said, the central question was whether the marines and sailors should have been captured in the first place. The controversy over the payments "should not allow this to overshadow this", he declared.

Interestingly, Lib-Dem spokesman Michael Moore agreed with this line. A lot of questions remain, he said, but the payments issue was "a major distraction". It was "in danger of distracting us from how on earth we got into this situation in the first place."

That left Liam Fox with nowhere to go. Even the BBC interviewer, Sean Ley, was by then looking at the bigger picture, pointing up the tension "between military independence and political decision-making".

In a later interview, though, the Boy Cameron still tried to pander to the tendency which prefers to see its politics in soap opera terms. Asking for the "equivalent" of a Board of Inquiry on the wider issues, he then went on quickly to the payments issue. The government's "cheap and tatty" focus on short term headlines could cause long-term damage to the armed forces, he said, desperately trying to up the ante by declaring that "the buck stopped with the prime minister". Tory Diary has the full statement.

Browne, however, had already shot his Fox. He was waiting for reports on the wider question of the hostages' capture and would make a statement on Monday to Parliament.

Then, this blog trusts, we will begin to deal with the substantive issues and, if the Tories want to bleat from the margins, they will consign themselves to irrelevance. Perhaps, in the manner of the "frightened fifteen", they should book a group hug and then get out of the way, to let the grown-ups get on with it.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Iran, Iran hostages, Tories

It is unlikely that the prominence of the front page content of The Daily Mail this morning was entirely dictated by news values. And, if the message is not clear enough, the implied snub is made that much clearer by the headline spanning pages two and three (pictured below).

Its declaration, "An absolute credit to the Army", referring to the two women soldiers who were killed by a bomb in Basra on Wednesday night makes a marked contrast to the relegation of the Iran hostages story, which has to wait for pages six and seven for treatment.

Mercifully, none of the newspapers seem to have used the AP photograph of Seaman Batchelor, one of the captured boarding party (below left), who was snapped holding hands with not only mummy but auntie as well, a picture which does not exactly convey the martial values of this once great nation of ours. It is some small compensation that The Daily Telegraph and others carry an account of what our servicemen are still capable of doing.

In terms of news management, one can now see a certain amount of logic in the way the MoD spin meisters are handling the Iran hostages issue. By not holding back with an official Board of Inquiry, and holding a high profile news conference, objectionable though it may be, they have achieved a sort of "closure" and will now hope that the media circus will move on without looking too closely at the underlying, and even more embarrassing issues.

Here, of course, the blogs could come into their own, pursuing the aspects of the incident that the media have neither the patience nor the capability to follow but, throughout the whole affair. And, although that is precisely what we intend to do – although not with the same intensity of the least two weeks - it is quite remarkable how little comment there has been from the British blogosphere, and how superficial and ill-informed has been such comment as has found its way onto the net.

For robust and informed comment, you have to cross the Atlantic, where Michelle Malkin and her Hot Air blog, plus Redstate, National Review and others have led the way. Little Green Footballs, meanwhile, has the video showing how badly the hostages were treated.

Matching the silence of the (British) blogs has been a distinct lack of comment from the main political parties. In the early stages of the incident, this was understandable, as none would want to be seen to be handicapping the process of freeing the hostages. Now, however, when it is quite evident that the government is intent on burying the issue as fast as is humanly possible, the opposition should be in full cry, demanding answers to the hundred and once questions raised by the affair.

For sure, with Parliament in recess for the Easter holidays, the opposition is robbed of the opportunity to grandstand in the Commons, but, in some ways, getting your message into the media is actually easier. With mainstream government business in temporary suspension, the media is short of political copy and there is a good market for robust comment from opposition spokesmen.

The problem is though that, like the British blogs, the opposition – and especially the Conservative Party – has nothing interesting or original to say. We saw a taster of the line defence spokesman Liam Fox is going to take, when in his one and only BBC interview, the point to which he gave his main emphasis was the "shortage" of helicopters, which is by no means the most important of the issues to emerge and nor is it particularly relevant.

The limp-wristed response may be a function of the "girlie boy" line taken by the Boy King, who does not want his Green-Blue party to be associated with such nasty, manly issues like defence (even if women are getting killed and captured) but there must be millions of voters out there who have been appalled by this incident and want answers which the government is quite evidently unwilling to deliver.

