Yesterday in Parliament

Tucked away in prime ministers' questions yesterday (held by Harperson deputising) was a question from the redoubtable Ann Winterton. She asked for confirmation that:

… the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors.

According to Ann, there was a sudden hush in the House - an embarrassed silence – almost as if someone had done something unmentionable in church. Then Harperson, dutifully briefed by her gifted civil servants, delivered her "non-answer". The "real reason", she said, was "the analysis in the Hooper report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007."

Now, this is an interesting response, as the Hooper Report tells us that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail is ... er ... European Union postal legislation, and also EU state aid rules.

Basically, says Hooper, Royal Mail needs to modernise, which requires considerable investment. But "that transformation would have to be carried out under European rules on restructuring aid." That in turn would "impose considerable restraints" and thus take time. But, unless Royal Mail can modernise faster than EU rules would allow, "a forced restructuring under European rules is highly likely."

That, concludes Hooper, "would be a costly and poor outcome for the taxpayer, for consumers, for Royal Mail and its employees." By contrast, he adds, "private capital is generally more flexible and more tolerant of necessary risk. It can be raised more easily, faster and for a wider range of purposes and does not come at the cost of competing public priorities."

Thus does Hooper recommend that "there should be a strategic partnership between Royal Mail and one or more private sector partners." And, while the precise nature of such a partnership is a matter for the Government to negotiate, at its core, "will be Royal Mail's obligations under the universal service, as required under EU and UK law." The UK law, incidentally, largely transposes EU law.

Why Royal Mail cannot fund its modernisation programme from its own resources is explained by Booker in his column. Here, the problem is Britain's keenness to comply with three EU postal services directives, designed to end national postal monopolies by 2010 and to promote "cross-border" integration of the EU's postal services.

Because of these, Royal Mail had to surrender the most profitable part of its operations, when bulk business mailing was opened up to rival firms. It still has to deliver business mail, for a knock-down price of 14p an item, while the 19 companies that bid successfully for the business of collecting and sorting them cream off all the profits. This was a major factor turning Royal Mail's profits into a £179 million annual loss, which means it has no money for its modernisation programme.

As to why other European postal services have not been similarly affected, Hooper himself notes that "the UK has been amongst the first countries in Europe to open the postal sector to competition." In other words, this is exactly the situation described by Booker.

So why was there such a deathly hush in the House? Well … the Conservatives are supporting the Government, against the Labour back benches, to get the legislation passed.

The last thing the Tories want is for it to be known that the privatisation programme is entirely driven by the EU, thus putting the party in a position of supporting EU rules. This, with the euro-elections coming up, would not conform with their new-found (and temporary) image as a eurosceptic party.

Thus we had the hush of anticipation, bolstered by a frisson of fear, in case Harperson gave the game away. When she did not – and, of course, she was not going to – there was a collective sigh of relief. Business continued as usual – in Europe and ruled by Europe … but this must never be admitted.

COMMENT THREAD

Not all that illogical

It would seem that the people of Germany (or, at least, some of them) are more logical than the journalists of, among others, Der Spiegel. Nothing surprising in that – to be a journalist these days involves taking classes in complete unthinking.

A couple of days ago this article appeared, full of surprise at the apparent illogicality of the people. Here we are in the middle of a serious financial crisis (though not actually a melt-down unless governments collectively make it worse) and yet the free-market politicians are gaining popularity. How can that be?

This surprise is predicated on an extraordinary misreading of the situation. Extraordinary in the sense of being completely and utterly wrong but not in the sense of being surprising. The assumption on which what passes for thinking in the media is based is that somehow miraculously we live in unfettered capitalism, free markets and government so small as to be almost invisible.

I recall something along those lines being peddled during the foot-and-mouth catastrophe. Look, I was told, look what happens when markets take over food production. To which, I could only reply: "You what?"

Agriculture and food production, I tried to explain, were more controlled by government (mostly the Brussels one but that's all the same,) least market driven part of our economy. How is FMD the fault of the markets?

How is the fiscal crisis the fault of the markets given the astonishing amount of incoherent control and high taxation that has been the lot of the business community and, particularly, the more entrepreneurial part of it.

Even if the great brains of Der Spiegel do not understand this, the people of Germany seems to have got an inkling; only an inkling so far but who knows what that might lead to.

When it came to Germany's upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, the decisive moment actually came days before last Friday's vote. Normally seen as little more than a formality, the body's approval was far from assured until the middle of last week. And the reason for the nail-biter can be found in an unexpected place.

With the economy in a shambles, financial markets frozen and capitalists in disrepute, Germany's neo-liberal political party, the Free Democrats (FDP), are enjoying remarkable success in both the polls and the voting booth. Its newfound self-confidence combined with double-digit survey results could shake up Germany's political landscape ahead of national elections scheduled for the end of September.

The first indication that the business-friendly FDP was on the upswing came in the state of Hesse, home to Germany's financial center Frankfurt. In late January state elections, the FDP raked in 16.2 percent of the vote, much higher than what the party normally receives. The success landed the FDP in the state's governing coalition -- and handed it enough leverage to block legislation in the Bundesrat.

In the end the party went along with that "stimulus" package that will stimulate nothing but the precedent has been set. Maybe it will be Germany that will start seeing the benefits of a genuinely free economy.

COMMENT THREAD

Sad

"Gordon Brown appeals to US Congress for help to save the world", headlines The Daily Telegraph.

This man definitely hasn't got the hang of the saving the planet business. He wants help? What kind of a superhero is that?

COMMENT THREAD

Media bias?

Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute laments about how the media networks are mostly ignoring signs of cooling. She has a point.

If you go to Google News and type in "cooling trend", you get 45 hits. Try the same thing with "global cooling" and you will get 177. Now do "global warming" and you get 26,993 stories. For "climate change" you will find 48,791.

There is, nevertheless, hope for us yet. One of those "climate change" stories is from The Guardian which has a scandalised Lord Drayson, now in his role as science minister, complaining that "Industry leaders [are] denying climate change" (pictured visiting NASA).

There is, says Drayson, "an urgent need to restate the scientific evidence for global warming" and he calls for companies to "focus on their environmental obligations".

This is the same Lord Drayson who was once our defence procurement minister, he who famously got up in the House of Lords in June 2006 and proclaimed that, "the Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need." He was then famously over-ruled by his boss who told him to go out and buy some decent protected vehicles.

That, in many ways, tells you as much as you need to know about Drayson but it is entertaining to note that a so-called "science minister" is "shocked" at the number of "climate change deniers" among senior industrialists. Of those who acknowledged that global temperatures were rising, he says, "many blamed it on variations in the sun's activity."

Furthermore, says the scandalised Drayson, "There is a significant minority of senior managers who do not accept the evidence for climate change and don't see the need to take action." He adds: "It really shocked me that those views are held, and it's not limited to the car industry."

We can only express some optimism that, despite the huge media bias and the stupidity of a man who should immediately present himself to Trading Standards and report himself for misrepresentation, there is still a significant number of industrialists who do not buy into the scare.

