The Count

Happy Burns Night

2012-01-25T22:18:00.003Z

It is not often poetry is quoted at Prime Minister's questions, but this poem was.

Scottish Nationalists who like to quote Robert Burns as though he would support their separatist cause should
1. read this poem
2. hang their heads in shame

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat? (or The Dumfries Volunteers)By Robert Burns

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat? Then let the loons beware, Sir!
There's wooden walls upon our seas And volunteers on shore, Sir!
The Nith shall run to Corsincon, And Criffel sink in Solway,
Ere we permit a foreign foe On British ground to rally!

O, let us not, like snarling curs, In wrangling be divided,
Till, slap! come in a unco loun, And wi' a rung decide it!
Be Britain still to Britain true, Amang oursels united!
For never but by British hands Maun British wrangs be righted!

The kettle o' the Kirk and State, Perhaps a clout may fail in't;
But Deil a foreign tinkler loon Shall ever ca' a nail in't!
Our father's blude the kettle bought, And wha wad dare to spoil it,
By Heav'ns! the sacrilegious dog Shall fuel be to boil it!

The wretch that would a tyrant own, And the wretch, his true-sworn brother,
Who would set the mob above the throne, May they be damn'd together!
Who will not sing God save the King Shall hang as high's the steeple;
But while we sing God save the King We'll ne'er forget the People!

Happy Burns Night!

The Iron Lady - a review

2012-01-08T23:24:00.000Z

The year has only just started, yet The Iron Lady is bound to be the most talked about film in the UK in 2012, and for good reason: few British prime ministers receive - and few will warrant - the Hollywood treatment. 'The Iron Lady' nickname was first used by the Soviet media to describe Margaret Thatcher back in 1976, and the name stuck.

The film is slow to begin, with a lengthy opening sequence focussing on Lady Thatcher's dementia and daily routine, before various objects and comments trigger flashbacks. Those expecting heavy and sophisticated political drama are likely to be disappointed. The flashbacks to Margaret Thatcher's early life and her political career are largely brief, and not presented chronologically. This is a film which is more about the personal than the political. There are some contemporary political references – at one point Thatcher makes clear that does not like coalitions, at another point she says the ‘medicine’ of spending cuts (in the early 1980s) is harsh but necessary for the good of the patient. But the modern sequences are focussed on Lady Thatcher’s old age, not current affairs.

Some critics have complained that the film was one-dimensional and fails to present the perspective of those who were 'victims' of Thatcherism. But this is not supposed to be a political or sociological documentary, but the drama of one woman's life. Frankly, there have already been plenty of portrayals of the 'other side' of the story. After all, this was a woman who pursued her policies in the face of the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the academic, intellectual, cultural, artistic, literary and even ecclesiastical elite of the country. As it was, the film did have plenty of scenes showing the furious opposition to Thatcher's policies, and was punctuated by real and familiar images of riots and protests, and Britons falling under the blows of police batons and police horses. The film was also punctuated by the explosions of Irish Republican violence and murder, which struck down several of Margaret Thatcher's closest colleagues, reminding us that this was a leader forced to persevere in her own war against terrorism - or rather terrorism's war against her.

While there is not a great deal of political philosophising or ideological oratory, what does come across most forcefully is the Margaret Thatcher's strength of conviction and character. She is shown as a woman constantly having to fight on and persevere in the face of the weak men around her calling for her to compromise, prevaricate, back down and delay. These are the moments when - depending on one's views - members of the audience want to stand up and cheer her on. One of the best sequences is on the Falklands War, where Thatcher is faced with a US ambassador trying to persuade her to agree to a Peruvian 'peace plan' rather than respond to the Argentine invasion and members of her own Government warning against sinking an enemy warship because it happened to be sailing the other way. As we all know, the Lady was not for turning.

The film is not completely one-sided and does not shy away from Margaret Thatcher's mistakes and flaws, such as the defence cuts she approved before the Falklands War or her rude and bullying treatment of Geoffrey Howe in Cabinet. But the film does have flaws – it spends too much time on Margaret Thatcher’s present state rather than the political battles of her career, and there are some omissions and simplifications which lesson the narrative of her premiership.

Despite this, the film’s overall impact is that it is not just powerful - though humorous and light-hearted in places - but also incredibly moving. And Dartford is given its rightful place in the story. Meryl Streep’s performance is brilliant and surely deserves an Oscar. This film is much better than The Queen, in my opinion, with much more of an impact on the viewer.

The atmosphere in the cinema - this may not be universal: this was Dartford, and this was the opening night - was not just of people going to see a film, but of people going to reflect on, almost to commemorate, a remarkable life and career. By the end, the closing sequences were punctuated with the sound of sniffling and noses being blown.

Few films about a politician can achieve that impact. There is unlikely to be another film quite like this, as there is unlikely to be another leader like Margaret Thatcher.

Spending on Trident now is good value for money

2011-12-24T15:44:00.002Z

Opponents of the UK’s nuclear deterrent have recently been trying to stir up a fuss about the cost of renewing the Trident system, yet again.

Following a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence, Green MP Caroline Lucas revealed the supposedly shocking news that the MOD was spending money on the renewal of Trident. The aspect of this which was supposed to be controversial was that the MOD has spent approximately £2billion on facilities for building and maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons before the 'Main Gate' decision on renewing Trident and replacing the current submarines has been announced. According to Lucas, this "makes a complete mockery of the democratic process." Lucas took to the Politics Home website to argue that the "Government's billion pound spend on Trident must be challenged". She argues that Trident has become "has become one of the most taboo subjects in Whitehall in recent years" and that "The Coalition Government refuses to discuss its policy".

She was supported this week by Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who argued in the House of Commons that “after the next election the new Parliament will be confronted with the decision whether to renew the Trident system, having already spent £5 billion on it" and therefore "we are walking—indeed, sleepwalking—into a massive expenditure".

But the claim that the renewal of Trident has not been properly debated in Parliament and lacks democratic legitimacy simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The House of Commons had a vote on the renewal of Trident back in 2007, and voted overwhelmingly in favour, by 409 to 161. What could be clearer than that? The renewal of Trident was in the manifestos of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and was debated in the party leader’s debates. It was also agreed to as part of the Coalition Programme for Government, a commitment which was restated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. In accordance with this commitment, The 'Initial Gate' decision to go ahead with the renewal of Trident was made and announced in Parliament earlier this year.

Of course spending on the replacement has already started. The MOD has to start spending now for the renewal of Trident to be viable and to avoid a major capability gap. If it did not, the same critics would turn round in a few years and complain that the costs of renewal had escalated and Trident was no longer feasible.

The fuss and opposition is not about costs or democracy. It is hard to escape the suspicion that these are just excuses for opponents’ ideological opposition to UK nuclear weapons. They should be open and say so. The trickle of stories about costs is clearly intended to create the impression that Trident costs too much and to undermine public faith in the system.

The reality is that Trident represents excellent value for money. For all the talk of this being a ‘white elephant’ which will weigh down the defence budget, the House of Commons Library calculated that the annual cost of the Trident programme over its lifetime amounts to just 5% of the defence budget. Scrapping Trident should not be seen as an easy way of freeing up defence spending, as disarmament would itself cost billions. The answer to defence cuts is not to scrap the UK’s most important defence capability. You have to question the wisdom of abandoning the UK’s nuclear weapons in a world where North Korea has the bomb and Iran is close to getting it. Keeping Trident is the nation’s ultimate insurance policy, as well as forming part of the defence of NATO. Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented and it is quite safe to say Barack Obama’s idea of a nuclear-free world is not going to happen. Is a world where Britain does not have nukes but Iran does going to be safer?

Nor is the Liberal Democrat proposal for ‘cheaper alternatives’ to Trident helpful. Developing and testing an entirely new system is highly unlikely to be cheaper than using the existing one. Nor do any of the alternatives suggested – such as land-based missiles or a submarine-launched cruise missile system - offer improved capabilities. In fact they all have flaws which are absent from the Trident continuous-at-sea deterrent, a deterrent which guarantees constant coverage, cannot be pre-empted and which could be fired at any time and at any target. None of the alternatives can offer this.

The two aspects of the renewal of Trident which are creating unnecessary costs are the delaying of the Main Gate decision until after the next election, and the decision for the Cabinet Office to conduct a study into alternatives to Trident in order to ‘assist the Liberal Democrats’. Again, it is difficult to see the argument for ‘alternatives’ as anything other than an excuse to undermine the renewal of Trident due to fundamental opposition to the UK having nuclear weapons at all, particularly given what one Conservative MP rightly described as the "CND revivalist" atmosphere of the debate on Trident at the last Lib Dem party conference, at which Nick Harvey promised to make Trident "a hot potato" at the next election.

Opponents of Trident are not being any more ‘democratic’ or ‘open’ than anyone else. No matter how many votes are taken on this decision, they will never accept the result unless it goes their way. That will now be a decision for the next Parliament, due to the most unwise delay ever made by the Coalition.

Veto in Europe Day

2011-12-24T15:41:00.002Z

It was no great surprise that many Liberal Democrat politicians were unhappy with David Cameron’s recent refusal to sign a new EU treaty which would have established a ‘fiscal compact’ for the Eurozone within EU structures.

Lord Oakeshott rather dramatically described it as "a black day for Britain and Europe”. Paddy Ashdown said “We have tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain.” Sharon Bowles, the Lib Dem MEP who chairs European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
said “The City will suffer. Maybe serves them right."

What was perhaps slightly more surprising was the Deputy Prime Minister’s open disagreement with the Prime Minister’s actions in Brussels. Nick Clegg told Andrew Marr that he was “bitterly disappointed” by the outcome of the summit and that “there was a danger that this could lead to Britain being isolated”. Clegg lashed out at those who backed the Prime Minister's stance, saying: “I hear this talk about the bulldog spirit - there's nothing bulldog about Britain hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic - not standing tall in Europe, not being taken seriously in Washington". This was followed by Clegg telling the BBC that he “could not welcome” the outcome of the summit, that he and the Prime Minister "clearly do not agree" and that the outcome was "bad for Britain".

In a bizarre piece of bad PR, Clegg decided to absent himself from the Commons during the Prime Minister’s statement on the summit. This was followed by the refusal of Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for the rarity of an opposition motion (put forward by the Democratic Unionist Party) which praised the Prime Minister’s action in Brussels.

What Nick Clegg was disagreeing with was less clear. The UK’s negotiating position was agreed by the Coalition Government before the summit. Clegg repeated afterwards that the UK’s demands were “perfectly reasonable and perfectly measured” and “rightly sought”.

So the Lib Dems agreed that the UK’s position was reasonable. That was not the objection. Instead, what the Lib Dems seemed to object to was that the Government stuck to it. The UK’s demands were reasonable, but the Lib Dems object that the Prime Minister insisted on making them. What they evidently wanted and expected was that the Government would simply cave in, abandon its demands and agree to a new treaty without anything in return for the UK. Allowing Eurozone leaders to pursue even closer integration and fiscal union unobstructed is evidently their priority.

Chris Huhne challenged the Prime Minister in Cabinet, arguing that he had no authority from the coalition to veto a revision of the Lisbon treaty. So according to Lib Dem logic, the Prime Minister can make demands, but is not allowed to stick to his guns. Instead he has to always say yes to the EU. The Lib Dem over-reaction would almost suggest that David Cameron had announced that the UK was about to leave the EU. Yet this was simply an instance of the UK refusing to sign a new treaty without being given even the most modest of safeguards or assurances. Whatever Lib Dems might imagine, there is nothing in the Coalition Agreement which says that the Government has to agree to every new treaty change.

What this incident has shown very clearly is that the Lib Dems’ recent rhetoric about not being ‘slavish apologists’ for the EU, and instead seeking the reform of the EU in the British national interest, was – surprise, surprise – just rhetoric after all. Nick Clegg told the BBC: "I am not here to defend the European Union in and of itself, I am here to defend the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country." Yet when the Prime Minister refused to agree a new treaty without modest safeguards and a level playing field for the UK’s financial sector, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to back him. When it came to the first real test of the Lib Dem attitude to the UK’s position in the EU, the Lib Dems made it clear where their loyalties lie.

Once the prospect of closer integration comes up, the instinctive Lib Dem reaction is that the UK should agree to it regardless of whether or not it gets anything in return. Agreeing to anything and everything that comes out of Brussels is apparently a more attractive prospect than ‘isolation’ – even if, as it turns out, the UK is actually voicing objections that are shared across the EU, where the latest agreement is far from a done deal. Paddy Ashdown even claimed that we had "diminished ourselves in Washington", an argument that was quickly contradicted by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

What is most concerning about Nick Clegg’s stance is what happens next: not in terms of the Coalition, but in terms of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He sees the ‘repairing’ of this as a personal mission, even if he has to bypass the rest of the Government, saying: "On Europe, what I'm going to do is build bridges, re-engage and make sure that the British voice is heard at the top table in Europe." As well as openly criticising the use of the UK’s veto, Nick Clegg publicly stated that "it would be ludicrous" for the Eurozone and other countries which ratified the new agreement not to be able to use the existing EU institutions to enforce it because of "the exception of only one member state". Yet stopping the whole EU structure being used for the new arrangements - without safeguards for the UK - was the whole point of the UK's veto. And the UK having a veto at all is based on the principle that changes to the EU treaties must be unanimous. The Deputy Prime Minister is not just publicly disagreeing with the Prime Minister, but seeking to publicly undermine the UK's negotiating position.

The new intergovernmental treaty which has been proposed, instead of the rejected EU treaty, envisions the use of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Worryingly, it is reported that the Government is considering accepting this development, which would undermine the whole point of the veto, as an ‘olive branch to Nick Clegg’. Rather than an EU treaty using EU institutions to enforce a fiscal compact, there would be an intergovernmental treaty using EU institutions to enforce a fiscal compact – and still with nothing in defence of the UK’s national interests. The Government must not accept this without concessions to the UK in return. It certainly should not accept this for the sake of Nick Clegg.

Will Hutton's caricature history of calamities that weren't

2011-12-13T23:39:00.003Z

In his attack on David Cameron's veto, Will Hutton presents a caricature of the history of conservatism of Britain in which conservatism, particularly on foreign policy, has supposedly led Britain into a series of calamities.
"It was wrong to resist revolutions in France and the US" - really, why? Particularly when you consider the mass executions and massacres, carried out by the French Republican regime. Surely stopping Napoleon Bonaparte from taking over Europe was a good thing.
The slave trade and the Corn Laws - fair enough.
"wrong to embrace appeasement in the 1930s" - probably, but was it also wrong to simultaneously increase military expenditure and prepare the country for war, while the Labour Party was calling for disarmament and cuts to the defence budget so that the money could be spent on social and economic projects?
"wrong to contest the decolonisation of India" - Not so clear-cut: India was a valuable strategic asset and source of (volunteer) troops in the Second World War, and the rushed decolonisation of the late 1940s was hardly a shining success story.
Was it also wrong of the Conservatives to introduce universal free education and universal and equal suffrage? On foreign policy, was it wrong of the Conservatives to call for greater military preparation and faster naval expansion in the face of German expansion before the First World War? Was it wrong of the Conservatives to stand firm against the USSR, and to preserve Britain's nuclear defences and the alliance with the US when the Labour party was calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament in the face of the Soviets?
Neither the historical record of British foreign policy or the Conservatives is really that calamitous. We have hardly done badly as a country.

And speaking of being consistently wrong, hasn't Will Hutton consistently agitated for the UK to join the Euro?

John Baron has got it wrong on Iran

2011-12-06T00:57:00.002Z

Following the disgraceful attack on the British embassy in Iran, following Iran’s decision to expel the British ambassador (and which was followed by the speaker of the Iranian parliament telling us that we had it coming), you might have thought that people would have finally dropped any remaining illusions about the Iranian regime and its emnity to Britain.

Not so for Conservative MP John Baron, who argues that “the West has got it wrong on Iran.”

John Baron belittles the recent IAEA report as "almost an annual event on the international stage". He goes on to imply that the trashing of the British embassy was our fault, saying: "The US and UK seized upon the report as providing yet further evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Further financial sanctions led directly to the events on Tuesday."

He argues: "a close reading of the IAEA’s report reveals little new evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. There is no smoking gun: only the suggestion that Iran is moving towards the option of a nuclear weapon." Iran is hardly likely to offer up a 'smoking gun' of clear incontrovertible evidence to the IAEA is it? Let us not forget that the report does say that Iran has carried out "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components," and says of Iranian research that "the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency.”

Baron goes on to impugn the integrity of the IAEA, making much of the fact that previous director Mohammed ElBaradei commented in 2009 that the threat from Iran was "hyped", but that he was succeeded by a Japanese diplomat who was closer to the US view, and: "After a decent interval, he is now bang on cue." So, without any evidence, we are supposed to assume that the previous IAEA director was right and honest while this one is merely saying what the US wants. This is presumably the same Mohamed ElBaradei who also wrote that "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme," and that "Iran has not offered any cooperation with the Agency."

John Baron goes on to describe Iran's nuclear programme as "understandable", arguing that Iran feels 'encircled' - not mentioning Iran's arming of insurgents in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan and its sponsorship of terrorism across the Middle East and the wider world. He goes on to argue that there is "more irrational than the existing members of the nuclear club". Is that supposed to be reassuring? Are the attack on the British embassy, the conferences about the Holocaust never happening and the claim that there are no homosexuals in the country rational actions? Arguing that Iran will be rational hardly means that it will benign.

Then Baron quibbles over whether called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (the translation given by the Islamic Republic News Agency!), or whether he merely said "the régime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Even accepting this argument, Ahmadinejad has also said that Israel "will soon disappear" and "is on its way to annihilation", that as well as the idea of 'Greater Israel' "the idea of smaller Israel is dead", that it is God's wish that "this germ of corruption will be wiped off", that Israel is "like a cancer cell that spreads through the body" and "must be removed from the body", that Israel was "a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it. Yes it will collapse and its end will be near.”

Baron goes on to extol the tolerance of the Islamic Republic for its Jewish minority, pointing out that "The 25,000 Jews in Iran are represented by a Jewish MP". Yet the reason there is a Jewish MP for Jews (and a Christian MP for Chistians and a Zoroastrian MP for Zoroastrians) is that non-Muslims are not allowed to vote or stand in elections for any of the other seats in parliament - so they have no say on the nature of the Government. Let us not forget that three quarters of the Jewish population of Iran fled following the Islamic Revolution and that Jews in Iran today are not equal but second-class citizens who face restrictions on their travel.

Baron says: "We tend to forget that, outside Israel, it has the most developed democracy in the region." Yet, as we all saw, elections are evidently less free and fair and civil liberties more restricted than in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq.

John Baron makes the old argument that military action, "inflammatory sanctions" or appeals for 'regime change' would 'boost the hardliners' and 'undermine local proponents of reform'. According to this logic, we could never take any action against Iran, or indeed any other oppressive regime, as it would 'boost the hardliners' and hurt reformists. Presumably the best way to help democracy is to let repressive regimes get away with doing what they want.

It is already clear that the Iranian regime will not allow opponents or reformists any power. They were brutally crushed after the last presidential election and at the time of the Arab Spring. Us standing back and watching hardly did any good for the opposition then.

Baron's recommendation is that "we offer implicit recognition of Iran’s status as a major power in the region". In other words, we reward the Iranian regime for its bullying and aggressive behaviour, despite the proxy wars it has been waging against us.

Margaret Thatcher might call this the "stench of appeasement". But John Baron seems to have gone beyond appeasement into outright apologism for the Islamic Republic. It is difficult to see what Iran would have to do before he accepted any action against it.

Opponents of Trident have a problem with democracy

2011-12-04T15:53:00.006Z

On the subject of defence, we saw yet another non-story on the cost of Trident from the Guardian this week, with the supposedly shocking news that the Ministry of Defence was spending money on the renewal of Trident. This was the revelation that the MOD has spent approximately £2billion on facilities for building and maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons, before the Trident 'Main Gate' decision has been announced.

According to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, this "makes a complete mockery of the democratic process." No it does not.

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of renewing the UK's nuclear deterrent in 2007. The renewal of Trident was in the manifestos of the Conservatives and Labour. It was also part of the Coalition Programme for Government and the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The 'Initial Gate' decision to go ahead with the renewal of Trident has been made and announced - and it was made clear then that this involved spending money on the project.

What more does she want?

The MOD has to start spending now for the renewal of Trident to be viable. If it did not, the same critics would turn round in a few years and complain that the costs of renewal had escalated and Trident was no longer feasible.

The fuss and opposition is not about costs or democracy. These are just excuses for opponents' ideological opposition to the principle of UK nuclear weapons. They should be open and say so. The trickle of stories about costs are designed to create the impression that Trident costs too much and to undermine public faith in the deterrent.

It is opponents of Trident who are 'making a mockery of the democratic process'. No matter how many votes are taken on this decision, they never accept the result.

Challenges ahead for the new Defence Secretary

2011-12-04T15:34:00.003Z

New Defence Secretary Philip Hammond faces many challenges. Recently a chain of stories have given a stark reminder of the precarious state of Britain’s defences.