There is, therefore, an opportunity for the opposition to shine, demonstrating an ability to get to grips with serious issues of the day and to back the government into a corner on matters that are of real interest to a very large number of potential Conservative voters. Unfortunately, it looks as if the Party is going to duck the challenge, projecting an image that is closer to Seaman Batchelor with his mummy and auntie than to one of a party which is fit and ready to govern.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: defence, Iran, Iran hostages, Tories

The Boy King has been at it again, sounding off in the low-circulation Sunday Express on what he believes to be the key issues of the day in defence.

I had intended to publish an analysis yesterday but we gave the forum something of a bashing, with a robust debate on the Iranian hostages - which absorbed some considerable time. Hence the fisking will have to be the overnight piece (which we call the Horlicks). You can read it here.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: David Cameron, Tories

It came to pass that today, as we forecast last November, British forces handed over control of their base in central Basra to the Iraqi security forces.

This was the Old State Building (OSB), one of the most heavily attacked bases, leading to suggestions that British troops had been "bombed out" – which have been denied by the commander of British forces in southern Iraq, Major-General Jonathan Shaw. He characterised the pullout as a repositioning of his troops and not a withdrawal.

That, however, was exactly the line taken when British troops abandoned Camp Naji in al Amarah to the Iraqis last August, only to have local militias strip the camp bare in a matter of hours, effectively confirming the fact that the British were retreating.

Perhaps mindful of this humiliation, British military officials are no longer talking about transferring control of Basra to Iraqis by the spring. According to Reuters, spokesman Major David Gell is saying: "Spring had been suggested but we have shifted out of any sort of timetable and are saying when conditions are right."

That, in itself does mark a distinct change in the attitude of not only the British forces, but also the government, which seems quietly, without any fanfare at all, set to take a more robust approach to its responsibilities in Iraq. Gone is the naked defeatism of the Dannatt statement and one gets the impression that there is a new determination to see the job through.

But if the Army has stopped retreating – mentally at least – not so the Conservatives. In November last, we published a three-part piece on its retreat from politics (here, here and here), with Part II in particular pointing out the failure of the Party to take defence issues seriously.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the earnest attention of this blog, the Party has concentrated mainly on the softer aspects of defence policy. This is all very well but without also setting out a robust policy for dealing with the current campaigns, the Party looks effeminate and weak.

Alas, however, the Conservatives have continued in their girlie vein, a story in today's Times telling us that they are shortly to produce a "military manifesto", the centrepiece of which is to give troops priority on National Health Service waiting lists.

This is intended to exploit high levels of disaffection among service families but it would be a lot more credible if the Tories had come up with some ideas of how to keep troops out of the grip of the NHS in the first place, by providing them with more effective equipment, such as blast resistant armoured vehicles and helicopters that worked in hot weather.

In the absence of such balance, their initiative is merely opportunism. Good politics it is not.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: iraq, Tories

As a contribution to the debate on global warming – or "climate change" if you prefer - it would be hard to improve on the op-ed written by Janet Daley in today’s Daily Telegraph. In particular, this offering really strikes a chord:

I am not a scientist. I do not have the expertise or the qualifications to adjudicate on the conflicting arguments on offer in this issue. But one thing that is quite clear to me is that there are different authoritative views on the data, and on the extrapolations that are being made from the data, on global warming - particularly on the question of whether such warming as has been identified is caused by human activity.

Before I became a journalist, I was an academic and one of the things most rigorously impressed upon me during my years in academia was that intellectual progress can only come through argument and self-criticism. It is quite antithetical to scholarly endeavour, not to say the spirit of Western enlightenment, for researchers to seek to close down opposition to a theory or a thesis. But greenery is no longer scholarship: it is politics. The discussion has been taken over by politically driven forces with little interest in the value of free intellectual enquiry.

And that is, in our view, the core of the issue. Far from being "settled science" as the advocates of the doom-laden scenarios would have it, the causes of climate change are wide open, with nothing at all resolved. For instance, if you take just one aspect, the role of water vapour in the process, we get an enormous disparity in views.

One school will argue that water vapour is responsible for 95 percent of the Earth's greenhouse effect, whereas anthopogenic CO2 contributions are responsible for only 0.117 percent of the effect, once water vapour has been factored in. In all, the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28 percent.

