Even worse than Brown

So, the chief political correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, Benedict Brogan, has woken up to the idea that, "Labour has pushed us to the brink of a blackout".

It might have been better, though, if he had been writing this sort of thing a few years ago, as were we, on numerous occasions, when there was still some prospect of doing something to stave off the electricity crisis that faces us.

More damning, Brogan tells us that, "The Tories must rescue Britain's energy policy after years of dangerous neglect," seemingly blissfully unaware of the poverty of the Tories' energy strategy. Dominated by wishful greenie mantras, Dave's idea of a policy is set to turn a crisis into disaster.

That said, we cannot fault Brogan's peroration, where he declares that, "Unless the next government takes rapid, decisive and far-sighted action, the result will be catastrophic." The problem lies in his failure to recognise that, if the Tories get anywhere near "government", the last thing we can expect is "rapid, decisive and far-sighted action."

Evidence of that (not that much is needed) comes from Channel 4 News which claims to have seen a copy of the as yet unpublished Tory energy policy.

From that, it learns that a central plank of their "thinking" is to ramp up micro-generation, from the current administration's 1.6 percent to a massive 15 percent by 2020. Thus, to fill the energy gap, the Tories intend to rely on electricity produced by individuals and communities from rooftop windmills and water turbines, solar panels and boilers fuelled by wood chips.

The idea is so ludicrous that one struggles to believe that any adult, much less a political party, could even contemplate it. But then we need to learn that, when it comes to crass stupidity, nothing is beyond Dave's Conservatives.

With more patience than I could muster, professor Dieter Helm takes them on, pointing out – rather charitably – that "individual householders becoming little generation plants and selling power back into the system is a wonderfully attractive and seductive idea."

But, says Helm, it is extremely expensive because it is unreliable and would need to be backed up by more conventional power sources. "There is no free lunch when it comes to the energy sector," he adds, noting that: "When you generate your own electricity, someone else has to buy it. In the end, other customers pay. Decentralisation is not cost-effective."

This raises a devastatingly obvious issue. To incentivise local production, the current feed-in tariff is roughly twice that of the retail cost of electricity. Those able to afford the expensive generation equipment can sell their electricity and then, effectively, buy it back at half price.

On the other hand, those who can't afford this option, like the six million or so on prepaid meters who are already paying over the top for their electricity, will have to pay even more. And this is what passes for Conservative policy?

With this, the Tories seem intent on demolishing the last, vestigial reason for voting for them at the election. No matter how bad Cameron is, some of the more candid say, he cannot be worse than Gordon Brown. If this is what the Boy has to offer, then we are looking at the very real possibility that he will be even worse than Brown.

COMMENT THREAD

The agendas merge

Regular readers might recall a time when a man called David Cameron – although we most often called him something else – was quite often the subject of our attention. But he is now rarely mentioned.

This, to a great extent, reflects his betrayal over the EU referendum, putting us in the position where have little interest in what he has to say and believe little of what he does. The very small residue of trust we had in Cameron's Conservatives has been totally and irrevocably destroyed.

If it were not for his destitute EU agenda, however, his obviously genuine enthusiasm for greenery – probably the only thing genuine about the man - would undoubtedly prove a similar barrier, as any man who can embrace the warmist creed with such gusto has to be all bad.

Yet another odious characteristic of the man is his insistence on a soft-left social agenda, draped in Tory clothes, demonstrating his credentials as a caring, family-orientated "leader".

But now, naked in tooth and claw, we are seeing the ugly side of "Compassionate Conservatism", where "call me Dave" is planning to combine his greenie obsession with his families package.

Thus we hear that motorists and air passengers face higher "green taxes" under Conservative plans to fund tax breaks for married couples. The money raised will be earmarked for a new "family fund" to cut income tax for families.

Options for taxation range from an increase in petrol duty to new levies on flights and firms that "pollute". But the Tories are also considering reintroducing the fuel-duty escalator - abandoned by Labour following widespread protests over the high cost of filling up.

Needless to say, "call me Dave" and boy George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, are cautious about discussing these taxes "after earlier plans backfired," and not least because some MPs (rightly) fear they could lose the party votes.

But this dire pair remain insistent that, in time, "green taxes will be necessary". Osborne even says: "Green taxes on environmentally-damaging activities and consumption will fund our family policies in the long term. We are committed to them."

Despite all that has happened in the last few months, and the very obvious signs of a change in public sentiment on "global warming", this pair have not yet cottoned on to the fact that green taxes will be about as popular as a Moslem fundamentalist at a BNP meeting.

But the ultimate stupidity, which clearly has not percolated into what passes for brains in this dire pair, is the failure to join up the dots, and understand that the "families" they purport to want to help are the very ones which will be hit hardest by "green" taxes under consideration.

Only thus could they come up with such a moronic idea of easing the financial plight of [some] families, only to claw it back in accordance with a greenie mantra that is long past its sell-by date. The only possible explanation for this is that, stupid as Cameron and Osborne undoubtedly are – they believe they are smarter than the electorate they are trying to con.

Poster courtesy of Andy Barefoot.

COMMENT THREAD

A green rebellion?

According to The Daily Express (and others), David Cameron "was given a stark warning yesterday that his enthusiasm for green policies is unlikely to be shared by the coming influx of Tory MPs."

This is the conclusion from a poll of the 240 Tory candidates best placed to win seats at the election. It found that most ranked tackling climate change as their lowest priority.

However, talk of a "rebellion" is probably highly optimistic. Cameron has already made his views clear, stating in December: "A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be."

It is unlikely that newly elected Tory back-benchers are going to rock the boat, especially as the "high flyers" have recently been sent on a green re-education course to ensure that they are "on message" for the coming election.

When promotion beckons, and the ministerial car awaits, principles tend to go out of the window. Thus, what you see with Cameron is, unfortunately, what you are likely to get – sheer, naked greenery.

CLIMATE CHANGE – NEW THREAD

Howling in the night

David Cameron, that is, according to Simon Heffer - when it comes to Europe

How long he [Cameron] can hold the meaningless new line remains to be seen. He must hope it will last until he has had his meeting with destiny – or, rather, the electorate – next spring, writes the earnest columnist.

Heffer suspects it will not be long after the treaty comes into force on December 1 that the full implications of it will become apparent to even the most casual observer, and with it the emptiness of Mr Cameron's promises. He does seem to make European policy without ever considering its consequences.

As Norman Lamont's boot boy, Mr Cameron had a ringside seat for the travails of John Major during the last civil war. He appears to have learned little from the exercise. Sir John encouraged false expectations and they were destroyed by the reality of the European project. Mr Cameron, even before he gets into power, risks making the same, corrosive mistake.