First there was the news that, just as the First Sea Lord had warned, due to the Libya operation there was not a single Royal Navy ship left to defend British home waters. Then the news that one of the ships that was sent to Libya was sent with only four missiles. Then the news that the Navy would not have enough submarines to protect the UK either. And the unsurprising news from the National Audit Office that defence cuts and delays had actually led to increased project costs. Not to mention the warning from the Public Accounts Select Committee that we may not have a fully operational aircraft carrier until 2030. And then we have US defence cuts to worry about, as the new carriers are dependent on the US-led Joint Strike Fighter programme.

On the plus side, the Sentinel R1 spy plance, which was due for the axe but used in Libya, may be given a reprieve. Unfortunately this did not happen in the case of the Nimrod R1 reconnaisance plane, which was kept on for just a little longer to be used in Libya and then scrapped anyway. And it is now too late for the Harrier jets, which have been sold to the USA.

With the financial outlook decidedly gloomy, any temptation for any further defence cuts must be resisted at all costs. But this may already be a forlorn hope. Following the Autumn Statement, the Armed Forces will be hit by the 1% cap (down from 2%) on public sector pay rises, following the pay freeze. The Chancellor announced that departmental budgets would be revised down accordingly - so the saving will go straight back to the Treasury, and UK defence spending will fall even further. And unlike the previous pay freeze, no ameliorating measures have been announced. Yet another blow for morale, and for UK defence.

Happy St Andrew's Day

2011-11-30T12:44:00.002Z

Happy St Andrew's Day to all!

Why we should keep Greenwich Mean Time at Greenwich

2011-11-22T08:55:00.002Z

Today MPs are voting Daylight Savings Bill, a proposal that this country, the home of Greenwich Mean Time, should no longer use it and should instead move to Central European Time. Despite earlier opposition, the Government is now throwing its weight behind this shameful proposal.

It would be a terrible shame if this country were to abandon Greenwich Mean Time, on which the world’s time system is based, for Central European Time. It would be absurd for Greenwich itself not to have Greenwich Mean Time. This proposal - the latest of many unsuccessful attempts - is yet another assault on our history and heritage, for the sake of synchronising this country with continental Europe and the Central European Time zone, which is based on Berlin time.

Many of the purported benefits of changing our time zone are spurious. We cannot create more hours of daylight. This change will not give children or anyone else more daylight. It will simply shift the time of the day. If people really think there are safety benefits to be had from having lighter journeys home, then surely the solution is for schools and other institutions to adjust their opening hours accordingly, in accordance with local preference, rather than changing the time zone of the entire country and abandoning Greenwich Mean Time. It is laughable to claim that this change will boost tourism revenue. People do not come to Britain to enjoy light evenings.

Lighter evenings will mean darker mornings, with people’s journeys to work and to school being dark throughout most of the year if this change is adopted. In the winter we will not have daylight until 10am. This will be a problem - contrary to the arguments of some in the South - throughout the UK.

However, the problem will be particularly acute further the north and west, such as in Scotland and Northern Ireland. David Cameron has made clear that any change to the time would need the support of all parts of the UK, yet is clear that much opinion in Scotland and Northern Ireland understandably remains against the proposal. With a referendum on independence promised in Scotland, I do not see why we should needlessly provoke a debate with the Scottish administration, which would play right into the hands of Alex Salmond. It has also been pointed out that this change would mean that Northern Ireland would be one hour different from the Republic of Ireland, which also uses GMT. Again, it seems absurd that GMT would be used in other countries but not in the home of GMT.

The proposal in this Bill is for an assessment by an independent commission and then for a trial period, and the Government’s line that it makes sense for Ministers to look at the potential economic and social benefits of any change. But we have been here before – moving the clocks forward by an extra hour for a trial period from 1968 to 1971. The review of the 1968 experiment found that it was impossible to quantify at that time many of the important claims about the advantages of the change, which are being made today, such as improved road safety and health. However, the review did reveal many practical problems, particularly in the north of England and Scotland, who argued that the change caused discomfort and inconvenience because of the late sunrise in winter. Following a free vote in Parliament on 2nd December 1970, the House of Commons voted by the decisive margin of 366 to 81 to revert to GMT. To repeat this experiment now would be an expensive waste of money, and should hardly be a priority given the serious challenges this country is facing.

More recently, Portugal experimented with a move from GMT to Central European Time in 1992. The experiment was abandoned in 1996 and Portugal reverted to GMT because its population decided that the advantages of lighter evenings were not offset by the disadvantages of darker mornings, just as happened in the UK. Interestingly, children – who supposedly have the most to gain from such a change – were judged to be particularly negatively affected, due to the disruption to their sleeping habits, with it not getting dark until later at night and it not getting light until late in the mornings.

MPs should reject this proposal to shift the UK to Central European Time based on the time in Berlin, and preserve Greenwich Mean Time in Greenwich.

The Guardian's call for surrender to Iran

2011-11-11T12:19:00.002Z

Yesterday's editorial from the Guardian on Iran's nuclear programme was disgraceful even by Guardian standards. Rather than urging - as one might expect - a peaceful solution to solve the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, the Guardian instead argues that "It really is time to drop the pretence that Iran can be deflected from its nuclear path". That’s right: the Guardian's solution is not military action, not sanctions, not peaceful pressure, not diplomacy, but outright surrender.

Bizarrely, the Guardian prefaces this recommendation by casting doubt on the evidence for Iran's nuclear weapons programme, implying that the IAEA report is just the latest example of "a flurry of leaks about Iran's nuclear programme, always tending to suggest, without being able to absolutely prove, that Tehran is working to acquire nuclear weapons capacity". Evidently the Guardian still cannot quite bring itself to fully accept that the threat posed by Iran really is real, and that those warning that Iran was developing nuclear weapons really were right – even if it then goes on to tell the rest of the world to accept a nuclear Iran as an inevitability.

What the Guardian fails to recognise is that this report from the IAEA is, or at least should be, a ‘game changer’. The IAEA, as opposed to only Western powers, finally comes off the fence and effectively rules out peaceful purposes for Iran’s nuclear programme. It says that Iran has carried out "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components," and says of Iranian research that "the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency.”

Faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, it might seem wise not to rule out any options, including military ones. But not for the Guardian: "An attack on Iran would of course be madness... It really is time for the United States to recognise that there is no military solution." Really? What is the evidence for this claim? If it came to it, military action may only perpetually delay rather than permanently stop the Iranian nuclear programme. But given the alternative, that may turn out to be the least bad option. But so averse is the Guardian to the prospect of Western military action that it would rather accept an Iranian nuclear bomb and a future forever in its shadow than countenance such a policy.

The Guardian blithely argues that we should "be focusing not on the lost cause of what can be done to impede Iran's nuclear efforts" but on how to "live with" Iranian nuclear weapons. This advice seems to rest on the assumption that the Iranian regime is rational, stable and predictable, and that it thinks like us. It isn’t and it doesn’t. Those who advocate living with an Iranian nuclear bomb are not just putting their faith in the current regime but in any future leader who may come to power in Iran.

Even if the Islamic Republic does not ‘use’ the weapons by launching them against Israel or anyone else, it will ‘use’ them all the time to influence and threaten – explicitly or implicitly – its neighbours and the wider world, with the threat of nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East. Iran - a country which already sponsors and directs terrorism, wages a proxy war against Israel (the country its president says should be “wiped off the map”), has been waging a proxy war against the UK and the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan and has repeatedly targeted British military personnel for hostage-taking – would be infinitely emboldened, knowing that it can act with impunity.

The Guardian argues that Iranian nuclear weapons might somehow put other states off going nuclear: “If neighbouring states were to conclude that pursuing the bomb had brought Iran no marked advantage, they might be cautious about emulating Tehran.” This is just wishful thinking. Regardless of the ‘marked advantage’ or not for Iran – and it is hard to see how such a victory in defiance of the rest of the world could do anything other than boost Iran’s standing – other countries in the region are likely to respond by seeking nuclear weapons of their own; not because they want to emulate Tehran, but because they fear it. A nuclear Iran is therefore most likely to trigger a nuclear arms race. And those regimes which do want to emulate Iran – such as that of Syria – will be inspired by Iran’s example. If we cannot or will not stop Iran, then how would we be expected to stop any of these other countries?

The Guardian says: "it really is time for both America and Israel to put aside the idea that they can stop history with high explosives, cyber-attacks, sanctions and assassinations." History? Is that how they regard Iran going nuclear? It rather makes a mockery of their claim to support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

This is Western defeatism at its worst, coupled with a complete lack of appreciation for the differences between our values and those of the Islamic Republic. Western leaders would do well to completely ignore the Guardian's advice. Simply accepting Iranian nuclear weapons is the one option which we should take off the table.

The EU referendum motion should be debated as it is

2011-10-23T16:30:00.002+01:00

In advance of Monday's big vote in the House of Commons on a motion calling for a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU, George Eustice MP has tabled an amendment saying: "This House calls upon the Government to publish a White Paper during the next session of parliament setting out the powers and competences that the Government would seek to repatriate from the EU, to commence a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU and to put the outcome of those negotiations to a national referendum.”

Donna Rachel Edmunds argues at The Commentator that the amendment should be supported, particularly by the 'out' campaign as it would allow them to argue that renegotiation had been tried before an in/out referendum was held.

Yet the Eustice amendment makes no mention of an in/out referendum. It only mentions putting the outcome of the negotiations to a referendum.

While the Eustice amendment may well make a very worthy option in its own right for those of us who would like to see a renegotiation of the UK's relationship with the EU, as an amendment to the original motion put forward by David Nuttall MP it removes the most vital aspect - the referendum with the option of leaving the EU, which is what has been demanded by the public e-petition which led the backbench business committee to decide that there should be a debate on this motion.

The David Nuttall motion, unamended, leaves all options on the table - staying in the EU, leaving, or renegotiating. Giving the people all the options is more important than trying to engineer a future referendum with the 'right' result than one group would like to see.

Holding a referendum before the UK attempted renegotiation would have the advantage of giving a popular mandate to the renegotiation process, giving the British Government greater leverage.

Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, recently said at an event in Chatham House that the UK should not try to repatriate any powers and that we would not have any bargaining chips. If renegotiation is to have any hope of success, or of even being a meaningful process, we will need to show the EU that we are serious.

The type of renegotiation envisaged in Monday’s motion is the creation of "a new relationship based on trade and co-operation," ie. a fundamental change, not the piecemeal repatriation of some powers. Yet the Eustice amendment leaves it to the Government to decide what the terms of the renegotiation should be.

Given the Government's record so far in dealing with the EU, this is not an encouraging prospect. The Government has participated in the EU bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Government has already agreed to EU treaty changes to create a permanent European Stabilisation Mechanism without seeking to repatriate any powers in return. Despite passing the European Union Act to provide for a referendum when powers are to transfer from the UK to the EU, the Government has decided that this particular treaty change will not require any referendum. The Government has opted in to numerous EU justice and home affairs laws. Alarmingly, the Government has also given vocal support to the idea that the solution to the Eurozone crisis lies in even more integration for Euro countries, through 'fiscal union' and closer economic governance. In doing so, the Government risks both prolonging and exacerbating the Euro disaster while also creating a permanent bloc of even more integrated countries which will always be able to outvote the UK. This is a significant change which will affect the UK, which is why renegotiation must be a priority. And another treaty change is on the cards, which gives us the opportunity.

While the Eustice amendment is not a ‘wrecking amendment’, it does significantly water down the original motion in a way which will leave those who petitioned for a referendum disappointed. Where a motion has been put forward by the backbench business committee in response to public petitions, they should not be amended so that their original meaning is lost. While it has been argued that the Nuttall motion could split the Eurosceptic public, the Eustice amendment will split Eurosceptic MPs before the public have any chance to be consulted, scuppering this process from the beginning.

I am reminded of the amendment which was put forward to water down Mark Reckless’s motion against UK participation in Euro bailouts in May. The difference is that in this case the Government would not even back the amended, watered down, motion. Instead, unless there is a last-minute change of heart, the Government seems determined to force a confrontation with backbenchers by running a 3-line whip against the motion in all its forms. In doing so, it looks set to face the biggest rebellion of this Parliament and to show itself out of touch with the majority of British public opinion, which wants this debate to be opened up and not shut down.

Happy Trafalgar Day

2011-10-21T13:25:00.001+01:00

Happy Trafalgar Day everyone!

9/11 ten years on: Bush and Blair were right

2011-09-12T09:30:00.001+01:00

In the last ten years, it has become increasingly fashionable to knock both George W Bush and Tony Blair for their response to the attacks of 9/11. The ‘War on Terror’ has become a less and less fashionable concept. But ten years on from the attacks, I would argue that - while mistakes have certainly been made – Bush and Blair basically got it right.

Following the loss of thousands of innocent lives on 11th September 2001, George W Bush stated that this attack would not stand and that there would be action against the terrorists responsible. Tony Blair, rightly, recognised that 9/11 was not simply an attack against the US but against the Western democratic world in general, and offered the US his support.

It is difficult to argue that the war to oust the Taleban from power in Afghanistan was not the right response. Here was a clear-cut case of a just war - the US was responding to an attack on its soil, by a terrorist group based in Afghanistan and hosted by the Islamist regime there. The Taleban were even given the chance to hand over Osama Bin Laden – they refused. What viable alternative was there to military action? Any lesser response would have looked pathetically weak in the eyes of the world and – of course- in the eyes of the terrorists, leaving them to think that they could strike at the US with impunity. Without the war, Afghanistan would have remained as a base for Al-Qaeda. This was surely not an attractive option. Whatever challenges remain in Afghanistan, they do not alter the justness of the war.

But what about Iraq? The lesson the US administration and British government took from 9/11 was that threats should not be left alone until they struck first. Saddam Hussein had been an ongoing problem for years, repeatedly obstructing and finally barring the UN weapons inspectors who were there to verify the disarmament which was one of the conditions of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War. The sanctions regime against him was crumbling due to a lack of support from other countries.
Here was a dictator who had not only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and invaded neighbouring countries twice, but who was in breach of seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions, had used chemical weapons against his own people and who had a record of harbouring and collaborating with Islamist terrorists – those who deny this last point should explain why Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was already in Iraq before the war, despite requests for extradition. While we now know in hindsight that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was badly wrong, at the time, with Saddam Hussein still not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors, this was too much of a risk to take.

Of course, many people became legal experts overnight and declared the war ‘illegal’, despite the Attorney General’s advice that it was lawful, despite the seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions and despite a vote of Parliament. Why the vetoes of countries like China at the UN should have more legitimacy than the decision of our democratically elected Parliament has never been properly explained.

Many more condemned, and still do condemn, the US and the UK for the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet they ignore the plain fact that the vast majority of civilian casualties have been caused not by US or allied forces, but by the Islamist insurgents fighting against us. In Iraq, Islamist and sectarian terrorist groups launched an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians on a daily basis. They went out of their way to slaughter as many civilians as possible, yet received notably less condemnation than the US and Britain. Similarly, in Afghanistan, a UN report this year showed that the Taleban are now responsible for more than six times as many civilian deaths as NATO forces – and the proportion is growing.

Yet many in the West have a masochistic desire to always blame ourselves. Some find it much easier to reflexively condemn the US and Britain rather than accept that we are genuinely facing a vicious enemy and have the right to defend ourselves. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, it became commonplace even to blame the West for ‘creating’ the forces that we were battling, as a way of highlighting supposed Western hypocrisy. In the case of Afghanistan, it is still widely believed that the CIA funded and supported Osama Bin Laden during the anti-Soviet jihad of the 1980s, even though there is no evidence to support this and Bin Laden brought his own funding with him from Saudi Arabia. In the case of Iraq, it was often said that it was the US that had armed Saddam Hussein in the first place, during his war with Iran. In fact, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US and UK combined provided Saddam Hussein with less than 1% of his purchased weapons – against 57% from the USSR, 13% from France and 12% from China.

Similarly, it was argued that we were really to blame for the terrorist attacks against us due to our foreign policy. It was claimed that the War on Terror, and particularly the Iraq War, radicalised many Muslims against us. It should hardly need pointing out that it was Al-Qaeda that started the war, not us, through 9/11 and its previous attacks against US targets. If it is argued that we cannot fight back because it would radicalise future terrorists, then that would leave us completely unable to defend ourselves. Aside from which, arguing that we should not do anything which might radicalise would-be terrorists would effectively be to hand Islamist terrorists a veto over our foreign policy. A lot of time was wasted in Britain on arguing about whether the Iraq War inspired more terrorism – even if it did, the argument is of little value. The fact that Al-Qaeda disapprove of something does not mean that it is wrong, unless Al-Qaeda are to become our new moral arbiters.

It has often been argued that the War on Terror alienated Muslim opinion worldwide, and was perceived as a ‘war against Islam’. This probably says more about the state much of worldwide Muslim opinion was already in than about our actions. George W Bush and Tony Blair repeatedly went out of their way to emphasise that this was not a war with Islam and that Islam was neither the enemy nor the problem. Given that Al-Qaeda is a self-proclaimed Islamist terrorist group, and that they were harboured by an Islamist regime in Afghanistan, it was inevitable that the US and UK would end up fighting against Muslims – just as in 1999 Tony Blair had called for strong military action against the (Christian) Serbs in defence of Kosovar Muslims.

It has also been said that the US should have done more to ‘reach out’ to the Muslim world. In fact, in the early days after 9/11, there were many attempts at reaching out – particularly by Tony Blair, who tried to reach out to the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Iranians. But beyond expressions of sympathy for the victims of the 9/11, there was little reaching back, or even a willingness to give any approval to the West’s operation against Al-Qaeda and the Taleban. When it came to military action, given that the US had been attacked on its own soil, and given the record of many European countries and international institutions, can we really blame the US for taking a ‘unilateralist’ – or, as was often the case, bilateralist – approach?

Incredibly, after 9/11, some still persisted in claiming that the terrorist threat was ‘exaggerated’ or even ‘manufactured’ by governments who supposedly had some sinister desire to launch endless wars and terrify their populations in order to strip them of their civil liberties. In the UK, no apology was forthcoming from these people when we suffered out own attacks of 7/7. The reason there have not been even more terrorist attacks is not because Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have not had the intention of launching them but due to concerted military action against Al-Qaeda and the constant vigilance and undercover work of our security services.

Many have criticised the terminology of the ‘War on Terror’, pointing out that you cannot fight a war against something which is a tactic rather than a group or an ideology. They may have a point – perhaps ‘War against Islamist terrorist networks’ may be more accurate, but it is hardly more concise. But such quibbles over terminology are hardly helpful. Given the scale of the 9/11 attacks and the threat of further attacks, conceptualising the response as a ‘war’ was surely the right thing to do. Bush and Blair were absolutely right to recognise that these were not just isolated terrorist attacks against specific targets, but that they were indeed an assault on our values and way of life. Those who still doubt this should read Osama Bin Laden’s ‘letter to the American people’, in which he states: "You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire... You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."

Thankfully, Osama Bin Laden is now dead, his organisation weakened, and his ideology dwindling in popularity. These things did not happen by accident, but as a result of the War on Terror and the efforts led by George W Bush and Tony Blair.

It has been remarked upon, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’, how the peoples of the Arab nations are now crying out for democracy and freedom, and not looking to Islamists or terrorists in their revolts against their undemocratic regimes. This is another thing which Bush and Blair got right: that democracy could be spread to the Middle East, that freedom was not an exclusively Western value that was incompatible with Muslim or Arab societies. Last year, as US combat operations drew to a close, the BBC could not resist pointing out: "Nor has the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to a general domino effect towards democracy throughout the Middle East." That assessment already appears outdated. It is impossible to tell whether or not the Arab Spring would have happened if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq. If it had, then he would almost certainly be doing his best to crush it with a bloody campaign of repression to rival what has been done in Syria and Libya. Instead, we had a democratically elected Iraqi government calling for action against the regime of Colonel Gaddafi. Now that is progress.

While we have had numerous successes in the War on Terror, the fight goes on, most notably in Afghanistan. The last decade has been tough, not least for the US. Tough but – given the enormity of 9/11 – necessary. It is difficult to see what would have been a better alternative to the War on Terror. At the end of the decade, it needs to be said: Bush and Blair did the right thing, and we are in a better position now than we would otherwise have been.

London’s burning

2011-08-22T21:01:00.003+01:00

My take on the riots:

How did all this happen?

Well, to go back to the beginning, this all started as a race riot, after the shooting of Mark Duggan by armed police. The ‘peaceful’ vigil after the shooting of the man, who was himself armed, soon degenerated into wanton violence and destruction, with buses and buildings going up in flames, reportedly after a girl started throwing stones at the police.

The fact that Mark Duggan had a gun apparently did little or nothing to dampen the ‘community’ anger at his death or to undermine the instant narrative of an innocent black man gunned down by racist police. The immediate cause of the riots can therefore be said to be an ingrained emnity towards the forces of law and order and a willingness to always believe the worst of the police.

Frankly, it should not have been unforeseen that this ‘peaceful protest’ against a police shooting had a good chance of degenerating into a violent riot. The police stated afterwards that they opted for a ‘low-key’ approach because a heavy police presence would undoubtedly be criticised as being ‘provocative’ and ‘inflammatory’. It probably would have. But people who regard the presence of the police as a ‘provocation’ are already a problem. This light approach is symptomatic of the kind of weak-willed thinking which has brought us to such a breakdown in law and order.

