CentreRight

Shaun Bailey versus Jacqui Smith

In yesterday's Evening Standard Shaun Bailey, our candidate in Hammersmith, wrote an excellent defence of Ray Lewis' approach to knife and related crimes.  The full article is here but this quote stood out to me:

"At the weekend, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said she will introduce new measures such as making young people visit stabbing victims in hospital and meet their families. Does she really expect kids who have been watching extreme violence in films and on the internet since the age of 13 to be shocked by that?"

The Home Secretary has had a terrible few days.  This was the main leader in today's Daily Mail:

"According to the Council of Europe and the think-tank Civitas, we have 12.4 prisoners per 1,000 crimes, compared with an EU average of 17.5.  Indeed, if we sent offenders to jail at the same rate as Spain (57 prisoners per 1,000 crimes), our prison population would be a staggering 369,000, instead of 80,000.  Contrary to what so many politicians and judges claim, our penal policy is, by European standards, actually rather soft.  Isn't it time this issue was treated with more honesty? And more respect for the public's intelligence?  How sad in these deeply worrying times that we are saddled instead with the vapidity of Home Secretary Smith."

Anti-Americanism won't disappear with Barack Obama in the White House

An ICM poll for The Guardian finds that Brits prefer the idea of a President Obama to a President McCain by five-to-one.  I readily concede that the election of Barack Obama would have an immediate electric effect on America's standing in the world but what would be the long-term effect of an American President that stays true to the USA's long-term commitment to Israel but fails to live up to expectations on the environment, prematurely quits Iraq  and takes America in a protectionist direction?  I've raised these questions in an article for Comment is free.  Here's my concluding paragraph:

"Economic protectionism is just one manifestation of the drawbridge mentality popular among some Democrats and, in particular, among its netroots. Bush is hated by many around the world for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq. But non-intervention may also bring opposition. Non-intervention in Rwanda was a stain, for example, on Bill Clinton's reputation. His administration's failure to constrain the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and other weakness in the face of attacks on America's interests, paved the way for 9/11. With the world entering dangerous new phases of the age of terror there is only really one nation that has the power to pre-empt threats. Bush is disliked for using that American power but any future decision not to exercise that power could also create serious tensions. Think, for example, of nations like Iran being allowed to become dangerous and untouchable powers; sponsoring global terrorism, destabilising world markets and bullying neighbours. Whatever path America chooses – interventionism or non-interventionism etc, some won't like it."

Honouring Adam Smith

The Adam Smith Institute has a wonderful online gallery of the magnificent monument that has been erected in Edinburgh to the great economist.  Until I spoke to ASI's Eamonn Butler on Wednesday I hadn't realised that it was the Institute that was behind the statue.  Also now on the reverse of the £20 banknote, the author of The Wealth of Nations and under-valued Theory of Moral Sentiments is finally getting the respect he deserves.

"Unfair, inefficient, unaccountable and untenable"

That's the verdict of the IPPR in a report on the controversial Barnett formula that decides how public expenditure is distributed across the UK.  Here is a key table from the report:

Also see The Herald for more.

Pocket the difference (outside of CAP)

There really is something un-prime-ministerial about Gordon Brown telling us to avoid BOGOF offers at our local supermarket when so much of his own policy agenda is causing our weekly food bills to grow and grow.

Daniel Hannan gets to the meat of the issue on his blog:

"Before lecturing the rest of us, the Prime Minister might usefully ponder what he could to do lower food bills. Gordon Brown says that judicious purchasing could save the average family £8.00 a week. Even if this is true, it is a small saving next to the £20.00 a week that we should save if Britain left the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

The CAP is the most expensive, wasteful and amoral system of farm support devised by human intelligence. It penalises us repeatedly: we pay higher taxes to encourage production, we pay again to store surpluses, we pay yet again to destroy them, and then we're billed all over again as consumers to maintain artificially high prices. Output-based subsidies encourage the felling of hedgerows and the use of chemical fertilisers. Preventable poverty is inflicted on Africa, which finds European markets closed to its chief exports. Agricultural subsidies stand in the way of a comprehensive world trade settlement which would benefit consumers and farmers alike. Inflation is driven up, with deleterious consequences for the entire economy."

More here.  And for those wanting even more on the costs of EU membership please see this post reflecting on Chris Chope MP's recent contribution to a Commons debate he instigated.

