CentreRight

Will Cameron raise gendercide?

As I write this, David Cameron is flying with his all-male ministerial team to meet President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao of China. Questions were asked in the press yesterday about whether he will raise the issue of the human rights of Nobel peace prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. But in a country where experts estimate that about 100 million girls have been aborted, murdered, disappeared or trafficked I sincerely hope he will be raising this far greater human rights travesty.

Featured on the cover of the Economist back in March with accompanying superb articles, it is twenty  years since another Nobel prize winner, Amartya Sen, published an essay in the New York Review of Books highlighting what he described as "what is clearly one of the more momentous, and neglected, problems facing the world today." And yet, nothing has changed. Impotent posters adorn walls in China, telling people that girls are equal to boys. Their mothers are obviously not convinced. And this is the other side of the tragedy - girls that have survived to become mothers still have such little self-esteem, such a sense of inferiority, such a fear of poverty or their daughter's abuse (maybe) that they will get rid of their baby girl in order to have a son. And that can be through abortion, infanticide, sold into the sex trade or dumped in an orphanage. 95% of children in Chinese orphanages are healthy baby girls; but such is the culture of neglect that deaths are frequent, in one case reaching 76% (as detailed in Death by Default).

It wasn't always this way. Chairman Mao gave women the legal right to vote, education, employment, marriage and inheritance rights. Their status was transformed, until in 1978 Deng Xiaoping brought in economic reforms that began to increase discrimination against women once again. It was a year later that the one child policy became law. By 2020 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there will be 40 million more men aged 19 and under than women. That will be equivalent to the total number of young men in the same age bracket in the USA. Demographers can only guess at the societal impact. Already this increasing scarcity of women has spawned another nightmare. According to the US State department, domestic trafficking of women is now the most significant problem in China with up to 20,000 women trafficked each year, sold as 'brides' or into sex slavery.

So I hope our Prime Minister ask: when laws designed to protect women will be enforced? When will doctors will be prosecuted for an unequal male-female abortion ratio? Maybe Michael Gove can ask when will school fees will be abolished that have left 100 million girls illiterate in what is now the worlds second biggest economy? When changes to social security will ensure the parents of girls are not penalised in old age? Amartya Sen was asking such questions 20 years ago. I can't help feeling that it's a shame that a female cabinet minister isn't with him who could have embodied our political commitment, albeit imperfectly executed, to gender equality and status.

Why was the Archbishop of Canterbury silent when Iain Duncan Smith set out an agenda for the family?

Consider this. Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith makes an impassioned speech about the social and economic importance of family stability, underlining his support for marriage (Tim covered it yesterday in the second half of this post). The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England and as such - one might hope - committed to the institution of marriage, remains silent.

Two days later, the Welfare Secretary outlines proposals to get the long-term unemployed back into work, by requiring them to participate in community projects: in other words, an opportunity to get used to regular hours and to give something back to the neighbourhood, instead of merely drawing benefits. The Archbishop does not hesitate to criticise the proposal, claiming that it would cause the unemployed to spiral deeper into despair.

Leaving aside the apparent irrationality of his criticism - surely such work schemes are about breaking that spiral?  - I'm baffled by the selective nature of the Archbishop's interventions. One might credit him with insight into the sacrament of marriage and its worth to individuals and to society; his grasp of welfare reform programmes must necessarily be more limited - so why choose to comment so freely on the latter, whilst refraining from discussion of the former?

The influence of extreme Islamists on our body politics is increasing

The Phil Woolas fiasco should not blind us to one important fact:  The influence of extreme Islamists on our body politics is increasing and ought to be diminished.

Not for nothing does the MPAC claim it has now 'decapitated' four Labour MPs for their apparent support for the Iraq war and apparent 'Zionist' sympathies.

As the MPAC website states: "Operation Muslim Vote has not only produced stunning victories for the Ummah, it has shown us a glimpse of a better future insh’Allah."

In MPAC's particular world-view, both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are deemed racists:

"Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both stirred the political pot of religion and racism, the latter wading in to Jack Straw’s niqab row with gusto. It seems every Labour minister was scrambling over the backs of others to attack Islam and Muslims."

"Meanwhile, the enemies of Islam are still circling in politics and the media. They are trying to force Muslims to adopt an Islam which is servile to the West, a designer Islam that can be picked up and taken off like a pair of Jimmy Choos."

But MPAC's influence was not just felt at the last election:  In 2005, MPAC were also well known for their campaign in unseating the then Rochdale MP, Lorna Fitzimons, unhappy at her views on the Middle East.  (You can read more about this in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism.  Paragraphs 140-143 make particularly interesting reading).

If it were just MPAC, that would be dangerous enough.  In London's Tower Hamlets however, we have just witnessed the election of new Mayor Lufthur Rahman - described in the Evening Standard as allegedly having links to the Islamic Forum of Europe.  Expelled by the Labour Party (to its credit) - but inevitably supported by Ken Livingstone - Mr Rahman's election shows the influence of extreme Islamism at its most effective.  Without doubt, MPAC, Respect movement and a host of other organisations, will be extremely active in the forthcoming London-wide election and the fundamentalist drum will be beating hard.

In 2015, candidates in marginal seats will face this ever increasing threat from the likes of MPAC. Make no mistake, they will be even better organised, and better financed than ever before.  If you doubt that, just read their websites and forum pages.

The future belongs to Classical Liberals

Which party to you join if you believe that the state should stay out of the bedroom and out of the boardroom (and most other rooms)? They have been known under many names: Libertarians, Individualists, Laissez-Faire Capitalists, Reaganaites, Thatcherites. For the purposes of this article I will call them Classical Liberals.

