EU Referendum

Showing posts with label NHS. Show all posts

link[i-link]It is easy to get seriously tired of the prevailing narrative, which is spreading like swine flu, completely out of control. A typical example comes in The Northern Echo, with an exclusive interview with Robin Fox, managing director of Northern Defence Industries – also a colonel in the Territorial Army, recently returned from active service in Afghanistan.

Mr Fox should know something about this issue from his unique perspective as a defence contractor and soldier. And he has absolutely no doubts as to the cause of the helicopter problem, declaring that the procurement system has cocked up in getting enough rotary wing assets for use in (Afghanistan). "We know well the story of the Chinooks that have sat in a hangar for years because nobody got it right," he says," but why the hell didn't we buy a shedload of Black Hawks from the Americans, which are cheaper and better than the alternatives?"

That we did not, according to Fox, is "a load of political nonsense." He then argues that the helicopter shortage is a symptom of "a greater disease across the support that is given to our troops on operations. It's a lack of funding across the whole… not just for helicopters."

As always though, this is just extruded verbal material – all you have to do is the basic arithmetic. Future Lynx is currently costed at £1.7 billion for 62 helicopters, with deliveries starting in 2014. A batch of 60 Blackhawks would cost £600 million and, with an order placed in late 2006 or early 2007, it could be in service now.

For a down payment, the £185 million spent on the six Danish Merlins could have bought the first batch of 18 machines, without raiding the Future Lynx fund.

The £100 million wasted on the Pinzgauer Vector would have bought another ten, the £166 million wasted on the useless Panther could have bought another 16 – with some change left over. The £314 million wasted on the "Trigat" anti-tank missile could have bought another 31 and, with the change left over from the Panther added, another machine could have been squeezed out of the system. Hey! That comes to 58 - we're nearly there, and we still have not touched the Future Lynx fund.

Over and over again, we have to repeat that this is not a funding issue. As long as the MoD procurement system is so wasteful and inefficient, there will always be cash problems, but throwing more money at the system just generates more waste. The Merlins are not only expensive to buy – they are extremely expensive to operate, at £34,000 an hour – a point made by Ann Winterton in today's letter column in the Telegraph.

For decades to come, therefore, these helicopters will be a hidden drain on the defence budget, soaking up money that could be spent elsewhere. The same will apply to the Future Lynx. While a Bell 212 costs £2,000 an hour to operate, the current (Army) Lynx models cost a staggering £23,000 an hour. The Future Lynx will perpetuate this waste. Even to contemplate £1.7 billion on a mere 62 helicopters is a higher kind of madness.

Perpetuating the "underfunding" narrative, therefore, is a cop-out. As with every other public sector organisation – from the NHS to the police and everywhere else – throwing money at a problem solves nothing. It has not worked with the NHS and it will not work with defence. The driver must be value for money, from which it is painfully evident that there is actually no shortage of cash – simply grossly inadequate management of the funds available.

Then, that is the malaise right through the public sector and one could argue that, if we get defence spending right, the lessons learned could be applied across the board. Purely on NHS procurement, billions could be saved without in any way touching service provision. But, as long as the insistent bleat of "underfunding" drowns out the sound of money pouring down the drain, we will get nowhere. It really is time the debate moved on, before we too follow the path our money is taking.

COMMENT THREAD

Netherlands_10-31-06[i-Netherlands_10-31-06]There is a very natural personal tension – which possibly reflects in this blog – between our support for the British (and international) intervention in Afghanistan, where we are seeking to improve the standard of governance in that country, and our view of affairs here back home, where we see the progressive decline in our democracy and the unremitting decay in the standard of government.

In many respects, though, what is happening in Afghanistan – and our management of the "war" in the portals of the MoD main building and No 10 - is a reflection of the greater malaise. For, although it is fashionable to laud the bravery of "Our Boys", the MoD as a parent organisation and the respective Services are as disorganised, dysfunctional and down-right inefficient as all or any of the public-sector organisations.

Nevertheless, it is hard for many people to take on board that the service chiefs, parading in their uniforms, are bureaucrats just like any other public sector bosses – with a strong political edge which makes them politicians in uniform, fighting their corners for their own sectional interests which may (and often do) have nothing in common with the national interest or even the broader interests of the armed forces. The idea that, for instance, General Dannatt is merely a gallant soldier, "above politics" is risible, straight out of the bumper book of fairy tales.

The conduct of the "war" in that far away place called Afghanistan, therefore, has a great deal in common with events here. Both policy development and management here and abroad are being conducted with probably the same degree of incompetence, compounded by serial stupidity, blind dogma and ignorance.

The only thing that is really different is that, in Afghanistan, British service personnel die very visibly (the rest are largely ignored). Their names are posted on the official MoD website and are read out in Parliament. By contrast, the bulk of those who die a miserable, undignified death from avoidable infection in an NHS hospital may be victims of the same brand of official incompetence, but perpetrated by a different band of actors in different circumstances - and they die without official recognition.

Another area of policy which is equally dysfunctional is energy, which combines with that insidious decay in democracy as we see that congenital moron Ed Miliband – whose best friends even despair about his brain cell count – announce that planning rules would be changed to make it easier for 6,000 onshore wind turbines to be built.

Britain's "default position" will now be to accept new onshore turbines, which means the building of "many thousands" of wind turbines will be imposed on country residents "as part of a new green energy strategy" – whether they like it or not.

As it happens, most of them do not. Last September, we reported on the valiant efforts of Owen Paterson MP and Bill Cash in supporting constituents in the charming rural area of Shropshire, called Bearstone near Market Drayton, objecting to the energy firm Nuon building a giant subsidy machine on their patch – worth £43 million, charged to consumers through the Renewables Obligation.

With some pleasure, I was told last night that an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, robustly mounted at which Owen Paterson gave evidence, had succeeded. Local people had formed the pressure group Vortex and raised a large amount of money to do serious research, producing well worked through evidence which prevailed on the day.

Under Ed Miliband's newly announced regime, that appeal would not have succeeded. Thus we see the destruction of one of the most fundamental systems of government, where residents have some control over their own environments.

Yet all this is predicated on the fatuous and increasingly discredited notion that the recent cyclical bout of increased temperatures has somehow been triggered by human activity, on the basis of badly constructed and pathetically limited computer models, driven by self-interested activists who have gulled politicians throughout the world into believing their dire creed.

That the myth of man-made global warming not only survives but has become a primary driver of government policy, to the enormous cost and discomfort of us all, is a classic example of the dysfunction of our government – and of the opposition which has equally bought into the myth. That it is now driving the destruction of our democracy, as the Mad Miliband hands down his edicts, should therefore be of great concern.

