Cameron’ s best attempts merely underline how much Brussels really is in charge

Poor old Cameron. He has been off this week in Europe for his first real challenge as Prime Minister, standing up for Britain in Europe. He talked a very tough game before he went, claiming that he would seek a budget freeze rather than the absurdly high 6% increase that had been mooted. He thinks he has agreement on a 2.9% rise (although mutterings this weekend suggest it might be a bit premature to say it is agreed) and Downing Street proudly announced this as an important victory, amongst other agreements which Cameron claims he has made. Cameron is right that 2.9% is not a bad result, given the 6% where negotiations started. I am sure it was a hard earned victory to get the tentative agreement on that. But this only goes to underline how inferior we have become next to Europe.

As we know, our own country will face unprecedented cuts in public expenditure over the next few years, and while we face the often unwelcome decisions this will result in, we are told that the European Union is raising its budget by 2.9% and we have to pay for it.

How, then, in this context can 2.9% be announced as a victory?

The fact that it has been touted as such merely emphasises the real relationship we have with Europe. In many respects, we are a mere state in a federal union. The federal government has just told us that their budget needs to increase. We have tried to explain that we are trying to deal with the biggest public deficit since the Second World War, but their decision is final. We simply do not have a say.

Of course, not having a say is something the British public have become used to, particularly on the subject of Europe. Indeed, since the last and only referendum on Europe took place in 1975, you would have to be 53 or older to be a person who actually has had a say on Europe. The European project has changed irrevocably since then, with a great deal of British sovereignty signed away to Brussels.

It remains an unjustifiable disgrace that the country has never been consulted.

Tomorrow, let us see the opportunity and not the difficulty

Cuts, cuts, cuts. Deep, savage - whatever their description, the cuts are coming and they’re going to be damn right nasty. That is all I seem to hear at the moment.

Well, tomorrow the long wait is finally over, and we shall at last see where the government’s nasty cuts will fall. It has undoubtedly been one hell of a job, not least because of the absurd ring fencing of health expenditure and overseas aid. The Tories might well consider that not to ring-fence these two areas would be to break a core manifesto promise. Given that many of their manifesto commitments have been put to one side in the ‘national interest’ of forming the coalition (as is quite understandable) it is a wonder why they cannot also ditch this under the same reasoning. Why on earth should these areas be considered untouchable in the current climate? We will continue to provide aid to foreign countries while policeman and serviceman lose their jobs here. That is a crazy net result of this policy. But of course, the Tories chose these areas specifically as crucial to the strategy of detoxifying the brand- attempting to make people believe that the Tories are the caring and compassionate sort.

Rather than be downcast and cynical on the eve of what will surely be a day of relatively bad news, let us try and see the positives of what will come from tomorrow’s spending review. What grates when the government talks of the cuts is their insistence that these cuts are not ideological. They argue that these cuts are simply necessary because of the current appalling state of the public finances. They say this because it much more palatable for the coalition, while also appealing to the ‘modern conservative’ strategy of dissociating itself with the Tory party of the eighties. In fairness, it is also because it is an easier message to deliver. It conveys the message that ‘I am only doing this because I have to, not because I want to’. The trouble is that this misses a key opportunity to present the cuts in a more positive light. The refusal to accept anything ideological about the cuts is a tacit admission that if they did not have to cut, they would carry on with the spending binge of Labour over the last 13 years. How can that be right? Surely the reality is that these cuts are ideologically the right thing as well as a necessity?

The state is too big, we are taxed too much, the public sector is highly inefficient, bloated and consists of countless layers of utter waste. The argument should be put forward that the cuts, while painful, are the right thing to do. They will reduce the size of the state and the inflated public sector, which in the long run will reduce our tax burden, make our public services more efficient, responsive and local, and ultimately improve our society. This argument needs to be made and reinforced at every opportunity. It needs to achieve the substantial task of drowning out the relentless, one-dimensional media coverage of the cuts - that being, that cuts are bad, simple as that.

To paraphrase the words of Winston Churchill: tomorrow , let’s need not be the pessimist that sees difficulty in every opportunity, but rather the optimist that sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

Labour have duly accepted Red Ed’s invitation to join his wild dream

Labour have done their very best to put a brave face on the result of their leadership race this week, but no matter how much they protest that they all love Ed and he is great, they all know they have made a dreadful mistake.

Ed gave a reasonable speech today in the circumstances. But was this a speech of a future prime minister? Even the most hardened of Labour supporters would have their doubts. Ed lacks gravitas, and while youthful looks can be a good thing, Ed recalls too much of a precocious child who has been promoted through the school years too quickly. In the speech there were some cringe-worthy moments where the conference simply failed to respond. This awkwardness was reminiscent of the Tory conference feigning their support of the ‘quiet man turning up the volume’.

