ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Edward Leigh elicits promise of Iraq War inquiry later this year from David Miliband

Gainsborough MP Edward Leigh was one of the few Conservative MPs who voted to oppose the Iraq War.

During a debate in the Commons on Iraq, he has just intervened on Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, seeking a promise that there would be a full inquiry into the Iraq War "as soon as practicable after 31st July".

Mr Miliband's reply was a simple "Yes".

According to PoliticsHome, he went on to say:

"The time to focus on an official inquiry is when the troops return to safety... we are talking about combat troops, not every troop."

---
4.30pm Update: Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has issued the following reaction:

“At last the Foreign Secretary has announced that the Government will set up a full Privy Council inquiry into the Iraq war when our troops come home at the end of July. This should have been done long ago. It is alarming that by setting a date of 31st July, when Parliament will have adjourned for the summer, the Government are now dragging out the setting up of an inquiry until the autumn.  This is unacceptable.
 
“We now call on the Government to ensure that the inquiry is announced before the summer recess, that its remit is set out in a statement to Parliament and that without any further delay the Leader of the Opposition and Privy Councillors in Opposition parties are consulted about establishing the Inquiry.”

Jonathan Isaby

Liam Fox attacks Muslim fanatics who branded British soldiers as "babykillers" during homecoming parade

Soldiers returning from Iraq - and marching through Luton as part of a homecoming parade - were greeted with banners branding them as "butchers, war criminals, murderers, terrorists — and baby killers" by Islamic extremists.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Express: “This was a very offensive protest by a tiny number of known extremists who should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of Luton’s Muslim community."

The police had to form a protective cordon around the Islamic fanatics when local people turned against them:

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox called the protests “disgraceful, appalling and offensive”.  He continued "It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests."  'The Sun Says' agrees:

"Our brave troops have enough to put up with as they risk life and limb in Afghanistan and Iraq.  To top it all, now they fly home to vicious abuse from Islamic fanatics.  The Royal Anglians had to face a chanting mob waving grotesque placards accusing THEM of terrorism and child murder.  Astonishingly, this despicable demo went ahead with police approval.  When it turned predictably ugly, who did our brave bobbies arrest?  Not the extremists who started the trouble, but a couple of locals who rallied to Our Boys’ defence."

What do readers think?  Should the police have approved this "despicable demo"?  I think not.  It was the wrong time and wrong place for such protests.

Tim Montgomerie

Pauline Neville-Jones analyses the foreign policy implications of a prolonged global recession

Shadow Security Minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones is, according to the monthly ConservativeHome survey of grassroots members, the most popular female member of the shadow cabinet.  Elevated to the Lords at the same time as Sayeeda Warsi she has been working away at developing a coherent Conservative security policy – taking a tough line on domestic extremism and developing a global perspective on threats and opportunities.  Although, by many accounts, she has struggled to adapt to the political cut-and-thrust she is set to be a very authoritative minister.

Earlier this week she delivered a speech to the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta.  Key extracts are published below.

We could see a reversal of progress on international poverty: “According to the World Bank, from 1981 to 2001, the number of people living on less than $1 a day went down from 1.5 billion to 1 billion.  Improvements in global literacy went hand-in-hand with this.  This favourable trend could now go into reverse. Just one indicator of what is at stake.”

Private capital flows to emerging economies are set to collapse: “In 2007, net private capital flows to emerging economies were $898 billion… The Institute of International Finance estimates that net private capital flows to emerging and developing countries will be just $165 billion in 2009 – a decline of 82 per cent from 2007.”

Tebbit's anger at knighthood for Ted Kennedy

Quoted in the Daily Mail, Lord Tebbit leads Tory concern at Gordon Brown's decision to award American Senator Ted Kennedy with an honorary knighthood:

"Edward Kennedy may never have said outwardly he supported the IRA but he certainly leaned towards extreme Republicanism. He was certainly no friend of the UK. This honour is wholly inappropriate on the basis of the sleaze attached to him after the crash at Chappaquiddick, let alone his support for nationalism in Northern Ireland. It cheapens the whole honours system."

In the same newspaper Andrew Roberts agrees:

"For it is no exaggeration to say that Ted Kennedy did his damnedest to poison U.S.-UK relations over Ulster during the long decades in which he has castigated successive British governments. Rather than expressing any genuine commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, he would always play exclusively to his own Catholic-Irish voters in Massachusetts, whom he has represented in the Senate for more than 46 years."

