Operation Amnesia

A piece in the Spectator this this week offers a perspective on Afghanistan should be read by everyone who wishes to claim that they are in the least bit well-informed – not least by the editors and journalists of the Spectator.

Written by Dr Matt Cavanagh, a former Cambridge don, he was during the crucial period of the current military campaign a special advisor to Des Browne and then Gordon Brown. A man from the "outside", with an academic rather than military background, thus got a unique perspective, part of which he now reveals.

Headed "Operation Amnesia", Cavanagh argues that Britain's failings in Afghanistan have as much to do with short memories as shortages of troops, noting that the transition process, from insurgency to pacification is "as much about symbolism as substance". It is designed to satisfy the desperate search for a credible "metric of progress" even as violence remains stubbornly high. Measures of territory occupied and enemy "body count" are rightly rejected as counterproductive, and more detailed assessments of the Afghan state, of its army, police, or local governors, are far from reassuring.

With delicious irony, he seizes on an example of "progress" in Lashkar Gar – an open-air concert, attended by thousands of Afghans. Such an event would have been "unthinkable" in previous years, according to the BBC. In fact, a similar event took place in May 2008. Then, it too had been seized on as evidence of progress.

Remarks Cavanagh, this really symbolises is how short western memories are. Few bother to read up on the past, and most are focused simply on the short period for which they are seconded to the job. Short-termism has cursed every aspect of the campaign. Journalists produce reports devoid of historical context, and are too eager to believe their briefings. Ministers, advisers and civil servants doubt that they will be around long enough to see any success, but fear that they may preside over disaster, and so adopt a risk-averse approach until they can pass the whole mess to their successors.

The military react in the opposite way, determined to make an impact in the short time they are there. This may seem more admirable, but its effects are equally perverse - especially when combined with a narrow way of thinking about how to make an impact. Large-scale, conventional military engagements predictably recur in the second half of each brigade’s six-month tour. Afghans watch the British clear and re-clear territory, but to each new batch of soldiers, it looks and feels like success.

During the Vietnam war, Col John Paul Vann put it brilliantly. "We don't have 12 years' experience in Vietnam", he said. "We have one year's experience, repeated twelve times". This could be adapted for the British military today. We don't have five years' experience in Helmand, we have six months'’ experience ten times. Successive brigades have relearned the painful lessons of their predecessors, or overcompensated for their perceived failings. Debriefings of battalion and company commanders, and attempts to harness their valuable experience, have been perfunctory.

Four years ago, when Cavanagh was working for the then defence secretary, Des Browne, he and the Secretary of State pressed senior military officers to look for ways of mitigating this short-termism: longer tours, or a staggered rotation of units, or greater continuity in the command structure. The army, then led by General Dannatt, flatly rejected the first two options. They dismissed longer tours on the basis of the strain on soldiers and their families, and rejected staggered rotation due to the importance of "a brigade training and deploying as a brigade".

The argument for "training and deploying as a brigade" appeared rather dogmatic, encouraging precisely the kind of large-scale set-piece engagements of concern. It also put the creaking helicopter and transport fleet through the added strain of mass troop rotations, and required us to keep scarce equipment in Britain so an entire brigade could train with it.

And here comes the rub. Such is the modern dogmatism and the undue prestige afforded to men in uniforms, with their merit badges, sashes and braid, all with their pretty medal-ribbons on their chests, that civilian advisers and strategists shied away from overruling the military. We, says Cavanagh, worked with the less dogmatic generals to identify a small number of senior posts (and junior posts in specific areas like intelligence) where tours of duty could be lengthened.

We were assured that other initiatives would improve continuity, but these too were relatively minor and seemingly given a low priority. The issue of command structure got lost in wider debates about troop numbers and the looming arrival of American forces in Helmand.

Cavanagh was "more optimistic" about the Americans’ ability to learn and adapt, although this optimism did not survive the continuing mess in Sangin, where the "transformation" of the campaign now looks like a one-off "reset" of the counter-insurgency approach rather than the start of a process of continuous learning.

That brings to a head the issue of troop numbers, the subject of such heated debate during 2009, and one most heavily miss-cast by the media, with mischievous and ignorant politicking of the Conservatives, with far too many people who should have known better standing on the sideline, cheering.

The issue, of course, is one of infinite subtlety and complexity, which explains why neither the media, opposition politicians nor the military could get it right. As someone who had a share in responsibility for those limits, however, Cavanagh explains how that the potential for troop increases exacerbated the military's dominance of what was meant to be a joint civilian-military campaign, and fed the tendency of new commanders to try to do too much.

For three years the top brass had argued that additional troops would enable us to "thicken" our forces, increasing their effectiveness, reducing casualties, and enabling proper stabilisation work to begin. But when we sent reinforcements, it had the opposite result: an expanded footprint, increased activity, and increased casualties, to no obvious strategic effect. This may well be precisely what is happening in Sangin now.

The tragedy is that the military's obsession with troop numbers and the media's failure to challenge it (to say nothing of the party politicking by the Conservatives) have obscured the wider lessons of the Afghan campaign.

Before the American surge, lack of troops was blamed for everything. Since the surge, the new response to any setback or criticism is that "the right resources have only just been put in place". But like it or not, the campaign is already measured in years in the minds of those who matter: the Afghan people and the public back home.

The more fundamental point is that more troops would not have ensured British success in Helmand. Where experts estimate that you would need half a million troops just to cover the ground, not even the American surge — more than ten times what we could have mustered — can ensure success by itself.

More troops, writes Cavanagh, "will not help our militaries master the complex tribal dynamics, nor judge whether they are making friends faster than they are alienating people. More troops will not change the attitude of the Afghan and Pakistani authorities, nor create a political process that addresses Afghan grievances".

Because of these wider political problems, Britain's lack of success in Afghanistan in strategic terms cannot be blamed on the military. But at the operational level, most of the responsibility is theirs. They took the tactical decisions in summer 2006 — admittedly under great pressure — to disperse our forces across the "platoon houses" in northern Helmand.

They chose, in the years that followed, to continue to prosecute the campaign in an expansive and aggressive manner, despite the constraints on resources and the lack of evidence that this approach had a lasting positive effect. And while they lost no opportunity to plan and lobby for more troops, they were slow to fill the gaps in our intelligence, or to respond to the Taleban's shift in tactics towards improvised explosive devices.

Thus, says Cavanagh, even if a window of opportunity arises at the strategic level, as it did in Iraq, the military will need to learn and adapt far faster if they are to prevail against an enemy which is adaptable, nimble and utterly unscrupulous, in an environment which is linguistically, socially and culturally alien. This, he says – with a degree of understatement that is belied by the word - "will be difficult". "Impossible" might be a better choice.

