The blogs run frit!

(Updated with additional links.)

The Independent got the point, running the story on its front page, with the banner headline, "Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law."

Like us yesterday, the paper also picks up Zac Goldsmith's role in the affair. And, in a blog by John Rentoul, it notes that Goldsmith "wants to be a Conservative MP". He is, in fact, the Conservative choice for the parliamentary seat of Richmond Park.

Rentoul cites Goldsmith (pictured below right) saying, "If a crime is intended to prevent much larger crimes, I think many people would regard that as justified," in which context we are reminded that the Labour Party got into trouble over the same principle.

This was over whether it was right for councillors to defy the law on rate capping, or for MPs to refuse to pay the poll tax. Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, says Rentoul, got it right, and said that it was not acceptable for MPs or people who aspired to be MPs to break the law or to advocate breaking the law.

Can David Cameron live up to that standard, Rentoul asks, or will he take refuge in the semantic defence that Goldsmith was merely saying what "many people" would regard as justified?

This is not a question the main Conservative blogs seem to be addressing. They seem to be running scared – "frit", as a former prime minister might have said.

Tom Watson MP, the Labour Cabinet Office minister, however, does raise the issue on his blog and Melanie Phillips writes a storming denunciation on her blog.

One lowly Tory blogger, Neil Reddin takes it on, Tony Sharp is brave enough to have a view and the indefatigable Englishmen's Castle also understands the importance of the issue. The US blog Watts up with that also addresses the story, it dealing with the role of James Hansen.

Alan Harten, of the Fair Home blog notes that the trial has set off alarm bells at E.ON and many other similar companies, who believe that this ruling now gives cart blanche to any group who wants to invade and occupy any facility that they see as a danger to the environment.

Tony Juniper in Comment is free, on the other hand, argues that the government's energy policy, not the protestors, should have been on trial. This underscores the fact that the Greenpeace action was intended as a highly political statement, one with which Zac Goldsmith obviously agrees.

That point is taken up on the other side of the Pond where Iain Murray writes at length on the story in National Review, opening with the words, "This is very big …".

Clearly, though, it is not big enough for the mighty Iain Dale. From him, we get silence. At the time of writing, he had not blogged anything today but his last substantive post was at 8.44 pm yesterday – long after the "Kingsnorth six" story had broken. But his story was far more "important" – revealing that the Lib-Dims had revamped their website.

More in sorrow than in anger, we have to report that the excellent Conservative Home blog has yet to offer any commentary, while the famous (in his own lunchtime) Guido Fawkes seems to have decided that this is a matter of little consequence.

In us pointing up these "big three", some might suggest that we are being a bit precious. Not least, dog should not eat dog – or blog eat blog. Us bloggers should stick together and not criticise each other. But, at the same time we are assailed by claims of how wonderful bloggers are, and how they are going to take on the dead tree media, etc., etc.

In that frame, all of these three claim to be leading political bloggers. Yet, if they cannot deal with important political issues such as this – perhaps because they are a tad uncomfortable – then can they really lay claim to that title, or are they just propagandists?

And, for those who might think otherwise, this is not an attack on the Conservative Party. We want the Conservatives to succeed at the election, but not at any price. We want to see a Party with genuine conservative principles, and sound policies take the country by storm and put into action a real conservative agenda.

Supporting mob rule – for that is what the Greenpeace action was – is not one of those principles. Unless the Conservative Party is prepared formally to distance itself from the actions of its advisor and candidate, Mr Goldsmith, it can only be seen as endorsing him and his views. That is something of vital importance to all of us.

COMMENT THREAD

Who should decide? - Part 1

Today of all days it is excusable to write about American politics but this posting is not precisely about that. It is about weird attitudes to it in Britain, Europe and the rest of the world as conveyed to us by sundry journalists, the BBC and various tranzi representatives.

We have all heard the narrative before: the United States is a very powerful country and who its President is affects many of us. Therefore, the rest of the world should elect said President and, surprise, surprise, the rest of the world will undoubtedly vote in the Democrat, particularly a seriously left-wing one like Barack Obama.

This argument is so fatuous that we, on this blog, would ignore it if it did not have certain rather dangerous aspects to it, given that it is all part of the great battle democracies, especially the United States, are waging against the unaccountable transnational oligarchies.

Let us get the superficial problems out of the way. The argument about the all-powerful President ignores the role of Congress, of the Supreme Court and of the individual States with their legislatures and executives (surely the word Governor has acquired some meaning for these so-called experts). In other words, there is a complete ignorance of the American system but then what would you expect from people who hate the very idea of constitutional democracy?

Secondly, the rest of the world seems to consist of 22,500 people asked by the BBC World Service over a course of several months in 22 countries, many of which do not precisely have elected, accountable governments themselves. Plus there are the left-wing journalists (mostly a tautology) and people who work for the UN, various NGOs and other suchlike organizations. Who exactly appointed them to speak for the world? Come to think of it, how do they know that the people of those countries really would vote for Obama? They might have many of the same reservations that Americans do about him.

Wherever the people of the rest of the world have had a choice they have managed to discard left-wing ideologies and socialist parties have had to start pretending that they believe in the free market and small government. Little of it comes through in reality but, at least, they know that they need to say this in order to get elected. Why, given all that, would anyone be so certain that a left-wing Democrat would be the world's choice?

Of course, as I have said, we are not talking about the world, merely about a very small segment of it – the people who have appointed themselves without asking the rest of us to be our spokespersons.

Two things have triggered off this particular splenetic outburst: a poll conducted by the BBC World Service and an article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian. There has been a certain amount of anger about both of these, in particular on Conservative Home, America in the World (Tim Montgomerie’s second string) and, over the Pond, on American Thinker, Chicagoboyz and sundry others, too numerous to mention.

There is a great deal more to say on the subject and I shall do so later today. However, at this precise moment other duties call, so I shall post this introduction to the theme. To be continued …

Drunk in charge of a blog

It is the tradition of this blog, since our very inception in 2004, to write up a post which goes on-line just after midnight for readers to pick up in the morning. We call this the "Horlicks", after the famous night-time drink.

We have maintained this tradition almost unbroken, even when I have been in jail, when my co-editor has been able to step into the breach.

Unfortunately, North junior is currently staying chez nous and a prolonged visit to a local Yorkshire hostelry, by the name of the Gaping Goose, has rendered me totally incapable of posting anything that resembles intelligent comment (some might say, what else is new?).

By way of compensation, have a look at this. Contrary to the views of my co-editor, I am sure that our forum members could make up for the manifest incapabilities of this blogger, and offer their own views.

Normal service in the morning, hangover permitting.

COMMENT THREAD

Clever!

Using the iconic image of "Rosie the Riveter" from the Second World War, the Republicans are indulging in their own form of branding for Sarah Palin. No wonder the Obama (BANTO) team are losing it.

And, talk about prescience, look at this from my co-editor!

COMMENT THREAD

Lawful excuse?