It turned out that not much provocation was needed after all. And after the police failed to stop Tottenham going up in flames on the first night, we saw the rioting spread to Brixton and other areas on the second night. By the third night, we had what seemed to be a wholesale collapse of law and order, as if society itself was breaking down on Britain’s streets, with an orgy of rioting and looting across London and in other cities across England. It seemed to be the Gyges’ ring effect described by Plato: once people think they can do wrong without being held to account and facing consequences, then many people will, without hesitation. Morality goes out of the window. There was opportunism, and copycat opportunism, on a vast scale. There was not just looting, but extreme, deadly, violence.

Any attempt to spin this as something that was dealt with well by the Government or the police must be doomed to failure. This should not have been allowed to carry on for four nights. With anarchy on Britain’s streets, harder measures were needed. Those options which were available should have been used, and the Government should have made its support clear from the start.

Instead, when the use of new police tactics – such as water cannon – were suggested, the Home Secretary dismissed these out of hand, insisting that they were incompatible with the ‘British way’ of ‘community policing’ and ‘policing by consent’. The burning cityscapes in the background were the results of such policing. As it was, there was huge public consent for police to use water cannon, plastic bullets and teargas, and for bringing in the Army. These are options which must be available to the police when faced with such massive disorder. Restoring order is more important than preserving the illusion of a society at peace. We can now see the logical consequence of the moans of those who always criticise the police for ‘heavy-handed’ policing at protests. If people expect the police to uphold order and be tough, then they need to be willing to support them when they do so.

And what of the aftermath, now that the dust has settled? Some have been surprised – and not pleasantly – at some of the tough sentences handed out by the courts so far. Given what happened, it is difficult to sympathise with this response, painful though it must be for some liberals to see criminals punished. The riots were shocking. The punishments are not. It is ironic how some of the same Liberal Democrat politicians and liberal-left commentators more broadly who would usually go on about judicial independence and how politicians should not criticise judges are now complaining that the sentences being handed down by the courts are too harsh. Now we see that what they really mean by the independence of the judiciary is the independence of the judiciary so long as the judiciary agrees with their worldview – so long as it is also liberal. Surely the liberal argument for ‘less punitive’ justice and soft policies, as embodied in the current Justice Secretary, has now lost all credibility. How on earth do these people expect to deter another chain of riots?

The same liberals were also horrified by the public calls to take away the benefits and council homes of those guilty of rioting. Were they really surprised that people wanted to stop subsidising the same criminals who destroyed their neighbourhoods? Then they complained at the Government’s intention to deport foreigners convicted of offences in the riots. Why on earth should these criminals not be deported? Taking part in the riots which tore this country apart is one of the most blatant examples possible of abusing our hospitality. Good riddance to them. It is clear that the ‘progressives’ would rather uphold their soft liberal instincts and their moral high ground over the lowly majority than conscion the tough punishments necessary to punish the guilty and deter future offenders. It is also clear that they believe we should carry on as before, as though nothing much has happened, and hope that it does not happen again. These are the last people we should listen to, as these are the people who got us here. After all, it is their socially liberal, amoral, multicultural, welfare-statist society - where punishment, authority and discipline were declared outdated – which went into revolt.

The cultural feebleness of some British liberals was exposed by the rush to sign a petition to demand an apology from the BBC for comments made by David Starkey on Newsnight about black gang culture which they disagreed with. The BBC did apologise for an allegedly ‘disrespectful’ interview with Darcus Howe, who voiced his sympathy for the rioters and claimed this was an ‘insurrection of the people’ akin to Syria and that it resulted from the 'oppression of young blacks'. He denounced the police for ‘blowing the head off’ of an innocent young black man, neglecting to explain why this innocent victim had a gun on him. This obsession, even in the face of what has happened, with not saying anything which may ‘offend’ someone is a symptom of the approach which got us into this mess in the first place. In France, the then interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy did not hesitate to denounce the mainly Algerian rioters as ‘scum’.

It is no good trying to sweep what happened under the carpet, as though it was of no significance. That is why dismissing it as “simple opportunism” and “mindless thievery” with no more to it than that is too much of an easy answer. It is almost to let the rioters off too easily. There is no need for the false distinction between opportunistic looting - which is clearly bad – with no political motive, and violent rioting with a political motive, as though that would somehow be good, or at least less bad. Having a political element to it would not make violent rioting and attacks against the police any better, or the perpetrators any better. Far from it. Instead, it suggests a widespread attack against law and order itself, a threat to the security of the state.

Similarly, there is no reason to shy away from discussing the ‘root causes’ of the riots – so long as it is understood that discussion of ‘root causes’ does not necessarily mean the same, inevitably socio-economic ‘root causes’ which are always used by the left – poverty, unemployment, lack of opportunity, et cetera. There are root causes for why the civil peace broke down in Britain – greed, a lack of respect for authority, a lack of fear of punishment, a lack of respect or compassion for other people or other people’s property, emnity and hostility towards the police, a violent gang culture in many places, a lack of basic morality or civility.

Of course, the usual socio-economic root cause arguments, or excuses, did not take long to emerge. The New York Times gave us patronising nonsense and a bizarrely ‘class-war’ interpretation of the events, as dispossessed poor youth struggling against an upper-class government which now wanted to inflict class-based collective punishments on them. Some argued that somehow the rioters were motivated by anger at bankers’ bonuses, MPs’ expenses or even phone-hacking journalists. Maybe some of them were angry at these things, although I doubt these were as important to them as they were to the Guardianistas who drew these comparisons, and I don't remember bankers burning peoples houses down or shooting at police. But that would not explain, let alone justify or mitigate, their actions. Were the riots a response to ‘the cuts’? There is little evidence for this, but for some of them maybe it was – in the sense that many of those rioting have probably grown up with the belief that society and the state owes them a living and that other people should pay for it- as soon as they see part of this approach under threat, they respond angrily and violently. Again, even if rioting was partly a response to the wicked cuts (which is highly questionable), that does not prove that public spending cuts are wrong or any less necessary – any more than the argument that the ‘root cause’ of Islamic terrorism was the Iraq War meant that the Iraq War was wrong, as though we should let terrorists make our decisions for us. Rioters should not be our moral arbiters either.

So, yes there are root causes – hostility towards the police in black and other minority ‘communities’, gang culture, ethnic ghettoisation, a victim culture where people are told that their problems are someone else’s fault, an entitlement culture where people are told that other people will pay for them and that if they are a member of a ‘disadvantaged group’ they will be entitled to extra special treatment and extra special handouts, a lack of parental control of their children, a lack of stable families and households in many cases, drug and alcohol abuse, a lack of national pride or a unified national culture, a lack of any moral code, a complete disregard for the rights and property of others, and the belief that you can get away with crime. In short, the root cause is the rotting of British society from inside and out. David Cameron was mocked for talking of a ‘broken society’ – now his description of a society that is ‘not just broken, but sick’ is harder to disagree with.

This is clearly something that will take decades to address, if it is to be addressed at all. The Government’s pre-existing policies on reforming education and welfare should help move things in the right direction. If the Government is also to promote marriage and the family, and to tackle the human rights culture, then this is to be welcomed too. But of course this must go beyond Government. The tough sentences handed out by the courts so far are a good start.

It has been said that the cosy and complacent image of Britain which many people held went up in flames this August. If Britain itself is to avoid the fire, then so must the liberal goal of a multicultural, morally-relativist society where authority, discipline and punishment are dirty words.

Fantastic Blue Fox

2011-08-21T17:11:00.003+01:00

The Mail and Telegraph have reported on the ‘Blue Fox’ group of Conservative MPs who would vote against the repeal of the Hunting Act should the issue come before Parliament again. They have been described as urban, female MPs, who are now being nicknamed the ‘Blue Foxes' – such as Caroline Dinenage, Tracey Crouch, Esther McVey, Laura Sandys and Sarah Wollaston. Ann Widdecombe, a long-standing supporter of the ban on hunting, pointed out the irony of the new MPs promoted by David Cameron through the A-list now obstructing his pledge to repeal it: “From the earths of a thousand woods you can hear the foxes laughing.”

This portrayal of the ‘Blue Foxes’ is somewhat misleading - Gosport and Thanet could hardly be described as 'urban', and then there are MPs such as Mike Weatherley, Simon Kirby and Dominic Raab who were among the first of the new intake to speak out against repeal, as well as older MPs such as Roger Gale and David Amess. The origin of the ‘Blue Fox’ appears to be the campaign Group Conservatives Against Fox Hunting (slogan: "Don’t run with the pack"). There now are reportedly 23 Conservative MPs who have said that they would vote against the repeal of the Act, which means there is little hope of a parliamentary majority for repeal. This is clearly an ethical issue where morality should come before party loyalties.

The moral case against hunting with dogs is quite straightforward - it is cruelty to animals for the purpose of sport, without ethical justification. The claim that it this an effective, efficient or humane method of pest control is laughable. More foxes were killed by traffic than by fox-hunts, and there is no evidence that the fox population has increased or that foxes have killed more livestock since the ban. It would be interesting to hear the pest-control explanation for cutting off the tails and ears of foxes as trophies or for smearing the blood of a dead fox onto the face of a child as an initiation ceremony. And it is hard to see how hare-coursing and the hunting of deer and mink with dogs - which were also banned by the Hunting Act - could count as pest control. Even badgers fell victim to the cruelty prior to the ban, with fox hunts regularly blocking up the entrances to badger setts or sending in their hounds before or during a hunt.

The argument that the ban infringes on ‘individual freedom’ is unconvincing. Is there really a fundamental freedom to engage in bloodsports which deliberately harm and are cruel to animals for pleasure? Freedom is limited when it comes to harming others. As John Stuart Mill said: “The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children, apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind, the lower animals." Cock-fighting, bear-baiting and dog-fighting have all been illegal since the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1835 – before the Victorian era. Presumably this infringes individual freedom too. Why should fox-hunting ,hare-coursing and deer-hunting be considered any differently? As Dominic Raab argued, “there is no more a freedom to hunt foxes than there is a liberty to engage in bear-baiting or cock fighting.”

Aside from the dubious morality of repealing the ban, which is clearly the most important aspect, such a move seems completely out of line with David Cameron’s ‘modern, compassionate conservatism’ rhetoric and his ‘re-branding’ of the Conservative Party. It is not difficult to imagine the public reaction to parliamentary time being given to another vote on this issue – it would fulfil all the worst stereotypes of the Conservative Party being out of touch with ordinary people and promoting the narrow interests of a small elite minority of the country – and doing so in a way which promotes outdated cruelty to boot. For the Government to seek to do this, with the country going through what it is going through, would be almost beyond satire. Repeal really is a minority interest. According to an Ipsos MORI poll, 76% of the British public support the ban on fox hunting. Only 18% believe it should be repealed. It is not a town-versus-countryside issue either: 71% of those in the countryside also support the ban and want it to stay! So much for the claim that fox-hunting is central to rural life – a claim which is an insult to rural people. And to top it all, 62% of Conservative voters support the ban. If there was ever an unpopular policy to ditch, then this seems like the one.

Unless we really want to go backwards on animal welfare, and open up Britain once again to outdated blood-sports.

Defence Select Committee report damns the SDSR

2011-08-18T20:32:00.003+01:00

The recent Defence Select Committee report on the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Council gives yet another damning verdict on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The report concludes that "the need for savings" is "overriding the strategic security of the UK".

In an unusally blunt criticism of the Prime Minister, the report baldly states: "“The Prime Minister’s view that the UK currently has a full spectrum defence capability is rejected by the committee.”

And contrary to the Government's claims: “Given the Government’s declared priority of deficit reduction we conclude that a period of strategic shrinkage is inevitable... The Government appears to believe that the UK can maintain its influence while reducing spending. We do not agree. If the UK’s influence in the world is to be maintained, the Government must demonstrate in a clear and convincing way that these reductions have been offset by identifiable improvements.”

In a stinging criticism of continuing defence cuts while fighting two wars, the Committee says: “We can only conclude that the Government has postponed the sensible aspiration of bringing commitments and resources into line, in that it has taken on the new commitment of Libya while reducing the resources available to the Ministry of Defence.”

The Committee warns that the Armed Forces are heading below 'critical mass' and that the UK will suffer major 'capability gaps'. The Armed Forces depend on increased spending from 2015, but there is no guarantee that this will happen. The Committtee boldly argues that despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, the SDSR has effectively already been reopened - but with further cuts being made!

The whole report is an absolutely damning verdict.

It is also bears out the recent Henry Jackson Society report The Tipping Point, which warns that the UK is at a moment where we will have to decide what our priorities are and whether we are serious about our global role.

The way things are going, we are heading for disaster. The Government's position becomes more and more indefensible. The verdict of history may be damning.

The UK has reached the Tipping Point

2011-07-19T09:15:00.003+01:00

Bernard Jenkin and the Henry Jackson Society have launched a report in which I am proud to have played a part: ‘The Tipping Point: British National Strategy and the UK’s Future World Role’.

The report argues that we have now reached a tipping point - if we carry on as we are, we are headed fo disaster. At stake is whether we wish to maintain our position as a global power or become by default just another European country. British national interests are global, and our foreign and defence policies must reflect this. The Government still aspires to a global role, but is cutting our capabilities to the point where this will no longer be possible.

The National Security Strategy (NSS) sought to prioritise identifiable threats, but failed to address the problem of strategic shocks that we cannot predict. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, it deals with known knowns and known unknowns but not the unknown unknowns. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) which followed the NSS failed to retain a full spectrum of forces, and it did not take long for its shortcomings to become apparent. The Government argues that it has established an "adaptable posture" for UK defences, but the loss of capabilities such as carrier strike leave the UK less able to adapt and respond. We are throwing away capabilities which it will take years to recover. The decision to delay the scrapping of the Nimrod R1 so that it could be deployed in Libya demonstrated the short-sightedness of the SDSR.

In some cases the SDSR put off making the tough decisions at all, most notably in the case of Trident. Putting off a decision of such importance until after the next election makes no strategic sense at all, and is a gamble with our national security for the sake of coalition politics.

Those who believe that the UK can no longer afford to maintain a global role neglect the fact that power is an essential guarantor of prosperity. As the outgoing US Defence Secretary said recently, European nations cannot continue to rely on the American security guarantee indefinitely, especially if we are not willing to contribute our share to that effort. We must reject the defeatist view that we should shuffle off from the world stage and out our feet up, and the naive belief that if only we didn't get involved in so many pesky foreign entanglements the world run by powers like China, Russia and Iran would be safe and benign.

We have to reassess our priorities. The Government has made a choice to protect and increase other areas of public spending, but not defence. Deficit reduction is vital, but making strategy with budget cuts as the primary objective is clearly the wrong way to go about it. This is the future of our country which is at stake. Decline and fall is not inevitable - it is a choice.

Armed Forces Day 2011

2011-06-25T23:29:00.005+01:00

Happy Armed Forces Day!

With the celebration held in Edinburgh this year.

Good to see the Red Arrows.

Next year, Plymouth!

A triumph over the circus whips

2011-06-24T01:51:00.005+01:00

Yesterday, despite the Government’s best efforts, Parliament voted for a motion calling for a ban on circuses using wild animals. Like the motion on votes for prisoners, this came about through a backbench business motion. And like votes for prisoners, the Government’s position was weak, confused, inconsistent and spineless.

The motion was moved by Conservative backbencher Mark Pritchard, supported by Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick and Liberal Democrat MP Bob Russell. It was a relatively small and modest move, affecting a small number of animals. But it was the right move, with the welfare of wild animals at its heart. It is surely wrong that in this day and age in this country wild animals are still kept, and transported around, in cages to be used for entertainment in circuses. Public opinion is massively in favour, with it seeming simple and common-sense to most people that we should end this outdated and inhumane practice.

Yet the Government’s response veered between cowardly vacillation and underhand scullduggery. After first hinting that it would support such a ban (and last year’s Coalition Agreement included some positive new measures on animal welfare), the Government then claimed that it could not because it might breach the EU Services Directive or our very own Human Rights Act. This is plainly absurd. There is no ‘human right’ to lock up wild animals and take them around Britain. The Government’s argument was that a similar ban had been challenged in court in Austria. How pathetic. As Mark Pritchard put it: “It is not uncommon to hear of Governments sheltering behind courts in Brussels or Strasbourg, but to hear from Ministers in my own Front-Bench team say that this Government are now sheltering behind a domestic court in Vienna is a completely new innovation.” So, British policy is not only to be constrained and challenged by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, but also strangled before it is even introduced by anyone across the whole of Europe bringing a legal action to court – an action which as of yet in this case has not even been successful. Is this really how a sovereign Parliament should act? This is a recipe for paralysis.

To kill off this motion, Government whips – just as they did with the recent motion against British participation in Eurozone bailouts – got Conservative MPs to back a wrecking amendment which added “when the legal impediments have been addressed”. Given that someone in another country challenging their government in a domestic court is now considered a ‘legal impediment’ to British policy, this amendment would have meant putting off the issue forever. Fortunately, the Speaker did not select this amendment for debate – leaving the House of Commons free to debate the motion as originally intended – which is what backbench business debates are supposed to be about.

What is a mystery is why the Government went to such lengths to stop such a small, common-sense and popular measure. It was reported that it was Number 10 which intervened and overruled DEFRA, which had until recently supported a ban. Mark Pritchard devastatingly denounced in Parliament the way in which he was personally bullied by not just the whips but the office of the Prime Minister himself to drop or water down his motion. This backfired spectacularly, and late in the day – after either a change of heart or a loss of nerve, with another Tory rebellion on the cards - the Government backed down and allowed Conservative MPs a free vote on the issue. After this, no one even bothered to try to oppose the motion when it came to the vote, so it was agreed and passed – unamended – without needing one.

A small step, but a good day for animal welfare, common sense and Parliament. As Mark Pritchard said, Britain used to lead the world in animal welfare. It is a shame that the leadership of the present Government seems so determined to undermine and hold back this legacy. We shall have to see whether they will follow through on Parliament's motion, or continue to delay.

Head of the British Army joins the fray on Afghanistan

2011-06-22T23:49:00.005+01:00

General Sir Peter Wall, the Chief of the General Staff, has become the latest to enter the debate on Afghanistan and warn against a premature withdrawal.

In the BBC2 documentary Afghanistan: A War Without End, General Wall - as well as being bullish about leading British troops into the north of Helmand to take on the Taleban, refused to commit absolutely to the inflexible 2015 deadline. His judgment on the deadline was: "There are a number of domestic political reasons why the Prime Minister has chosen that target, and we in the British Amry are committed to delivering against that timeline. Whether or not it turns out to be an absolute timeline or more conditions-based approach nearer the time, we shall find out.” He described the deadline as an "intention", and added: "Things can always change. Things change weekly in politics and in strategic issues."

Here we have another military figure clearly confident in our successes in Afghanistan and loath to jeopardise them by leaving too early. This is a concern shared on both sides of the Atlantic.

His predecessor, Lord Dannatt, argued that the Prime Minister should not “risk the investment in blood and treasure just for a domestic political agenda”.
Sadly, defence seems to be the one area where the Prime Minister is unwilling to listen to such advice. The political deadline seems to trump success.

The Government needs to do some listening – not just talking – on defence

2011-06-22T23:18:00.003+01:00

Relations between the military and the Government must be at an all-time low after the Prime Minister told military chiefs: “You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking.” As a remark aimed publicly at the most senior officers of our Armed Forces, this is clearly inappropriate and utterly disrespectful – and comes across as downright immature and petulant.

It also goes far beyond, and is much more rude than, the moderate and reasonable observations made by our military chiefs in recent weeks: First Sea Lord Sir Mark Stanhope’s observation that the Libya operation would have been easier with a carrier capability, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant’s warning that the RAF was “running white hot”, and now Chief of the General Staff Sir Peter Wall’s argument that the 2015 deadline for Afghan withdrawal may need to be flexible.

Frankly, those who are leading our Armed Forces – in two simultaneous wars - have the right to do some talking too. And it is high time the Government started listening. There must be very few people outside the Government who believe that the Strategic Defence and Security Review – and the cutting of defence capabilities while fighting two wars – is a successful policy. Former commanders from the UK National Defence Association were the latest in a long line to warn: “Britain must reverse the defence cuts before it is too late.”

The Prime Minister has shown himself willing to listen and to change his mind on policy areas from forestry to health to criminal justice. Yet on this, the most important issue and the Government’s most serious and damaging mistake, his ears and mind are evidently closed. The Government is charging headlong into disaster, and risks bringing Britain down with it.

We won't cry for you, Argentina... but we should cry for ourselves

2011-06-21T23:51:00.004+01:00

Following Obama’s latest betrayal of Britain over the Falklands, Andrew Rosindell refreshingly raised the issue in the full glare of Prime Minister’s Questions, asking: “The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday was the anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands by the forces of the Crown. Will he remind President Obama when he next sees the United States President that negotiations over the Falkland Islands with Argentina will never be acceptable to Her Majesty’s Government, and that if the special relationship means anything, it means that they defend British sovereignty over our own territories?”

While dodging the issue of the US betrayal, the Prime Minister’s answer was firm on the principle: “My honourable Friend makes an excellent point, and I am sure that everyone right across the House will want to remember the anniversary of the successful retaking of the Falkland Islands and the superb bravery, skill and courage of all our armed forces who took part in that action. We should also remember those who fell in taking back the Falklands. I would say this: as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory—full stop, end of story.”