Michael Ancram and Ann Widdecombe are also said to be disappointed although long-term Kennedy admirer, Simon Burns MP, will be sure to welcome the decision.

10.45am Statement from Michael Ancram MP: "I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that Ted Kennedy who was the champion of Irish nationalism and the opponent of unionism as well as a supporter of republicanism should be so honoured for his unhelpful one-sidedness in the Peace Process when others like Senator George Mitchell who went out of his way to be even-handed between both sides is not.  But then under this Government so much else is upside down and perverse as well."

David Cameron "resents every penny" awarded to Abu Qatada

Going through the papers online this morning, I missed the fact that David Cameron had written in The Sun about the compensation being awarded to Abu Qatada (since his piece merely adjoins a news story rather than being an article in its own right).

Here are the key extracts:

"Unbelievably, taxpayers are going to have to pay him and other terrorist suspects thousands in compensation for detaining them. It could have been more, but I resent every penny... This case was not even about whether he might be tortured if returned home — just that he might not get a fair trial by our standards.

"Why should it be our responsibility and what should we do about it? First, we should have stronger border controls. A Conservative government will set up a dedicated Border Police force. If dangerous people slip through, we should bring them to justice. A Conservative government will tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, so we can deal with human rights issues more sensibly.

"It makes a mockery of human rights if we can’t protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else."

Jonathan Isaby

William Hague demands answers from Miliband over alleged Guantanamo torture cover-up

The Daily Mail has been running hard this week on the issue of whether or not the British Government asked for help from the US Government to cover up the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident at Guantanamo Bay.

It ran this article this morning and now the paper's website has published a piece by shadow foreign secretary William Hague, detailing the issues on which he says David Miliband has questions to answer.

Here are the key excerpts:

"First, it was the Foreign Secretary who stopped the Courts publishing seven paragraphs containing details of the alleged torture on grounds that this would harm intelligence-sharing and so threaten UK security. But his argument is undermined by claims that the letter from the Bush administration backing up this assertion was actually solicited by the Foreign Office. It is very important that we get clear answers about why this was done.

"Second, until very recently the US government said that Binyam Mohamed could not be released because he posed a significant threat. The British Government is now committed to bringing him to Britain, but has still not explained how they have resolved these security concerns and under what terms and arrangements Mr Mohamed would live in the UK.

"And third, despite the fact that we have repeatedly asked them to do so, the government have not asked the Obama administration to allow the paragraphs to be published. There seems no reasonable explanation for this, since the High Court ruled that nothing in these short paragraphs could possibly be described as highly sensitive classified US intelligence. This reluctance by the Foreign Secretary contributes to the impression that the Government does not wish to see the information come to light.

"The British Government’s role in this damaging episode must be made clear, to restore trust and to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again."

Jonathan Isaby

George Osborne suggests that banning Geert Wilders was wrong

Yesterday, after having first indicated that the Conservative Party would not be making on comment on the Geert Wilders row, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling did issue a statement in which he attacked the Government's inconsistency over which "extremists" it would and wouldn't allow into this country.

He did not, however, appear to want to condemn the Government's decision to ban Mr Wilders from entering Britain, saying in fact that the Conservatives supported the ban if he has "expressed views that represent a threat to public security".

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has this afternoon commented on the matter to the Manchester Evening News - and whilst he repeats Mr Grayling's point about the Government's inconsistency, he seems to suggest that the ban was wrong:

"My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was."

Jonathan Isaby

Tories choose silence on Geert Wilders

3.45pm: Chris Grayling told me earlier that the party would NOT be issuing a statement on this issue but forty minutes ago this statement was released from his office:

“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban. But people like Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation Hizbollah, have not been banned. The Government must apply the criteria governing entry into the UK consistently.”

***

You don't have to agree with the very strong views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders to worry at the British Government's decision to ban him from entering Britain.

The Times thinks his views are "laughable", "inflammatory" and "illiberal" but still runs a leader this morning entitled 'Let Him In':

"The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people's beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one's emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people's feelings. Mr Wilders' views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended."