Perhaps when we all realise how much has been sacrificed for us in the name of European unity. Heffer adds, it will be easier for alleged sceptics like Mr Cameron to tell the truth.

One thing, though, is never in doubt. To pretend that Britain might one day dine à la carte from the menu of the Treaty of Lisbon would be just the latest grotesque deceit practised upon this country in the name of Europe.

The only thing Heffer is uncertain about is whether Cameron is "obtuse or simply dishonest." I suppose he could be both.

COMMENT THREAD

The Boy at large

FINAL VERSION

David Cameron will promise that an incoming Conservative administration would set up a new constitutional court to protect British sovereignty from encroachment from Europe.

This is according to The Times, which is retailing details of the Boy's briefing to Tory MPs this morning.

He told them that an incoming Conservative administration would immediately seek to pass a Sovereignty Act which would set up a legal body, similar to the German constitutional court, which would rule on future EU proposals.

A senior member of the shadow cabinet told The Times: "Because we don't have a written constitution we have been particularly vulnerable to depredation from Brussels."

This is, of course, total bullshit. We have a written constitution now. It is called the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, which takes precedence over UK law ... and what remains of our constitution.

As for a constitutional court, if this is a measure of what the Boy is going to offer, then he need not bother. What did the German and Czech constitutional courts do, other than roll over?

We also learn that the Boy repeated his promise to seek to repatriate some powers from the EU, but he did not "bow to demands" that he strengthen his negotiating hand by holding a referendum. Nevertheless, fears that the move would precipitate an internal revolt have proved largely groundless.

The Boy was "cheered by his MPs", we are told. But, apparently the Tory whips and key frontbenchers were coordinating the applause. Whether they will still be cheering when the general election results come through is another matter. The loudest cheers might be coming from UKIP.

Howsoever, the Boy geve his press conference at St Steven’s Club, accompanied by William Hague, Liam Fox, George Osborne and Mark Francois. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are to blame for the mess. "Nothing to do with us guv!" says the Boy, but he feels our pain. The betrayal of the promise to hold a referendum (Labour's betrayal) was one of the factors, alongside the expenses crisis, that has caused people to lose their faith in politics.

There is to be no referendum. It would be "a waste of time and money". Instead, the Tories are reverting to a previous promise to close the stable door after the horse has bolted amend the 1972 European Communities Act. This will create a "referendum lock" so that no further powers can be given away without public consent.

Usual Tory fudge, in other words.

And yes, in the door-closing department, we are to get a "UK Sovereignty Bill", to make sure that ultimate authority remains in Westminster. It won't be about striking down EU law. It will just put the UK on a par with Germany, where legislation says the ultimate authority lies with the German parliament. What is this man on?

The Boy also says he will legislate to stop the use of the "ratchet" clauses in the Lisbon treaty that would allow the further transfer of powers without another EU treaty. Again, this is moonshine. The "ratchet" clause already requires parliamentary approval. But, says the Boy, The effect of these changes would be to ensure that a Lisbon situation would happen "never again".

But what about the Lisbon treaty?

Nothing there, it seems, but the Boy is stuck like a cracked gramophone record on repatriating power over social and employment legislation - the so-called "Social Chapter", which no longer exists. He will demand a "proper opt-out" from the charter of fundamental rights. And then, he will seek to limit the ECJ's power over criminal law to pre-Libson levels.

With a quick doffing of the cap to reality, he then admits that these changes would need the agreement of all EU member states. These are "complicated issues", but little Willy is on the case. Success in these negotiations would ensure that EU negotiations do not have to be a "one-way street", he tells us - whatever that means.

These three guarantees are "essential, realistic and deliverable" and the Boy believes "we will be able to negotiate the return of these powers that I have set out." But there is to be no "massive euro bust-up". "We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament." The Boy's priority, if he becomes prime minister, will be the economy.

And if he does not get the opt-outs he requires? Ah! He could return to this at the time of the next election (ie, the one after the 2010). At that point he might discuss a referendum on Britain's relations with the EU.

There it goes ... parked ... he thinks. And thus does the Boy conclude that people are fed up with "endless lies and spin". HE is not going to "treat people like fools" and offer them a referendum that would not have any impact, he says.

Instead, it seems, he is going to treat people like fools in a different way, offering them competely meaningless changes and negotiations that will conclude some time never, with absolutely no indication of how he intends to bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

Asked by Andrew Miller from the Economist asks what "threats" he will use to win back these powers, the Boy confirms his intention to park the issue. He is not trying to win back these powers immediately. But there are treaties coming up - like the Croatian accession treaty - that will provide an opportunity for these issues to be addressed. He thinks.

In any case, his proposals are "practical" - aka meaningless. Thus, he purrs, "there's every chance of achieving these guarantees throughout a parliament".

To the "colleagues", aka "European partners", the Boy says that we do not plan to sabotage the EU with these renegotiations. The idea is "to put Britain's place in Europe on a proper basis that can command the confidence of the British people."

People were told that they were joining a Common Market, but they joined a European Union. The new Conservative policy is a credible policy that voters who have been treated badly can believe in ... he says. And he is convincing who?

Clearly, Ken Clarke is one. He is "fully in support of this policy", says the Boy, which really tells you everything you need to know. However, Clarke is also on record as saying a Sovereignty Bill of the kind proposed by Cameron was "baloney". He is not wrong. "It's a sop, a gesture, worthless and pathetic," says a Tory Boy Blog commentator. He is not wrong either.

And for his closing admission, Cameron says "European leaders" did not like his commitment to a Lisbon referendum. Thus, he was "as frank and clear" with other European leaders as he has been with the people of the UK. Which means they must be as much in the dark as we are.

This is described as "a very clever speech: gradualist Euroscepticism." Lots of vague promises and meaningless fluff. Beef? Forget it. Not just usual Tory fudge - bucket loads. "If this is what he meant by 'will not let it rest, then he's a lying toad," says another Tory Boy Blog commentator. She is not wrong either.

Says Glen Oglaza for Sky News about the Boy's "proposal" to take back power from the EU, "The only problem is that ALL 26 other EU countries would have to agree."

"How likely is that?" he asks. "Well, David Cameron pre-empted the question by asking it himself and offering the answer that these opt-outs would be in the party's manifesto for the election after NEXT - with the promise of a referendum."

"So, basically, this is about buying time and hoping the European problem goes away. Isn't it?" the man concludes. Tim Montgomerie over at Tory Boy Blog agrees. "David Cameron gives every impression of wanting to kick the European issue into the long grass so that he can get on with other things," he says. We could not have put it better ourselves.

Unsurprisingly, Gerald Warner comes to the same conclusion. "Cast-Iron Cameron's latest transparent ploy to kick Europe into the long grass," his piece is headed. All this Tory Euroguff is no more than a device to persuade gullible voters to stay with Dave and his forsworn party. Whether you fall for it or not is a simple intelligence test.

