The realms of stupidity

Even the Tory Boy Blog is beginning to realise there is something not quite Kosher about The Boy. But of all the stories over the weekend, perhaps the most damaging is the one on aid to India, a story which is set to run and run.

In this context, I liked the article by Sue Reid in the Daily Mail, citing Barun Mitra, director of a New Delhi-based political think-tank, the Liberty Institute. "I am really surprised that your aid officials endeavour so hard to continue their presence in India. Is it really to help Indians, or is it to justify their own existence?" he asks.

One suspects that institutional self-maintenance is indeed a major driver here. And, apart from an inducement to support the Eurofighter sales effort, about which Autonomous Mind has some interesting comments, I think there is a strong climate change agenda here. Overall, there is a huge amount spent on climate change issues, with £10 million going directly to Pachauri's in-house operation and pension fund – TERI.

But, I suspect, the underlying objective here is to keep India on-side, not least because of its relations with China, in the hope that the Indian government will pursue the British agenda when it discusses climate change issues with its Chinese counterparts.

In and amongst all this, though, what you never get from the British media is how much India is giving to Afghanistan in aid, currently $2 billion. You have to go to Aljazeera to find that out. And that aid - in my view is being spent in ways that are inimicable to British interests.

Bizarrely, the $2 billion paid to the Afghanis is roughly equivalent to the amount the UK pays India, allowing suggestions that we are paying for our own suicide. India's foreign policy interests and objectives are not ours, yet we are in effect paying to promote them.

Altogether, then, this represents one of the most clumsy – to say nothing of unpopular – British initiatives, and one that cannot help but rebound on The Boy. If he allows this to continue, he will be entering the realms of stupidity.

COMMENT THREAD

Coal takes the load

Yesterday, Autonomous Mind reported wind at 570MW or 1.3 percent of total generation. At the time of writing, however, it is even better, at 51MW, representing a magnificent 0.1 percent of the total, reported at 52.2GW (see above - source, BM Reports).

Coal, incidentally, is running at 23.8GW, representing 45.5 percent of total generation, as against gas at 19.1GW, or 36.5 percent of generation. It is usually the case that, in cold spells, coal-fired station take a thrashing. Without that capacity, we would be surely running out of electricity. And one thing for sure, wind would not be picking up the load - and nor indeed would the Kermits be any help. We're not getting anything off the interconnectors at the moment.

COMMENT THREAD

Not what it seems

With remarkably prescient timing, says Melanie Phillips , "more than 100 Tory MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the onshore wind turbine industry should be 'dramatically cut'".  This is the letter paraded by Christopher Heaton Harris, which says in part:

As Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, we have grown more and more concerned about the Government’s policy of support for on-shore wind energy production. In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies on-shore wind turbines.

But, if these 101 Dalmatians MPs are so concerned about consumers having to pay subsidies, why are they only talking about on-shore turbines, when off-shore windmills get twice the amount, and are set to take the greater proportion of the subsidy pot? Why even are they pursuing this campaign when the net effect, if successful, will be to increase the number of off-shore windmills, and thereby increase the amount of subsidy?

One also wonders why these MPs refer to "taxpayer subsidy". Don't they know that the subsidy is paid through the Renewables Obligation, introduced in 2001, with the money recovered through energy bills?

Nevertheless, our Melanie lays into the coalition. In Gulliver's Travels, she writes, Jonathan Swift mocked scientists by inventing a satirical wheeze for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers. If Swift were alive today, he'd be out of a job, for the Coalition’s green policies are simply beyond satire.

If that is the case, how does she characterise the grotesque behaviour of the MPs?

COMMENT THREAD

EU "flagship" near collapse

This, I suspect, is going to get short shrift from the British MSM, despite the fact that we are referring to something of considerable importance – the Nabucco pipeline, a project to ship more than 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year from the Caspian and beyond to Europe. According to the news agency AFP, the project is near collapse, with a newly confident Turkey playing a key role.

The project itself stems from the repeated disputes between Russia and Ukraine over transit tariffs that led to supply cuts and pushed the EU in 2009 to launch its "Southern Gas Corridor initiative", of which Nabucco is the biggest component, aimed at reducing dependence on Russian gas supplies.

But in December, Turkey gave Russia the green light for its South Stream project to run through its Black Sea waters, with construction of the 63 billion cubic metres (bcm) per year pipeline to start by the end of this year, thereby completely bypassing the Ukraine, and providing a more reliable supply option.

The project was brought forward late last year, but Necdet Pamir, a former deputy director of Turkey's TPAO oil company, says the "Nabucco project was in a coma long before the South Stream agreement".

Nabucco was to run some 2,400 miles across Turkey then up through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary to reach Austria where it would link up with a major distribution network, taking advantage of the lucrative European market.

But Turkey also signed in December a deal with Azerbaijan to build the Trans-Anatolia Pipeline (TANAP) to carry 10 bcm per year of Azeri gas to European markets, plus 6 bcm for itself, casting further doubt on Nabucco which is having difficulty getting commitments from gas suppliers, sufficient to take up its capacity.

Publicly, officials say Turkey, one of six partners in Nabucco, still supports the pipeline. "We continue our efforts for this project to come true," Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said recently. However, analysts believe Ankara is not committed to the project.

This is further demonstrated by an agreement for other competing pipelines, two "more modest projects" to ship gas from Turkey across Greece to Italy - the Interconnector Turkey-Greece-Italy (ITGI) and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) - and both have said they are willing to co-operate with TANAP which would be able to provide them with sufficient supplies.

On top of that, there is the Southeast Europe Pipeline (SEEP), a private sector initiaitve promoted by British energy giant BP, yet another project competing with Nabucco, leaving very great doubts as to where that project will obtain supplies to ship to market. The chances are, therefore, that the scheme will be impossible to complete. Some analysis say it is already dead.

