CentreRight

The mainstream media has finally caught up with the internet on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty, with The Times leading ‘Dismay for David Cameron as Vaclav Klaus relents on Lisbon treaty’. I must admit disappointment when I saw the headline, despite my article yesterday exploring options for Plan B as we must face facts that the Czech President holding out until after our election is increasingly unlikely. But is it?

President Klaus is a man who has a track record of keeping people guessing, and his recent statements from the latest “unstoppable train” analogy to the earlier “don’t worry, I won’t [sign the Lisbon Treaty]” have certainly kept us hanging on his every word. Quite frankly, he’s loving it. And knowing that he is personally opposed to the Treaty, and knows by holding out he can stop it, why on Earth would he sign?

People talk of pressure and threats from other European leaders, President Sarkozy is particularly belligerent, but what can they do? As far as I can see the most they can do is demean themselves by being rude in public, or ring him up every day to nag only for his secretary to say that he’s out meeting his fans. The idea of sanctions on the Czech Republic would hardly do the EU’s image any favours in the Czech Republic or elsewhere, would only stiffen resolve, and is probably illegal.

The only reason I can see is fear of damaging the Czech Republic’s image and standing; Klaus is a good patriot and is not likely to do anything he feels would damage his country. But equally he knows that the Lisbon Treaty is wrong, and far more permanent than his national PR. Indeed in many eyes he has raised his and his country’s standing – everyone is watching a country of just 10 million and he has the chance to be an international icon.

The Czech public too back him. According to the recent survey about 65% of Czech Citizens support their President in his resistance against the Lisbon Treaty and 74% of the Czech population do not want Mr Klaus to resign from his office if he does not sign the treaty. A public rally opposing the Treaty is scheduled in Prague for 27th and 28th October. Pressure is building from the public to hold out (people anywhere can join the Facebook group, sign the petition, email President Klaus' office or write a letter - which I urge you to do).

So will he sign? Yesterday I thought so, today I think not. Vaclav Klaus has too much principle and too much to gain by not signing – let us hope anyway…

Having just days ago assured us that he wouldn't sign, it now looks as if President Klaus - the last man between us and the beginnings of a fully fledged European government - has caved in to the bullying of Eurofanatics and will now sign the Lisbon Treaty. The Czech President, whom I hope changes his mind again and delays signing until the Treaty can be defeated at a British ballot box, was on the verge of becoming an icon among Eurosceptics here in Britain. That iconic status and defiant place in history could still be his - and no doubt a good retirement of lecture tours - if he holds out for the likely 200 days until a May election; but we must face facts that this is increasingly unlikely and now prepare a Plan B.

What exactly is it to not let matters rest? Now the first and most simple answer is for an "in/out referendum". I would be termed a Eurosceptic but would rather label myself a Liberal Nationalist - I support self-determination and do not believe in any decision being made above the level of the nation state, without the full approval of that state, as the nation is the only unit we can really call democratic. Decisions can only be democratic if those involved have a sense of shared belonging, of being one people, of being a single "demos". Consequently I do not support the European Union, being made up as it is of numerous diverse (and brilliant) nations; however I do not support a referendum being established on the grounds of "in or out" - because we'd lose.

We - by which I mean those favouring the nation states over the superstate and thus voting for "out" - wouldn't lose because people support integration, because they don't, with polls showing only about 10% wanting more integration. We'd lose because "out" means change, and usually people shift during referendum campaigns to favour the "safe" status-quo to such an extent that it's regarded as neccessary to have a 60:40 margin in polls at the beginning in order to have a good chance of securing change - a fact compounded by the tendency of Europhiles to claim credit for everything and blame for nothing (i.e. lie). It would become a farce of "X many jobs depend on trade with Europe", "Europe helps the planet" and most insultingly "Europe has brought peace" - as if "Europe" and "the EU" are one and the same thing and that we would all descend overnight into trade blocking, Poland invading, tyre burning nutcases planning to start World War 3 because no-one from the European Commission told us not to sell curved cucumbers. It's rubbish, but they'd win.