On CentreRight yesterday Douglas Murray noted the hypocrisy of the Government's position:

"Numerous extremist clerics still come into this country each year and numerous others (not least those filmed by the Dispatches crew) remain happily untroubled by our authorities despite being filmed calling for the murders of Jews, homosexuals, Hindus, Muslim apostates and others.  This country hosts many ambassadors – official and unofficial – for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah who call for the annihilation of whole peoples.  These people do not find themselves deported, nor barred from entry or re-entry into the country."

One often gets the impression that the Government will bend over backwards to appease extreme Muslim opinion.  It is also disappointing that the Conservatives are silent on this issue of free speech.  Speaking to CCHQ and Chris Grayling this morning I was told not to expect a public statement.

Tim Montgomerie

> Related link from The Telegraph's Damian Thompson: "On three separate occasions, [Douglas] Murray has found himself on a panel with Tory spokesmen. And, each time, the Tory has told him off for using the phrase "Islamist terrorism". The approved word is "criminality". As Murray told me: "It's as if they can't see the difference between stealing a handbag and setting off a car bomb outside a nightclub.""

Liam Fox: The world cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power

Liam Fox was in a determined frame of mind at this morning's Conservative Friends of Israel briefing on yesterday's elections which - even by Knesset standards - have produced a messy outcome.  (The joys of proportional representation).

The Shadow Defence Secretary worried that paralysis might result from the result and Israel could not afford uncertain leadership in a year in which Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

Dr Fox worried that Iran was absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons.  It has seen North Korea's experience as proof that the world will not enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they are determined to join the 'nuclear club' of nations.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon the risk is not just that they might use it against Israel, he said, but that they might provide a dirty bomb to one of Tehran's terrorist surrogates; not least Hamas.  A nuclear Iran will also trigger an arms race across the region - provoking Turkey and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons.

Also at the meeting David Lidington MP said that it was vital that the EU matched the USA's sanctions regime against Iran.  He also said Russia and China needed to be pressurised to pressurise Tehran.  Mr Lidington, a Shadow Foreign Minister, said the great problem facing western policymakers was a lack of intelligence about thinking within the Iranian regime.

> Liam Fox has also written for The Telegraph about the nature of Hamas:

"It is a general rule that those with nothing to lose are likely to be willing to gamble with it. Give people a stake in their own prosperity, security and freedom and they behave in a more circumspect way. It follows that if you want people to be in a perpetual state of anger, reconciled to terrorism and ripe for Jihad, then the maxim of Marxism that less is best pertains. Having purged the moderate Palestinians from their territory, Hamas have rocketed the power station in the Israeli city of Ashqelon which provides electricity to Gaza itself. The people of Gaza are sure to be the losers but Hamas will not care."

William Hague repeats call for Iraq Inquiry as Cabinet minutes are set to be published

William Hague has been swift to respond to this afternoon's decision by an Information Tribunal that minutes of two Cabinet meetings in 2003 at which the invasion of Iraq was discussed must be released.

The shadow foreign secretary said:

“Rather than have items of evidence dragged into the public domain piece by piece the Government should set up a full-scale Privy Council inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war.
 
“The sooner we can learn the lessons of the war the sooner we can apply them. It is imperative to begin an inquiry before memories have faded, emails have been deleted and documents have disappeared.”

Personally I am not convinced about the merits of an inquiry while British troops remain in Iraq, but it is not clear whether or not Mr Hague is unahppy about the publication of the Cabinet minutes.

For my part, I am extremely sceptical about the Cabinet minutes being published. Whilst my journalistic instinct is to be fascinated at the prospect of their publication a very long time before the thirty-year rule kicks in, has this ruling not the potential to damage the likelihood of serious Cabinet government being restored?

We know that Tony Blair resorted to government from the Downing Street sofas, where business often got conducted without civil servants to take minutes; but how can we expect ministers to take seriously the notion of Cabinet government if there is the possibility that minutes of their meetings could yet be published whilst they are still in office?

Jonathan Isaby

Notes on Conservative foreign policy

The decision by William Hague and David Lidington to speak against Israel's attempts to disarm Hamas is the latest indication of the nature of David Cameron's foreign policy.  Here are some thumbnail summaries of key components:

Europe: Opposition to Lisbon and a commitment to hold a referendum on all future transfers of power to Brussels have pleased Eurosceptics. There has also been a hardening of policy against the Euro but there has been retreat from Michael Howard's support for abolishing the Common Fisheries Policy.  David Cameron's delayed pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP was undermined by the decision to protect pro-EPP MEPs from deselection by grassroots members.