Iraq war veterans urge Americans to vote to 'finish the job'

Remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?  The Swifties' ad campaign did for John Kerry.  Vets for Freedom is a new campaign that seeks to "inform the American public and key lawmakers about the phenomenal success that our troops have achieved as a result of the surge and the importance of ensuring victory in Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall Global war on Terrorism."  It has already launched a series of local ads - including one for Senator Joe Lieberman, the one Democrat who has stood out against his party's stance on the Iraq war.  This ad - featuring a dozen or so veterans of America's recent overseas campaigns - was launched yesterday and urges America to finish the job in Iraq.  Late last week - as part of a series of policy flip-flops - Barack Obama promised to "refine" his Iraq withdrawal plan after his forthcoming trip to Iraq.  Senator Obama is determined to protect himself from campaigns like this.

Yesterday's Sunday Times reported more progress for the coalition in Iraq as a purge of al-Qaeda gathered pace in its last northern stronghold, Mosul.  Last week we also learnt that progress in Iraq is now "satisfactory" across 15 of 18 Congressional benchmarks - twice as many as a year ago. 

> The latest progress in Iraq.

Oliver Letwin and Nigel Lawson clash on climate change

I've already solved this year's Christmas presents problem.  For every political friend I'm giving them a subscription to Standpoint.  Launched last month it is a beautifully-presented, beautifully-written magazine  dedicated to the defence of the best of western civilisation.  I understand that its first edition out-sold Prospect magazine; the nearest equivalent to Standpoint within Britain but, unlike Standpoint, coming from the liberal left.

The best feature in Issue#2 is a debate between Oliver Letwin and Lord (Nigel) Lawson on climate change and the latter's new book, An Appeal To Reason.

This exchange is typical:

Oliver Letwin: "Let me start with Nigel’s proposition that it is hugely expensive to address this problem by mitigation rather than adaptation, which in a way is the central thesis of the book. There are reasons for aiming towards a low-carbon economy which have to do with carbon, but there are also reasons which have to do with energy prices and energy security. I think they all point in the same direction.  Let’s take energy security. Leaving aside coal for the moment, we have a diminishing domestic supply of other carbon fuels, and the preponderance of what we will be importing over the coming years comes from Russia, from the Maghreb and from the Middle East. It’s impossible to identify three areas of the world about which one ought to have more concern in the medium term than those three. To liberate ourselves as much as possible from dependence on those three sources of energy is a policy which would be worth considering on its own terms even if there were no questions about carbon at all."

Nigel Lawson: "I don’t know where to start, the wishful thinking or the muddle. Perhaps some of the muddle can be disposed of first. I’m so glad to hear Oliver expressing a view which the Conservative party — because of the influence, I suspect, of Zac Goldsmith — has been a bit quiet about lately. It has been hostile to nuclear power, which is very foolish. This, coupled with the hostility to coal, means we have a serious problem, with demand for electricity, at anything like the present price, far outstripping the capacity to generate it. We have a real crisis, and we’re not the only ones; other European countries do too.  So that’s an energy security problem; but we have ample supplies of coal. Not merely do we have it, but many other countries do too, and coal, unlike oil and gas, tends to be located in parts of the world where you don’t need to have any great worries. So there isn’t really an energy security problem provided that we’re prepared to use coal, and we should be prepared to do so if it’s economic. But even with the imported gas from Russia or wherever, all you need to do is have adequate gas storage. The Russians need the money so badly that they are going to have to sell the gas. They’re not going to stop selling it, except for a short period, in order to exercise geopolitical leverage. So all we need to do is add adequate storage to cover ourselves over that period. It’s a relatively simple and cheap and obvious thing to do. And as for oil, there’s so much oil in the world. When I was Energy Secretary, people were talking about peak oil then, and there’s no such thing, it’s nonsense — the price may have to go up a bit, that’s all."

Read the full exchange on Standpoint's website (the design of which does no credit to the design of the magazine!).

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

Two weeks ago Barack Obama opted out of the public finance system for elections even though he had previously, in writing, pledged not to do so.

During his contest with Hillary Clinton be backed Democrat opposition to President Bush's efforts to protect telecoms companies who had been part of a wiretaps programme.  Last week he dropped his opposition.

He has long supported the handgun ban in Washington DC but has now backed the Supreme Court's overturning of that ban.

He has also flip-flopped on whether the death penalty could be used for the rape of a child.  Once opposed he now sees such a penalty as "potentially applicable".