All that, of course, is also without factoring in Polish shale gas, but the real irony is that the writing was on the wall as early as 2008, when my erstwhile co-editor flagged up the problems, and in 2009 when we last wrote about the project. Even then, we said, the EU was losing its grip.

But that did not stop the "colleagues". The Commission co-financed Nabucco in the feasibility stage (through the trans-European energy networks budget) and committed a grant of €200 million to the project under the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) for the first phase of its construction.

Then, in 2010, they agreeing to finance the project to the tune of €2 billion - with the European Bank for Reconstruction and development contributing €1.2 billion – out of a potential finance package of €4 billion.

One can only smile at the hubris of the moment when in 13 July 2009, José Manuel Barroso signed on behalf of the EU the Nabucco intergovernmental agreement with Turkey. Gas pipes may be made of steel, but Nabucco can cement the links between our people, he said, then declaring: "What we are witnessing today is a powerful illustration of the strategic bonds between Turkey and the European Union".

That "powerful illustration" seems now to have rather faded. With luck we will only lose the initial down payment of €200 million, another part of the price we have to pay to demonstrate the inadequacy of the wonderful European Union, which messes up virtually everything it touches.

With the project sharing its name with the Verdi opera, one analyst thus remarks that what promised to be a grand opera is proving to be more of a soap opera … and without a happy ending. That rather sounds like the EU itself.

COMMENT THREAD

The first of the few

I am under no very great illusions that the reviews for The Many Not The Few are going to be the few rather than the many. But a welcome first comes from Jim Greenhalf on his blog, a review written by a journalist friend who contributed greatly to the shaping of the book, as we discussed it at length in the early days.

Having sown some seeds, Jim then left me to get on with it, so he is now well placed to write a review, a version of which may well find its way into the local newspaper. For the moment, though, I can do no better than point you to his blog, and let his words tell their own story.

That said, I am delighted that he takes my point that this is a "reversionist" history, not a revision. If Jim thought otherwise, he would say so, so it is good that my thesis has passed its first test.

The issue here is that I am not seeking to re-write the story of the battle of Britain, as we know it, but to return to the original story, in all its elements, rather the sanitised version which emerged in its final form after the War, aimed in part at glorifying the exploits of Fighter Command, and – in the context of swingeing defence cuts – propagandising for the utility of air power.

But, as Jim also notes, Churchill had a hand in writing a history which suited his own purposes. One needs to remember that when he wrote his epic history of the Second World War, with the second volume dealing with the battle emerging in 1949, he was leader of an opposition party with ambitions of re-taking power in the 1950 general election.

And back in the summer of 1940, Churchill had a war to win in his own Cabinet. He had a propaganda war to win and, as with all powerful statesmen conscious of themselves as historical figures, Churchill also had an eye to posterity.

For him, says Jim, history was a pageant of epic events. The Battle of Britain, a transition from his earlier view of it as the battle for Britain, was his Trafalgar of 1805, his battle of England's little ships against the mighty hulks of the Spanish Armada of 1588.

Thus, the history was not so much shaped by events as the events moulded into the history to tell a story which suited the ambitions of the author. To much history is written in this manner, with the claim that history is written by the victors having been attributed to Churchill himself.

One thing for sure, though, the "real" battle for Britain was more extensive, longer-lasting and more inclusive than the official version allows, and all the more interesting for that. And that is very much a modern message. The real story is so often more interesting than the story we are actually told.

COMMENT THREAD

Unacceptable practice

Witterings from Witney expresses concern that MPs, namely Douglas Carswell and Christopher Heaton-Harris, are taking advertising for their blogs. He is right to do so, but I would venture the opinion that this is no small point.

Apart from the fact that MPs are already paid from the public purse, and it seems wrong that they should then be paid again for communicating with their constituents and the public at large, it leads to the uneasy situation where, in the case of Carswell (above), he is advertising the Telegraph travel bureau advertising cruise holidays.

It is bad enough that newspapers should be actively selling products to the extent – as we pointed out - that their editorial independence is prejudiced, and seen to be so. But it then must be unacceptable that MPs are seen, effectively, to be endorsing this practice, aiding and abetting the self-same practice.

In the case of Heaton-Harris, it also leads to the absurd situation where this self-publicist is ramping up his complaint about windfarm subsidies, only to have him advertising solar panels and encouraging people to apply for a fitting grant, aka subsidy (below).

Such contradictions are the reason we cannot accept third-party advertising on this blog, and rely on the generosity of readers making donations. In the case of MPs, you would think that they also would see the pitfalls of taking advertising. But it perhaps reflects the poor judgement of this pair that they see nothing wrong in what they are doing.

Whether they do or not, though, it is unacceptable practice.

COMMENT THREAD

Playing by the rules

Should there be a referendum in Scotland on Scottish independence, perforce, the English will not get a vote, even though it is our union as well, and the outcome has significant implications for us. Howsoever, we now learn, courtesy of The Scotsman, that this exclusion will not apply to almost 60,000 citizens of EU member states who currently live in Scotland.

Thus has been admitted by the hapless Scotland Office minister David Mundell, as the exemption which applies to general elections (aka electorally mandated reshuffles) does not hold with referendums.

However, also excluded – under current rules – are the 750,000 Scots living south of the border. On the other hand, no one is saying how many native-born English are now living north of the border, and are eligible for a vote.

Labour MP Thomas Docherty questions why a "French student studying for a year at Edinburgh University" would be allowed to vote when someone born in Scotland but now living elsewhere in the UK could not.

One person particularly miffed by this is James Wallace, a Dumfries-born law graduate who is about to start a career in London. He is campaigning for Scots based elsewhere in the UK to be given a vote. "I would not want to deny European Union nationals the vote. But we should be allowing Scots like me to vote under the 15-year rule", he says.

"It is difficult to argue that someone who just moves to Scotland is a greater part of 'the Scottish people' when they would never describe themselves as Scottish, yet individuals whose entire life has revolved around the country and are away developing knowledge to bring back to the nation they call home are denied a vote on something so fundamental as independence".