The second option is a renegotiation. This isn't really ideal as it would take forever, sour relations, be as boring as watching paint dry, and whatever we gained - and it wouldn't be much, probably more a gesture really - would only be given away again by a future Labour government (of which I'm certain there will sadly be).

Really we need the first option of an "in/out referendum - I'm purposely ignorring the third option of accepting Lisbon as just too awful to contemplate - but without the "out" part. Basically we need to do what we should have been doing since the idea of a political Europe first started: proposing an alternative. If we can frame it as a question of being in the European Union or an alternative European Alliance, we could be onto something.

What a coincidentally apt place the great City of Manchester is for this year’s Party Conference. We know the City today for its regeneration, glut of apartments, nearby Coronation Street, and a vague notion of an industrial glory built upon mills and factories long since passed. But Manchester is also a place of political importance – not for its swing seats or memorable televised election moments but a breed of capitalism which became known as Manchesterism. How many cities can boast of having their own ideological –ism?

Most of us in the South associate “the North” politically as a left-leaning Labour heartland, but the history of Manchesterism serves to remind us that this was not always the case. There was a time when free trade and capitalism were the cause of the disadvantaged and working class, the theories of Adam Smith et al articulated in a way that emphasises the wealth creation and spreading of prosperity, the power of capitalism as a rising tide to lift all [willing/able] ships. This is Manchesterism.

Free trade liberalism, from an obscurity discussed only in the fringe of academic circles by men such as John Mill – a fact not aided by John Mill’s choice of title for his 1805 book on the subject, “An Essay on the Impolicy of a Bounty on the Exploration of Grain” – went on to become the dominant force and prevailing view, enabling Britain’s rapid industrial growth, economic development and social progress under the reign of Victoria. To paraphrase Churchill, who was coincidentally elected as Liberal MP for Manchester Northwest in 1908 on the free trade, it became the healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon.

Manchesterism came about from the economic crisis exasperated by the Corn Laws, and having been through the recent economic crisis the central principles of the old Manchesterism – free trade, minimal state, individual liberty – are vital once more to our recovery.

The rise of “Manchesterism” in the 19th Century shows that the right vision of liberal capitalism – at the right time – can cause a realignment of generational scale. So whilst in Manchester take a walk to Peter Street where the Anti-Corn Law League first met on the site of the magnificent Free Trade Hall – now a hotel – which I understand is the only public building in Britain named after a principle rather than a person or place. We need to rearticulate liberal-conservatism just as those same principles were rearticulated here nearly two centuries ago, so we’ve come to the right place…

* * * * *

I unfortunately won’t be at what is set to become the most important Party Conference in a generation, but I would like to wish all my CH CentreRight readers attending the event a very happy conference.

Here's a break from the coverage of tumbleweed blowing around the Labour Conference in the form of a quick quiz. The question: who pointed out that Britain's NHS isn't the envy of the World but actually the worst health service in Western Europe and gave the following quote...

"As the Netherlands is expanding its lead among the best performing countries [on healthcare], the index indicates that the Dutch might have found a successful approach. [The secret of their success is that they] combine competition for funding and provision within a regulated framework. There are information tools to support active choice among consumers. The Netherlands have started working on patient empowerment early, which now clearly pays off in many areas. And politicians and bureaucrats are comparatively far removed from operative decisions on delivery of Dutch healthcare services...forward-looking governments start using healthcare information and choice to engage patients in the decision-making, building a pressure from below for improvement."

Such a quote and painful league table - Britain placed 14th in Europe, lowest in Western Europe - is usually dismissed with a smear against the person who dared to question the national religion, who dared to deny the wonder of the NHS or failed to declare unquestioning love of it. Who could say such a thing and compare the NHS to that of 15th placed Slovenia? Must be some crazed head banger bent on profiteering from illness or denying care to "the poor", keen to bring in the feared "competition" and "choice" to "break up" the NHS. Was it Dan Hannan? Was it the Reform think tank? Was it me?

Or was it someone completely different.