However, it seems that we're not even allowed to call them sceptics any more. Do you see a trend emerging here?

COMMENT THREAD

The reality is worse

There has been some fluttering in the dovecotes over an imagined conspiracy of silence over EU bank debt. This arises from an unexplained change in an article published under Bruno Waterfield's byline on 11 February.

The original copy was headed: "European banks may need £16.3 trillion bail out, EC document warns," claiming access to a "secret document" which put an estimate of toxic debt in the European banking system at that figure - £16.3 trillion.

The implications of this are truly staggering as the IMF estimates total global losses related to asset impairment at a "mere" $2.2 trillion, putting the potential European write-down at getting on for ten times the global figure.

Less than 24 hours later, however, the headline was changed to become "European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis". The specific reference to the £16.3 trillion had disappeared, along with two paragraphs of the original text.

Despite this, there is no conspiracy. I spoke to Bruno earlier today and he dismissed any such idea. Under pressure of a deadline, he had misread an obscure passage in the Annex to the document, which retailed speculations on what figures had been considered. The figure was not an estimate, per se, merely a record of what some had speculated it could be.

Bruno was not the only one to make the mistake. Guardian correspondent David Gow, made the same mistake, yet his article still stands, with a header: "Bank protectionism will destroy European single market, finance ministers warned".

The reality, though – Bruno tells me – is actually worse. There was no formal estimate as to the extent of the toxic debt in the European banking system because the commission has no idea of what it might be. Debt has been spread through the international system so much that no one is sure of the ownership, where the liabilities lies, or even the order of magnitude. It could be £16.3 trillion, it could be less – but it could be more. No one actually knows.

It is this uncertainty, more than anything else, which is crippling the system. That much is reflected in a comment in the IHT that refers to tensions between France and Germany over the crisis.

What worries everybody, but Merkel most of all – says the piece - is that no one knows how long the crisis will last or how much deeper it will go. No one knows if the economic stimulus measures introduced by several EU member states and the United States will safeguard growth. And above all, no one knows what will encourage the banks to start lending again.

Behind that is indeed the spectre at the feast – that uncertainty which prevents anyone suggesting that any measure, once and for all, can address the crisis and set the global economies on the path to recovery. Effective measures require at least some knowledge of the extent of the crisis, and knowledge there is none.

Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" cannot have been thinking of the global banking system.

COMMENT THREAD

What to do about Pakistan?

Of the many thought-provoking pieces on yesterday's atrocity, we see Melanie Phillips tell us that it "highlights the intimate connection between the two in a web of terror that spans the world."

Michael Burleigh tells us Pakistan presents a terrifying threat to world stability far greater than Iraq or Afghanistan, and The Daily Telegraph says, "It is no use blaming outsiders: the canker is within. Pakistan needs to wake up."

We have a direct interest as well as the broader strategic interest. What happens (or does not happen) in Pakistan directly impacts on the campaign in Afghanistan. To that extent, it is an Afg/Pak problem rather than an Afghani problem. Can one be solved without the other? Many doubt it.

Could stability in Afghanistan serve as a beacon for Pakistan, illustrating what can be achieved, or will the campaign in Afghanistan necessarily fail unless we also deal with Pakistan. And, short of invading that country as well, what can we do?

COMMENT THREAD

Do we care?

There was a time when we did care … and wrote about it in impassioned terms, such as here , here and here.

Months later, we see this piece suggesting that Tory MPs need to grow up. We didn't write it. But we agree with it. They will not – and by failing so to do they doom themselves to irrelevance.

They will gain office, but not power. There are bigger games afoot, and they will not be part of them.

COMMENT THREAD

Reality is a nasty place

Simon Heffer offers a laborious analysis today, which amounts to a prediction that the euro might not survive the recession. Or is it wishful thinking?

In a way, the euro is like the bumble bee – in theory neither can fly but they do. The euro should have nose-dived many times, but it has led a charmed life and continues on, despite the gathering clouds of the economic storm.

The point that Heffer makes, though, is two-edged. Invoking Milton Friedman, he asserts that "there has never been a monetary union, putting out a fiat currency, composed of independent states. There have been unions based on gold or silver, but not on fiat money – money tempted to inflate – put out by politically independent entities."

What perhaps he misses is the qualifier "politically independent entities", in which context there is an alternative that he does not fully explore … that the "entities" cease to be independent.

The essence of the European "project" is that there has emerged a European political class, where the ruling élites have more in common with each other than the people they govern. We have also seen of late more than a little nervousness amongst those élites about the prospect of civil unrest, and not a few of them must have looked anxiously at Iceland and then Latvia, where the governments have been deposed.

The idea of "independence", therefore, is strictly one for the proles. This is not something that will at all bother the élites – their concern is survival and their own protection. And, having conspired against their own peoples for so long, the driving force amongst them will likely be, "hang together or hang separately".

For all their comedic elements, we see in the statements of Joaquin Almunia and others of the "colleagues" a determination to stretch the rules to breaking point and beyond. When it comes to the Treaty provisions and what is legal and what is not, we are well beyond the stage of keeping within the treaty boundaries. The "colleagues" will do whatever it takes to survive.

Effectively, in so baldly stating that, "It's not clever to tell you in public…" what they intend to do, Almunia is admitting that they have torn up the rule book and are flying by the seat of their pants.

Thus, we would like to think – as indeed does Heffer assert – that national interest will prevail, and in so doing bring down the euro and thence the whole edifice of the EU. But there is a greater, stronger interest at play – the interest of our ruling élites as a collective.

As long as they feel safer together, and can look to each other for mutual support, national interest will take second place. In there lies reality, where the rulers are responsible to their peoples and accountable for their actions.

That, for the "colleagues" is a nasty place to be and they do not want to go there. They will do everything in their power to prevent it happening.

COMMENT THREAD

Brown says …

… Britain could have been stricter in its supervision of financial markets, but defended his response to the global financial crisis. "We should have been tougher in some areas," he tells the BBC.

"But …". This is a politician talking, so there's always a "but".

".... there is a whole series of issues where you needed international cooperation because you are dealing essentially with global financial flows and you cannot solve that problem unless you have the kind of international supervision that I think you'll admit I've been pressing for 10 years."

So that's alright then! Not my fault, guv!

COMMENT THREAD

One law for them …

It's OK for Brown to say it in parliament, but "illegal" in a cleaners' restroom? It could be "intimidating" for non-British workers.

COMMENT THREAD

Secret squirrel

Armageddon Ambrose has recorded the response of Joaquin Almunia, EU economics commissioner, to the growing crisis in the eurozone.

"We are equipped intellectually, politically and economically to face this crisis scenario, " says our Joaquin. EMU economies in distress can count on EU solidarity if they get into trouble. They do not, as the wise and noble Mr Brown suggests, have to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund.

Thus speaks Joaquin, "It is clear that there are serious problems in certain countries. If a crisis emerges in one eurozone country, there is a solution before visiting the IMF."