For the last one hundred years or so the Classical Liberals, that is, those who cherish John Locke and Adam Smith, have been divided between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. The party membership card they actually buy will probably depend upon whether they attach greater importance to social liberalism (LibDems), or economic liberalism (Conservatives). Or how pure they are in their classical liberal beliefs: quite a few may not want to go as far as, say, totally legalising drugs, allowing abortion on demand, or abolishing the welfare state in its entirety. I know one or two purists who do not vote at all and who occasionally utter cravings for a Libertarian Party.

Gladstone was one. Thatcher was one (if we forget Clause 28 for a second). The Orange Book Liberals belong to the creed (though Vince Cable wrote a chapter and is most certainly NOT a Classical Liberal). I will leave it to your own detection work to identify which MPs are Classical Liberals today. I have a list of two dozen LibDem and Conservative MPs who could be defined as Classical Liberals. Many, many more have very strong Classical Liberal sympathies. To some extent virtually all present-day Conservatives are Thatcher's children and therefore at least partly Classical Liberals.

Where can you meet Classical Liberal politicians? Some are loners – which is natural as they strongly believe in individual liberty. The annual Libertarian Alliance conference would be a good start. Or the monthly meetings of the Progressive Conservatives in Central London.  Conservative Way Forward would be good bet, too.

Who are its proponents? Its twentieth century philosophers are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Its think tanks are the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute.

What are their victories? Privatisations, tax cuts, the sale of council flats. Yes: nothing very recent.

What do they believe in? They stand for meritocracy (as opposed to group or class privilege), equality under the law (as opposed to discrimination, “positive” or otherwise), “original” human rights which keep the state in check (as opposed to “social” or entitlement rights which coerce some to give benefits to others). The free market (though most support a modest safety net). Scepticism of the state (they want free trade with the world, not protectionism). They don't tolerate racism: people must be regarded as individuals, not groups. Trade not aid. Democracy (as opposed to the Leader Principle). Dan Hannan's and Douglas Carswell's The Plan is a good reading on the subject.

Newsnight's economics editor wants programmes cut and assets sold to protect BBC staff pensions

BBC Newsnight seems to provide the most militant of the BBC strikers. Michael Crick, the programme's political editor, said “I haven’t listened to the Today programme. I regard listening to or watching the BBC as strike breaking.” Wow. I wonder what he thinks of left-leaning journalists like Steve Richards who appeared as guests on yesterday's Today programme.

 

 

Meanwhile Crick's colleague, Paul Mason, Newsnight's economics editor (captured above in The Sunday Telegraph, on the picket line with National Union of Journalists placard and armband) urged the BBC to cut programmes and sell assets in order to protect staff pensions. Some changes to pension entitlements were proposed by BBC management to correct a deficit in the Corporation's pension fund, caused by retirees living longer and the performance of financial markets. Four out of five unions and the vast majority of non-unionised staff have accepted the changes. The NUJ, which represents just 17% of BBC staff, rejected the proposals. These are the same people who provide reporting of the Coalition's cuts programme.

The Mail on Sunday splashes on the decision of Sarah Montague and Evan Davies to cross picket lines and ensure yesterday's Today programme was broadcast:

"Two of the BBC’s most high-profile presenters, Evan Davis and Sarah Montague, enraged colleagues yesterday by defying the strike that has brought chaos to its news schedules. They ignored a 48-hour journalists’ walkout to present Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. It is understood that they managed to avoid crossing a picket line by arriving at 3.30am – before striking colleagues had arrived. Their decision was a boon to BBC management trying to ensure major news programmes remained on air, but has been described as a kick in the teeth to colleagues striking over changes to their pension scheme."

Other strike-breakers included Jonathan Dimbleby who ensured Radio 4's Any Questions? was broadcast. James Landale also served BBC TV viewers, reporting on Iain Duncan Smith's welfare shake-up. Andrew Neil presented Friday's edition of BBC2's Daily Politics.

The best comment on the dispute comes from a BBC worker, noting that the head of news, Helen Boaden, read news bulletins as part of managements efforts to maintain services; “It’s like the Queen doing the vacuuming.”

Today's elections in Burma are nothing but a sham, a charade, a masquerade, a fraud, a fake and a lie

 
Today is polling day in Burma, the first elections in the country in twenty years. Yet instead of being a momentous occasion, these polls are at best meaningless and perhaps actually dangerous. Far from being a triumph of democracy and freedom, today is a body blow to the cause of liberty. Burma’s elections today are nothing but a sham, a charade, a masquerade, a fraud, a fake and a lie. The only change that will come from today is a change of clothing for the regime, from military uniform to civilian suits, and perhaps one or two new faces.

Just over a week ago, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that he was “really expecting that this election will be a fair one and a credible one and an inclusive one,” and that it was “not too late” for this to happen. What world is he living in?

Robert Halfon MP: The implications of the Phil Woolas case

By Robert Halfon MP

The Phil Woolas Case - whilst controversial - will have profound implications for the conduct of future elections. Candidates will have to think twice before putting out deliberate misinformation.

Throughout the last election, the Labour Party put out numerous leaflets which were designed to scare the wits out of pensioners, mothers and cancer sufferers.  In Harlow - as in other marginal constituencies - leaflets/letters were sent out suggesting that Tories would cut cancer treatment, close down Sure Start Centres, and take away free bus passes and the winter fuel allowances for pensioners.