There is a scene in the BBC series “Cambridge Spies” in which during their defection to the Soviet Union one of the Cambridge spy ring – I forget which now – states that if he had to choose between betraying his friends or betraying his country, he would hope to always choose the latter. The scene came to mind when I heard that President Obama had decided to abandon the missile defence shield planned for construction in Poland and the Czech Republic; here was a man who had managed to betray both his friends and his country, again to the delight of Russia.

The decision is one that has been expected for a long time. In February it was known that the missile interceptors were on the table for abandonment, and during the US Presidential election this had been mentioned. By entering into appeasement politics and no doubt negotiations Obama has once again used the Czech Republic and particularly Poland as sacrifices in his game of Russian appeasement; pawns to their rooks. A cruel betrayal – for both the Czech Republic and Poland certainly acted courageously in agreeing to host the defences – made all the crueller and more inept by Obama’s timing: 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded the latter as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany and begun its half century of hell.

But to characterise this as a betrayal of the Czech Republic and Poland would be to tell less than half the story. Obama’s actions have betrayed all of Europe – East and West – as well as the United States. Though ostensibly the missile shield was to protect against Iran – hence the ‘new evidence’ of Iranian focus on short/medium range missiles only* – it patently wasn’t. I know it was to protect against Russia, you know it was to protect against Russia, Obama knows it was to protect against Russia, the Russians know it was to protect against Russia, everyone knows it was to protect against Russia – that’s why it was to be located where it was and why Russia disliked it so much!

As Michael Boyle wrote in The Guardian, “The missile shield plan of the Bush administration held out the hope of absolute protection from attack against the US and its allies…which, if realised, would have called into question the strategic defence balance in Europe.” He strangely however seems to think tilting the balance in our favour, of free liberal democracy, and offering protection from destruction would be a bad thing. I certainly don’t!

Last night a truly special event took place in the heart of London and across the country, televised and broadcast to millions, and symbolic in a unique way of what makes Britain so great. For some the Last Night of the Proms is pure jingoism and over-zealous nationalism, for some lovers of classical music it is an embarassing festival of eccentric silliness that degrades the whole genre, but in reality it is the fact that it is in a way a little of each - both patriotic and slightly silly - that makes it so great, so British, and so symbolic of what makes Britain great. We know Britannia no longer rules the waves and to say so is a bit silly, but we're still going to sing it because we don't care that it isn't exactly true, and as proof that we don't care there's a lady in the third row dressed as a Viking and the opera singer leading the show is dressed as Nelson, to say nothing of the vacuum cleaners of earlier in the evening. We are proud of our country, but aren't arrogant with it, and the fact that we aren't affraid to laugh at ourselves and be slightly eccentric or silly is proof - and that is something both very British, and very great. The politically correct people who would like to dismantle all forms of patriotism and the purists who feel the whole thing too embarassing shall not stop us, because as the song says, Britons never shall be slaves - to them or any other. * * * * * On the theme of the Last Night of the Proms, and what seemed to me a year with rather less "Land of Hope and Glory" than usual and of course no "Fantasia of Sea Shanties", I got thinking what other music symbolises our country and what else would be nice to hear on the Last Night. "Rule, Britannia!" for me is great but a bit showy, I tend to prefer the less militaristic and more romantic "Land of Hope and Glory" with its assertation of the freedom that is the true spirit of this nation and of course "Jerusalem", with its love of our countryside and fight for a better tomorrow. But for me the favourite has to be the serviceful "I Vow To Thee My Country", which combines the rural romanticism of Jerusalem with the love of country and service to it ("all other things aside") that - shown by so many over the years - enables us not only to freely dress up in daft outfits or wave flags each year but truthfully sing of our great "...land of the free".

The recent plans by one-fifth of councils to end election night counts in favour of next day counts has met considerable hostility from political enthusiasts, and it's easy to understand why. The present election night system - traditional since the widespread adoption of television - works well and the prospect of 'not knowing' potentially until the following afternoon would be dreadful. The nation would be in limbo, the markets would suffer, and a day of idle speculation by every talking head in Britain would drive us all mad.