And just to confirm that Boy Dave's "do-nothing" policy on Europe is a busted flush, we have the European Movement welcoming the statement. Peter Luff says, "It makes more sense to deal with the real issues facing Europe right now than to pick an unnecessary and distracting argument with our European partners." Mrs Dale has the answer though. "Those who start spitting about voting UKIP can bugger off and do just that if it makes them feel better," he says.

The full text of the speech is here. The Boy has blown it.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Not thinking straight

The twitterings of delight from the Tory Boys & Girls at Dave's great coup in bringing the "Army legend" on side, just in time to make a big deal of it a conference, are now looking more than a bit sad as the grown-ups chew over what in fact has been a huge blunder by the Great Leader.

That the issue refuses to melt away into the background is testament enough to the scale of that blunder. Not only yesterday did we have The Sunday Times leading the fray but today The Times returns to the subject, with a leader headed: "Generals and Politics".

Focusing first on president Obama, the paper sternly declares that, "Policy in Afghanistan must be set by elected governments, not the military," reminding us that the presidency also encompasses the role of Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.

It notes that, in that latter capacity, Obama has to make the most difficult decision of his presidency, making the obvious but necessary statement that "decisions are needed now."

Then we get to the nub, with the paper restating some home truths. "War should not be run by generals," it says. "The Commander-in-Chief is elected to decide how best to safeguard security. He should tell his commanders what the strategy in Afghanistan is; their task is to lay out the military options, warn the President of dangers and implement the decisions then taken."

There are two issues here, we are reminded: how best to prosecute the war against the Taleban, and who takes that decision. The first question is secondary to the essential constitutional principles of democratic government. President Truman was vilified when he dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination in the Korean War. Yet the decision was right. Truman confirmed that policy decisions are taken by civilian governments.

And now we get to Cameron's blunder. That principle, we are told, is no less pressing today, and it extends to the UK too. As defence adviser to the Conservative party, Dannatt will have unnecessarily stoked concerns about the politicisation of the Armed Forces and, in particular, the men who lead them. It is an essential principle of public service, the paper declares, "that elected governments set policies, and generals implement them."

So basic and straightforward is this principle that one really does wonder why it needs re-stating. In the current Conservative party line-up, we have a former Times journalist in charge of education policy, and none of the Tory Boys seem to think there is anything wrong with that. Why do we not hear cries for a professional educator – a headmaster, or some-such, to be put in charge.

Why is there not a cry for a qualified medical doctor to be put in charge of health policy – such as Dr Liam Fox? For trade policy, surely we need a former captain of industry, and for transport policy we should have ... a road builder, a railway expert, a former airline executive, or a one-time shipping magnate?

Therein lies the absurdity. Just at a very basic level, what makes a retired army general so well qualified that he should have an executive role in determining the policy for the RAF, the Royal Navy, the Marines, or for grand global defence strategies, or for the very special circumstances of the campaign in Afghanistan, of which he has neither operational experience nor any track-record of success?

The baying of the crowd that in the one particular sphere of activity, defence policy, ministers should have specialist knowledge to the extent of being former professionals in the field, is absurd. People are not thinking straight. In this country and most Western democracies, policy decisions are taken by civilian governments. That is how it should be, and to blur the line is dangerous.

Cameron is going to have to row back from his decision to take Dannatt on board, and then get down to some serious policy-making, the like of which we have not yet seen. And the sooner he admits his mistake the better. The longer he leaves it, the more difficult it will get.

COMMENT THREAD

A "crass" mistake

For a news event to break mid-week and then to continue in the media, culminating in making the lead editorial in The Sunday Times, with major comment pieces in other newspapers, says something of its importance.

On the face of it though, the appointment by David Cameron of the former CGS, General Sir Richard Dannatt, is not that important. But, clearly, the media thinks otherwise – and they are not wrong. This affair shines a bright light into the heart of the Cameron project and highlights a deep, structural flaw which could be its undoing. It really is that serious.

The affair also serves to identify a fault line in our own society, separating those who take the event at its apparent face value, applauding the "brave, honest general" and those who see in it a grave and disturbing development, and judge it to be a major error of judgement on the part of David Cameron.

Into that latter category clearly falls The Sunday Times leader, all the more remarkable for the fact that there are plenty of "hot issues" which it could have addressed at the end of the political conference season. Thus to run a headline: "General Sir Richard Dannatt affair is a self-inflicted Tory wound" is significant.

Without retailing at length the text, suffice it to say that the paper believes the appointment to have been correctly defined by Chris Grayling as a "political gimmick", concluding that, "This unfortunate PR stunt was a reminder that there is still plenty of spin around and Mr Cameron should instead concentrate on the straight ball."

Not only is it a mistake, says the paper, "In fact it is so crass it is hard to believe that the usually deft Conservative party could have made such a mistake." Rarely does one get that degree of unequivocal, direct condemnation, the like of which should make even the most hardened Cameron supporter stop to think.

Regular readers of this blog will be well aware of our own antipathy towards David Cameron and also to our deep distrust of Gen Dannatt. In this affair, the two personalities come together and one would expect, therefore, for us to make a meal of it.

Stepping back and looking at Dannatt, though, our distrust of the man was neither instinctive nor personal. After all, we do not know the man and, from what we hear from his close associates, he is in his own terms and by his own estimation a deeply honourable man.

But, in his famed "honesty and integrity", Charles Moore had a pertinent observation yesterday when he noted that "he (Dannatt) has that problem, quite common among evangelical Christians, of not thinking clearly about the effect of what he says. The Biblical text about needing the wisdom of the serpent is one they tend to skip."

Actually, there is something akin to obsessive compulsive disorder in the General, with his obsessive truth-telling (or what he believes to be the truth), leading him to tell the media that Cameron had approached him for help because the Conservative leader's team "lacked expert understanding" of defence.

At a stroke, says The Sunday Times, General Dannatt undermined his future colleagues and left the Conservative leader with the task of smoothing the bruised egos of Liam Fox, the long-standing shadow defence secretary, and other shadow ministers.

However, the more pertinent observation comes in the Mail on Sunday which retails the view of an anonymous "senior officer" who describes Dannatt as "the last of the Cold War warriors who believe in heavy metal gear to fight a world war ... He supports those who want to go back to the age of massive pieces of kit and set-piece operations, but that would be a grave error."

This encapsulates if not completely defines our concerns about Dannatt. At the time when the CGS took office, we were embroiled in a vicious counter-insurgency in Iraq for which the Army was ill-equipped, poorly structured and lacking entirely an appropriate doctrine. Yet, as we observed time and time again, Dannatt chose to make his number one equipment priority the procurement of FRES, offering right up to the end an incoherent view of current campaigns, having entirely failed to sponsor an all-embracing doctrine.