But that, dear boy, is what being in the EU is all about. And if you are a member of the club, you have to obey the rules. Of course, we could resign from the club …

COMMENT THREAD

We don't want your aid

The view of Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers, who tried to terminate British aid to India last year.

But they were told by DFID that British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate, and it would be highly embarrassing if the Indian government pulled the plug. Hence the payments, of approximately £280 million a year, continued.

That leaves us with the situation where we don't want to way the aid, the India government doesn't want to receive it, yet British ministers persist in giving our money away. And that is what passes for democracy.

COMMENT THREAD

Piling on the pressure

The piece on the Costa Concordia two weeks ago obviously touched a nerve in Brussels. Within days, we had a protest from the commissioner himself, a note from the commission's head of media services and a letter from Professor Dracos Vassalos, who was mentioned in the piece.

And not only was The Sunday Telegraph "required" to publish in full a rebuttal from Siim Kallas, this had to be printed in bold to give it the appropriate prominence. For once, however, the ST did not roll over and instead printed a heavily edited and thus somewhat anodyne letter from Vassalos, which was published last week.

This opened the way for Booker, in his column this week to write a rebuttal of the rebuttal, stating what is now very obvious – that the original piece caught the EU commission out in a highly embarrassing system failure,

The commission, of course, is in the propaganda game, indulging in damage limitation, which is why so much pressure was brought to bear. But in this case (as always) we had the evidence (see links on the blog) for the commission's failure, in the form of a series of studies published over the past eight years by Vassalos – arguably Europe’s leading expert on ship safety.

Vassalos, however, is a creature of the EU, having carried out research funded by the commission for 17 years – and he (and his team) has been warning of precisely the disaster which befell the Costa Concordia.

Typical of the way the commission works, though, Vassalos's letter did not mention was the very point highlighted in Booker's article: that a central theme of papers he has published with increasing urgency since 2004 has been the vulnerability of huge modern cruise ships to capsizing if their hulls are breached – the so-called "damage stability".

The problem that he and his colleagues identified was that, although these "mega-ships" are normally stable, they have a crucial design flaw. Even a small amount of water breaking in after a collision may be forced across the ship, rendering it liable to capsize, exactly as happened to the Costa Concordia.

In 2006, when the Commission was preparing a major new directive on ship safety, Vassalos and his team published a paper on the "post-damage stability" problem, entitled “Survival Criteria for Large Passenger Ships”. This was part of an EU project known as Safenvship (the details of which seem to have disappeared from the Commission website). In another paper, in 2007, they warned that “the regulatory system is stretched to breaking point”.

In 2009, however, when the EU issued its new directive – which covered aspects of ship stability - it totally failed to address the problem. This prompted Vassalos and his team to publish yet another paper, entitled "Ringing the Alarm Bells", claiming that the new rules did nothing to remedy what they described as the "serious problem" they had identified.

Crucially, their experimental studies had shown that "of 33 cases considered, 16 were found to lead to the vessel capsizing within two hours, sometimes very rapidly", even despite the designs conforming with then current regulations and passing the raft of prescribed stability tests.

Despite this, in his letter last week, Vassalos praises the commission last week for its "outstanding contribution to ship safety", but as he knows better than anyone, the Concordia disaster was brought about by the very problem he has long been warning about – and so far in vain.

What the commission cannot do though is conceal the evidence. Even though references to the work have disappeared from the commission's own website, the trail of papers can still be found on elsewhere the internet, leaving Vassalos in the awkward position of trying to play down the importance of his own papers.

One is minded of that famous verse from the Rubáiyát Omar Khayyám: The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

Tough old world, innit!

COMMENT THREAD

Every picture tells a story

In The Guardian we find an update to the long-running story about Falmouth and the dredging of the maerl beds, necessary for the development of the port, blocked by the EU habitat directive.

Unsurprisingly, the europhile Guardian, with its eco-friendly inclinations, wishes to present this story in the most sympathetic light. Thus it uses a picture of a the picturesque old harbour with the distinctly alarmist caption (against a headline of similar ilk), asserting that developers hope giant cruisers will be able to visit it, once the waters of the bay are dredged.

Turn the camera round, though, and you will see the commercial docks (above), which are the actual focus of development, with their cranes, dry dock and warehouses. This is the commercial heart of the town, and its economic hub, which brings much-needed work and which needs to expand to stay competitive.

Yet, despite the very obviously industrial landscape, the paper goes on to paint a false picture, telling us that Falmouth Bay is "one of England's finest stretches of marine habitat, with a profusion of creeks that penetrate deep into the heart of the Cornish countryside, and oak woods covering the coastline".

It is, adds the paper, "a distinctive, unspoiled landscape, protected by strict environmental legislation and enjoyed by thousands of tourists every summer".

Then the knife goes in as it tells us that "the tranquillity of Falmouth could soon be disrupted". A "controversial plan to dredge a channel through part of the bay to open up the port to giant cruise ships has caused consternation among conservationists".

Whatever the merits of the scheme, which involves dredging the existing approach channel from about 15ft depth to about 25ft, the picture used, the caption and then the story completely misrepresents the issue, creating a false impression of the nature of the scheme.

The most vivid impression, though, is created by the picture, presenting the image of the beneficent EU reaching out to protect England's coastal heritage. And, of course, the camera never lies … but this newspaper does.

COMMENT THREAD

History repeats

As the snow falls (as it has done for the last three hours), the Daily Mail reports that the sea has frozen over on the south coast, just as it did in the winter of 1939-40 (and the following year). Back then, it was the start of the "little cooling". Now, of course, it's "global warming".

COMMENT THREAD

Dellers splats the warmists

... with his new book, Watermelons, profiled in the Daily Mail. That's put him at number one on Amazon "global warming" books, with an overall ranking of 257. Way to go!

Booker, incidentally, is number three.

COMMENT THREAD

They never give up

Even after making a prize fool of itself, The Independent never gives up trying to prove its point. Cribbing from Science Daily, the paper has become a parody of itself. If it's hot, it's climate change, aka global warming, and we get no snow.