Advocates of jury trials may have cause to ponder at the verdict delivered at Maidstone Crown Court today on the "Kingsnorth six" – the Greenpeace vandals activists who today escaped conviction for causing £30,000-worth of damage to the power station chimney last year.

This, of course, was the trial where James Hansen gave evidence and, as Reuters reports, the six had claimed by way of defence "lawful excuse".

They argued that they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of global warming climate change, caused in part – or so the Greenpeace website says - by burning coal.

The verdict was delivered by the jury after the judge said he would accept a majority verdict, with Ben Stewart, one of the six, happily chirping, "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement," then adding: "If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it's legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave government energy policy?"

Where indeed, he might ask. But where also does this leave the Conservative Party. Aside from James Hansen, another prominent witness was Zac Goldsmith (pictured with David Cameron). He still styles himself as David Cameron's "environmental policy adviser", and is cited on the Greenpeace website saying there was "a staggering mismatch between what we've heard from government and what we've seen from government in terms of policy".

Thus, on the face of it, we have Greenpeace and the Conservative Party singing from the same hymnsheet, their common "advisor" justifying criminal damage to the property of an energy company.

Unless Cameron acts swiftly, formally to distance himself from Zac Goldsmith, it must be assumed that the leader of the opposition, if not actually endorsing the Greenpeace action, has not disowned it. That, in itself, would speak volumes for Mr Cameron's championship of "hard working families" and their need to obtain cheap, reliable electricity supplies.

For that matter, let's see what the Tory-supporting blogs think of it. It will be interesting to see whether they ignore the issue completely and thus also tacitly endorse the action of their leader's "advisor".

COMMENT THREAD

Policy now!

It is instructive, as one of our forum members wrote, that the first serious foray of the admirable Centre Right blog into the "energy crisis" elicited only two comments.

The more recent energy-related post on the main Conservative Home blog did somewhat better, with 34 comments, but this post did not address the energy crisis, as such. Rather, it dealt with the somewhat asinine comments of shadow energy secretary Alan Duncan on the subject of carbon capture.

Clearly, the Conservatives – or, at least, the chatterati wing of the party - have not woken up to the importance of energy policy, preferring to tell readers (amongst other things) that John Redwood's blog has changed its masthead.

Perhaps though, it should listen to its own shadow energy secretary, not on carbon capture, but on the broader issue. With Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, Alan Duncan recently wrote an article in a supplement to The Spectator (no link) on the need for a new energy strategy.

Significantly, this pair actually wrote, "Energy security has become the most pressing area of public policy", and indeed it has - although you would not realise this from Duncan's more public utterances (or lack of them). Nevertheless, we would agree wholeheartedly with his view. That we do is reflected in the emphasis given to the subject on this blog. And, although it has escaped the notice of the increasingly vapid media, that too has become the Republican’s keynote issue in the presidential election campaign.

The lack of sensible input from the Conservatives thus does represent a serious failing of a party that seems more concerned with its rebranding and its social agenda, failing to understand that, of all the issues which worry the "hard working families" about which Mr Cameron professes so much concern, the costs of petrol and their energy bills – gas and electricity – are absolutely dominant.

Another aspect of that same failure is the apparent willingness of the party to leave the debate on "fuel poverty" arising from high energy prices to the dysfunctional and increasingly aggressive gaggle of Labour back-benchers and the economically illiterate delegates at the TUC conference, now in full flow – all variously demanding a windfall tax on the energy companies.

Although prime minister Gordon Brown is to deliver details of his alleviation package on Thursday, hard left organs such as The Star are still demanding that the government should, "Tax these obscene energy profits".

Chancellor Darling, this paper says, "should go after their vast sums which they say they need to build new generating equipment." Why, it says, don't they borrow the money to invest like every other business? Why should "ripped off" consumers foot the bill now before these power stations are even off the drawing board?

We could answer that at length, but we will not. Suffice to say that the net margins of the energy utilities are by no means excessive and that, in order to attract the investment to build new power stations, those same companies have to deliver yields on investments which would attract potential investors. Imposing a windfall tax would send a signal to investors that the industry is still the plaything of governments, with profits subject to retrospective taxes on a populist whim.

More to the point, although sundry politicians may complain about the spiralling costs of energy – as do we all – the very fact that prices are highly volatile, and rising (despite a temporary fall in the price of oil) means that bulk buyers must keep a high level of liquidity in order to finance future inventories.

The nature of this volatility was well-illustrated today when The Daily Telegraph (online edition) reported that Britain was being "outbid for gas on the global market."

This message had been delivered at an Ofgem conference in London, with the news that the UK will have a low supply of stored gas this winter because countries in Asia and Spain are outbidding us.

Although the UK is building more storage facilities for liquid natural gas (LNG) because its supply of gas from the North Sea is declining, it is not able to use even the existing capacity because supplies are currently extremely tight and such that is available is being bought up by our competitors at inflated prices.

In fact, while The Telegraph has got onto this in its own belated fashion, this was flagged up by Bloomberg in August and we raised it in a piece of our own the same day.

What this points up is that, as a direct result of cumulative failures in managing our energy policy, the UK has become unhealthily reliant on gas for its energy supplies. This is, in political terms, an open goal for the Conservative Party, except that its key decision-makers have chosen to go back to the pavilion and talk amongst themselves.

As we and any number of experts continue to warn, however, this is not a static situation. All the indications are that it will get worse, unless dramatic steps are taken. And, in the nature of the beast, any decisions taken now have a long lag time, with many years passing before we see any results.

This is why the silence of the Conservatives is important. With many policy issues, its input can wait until it gets into office after the next electorally mandated reshuffle general election – if that happens. But with energy, the providers need to make decisions which will have a long-term effect, which they need to make as soon as possible to mitigate some of the adverse effects of the years of delay and mismanagement we have already suffered.

Clear policy direction by the Conservatives, even while still in opposition, would give a signal to the energy companies about which way they should spend their money. It would also give them confidence that, under the next administration, they will be presented with the stable and predictable regulatory environment needed to commit the massive investment which is so urgently required.

Continued silence on energy policy from the Conservatives, therefore, is not a sensible or a responsible option. There is a time for leadership and that time is now. Mr Cameron should listen to his shadow energy secretary and Mr Duncan should listen to himself. And they should put his words into action.

Then, you never know. Like Sarah Palin, they might suddenly get popular.

COMMENT THREAD

As others see it

The EU commission is getting thoroughly fed up with this, the continuing saga of the so-called "VW Law" which has been dragging on since 2004.

It cropped up most recently last May when the commission was already fed up so, to say it is now "thoroughly fed up" is perhaps an understatement. However, we are not a swear blog so we cannot articulate what the commission is probably thinking – and saying – but you can bet they are doing it in 23 languages, or however many comprise the number of official EU languages these days.

Anyhow, Reuters gives the lowdown, telling us that internal market commissioner Charile McCreevy has finally lost patience with German stalling and wants to take the government to the ECJ.