Multipolarity: David Cameron has insisted that America remains Britain's most important bilateral partner - although never "slavish" - but has also said that Britain has a special relationship with India. He and other shadow cabinet ministers have also regularly visited China.

Wider Middle East: William Hague believes that Labour has neglected relations with moderate Arab states and has invested considerable time in improving relations with these nations.  He has also called for a thawing of relations with Syria.  He has talked of "acquaintanceship".

Israel: William Hague and David Cameron have edged Britain away from the US position on Israel.  Mr Hague criticised Israel for a "disproportionate" use of force against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006 and has urged Israel to cease its current military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Iraq: The Conservative Party has not retreated from its initial support of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein but opposed the one decision that has probably been the most successful component of the campaign; General Petraeus' troops surge.

Afganistan: David Cameron has consistently made the case for continued engagement in Afghanistan but - with Liam Fox - has complained about a lack of clarity in the mission.

NATO: The Conservatives support NATO expansion - notably for Georgia - and a new mechanism whereby nations that do not fight contribute to the financial costs of those who do.

Defence: David Cameron backed Tony Blair's decision to renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.  Mr Cameron and Liam Fox have led public disquiet against the Government's record on the welfare and resourcing of servicemen and their families. Defence is Tory members' number one public spending priority and Liam Fox recently secured his brief as one of four Tory expenditure priorities.

International justice: George Osborne has agreed that Conservatives should honour the Government's plan to contribute 0.7% of national income to overseas development.  David Cameron recently made a big picture speech on human rights but it contained no bankable commitments.  William Hague led calls for Guantanamo Bay to be closed in 2007.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories renew call for immediate ceasefire from Israel

After Israeli ground troops entered Gaza yesterday evening to continue the operation to eliminate Hamas' rocket bases, Shadow Foreign minister, David Lidington MP, issued this statement - renewing William Hague's earlier call for a ceasefire:

"This is a serious development that is bound to lead to yet more loss of life. We support international calls for an immediate ceasefire by both sides. The rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli cities are acts of terrorism and must cease if there is to be a chance of restoring peace. But only a political agreement and a sustainable ceasefire, possibly backed up by international supervision, will bring about a permanent end to those rocket attacks.  Gaza's one and a half million civilian population is caught between the warring forces and is paying an appalling price in blood, hunger, misery and fear. Whatever the result of today's military action, Israel and Gaza will still be neighbours.  The longer the bloodshed continues, the more difficult it will be to overcome intransigence and extremism."

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Sir Malcolm Rifkind offers a more sympathetic account of Israel's actions:

"The Israeli attacks on Hamas are not unreasonable, regardless of electoral considerations. Imagine missiles being fired, most days, across the 21 miles of the English Channel and landing in the towns and villages of Kent. Imagine if, for several years, the IRA had been allowed to fire missiles into the villages of Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic with the consent and approval of the Irish government. Of course, it is controversial to make such comparisons, as Israel's conflict in Gaza has a very different historic background. But every government has a first duty to protect its citizens. Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005, removing not only its soldiers but all Israeli settlements, despite bitter resistance from the settlers and their political allies. If Hamas, with total power in Gaza, had been willing to concentrate its energies on the economic development of the region and cease cross-border attacks, the Israeli government and public would have been much more willing to make a similar withdrawal from the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live."

> Read Martin Parsons' CentreRight post on why Hamas CANNOT be treated as an equal of Israel

Hague calls for Israel to stop its action against Hamas

After his call for "restraint" on Saturday, the Shadow Foreign Secretary has just issued this second statement:

“I am gravely concerned about the continuing violence in Gaza and the numbers of civilians killed and injured. The crisis is exacting a terrible human toll on both sides and it is imperative that further loss of life is avoided. I join the Security Council’s call for an immediate ceasefire and call on Arab countries to use their influence to urge Hamas to end rocket attacks on Israel. I also call on Israel to work with the international community so that the humanitarian relief so desperately needed in Gaza can be provided. The British Government must work with the United States and other members of the Middle East Quartet to secure an early return to negotiations in 2009. The only long-term solution is a negotiated two-state agreement that achieves a viable and secure Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israel with her right to live in peace and security recognised by all her neighbours. The world looks to the new President of the United States to place these negotiations at the top of his foreign policy agenda and to pursue them with vigour and determination from the very outset.”

