Robbing us blind

Something which perhaps should be given more publicity than it is getting is the bizarre story retailed in The Financial Times about the urgent action taken by HMG to zero rate carbon credits to put a lid on VAT fraud.

That carbon credits – the ultimate "snake oil" product – should have become a major vehicle for VAT fraud is hugely ironic, but one is not comforted by the FT's assurance that: "Losses to the exchequer so far are unlikely to have exceeded a few hundred million pounds."

Er ... "few hundred million pounds"? If this had been a robbery of that magnitude, it would be spread all over the front pages. So why the diffidence? This is major-league theft – real money, straight out of our pockets.

Such is the seriousness of the situation that the Treasury is warning that "there now exists a substantiated and increasing risk of the UK becoming a major target for the fraudsters during the next few months". It had taken the action even though changes to VAT need to be agreed by the EU Commission, without even waiting for formal approval.

The scam, it seems, also has international dimensions, with similar action having been taken by France and the Netherlands, pre-empting what is feared to be fraud on an industrial scale, with billions at risk.

This, however, is the tip of the iceberg, exposing yet another vulnerability in a system massively prone to fraud which has cost the exchequers of EU countries billions.

Yet the scale of the fraud is matched only by the degree of under-reporting in the media, which seems not to register the magnitude of this crime and the fact that we are indeed talking about real money. This is not a victim-less crime.

The real problem, though, is the inherent nature of VAT itself and the only long-term solution is to abandon the system completely. Yet that very system is locked into the very heart of the EU – another colossal failure of the project. That, presumably, is why no one wants to talk about it.

And that, this time, the fraud should be perpetrated on the back of what amounts to another fraud – carbon credits – should give us all pause for thought.

COMMENT THREAD

A breakdown of democracy

At the beginning of this month, we drew attention to the dark role played played by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in the crash of Air France flight 447. Subsequently – not having recovered the flight recorders and, apparently contradicting earlier evidence – the French accident investigators decided that the role of the crucial sensors, the pitot tubes, was only a "factor" in the accident and not central to it.

This effectively gets EASA off the hook, except that now, it seems the Union of Air France Pilots (SPAF) ain't buying it.

They have accused both EASA and France's DGAC aviation authority of failing to prevent the Bralizilian tragedy which killed 228 people, by ignoring earlier warnings about faulty pitot tubes.

In a letter to the agencies, Gerard Arnoux, the head of SPAF, says: "For years the crews of A330/340 aircraft have been reporting cases of loss or variation of airspeed data in severe weather conditions." He goes on to say that "Appropriate measures" from either agency would have "helped prevent the sequence of events that led to the loss of control of the aircraft."

Not mincing his words, he then asserts that it was the "responsibility" of both agencies to "force the manufacturer Airbus to make the necessary changes" to the defective sensors, charging that a presentation had been made to the EASA in September 2007 as proof the agency was aware Airbus pitot tubes had suffered "a significant number of operating incidents linked to icing over or heavy rain."

Although Air France had decided on 12 June this year to upgrade all the sensors on its long-haul fleet, this action came only after protests from pilots. Neither the DGAC nor the EASA instructed Airbus or airlines to take any action.

The DGAC, like our own agency, the CAA, is now subordinate to EASA which, as an EU agency, has the supreme power and is the lead safety certification authority. Totally unresponsive to member states and with no democratic control – reporting only to the EU commission but not responsible to it, EASA is effectively a law unto itself.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, it has not responded publically or even commented on SPAF's charges, and there is no direct means (or any) by which the Air France pilots could call the agency to account. It would also be unsurprising if, as an EU agency watching over the Airbus project – which is near and dear to the heart of the EU – it had been influenced by issues other than safety in not taking any action.

As part of our totally unaccountable government, the agency thus illustrates when the normal mechanisms of democratic governance break down.

COMMENT THREAD

Collective security

Just as we thought we could get back to (semi-) normal, after a rush of defence stories, up pops, to almost everyone's surprise, a government announcement that it will, after all, have a defence review – but not until after the next election, with a Green Paper to be produced in the autumn.

For all that, the media has been obsessed with the Michael Jackson funeral. The BBC (and others) have been running it wall-to-wall, matched in print by the celebrity-obsessed Telegraph, leaving coverage of the much more important issue extremely sparse.

But if in the real world, we have to consider such ugly things as wars, The Times and The Daily Mail visit the fantasy world of al Gore, who was visiting Oxford (having flown to the UK in his private jet), to invoke the Churchillian spirit in the "battle" against climate change.

Never mind that there are real battles going on – we do not need al Gore's pathetic attempt to turn his failing religion into a crisis. And, to give it its due, it is The Times which affords most space to the real world issue of "defence of the realm", even giving that title to its leader.

Needless to say, the paper rehearses issues which are probably familiar to us all, including the fate of the nuclear deterrent and Trident. Its analysis piece, however – written by Michael Evans - is striking in its depth and perception. He writes:

What is now needed is a ruthless approach to defence. If expenditure is not set to rise, Britain’s Armed Forces can no longer do everything and be everywhere. Investment should focus on the capabilities and platforms which can best be used in the future to contribute significantly to multinational, probably US-led, efforts. Britain does not always have to be the second-biggest troop provider in an international force — as it is in Afghanistan. This country has been punching above its weight for too long.

The leader, as you might imagine, reflects this view, offering the advice that we should stop thinking of ourselves as a global power, able to run a major military effort independently, and think in terms of "collective security" – working with allies. But it also cautions against scaling back commitments in line with changed threats and budgetary constraints.

It wants to keep Britain's independent nuclear deterrent – noting that the economic dividends from scrapping it would be slight, and the damage to Britain's defence capability substantial. Also, the paper asserts, a defence review cannot, be a substitute for a searching examination of how the Treasury is financing the war in Afghanistan. Welsh Guards who are in harm's way today cannot wait till 2010. They must have adequate equipment now, it says.

The Independent and The Guardian seemingly cannot be bothered to report on the government's announcement, in line with the Telegraph which, instead, hands over space to Liam Fox, allowing him to proclaim: "There's a war on - someone tell Labour."

That really is a little bit rich, considering how little input we have had from the Conservatives on the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. But we must suspend judgement, it seems and simply accept that "the next Tory government will carry out a proper review of our defence needs."

At the next election, there will be real choice, claims Fox. We can change to the principled realism of the Conservatives, or continue with the discredited cynicism and failure of Labour. Oddly, he says this will be "a stark choice" but, for defence in particular, a crucial one. He may be right, but not in the way he thinks.

The wooden spoon, however, goes to Sky News with a web report that still cannot distinguish between a Snatch and a Wimik, with defence correspondent Geoff Meade telling us that "30 British lives were lost in Afghanistan and Iraq" in Snatches "because the car was not strong enough to protect troops against small arms fire, petrol bombs and shrapnel." This is a man to whom we do not even need to listen, much less take seriously.

What no-one seem to be watching though is the European dimension. On 6 July, the UK and France released a declaration on defence and security following the UK-French Summit in Evian – which most of us did not even realise was happening.

It covers Afghanistan, piracy off the coast of Somalia, Kosovo, the Middle East Peace Process, DRC and mutual support overseas, with an agreement on procedures to make use of facilities at each other's overseas bases if required.

There was also a British-French cooperation initiative on European carrier group interoperability, launched in London in March 2008. This is now "well on track", and this is to be backed by joint training and sharing of best practice on helicopter operations.

St Malo this is not, but there is still a commitment to the European Security and Defence Policy, which will be strengthened if and when the constitutional Lisbon treaty is ratified. But, while the two countries "recognise the importance of flexible and rapidly deployable forces, including EU Battlegroups and the NATO Response Force," there is no real meat.