Thus, returning to the theme with which we started, one of the best arguments I have heard for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan is not based on the intrinsic merits – or not – of our being there. Rather, it is the incongruity of our current position where we are seeking to impose good governance and foster democracy in a foreign country when we cannot achieve either at home and are witnessing the destruction of both.

If our troops are needed, they are needed at home, to storm the bastions of Whitehall and Westminster, to shoot the denizens so that we can start over. We need a New Model Army, because our masters are no longer listening.

COMMENT THREAD

Tory+boy[i-Tory+boy]Things must be pretty desperate – or appear to be so – if Tory Boy Blog wakes from its torpor and suddenly realises there's a war going on in Afghanistan.

But having awakened from the sleep of the dead, its stunning contribution is to observe that: "You can't win a war on a peacetime budget". It is apparently unaware of the fact that the Labour government is pouring money into the military campaign, approximately £3.5 billion this financial year – equivalent to a ten percent top-up on the defence budget.

Since all this is achieving is to keep a reinforced brigade in position, mowing the grass and getting an increasing number of vehicles trashed – unfortunately with troops still inside them – it might not be a terribly bad idea to ask what the military is doing, much less achieving, with the money in supporting what must be one of the most expensive brigade deployments in the history of mankind.

For want of this, the fair Montgomerie, noting in passing that, "It is not clear what the Tory position is" (we are shocked, I tell you, shocked!), posits the idea that we might consider raiding the NHS to pay for this gold-plated war which boasts amongst its achievements the installation of a Ferris wheel for the grateful citizens of Lashkah Gar.

One can doubtless make a case for British grannies – and even aged Afghani immigrants – being deprived of their hip replacements to fund yet more Ferris wheels, but, needless to say, Mr Montgomerie does not make it. Instead, he offers the "bold option" espoused by his hero, president Obama, that of pledging to do "whatever is necessary to secure victory."

What "victory" might actually be and what we might need to do to achieve it, is of course not specified. Once it is achieved though, we can look forward to riding off into the sunset to the applause of grateful Afghanis, breaking clear of the crowds of crippled grannies clutching their Zimmer frames in agony.

But there you are – there is no need to think about what is actually needed. The Boy has actually spoken, demanding a "clarification of our mission", and that should be good enough for the legions of adoring fans who can now flock to the polling booths in the certain knowledge that the brightest minds in the land are on the case, and that we will do "whatever it necessary", once they've worked out what that is.

COMMENT THREAD

operating+theatre[i-operating+theatre]When tasked with anything constructive, the EU is displaying a consistent and predictable propensity towards failure. Its positive contribution to the wellbeing of mankind is precisely nil. When it comes to destruction, however, its capacity is unlimited and unparalleled.

An example of this malign capability comes in The Sunday Telegraph today, which headlines a story, "New EU working laws will be disaster for NHS". This is the Working Time Directive and we have already pointed out the effect this will have on the retained fire service. This is much worse.

According to one of Britain's top surgeons, the changes required by the directive to hospital working hours - coming into force this summer – will be "disastrous" for patient care and result in "major service failure".

This is John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons. He makes no bones about it (to coin a phrase). The new rules are "an impending disaster" which will "devastate" medical training because no surgeon will be able to work a shift long enough to gain proper experience.

The multiple handovers of staff needed to comply with the rules will mean that patients do not see the same doctor for more than a few hours. There could be "dangerous" lapses in patient care, especially at night. "With nobody able to work more than 48 hours a week from August, the effects on patient care in the NHS are potentially disastrous," Mr Black says.

He goes on, retailing a litany of woes which all point to the fact that going to hospital will be that much more dangerous than it is already. People are going to die, unnecessarily, sometimes horribly. And the EU will be to blame.

Black is meeting Alan Johnson, the health secretary, in February to propose a "speciality opt-out" and an upper limit on surgeons' hours of 65 to 70 hours a week. "I have no doubt we will be told that it is impossible to alter or bypass the European law. I do not believe this," he says. "All manner of EC law must have been bent or ignored in nationalising a bank in 24 hours. The government can do it if it has the political will."

But what is terrifying is the Orwellian response from Department of Health. Instead of acknowledging a very serious problem, it offers the anodyne statement that, "A few hospitals have implemented the maximum 48 hour week across all rotas. We are monitoring the situation as some smaller specialities and isolated hospitals may find meeting the deadline more challenging."

Never must it be admitted that the EU is tearing our nation apart, much less that it is going to kill people. No, the bureaucrats merely "monitor the situation" and, in due course will find nothing wrong at all – as the rapidly-filling cemeteries offer mute witness to their lies.

COMMENT THREAD

Climate+crap[i-Climate+crap]Booker is in an optimistic mood today in his column, declaring that, "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved."

To support his thesis, he points out that all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare.

He thus tells us that last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world.

As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

However, reading The Times leader yesterday, headed "The war on Carbon", you would think its writer lived on a different planet.

In a litany of warmist orthodoxy, it tells us that, "There will be continued argument about the science of climate change over the next 12 months, but not, except on the conspiratorial fringe, about the threat. Climate change is real and worsening, and there is an overwhelming likelihood that much of it is man-made."

And still we get the same mindless drivel from the warmist tendency in The Daily Telegraph, that darling of the greenies, Louise Gray telling us that, "Daffodills at Christmas and snow in October were just some of the unusual weather patterns noticed by the National Trust in the last year as climate change begins to takes its toll on the British landscape."

Thus, snow in October is "climate change". Nothing of what has so engaged Booker and many more of us has percolated the orthodoxy, which has not shifted one iota from its original position. It goes on regardless.

Nor, from an op-ed by the Great Leader, David Cameron, do we see any retreat from his position. He proudly reminds us of his commitment in an advertisement almost exactly three years ago "to tackling poverty and climate change, our backing for the NHS and our belief in a free enterprise economy."

But, bringing us back down to earth with a bump is a piece in The Times - business section, of course, headed, "Blackout fear as UK power plants face axe."

The story is interesting because it tells us what we suspected and feared – that the effects of the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive is going to be more damaging than predicted.

The nub is that, when power plant operators made their decisions to opt out of the directive and thus close down a number of coal plants by 2015 rather than pay the exorbitant sums needed to conform with the directive, it was assumed that these plants would only be used for peak generation, working on limited hours.

Because of the recent price distortions in the energy market, however, these plants have been working more or less full time, providing base load electricity and thus becoming worn out faster than anticipated. With major refits being economically unviable, given the limited lives of the plant, many will now have to close down early.

The first of them, Scottish Power's 1.2GW plant at Cockenzie, which generates enough power for 1m homes, will close as early as September 2010 based on current rates of electricity production. The "energy crunch" is thus predicted to hit us by 2013 rather than 2015, as we lose some 7.6GW of electricity – ten percent of the UK's total capacity.