> Robert Halfon on CentreRight: "If we want an enduring peace in the Middle East, then Israel must be allowed to defeat Hamas in Gaza"

> Iain Dale on Hague's call for a ceasefire: "The trouble is that any Hamas backed ceasefire isn't worth the paper it is written on. If we have learned nothing from recent history, surely we have learned that."

3.45pm: I've just received the best briefing so far on the Gaza situation (by Tom Gross, former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph).  It contains a quotation from Barack Obama that suggests he might be a lot steelier than Mr Hague:

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing”

- Barack Obama, in July, while visiting Israel as a U.S. presidential candidate

Tim Montgomerie

Conservative Friends of Israel's briefing on action against Hamas

ConHome has published four posts on the situation in Gaza:

• William Hague's statement calling for restraint.
• Video of David Cameron calling the situation "horrific"
• Plus CentreRight posts from Alex Deane and Ridley Grove.

Pasted below is a briefing just emailed out to supporters of Conservative Friends of Israel (of which I am one).

Tim Montgomerie

Britain fails the Crockery Shop Rule in Iraq

There are various versions of the Crockery Shop (or Pottery Barn) test but the essence is: If you break it, you own it.

My own view is that Saddam broke Iraq and set up the insurgency but once Britain and America had entered Iraq we had a responsibility to fix the chaos that ensued.

Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo has written a superb piece in The Sunday Times about Britain's defeat in Basra.  Here are the key quotes:

Britain abandoned Basra to 'fundamentalist thugs': "For all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army."

America may have got much wrong but it didn't quit: "In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys... If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat."  [Unfortunately no senior Conservative frontbencher supported the surge; William Hague actually warned that it might fuel the insurgency.]

Hi-tech weaponry isn't enough: "It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down."

The media share in Britain's failure: "The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack."

David Cameron's reaction to the troops withdrawal was silent on these key issues on Thursday - only Bernard Jenkin MP addressed the heart of the matter: That America has had to 'own' the situation in Basra after Britain failed the Pottery Barn test.

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron reiterates call for inquiry into the Iraq War as Brown announces British troop withdrawals

As promised in this morning's papers, Gordon Brown has formally announced the timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq next summer, saying that good progress has been made in the areas of security, democracy and reconstruction in the country.

Iraq will regain full sovereignty on the expiry of UN resolution 1790 on New Year's Day, and as of 31st May there will be a "rapid withdrawal" of the remaining 4,100 British combat troops over the following two months. After 31st July, 400 troops will remain, principally dedicated to naval training.

He also said that the memorial wall to the fallen British servicemen in Basra would be brought to Britain and put in a fitting place.

David Cameron welcomed the statement and joined the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our servicemen who have served there, especially the 178 who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Owen Paterson defends Belfast celebration of Royal Irish Regiment's Afghan service

Earlier today Belfast hosted a homecoming parade for the Royal Irish Regiment.

For Sinn Fein and symathisers any celebration of the British Army is an affront to their republicanism.  Mark Thompson of Relatives for Justice remembered the Brirtish Army in this way in the Belfast Telegraph:

"In Ireland the British Army is responsible for the use of lethal force, shoot-to-kill, the use of rubber and plastic bullets, collusion, internment and torture — all with official impunity."

For Owen Paterson MP, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the Royal Irish deserve to be honoured for their work in Afghanistan:

"For the past six months the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, has been deployed on Herrick 8.  Their immensely difficult job was to mentor and assist the Afghan National Army in all aspects of its operations. It is vital for the future security of Afghanistan that a non sectarian army is created.

It needs a unique set of skills to take on raw Afghan troops from a wide variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds, speaking different languages, to teach them, to encourage them, to organise them and then accompany them into battle.  This job has been performed supremely well by the Royal Irish, in one of the toughest and most dangerous battle zones in Helmand...