"The solution exists," he says, then lowering his voice … but "It's not clever to tell you in public. " In fact, he might have said, it's a secret squirrel solution - it's so secret, we're not even going to tell ourselves what it is!

But, with this secret solution, the probability of a eurozone break-up is "zero". And such is Joaquin's boundless confidence that he roundly declares: "Who is crazy enough to leave the euro area? Nobody. The number of candidates to join is growing."

With such amazing "intellectual equipment" on display, who can possibly have any doubt that this crisis is drawing to a close? Never mind that Ambrose is telling us that the " crossover index" measuring default risk on low-grade corporate bonds jumped above 1,100 yesterday, nearing the panic levels after the Lehman collapse last year.

Who cares that Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel, the chief economist of the OECD club of rich states, is saying that, "Some of these countries are facing a big crisis. This is not only a balance-or-payments crisis, it is also financial crisis with a risk of default on debt"?

Why should we even begin to care that the "massive accumulation of foreign debt" creates the risk of repeating the Mexican and Asian blow-ups in the 1990s?

Secret squirrel is on the case. Nothing can go wring.

COMMENT THREAD

Round and round the same track

As Der Spiegel reports:

An international conference in Egypt on Monday resulted in $4.48 billion (€3.5 billion) in new pledges to help rebuild the Gaza Strip and fund the Palestinian government. The donors who gathered in the resort of Sharm el-Sheik gave a powerful boost to the moderate Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas while seeking to isolate the militant Hamas movement, which controls Gaza.

That would be our money, the various taxpayers of the Western world because we strongly suspect that most of the funds will be coming from the United States, the EU and the separate European countries.

More money to go on rockets that can be fired into Israel and on vicious propaganda that turns children into psychopaths. Woops, no, the money is to go to Fatah the "moderate" wing of the Palestinian polity and to bypass Hamas. Exactly how is that going to be achieved?

Fatah has no control over Gaza and its supporters are routinely arrested, beaten up, tortured and murdered by Hamas, as even Amnesty International has acknowledged. Were we not told that the aid sent into Gaza a while ago was not going to go to Hamas but the people of Gaza? Well, Hamas simply helped themselves to the food and the blankets.

As it happens, Egypt, where the conference took place, is very carefully keeping its borders with Gaza closed as well and controls very tightly what goes in and what comes out of that unfortunate area. Even the reporter of Der Spiegel wonders how the reconstruction of Gaza can begin in those circumstances (not to mention the fact that the truth of what has really happened there during the Israeli attack has not been clearly spelled out with Hamas doing its best to obfuscate the situation).

Some German journalists are saying that it is impossible to reconstruct anything or create a lasting solution without Hamas. Even they are not convinced, as it is reasonably clear that there can be no lasting solution with Hamas. They are not interested in any solutions short of Israel's destruction that, even if they can achieve it, will not exactly produce peace and prosperity for the Palestinians. After all, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza produced nothing except a base from which endless rockets could be fired into that country.

Rockets are being fired now and there is some speculation that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton intend to signal to Israel that it would be best if they did not attack Gaza again, no matter what sort of shelling they have to put up with. Otherwise, there will be angry donor nations to face up to who will not like to see the destruction of what their aid has created.

That sounds like a departure from the usual pattern. In the first place, a good deal of the aid, namely from the Arab countries will never get there; in the second place, much of what does get there will be stolen; in the third place, any reconstruction will get bogged down in corruption, inefficiency and a civil war. And the rockets will go on being fired.

By the time the Israelis once again decide that enough is enough either there would have been a change in the Administration or, at least, a new Secretary of State or the present incumbents will have learnt the lesson every American government has to learn over and over again: Hamas does not want peace and will work very hard to make sure that there is none. Meanwhile, we all carry on paying for this lunacy.

COMMENT THREAD

That explains it …

Following our piece earlier today on the change in policy toward Afghani redevelopment, we see in the Guardian News Blog a piece on the French forces in Afghanistan.

The strap, in part, reads: "Roadbuilding in a far-flung valley under the guard of French forces augurs well. " Embedded in the piece, we read:

On the other hand, the breathing space won by the French has allowed work on the road to begin along the lower reaches of the Panjshir river. It is due to be given an asphalt surface within three weeks. After years of pleading from Afghan provincial governors, roads are at the centre of the new strategy being pursued in Afghanistan by the head of Central Command, General David Petraeus, and the force commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan.

Last year, the Taliban succeeded in making the main road that rings the country more or less impassable as it passed through the south, suffocating much of the economic gains the government and its foreign backers are trying to eke out.

"We would not even have thought of building this road a few months ago," Spellmon said. When it is completed, trucks will no longer have to sit in long lines in the congested capital on the way north. It will also mean that the seedless pomegranates, for which the Pashtun villages of southern Kapisa are famous, can be taken more rapidly to more markets.

There had to be a reason for the sudden shift in policy that we observed – and thus we see the fingerprints of David Petraeus, leader of the "surge" in Iraq. Note the quoted excerpt: "After years of pleading from Afghan provincial governors, roads are at the centre of the new strategy being pursued in Afghanistan …".

After a redevelopment strategy based around "feel-good" projects, heavily biased towards schools, clinics, gender development schemes, and thousands upon thousands of latrines (I kid you not), it seems that sense is prevailing. The people on the ground have been calling for a shift in priorities for years and, with Petraeus in post, their calls have been heeded.

The interesting thing is that this is a genuine and important shift in policy which, if maintained, could make a strategic difference. But, as we observed earlier, so distant is the media from the reality, it has not taken on board the importance of what is happening.

One can’t avoid noting either that, once again, the Tories have missed a trick. It has been evident for some time that the development priorities have been badly skewed and that infrastructure has not been given the importance it needs. Had the Tories picked this up and been calling for change, they could be preening themselves, claiming a victory. That is one of the arts of good opposition.

But, as always, guess who has recently been making the running! To give him his due, Michael Ancram was on the case in 2004 but, as with so many things, there was no follow-up.

Despite that, things may not look as bleak as we thought, even if there is a long way to go yet.

COMMENT THREAD

Warming on hold

This is getting like the latter days of the BSE scare. When the panic over "mad cow disease" was rampant and half a million people were going to die every year from it, the incubation period was two years. When the epidemic did not materialise, it became five years and when, obstinately, the epidemic still did not appear, it became ten and then 20 …

Eventually, we hypothesised that the incubation period was really 100 years. We would all die of BSE but for one minor problem … we were all going to die of old age first. And so it is with global warming. It looks as if an awful lot of people are going to be in their graves before we next see any of the blessings of higher temperatures.

That is according to Kyle Swanson and his climate team at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Following a 30-year trend of warming, they have finally recognised that global temperatures have flat lined since 2001 "despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Swanson, however, is not going to let go of his one true God. Global warming has only "gone into hiding". While the current cooling trend may continue for 30 years, that is "just a hiccup". With humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gasses, it will certainly come back to haunt us.