Others argue that the effect of water vapour, in climate change is limited to feedback and has no significant forcing effect, thus simply adding to the effect. Still others suggest that it has an indirect effect and that the main cause is the reduced amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Whatever the arguments, the role of water vapour is understated in the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that this distorts the arguments.

In an area of huge uncertainty, however, one fact stands out with absolute clarity – that Mr David Cameron has absolutely no qualifications for arbitrating on such a complex issue. Like Janet Daley, he is not a scientist. Unlike Janet Daley, he has no scientific background whatsoever. His A-levels were history, history of art and economics with politics, at Oxford he read philosophy, politics and economics and his subsequent work experience was in public relations.

Anything that Mr Cameron has to say on global warming, therefore, represents a belief unsustained by scientific rigour.

Therein lies our fundamental problem. The job of politicians is to manage the government, not to impose a belief system on their fellow man. In the case of unresolved scientific debates - which may or may not have serious political implications – that task includes the management of uncertainty. It is not the job of a politician to arbitrate on scientific disputes – merely to prepare a response to the undisputed facts as they emerge.

What is happening though is that Mr Cameron is hoping that the population can be convinced that global warming is the defining issue of the next general election, so that he can avoid having to deal with other, far more important issues. Thus he is creating a "greener than thou" Conservative Party which he hopes can capture the votes from Labour and the Lib-Dems.

That, in itself, is an abrogation of the responsibility of a politicians, and a distortion of the role of an opposition leader. More to the point, on a personal level, I simply will not take my science or guidance as to the response to it from a man who is wholly unqualified to give it and, for whom environmentalism seems more of a fashion statement than a considered philosophy. His posturing is worthy only of contempt.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: climate change, Tories

With all the political skills of a herd of lemmings going for a Sunday stroll over a cliff, the Conservative Party is about to unveil a raft of new "environmental" taxes on aviation, aimed specifically at "frequent flyers".

The measures, we are told by Sky News and others, are to be set out by shadow chancellor George Osborne, designed to help secure the party's "green" credentials.

Measures under consideration include levying VAT or fuel duty - or both together - on domestic flights. They also include scrapping air passenger duty and replacing it with a new "per flight" tax based more closely on a flight's carbon emissions.

Such is the greenie obsessions of the not-the-Conservative-Party, however, that little Georgie plans to go ahead even at the risk of alienating voters, who are distinctly cool on the idea of environmental taxes.

This is underlined in an ICM poll for the Sunday Mirror today, which shows that 58 percent of those questioned thought there were already enough extra taxes on the airlines while only 38 percent thought more aviation taxes were a good idea.

The News of the World also published a hostile story today, "revealing" the Tories "sky-high tax grab", under the heading "plane greedy". "Plane stupid", might be a better description.

Meanwhile, according to The Sunday Telegraph, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has been invited to address a meeting of the Conservative shadow cabinet on Thursday.

There can be no better sign that the Boy has ceased to be a Conservative, if he ever was.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

I have tried to avoid commenting on the Patrick Mercer affair, but note that, for all the torrent of comment, one central issue has been completely neglected.

The protocol applying to ministers and shadow ministers alike is that they should not speak publicly outside their own portfolios.

Mercer is a shadow minister but he is not defence. His job is homeland security and therefore he had no business speaking on the issue of racism in the Army to a newspaper. An ex-Army officer, used to the "chain of command", should have appreciated this.

He should have referred the paper to Liam Fox's office and the fact that he did not has brought its deserved reward. There can be no sympathy for him - this was a major breach of protocol, irrespective of the merits (or otherwise) of what he said.

That said, one can afford to express regret that Mercer’s own stupidity has given the media an opportunity to devote massive space (front page and two internal pages in The Times alone) to an issue which, in the grander scheme of things, is relatively minor.

With British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan, and ISAF mounting a major operation, I cannot believe there is nothing to report, despite the thin diet of information from official sources.

Even at the best of times, the media needs little excuse to avoid reporting real news and it is thus sad that the contribution that Mercer will be remembered for is giving them precisely that.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

The big event of the European Council being held in Brussels over yesterday and today was supposed to be an agreement on the so-called Berlin declaration, to form the centrepiece of the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Treaty of Rome.