Despite denials from Mr Cameron during the debates - and the embarrassment of Gordon Brown - millions of these kinds of leaflets were still given to voters all around the country.  Some of them were even endorsed by 'celebrities' and 'soap stars', with the aim of giving them an additional air of authenticity.

Election after election, it has been far too easy for Labour to frighten the most vulnerable in our society.  Mr Woolas's actions were no worse than what his party has been doing for many years. His case will at least make those who peddle falsehoods during election campaigns think twice before doing it again.

Alex Deane: BBC presenters go on strike - don't waste the opportunity!

The BBC's "talent" went on strike yesterday. Others stepped in. The news was still read, the airwaves were still filled. I daresay that much that was said was said with less snide self-satisfaction. Those who filled in will come at a fraction of the price of the "talent" who walked.

Am I the only person to whom the obvious analogy occurs? When workers in a far more vital field in the USA - air traffic control - tried to bully their employer and walked out, Ronald Reagan laid them off and put others in their place. Doing so here would be much easier, as there are tons of people who'd love to read the news, become a journalist, etcetera. Indeed, we're always told how difficult it is for people to get into these hallowed halls.

So. Looking to save costs, make it easier for new people to break into the top tier of the profession and have a fresh start at the jaded and biased BBC, all in one go...? Well, here's the perfect opportunity! Let said "talent" go... for good.

Graeme Archer: An Open Primary should select a Coalition candidate for Oldham East and Saddleworth

By Graeme Archer

There will shortly be a by-election in Oldham and Saddleworth, as a result of Phil Woolas' "unfortunate" electoral literature. Discussion has already turned to whether or not there should be a Liberal and a Tory candidate, or if one half of the Coalition should withdraw, in order to maximise the chance of defeating Labour. Here is my proposal. I take it for granted that most readers share my view, that a defeat for Labour would be a delicious outcome, both in terms of what it would do to Ed Miliband's leadership, as well as just rewards for the disgusting campaign they ran in the seat at the General Election.

I do not see how we can have a Tory and a Liberal candidate on the day of the by-election. Were this to happen, a mischievous media would spend the entire campaign trying to get one of them to attack the other, in order to extrapolate back to the supposed inter-party tensions within the government. We would likely fail in our (joint, Coalition) objective to put Labour's failures in the spotlight.

Let us admit that we are separate parties, Tory and Liberal, and that we both wish to represent this seat. Let us admit that we agree that Labour must be defeated. How to proceed?

Hold an Open Primary, at which every elector in the constituency can vote. Field candidates from both our Coalition parties, free to put their party case for why each deserves to fight the seat. No need for Tories to pretend to be Liberal Democrats, or vice-versa.

Then field the winner as the Coalition candidate, and urge every Liberal and Tory voter in the constituency to support that person.

Colleen Graffy: A picture is worth a thousand words, so there's every reason why David Cameron should have an official photographer

By Prof. Colleen Graffy, who was US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy for Europe and Eurasia under Condoleezza Rice.

I too was shocked to learn about Prime Minister Cameron hiring a photographer: You mean he didn’t already have one?  It seems incredible that in this visually driven world neither a sense of history nor an understanding of contemporary public diplomacy had established the position of Official Downing St. Photographer long ago.

The outcry that has surrounded the story is surprising in its lack of appreciation for the importance of images in a nation’s history — including of its politicians.   Formal posed portraits have a role, as do press photographers but they don’t elicit the insights that a trusted photographer with behind-the-scenes access can provide. 

President John F. Kennedy realized this when he hired the first in-house photographer after an aide at the time of the 1961 election brought in a photographer who greatly impressed him.  The photographer was Cecil Stoughton who immediately recognized that the handsome and charismatic President would be a perfect match for the new era of photojournalism that was moving from staid, formal pictures to images that better captured the human side of public figures.   Magazines such as Life and Look and Time were clamouring for photos that would catch the national imagination and the White House and the world have never looked back.   The idea of “Camelot” and the Kennedys was driven by images, not words. 

After Kennedy’s assassination, a stunned nation was calmed by the knowledge of peaceful succession — knowledge that could only come through the dramatic photo that Stoughton took as the only photographer aboard Air Force One when Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States while Jackie Kennedy looked on.

Today the White House photographers (yes, there are more than one) are an indispensible part of any Administration where they have assignments from the “grip and grin” guest-with-President photo to the intimate family moment.  But only one is the official “photographer to the President” which is considered to be a senior staff appointment.

Other things, nothing to do with renegotiating our position in the EU

[Memo to self: Been banging on about Europe too much recently.  Time to move on to some other issues.  What else has been in the press?  Ah yes...]

Controls orders infringe upon the liberties of British citizens without the people concerned having any opportunity to test those restrictions before a court.  They only exist because the previous regime, which quite properly imposed restrictions on the movement of dangerous foreigners, was struck down as a violation of Human Rights.

We could move to a more liberal system by repealing the Human Rights Act and preferably also repudiating the illiberal doctrine of "human rights".  But that would only have limited impact if we did not also stop accepting the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).  Of course, under the Lisbon Treaty it would not be possible to limit one's acceptance of ECHR judgements whilst remaining a member of the EU, so in order to abolish control orders and return to a more liberal system in which we merely restricted the movement of dangerous foreigners but insisted that to restrict the liberties of British citizens one would require a trial, we would need to renegotiate our position within the EU.

[Drat!  Was supposed not to be talking about EU.  Must try harder.  Some other topic, perhaps.  What else has been being discussed?  Ah, yes...]