This immensely difficult work has been carried out by people from across the community in Northern Ireland and a good number from south of the border.  With horrible symmetry two friends were injured, one a catholic from Dublin the other a protestant from Belfast.  Over 70 have been injured and tragically, Ranger Justin Cupples was killed days before the end of the tour.  Our thoughts will be with his family and friends as we celebrate our troops’ return."

Read a PDF of Owen Paterson's full article.

Three cheers for PNJ

We're a little late with this but yesterday's intervention by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones on the Tablighi Jamaat proposal for a 40,000-worshipper mega-mosque for East London is worthy of note.  Paul Waugh covered it in yesterday's London Evening Standard:

"Ministers should review plans to build a "mega-mosque" in the East End in the wake of the airline bomb plot trial, the Tories urged today. Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said the case had shown that the group behind the mosque may have given cover to extremist activity. Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself an Islamic missionary organisation, is pushing for the mosque to be built next to the 2012 Olympics site in Stratford. But the group was revealed in court as having links to some of the terror suspects, with several having passed through other mosques run by the group."

This is also an issue that Paul Goodman MP has rightly raised before.

Homeland security and community integration are emerging as two of the Conservative Party's most impressive (and very related) policy areas.  David Cameron's speech in March to the Community Security Trust set out the strength of the party's thinking.

David Cameron's inappropriate soundbite

We covered the speech yesterday but the FT is one of a number of newspapers to major in on David Cameron's attempt to distance himself from "neoconservatism":

“We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” he said in Islamabad. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we should not try. Put crudely, that was what was wrong with the “neo-con” approach and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-Conservative.”

Mr Cameron is politically sensible to distance himself from the toxic term neoconservatism but he's wrong to misrepresent what coalition forces are doing in Iraq.  The "drop democracy from 10,000 feet" soundbite isn't just silly, it borders on the offensive.

Bill Clinton tried to solve the Iraqi problem from 10,000 feet.  During his presidency America bombed Iraq but stopped short of any serious engagement.  At enormous cost America, in particular, but other nations, notably Britain, have committed ground troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of giving those two troubled nations the possibility of the same freedoms that we enjoy.  Mr Cameron is 100% correct to say that democracy is much more than elections but it is misleading to suggest that Iraq's democracy is being imposed from 10,000 feet or at the barrel of a gun.  For example, enormous efforts have been made to craft constitutions that respect the rights of women and religious diversity in both countries.  Troops are now embedded in Iraqi communities, intimately involved in community protection, and providing the space that is necessary for political and institutional progress.

In an ideal world we would have time to allow the institutions that support democracy to evolve - as Mr Cameron recommends - but we don't live in an ideal world.  The free world had to intervene in Afghanistan because the nation's Taliban regime was supporting al-Qaeda, not least the 9/11 attacks.  Without that intervention we cannot know how recent history might have been different but who thought, at the time, that 9/11 was an isolated event rather than the beginning of a campaign of terror?

More controversially, we also had to intervene in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an unrepentant threat to the peace of the region and wider world.  The Iraq campaign was very badly handled.  We all know that but David Cameron would be better advised to criticise the Rumsfeld doctrine - and its belief in a limited deployment - or Iran for its destabilising role.  Talk of dropping democracy from 10,000 feet makes for good headlines but it doesn't help us understand what went wrong - nor what has begun to go right in Iraq.

Pakistan should be a top foreign policy priority for David Cameron

After his visit to Afghanistan (where CentreRight contributor and TA soldier Lee Rotherham is serving) David Cameron arrives in Pakistan today for talks with political leaders.

It is very timely that the Conservative leader is making this visit.  He visits a very troubled nation.  Richard Holbrooke and the New York Times have argued that Pakistan was George W Bush's biggest foreign policy failure:

"It is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world." Nothing -- not even Iraq -- represents a greater policy failure for the outgoing administration."

It's hard to disagree with that judgment and to be optimistic about the near future.

Benazir Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, is expected to become the nation's president on Saturday, succeeding Pervez Musharraf.  Bret Stephens introduced Mr Zardadi to Wall Street Journal readers yesterday:

• Known as "Mr 10%" he was found guilty in 2003 of laundering $10m.
• He owns a 3555 acre estate near London although he has never earned any large amounts of money (legally).
• In return for support from an extremist political party for his presidential bid he helped to engineer an end to the Pakistan military's bombing of Taliban positions.