This was certainly not the same feeling when David Cameron made his pulse-racing speech to the Conservative party conference in the Tory leadership race, nor was it the feeling when Tony Blair came on to the scene. Already, both of these men could be seen as future Prime Ministers.

Obviously, many on the left of the media have tried to make the best of Ed’s victory. Indeed, for the idealist left there is no doubt that this is good news. Ed can now truly represent the traditional left that New Labour neglected. This will hopefully mark a welcome return to the old dividing lines of British politics. The Tories were shoved off the middle ground for the best part of the last 15 years of politics by New Labour. Now at last, perhaps the Tories can start talking confidently about genuinely right wing policies without fearing that the electorate will run off to New Labour, who characteristically offered a conservative policy with better packaging (whether they delivered the product is quite another matter). The trouble is, for all its failings New Labour was very successful and appealing to the electorate.

Of course, Labour’s leadership result reflects a split between MPs and members in one camp, and the unions in the other. The difficulty for Ed is leading a party where the majority of his own MPs didn’t want him. Encapsulating his predicament today, he tried to neutralise the unions by denouncing ‘irresponsible strikes’ to which one union member leader shouted ‘rubbish!’. Presumably, he was in favour of strikes whether they are irresponsible or not.

It is widely accepted that this is a good result for Cameron; Matthew d’Ancona even led his Sunday Telegraph column with “Labour has handed David Cameron the next election.” However, this is perhaps a little presumptuous. British politics, compared to a few years ago, is wide open, and as a coalition with the Lib Dems a second time round is unlikely, the Tories still have a lot to do to win a majority. Still, even with all this there is no getting away from the feeling that Ed will not be the man to lead Labour to victory.

In his speech on Saturday evening, Ed said never in his wildest dreams had he imagined being leader of his party. I fear that this is precisely the trouble. He lacks credibility as a leader because he didn’t really believe he was going to be. The sad reality for Labour is that they are now in a wild dream of the idealist left, with no prospect of electability.

After my long journey with Tony Blair, I am left wondering was Tony simply a modern day Machiavelli?

I have finally arrived at the 691st page of Tony Blair’s ‘Journey’. Now the dust has settled on the press’s quick fire review of small snippets, I thought I would make a few comments on the former Prime Minister’s fascinating memoirs.

It is true that at times, Tony comes across as annoyingly arrogant and almost abnormally self-assured, but then is it possible to be as successful as he has been without being so? It is also true that there are some cringe-worthy descriptions where he tries too hard to please, with Charles Moore of the Telegraph commenting on his irritating habit of warning you that he is about to tell you something funny , and thereby taking away from the humour.

There are also many issues which I and Tony will never see eye to eye on. One of which that particularly annoys is his surrender stance on Europe. ‘Live with it’ he says - it is a reality. However, my belief is that it is only a reality if we choose to do nothing about it: Tony, some of us do not want to ‘live with it’!
Yet notwithstanding this, reading the book in the main makes you recall just what a truly incredible operator Tony Blair was. Throughout the book he gives a remarkably persuasive sale of the New Labour project and you are reminded of the genius of the New Labour idea and why it was so appealing.

Not surprisingly, a significant part of the book deals with Iraq. You are reminded of Tony’s training as a barrister when he gives an impassioned defence of his decision to go to war, and I for one can’t help feeling a great deal of sympathy with his argument (although I was somewhat already persuaded on this issue).

And yet, for all his persuasiveness and appeal, as I winded through Northern Ireland, the war on terror, Gordon Brown and public services reform, and I drew to the journey’s end, I could not help wondering whether Tony Blair was actually a modern day Machiavelli. His advice and candidness on how to conduct negotiations or create policy cannot help but to bring to mind the famous Florentine philosopher, albeit perhaps with not quite the ruthlessness cynicism. As every successful politician must be, Tony shows real pragmatism to policy. But this must always be balanced with a sense of principle, whatever that principle may be, otherwise what is it all for? Although, Tony argues that by the end of his journey all he cares about is doing the right thing, I can’t help feeling that when you strip away the fantastic pragmatic operator there is not much left. In a sense the pragmatism is the guiding principal.

I am sure his supporters (if there are any left) would argue that this is a great injustice to him. If nothing else he is a fascinating and exceptional historical figure who has been at the heart of politics for over a decade, shaping the political landscape which we now inhabit. For that reason alone it is well worth embarking with Tony on this Journey.

Pope’s refreshing message drowns out the hypocrisy of the protestors

Organisers of the ‘Protest the Pope’ event yesterday in London estimated that 20,000 people came out on to the streets of London to protest. 20,000!? You must be joking!? I was in attendance myself in central London yesterday to give the Pontiff a warm welcome and 20,000 to me seems to be a gross over estimation of the actual number. A few thousand perhaps, but no more than that. It is telling that the police did not confirm the protestors’ estimate. The overestimate seems to me to summarise the underwhelming effect of the pope protest.