Re: The Government is right to protect the International Aid budget

Some aid is important and valuable. But some aid is counterproductive and traps countries in dependency, in the same way that the welfare system too often does here.  At the same time, a lot of money is wasted.  The Government have scrapped some of the worst "awareness" spending in the UK for example, some of the projects that the IPN highlighted in their research last year.  The Department still believes that it should be spending taxpayers' money on "raising awareness" though, making the case for aid as part of our role in the world if it can find the right project.  And millions of pounds is still going to charities like Oxfam and Christian Aid who waste more than a third of their budget on non-project costs.  That is part of the 14p in every £1 of DFID spending that never reaches the frontline, as we showed in a TPA report last year.

With all that in mind, wouldn't it have been fair for DFID to get the kind of settlement that other important areas of spending like education and science did in the Spending Review?  It isn't as if the advocates for those areas of spending, or some of those getting sharper cuts like defence and justice, couldn't make a case that is just as persuasive as Mark Pritchard's.  A freeze in spending, the same deal as science got, would save £3.7 billion.  Plenty of people step up to the plate to defend aid spending in principle, but we aren't talking about an abstract decision over whether we want aid spending or not.  The question is whether we should drastically increase the aid budget while others are being cut and taxes - including on the poorest Britons - are rising.  I haven't heard a remotely convincing case for this kind of dramatic disparity in how the different budgets are being treated:

In the end, that just isn't how the public want to see their money being spent.  Policy Exchange polling before the election made that clear enough.  This graph shows net support for more (+) or less (-) spending.  All the parties are conniving to ignore the public's wishes and spend more on an area where they would like to spend less.

That is why a lot of the sanctimony from politicians backing drastic increases in the aid budget isn't justified.  Big hikes in the DFID budget aren't altruistic.  Altruism is when you give your own money.  The British public often display striking altruism when there is a disaster here or in another country.

Politicians giving more of other people's money isn't altruism, it's just a flagrant disregard for democracy.

When it comes to their own budgets politicians are just as grasping as they've ever been.  While ordinary Londoners were preparing to struggle to work on foot, bicycle or overcrowded bus, Michael Fabricant was telling colleagues they could spend up to £80 of our money on a cab ride home.  You could defend him as just passing on IPSA's decision, but his last words were "Enjoy!"  That sense of entitlement to spend and enjoy taxpayers' money as if it were their own is still the principal vice of Britain's political class.

John Simpson compares BBC licence freeze to "waterboarding"

This going OTT thing is contagious. Last week Left-wingers queued up to compare perfectly reasonable housing benefit reforms to the "final solution".

This week John Simpson, the BBC's World Affairs Editor, has compared the licence fee freeze to "waterboarding".

It wasn't an off-the-cuff remark but was contained in a letter submitted to and accepted by Ariel, the BBC's own in-house newsmagazine.

According to Mr Simpson, only "far-right idealogues" and the "Murdoch empire" think the BBC should share the pain being endured by the rest of the public sector.

He writes:

"Our income will shrink year on year for seven long years, by amounts that are unknown because we can't tell how high inflation will be over that period of time. It'll be like waterboarding. As our head is pulled out of the bath, we'll be so desperate that we can't be certain what compromises and deals we might be tempted to make. We will be at the government's mercy."

We didn't really need proof that some BBC journalists were given to inappropriate exaggeration but it's good to have it in a such clear form.

A licence freeze isn't waterboarding, Mr Simpson, it's called "living in the real world".

JP Floru: Big Society - Volunteers could run striking public services

Once again a last minute strike on London Underground will cost the private sector millions of pounds in lost time.  The routine of millions of hard working individuals is disrupted because of the excessive claims from a few thousand overpaid Underground workers.

Why is it that a trade union is allowed to cause financial loss without paying compensation?  Why is the Underground not fully automated, just like the Docklands Light Railway?

Perhaps we should not rely upon the state to provide essential services.  Why, under the Big Society umbrella, volunteers could do it instead! 

Volunteers providing public services while its workers are on strike has a long tradition.  The General Strike of 1924 caused trams, buses, gas, electricity, the Underground and other essential services to be interrupted.  A state of emergency was declared.  Thousands of volunteers pitched in and within a week the strike was called off.

In the first quarter of the 20^th Century college students often acted as volunteer strike breakers in the US.  In the Interborough Rapid Transit Strike of 1905 college students acted as motormen, conductors, ticket sellers and ticket choppers.

Last year, BA famously trained staff from other departments to cover on flights while cabin crew were on strike. 

But why not train outsiders to pitch in?  Many unemployed individuals would probably volunteer for free  – giving them valuable CV credits for future employment.

Big Society: bring it on!  Let’s stop relying upon the state.

Robert Halfon: The latest example of the EU backing a loser and frittering away taxpayers' money on a grand scale

What's the worst mobile phone operating system (OS)? Which one has mobile phone companies deserting in droves? The answer is Symbian - primarily used by Nokia. Whilst most consumers have gravitated to Android, Apple and Blackberry, Nokia has been losing sales because of its outdated Symbian OS (phones like the flagship N97 and N86 were riddled with bugs and the company suffered real damage to its reputation).

Unsurprisingly both Samsung and Sony-Ericsson have announced they will no longer use Symbian, preferring Android/Windows or their own OS.

So guess which mobile phone operating system the EU has decided to give €22 million to in the form of an EU grant? The answer is of course Symbian.