This seemingly uncontroversial statement drew a wildly insulting and aggressive response from Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
With incredible hypocrisy, she responded: "We Argentines never believed in ‘period’, not for human rights or for sovereignty over our Islands” – saying nothing of the human rights of the islanders. She went on: “the Argentine Foreign Affairs ministry described his remarks as a regrettable act of arrogance, I define them as mediocre and almost stupid. Only arrogance and mediocrity can put an end to history; you can be certain I will continue tirelessly claiming the sovereignty over our Islands until they sit at the dialogue table to negotiate as marked by the UN resolution.”

Her judgment was that: "In the 21st century Britain continues to be a crude colonial power in decline," adding: “colonialism is an antiquity”.

With such language being used, I would not place as much faith as the government does in the idea that Argentina being a ‘democracy’ is a guarantor of the peace. As Sandy Woodward, the commander of the Falklands task force, has warned, we could not pull off the Falklands success again if there was another Argentine invasion today. Saying, as the Government does, that we do not need to plan to retake the islands as we do not intend to lose them, is a statement of faith rather than policy – no Government ‘intends’ to be invaded and lose territory. But while there is now a military force on the islands now to deter an attack, 1000 troops and a handful of planes would not permanently stop a sustained invasion. We would have the whole of Latin America, and almost the whole Western hemisphere, against us – and no support from the US. In 1982, we deployed two carriers – now we do not have one. With no carrier capability, re-capturing the islands from an enemy occupation would be nigh-on impossible.

With the Argentine government openly making such threats and insults against Britain, this is a threat against our territory which we need to take seriously. Our defence should reflect this – but thanks to the Strategic Defence and Security Review, it does not.

Liam Fox rejoins the fray on Afghanistan

2011-06-21T22:56:00.002+01:00

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has again been outspoken on the debate over Afghan withdrawal, using a speech in Afghanistan to warn against Britain withdrawing troops too early. He warned:

“We came to Afghanistan because of a national security imperative. Whatever the humanitarian justification we must not lose sight of that. The history of Afghanistan teaches us that a security vacuum causes untold problems beyond its borders. We can’t let Afghanistan become an ungoverned space. We will still be involved in development and reconstruction after 2014, we will still have a partnership role with the security forces. It is impossible to predict the numbers we will keep here. It will depend on how security situation will change. But if there is still a wider security threat then we may need a stronger security presence. We should never forget why our armed forces made the sacrifices they did. However much people want to see our armed forces leave quickly, and none of us want to see them stay longer than needed, we must not allow the sacrifices they have made to be in vain.”

This is not dissimilar from his warning last year given in a speech in the US, and again it is distinctive from the message of the leadership of the Government, which is focused on bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Fox, like the military commanders, want to see this through until the job is done.

Fox also hailed the military progress being made against the Taleban, but warned that these gains are not irreversible. Right now, the main risk to these gains is a rushed withdrawal.

A ‘dim and dismal future’ for NATO

2011-06-21T16:39:00.004+01:00

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates gave a blunt and stark warning to the rest of NATO in his farewell speech in Brussels.

He pointed out that at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall - when the benefits of defending Europe were self-evident to Americans due to the Cold War - the US defence spending accounted for 50% of all the defence expenditure in NATO. Now, twenty years later, it is over 75%!

Such a gulf has consequences which are not just political. The NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned: "This increasing economic gap may also lead to an increasing technology gap which will almost hamper the inter-operability between our forces... eventually it will be difficult to co-operate even if you had the political will to co-operate because of the technological gap."

Gates highlighted how European nation's shameful neglect of their own defence capabilities was coming back to haunt them in the most embarrassing way in Libya: "it has become painfully clear that similar shortcomings – in capability and will – have the potential to jeopardize the alliance’s ability to conduct an integrated, effective and sustained air-sea campaign.... the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."

He reminded the assembled ministers that, shamefully, only 5 of the 28 allies - the US, the UK, France, Greece and Albania - meet the agreed NATO target of spending 2% of their GDP on defence. He warned, pointedly: "even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure." Gates’s warning is for us too – in fact, for us more than most, as we were one of only two European countries to remains serious world players in defence. Thanks to the cuts in defence capabilities resulting from the Strategic Defence and Security Review, Britain is also in danger of becoming just another European country lacking the capability to act effectively overseas. If we have little to offer, then how can we expect to have any influence or to be of any relevance in the future? Europe needs to wake up from the lazy assumption that we can neglect our defence capabilities and throw the money elsewhere because the world is safe and even if it wasn’t the Americans will be there to look after us. Not forever.

Gates warned that he saw "a dim, if not dismal future for the Transatlantic alliance." If we do not change course, we will sleepwalk towards a dim if not dismal future for Britain and for Europe. But I doubt very much that the leaders of Europe will listen. They seem set on peaceful, sheltered, comfortable decline, sneering about our supposed 'superiority' to the US while fading away into irrelevance.

Iran innocently triples enrichment in mountain bunker

2011-06-21T15:08:00.002+01:00

After Syria's referral to the UN Security Council, an itself chose last week to announce that it will move its production of higher-grade uranium to an alternative, underground, site and triple production activity.

Enrichment is to be relocated from the Natanz site to the Fordow site, a mountain bunker near Qom which was discovered by Western intelligence agencies in 2009. With Iran having announced last year that it was raising the level of enrichment from 3.5% to 20% (with the lower level being the level typical for civil nuclear energy, and 90% being the level needed for an atomic weapon), Iran also announced that production capacity is to be tripled – all for entirely innocent and peaceful purposes, you understand. The Iranians probably calculated – not incorrectly – that we in the West are distracted by lots of other things going on in the world at the moment.

The IAEA also de-restricted its most recent report on Iran's nuclear progress, in which it described "the possible military dimensions". It noted that "there are indications that certain (undisclosed nuclear activities) may have continued beyond 2004." According to the IAEA report, Iran's suspected activities include "producing uranium metal . . . into components relevant to a nuclear device"; "multipoint explosive initiation and hemispherical detonation studies"; and "missile re-entry vehicle redesign activities for a new payload assessed as being nuclear in nature." In case anyone was in any doubt about the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear programme, an article that appeared in April on the website of the Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps talks openly about the prospect of an Iranian nuclear test: "The day after the Islamic Republic of Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle." The author goes on to imagine that "the strength of the explosion was not so great as to cause severe damage to the region nor so weak that Iranian scientists face any problems running their test."

Surely Iran's announcement that it was innocently tripling uranium enrichment and shifting its operations to a mountain bunker for entirely peaceful purposes was the worst moment for a group of former ambassadors write an article boldly stating that "Iran is not on breach of international law" and painting the West as the villains of the piece. But low and behold, they did.

They argue that: "In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States may be less assured than is generally believed." Very interesting I’m sure, but what about the threat of a nuclear Iran?

The ambassadors argue: "Several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being accused of 'threatening the peace'." This ignores the fact that Iran hid its nuclear programme for eighteen years before it was revealed in 2002, and that Iran has consistently concealed aspects of its programme, such as the Fordow underground site. They argue, based on the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, that US intelligence has "discounted the hypothesis" that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. This is an overstatement of the NIE, and also contradicts the IAEA's recent finding, in contradiction to the Iranian 'halt' in 2004 identified by the NIE, that Iranian weapon-related activities continued beyond 2004. And of course, any ‘halt’ that there was was because of Western pressure.

The ambassadors go on to argue: "Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a 'threshold country', technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but abstaining from doing so for now." Oh, so that’s alright then? Even if this assessment were true, Iran having the ability to develop such a weapon when it wanted to still poses a threat. Having this capability will still enable Iran to bolster its influence and to threaten and intimidate its neighbours and its enemies. The ambassadors argue that the West should be more accommodating and ‘realistic’ in the demands it makes of Iran.

Such advice is suicidal – a sleepwalk straight to an Iranian nuclear bomb.

IAEA turns up the pressure on Syria

2011-06-14T18:52:00.003+01:00

Amid the turmoil in Syria at the moment, the issue of Syria’s nuclear programme has finally been brought to the UN, with the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported Syria to the UN Security Council over a suspected secret nuclear programme - this is in addition to the British-French attempt to get a resolution passed against Syria for its wanton human rights abuses.

The IAEA's concerns come from Syria's blocking of any investigation into the Dair Alzour site, which was bombed by Israel in 2007. US intelligence reports indicated that Dair Alzour housed a nascent nuclear reactor, using North Korean designs, which was intended to produce plutonium for atomic bombs. Of the 35-nation board of the IAEA, 17 voted in favour of the resolution rebuking Syria. Six voted against, including – predictably - China and Russia.

Syria had been referred to the IAEA in 2008, following the Israeli airstrike in 2007. Syria consistently refused to answer the IAEA's questions or to provide proper access to this and other sites to IAEA inspectors. However, the IAEA has been divided on how to handle Syria. But after the new IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was elected to office, he sought intelligence material from the US, and sought to verify the information from IAEA sources. The evidence gave weight to the US and Israeli allegations of a Syrian nuclear programme. The IAEA now accepts that Deir Alzour was a nuclear reactor which was under construction at the time of being bombed in 2007.

Russia argued that the referral to the UN Security Council was unnecessary, on the grounds that: "The site at Deir Alzour no longer exists and therefore poses no threat to international peace and security." Yet the fact that the site was destroyed by Israel does not change the gravity of the development of a secret nuclear site. The fact that this one site was destroyed does not mean that Syria has given up its nuclear weapon ambitions or that it no longer has a nuclear weapons programme. Syria, for its part, argued that the IAEA should focus its attention on Israel due to its nuclear weapons. How original.

With the Syrian regime slaughtering its people in the streets, bringing in Iranian help to do so, harbouring Hezbollah and Hamas and orchestrating attacks on Israel as a distraction, I know who is the greater threat to peace in the region.

Peru becomes the latest example of Latin America’s left turn

2011-06-14T18:40:00.002+01:00

Is Peru, until recently one of the few Latin American nations with a centre-right government, the latest example of Latin America's lurch to the left? This would seem to be the inference to draw from the election of the leftist candidate Ollanta Humala as president.

According to Daniel Hannan (who was born in Peru): "Ollanta Humala, who won yesterday’s presidential run-off, is typical of the breed of modern caudillo. A cashiered former army officer, he had concocted an angry and aggrieved programme which mingled ethnic nationalism, hostility to private enterprise, nostalgia for pre-Columbian times and anti-Chilean revanchism. His hero is Juan Velasco, the socialist general who seized power in a putsch in 1968, and promptly set about reducing Peru to a condition of penury from which it has only recently recovered."

With Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and now Peru going this way, Colombia (for example) is looking pretty isolated. While the popularity of Hugo Chavez may be past its peak, even the more moderate left-wing countries, such as Brazil, have taken an anti-Western turn.

It is an understandable worry that: "Now, it seems, the bad times are coming back."

About time our Prevent strategy stood up to Islamists

2011-06-14T17:51:00.005+01:00

The Government has announced the outcome of its review of the ‘Prevent’ counter-extremism strategy. The shift is to move from simply preventing ’violent extremism’ to countering ‘extremism’ in general. The idea promoted by some in the British civil service that we should support ‘non-violent Islamists’ as the only ‘credible’ alternative to stop British Muslim youth flocking to Al-qQaeda seems finally to have been knocked on the head. The definition of ‘non-violent’ was pretty novel, considering that Home Office officials did not want the Government’s definition of ‘extremism’ in the new Prevent strategy to include support for attacks on British Armed Forces. That is obscene – if that is not extremism, then what is? The idea that the Government should support or cooperate with such groups is appalling.

Yet this shift was not just opposed by some in the Home Office, but by the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Warsi and others on the left of the Conservative Party.

Douglas Murray rightly points out that the new Prevent strategy document is far from perfect, with the wildly inaccurate claim that Syed Qutb, the one of the ideological founding fathers of violent Islamism, "did not suggest that violence should be perpetrated in Western countries." In fact Qutb advocated ‘defensive jihad’ around the world, with any form of man-made government anywhere on Earth considered an ‘attack’ against the rule of Allah.

Of course, there have been the usual howls of protest and denials of the problem. Criticism of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies and Britain’s universities has been greeted with the usual ostrich-like response, just as the Glees report and the recent APPG for Homeland Security report was.

And of course there was the tiresome complaint from Mehdi Hasan and his ilk that Western foreign policy is not recognised enough as a factor causing radicalisation. So what if it was? Would it change the practical fight against terrorism in the UK? And should our foreign policy be changed to suit the Islamists’ wishes, on the grounds that if we don’t change our policy British Islamists will blow us up? Is that a healthy recipe for democracy? It is strange that it is almost argued that it is somehow ‘natural’ that members of one religious group should feel disposed to hate our society and contemplate violence against it because they disagree with certain wars or pieces of legislation, and that for religious organisations to be considered ‘credible’ they should have to behave like political opposition movements acting against the Government. If that is the case, then that surely underscores the point that there is a serious problem of ideology. And for British officials and politicians to advocate policy based on the idea that this is the state of affairs we should put up with underlines the extent of our collapse in self-confidence and of the ideology of multiculturalism at its most mad.

It is refreshing that the Government has recognised that there is an Islamist ideology which we need to stand up to. Let us hope that they follow through, and ensure that there will be no more appeasement by the back door.

Well, that didn’t last long did it?

2011-06-14T16:36:00.004+01:00

Just after Barack Obama was in Britain reaffirming the special relationship, his Government sided against us once again over the Falkland Islands.

Washington signed on to a 'draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands' passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) .

The resolution does not even include the word 'Falklands', only referring to the islands as 'Malvinas'.

The resolution “reaffirms the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.”
There is no dispute to negotiate - Argentina tried to take the islands by force in 1982 and lost. The islands are British, have been governed by Britain since 1833 and - most important of all - the population want the islands to remain British.

The OAS also “decides to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.”
This presumably means, until Britain gives up.

As Sandy Woodward, who commanded the task force which liberated the Falklands 29 years ago, points out, it is deeply worrying that the Americans are now calling the Falklands 'the Malvinas' and moving from neutrality - which is bad enough - to support for Argentina. As he writes: "They referred to the islands by their Argentinian name, the Malvinas. This doesn’t really leave too much doubt about which way the wind may be blowing, does it?" This leaves Britain's position in the Falklands not only fatally weakened by defence cuts, but also isolated. The government seems to be gambling on Argentine restraint and Latin American goodwill - that is in very short supply.

And our 'ally' Obama is happy to enforce our isolation in the region and to oppose the self-determination of the British people of the Falkland Islands.

Bishop joins the fray on Afghanistan

2011-06-14T15:50:00.003+01:00

Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, has also weighed in to the debate on Afghanistan, arguing that "are must not give up in Afghanistan and let the Taliban return to power".

He rightly argues that Bin Laden's death has led to "much facile optimism" and given "provided fresh oxygen for the 'Little Englanders', as indeed for 'Monroe Americans'" who want out of Afghanistan.

In contrast to the mealy words of some commentators, Nazir-Ali puts it firmly: "Never again should Afghanistan be allowed to sink into that mediaeval nightmare of the Taliban in power... Do those who want to up and go really want to see the return, God forbid, of such an Afghanistan, and do they really think that it will not be a terror threat to the region, the world and to Britain and the USA?" Nazir-Ali has previously written: "It should be said clearly that any increase in Taliban influence and control, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, will not only mean that the security situation in the region deteriorates further, but it will also directly or indirectly affect Western interests. It will, once again, be possible to harbour those who plan to terrorise the West and also to train those from Western countries wishing to pursue their extremist agenda in the West. Last but not least, it will mean returning significant sections of the population in the region to captivity, cruelty and barbarism."

Perhaps more than many politicians, Nazir-Ali recognises the ideological dimension of this struggle: "Not since the demise of Marxism has the world been faced with a comprehensive political, social and economic ideology determined, by force if necessary, to achieve hegemony over large parts of the world."

He also highlights the "ideological unity" of the Taleban movement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, responding to those who seek to make exucses for appeasing the Taleban in Afghanistan while blindly claiming that this will not have consequences elsewhere.

As Nazir-Ali puts it: "At this moment of a victory, the West and its allies must not lose heart or settle for a momentary respite but be ready for the long haul." The former bishop - rather than plumping for knee-jerk pacifism - sees the importance of this struggle, and its significance for Western civilisation, more than many of our political leaders.

British general joins the fray on Afghan withdrawal

2011-06-01T22:52:00.006+01:00

A wise warning from the British deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan against withdrawing troops too early.

Lt Gen James Bucknall warned in an interview with the Telegraph that talk of an early exit risked sending mixed messages that could encourage the Taliban. He argued that forces needed to remain unchanged until autumn 2012 to consolidate gains made since US reinforcements came last year.

"The coalition has had a good winter. We have got to hold on to what we have gained and hold that over this fighting season. What we are doing is reaping the benefits of having the resources in place to match the strategy we have always had. Many of those resources only hit the ground in autumn 2010. We need, in broadest terms, that set of resources in place for two winters and two fighting seasons, which would mean we are talking about autumn 2012. This is not the time to send conflicting signals on commitment to the campaign." It is hard to reconcile David Cameron's order for British troops to start withdrawing this year with that advice.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary-General of NATO, also warned members not to cut and run, in a speech in Bulgaria: "It is of utmost importance that we stay the course, that we stay as long as it takes to finish our job." Unfortunately that principle has been undermined by the setting of arbitrary deadlines, on both sides of the Atlantic.

In an upbeat note, Lt Gen Bucknall added: "It would be fair to say the insurgency is under greater pressure than it has ever been before." At such a moment, it would be disastrous to ease the pressure on the Taleban now.

Sadly, the defeatists pushing for faster withdrawal are in danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to give this strategy the time and resources to succeed.

The death of Bin Laden does not alter the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan one jot – that is simply an excuse from politicians who want a way out. Leaving before the job is done would not only leave Afghanistan at the mercy of the Taleban and with the potential to become a haven for Islamist terrorism again, but would also give a boost to the Taleban and other violent Islamists in Pakistan. Failure accompanying the withdrawal of NATO troops would send out a disastrous message about the weakness of the West, and a morale boost for its enemies everywhere.

The Special Relationship is back - and about time too

2011-05-31T14:58:00.007+01:00

The Special Relationship is back in fashion, or so it would seem. The state visit of US president Barack Obama to the UK certainly seems to have been a success.

While the 'usual suspects' of Islamist extremists and anti-war protesters came out to greet him, the overall reception has been hugely positive - much more so than in the last state visit, which being the first ever, was really even more of a 'historic' occasion - namely the state visit by George W Bush in 2003.

After his record as the most anti-British president in living memory, Obama's brief and eloquent address at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace got the visit off to a good start. His strong and positive speech to parliamentarians in Westminster Hall showed a welcome commitment to the British-American alliance and to the Western values as not just a force for good but a force for leadership in the world and as the beacon of freedom and progress. We must hope that his actions match his words.

There were welcome announcements on a new UK-US Service Personnel and Veterans Task Force, UK-US Partnership for Global Development and UK-US Joint Strategy Board. There was also a welcome determination to succeed in Libya.

Much was made of Obama and Cameron's use of the phrase 'essential relationship' in their joint newspaper column which appeared at the beginning of the state visit. Some have praised the Cameron-Obama essential relationship as being more 'healthy' and 'practical' than the special relationship under Bush and Blair (with the ridiculous and childish 'poodle' accusation).

This is unfair. Rather, the Cameron-Obama 'essential relationship', and Obama's speech in Westminster Hall, is an implicit recognition that Bush and Blair were right. Obama and Cameron had wanted to turn their back on the 'freedom agenda', but the Arab Spring rather got in their way. Now they are talking the language of freedom and universal values for which George W Bush drew so much criticism. They wanted to move away from interventionism - and then along came Libya. The difference is that George W Bush and Tony Blair were much more consistent and determined. They would not be rushing for an exit from Afghanistan. They would not be imposing such limits on ourselves in Libya. And Blair would not have had to pressure Bush into showing leadership. Nor would Tony Blair have been likely to order such disastrous defence cuts, which can only mean a reduced global role.

Can we really carry on with this pretence any longer? The political class is determined to avoid admitting it, but it is time they did: Bush and Blair were right after all.

Welcome to Britain

2011-05-27T01:22:00.003+01:00

The morons are out.

Fresh from the ridiculous, petty and spiteful attempt to disrupt the royal wedding, Anjem Choudary and his band of Islamist 'brothers' (and 'sisters') put out a welcome for Barack Obama in Whitehall, with their usual selection of offensive slogans such as 'Muslims will conquer the White House', 'Shariah - the solution for East and West' and - hilariously - 'Democracy is the cause of oppression'. At least they are consistent, with Choudary explaining: "Just like Osama Bin Laden is the number one enemy for the west, Obama is for Muslims. He is a war criminal, it goes without saying. He has slain more Muslims than even his predecessor George Bush and has overseen the escalation of the war on Islam. He must be arrested and face a sharia court for his crimes."

And then there was the larger, and constantly shouting, Stop the War Coalition protest, full of people angry that we stopped Gaddafi slaughering his people, and demanding "hands off Libya". These are the people who take the view 'my country, always wrong'. Welcome to Britain.