The seriousness of this issue is such that it is this, rather than their fatuous obsession with "climate change", on which our policy-makers should be concentrating, to say nothing of the anticipated shortfalls in crop yields that will come as a result of the extended bad weather.

If we are already seeing global instability, this is nothing compared to the chaos which will ensue as more and more developing countries compete for dwindling food supplies. The world will be in flames, but it won't be because of "global warming".

Unfortunately, therefore, while Booker is undoubtedly right – the miasma of "global warming" having now lost whatever credibility it ever had, the dark shadow of obsession still afflicts our ruling classes and they are not even beginning to budge. I suspect it will take catastrophic failures in our own electricity supply system, and famine on a global scale before reality percolates their dismal brains.

By then, it will be too late, but for the hand wringing. Perhaps we should encourage them to practice that, so they are well-prepared. Anything else, clearly, is too much to ask.

COMMENT THREAD

pill[i-pill]The EU is, next month, to unveil plans to let drug firms use the media to publish promotion information about prescription-only medicines directly to patients.

This at least, is the claim of The Observer which is also retailing claims that the NHS's £11bn annual bill for drugs could soar if this is allowed.

Opponents argue the controversial proposals would come close to contravening the longstanding ban on companies advertising branded drugs and the idea that patients should have easy access to information about the medicines fed to them by their doctors is one that fills their trade union the British Medical Association with horror.

It is joined by the Consumers Association and Royal College of Physicians, the three being among nine "leading organisations" that have written a joint letter to the EU commission urging it to abandon its plan.

They fear that if this is allowed, patients will start demanding specific drugs they have seen promoted and reduce doctors' ability to prescribe cheaper alternatives. That happened in America, or so we are told, after it relaxed its rules in 1997 to permit such material.

"If we increase the demand for branded medicines the NHS drugs bill could go sky-high, putting its finite resources under threat," said Pete Moorey, the public affairs manager at Which?, the Consumers Association magazine.

For once, however, we must side with the EU on this. This sort of information is already on the internet, for those that wish to look at it, and there is no good reason why the medical Mafia doctors should have a monopoly of information.

The pharmaceutical industry makes a good case for liberalisation, with which it is hard to disagree. The only pity really is that the EU is proposing it as well.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]Although the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) is set to cost electricity generators (and thus us, the customers) £2 billion over the next four years - as permits go up for auction - other major industrial companies are set to make hundreds of millions out of the EU's "generosity".

This is according to The Guardian, which is reporting that many companies have been over-allocated with emission permits, equivalent to nine million tons of carbon dioxide – all of which can be sold for cash.

Some 200 companies are beneficiaries covering all sectors, from steel and cement making, to car manufacturing and the food and drink industry. Says The Guardian, dozens of household names such as Ford, Thames Water, Astra Zeneca, Heathrow Airport, Toyota and Vauxhall are among the companies that could benefit.

One of the largest beneficiaries is Castle Cement, which makes a quarter of all British cement at three works in Lancashire, north Wales (pictured) and Rutland. While total CO2 emissions from the three plants have fallen from 2.3m metric tons in 2005 to 2.1m in 2007, they have been allocated 2.9m metric ton in permits for each of the next five years - an annual surplus of 829,000 permits.

At the current price of £21 per metric ton, the company could sell its surplus permits for £83.5m over the five years.

Perversely, some enterprises have been allocated fewer permits than they require, not least the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. It is predicting an annual deficit of 5,800 and is thus needing to siphon over £120,000 a year from its clinical budget to buy extra permits.

And, not only is the electricity industry having to pay for its permits, it is also 70 million metric tons short on allocation, which it will have to buy on the open "carbon" market. At current prices, that is nearly £1.5 billion added to our electricity bills.

The Guardian cites Bryony Worthington, founder of the campaigning group Sandbag, who notes that this "… means electricity customers are effectively subsidising heavy industry's right to pollute, while being urged to make environmental sacrifices in their own lives."

And that is they way things now work in this country – courtesy of our new masters in Brussels. But, from an organisation that brought us the Common Fisheries Policy, did we ever expect anything else?

COMMENT THREAD

dante_013[i-dante_013]So cautions Irwin Stelzer, writing in The Daily Telegraph, yet another commentator on energy policy in what has become a politician-free zone.

The Tories, by contrast – seemingly determined to avoid any grown-up issues - are complaining that NHS trusts are calling in pest contractors to deal with the vermin problems they encounter.

The interesting thing about Stelzer's piece is that he is articulating the same point we made in our piece over the weekend - that neither nuclear nor renewables were the solution to our energy crisis. With western Europe being "overly dependent, to Vladimir Putin's delight" on natural gas, he thus concludes that the only realistic option is coal.

However, it would have been useful of Stelzer had gone a little further in his research, which might have helped him avoid some rather misleading statements. For instance, the world, he asserts, "has limitless supplies of coal, most located in nations friendly to the West."

Up to a point, Lord Copper … actually known reserves at current rates of consumption amount to about 200 years. But that is fair enough. In political terms, two centuries is essentially "limitless".

What brings on the smile (or grimace) though, in his advocacy of coal, he rather neglects to point out that the UK is almost wholly reliant on imports and that the main source is, er … Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Just as bad, our second major source is South Africa which, while still "friendly", is having its own problems and is not in a position to guarantee supply.

Further, Stelzer applauds the action of "European countries" who plan to build 50 new coal stations in the next five years, neglecting also to tell us that over half of these are to be in Germany, which will rely on its supplies from er ... Russia and South Africa – putting us in direct competition for insecure supplies.

Even more alarming, Stelzer reaches his conclusion that coal is the right option partly on the basis that nuclear is more expensive than claimed. But he is apparently unaware of the recent developments in South Africa. This country has determined that, in order to maintain its standing as a major exporter of coal, it must go nuclear to satisfy its domestic demand for electricity.

If nuclear is as problematical for western countries as Stelzer asserts, then it will be even more problematical for South Africa. In that case the likelihood of this country being able to continue with its massive coal exports begins to look more than a bit suspect.

This may explain why, even as we write, Germany’s Angela Merkel is seeking to reverse her predecessors's policy of abandoning nuclear energy. Despite the considerable political risks to her ruling coalition, she has realised the danger of excessive reliance on imported coal and gas – while also recognising that renewables will not give the continuity of supply her country needs.

If all of this passes Stelzer by, his sins are mere blemishes compared with the government's default position on electricity supply. We use the word "default" because this is emerging not as the result of any considered energy policy but as a consequence of its lack of policy.