As I read some of their placards like ‘---- the Pope…but wear a condom’ and listened to the ‘firmly militant atheist’, Richard Dawkins (his own description) telling the crowd that Hitler was actually a Catholic, I was struck by the venom and furiousness with which they were attacking Catholicism. Why did they feel so strongly to protest? If it is for gay rights or the rights of women to choose abortion then it seems to me a rather redundant protest. Were these rights not won in the 1960’s? The Pope is not stopping people carrying out these rights; the Catholic Church simply believes that allowing gay people to marry and women to have abortions is wrong. They may not like these views, indeed they clearly find them abhorrent, but is that something worth protesting against so viciously - attempting to ruin the visit of a leader of a religion that represents one sixth of the planets population?

And why in particular the Pope? Another religion, which is the fastest-growing in the world, and responsible for the brutal treatment of women and gay people throughout the world, seems not to bother these people in the same way. Fundamental Islam seems the abundantly obvious threat to what I assume these protestors hold dear: a tolerant, free and democratic society. Yet, can you imagine Peter Tatchell and co organising a protest in a similar vein against Islam? No of course not. But then we should expect double standards and hypocrisy from this lot. So often they invoke the importance of tolerance. But I fear, the real reason why they protest is not because they feel they are still in the throes of a struggle for the rights of gay people and women (as I said, surely this struggle has already been won in modern western society), but rather they want to stamp out dissenting voices that dare suggest a view of the world that is different from theirs.

As the Pope reminded us, Christianity is under attack from ‘aggressive secularism’. There is nothing tolerant about preventing employees from wearing a crucifix, nor requesting council workers that they should not discuss biblical teachings. It is the height of irony that the same people who protested against the Pope’s visit cry tolerance when all they seem to practice is fierce intolerance.

To many in the modern day world, the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality, marriage, sex and women does seem hopelessly old fashioned and out dated. But wrongly or rightly, the Church does not care about fashion, and nor does it care about the date. It deals in absolutes not relativism. In a way, even though you may not agree with all the Pope has to say (and some of it is very difficult to agree with), in a world that is dominated by moral relativism and popularity, the Pope’s message is refreshing and at the very least thought-provoking. Religion still has a part to play in modern society, and the Pope’s visit managed to remind us of that, while thankfully drowning out the spiteful and hypocritical protestors.

As soon as we play at the enemy’s game of mindless intolerance we have lost the battle

Belgium has already banned it and France is looking to follow suit. Last week banning the burka was even proposed in Britain. I watched the MP, Philip Hollobone trying to defend his motion on the Daily Politics the other day. I afraid to say his defence was pathetic. The crucial moment was when he started ‘we in Britain don’t cover our faces’. At this statement he lost the argument. The point is we in Britain can do whatever we like, as long as it is not a crime and is not inciting others to commit crimes. Usually crimes are defined by the harm they cause to others and hence why the justification for the laws' intervention.

If we are seriously arguing that we want the law to intervene and make a crime of wearing a particular piece of clothing, we wholly turn our back on our sacred liberal, tolerant and free society that we hold dear in Britain. In Britain this has only been achieved through the cost of many lives whose sacrifice was made so that we can enjoy a free society. Indeed, it is those values of freedom and tolerance that we should use to guide us in trying to defend against the culture that the burka originates, in general terms: Islamic fundamentalism. An ideology that does not believe in freedom and tolerance, an ideology that in its darkest and evident form, is so intolerant that it murders innocent lives on a mass scale simply because society does not accept its view of the world.

Islamic fundamentalism is a very real and tangible threat to our society and way of life. We must take our responsibility to fight it very seriously. Once we try to defeat it with intolerance and at the cost of our values, then we forget the reason why we are fighting in the first place. We may as well be two sides fighting for equally meaningless causes.

My personal view of the burka is that I am not particularly keen on it, in fact if I am honest I find it rather sinister. I also believe that it provides a powerful image of Islamic fundamentalism’s inequality in respect of its treatment of women, and I struggle to understand why any women would like to wear one. But that is simply my view. A view, which I am sure some may find offensive, but that is not the point and nor is it that some people find the wearing of the burka offensive. In Britain that it is my right to state my view and it is the Islamic woman's right to wear the burka.

So please Hollobone and co, stop speaking nonsense! Banning the burka is an embarrassingly self-defeating idea. As soon as we play at the enemy’s game of mindless intolerance we have lost the battle.

Apologies to readers for lack of posts over the last couple of weeks, I have been away on holiday. A new post on a non-political subject to appear soon.