It is curious that Baroness Warsi left her resignation until the very day when the UK’s policy of working with the UN, Egypt and the USA to secure a ceasefire and peace talks over Gaza  finally appears to have achieved something. It is also curious that she delayed resigning over seeking stronger language and a tougher policy until the PM had backed the UN’s condemnation of the attack on the school, had warned Israel not to use disproportionate force and had started a review of arms sales.

The background to her resignation is clearer if you read her whole letter of resignation. It is a letter about her friends and relationships in government, as much as it is about the horrors of Gaza. She is as critical of Mr Cameron’s recent reshuffle, as she is of his words on Gaza.

The letter says  “In many ways the absence of the experience and expertise of colleagues like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve has over the last few weeks become very apparent”. She praises Mr Hague and says ” He dismantled  foreign  policy making by  sofa government and restored decision making and dignity to the Foreign Office. There is however great unease across the Foreign Office, amongst both Ministers and senior officials, in the way recent decisions are being made”.

In other words, the Baroness seems to say she does not like the new tone of foreign policy based on a clearer view of the UK’s interests and on Mr Hammond’s excellent proposal that it should be a British office, explaining the UK to the rest of the world and pursuing British interests, more than a foreign office explaining the ways of abroad and especially the EU to us.

I disagree strongly with these criticisms of Mr Cameron’s reshuffle. I did not think Ken Clarke was making our EU policy, but many outside government thought he was so his departure clarifies that. I do think we need as a Foreign Secretary someone prepared to say we have to leave the EU if no satisfactory new relationship is forthcoming, something Mr Hague never ventured. I do think we need to sort out the question of the UK’s relationship to the European courts, where Mr Grieve was a faithful adviser who seemed  fatalistically to accept their power.

Baroness Warsi has muddled her resignation by its timing over Gaza. More importantly, by criticising a good shift in the way government works and thinks on the mighty issue of Europe, she has put herself at odds with many Conservatives on an issue that detracts from her stance and focus on the Middle East.

 

Yesterday I sought to draw a few lessons from the brutal history of the twentieth century. I concluded that the UK had fought two wars to settle the borders of Europe in the twentieth century, commencing both wars without the major army it would take to do the job. The result was very long and deeply damaging wars with massive loss of life. The peace negotiated after the first is often blamed and was certainly a contributory factor to the rise of German aggressive nationalism that triggered the second conflict.

It reminds us that there are limits to what you can expect a rich medium sized country to achieve by force of arms, however great the injustice you wish to put right. It also reminds us that diplomacy and a good peace settlement  are vital to a successful outcome, even where you have achieved a major military victory at great cost.

The UK defence budget has been cut too much. It has been one of the few Whitehall budgets subject to continuous cuts in real terms under Labour and under the Coalition. The accent of UK defence spending should be on air and naval capability that can both protect the home islands and provide a way of projecting power overseas when needed. The UK should retain an expeditionary capability. Whilst I think we have fought far too many wars in the last thirty years, we did need to liberate the Falklands, and I think we were right to help the international alliance to liberate Kuwait.

Now we have committed to aircraft carriers, we need to back them with the aircraft they need and the support vessels a carrier led squadron fleet requires. The UK can develop planes and drone technology in  the interests of home defence, and better targeted intervention or deterrence.

I do not agree with contributors here who wish us to quit our seat on the UN Security Council. The UK should be willing to contribute to UN led initiatives. These can be judged on a case by case basis. The UK is still an important economic and military power, and should be part of the discussions and negotiations that form the view of the international community on major conflicts and tensions. There are times when the UK can and should use the force it does have to assist the UN’s mission.

The outcomes in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq should make us much more  careful before committing forces in the future in the elusive search for democracy and peace in the Middle East. We have intervened too 0ften in cases where there is no  military solution, or in places where we do not have sufficient force and enough personnel to do the job.