According to Mobile News:

"The EU project will become known as SYMBEOSE, meaning ‘Symbian – the Embedded Operating System for Europe’. Under the terms of the agreement with the EC, the Artemis initiative will match the investment made by the consortium, providing the other half of the required funding in order to meet the full cost of the SYMBEOSE development project".

The fact that the EU seeks to use €22 million hard-pressed taxpayers money to subsidise a mobile operating system is bad enough.  What makes it even worse is that it has chosen to subsidise the De Lorean of systems. 

How can it be right for the EU to waste our money in this way - and choose to give a taxpayer subsidy to promote one mobile phone system over another.  Surely this is an anti-competitive measure against other mobile phone companies?

Now, you may read the above as something just for geeks to consider.  But it is much more than that.  The EU's huge grant to Symbian, is yet another example of how the organisation is choosing losers and frittering away taxpayers' money on a grand scale.

Alex Deane: The Republicans are the party of freedom

As I did during the Presidential election, I thought I'd just say who I think we ought to be supporting in the US.

I don't think that it can be put much more clearly than this:

I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul.

George W. Bush, Press Conference, White House, Tuesday, April 13, 2004

America's most misunderestimated President hits the nail on the head once again.

You see, I simply don't think that President Obama believes that. I don't think that Bill Clinton did, or FDR either. Democrats generally don't. But I think that Ronald Reagan did, and so do most Republicans, generally.

I think that Democrats would agree that freedom is important. They'd pay lip service to it, and more. They'd probably mean it. But they would stress a connection with one's fellow man, the need for community and so on, before speaking as GWB does here. Even if they agreed in principle with the statement (which isn't a one-off), in practice they would place freedom well down the batting order of importance in weighing up the worth of various social goods. In practice, they would place other goods - public education, public health, public welfare, the needs that ultimately build the supposed need for a welfare state, before the importance of the individual's right to choose for and live for himself. It's a genuine and legitimate difference of opinion, but a vital and a fundamental one, and I am with the Republicans and against the Democrats. 

This manifests itself in the desire for a smaller state, for lower taxes, for less regulation amongst Republicans, and a greater sympathy for such things amongst Democrats. It's for reasons like this that I am so pleased to read Tim's post to the effect that ConHome readers prefer the Republicans to the Democrats 4 to 1 (although Tim is a bit unfair to include Dan Hannan in his list of Obamacons; I criticised him at the time, but he has publicly recanted..!). And let us not be mistaken - if America does not advance the cause of freedom, then the world will slip backwards into more bureaucracy and socialism, because the most advanced society on the planet is the one currently pushing the cause of freedom most strongly. If they relent, the rest of us will follow.

As I said when McCain campaigned, I say again - the Republicans are far from perfect. They have taxed too much - but their instincts are generally right and their opponents are far, far worse. They have infringed on freedoms of late - the Patriot Act not least - but their instincts are generally right and their opponents are far, far worse. So I say, loudly and proudly,

COME ON THE GOP.

A precedent for Anglo-French co-operation - indeed, for political union

By Paul Goodman

Even as David Cameron was waving a piece of paper signed by Monsieur Sarkozy, Bernard Jenkin was taking to the airwaves like some splendid vintage airplane.

The Prime Minister insisted that the defence treaty between Britain and France "is is not, as some have suggested, about weakening or pooling British or French sovereignty".  But Jenkin warned that "There is a long term record of duplicity on the French part when it comes to dealing with their allies...The UK has permanent interests but not permanent friends...France has never and is never likely to share strategic interests with the UK."

I sort of see what Jenkin is getting at, but "never shared strategic interests" struck me as a bit strong, and I went to my bookshelves to hunt down a precedent for the sharing of such interests, and the pooling of French and British sovereignty besides.  I found it on page 619 of Roy Jenkins's rollicking biography of Winston Churchill, which relates that -

"At a luncheon on 15 June [1940] the idea of amalgamating the British and French states in an indissoluble union had first effectively surfaced.  Among those present were: Halifax, Corbin (French Ambassador) and Sir Robert Vansittart.  In the next twenty-four hours it gathered momentum out of desparation.  The matter came before the War Cabinet at a 3.00 p.m meeting on Sunday, 16 June.  The day and timing of the meeting were themselves indicative of how critical the circumstances were seen to be.  Churchill was surprised at the gust of wind that swept along such figures as Chamberlain and Attlee, who were both normally good at pricking hot-air ballons.  The minutes recorded: "The Prime Mibister said that his first instinct had been against the idea, but in this grave crisis we must not let ourselves be accused of a lack of imagination.  Some dramatic announcement was clearly necessary to keep the French going."  So, with remarkably little detailed consideration, the offer was evolved: common citizenship, a single united War Cabinet, amalgamated armed forces, and maybe, although nothing was specifically said about this, a single polyglot parliament.

It was an amazing confection.  In retrospect it is difficult to decide which was the more staggering: the presumption of the view that the disparate and complex mechanisms of the British and French states could be successfully put together by a document of barely 300 words; or the utterely heterogeneous nature of those who assisted at its hasty creation.  Apart from Churchill himself, with his half reluctantly given but decisive final seal of approval, these were Halifax, Vansittart and on the French side Corbin, the very experienced ambassador, Rene Pleven, several times to be Prime Minister in the early 1950s, Jean Monnet, the founding father of the European Community, and Charles de Gaulle, who was subsequently, both in war and peace, to be the symbol and sword of unnegotiable French sovereignty.  De Gaulle indeed was responsible for telephoning the proposal through to Reynaud as soon as it had been agreed on the Sunday afternoon, and then for carrying the written document with him when he returned to Bordeaux that evening.  Churchill's role at Concarneau was to have been that of reinforcing it with his eloquence and argument, and the purpose of taking with him Attlee and Sinclair was to underpin the seriousness of the offer by showing that it came from all parties in Britain."