As it always has been, the issue is the continuation of a law which prevents German firms being taken over by foreign enterprises, in clear breach of EU treaty obligations which require the free movement of capital across borders within the EU.

What is remarkable about this case – and also has always been – is not only that even the ostensibly communautaire Germany is prepared to buck EU law when it comes to defending what to perceives to be its own national interest, but that it has been prepared to keep up the battle so long, against all the odds.

Another remarkable factor is the way it has been so badly reported by the British media. But, when it is quite happy to paint the UK as an "awkward partner" within the EU, nothing has proved more awkward, to the point of intransigence, than the German government on this issue. Highlighting this fact might put British sentiment in context.

One final grotesque anomaly in this case is the reaction of the German trades unions – grotesque, that is to many in the UK who regard the EU as a totalitarian organisation little different from the USSR or even Hitler's Nazis.

IG Metall's district leader Hartmut Meine calls McCreevy's latest broadside "completely incomprehensible", claiming that the current VW legislation conforms to EU law. "It seems the European Commission wants to keep filing lawsuits until it has eliminated all worker rights," he says, adding: "Volkswagen staff will put up stiff resistance to this neo-liberal stance …".

The EU is "neo-liberal"? Whatever next?

COMMENT THREAD

Knee-jerk politics

"A frisson of excitement" would be something of an exaggeration, but it is fair to say that a certain amount of interest has been generated by the news of the commissioning of a new, experimental carbon capture plant in eastern Germany.

As reported by Deutsche Welle, the Swedish energy utility Vattenfall has invested €70 million in the plant to service a 30 MW lignite-burning power station at Schwarze Pumpe in the Lausitz region of eastern Germany.

The carbon dioxide emitted, at a rate of nine tons per hour, will be compressed and pumped into deep, porous rock in a gas field in northern Germany. The process is considered economically viable because the emissions can be offset against the costs of having to buy carbon permits under the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS).

No figures are given for increased fuel consumption, although the German conservation group BUND argues that the process carries a 10 percent penalty. Other sources suggest up to 25 percent fuel increases with as much as a 60 percent hike in operating costs compared with conventional coal-fired generation.

This unit is very much a pilot and Vattenfall now plans to build two "demonstration plants" 10 times that size in Germany and Denmark by 2015. It then aims to commission its first "large-scale CCS power station" in 2020.

However, no estimate is given for the cost of a full-scale plant although it is likely to be expensive. The best UK comparison we have is the abortive Peterhead scheme which was set to cost £500 million to service a 350 MW gas-fired plant.

This effectively doubles the capital cost of a generating plant which with the additional fuel and operating costs – offset only by the "snake oil" ETS certificates – makes it something of a bad deal, even ignoring the utter fatuity of attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the pursuit of limiting "climate change".

Despite all this, there might be some sense in Germany adopting the technology if it enables generators to continue using stocks of highly polluting but cheap lignite, staving off the day when it has to import all its coal stocks and perilously increasing its energy dependency.

For Britain though, there is no sense at all in carbon capture. Apart from the massively increased costs, the additional fuel consumption increases our dependence on imported coal supplies. With 22 million of the 52 million tons of coal we use for electricity generation imported from Russia, the very last thing we want to do is add to that for no gain in supply capacity.

With all that, one would have thought that a future Conservative government might be somewhat less than enthusiastic about the idea. But, if the comments of Tory energy spokesman Alan Duncan are any guide, the reverse is the case.

As retailed by Conservative Home, we learn of a pledge to fund a minimum of three CCS plants in the UK. Besotted with the idea of becoming technology leaders in this field, Duncan sees this as an "enormous economic opportunity for the UK" as well as an "environmental necessity".

With China and India leading a world revival in coal burning, he avers, we can export carbon capture technology, adding: "That's the sort of policy ambition that UK plc needs to secure competitive advantage in the new energy economy."

Thus it seems, the Conservative Party has become infected with the enthusiasm of europhile greenie MP Tim Yeo, and we are committed to this madness regardless of cost – MPs receiving a handsome contribution towards their electricity bills from the taxpayer.

But, if Duncan really wants an export opportunity on the back of emission-free electricity production, he should be looking at reactivating our nuclear industry, and in particular pebble bed technology. Already, South Africa is edging closer to building a commercial scale unit in Koeberg near Cape Town, with the signing of a $242 million construction contract last month.

The go-ahead has been given for fuel production and talks are being held on developing the system for producing synthetic fuels.

We know also that China is at an advanced stage in developing pebble bed technology, France is pursuing the system and the United States is taking an increasing interest. The US Idaho National Laboratory is working on its own version of the design.

A particular advantage of the system seems to be its ability to provide high-temperature heat (up to 950°C), which can be used for a range of industrial uses such as fertiliser production, shale-oil recovery and coal-to-liquids, as well as hydrogen and electricity production.

With such dynamism elsewhere in the world, the failure of our current government to get to grips with the technology is bad enough. Nevertheless, we have come to expect nothing better from this tired and failed administration.

But, when the knee-jerk Conservatives seem enthused only by useless, dead-end technology like carbon capture and have singularly failed to address the nuclear challenge, it seems that there can be no optimism at all that our growing (but entirely unnecessary) energy crisis is going to be resolved.

COMMENT THREAD

A culture of irresponsibility

The prospect of Thomas Cook reaping half a billion pounds from the EU, as a result of the commission's incompetence (or worse), has not come to pass.

As flagged up in our earlier post, the ECJ was due to rule today on whether the company was entitled to compensation as a result of the commission wrongly intervening in 1999 to prevent a merger between MyTravel - then known as Airtours and now part of the Thomas Cook empire - with First Choice Holidays.

Perhaps contrary to expectations, we now learn that the ECJ has ruled against Thomas Cook, stating that "mistakes" by the commission were not so serious as to "manifestly and gravely infringe" EU law and thus justify a payout.

The court's view was that, although the commission had made "mistakes" that warranted overturning the ban, these did not justify the award of compensation. For money to be handed out, a higher legal standard was needed than a court's decision to overrule regulators.

Separately, we also hear That the ECJ has thrown out an appeal filed by two Italian banana exporters — FIAMM SpA and Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA — and their U.S.-based subsidiaries, who were arguing that they were entitled to damages incurred as a result of the long-running international trade dispute over banana sales.

They filed for damages on the basis that they had suffered financially because of US trade retaliation taken in 2001 against the EU, after the EU had refused to obey a WTO ruling against it.

So there you have it. While ordinary mortals who mess up are hounded by the state, to the ends of the earth, when it comes to our masters, they glide serenely on, totally unaccountable for they damage they do and the hardship they cause.

I think we have heard before that we now live in a society where there is one rule for them, and one for us. If any more evidence was needed, we have it in spades today.

COMMENT THREAD

The awkwardness of truth

A number of blogosphere commentators on the other side of the Pond have been warning the Republicans and their growing band of supporters not to repeat the Democrats' mistake and create a cult of personality around Governor Palin. I think they are right. Nobody deserves a cult of that kind and the lady is bound to make the odd mistake or two before November. Not the one about Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. As it happens, she was right as it was confirmed by the latest news. And no, I am not going down the route of trying to explain what either of the FMs is about but I did see that they are being, in effect, nationalized.