The threat is still there, but the delivery is not. The Times has a view on "collective security" and the Europeans have their view. We doubt whether a strategic review will settle the question – the Taleban might have a bigger say in the matter. As for Gore ... not wanted on voyage.

COMMENT THREAD

Twice as much for less protection

With the results of the closely-fought M-ATV contract to supply off-road protected vehicles to the US armed forces in Afghanistan being announced yesterday, US Armed Forces are to get their protected vehicles for Afghanistan at half the cost paid by the British MoD, which has selected one of the unsuccessful bidders.

This is another classic example of MoD waste, strengthening the argument that throwing money at defence is not going to solve its structural problems.

Sadly, this message is not percolating into the general consciousness. In The Daily Telegraph letters column today, for instance, we get Philip Congdon, writing from La Bastide d'Engras, Gard, France, opining that, "the real problem is profligate spending on a myriad public-funded schemes, many of which have wasted billions of pounds and achieved nothing."

He is, rightly, referring to the enormous waste in the public sector generally, and it is certainly an argument that, had so much money not been wasted, defence could have been better funded.

However, up front in the ranks of waste is the MoD. Over term, we have identified billions than have been poured down the drain for little or no effect. Thus, while a case can be made for more defence spending, the more important issue is to improve the spending performance of the MoD. Otherwise, we are just throwing good money after bad.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Strategic thinking?

.... there are other, potentially greater, threats to the security of the nation than the distant prospect of an invasion by an unidentified superpower, or an attack by a rogue nuclear state. The consequences of climate change in terms of water supply, mass migration and unrest in parts of the world on which we rely for energy constitute just as great an existential threat as existed during the Cold War.

That is the view of the world's favourite newspaper. The source of this tosh, however, is the IPPR - 147 pages of it. They'll be rolling out the European Climate Change Corps next.

UKNDA believes the IPPR authors are "barking up the wrong tree". The IPPR recommends a move away from Britain's traditional focus on the alliance with the USA, towards a Europe-centred Defence policy. "We must continue to stand alongside America - that is absolutely fundamental ... It would be sheer folly to retreat to the role of European bit-player, heavily reliant on France and Germany," says UKNDA. We could hardly disagree.

COMMENT THREAD

An accident waiting to happen

The Times is reporting that Airbus is expected to face calls to ground its worldwide fleet of long-range airliners today when French accident investigators issue their first account of what caused Air France Flight 447 to crash off Brazil on 1 June.

It is believed that the accident bureau will report that faulty speed data and electronics were the main problem in the disaster that killed 228 people.

Last weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board, began looking into two incidents in which Airbus A330s flying from the US suffered critical episodes apparently similar to that of AF447 but, crucially, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – which is the lead safety authority on this type - is now likely to be asked why it had never taken action to remedy trouble that was well known with the Airbus 330 and 340 series.

"EASA has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now. If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded, " says James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London. The firm, which specialises in aviation, is representing the families of 20 of the victims of flight 447.

Airbus first reported problems with the pitot tubes in 1994, it emerged this week. The company advised remedies, but no mandatory action was taken.

One wonders, of course, whether things might have been different if an Airbus had not been involved, and whether EASA is too close to this European industry. There were, for instance, dark reports in 2005 about EASA suppressing safety concerns about the A-380.

The following year, the House of Commons Transport Committee produced a coruscating report, condemning the EASA, calling it an "accident waiting to happen", and advising the British government not to transfer more power to it.

In the 367-page report, committee chairwoman (the late) Gwyneth Dunwoody said that EASA, which became operational in 2003, had failed to coordinate safety regulation across Europe and threatened air safety in the UK. EASA's "lamentable problems of governance, management and resources," the report adds, "must not be allowed to compromise aviation safety in the UK in any way".

Now the accident has happened, who is going to do an inquiry on EASA?

COMMENT THREAD

Kippered

Last week the prime minister returned from the European Council having denied the EU the right to determine which financial institutions he, or his successors, would have to bail out in the future.

Or so he says, and may even believe, notes Irwin Stelzer. But he hasn't. Stelzer continues:

In fact, France's Nicolas Sarkozy was closer to the truth when he proclaimed that "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism has been altered by the establishment of new pan-European regulatory bodies. Prepare yourself to learn new agency titles: the European Banking Authority; the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority; the European Securities and Markets Authority; the European Systemic Risks Councils. You couldn't make it up, as our tabloid cousins say.

These new agencies will not only provide jobs for the boys: they have binding powers to investigate and oversee cross-border banking, insurance, pensions and securities, and can issue binding orders to resolve disputes between member states.

Sarkozy has only scorn for Gordon Brown's claim that these bodies have very limited power. "We have agreed a European system of supervision with binding powers. My conviction is that its scope will increase."

History is on the French president's side – efforts to hold EU institutions to their original remits have uniformly failed. Surely, Lord Mandelson, a Europhile whose next project is the replacement of sterling with the euro, knows this.

Whether he shared that insight with his ostensible boss we do not know, but it is a reasonable guess that his Lordship neglected to warn the PM of the pending loss of still more national sovereignty. When the Prime Minister said that "candour" is the new watchword of his government, he surely did not expect it to apply to his new best friend.

The implications of this are profound. In the few short months following the banking crisis, we have ceded huge tranches of control over our financial institutions to the EU, vested in hostile hands with agendas which are entirely inimical to our own.

This has been matched by an almost complete absence of outrage and front-page coverage – part of the "opportunity cost" arising from the obsession with MPs' expenses. While the political classes have been discussing little else but the penny-ante sums involved, the EU has made a power grab that will cost us billions, all without reference to our own Parliament which has not yet debated the issue and never will.

That there should have been so little attention to this issue is unsurprising. Bankers, whatever their contribution to the economy, tend to be the lowest form of scum that inhabits the earth, and they have not made many friends recently.

Further, the whole issue of banking regulation is fiendishly complex, as we know from our own forays into this field. Then, apart from a few high-profile banking executives, the field is populated by anonymous, grey figures conducting back-room, technical deals which do not lend themselves to the "biff-bam" style of modern media reporting.

Thus, in the couloirs of Brussels and beyond, one of our most important wealth generating activities has been stitched-up, kippered and delivered to the enemy. We won't poinpoint the cause of the effects immediately – or at all. As the EU exerts its malign grip, its depredations will not be reported and that which escapes into the public domain will not be understood.

The only thing certain is that we will pay, directly and indirectly, and keep on paying ... until such time as we are forced to leave the EU or go bankrupt.

COMMENT THREAD

Playing politics

Edward Leigh – he of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – is at it again, his committee this time reporting on the ill-starred Type 45 Destroyers.

This warship type, as readers will know, is to form the backbone of the Royal Navy's air defence capability, replacing the ageing Type 42s. To that effect, the ships are fitted with the French manufactured Aster missile, known by the acronym PAAMS (Principle Anti-Aircraft Missile System).

Leigh's main beef is that, although the first (of six) Type 45 will enter service in 2009, "it is a disgrace that it will do so without a PAAMS missile having been fired from the ship, and will not achieve full operational capability until 2011." He (or his committee) also complains that other equipments and capabilities which will enhance the ship's ability to conduct anti-air warfare operations will not be fitted until after the ship enters service in some cases.

As to the committee's diagnosis of the main problem, it notes that, although the Type 45 was based on 80 percent new technology, the MoD failed to take sufficient account of this in its assessment of technical risk or in the commercial construct that it agreed. Thus, it decides that the Ministry "needs to improve its understanding of technical risks at the start of its projects" and should "factor in more realistic allowance for risk on its more technically complex projects."