 

The mass slaughter on a new industrial scale in the 1914-18 war has haunted me from my childhood days. From an early  age I was aware of the long shadow of all those deaths. As a young boy I skirted the remaining stark bomb sites of my home city of Canterbury and asked how they came about. I gradually discovered the dreadful truth that twice the UK had been plunged into long and terrible wars, the second in a way following on from the failures of the peace imposed after the first.

All  our families have been scarred by these events. My family was relatively lucky. One grandfather survived army service on the western front unscathed, and the other came home  after a bad wound and recovered.  Many lost sons and brothers in the First World War as the carnage in Belgium went on for four years. All were promised that the First World War would be the war to end all wars. Instead it was the great European war that led inexorably to another.

Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, famously said  100 years ago “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime”. It was a strange statement from a man participating in a mighty and fateful decision for our country. It was certainly true that Europe entered an era of darkness and mass killing. It was not true that the lamps would remain unlit for  that generation. The advent  of much new technology and private enterprise progress meant that the 1920s did put the lights on again.

Today is a day to remember all those who died in that long and brutal conflict, and to honour their memory. Now all the combatants are dead including all those spared unnatural slaughter, it is also time to ask was it the right thing to do? What can we learn about the conduct of diplomacy and the relationships of nations to nations that means we might benefit from their tragedies?

The UK declared war on Germany. She did so to protect the neutrality of Belgium. Germany responded to the UK’s ultimatum to Germany to leave Belgium alone by saying that Germany would send an army to France through Belgium but would not annex any Belgium territory. The UK government, instead of working on that weasel message, declared war in default of a complete promise not to send troops onto Belgium soil on any pretext.

The UK committed herself to huge land war without in the first instance having the army to fight it. She could bottle up the German surface  fleet, but still had great difficulties at sea dealing with the submarine menace. It is difficult to see how it was in the UK’s national  interest to put so much at risk when the UK could not protect Belgium. It took many months before the UK could recruit, train and develop enough men to have a chance of winning in conjunction with her allies.

I fear that the UK’s decision to go to war in 1914 was another example of the fatal attraction of the continent to UK politicians. That time it cost us so many lives, destroyed so much wealth and peaceful purpose, and left a Europe less capable of withstanding the ideological evils of Nazism and Soviet communism.  The warning to us is surely to be more careful about our European involvements. The UK is a nation of islands, whose destiny lies in free trade, fair exchange and cultural involvement with the wider world, not just Europe. The UK has not in the past usually been able to remodel the map of Europe for the  better.

In the twentieth century the UK did not recruit, train and equip a mighty army to control the borders of Europe and the actions of other European powers. Her decision to fight two wars against German aggression forced her to expand, equip  and train armies once the war had started, and to seek allies with more powerful land forces to enable eventual victory to be won.In 1914 the first battle of Mons was a difficult rearguard action for a small army outnumbered by its foes. In 1940 the British army had to retreat in haste from Dunkirk, as it was overwhelmed by massively stronger forces.

The UK did have the means to defend these islands, by basing her peacetime defence preparations on naval and air power. In 1914-18 these were so large that they were never directly tested. In the battle of Britain in the second world war  the margin was uncomfortably small but just sufficient for victory.

These experiences should remind politicians that we should only expect our armed forces to carry out tasks away from home that they have a good chance of being able to do successfully, because they have the people, the equipment and the training to do so. Our prime defence spending should be on ensuring our home islands are always safe from aggression. One of the many sadnesses about the conduct of the First World War  is why the UK high command, who had been thinking about a war against  Germany for some time, had done so little to prepare and expand our army for the scale and nature of the conflict that lay ahead.

 

 

England today confirm a comfortable victory, with 58 gold medals and 169 medals in total. Australia are in second place with 45 golds and 132 medals overall. Even the BBC had to say the word “England” this morning. That’s quite a break through, given their usual wish to ignore, regionalise and belittle  our country.

Congratulations to all our competitors. It was a fine team performance, with many outstanding individual contributions.