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," says Swanson. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."

That should see him nicely through to his pension and beyond, giving him and his many fellow-travellers plenty of time to continue their careers before it the final whistle blows on the most expensive scare in history – an ingenious device which enables evidence of cooling to be discounted.

Unfortunately, it also gives plenty of time for the "colleagues" in Brussels to play their dire games, although some of these seem to be grounding not on the evidence of cooling but lack of money.

EU environment ministers met yesterday in Brussels to consider EU aid to "poorer countries" to enable them to reduce their own emissions, only to confront the spectre of having to find €175 billion per year by 2020.

Somewhat daunted by the prospect of a sum which is actually bigger than the entire EU budget, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas noted that, "We were not quite able to reach consensus on the financing mechanism." He added darkly, "This is an issue where the (EU) council (of nations) will need more discussion time."

Perhaps Mr Dimas should consult Kyle Swanson. According to him, they might have 30 years. But, by the end of that period, it will become 40 and then 50 and then 60. Eventually, we're all going to die of global warming but for one minor problem …

COMMENT THREAD

There's no business like snow business

Gordon Brown's attempts to portray himself as a global leader in a time of crisis have been dealt a blow by … Washington's worst snowstorm in years. Downing Street officials discovered last night that Prime Minister would not, as had been widely reported, hold a joint press conference with President Obama after their talks at the White House today.

British officials, denying any deliberate snub, said that the event planned in the Rose Garden had been cancelled because the grounds of the White House are blanketed in snow.

COMMENT THREAD

Who are they kidding?

The EU commission is very worried about the collapse of the recycling market, with "growing concern" that it may result in increased landfilling.

It suggests that it is crucially important to maintain "public trust" in recycling and also maintain the existing targets. And its solution to the pressing problem of "maintaining public trust"? Ah! The council and the commission are to "make a public statement".

Problem solved!

COMMENT THREAD

Tories v UKIP

Just to prove that what I sounded (for the time being) was the Reveille, not the Last Post, here is an article about the latests brouhaha between UKIP and the Conservatives. Disregarding past experience the Tories have decided to go for what they consider to be their greatest enemy - UKIP.

Tactically, this is about as stupid a thing to do as anyone can think of. Firstly, UKIP is a small party and, therefore, it does not appear to be quite the most appropriate thing for Her Majesty's Opposition to concentrate fire on it. Secondly, the Tories are trying to build up their image as the "real" eurosceptic party. From their point of view, therefore, it appears to make sense to attack the one rival in that field (actually, now there are two with the BNP acquiring a following) but from the point of view of the electorate it seems rather odd that the fire should be reserved for their putative allies rather than their enemy. Thirdly, providing UKIP with badly needed publicity may not be quite what the Tories really want.

As it happens, I do not agree with the boss about Robin Page. I consider the man to be a crashing bore with the political nous of a backward gnat. His whining about his maltreatment at the hands of UKIP leaves me cold as, I suspect from past experience, that he is really miffed because of not being given sufficient respect. Tant pis.

Whoever engineered the Robin Page story may well live to regret it. The net result of it has been more coverage of UKIP in the media, both old and new, than it has had for a long time with Nigel Farage coming out fighting in the Daily Telegraph. I think the boss is wrong - neither UKIP nor Farage are finished any more than they were finished all those other times it was predicted by many.

I had better declare something resembling an interest here. In a way, I am responsible for recruiting Nigel Farage into what was then the Anti-Federalist League and he played some part in my purge from what afterwards became the UK Independence Party. Therefore, I have known about the Farage problem (if I may call it that) and the general UKIP problem for some time - longer than most people who sound off on the subject. And I still think the Tories are making a tactical mistake but there is very little space for them to manoeuvre in.

At present, the Conservative campaign for the European Parliament seems to be, roughly speaking, vote for us or you will get socialism and federalism with the rider that if you vote UKIP then you will also get socialism and federalism because Labour will get more seats. There are so many things wrong with that argument that it is difficult to know where to start.

Let me make a few points. Anyone who argues that MEPs can or that Tory MEPs will alter the EU's development either knows nothing about that organization or does not care about the truth as long as he or she can get in there. Furthermore, federalism is somewhat outdated; it is many years since most of us have realized that the EU is not intending to be a federalist state in the way the USA or Canada are.

In fact it matters very little who gets in to the Toy Parliament but, rightly or wrongly and I think wrongly, the Tories see the forthcoming June election as a trial run for next year's general one. If they do well in the European and local elections then the road to Number 10 will be open, which is the only thing they care about. What they will do when they get there is anybody's guess.

One of the bloggers to pick up the story is Iain Dale, who has a higher opinion of Nigel Farage than the boss does and has interviewed the man for next month's GQ Magazine. He, too, links to the article in the Independent, not precisely the best source for accurate information about politics in general and UKIP in particular, mostly because they have been wrong so often about so many things.

In this article we also have a throw-away comment about Professor Tim Congdon rejoining the Conservative Party. There have been rumours about disagreements between UKIP leadership and Professor Congdon before and the boss duly documented them at the time. It is hard to tell whether the good professor has gone the whole hog and rejoined the Tories as this is the only official claim I have seen of such a development.

When Professor Congdon left the Tories and joined UKIP he did so with flags flying and guns blazing. There was a long article in the Daily Telegraph that listed all the many things he found wrong with the Boy-King and his party. Most, if not all of those things are still there. That may be the reason why there has been so little publicity about the prodigal's return if, indeed, it has happened. Professor Congdon may not like the idea of having to explain why he has now decided to overlook all the problems he thought to be insurmountable two years ago.

Iain Dale also suggests that Malcolm Pearson may well be the next to follow. This is wishful thinking. In the first place, given the Lord Pearson's track record on the European issue from Maastricht onwards, the Tories would not really want him back but, more to the point, he really cares very passionately about it, believing not just that Britain must come out of the EU but that the entire Treaty of Rome should be torn up and we must start again.

In other words, both he and his colleague, Lord Willoughby de Broke are men of principle. That is about as far from the Conservative "eurosceptics" as one can be. I suspect that Nigel Farage will work considerably harder to keep the two peers on board than he would ever have bothered with the tiresome Robin Page, as they are of far greater use to UKIP and as he, though, perhaps, not every Tory, knows there are alternatives for them: the House of Lords still has a section for Cross-Bench, that is independent peers, a very valuable part of the House. Let us hope neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron (if it be he after the next election) get round to abolishing them.

The real problem the Tories have is that they have become a one-issue party as well. Their issue is "get rid of Gordon Brown". Nothing wrong with that and it will probably win them the next election though one can never be quite certain in a democracy but it is not sufficient for the future as John O'Sullivan, for one, has pointed out.

Why, I keep asking various ToryBoys and Girls, should I vote for you in the European election? Come to think of it, what are you going to do when you have got your snouts in the trough and your leader is in Number 10? Maybe, instead of telling us that a vote for UKIP is a vote for socialism (as, let's face it, a vote for the Tories is a vote for socialism) they should concentrate on answering that question.