What, in effect, it happening is that the UK will be forced to maximise its reliance on natural gas, owing to the predicatable failure of its programme of installing windmills. Combined with the EU-enforced programme of closing down coal-fired stations and the scheduled retirement of our existing nuclear power stations, our generators will have no option but to fill the gap with gas-fired plant.

As we observed yesterday – and many times earlier – for those who are following the serpentine twists of this issue, this makes the absence of the Conservatives from the debate all the more alarming. We have no expectations of the Labour government getting its act together, which makes it imperative that its putative successor comes up with a worthwhile policy.

If the Conservatives instead insist on avoiding the issue, then Stelzer is entirely right in cautioning that we should abandon hope. What Cameron might like to dwell on is that, when the lights go out, the next step will be to abandon the Conservatives.

COMMENT THREAD

MRI+scanner+0065[i-MRI+scanner+0065]Continuing its "eyes wide shut" policy on European Union affairs, The Daily Telegraph breathlessly announces today: "MRI scanners to be examined for cancer link".

Its grandly named Medical Editor, Rebecca Smith, then tells us that, "An investigation into the safety of MRI scanners is to be carried out amid health fears over the effects of the scans…". But only in the penultimate paragraph do we read that the Health Protection Agency (HPA), which commissioned the study, intends only to look at "NHS staff and others who work with the machinery regularly." It will not involve patients.

A spokesman for the HPA is then cited, saying: "This is new technology – it has only come to the fore in the last decade or so. This is a suitable precaution to do a study of workers to see if there is an effect. Patients should not be concerned."

In fact, as we know, this "suitable precaution" is no such thing. The study is a face-saver of the EU, after its abortive attempt to implement the Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive, which was due to come into force last April.

It had been quietly shelved in February after protests from scientists of international repute, attesting that there were no dangers involved in the usage of the machines. In Britain alone, it was estimated that the directive could make illegal some 30 percent of scans, needlessly endangering the health of thousands of British patients, many of them children.

Thus does the elephant live, this time costing an unknown sum and hundreds of hours of fruitless work, simply because the EU commission failed to do its homework before introducing totally unnecessary legislation and now needs to save face.

Also feeding the elephant is the BBC, which blandly tells us that, "Experts are to investigate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners can damage health."

Needless to say, there is no hint as to why these "experts" have suddenly taken it into their heads to carry out this undoubtedly expensive study. The BBC simply tells us: "…there is concern exposure to the magnetic fields they create may produce adverse long term health effects."

Unlike The Telegraph, however, the EU does get a mention. "The European Parliament," the BBC says, "was due to vote on new rules to limit exposure to powerful electromagnetic fields earlier this year. But following advice (our emphasis) from doctors, who said the proposed limits were so low they could prevent the use of MRI scanners, the issue was placed on the back burner."

This, of course, is a travesty of a report. The legislation has already been passed, but the implementation was postponed by the commission in October last, a decision rubber-stamped by the EU parliament in February.

As to the advice from "doctors", this was a storm of protest which stopped the commission in its tracks when it realised that its action could kill hundreds, if not thousands of people.

Such is the nature of this elephant in the room, however, that not only is it invisible, it appears to be teflon-coated, allowing even its more egregious cock-ups to go unreported.

COMMENT THREAD

POL+-+Hague+cameron[i-POL+-+Hague+cameron]Unless there are very specific issues, the EU agenda is never very prominent in the UK agenda and even during the year it is sometimes a struggle finding newsworthy EU-related items which are the staple fare of this blog.

Over Christmas period, this is doubly the case, when the EU agenda usually disappears completely – not least because the political system has shut down and all the Eurocrats are on holiday.

However, this year is not typical – or should not be. We are facing a year during which a new treaty must be ratified. Furthermore, it is one which has special significance in that we were promised a referendum on what is in all but name the EU constitution, which has been denied by our current prime minister.

At the very least, therefore, we have expectations of coming parliamentary battles, where the Conservative opposition attacks this government for its breach of faith, making the ratification battle the highpoint of the political calendar.

On the other hand, there is that lingering suspicion that Mr Cameron and his Parliamentary colleagues do not have their heart in the battle, and would sooner harry the government on domestic issues, merely going through the motions on "Europe" – enough to be seen to be doing something but without any great conviction.

There are those, of course, who tell us otherwise: that Mr Cameron is a principled politician who is playing a canny game and will fight the good fight when the time comes.

For those, their cause is not helped at all by their leader's New Year message, brought to us courtesy of the BBC website.

He wants, or so he tells us, 2008 to be "the year in which we offer the people of this country the hope of real change, by setting out a clear and inspiring vision of what Britain will look like with a Conservative government."

That vision includes a message on the NHS, an antidote to “Labour's hopeless acceptance of mediocrity in education,” the hope of “civilised communities which are safe for everyone, based on radical police reform and more prison places in prisons which actually reduce re-offending,” and a commitment to “strengthen families, reform welfare, and make British poverty history.”

There are, we are also told, "tremendous challenges ahead" on the economy, on the environment, on defence and fighting terrorism, so says Mr Cameron, "This will be the year in which we show that there is hope for the future, that there is a clear and credible alternative to this hopeless and incompetent Labour government."

"We," says the man, will "offer a clear vision of the Britain we want to see, and a clear idea of how we will govern differently." And "we will inaugurate a new era in government - government for the post-bureaucratic age, where we devolve power to people and communities because we understand that a government that tries to control everything ends up not being able to run anything."

All stirring stuff, but there seems to be one rather glaring omission. Mr Cameron chirps happily away about devolving "power to people…" but what about the referendum? And how will "we" govern differently if the power resides in Brussels?

COMMENT THREAD

House_of_Commons01[i-House_of_Commons01]In December last year I wrote an open letter to the Members of the House of Commons as there was news that they were whining about how little they were paid (that's over £60,000 plus very generous expenses, not to mention the possibility of putting members of their own family on the salary list).

Another year, another pay demand by our MPs. The story and the accompanying storm broke yesterday when we found out that our so-called legislators (I'll come to that in a minute) are demanding a ten per cent pay rise, well above inflation level. I don't suppose that means a commensurate ten per cent cut in the average allowance of £134,000. No, I thought not.

After all, as the Mail on Sunday put it:

One reason for the big claim is that many Labour MPs fear they will lose their seats at the next Election - and want to boost their Commons pension rights before it is too late.

Terrific. All at our expense, too, gentle reader.

Today there are lots of stories such as this one about Gordon Brown opposing the proposals and calling MPs selfish. Most of us can think of other, less pleasant descriptions but that will do to start with.

There is a good deal of predictable whining about the police not getting the pay rise they want. As it happens, that argument leaves me cold. As the think-tank Reform explained:

Discussion over this year's police pay settlement should take into account the fact that, over the last twelve years, police pay has risen at twice the rate of inflation and by more than the average of the public sector and the private sector pay increases.