In admiring the courage and character of our armed forces, Cavanagh concludes, it is easy to forget that the military is also a large bureaucracy. Unique in many ways, not least in putting their lives on the line, but a bureaucracy nonetheless. By their nature, bureaucracies are blind to their failings and slow to rectify them — even when staring at the possibility of defeat.

When failure becomes not just a possibility but a reality, it ought to provide the impetus for change. In war it is vital to learn from mistakes. The American military did this ruthlessly after the Kasserine Pass in the Second World War, and they did it again under Petraeus in Iraq. But it won't happen if politicians are blamed instead, as in America over Korea and in Britain over Iraq.

The media, the Conservatives and the military have already prepared the way for a similar narrative on Afghanistan: blaming the previous government, mainly for not providing enough resources. If only we'd had more troops and better equipment, the argument will run, we would have defeated the Taleban, and got out on our own terms. It suits a great many people to go along with this, but in the long run it will only prevent us from learning the real lessons of the past five years.

And in those last two paragraphs, we see the future. All three sets of "players" are locked into the mantra, (Labour) politicians bad, military good, neglecting the simple but hugely important issue in fighting insurgencies, that the politics both on the ground and back home are dominant. The military cannot win insurgencies – they can only but time for a political settlement. But when they forget this – and the politicians hide behind their own inadequacies – we have a recipe for disaster.

What Cavanagh does not say, though, is that in this campaign, Britain – unlike in 1940 – is indeed the junior partner. Resolving this problem is above the pay grade of our own politicians, as we are required to take the lead from the United States – a nation which has no understanding of, nor any feel for, the region.

On this basis, our politicians, no more than our military, can prevail. The best we can hope for is to muddle though, with as few casualties as possible, until we look to have a credible opportunity to escape, with our reputation not too badly tarnished. In the interim, the military is doing what it does best, covering up its own inadequacies. That is something in which – like any good bureaucracy – it is highly skilled.

COMMENT THREAD

Crumbling

Perhaps I have been a little unfair to France, or had under-estimated the degree to which patience is running out over immigration.

We thus learn from Wall Street Journal that the very essence of the European Union experience – the open borders – is crumbling before our very eyes. The French police have re-opened a formerly abandoned checkpoint along the country's Mediterranean border with Italy, a a couple of miles from the beach town of Ventimiglia.

Strangely – or perhaps not – this is getting more coverage in the US press than it is over here, so we also get a report in The New York Times.

This and the WSJ tell of the nearby French town of Menton, where French police in riot gear are boarding trains crossing into France, grilling passengers. Other police forces are monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory from Italy.

The WSJ says this operation is part of France's attempt to stop the wave of North African migrants who regard Italy as a "way station" as they travel by boat, train and foot toward jobs and family in French cities. More than 700 migrants who have crossed into French territory via Italy have been detained by French police and escorted back.

Needless to say, the "colleagues" are getting more than a little uptight about this. EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom is back in the hot seat, suggested that France is in breach of the "free movement" provisions. She wants it both ways does that lady, having told the Italians that giving resident permits to the immigrants did not allow them to travel.

But, says Malmstrom, when asked about France's crackdown, "There are no borders so they can't". "You are not allowed to do checks at the border" unless "there is a serious threat to public security, and for the moment that is not the case".

However, France's foreign ministry – with an eye to the elections where a weak Sarkozy is up against Mme Le Pen and some very pissed-off Kermits - says Paris is enforcing a bilateral accord with Italy. This is the so-called Chambery agreement, where France can return any undocumented migrants to Italy for expulsion if French officials can ample evidence they came from Italy.

"Bilateral", under the circumstances, though, has become unilateral, as the Italian police, no doubt under orders from Rome, are waving the immigrants thorough, and not showing any willingness to co-operate with their Kermit counterparts.

"There's a hostile attitude coming from Paris," Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni told the Italian Senate on Thursday. Kermit Interior Minister Claude Guéant "lashed back", saying France "is completely within its rights to send these people back to Italy."

With Wops and Kermits at daggers-drawn, it's just like old times, and with the Portuguese economy going belly-up – to add to the many others in the resuscitation room – they must be tearing their hair out in Brussels.

Nevertheless, the Kermits are unrepentant. With cars piled up on the Italian side of the border, the police are doing what they enjoy doing the world over – pissing people off, this time by laboriously checking every car as it goes through. With detailed checks on the trains as well, EU rules are flying out the window.

Moreover, this seems to have been going on, under the radar, for a little time. Yassine Fatnassi, a 28-year-old "construction worker", was one, with three others, taken off a train from Italy to France and detained by the Kermits at a train station in Nice - on 31 March.

Fatnassi said police took him to a barracks near the French-border town of Breil, telling him he would be sent back to Tunisia. Fatnassi said French police dismissed his requests for a lawyer. He said he was then placed alone in a small holding cell for 24 hours without food or a place to sleep.

On April 1, Mr. Fatnassi said, French police loaded him into a patrol car and drove him to the border and threw him out of France. And quelle horreur, the Kermits didn't seek approval from Italian authorities to dump their trash on the doorstep.

In a measure of the problem, Fatnassi, who has two brothers awaiting him in Paris, says he is "undeterred" by the experience. "It was scary, but I must go to France, because that's where my family is," he says.

Ahmed Mhimdan, a 28-year-old Moroccan and another so-called "construction worker" who says he routinely crosses the border for jobs. He was on his way by train to meet friends in Monte Carlo when two French police boarded his train coach and scrutinised his working papers, which were in order. "The French don't mess around," he said.

Predictably, migrants are now avoiding cross-border the trains. Tunisian fisherman Hassen Kaoubi, 35, has attempted four unsuccessful crossings. His last, which took him on a miles-long foot trail through craggy terrain ended with French police picking him in the countryside just outside Nice. As is now standard practice, they dumped him back in Ventimiglia.

The people of Ventimiglia, who no more want this trash than do the Kermits, are in an invidious position. But instead of focusing their wrath on Rome – which should be sending its ferries back to Tunisia instead of bringing the migrants to the Italian mainland – they are having a go at the Kermits.

Last Saturday, hundreds of protesters gathered near the train station waving signs accusing France of thumbing its nose at its former colony. "Tunisia was once French!" read one sign.

Well, Libya was once Italian, for what good that did them. And when their dross comes storming over the Mediterranean, arguing that point isn't going to do them a lot of good. And nor is Brussels going to get much traction. Open borders is very nice in theory, but the price ordinary people have to pay is proving to be far too high.

As for the British media, one wonders why they are not covering this issue. Perhaps it is just too dangerous, giving people quaint ideas, like we don't have to let the garbage in – much less give it benefits. We can turn it right round and send it back from whence it came. And there's bugger-all Brussels can do about it.

COMMENT THREAD

A spectacular failure

The Libyan rebels may not be doing very well out of the air "support" provided by the coalition, but the "bomber barons" are delighted. The fool Cameron has been bounced into rethinking the defence cuts.