Reynaud failed to carry the scheme through his Cabinet.  He resigned, and was replaced by Petain, "who proceeded to form a government of surrender" -

"That was the reason Churchill had been left sulking in his train seat at Waterloo.  There was no-one left in office in France who wanted to confer with him.  The grand and rash scheme appeared counter-productive.  In reality it was just irrelevant.  It was swept quickly into the dustbin of history."

Not much of a precendent, I admit (before Jenkin or anyone else compels me to concede the point).  And conducted in somewhat unusual circumstances.  But there it is.

Final observation: Jenkins doesn't relate whether or not the King was consulted.

We must stop the conveyor belt to terrorism

For the past few days we have been pre-occupied with the horrific bomb plots involving cargo planes.  Thanks to the effort of our intelligence services, mass murder - planned by extreme Islamists - was thwarted once again.

When the terrorists fail, we are always reminded of the chilling IRA statement (made after the Brighton bomb):

"We only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky always".

Despite the efforts of the Intelligence Services, the conveyor belt to Terrorism remains all too strong.  Extreme Islamism is being appeased on our campuses for example.  The 'underpants' bomber in Detroit, was 'nurtured' at UCL.  As highlighted in the November issue of Standpoint magazine, a recent UCL inquiry into the bomber, attempted to white-wash the issue, rather than confront Islamist extremism at the University.

Unless we can deal with the conveyer belt to terrorism: controlling fanatical Islamists in our Higher education groups, outlawing extreme Islamist groups and banning known Islamists from entering the UK, we will not succeed against the terrorists themselves.  You can't deal with the one without the other.

Fortunately, the Home Secretary Theresa May has shown real awareness and understanding of this problem.  Despite the best efforts of some senior civil servants in the Home Office - who believe appeasement is an adequate solution - this Coalition government has made real concrete moves to try and get people off the conveyer belt.  No longer will Britain be a safe haven for extremists like Al Qaradawi or act as host nation for Hezbollah or Hizbut-Tahrir.

My question to the Home Secretary is below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I commend the security services for doing a remarkable job, but does not the incident involving the Detroit bomber show that other parts of civil society, such as our universities, are failing to get a grip on Islamist extremists? Does the Home Secretary agree that, for our fight against terrorism to succeed, we need to deal effectively with the conveyor belt to terrorism, just as we must deal with the terrorists themselves?

Mrs May: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I hope that I can reassure him that, alongside our work on the incident at the weekend and on reviewing our counter-terrorism legislation, we are also looking at the development of extremism and the process of radicalisation. It is important that we ensure that people do not get drawn into a radicalised agenda that leads to extremism, violence and terror. That work is ongoing.

Free The Fink

I hope The Times' paywall works and not just because it offers free-to-air blogs like ConHome new opportunities. It was James Forsyth who pointed me to the customers of Starbucks, clutching their £2-a-go coffee frappuccino and a free copy of the Metro. If people are willing to pay for such luxury drinks I think they should be open to paying for quality journalism too. The £2-a-week it costs to access The Times online is worth it (and not just for my semi-regular column!).

It's far from clear if The Times' great experiment is yet working. Figures released today suggest over 100,000 people are paying to read the newspaper's websites but as Malcolm Coles blogs, many of these are, including him, one-off payers. It's early days, however, and The Times will be hoping, over time, to convert the likes of Malcolm Coles to regular subscriptions and these subscriptions will be worth more than the drop off in online advertising revenues.

I have two recommendations for the high-ups at The Times.

First they should devise a PayPal-style passport that allows people to subscribe to The Times and then use that payment passport to also get behind the News of the World's new paywall*. If NewsCorp own the newspaper payment passport it will open up possibilities for all sorts of future micropayments. The current payment mechanism lacks flexibility. My guess is that Rupert Murdoch's boffins are already working on this but I was surprised it wasn't introduced at the time of the paywall's erection, given the many months that passed between the announcement of it and its arrival.

My second recommendation is to free The Times' blogs from the paywall. Danny Finkelstein's Comment Central blog, for example, was an important part of the centre right conversation. It was. Now, costing pounds to access, it doesn't get much link love. It's also noticeable that Danny doesn't blog so much. That's a shame for us and, I guess, for him. If The Times' blogs were free their columnists would feel more part of the internet conversation. The blogs could also be used to promote the paid-for content. DannyTheFink, David Aaronovitch and Rachel Sylvester could use blogs to summarise their op-eds and lure people into subscribing.

* I've tried twice unsuccessfully to subscribe to the NotW.

Five principles for considering Islam

by Paul Goodman

My starting-points in thinking and writing about Islam and politics are that -

• Islam isn't the same thing as Islamism - in other words, it isn't a political ideology (although, say, the Jamaat E Islami and the English Defence League would claim otherwise).

• Islam, rather, is a big, varied, complex phenomenon - in short, it's a religion, and should therefore be approached as such.

All in all, my general approach is extremely critical of the first and broadly supportive of the second: Islamism bad, Islam good.  I've had cause recently to focus on the first.  I want here to look more broadly at the second - which may be timely, given current circumstances - and set out five principles for considering Islam.