COMMENT THREAD

Last man standing

An interesting article from The Independent on UKIP, in the wake of Robin Page's resignation.

There is also a letter in The Daily Telegraph from Farage (spool down). He says: "We will not allow the anti-EU voice in Britain to belong to the extremists." This, however, may no longer be within his power to control.

COMMENT THREAD

A glimmer of sense

In the absence of any coherent (or any) debate in the media on the important issue of how to tackle the insurgency in Afghanistan, a low-key snippet of news from the BBC is unlikely to have much impact – its significance barely appreciated outside a very small circle of analysts and officials.

That actually is a measure of the poverty of the debate in this country, for what we are being told is the UK is to commit an extra £50 million in development money to Afghanistan. But, more importantly, we find that the money is to pay for a new road in southern Helmand province and refurbishment of a power plant, as well as farming and job creation projects.

This comes from international development secretary Douglas Alexander, who has told the BBC that "tackling poverty was the best way to tackle the insurgency in the country." As such, this is not only the most sensible thing that Alexander has said, but it represents a paradigm shift in strategy in this benighted country, the result of much earnest behind-the-scenes discussion and debate.

Such is the inability of the media to understand what is and is not important, however –and its inability to sort the dross from information of value – that we only get the minimum of detail. Thus we are only told that the aid money has been earmarked for projects including construction of a major road linking the towns of Lashkar Gah and Gereshk (pictured above).

We also find that it will also go towards a hydro-electric plant to boost power supplies to Gereshk and agriculture and rural enterprise projects to create rural jobs.

Much will be written from time to time in the future, about the British military effort in Afghanistan, as if that was the totality of our contribution to fighting the insurgency, but this initiative – if it is implemented effectively – will have a greater long-term contribution to peace than a battalion of troops in their "boy racer" Jackals. Yet, you can bet, if another battalion had been despatched to Afghanistan, it would be all over the news, accompanied no doubt by much acreage of self-important pontification.

Interestingly, we see in The Guardian a piece headed, "Pomegranates not poppies", underlining the vital role of agricultural development in addressing the opium-growing problem in Afghanistan.

One smiles wryly and recalls that we were writing on precisely this point last June when we concluded that, if the trade was developed, it could have a very significant impact on the war.

Noting how there had been some welcome increases in high-value agricultural production, we wrote:

… in the final analysis, it is more of the same that is eventually going to beat the insurgency in Afghanistan. A supermarket buyer, waving a substantial contract, is probably worth more than a thousand troops – and certainly more than 10,000 aid officials.

The roads issue, on the other hand, is one we explored in depth last Sunday. But what the heck. We are only a lowly blog, way down the pecking order and not worthy of any attention from the high and mighty, so what do we know? Nevertheless, the fact is, that of all the dross you will read in the next few days, this little snippet of news from the BBC is of far-reaching importance.

If we are ever to get out of Afghanistan with our reputation intact, leaving behind a country that is moving towards peace and prosperity, then what has just been announced is the way to do it. For this glimmer of sense, we should be grateful.

I am cross-posting this on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

By their omissions …

There seems to be some interest in the news that a prime minister of a minor country today visited the president of the United States.

But the biggest news by far in Washington comprises two stories – firstly that Washington was to be the venue of "the largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in US history" and the second, that "global warming" (pictured) dumped over six inches of snow on the city, paralysing movement and reducing the demonstration to a rump of about 200 cold and disheartened warmists.

The hilarity of the situation was captured by Fox News, having been flagged up, well in advance by Watts up with that. It was the butt of satire from one site, and sombrely noted by National Review.

In the UK, therefore, it is of more than passing interest to note that the warmist Daily Telegraph was quick to report, "Snow storm carpets US east coast," telling us that, "A snow storm has carpeted the eastern United States, forcing the cancellation of thousands of flights."

But did it tells us that the event billed as "the largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in US history" was effectively cancelled by an unseasonable snowfall in what has been the coldest winter for at least a decade? Of course not. Despite the obvious news value of the juxtaposition, the Telegraph judged that this is something that its readers should not know. And if anyone really thinks the omission is anything other than deliberate, then they are in the land of the fairies.

This brings me to the substantive point of this post, which is to remind readers – if they needed it – of quite how much the news agenda is skewed by the MSM. The Telegraph should not be singled out in this respect. The BBC also failed to mention the cancelled demo, although you can guarantee that, had the attendance been as billed, it would have been all over the news and the website.

This rather reinforces the point we made earlier - that the control of the agenda is exercised as much by what they don't tell you as what they do. The former is, of course, much more insidious as it is far more difficult to be aware of what you are not being told.

But there is another equally insidious form of indoctrination which we highlight in the current post on Defence of the Realm. This is where an apparently plausible case is presented but which is based on little more than ignorance and dogma, which completely misrepresents the issues.

This is a common occurrence in defence issues and, while I write frequently on defence, I am very bad at drawing the wider conclusions about how the poor quality of reporting is merely an illustration of the widespread malaise.

Another issue – not commonly rehearsed – is how the media insults our intelligence. We are not more stupid (or intelligent) than we were in the 1920s and 30s, or any less interested in issues that affect us. Yet it was in that period that The Telegraph and then The Times appointed Basil Lidell-Hart as their defence correspondent.

In that capacity, Lidell-Hart wrote long and detailed appraisals of military issues, to a general audience, which was not only able to absorb the points he was making but was highly appreciative of them. He attracted a huge and knowledgeable correspondence, much of which was also published.

The way we are treated with contempt by our media is, therefore, of some concern. There are serious issues to hand, across a wide range of subjects, which need public debate. But we are being treated as if we were children, spoon-fed that which editors and journalist consider we should be told, without any attempt at informing us or promoting intelligent debate.

One can only say this so often before the message gets tedious, even to those who agree with it, but the repetition does not make it any less true. The act of lying encompasses act, default or omission. By their omissions, and by their default – in misrepresenting complex issues – does our media lie to us all.

COMMENT THREAD

Last Post or Reveille?

My intention was to start this week by putting up my last post on EUReferendum but, for the time being, I have been dissuaded, there being better things to do with one's time or so I am told. There are various reasons why I have been having problems with the blog and the forum. No need to rehearse them here.

However, recently I felt that there was a particular direction in which the blog and, much more so, the forum were moving – towards ideas of a closed in society with the state controlling (as who else would have the power) who should be employed or allowed to live in this country, the basis of it being those old friends of ours, blood and soil.

It's not I don't like that trend or that I think it is a remarkably stupid one or, even that it is contrary to British tradition; it's more that I thought that the blog and, of course, the forum should lead on this one. If we want a country where we say "keep out" to all who are not "indigenous" (it's in quotation marks because, given England's history, it is a term that is very hard to define) then the blog should be in the vanguard.