So much for the strategic defence review - which has failed at the first hurdle. This is a policy the Boy and 13th Century Fox had years to think about, years to plan. They forced the pace – they were not interested in debate or discussion. They knew exactly where they were going ... straight up a cul de sac.

There are no "ifs" or "buts" here. They got it wrong – spectacularly and completely wrong. And now, they are in the worst of all positions, having to make up policy on the hoof, as the pressure of events crowd round them. As things go, this is a spectacular failure. And it is one for the Tory Boys to make the most of. It is the only thing "spectacular" that Cameron is ever going to deliver.

COMMENT THREAD

On their way

Exactly as we predicted, the Italians are set to export their immigrant problem - the chosen mechanism being to give the recent flood of North African of 25,000 "refugees" temporary residence permits. This, according to Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni, speaking to his own parliament, means that the migrants would be allowed "free movement" between EU member states, thus enabling him to dump the problem on other EU member states.

This, it appears, has prompted an alarmed response from the EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, declaring that permit holders would not have an "automatic right" to travel within the European Union. Spokesman Marcin Grabiec told journalists in Brussels that it would depend on the type of permit issued.

He also explained that migrants would only be allowed to travel within the Schengen area for up to three months if they had valid travel documents, sufficient money to live on, pose no threat to public security. Migrants found to have crossed over from Italy without meeting those conditions could be sent back there, Grabiec said.

However, that is to ignore the flaccid response of our own administration, which seems to want to impose as much stress and inconvenience on the British people as possible. With our Continental "friends" turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the hordes, it can onlt be a matter of time before these "refugees" make their way to Sangatte and thence to the nearest British benefit office.

But then, since benefits seems to be there for the taking and the British establishment seems content to throw our money at all-comers - especially if they are Muslims or immigrants (or both) - Italy seems to be taking a perfectly sensible way out. It is certainly more humane than the Maltese option. Time was though, in 2003, the Italians were of a like mind, but now they just provide the ferry (pictured above) and the papers to start the migrants on the next stage of their journeys to new lives – in Britain. How times change.

COMMENT THREAD

Parliamentary language?

In the Lords from 5 April, we see this little gem:

Lord Kinnock: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says that he wants to stick to his guns, I am inclined to hope that he goes very near to the muzzle of those guns-indeed, just in front-because that would be a suitable location.

If this is permissible parliamentary language, then I hope we will see an end to those who complain about my suggestions as to the fate of our ruling classes.

COMMENT THREAD

Beneath contempt

So, the idiot Boy, after the space of only a month is relaunching his drive to cut regulation. "I want us to be the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation, rather than increasing it", he says.

Of course, EU regulation is not touched, so just who does he think he is kidding? Just how stupid does he think we are? Does he really think that we are so gullible that we do not understand that most business regulation comes from Brussels and, therefore, anything his provincial government can do is minimal?

And haven't we been there before? This was a previous prime minister talking about deregulation:

You know the things I care about - we all care about - the things I dreamt about as a boy. The chance to get on in life. To acquire knowledge, security, the prospect of a better future - and a life fulfilled. A corner of life that you can call your own. That's what people struggle for and sacrifice for when they watch their children grow.

If we're going to meet those hopes, fulfil those dreams - then we must build a strong economy. And looking around the world, we can see even more clearly what makes an economy strong. A Government that secures two things; low inflation and the right climate for business to succeed.

It is people who create wealth. People, not Government. Business, not bureaucracy. Enterprise, not interference. But business can't succeed if Government doesn't play its part.

He goes on ...

And now is the time to mount a new offensive. We're already on the march against the Eurocrat and his sheaf of directives. But you know, it isn't just Brussels that rolls out the red tape. It's Whitehall. And town hall. Everyone likes to tie another knot. Admirable intentions - disastrous combinations. Piling costs on industry. Mr President, that must stop.

It's not just big business that suffers. Far too often, it is the small firms who really suffer. Small firms - fed up with filling in the forms - who feel that it is just not worth being in business at all.

Of course, we want to have confidence in the safety of the food we eat, the homes we buy, the place we work in, the people who take charge of our children. But when this reaches the point where you may need 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations just to start a business, then I say again, this sort of thing must stop.

I have asked Michael Heseltine to take responsibility for cutting through this burgeoning maze of regulations. Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into them!

You know, deregulation isn't just about making life better for business. It's about making life easier for everybody. Take the bureaucratic controls which mean Whitehall decides whether you have the chance to stop off the motorway. Every parent knows what I mean. Next services, 54 miles - when your children can't make 10!

They've got to go. And so those rules have got to go!

That, of course, was John Major – his Conservative Party conference speech on 9 October 1992, launching his great deregulation initiative. That failed then, and this one will fail now. The gilded Boy has learned nothing from this, and will learn nothing from the current experience. It is nothing more or less than cynical window-dressing.

And there is nothing I detest more in a politician than when they take us for fools. I may possibly have said this before, but the man is beneath contempt.

COMMENT THREAD

A distorted picture

Although the newspapers are full of hyperbole about the very welcome spring warmth, the have been almost completely silent about the ice drama in the Gulf of Finland, as indeed they were about the Okhotsk Sea entertainment.

But the current weather here and the exceptional conditions in Eastern Europe and Russia are not unrelated. The very fact that it is warm here and St. Petersburg is suffering a late spring is that the same system which are bringing the mild weather to the UK is also packing the ice into the Gulf.

The situation at the end of last month had so deteriorated that fruit and vegetable shipments to Russia were hindered by dangerous ice, and cargoes of potatoes were being spoiled because it was too cold and they were freezing.

Even now, a week later and the Princess Anastasia ferry returned to St. Petersburg more than five hours late from its first trip to Stockholm (pictured above). The ferry was delayed due to thick ice that continues to cover the Gulf of Finland. Ten icebreakers, including a nuclear vessel, are still helping to free cargo vessels and passenger ferries.

According to data from the administration of the St. Petersburg seaport, as of Monday, 76 ships remained trapped in the ice – and it is not yet over. The ice means that the schedule of the Princess Anastasia is subject to change. According to ferry staff, the journey to Stockholm could take up to 35 hours instead of the scheduled 23 hours.

And this is not just idle interest. The parochialism of the British media is such that those who rely on it are never given the big picture. The focus on a brief period of warm spring in Britain allows the myth of global warming to be sustained, whereas as the global temperatures is creeping down, and hot spots here and there can always be matched by cold spots elsewhere (and vice versa).

This distorted picture is a real problem when it comes to public perception. Memories are short, and when the global warmists come out to play, the fine weather undoubtedly influences sentiment. Yet there is rarely any serious attempt to counter their propaganda. Ice-bound in St. Petersburg doesn't cut it - but it should.

COMMENT THREAD

It is happening

Portuguese (caretaker?) Prime Minister José Socrates has informed EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso of the intention to ask for "the activation of financial support mechanisms".