These and other positions are examined in a brilliant piece from Dominic Lawson in this morning's Independent.  I expect Senator Obama will soon be adjusting his position on Iraq soon, too - retreating from any speedy withdrawal of troops.

Are these position changes genuine?  Will he hold to the changed positions in office?  What do they tell us about Barack Obama's ideological maturity?  Electing the hugely inexperienced one term Senator from illinois will be the greatest of electoral gambles.

'Cheer up, we're winning the war on terror'

Gerard Baker was at his best in Friday's Times.  The newspaper's US editor made the case that we are winning the war on terror.  He highlighted (1) declining violence in Iraq; (2) the military defeat of the Taliban; (3) the fact that al-Qaeda are on the run; and (4) the sickening of Muslim opinion towards violence and terrorism.  Now would be precisely the wrong time to retreat - a position he mocks in his piece:

"The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

But, as Baker's article implies, the correct way of judging the progress of the war on terror is not now with seven years ago but between now and what might have been if, for example, the Taliban had been left in control of Afghanistan or Saddam had won his game of dare with the US/ UK/ UN.  Here are Gerry Baker's key words on Afghanistan:

"Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.

Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this: do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West? What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)"

The cost of the war on terror has, of course, been huge.  For too many families it has been far too much.  Only today we lost another British soldier in Afghanistan today.  But the cost hasn't been in vain.

Presumptuous? Moi?

I had a busy weekend and missed this story from the US election campaign trail.  The Obama campaign decided to design the blue seal above and stick it on their candidate's podium.  His aides obviously thought it made him look presidential.  Presumptious is the word that comes to my mind.  Aides obviously have agreed.  It's now been dropped.

It's far too early to get excited/ depressed but the latest polling shows Obama moving further ahead of McCain.  His average advantage in the RealClearPolitics poll of polls is 6.9%.  In terms of battleground states, Obama leads in Ohio, Virginia and Iowa - all states won by Bush in 2004.

William Hague in fine form

I'm just back from Conservative Friends of Israel's annual business lunch.  Tomorrow morning ConservativeHome will be publishing an exclusive video of the after lunch discussion between William Hague, George Osborne and Daniel Finkelstein.

But here's one of the lighter moments from a generally serious discussion...

William Hague said that he'd recently met Tony Blair to discuss the latter's role in the Middle East Peace Process.  'How's it going?', asked Mr Blair.  A lot better since you "cleared off" responded Our William.  WH then paused before saying: Tony Blair didn't dissent!

Was Reagan an appeaser?

Republicans are attempting to present Barack Obama as an appeaser for being willing to talk to nations like Iran.  But Democrats are hitting back, saying Reagan - the hero of most American conservatives - talked to the 'Evil Empire' when he was President.  Does that make Reagan an appeaser, asks Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria?

Both sides are being simplistic.  It's not always wrong to talk to your enemies as Reagan did but it's vital to do so from a position of strength.  When Reagan talked to Gorbachev it was only after he had demonstrated America's military and economic supremacy.  Whether it's rogue states or terrorists, free nations should always negotiate from a position of strength.  The IRA had been broken by the British Army when London started talking to his leaders.  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal recently noted that that strength was the precursor to recent progress against insurgents/ terrorists in Iraq, Sri Lanka and Colombia.  Withdrawing from Iraq - undoing the gains of recent months - and expressing a preference to work through do-nothing-multilateral organisations like the UN will not help Obama appear strong.  Quite the contrary.

Related link: Talking to terrorists (and a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the YouTube).

A day for Zimbabwe

Today on CentreRight.com we are focusing on just one topic: Zimbabwe.

Every hour different CentreRight contributors will be examining different angles of the reign of terror that now prevails in the run up to next week's election.

At 10am Jim McConalogue will look at the EU's role, at 11am Charlie Elphicke will note the scale of violence, at noon Dan Lewis will call on South Africa to act and at 1pm Robert Halfon will blog about how our tendency to trivialise evil confuses our response to it.  Other contributors will be blogging later in the day.

My own opening contribution is a simple one.  Our failure to act earlier has made it so much harder to act now.  We are no longer dealing with one bad man, Mugabe, and a few henchmen but with an evil system where far too many military men have a stake in the continuation of the status quo.  Because we and Zimbabwe's African neighbours turned a blind eye to earlier human rights abuses the regime thought that it could get away with bigger abuses.  They saw us do nothing when intimidation of voters was obvious but limited in scale and now the regime murders and brutalises its opponents on a massive scale. 