We have taken a great deal of flak for our stance on Dannatt but, as is beginning to emerge, this one man – more than any – held the Army back and prevented it evolving to meet the threats first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan. Thus, while we saw recently Blair being snubbed for having "blood on his hands", that epithet could apply equally to the "soldier's general". He has left "his" Army fatally ill-prepared to deal with the threats it is encountering in Afghanistan.

However, this is not so much about Dannatt as Mr Cameron. The Mail on Sunday retails the observation that "Cameron has chosen the wrong man." And indeed he has.

If the leader of the opposition wanted a man to advise him – or his team – on how effectively to conduct military operations in Afghanistan (notwithstanding the overall strategic framework), Dannatt is the last man he should have chosen. He is neither expert nor current in counter-insurgency tactics and equipment and has a recent and demonstrable track record that testifies to a failure to deal with these issues.

It was not only the fact of making the wrong choice though. This is about how he went about making that choice. Clearly, Cameron did not consult his wider shadow team or keep them in the loop as to his intentions. And while even Max Hastings concedes that that Dannatt is "a controversial figure among his own tribe," if Cameron did take soundings on the general's competence, he must have ignored them.

This in many ways defines the Cameron "project" - a tight, exclusive, self-referential circle which rejects outside ideas and influence, blindly following its own agenda.

The great problem now is that Cameron is saddled with an advisor who, with his high profile, must be taken note of, yet is the wrong man for the job. Says Hastings, "A heavy shadow hangs over British defence policy-making, which is deepened by the Dannatt appointment." He thus writes that Dannatt, in accepting the appointment, has shot himself in the foot.

But, in making such a "crass" mistake – for which he must take personal responsibility – Cameron has shot himself in both feet.

COMMENT THREAD

The betrayal starts?

Nicholas Watt of The Guardian is claiming that David Cameron has ruled out any possibility of a referendum on the constitutional Lisbon treaty if it is fully ratified by the general election.

Early ratification now seems very likely as Klaus is indicating that he might move ahead and sign up. "There will never be another referendum in Europe," he says. Asked by the BBC whether he had a message for Britain, he says: "I am afraid the people of Britain should have been doing something much earlier and not just now, too late, saying something and waiting for my decision."

Watt is reporting that "senior Tories say Cameron has accepted that it would be virtually impossible to alter the main institutional EU changes in the Lisbon treaty – the new president, a new high representative for foreign affairs, and greater powers for the European parliament – once it enters EU law. He will instead focus on measures that would mainly relate just to Britain."

If this is true, that would explain Cameron's reticence and his determination to keep "Europe" off the conference agenda.

Thus, we are told, he is planning to launch a campaign to "repatriate powers", aimed at "restoring Britain's opt-out from the social chapter" – even though the social chapter no longer exists. We will then - possibly - be allowed a faux referendum to approve these "more modest proposals", which a Conservative administration will seek to secure by a threat of blocking the accession treaties for Croatia and/or Iceland.

Watt at least recognises the mountain which Cameron would have to climb, reporting that "renegotiating the opt-out on the social chapter would need the agreement of all member states, because the measures have been sprinkled among various EU treaties which can only be amended with the agreement of all 27 member states." In other words, we are talking about an IGC and a unanimous agreement – any one member state government can block it.

A Cameron government might also demand greater powers over justice and home affairs, seeking to restore vetoes over certain provisions, replacing qualified majority voting – something which France and Germany would most certainly block.

The generality of Watt's claims is more or less confirmed by Benedict Brogan of The Daily Telegraph, who says that Cameron calculates that the EU will be so relieved to discover that the new British government is willing to live with Lisbon that it will happily grant his demand to repatriate powers.

Thus, we have yet another Conservative betrayal in the making. It was always on the cards that Cameron was going to roll over and accept the constitutional Lisbon treaty, so we are not greatly surprised. But a betrayal would be no less for that, and there will be many people, as the news sinks in, who will be thinking very hard about a four-letter acronym, and where they will deposit their votes.

COMMENT THREAD

That's enough Urop

... back to Afghanistan – Mr Cameron's number two political priority. He said it, and we'll now see if he means it when he addresses his adoring masses in Manchester this week.

Confronting him from afar - an invisible presence at the fest - will be the new Chief of the General Staff, Gen Sir David Richards who has gone "full frontal" in The Sunday Telegraph today, warning of the "terrifying prospect" of failure in Afghanistan

Richards, we are told, has issued a wake-up call "to the public" to that effect, but it can be no coincidence that the timing coincides with the start of the Conservative party conference. Now, even if Cameron is not going to respond to the Irish referendum result, he will be hard put to ignore Afghanistan.

One wonders if the Tory faithful have quite latched on to the political dimensions of this issue – especially as the bulk of the "right-wing" political blogs are skating round it.

For all his very great merits, Richards is trapped in the Army narrative of believing that more "boots on the ground" is the answer to the immediate problems in Afghanistan, and – with McChrystal singing from the same hymn sheet – Richards will be seeking to bounce Cameron into a commitment for more troops, one which will have enormous public appeal.

However, a prospective government that is having to look down the nose of making serious public spending cuts is not going to relish the prospect of having to fund the extra resources, probably requiring a down-payment in the order of £2 billion to get an extra 2,000 fighting soldiers out to theatre, on top of the £3.5 billion required to keep the existing contingent in place.

With Liam Fox having already nailed the party's flag to the McChrystal mast, it is going to be difficult for Cameron to claw back the ground and fall in with the current government line of "strategy first – then decide on resources". The current Tory line is that strategy is a done deal. If it maintains this line, it is just a question of how many more troops and when.

Where Cameron has boxed himself into a corner is that, by accepting this line, he has closed off the alternative strategy under consideration in Washington, which involves redefining and scaling down the objectives, and pulling some of the troops out.

More seriously, he has missed the opportunity of offering a "third way", based on the idea of doing "less better", an option which would also accommodate the alternative "counter-terrorism" strategy which Obama is considering.

While Cameron is not yet in a position to make decisions, as general election fever closes in on him, he is going to be under increasing pressure to define, at least in principle, his direction of travel on key policy issues – and Afghanistan is one of them.

He has a very narrow window this week, in Manchester, to get a grip of the strategic issues that are currently being debated, and to prize open the trap which Gen Richards is seeking to spring closed on him. Cameron thus needs to come up with a plausible line of his own that keeps his options open, without being seen either to be contradicting the military or coming under its thrall.

To do this, he is going to need Houdini-like skills, as the public has been schooled heavily to accept the "boots on the ground" option, and are not going to take kindly to an opposition leader who seems as irresolute as they believe the government to be.