The Obama cult has backfired quite spectacularly, arguably, because of the many problems with his personality, connections and political background, which was not really investigated by the MSM that is now proudly throwing everything at Sarah Palin and her family. If the McCain/Palin ticket emerges victorious in November, it will be at least as much because of Senator Obama, his campaign and most of the MSM, which has appointed itself to be his promoters as Governor Palin and her personality.

Somewhere in this extraordinary presidential campaign lies the reputation of the MSM, becoming more and more tattered by the day. It took a bad knock in the last campaign, what with "Rathergate" and the growing strength of the blogs. This time round there has been no doubt - the media in its overwhelming majority is not even pretending to report matters fairly or accurately.

Several other problems have emerged: the sheer unadulterated viciousness of the left, which has transformed its Bush Derangement Syndrome into Palin Derangement Syndrome without blinking an eyelid; the mysogyny of a good section of the Democratic Party and of the self-appointed "feminist spokespersons"; and the astonishing (for America) display of class snobbery, again among a number of the left. This is something we are used to in Britain (remember the sneers about the "grocer's daughter?") but the United States is the place where anybody can make it to the top and, in fact, the support that is streaming towards Governor Palin proves that very many people do feel that way.

While we are on the subject, let me make a comment about those community organizers among whom the Obama supporters are now claiming Jesus Christ. The thing about Obama is that he was an outsider appointed by a politically minded organization to go in and organize the locals. Sarah Palin started her political career in the PTA. In other words, she was a real community organizer in the traditional bottom to top American mould.

At present the MSM's feeding frenzy is playing into the Republicans' hands and one wonders why journalists who must have a few connecting brain cells between them cannot see this. Even Oprah Winfrey is suffering.

The blogosphere being what it on the other side of the Pond, the fight is on. Glenn Reynolds, not a particular fan of Palin's I think, is updating the twisting saga; there is a Sarah Palin Sexism Watch blog, which carefully explain what is and what is not sexism; and best of all, Charlie Martin dealing with all the Palin smears and rumous, separating fact from fiction.

However, there is not much about her biggest achievement and that is the famous pipeline negotiation with Canada. Alaska, as it happens is unique among American states in that it borders with two other countries, one friendly (mostly), Canada and one distinctly unfriendly, Russia. If there is one American politician who knows about Russia it is the Governor of Alaska and that might come in very useful in the next few years. (Don't believe me? Have a look at the map.)

As of today even British readers will not be able to complain that they know nothing about Governor Palin except for her hair and her spectacles (subjects of vitriolic criticism by two left-wing feminists on last week's "Any Questions"). Today's Daily Telegraph carries an article by Jim Bennett, the premier Anglospherist and author of "The Anglosphere Challenge". In this he explains exactly what happened to Alaska's oil and how Sarah Palin in various political incarnations, challenged the existing and rather corrupt political establishment, negotiated the pipe deal and ensured that Alaskan oil benefited the whole country and, especially, the people of that state. [Warning: some of the comments on the article are staggeringly stupid and ignorant.]

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.

In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great
odds.

Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.

Over on Chicagoboyz, there is a good discussion of the article, started by Lexington Green's posting.

Changes in Germany

The Social-Democrats in Germany are beginning their preparation for the election that will, theoretically, take place next year. Actually, as Marcus Walker points out in the Wall Street Journal Europe this morning, the SDs have been having a poorish time recently.

They are junior partners in the ever more fractious coalition that is headed by Chancellor Merkel and are losing ground on both sides: to the Christian Democrats in the mad scramble for that fabled "centre ground" and to Die Linke, the new left-wing party formed by Oskar Lafontaine.

The Social-Democrats would like to claim that they are the ones who have started those economic reforms that Germany badly needs but, in fact, they have been holding back the Christian Democrats, or so it seems as the reforms have been very slow, indeed.

On the other hand, they are worried that they will lose many of their traditional voters who would like to roll back the few reforms that somehow sneaked through and restore those very generous welfare provisions, which will be badly needed as unemployment will start rocketing up again.

So they have chosen a new leader to challenge Chancellor Merkel in the forthcoming election. Well, he is not that new, being the foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Chancellor Schröder’s former Chief of Staff but he is new as a leader and, of course, he has never stood for a public office before.

They have also selected a new party chairman, also another old Schröder hand, Franz Müntering. It is a little hard to work out why the Social-Democrats should want to go back to the Schröder veterans, as the man himself is deeply unpopular with the left, who see him as a traitor for introducing those reforms. From the foreign policy point of view, the Schröderites are linked to that old and somewhat desperate anti-Americanism trotted out in order to win elections. It worked once but not the second time.

As Mr Walker’s article, which can be read only by internet subscribers, puts it:

The two parties together used to enjoy the support of over 80% of German voters. Opinion polls currently put the Christian Democrats on about 36% and the Social Democrats on only 25%. Ms Merkel has strong personal approval ratings but her party is short of the roughly 40% she would need to govern without the Social Democrats.

Of course she could always try to form a coalition with one of the other parties but, at present the numbers are against her doing that.

The WSJE editorial on the subject, to which I can link, makes one or two interesting points. It is not entirely impressed by Herr Steinmeier’s personal popularity, which easily outpaces that of his party:

Social Democrats are trawling for voters, too. Mr. Steinmeier's nomination was partly driven by polls showing him to be far more popular than Kurt Beck, the hapless party head who resigned yesterday to be replaced by former party leader Franz Müntefering. Yet it is possible that Mr. Steinmeier's popularity may have more to do with his office than with his persona. Foreign ministers always enjoy high approval ratings in Germany, because they look so statesmanlike by touring the world while avoiding controversial positions. Be it Iran's race toward nuclear arms or Russian aggression, Mr. Steinmeier, like his ministerial predecessors, advises finding a "diplomatic solution" -- always a popular panacea in pacifist Germany.

On the other hand, we have recently seen not just aggressive Russian use of its energy resources to go beyond trade deals and to try to interfere with other countries' politics but an invasion by Russia of a neighbouring state. Even "pacifist" Germany might start worrying about that.

Chancellor Merkel certainly thinks so and is possibly realigning the political scene in preparation for the election, which does not have to be as late as September 2009.

His [Stenmeier's] nomination may embolden Mrs. Merkel to highlight her Atlanticist and economic-reform instincts. Both were casualties of the last elections's inconclusive results, which forced Germany's two major parties, usually opponents, into a loveless coalition. The election campaign may give Mrs. Merkel an opportunity to remind voters what sort of foreign and economic policy the Christian Democrats would pursue if they were not held back by the so-called grand coalition with the Social Democrats.