To say that this is a somewhat superficial finding is something of an understatement. What the committee does not identify is that PAAMS is another of those ghastly European co-operative ventures, with the French having the design lead on the Aster missile. The delays in the deployment of the weapons system, therefore, owe as much to our French partners as they do the MoD.

Further, as we rehearsed nearly four years ago, the genesis of the Type 45 goes back to 1985, with the ill-fated NFR-90 (NATO Frigate Replacement for 90s) programme, a multi-national attempt at designing a common frigate for several Nato nations, including France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the United States and Canada.

Inevitably, with such an ambitious project and with such disparate requirements, the project could not succeed and it was abandoned in the early 1990s, after US and the UK had withdrawn, the latter in 1989 after fears that the design would not meet the requirements for replacing the Type 42 air-defence destroyers.

It was then in 1992, on John Major's watch, when he was imbued with the desire to be "at the heart of Europe" that his Conservative government opted for a "European" solution, setting up the Horizon "Common New Generation Frigate" project with France and Italy.

The project comprised two separate but linked projects – the basic platform (ship), and the missile/radar complex. And while the platform was a common venture, and the British elected for their own radar, the missile system – known as the PAAMS (Principal Anti-Aircraft Missiles system) – was to be French-built by EUROPAAMS.

It was a Labour government then in 1999 that abandoned the Horizon project, the MoD then electing to go for a British-built platform, which had been the original intention back in 1985 before a Nato solution had been considered. A year later, a "fixed price" contract was awarded to BAE Systems for twelve ships, scheduled to enter service by the end of 2014.

Interestingly, the entire programme was budgeted at about £6 billion, including PAAMS, the development of which had been agreed in 1995 by a Conservative government, despite fears over escalating costs. The target cost per ship (excluding missiles) was about £270 million, with as much again for the missiles.

The PAC now observes that it is "disappointing" that the MoD has taken so long - over 20 years, it says - to deliver its replacement for the Type 42s. But it then refers to the Type 45 entering service over two years late and £1.5 billion over budget. In fact, it is 20 years late, and more than £6 billion over the originally planned budget.

The crucial issue though is that this is another of those "legacy" procurement projects started in the days when European co-operation was all the rage, and many of the problems currently experienced stem from that – making the Conservatives jointly responsible for the cost over-runs and delays.

It jars, therefore, to find Liam Fox - as always – scoring party political points on this project, claiming that: "This report highlights the extraordinary risk that this Government is taking with our nation's defences in an increasingly volatile world."

"Its appalling incompetence," he adds, "has left the Royal Navy having to "juggle and hope" with only half the new ships it was supposed to have, and a fleet of exhausted Type 42s that are more than three decades old."

But for the Euro-enthusiasm of the previous Conservative government, the Type 42 replacements would already have been in service for some years. And, instead of relying on the European fixation with developing highly sophisticated technical projects like missile systems from scratch, we would possibly have relied – as do the Americans – on evolutionary projects such as an enhanced Sea Dart, developing the technology already in service on the Type 42.

To reduce costs, we could also have shared Spain's philosophy. Put off by the French insistence on a new European combat system, it went for the "proven and ready to go" US sales pitch for its F100 frigate, which features the Aegis system and Standard missiles, the current US maritime anti-aircraft systems.

Spain's IZAR shipbuilders formed industrial bonds with Lockheed Martin, enabling it to build its own platforms while benefiting from state-of-the-art technology, delivering ships with greater capabilities than the Type 45 which included Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-submarine missiles – at around half the cost for each platform.

Arguably, had the previous Conservative government followed this route, the massive cost increases could have been avoided, in which case we would have twelve ships instead of the six now being purchased. Dr Fox, therefore, is playing politics.

COMMENT THREAD

A lack of focus

Today, the domestic political focus will be on the election of the Speaker in the House of Commons, an event that will absorb much time and energy both of the media and the political classes.

That this election should be necessary and that so much attention is being devoted to it, however, demonstrates how inwards-looking our politicians have become – all at a time when great events should be demanding theirs and the nation's attention.

Not least is the violence in Iran following the rigged election but, of direct and immediate importance is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan where there is a sense that events are coming to a head. And with so little reporting in the British MSM of actual events, there is also a sense that we are sleepwalking into another disaster, the effects of which are incalculable.

What is particularly remarkable though is that after the flurry of publicity over the weekend and the urgent and important issue of inadequate vehicles supplied to our troops, but politicians and the media had slipped back into their normal torpor, ignoring what seems set to become a major crisis.

That is not the case with the US media, where the Washington Post devoted a lengthy article to the situation in Now Zad, which we recorded in one of our Sunday pieces.

Today we also see Associated Press reporting on the same area, with an account of some of the ongoing fighting, all under the headline, "Afghan firefight shows challenge for US troops".



Written by Chris Brummitt, he offers an eyewitness account of an operation where, "Missiles, machine guns and strafing runs from fighter jets destroyed much of a Taliban compound," but he then records that "the insurgents had a final surprise for a pair of US Marines who pushed into the smouldering building just before nightfall."

As the two men walked up an alley, we are told, the Taleban opened fire from less than 15 yards, sending bullets and tracer fire crackling inches past them. They fled under covering fire from their comrades, who hurled grenades at the enemy position before sprinting to their armoured vehicles.

We then learn that the assault capped a day of fighting Saturday in the poppy fields, orchards and walled compounds of southern Afghanistan between newly arrived US Marines and well dug-in Taleban fighters. It was a foretaste, writes Brummitt, of what will likely be a bloody summer as Washington tries to turn around a bogged-down, eight-year-old war with a surge of 21,000 troops.

Significantly, though, Brummitt also agues that the fighting was on the outskirts of Now Zad, "a town that in many ways symbolises what went wrong in Afghanistan and the enormous challenges facing the United States. It is in Helmand province, a centre of the insurgency and the opium poppy trade that helps fund it."

The point, of course is that, in 2006, the town of Now Zad was a British responsibility yet, as Brummitt records, British and Estonian troops, then garrisoned there, were unable to defeat the insurgents. They were replaced last year by a company of about 300 US Marines, who lived in a base in the centre of the deserted town and on two hills overlooking it.

Even now, a year later, the Taleban hold much of the northern outskirts and the orchards beyond, where they have entrenched defensive positions, tunnels and bunkers. The Marines outnumber the Taleban in the area by at least 3-to-1 and have vastly superior weapons but avoid offensive operations because they lack the manpower to hold territory once they take it. There are no Afghan police or troops here to help.

"We don't have the people to backfill us. Why clear something that we cannot hold?" said Lt-Col Patrick Cashman, commanding the battalion occupying Now Zad and other districts in Helmand and Farah provinces, where some 10,000 Marines are slowly spreading out in the first wave of the troop surge.

Cashman says the Marines did not intend to allow the Taleban free rein in parts of Now Zad, but was unable to give any specific plans or time frame for addressing what he acknowledged is "a bad situation."

For all their better equipment ands resources, therefore, the US Marines – who have now been in-place for over a year – do not seem to be making much more headway than the British before them, with the same limitations on "Clear, Hold, Build" that the British Army is experiencing – the subject of some criticism.

The trouble is that, in a country the size of France, with Helmand roughly the size of Wales, there are never going to be enough troops to hold the territory. That suggests that the basic approach being adopted by both the US and British is flawed. Although it might be fine in theory, on practice it is never going to happen, in which case we really should be looking at an alternative strategy – or admitting defeat and getting out altogether.

This makes Afghanistan a highly political issue yet, where there is any attention being given to foreign adventures, our politicos are looking at pre-war Iraq. But, as Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail remarks, "Who needs an inquiry into the Iraq War? It's over. Nobody will be brought to justice. Isn't it time Parliament debated our dubious involvement in Afghanistan, and sought to end it?"