Nick Harvey's Trident trouble-making

2011-05-27T01:04:00.003+01:00

It did not take long for Nick Harvey, our Lib Dem defence minister, to use his new study for alternatives to Trident to play political games with the future of our nuclear deterrent.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Harvey argued that the Liberal Democrats and Labour could team up to campaign for the downgrading or scrapping of Trident at the next election. With typical political shallowness, he says that Labour "might not wish to leave this issue to us to outflank them on the left." Ominously, Ed Miliband's spokesman said: "We believe in a full independent nuclear deterrent but we will look at the alternatives."

Harvey gloats that Trident will be a bigger political issue at the next election than "at any time since the 1980s" (when Trident was debated in the 2010 election, you may recall, Nick Clegg comprehensively lost the argument). Thanks to the disgraceful delaying of Trident and now this foolish study, which is clearly a stitch-up, he may well be right.

Our nuclear security should not be reduced to this party-political game playing. But since we will have little choice, the rest of us who care will need to do our best to stop the Lib Dems in their obsessive quest to downgrade our nuclear defences.

Send in the choppers

2011-05-27T00:44:00.002+01:00

It has been reported that Britain is soon to announce the deployment of Apache attack helicopters to Libya, following a similar French announcement. This has opened up what has been described as the first breach in the bipartisan (or should that be tripartisan) approach to the war so far, with shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy arguing that this would be a 'serious escalation' which Parliament should be consulted on.

The logic of this approach seems flawed. It is OK to use planes to bomb Gaddafi but not helicopters? We are engaged in a military operation, and if using helicopters will help achieve our aims, by helping us hit moving targets with greater precision and fight better over Libya's cities, then why not? Parliament should not have to be consulted on tactical decisions, nor should the Government give a running commentary on them. It is no good fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back. We should use the assets we can.

The bold decision to deploy attack helicopters is a welcome indication of British and French intent, and of the determination to succeed. Which is why the anti-war MPs are, of course, incensed and trying to raise legal arguments. But there is no legal or moral difference between using planes and helicopters. This is a positive move to help break the 'deadlock' people are starting to complain about.

Send in the choppers!

Government kills attempt to stop Britain spending billions on Euro bailouts

2011-05-26T15:32:00.004+01:00

This week saw yet another disgraceful whip's operation in Parliament which ruined the latest attempt to stand up for British taxpayers against the European Union.

Mark Recless MP tabled a motion saying: "That this House notes with concern that UK taxpayers are potentially being made liable for bail-outs of Eurozone countries when the UK opted to remain outside the Euro and, despite agreement in May 2010 that the EU-wide European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) of €60 billion would represent only 12 per cent. of the non-IMF contribution with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the Eurozone through the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), that the EFSM for which the UK may be held liable is in fact being drawn upon to the same or greater extent than the EFSF; notes that the European Scrutiny Committee has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound; and requires the Government to place the EFSM on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council and to vote against continued use of the EFSM unless a Eurozone only arrangement which relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has by then been agreed.” Britain has been called on to bail out Eurozone countries under the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, agreed to by the previous government, despite us not being part of the Economic and Monetary Union - not having the Euro. In addition to this, the EFSM is of questionable legality, both under the 'no bail-out' clause of the consolidated EU Treaties, and as it was established on the basis of a mechanism to assist countries in natural disasters and events 'beyond their control'.

Mark Reckless pointed out that, with Greece, Ireland and Portugal, Britain is spending £12.5 billion on these bailouts. That is double the total spending cuts made by the Coalition Government in its first year. And, to top it all, our net contributions to the EU are rapidly increasing. We should not be wasting our money in this way.

Yet the Government killed off this motion by backing an amendment to it which waters down the phrase "requires the Government" to "urges the Government to raise the issue" and which replaces the requirement to vote against continued use of the SFSM until Britain is excluded with a vague statement that the House "supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement." The amendment therefore stripped the motion of its meaning and of having any practical effect whatsoever. This amendment was passed by 269 to 48. And after this amendment was passed, the House of Commons was not given the chance to vote on the original motion.

The Government boasts that it has secured an agreement that Britain will not take part in future bailouts under the new, permanent, European Stabilisation Mechanism, which will replace the existing ESFM – but this is not even due to come in until summer 2013. In the meantime, we are still liable for these bailouts. It is ludicrous that we should be forced to pay to prop up a currency which we did not join. Rather than Parliament deciding who we - as a country - help and how, we remain tied into a European mechanism which gives us no choice. And it is disgraceful that we are cutting spending at home, including on vital defence capabilities, while spending billions on these bailouts – a sum, so far, equivalent to a third of the UK defence budget. It is all very well claiming that these are ‘loans’ which will be paid back, but these are countries in crisis – and, regardless of whether they are paid back – in the here and now we are shelling out billions at the same time as cutting spending at home.

How worrying that the Government was so keen to crush this motion, which would have called on it to stand up for the interests of British taxpayers and stop handing over this money. There may be some justification for blaming the last Government for putting us in this position, but why won't this Government act to change it? It is tempting to suspect the hand of the dogmatically pro-Euro Liberal Democrats. Coalition harmony seems, once again, to have been placed above national interest. This attempt to defend the British people failed. A sad day in Parliament.

Obama's 'anti-colonialist' speech in Ireland on the eve of his vist to Britain

2011-05-26T14:02:00.002+01:00

Before his arrival in Britain for the state visit, Barack Obama seemingly couldn't resist a little 'anti-colonialist' Brit-bashing, praising the Irish for their 'struggle against oppression'.

He even bizarrely tried to give credit to the Irish for the American War of Independence, saying: "Irish signatures are on our founding documents. Irish blood was spilled on our battlefields." He drew applause (unsurprisingly) with this dig at us and compliment to the Irish: "it was the fierce fighting of your sons that caused the British official to lament, 'We have lost America through the Irish.'" He quoted George Washington: "When our friendless standards were first unfurled, who were the strangers who first mustered around our staff? And when it reeled in the light, who more brilliantly sustained it than Erin’s generous sons?”

Funnily enough, the Ulster Protestsants have a similar quote from Washington, who said: "“If defeated everywhere else, I will make my stand for liberty, among the Scots-Irish in my native Virginia”. And there was Captain Johann Hendricks, a British Hessian officer who wrote: ‘Call it not an American rebellion, it is nothing more than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion.’

Obama compared Irish nationalism to the campaign against slavery - that http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifthihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifng which the evil British imperialists stamped out-, saying: "When we strove to blot out the stain of slavery and advance the rights of man, we found common cause with your struggles against oppression." He also described Ireland as a nation "that overcame occupation".

What was it Dinesh D’Souza said about Obama being ‘the last anti-colonialist’?

Happy Empire Day

2011-05-24T20:16:00.003+01:00

Happy Empire Day!
(or Happy Victoria Day in Canada!)

Farewell Iraq

2011-05-22T16:36:00.003+01:00

The British operation in Iraq is finally comes to an end today, with the conclusion of the Royal Navy mission to rain Iraqi sailors.

Liam Fox announced: "Royal Navy personnel have used their formidable skills and expertise to bring about a transformation in Iraq's naval force.

"The Iraqi Navy has a key role to play in protecting Iraq's territorial waters and the oil infrastructure that is so vital to Iraq's economy, and I am proud of the role British forces have played in making it capable of doing that job.

"But this is also an opportunity to reflect on the wider contribution of Britain's Armed Forces to Iraq since 2003.

"Thanks to the sacrifice, commitment and professionalism of thousands of British servicemen and women, southern Iraq is an area transformed from the dangerous and oppressed place it was under Saddam Hussein and in the aftermath of his removal.

"I pay tribute to all those who served, particularly the 179 British personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice, fighting for security and stability in Iraq.

"We now look forward to a strong, long-term defence relationship with Iraq. The UK remains committed to a broad bilateral relationship with close links across a range of areas including the economy, commerce, defence, culture and education."

Iraq surely has to be the most controversial deployment of modern times - but is one in which we shoudl take pride. As John McTernan pointed out, Iraq itself is the one country where most people still think the invasion was right! There is still much respect in Iraq for Britain and the role it played, which we should not forget or ignore.

Britain's mistake in Iraq was not going in, but drawing down our forces in Basra and withdrawing too early, leaving it to US and Iraqi forces to clean out the Islamists. We are in danger of making the same mistake in Afghanistan.

The Queen in Ireland

2011-05-22T16:29:00.006+01:00

It was pleasing to see that Her Majesty the Queen’s landmark visit to Ireland was such a resounding success. This is a reconciliation which was long overdue, and it was heartening to see the sacrifices of the Irishmen who died for this country in the Great War finally recognised in the Republic.

The Irish press was full of praise for the Queen, whose visit was warmly welcomed by the majority of the public, and whose speech at the state banquet in Dublin – in particular – was regarded as a remarkable achievement. As Irish historian Mary Kenny pointed out, the monarchy’s links with Ireland are old and deep, and not so negative and one-sided as propagandists would have us believe.

Although Sinn Fein, predictably, remained negative, even Gerry Adams began to soften his tone as he realised how wildly out of touch he was with Irish public opinion, arguing for a ‘new relationship between Britain and Ireland’. Although he also argued that normalisation required the ‘reunification of our country’ – a strange argument as Ireland was only ever united under the British crown. How he can claim to be outraged by alleged British ‘collusion’ with paramilitaries when he himself is a spokesman for paramilitaries is also a mystery.

This was yet another resounding success for the Queen, and the grievance-mongers who want to promote division between Britain and Ireland now seem to be very much on the decline. All in all, a remarkable state visit.

The Defence Review is indefensible

2011-05-22T16:26:00.002+01:00

The defence chiefs finally seem to have spoken out about the Strategic Defence and Security Review. When asked whether we would have the ‘full spectrum’ of military capabilities, they all answered “no”. The Prime Minister, appearing before the Liaison Committee, insisted that the answer was “yes” He tried to pass off the defence chief’s concerns by saying – they will always argue for more. But this is not a case of arguing for more – it is a case of arguing not to have much less!

The Prime Minister also denied earlier reports that he was involved in reviewing parts of the SDSR and that the MOD would be given a reprieve this year. “putting it all off to the future-I don’t really recognise that either.”

The Defence Secretary also tried to defend the SDSR, arguing that our national security was dependent on our economic security. There may well be much merit in this argument, but it does not follow that defence is one of the areas which has to be cut.

He argued: "Let us be honest about this. Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending." Indeed - and I think most critics have been honest about this. "But they fail to spell out the inevitable result - more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere." Indeed - this is a question of priorities. The Government has chosen to priorities the NHS and overseas aid, but not defence - this is an error. We spend much more on health, education and welfare than on defence. If need be, we can cut more elsewhere. We can stop throwing away billions by bailing out Eurozone countries, and we can stop increasing our budget contributions to the EU. And we can stop undermining the cuts which we are making with pointless concessions to please the Lib Dems. And we certainly should not be wasting any Government money or resources on a study into alternatives to Trident for the Lib Dem’s benefit.

He also reiterated that both he and the Prime Minister believed that real terms increases in defence spending would be needed after 2015. Surely this in itself is an indication of the inadequacy of the SDSR. To cut defence spending now while hoping that it will be increased later is not only illogical but also a gamble with our defences.

Lord Stirrup this week confirmed that the SDSR was cash-driven and that spending cuts overrode everything else. General Sir Rupert Smith described the SDSR as ‘incoherent nonsense’.

The Government is determined to defend the indefensible.

Why are we rewarding the ‘Yellow Bastards’ for losing?

2011-05-22T16:20:00.003+01:00

Just as predicted, the Liberal Democrats seemed to be reaping rewards for their losses in the local elections and defeat in the AV referendum.

First, Nick Clegg announced his proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, to make it an elected second chamber. This was a remarkable Commons session in which he drew criticism and scorn from all sides of the House of Commons. MPs laughed when Nick Clegg announced that the elected Lords would use the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation. When challenged as to whether these proposals would be put to a referendum, Clegg insisted that it would not. Which does not inspire faith in the proposed reforms. While constitutional reforms do not all require referenda, it seems strange to introduce a new elected chamber with a new electoral system without consulting the people.

Then was the remarkable announcement alongside the ‘Initial Gate’ decision for the renewal of Trident there is to be a Government-commissioned study of alternatives to Trident to assist the Liberal Democrats. This is nothing other than playing party political games with our nuclear deterrent.

And now the Lib Dems are trying to achieve a public victory by demanding concessions over NHS reform. This is despite the fact that Nick Clegg agreed to this policy last year, and despite the fact that the Lib Dems also proposed radical reforms of the NHS in their manifesto. - this is sheer opportunism from the Lib Dems. Following his poor treatment, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley got a rousing reception at the 1922 Committee, where Nicholas Soames coined the phrase “yellow bastards” to describe our Lib Dem coalition partners.

Why should the Lib Dems be given concessions? They lost! They should not be allowed to get away with forcing changes to Government policies, and inserting new policies for which they have no democratic mandate, in order to make themselves feel better. We should not be giving any more power and influence to the ‘yellow bastards’.

Liam Fox exposes SNP's defence hypocrisy

2011-05-22T16:15:00.004+01:00

Defence Secretary Liam Fox also rightly hit back at the hypocrisy of the Scottish National Party over defence.

"It is tempting to make light of some of the nonsensical ideas that tend to come from the SNP. But now that they are in such a strong political position in Scotland we have to take some of these issues more seriously. It is extremely worrying that the SNP have previously had a position and a posture which is anti-Nato, and anti the nuclear defence of this country. I think it is now time for a very serious debate on issues that ought to worry all those who believe not only in the United Kingdom but in sound defence for the United Kingdom."

The SNP complain about defence cuts hitting Scotland, yet they want Scotland to no longer be a part of one of the world's leading military powers - and their anti-British rhetoric is hardlty going to do Scotland any favours! They talk of the historic Scottish regiments, yet ignore or trash their proud history as part of the British Army. And now they talk of a future independent Scotland 'sharing' bases and defence capabilities with the UK as part of Alex Salamond's 'independence lite' scheme - surely an admission that an SNP-controlled independent Scotland could or would not maintain Scottish bases on its own. And they want the rest of the UK to agree to such extraordinary arrangements while actively seeking to undermine Britain's national security - not only calling for the Trident base in Faslane to be closed but even going so far as writing to world leaders, uncluding tyrants like Robert Mugabe, to inform them of their opposition to the UK's nuclear deterrent and to ask for their support against the British Governments. What utter hypocrites - it is high time their hypocrisy was exposed.

Dominique Strauss-Khan: Where are all the celebrity supporters this time?

2011-05-21T15:45:00.004+01:00

Will all the celebs and 'socialites' who bailed out Julian Assange now be stumping up for Dominique Strauss-Khan?

Just a thought.

Of course there is a moral case for Trident

2011-05-19T01:40:00.003+01:00

The best rebuke of the parliamentary debate on Trident was delivered by Liam Fox to Cathy Jamieson, a self-righteous anti-Trident Labour MP who was presumably trying to outdo the SNP in her neo-CND fervour: "Does the Secretary of State understand that many people will find it shocking that we are talking about value for money in the context of weapons of mass destruction, for which no moral case can be made? May I press him further on the point made earlier in relation to deterrence? Surely if something is to act as a deterrent, there must be a reasonable assumption that at some stage it may be used. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would sanction the use of nuclear weapons? If he cannot give a straight answer to that, is it not time for the UK to move towards disarming and not to replace Trident?"

Fox replied: "I have never accepted this arrogance that there is no moral case for a deterrent. I can appreciate that there are arguments for and against, but the argument that only one side has any moral legitimacy I have always found rather repugnant. We believe that protecting the 60 million people of the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail from wherever that threat may come is not only morally justifiable, but is the duty of the Government."

Touché. The unilateral disarmament brigade love to pose as morally superior, but there is nothing moral about their desire to bring Britain down as a global power and leave us unable to defend ourselves and our allies from rogue aspiring nuclear states like North Korea and Iran. Disarming and weakening the democracies and leaving the field open for such aggressive and volatile regimes will do nothing for world peace, progress or the good of humanity, and to claim that Britain’s nuclear deterrent makes the world less safe is frankly an insult and an indication of a profound lack of faith in our own people and civilisation. There is nothing ethical about gambling with our security and that of future generations for the sake of their anti-Western anti-war posturing. They were wrong when they wanted us to disarm in the face of the Communist USSR, and they are still wrong now.

Why is the Government officially helping the Lib Dems to undermine Trident?

2011-05-19T01:32:00.006+01:00

The announcement of the 'Initial Gate' of the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent system is welcome but overdue. Delaying the final 'Main Gate' decision until after the next election is the most serious mistake of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, by opening up our nuclear deterrent to the party political blackmail of the Lib Dems at the next election.

As if that was not enough for them, it has now been announced that - alongside the 'Initial Gate' for the replacement of Trident - an official study of 'alternatives' to Trident is to be commissioned to help the Lib Dems in their work. This will be carried out by Cabinet Office officials and overseen by the Lib Dem Armed Forces Minister, Nick Harvey - nuclear blackmailer in chief.

In other words, the Lib Dems are to be given official support in seeking to undermine our nuclear defence policy. As James Gray rightly observed: "It is of course always open for any political party or any part of any political party to take a different view from Her Majesty’s Government. Can the Secretary of State think of any precedent whatsoever for public money, ministerial time and resources being used to bolster and examine the manifesto commitment of one particular party that might or might not be part of the coalition?"

Does anyone really believe that the Lib Dems are fired up by the idea of some alternative nuclear weapons system? That the reason they are so fanatically anti-Trident is because they believe passionately in some other missile system? Of course not - the talk of cheaper alternatives is just a convenient distraction to undermine the idea of Trident. As Julian Lewis rightly pointed out, the debate on Trident at the Lib Dem conference was akin to a "CND revivalist meeting". It was quite obvious that the Lib Dems really want rid of our nuclear deterrent altogether. Hopefully, as Liam Fox has said, any study will show up the shortcomings of these imaginary 'alternatives' and reaffirm the need for Trident as the only credible option for a continuous deterrent. But with Nick Harvey in charge, and the series of let downs on Trident, my hopes are not high.

It is disgraceful that the future of our nuclear deterrent is to be made more uncertain and further undermined by yet another party political concession to please the Lib Dems, this time presumably as another consolation prize for their defeat in the local elections and the AV referendum. How does losing at the ballot box give them any right to jeopardise Trident? The Government should not be contributing to an atmosphere which makes the future of Trident more uncertain - yet that is precisely what we are doing. This is the most important decision a Government can take - we should not be playing party political games with it to indulge the Lib Dems.

Fox has a point - but it is not just aid which is the problem

2011-05-19T01:26:00.003+01:00

Liam Fox's second leaked letter to the Prime Minister, outlining his opposition to the plans to legislate to enshrine in law the target of spending 0.7% of our GDP on aid, was not quite as spectacular or prescient as his leaked letter on the SDSR.

However, he is right to caution against the Government's policy. The target of spending 0.7% of GDP on aid is a noble one. However, Fox is right to be concerned about it being legally binding - this does tie the Government's hands in a time of financial difficulty and leave the way open for certain campaign groups and charities - who love nothing more than putting the boot into the British Government and other Western nations and claiming that we are to blame for the problems of the Third World - to pursue the Government in the courts to force the Government to spend its money as they want it to.

Liam Fox has got some support from military figures, who quite understandably see it as perverse that we are increasing our overseas aid budget while slashing our own defence capabilities. They can rightly ask: why is there a legally binding target for aid spending, but not defence? Particularly given the Government's insistence that defence is the first duty of any government.

It is absurd that we are giving aid to India, a country developing a space programme and building new aircraft carriers, while scrapping our carrier capability and other defence platforms. We are effectively subsidising the military rise of India through our own military decline. And of course, financial aid to the developing world is not enough - the security and humanitarian assistance provided by Britain and other leading military powers is also an important factor in international development - who else will be a check on the Colonel Gaddafis and West Side Boys of this world?

But it is not just the aid budget. The question of spending priorities goes wider than that. If we are serious about our national security and global position, defence should have been the first budget to be ring-fenced. The real big budget which is distorting our public spending and doing most to prevent funds going to the Armed Forces is the health budget, which we also ring-fenced and which - in stark contrast to the comparatively small international development budget - is three times the size of the defence budget. But of course, that is politically unsayable. Ring-fencing the NHS is politically beneficial, and questioning or - heaven forbid - cutting the budget of our mammoth socialist health systemm is political blasphemy. 'Schools and hospitals' have become the icons of the most essential government spending, rather than our national security - even though that is supposed to be our first priority, according to the Government itself. We have chosen to prioritise continuing to give everyone the free healthcare they have become used to over defence of the realm. We would rather run down our armed forces and shrink our country's standing in the world than dare touch the 'three priorities' of the N,H & S. That is not the sign of a healthy country.

We need to get our priorities straight. Charity begins at home, and national security should come first. Otherwise everything else will eventually suffer anyway.

The Military Covenant is welcome, but what about the defence cuts?

2011-05-17T17:02:00.003+01:00

The Defence Secretary's announcement that a new Armed Forces Covenant is to be enshrined in law is hugely welcome. It is right that the Government should ensure that our service personnel and veterans are given propoer care and support in return for their sacrifices and service to our country. It is also right that the Government should seek to stop the absurdity of people being disadvantaged by military service. I would like to see a law against discrimination against members of the Armed Forces - it is a disgrace that this is needed, but there have been some shocking examples of this.