Perhaps in anticipation of yesterday's nomination, the Chancellor fired a first broadside Friday by rejecting the idea of retiring all nuclear power plants. That plan was the brainchild of the previous Social Democratic-Green government. With high energy prices and a resurgent Russia, Mrs. Merkel is now questioning whether phasing out a key domestic energy source is such a smart idea. This may play well with voters.

We have mentioned something about this before.

German politics might become quite interesting in the next few months.

A lucky prime minister?

With tales of economic doom and gloom dominating the media, prime minister Gordon Brown's reputation is shot to pieces and the pundits are having a field day.

But, creeping in from stage left is a little bit of good news which, to readers of this blog – who have read this piece and this - will not come as a great surprise.

The news comes courtesy of The Times which is retailing information from Associated British Foods, which is saying that the worst of the food inflation we have been suffering is over.

ABF is one of Britian’s biggest food producers and it should know. It has noted that the price of corn oil has fallen by a third over the past four months and wheat prices hit their lowest for a year last week. The group is thus poised to bring down the price of Mazola oil (pictured), one of its biggest-selling vegetable oils, for the first time for more than three years.

Corn oil prices in the United States have fallen from 90 cents a pound to 60 cents a pound in the past four months as experts predict an oversupply on the market. Soya prices have fallen in line with crude oil prices, while wheat prices dropped to year-lows on all three American futures exchanges last week.

On a broader front, official figures are showing that input price inflation at food manufacturers across Britain had eased in August to 15.9 percent, from 19 per cent in July. Prices in the shops, however, are continuing to rise – a normal phenomenon. They tend to lag behind raw material prices when they are going up and the reverse tends to happen on the way down. But, soon enough, we are likely to see some falls.

Furthermore, manufacturing input prices are also dropping at the fastest rate in 22 years, after the price of oil and scrap metal tumbled, the latter reflecting the downturn in global economic conditions and a slackening in demand for commodities.

All of that suggests that inflationary pressures are easing, which may give the Bank of England an opportunity in the not too distant future to reduce interest rates – easing the credit market and, in particular, making mortgages marginally easier to afford.

Interestingly, The Times has a good record on this issue, forecasting the emergence of food inflation long before other newspapers were interested in the subject.

And with easing of inflationary pressure, some of Mr Brown’s political problems will ease. The news comes far too late to save him, as the political "tipping point" has long been and gone, but at least he will have a few brownie points to trade when he gives his speech to the Labour Party conference.

He may have pulled off his purple banana trick (see also here) which may give some cheer to his beleaguered troops.

COMMENT THREAD

Idiots abroad

Although it is no longer news, we cannot let pass without comment the idiotic escapade of Lewis Gordon Pugh, the "intrepid" explorer who planned to kayak all the way to the North Pole to expose just how quickly the ice cap is melting and thus draw attention to "global warming" – or is it climate change?

Anyhow, a few days ago, before abandoning his madcap venture, he was reporting: "We are still struggling to get beyond 81° north." His fossil-fuelled support boat, the MV Havsel, was continuing to push east in the hope of finding a break in the ice so the idiot and his companion could paddle further north. However, it was to no avail. They were right up against the edge of the ice wall and got no further.

It has to be recorded that Pugh did not even get as far as the expedition in 1922 when a team sailed as far north as 81° 29' in ice-free water, giving the lie to any claims that there is anything exceptional in the current meltback. Furthermore, that expedition was in August with perhaps a month to go before the ice retreat stopped with the onset of winter.

From the same school of incurable idiots, we have Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, prattling on about not eating meat "to help combat the effects of climate change". Typically, the brain-dead Daily Telegraph describes him as "the world's leading expert on global warming" – which he is not. He is just a sad little apparatchik at the head of an intensely political UN institution.

What is great fun though is the comment thread on Watts up with that, where little Pachauri's pretensions are shredded, with enormous humour.

If the likes of Pachauri realised what laughing stocks they were becoming, they might perhaps crawl back under their stones and leave us alone. But, as long as the media keeps taking them seriously, they will keep coming back. To that, of course, there is an obvious answer.

COMMENT THREAD

A lack of vision

On the face of it, The Daily Telegraph announcement that it is today hosting a conference on our future relationship with the EU, in association with the think-tank Global Vision, is good news. In fact, it is anything but, typifying this paper's continued attempts to control the debate and limit its breadth.

It is exactly a reflection of the same dog-in-the-manger approach that led it to launching its own blog platform, in a vain attempt to dominate the blogosphere, rather than interact with the established political blogs – which it largely ignores (with some honourable exceptions). But it also says a great deal about the leading anti-EU party, UKIP, about which more later in this piece where the link will be made clear.

As to The Telegraph, for sure, we totally agree with the opening sentiments of its leader – which trails the conference. "Europe", it says, "has all but disappeared as a political issue…

None of the political parties wants to talk about it - Labour and the Lib Dems because they know that they are at odds with public opinion, the Conservatives because they are terrified of reviving memories of the 1990s. Most voters, if pushed, are vaguely under the impression that the whole thing has gone away. Didn't the French and Dutch electorates kill the European Constitution? And didn't the Irish drive a stake though its heart when it tried to clamber out of its coffin in the ghoulish shape of the Lisbon Treaty?

Telling us that the "European Constitution" remains very much on the agenda, and that an incoming government will have no choice but to face it, The Telegraph then purports to fill the vacuum, addressing the question of how "Britain might relate to the rest of the EU as an associate member, within the single market but outside other political structures."

If it is seeking to widen out the debate, however, it has gone about it in a remarkably cack-handed way. Not only, in choosing Global Vision for its partner has it selected one of the least active "think-tanks" – one that, if rumour has it correct is on the verge of collapse, offering an agenda which might be better described as "Limited Vision" - the paper has been remarkably secretive about the event.

For such a prestigious occasion, one might have expected some pre-publicity, but the paper has been silent on it up to now. And, as for Global Vision there is no mention of it on its website.

More to the point, for a paper which professes to be interested in widening out the debate on "Europe", where were the other players? Where, for instance, was Open Europe? Was the Bruges Group invited and, if so, was it given the opportunity of putting up a speaker? And, if this is such an important conference, why was not the leading blog on EU issues – this very blog – told about it? I am sure we would have welcomed the opportunity to attend and report on it, rather than take second-hand feed from Dan Hannan.

And, it goes without saying that UKIP was not officially invited, much less any of its representatives being given an opportunity to speak and be reported. That is very much in line with the paper's policy which, in the past, has taken story leads from UKIP and then sought quotes from Conservative MEPs, then publishing those with no mention of the originators of the stories.

Lamentable though UKIP's press effort is, the party does have some good grounds for complaint about the way it is treated – particularly by The Telegraph which, for a long time had a policy of editing out references to UKIP in stories written up by its Brussels correspondents.

However (that word again), the absence of UKIP also speaks for its lacklustre performance and its almost complete invisibility when it comes to offering what might be a "vision" of a United Kingdom without the EU. That much is glaringly evident from the Telegraph's incredible statement: "None of the political parties wants to talk about it (the EU) ...". Isn't UKIP a political party?