Despite this, we all know this is not going to happen. The Speaker's election will get a hundred-fold more time and attention, and the Iraq inquiry has already had far more attention than current operation in Helmand. This lack of focus is dangerous – to the troops on the ground and to us as a nation. For our neglect, there will be a price to pay.

COMMENT THREAD

The last vestiges of power

A cruel farce is about to play out today and tomorrow as Gordon Brown goes through the motions at the European Council of trying to rescue the City of London from destructive EU financial regulations … and fails.

Nevertheless, The Guardian is keeping up the pretence that our prime minister still has any power, telling us that he is "to resist European attempts to exert greater controls over the City of London."

However, even this europhile newspaper acknowledges the scale of the forces up against him, noting that the other big European states – namely France – are backing the EU moves. Particularly damaging is the plan to establishing a new system of pan-European regulators and supervisors, with last-resort authority to dictate bank bailout orders to national governments.

Already though, as we reported recently the writing was on the wall and now Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cuts through the cant and tells it as it is.

The UK is "powerless" to stop EU regulation, his piece is headed, revealing that a "senior French official" has confirmed Gordon Brown is "almost powerless" to stop the creation of EU financial regulatory machinery – a move that will open the way for a transfer of control over the City from London to Brussels.

The senior French official turns out to be a key aide to president Sarkozy who is predicting that: "There will be a pincer movement on Britain." To aid them in their endeavours, the "colleagues" are citing Obama's recent "financial reforms", which bear an uncanny resemblance to the EU moves.

The French in particular believes that Obama has undermined British resistance and will argue that the EU must come into line with the Americans, otherwise – in the terms of the favourite mantra Britain will be "isolated within Europe".

All this of course is largely for show. Britain cannot veto the proposals because EU they are framed under single market provisions which only need QMV to get through. It is reckoned that the UK will struggle to put together a blocking minority.

Thus, Britain will cave in – not that it has any option – leaving only a face-saving formula to be paraded by the likes of The Guardian as the last vestiges of power dribble away.

COMMENT THREAD

Ceremonies and traditions

Slithering into The Times today, without so much as a blush, are two of the men who collectively have done more damage to the authority of parliament – and the Conservative Party – than any men alive: John Major and Douglas Hurd.

Writing together – presumably one holding the quill and the other moving his lips – they have the unmitigated gall to offer their collective "wisdom" on how parliament should be reformed, pleading for an end to "frivolous reshuffles and trivia" and calling for "outside talent" to be brought to the dispatch box.

Fortified by collective myopia over their role in the neutering of parliament, having rammed the Maastricht treaty through an unwilling House, amazing they fix only on Gordon Brown's machinations, complaining that his and Labour's activities have weakened parliament. As is common with the Tory tribe, history begins in 1997 and all ills are attributed to the period since.

With the arrogance typical of their tribe, they then make the sweeping assertion that "no one has been speaking up for change to improve the quality of government as a whole," meaning, of course, that they many calls for precisely that have not percolated into their limited, close-minded circle and, because they have only just started thinking in these terms, such a discourse only now exists.

For sure, they are right to complain of the treadmill of ever-changing ministers and the low grade of the same – which indeed they do – condemning the rapid turnover as "frivolous government". But this is from one of the men who, in the dying days of his government launched the "cones hotline".

Perhaps though, Major has noticed the similarity between traffic cones and ministers in that they are both proliferating at an equal rate. Since he complains of there being too many ministers, he might consider calling for a "ministers' hotline" allwoing members of the public to up when they detect an unnecessary minister and have it removed.

That would certainly clear the air for what Major and Hurd regard as an "adventurous experiment" – having the prime minister appoint a small number of unelected ministers of state, who would be answerable to Parliament without being members of either House.

This is, they declare is "a device borrowed from the United States, France and other democracies that practise the separation of powers." It could deepen, they say, the quality of ministerial government without undermining the principle of accountability to Parliament.

Good in principle, needless to say this is only an Elastoplast solution – perhaps the Conservative Party has shares in adhesive bandages, just as it has in wind farms. To make a fist of proper reform, we need to separate ministers – and thus government – from parliament, going the whole hog, rather than trimming round the edges.

But no one could ever accuse either Major or Hurd of thinking things though. Thus we have the usual witless mantra about the Commons re-establishing the ability to scrutinise legislation, both domestic and European. What is the point of scrutinising EU legislation when it cannot be changed and, given that so much is implemented through QMV, cannot even be blocked?

Failing to address this fundamental point, therefore, any other changes are nice, but like this pair – useless. We would agree, for instance, with their ideas on select committees, creating a parliamentary career structure in parallel to the structure of government so that chairmen emerge as nationally known figures. But without addressing the fundamentals, this is only of limited value.

What really then puts the cap on this self-serving tosh, therefore, is the peroration, where they roundly declare: "Those of us who have been privileged to serve Parliament, in both Houses, have a duty to breathe new life back into the ceremonies, traditions and magnificent buildings of which we have been so proud in the past."

Neither were so proud that they were deterred from handing over a huge tranche of powers to the EU, and setting the scene for the further betrayals which have largely been responsible of the neutering of the institution that that the pair claim to have been "privileged to serve".

But, if they are that concerned about "ceremonies" and "traditions", maybe we should bring back another one – the firing squad. Hurd and Major could do no greater service to this country than in allowing us to test it out on them.

COMMENT THREAD

Desperately seeking graphics

The leading producer of imaginative computer graphics of non-existent aircraft (example above) is back in the fray again, this time seeking state loans of €3.6 billion for its latest set of graphics.

Codenamed the A-350, representing a long-range medium-capacity airliner not dissimilar to the Boeing 787, the project is intended to produce a range of high-definition graphics which may be turned into a real aeroplane some time after 2013. The producer, Airbus Industries, is thus turning to France, Germany, Spain, and possibly Britain for the money, which it says will account for 30 percent of the development.

Needless to say, the developer of real aeroplanes, which actually fly and make money, is none too happy at the prospect of having to compete in the crowded computer graphics market and is warning that this could re-ignite a trade dispute between the EU and the US over subsidies.

Ted Austell, Boeing's vice president for public policy, says "We can only reiterate our position that Airbus should finance its computer graphics aircraft development using its own cash and commercial loans."

However, tiring of the existing set of graphics code-named A-400M, government ministers representing France, Germany, Spain and Britain are to meet on 15 June at the Paris Air Show to discuss the new set. They have not been given the approval to work out an agreement, so the negotiations may be protracted, especially as Britain is still considering whether to contribute.

Should Britain decide to take part, the wing representations will be produced in a studio in Bristol by Polish émigrés, ready for presentation to the contributing states in 2017, in time for a loan request for a further €10 billion, in order to generate the wiring diagrams.

Safety experts applauded the developments, remarking that the current generation of virtual aircraft had been almost entirely accident-free. So far, no lives had been lost.

If this trend continues, says Dr Norbert O T Goodenough, the A-350 graphics will outstrip all previous efforts and possibly even exceed the safety record of the A-400M graphics. This can only be spoiled if they actually produce the aircraft, he says, although the chances of this are so slight that Goodenough remains unconcerned.

COMMENT THREAD

A symbol of confidence

That example of European success and co-operation is back in the news again today – no less than Airbus Industries. And the news is not good. International Lease Finance Corp (ILFC), the largest aircraft leasing firm in the US is warning that it may have to consider cancelling its order for ten A-380 "jumbojets".

This is from company's Chief Executive Steven Udvar-Hazy who says he has struggled to place even one A380 with a client. On this basis, the clock to countdown to either a cancellation or switch to an alternative - the A350XWB - has probably passed the half-way mark already.