At the heart of that declaration, inspired by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was supposed to be a "roadmap" for the ratification of the EU Constitution, albeit in its "lite" form, redrafted so as to exclude all the bits that the "colleagues" have convinced themselves have created the opposition.

However, the session yesterday failed to reach an agreement on the critical last paragraph which would have included a commitment to progressing the Merkel initiative. There is little chance now of agreement being reached today, or later - with a deadline of 25 Match. This seems to leave the latest attempt to expand the scope of the project high and dry.

According to the IHT the Poles were leading the rebellion but our sources tell us that the UK was in the wings quietly doing its best to sabotage the German moves.

That has left the European Council attempting to salvage something from the beanfest, which is now so large that, as former Europe minister Dennis MacShane put it, you need binoculars to see the speakers on the other side of the room. From the illustration of the negotiating chamber, you can see exactly what he means.

Anyhow, that "something" is an agreement on a binding target for renewable energy, all in the name of reducing climate change.

It is highly appropriate, therefore, that, while the colleagues were dining, back here in the UK, Channel 4 Television was showing a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was the most effective popular debunking of the Global Warming Scam I have ever seen.

What came over with crystal clarity from the programme was the fragility of the science supporting the global warming thesis, and the strength of the science supporting the arguments that the primary driver of climate change was the sun.

It can thus come as no surprise that the EU, built on a foundation of deception and fraud, should buy into this scam, seeing in it a means of pursuing its interventionalist agenda at a time when its mantra on "keeping the peace in Europe" has little relevance to the upcoming generation. In an attempt to keep the interest going, the EU has sought to harness the ill-founded concern over climate change, engaging in the "battle to save the planet".

What is especially of interest is that, in choosing this battle, the EU has effectively opted out of the real battle, the global war against terrorism which, from all accounts, has reached new heights of ferocity in Afghanistan. Not only are we seeing a major battle for control of the Kajaki dam region but, some 40 miles away at Sangin, there has been also fighting on a large scale – where four British soldiers have now been killed in the last week.

Quite how intensive it has been is illustrated by the airpower summary for 7 March, which shows the scale of air operations in support of ground forces.

And there we have the tale of two worlds – the one of the fantasy world of battling to save the planet from climate change, and the other, real world battle to counter the global threat from terrorism.

Not only has the EU bought into the former but so has our government and – stupidly – the Boy King. Cameron had that unique opportunity to create clear blue water between the Conservatives and New Labour but, instead, has fallen for the myth.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we see a report that two Canadian convoys came under attack in Kandahar province yesterday. Initial details, the Victoria Times reports, are sketchy but no Canadians were hurt.

"There were two separate attacks on two separate Canadian convoys," said military spokesman Maj. Dale MacEachern. "One was a suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device and the second was an improvised explosive device. I can confirm for you that there were no Canadian casualties."

And the picture shows why. While the British MoD still has not got its act together on force protection, the Canadians are saving lives with their RG-31s. If only the Boy could show more enthusiasm for saving British lives and dump his fantasy of saving the planet from global warming, we would have some hope for a better, safer world – and the Conservatives might stand a chance of winning the next election.

As it is, in the great war of the worlds, he is on the wrong side. What an utter fool that man is.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU presidency, Tories

We have already taken two bite-sized chunks out of the Boy King's Brussels extravaganza, an exercise, you will recall, was billed by The Times on Monday as "one of his most important speeches since becoming Tory leader".

On the morning after, though, we thought it a good idea to look at how the media had handled the event, having been slightly encouraged by the way The Sun had flagged it up as, "Cam's EU Turn".

It was too good to last. The paper does return to the event, but with a headline (above left) which must have had Team Cameron purring. In telling the story that the Boy had vowed to wrest control of "employment and welfare" back from the EU, this conveys exactly the message that must have been wanted.

That much, of course, goes to show that The Sun isn't really a newspaper – more of a current affairs comic – as it fails completely even to consider whether the Boy can deliver on his promise.

The Telegraph by contrast, seems to ignore the speech altogether. Presumably, having opening its pages to the glorious "puff" yesterday, the editors must have felt that they had done their duty by the Conservative Party, and moved on to pastures fresh. Analysis is clearly not on the agenda, so the Boy's empty promises stand unchallenged in this quarter.