Treating our troops justly is a worthy cause and a right commitment. It is also welcome that there is more of a public culture of expressing thanks to and support for our Forces. But this fits uneasily with the huge cuts to all of our Armed Forces, which – as well as being damaging to nation al security and our national interests - are hugely damaging to morale. It is not enough to care for veterans and returning soldiers after laying them off and running down our Forces. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women are not just people to be cared for and supported, but proud members of world-class Armed Forces which are in danger of being crippled. The measures contained in the Military Covenant must be properly funded by the Treasury, rather than being forced to draw on the existing struggling defence budget. A military covenant of care needs to be accompanied with a covenant of proper investment, funding and the maintenance of world-class armed services – a covenant for the proper defence of the nation.

If we can u-turn on school milk, forests and the NHS, then why not defence?

2011-05-17T16:05:00.003+01:00

Just when we thought defence couldn't get any worse after the SDSR, it emerges that the Ministry of Defence is seeking to find further savings from the armed forces in the next financial year.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt reports that potential targets for spending cuts could include HMS Illustrious, the UK's last surviving aircraft carrier (due to be used as a helicopter platform in the absence of the Harriers), as well as plans for a new fleet of armoured vehicles. After the disastrous scrapping of the HMS Ark Royal, that really would be the icing on the cake.

The Government is willing to u-turn on the scrapping of free school milk. The Government also u-turned on the part-privatisation of forests owned by the Forestry Commission. The Government 'pauses to reflect' over its proposed NHS reforms.

So why on earth will it not do the same thing for the defences of our country? Why does it insist on blindly pursuing savage cuts, which are shown to be more and more disastrous and unwise with every week which passes.

This week, it emerged that Royal Navy ships deployed off Libya were dependent on a US spy plane for protection because of the scrapping of our own maritime reconnaisance aircraft. While Lib Dem defence minister tried to claim that Harrier planes had not been deployed off an aircraft carrier for nearly a decade, David Davis pointed out that in fact they flew as late as 2010, right up until the SDSR axe. General Buster Howes, head of the Royal Marines, became the latest senior military figure to question why Britain is cutting its naval capabilities. First Sea Lord Admiral Stanhope made clear at a recent Defence Select Committee hearing that if Britain still had a carrier, it would be deployed off Libya.

When the heads of the three Armed Forces were asked whether they could deliver “full spectrum” capabilities over the next four years, all three replied “No.”

It is incredible that rather than reviewing these cuts, the Government is contemplating cutting our defence capabilities even more. Why does the Prime Minister not intervene in this case, for the national interest?

Time to unite to save the Union

2011-05-17T02:20:00.007+01:00

The Scottish National Party's spectacular victory in the Scottish elections has sparked much comment and speculation. We have been told again and again - rightly - that this was not a vote for Scottish independence. But we cannot be complacent about the fact that the majority of the Scottish electorate voted for the political party for whom independence is their defining purpose.

Now that he is in power, Alex Salmond seems to be in no rush to hold his promised independence referendum. That is probably because he knows he would lose. Instead, he wants to wait and pick the time which is best for him - and stir up rows with Westminster along the way. He may also muddy the water with some kind of multi-option or multi-qeustion referendum, in which further fiscal and economic powers are promoted as an alternative to independence. The logic of this is to bring independence closer and make it seem 'inevitable' and less radical, while making devolution seem 'a process' heading in one direction rather than an event.

There is no room for complacency. Salmond only needs to be lucky once. This is a challenge we need to take seriously. This is not the time for party political and financial bickering. This is the future of our country we are talking about, the most successful union of nations in history. We need a positive, cross-party effort in defence of the United Kingdom. Not based on negative financial and economic arguments (although they certainly blow the credibility of Scottish independence out of the water), but on our shared and successful British identity, institutions, culture, history, national life, armed forces and monarchy. Nothing is inevitable – the UK's lucky escape from the Euro showed that. There is no reason to view the possible destruction of Britain itself with passivity and indifference. Great Britain is worth fighting for.

As Robert Burns said:

“O let us not, like snarling curs, In wrangling be divided;
Till slap come in an unco loon, And wi' a rung decide it.
Be Britain still to Britain true, Amang oursels united;
For never but by British hands, Maun British wrangs be righted!”

Delusion of the week: Mehdi Hasan urges the Lib Dems to 'call the Tories' bluff'

2011-05-17T01:51:00.005+01:00

The prize for delusion of the week must go to Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman, who thinks that the Lib Dem’s first taste of power combined with their massive electoral rejection and overwhelming referendum defeat makes this the ideal time for the Lib Dems to “call the Tories’ bluff”.

He seems to believe that losing should give the Lib Dems the power to demand complete control over the Department of Health. And that if they don't get their way, they should bring down the Coalition and force a snap general election. Perhaps Mehdi thinks the Lib Dems are willing to sacrifice themselves for his beloved 'progressive majority', which the British people demonstrated conclusively in the AV referendum did not exist.

He speculates that "if the local council election results were replicated in a general election held tomorrow, Labour would win a majority of 18." So the Lib Dems would be out on their ear, then?

Apparently "The Lib Dems, though bruised, still hold a strong card." Really? A shame no-one else sees it. We will just have to wait and see whether the Liberal Democrats give up their first taste of power for decades and scarifice themselves to put Labour into power. What are the odds?

One year on, I still disagree with Nick

2011-05-17T01:34:00.003+01:00

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg marked the first anniversary of the coalition with a speech at the National Liberal Club in which he reminded us of the policies which the Liberal Democrats have blocked.

"The Conservatives promised to replace Trident in this parliament, cut inheritance tax for the most wealthy, renegotiate fundamental elements of the Lisbon Treaty on social affairs, build more prisons, and replace the Human Rights Act. None of these things happened."

That's right, in Lib Dem land, keeping the country's hands tied by Strasbourg and jeapodarsing the country's nuclear deterrent are things to be proud of. These are areas where the Prime Minister claims that the Government is moving ahead, but which the Lib Dems clearly believe - rightly - that they have won and stopped the policy. Trident is the prime example.

Clegg went on to claim: "A recent analysis by the BBC estimated that 75 per cent of our manifesto is being implemented through the coalition agreement, compared to 60 per cent of the Conservative manifesto." If that is true, then, considering that the Lib Dems are the much smaller party, that is a cause for concern.

Conservative Way Forward rightly warned against the "undue influence" of the Lib Dems:

"A year ago Conservative Way Forward took the unique stance amongst Conservative organisations in opposing the formation of a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Whilst welcoming the Coalition’s focus on post-Labour economic recovery and debt reduction, we remain concerned at the undue influence of the Liberal Democrats within the Coalition.

"Recently we have seen the recent referendum on AV – itself a concession – being used by leading Liberal Democrats as an opportunity to viciously attack their Conservative colleagues in ways which would not have been tolerated from a Conservative counterpart. And now that their proposed tinkering with the electoral system has been conclusively rejected by the British people, and their party punished in local elections across the country, the Liberal Democrats are demanding even further concessions from their coalition partners.

"It is hardly democratic for them to demand more say in Government because the electorate has rejected their policies. The implied Liberal Democrat threat to collapse the Coalition if they do not get what they want is hollow, as they have everything to fear from a General Election while the recent election results have shown strong Conservative support."

Don Porter, Chairman, Conservative Way Forward said:

“We are calling on David Cameron and the Conservative Party leadership to reject the demands for concessions in the same way that the British people have rejected the Liberal Democrats. Now is not the time to be turning further to the left, but instead taking the necessary action required to rebuild our country and economy.”

It is strange that the Liberal Democrats think that losing gives them the right to demand more. The truth is they never earned this much power in the first place. For all their problems, they have done well for the party which most clearly lost the last election. Who would have thought over a year ago that Nick Clegg would ever become Deputy Prime Minister? And who would want the Lib Dems in power again?

The death of Bin Laden is no reason to quit Afghanistan

2011-05-17T00:24:00.002+01:00

The death of Osama Bin Laden has created a predictable clamour in some quarters for an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan, on the spurious grounds that the justification for our presence in Afghanistan is somehow reduced. The New Statesman is one prime example, arguing "After Bin Laden, it’s time to end this unwinnable war". The magazine makes the ridiculously patronising argument that "many with no interest in Bin Laden's quest to establish an Islamic caliphate felt compelled to side with al-Qaeda." And it insults people's intelligence by claiming "That it took an elite squad of US Navy Seals just 40 minutes to kill the al-Qaeda leader gives the lie to the claim that it was necessary to invade and occupy Afghanistan in order to protect the US from terrorist attack." As if it was as simple as that. How would they have found Bin Laden without the "decade of war and occupation" which the New Statesman denounces?

But politicians might find the argument that we can start to withdraw more troops because Bin Laden's death means "mission accomplished" too tempting. The inverted logic seems to be that as we are winning the War on Terror we should give up on it. David Cameron has repeatedly asked British military commanders to begin withdrawal this summer, to coincide with Obama's timetable, against their advice.

All those who argue that the Taleban in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda (despite hosting them for years) should listen to the promise of a Taleban commander to "to avenge the killing of Osama". He explained: "The killing of Osama bin Laden will bring no change to jihad. Osama is the leader of al-Qaida and he is a powerful man in jihad. Losing him will be very painful for the mujahideen, but the shahadat [martyrdom] of Osama, will never stop the jihad. We will continue our fight until we liberate our lands from the Kafirs." It is worth noting, for those who advance the similar argument that Hamas likewise has no affinity with international terrorism, that the Hamas prime minister of Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh responded to the death of Bin Laden with: "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior."

If we start withdrawing from Afghanistan now, we risk inflicting a defeat on ourselves, preventing our own forces from completing the job - as happened in Iraq. We should not respond to success by giving up too early. We are winning. Why waste that?

They killed Bin Laden. So why so squeamish about targeting Gaddafi?

2011-05-16T23:57:00.004+01:00

The United States is rightly pleased by the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, regarding this as a highly successful operation.

So why all the hesitation and uneasiness about targeting Colonel Gaddafi in Libya? The US regards the killing of Bin Laden as legal because he was an enemy commander in a war. Doesn’t that description fit Gaddafi perfectly? If Gaddafi is not a legitimate military target, then who is? The UN Security Council Resolution we are operating under authorises “all measures necessary” to protect civilians. It is clear that civilians will only be safe when Gaddafi is gone – and he shows no signs of giving up. The International Criminal Court has also made it clear that Gaddafi and his son personally planned the attacks on civilians which started this conflict. General Sir David Richards has made the connection, arguing that Bin Laden's death should serve as a warning to Gaddafi.

Liam Fox was right to say that Gaddafi was a legitimate target. And General Richards was right to say we need to “up the ante” and loosen the restrictions on our bombing targets. The rest of NATO needs to get on board and stop prevaricating if we are going to win this.

The rejection of AV - another failure of the 'progressive majority' elite

2011-05-09T13:00:00.004+01:00

With the monumental rejection of AV by the huge margin of 68% to 32% in the second UK-wide referendum ever in British history, the Guardianistas and Independent / New Statesman ‘progressive majority’ types have not had so much egg on their faces since they jumped on the Cleggmania bandwagon and backed the Lib Dems at the last election. Despite the ‘anti-politics’ mood, people voted overwhelmingly not to change our much-maligned electoral system. The Guardian, Independent and New Statesman largely justified their backing for the Lib Dems on the ‘historic opportunity’ for electoral reform – now the British people have crushed that dream. What can electoral reform advocates moan about now? They had their chance, and they blew it. The people said no, by more than 2 to 1. They can’t blame the voting system for that one.

It was amusing that the only ten areas (out of 441) in the whole of Britain that voted yes were university cities like Oxford and Cambridge, trendy-lefty London boroughs like Islington and Camden and the trendy, student parts of central Edinburgh and Glasgow Kelvin. I don’t know who it was who started the vicious rumour that Scotland and Wales were likely to vote Yes to AV: they both voted overwhelmingly No (regardless of the support of the SNP and Plaid Cymru for the Yes side). So did Sheffield and Doncaster, the cities represented by Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

An article by Tom Clark, leader-writer of the Guardian, says sadly: "No one ever claimed that Guardian readers were representative of the wider population, but compare the referendum result with the views you expressed in our own survey a couple of years ago, and you could be forgiven for thinking that planet Guardian exists in an entirely different universe." Indeed.

So who are the Guardianistas going to blame, and what are their excuses this time? As always, they obviously cannot blame themselves, or accept that the British people really didn’t want what they wanted.

Tom Clark claims: "But this is not, in fact, a case of a chasm between those branded the chattering classes by their detractors, and the wider population." Really? With a 68-32 No, despite all the condemnation of the No campaign? Clark goes on to hilariously blame leaflets from the Electoral Commission for "making AV look horrendously complex" and including "entirely superfluous information (aka the truth), such as the fact that the lack of an obligation to rank all of the candidates means an election can, in certain circumstances, be won with less than half the total votes." Ah yes, the fact that AV doesn't work.

So will the electoral reformers accept that they have lost? Not a bit of it.

Katie Ghose, the chair of the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign, lamented: "The referendum hasn't been the debate on issues of democracy that people would have hoped for. Too often the debate has been about party politics and the public has been shut out of discussing how we choose our MPs." Well, when they were finally ‘let in’, they made their views rather clear. She adds: "Over five million people voted for change - a tribute to our campaigners." And over eleven million voted against it.

Chris Huhne went further, writing in the Independent that "No reform now means bigger reform later". He writes: "When change comes, as it will, it is likely to be more radical. The problems to which electoral reformers are responding have not gone away and will continue to demand an answer." What breathtaking arrogance and contempt for the electorate – the British people have given you your answer. This reminds me of the argument that it was 'inevitable' that Britain would join the Euro - look how that one turned out.

In a ridiculous line of attack, Chris Huhne argued: "Last week, David Cameron proved that he is a real Tory, because he fell in line with the long tradition of Tory leaders who resisted devolution, votes for women, and even votes for all men." What a pathetic and spiteful argument - how is campaigning for people to vote No to AV in any way equivalent to denying rights to anyone?" Huhne, of course, conveniently forgets that it was in fact a Conservative government which introduced universal and equal suffrage. But that does not fit in with the simplistic left-wing fantasy version of history.

The Lib Dems, who are reacting to their defeat with childish outbursts against their Conservative coalition ‘partners’ must not be rewarded for this disgraceful behaviour. Nor should they be compensated for the verdict of the British people, or given a consolation prize for their losses at the ballot box – that would be a display of contempt for the electorate and an inversion of the logic of democracy. The Lib Dems are in no position to demand anything, nor do they have any right or mandate to. They had their big prize – a referendum on electoral reform – but the people voted no. It is absurd that they should feel aggrieved that the public voted ‘the wrong way’. They now seem to feel betrayed because they got it into their heads that part of the coalition agreement was not only that they would have a referendum but that they would win it – that the Conservatives would just sit back, say nothing, and let them win unopposed. That seems to be the Lib Dems’ idea of democracy. Not merely an electoral system stacked in their favour, but a referendum stacked in their favour as well. Thank goodness they have been denied the boost in power which AV would have given them.

Perhaps the other people who need to think again are those who go on about the so-called ‘progressive majority’. The argument from Vince Cable, Peter Mandelson and others that AV would bolster the ‘progressive majority’ against the wicked Tory minority, presumably with an endless future of Lib-Lab pacts, evidently did not appeal to much of the electorate. Perhaps they need to wake up to the fact that the ‘progressive majority’ does not exist beyond their own imaginations. The reality is that many Labour voters do not subscribe to the trendy ‘progressive’ causes of social liberalism, multiculturalism, European integration, pacifism, republicanism, secularism and nuclear disarmament. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are not the same. Did anyone really vote ‘progressive’ at the last election? I thought not. The AV referendum is a clear example of the majority of Conservative AND Labour voters uniting to reject the ‘progressive’ cause of the moment.

The ‘progressive majority’ died with AV.

Five simple reasons to vote No to AV

2011-05-04T23:17:00.002+01:00

AV is unfair (I) - Under AV, some people have more of their votes counted than others. The less popular your candidate, the more votes you get, as – if no candidate gets 50% - the bottom candidate is eliminated and the 2nd preferences counted, while everyone else only has their 1st preferences counted. That means that some people get multiple votes, while others only get one. Under the current system, everyone has one vote which is counted once.

AV is unfair (II) - Under AV, one person’s 2nd/3rd/4th preference vote is counted as being equal to someone else’s 1st preference vote. Under the current system, everyone has one vote which is counted equally.

AV is complex and unclear - While voting in order of preference is simple, working out the result under AV is not. When you vote, you do not know how many of your preferences will count or how they will be counted – this depends on how other people vote. Under the current system, you have one vote and you know exactly how it will be counted.

AV is likely to lead to more hung parliaments and coalitions - By boosting the Liberal Democrats - who struggle to come 1st but are likely to get a lot of 2nd preference votes - at the expense of the two main parties, AV will make hung parliaments where no party has a majority more likely. This means more coalition politics where governments and policies are chosen not by the election result but by backroom negotiations between politicians after the election, during which policies and promises will be dropped.

AV doesn’t work - AV is supposed to ensure that candidates have the support of 50% of the votes cast, but this only works where voters vote the ‘right’ way. If not enough people allocate their 2nd and 3rd preferences to other candidates, then no candidate will reach the 50% mark, no matter how many times all the preferences are redistributed. This is likely to happen in around 4 out of 10 seats. So AV does not even do what it says on the tin.

Why should Lib Dems get to vote twice?

2011-05-04T23:07:00.003+01:00

Liberal Democrat ministers and MPs have really gone rogue in recent weeks over AV, throwing all sorts of insults and criticisms at their Conservative ‘colleagues’ for backing a No vote in the upcoming referendum – all the while they claiming that they are outraged by the insults and smears of the other side. This can only be put down to the fact that they are losing the argument, with public opinion turning against the Yes side. We have had Nick Clegg describing the No campaign as "death rattle of a right-wing elite, a right-wing clique”, Vince Cable calling for the ‘progressive majority’ to vote Yes in order to stop the Conservatives winning elections “by the back door”, and Lord Ashdown demanding that David Cameron call a halt to all the No campaign’s attacks on Nick Clegg. Most incredible has been Chris Huhne, accusing his Conservative colleagues of ‘Goebbels’ politics, denouncing Cameron and George Osborne at the Cabinet table and even – ridiculously – threatening legal action. This can only be a sign that they have well and truly lost the plot, as well as the argument.

Then we had Tim Farron saying that First Past the Post was to blame for the Thatcher government embarking on a plan of ‘organised wickedness’. Norman Tebbit brilliantly responded: “The chronic inferiority complex of a Party unable to win an election for a century should not lead Mr Farron to use grossly offensive languague of that kind in a forlorn attempt to save the seats of a few Lib Dem councillors on 5 May or to fiddle the voting system which served Liberals of substance such as Lloyd George well in their time.” As if Farron’s outburst wasn’t daft enough, he then claimed that First Past the Post “prolonged slavery.” Which sounds just a little desperate.

The cause of this frustration from the Liberal Democrats is not difficult to discern. As Norman Tebbit identified, this is their one chance to alter the voting system to their own advantage. As they cannot win elections, they constantly cry out for electoral reform. It is absurd that they have managed to portray changing the rules of the game to better suit the losers as some kind of ‘moral’ cause, while accusing everyone else of self-interest. They used to support proportional representation in the form of the Single Transferable Vote rather than AV – in fact, in February 2010, they tried to amend the last Government’s political reform bill to remove references to AV and replace it with STV – but evidently any reform that will benefit their electoral chances will do. As David Laws put it, AV would be a “shield against any loss of support”. The Lib Dems would be the winners from AV because, while struggling to come 1st, they are likely to pick up a lot of 2nd preference votes. While supporters of the two main parties would get one vote, those who vote Lib Dem effectively get a second go by choosing which of the two main candidates they prefer.

This is a microcosm of what is likely to happen on the national stage under AV. With it harder for the two main parties to win a majority, hung parliaments are more likely. This gives the Lib Dems the power to choose which of the Conservatives or Labour they would prefer to form a government with, allowing them to play the two parties off against each other and to demand support for their pet political projects – which is how the AV referendum came to be promised to them in the first place.

But now they are worried that the public is not playing along to their little game. They have no right to complain about the No campaign attacking them – they wanted this pointless referendum, now they have to live with the consequences. They also have to live with the results. It is absurd to suggest that the Conservatives should consider making further concessions to the Lib Dems to ‘compensate’ them for losing the referendum – why should they be compensated for a democratic decision of the British people? They did not even deserve this referendum in the first place – having decisively failed at the last election and lost seats, they had no moral right to ‘demand’ electoral reform. Yet apparently this is what they will want to do again. A recent New Statesman editorial, urging a Yes vote for AV, said: “If the next election results in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats will no doubt demand a referendum on PR as the condition of any coalition.” So having put the country through a referendum on AV, they will demand another one on another electoral system? What right would they have to do this? And what better indication of their priorities than the fact that their main demand is to change the rules of the voting system after they lose? The other two parties should refuse to play this game any more. Will the public swallow being asked the question again because they gave the Lib Dems the ‘wrong’ answer?