ILFC has already delayed its A380 orders until 2013 and has an option to pull out between January and June 2010 without paying penalties. No decision has yet been made but, says Udvar-Hazy, he is seeing a "general structural change" in the way that airlines think about the A380. It is unlikely, therefore, that the order will go ahead.

This further adds to the pain for Airbus which, last month, cut its 2009 delivery target for the A380 to 14 from 18, blaming the economic crisis and deferral requests from airline customers. These include the France-KLM Group and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

Another of those deferrals might be the Dubai-based Emirates airline which has its president Tim Clark warning that he too may slow down deliveries of its orders from next year. The airline, which has a $55 billion order book for aircraft from Boeing and Airbus – with 53 A380s on order - was planning on taking delivery of ten aircraft a year. This may be reduced to five. Funds for new acquisitions are only secure until mid-2010.

One other airline thinking hard is Thai Airways. But it is talking about an outright cancellation of its six options, and would be the first passenger carrier to do so. FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. have already cancelled orders for a total of 20 A380 freighters, forcing Airbus to shelve plans for an all-cargo version.

The company has so far invested about $18 billion in the aircraft, against the original $12 billion planned and is now struggling to recoup its money, especially as it is cutting its production rates from the targetted 40+ a year by 2010. It will now struggle to deliver just 14 examples this year and its projection of delivering "more than 20" next year is regarded as "at best" a pipedream.

Furthermore, even in service, the aircraft is not delivering. Airbus' chief salesman John Leahy boasted before that A380 customers would "break even at 60-65 percent" load factors. But Singapore Airlines has seen both yields and load factors plummet on key routes such as Heathrow to Sydney while Emirates quickly dumped the A380 from the New York route less than a year after inaugurating that service.

No one is saying it yet, but the odds are that, without a huge injection of public money, it seems scarcely possible that Airbus can survive. And that is without taking into account the A-400M which is continuing to haemorrhage money. A decision on that aircraft's future is expected next month.

Prospects cannot be helped by doubts about the safety of the A-330 after the recent devastating crash in the South Atlantic, which adds up to a trying time for a company trying to market a product which Tony Blair once praised as "a symbol of European cooperation at its best."

It was, Blair added, "… the most exciting new aircraft in the world, a symbol of economic strength and technical innovation," then declaring: "Above all, it is a symbol of confidence that we can compete and win in the global market." With such praise, perhaps we should have known it was going to fail.

COMMENT THREAD

European elections 2009

This is our running post, on which we'll follow the UK results as they come in. Updates added at the bottom.

In the 2004 elections the Tories pulled 26.7 percent of the vote and Labour got 22.6. UKIP grabbed 16.1 percent, beating the Lib-Dems into third place, trailing with 14.9 percent. The Greens got 6.3 and the BNP 4.9 percent.

Then, the candidates were fighting for 78 seats, the electorate producing a turnout of 38.2 percent. Under the Nice rules, only 72 seats are being fought.

20.30: It's going to be an interesting night. In the North East, with only three seats up for grabs, Labour seems set to take one. But the shock is that - at this time - the Tories and UKIP are "neck and neck", with the Lib-Dems coming fourth. Last time round, it was the three main parties that took the seats.

20.33: East Midlands … Keith Vaz believes the Labour vote is holding up. This is the region where, in 2005, Kilroy was standing, bringing in two seats. UKIP is on the back foot here.

20.41: First official estimate of the EU-wide turnout - 43.01 percent of eligible voters voted, compared with 45.47 percent last time.

20.49: In Ireland, Brian Cowen's "embattled Government" is under massive strain after its worst ever election meltdown and opposition claims it no longer has any credibility. The Dail will resume on Tuesday with a resurgent Fine Gael, now the largest party in the state for the first time, preparing to table a vote of no confidence.

20.50: A reminder - Northern Ireland takes three seats. The count there does not start until 9am tomorrow. Thus, we only get 69 results tonight. Official results start coming in from 9pm this evening.

20.53: Cornwall: Labour in sixth place?

20.59: Eastern region – UKIP looks as if they could have two, possibly three (outside chance). BNP vote collapsed.

21.00: Denmark - UEN and Greens each gain a seat. Sarkozy gets 11 more seats in France. Not an anti-government vote there, but likely to be an anomaly. Greens also up. Anti-capitalists also up.

21.04: North West - Lib-Dims claiming BNP will not get a seat.

21.10: Labour meltdown in Wales and Scotland predicted.

21.12: Swedish exit polls suggest the new populist Pirate Party has polled 7.4 percent of the vote. The opposition Social Democrats are getting 25 percent, up slightly from 2004. The biggest losers seem to be the the Left Party. Exit polls give it 5.1 per cent.

21.17: Romania's ruling coalition won the most votes. Each are expected to take one third of the 33 MEP seats on offer. The centre-left Social-Democrats have won 30.8 percent of the vote. The centrist Democrat-Liberals were just 0.3 percent behind. Each party is expected to win about 11 seats.

21.23: Eastern region: UKIP looking almost certainly three seats. UKFirst lead the rest of the minority groups, beating BNP.

21.36: In Lebanon, on the other hand, the turn-out was 52 per cent; somewhat higher than across the EU. Just thought I'd mention it.

21:40: Orkney led the pack, beating all the other local authority areas to announce its outcome. Lib-Dims secured 31.9 percent, SNP second on 20.2 percent, the Conservatives on 15.2 percent, Greens on 9.2 percent, UKIP on 8.5 percent, and the Labour Party trailing in sixth place on 7.0 percent. Turnout was 25.9 per cent.

21.43: North East: Labour 147,338, Cons 116,911, Lib-dims 103,444, UKIP 90,700, BNP 52,700, Greens 34,081, English Democrats 13,007, Socialist Labour Party 10,238, No2EU 8,066, Christian Party 7,263, Libertas 3,010, Jury Team 2,904. Labour gets one seat, second goes to Tories and the third to the Lib Dims. No change ... UKIP misses out with 15.4 percent of the vote, up 3.2. Labour down nine percent, Tories up one. At a rough count, the "tiddlers" (apart from BNP, Greens and UKIP) took 43,000 votes. If half had gone to UKIP, it would have got the seat.

21.48: Farage very defensive on BBC.

21.55: Tories might top the poll in Wales. UKIP might just get the fourth (of four) seats.

21.59: German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives suffered around a six-percentage-point fall in their share of the vote but had a clear lead over other parties. The vote is seen a litmus test for Merkel ahead of the general election in September. FDP set to take 12 seats.

22.09: Less than 35 percent turnout in Germany.

22.14: Highest turnout recorded in Belgium at 91 percent.

22.17: The Fragrant One (Margot Wallstrom) calls the low turnout "a bad result." It shows the need to work to "change the perception" that the European Union is detached from its citizens. Not that the EU is "detached" - this is just a "perception". The voters got it wrong again.

22.32: Projections show Germany's Social Democrats heading for their worst showing in a nationwide election since the Second World War. But, with a 35 percent turnout (against 37.5 percent in 2004) it is difficult to judge. The Incidentally, the largest federal Land, North Rhine-Westphalia, only polled 18 percent.

22.33: Bruno Waterfield reports that the EU parliament has passed 404 laws since the last elections in 2004. Another 233 are in the pipeline, meaning that MEPs are currently "churning out" two pieces of EU law a week.

22.36: Yorkshire - Con Home suggests 2 Cons and one each for Lab, Lib-Dims, UKIP and BNP.

22.40: Count almost finished. Looks as if the Yorks result stands ... BNP's first seat, outperforming the North West.

22.44: Turnout in the North West was 31.9 percent. Manchester and Liverpool well down at 24 and 27 percent respectively. Results expected at around 11.30pm.

22.47: East Midlands expected in half-hour. UKIP vote well down.