 

The traditional view of the English village is one of a community with a Church, a pub, a Post Office and a Community Hall at its heart. This pattern was also  reflected in many twentieth century urban areas. Some great cities grew by spreading development into villages and hamlets nearby that already had these features at their core. Other new communities were added to edges of settlements with these community centres as part of the new design. Many people still support this idea of the 1930s/ 1950s village as the best way to organise communities. Any threat to a pub or Post Office is usually resisted strongly by a protest group, on the grounds that these are central institutions which can  strengthen and stimulate community life.

In reality communities are changing and modernising in ways which affect and modify this traditional view of community. In many places Anglican Church attendance has fallen substantially, to the point where most locals do not attend the Church for any normal service, let alone regularly. Many Post Offices have been closed, abandoned as government moves to cheaper more modern ways of distributing pensions and  benefits, taxing motorists  and providing services and as email replaces letters. There have been widespread pub closures, as the old pattern of men going down the pub after work to drink has been replaced by more domestic lifestyles and cheaper drinking at home.

In their place new ways of creating community have sprung into life. The coffee shop has made a great come back, reflecting some of its eighteenth century vitality as a place to go to talk to family and friends, and to meet others. The internet has created new online communities through Facebook and websites. Sports clubs, gym style classes and other keep fit activities in both public and private sectors have become part of the way people meet each 0ther and do something together. Religions other than the Anglican have built their own facilities and recruited more members. The local supermarkets also 0ften play an important role in letting people meet and talk, and backing local charities, schools and good causes. Schools continue to provide an important focus of community activity, drawing parents together who have at least one thing in common, children of a certain age. Some pubs adapt very well, becoming restaurants or offering other services and entertainments as well as places for drinks.

I am all for  the pub, the Church or the Post Office. They can and in many cases still do provide a community with some social focus and are valued services. We need to recognise, however, that they only fulfil this role if they are well supported and the local community uses them frequently. Meanwhile we also need to understand that many people today do not go to queue in the Post Office to meet new friends, nor expect the Post Office counter assistant to update them on local news. They may well find the coffee shop, the local webpages and the sport club more important ways of drawing them into their local area and mixing with more people.

In each case of a Post Office or pub closure we need to look at how much support it has and ask whether it can be a viable business. We also need to see what other ways there are for people to mix in their local communities, to meet, to greet, to do things together. Modern technology and changing lifestyles means there are many more.

 

The last few days have seen a  gripping struggle between England and Australia to win the most medals at the Commonwealth Games. For most of the time the BBC and some other media outlets have ignored this big story of the games, and have ignored many of the medal winners England has produced on main bulletins.

I am glad for Scotland, the organisers, that their team has done well and so far is fifth in overall medals won and fourth in golds. There are many individual performances in that result which produce justifiable pride.

In the main  battle for top slot, Australia have been dominant in the pool, winning 57 medals overall including 19 golds, to England’s 28 medals with 10 golds. More surprisingly Australia has also had a big victory in cycling, with 7 golds and 24 medals to England’s 5 golds and 11 medals in total.

England has had many successes. In terms of numbers of medals, it has been particularly strong in Athletics where so far it has won 11 more medals than Australia, in gymnastics, where it has 15 more medals, in Judo, with 9 more, and in shooting with 7 more.

Well done England.

 

Total medals won

 

England 149

Australia 126

Canada  76

India  55

Scotland  51

 

The UK has a long tradition of trading with the five continents of the world, of having state to state relationships with most countries, of seeking to improve understanding, communications and exchanges through substantial diplomatic activity. Much of the present day activity is designed to promote trade and cultural exchange with a large number of countries.

As a well armed member of the Security Council of the UN, with a substantial overseas aid programme, the UK also has a role in promoting and protecting the international peace and intervening against illegal seizures of power or the abuse of state force by others. The various interventions undertaken by the UK in conjunction with the US and others, often with UN support, in the Middle East in recent years have frequently proved contentious and have often been debated on this site.

We should not lose sight of the idea that foreign policy, backed by force you would rather not have to use, is in the first instance there to protect us and to advance our own country’s interests. If we look at the threats or challenges to the UK they do not primarily come from the Middle East, and they are not usually violent in nature. Many of them come from closer to home.