Without those skills, Cameron is going to find himself trapped into a multi-billion spending commitment that he neither wants nor expected. It is going to need more than rhetoric to escape from it. Richards has put down the challenge – we shall see how our prime minister in-waiting responds.

COMMENT THREAD

Interesting

But, for now, Mr Cameron says his priorities are "the deficit, Afghanistan, the broken society and mending the mess of our politics". It is striking to hear the war ranking second. "I don't think we are behaving as a nation at war, which we are," he says. But he is hesitant about sending more troops to Afghanistan, and he mentions the prospect only in the context of training the Afghan army. He used his holiday to read up on Afghanistan and India, mindful that, for all this talk of domestic policy, his premiership could be defined by foreign affairs.

A couple of observations. First, no mention of the European Union ... why are we not surprised? Then, if Afghanistan does rank second in his order of priorities, why does he send out his shadow defence secretary to deliver a speech that failed to acknowledge even the most basic of strategic and political realities, while himself avoiding any comment on the issue?

COMMENT THREAD

Calculations

Mr Cameron, we are told, has repeatedly refused to say what he will do if he comes to power with the constitutional Lisbon treaty ratified, saying only that he will "not let matters rest."

Now, in an LBC radio interview, the Tory leader said that if the treaty is ratified, "new circumstances" will apply, suggesting a new Tory policy will be needed.

"If this treaty is still alive," he says, "if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No."

But, he says, "if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote Yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances [apply], and I will address those at the time." He went on to signal that he would not consider a move that could lead to Britain leaving the EU.

He thus declares: "I want us to be in the European Union. We are a trading nation, we should be co-operating with our allies and friends in Europe over things like the environment and crime, of course we should."

It is interesting here to see a man on top of his brief. Germany, as my co-editor observes ratified on 25 September.

That aside, this makes things very difficult for us. The inference, headlined by The Daily Telegraph is: "David Cameron hints Tories would not hold referendum on ratified Lisbon Treaty". The Times has come to the same conclusion. In fact, it is very clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Mr Cameron is not going to hold a referendum if the treaty has been ratified by the time he takes over the administration.

What precisely Mr Cameron intends to do, he himself probably does not know. He will most likely make a decision when he has to – when he is absolutely forced to make one – and not before. And what precisely he decides will be guided by calculations as to what he can get away with, and what is least damaging to his standing and the electability of his party.

Mr Cameron cannot be blamed for this. He is a politician with aspirations to become prime minister, and he is not going to let discord over the EU interfere with his ambition. Therefore, his will be a political calculus, untainted by principle or higher motivation. He will do what he has to do to get his party elected.

Those lukewarm sceptics – who put party before principle – rest on the hopes that, once elected, the "real" Cameron will emerge, to become the terror of the EU, ripping into the "colleagues" and dragging powers back from Brussels.

Any such hopes lie in the realms of fantasy. Mr Cameron, in telling us that "we should be co-operating with our allies and friends in Europe" is speaking the language of the Europhile. And that is what he is.

Co-operation is not, and never has been on the table. Membership of the EU requires the subordination of our parliament to the diktats of the unelected commission and the tyranny of qualified majority voting. Our "co-operation" in that is the same as the co-operation of the handcuffed prisoner told to enter a cell by his jailers.

In terms, Mr Cameron is probably calculating that the popular desire to relieve Gordon Brown of his command will overwhelm any doubts or concerns over his intentions towards the EU. He will know that the electorate is not going to promote the EU to the top of the political agenda. He will not lose the election because he does not promise a referendum.

Therefore, his strategy will be to offer something vaguely credible - the so-called slither-out clause - enough to give hope to the lukewarm eurosceptics that something might be on offer when he gets elected, abandoning the irreconcilables whose votes, he has calculated, he does not need in order to win.

What would make the difference is a decisive caucus of voters who support Cameron but who are not prepared to back him unless he takes a firm line on the EU. There are probably enough out there to damage him, but not enough to cost him the election. And winning is all that matters. They can be and have to be ignored.

We are thus in a situation where the leader of the opposition party has, quite deliberately, set about to reject our aspirations in order to pursue his own. The only offer on the table is that we should abandon ours in order that he can achieve his, with no promise that any concessions will be made at a later date. That is not an attractive offer.

The consequence of rejecting it, however, is that Labour might just retain power. Mr Cameron is perhaps confident that there are enough people not prepared to take that risk and will thus vote for him in spite of and not because of his policy on the EU.

That calculation is for Mr Cameron to make. Equally, a sophisticated electorate will make its own calculations. Only a fool would take them for granted.

COMMENT THREAD

Ooooo ... er!

What, then, of the opposition? Surely it has managed to hit a few of the easy targets with which the government has so thoughtfully supplied it?

No words of mine can adequately convey the contempt in which the Conservatives are now, rightly, held by almost everyone. I do not recall meeting anyone who thinks that David Cameron, their leader, is anything other than a careerist in the mould of Tony Blair. The most that anyone allows himself to hope is that, beneath the thin veneer of opportunism, there beats a heart of oak.

But the auguries are not good: Not only was Mr. Cameron's only pre-political job in public relations, hardly a school for intellectual and moral probity, but he has subscribed to every fashionable policy nostrum from environmentalism to large, indeed profligate, government expenditure. Not truth, but the latest poll, has guided him—at a time when only truth will serve. However, he will be truly representative as prime minister. Like his country, he is quite without substance.

Written by Theodore Dalrymple for the Wall Street Journal via A view from the wasteland. I wonder if they will publish it on Conservative Home?

COMMENT THREAD

We thought of it first

Joe Borg, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, has called for an end to "discards". Instead, we are told, he believes that fishermen should be limited by "effort". For example limiting the number of days vessels can spend at sea or where boats can fish. "Replacing quotas by effort can be a very effective way of reducing the environmental impact of fisheries, and in particular of discards," he says.

This has been picked up by the BBC which retails the Scottish Fishermen's Federation welcome for the idea, although SFF chief executive Bertie Armstrong also warns that simplifying issues may not solve them. "The consequences of using days at sea as the only control measure will require a great deal more thought. It is at best unpredictable and may, for some fisheries create more problems than it solves."

"Nevertheless," Armstrong adds, "it is an encouragement that the Commissioner is prepared to be truly radical and look at all options. We will, therefore, be asking him as a matter of urgency for more detail on what he is actually proposing."

Of course, if you want more detail of how a fisheries scheme could work, you need go no further that look at Owen Paterson's draft, dated January 2005, which we heralded on this blog. In pre-eminent position as one of our recommendations was: "Effort control based on 'days at sea' instead of fixed quotas," with much more detail of how that system could work.