A spokesman for the commission has said the European Financial Stability Facility, the euro-zone's bailout fund, as well as a smaller fund fed by the EU budget, would be available to Portugal if it formally requested aid. "The president of the European Commission assured that this request will be processed in the swiftest possible manner, according to the rules applicable," said an official statement.

And so another one goes down the line. How many more, and when will it all end?

COMMENT THREAD

Klepturition 2

Nice to see the bankers keeping up the standards.

COMMENT THREAD

The fool rushes in

I am not quite sure where to start, on this latest piece of stupidity from Cameron (pictured - the thing to the left of the picture, by the way, is the Conservative Party Chairman).

Anyhow, this excuse for a British politician has told a group of Pakistani academics that Britain "is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan".

Of all the problems in the region, though, Britain is quite possibly least responsible for the situation in Kashmir, which remains to this day an occupied country, split between India, Pakistan and China.

This stupidity seems even to have stung Peter Oborne into a denunciation, which, considering his earlier, grovelling pieces about the Boy, is saying something. But here we have him writing about "David Cameron's sloppy and poorly informed remarks about the role played by the British Empire in creating the conditions for the contemporary conflict in Kashmir".

The Daily Mail, incidentally, is getting worked up about the amount of aid being paid for Pakistani schools – with £650million on offer at a time when the education budget at home is being cut. The paper notes what that amount of money could do to our own education budget ... 4,333 pupils being sent to Eton for a full secondary education, is one unfortunate example.

Seán Lang, a senior lecturer in History at Anglia Ruskin University, where he teaches British Imperial History, accuses the Boy of "touting for applause". "His comment was simplistic and trendy - more PC than PM. I certainly wouldn't accept such a sweeping generalisation from one of my own students", he says. "Perhaps the Prime Minister should spend a bit of time over Easter back at Eton, where the very strong history department could quickly put him right". That leaves 4,332 places.

One has to ask, though, whether there is any natural limit to the stupidly of this man, who seems to have the unerring instinct for saying the wrong things, at the wrong time, to the wrong people. It is hard to believe that Cameron could have acquired this level of perfection naturally. He must have been working on it for years, but it is now getting to the point where you even cringe at the thought of what he might say next.

COMMENT THREAD

Talking of losing it

"It is important not to downgrade our response based on the location of the crime, or the value of the goods". This is Superintendent Gary Thompson, of the Gloucestershire Constabulary, defending the expenditure of £20,000 – deploying a helicopter, two vans, three patrol cars and two dog units – on arresting two men who stole 47p of scrap from a council recycling centre.

And while the boys in blue were making fools of themselves in Gloucester, thieves in Uddingston, South Lanarkshire have been doing the job for the Strathclyde police, breaking in to a police station to steal radios and uniforms. Burglars targeted a police station in, in the early hours of Tuesday morning and made off with the items. A spokeswoman for said: "Inquiries are ongoing to establish the full circumstances surrounding the break-in and to trace the person or people responsible".

Never let it be said though, that the police have run out of ideas, when it comes to wasting money. Just don't expect them to be able to do their jobs properly.

In a similar vein, we see five fire engines despatched to deal with a cat stuck on a roof, at an estimated cost of £1,500. This comes at a time when, to save money, fire brigades have decided not send appliances as a first response to automatic fire alarms. The crews – two of which came from 30 miles away - scrambled to comply with EU "working at height" regulations to ensure the health and safety of firefighters, but union leaders have branded the response "crazy and overkill".

Then, to complete the triumvirate, we have the report of a a woman suffered serious brain injuries and a heart attack after she was forced to wait two hours for an ambulance - which was sitting 100 yards away.

Dr Caren Paterson, 33, collapsed in her flat in Islington, North London, before her boyfriend made three frantic 999 calls pleading for an ambulance to arrive. Her brain was starved of oxygen and she suffered a cardiac arrest almost two hours after she first fell ill.

Paramedics were required to have a police escort, which was not available at the time, because the address had been categorised "high risk". But the it is now believed that the grading might have related to a different flat or was placed on the property several years before Dr Paterson, a medical researcher at King's College Hospital, had moved in.

Meanwhile, we are told that doctors from the EU are twice as likely to be struck off as those who trained in Britain. They stand a much higher chance of being disciplined by the General Medical Council over serious concerns that they are putting patients’ lives at risk. Doctors who qualified outside Europe are also more likely to be struck off or suspended.

The findings are further evidence that patient safety is being put in the hands of overseas doctors whose training is not up to scratch. But there are particular concerns over the standards of doctors from Europe, as EU law prevents them being tested on their competence or even ability to speak English as this would breach "freedom of movement" provisions of the treaties.

Interestingly, the work on this was done by researchers from King's College, London, the same unit that employed Dr Caren Paterson, and would possibly still do so, had she not ended up brain-damaged as a result of the "care" she received from the London Ambulance Service.

We now have, it seems, the emergency services being run and managed by people who you would not judge safe enough to be allowed out on the streets by themselves, under a regime that would not be considered safe enough to care for stray dogs.

COMMENT THREAD

Off the rails

It would be nice to think that doctors were so fully ahead of their game that they had time and energy to spare for garbage like this. For all the money they are (over) paid, though, the service offered is worse than ever, and that is just when you are trying to getting to see them.

From personal experience, I find that unless you are on the phone within 15 seconds of the booking line opening in the morning, you can forget a same-day appointment - or any time in the same week. Then to expect anything like a decent diagnosis and effective treatment – for anything other than the most basic of ailments – is going too far. Things are so bad that you must forget GPs. If you think there is anything serious, bypass the system and admit yourself to casualty.

Then to see this sort of stupidity, in a system that is already dysfunctional, tells you just how far so-called professionals have gone off the rails. You have two rear admirals and two professors of health, who have completely lost it, so much so that they are telling doctors to "use their position of trust in society to build support for action on climate change".

"Although discussion is good", they say, "we can no longer delay implementing tough action that will make a difference, while quibbling over minor uncertainties (sic) in climate modelling . Unlike most recent natural disasters, this one is entirely predictable."

"Doctors, often seen as authoritative, trusted, and independent by their communities, must make their voices heard in calling for such action." They must, says one of the four - Hugh Montgomery, professor of human health at UCL - "take up the climate challenge just as they did with the harm from tobacco".

We are back to "foxtrot oscar" time. The medical profession is having a hard enough time convincing me that they can deal with the issues for which they are paid. The very last thing I am interesting in hearing from them is their ill-informed views on climate change. To use their positions to push them would be an abuse of trust. And it is quite disturbing that these people can't even see that.

COMMENT THREAD

Lookee here

You should not take the mick out of a poor child that is called Luciana Berger – she can't help it - except when she is shadow minister for climate change, is Labour and Co-operative MP for Liverpool Wavertree - selected under very dubious circumstances - and writes total tosh for The Tribune.