I am beginning to warm to the newly-designed Times website which, together with the print edition, does offer something of a critical overview of the speech, but only in the context of the Tories being unable to attract any support for their "new approach" to the EU, other than the Czechs, who also happen to disagree with the Boy’s greenie stance.

As an aside, his green mantra may yet prove his biggest mistake of all – all the signs are that the bubble is about to burst, leaving the nation highly receptive to a more rational approach to environmental and related issues. But the Boy has already nailed his colours to the wrong mast.

Anyhow, back to The Times. With more fortitude than we have been able to display, they have done a better job of describing the speech (there is only so much mere mortals can take). So, unlike us, the paper flags up the plan to set up a "commission" to explore how the acquis communautaire can be challenged and "the principle that powers could be returned to members could be enshrined as a central element of the EU's legal architecture."

It is this sort of fundamental dishonesty that one would like to see challenged by the media – but not a bit of it. You do not need a commission to tell you how to go about this task. All you need to do is go through the treaties, making the necessary amendments to allow for this to happen. But the Boy must know that the most sacred precept of the EU is the inviolability of the acquis and the chances of any changes being made here are exactly nil.

Therefore, he offers the illusion of action, through an ersatz "commission", sufficient to grab headlines from a somnambulant media and enough to convince the gullible and uncaring that Dave is doing something about "Europe". Smoke and mirrors does not even begin to capture the essence of what can only be a studied deception.

The Daily Mail which one might have thought would be fairly critical (who am I trying to kid?), actually did the story yesterday, offering a "straight bat" report, which again must have pleased Team Cameron, even if it left one commenter to the website distinctly underwhelmed as he noted, "this must be the weakest speech on record".

There are further references to the speech in today's edition, tied in with a story about the German ambassador and the constitution (sounds like a bad joke). But more interesting is the flood of comments (53 at last count) which seem to indicate that the readers are far ahead of the journos in their analyses, leaving the politicians standing.

One wonders whether the Boy's gifted staff actually read the comments, for they would indicate that the ploy is not really working. Too many people have been there before, and can see through the shallow devices on which the politicians still rely.

We looked at the Guardian yesterday, so we can leave the old media with a sideways glance at The Independent. Strangely, in its short piece, it seems to have understood what is going on. "David Cameron has softened the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic rhetoric…," it writes. "…the Tory leader adopted a different tone to his predecessors but offered little prospect of policy changes." It didn't say it, but the message is clear: style but no substance.

Looking then at the blogs, or the "new media" as some like to call themselves, we see a strange vacuum in Conservative Home, the site having previewed the speech on Monday, but not followed through. Perhaps the vacuity and deception is too much for Team Montgomerie to handle. On the other hand, England Expects has not yet added to its report of yesterday and you will search in vain for any comment on the speech from Iain Dale.

Other Tory sites seem to have played it low key as well, except for the egregious Mr Hannan who, unbelievably, seems to think (if that is the right word for it) that the Boy, "appears to have pulled off that rarest of political feats: he has made a modest proposal sound every bit as reasonable as it really is."

Making it sound "reasonable" was, of course, the intention. But the idea is not actually to discuss the European Union in any sensible or honest way - simply to make a pitch that does not frighten the horses, giving the impression that something is being done, so that he can move on to safer territory.

Reasonable the Boy's proposal was not. Dishonest and self-serving it most certainly was. As for Hannan - he has to live with his own conscience. One presumes he has one.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

From the Guardian, in a piece headed, "Cameron prioritises exit from EU social chapter," we learn that the Boy today pledged that a future Conservative government would pull out of the EU social chapter as a "top priority".

But, as we reported a few days ago, UKIP's Nigel Farage has already questioned the EU commission on this, eliciting from José Manuel Barroso the following response:

The Commission assumes that when the Honourable Member refers to the Social Chapter in the Treaties, he is referring to the social provisions contained in the articles 136 to 145 of the EC Treaty. These provisions are part of the whole Treaty and cannot be isolated. All Member States are bound by the Treaties they have signed and ratified and which have entered into force, including the social provisions they contain. Consequently, a withdrawal from these provisions by a Member State would require an amendment of the EC Treaty in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

Yet, in his speech to the Movement for European Reform, the Boy told his audience that his plan was: "not to posture but to persuade" in Europe.