One cannot possibly argue that productivity has gone up with the same fantastic leap. Indeed, that is true about the public sector in general - money has been poured in, salaries have gone up, productivity stayed the same.

Back to MPs, however.

Inevitably, the blogosphere is also buzzing. Iain Dale, has come out on the MPs' side, as he usually does, arguing that

Surely we should pay our MPs at a level where few would actually be put off standing for Parliament. I'd like Parliament to be representative of a number of professions, but few people from those professions would think about standing for Parliament because they would have to take a pay drop. Relatively junior managers in industry or the public sector now command salaries in excess of what MPs earn. What message does it send out that we are happy to pay MPs the same as the Deputy Public Affairs Manager of an NHS Trust?

On the whole, few of those who commented on the blog agreed with Iain (Peter Luff MP being one of those who did in a particularly whinging comment), pointing out that junior managers in the private sector do not earn that much, cannot command those expenses and cannot employ members of their family. If the Deputy Public Affairs Manager of an NHS Trust is on the same salary (plus expenses?) then he/she is seriously overpaid.

Tim Worstall, on the other hand, is demanding that MPs' salaries should be cut or reduced to zero on the grounds of supply and demand. There are very many people who want to be MPs and there will be even if they do not get the salaries they do.

I am not sure I accept Tim's argument entirely, though it makes more sense than Iain's about paying MPs as much as they could get in the private sector. Let's face it, most of them are MPs because they could not get much more than their train fares in the private sector. We are not talking potential captains of industry, hard-working GPs or anything of the kind. We are talking about people who have gone from one political position to another with an odd interlude of outside employment where they displayed no ability whatsoever.

There are many reasons why people who can do other things would not want to be MPs and they do not have much to do with the money. Maybe the company one has to keep.

Besides, why would we want to skim talented people off the wealth-creating private sector and send them into the parasitical public one?

It is curious that those parallels with the private sector concentrate, however erroneously, only on the pay, never on productivity or other problems like going out of business because of high taxes and an impossible regulatory structure.

What would a firm in the private sector do if it found that seventy to eighty per cent of its work has gone somewhere else? It would institute major cutbacks and many people would be laid off. Yet with that proportion of our legislation coming from Brussels and MPs not being able to reject it and not even reading it most of the time, we have no cutbacks; nobody is laid off; and a ten percent salary rise is demanded. I bet when that is debated, we shall have the House full to the rafters, unlike the time there is a debate on, say, the fishing industry and its destruction.

A year ago I wrote:

What is it you do, ladies and gentlemen that would justify yet another pay rise? Do you legislate? Well, not in the eighty percent of the legislation that comes, one way or another from the European Union and is passed on the nod because you do not have the right to reject or amend it. Let's face it, you do not even bother to read most of it. There is a lot of material there, I agree, but it is you and your equally greedy predecessors, who made sure of this state of affairs.

Let us not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, that a good deal of that legislation does not even pass through Parliament. It arrives in the shape of EU Regulations, which are directly applicable and are put into place by Statutory Instruments, which you know nothing about, or regulations created by quangos such as the Food Standards Agency.

What of the remaining twenty per cent of the legislation? Do you live up to the expectations of the people, whom you are supposed to represent? Do you read the legislative proposals or Green Papers or Bills? Do you realize how badly drafted many of the last are? It would appear not, as those badly drafted Bills wing their way through the House of Commons and it is only when the (unpaid) Members of the House of Lords start scrutinizing them, line by line, clause by clause (something you ought to do, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons) that the full shoddiness or horror becomes clear.

It is not unknown for the Government to have to rush scores, even hundreds of amendments at a late stage, say Report, in the House of Lords, having not realized before what a mess the particular piece of legislation was. It is many years since the House of Commons has made any effort to scrutinize legislation with any attention. GPs who carried out their duties the way you do, ladies and gentlemen, would be struck of the Register of Medical Practitioners.

And a good deal more. I stand by every word of it. Cut their salaries in accordance with the work they have voluntarily abandoned.

useful+idiots[i-useful+idiots]One of the most deep-rooted delusions of the British political establishment is the belief that the Single Market is about the liberalisation of trade, underwritten by a core belief in the market and the value of competition.

It is that, more than anything which has sustained the Tories in their support for the European Union, as they point to the various "liberalisation" programmes, most recently of the postal system and financial services.

No more is this delusion evident than in today's The Daily Telegraph leader. It comments in not-uncritical tones on the recent – if as yet abortive – proposals of the EU commission to allow British patients facing an "undue delay" for treatment in this country to travel anywhere in the EU for an operation and the NHS would have to pick up the bill.

This, opines the leader, is "a natural extension of the single market into the public sector and could have the most profound implications for the way health care is delivered here." But, it goes on to say:

If the principle of free movement across the EU for state-funded health care is established, why not genuinely free movement within the United Kingdom? This is a voucher scheme in embryo, offering the potential of a genuine internal market in health.

There is indeed nothing wrong with that latter idea, and it was this that formed the basis of the tribal exchange between Tory and Labour, the EU initiative being seen, in effect, as a "stalking horse" for the forced introduction of competition into the NHS.

However, what this tendency does not understand is that the profoundly socialist and dirigiste European Union has no commitment at all to free market values. In fact, it detests them.

Therein, of course, lies an apparent paradox, as the commission has been pre-eminent in the battle to break up national monopolies – like the postal services, energy supplies and the rest – enforcing a more "liberal" market where the various "actors" are able to compete with each other on the European stage.

But, therein lies the answer. The European Union is primarily motivated by its rooted antipathy to nationalism, and the vast state monopolies are bastions of that nationalism. They also, for better or worse, contribute to the sense of national identity, evident in so many of the titles – British Gas, Électricité de France, Deutsche Post, and so on.

Thus, the long term objective of the European Union is not to introduce competition into these enterprises, for the sake of it, but to break them up, in pursuance of its broader objective of destroying the vestiges of national identity and control.

The overall plan is then to recreate them as "European" players and, since they operate across borders, this calls for and legitimises regulation at the European rather than national level.

So it is with the health services of the different member states, which are one of the last major bastions of national control. Furthermore, they are services which, in many ways, legitimise the intervention of national governments and give them much of their rationale.

It was entirely predictable, therefore, that these services should be a major target for the European Union. But, as we pointed out yesterday, its interests are not those of the patient, nor the efficiency of the services. It seeks instead to break up national health services and to recreate them as a European services – all in the pursuit of political integration.

In that sense, the EU is not promoting competition, per se. It is using competition - the tool of the devil - to achieve its own wider aims. And while, in the shorter term, this may yield some transitory benefits to consumers, no one should have any illusions that the resulting European monoliths, tied to Brussels and subject to its increasingly draconian regulation, will be any better than the national services they replace.