But if it's cold and we start getting freezing conditions and lots of snow, it's also climate change, aka global warming. Whatever the weather, it's climate change.

Even this newspaper, however, cannot wholly keep to the line. It has UK climate researcher Adam Scaife offer an alternative explanation.

Other complexities, he says, are almost certainly influencing the current cold spell. "There is a pretty clear link between the current event and the upper level winds... The winds up at 30km (18.6 miles) altitude are very weak," he says. "We have verified several times using computer model experiments that this leads to high pressure across northern Europe and cold winter conditions in the UK as we see now."

So it isn't climate change, aka global warming, after all. It's just weather.

COMMENT THREAD

Flying the flag

Autonomous Mind looks at the Daily Mail and its obsession with writing stories on EU flags and sportswear, while being incapable of putting the stories in their proper context. Witterings from Witney did a similar number about the BBC, last Thursday, making much the same points.

The sad thing is that, while the MSM's churnalistic approach is repetitive and tedious, the whole story is interesting – and informative. But that, the MSM reader will never know.

COMMENT THREAD

Afghanistan: what to make of it all?

A series of leaks on the progress of the war, and then a report on what appear to be plans for an expedited US withdrawal, have had the media abuzz with stories and analysis, but with no real consensus – a question of heat but very little light.

The first trigger was a Nato report leaked to the BBC, which suggested the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI), only to be followed by a predictable denial, with the Pakistani foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, dismissing the report as, "old wine in an even older bottle".

As to the US plans, the trigger here was a suggestion by US defence secretary Leon Panetta suggesting that US combat missions in Afghanistan would end in 2013. That, though, was quickly clarified when Panetta said that the US would keep fighting alongside Afghan troops, but would cede the lead role in combat operations.

Thus, US troops would remain "combat-ready" as the United States wound down its longest war, but the troops would largely shift to a train-and-assist role as Afghan forces took responsibility for security before an end-2014 deadline for full Afghan control.

By the time Panetta came up with this reassurance, however, the damage had already been done, with widespread reports, culled from the original leaked report, that the Taliban, "backed by Pakistan", expected to retake Afghanistan when coalition forces leave.

However, despite the flurry of media activity, one is tempted to say "what's new?". I don't think anyone who knows the region and its politics is under any illusions that the Pakistanis work, and have been working with Pashtun and other tribal factions, with Arab support and money, specifically but not exclusively the Haqqani network.

Nor is there anything particularly new about the US military planning gradually to hand over security responsibilities to the Afghan forces, then easing themselves out of the picture. And nor is there any secret that the Taliban expect to have a free run at taking over the country, once the infidels have departed. What else is there to say?

Well, the Canadian National Post has a stab at offering something different, noting that the problem is that ordinary Afghan villagers subscribe to local codes of politics and morality that are profoundly alien and offensive to Western ways.

It tells us that gender equality, religious pluralism, due process - all of these notions are meaningless gibberish to a society made up largely of illiterate goat herders and farmers, who view women and children as property, and non-Muslims as hated infidels. In this world, the real business of public life begins and ends at the local mosque or village council.

Thus we are informed that, if outsiders in Kabul and Washington have money and guns to give, they will take them. They might even permit a school or highway to be built in their district, and appear in a photo-op. But that's where it ends.

Closer to home, we have a superbly robust commentary from Simon Jenkins but, other than to project the view that the UK – alongside the US – might be positioning for a war against Iran, having learnt nothing from the failure of Afghanistan, he really does not have that much new to say.

Matt Cavanagh also has a go, in The Spectator, but he ends up reiterating sentiments expressed in earlier articles, and in particular his piece last November. His conclusion this time is that we now have an opportunity "to move towards a more honest and realistic debate about the Afghan campaign and its prospects of success, in public as well as private".

Considering that we have yet to have an honest and realistic debate about the Iraq war, it is perhaps a little rash to expect anything different of Afghanistan, especially as the view of the UK administration on the conduct of the war seems to be locked in aspic.

This we saw recently from Lord Astor of Hever, defence spokesman in the Lords, who told the upper house that military means alone would not bring about a more secure country, then saying:

We have always supported an Afghan-led political process to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, and we continue to encourage all parties to take forward reconciliation. We will continue to engage with our US colleagues on these important matters.

We are not going to get a clearer definition of the UK stance, and while there is nothing new here either, it is useful to note the acknowledgement that a political process is required "to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan", and that the military alone cannot close the deal.

In assessing current progress, as Cavanagh would have us do, it is useful to refer to the one of the great authorities on the nature of war, Carl von Clausewitz, and one of the most famous miss-quotations of all time: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means".

This is, in fact, an abbreviated heading in Book One of his famous treatise on the nature of war, whereas the text states something different, and different in an important respect. War, he writes, is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.

This, Clausewitz expands upon in the rarely quoted Book Eight where, under the heading, "War is an instrument of policy", he tells us:

It is, of course, well-known that the only source of war is politics – the intercourse of governments and peoples; but it is apt to be assumed that war suspends that intercourse and replaces it by a wholly different condition, ruled by no law but its own.

Clausewitz then goes on to repeat his earlier aphorism, subtly improved, declaring: "We maintain, on the contrary, that war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means". He then adds:

We deliberately use this phrase "with the addition of other means" because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs.

Changing the "by" into "with" completely changes the meaning of Clausewitz's aphorism, making war an overall part of the political process, and not something separate from it.

That, it seems, to me, the Taliban understand – and so do the Pakistanis and other regional players. It is something the colonial British understood, but not their successors or the Americans. While both play lip-service to a political solution, they do tend to treat the military activity as something different and distinct from the political process.

And thereby we find Lord Astor reiterating the reasons why the coalition efforts must fail. On the one hand, the separation of military and political efforts defies sense, failing as it does to recognise the Clausewitz teaching. But, worse still, the flaw is in seeking an "Afghan-led political process", which is still further separated from the military effort.