Clear it of rootless cosmopolitanism, said I. We cannot have a co-editor who is not part of the "indigenous" population but would prefer to see those Anglospheric ideas triumphing over the blood and soil ones; we cannot have a co-editor whose family sought and gratefully received asylum in this country. Lead from the front, said I.

The boss told me (more or less) not to be stupid and stop reading the forum if it upsets me. Well, that's easily achieved. I have not been reading most of it for some time and have now deleted it from my list of must check blogs. That's a bit like not listening to Radio 4. Amazing how well one can survive without it.

What next? Well, I turned to our manifesto and found to my surprise that it was posted almost exactly four years ago. Have we really wasted this much time? Not completely. The boss's writings on defence have been superb and, with some luck, even had some influence where it matters.

Between us we have managed to get some of the truth about the EU and the tranzis out into the big bad world but not nearly enough of it and not nearly wide enough. When it comes to the positive ideas, yes, we have failed, perhaps because we have not worked them out well enough ourselves or because we have not been able to reach the right audience (it's a poor writer who blames the audience so the fault is in us) or perhaps we have not concentrated enough.

The way forward is to build on the manifesto. We have no intention of creating a new party or a mass movement or any of those silly things that tend to be complete losers, particularly on our side of the fence.

But we do intend to work harder and develop ideas – a research programme and a sequence of policy ideas that will give some politicians and opinion makers notions on how to rebuild a liberal nation state that would take its proud place in the only group that matters in the world – the Anglosphere. Blood and soil will not come into it. We have been there in the twentieth century and have no desire to go again in the twenty-first.

Watch this space. This is not the Last Post (not yet) but Reveille.

Little José day

José is having a busy day. From Prague he is telling us that the economic crisis is the biggest in living memory. "There is no doubt that we are living through the greatest financial and economic crisis in living memory," he says.

We'd never have known.

COMMENT THREAD

We are one Union!

Bloomberg is telling us that Eastern (and Central) European stocks have dropped to the lowest in 5½ years. Hungary's forint fell the most in a month. Bank shares are nose-diving as investors flee, amid "concern that companies and consumers will be unable to repay foreign-currency debt as plunging exchange rates increase borrowing costs."

And all because the EU leaders said no to a €190 billion handout!

Hilariously – from the school of, you have to laugh or you'll cry – little José is saying that eastern Europe doesn’t need special treatment (i.e., a €190 billion loan) as it can draw on €15.4 billion in the EU's balance-of-payments assistance fund. The countries are also eligible for €7 billion of accelerated infrastructure subsidies, he said. "We are one union, not two unions or three unions," bleats Barroso.

Now, let's get this straight. The eastern/central countries want €190 billion (they would actually prefer €300 billion) to stave off a fate worse than Ambrose. Little José is saying they can dip into a fund of €15.4 billion shared between all member states, with a top-up of €7 billion. And that solves the problem?

Good thing it's only one Union, isn't it. I don't think we could take any more.

COMMENT THREAD

We will send you our ravening hordes

"Give us your money, or we will send over our unemployed millions," is the message from Ferenc Gyurcsany, the Hungarian prime minister. And, goes the subtext, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us. This is what Gawain Towler over at England Expects is reporting, with the benefit of having seen a letter from Gyurcsany, which he publishes in full.

That theme is picked up by Bruno Waterfield in The Telegraph, who retails Gyurcsany's warning. Issued on behalf of the Central and Eastern European members of the EU, it states that the economic crisis threatens to split Europe, with the economic equivalent of an "Iron Curtain" – the rich countries on one side and the poor on the other.

Gyurcsany then goes on to say that unless €190 billion is thrown across the line, to prevent the curtain falling, there would be, "A significant economic crisis in Eastern Europe". This, he writes, "would trigger political tensions and immigration pressures."

Then comes the punch-line: "With a Central and East European population of around 350 million of which 100 million are in the EU, a 10 percent increase would lead to at least five million additional unemployed within the EU." The result would be "a flood of unemployed immigrants travelling to Western Europe in search of jobs."

The message was apparently adopted by nine Central and Eastern European countries – Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania. They held an "unprecedented breakaway summit" before the meeting of all 27 EU member states in Brussels yesterday, and presented the rest with what amounted to an ultimatum.

The reporting from the likes of The Guardian, however, presents a different picture. Its hacks together with most of the others (pictured above), dutifully followed the EU commission script, telling us that "European leaders" had sought to banish the spectre of protectionism stalking the EU, responding to the financial crisis by underlining the "sanctity" of Europe's single market.

The use of "sanctity" is a very interesting choice of word for something that is supposed to be part of a political system. Perhaps "integrity" would have been a better choice, but the term actually used betrays the mindset … this is a quasi-religious institution, not a political movement.

Another word with quasi-religious overtones, very much in evidence was "unity". This was, we are told, the Holy Grail for which the "colleagues" were struggling – and in vain, so it seems. The heads of government from the member states "remained deeply divided".

That much was echoed by The Times, which followed Bruno with the "apocalyptic warning". It too retails the threat that if the Central and Eastern European countries do not get their money, we will be submerged by the "Eastern hordes" of unemployed workers heading west to steal the jobs from under the very noses of our suckling babes.

The response of the "colleagues" to this is rather interesting. With Merkel in the vanguard, the call for an "Eastern Europe aid fund" was summarily dismissed. Merkel went so far as to say: "I see a very different situation among eastern countries, I do not advise going into the debate with massive figures."

We then got the ritual incantations. Up went the cry that the only thing standing between us and the ravening hordes was the benign intervention of our masters in Brussels. Thus do we get the call for holy "unity" which will bind us all together and ensure that the misery is equally spread – except in the restaurants of Brussels of course.

Somewhere in all that lot is Gordon Brown. He seems to want shed-loads of (other peoples') money thrown at the problem, and is calling for the International Monetary Fund to intervene, although he has been somewhat vague about where he thinks the IMF will get the money.

What is worrying the shit out of the "colleagues" is indeed the prospect of a significant crisis in Eastern Europe and the reality of "political tensions". That is a cosy euphemism for the great unwashed taking to the streets and ripping the throats out of their benign leaders. It is a fear that rather explains their resort to quasi-religious slogans – in much the same way that Stalin reverted to calls to save "Mother Russia" when the ravening Nazi hordes were at the gates of Moscow.

Basically, though, they do not have the shed-loads of money, being rather too busy bailing out their own collapsing economic systems. The only thing the "colleagues" were able to manage, therefore, was a rather lame statement fromn José Manuel Barroso declaring: "There was consensus on the need to avoid any unilateral protectionist measures."

Little José is beginning to sound a bit like Marie Antoinette - "let them eat consensus", he is saying. Mr Gyurcsany seems to have other ideas.

COMMENT THREAD

A Page turns

You have to give it to Robin Page – he has a wicked sense of humour. Thus, when he slides the stiletto deep into the heart of UKIP, he does it with style and an easy, jovial quip.

Page has, he writes "just helped the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)." He has jumped ship. "It is a small party," he adds, "whose main wish at the moment seems to be a desire to become even smaller; so I did my bit and resigned."