Those who see in the EU a champion of the free market, therefore, are nothing more than useful idiots, smoothing the path for continued political integration.

COMMENT THREAD

shadows[i-shadows]When you think about it, if our government in London had flagged up a major policy initiative, and then pulled it at the last minute – amid rumours of rows and recriminations – the story would be on the front pages of every national newspaper.

But, when it comes to our government in Brussels doing exactly the same thing – in this case on the open market in healthcare - it gets only a couple of articles, such as this one in The Times.

Nevertheless, The Times did manage to tell us that the plan was shelved over disagreements on when precisely the right of a patient to demand overseas treatment should kick in.

If they can simply demand overseas treatment straight away, in direct competition with the NHS, UK ministers are concerned that this will lead to an uncontrollable loss of NHS funds abroad, but supporters say it is just the kind of competition the NHS needs to bring about improvements.

There are other issues which the paper highlights, all of which suggest that there is a strong lobby in Brussels which is arguing that the proposals go too far.

However, the plot thickens. According to the European Federation of Public Service Unions, the proposals have not gone far enough. The Federation thus claims that the postponement represents a "major victory for advocates of universal health coverage".

When it comes to domestic politicians, Frank Dobson and a number of left-wing Labour MPs are also expressing alarm, with Dobson claiming that, "It will be catastrophic for the NHS if this directive goes through," adding, "The Commission either has no idea what damage this will cause to our NHS, or they simply don’t care."

The issue has even spilled over into an exchange between Labour and the Tories, reported by Conservative Home yesterday.

But, as far as what seems to be complete disarray in the EU commission goes, this has totally failed to capture the imagination of the media. Perhaps it is because the two main players, health commissioner Markos Kyprianou and internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevey, are total unknowns to the British audience, or perhaps it is because the "row" is being played out behind closed doors in a foreign land.

Certainly, it is very much the case that politics never really come alive in this country until they are seen in terms of opposing personalities, and perhaps it is the lack of household names in the EU matrix that dooms political discourse on EU issues to obscurity. There is simply no interest in shadowy figures operating in the margins.

If that is so, then this is another good reason why we cannot allow our politics to be run from Brussels. Without the high drama, there is no real discussion or scrutiny of the issues. That means that ordinary people will never be fully engaged in the political process and there will never be that sense of "ownership" of whatever emerges.

That is the puzzle for the "colleagues" in Brussels. If they cannot "light the fires" of political discourse at a European level – and so far their efforts have met with singular failure – then they are never going to be able to sell their "project" to the masses.

Perhaps my co-editor has a point.

COMMENT THREAD

medical+operation[i-medical+operation]Dominating the BBC news this morning was the imminent arrival of the government's proposals for a new healthcare directive, although the BBC website now tells us that Brussels has actually delayed releasing its "controversial proposals".

In a manner to which we have become accustomed, though, the BBC paints a resolutely rosy picture of the proposal – whether it appears today or not – describing it as a measure "…that would have made it easier for patients to travel abroad within the bloc for health care."

A similar line is taken in The Times - one of many reports – which heralds the imminent arrival of the proposal with the headline, "Patients to beat NHS queues in EU plan for open health market". Thus does the paper tell us that:

Patients will find it easier to escape NHS queues and head across the Channel for treatment under an EU blueprint for European health tourism to be published tomorrow.

It will guarantee that, in most cases, treatment within the European Union will be funded by the taxpayer. The move will open up competition between the NHS and European health services and is being hailed as a big step towards an open market for public healthcare.

The superficial attraction of this measure, however, belies its more sinister intent, and the profoundly dangerous implications, not only for the provision of healthcare services in the UK, but for our national sovereignty. To these we have referred in earlier posts, specifically here, here and here.

The headline issue, of course, relates to the celebrated case of Yvonne Watts (discussed in the posts linked above), who went to France for a hip replacement in 2002, followed by the refusal of her local health funder, Bedford Primary Care Trust, to pay the bill. This led to a legal battle in the ECJ, which reaffirmed the right of patients to seek treatment elsewhere in the EU, without prior approval, if they were suffering "undue delay".

Predictably, Edwina Currie, former junior health minister (of salmonella in eggs fame) and notorious Europhiliac - and also spokeswoman for the Patients' Association – dismisses any deeper agenda, telling The Times that: "This is not about individual countries giving up their health services to Brussels. This will affect a number of people like Mrs Watts who have had to wait too long for routine surgery."

In fact, though, the new proposal issue pre-dates Yvonne Watts, and represents of formal intervention by the commission in a policy area which has been opened up by the legal adventurism of the European Court of Justice, not least through its landmark ruling in July 2001 on the B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds.

What this did, reinforced by the Watts case, was define healthcare as a "service" within the meaning of the treaties, and thus bring healthcare provision fully within the competence of the EU, allowing our central government to become a major player in the provision and management of healthcare services throughout the EU member states. It was precisely that opening which the commission acknowledged in is consultation document last year, when it stated:

In its rulings, the Court made clear that when health services are provided for remuneration, they must be regarded as services within the meaning of Treaty and thus relevant provisions on free movement of services apply.

Thus, the proposal for a new directive is a "Trojan horse" and we can expect to see over term greater and more detailed EU intervention in the provision of primary healthcare. This will lead to member states' freedom of action being progressively circumscribed, with a similar distortion of heathcare priorities.

The point, as always, is that there is an intensely political dimension to this, which can be adduced from the commission's own healthcare website. It declares:

A key priority of the European Union is achievable and effective mobility for EU citizens. The Community is working to encourage open and easily accessible opportunities for citizens to move around the Union for educational, professional, healthcare or other purposes. A major aim is to make it easier for citizens to take advantage of the benefits of European integration and the European Single Market.

In other words, the primary policy aim of the EU, in respect of health care, is not – as is the case with member state governments - the provision of health services to the indigenous population, but the pursuit of European integration.

Whatever temporary (and limited) benefits might accrue from commission intervention, therefore, the net effect is to open up healthcare provision to another player which has its own agenda, one completely different from that which drives those who pay the bills and use the services.

In term of the bigger picture, what we are seeing is Whitehall losing its monopoly control over the health service. It is now sharing power with the central government in Brussels, to which it becomes subordinate in this policy area, in common with many other policy areas where it has already abandoned its monopoly.

Given the dire structure and management of the NHS, there will be voices who argue that this is no bad thing, except that one might need to remind oneself that the power is going to the same organisation which is so famed for its superbly efficient management of our fisheries and agricultural policies.

But, if that is a credible argument, there is no difference in principle in using the same argument for, say, defence. Since the management of the MoD is dire, should we not be looking to place power over defence in the hands of the EU commission?