"I believe that the best way to pursue your national interest, is not to posture - but to persuade," he said. "I will be polite, but solid and consistent. I will work to create a flexible Europe by building alliances with those who share our interests and our ideas."

"Flexibility," he continued,

…is vital in the area of worker protection, where there is such labour market diversity and demographic difference across the EU. That's why I do not believe it is appropriate for social and employment legislation to be dealt with at the European level. It will be a top priority for the next Conservative Government to restore social and employment legislation to national control.

And just how does he plan to "persuade", politely or otherwise, the European Union members to agree to a major amendment to the Treaty? How will you do that, Mr Cameron?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

The Boy and his Czech partner in crime Mirek Topolanek have teamed up to write the most amazingly self-serving piece on the Telegraph website.

Headed, with execrable grammar, "Building an EU that we can all be proud of", all the predictable clichés are there. The duo want to "to pioneer a new agenda for Europe", with "key commitments for a forward-looking EU".

They lay the foundations for the usual, mythical EU that lives on in the dim fantasies of "one nation" Tories. This is the EU that is "clearly and unambiguously committed to open markets", that is "committed to a Europe of nation states" and, of course, is "more flexible". As you might have guessed, it also "should be committed to a strong transatlantic relationship".

This is their recipe for building an "EU fit for the 21st century", but it is the same old, same old 20th Century drivel that the Tories have been churning out for decades.

So familiar and predictable is it that it is an insult to our collective intelligence. As The Sun pointed out yesterday, it is a deliberate snub to the Eurosceptics, a declaration by the Boy that there is no possibility of compromise.

He has accepted nothing and is giving nothing, having abandoned any pretence of adhering to even tepid Euroscepticism. He now speaks only for that Europhile core of a Conservative Party that wants to drive European political integration. He is a leader with ideas of which Macmillan and Heath would heartily approve, and which have nothing in common with Thatcher.

Like the EU itself, the Boy is now in his present position by dint of deception – a fabric of lies, sustained by fanatasy. Would he have won the leadership with a slogan, "Building an EU that we can all be proud of", committing himself to that task? I think not.

This is not a man with whom one can do business.

Meanwhile, England Expects has a report from the heart of Europe (pictured above right), where Dave will be wowing the crowds (not).

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

With the UK Independence Party doing its best to self-destruct, under the weight of its own incompetence and the sustained assault of two Sunday newspapers, it does not seem entirely a coincidence that the Boy "we don't talk about Europe" King should come out of the woodwork with a speech about the European Union.

Billed by The Times as "one of his most important speeches since becoming Tory leader", the carefully crafted leaks tell us that the Boy "will pledge" to work with like-minded politicians to create a new European Union — one that he thinks will work for Britain and the world rather than immerse itself in distractions such as the constitution.

The actual trigger, however, is the first anniversary of the foundation of the Movement for European Reform, founded last year as a sop to those horrible critics who felt that the Boy should have honoured his pledge to withdraw the Conservative MEPs from the EPP. Instead, reneged on his pledge and set up his "movement", hoping to kick the issue into the long grass with a promise that the MEPs would leave the EPP after the 2009 Euro elections and start a new political grouping.

And so The Times tells us that this address will mark the Boy's attempt to get his party to start talking about Europe again but without becoming embroiled with sovereignty. This rather brings to mind the old joke, "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play"? "Apart from the threat to our sovereignty, Mr Cameron, what do you think of the EU?"

Next thing you know, he'll be telling us we're "in Europe but not ruled by Europe".

In an attempt to pass this one by what they hope is a gullible (and disinterested) electorate, an anonymous "aid" is cited as saying: "We have not been able to speak about Europe much because in the past we have always split over it. Now we want to be pointing the way towards where Europe should be going and saying that we will change it."

From this, The Times infers that the speech "will be a clear signal" that the Boy will not take his party out of Europe and also a message to supporters who are considering deserting to UKIP that he will try to change the EU. The Sun, however, is in no doubt as to the meaning of the speech, declaring that the boy "snubs" the sceptics.


That aside, it's déjà vu all over again, with the same old, same old… Working with Europe to achieve reform, little Dave is going to lead us into the sunlit uplands of a new, all-singing, all-dancing construct, made in his image, and those like him. All it needs now is the French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish… politicians to fall back in adoration and gratitude to the Boy for sharing with them such a wonderful vision.