Pictured left, with the son of a former prime minister, it is very, very hard to take this person seriously. That it should have become an MP and is now a shadow minister is as useful an indication as any of how far Parliament has deteriorated.

It also says a great deal for the democratic system that the people of Liverpool Wavertree actually voted for it, perhaps emphasising the oft' quoted saw that people get the elected representatives they deserve.

However, Ms Berger's drivel does serve a useful purpose, in underlining the unfortunate truth that there are things in life as bad as Tory MPs ... Labour MPs (we draw a discrete veil over the Lib-Dims). But how entertaining it is that this creature's piece has been recruited by the Referendum Campaign to advertise for people to sign the "pledge".

By ye friends shall ye be known.

COMMENT THREAD

Money for gestures

This is what it comes down to when you are ruled by an alien élite which has neither sense nor wisdom: we see from the Evening Standard the headline, "Philip Hammond finds £5m to avoid EU pollution fines", hailing a story of how £5 million of our money is being given to the Greater London Authority to fix air quality measurements, so as to avoid fines from our supreme government of up to £300 million.

Please note: the money is not being used to improve air quality, per se. It is being used to reduce pollution around the air monitoring stations that we fund, in order to supply information to Brussels, so that it can check up on what we are doing, thus to reduce the recorded pollution and creep below the thresholds set by our masters.

And for those very few who might question the term "supreme government", what other term do you use when you have a minister of the Crown thrashing around with Boris Johnson, to fiddle the figures in order to avoid a fine (paid-for with our money)?

Quite how Johnson has acquired his reputation is beyond me, but here he is indistinguishable from the rest of the political classes who permit this gross abuse of our money and trust - the money certainly ain't coming out of Johnson's well-lined pocket. And sure, it is only £5 million – but try telling that to the people who go short because they have to pay the taxes to finance this madness.

COMMENT THREAD

This is piece of theatre

"You're just carrying the water for Obama". Delicious - obtained via Zero Hedge and the forum. The piece has more sense in just short of seven minutes than any of the torrent of broadcast fluff from the BBC and its allies. As for the print media, it is impossible to take the output seriously, and especially the reports of that fool  Cameron in Italy.

There is indeed a sense of unreality here. The British media, having treated the initial excursions with all the gravitas of a Boys Own comic, have consistently failed to understand the enormity of the error made by Cameron and his idiot ministers in dashing into a military venture for which he and his "allies" were ill-prepared and for which they had no end game.

Now, of course, the media are compromised, having in their own ways made themselves look as foolish as Cameron and his team. Thus, you are not going to get any rational analysis, or any intelligent discussion. They are all passengers of events which they do not understand and over which they have no control.

Needless to say, the political classes are the biggest failures of them all.  On such a foolhardy venture, the Labour opposition should be voluble and highly critical, demanding of the joke that passes for our government  an account of its stupidity. But, as is always the case now, opposition voices are muted and largely irrelevant.

The British public, therefore, bemused and badly informed, is left to pay the bill, and to deal with whatever the consequences that may accrue, without complaint of course, even if others are more strident. But, if that is on its way, the media and the politicians will not see it coming. And their mindless prattling will have so confused the issues that most people will have given up trying to follow it.

Come that time, this video, will stand out like a beacon. We, like the Americans, should not be there. We have no business being there - and we have neither the will nor the capabilities to bring the issue to a successful resolution. The only thing we have gained, and can gain, from this is further evidence - if any were needed - of the foolishness of the man masquerading as our prime minister.

COMMENT THREAD

Too complicated to care?

What used to be a very useful and necessary industry has slid so far down the public's estimation that it is regarded as just another rip-off. This is the insurance industry, which has four of its representative bodies bitching to Brussels that proposed new rules are harmful.

Basically, we are talking about the so-called Solvency II capital-requirements regime, which the industry complains, contains parts that are "excessively conservative and prescriptive". The problem is that insurers are being forced into "overcapitalisation" due to fears of another financial crisis. Yet insurers say they are less risky compared with banks, but are being treated by regulators in the same manner.

Holding higher levels of capital, of course, means that insurance products are more expensive, and it also means less choice, as there will be fewer players in the market, as buckle under the regulatory burden, or decide there are better pickings elsewhere. The upshot of this is that we, as individuals take the hit, either in more expensive premiums, or through not being able to afford the products in the first place.

Where the particular damage will be caused, however, is in pensions products, where how long-dated liabilities such as annuities will be particularly badly hit – or so we are led to believe.

But the trouble is that the rules are so arcane, covering complex products in a complicated market, that you are not going to get a torrent of scandalised comment in the Sun, the Daily Mirror or even the Failygraph. And if the insurance companies are bitching, who is going to believe them anyway when they say the industry will be damaged – and who cares?

So it is that probably another vitally important issue is about to fall by the wayside. It is not that people don't care, but that the issue is too complicated to understand, and there is no one there in the popular media who will take the time out to explain why people should care.

Therein, though, lies a more deep seated problem. Likely, the only way of resolving this issue – which comes under QMV rules – will be to tell the EU to take a running jump. And since that is not going to happen, it doesn't really matter what we think, or whether we care. It is going to happen anyway.

No wonder people walk away from politics, but when they then have to pay the bills, the frustration builds up as people realise that, once again they have been had, and it is too late to do anything about it. But, as we keep asking, how long can this last, before there is a serious and uncontrolled backlash – or will such matters simply remain too complicated for people to care about?

COMMENT THREAD

Seventy years apart

... but still a shambles. On this day in 1941, the headline speaks for itself as British Forces were settling down to another retreat. And seventy years to this day, the government was braced for another backlash as sweeping losses to Britain's military were announced.

What is getting considerably less publicity is the extent to which the United States has quietly withdrawn its air and sea assets from Libya, virtually ending the military intervention against Qaddafi's armed forces. Hence we now see a partial but pitifully inadequate addition to the British force of four extra Tornadoes, leaving Britain and France badly short of the air and sea capabilities necessary for the Libyan dictator's military adventures, and enforcing a no-fly zone.

The RAF bombers are supposed to be replacing USAF A-10 Thunderbolt and AC-130s, and as many as 100 American fighter-bombers which have been available in the Libyan arena. In consequence, the scale of Western coalition air attacks dropped abruptly by 80 percent.

In all though, even without the additional four Tornadoes, there are still 143 warplanes in action over Libya. However, less than half are combat-capable. The rest are used for surveillance aircraft and transports. And the number of combat aircraft is too small to police the no-fly policy over the entire country.

Qaddafi this appears to have taken advantage of coalition shortcomings to start deploying his considerable fleet of air transports, moving troop reinforcements and equipment to hotspots, enabling his forces to hold down the rebels. It also appears that some of those transports have also been sent outside the country.