As with nearly every global problem we cannot wait on the UN.  The UN Human Rights Council has shown itself to be wholly unfit. It recently elected Jean Ziegler as an expert advisor to its ranks.  Among other things Mr Ziegler has said that "[Robert] Mugabe has history and morality with him."

Until the world's democracies operate a policy of zero tolerance of human rights abuses we will see more nations conclude that they can get away with murder.  Literally.  William Hague has promised to put human rights at the heart of Conservative foreign policy.  Part of that commitment should include a system for highlighting nations that are beginning to erode basic standards of civilised behaviour.  We need to build a new alliance of democracies who will be willing to act on early signs of abuses.  Without a policy of zero tolerance we will only see more Zimbabwes in the years ahead.

'The ungrateful Irish'

Open Europe is compiling the reactions of EU leaders to Ireland's "no".  This is my favourite with my emphases, from Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag:

“We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty. With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.”

The Times had this great paragraph yesterday:

"Two of the most vocal supporters for pushing ahead with the treaty were Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister. Both had been under consideration for the two big posts created by the treaty: those of EU president and EU foreign minister."

Are you with Andrew Sullivan or John Rentoul?

Andrew Sullivan: "When it comes to sitting down and actually reading a multiple-page print-out, or even, God help us, a book, however, my mind seizes for a moment. After a paragraph, I’m ready for a new link. But the prose in front of my nose stretches on.  I get antsy. I skim the footnotes for the quick info high that I’m used to. No good. I scan the acknowledgments, hoping for a name I recognise. I start again.  A few paragraphs later, I reach for the laptop. It’s not that I cannot find the time for real reading, for a leisurely absorption of argument or narrative. It’s more that my mind has been conditioned to resist it."

John Rentoul: "All the evidence is that the internet encourages people to read more books, not fewer. We know more, can access much more, much more quickly, and so are, individually and collectively, cleverer than ever."

66 dead, 200 missing and 3,000 in hospital as Zimbabwe falls under control of "military junta"

With most media banned from Zimbabwe it's hard to appreciate the scale of brutality that Mugabe's regime is inflicting on that country's long-suffering people.  A little while ago I published photographs of the terribly beaten buttocks of a woman who had made the mistake of campaigning against Robert Mugabe.  Don't click here unless you can tolerate distressing images.

But those beaten buttocks give just a tiny hint of the scale of what is going on in Zim.  This is part of a statement issued yesterday by "President Tsvangirai":

"Since the 8th of April when the military plan was unveiled, this country witnessed a defacto coup detat and effectively is now being run by a military junta. As a people we have been exposed to state sponsored brutality. The violence continues unabated.  66 people have been killed, 200 people unaccounted for, 3000 in hospitals, and over 25000 internally displaced. We have also witnessed a continuing trend of targeted attacks on our candidates, party leadership, and members. The structures of our party have been decimated with our polling agents remaining prime targets."

You can read Tsvangirai's full statement here, in which he says that his country is now not really in the hands of Mugabe but of a military junta.  The Friends of Zim website is a good place to keep track of the despairing news from Zimbabwe.

The Telegraph names its leader writers

I haven't noticed a newspaper identifying its leader writers before.  This list appears at the bottom of a Telegraph editorial today calling for the Conservatives to come out fighting.

"Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less... and even hug their children more than liberals"

"Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.

Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.

Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.

Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.

Liberals are more angry than conservatives.

Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.

Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives."

Just some of the empirically-based conclusions of a new American book by Peter Schweizer entitled Makers and Takers.

Clinton: There are now eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling that is stopping America having its first female President

Hillary Clinton has finally endorsed Barack Obama but her endorsement was greeted by jeers by some of the Clinton supporters gathered to listen to her in Washington DC.  My rough guess is that she talked about herself and her campaign for 90% of the time and Senator Obama 10% of the time.  Her self-obsession remains extraordinary.

7.30pm: Video highlights of Senator Clinton's speech.

Obama 46.9%, McCain 44.4%

I visit this site at least once a day.  Sad I know but I'm addicted to the polling that RealClearPolitics produces for the world's most important election.  RCP also tracks the battleground state-by-state polls that are at least as important.  Obama leads McCain in Ohio, which Bush won in 2004.  McCain leads Obama in Michigan, which Kerry won in '04.  Other key states to watch will be New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia - which Dems hope to snatch.  The Republicans hope to gain in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and will follow a lot of the strategy trailed by Clinton by painting BO as out-of-touch with ordinary, working Americans.  McCain is raising the lion's share of donations from "ordinary, working Americans".