In the scheme of things, Afghan politics are not played out within the actual borders that none of the players actually recognise, but on a far wider tableau, which takes in the ambitions and aspirations of all the neighbouring states, the former state of Baluchistan (now absorbed into Pakistan and Iran), and of course, the great regional elephant in the room, India.

And that also is nothing particularly new – not on this blog. Unfortunately, the coalition got it wrong from the very start, and it is too late to fix it now.

COMMENT THREAD

Joy upon joy

As a person beset by irrational speeding laws, at one level I have every sympathy with Huhne. If you do the mileage, you get the points – it is almost unavoidable. Hence, my tenure in the EU parliament ended up in my getting banned under the totting-up procedure.

But, unlike the man is now alleged to have done, I would never have done likewise, dumping the blame on Mrs EUReferendum. It isn't British – not cricket even. You just don't do it. However irrational, loathsome and unjust the authorities might be - and they are all of those things - you take the punches.

That said, Dellers sums up the sentiment for the moment. But now Huhne has at last resigned, one's only regret is that he could not have done so much earlier, for reasons more directly associated with his disastrous performance as a cabinet minister.

COMMENT THREAD

Watermelons kill

Watermelons kill, but not just if you eat them. As Dellers will tell you in his new book (UK edition) of the same name, they kill wholesale. One of those ways is by the restrictions (amounting to an effective ban) on DDT, which has led to a resurgence of malaria.

As a result, Dellers avers, the Greens have been responsible for killing more people than Hitler. Amd that would now appear to be more true than ever. The Guardian says the disease kills twice as many people as previously thought – 1.2 million people a year.

It also raises urgent questions, says the paper, about the future of the troubled Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria, which has provided the money for most of the tools to combat the disease in Africa, such as insecticide-impregnated bed nets and new drugs. The fund, The Guardian coyly tells us "is in financial crisis and has had to cancel its next grant-making round".

However, as always, there is much more to this than meet the eye. The $22.6 billion fund has been beset by corruption and maladministration and now the fund head has abruptly resigned, part of a management shakeup after multiple scandals severely rattled some of the biggest donors.

The cynic might ask whether the sudden publicity on the issue, and funds shortage, might be related. And not a few might puzzle (albeit silently, for such things dare not be said in the open) whether saving lives in Africa simply makes for problems elsewhere, through over-population and migration.

But the fact is, malaria kills disproportionate numbers of the economically active, and as Africa drags itself up by its bootstraps, it is these people it needs. The death of these people has been in part responsible of the economic blight, making the DDT ban all the more tragic.

But even more tragically, the lessons still have not been learned, as the EU continues to block progress and cause economic havoc. And this, of course, is the hidden story which the likes of The Guardian will never tell. Even last month, we saw echoes of the turmoil created by the DDT ban.

There lies the ultimate terror – when greens and bureaucrats combine, death follows in their wake.

COMMENT THREAD

A stampede of elephants

You would have thought that, given the huge number of column inches devoted to the diverse and expensive defence procurement failures, the MSM might be interested in this government's proposals for remedying the system, delivered on Wednesday in the form of a White Paper.

The official announcement on the MoD Website makes the ostensible agenda interesting enough, telling us that the "Government" has set out its plans to prioritise investment in Science and Technology, "in order to ensure the UK's Armed Forces continue to have state-of-the-art technology, equipment and support, in a White Paper published today".

Apart from the Financial Times, however (and a small, down-page item in the business section of The Times), the MSM apparently no longer feels the need to comment on such matters – possibly because there is no opportunity any longer to make party political mischief and get a "biff-bam" slanging match going.

As to the Financial Times, it picks on one issue, which is also the focus of much of the specialist press, headlining: "MoD will no longer favour UK companies". The Ministry of Defence, it tells us:

… will no longer give UK companies priority over their foreign competitors when buying equipment and weapons for the armed forces. The only exceptions will be cases where buying British is essential to maintaining national security, Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, said in an interview. He made clear the MoD would not consider wider employment or industrial economic factors when it assessed whether a piece of equipment offered value for money.

Nevertheless, if the dailies largely ignore that issue, The Spectator gives a spot to Matt Cavanagh, who calls the White Paper the waste of another opportunity. We need clear and unapologetic government backing for a sector which, as the White Paper notes, employs 300,000 people and is a major player in a global market valued at £260 billion, says Cavanagh, adding:

In that respect, the timing of the White Paper could hardly have been worse. Yesterday brought the bad news that India has awarded preferred bidder status for its $10 billion-plus fighter contract to France's Rafale, in preference to the Eurofighter Typhoon in which Britain's BAE has a major stake. The White Paper makes the usual noises about ministers "doing their utmost" to support exports, but privately many in the industry are disappointed by the lack of help — especially given ministerial rhetoric in 2010 around reshaping our foreign policy around trade.

This long-awaited White Paper was a second chance for the government to demonstrate its seriousness about tackling the real problems in defence procurement. Instead we got feeble commitments of support and simplistic rhetoric about "buying off the shelf" in a hypothetical "open market" which, in relation to large defence equipment programmes, simply doesn't exist. Another opportunity wasted — for Defence, and for one of our better prospects for export-led growth.

But what Matt – and everybody else for that matter – is ignoring is not so much the elephant in the room, as a virtual stampede of elephants. These come in the guise of EU Directive 2009/81/EC "on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC".

To get a taste of what this is requiring, all we have to do is look at the recitals – two, three and four will suffice:

(2) The gradual establishment of a European defence equipment market is essential for strengthening the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base and developing the military capabilities required to implement the European Security and Defence Policy.

(3) Member States agree on the need to foster, develop and sustain a European Defence Technological and Industrial Base that is capability driven, competent and competitive. In order to achieve this objective, Member States may use different tools, in conformity with Community law, aiming at a truly European defence equipment market and a level playing field at both European and global levels.