Thus, it is all very well Nigel Farage telling his conference over the weekend (ignored by The Telegraph) – as retailed by his new-found press officer - that the party should be placing "a little more emphasis on the wonderful things we could and would do if we were out of the EU". But where has he been since 1999 when he was first elected to the EU parliament and thus given a public platform and some considerable resources to develop and promulgate precisely that message?

If the link between that question and UKIP's absence from today's conference seems a little tenuous, do not fear – it is not. Arguably, had UKIP in the nearly ten years since it has had MEPs, delivered a coherent and well-researched vision of an EU-free UK, the idea of The Telegraph mounting a conference on this issue without reference to UKIP's views (and failing even to mention the party in its leader) would have been demonstrably absurd and petty-minded.

It is its lack of that "vision" therefore, which allows the party to be maginalised. It cannot really complain that its message is not broadcast if it does not have anything interesting or constructive to offer. And it is also that lack which allows "Limited Vision" to hold forth, leaving UKIP silent on the edges.

The key to the ability to deliver a message is, of course, research. In its limited but nonetheless effective way, this is what Open Europe has demonstrated, having produced a steady flow of useful (if politically skewed) research papers – for instance here.

If one were to ask how many research papers of equivalent quality had been produced by UKIP since the last euro-elections, the answer would be none. Despite the considerable resources potentially available to it with the election of 12 MEPs, its output has been derisory. Even now, its grasp of key EU-related issues is often embarrassingly poor, as I am able to argue on the forum through the current UKIP thread.

In politics, the role of research is absolutely vital. It is often said – rightly – that the Thatcher revolution was entirely built on research, albeit provided by the IEA and other think-tanks. Thus, if UKIP was ever going to make an effective case for leaving the EU, it had to be research-led. And, since there was never any chance that any independent think-tank was going to take up that issue, it was also equally evident that such research was going to have to come from within the party.

That it has not represents a huge wasted opportunity, a lack of vision on the part of the UKIP hierarchy which will cost them – and the rest of us – dear. As so often, it is not by what they have done so much as what they have not done that they should be judged. And that judgement is, in part at least, delivered by The Telegraph's conference today, from which the UKIP voice is so notably absent.

COMMENT THREAD

Incompetence or corruption?

Something that may be aired in the MSM this week, flagged up by Reuters, is the outcome of the case before the ECJ for a ruling on Tuesday, which may leave the travel company Thomas Cook a half billion pounds richer.

The case itself stems from an earlier judgement following intervention by the commission in 1999 when it stepped in to prevent a merger between MyTravel - then known as Airtours and now part of the Thomas Cook empire - with First Choice Holidays.

The ECJ delivered its ruling on that in June 2002 – against which the commission did not appeal - confirming that the commission had been wrong to bar the merger. The issue now before the court is whether Thomas Cook is entitled to compensation.

Thomas Cook argues that it is entitled to damages to cover the costs incurred in the original bid, the profits of First Choice in the period up until June 2002, and the value of the synergies which would have been produced by combining the two businesses.

The court will also rule on the commission's refusal to allow MyTravel to see documents used by Brussels competition officials in dealing with Airtours, underlining the pathological secrecy of this department when it comes to its dealings with the companies it regulates.

Within our Brussels government, the competition directorate is one which wields enormous power, with the ability to block take-overs and mergers, such as in the MyTravel case, and to levy massive fines for alleged anti-competitive practices.

Its actions are entirely beyond the jurisdiction of member states, with only the ECJ to hold it in check – something which Microsoft found afforded little relief.

And while the ECJ can award substantial damages, this is not a body that will look too closely into the affairs of the directorate. Nor will it censure any officials who, if the claim is successful, will have cost the taxpayers of the member states a substantial amount of money.

That something more than a simple judgement is required is perhaps indicated by the recent Sunday Times story which revealed yet more corruption within the commission. With this case, as with many others, we cannot tell whether straighforward incompetence was involved or whether this was also corrupt dealing to the advantage of unnamed persons or enterprises.

The fact that such a body exists with such huge powers and with no democratic political oversight is, of course, another reason why we should pull out of the whole edifice of the European Union – not that we really need this one on top of all the others which are so plainly evident.

COMMENT THREAD

A problem with the Conservative Party

Only one, I hear our readers cry. Well, this posting on the BrugesGroupBlog deals with only one - the party's bizarre attitude to foreign policy. Enjoy.

A requiem for UKIP

Following our piece yesterday on the UKIP conference, we have had a number of interesting responses on the forum, but none more so than this. I commend it to you.

Readers of this blog will know that we abhor the low-grade personality politics which sustain the gutter press and the many so-called political blogs which seek to emulate it. We therefore rarely descend to those levels (although we have had our moments) and maintain a lofty (some say arrogant) detachment from them, preferring to deal with issues rather than trivia.

However (what a big word that is), the contribution to which we have linked moves me to add a short personal response. This is one I may regret, but it has to be done. To keep the main blog clear, I am posting it on the forum. It can be read here.

COMMENT THREAD

The struggle over power

Over on Centre Right, Matthew Sinclair posts a short article on the energy crisis, telling us that The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) are "one of the most important organisations in politics today."

Their work, he writes, sets out the scale of the challenge for energy policy. Clearly, no one has any excuse not to appreciate the trouble we're in. How a decade of believing in the fantasy that a combination of gas and renewables can reliably deliver the power we need has created a serious danger of the lights going out.

We would not entirely go with Matthew on the REF, but could hardly disagree with his general thrust – energy is one of the most important, if not the most important political issue of today.

However, we do get a quote from Campbell Dunford, with which we can entirely agree. Campbell is a former international energy banker and now Chief Executive of the Renewable Energy Foundation. He says,

There are two parallel debates here. On the one hand the energy experts tearing their hair out with anxiety, and on the other the bland Westminster discussion typified by the Prime Minister's empty and trivial gestures. This must change. Only courageous leadership can prepare us for the gathering storm. Will Mr Cameron speak up and confront the realities, or will the realities get there first?

It is in that latter sentence that the problem lies. Our politics are essentially adversarial. The contest between rival philosophies, different viewpoints and their respective political champions fuels debate and drives the media agenda. Without that, issues remain consigned to the technical and business pages and do not enter the political mainstream.

It is thus Mr Cameron's silence and the lack of activity from his shadow team that is doing the damage. For sure, any opposition, compared with the reach of the government, has limited power. But it is able to keep issues on the agenda and widen out the discourse.

That it is an issue of great public interest is well evidenced by the Booker column today, which picks up on the themes raised by this blog last Thursday, and in particular the malign role of the European Union in stifling any attempts we might make to forge a rational energy policy.

The piece we wrote them was headed "the enemy within", focusing on the greenies, but in a sense the greater enemy is the indifference of the political classes and their willingness to cede the debate to the greenies without any effective challenge.

Something of that can be seen from events in Scotland, where the SNP has totally bought into the greenie mantra, with a key energy company now warning of the potentially disastrous effects.