All religions are contested...  At least, I've never heard of one that isn't.  A worshipper at the Temple Beth Am will give a different take on Judaism from a follower of Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger.  A priest of the Greek Orthodox Church won't offer the same view of Christianity as a member of the Salvation Army.  If Judaism's a big religion (numerically), and Christianity very much bigger still, it's worth bearing in mind that Islam's almost as big as the latter.  A Salafist jihadi will have little in common with a follower of the Aga Khan, a Senegalise Sufi will possess a different outlook from a Pakistani Deobandi.

So beware of generalisations (including mine).  "Islam doesn't separate the sacred and secular."  Up to a point, but Christian Byzantium merged Church and State, and most modern Muslims live contendedly enough under secular law.  "Islam was spread by the sword."  But so's Christianity been from time to time, and the early Islamic conquests were wars for booty, not means of conversion.  "Islam persecutes minorities and oppresses women."  For most of Islam's history, Christians were better off in the Islamic world than Muslims in western Europe, and women's property rights under Islam compared favourably with those in Britain.

...But Islam is especially so.  Having warned against generalisations, I'll risk a few.  Jewish extremism is relatively confined, affecting parts of Israel and what should be, as part of a durable settlement, an independent state of Palestine.  Christian extremism (based largely in the United States) is also fairly restricted although, like Jewish extremism, it has a sporadic influence on American foreign policy.  Islamist extremism, however, is an unrestrained global problem, menacing the safety of Glasgow airport as well as the stability of the Yemen, passengers on London's tube as well as the future of Pakistan.

Worldwide, there's little Jewish-on-Jewish or Christian-on-Christian violence.  Strikingly, however, there seems to be growing Muslim-on-Muslim conflict: consider the recent Sunni-Shi'ite atrocities in Iraq, or the Deobandi-Barelvi strife in Pakistan.  This confirms that Islamist terror is a symptom of an internal struggle within Islam, as well as an existential challenge to secular democracy.  Wahabism, a minority tradition within Islam, and Islamism, an ideological response to economic and social failure, have bonded to propose an "Islamic state" (ironically, an idea formed under European influence) governed by "sharia law" (which is, strictly speaking, a misnomer).

Reading the Koran doesn't make one an expert. It's often assumed first that the source of this ideology is the Koran itself, and second that Islam has no tradition of contextualising its contents.  The Koran indisputably has violent sections (as has, say, parts of the Bible), and if some readers are determined to interpret them as calls to indiscriminate terror, no power on earth will be able to dissuade them (just as no power on earth will be able to dissuade some readers of Exodus 17 that the chapter doesn't justify the murder of non-Jews, or some readers of Matthew 27:24-26 that the verses don't legitimise anti-semitism).

It's on this basis that contributors to mainstream western websites will solemnly quote verses from the Koran bandied about on Al Qaeda-supporting websites, and explain them in the same way as Osama Bin Laden.  Consider, for example, an old favourite - the verse "slay them wheresoever you find them" (2:190), cited by Al Qaeda as a licence for massacre.  But in its original context, it applied to pagans, not Christians or Jews.  Furthermore, it applied in a particular place and time.  Furthermore still, its application was constrained by "the limits": in other words, the rules of war. "...But transgress not the limits.  Truly, God does not love the transgressors [of limits]" (2:191).  In short, there's a whole science of contextualising the Koran - Asbab Ul-Nuzul, traditionally the province of Islamic scholars (not to mention other Islamic sciences, such as the study of hadith, fiqh, and so forth).

Islam doesn't need a Reformation...  Like all religions, Islam must evolve and adapt if it's to survive.  And, sure, there are barriers to progress.  Muslim-majority countries are resistant to human rights norms in general and religious freedom in particular.  There's no real academic freedom to probe, say, the origins of the Koran.  The sharia inheritance provisions are an obstacle to development and opportunity.  But the frequently-heard, unthinkingly-accepted contention that "Islam needs a Reformation" poses as many problems at it apparently solves.  Trying to impose western Europe's past on much of the rest of the world's present would be impossible (because the past's gone) and undesirable (because Europe's religious wars were convulsive and bloody).

And trying to impose western Europe's present on much of the rest of the world would be dubious (though Ataturk tried in his time).  The Iraq War and its consequences have sated voters' appetite - never strong in the first place - for attempts forcibly to export the rule of law, elections, free markets, religious freedom, women's rights, strong and independent civil institutions, and all those things that together make up "democracy".  However, our system and beliefs are better and stronger than a totalitarian ideology dressed up in Islamic garb - just as they were better than fascism and communism - and should be promoted unceasingly through "soft power": trade, diplomacy, training, education, aid, the promotion of human rights norms.

...So much as a Counter-Reformation.  In other words, economic and social development may take place alongside revived forms of the traditional, classical Islam.  This would represent a counter-reformation, if you like (though the parallel's risky) in the face of the puritan Wahabi movement, and its Islamist political counterpart.  It would be able to dismantle barriers to progress by drawing on concepts of the public interest long present in parts of Islamic law, and be reasonably disposed to democracy and pluralism.  This certainly won't happen in any place where the Muslim Brotherhood and its equivalents seize power, barring religious minorities from advancement and women from participation in society.

I concede at once that no Muslim-majority country fits the bill.  However, it's more likely that one will do so, in the medium term, than that one will convert itself into a western-style liberal democracy.  Very tentatively, one might look at, say, Indonesia, Turkey (if it doesn't slide into Islamism), Morocco and Jordan as offering, in very different ways, some positive signs.  The most encouraging indicator of all would be the collapse of Iran's theocracy - for although the country's outside the Sunni mainstream, the implosion of a political project which draws on Islam could take the wind out of Islamism's sails elsewhere, just as the rise of Khomeini put it into them at the end of the 1970s.