Election Night is not only a slightly unusual way of recording history and changing attitudes for future generations to watch back on BBC Parliament, and a surreal tour of the country in which you only visit town halls and sports centres with television personalities long since retired from the normal less-stretched demands of the networks (many of whom you thought died long ago), but also the one piece of political television many people watch. Election Night 2005 on BBC One from 9.55pm-2.00am) was watched by six million people at its peak, with an average of 4.3 million. A total of 14.9 million viewers watched some of the BBC’s coverage that night. More still watched ITV and Sky. And as Election Night covers that all important concept of democratic change - kicking the rascals out - it is without doubt the most important as an educational tool. Switching from the watchable four hours to a split, painfully long marathon would be like axing 20/20 cricket for an all day and all night Test Series.

Plans proposed today by Network Rail for a £34 billion new rail line between London and Edinburgh, also linking Heathrow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow to the capital and Channel Tunnel Rail Link, should be welcomed with a mix of enthusiasm and disappointment. Enthusiasm because evidently it has been realised that such infrastructure is both needed and beneficial, and disappointment because it shows a decidedly 20th Century view of the railways.

The plans have been framed as a way of rivalling domestic air travel, indeed the proposed routes (see diagram) are specifically designed with such an aim, linking city centre to city centre. The proposed route would indeed be attractive to current domestic air passengers (it would do Birmingham in 46 minutes, Manchester in 1 hour 6 minutes, Liverpool in 1 hour 23 minutes and Edinburgh in 2 hours 9 minutes, and mean no airport hassles), but so would any decent North-South rail link. To devise a line with this trade foremost in mind, indeed solely in mind, misses the massive potential of such a construction – to compete with the roads.

Now I am a firm believer that, for long distance travel, you can never compete with the roads. Unless the train station is walking, tube or reasonable taxi distance from your destination, even those of us sympathetic to the railways and who enjoy rail travel will reach for the car keys. It’s a no brainer – it’s door to door.

But if you can’t beat them, why not join them?

I don't often differ wildly from the ConservativeHome editorial line. I don't often stray too far from the mainstream views of Conservative members, save being a bit more obsessive than most about individual liberty and a tad more open to reform. But on this rare occasion I must disagree with 63% of you and support David Cameron's plans to "ring fence" NHS spending and continue to increase it at an above inflation rate.

You see it's not because I believe savings cannot be made in the NHS without directly cutting services. Savings can be made, lots. Billions upon billions. Local pay deals, better contracting, an end to Labour's bizarre management style and the introduction of more business like management - with greater use of the private sector - would and indeed will save a fortune. But all such savings will soon be gobbled up by the benign but extremely hungry health monster. New drugs, new treatmments, and an ever greater need for staff to administer these life saving marvels will be compounded by the aging population.

As more and more people live longer lives, and as more and more people live years on medication - perhaps from childhood in some cases, middle age in many more - the costs will continue to tick up. Here we are not alone, America - which spends 15.6% of its GDP on healthcare compared to our 8.3% (2005 figures) - expects to spend one-fifth of GDP on healthcare by 2018. Hopes of returning money from the healthcare budget to taxpayers or using it to partly plug the budget black hole just aren't realistic, and we'd be both fooling ourselves and worrying voters if we banked on it even as an option. In healthcare we must at least walk briskly to stay still.

As the dust settles on surely the silliest silly season story ever – Dan Hannan on Health, henceforth known as Dangate – the silver lining of that bizarre storm may well be arriving.

President Obama I understand has a motto. Whilst Gordon Brown adopted the rather hollow self-satisfied one of his alma mater – “usque conabor” [I try my utmost] – when he became Prime Minister, Obama’s is more a piece of practical advice: “Never waste a crisis”.

It’s a good rule to follow, for in this week of outrageous headlines and Labour lunacy a strange if stormy planetary alignment occurred in the political solar system that is a very rare occurrence indeed. Healthcare was not only the main issue in political saliency but it was in an international perspective – where the UK performs poorly, especially in comparison to Europe – and, to top it all off, the ruling party was showing a shocking level of complacency, arrogance, and – quite frankly – utter delusion.

Although it is later than I would have advised, the big speech expected will hopefully take advantage of this so called crisis.