There are only two worrying challenges to our own family of territories – in the Falklands and in Gibraltar. It is true the Falklands did in the past involve military action to oust an Argentine invasion. Today the challenges to the British Falklands are diplomatic, based on challenges to trade, commerce, shipping and through  international fora. The challenge to Gibraltar comes from a fellow member of the EU, Spain. The issue is often used by Spain to complicate other negotiations going on about differing issues. The UK believes in the free determination of peoples. We have shown that in Scotland, offering the Scots a referendum on their national future. Gibraltar and the Falklands wish to remain with us and should be allowed to do so. If Spain wishes to show her belief in the free determination of people why does she not allow Catalonia a vote on their future? Why is Spain so keen to keep Ceuta, violating arguments she uses to advance her claim to Gibraltar?

The bigger challenges to our national interests come from EU common policies. For years the Common Fishing Policy has damaged both our fisheries and our fishing industry. The common energy policy is leaving us short of energy and pushing up energy prices in an uncompetitive way. The common policies followed in many other areas are also damaging to the UK’s interests. Many UK people dislike the common borders policy, the criminal justice policy and parts of the common foreign policy.  It is time to be thinking of these as a central preoccupation of foreign policy.

 

Ms Harman was disarmingly honest when she recently told a radio interviewer that she thinks people on middle incomes should contribute more through their taxes. So today I am looking at Labour’s various suggestions of who might pay more tax and how, inviting comment on these potential policies.

There is the Death tax, a levy on people’s estates to pay for care when elderly, which would be a surcharge on top of Inheritance Tax.

There is the homes Tax – or mansion tax – as an additional levy on dearer priced properties.

There is the idea of a higher rate of Corporation Tax on business.

There is the possibility of a Graduate Tax.

A rise in National Insurance  (a tax on jobs).

A resumption of Labour rises in  Fuel Duty.

A new tax on farms.

These taxes all represent ways of hitting those in the middle of the income scale as well as at the top. They are taxes on aspiration and hard work, taxes on achievement and prudence. Taxing business and employment more could get in the way of the jobs recovery we are now experiencing.

 

 

 

I have just had a week’s holiday and am back at work. I have asked the IT specialist who does the technical work for this site to improve the experience for posters, as I do not wish people to be told they are typing too quickly or to encounter technical restrictions.

I have also had a few complaints about not posting items. In some cases they are very long, so I leave these until I have enough time to read and consider them properly. Short postings should get posted more quickly.

In some cases delayed postings  make allegations about people or institutions that are not well based or might be difficult to prove. After consideration I may  just delete these now rather than try and edit them. That can help the poster as well as me, as most well known people these days have systems to pick up potential libels whoever writes them.  I apply this rule to anyone, offering protection to Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP representatives as well as Conservatives. I also may delete a posting where it relies mainly on a citation to someone else’s website which I have not read or do not know. It is easier for me and for other readers if you summarise what you like about some other web commentary in your response.

 

PS The problem should now be fixed – apparently automatic downloads of improved software to impede attacks on the site caused the problem and have now been amended.

PPS  I note that the cycling piece has now attracted a well above average number of replies, so those who say it was not an important issue and unworthy of attention  need to understand that others disagree.

 

The reports from Gaza and Israel in recent days have been harrowing. The US is seeking a ceasefire by both sides. This is proving difficult to agree and enforce, given the very different views of the crisis taken by the combatants. The UN too, with UK support, would like to achieve a ceasefire. There are many offers of help to broker a peace, but it will require changes of stance by both sides to end the violence and get around the table to discuss the deep rooted problems of the area.

I receive emails from supporters of the Palestinians and from supporters of Israel urging the UK to do more to create conditions for a peaceful settlement. I understand the strong feelings the current bloodshed is generating, but it is difficult to see what more the UK can do to bring about change. The advice I receive of course differs depending on which side the person writing supports.  There are limits to what foreign policy can do. People on the ground have to want to change the way things happen. The UK is stepping up its humanitarian aid in the meantime.