Although then adopted by the Conservative Party as policy, it was quietly dropped when Cameron ascended to the throne and has been ignored even since by the Party. Now, nearly four years later, the EU commissioner is coming round to our way of thinking. But it also says a great deal that what was urgent those four years ago is still urgent, and the commission is still just talking about "reform".

At least, though, the commission is talking, which is more than is the Conservative Party, which has long since abandoned the fishing industry to its fate. Our Dave doesn't "do" Europe, which is why some of the campaigners who were once at the forefront of trying to get the Party to move on this issue have given up completely – and voted BNP at the last euro-elections.

But, in another five years time, perhaps, when the commission finally get down to offering formal proposals, to deal with what is left of the fishing industry, Dave can dust off Owen's paper and pretend it was his idea all along. We thought of it first, he can say, and all the little Tory boys can cheer at their good fortune at having such a far-seeing leader.

COMMENT THREAD

"Trust in me"

Whenever I hear politicians talk about trust I think of that wonderful scene in the Disney "Jungle Book" where Kaa, the python, whom I found infinitely more frightening in both the book and the film than Shere Khan, sings to the monkeys:

Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around

I thought that during that pathetic episode of Tony Blair and Formula One, when the man actually said in an interview that people could trust him as he was a regular kinda guy. Anything more like a snake-oil salesman's talk I have yet to hear.

Then again, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party has come close. As the Toryboy blog tells us, Cameron has been speaking to Welsh Conservatives on St David’s Day about the need to restore trust in politics and politicians.

My colleague has already written about the subject of trust in connection with the well-meaning letter by a number of younger Conservative MPs. For all of that, the subject bears covering again, especially as there is now a speech by the leader himself.

One cannot help wondering about this sudden interest in the word "trust". This government has not been trusted for some time and neither have politicians or anyone else in the political establishment, which includes the political media. To be fair, very many people who say they don't trust the media do nothing but quote the BBC/Channel 4/selected newspapers without once bothering to scrutinize what they saw/read/heard.

Could it be that the Conservative Party is rather belatedly jumping on the bandwagon that was first rolled by Francis Fukuyama in 1995? If so, they are off base. I did not read the book because I was not completely impressed by his magnum opus "The End of History and the Last Man" but as I understand it from comments, Fukuyama's thesis is that in order to move forward societies must be based on the notion of trust whether this is true in every single case or not.

Without going into the details of the subject, it is clear that this is a large and fascinating topic, of particular interest to those of us who support the Anglosphere. (Perhaps I shall have to read it after all.)

The subject cropped up in the Reith Lectures of 2002, given by Professor Onora O’Neill, now Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve. These I did listen to and came away with a feeling of complete bemusement that a lady with such very impressive credentials in philosophy could talk such mush.

As I recall, the lectures (by this time reduced to 30 minutes or so and turned into a travelling circus) consisted mainly of a prolonged whinge about the lack of trust displayed by the public (that's us) towards the various institutions that had always been trusted in the past. Only someone with no knowledge of literature could believe that politicians, educators of various kind, the law or the police were always trusted in the past.

I have no memory of Professor O'Neill once discussing the need for reciprocity in trust and the importance of deserving it.

Cameron, one must admit, has advanced a little beyond that point of view. He seems to accept, though one hears the reluctance in the tone of the speech, that if politicians are to be trusted they must do something to deserve that.

Problem is, he does not seem to have understood why it is they are distrusted. To put it another way, why it is that the whole political process is distrusted to the point when ever more people opt out completely without even pretending that there might be some way of changing things. To be fair to the Boy again, none of the commenters, apart from my colleague, on the posting seem to have grasped the point either. Instead, there is a great deal of rejoicing in how well Cameron has spoken or some criticism on the edges.

One hears a great deal about the lack of trust in politicians because they do not tell the truth. Did they ever? No, as a matter of fact, they did not. Did politicians of the calibre of Gladstone, Salisbury or Churchill tell lies? You bet they did, not least because telling the truth at certain times demoralizes the country beyond recall.

Often politicians tell lies because politics consists of trying to reconcile irreconcilable interests, for instance those of the country as a whole and the constituency a politician represents. Often they tell lies for less respectable reasons, wanting to get re-elected or staying in power being the most obvious ones.

Are politicians venal? You bet. Nothing annoys the public more than watching those drongoes voting themselves ever higher salaries, expenses and other perks, including a very handsome pension, all of which the ever harder pressed taxpayer has to fund.

To those who say we must go on paying MPs ever more because if we pay peanuts we get monkeys, there are three responses. First of all, when you add up handsome salary, handsome expenses and no supervision we are not talking peanuts; secondly, the number of people who want to be MPs is absolutely enormous, so clearly the conditions are attractive; and thirdly, I’d rather have a bunch of monkeys there than the useless misfits we have now.

Which brings me to the main point not made either by the signatories of that letter or the commenters on the Toryboy blog or by David Cameron himself. You can mess around with salaries, expenses, telling the truth in Budget speeches (that’ll be the day) and getting rid of spin doctors (ditto).

The truth, the harsh, unvarnished truth is that there is no point to the House of Commons or to MPs.

Let us go through it systematically. The House of Commons is supposed to legislate and hold the Executive to account. It never does the latter. The only body within the British constitutional structure that still does it to an extent is the unpaid House of Lords and, with the help of the House of Commons, it has been emasculated and is to be destroyed completely.

Legislation no longer happens in the Commons. Between seventy and eighty per cent of it comes from Brussels, often bypassing Parliament completely. Even if it does hit Parliament, it cannot be rejected. Scrutiny, even if there were time to do it thoroughly, without the right of rejection or amendment is not legislation. It is akin to rearranging those famous deckchairs on the Titanic.

A good deal of the legislation both European and domestic, often intermingled, is produced by quangos, who are also responsible for implementing laws and rules. A good deal of the legislation that does go through Parliament is nothing more than the implementation of rules created by tranzis, starting with the UN and its many off-shoots.

In other words, MPs have abandoned all their duties and, while most people probably do not know the details of the EU or suchlike matters there is a widespread if unfocused understanding that there is no point in voting as that changes nothing. This is not because they are all the same, though that is true as well, but because they, the politicians, are not in a position to change anything and when they tell us otherwise, they are lying on a scale no politician has lied before.

This situation means that there is no trust in the political process either. What is the point of those constitutional structures, worked out over the centuries, if none of them function in any acceptable way?

The other side of the coin is that in the little that has been left to the politicians to deal with, they micromanage. No part of our lives is safe from their grubby little fingers: not education, not behaviour, not whether we need plastic carrier bags or not.

For a lot of people politics begins at home or as near to home as possible. I don’t mean local government, which is often more corrupt than the national one, but local institutions that people should run themselves – charities, organizations, schools, playgroups etc.