22.50: Spain: "Right wing" People's party wins its first national victory for nine years. Socialist prime minister Zapatero sees a loss of 3.75 percentage points just 15 months after winning a general election.

22.51: In Cornwall, South West Region, the Cornish Nationalist Party seems to have beaten Labour, pushing it into sixth place.

22.52: Three updates have gone AWOL while everything the boss puts up stays up. I suspect a plot. If this goes on there will be a rebellion in Shepherds Bush.

23.00: One last attempt to report on a few items from other countries. If this does not work, the rebellion will take off. It will be painful for all concerned.

In Denmark Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen's Liberals are expected to keep their three seats while the Social Democrats, though in the lead, may well lose one to the Danish People's Party, usually described as anti-immigrant. It is, also, a centre-right conservative party that opposes further erosion of Danish sovereignty and Denmark's entry into the single currency. The People's Movement against the EU, which campaigns for Danish withdrawal from the bloc, is expected to hold on to its one seat. But the Eurosceptic June movement will not gain any MEPs. The turn-out was actually higher than in 2004 at 51 per cent, up from 47.9 per cent.

In Hungary the opposition FIDESZ party is set to take 16 seats out of the 22 allotted to the country. The Social Democrats are likely to have 4, down from 9 and the right-wing nationalist party, the Jobbik, looks like taking 2.

In Finland the Eurosceptic 'True Finns' party and the Finnish Christian Democrats are each expected to win two seats. The centre-right National Coalition Party, the liberal Centre Party and the Social Democratic Party are all projected to lose a seat each, taking them down to three, three and two MEPs respectively.

The Greens and the Swedish People's Party, who are also in the government, are expected to maintain a seat each.

23.12: Eastern Region result - Conservative 500,331 (31.2 - up 0.4 percent), UKIP, 313,921 (19.6 - no change), Lib Dims 221,235, Labour 167,833, Greens 141,016, BNP 97,013, UKFirst 38,185, English Democrats 32,211, Christian Party, 24,646, No2EU 13,923, SDP 13,599, Animals count 13,201, Libertas 9,940, Independent 9,916, Jury Team 6,354, Rejected 13,164. MEPs ... three Con, two UKIP, one LD, one Labour. Labour loses six percent.

23.28: Yorkshire: First BNP victory - Two Con, one Lab, one UKIP, one Lib-Dem, one BNP. Andy Burnham says "a sad moment". Share: Conservatives on 25 percent (no change) Labour down 8 percent.

Detailed results: Cons 299,802 (24.5 percent, down 0.2), Lab 230,009 (18.8 percent, down 7.5), UKIP 213,750 (17.4 percent, up 2.9), Lib-Dims 161,552 (13.2 percent, down 2.4), BNP 120,456 (8.5 percent, up 1.8) Greens 104,456 (8.5 percent, up 2.8), English Democrats 31,287, SLP 19,380, Christian Party 16,742, No2EU 15,614, Jury Team 7,181, Libertas 6,268. Turnout 32.3 percent - 1,226,180 voted out of an electorate of 3,792,415.

24:44: Wales: One Conservative, One Labour, One Plaid and one UKIP.



00.01: A quick break from the UK results. Why, incidentally, is it taking so long to count them? Counting started at 4pm and so far we have had three results. What is keeping the others? Can find nothing about London, incidentally. Surely, those drongos aren't leaving the counting till tomorrow?

Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic the centre-right ODS has done reasonably well. It has gained 28.9 percent of the vote and retained nine seats. The Social Democrats gained 24.6 per cent and will have 7 seats. The Communist Party, unreformed since 1989, saw its vote drop from 20.3 to 15.5 percent and therefore lost two seats. The Christian Democrats gained a second seat, despite seeing their share of the vote drop from 9.6 to 8.2 percent.

00.09: Welsh results: Conservatives 145,193 (21.2 percent, up 1.8), Labour 138,852 (20.3 percent, down 12.2), Plaid 126, 702 (18.5 - up 1.1), UKIP 87,585 (12.8 - up 2.3), Lib-Dims 73,082 (10.7 - up 2.0) Greens 38,160 (5.6 - up 5.6) BNP 37,114 (5.6 - up 2.5) Christian Party 13,037, SLP 12,402, No2EU 8,600, Jury Team 3,793.

00.16: West Midlands - could be two UKIP.

00.18: Nigel Farage says: "So far there are tremors but before the end of the night we could have created a political earthquake."

0021: Vote share (BBC projection): Cons 27 percent, UKIP 17 percent, Labour (third place) 16 percent, Lib Dims 14 percent, Green 9 percent, BNP 6 percent. "The bottom end of Labour's expectations - it would be difficult for a major national party to do any worse."

00.22: London result delayed by "computer failure". (Typical. HS)

00.23: Turn-out in Slovakia was 19.6 percent, up from 2004 when it was 16.7 percent. Centre-left are in the lead. European Voice calls Slovakia the most apathetic country in the EU. Maybe they are just more honest about their politicians.

00.29: Worst Labour result in Wales since 1918.

00.34: Richard Corbett is the casualty in Yorkshire. He is deputy leader of Labour MEPs - and a rabid europhile.


00.36: BBC projects thirteen seats for UKIP.

00.42: London: Conservatives 479,037, Lab 372,590, Lib-Dims 240,156, Greens 190,589, UKIP 188,440, BNP 86,420, Christian Party 51,336, Ind - Jananayagam 50,014, English Democrats 24,477, JT 7,284, N2E 17,758, Pl 8,444, SLP 15,3006, SPGB 4,050, Yes 2 E 3,384, Ind 1,972, Ind, 4,918, Ind, 3,248, Ind 1,603, Rejected 11,374

Three Conservatives, two Labour, one Lib-Dim, one Green, one UKIP. One less seat ... Labour loses one, otherwise no change. UKIP vote down 1.6 percent.

00.51: BBC predicts UKIP and Labour will gain same number of seats.

00.53: East Midlands. Two Con, one Lab, one UKIP, one Lib-Dim. Kilroy effect strikes ... UKIP down 10 percent, loses one seat. Lib-Dims gain one.

1.02: Pirate Party in Sweden will take only one seat with 7.1 percent of the vote. Shame. The four government coalition parties (moderately centre right) have won 42.5 percent of the vote. The Social Democrats and their allies, the Left Party and the Greens won 41.1 percent. Voter turn-out 43.8 percent, which is actually up on 2004.

1.07: According to the BBC UKIP is now in third position with 1,096,380, which is 15.5 per cent and 6 seats. Labour is second with 1,263,567, 17.8 per cent and 7 seats. Conservatives lead with 1,911,549, 12.0 per cent (1.6 per cent up) and 12 seats.

01.21: South West Region: BNP 60,889, Christian Party 21,329, Conservatives 468,742, English Democrats 25,313, Fair Pay, 7,151, Jury Team 5,758, Lib-Dims 266,253, Cormwall 14,922, No2EU 9,741, Pension 37,785, Libertas 7,292, SLP 10,033, Greens 144,178, Labour 118,716, UKIP 341,845, YD 789, Ind 8,971

Three Conservatives, two UKIP, one Lib-Dim. Cons gain one – no Labour MEP, in fifth place.

01.26: South East Region: (partial results) BNP 101,769, Christian Party 35,712, Conservatives 812,288, English Democrats 52,526, Fair Pay, 7,151, Jury Team 14,1725,758, Lib-Dims 330,440, No2EU 21,455, Pension 16,768, Libertas 7,292, Greens 144,178, Labour 192,592, UKIP 440,002.

Four Cons, two UKIP, two Lib-Dim, one Green, one Labour. No change in seats. Hannan gets back in. Labour in fifth place. Marta Andreasen is in. Could be fun. She knows where the bodies are buried.