This is conveyed by the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times but we are seeing exactly the dynamic about which we have just remarked. Although an intensely vital political issue, this is printed in the business pages. And, to prove the point, the story is also in the Scotland on Sunday, again in the business pages.

Anyhow, the thrust of the story is that British Energy is about to predict that Scotland will be energy importer by 2025 "if it does not build three new, low-carbon power plants". The region faces a massive hole in its energy supply, equivalent to the output of three power stations, if it relies solely on renewables – having to rely on nuclear generated power from England to plug the gap.

British Energy is not pushing nuclear. Its spokesman is saying that power does not need to come solely from nuclear, but the policy should allow the competitive market to choose which low-carbon, affordable conventional plants are built. All options should be available.

But what is absolutely staggering is the response of the Scottish government, which airily dismisses BE's warning as "nonsense". "Scotland does not want or need costly new nuclear power stations and is already well on its way to becoming the clean, green renewable energy capital of Europe," its spokesman says.

There is something dreadfully wrong when a government feels able to reject the technical opinion of a leading energy supplier – even more when it does so in such a cavalier fashion.

Given what we know about the unreliability of wind power, which even factions in the BBC seem to understand, the Scottish government's dismissal is in any event not plausible. Its aim of relying entirely on renewable energy is profoundly and dangerously wrong, and demonstrably so.

Under the circumstances, its reaction has to be a special kind of madness. It is beyond grandstanding or hubris. No sane government could so easily and recklessly endanger its own population and put its entire economy at risk.

And neither is this particular little episode just a Scottish issue – although, typically, reporting is confined to the papers across the border. At the moment, Scotland is a net exporter of power to England so, if the energy supply there fails, we all suffer.

Needless to say, the utter failure of the political classes and the media to engage in this issue is intensely frustrating. But there is a bright side. While some blogs have been reporting a fall-off in their hit rates, as we have intensified our "banging on" about energy, our hit rate is showing a modest but sustained increase. It is good to see that some of our Umbrellog partners are also piling in, with Tony Sharp and John Page doing some good work. So, incidentally, is the Open Europe blog, which is quietly growing in stature.

Clearly, there is an intelligent readership out there which is tiring of the daily fare of the "tee hee" blogs, with whom we have struck a chord. In an earlier piece, I wrote about energy being the defining issue in our relationship with the EU but it could well be the defining issue for the political blogosphere - those sections of it that are capable of picking up the challenge.

With the politicians and the media unable or unwilling to engage sensibly in this vital issue, this – as with climate change – is a subject where the blogs can and should make the running - fortified, of course, by Booker in his own ghetto in The Sunday Telegraph. We, for our part, will continue banging on, for as long as you continue reading what we write.

COMMENT THREAD

Russia wins another victory

On Friday morning I bought three newspapers at my local newsagent (no, I don't keep them in business, the various lottery and other ticket buyers do): the Daily Telegraph, the International Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal Europe. (Yes, I do recycle those newspapers when I have finished reading them – I have two cats.)

Then I looked at the headlines of one of the most important stories. Our own Daily Telegraph said in the Business section, which is the only part that is worth reading: "BP buries hatchet with Russians". Hmm, I thought, I wonder if the Russians have also buried the hatchet and in whose skull.

The Trib was a little more cautious: "BP reaches a truce in its Russian oil battle". [This article seems to have vanished into cyberspace but there are others out there.] Slim hope of hatchets being buried or peace pipes being smoked.

The Wall Street Journal Europe was the most sceptical and most informative of all: "BP keeps TNK-BP stakes but Russians gain clout". [The article is available to subscribers only.] There is a trick to being able to sum up your story in a headline and there is also a trick to understanding what happens in the world. I think it may be called journalism but I am no longer certain.

Well, now the story about TNK-BP, which we have written about before, has taken another turn and not for the better as far as BP is concerned. Although they have managed to keep 50 per cent of the joint venture, the WSJE maintains that the "deal clearly gives the Russian shareholder more clout". According to Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin, this is "a positive signal for the Russian market".

In the deal, BP agreed to many of the terms set by its partners, a group of Soviet-born billionaires [an unfair comment since all Russian adults are Soviet-born but the hit is palpable] led by Mikhail Fridman of Alfa Group, Lev Blavatnik of Access Industries and Vikotr Vekselber of Renova, collectively known as AAR.

Their main demands, the removal of BP-nominated Chief Executive Robert Dudley, who is to leave by Dec. 1 under the deal, and consideration of an initial public offering of TNK-BP shares, now expected around 2010. BP won few, if any, concession in return, according to people close to the company. BP gave up its demand for the removal from top management jobs of Mr Vekselberg and another Russian shareholder, German Khan, both of whom BP and Mr Dudley accused of insubordination and acting against the interests of TNK-BP. AAR denied those accusations.

The Trib points out that BP has been allowed to retain "access to the large oil fields in Siberia that are one of the company’s most valuable assets". Of course, nobody quite knows how long that situation will last but, at present, the deal is presented as being very helpful to Western investors, as Mr Sechin pointed out. After all, BP's assets were not nationalized through a forced sale to a state company. Again, nobody can predict whether that will not happen some time in the near future.

At present, the Kremlin and its various proxies have had to deal with "slide in the Russian stock market and in investor confidence", consequent on the invasion of Georgia.

Past experience suggests that some investors will swallow any amount of punishment and will ignore all warnings in the hopes of at least some small profits to be made in the Russian energy sector (there not being a great deal else, since the arms manufacturing is not going to be opened up to Western investors).

The Telegraph said:

Meanwhile, fears about Russia’s conflict with Georgia have taken their toll, forcing the Russian central bank yesterday [Thursday] to support the rouble. Currency dealers said the central bank had sold up to $4bn (£2.3bn) in reserves in an attempt to halt the fall of the rouble, after foreign investors pulled capital from the country. The chairman of the central bank, Sergei Ignatyev, was reported as saying about $5bn left Russia last month. Analysts believe the real figure is much higher.

Also on Friday Kommersant was reporting that the Russian stock index was starting to move upwards but the road will be difficult. Other accounts were painting a much gloomier picture. The TNK-BP deal was needed by the Kremlin but whether its effect will be all that they hope for remains to be seen.

In the Comments session the Telegraph was sanguine though admonitory:

But for all AAR's hard-nosed manoeuvring, Hayward has managed to keep a large amount of influence over selection of a new chief executive. But even more crucially, in the face of a Russian state whose president's attitude to diplomacy is "Cold War? Bring it on", Hayward has retained ownership of its asset. No mean feat.

But it's also been a warning. BP can never again be so naive in dealing with Russia. It's had to make concessions and been pushed on to the back foot. It should have acted sooner to protect its interests while its counterparts were weaker.

Other western companies should learn from its mistakes. You need to be as much of a street fighter as a statesman to succeed in the former Soviet Union. It's all very well having had lawyers and injunctions at the ready to freeze assets of its Russian partners but it should never have come to that.