On the other hand, they might just ignore him completely, content that yet another British politician has lost the plot and will present no threat whatsoever to their own grandiose plans. Come back UKIP … never more has there been a need for a political party to take on these morons who believe, uniquely, that they can "reform" the EU, when all before them have failed.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

Even when trying to look at them charitably (not an activity for which this blog is famed), one is drawn to the conclusion that there is something very odd about the Tories and their emerging foreign policy.

That much is evident from shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who today was addressing the Welsh Conservative conference in Cardiff.

Despite having a free choice of subjects within his portfolio, Hague chose to home in on the tendentious issue of an inquiry into the Iraq war, declaring that the Tories will invite Labour MPs to support a Commons motion on one, if one is not launched by the government.

Said Hague, "supporters and opponents of the Iraq war must make sure the lessons of the invasion and its aftermath were learned", which then became criticism of Tony Blair's "sofa style" of foreign policy decision-making. As an alternative, the Tories were examining proposals for a National Security Council.

But what seems to escape Hague is that, as far as the aftermath of the Iraqi war goes, we are, in a sense, facing unknown territory. As such, we are facing a steep learning curve and are not in a position to talk about "lessons learned". Some we are still devising and, for others, we have not even completed the lesson plan.

Thus, while Hague is talking blithely about doing "our utmost to ensure that lessons are learned for the future," we need to be learning lessons now, and applying them now. If we do not, we may well not have a future.

And like it or not, the single nation most engaged in this issue is the United States. Mistakes the Americans most certainly have made but, when it comes to "learning the lessons", nowhere is the debate and the experimentation more vibrant than in the USA and in the US sectors of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It thus seems wholly inappropriate for Hague to be talking about the need for better "management" of the UK's relationship with the US. Even less appropriate is the suggestion that we need to "recover the art of managing the relationship well and making it one of permanent friendship coupled with honest criticism."

Given how far behind the curve we are in our prosecution of the war in our sectors, it seems that we are not really in a position to offer much by the way of criticism, honest or otherwise. Rather, we might be better served if we spent some time in criticising our own performance. We might perhaps benefit from a little more listening and learning, and much more humility, before we rush to the White House to offer our views.

But then, humility does not seem to be Hague, who has rehearsed this thesis before, telling us in January that we should adopt "a more critical relationship" with the United States, while developing stronger ties with increasingly influential nations like China, India, and Japan.

Furthermore, Hague seems to have passed on his disease to the Boy King who is currently in Israel. According to The Times, the Boy wants us to be "America's best friend but not its slave", telling it what it needed to know and not what it wanted to hear.

Once again, one can detect a certain lack of humility as he told the Israeli press that his own ties with Washington would be "solid but not slavish". One wonders whether the old-Etonian toff has stopped to think whether "Washington" will be in the mood for advice from him, and whether he has anything to tell the Americans in which they will be the least interested. Methinks he doth flatter himself.

Anyhow, while he was out doing his tourist thing in the Old City of Jerusalem, it seems a young Palestinian girl passed an opinion on the Boy's policies, rather in the manner of a certain young gentleman earlier in the week. But, if the sentiment seems rather appropriate, it also seems about as contrived as our Dave. Hands up those who think she was put up to it by a press photographer.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

A scene in the House of Commons this morning, during a debate on the Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill. This is a private members Bill, which the government opposes, so it is unlikely every to see the light of day. However, the issue that brings it to the House is very serious – the rash of illegal off-roaders on mini-motorbike, making people's lives a misery.

That such issues should be discussed is what we pay our MPs for yet, as the "debate" progressed, it was not to get any better.

The second scene is taken an hour later, when the minister, Dr Stephen Ladyman is speaking. Clearly, participation in debates is not a priority for Tory back-benchers (all of whom will undoubtedly have other, quite valid calls on their time). But one cannot avoid taking the view that, if none at all can be bother to show up for this, are they really interested in what we think about anything else?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories

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

Labels: BNP, Tories, UKIP

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

Labels: BNP, Tories, UKIP

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

Labels: David Cameron, Tories

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!

Labels: Tories

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

Labels: Tories, UKIP

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

Labels: David Cameron, Tories