Tom's Commentary

Tony Blair goes into the Brussels lions den this week, to defend Britain's £3billion a year budget rebate.

Blair faces a tough summit. Every other EU nation, numbering 24, would like to see Britain relinquish the rebate. This, of course, is not surprising. If your industry is failing, your population demands a 30 hour working week or unemployment is at 12%; why not demand that the British taxpayer bail you out?

Of course, France are leading the charge against our rebate. Smarting from his cruching defeat in the EU constitutional referendum, Jacques Chirac believes that Britain should "play its full part in the financing of an enlarged Europe". He clearly does not believe that the same should apply to France. Were Blair to relinquish the rebate, Britain would contribute fifteen times as much to the EU budget as France. This is because of the quite staggering benefits plunged into the failed French agricultural sector under the Common Agricultural Policy.

CAP is anti-competitive in the extreme. Britain's effective, efficient agricultural sector receives virtually nothing from the scheme, which ploughs the money of the British taxpayer into the coffers of French farmers, presumably to help pay for the placards and strike funds. It is also extremely detrimental to those third world countries looking to export agricultural produce. Allow African nations free access to global markets, and you negate the need to throw aid money into the pockets of their dictators.

Even with the rebate, the UK is still a 'net payer' into the EU, to the tune of 2.8billion Euros per annum. This means that those working hard, and paying tax, in the UK, are seeing their cash go to Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, all of whom get out more than they put in.

Peter Mandelson, whose unwelcome return to politics has thus far passed happily unnoticed, has urged Britain to give up the rebate, in order to 'subsidise' the poorer countries of the EU. How very different a political approach from that of Lady Thatcher in 1984. She famously won the rebate for Britain by thrusting her handbag in the face of a Eurocrat, demanding "I want my money back".

British voters are entitled to ask why their money should 'subsidise' other EU states. We are not talking Ethiopia here, but Spain, Greece and Ireland, countries that should really be able to stand on their own two feet.

Europe's attitude to Britain is hypocritical in the extreme, cattily sceptical about "l'Europe Anglaise" with a culture of hard work and freedom in hiring and firing, whilst proffering their begging bowls at Gordon Brown to help prop up their own failed social models.

British taxpayers must demand that their money is protected. If not, we should begin steps to leave the decrepit, wasteful EU before it begins admitting more economically struggling states that we are expected to pay for.

 

 

The Conservative Party has an impressive recent tradition of making a mountain out of a molehill, a wave from a calm sea, or a murky scandal from a back-to-basics campaign.

They have managed to do it again with the ill-advised chuntering that currently surrounds the leadership. Michael Howard, who attained the position in an almost ethereal bloodless coup, has left the party in rather a mess. Here is the first leader since Thatcher not to be irretrievably enmeshed in internal squabbling over Europe, a leader who, in last month's election, made the best of a pretty thankless task.

Swept by emotion and the rather glamorous vision of falling on his sword, Michael Howard deemed that "failure would not be tolerated", and announced his decision to step down from the leadership in due course. He cited his age at the next election as a stumbling block, something which has not stopped the even more aged Kenneth Clarke from licking his jowls at the prospect of another run.

Michael Howard has left the parpty with two major problems of succession. Firstly, the rather unseemly mess concerning the means of electing a leader. Taking the decision away from the purple-rinsed rank and file is unquestionably an admirable, and necessary decision. However, surely it could have been done in a way that appears less liked a deliberate attempt to damage the chances of the great darling of the membership, David Davis. Moreover, the proposed new system is a byzantine mess of appearing to make concessions to the membership whilst giving the final say to the Parliamentary Party. In short, everybody gets what the MPs want.

Secondly, Mr Howard has perhaps curiously elected to leave at a time when the clear natural successor is David Davis, a man for whom he has little time. The party finds itself in a curious sort of interregnum at present. The last of the great 'beasts', Howard, Ancram, Clarke and Rifkind are entering the twilight of there careers, whilst the Young Turks of Osbourne and Cameron are surely still too inexperienced. This leaves a somewhat brief and decidedly uninspiring list of contenders to lead the party into the critical election of 2010.

The viable contenders to me appear to be:-

David Davis. The shadow Home Secretary is clearly in the lead, as he has comparatively high approval ratings (he is adored by the rank-and-file) and is widely thought to be the next in line. His council estate, SAS-reservist background should play rather better with the nation than Wing-Commander Duncan Smith ever did. His tendency to be rather more candid than is absolutely necessary will delight political writers; whether his comments play as folksy charm or dangerous extremism could ultimately decide whether he ever leads the country. On the downside, he is a man considerably less popular with those who know him than those who do not, and his procrastinating over formally announcing a leadership bid will annoy those who dislike postponing the inevitable.

David Cameron. His second-favourite staus is testament to the lack of viable competition for Davis. Cameron has shot through the ranks of the party since working on Lady Thatcher's PMQs team, and has an exceptional record of managing large-scale policy projects. However, he has almost no media profile, is unheard of on the streets and is a rather uninspiring orator. The younger and more immediately personable George Osbourne will be a better contender, possibly in five years time.

Andrew Lansley. Lansley is a somewhat curious candidate. An opponent of the Iraq war, and a former supporter of Kenneth Clarke despite his own Euroscepticism. Lansley was a key architect of both the pyrrhic 1992 election victory, and the catastrophic defeat of William Hague in 2001. Lansley is one of those eager-to-please types who will not annoy anyone, but ultimately surely lacks the weight to be party leader.

Kenneth Clarke. Once again the spectre of a Clarke leadership challenge haunts the Eurosceptic wing of the party. No spring chicken, and lacking the high public profile he enjoyed five years ago, it is hard to see from where the momentum for a Clarke run will come. There is little doubt that Clarke is the candidate with the most appeal to non-Tory voters. But at a time when referendums over the EU constitution and Single Currency accession loom, will the party sacrifice their sympathy with majority public opinion on these issues?

Others. Tim Yeo will probably run, at a safe distance in years from his architecture of the exceedingly unfortunate 'back to basics' campaign. Liberal, pro-drugs homosexual Alan Duncan will surely be a political genius to overcome these massive obstacles to mount a serious challenge. Both Liam Fox and Sir Malcolm Rifkind may run on the basis of it being their only real chance at the post.

The party, enjoying a newly found unity, must not throw it away with the loss of Michael Howard. David Davis must be given his chance to take the party forward on a strongly populist, right-of-centre agenda. His leadership will coincide with the Tories in the recently unprecedented position of having public opinion on their side on major issues. Europe looms large in this Parliament. Immigration (like illegal immigrants) simply will not go away. Davis should, and will, be presented with the leadership at an ideal time. How he uses it will be his legacy.

 

 

Welcome, and many thanks for visiting.

I have finally decided to join the twenty-first century, and share my inconsequential thoughts and opinions with anyone who might be interested!

 

Hopefully this site will host some deep and meaningful political commentary. And probably quite a bit about cricket, too.