Mr Stephens also quotes a June poll that found that 71% of Pakistanis oppose cooperating with the USA in counterterrorism.  51% oppose fighting the Taliban at all.  Britain - and its next PM - may have an important role in ensuring that Pakistan remains an ally in the war on terror.  In his maiden post for CentreRight, Suli Shah made the case for the UK leading international action plan that would see significant economic, military and intelligence assistance for Pakistan.  Suli's post is worth reading again.

Liam Fox condemns "outrageous" nature of alleged pact between British forces and Basra criminals

The main story on page one of this morning's Times alleges a "Secret deal kept Army out of battle for Basra".

"Outrageous" is the word Liam Fox uses within a letter that he has just sent to his opposite number, Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The letter seeks clarification of whether British intelligence did strike such a deal.  The full text is pasted below.

If true, it is another humiliation for the British military.  Our troops have fought bravely throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan but their political direction has been consistently poor.  Basra was dominated by criminal groups when Britain retreated and it took the Iraqi armed forces - backed up by US troops - to start to turn that situation around (and here) in what was called Operation Charge of the Knights.  The humiliation is doubly depressing if  our absence from that Operation wasn't for strategic reasons but because of a shoddy deal with Iranian backed terrorists.  When will civilised nations learn that dealing with terrorists only invites more terrorism for the future?

Hague and Osborne discuss Middle East strategy

At yesterday's Annual Business Lunch of Conservative Friends of Israel, Daniel Finkelstein (The Times' new Chief Leader Writer) interviewed two of the Conservative Party's top three figures; Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.  You can watch the Q&A in the videos below but here are some of the key points to emerge from the discussion:

• CFI: The first organisation that William Hague joined as a Conservative was Conservative Friends of Israel.
• Zionism: William Hague said that he was a Zionist if Zionism means being a friend of Israel who believes in its right to exist and its right to defend itself.  This echoed David Cameron's reply of last year and William Hague joked that the new thing in the Conservative Party was that all MPs say the same things!
• Iraq: Both stated that they still support the Iraq war but too many mistakes were made.  William Hague said that note should be taken of substantial progress in recent months.  There is, he continued, another democracy in the Middle East alongside Israel; Iraq.  We must help that democracy to flourish.
• Democratisation: The best long-term guarantee of peace and stability is the emergence of more and more democracies, said George Osborne, in response to a question about the Sharansky doctrine.  William Hague said it takes time to create democracies.  'Would Israel be more secure if all Israel's neighbours became democracies?', he asked.  'Probably not,' he replied.  They would likely go in a direction more hostile to Israel.  In the long-run, however, we want to see Israel's neighbours becoming more open and democratic.
• Syria: William Hague said it was imperative that we avoid a so-called clash of civilisations by building much better links with moderate Islamic states, in particular.  He repeated his commitment to a dialogue with Syria.  He has previously spoken of an acquaintanceship with Syria.
• 2006's Lebanon war: The Shadow Foreign Secretary stood by his belief that Israel's behaviour in the Lebanon war had been "disproportionate" and militarily ineffective.  It was the only time, he said, that he'd ever criticised an Israeli military campaign but you have to look at Lebanon today and see Hezbollah so much stronger to realise that it was not a good campaign for Israel.
• Hamas: William Hague said that Hamas must renounce violence and recognise Israel and honour previous agreements before Israel should talk directly to them.
• George W Bush: Both George Osborne and William Hague avoided answering a question about whether George W Bush had been a good President.  George Osborne said noone should underestimate the difficulties that the Bush adminstration have faced in the post 9/11 world and their actions need to be judged in that context.  Mr Hague said that history would judge President Bush more kindly than today's commentators.  He continued, however, by saying that America had been insufficiently open to the differences between Middle Eastern states - Syria and Iran, for example.  There had been a tendency to see the Islamic world as monolithic when it is very complex and diverse.
• McCain v Obama: William Hague said that the Conservative Party would not choose between Barack Obama and John McCain although the Republicans were the sister party.  George Osborne said that in terms of campaign techniques the Obama campaign was the campaign to study because of its "phenomenal" use of the internet.
  

The lunch was attended by eighty Tory MPs and many parliamentary candidates.