01.29: "Nothing is solid anymore," says The Guardian. Where do they get them from?

01.32: Eight declared ... two to go tonight. NI and Scotland tomorrow.

01.43: Polly Toynbee calls for Brown to stand down.

Labour down seven percent overall, on results so far declared. Philip Webster, The Times's political editor is reporting that Gordon Brown's allies and at least some of those who want him out appeared to agree yesterday that he should be given a breathing space after the shock of the European election results.

01.55: UKIP is on course to finishing second after the Conservatives and there are rumours that Nick Griffin has won a seat.

01.56: West Midland: Tories two, UKIP two (as predicted), Labour one, Lib-Dims one. BNP and Greens didn't make it. Only one more to go. Hurrah.

02.01: North West - unofficial declaration. Nick Griffin gets in. Three Tory, two Labour, one UKIP, one Lib-Dim and one BNP. Labour loses one. That's it folks. More later today.

02.11: Heh! North West declares officially. Conservatives: 423,174, 25.6 percent (+1.5), 3 seats - no change; Labour: 336,831, 20.4 percent (-6.9), 2 seats - lose 1; UKIP: 261,740, 15.8 percent (+1.7), 1 seat - no change; Lib-Dims: 235,639, 14.3 percent (-1.6), 1 seat - no change; BNP: 132,094, 8.0 percent (+1.6), 1 seat. Nick Griffin is in. More details in the morning. This time truly so.

COMMENT THREAD

Filling the vacuum

Where one would like to see the blogosphere leading the charge, dominating the political debate as it is doing in the United States, the heart sinks when we see the desperately trivial contribution to the "great constitutional debate" made by Tory Diary.

Oblivious to the discussions going on around him, Tim Montgomerie suggests only what amount to marginal changes, failing to address the fundamental failures in the system, arguing for such things as a five percent annual reduction in taxpayer funding of political parties until it is completely eliminated. Even his one substantive point, "A renegotiation of our relationship with Europe that will see key powers returned to Westminster" is weak, building on the Conservative myth that renegotiation is in fact a possibility.

Elsewhere, in the much-derided MSM, we get two intelligent contributions. One is from Adrian Hamilton in The Independent on reform of the Select Committee system. The other is from David Green, director of Civitas, in The Daily Telegraph.

Green offers "a radical solution would be to ensure the complete separation of powers by emulating countries such as Germany, France and the US, where government ministers are forbidden to serve in the elected assembly."

As for Hamilton, he argues that most select committees are led by placemen, made up of the mediocre and tasked with the irrelevant. He is worried that calls for reform are directed at the wrong problem. The aim, according to the reformers, he says, is to enable parliament better to hold the executive to account. Yet is setting up Commons Committees as attack dogs on the government really their most useful function, he asks. Hamilton thus continues:

If the problem were an overweening central government out of control, as the reformers suggest, that might be so. But the problem of government in Britain is not really an untrammelled executive, for all the size of recent parliamentary majorities. It is that policy making and legislation is so poor.

The failures of health and education policy, the negligence of financial regulation, the mistakes of military procurement, the lack of North Sea depletion policy or a balanced energy strategy, the perversion of Public-Private Finance Initiatives, the timidity of the transport approach, the tardiness of environmental measures – all these arise not from an over-strong executive, but a political system that has been unwilling or unable to work through and discuss alternative approaches to central issues.

Select committees ought to fulfil this function.

That is a good point, arguing for a more proactive involvement by committees. Riding a populist bandwagon after the event is not fulfilling any special public duty, says Hamilton, echoing our argument on defence procurement, where the committee should be involved before a purchasing decision is made. It should not be left merely to comment on the failures, some time after the event, when money had been wasted and men have died.

Arguably, these two issue of "separation of powers" and reform of the select committee system are amongst the most important we need to address. But they seem to have passed the political blogosphere by, and are sadly absent from Montgomerie's offerings.

Some long time ago, we reviewed a report on the political blogsophere, and not much seems to have changed since. The commentary is still largely lightweight and derivative, and the MSM is still making the running. The blogosphere needs to up its game.

Nor is this an academic issue. Despite the "right" preening itself on dominating the blogosphere, the BNP – as the above graphic shows – is still the lead political website by a long chalk. And yesterday, we saw another by-election success for the BNP, where it took 19 percent of the vote in Middlesborough's North Ormesby & Brambles Farm ward, coming second after Labour and relegating the Conservatives to third place.

Unless we as a collective are able to offer better, real improvements to the system, the BNP will win the argument by default. Either we fill the vacuum or they do.

COMMENT THREAD

A balanced Booker …

… looks at the EU's unbalanced books through the saga of Marta Andreasen.

But before he gets there, he remarks that "evidence mounts on all sides as to how Britain's standing in the world is in sad decline." Thus, Booker writes:

After 10 years as the world's fourth largest economy, we have now slipped to sixth place behind China and France. In Wednesday's Daily Telegraph, under the heading "The UK will be missed on the world stage", Irwin Stelzer wrote about the failure of our military missions to Iraq and Afghanistan, and lamented Britain's retreat from an effective role alongside our US partners. On the same day, Max Hastings reported a similar story from America itself, where he was shocked to find how far we have lost the respect earned in the days of Mrs Thatcher.

So we come to the Andreasen saga, familiar to most readers of this blog, and for those who need a refresher, Booker's narrative serves as a fresh reminder, trailing the publication of her "shocking new book, published tomorrow, entitled Brussels Laid Bare."

The strap-line, however, for once accurately sums up the message of the column. "EU's former chief accountant has laid bare endemic corruption," it says, "but our own politicians are too emasculated to care."

And that really is the point. Andreasen describes events which started in 2002, with her involvement in the continuing scandal of the EU's unaccountable accounting system. When she began looking at the EU's accounting system, she saw that it was a shambles. Between the 2000 and 2001 accounts, €200 million had gone missing without explanation. She was told these were "loans" which had been "written off". Senior officials were authorised to hand out huge sums without any proper records being kept. Accounts were kept on spreadsheets which could be accessed and changed without leaving any trace of who made the changes.

But, after all these years, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. Andreasen dismisses the EU as "irredeemably corrupt and unreformable." The tragedy is, writes Booker, "that our own politicians are so emasculated, reduced to expenses-fiddling zombies by this strange form of government we now live under, that most neither know nor care."

The expenses controversy is the wrong issue. Even when it is sorted, and a new intake of MPs joins the gravy-train, all nicely house-trained as they line up each Monday to present their chitties in triplicate to the form monitor, so that they can collect their pocket money, we will still be members of an organisation that is "irredeemably corrupt and unreformable" – and we will remain so because our MPs permit it.

The issue is not why are we paying their expenses. The issue is why are we paying their salaries.

COMMENT THREAD

It's snowing all over the world

Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition. The scientists - a 20-member contingent from Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Italy - spent one month exploring the North Pole as well as never-before measured regions of the Arctic.

Among their findings: Rather than finding newly formed ice to be two metres thick, "we measured ice thickness up to four metres," stated a spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of the Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest scientific organisation.

Then we get this from the United States: "Sorry, Al Gore, but Public Cares About the Economy, Not Global Warming".

Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore's campaign against global warming is winning. "It's just not caught on," says Newport. "They have failed." Or, more bluntly: "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned." What the public is worried about: the economy.

He adds: "As Al Gore I think would say, the greatest challenge facing humanity . . . has failed to show up in our data."

On the British front, we get reported by The Daily Mail, "Ed Miliband's global warming law 'could cost £20,000 per family'", with a report stating: "Laws aimed at tackling global warming could cost every family in Britain a staggering £20,000 - double the original forecast."