I apologise if some of my assertions - such as "all religions are contested" - are statements of the obvious.  But, when it comes to Islam and Islamism, the obvious is often overlooked.  A footnote: I'm not an expert on Islam, haven't lived in Islamic countries, can't read Arabic, and don't speak the languages.  But then again, neither are most of those who pronounce on this subject with greater stridency and certainty.

Now it gets ugly

Don't imagine that the struggle to use the new EU Treaty to renegotiate Britain's position, repatriating powers, is over.  There isn't an agreed text, yet, let alone ratification.  The next stage comes in December, then ratification/implementation (if ratification is somehow avoided) by 2013.  This is a fight that has only just begun, and Europe will now become a central issue in British politics for the new three years.

For our leadership, there was the easy way to play this, in which the process of renegotiation was led by David Cameron - a gifted man, calm under pressure, smooth, prepared to gamble when necessary, avuncular, extremely likeable, sensible, instinctively Tory, a man that dwarfs his potential internal leadership challengers - and William Hague - a wonderful orator, brilliant cutting comic, clever, brave and decisive, a man that I favoured as Foreign Secretary as early as 2000.  Our leaders would have done what they believed in and what they knew we all believe in, kept their promises, and used the opportunity and leverage that fate (and the intrinsic weaknesses of the euro project) presented to them and insisted that there should be no new Treaty without repatriation of powers to Britain.  There would have been opposition, of course, but the Party would have been united behind the leadership, proud to trust them with tactical choices along the way when they said "I lead; you follow", and it would have been a pleasure to be involved.

And then there was the hard way.

So be it.

Does Europe matter to voters?

After the recent EU summit, David Cameron declared himself a "Eurosceptic".  Here's what he said:

Q: Are you a Eurosceptic?

A: I’ll give you a very direct answer, which is Yes

Am I sceptical about granting more powers to the EU? Yes. I am sceptical that money in Europe is well spent? Yes. Do I think that Europe should be members states working together rather than a superstate? Yes

Does that qualify me to be a eurosceptic? I’ve always thought that yes that it does.

But a practical, sensible reasonable one at the same time.

So, for Cameron being a Eurosceptic is nothing to do with renegotiating our position within the EU or taking powers back from Brussels.  It is about being "sceptical about granting more powers to the EU", "sceptical that money in Europe is well spent", believing "that Europe should be members states working together rather than a superstate."  On that definition, Ken Clarke would appear to be a Eurosceptic.  Indeed, I suspect that even Angela Merkel might count.

Three quarters of Conservative members believe that Cameron failed last week, by not seeking to use the opportunity of a new EU Treaty to renegotiate Britain's position within the EU - by failing to honour a key manifesto pledge not just from the 2010 General Election, but from the 2005 and 2001 General Elections also, on a central issue of politics that drew many Conservative activists to political activism in the first place.

Some 91% of Conservative members believe in either renegotiating our position within the EU or withdrawing altogether.  Indeed, as I feared would happen, straightforward get-outers now outnumber renegotiationist Eurosceptics.  That our leadership imagines it can simply ignore numbers like these - that it can break such a fundamental manifesto pledge on such a central issue without consequences - is astonishing.

Dilma Rousseff wins: observations of the Brazilian election

As was widely predicted, the centre-left Dilma Rousseff has won the second round of the Brazilian Presidential election with 56% of the vote.  She will be sworn in at the Alvarado Palace in Brasilia on January 1st.

The Presidential election result will be profoundly disappointing to the centrist and centre-right “Brazil can do more” coalition led by the Brazilian Social Democrats, Labour Party and liberal Democratas who have also lost significant ground in the House of Representatives and Federal Senate.   The result will be also personally devastating for former Jose Serra, previously the Governor of the country’s richest and most populous state Sao Paulo, who watched his twenty point poll lead at the start of the year evaporate after a poor and uninspiring campaign.

With all but a few votes left to be counted, there are a few initial observations one can draw from the outcome of the election.

The Sun blasts the BBC as "the pompous voice of defeated socialism"

The Sun carries a full page story today on how "a jobless 22-year-old portrayed by the BBC as a helpless victim of benefits cuts has admitted he REFUSES to work - because he is better off on the dole."

The newspaper then carries a long leader blasting the BBC for its coverage of the cuts:

"The Beeb is today the pompous voice of defeated socialism.

Labour lumbered us with terrifying levels of debt. Yet Newsnight relentlessly blames "nasty" Tories for trying to bring it under control.

Radio 4's Today programme gives Government critics like hysterical Polly Toynbee endless airtime while constantly interrupting ministers.

Its news programmes rip into any plan to make Whitehall's big spenders more efficient while rarely saying why savings are needed.

We are sitting on a powder keg of national debt, yet the BBC treats the crisis as if it were the coalition's fault, not Labour's.

It broadcasts ludicrous warnings about cardboard cities, mass evacuations and Nazi-style extermination of poor families as if they were fact.Yet it scarcely mentions that Labour was planning almost exactly the same VAT hikes and draconian cuts to housing and incapacity benefit.

Nor does it mention the legion of Labour ex-ministers who have denounced mealy-mouthed Red Ed Miliband for failing to say so.

Labour is playing politics. That's their job.

The BBC is generously run on public money. It has a charter promising editorial independence.

That must not become a licence for malicious and unscrupulous propaganda."