There then follows a familiar tale of skulduggery, sharp practice and bad faith that has become the hallmark of the UKIP hierarchy, one with which I am personally all too familiar – including the attempts after the event to re-write history to make what happened sound completely different from what actually transpired. In UKIP territory, the "victims" must be responsible for their own fate. The upper echelons of the party can do no wrong (see comment at the end of this).

In fact, Page points the finger at one man, Nigel Farage, who he accuses of having managed "to obtain almost complete centralised power of UKIP". And, having watched the party closely for these past years – having devoted a great deal of my time and energy to its cause – I have no doubt that Page is absolutely right.

From the heady days when we first returned MEPs in the 1999 euro-elections, it looked as though we were on our way to becoming a force in the land. And if there was a single man responsible for that success (although it was the work of many), it was Nigel Farage.

But, before even before what appeared to be the massive breakthrough in 2004, when UKIP returned 12 MEPs with 2.7 million votes representing 16.8 percent of the vote, the rot was already eating away at the heart of the party. Since then, writes Page, Ukip's 12 European parliamentarians have, by defection and expulsion, dropped to nine – and one has even left his constituency to live elsewhere, without telling his constituents. One has been to prison and one is still on police bail, awaiting the outcome of criminal investigations.

At the top of this dunghill is Nigel, a man who has cleaned out of the party anyone who came under the slightest suspicion of being a threat to him. But, having brought the first real success to the party, this is now the man who, almost single-handedly, has destroyed it.

Page might have articulated his disgust publicly, but there are many, many more people who share his views and who have walked away from the party and will have nothing to do with it.

The Tories have been quick to pick up Pages' resignation statement and, no doubt, some are hoping that they will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of UKIP – and that it is. (There is a piece this morning on Tory Diary, which has some interesting, if predictable, comments.)

It is unlikely, however, that the Tories gain any benefit whatsoever. As we pointed out earlier, the inheritors of the UKIP vote – and many more – will almost certainly be the BNP. That seems to be what Labour's private polling is telling it.

We are thus looking a situation where the BNP will for the first time gain a number of MEPs. On the other hand, there is a very real prospect of a total wipe-out for UKIP. It could well lose all its MEPs, including its original three gained in 1999. That, if it happens – and it looks increasingly certain – will effectively mean the end of UKIP and the end of euroscepticism organised on a party basis. For that too, we will have to thank Farage.

But, as we also indicated earlier, that does not mean that euroscepticism will disappear. On the contrary, it will acquire a harder edge, carried along by parallel agendas which the establishment will not like. In the past, they have had great sport from UKIP, mocking and denigrating its members. Now the hard men are going to take over. They will not be mocked so easily – or at all.

Interestingly, on the front page of the Sunday Express yesterday, there was a story on a "MI5 alert" on the expected riots over the summer. That riots are expected is not news – we did it a little while ago. But what is new about the piece is a suggestion that the government is so concerned about the possible break-down of law and order that the Army has been put on standby.

This could very well be true. Recently, from a confidential source, I received information that the MoD was buying up unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment. Clearly, it has no intention of being caught out, as it was at the beginning of the Troubles, having to ration tear gas and riot shields. Maybe they might even find a use for all those Snatch Land Rovers, when they are returned from Iraq.

The implications of putting the Army on the streets, though, are horrendous. Currently, the Army is riding on the crest of a wave of public approval but, as it did in Northern Ireland, sentiment can very quickly turn. The ramifications for the campaign in Afghanistan might be significant. An Army which is sent out against its own people is not likely to attract much support for its other activities.

But there is not much prospect of the Army disobeying orders. As we saw in the 2001 Foot and Mouth epidemic, it went to work with a will, engaging in illegal activities, intimidating ordinary people and conspiring with the civil authorities to enforce false arrest. It will do so again if ordered, with the back-up this time of the Civil Contingencies Act which makes legal much of what was illegal back in 2001.

However (with the considerable assistance of Nigel Farage), having disposed of the "moderate" voice of protest – which UKIP largely represented – the establishment is going to discover once again a very simple and undeniable truth. There are more of us than there are of them - an awful lot more, and they haven't ordered anything like enough tear gas.

They had their chance to listen to the voices of moderation – and they blew it. Now, altogether different voices are going to be heard. A Page has turned – in more than one way.

COMMENT THREAD

Even the luvvies don't understand it

Tony Barber, the Financial Times's man in Brussels is happily reporting on the EU "summit" today.

He thus tells us that "EU leaders are not expected to take concrete decisions at the summit, because it is an informal meeting." Thus are we informed by the wise one that, "The next official summit on March 19-20 is, however, likely to take binding decisions on the latest steps to overcome the financial crisis and recession."

Er … no, Tony. The "summit" is of course the European Council and, if you look it up, like on Wikipedia you will find that it has "no formal executive or legislative powers".

Granted, it is an institution that deals with major issues and any decisions made are "a major impetus in defining the general political guidelines of the European Union", but they are not and cannot be "binding".

In practice, the Council makes recommendations to the EU commission, asking it to submit formal legislative proposals. These then go through the normal procedures. Only then do they become "binding".

It is a pretty sorry situation when even the correspondent for the mighty FT doesn't know what he is talking about – even if we are hardly surprised. The hacks have never been able to get their head round the European Council and their lack of knowledge is merely indicative of their general lack of understanding of the way the EU works.

And if even the luvvies don't understand it, it is not surprising that so few others have even the first idea of what it is all about.

COMMENT THREAD

An absence of strategy?

For some time now – as we have remarked previously - it has been very difficult to "read" the battle in Afghanistan. That was not the case with Iraq. There, with some of the main action going in heavily populated areas, there was media reporting – and a constant flow of reports from Arab press agencies. It was, therefore, possible to piece together what was going on – albeit with very little help from the British media.

In Afghanistan, it is different. Much of the action is taking place outside the urban centres, the Afghani media is considerably less developed and the Western media relies almost entirely on "embeds", the output of whom is rigorously controlled.

Read more on Defence of the Realm.

Getting the point

Two offerings in the Sundays on the continuing discussion of Mr Cameron's loss make an interesting contrast. One is from Matthew d'Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph and the other is from Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday.

I will not trouble you with the former, other than to note that its vacuous drivel serves only as a counterpoint to the robust and sensible piece from Hitchens, who absolutely and completely gets the point. He writes that was "struck by the coincidence" between the death of Ivan Cameron and the four soldiers killed in Afghanistan. He then writes:

Three were of soldiers killed in Afghanistan by yet another roadside bomb, from which they were not properly protected by the inadequate, cheapskate vehicle in which they were travelling. They were Corporal Tom Gaden, Lance Corporal Paul Upton and Rifleman Jamie Gunn. The fourth was that of a Royal Marine, Michael Laski, who died in a Birmingham hospital from wounds sustained in Afghanistan on Monday.