According to some reports, they have been loading up at a number of African military air bases on ammunition and spare parts, which the Qaddafi regime purchased from Arab and African sources as well as arms traffickers.

Small wonder, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton had warned that the RAF will need to be in Libya for at least six months. At present rate, though, it looks to be having just as much success as our forces were having on this day seventy years ago.

COMMENT THREAD

Below the line - AMENDED

Max Hastings in The Mail pontificates about the split in British society. But he puts the divide between the public sector and the taxpayer. And as always with the man - he's only half right and misses the main point.

What he miisses is that none of us have any problems with the front line public sector – the dustmen, the nurses and others who do useful jobs. And although many of them could be employed in the private sector, I have no great hang-ups about that either. Many of the corporates which would replace them are just as malign as the worst of the public sector. And I resent being ripped off by the corporate bureaucrats just as much as I do the public sector bureaucrats. There is little to choose between them.

So, the split is not where Hastings puts it. The big divide is elsewhere and you don't have to look hard to find it. It is between the political classes and the rest of us – The Great Man is far too grand, too close to the political classes, and far too much out of touch to understand that.

The thing is that, in recent the past (20th Century), the divide was vertical – with polarisation left and right. That is where Hasting's brain still resides. But he is twenty or thirty years out of date, the last time when he ever understood anything about politics.

Now, the line has moved. The division is horizontal again. That puts "us" below the line, and "them" above it. The division not only transcends the tradition of recent politics, it also crosses the divide between public and private sectors. The private/public line has become so blurred as to be barely discernable in many cases. Most certainly, it no longer so neatly corresponds with any political divide.

In many respects, the private sector is as bad, if not worse than publicly-owned enterprises. When the banks make profits, for instance, they keep them and award themselves bonuses. When they have financial difficulties, they become "too big to fail" and the losses are "socialised", i.e., we pay the debt.

You have water companies, who are profligate in their spending - and generous with their bonuses - yet can't supply the product at times. They simply increase their bills each year to cover up their grotesque inefficiencies. Are they private sector - or simply regional monopolies with a licence to print money? Then you have companies like BAE Systems, whose only customers are governments.

Others like Capita are effectively branches of government. Group 4, which runs prisons, is another one. There are the Housing Associations, which seem to be run for the benefit of their administrators. There are Foster Care providers - multi-million-pound businesses, which have local authority Social Services as their only customers. Yet these are all supposedly private sector.

There are also the multi-national conglomerates, such as the Ferrovial Group, which owns Heathrow Airport ... and Tata Steel. Where is the accountablity there, and the response to public demand, which supposedly goes with the private sector?

The point is, as made, that the distinction is not about labour versus capital any more (not that it really ever was). But the old 1945 paradigm, which swept Labour into power with a landslide victory, has long gone. Some publicly owned enterprises behave more like the private sector, and vice versa. The distinction was destroyed by Thatcherism, and we will not get it back. And that leaves with the "corporates". Whether in public or private ownership, they are as bad as each other.

So we end up with the new, horizontal division. Actually, it is a return to the old days, before the Labour Movement emerged. When that movement emerged, we had the vertical division of Left and Right. The "left" represented the people (in theory), the "right" looked after the bosses (again, in theory). Its very existence tilted the line, from horizontal to vertical, and we got 20th Century politics.  Now, the leaders of the Left have lost their way and joined the leaders of the Right. And as they have merged, the line has tilted back to the horizontal.

The horizontal split is typified by the days of Whigs and Tories, when the politicians had more in common with each other. Those were the days when they looked after themselves, and their own interests. Those were the days when the people were unrepresented. Just like now.

But, if we are returning to the old political model - the original class, or even feudal model - there is nevertheless a new certainty: us "below the liners" have had enough of the "above the liners". What swept out the decaying self-interest of the old systems must be done again. This time, though, we must do it right or, at least, get it wrong in a different way.

COMMENT THREAD

Ten mill down

.

.
.
There was a time when we thought a hundred hits a day was an impossible dream. That was back in the days when there was a referendum to fight for, and Helen was still with us instead of writing her own blog. Seven years down the line - we celebrate the seventh birthday of the blog on 22 April - and with over 11,000 posts written, we've finally made our ten million.

This is encouraging, but not brilliant. It does not in any way reflect the enormous amount of work that goes into the blog.  But then, that's the medium.  If I write for the Mail on Sunday, which I do occasionally, my posts on their site go into hundreds of thousands. I am not stupid enough to believe that my writing has suddenly so drastically improved that it attracts all those additional readers.  As the man said, it's the platform stoopid. The hit rate is not a measure of the quality of the work.

Thus, it is our slowly increasing band of loyal readers who keep us going - quality of readers, rather than quantity, we say. I actually prefer it that way - writing for thinking people rather than drive-by Tories who haven't the brains to realise that their party died a long time ago and all that is left is the smell.

The dross, we are happy to say, can go elsewhere, to small-minded sites like these which daren't link to us in case they learn something. We thank those who have the courage and the decency to link to us, acknowledging our presence, even when they don't agree with us. What a boring world it would be if they did.

Thus, outside the gilded little claque of brain-dead group-thinkers, we have to work hard for every reader and every hit. We don't pander to our readers - we don't court popularity, and we don't go chasing hits.

And despite so many wishing we would go away, and doing their best to make it so, we're still here. As long as we have readers who are prepared to stick with us - and occasionally click the paypal link - we'll stay here. That is for as long as I draw breath, unless someone can think of a better and quicker way of going bankrupt.

Actually, those seven years ago, when parliamentary research was the game, it looked as if there might be hope. But first Blair, then Brown, and then that unspeakable slime Cameron deprived us of a referendum on what became the Lisbon treaty - offering us the ultimate insult of a referendum we don't want for a voting system nobody gives a fig for.

It thus looks all so very different now, as we dig in for a long, slow war of attrition where, if we could bottle and sell our loathing of the political classes, we would be millionaires overnight. But, while we watch and wait for the opportunity to bring them down, life must go on. So far I've made a successful transition to becoming a full-time writer. Sadly, that may be akin to the man who jumped off a 40-storey tower block, crying "fine so far!" as he passed his 39th floor. You never know.

The bottom line is, though, as long as there is food on the table, and Mrs Eureferendum is there to fetch the coal out of the bath to keep the kettle boiling for me tea, and as long as I have readers who come to the blog and appreciate the writing, then I'm like a pig in muck. With that, I'll keep spreading it in the right direction.

Thank you for calling ... ten million times. Hope to see you back!

COMMENT THREAD

Klepturition

A new word for you ... a polite one, to convey a very old concept. But when you get this, and then this, plus this and this, what other word is there that fits the bill?

COMMENT THREAD

Paying the price

It seems that we're not the only ones to rely on Second World War imagery to make a point. The Observer is at it as well.