The real issue, therefore, is that where the management of public sector systems in this country is poor, we should be looking for a change of government in this country, not rejoicing in (or even allowing) the handing over of management responsibility to a completely different, unelected government in Brussels.

Unfortunately, within the current treaty structure, this government undoubtedly feels it has no option but to go along with this directive. But, if it follows the same line, that means a new Conservative government will also face the prospect of its freedom to develop new initiatives in the provision of healthcare being circumscribed, as it is forced into a mould increasingly dictated by Brussels.

And this is but one measure in a week that has seen major other increments in the progress of European integration, with the White Paper on the "Integration of EU Mortgage Credit Market" and the Laval un Partneri Ltd judgement. Yet, with the focus on the new treaty, all these derive from earlier treaties and are actually based on the fundamental principles of the European Union, embodied in the original Treaty of Rome.

Going back to the period in the 1970s when there were earnest discussions on our joining the then Common Market, no one could have dreamed that, in one week over thirty years later, we would have seen measures which extended the Brussels remit into our health service, into our mortgage market and our fundamental labour laws - most of which has happened completely under the domestic political radar.

For this and many other reasons, it becomes more and more imperative that the Conservative party takes a long hard look at where the whole integration process is going. It is no longer enough just to erect a dam against the Lisbon treaty – or the next one, which surely will come. It urgently needs to work towards forging an entirely new relationship with the EU, one in which the inexorable march of integration is not only arrested but reversed.

In the absence of that, the next general election will be that in name only. In fact, it will be an electorally mandated reshuffle. We will change the faces in domestic politics but the real government (in Brussels) - and its policies - will remain the same. That is the measure of the beast.

COMMENT THREAD

EU+-+FlagsBrussels[i-EU+-+FlagsBrussels]The headline, for once, captures the mood of the Booker column. Applied by the subs after the column is written, often we do not see it until the paper is actually published – and then it is too late to do anything about it.

But this one proclaims - with a due sense of irony - "The top six achievements of our new government", which in its studied ambiguity will have most people expecting a rant about the ever-growing failures of the Brown government. It is thus a clever way of pointing out that we have another government – a supreme government – over in Brussels.

It is the continuous failure of the political classes and the media to recognise and highlight this fact that leads to much of the public inertia over the European Union. Much of the discourse on "Europe" is projected through the filter of domestic politics, while "Brussels" is "over there", not much reported and then in a disjointed fashion.

And, while the political commentators are quick to point out (rightly) that this and that (UK) department of state is "not fit for purpose", entirely lacking is the same degree of outrage at our other government, which in its entirety is not fit for purpose.

Thus does Booker offer a corrective, picking on six issues where the EU predominates. He starts with the Common Defence Policy, and the abject failure of the EU to organise the military force in Chad and surrounding areas, making a total mockery of its pretences of being a military (or any) power.

He moves on to the crushing failure of EU diplomacy over Iran, pointing out that this flagship aspect of the EU's common foreign policy has been nothing more than an exercise in appeasement, sucking up to the dictatorship of the murderous Mullahs, while seeking to destroy the very force which could bring democracy and relief to Iran, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI).

We then get a brief dissertation about the failure of the CAP, with Booker reminding us that, "a frequent misconception about the CAP is that it was set up to encourage farmers to grow more food." In fact, he tells us, its purpose was to manage food surpluses created by the post-war subsidy system – a system which spectacularly failed, leading to huge and expensive food mountains. But now, with structural shortages in world food production, we are left with a policy instrument – imperfect at best – designed to deal with surpluses, and wholly unable to deal with the consequences of shortage.

Another failure Booker highlights is the Common Fisheries Policy, noting that even the EU's Court of Auditors admits to that failure, before then noting the egregious failure of the Common Immigration Policy, which led Italy's prime minister, Romano Prodi to bemoan that, "Nobody could have expected such an influx," of immigrants, with the accession of the former communist states, having promulgated a directive that made the situation immeasurably worse.

As his coup de grace, he then points out that the common policy on global warming – based on the flagship "emissions trading scheme", has lead to Britain paying out £470 million while Germany made £300 million profit (despite ordering 26 new coal-fired power stations). NHS hospitals had to spend £1.7 million on credits, while BP and Shell made £40 million. The EU's electricity supply industry enjoyed a windfall profit of £13.6 billion, with the biggest losers UK electricity consumers, whose bills rose by as much as 12 per cent. The net result was that EU carbon emissions rose by 1.5 per cent.

These are only six of the many policy areas, to which must be added “many other glaring examples” of how the EU regime is "not fit for purpose" - such as Galileo space policy (due to cost UK taxpayers £1.7 billion); or the waste policy which has reduced our rubbish collection system to chaos (and threatens us with fines of billions of euros).

Yet, inexplicably, Gordon Brown is so keen to hand even more power to this system that he is prepared to lie about the new treaty, to avoid giving us the right he himself promised us - a vote on whether we want it or not. Why we are not up in arms about it is also inexplicable, about which Iain Martin has some views. We'll look at those in our next post on this blog.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron++trust[i-Cameron++trust]A fascinating survey has been posted on Tory Diary, with the headline, "Conservative members want renegotiation referendum if Treaty is ratified".

All the usual caveats must be expressed – that this is a self-selecting sample, and therefore unrepresentative of the wider community – but it is nevertheless a useful indicator of opinion on a more informed section of the community.

As to the survey, in short, the majority of the respondents (77 percent) believe that the EU Treaty amounts to a significant surrender of British powers and should be opposed, and 67 percent agree that a Conservative government should pass legislation setting British law over EU law on key areas of competence such as social and economic matters.

Crucially, on the post-ratification referendum issue, some 63 percent would support a referendum that mandated the incoming Conservative government to renegotiate back to the idea of a free trade area while, on the issue of tactics, 59 percent thought that Conservatives should focus on the issue of Brown's broken referendum promise rather than the specific constitutional implications of the EU Treaty

One the other side, only 33 percent thought that, once the Treaty has been ratified it will be very difficult to undo and that Conservatives would be unwise to promise to do so, while a mere 29 percent thought that the Tories were in danger of talking too much about Europe and should focus on the NHS, crime and other bread and butter issues.

The blog then quotes MP Bernard Jenkin, who says that, "We must clearly give serious thought to the consequences of ratifying the Lisbon treaty, alongside our determination to re-patriate employment and social policy. The question is not whether there should be renegotiation, but how it should be achieved."

All this, however, must be read in conjunction with Daniel Hannan's earlier blog, where he argued that, having made trust the issue, "the Conservatives need to be absolutely straight about their own position."