They should also contribute to the in-depth development of the diversity of the European defence-related supplier base, in particular by supporting the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and non-traditional suppliers in the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base, fostering industrial cooperation and promoting efficient and responsive lower tier suppliers. In this context, they should take into account the Commission’s Interpretative Communication of 7 December 2006 on the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in the field of defence procurement and the Commission Communication of 5 December 2007 on a Strategy for a stronger and more competitive European defence industry.

(4) One prerequisite for the creation of a European defence equipment market is the establishment of an appropriate legislative framework. In the field of procurement, this involves the coordination of procedures for the award of contracts to meet the security requirements of Member States and the obligations arising from the Treaty.

Helpfully, albeit in an obscure footnote, the White Paper tells us that this Directive was brought into UK law as the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations on 21 August 2011. And thus, let's play "spot the difference". In that self-same White Paper, we learn that:

We are focused on ensuring best value-for-money and delivering the best equipment for the Armed Forces and the security services. That is why this paper sets out how we will use competition as our default position and why we will look at the domestic and global defence and security market for products that are proven, that are reliable, and that meet our current needs. This principle is, though, qualified by the need to take action to protect our technological advantage where essential for national security.

We believe that the best way for the UK defence and security industries to remain strong, with some of the most high-tech and advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, is to be competitive. That is why this Government will continue to support responsible defence and security exports; why we are helping to create the right conditions for companies in these sectors to invest in the UK, and why we will take significant steps to ensure small and medium sized companies can continue to deliver the innovation and flexibility we need. There was strong support for these actions in the consultation responses.

And so we get:

Wherever possible, we will seek to fulfil the UK's defence and security requirements through open competition in the domestic and global market, buying off-the-shelf where appropriate… we will also take action to protect the UK's operational advantages and freedom of action, but only where this is essential for our national security.

This is remarked upon by a trade journal, which remarks that the presumption is to buy on the basis of competition and best value, which may often mean "off the shelf", even if it's from manufacturers in France, the US, Argentina, Israel. Now, the journal observes:

… many procurement people would welcome this focus on value for money rather than preserving British jobs or capability, but it will be interesting to see whether this holds up the first time a UK manufacturer loses out and screams blue murder about jobs, national interest and so on. Look at the fuss about the Bombardier/Siemens train procurement, and that didn't have the emotive aspects that defence always carries.

But of course, it will hold up. British ministers are implementing EU law, and they are always going to obey their masters. And in this White Paper, they are providing an ex post facto explanation of how the procurement system is to be adapted in order to ensure absolute obedience.

This in governmental terms, is not a "wasted opportunity" as Cavanagh would aver. It is simply a statement of compliance, the sub-text, "we shall obey".

COMMENT THREAD

We knew that already

… even if the headline is slightly modified. You can't trust anybody these days.

COMMENT THREAD

Latest on the cold front

Serbia, it appears, is taking a hammering. At least 11,000 villagers have been trapped by heavy snow and blizzards in Serbia's mountains, reports the AP, as the death toll from Eastern Europe's weeklong deep freeze rose to 122, many of them homeless people.

The stranded live in some 6,500 homes in remote areas that cannot be reached due to icy, snow-clogged roads. Emergency crews were pressing hard to try to clear the snow and deliver badly needed supplies in areas facing their harshest winter in decades. In some areas, it has been freezing cold or snowing for 26 days, and diesel fuel supplies used by snowploughs are running low.

COMMENT: "GREAT TURNABOUT" THREAD

The future of the euro

It doesn't have one, according to The Independent. Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, says: "The eurozone is a slow-motion train wreck", not exactly a novel idea.

Howsoever, before we all get too excited, if Greece is any guide, none of us has any future either. Poverty and debt slavery is our destiny.

COMMENT THREAD

Who cares?

"There's a new mood in Parliament", writes Raedwald , who is commenting on a piece in the Failygraph on civil service powers and responsibilities. "Reform is on the wind. MPs are feeling their breeches for the first time in many years. The mandarinate may have a shock coming".

The Failygraph story is about the row developing over Margaret Hodge, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and her treatment of civil servants, culminating in a letter of protest from former head of the civil service, Gus O'Donnell. Thus we are told:

The row has been brewing for some time. Last November, Mrs Hodge and her committee tore into Anthony Inglese, a top lawyer at HM Revenue and Customs. Asked whom he answered to as a civil servant, Inglese said mildly that he was accountable to his department. "No, you're not", retorted Mrs Hodge. "You're accountable to Parliament". She ordered Inglese to give the rest of his evidence on oath, warning him that he risked perjury if he gave incorrect answers. His request for "a minute’s time out" to consider was refused.

But the natural response to this is: "who cares"? The bulk of our power has been outsourced to Brussels, where the "colleagues" certainly are not accountable to parliament. This is a fight between two bald men over a comb.

Even if it were the case that the fight had meaning, and parliament emerged the winner, how does that serve us. Residual authority in this country resides not with parliament, but the executive, which has at its beck and call a payroll vote which keeps it in office.

Thus the cock may win the battle of the dunghill, but in the corner of the barn, farmer Dave sharpens the knives and selects the Sunday lunch.

On a broader scale, who of the bald men who emerges victorious, taking possession of the comb, has any relevance to us. Parliament could indeed win, but who does parliament represent? It certainly isn't me, or anything I could identify with for that matter. Largely, it seems to represent itself and its own interests.

In many senses, therefore, this is "smoke and mirrors", or "bread and circuses" if you prefer – without the bread and without the circuses. In short, it is an irrelevance – a distraction. Watching other people fight for power, when either way the power ends up in the wrong hands, is not a profitable occupation.

Those who believe in democracy – and know what it is - will understand this. Any outcome will not aid our progress towards democracy. But, if democracy is not the aim, it becomes rather necessary to decide who should be the custodians of power. This little bun fight is not the way – especially with Margaret Hodge at the helm.