Hopefully a decisive No vote on Friday will kill off this strategy and the British people will reject a system which makes it easier for the Lib Dems to win power without actually winning. After all, why should Lib Dems get to vote twice?

Top 10 reasons to vote No to AV - in the words of Yes to AV campaigners

2011-05-04T01:09:00.004+01:00

“A miserable little compromise" - Nick Clegg

"AV is a pure politicians’ fix." - Pam Giddy, Chair of Yes to AV Steering Committee

"AV smacks of electioneering and smoky backrooms.” - Pam Giddy, Chair of Yes to AV Steering Committee

"AV would be like an ill-fitting corset attempting to squeeze all the diverse strands of opinion in our society into an inappropriate and deeply uncomfortable shape.” - Chris Huhne

“AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament.” - Electoral Reform Society

“Under certain circumstances, a shrewd voter can get a better result by lying. If, for example, it is known that the contest will be fought between two strong candidates, supporters of one might rank third parties above the other, even if the other is technically their second choice... If AV had been used in recent British general elections it would have produced even more disproportional outcomes." - Electoral Reform Society

"I’m not a fan of AV. It can lead to even less fair outcomes than first-past-the-post and that to me is the critical point... AV is the wrong system.” - Neal Lawson, Chair of Compass, Yes to AV Campaign Director and Steering Committee member

“The reason I've never supported AV is that it would have given us an even bigger majority in 1997, and it would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 1983, and probably 1987 as well... If one of the reasons that we want reform is to rebuild public trust and confidence in politics, make MPs more accountable, give more power to people and establish a political and parliamentary system that more reflects the will of the public, then AV doesn't deliver that.” - Ben Bradshaw MP, Director of Labour Yes to AV

“That is the result of coalitions, which if AV were to come into Westminster would lead to more of the same... AV is an appeasement to lure in Lib Dems.” - Stephen Glen, Yes to AV Northern Ireland coordinator

“I understand why Liberals are so keen on it. They would be in government no matter which party won the election. After each election there would simply be a pause while the Liberal Party decided which of the main parties to appoint to government.” - Chris Mullin, former Labour MP and signatory to Labour Yes to AV letter

Winston Churchill on AV: The most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates

2011-05-04T00:50:00.004+01:00

Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said when the Alternative Vote system was proposed in 1931:

“The plan that they have adopted is the worst of all possible plans. It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal that the Government have embodied in their Bill. The decision of 100 or more constituencies, perhaps 200, is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.’
‘Imagine making the representation of great constituencies dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates. The hindmost candidate would become a personage of considerable importance, and the old phrase, “Devil take the hindmost,” will acquire a new significance. I do not believe it will be beyond the resources of astute wire-pullers to secure the right kind of hindmost candidates to be broken up in their party interests. There may well be a multiplicity of weak and fictitious candidates in order to make sure that the differences between No. 1 and No. 2 shall be settled, not by the second votes of No. 3, but by the second votes of No. 4 or No. 5, who may, presumably give a more favourable turn to the party concerned.
This method is surely the child of folly, and will become the parent of fraud. Neither the voters nor the candidates will be dealing with realities. An element of blind chance and accident will enter far more largely into our electoral decisions than even before, and respect for Parliament and Parliamentary processes will decline lower than it is at present...
‘It is a Bill which will weaken the structure of Parliament and vitiate electoral procedure. Great sacrifices may be demanded of us for great causes, but rarely has so great a sacrifice been demanded of our country for so petty a cause as this, when the fabric of the House of Commons is rotted and popular elections are confused, in order to secure a few more months’ experience of the bitter sweets of office to this dismal, fatuous and impotent Administration.’”

“The stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” – Because there is no logic behind it. The current system works on the simple principle of one voter, one vote, and the candidate who gets the most votes wins. Proportional representation systems work on the principle of proportionality. But what is the principle of AV? That candidates must get “50% of the votes” – but that only works by adding in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences of some people but not others and counting all these preferences as though they are equal, making the 50% rather meaningless. And even that only works if people vote the ‘right’ way.

“The most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates” – As the bottom candidate is eliminated and the 2nd preferences from that candidate redistributed, it is the 2nd preference votes for the bottom candidate which can decide the election.

"Imagine making the representation of great constituencies dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates." - Which is exactly what AV does.

“The hindmost candidate would become a personage of considerable importance” - Those who vote for the bottom candidate get the most votes, making their supporters the most important people in deciding the election.

“Neither the voters nor the candidates will be dealing with realities." – As the system rests on the pretence that 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences are all the same.

“An element of blind chance and accident will enter far more largely into our electoral decisions than even before.” – As you cannot know whether or how many of your preference votes will be counted – it all depends on how everyone else votes. The number of your votes you have that will actually be counted becomes a lottery.

Wise words from Winston Churchill. As apt as ever.

AV - "The most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates."

The death of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-04T00:38:00.005+01:00

The death of Osama Bin Laden is welcome news for the world and certainly a significant blow against Al Qaeda. It is to the credit of the United States that they pursued and sought out Bin Laden for so long and with such determination. And credit where credit is due to Barack Obama for ordering this operation. It seems that Bin Laden was determined not to be taken alive and to die in a firefight, and so it has happened. After his years of threats, defiance and masterminding mass murder, he is no more.

It seeems that we are finally winning the war against Islamist terrorism. The lesson is that persistence pays off, that defeat and failure are not inevitable and that we can succeed in this struggle if we do not give up. The War on Terror is a success.

Al Qaeda is not gone, but it is weakened. As many have commented, it is not just that Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders are dead - it is also that their extreme anti-Western Islamist ideology is being actively rejected by the millions across the Middle East who are calling out for democracy, not jihad or Islamic revolution. Al Qaeda's leader is dead, and its cause certainly seems to be on the way to dying. As Churchill would say, this may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

A day of pride and joy

2011-05-03T23:17:00.006+01:00

The royal wedding went so well. The nation could not have asked for anything to have gone better. This was Britain at its best.

This marriage could shape the future of the British monarchy. And William and Kate are setting an admirable example by honouring the institution of marriage which should be at the heart of our society and family life. As David Starkey has argued, for the Prince of Wales to marry a 'commoner' is not a revolution but rather a return to an old tradition of romantic royal marriages.There were celebrations and parties across the country. Royal tradition is alive and well. Not just in Britain and the Commonwealth - this was a day when the British monarchy was the envy of the world. This was a day where the nation came together in pride and joy. Just as we knew it would, and just as it will continue to do so.

Congratulations and best wishes to the royal couple. They are the country's pride and joy.

Londonistan continued

2011-05-03T22:49:00.002+01:00

The inaugural report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Homeland Security, as well as highlighting the inadequacies of the National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review, found – unsurprisingly but worryingly that Britain’s universities are still hotbeds of Islamist extremism. It seems that little has changed since the Glees Report exposed the problem. This prompted the laughable claim from Universities UK that "there is no evidence to suggest that universities are 'hotbeds of Islamic extremism'" and the complaint from the Federation of Student Islamic Societies that: "Time and again Muslim students are subjected to intense scrutiny and public backlash on the back of sensationalist articles and reports, serving only to damage campus cohesion and whip up anti-Muslim sentiment. There is no conclusive evidence of radicalisation on campus."

This follows the Wikileaks revelations that at least 35 of the Guantanamo Bay inmates were radicalised here in the UK - British citizens and residents, and foreigners. Not to worry – half of them will have been given compensation by the Government. It seems Londonistan is alive and well, fuelled by a lethal cocktail of Islamist extremism, uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, denial, cultural cowardice and a collapse of self-confidence and belief.

Mehdi Hasan thinks Churchill was evil, but Gaddafi is not so bad

2011-05-03T17:00:00.003+01:00

Mehdi Hasan rather tediously attacks those who quote Churchill on AV by protraying Churchill as some kind of sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, genocidal moster. Never mind his incredible achievements in saving Western civilisation and British freedom.

He then goes on to argue that "Gaddafi is no modern-day Hitler". I am not sure if the direct comparison really has been made. But Hasan seeks to minimise Gaddafi's crimes by claiming that we did not avert a massacre in Benghazi and that "no such bloodbath was in the offing". Tell that to the civilians he has already massacred and still is massacring in the areas he controls. Perhaps the fact there have not been more deaths has something to do with out involvement? But no - according to Hasan's logic, when we oppose a tyrant, they cannot be that bad after all, and we must be wrong.

A welcome commitment to regime change in Libya

2011-05-03T16:44:00.001+01:00

The remarkable joint column by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama in several papers was a welcome declaration of intent and determination. The message could not be clearer: the operation in Libya continues until Gaddafi goes.

They are right to say , given what has happened, that "it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power," and that to leave him in power now "would be an unconscionable betrayal."

It is logical that "so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds". It is a welcome statement that "it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, who choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders and write the next chapter in their history. Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future."

We have made the aim clear. Now we must use all means necessary to achieve it.

Tyrants of a feather sticking together

2011-05-03T16:28:00.005+01:00

It was no surprise that Gaddafi's envoys have reportedly chosen to travel to Venezuela to discuss a 'peaceful resolution' to the conflict in Libya which they began. Hugo Chávez said of the NATO operation: "It's crazy. Because they don't like the leader Gaddafi, because they want to take Libya's oil and water ... they are throwing bombs everywhere... "We've had enough abuse, wars and invasions directed against third world countries." In 2009, Chávez said to Gaddafi: "What Simon Bolivar is for Venezuelans, Moammar Gaddafi is for the Libyan people." This was after Gaddafi gave Chávez Libya's 'human rights prize'. For good measure, he also gave his support to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after his violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

So much for 'power to the people'. Fidel Castro also joined in, condemning a "colossal campaign of lies" about Libya.

Nor was it a surprise when it was reported that among the forces fighting for Gaddafi are Zimbabwean commandos dispatched by Robert Mugabe. Mugabe also hosts Mengistu Haile Mariam, the former communist dictator of Ethiopia who oversaw that country’s Red Terror.

It seems like tyrants of a feather sticking together, united by their hatred of the West and of Western-style liberal democracy. What is more worrying is the wider network of sympathy for Gaddafi and other dictators from larger dictatorial and authoritarian powers such as China and Russia, and the fact that the ‘BRICs’ (Brazil, Russia, India and China) came out against NATO and called for an end to its operations, leaving Gaddafi in power - as did the African Union with its ‘peace mission’.

That makes the West’s struggle for human rights and democracy in Libya all the more remarkable.

Why does Cameron blame the British Empire?

2011-05-02T16:28:00.003+01:00

It is depressing to see the Prime Minister wilfully insulting Britain’s historical record while on an important overseas visit to Pakistan. Doubtless thinking that criticising the British Empire would be a crowd-pleaser with his Pakistani audience, he answered a question on Kashmir by saying:
“I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

More to the point, such a sloppy argument effectively undermines people’s responsibilities for their own actions and their own countries, by blaming everything on the evil past colonialists of years ago.
As Tristram Hunt wisely observed: “To say that Britain is a cause of many of the world’s ills is naïve. To look back 50-odd years for the problems facing many post-colonial nations adds little to the understanding of the problems they face. David Cameron has a tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear, whether it is in Israel, Turkey, India and Pakistan.”

If we applied Cameron’s logic that a past imperial power cannot become involved in the affairs of an ex-colony, or that because a country had done something bad in the past it should never be allowed to do anything good in that region either, then where would that leave the support we have had from Italy in Libya? Cameron’s argument sounds suspiciously like the argument of the anti-war lobby that because the West is tainted by its past ‘sins’, anything it does is automatically illegitimate.

It is regrettable that the Prime Minister fell so easily into this knee-jerk, almost unthinking condemnation of the British Empire. “So many of the world’s problems”? Really? Niall Fergusson and others have written on the many benefits which the British Empire and ‘Anglobalisation’ gave to the world, such as the spread of democracy, modern infrastructure and medicine, property rights and the rule of law. Of course there were two sides to the story, of course their were faults and sins as well as achievements, and of course it may not be good diplomacy to boast to former colonies about our imperial role – but it is hardly encouraging for our Prime Minister to talk us down to the people of another country, and to take such a dim view of our history.

Afghanistan - forgotten war, neglected successes?

2011-04-27T22:51:00.002+01:00

Former foreign secretary David Miliband has warned that Afghanistan is in danger of becoming the ‘forgotten war' – one not mentioned by David Cameron in his foreign policy speech in Kuwait. Miliband may be right, but his recommendation of negotiating an end to the conflict with the Taleban seems to chime perfectly with those who want to neglect Afghanistan and get out as soon as possible rather than representing any bold new thinking.

Our frustrations in, and the slowness of, the Afghanistan war do not alter its importance to our security. Our credibility and our security are both at stake. Progress is being made under the Petraeus-led surge. We should not throw away our advantage when we are beating the Taleban. As John Bolton has warned, drawing down our forces to meet the Obama withdrawal deadline just when they are starting to win is a great danger. Success should be more important than withdrawal.

If anyone doubts that Afghanistan is part of a broader struggle against violent Islamists, they should consider the recently intercepted Iranian arms shipment to the Taleban. So much for the Taleban as innocent tribal farmers. Ultimately, do we have the will to win? Or just the desperation to quietly get out.

The evil within

2011-04-27T21:59:00.003+01:00

At last, a moment of sense in the face of Islamist extremists. The odious Islamist extremist group Muslims Against Crusades have been refused permission to stage a protest outside Westminster Abbey on the royal wedding day. Hurrah!

A similar moment of sanity occurred when the judge delivered his comments upon the sentencing of Roshanara Choudhury, the Islamist who stabbed MP Stephen Timms at a constituency surgery. Referring to the Christian beliefs of Stephen Timms, Mr Justice Cooke said: “I understand that he brings to bear his own faith, which upholds very different values to those which appear to have driven this defendant.“Those values are those upon which the common law of this country was founded and include respect and love for one's neighbour, for the foreigner in the land, and for those who consider themselves enemies, all as part of one's love of God. These values were the basis of our system of law and justice and I trust that they will remain so as well as motivating those, like Mr Timms, who hold public office.” An amazing moment of clarity in modern Britain.

Sadly, we have too often seemed all too willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the ‘values’ of these fanatics and to shrink away from upholding our own. There was the disgraceful case of the Islamist protesters on trial who refused to stand when District Judge Carolyn Mellanby entered the courtroom. They claimed that it was a ‘grave and cardinal sin’ to show anyone other than Allah respect by standing. Rather than them being punished for contempt of court, for some inexplicable reason the court decided to overturn English justice and introduce a compromise whereby they entered the court after the Judge, without having to stand for the infidel woman. On top of this, these ‘holy men’ who shouted at troops that they were rapists and baby-killers, were given an extra 20 minutes on top of their lunch break to go to pray at a mosque a few minutes' walk away. As well as that, a separate ‘quiet room’ was set aside for regular prayer intervals. The phrase ‘you couldn’t make it up’ is inadequate for such disgusting appeasement.

Then there was the recent case of former soldier Andrew Ryan, who burnt a Koran after seeing footage of Islamist protesters burning poppies during the silence on Armistice Day. He was sentenced to seventy days in prison, in contrast to the poppy-burners who were let off with a £50 fine. So much for freedom of speech in Britain’s democracy. Islamic sensibilities are obviously considered more important than respect for our war dead. British justice has given way to craven pandering. This is a chilling judgement. Far from standing up to Islamists, the law does their job for them.

Obama's nuclear betrayal

2011-04-27T01:48:00.003+01:00

At the same time as our own Government betraying us over Trident, the Obama administration, in its latest demonstration of affection for Britain, shows itself happy to betray Britain’s nuclear secrets in for the sake of its treaty with Russia.

According to a Wikileaks cable, the US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a 'disarmament' treaty.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of British missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed with Russia to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain anyway.

The US subsequently agreed to supply Russia with the unique identifier of each missile supplied to the UK. Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

While the US administration has tried to downplay the story and claim there was nothing new, the US cable reveals: "The Russian Federation will receive unique identifiers for each of the missiles transferred to the UK, which was more information than was disclosed under START."

Just when you thought Obama's treatment of Britain couldn't get any worse. This story seemed to generate more of a response in the US, where the cult of Saint Barack is more open to question, than over here. With our deterrent uncertain and our defences cut, it seems the Government would rather ignore this one than have to face up to it.

The Trident betrayal

2011-04-26T23:33:00.002+01:00

Where the Liberal Democrats have had the most disastrous effect on Britain’s national security, and where the Government has committed its most serious betrayal, is in its outrageous and nonsensical decision to delay the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent until after the next general election. This is pure political appeasement of the Lib Dem’s party obsessions at its most craven. Our nuclear security has been sacrificed for the sake of making our Coalition partners feel better about themselves.

This decision can only be have been taken to appease the Lib Dem unilateral disarmament dogmatists. Lib Dem Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey openly said before the decision was announced that the rationale behind delaying Trident was to put the whole decision into political play. The Government responded by voluntarily throwing Trident into the Lib Dem trap, just as Harvey called for at the Lib Dem conference. Now the future of our nuclear deterrent has been thrown open to a political gamble. After the next election, the Lib Dems will be free to blackmail both the main parties into ditching Trident as part of any coalition negotiations – although Red Ed may already be taking Labour in the CND/Old Labour direction. What an appallingly irresponsible way to handle our nuclear deterrent, just as more countries are acquiring nukes. It is disgraceful that the Conservatives have caved in to Lib Dem pressure. This really is a breathtaking betrayal.

Baroness Scott, the Liberal Democrat Party President, boasted in a message to supporters: "So Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch. Let us be clear, this is a significant victory for Liberal Democrat campaigners, and a fantastic example of what our Ministers can and do achieve in government." And they are not stopping there. They are not satisfied with a delay (well of course, they wouldn’t be), they see this as a chance to scupper the whole deterrent.

Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey has publicly argued that the case for continuous-at-sea deterrence "is thin" and has the cheek to complain: " "We now have a period of time for a mature debate about alternatives and approaches and the necessary work to be commissioned." Taking advantage of the delay, he continued: "We now have a period of time for a mature debate about alternatives and approaches and the necessary work to be commissioned."

You would hope that he would be firmly slapped down, but instead defence secretary Liam Fox is slapped down for 'bigging up' the nuclear threat from Iran. Which sounds disturbingly like an effort to soften up public opinion on nuclear defence by understating the threat.

The nuclear deterrent, of the Lib Dems' egos? It should be no contest. This is the most fundamental aspect of our national security we are talking about. Britain deserves so much better.

Clegg keeps our hands tied over human rights

2011-04-26T23:15:00.006+01:00

One area of policy where the Liberal Democrats have had a baleful influence is over 'human rights' law. We now have a commission on a British Bill of Rights which will not consider leaving the European Convention of Human Rights or repealing the Human Rights Act. We are therefore to remain lumbered with laws which make Britain, in the words of the reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation Lord Carlile, a “safe haven for terrorists”. He argues: “The effect (of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights) is to make the UK a safe haven for some individuals whose determination is to damage the UK and its citizens – hardly a satisfactory situation save for the purist.” He recently added: “A narrow interpretation of the convention has had a chilling effect on deportation, and thereby on public safety.” Yet it seems the Liberal Democrats are ‘purists’, placing all their faith in this document largely because it has the word ‘European’ in it – which means that questioning it would be political blasphemy. It seems absurd to think that somehow we in Britain - the land of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights – need a European document or the New Labour Human Rights Act to ‘give’ us our human rights. But of course, the ‘human rights’ of terrorists (such as the ‘right’ not to be deported or to have benefits taken away) count for more than the most basic rights of British subjects.

Once again, the Liberal Democrats are out of step with the public (and proud of it), and once again, they are stopping the Conservatives from acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the British people. Addressing the lunacy of the Human Rights Act was one of the best Conservative policies. Despite calling themselves liberal and democratic, the Lib Dems evidently prefer legislation by unelected judges in Strasbourg to legislation by elected parliamentarians in Westminster. That is the extent of Lib Dem faith in the British people - they believe we need to be restrained by a supranational authority – ‘put back in our place’, as Clegg would say. Many Lib Dem elder statesmen made it clear during the debate on prisoners' votes that they are certain than Britain must cravenly accept every diktat of this Euro-dogma rather than think and decide for ourselves. Thanks to the Coalition, the European Court of Human Rights will be 'putting us back in our place', and tying our hands in dealing with those who want to destroy us while also taking advantage of us, for many years to come.

Cameron is right on multiculturalism – and Sadiq Khan is so wrong

2011-04-25T23:52:00.006+01:00

David Cameron’s speech on immigration was not the first of its kind to cause ripples within the coalition. There was also the Prime Minister’s speech on multiculturalism and Islamism at the Munich Security Conference.

He identified Islamism as the main threat we face. He rightly identified the roots of terrorism in "the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism," and argued that we needed to tackle the ideology, not just the terrorism. He criticised those on the left who try to blame terrorism on poverty, or 'injustice, or 'foreign policy grievances'. He also argued for the importance of integration based on confidence in our own national values, and that state multiculturalism had failed. He argued: "we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home." In a welcome development, the Prime Minister stated: "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism... I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them... It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things."