It has become impossible to keep politicians, pettifogging regulators and legislators to keep out of any of this. So, people who might contribute a great deal to society by involving themselves in those organizations, do not do so. They opt out and concentrate on their own and their families' lives, while the bureaucrats produce ever more forms and MPs, having voluntarily surrendered all their real powers, fill up their time by passing more and more fiddling legislation that takes up other people's time, money and energy.

No, we do not trust politics or politicians, Mr Cameron and ladies and gentlemen of the Conservative Party. Nor shall we until you at least show some understanding of where the problem lies. Oh and stop fiddling while Rome burns. It is not an edifying sight.

COMMENT THREAD

The things done in the name of being green

The Metro newspaper, one of London’s freebies, has a special section on its website on the subject of Green Hysteria Climate Watch, which, interestingly enough, never publishes a single article that does not fit the accepted we-are-about-to-die-by-drought-or-flooding-or-whatever because of the wicked Americans and their supporters who will not sign up to Kyoto.

For instance we have seen little reference among all the hysterical hype about what might or might not happen in the next fifty years and how we must all go back to the Stone Age in order to preserve Mother Earth to the following:

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels decreased by 1.3 percent in 2006, from 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2 in 2006, according to preliminary estimates released today by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), grew by 3.3 percent and energy demand fell by 0.9 percent indicating that energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) fell by 4.2 percent. Carbon dioxide intensity (CO2 emission per unit of GDP) fell by 4.5 percent.

This compares rather well with the non-reduction among all the Kyoto signatories.

A long posting on Umbrella 3 that is seriously inclusive in the topics it covers.

The time has come ....

...for the Conservative Party to give us all some idea of what it stands for and on what platform, broadly speaking, it intends to fight the next election (now even less likely to happen this autumn). David Cameron has now been leader for almost two years and he has spent a great deal of time proclaiming his desire, readiness and ability to reform the party, to go forward, to change things if needs be.

Yes, yes, yes. But what are those new ideas that are going to carry the party and its supporters forward into power and thence into the history books to rival Margaret Thatcher’s well assured position?

Well thanks to the editor and deputy editor of the Toryboy blog we have been directed to David Cameron’s speech today in Millbank Tower, delivered to CCHQ staff, candidates and journalists.

In the subsequent discussion on the blog, the Deputy Editor, one Sam Coates, dismissed criticisms with the words “give the cynicism a break, this is exciting stuff”. I like the lad but I do think he should get out more. As I have already pointed out, cynicism is the new favourite accusation levelled by Tories at anyone who raises objections. They are all turning into Madeleine Bassetts. (Mind you, when I mentioned this wonderful role model to wannabe Tory Mayoral candidate, Andrew Boff, when he asked me why I was so cynical, he assured me that he had never heard of her, never read any books and did not believe in book-learning. What an example to us all.)

So, believing that it is time for the Conservative Party to come up with some answers to those troubling questions we all keep asking (they want our votes so they do have to come up with some answers) I read the speech through, line by line. Actually, there are not that many lines in it, as the Boy-King’s speeches abide by the normal political pattern of short sentences and wide spaces between the lines.

I can see why he might need to have it typed up like that for the delivery but why keep it like that for those who might want to read it? Perhaps, because he assumes that none of us can read very well and need all the help we can get. I suppose we ought to be grateful the speech is not all in capitals.

Actually, it is well constructed, so somebody in his team has finally grasped the rules of rhetoric. There is a hypnotic repetition of “You don’t need a Citizens [sic] Jury for that, you just need a Conservative Government” and an apostrophe but let that pass.

Citizens’ Juries are fair game, being one of Gordon Brown’s dafter ideas among his so-called constitutional reforms.

Another hypnotic repetition comes towards the end. I don’t mean the several references to “that’s modern Conservatism”, a statement that remains meaningless, especially with the word “compassionate” pushed in there. We really do not need your compassion, young David. Nobody does. But there are several references to Conservatives believing in freedom, which is the only way one can have responsibilities as well as rights.

Goody-goody I thought. I must have missed the explanation of what the Boy-King meant by freedom in the speech. So, dutifully, I went back to find it. Frankly, if young Tories like the Deputy Editor of Toryboy blog, find this stuff exciting, we really are in trouble.

The dullest, vaguest, most generalized political burble it was, giving a little bit here and a little bit there but never anything new and exciting. Goodness me, what’s with these youngsters? Don’t they want any genuinely radical ideas?

It is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to sneer at and attack the Prime Minister and, to be fair, the Boy-King does it with some panache. Then what?

He tells us about the country as it is likely to be under a Conservative government (shades of that unfortunate Hague speech):

But I want you to imagine an education system where parents have a real choice of strong, independent schools within the state sector that set their own rules on discipline …

… where the teachers are happy and proud to do their jobs without interference from on high …

… where the kids are well behaved because the parents have made a commitment to that school and a real emotional investment in it.

Does this mean some kind of a general reform is being envisaged that will change the entire educational system? Well, errm, no. As we know from previous pronouncements, Our Dave is not really interested in doing anything except tinkering at the edges – those failing schools – and supporting the City Academies introduced by Labour.

Imagine an NHS …

… where you can go to your GP and they have the freedom to get the best care for your needs instead of being bogged down in rules and regulations …

... where the local hospital is being saved and improved instead of being closed down …

… and where the doctors and nurses have the time and the energy to treat you like a king instead of having to give you the brush-off because of all the red tape and targets they’re drowning in.

Are we to expect a radical reform of the health service in this country turning it from the old-socialist creaking machinery into a new and capable one, worthy of this country and of the amount of money that is being spent on it? I think not.

We don’t need Citizens Juries to work out what to do about social breakdown - everyone knows what needs to happen.

You start with strong families, and then you need discipline in schools, active policing on the streets, strong communities with things for young people to do.

You need welfare reform to get people off benefits and into work, tough punishments
when people break the law, and every citizen to play their part in delivering it.

Imagine a world where you know your local police officer and they know you because they’re out there in the community, free of all the ridiculous targets and paperwork and accountable to you because you voted for their boss.

Tax reform to ensure that those on low income do not pay any and, therefore, do not have to claim benefits? Not that I know of. In fact, do not mention tax reform or public sector reform. The Tories are committed to spending as much as Labour on the public sector. Probably more.

Imagine local councils that are free to respond to the needs of the local area because they have real power instead of being secondguessed by Whitehall the whole time.

They know their areas, the problems, the opportunities … give them the money, let them get on with the job and let the local population use the ballot box to reward the good and chuck out the bad.

Give them the money, eh? So, we are not looking at any ideas of locally raised taxes to spend by local councils to be accountable to the local population? Doesn’t look like it. No freedom there, folks. We’ll tell you the extent of that freedom and how much money you can spend.