Not only is it an opportunity to emphasise the fact the NHS is rightly a priority of the party and how this is a change from the “old”; it is more importantly a chance to cast Labour as the out dated, old fashioned and the [in the anti-reform sense] “forces of conservatism”, with the Conservatives as the modernising, fresh and reformist “progressives” of the show.

After all, we have seen Labour nail their colours firmly to the zero reform flagpole with a “my country, right or wrong” attitude to healthcare policy. Opposition to reform can never be progressive, can it? With statistics such as National Health Service patients being four times more likely to die than Americans in surgery, Cancer survival rates in Britain being among the lowest in Europe, and stories such as ‘Woman gives birth on pavement after being refused ambulance', their healthcare patriotism can be ridiculed.

The cause of Change can be easily made, all we need to do is make it.

And “Change”, as we know, is a very powerful message...

Forget swine flu. Forget bird flu. Forget SARS. Forget salmonela in your eggs and every other Daily Mail panic you can think of. A new highly contagous syndrome is spreading fast. Symptoms are distinct. Patients become convinced to the point of dellusion at times that they, their family, their friends and many others "owe" their lives to a body they refer to with the anacronym "N-H-S", which they believe is the "envy of the World", and that anyone who does not share their unquestioning "love" of this "N-H-S" by Tweeting #welovethenhs and praising its every last action is a dangerous heretic bent on denying healthcare to millions.

Every kind action of a nurse or doctor is not attributed to that individual as a human being but instead to the all mighty NHS, and every criticism of the NHS spun as a personal attack upon those same good staff who's kindness, caring and human goodness the monolithic institution hides behind and claims as its own. The NHS is the national religion, as I believe Lawson called it, and all who complain in any way, or propose improvement, or offer constructive critique, or don't profess their "love" of this particular anacronym, are branded heretics. I guess I'm a heretic.

But like many people branded as heretics, I have its best interests at heart, that's why I criticise. I believe in universal healthcare. I believe everyone should get the treatment they need. I believe in high quality healthcare for all. I believe only the best is good enough. I believe these things strongly, but the NHS isn't these things, and I do not love it.

There are many things that can be held as testimony of the desperation of this Labour government – the repeated returns of Peter Mandelson, for one – but the biggest one to me is the appointment of celebrity businessman Alan Sugar as their chief business advisor, the so called “Enterprise Tsar”.

The decision now of Siralan – surely the first man in history to have his title and name merge portmanteau like into something that sounds like an alien species from Doctor Who – to sue Quentin Letts personally for calling him “a dipstick…wally” and “not having an enormous intellect” has been rightly condemned. Journalists and Editors must not be afraid to criticise and make fun, and those in the public eye must be grown up about these things.

Sugar certainly dishes out some particularly personal spite in the most bullying of ways, so it’s a bit much for him to now claim to be some kind of delicate flower.

For the Conservatives however there may be much to gain. Much has been said of how Sugar didn’t seem to understand what being a peer entailed etc, but there’s more than that. Sugar has nailed his colours to a very welcoming Labour Party, but those colours aren’t as pro-enterprise and conducive to business as they think. If the press begin examining the allegations of Letts and the claims of Sugar then this could soon become very damaging.

Now Alan Sugar has been hugely successful, no one is knocking him that way, but so have lots of people. He is in no way qualified to claim the title of the nation’s top business guru as he largely has. Quite the contrary in fact, which no doubt partly explains why Quentin Letts decided to label him as he did.

One of the few things that have definitely improved over the last few years is the recognition of our troops via the revival of homecoming parades. A well deserved moment of pride over a job well done (as ever), loved one’s relief after a safe return, of joy for families reunited. A chance for family, friends and the wider community to show their support, belief and thanks to a military that has always been there for us even though we haven’t all always been there for them.

But all too often someone or several are missing from the festivities.

British forces have seen some of the fiercest fighting since the Second World War in the all too aptly named Helmand province of Afghanistan, and the toll has been high. Each soldier missing from the homecoming parade lines is a son, brother, and often Father lost from a family. Each family missing from the cheering crowds is a family that will forever henceforth be incomplete.

Their deaths get a brief mention on the evening news, a few words of condolence at the dispatch box, before joining the regiment of statistics.