Hannan reminds us that, a month ago, David Cameron gave what sounded like an unequivocal commitment. Writing in The Sun, Cameron had assured readers: "Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."

Cutting through to the key issue, Hannan then mirrors the concerns of this blog that "it now seems that this pledge might not apply if Labour has already ratified the constitution."

"Why not?", asks Hannan. "If the treaty is as bad as David Cameron says it is (and it is), it doesn't become any better for having received royal assent. If the case for a referendum is as powerful as he says it is (and it is), it is no less powerful when applied retrospectively." He then adds:

There is a danger, though, that voters will think that my party is getting in its surrender in advance, preparing now for a sell-out in government. After all …, parties traditionally make sceptical noises in opposition, but become pro-Brussels in power, and the Tories have what the police call "previous" on Europe. Few punters will give us the benefit of the doubt. …

It won't do any more to wink and say. "Well, of course, you know where I'm coming from on Europe". Whenever any MP says that, you can be sure that you don't.

Hannan concludes: "My party calls Gordon Brown a liar because of his sophistry over Europe, and we are right to do so. Let us play no games of our own."

On the other hand, The Tap blog argues that instead of us pointing out their "impossibility", Cameron's "cast-iron" promises of a referendum on the constitution should be treated as "a statement of which direction the Party wants to go". Cameron's detractors, he adds, "might like to stop standing around moaning, and help push us up the hill."

This is all very well, except that, as Hannan points out, the Tories have "previous" on Europe and we are not inclined to trust them. And the very fact that Cameron is being equivocal on his promise, appearing to resile from his earlier commitment, simply strengthens the suspicion and the lack of trust.

Thus, to the frustration of committed Party supporters who – rightly – point to the dire consequences of allowing a Brown government to remain in power, there are many of us who still withhold support from the Conservatives, simply because we are not prepared, wholeheartedly to back a Party which appears to be selling a false bill of goods. It is, as Hannan, so rightly puts it, an question of trust, as much for Cameron as it is Brown.

Our concern is strengthened by a weekend interview of Cameron, conducted by the Mail on Sunday when he is asked whether, if the EU treaty had been ratified by the time he became prime minister, he would have to accept it, Cameron answers, "No. Margaret Thatcher managed to recover the Budget rebate."

The reference to the "handbag routine", has been a constant theme in Conservative mythology, invoked by Michael Howard in June 2004, which we discussed then, and many times since. The inapplicability of this tactic was evident then as it is now and if Cameron is still invoking the "spirit of Thatcher" in the context of a "renegotiation" of the treaty - when the "colleagues" hold all the cards - it really does make you wonder about the quality of tactical thinking that is going on in his brain, and in the Conservative Party generally.

The Tory Home survey, therefore, is important in that it points the way forward for the Conservative Party. The European Union is an issue that the activists in the Party are prepared take on, and there is genuine feeling that this treaty must be fought to the end. Furthermore, the response of the Duty Europhile tends to confirm that it is an issue the Europhiles would prefer the Conservatives to avoid, which again signals that this is one to go for.

If Cameron, on the other hand, thinks he can retreat into his own "comfort zone" of domestic issues, and green politics, he is badly wrong. There are too many people – enough to make the difference – who are waiting for clear statements on the EU before they will commit their support to the Conservatives and, like the man said, it really is a question of trust.

COMMENT THREAD

George+Osborne[i-George+Osborne]There is a certain amount of excitement on Toryboy blog about Georgie-Porgie Osborne telling Fraser Nelson in an interview that he is not an über-moderniser. To be fair, the excitement seems to have engulfed some of the clog-writers like the Daily Mail’s Ben Brogan, much quoted in Conservative circles.

Is this the first crack between the two leaders (well, three, if you count Steve Hilton, according to some the real power in the Party Formerly Known As Conservative)? Is Osborne positioning himself for a leadership challenge? Has he lost his marbles? These are the questions people are asking themselves.

Much good may it do them. For myself I should like to know what being a moderniser means. Answer comes there none, whenever I ask this question, apart from the odd waffle about having different candidates. Actually, I am in favour of that and so are many Conservatives on the grounds that the candidates picked by the local associations in the last ten years have been utter losers. Think Bob Neill, who reduced one of the biggest Conservative majorities to a margin of just a few hundred. Think Steve Norris, who lost to Hizonner Ken Livingstone twice.

What is Osborne’s definition of what he is not an über-member of?

I don’t take the kind of über-modernising view that some have had, that you can’t talk about crime or immigration or lower taxes. It is just that you can’t do so to the exclusion of the NHS, the environment and economic stability. I have always argued for a more balanced message, and that is what I hope you would see at this party conference.

Errm, who actually says that Conservatives must not talk about the NHS, the environment or economic stability? In any case, are those ideas not somewhat old-fashioned and anti-modern in the way they are presented by the Boy-King and his pet modernisers (the name Goldsmith springs to mind)?

If any of these people were really radical and modernising they would start talking about health care and not the NHS; they would abandon 1970s shibboleths and talk about the environment prospering in private hands and through new technology; they would stop blathering about economic stability and lower taxes being antithetical. Alas, they are not modernising enough. In fact, they are not modernisers at all, whether they wear ties with their expensive shirts or not.

Then Georgie-Porgie became really daring and started talking about … deep breath …. immigration. I wish these people wouldn’t. They really have no clue what they are talking about, whatever they happen to be arguing.

I don’t think we were ready for the impact on public services of a very large number of people coming to this country. Immigration from eastern Europe was 100 times, well maybe 50 times greater than the government predicted it was going to be. So there was a complete failure to anticipate the impact on our public services or indeed the impact on our economy.’ Immigration has been a ‘broad benefit’, he says. ‘But it has put an enormous pressure on some of our low-skilled British citizens who have found themselves in some parts of Britain priced out of the job market. I don’t think we have done enough as a country to give these people the right education or skills. It is no good Gordon Brown saying, “British jobs for British workers”, when he has singly failed to prepare British workers for the ten year he’s been chancellor.

Well, of course, the previous Conservative government did not do much to prepare British workers for being able to get jobs but I have heard nothing from the modernisers about any radical ideas of reform in the educational sector. In fact, there seems to be a rather old-fashioned One Nation Tory attitude of making sure the poor stay in their social position and not think about achieving anything.

As it happens, there is another problem with “British jobs for British workers” as a slogan, apart from the practicalities (what if they don’t want to get jobs or are not qualified for them?) and that is the sad fact that it is illegal under EU rules. Yes, I am afraid, we are not allowed to discriminate against other EU citizens on the grounds of their nationality.

I wonder why the non-über-moderniser has not seen fit to mention any of this.

COMMENT THREAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine an NHS …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This must be the most puzzling of all the statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENT THREAD