George W Bush and David Cameron hold second meeting

It's very unusual for George W Bush to meet opposition leaders but America's President did meet David Cameron for thirty minutes earlier today, during his London visit.  That's a good sign of (a) the White House's awareness of the Conservative Party's ascendancy and (b) Much improved Tory-GOP relations.

William Hague, George Osborne and Pauline Neville-Jones accompanied the Conservative leader during at meeting at the US Ambassador's London residence.

CCHQ has released the following statement from David Cameron: 

“I had a very productive meeting with President Bush, taking forward some of the issues we discussed when we met in Washington last November.
 
I raised the situation in Zimbabwe, and the pressing need to do everything possible to prevent Mugabe from stealing the election. It is extremely important to make sure that independent observers have full access to the poll.  We continued the discussion we had before about the importance of standing up for free trade.
 
I underlined the commitment of the Conservative Party to Britain’s role in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. I also raised with the President my concerns about the need for improved co-ordination of the civilian effort of the ground, and greater clarity and unity of purpose between the different military chains of command – in particular between the NATO-led International Security assistance Force (ISAF) and Operating Enduring Freedom.”

***
Over the weekend we twice blogged about The Telegraph's mischief-making re David Davis (here and here).  The Telegraph's take on the Bush-Cameron meeting, from Rosa Prince: Green David Cameron undermined by George W Bush meeting.  A headline worthy of The Independent/ Guardian/ Mirror.

Related link: ToryDiary report on the first Cameron-Bush meeting, last November.

Let's not forget that we have a new Shadow Home Secretary

The shock of David Davis' resignation and the joy of Ireland's "no" has distracted us from paying sufficient attention to what is very significant news in its own right.  The Conservative Party has, of course, a new Home affairs spokesman, Dominic Grieve.

Over at The Spectator's Coffee House, James Forsyth hasn't missed the significance of the appointment and has listed five reasons why he is worried.  James fears that...

• DG unbalances the frontbench and tips it away from the C2s,
• Is a passionate supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights,
• Is not above threatening to resign,
• Is weak on Islamic extremism, and
• May not be a strong enough media performer to channel public anger on crime.

ConservativeHome knows Dominic Grieve to be intelligent and one of politics' gentlemen.  Few have done more to build better relations with minority communities but we worry with James Forsyth, in particular, about his views on the ECHR.

One of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism.  David Cameron made an excellent speech to the Community Security Trust in March.  Dominic Grieve needs to revisit the themes of that speech and make it clear that, unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will not allow extremists to enter Britain and will ensure no public funds go to extremist organisations.  Mr Grieve must also make it clear that he shares Dame Pauline Neville Jones' view that the Conservative Party does not approve of many of the attitudes of the Muslim Council of Britain.

> Mr Grieve recently gave a speech on Britishness.

Our case for 42 days

We know this isn't going to be popular among a great many ConservativeHome readers and 92% of adopted Tory candidates but we ought to publicly nail our colours to the mast and stand up with Ann Widdecombe, Norman Tebbit, Matthew d'Ancona, Melanie Phillips and Frank Field as supporters of the Government's attempts to introduce a period of 42 days' pre-charge detention.

This debate is often portrayed as a great clash between those who care about civil liberties and those who don't.  Between those who are too worried about the threat of terrorism and those who are blind to the dangers we face from extremists.  This isn't helpful.  Is there really a substantial, principled difference between the Conservative leadership's support for the existing 28 day detention period and the Labour leadership's preference for 42 days?  David Cameron has always been careful to appear pragmatic on the issue - repeatedly saying that he and the Tory frontbench were open to persuasion that more than 28 days might be necessary.  He hasn't been persuaded but he has never ruled out a longer period of detention on the grounds of high principle.

Experts are divided on the issue but we have heard enough in recent days to tip us into the camp supporting the Government's plans.

Crucial to our conclusion was last week's article in The Telegraph by Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Unit.  He argued that the complexity of the terrorist networks we currently face - using hi tech methods and operating across borders - may mean that more than 28 days of investigations might soon be necessary.  Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Met Chief, who advises David Cameron on security issues, has told this morning's Times that "anti-terrorist police have come close in the cases of six suspects to needing more than 28 days to detain them".  A mature political party, interested in public safety, shouldn't lightly dismiss the arguments of such a senior anti-terrorist specialist and a senior police chief.