Unsurprisingly, such straight talking caused discomfort in some quarters, causing some discomfort among Liberal Democrats - probably a sign that he is on the right track. The Deputy Prime Minister followed up with a speech in Luton on multiculturalism, with a much more pro-multicultural tone.

But worst was the reaction from Sadiq Khan, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, who accused David Cameron of “writing propaganda for the EDL”. This was a ridiculously unfair, and downright childish and pathetic, piece of name-calling. So criticising multiculturalism and standing up to Islamism is now propagandising for the English Defence League?

This criticism comes from a man who had no problem propagandising for al-Qaeda, being one of those who signed a letter from prominent British Muslims in the aftermath of the Transatlantic airliners plot urging the Government to change Britain’s foreign policy in order to avert more terrorist attacks from their fellow Muslims. They argued that "the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy", deciding that the terror plot was the ideal point to "urge the prime minister to... change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.” “Such a move would make us all safer," they said. How kind. He went on to describe Britain's closeness to the United States as "a poison". As Ed Miliband's leadership campaign manager, he argued for what he called “a more independent foreign policy”. Having tried to take advantage of a threatened massive terrorist attack to blackmail Britain into changing its foreign policy to meet Islamist demands, he is in no position to lecture anyone else about propaganda, or to take the moral high ground.

Cameron calls it right on immigration

2011-04-25T21:01:00.003+01:00

David Cameron has upset some of our Liberal Democrat brethren with his most recent speech on immigration. He had not even yet spoken, and Business Secretary Vince Cable said that the speech was “very unwise” and “talk of mass immigration risks inflaming the extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed.”

As it was, the speech was not especially radical, and was largely restating existing immigration policy. However, it was right for the Prime Minister to raise this issue, a matter of huge concern at the time of last year’s general election and one where this Government is taking a significantly different approach to the previous one. David Cameron is right that we need “Good immigration, not mass immigration” and that we should “cut immigration, and cut it substantially.” The Prime Minister promised: “That will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.”

As for Vince Cable’s outburst, he seems to be playing the classic left-wing trick that you cannot talk frankly about immigration without ‘inflaming’ something or other – which is part of the problem and one of the main reasons for public frustration with the issue! He was followed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg seeking to undermine the Prime Minister by saying that it was not Coalition policy to cut immigration to the tens of thousands, but rather that "It is not Government policy to pursue a fixed numerical target."

The Liberal Democrats must not be allowed to undermine this vital policy, which is central to the wishes of the British people. This is the future of the country we are talking about. We cannot let the Lib Dems blow it.

The Neoconservative moment

2011-04-25T19:34:00.005+01:00

So, the neoconservatives were right after all.

Only last summer, John Simpson was arguing: "Nor has the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to a general domino effect towards democracy throughout the Middle East." Who would say that now? There is a wave of democratisation after all. The spread of freedom is possible. As Christopher Hitchens has boldly argued, this would be much more difficult to imagine if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Regime change, one reviled, is back in fashion.

Of course, critics will continue to denounce neoconservatism as the ultimate evil. Tariq Ali even said of the recent uprisings: “The absurd, if much vaunted, neocon notion that Arabs or Muslims were hostile to democracy has disappeared like parchment in fire.” That is of course the opposite of the truth – it was the neocons who promoted the idea of democracy in the Middle East, much to the scorn of almost everyone else.

And what of neoconservatism in Britain? It has been argued that the neoconservatives in the Coalition cabinet, most notably Michael Gove and George Osborne, have been successfully asserting themselves. David Cameron’s foreign policy seems to be leaning in a more neocon direction - in favour of intervention, in favour of defending human rights, in favour of defending democracy. Gove argued forcefully at the cabinet table that Britain must be on the side of freedom. Some of the Lib Dem members of the cabinet may be uneasy at this, but that is surely a sign that foreign policy is moving in the right direction! As Iain Duncan Smith put it movingly on question time, “if we are not on the side of those who seek freedom, then what on earth is Britain for?” With Britain now once again fighting to overthrow a Middle Eastern tyrant, with liberal interventionism and regime change firmly back on the agenda, and with the United Kingdom and France now leading the freedom agenda, surely this is the neoconservative moment for Britain if ever there was one.

But, and this is particularly relevant in the case of George Osborne, is it no good being a neoconservative on behalf of the United States or the West, while weakening Britain’s defence capabilities and our ability to conduct an independent, robust and forceful foreign policy. It is right that we fight for freedom – but we need the means to be able to carry forward that fight. As well as updating our foreign policy, we must update our defence policy. Then we can continue the noble British tradition of those such as Castlereagh, Palmerston and Churchill. And Britain will be for something great in the world.

Reflections on the revolution in Egypt

2011-04-25T19:05:00.004+01:00

While the wave of revolutions and uprisings across the Middle East started in Tunisia, the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt was the big one. The question, of course, is whether this is the 1989 of the Arab world, or the 1979 of the Sunni world? Whether this will be a wave of democracy, or a wave of Islamism which will replace dictatorships with even worse ones.

It was certainly strange that the Obama administration called for Mubarak, an ally of the West, to go in Egypt, whereas diplomats were sent along to the inauguration ceremony of Ahmadinejad in Iran after the fraudulent election and protesters in 2009.

The Iranian regime swiftly tried to claim that the Egyptian revolution was a new wave of the Islamic revolution they had started, with Ahmadinejad saying that this was “a world revolution managed by the dear 12th Imam,” and that “a new Middle East is emerging without the Zionist regime and U.S. interference”. This was followed by Iranian warships in the Suez Canal. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, led a rally in Tahrir Square, saying that the revolution was unfinished.

With Egypt on the verge of either democracy or theocracy, it was hardly helpful of the Obama administration to stick its nose in and say that the Muslim Brotherhood should have a role in the new Egyptian government. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that a reformed government "has to include a whole host of important nonsecular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be a stable and reliable partner." Would we insist on a role for fascists or communists in a new government? No. Then why do this for Islamists? James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, even tried to whitewash the movement, saying: “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam… there is no overarching agenda, particularly in the pursuit of violence…” How reassuring. Nothing to worry about then?

We must be on the side of freedom. It is not enough to support the end of undemocratic regimes. We need to support democrats, if we are to avoid seeing one tyranny replaced with another, worse, one.

Happy Easter

2011-04-24T12:56:00.002+01:00

Happy Easter!

Happy St George's Day, everybody!

2011-04-23T17:54:00.001+01:00

Happy St George's Day, everybody!

So, where was the oil in Ivory Coast when France intervened?

2011-04-14T01:21:00.003+01:00

Nicolas Sarkozy and France are to be congratulated for a successful pro-democracy intervention in Ivory Coast, as well as taking the lead in Libya. French and UN forces helped arrest Laurent Gbagbo, the former president whose refusal to hand over to the elected president Alassane Ouattara was plunging the country into civil war. Sarkozy is taking a bold approach, speaking of France's role in shaping history and promoting democracy and freedom. This is a hugely welcome contribution. He is certainly giving other leaders a run for their money in leading the freedom agenda internationally, drawing comparisons with George W Bush. The muscular liberalism which David Cameron spoke of is alive and well.

In Ivory Coast, we have an ideal example of liberal interventionism to uphold democracy. Mike Onwukwe in Nigeria's Guardian observed: "It is about time we rolled out the red carpet and began to treat the French troops like returning astronauts from the moon. While Ouattara and French forces were doing somebody else's job, the African Union was comatose in far away Tripoli dining and massaging Gaddafi's ego." Ouch.

Perhaps the anti-war movement could now drop the "it's all about oil" mantra. Ivory Coast has little oil. It is ranked 55th in the world, below Britain, Germany and Italy. Very recently, cynics were holding up Ivory Coast as an example of a country where there were human rights abuses but there would be no Western intervention because there was no oil at stake. Sarkozy has proved them wrong. What can they say now?

The moral bankruptcy of the anti-war movement

2011-04-13T23:57:00.007+01:00

The anti-war movement were doubtless a bit frustrated and confused by the political and public reaction to the military intervention in Libya. This time, there was cross-party political consensus. This time, there was no furious public opposition. And unlike Iraq, this time the military action was explicitly and unambiguously mandated by a UN Security Council resolution – so they couldn’t even use that argument. Of course, none of this would change their mind – which shows that all that stuff they said before about the Iraq war being ‘illegal’ and not having UN backing was just an excuse after all. They didn’t even have to think about it – they would be against action in Libya, no matter what. This was the return of "the blood-soaked policy of liberal interventionism," and had to be stopped.

The obvious truth is that they will just knee-jerkingly oppose every Western intervention – not so much because they are anti-war but as because they are on the other side. The sin is not military action – Gaddafi’s military action is evidently tolerable – but Western military action. Even the Stop the War Coalition’s choice of name for their campaign, “Hands Off Libya”, indicates that they sympathise with the Gaddafi regime and see it as an ‘anti-imperialist’ force. The misleadingly named Islamic Human Rights Commission organised a protest to “stop the massacres in Libya and Bahrain” – in the case of Libya, the massacre they refer to is not Gaddafi’s repression but “intervention by the US and Britain”. So when Bahrain crushes protests, it is a massacre, but when Gaddafi unleashes military force against protesters, that is not a massacre - but Western intervention to stop him is. In reality of course it is the West who stopped the massacre in Libya, by stopping Gaddafi from carrying out his threats against the population of Benghazi.

It is notable how without the UN issue and therefore the ‘illegal war’ rhetoric, the anti-war movement’s arguments have become pathetically weak. The best they seem able to come up with is to complain about Western ‘double standards’ and ‘hypocrisy’, rather than any specific reason about why this particular intervention in Libya is wrong. Hence Mehdi Hasan goes on about arms sales and the supposed ‘hypocrisy of the hawks’, without actually explaining why stopping Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is wrong. George Galloway, in typically bizarre fashion, suggests mobilising and arming the international Islamist movement. Yasmin Qureshi, during the House of Commons debate, also made blithe and unsubstantiated statements about ‘Western double standards’ in the vague and generalised anti-Western rant which constituted her misinformed argument against our action. She then listed places where human rights abuses occurred but we were not intervening because “there is no oil”. Ah yes, oil – that old chestnut. “Call me cynical” she said. More like unoriginal, and opposing Western foreign policy for the sake of it, whatever the merits. She gave the impression of half-heartedly scrabbling around for arguments without knowing which to choose, because none of them were that good – she just wanted to be against because any Western action in a Muslim country must be wrong, and the West must always be the villains, even when the West is intervening to save life. Now that is cynical.

The logic seems to be that because we have done something ‘bad’ in the past, we cannot ever do anything good in the present. That because we have traded and negotiated with dictatorships, we cannot ever do anything against them, no matter how many people they kill, because to act would be ‘hypocritical’. That anyone we have had dealings with should be given a free pass to do whatever they like without any chance of a response because to respond would show ‘double standards’. That because we cannot right every wrong in the world, we should never intervene to right any wrong at all. I would rather be ‘hypocritical’ and show ‘double standards’ (neither of which are really fair charges, by and large) than sit back and watch people get slaughtered while gloating smugly about my moral superiority, which seems to be the preferred option of the anti-war brigade.

In the worst case, Ken Livingstone on Question Time argued that the West is ‘so discredited’ that any intervention was illegitimate, and that the Libyan opposition who called for intervention to protect the Libyan people against Gaddafi were wrong to do so because it makes them "look like stooges of Western oil companies.” So according to Ken Livingstone’s reasoning, they should have not asked for help and should have allowed themselves to be slaughtered instead rather than “look like stooges of the Western oil companies.” According to Ken, Libyans should die for the sake of his opposition to Western oil companies. That says it all about the ‘anti-war’ movement – they pretend to care about human beings, but what they really care about is their anti-Western ideology. They would rather watch people die than dare support a Western military action against a murderous despot.

A defence rethink, at last?

2011-04-13T12:22:00.005+01:00

There have been the first hints that the conflict in Libya is finally persuading the Government to look again at defence cuts.

The Prime Minister has finally seen sense and ordered the Treasury to give the Ministry of Defence a reprieve from its overspend this year, rather than enforcing further destructive cuts. Defence minister Nick Harvey admitted that operations in Libya and Afghanistan had left the Armed Forces “at full stretch” and that Britain would “struggle” to cope with further military emergencies.

It was also reported that the SDSR cuts were the subject of ongoing reassessment and that: "“The debate is live. The Prime Minister is very much part of it".

The Prime Minister himself had told MPs: “We will look very closely at all the lessons we should learn from what we are engaged in: diplomatically; politically; and in terms of both foreign policy and military equipment.” Surely those lessons are now obvious. As one insider admitted: "The uncertain world we envisaged [at the end of the decade] is here now.”

If the Government is serious, then this needs to be a proper rethink of the SDSR, with proper funding – not just a temporary accounting deal. To claim that the SDSR stands up to the test of recent events is barely credible. Two Nimrod R1 spy planes due to be scrapped were given a stay of execution so they could be used in Libya. Implementing defence cuts during two wars is absurd.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of such a rethink seems remote, and the Government is trying to play it down. But what is worse – admitting that mistakes were made and correcting them, or leaving Britain on the path to military disaster? There should be no contest.

Regime change, anyone?

2011-04-12T15:50:00.004+01:00

The last few months have witnessed a remarkable transformation - regime change is back in fashion!

Few would have predicted that would be involved in another war against a despotic regime so soon. After the rhetoric from David Cameron of how we couldn’t “impose democracy at the point of a gun” or “drop democracy out of a plane at 40,000 feet”, after all the talk of how we had left the ‘adventurism’ of the Blair era behind, with defeatism now ruling the day in Afghanistan and with defence cuts across the board, here we are.

Reality has hit home. When a dictator on the doorstep of Europe is slaughtering his own people and is about to commit a massacre in front of the eyes of the world, non-intervention becomes a lot less credible. The intervention in Libya has achieved remarkable international and cross-party support. Even staunch opponents of the Iraq War were clamouring for intervention in Libya. Regime change, regarded as a dirty word ever since Iraq, has become much less of a taboo.

Much has been made of the differences between the interventions in Iraq and Libya, yet these should not be overdone. Without the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the democratic revolutions in the Middle East may never have happened. It would certainly be more difficult for democracy to take root in a region where there was still an oil-rich and heavily-armed Baathist Iraq, particularly given Saddam Hussein’s record of intervening in neighbouring countries. Rather than having Saddam Hussein trying to crush any democratic movement in the region, we instead witnessed Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister of Iraq and new head of the Arab League, calling for strong action against the regime of Colonel Gaddafi.

If Saddam Hussein had still been in power, and an uprising had broken out in Iraq, who could doubt that he would have responded every bit as brutally – or even more so – than Gaddafi? We saw him do it in 1991, after the first Gulf War. With regard to moral imperatives to intervene, Saddam Hussein slaughtered many more of his own people than Gaddafi. Although without the intervention in Iraq, Gaddafi would never have given up his weapons programmes, and so might now have chemical or biological weapons to play with.

The intervention in Libya has shown that that Britain, France, the United States and other powers are still willing and able to intervene overseas in defence of human rights and to prevent further atrocities being committed by a murderous tyrant against his own people. The allies have been absolutely right to intervene to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, and to prevent Gaddafi from crushing all internal opposition. A failure to act would have sent a chilling message across the Middle East and Africa that dictators who showed the most brutality in crushing their own people could keep their grip on absolute power.

The United Nations is also, finally, fulfilling its responsibilities. This is the first military action taken under the UN doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, adopted in 2006, which permits international intervention in a sovereign state to prevent a humanitarian disaster. The president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, made a powerful point when he wrote: "No country knows better than my own the costs of the international community failing to intervene to prevent a state killing its own people... It is encouraging that members of the international community appear to have learnt the lessons of that failure... Rwanda can only stand in support."

However, it did not take long at all for doubts and divisions and pessimism to emerge. The main danger is not that we will get 'dragged into' a long drawn-out conflict, but rather that we will do a half-hearted job and won't see this through to its rightful end.

Gaddafi must go. Otherwise, he will remain as a defiant, bitter and dangerous dictator who can claim victory against the West – much like Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. Rather than Libya becoming an inspiration to other countries where people want to throw off the rule of a dictator, Gaddafi will become an inspiration to other tyrants who will draw the lesson that they will be able to cling on to power if they are brutal enough, and the rest of the world will be powerless to stop them.

While regime change is not therefore explicitly mentioned in UN Security Council 1973, it must be our aim. Any result where Gaddafi remains in power will be an imperfect and temporary one, where Libyan civilians are left at risk. For this intervention to be successful, it cannot be half-hearted. Despite recent disputes over this, it is perfectly legitimate, and indeed sensible, to target Gaddafi’s command centre. After all, if Gaddafi is not a legitimate target, then who is? Why is it legitimate to bomb a Libyan conscript soldier but not the dictator who is in charge of the slaughter? If we are serious about success, we should stop applying the arms embargo to the rebels. Gaddafi’s forces are already heavily armed, while the rebels are not, so the arms embargo leaves the rebels handicapped and – ironically – even more dependent on the NATO no-fly zone and aerial support. While the UN Security Council Resolution excludes an occupation of Libya, it is right that we have not arbitrarily ruled out any use of ground forces, no matter what the circumstances. Indeed, special forces have already been active on the ground. While maintaining an international and regional consensus is desirable, it should not be allowed to limit our ambitions and restrict our flexibility. The protection of the Libyan people is more important than trying to keep the UN, the Arab League, the African Union, Turkey or other sceptical nations onside. We must not hold back if we are serious about winning. ‘Peace’ proposals that leave Gaddafi in power are an insult and an obstacle.

Interventionism has made a welcome return. We haven’t retreated from the world after all. We are still willing to fight. But we must have the means – defence cuts have been shown to be even more absurd and dangerous. And we must make a success of this intervention. Gaddafi must be removed from power. We should target Gaddafi, we should arm the rebels, we should not limit ourselves. There is no logic in limited war, and we should not fight with our own hands tied. We can beat Gaddafi – so why don’t we?

What Euro planet is he living on?

2011-03-27T03:16:00.003+01:00

A surreal moment in Parliament this week, when John Redwood mentioned "that the other two principal parties in the House have come round to the view that we certainly should not join the euro any time yet" and Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell intervented to say: "I am glad that the right honourable Gentleman added the words 'any time yet' to his remarks about joining the euro, because it is inevitable that, over many years, we will join the euro. Tomorrow and the day after, 17 euro states will get together and put forward a proper plan for competitiveness within the euro. For the first time in our history, the United Kingdom is excluded." Looking at the Eurozone, aren't we lucky to be excluded?

Inevitable? Incredible that that argument is still being wheeled out. So many people (not least our Deputy Prime Minister) got it wrong about the Euro. And it is hilarious to see some of them, such as Ken Clarke, try to claim that the economic crises in Europe have nothing to do with the Euro. But Stuart Bell's claim that even now British membership of the Euro is not only desirable but inevitable is in a league of its own. British membership of the Euro is off the agenda, and it seems incredible to imagine that it will ever come back. Sorry Sir Stuart, but I think you are out on your own there on this one - or at least I hope you are.

Republic’s pathetic attempts to attack the royal wedding

2011-03-27T02:43:00.003+01:00

The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic seems to be making an intensified effort for publicity and rearing its ugly head more and more. Recently they jumped on the anti-Prince Andrew bandwagon, and now their chief Graham Smith has written a rather pretentious letter to Prince William and Kate Middleton "calling on them to remove the King of Bahrain and other 'vile men' from their wedding invitation list." What business their wedding invitation list is of his, Mr Smith does not explain.

On the one hand, Republic wants to promote its own 'alternative street party' and ignore the royal wedding, on the other hand Republic wants to interfere with it. On the one hand, Republic keeps arguing that the royal wedding is irrelevant and people do not care about it, on the other hand Republic tries to stir up a fuss about the guest list and claims the King of Bahrain's attendance at this supposedly 'irrelevant' and ‘unimportant’ wedding would send "an appalling message to the world". Now Republic wants the BBC to treat the monarchy as a 'politically controversial subject', a suggestion which can only be described as laughable.

They must be pretty desperate, when you consider that they try to claim that they are not a fringe movement by speaking of "the 20%+ people in this country who oppose the monarchy," and argue: "In parliament a number of MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, including Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party." Impressive.

The royal wedding will demonstrate most clearly how little support the republican cause has among the British public.

Obama adds insult to injury – IRA supporter for Ambassador to Ireland

2011-03-27T02:10:00.002+01:00

In yet another indication of the esteem in which president Obama holds Britain, it now emerges that he offered the post of ambassador to Ireland to Peter King, a long-standing supporter of the IRA.

King wasn’t just a sympathiser. He described the IRA as "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland." In 1982, he told a rally in New York: "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." He was a fundraiser for Noraid, the Irish-American organisation which provided funds for the IRA. A judge once threw him out of a Belfast courtroom during a murder trial becuase "he was an obvious collaborator with the IRA."

He condemned as "irresponsible" congressional hearings investigating links between the IRA and the Colombian terrorist-group FARC. And his response to the murder of Robert McCartney by IRA thugs was that "we shouldn't rush to be too sanctimonious".

Obama's choice for ambassador, ladies and gentlemen. Luckily, King turned the offer down - and now spends his time urging the US adminstration to be tougher on terrorism. Honestly.

Happy St Patrick's Day

2011-03-18T15:27:00.000Z

Happy St Patrick's Day!