One theory says Obama will get a big boost in the polls now that he's no longer in a fight with Hillary Clinton. Another says that McCain will get a boost because he'll finally get more media attention. I have no idea which theory is true.

The role of the centre right think tanks

I've written for Comment is free trade today about the centre right think tanks.  I've suggested three roles for them in the next two years insofar as they aspire to influence what might be the beginning of a long period of Conservative governance:

• Grooming personnel for playing a role in government;
• Challenging the Tories to be bolder (and I question Policy Exchange's closeness to Project Cameron);
• Filling some of the gaps in Tory policy capacity (especially in foreign policy thinking).

The article is here.

"Poll shows Lisbon Treaty heading for shock defeat"

The Irish Times: "The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points)."

I hope the Irish realise that they'll have to vote again and again until they get the EU-approved result.

Fisking Dan Hannan's declaration of support for Barack Obama

Dan Hannan MEP is a great man but I just don't get his support for Barack Obama.  Read his latest full blog for yourself but see below for a fisk of five of Dan's assertions:

DH: "In defiance of many of my friends, most of the people whose opinions I respect and almost the whole of my natural constituency, I’m for Barack. It’s not a very comfortable position for a Conservative."

Too right you shouldn't feel comfortable Dan!  Barack Obama is THE most liberal member of the US Senate.  He's to the left of Ted Kennedy.  The next US President will almost certainly be elected alongside a Democrat-controlled Senate and House of Representatives.  With Obama in the White House they'll move America's judicial system and tax rates in a very unconservative direction.

DH: "At present, America finds herself derided and traduced, often by the countries with most cause to be grateful to her. This dislike is focused on the Iraq war, and personified by George Bush... The fact is that the simplest and most immediate way for America to restore her name is to elect a politician who consistently opposed the invasion."

This argument is superficially attractive but the issue of whether you supported the Iraq war or not is yesteryear's argument.  Today's argument is about whether America finishes the job or it pulls out in defiance of the views of General Petraeus and America's commanders on the ground.  Much of the world will cheer Barack Obama if he pulls the troops out quickly but those cheers will turn to jeers if the pre-surge chaos resumes.  On 10th January 2007 Barack Obama said the surge would worsen the violence in Iraq.  He couldn't have been more wrong.  John McCain, in contrast, was arguing for a surge from near the beginning of the Iraq war.  Rumsfeld and Bush ignored McCain for too long.  The idea that Barack Obama will restore America's standing in the world is based on the false premise that the world will respect an America that does what multilateral institutions like the UN and EU recommend.  My belief is that the world is more likely to respect an America that is strong and doesn't walk away from its responsibilities.  McCain is experienced enough to be Commander-in-Chief.  The same can't be said for the first term Senator from Illinois.

Wow

I've just read one of the most encouraging articles I've come across for a long time.  If it had been written by Janet Daley, Iain Duncan Smith, Martin Ivens or Fraser Nelson I wouldn't think it worth bringing to your attention but its author was The Guardian's Michael White.

Here is the key section of the article:

"We have carelessly connived in the creation of a vast army of single parents, struggling to raise kids alone.

Divorced, separated, never married, for many it is a fast-track to poverty as well as stress, misery and angry kids. Bad things happen to still-marrieds too, but the odds are better.

How do I know? Well, for the same reason as you do probably. I see it every day among friends and acquaintances, young people my children know, where trouble can all-too-often be traced to trouble at home. And when you read the newspapers, how wearily familiar are the details?"

Harriet Harman likes to dismiss David Cameron's pro-family agenda as back-to-basics in an open-necked shirt.  Perhaps - at long last - that sort of crass politics will be overtaken by grown up observations of the kind articulated by Michael White.  There is no reason why support for the family should be an exclusively right-of-centre concern.  Just ask A H Halsey or Norman Dennis.

Field urges Labour to address the English question

"Frail citizens in Scotland not facing residential care home fees as they do in England;

Scottish citizens being treated with the Lucentis drug for macular degeneration of the eye while English citizens simply lose their sight awaiting action from NICE;

Scottish students going to University not paying top-up fees of £3,000.00 per year as do English students going to University; and,

Most English citizens paying prescription charges while none face such charges in Wales."

So begins a speech by Frank Field MP entitled 'The Strange Death of Labour England?'.  Read it in full here.