COMMENT THREAD

Tractor production at record level

BBC Radio 4's Today programme, The Guardian tells us, had an average weekly audience of 7.15 million in the last three months of 2011, proclaiming a great "boost" for the programme (see below).

This, we are told, is "a whisker away from its biggest ever listenership and just 90,000 behind Moyles on Radio 1, who had an audience of 7.24 million". Then we learn that: "Radio 4 insiders attributed Today's growing popularity to big news stories such as the faltering economy and fears of a double dip recession".

Methinks, though, we are seeing more than a little spin here. Go back to May last year and we see "record" audience figures of 7.03 million listeners for the first three months of 2011. Interestingly, back then, a Radio 4 spokeswoman attributed the rise in its audience to the big, breaking news that dominated the year's start, including the Japanese tsunami and the "Arab spring".

However, given the inherent errors in the sampling process, and the changes to the recording system (described by Autonomous Mind), that would suggest that there could be no significant difference between the beginning of last year and the end. Arguably, audience figures are flatlining.

Last May, we were thus equating BBC figures with Soviet tractor production figures. It seems nothing much has changed.

COMMENT THREAD

The great turnabout

I was going to do a long piece on Afghanistan and Clausewitz, but it's too late and I'm too tired – it will have to wait until later today. However, I was also keeping an eye on the weather situation – which is getting interesting. Actually, it is not so much the weather as the media reaction to it.

A few years ago, in 2008, when Booker and I were charting the terrible winter weather throughout the world, the MSM was largely silent, still in the thrall of the warmists. But now, with what are quite moderate conditions for the UK (we've had it a lot worse), we get this (above) and much else of a similar nature - see below:

Reuters is a also keeping an eye on the Russian gas situation, as well as the mounting death toll in eastern and central Europe, with Ukraine having suffered badly in temperatures down to minus 33°C. Moscow is relatively balmy, enjoying daytime temperatures of a mere minus 22°C. Many sources we are in for a brutal weekend, right across Europe.

But, given the sometimes OTT coverage (parts of Britain in deepest winter colder than parts of Antarctica in the height of summer, shock!), it seems to me, we're going through the "switch". Having been for years pushing the global warming agenda, the newspapers (or some of them) are now in the market for "cold" and the warmists aren't getting a look in.

That could be very significant. Where the media leads, the politicians still tend to follow.

COMMENT THREAD

You read it here first

The Daily Mail has finally caught up with the idea of "naked streets", alternatively known as the "shared space" concept. You could have read about it on this blog though, in January 2007, after Owen Paterson, then shadow transport secretary, had been to Holland to look at its practical application.

Leave it long enough and the MSM does catch up – on some things – although even some of the most simple concepts seem to elude it. But I suppose a five-year head start is about right.

COMMENT THREAD

Living in a mad world

In April last year, we were confidently told that the administration was proposing to change the MoT frequency from one to two years. Notably absent from the report, of course, was any reference to the EU or any mention that road safety was an EU competence. It took, therefore, this blog to point out the EU dimension, when we wrote:

While there is no specific requirement for the UK to come into line (yet), the writing is on the wall, and any changes to the MOT legislation must be approved by the EU Commission. Thus, our "Eurosceptic" government is playing the usual trick. In anticipation of an EU requirement, it is bringing domestic legislation into line with the expected (but as yet undeclared) standard.

However, assailed by the safety nannies and the self-interest groups demanding that the existing interval be kept (the latter having a point, as they have invested hugely in testing equipment), the government has decided to back off and ditch the plans to cut the frequency - for the time being.

That the EU was considering harmonising roadworthiness tests (with the effect that the more general two-year interval would be adopted) was clearly signalled in this document (see page 8, last para), latterly (in September 2011) endorsed by the EU parliament. But, reading between the lines, it now seems that EU-wide plans have stalled, pending evaluation of new testing technologies and systems.

What appears to have happened is that the British administration, aware that it will now be some time before the EU commission issues definitive proposals on testing frequency, has opted to avoid confrontation, and is going for the status quo, for the time being.

The ironic thing is the proposed change - in what in fact is part of the Single Market acquis - was also part of this administration's drive to sweep away red tape in what was described as a "bonfire of regulations" aimed at "stimulating business and economic growth". And it was actually only a week ago, at Davos, that The Boy was attacking the "madness" of European regulations, calling for the "colleagues" to "stop throttling growth with excessive bureaucracy".

So, as it stands, in one very clear example where the EU commission was in due course planning to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in a specific sector, with the UK jumping the gun, The Boy's administration has drawn back from the process – until it is instructed to carry it out by the EU - while all the time criticising the EU for its "red tape".

Does one ever get the impression that we are living in a mad world?

COMMENT THREAD

A random observation

Looking at the word "therapist", have you ever thought of what happens if you put a space after the "the"? It rather changes your perception of the "profession".

And reading Your Freedom and Ours, it looks as if Hannan seems to feel he has been a victim of one … of the political variety. It really is fascinating to see how intelligent men can be so stupid.

COMMENT THREAD

A shattered narrative

Tim Montgomerie, content partner with The Guardian Comment Network, is now also infesting the Right Minds blog on the Daily Mail website.

If you ever wanted an example of political convergence, and a lack of distinction in the political spectrum, that is it. With the Guardian currently hosting Daniel Hannan's impostor and Adrian Hilton, this is a classic example of the reorientation of politics. A homogeneous political class is emerging, equally at home in the Mail and the Guardian. As the distinction between right and left disappears, and we get the "above-the-line" caste, reinforcing the "them-and-us" divisions in society, prattling indiscriminately.

What brings the gullible Montgomerie to the Mail is The Boy's amazing technicolour veto, and a lament that "fings ain't wot they used to be". And a measure of how far sunny Tim got sucked into the mythology is his first sentence – error compounded by error (above). No, we shriek, Cameron did not veto a treaty. The treaty did not exist. No, the treaty had not been agreed by every other member state. The treaty did not exist.