That means deaths in this vainglorious, ill-considered episode have reached 149, a shameful number killed because they were inadequately equipped. No, these were not small children, but they were much-loved sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers. Their deaths have all left sad gaps in previously happy lives.

The fate of every one of these was directly in the hands of the MPs who adjourned on Wednesday. Yet I cannot remember when they last attempted a proper debate on what our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan, or when anyone on either front bench said anything truthful on the subject. None can explain why we have soldiers there at all. They come up instead with silly slogans, free of thought.

And even if our MPs are too busy claiming second-home expenses to think about this, or merely haven't the courage to raise it, and even if they are genuinely convinced that this doomed operation is necessary for the safety of the Western world, why have they done so little to make the MoD protect the men they have allowed to be sent into danger? The American Pentagon has a special unit to combat roadside bombs, with a budget of about £2.8billion a year. On top of that, it is spending £1.45billion on new armoured vehicles. Even the tiny Irish Army has taken more decisive steps than ours to obtain mine-resistant vehicles.

That encapsulates so well our thinking. In the torrent on "mawkish sentimentality" – as one commentator put it – over the death of one child, precisely how much attention has been given to the deaths of these four soldiers? Why, asks Hitchens, have they [the MPs] "done so little to make the MoD protect the men they have allowed to be sent into danger?"

And that is the point. Parliament has a special duty to protect the men and women put in harm's way in our name. MPs have the power individually and collectively to bring the government to account and force it to take action. We saw that in June 2006 when, finally, the House got its act together and made an issue of the Snatch Land Rover. That forced Browne to undertake a review, from which emerged an order for protected vehicles.

Now, we can allow Parliament and the MPs their "gesture" over Ivan Cameron. But, as Hitchens writes, "However hard they strained their minds and sinews, our MPs could not have prevented the death of young Ivan, or altered his fate by an inch." On the other hand, had they exerted themselves, they could have prevented many of the deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and, before that, in Iraq. But, as we have seen so often, the House has not exerted itself on their behalf.

Without a countervailing concern – and action - for the lives for which the MPs are truly responsible, the gesture on Ivan Cameron was self-indulgence. It belies a selective concern which does nothing more than highlight the abrogation of their duties and responsibilities.

Nevertheless, Hitchens, having got the point, has a suggestion:

If they can adjourn for poor Ivan Cameron, then they should be compelled also to sit in all-night session till dawn, to commemorate and debate in detail each military death in Afghanistan from now on. The way things are going, that should also solve their second-home problems. They won't need them, as they'll spend most nights in the chamber.

They will not do that of course, but they should. In preparation, they should be given the bundles of witness statements and technical documentation that are produced after every death, and be forced to read them.

Then they should, each and every one of them, be forced to stand up in the House and explain to the nation why they (with but a very few honourable exceptions) have personally allowed soldiers to go to their deaths ill-equipped and unprepared. And in the gallery should be the parents of those soldiers who have died so unnecessarily. Our MPs can look them in the eyes when they make their statements.

They owe us no less.

COMMENT THREAD

Taking us for mugs

In his column today, Booker today picks up on the MAN truck story, but also extends it to take in the broader issues of the undeclared Europe first policy that has blighted defence procurement over the last decade.

Some time ago, I calculated that the British government had overspent to the tune of £8.8 billion on European projects, when the same (or sufficient) capacity could have been acquired more cheaply through indigenous production or by buying from other sources.

That is not to say that we should not buy European equipment. For instance, if a case could really have been made for a medium-weight, wheeled armoured vehicle (although I do not think it has) then we could have – and perhaps should have - bought the French VBCI. These, in any case, had a substantial British component, and they could have been in service by 2011.

The point that emerges, therefore, is that the decisions on which military equipment to buy should be made on the basis of national interest and then, within that, on the basis of what best meets the military requirement. All things being equal, the equipment should be purchased from British manufacturers. But, if better can be obtained elsewhere (or faster where there is an urgent operational need) then we should go anywhere in the world.

What Booker points out in his column though, as indeed did we earlier, is that one of the largest Army contracts in recent time, for a new fleet of 8,000 Army trucks, was not decided on any of these criteria but in support of Mr Blair's policy of supporting European military integration. Even Gerald Howarth, at the time noted that the MoD was "Buying them for political rather than commercial reasons". That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Army equipment should not be used as a political tool.

With a deep recession now in progress, the way this contract was awarded is particularly poignant, given the travails of one of the earlier bidders, LDV. The firm is now facing closure when it could have been sharing in a programme originally costed at £1.6 billion and which will end up at around £2 billion by the time all the add-ons have been taken into account.

The appalling thing about this whole episode and many others like it, though, is how little political and media interest there has been in the whole saga. We get no end of accusations directed at the government about "underspending", but rarely is there any interest in looking at where the money goes and whether it could be spent better. The whole of the undeclared "Europe first" programme has been one of those "black holes" which no one mentions.

Of course, with so many billions being sluiced about to bail out the banks and sundry financial institutions, it is very easy to lose sight of the fact that this is real money, representing real jobs and real products, the end result being military capabilities that determine whether people live or die.

The biggest problem of all, though, is that when it comes to protecting our own national interest, we seem to let our "partners" walk all over us. The background to the MAN trucks story is that it took over the British company ERF, one of the last truck-makers in the UK, hollowed it out from the inside and then made it a front company for retailing German and Austrian-built trucks in the UK.

The one thing you can bet though, is the French Army – supposedly a pillar of the European Union – will not be seen in anything other than French-built trucks (pictured). In the same way, while we see French and German ambulances on our streets, you will be very hard put to find anything but a French-built ambulance anywhere in France.

It is exactly this mentality which is currently exercising the "colleagues" this week as they attend an emergency European Council today in Brussels. They are addressing the rush to "economic protectionism" and, in particular, Sarkozy's robust support for French car manufacturers and his determination to support French jobs before anything else.

In the frame are Sarkozy's plans to lend PSA Peugeot Citroen and Renault €3 billion each and other measures in exchange for a promise not to shut French plants or move to cheaper sites "in the Czech Republic or elsewhere".

The French see no inconsistency between being member of the EU and supporting their own industries, yet we seem to look upon our membership as an excuse to ditch anything British, run down our industries and buy from any Jacques, Fritz or Toni that happens to want to make a quick buck at our expense. I suppose that we should be consoled in this case that British truckers at least got the contract to transport the trucks from Austria to the UK (below).


However, when it comes to truck builders, as Booker observes, when LDV last week pleaded for Government aid, the trade minister Ian Pearson loftily responded "the British taxpayer cannot be expected to pay for the company's losses". What he didn't admit, of course, is that if it hadn't been for his own Government those losses would never have arisen. And for the British taxpayer to pay up to £2 billion to keep Austrian workers employed is, it seems, perfectly acceptable.

Our government is taking us for mugs. It really is about time it woke up and smelt the coffee. British national interest comes first – and that does mean British jobs for British workers and British trucks for the British Army. Look after your own first not least because, unless you do, you won't be in a position to help anyone else.

COMMENT THREAD