This follows the Met Office forecast for a "warmer than average summer". It has been cold and wet ever since that report – we even had the central heating on here. And skiinfo.com reports, "It's snowing all over the world", even telling us: "Last week of winter in France, but it's still snowing", with the southern hemisphere ski season starting five weeks early.

Sooner or later, even our loathsome media are going to put two and two together. Then, those idiot politicians who have embraced the global warming scam are going to look even more stupid than they do already. The reckoning may be delayed, but it will come.

COMMENT THREAD

And who can argue with this?

Justin Webb, the outgoing American correspondent of the BBC and the man who is supposed to be pro-American though only by the Beeb's standards, said something very strange when he introduced his book "Have a Nice Day".

On the one hand he admitted that one of the things he liked about America as he travelled round the country (amazing, really, for a British hack) was the still vibrant sense of community wherever he went. People really cared about the place they lived in, the way it was run and the people who were part of it.

You could not really say the same about Britain, for instance. But for all of that, he was convinced that the only way America could save itself was by becoming more like other countries, particularly European ones, since Mr Webb, in common with his colleagues never really thinks seriously about other countries and other systems. In particular, it should emulate Britain and discard its outmoded ideas. Even, presumably, that very attractive strong sense of local community. Logical these people are not.

In the meantime, over on Your Freedom and Ours, I have embedded a video by Dan Mitchell of Cato Institute on why America should not turn into another France economically speaking. There are a few other things on the blog as well: Spanish Civil War, petitions, a general pot-pourri.

COMMENT THREAD

Where does Britain stand?

Things do seem to be linked with each other. Just as I started reading up on the latest news about Durban II there was a call from the BBC Russian Service. Could I come in and take part in a discussion about the British position? Well, I could certainly take part in a discussion (what else do I do with my life?) but finding out what the British position was might be a little more difficult.

We have written about the first Durban conference and its deranged participants who turned it into an anti-American, anti-Semitic and, generally, anti-Western festival here and here. (The best site on which the whole farce can be followed is UN Watch. At least it would be a farce if it were not so tragic. We are, after all, funding this appalling event.)

After a certain amount of humming and ha-ing, the United States has, it would appear, decided to boycott the Conference, not least because Secretary of State Clinton might not have wanted the sort of abuse that was hurled at her predecessor, Colin Powell, at the original Durban conference.

President Obama's decision may have annoyed the tranzis who, naturally enough, do not like to see their favourite president follow in the footsteps of their least favourite one, but has the support of various members of the House:

Last week a bipartisan group of House members sent a letter to Obama congratulating him for deciding to boycott the meeting, which is scheduled to begin Monday.

"We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda," said the letter signed by seven members of Congress.

Voice of America confirms the non-attendance:

State Department Spokesman Robert Wood says the US will boycott the conference "with regret" because of objectionable language in the meeting's draft declaration. Wood said Saturday that despite some improvements, it seemed clear the declaration will not address U.S. concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression.

Given that the committee organizing the conference was chaired by Libya, freedom of expression is unlikely to have ever been high on the agenda.

I shall write later on what is going on in Geneva at the Durban II conference and it seems to be rather entertaining. In the meantime, let us have a look at Little Green Footballs, which is listing the countries that are boycotting this noxious event.

Here we go: Australia, Sweden (with Canada and Italy having joined Israel and the United States before), Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand. Poland has announced its boycott as well. There may be others but that is plenty.

Wait a minute. There is a country missing. What is Britain's attitude? Clearly, we are not boycotting or Charles Johnson would have noted that fact. Maybe he has simply missed the announcement. After all, even Homer, they tell us, nodded.

No he missed nothing. Not that I would expect him to – I was just trying to let hope win over experience. Britain is ratting on her allies going to the hate-fest Anti-Racism Conference, organized by the committee chaired by Libya at which President Ahmadinejad, for one, is expected to launch his usual anti-Semitic rant and other delegates are expected to applaud or, at least, look neutral. Quite appropriately, that event will take place some time today, the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth.

We are not sending a very high level delegation but not a particularly unimportant one either. It is led by Peter Gooderham, British ambassador to the UN in Geneva. A nicely judged effort of fence-sitting diplomatic compromise. According to the official explanation, the Foreign Office is "watching how things will develop".

The spokesman said Britain wanted the conference "to get a collective will to fight racism now" but was "under no illusions about the scale of this challenge."

"We wouldn't be able to support a process that was skewed against the West or other countries," the spokesman said, adding that Britain had certain "red lines" on the issues involved that it would stick to.

"We have argued for the concluding document to have sufficient (content) on the Holocaust and combatting anti-Semitism... we would find it unacceptable if the process seeks to deny or denigrate the Holocaust".

Ah yes, those red lines. How reassuring to hear that phrase again. Remind me, how did it work out last time?

France, apparently, is also sending a delegation and this, according to The Telegraph, shows a rift in the EU. Bernard Kouchner, who is leading the delegation, has warned that they would leave if the Iranian President starts making racist or anti-Semitic comments. Given the man's track record that seems an absolute certainty.

The Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, has made it clear that it would have been better if the EU member states had stayed together and followed a common line, preferably that of a boycott. One must admit, that Common Foreign Policy is not looking very good at the moment. But when did it? I am afraid, in this case we cannot blame the EU for our own government's pusillanimity.

COMMENT THREAD

A perfect (euro) storm?

For years now, an Irish friend – not particularly political – has made a point in every conversation of complaining about the euro, driving up prices and making business difficult. With that, and the general management of the Irish economy, it was pretty obvious that the "Celtic Tiger" was due for a fall. The only question was "when".

It now looks like that "when" has happened – or is about to happen in a big way, with the government having announced an emergency austerity budget and now, according to The Guardian, Irish bank shares taking a nosedive "as fears grow over financial crisis".

This, or course, the financial crisis that the collective brains of the EU, the G20 and any number of alphabetical soup organisation are supposed to be sorting, the only problem being that every time they "sort" it, things seem to take a lurch for the worse.

As it stands in Eire, this former glittering economic star has the worst public finances in the euro zone, to the extent that the EU commission has become increasingly concerned that it, along with Spain and Greece, represents a threat to the euro's stability.

Cue Anatole Kaletsky in The Times who seems to be deputising for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Armageddon states, telling us that the eurozone is bracing itself for the perfect storm. Further, he asks, if a financial emergency required immediate action, could Europe cope? That, he says, is the big question for the world economy

Setting out a dire tale of woe, which spans the usual culprits, from Ireland, though Greece and Spain, Kaletsky alos takes in Peer Steinbrück, the German Finance Minister, who, despite his swaggering boasts about the triumph of the Rhenish social-market model over Anglo-Saxon capitalism, presides over the weakest leading economy in the world outside Japan.

Europe, he wites - even more than America or Britain - is caught in the global financial storm and if the world suffers another blow in the months ahead, comparable to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it is most likely to involve a crisis in the eurozone. Is it possible, he then asks, that Europe, whose biggest economies - Germany, France and Italy - never experienced an Anglo-Saxon style housing and credit boom, will suffer more damage than Britain or the US?

After much more verbiage, we eventually come to the point. Yes there is likely to be a crisis but Germany will probably come to the support of the eurozone casualties. Thus, an "existential crisis" of the eurozone remains unlikely.

But herein lies the intriguing prospect. In a variation of the theme, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, Kaletsky poses the scenario where an emergency package had to be organised over a single weekend in response to a European crisis. Is it obvious, he asks, that the EU and Germany would cope any better than the US Government did in the Lehman collapse last September?

That is a question nobody seems to be asking - which probably makes it the biggest risk facing the global economy today, concludes our man. And that is indeed an intriguing thought. By the time the great European supertanker has started to turn, the waves could have swamped it.

COMMENT THREAD