But then, with the unpardonable arrogance of his caste, Montgomerie goes on confidently to assert that, "As a result of his veto, Britain rejoiced". No, "Britian" did not "rejoice" – just he, the idiot MSM and his gang of fellow-travellers.  They were the ones "rejoicing", while we stood around in amazed disbelief.

There is more truth, however, in Timmy's bold claim that, "Many on both sides of the great European debate – sceptics and enthusiasts – concluded that Britain was now in the EU's departure lounge and it was only a matter of time before Britain formed a very different relationship with Brussels".

Problematically though, as Mary Ellen Synon pointed out yesterday, the claque had no grounds whatever for this conclusion. The delusion represents only the thinking of a self-styled political commentator, who truly believes that the Conservative Party has become "fundamentally Eurosceptic". Nevertheless, he does not dare to define what he means, for fear that it will reveal that there is not a fag-paper between his party's sceptics and philes.

And still he prattles on about a "different relationship with Europe", thereby displaying the fundamental inability of his caste to understand that you cannot have a "relationship" with yourself. The United Kingdom is in the European Union. We are not related to it. We are part of it. It is part of us.

Demonstrating thus another characteristic of the breed, Timmy provides evidence that his caste inhabits its own impervious bubble. The members cannot learn anything and never change their views on anything. They simply adapt facts to fit their preconceived notions, so as not to disturb their comfort zones.

No wonder the poor lad is now so confused. His little narrative has been shattered and he is surveying the wreckage, struggling to rebuild it. In time, perhaps with the help of the europlastic Open Europe, he will. Then we will be treated to another fantasy that passes for political commentary. How sad is that?

COMMENT THREAD

The Lord chuckled

With a long-awaited debt swap deal largely almost secured, Athens' focus is now squarely on the reform front. Failure to persuade lenders it can follow through on its pledges could put both the bond swap and the country's latest bailout at risk.

That is the Reuters "take" but The Guardian is suggesting that it very far from being a done deal. Prime minister Lucas Papademos is calling for a "crisis meeting" to ask backers for further concessions after "tough and honest' discussions in Brussels and Frankfurt".

The clue to the problem, though, is in the Reuters report. A senior Greek banker says a final accord on the bond swap was on hold until Athens could show it was "serious about tackling reforms".

"The debt swap agreement is ready, but it will not be announced before the end of the week and until the government has made certain commitments on reforms, labour issues and the pension system," says the anonymous banker. "By delaying the debt swap, European partners are putting pressure on the government and political leaders to make certain commitments".

But WSJ is getting bored with it all, and is just taking the mick:

And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be jobs and growth." And lo, there were jobs and there was growth. And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be closer fiscal coordination on a non-Treaty, intergovernmental basis with penalties for sinners to be administered by the European Court of Justice." And lo, there was that, too. And Angela Merkel said, "Let Greece prove itself capable of meaningful structural reforms before we give them another, €130 billion bailout".

And the Lord chuckled.

The truth is that no one really believes anything about Greece any more – the media goes through the motions of reporting the latest twists and turns, but the real agenda is default, the expectation still being "when not if". Then, there is Portugal, and we start all over again.

COMMENT THREAD

We are so lucky

… that we've had all this global warming. It is terrifying to think what it would have been like without it. And it's not just Norway. Alaska has suffered the coldest January on record in some part – although we can happily report that two ships going away from Nome have made it to open waters.

Elsewhere, it has been grim. Temperatures in parts of Ukraine fell to minus 16°C (3°F) during the day and minus 23°C (minus 10°F) in the night. Authorities opened 1,500 shelters to provide food and heat and closed schools and nurseries. More than 17,000 people have sought help in such shelters in the past three days.

In Poland, at least ten people froze to death as the cold reached minus 26°C (minus 15°F) on Monday. Warsaw city authorities decided to place more than 40 heaters in the busiest city transport stops to help waiting passengers keep warm.

City authorities in the Czech capital of Prague set up tents for an estimated 3,000 homeless people. Freezing temperatures also damaged train tracks, slowing railway traffic. In central Serbia, three people died and two more were missing, while 14 municipalities were operating under emergency decrees. Efforts to clear roads blocked by snow were hampered by strong winds and dozens of towns faced power outages.

And the "colleagues" will be looking forward to a bit of warmth (and Polish shale gas) as Gazprom reduces the flow of gas to Europe because of the cold snap. Supplies into Italy via the Austrian border have been reduced by ten percent compared with normal levels.

Although no one is panicking (yet), it is a timely reminder of how close to the brink supplies can get, when Europe relies on Russia for 30 percent of its gas.

COMMENT: "REALITY BITES BACK" THREAD

Kermits get the cream

France's Rafale has emerged as preferred bidder in a $11 billion contest to supply India with 126 fighters, says Reuters. They have undercut the rival Eurofighter and boosted French hopes of a long-awaited first export contract for its premier combat jet.

Clearly, the bribes aid we've given them hasn't worked out. But why on earth are we giving £1.4 billion in aid to a country that can afford to equip its air force to the tune of $11 billion, and isn't even buying British?

It gets even murkier when one realises that India itself is giving $5 billion in aid to African countries, aimed at expanding trade relations. The Indians are sensible enough to use their aid to get economic leverage … we just dole out money we haven't got, and get nothing in return – except Rajendra Pachauri.

And how droll it is that after Sarkozy sneered at Britain, claiming that "the UK has no industry left", we see a British prime minister claim today that "Britain actually has a higher percentage of industry than France does".

But, says The Boy, "we think that we need to rebalance even further; we want to see a growth in manufacturing, technology and aerospace … ". Sadly, it rather looks as if Sazkozy is doing the rebalancing.

And it was such a pity about The Boy's trade drive. It didn't seem to work too well, did it? The "partner of choice" seems to have moved over to the other side of the Channel - at least as far as the IAF is concerned.

(I don't know why, incidentally, that the video shows Mirage jets as well, but there you go ... it's Euronews.)

COMMENT THREAD