Writer Colin Smith is pushing it a bit, though, when he tries to make out that the situation in 1941 – 70 years ago - "is a grim warning of how quickly things can change in this vast and empty land if one side has air superiority and better tanks". Does he not realise that "our" side has air superiority, while Gaddafi has the better (only) tanks in the field? That sort of invalidates his argument, one feels.

Making a comparison between Benito Mussolini and Gaddafi, Smith argues that, by the end of February 1941, Mussolini's grip on his north African empire had been humiliatingly weakened. In only 10 weeks, Lieutenant-General Archibald Wavell's 30,000 British and Commonwealth troops had routed a much larger Italian army that had attempted to invade Egypt and capture the Suez canal.

As Smith's narrative goes, the campaign to remove Mussolini from North Africa was then postponed, when Churchill siphoned off some of Wavell's victorious forces, including his best aircraft and tanks, and sent them to help Greece. Enter Rommel with better aircraft and tanks, and by 14 April, we were back fighting on the Egyptian border (incidentally, taking the same bullshit from our newspapers then as we are doing now - pictured).

However, if there was a lesson, it is that Churchill was wrong to denude Wavell's forces in order to mount the Greek expedition, without reinforcing them from the very substantial forces held idle in the UK. But even then, the military and political establishments were convinced that the Nazis were going to invade Britain (or, at least, that is what they were telling the public), which meant that forces were held back unnecessarily.

With the current situation looking rather uncomfortable, the same lesson applies now. You should not expect results unless you are prepared to commit sufficient resources to a venture.

It also reaffirms the age-old lesson that air power alone – short of a thermonuclear strike - cannot be decisive. To resolve issues, you must have "boots on the ground" - and enough of them. Hitler tried to batter the UK into submission with the Blitz in 1940-41, and then, despite having had an expensive  tutorial from the Luftwaffe on the limitations of air power, we tried a similar tactic with the strategic bombing of Germany. Neither worked.

Back then, we had no option other than to get stuck in, mounting the invasion of Europe in June 1944, which the bomber barons held was unnecessary. But now it is quite clear that we have no intention of committing enough resources, specifically in terms of ground forces. We simply do not have them. And under those circumstances, we should have left well enough alone. The result of under-resourced intervention is invariably worse than no intervention at all.

There is, however, the other lesson – that when politicians' egos are at stake, sense goes out the window. The one thing politicians never do is learn from history - or even the application of common sense. And the final lesson is that, as always, other people pay the price.

COMMENT THREAD

Powerless

Politically, we already know we are powerless. But, we are now looking at another way of being powerless. Thus, writes Booker, we are fast approaching that long overdue moment when the country wakes up to the scale of the disaster we are being led into by the absurdly unreal, global-warming-obsessed energy policy of our "greenest ever government".

One of the more disturbing instances of this was the announcement tucked away in George Osborne's Budget that he will impose a "£16 a ton floor price for carbon", a measure seemingly so arcane that no one has really bothered to spell out its implications – or so says Booker.

Actually, this is something the media have never really got their heads round. They have lamentably failed to understand that since the system involves the creation of "carbon allowances", which have to be purchased by major industries and electricity generators, with the proceeds going to government, this is a tax by any other name.

And although the media is quick to squeak about "stealth taxes", unless you actually gift-wrap it, with a nice big label marked "tax", the babies don't know what to make of it. So even though it is quite obviously a tax, this is one the media have consistently missed.

What Booker points out, though, is that the "floor price" means that for every ton of CO2 emitted by British industry, and by our electricity companies in particular, we shall all indirectly have to pay what is in effect a hidden tax of £16, rising over the next nine years to £30.

Last year, the coal-fired power stations which supply nearly a third of our electricity used 40 million tons of coal, each emitting up to 2.9 tons of CO2. For this 116 million tons, we shall see nearly £2 billion added to our electricity bills.

The same tax on gas will add a further £1 billion to our bills, thus increasing them by a total of £3 billion a year, rising to £5 billion by 2020. This will add more than 25 per cent to the price we presently pay for electricity, or £200 a year for every household.

This is on top of the price we will have to pay for all the Government’s other “green” dreams, such as the £100 billion it wants spent on 10,000 giant wind turbines, plus another £40 billion to hook them up to the grid. The 100 per cent subsidies for onshore wind power and 200 per cent subsidies for offshore will add further billions to our bills, in return for what will still be only a fraction of the electricity we need.

The effect of this is, of course, going to be traumatic, but it is also going to disadvantage energy intensive manufacturers, to the extent that many will offshore, cutting back employment and the tax base.

However, the response of Euroslime Dave and his merry men is just as babyish as the media, leaving us with nowhere to go except increasing utility bills. By the time they have stuffed us with smart meters as well, and all the other add-ons, electricity – even if you can get it – will become an unaffordable luxury.

I really cannot see this happening without a reckoning though, which means these babies do not know what is about to hit them. That, at least, should be entertaining to watch, when it finally happens.

COMMENT THREAD

Some time

Late tomorrow, from the look of it, we will reach ten million hits - as recorded by one of our several hit counters.

Gaming the system

The European Union, we are told, has launched an appeal against a WTO ruling that the United States gave aircraft maker Boeing billions of dollars in illegal subsidies, after claiming victory in the dispute.

"The EU has chosen to quickly appeal technical elements of the ruling for legal strategic reasons," said John Clancy, spokesman for EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht. "The EU's victory in this case against Boeing remains very clear for all to see," he said, referring to the WTO finding that state aid provided by Washington reached at least $5.3 billion (3.75 billion euros).

This is the latest move in a seven-year-old battle that saw last June a partial victory for Boeing, when the WTO accepted three out of seven claims by Washington that Airbus had effectively received illegal export subsidies. But both sides have appealed that ruling, so nothing has actually been resolved and, apparently, "a much bigger appeal" from Washington on the Boeing case is in the works.

You can here have some (little) sympathy with the media in giving up on this case. In many respects, both sides are as bad as each other, and both are gaming the system, to extract maximum advantage and to spin the proceedings out as long as possible. Likely, by the time they come to a resolution- if at all - most people will have forgotten what the original disputes were about.

What this basically says though, is that the system is not working ... or, at least, it is not working as intended. The effective outcome is that, if the big battalions are absolutely intent on subsidising their aviation industries, they will do so come what may, no matter what their "international obligations" are, and what any treaties might say.

Now isn't it a pity that the UK – which is a major player in the Airbus subsidy scam – could not take an equally "realistic" view of the EU treaties.

COMMENT THREAD

A worst nightmare

Variously reported, either eight or seven UN workers have been slaughtered by local Afghanis in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, four or five of them apparently Nepalese guards. Two of the guards were beheaded.

The killings arose after a protest by about 2,000 people outside the UN compound in the city, against the burning of a copy of the Koran by an American pastor. Although it started relatively peacefully, it got out control when some protesters grabbed weapons from the UN guards, opened fire on the police, and then stormed the compound, setting fire to buildings. Heavy smoke was seen.