The Russians, however, have had to swallow another hard lesson, which is that the West's open capital markets and the institutions that populate them will turn their backs if certain rules of engagement are ignored. A big investment bank will probably value a long-term relationship with a BP over what could be a short, risky and potentially dangerous liaison with a belligerent Russia. Oh, and never, ever sign a 50:50 joint venture.

We suspect that BP will continue to behave with exemplary naiveté right up to the moment they are marched out of Russia completely. For the moment, it is a Russian victory but, as ever, with heavier losses for the country than is necessary. Not that the leadership cares.

Real journalism

No messing – no irony: this is truly good journalism, a job that only the media can do. The Sunday Times has run a "sting" operation on a corrupt EU official in Brussels. The story opens as follows:

A top official in Peter Mandelson's European Union trade department has leaked highly sensitive commercial information in return for the promise of financial benefit.

In a six-month investigation, The Sunday Times tape-recorded Fritz-Harald Wenig, a trade director, passing secrets to undercover reporters posing as lobbyists for a Chinese businessman seeking insider information.

Wenig discussed the possibility of payment or taking a lucrative job with the businessman. He said he would decide further once he had provided "results".

He leaked the names of two Chinese companies likely to get special status if the EU imposes a protective tariff barrier against Chinese candle-makers. The information is potentially worth millions to those trading with these companies.

This was over dinner in the elegant Comme Chez Soi (pictured), one of the great Brussels restaurants. The paper has a more detailed report here, which is well worth reading.

The information revealed (for once the word is merited) is seriously damaging to the EU commission and, as the paper says, raises "questions about the standards of probity in Brussels, where civil servants formulate policy affecting trade worth billions with the world’s main trading blocs."

A spokesman for Mandelson, the trade commissioner, has said he would launch a "comprehensive and thorough" investigation. But don't hold your breath. The most likely outcome is a whitewash, with no action taken. This is, after all, the EU we are dealing with.

COMMENT THREAD

There I was, trying to write a serious posting ...

.... when I came across this gem on Just One Minute. Apparently, Barack Obama, the Democrats' Presidential candidate (not Vice-Presidential though that is the one he is fighting) said at a Bon Jovi event - I think I know what that means - that "We won't be bullied". Presumably, he means that he will not be bullied by the terrifying Sarahcuda, a new and potent weapon that the Republicans found in the frozen north.

This is Just One Minute's take on it:

Whether Obama is revealing personal weakness or simply highlighting the historic weakness of his party, this is not talk that projects strength, especially in the current context - what is Obama saying, he won't be bullied by a 44 year old hockey mom? Stand Tall, Barack - you won't be bullied by Sarah Palin! OMG, is this a secret plan to assassinate Putin by making him laugh so hard he gets an aneurysm? Or is this Laugh Attack launched at the Right Blogosphere (It's working! I can barely type through the tears).

Actually I am not sure Putin is laughing. My guess is that Governor Palin reminds him too much of those terrifying Russian ladies of varying ages who make hefty soldier lads meekly get off trains if they are doing the wrong thing, such as smoking. I know. I watched this on my way from Moscow to Yoshkar-Ola near the Volga.

A whiff of realignment?

The party conference season starts early this year, kicked off by the UK Independence Party which has previously shoehorned its weekend event in between the Labour and Conservative conferences.

And, as always happens when UKIP takes a higher profile than normal – i.e., ceases to be invisible for a brief moment – the detractors leap into breach.

This time, it is the europhiliac Independent but, in its enthusiasm to dish the dirt, it has fallen for an egregious "plant", offering stories of dark and sinister plots against Nigel Farage.

Interestingly, the story prominently features UKIP's erstwhile press officer, Annabelle Fuller, who is styled as an "ally" of Nigel Farage. That is one way of describing their relationship, and has absolutely nothing to do with her complaint, retailed by the paper, about being subjected to abusive telephone calls, "including one at 3am calling her a whore."

More to the point, this Mz Fuller could be the same person who hurriedly departed her post after a confidential and highly damaging video of a mock selection interview – in her custody - had been mysteriously posted on YouTube. This was the one which featured a hapless aspirant MEP candidate, headed, "how not do politics", in an obvious attempt to denigrate the subject. That it was uploaded in Morocco where Fuller happened to go on holiday was, of course, a complete coincidence.

Nothing, as one might expect, appears in the piece about this, nor of the fact that the self-serving Fuller is under criminal investigation by Suffolk Police for an alleged breach of the Data Protection Act.

Needless to say, Iain Dale falls for the scam, aided and abetted by Fuller's former very close associate who has absolutely nothing to do with her complaint about being subjected to abusive telephone calls, "including one at 3am calling her a whore."

Conveniently, the piece gives both Dale and The Independent scope to ruminate on whether UKIP is about to implode. In fact, despite the fond hopes of the newspaper, nothing could be further from the truth. As the line-up at the conference shows, what we have just seen is another internal coup by Farage, still further consolidating his grip on what has become a one-man party.

Out goes current chairman, the independently-minded Dr John Whittaker, to be replaced by Farage's 31-year-old bag carrier, Paul Nuttall, one time history lecturer in Liverpool and until recently the MEP's researcher.

He is now elevated to the highest office (apart from the leader) in the party and has been also been catapulted to the lead position on the UKIP candidate MEP list in the North West, replacing the former lead candidate – voted in by the members. This was the regional organiser Gregg Beaman, who was forced to stand down in favour of Nuttall. He has quit his highly-paid job in disgust and is "mulling over" his continued membership of the party.

Nuttall is thus positioned to serve his master well, keeping the members at bay while the next stage of the Farage agenda is rolled out.

For this, the clues were in the keynote conference speech given by Farage, where he spoke of needing a "21st Century relationship between Britain and our European neighbours." UKIP's line, he said, "needs to be less about what's wrong with the EU… It needs to be positive messages about what we stand for and positive messages about what our MEPs will do."

Although larded with references to the UK being outside the EU, this does not sound like a party committed with anything like the same fervour to the policy of withdrawal it has previously espoused.

For an explanation of this, one must look to Farage's recent meeting(s) with Declan Ganley. There, it was made clear to Farage that UKIP's open hostility to the EU stood in the way of a closer relationship.

With the party all but bankrupt, marginalised in national politics and facing a poor showing in the euro-elections, with insufficient cash to finance an effective campaign, the promise of the Ganley millions was enough to spur Farage on to deliver his coded message from the conference podium.

With a covert alignment in the wings, we will indeed hear "less about what's wrong with the EU…" from Farage. And, with The Independent offering stories of dark and sinister plots against the great leader inspired by la Fuller, the stage is set for bagman Nuttall to crack the whip against the real dissenters – the more dangerous of whom were not "fingered" by Fuller.

Hilariously - if you are that way inclined - the Independent, so keen to see the downfall of UKIP, has helped cement it in place, although it will not be UKIP as we know it. But, in that, the paper has perhaps unwittingly achieved precisely what it wanted, neutering the eurosceptic voice. Only time will tell.

COMMENT THREAD