This must be the most puzzling of all the statements:

Imagine a Britain where a government says to its people we want you to keep more of the money you earn to spend as you choose …
because we will share the proceeds of economic growth instead of spending all the money ourselves.

Call me old-fashioned but I have always assumed that the best way for people to keep more of the money they earn, thus taking responsibility for many more parts of their existence, is …. errm …. not have that money taken away in tax to “share the proceeds of economic growth”. What on earth does this mean? Who is this we? Is the government responsible for economic growth and the money one earns? Are we entitled only to the share the government decides we should have?

Oh and by the way, how’s that about not spending all the money ourselves? Matter of semantics maybe but it seems to me that if you decide how the money, which is not yours, is to be shared out, you are spending it yourselves.

Still, apparently, it’s OK to bang on about Europe now.

Forget about those on the left who say I shouldn’t talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes …

… or those on the right who say I shouldn’t talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.

That is a false choice and I will not make it.

All these areas of policy matter to people in Britain today and they are all long overdue for the modern Conservative freedom and control agenda.

It was just those nasty people on the left. Our Dave always wanted to talk about Europe. Well, not too much, you understand but certainly a call for a referendum, because it has been promised. Sufficient unto the day, I suppose.

Of course, it is nonsense to say that people on the right do not want him to talk about the NHS or the environment. What they would like to see is some new and radical ideas not that hokum he keeps coming up with, which involves more tax, more regulation and no freedom from the state run public sector.

As for well-being, I really do not see who on any side of the party wants him to talk about it. Sadly, it reminds me of Stalin’s triumphant pronouncement: “Zhit’ stalo lutchshe, zhit’ stalo veselee”. Life has become better, life has become happier. What kind of an idea is that for a Conservative leader to aspire to?

COMMENT THREAD

Convincing only himself

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

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

COMMENT THREAD

One dead fox

Asked by Nigel Farage – who does have some use, occasionally - whether the Boy King could lead us into the sunlit uplands by taking us out of the Social Chapter, no less than el presidente Barroso responded on behalf of the EU commission, telling the UKIP leader:

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

That's rather shot Cameron's fox, methinks.

COMMENT THREAD

This has to be copied out

Further on the infantilization of political life: today's Evening Standard, whose website is probably the worst of all newspapers, carries a column by Francis Wheen, who is always good value. Though very much a man of the left, his generally splenetic attitude means that I agree with much of what he says.

He seems to have picked up another great pronouncement from the Boy-King of the Conservative Party. Let me quote his short item in full:

According to David Cameron, everyone in the country is saying the same thing about Tony Blair: "Hello? It's over." Way to go Dave! I hope he tries out his teenspeak at PMQs tomorrow, if only to provoke the PM into replying, "I'm, like, so not over", followed by an exchange like this:

"Yeah, right. The Rt Hon. Gentleman is rinsed. He's rank!"
"Your mum! I'm buzzing, I'm mint, I'm proper nang. Innit?"
"Yadda, yadda, yadda. Talk to the hand, 'cos the face is in Spain."

Whereupon the Speaker intervenes with a cry of "Order! Keep it real." And a sulky murmur comes from the chastened leaders on the front benches: "Whatever..."

Then again, this would be a good deal funnier if I could not imagine it happening with more or less those words.

PS I have had complaints from some readers about the plethora of pictures of the Boy-King on this blog, which causes nausea in said readers. So, I have provided a picture of Francis Wheen speaking in Budapest at a conference on Karl Marx. There's glory for you.

COMMENT THREAD

Unfit for office

Although the Sunday Telegraph is trying to spin it in a way that makes it sound as if the Boy King has taken a firm line of the EU constitution - and thus lay claim to Eurosceptic credentials - he also writes his own opinion piece.

There, the Boy writes: "With reform, Europe can be a force for good." He actually means the European Union, so the man is either being deliberately obtuse, or is genuinely stupid, in not making the difference clear.

Next month, he goes on to tell us, the European Union will mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community, the forerunner of today's EU. "Exhausted by war, fearful of Soviet Communism on Europe's doorstep, and with economies in a state of collapse, the EU (EEC shurley?) was the post-war generation's response to the realities of the day."

Actually, it was the response of some tired old men – the post-war generation was never consulted – but we'll let that one pass. Says the Boy, half a century later there are new realities … but "sadly, there is no new EU".

But, he tells us. "Europe can change", and "I believe that Europe has a responsibility to change. It has a responsibility to its own people - to help foster the conditions for economic success in an age of fiercely competitive globalisation; and it has a responsibility to the wider world - to be a force for good in tackling global challenges like poverty and climate change."

Excuse me Boy… "its own people"? And just who might they be?

Anyhow, the Cameron "big idea" is that "we have a great opportunity to lead Europe in a new direction." We can "move away from the culture of centralisation and regulation towards a new flexibility and dynamism." We can "reform the EU so it that it looks outwards to the world, not inwards to itself."

All that has to happen, people, is that, "The EU must end its addiction to regulation and embrace the habits of prosperity and enterprise," it must "push the WTO to reduce tariffs and stand up unequivocally for free and fair trade for the developing world" and then… "it must become a force for a cleaner, greener planet."

Those of us who care about Europe's future, he says, "must make the EU confront its endemic flaws." And to do that, he has the "European Reform Commission". It will do just that…

In March we hold our inaugural conference in Brussels, where some of the EU's leading politicians will listen to, and learn from, a range of public policy experts. Together we will set out an agenda for European reform, and explore practical reform proposals.

The conference will also launch a comprehensive and detailed review of the EU's policies, priorities, institutional capabilities and budget based on the Movement for European Reform's three commitments: open markets, a Europe of nation states and a strong Atlantic relationship.

The European Reform Commission will publish its recommendations in 2008, and it will be open to all those individuals, organisations, businesses and political parties in Europe who share our determination to make the EU work better.

Please, please, please tell me that he doesn't believe this guff … that it is just a wind-up. Please tell me that he knows about Intergovernmental Conferences … that he knows about the need for unanimity to achieve treaty changes … that he knows that all he suggests would require treaty changes …

But the sad truth is that he probably doesn't. Like so many dismal Tory fantasists before him, he is locked in never-never land where he thinks that all he has to do is toddle off to Brussels and say "pretty please" - and the "colleagues" will immediately roll over and give him everything he wants. So, in that never-never land, he trots out the same mindless Europhile drivel that his predecessors have done for so many decades.

This is the man who, as prime minister, would represent us in "Europe". If he believes that drivel, he is a dangerous cretin, and unfit for office. He doesn't believe it, then he should not be saying it. That makes him unfit for office. Either way, then, he is unfit for office.

COMMENT THREAD