This is said to be the worst-ever attack on UN personnel, with unconfirmed reports that the head of the UN Military Assistance Mission was also seriously injured. The death toll may rise to as many as twenty, and at least four of the protestors are said to have been killed.

Although the proximate cause is an evangelical preacher by the name of Terry Jones, who on 20 March at a small fringe church in Gainesville, Florida, presided over the burning of a Koran, there is much more to these murders than just that incident.

We are not talking here about a primitive, Taliban-ridden outpost of Afghanistan, but the country's fourth-largest city with a population of close on half a million and rising (location below, marked "A").

This is a holy city - Mazari Sharif means "Noble Shrine", a reference to the large, blue-tiled sanctuary and mosque in the centre of the city known as the Shrine of Hazrat Ali or the Blue Mosque. It is believed that the site of the tomb of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed, is in Mazari Sharif.

Although, by Afghan standards, the city is relatively prosperous and settled, benefitting from both the illicit drugs and gun smuggling trades, the religious connections make it prey to rabble rousers.

But what is intriguing is that the violence should be directed at the UN, which supports a substantial reconstruction and aid programme in the city. The reason, says Christian Science Monitor is an increasing tension and annoyance with the international presence.

For some many years, Afghanis have understood that the bulk of the aid programme is soaked up by the aid agencies themselves, with field workers paid huge salaries and perks, while their own professional classes are poorly paid, and sometimes not at all.

Focusing wrath on the UN, therefore, is not difficult, but when such a violent episode is seen in one of the most settled areas of Afghanistan, it affords little confidence that the rest of the country can ever be considered safe.

And what makes this especially relevant is that the city has been slated to be amongst the first where security is to be handed to indigenous forces. If this has to be delayed, then it sets the whole hand-over programme back, upon which withdrawal plans depend.

There, the Boy has set great store in pulling British troops out of the country from this year onwards, with combat operations ceasing by 2015 – presumably so that he can make more troops redundant. Mazar-i-Sharif says he might have to wait a little longer.

COMMENT THREAD

Political suicide?

Serving members of the Army and Navy will be told on Monday that they could be among more than 2,000 uniformed personnel to be made redundant in September.

Those to be made redundant, in a programme which starts next week, will include some soldiers presently completing tours in Afghanistan. Seamen currently aboard warships and submarines in the Mediterranean supporting operations in Libya will also be told they could be included.

For the Tories, this should be political suicide. This used to be the party of the military, the one on which the military could rely on for support – although that always was a myth. But it hardly seems credible that even Euroslime could have handled this so badly, except when we remind ourselves that he never was and certainly is not now a Tory.

Nevertheless, this is not going to do him any good.

COMMENT THREAD

We need a new approach

The formidable stupidity of Baroness Neville-Jones is quite wondrous to behold as she tells the Daily Telegraph that the government needs to persuade the majority of the population that the UK is a single nation. She says there needs to be a new approach in which people did not simply "rub along together and as long as people obey the law that's quite sufficient".

"[We are] trying to convince minorities in this country that they actually do have a long term future here and that it's their country as much as anybody else's", she says in an interview.

But when Euroslime Dave and his Cleggerons are doing their level best to give this country away, when "nationalism" is a dirty word in their vocabulary, and when white heterosexuals are a minority in parts of their own country (and certainly in parliament), we certainly do need a new approach.

We need one in which people did not simply listen to idiot ministers, and make it clear to them that they do not have a long-term future here – or anywhere else on this planet.

COMMENT THREAD

Fred Karno's Katastrophik Kapers

With the "paper of record", confidently telling us (no link) that Gadaffi's regime "starts to crumble", we also learn that his "armed forces are not close to breaking point despite hundreds of allied air strikes". This is according to Admiral Mike Mullen, who has told a US Congress committee that Col Gaddafi's troops still had 10 times the rebels' firepower.

Meanwhile, the frontline of fighting has ebbed and flowed on the outskirts of Brega, a town about 800km (500 miles) east of Tripoli that has changed hands repeatedly during days of clashes. Rebels entered the town early yesterday, but were soon chased out as pro-Gaddafi forces fired shells.

By the end of the yesterday, the BBC reported that it was unclear if anyone was in control of the town, with reports saying rebels were preparing to launch yet another assault.

Further west, pro-Gaddafi forces continued to pound the besieged city of Misrata with artillery and tank fire. "If it continues for a couple more days, I'm afraid it will overwhelm the city and it will be a complete massacre," a resident told the BBC.

Nato said it was investigating reports of civilian casualties in Western air strikes on Tripoli. Earlier, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital, citing witnesses, said 40 civilians had been killed in strikes by Western forces on the city. So much for protecting the civilians ... but I suppose you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

And now the Septics are pulling out. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen have announced that American combat missions are to end on Saturday. Gates said no one should be surprised by the move, but he called the timing "unfortunate".

The Kermits and the Great War Leader, with his clockwork hairyplanes and no pilots, are going to have to take up the slack. This is getting positively embarrassing. We were better equipped in the 1940s ... see above ... when once again we were the junior partner.

COMMENT THREAD

Reactions

"I love the new colours", says one reader. Another wrote, "Pretty good April 1st Joke!" "But what makes you think it is a joke?" I wrote back. All this greenery, you know ... could be a good thing for the planet ...

Unfortunately, we were sussed. "On the same day that Cranmer declared himself a Papist, I hardly think your own conversion likely to fool anyone, Northy", said one of our revered forum members. Bugger Cranmer. It's not the Tiber he should be crossing, but the Styx.

But ... we are back to normal. You can have too much of a good thing. Thanks Pete!

COMMENT THREAD

Denial of climate change is irresponsible and dangerous

"The science does matter," says Caroline Selle, who works for the Energy Action Coalition in the United States.

"We face a climate catastrophe that will define our generation and the future of our country, and the solutions to this crisis will create jobs and improve public health. So why aren't we acting? Unfortunately, the answer is simple: Capitol Hill is swarming with 'climate cranks' - politicians willing to trade our future for their own political gain."

We need such dedicated people – people who think of the children and the generations to come, instead of their own narrow interests. Thank goodness, on this side of the Atlantic, we have here the European Union, the embodiment of "mother Europe" looking after her children.

Only through such bold leadership as the Community does provide will we be able to survive this catastrophe. The climate deniers know not what they do, but at least we have the EU which can transcend the interests of small-minded politicians and keep us on the right track. Who needs democracy when we have the EU Commission?

As Selle says: "Our future is at stake, and our position is non-negotiable. We need strong climate legislation based on the facts, not the politics, and we need it soon. And we are willing to stand together again and again until our message gets through".

We are so lucky that we have the EU to do this for us. The Americans could learn from our experience. Join our family and the world is your cuddly polar bear.

COMMENT THREAD