What are the viable options for Defence Policy?

Menzies Campbell is right to say "there are no easy options for the future of British defence policy – but there is no choice but change", in the Guardian today, and he makes some interesting and pertinent observations of current defence policy. However, for a politician, he is a little too reluctant to suggest in which direction that change should head; we can all highlight weaknesses, but politicians need to be a bit bolder when it comes to proposals.

There is, indeed, an incoherence in a defence policy that, on the one hand, knowingly underfunds key areas like housing, injury compensation and manning levels (units routinely break the 24 month harmony guidelines between operational tours) whilst, on the other, presiding over a defence budget that will never allow significant improvement in these areas. The conclusion from this is clear: we must either reduce commitments and capability or increase spending. I have mentioned before how strange is our willingness to underwrite £100 billion for Northern Rock whilst not finding an extra £5-10 billion for defence. After all, no-one died over Northern Rock, did they?

We should, also, be well past the understanding that "fighting on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan is unsustainable and threatens to break the back of the army". We know this because of what we hear in the Select Committee on Defence about planning assumptions: "In December 2003 the Revised Scales of Effort required the capability to mount, without overstretch, one medium and two small operations (the medium and one small being peace support operations, the other small being an intervention operation) but with the ability also to reconfigure rapidly to two medium and one small (where one of the mediums is an intervention operation)."

With Afghanistan and Iraq, we are firmly in the two medium and one small if you include other commitments in Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Falklands and more. Although we are pulling back in Iraq, there are still (May 2008) 4,000 troops in theatre. If anyone is unsure, this is still at least a brigade deployment. With only 8 operational brigades, including 3 Cdo Bde, I fail to see how we can sustain even 2 brigade deployments and remain within harmony guidelines. The implication is clear: we are over committed and our planning assumptions are not matched by defence capability. With 6 month tours and a need to have 24 months away from operations between tours, we clearly require 10 brigades, not 8. And this does not take into account the small scale operation.

In this, Menzies Campbell is surely right to notice that "it is the nation's most valuable defence asset – the men and women of the armed forces – who bear the brunt of these failures" and it is "strategy" that needs to be sorted out. All this is true but we are where we are, as they say.

On present structuring, we can maintain one brigade and one small scale operation or a single short term large scale deployment for about 6 months, and that is all. Therefore, until the Armed Forces gets bigger, we should never, ever have agreed to increase commitment in Afghanistan whilst we were still in Iraq. that we did, is symptomatic of the weakness of our political masters who cannot bear to be seen weak in refusing to "punch above our weight"; surely one of the most conceited political slogan of recent times.

The four options he highlights are all, indeed, pertinent:

1. Carry on as we are. He is right to rule this out. Our current attitude and posture is unsustainable and has been since SDR first came into effect.
2. Increase defence spending to bring capability in line with SDR assumptions. This option is indeed valid and if our politicians want to keep us committed, and we have to assume that they do, we must have more money spent on defence, especially on increasing the number of formations and procuring more and better equipment (vehicles and helicopters). "Is the British tax payer ready to pay that much more?", he asks. Well, they have not kicked up too much of a fuss over Northern Rock so why not and who seriously doubts that some efficiencies and spending reductions cannot be made elsewhere?
3. Stop liberal interventionism. This is the other viable option but one that is not going to happen. We are committed to NATO and NATO has decided it wants to do liberal interventionism. I see no politician that has the courage to stand up and advocate a change to NATO policy. They should, but they will not (at least in the near future). There is, also, uncertainty as to what liberal interventionism means. Did Iraq and Afghanistan fall under this description? I don't think they ever did but whilst politicians want to intervene in far away lands then it is necessary to equip the Armed Forces properly.
4. Reconfigure the Armed Forces to fight the wars of today. This is as ill advised as option 1. He makes a valid point that attack submarines, aircraft carriers and combat aircraft add little to military effectiveness in Afghanistan, but is he forgetting the grand standing of Miliband and Cameron over Russia and Georgia? The only operation we should be scaled for is warfighting; all else cascades from this posture. We need kinetic energy to defeat the most potent threats and it is easier to scale down than up. Anyone who argues otherwise is either an idiot or someone who has no understanding of war. The whole point of a deterrent is that it deters by demonstrating a capability and willingness, albeit reluctant, to fight the worst kind of war You would not want to be caught out without an "insurance policy" on your home so why suggest that we don't need it for our country?

The conclusion we must draw is that there are only two serious options on the table and we must in truth blend the two. First, we must spend more on defence capability that enables us to fight the type of wars our politicians seem to want to fight, and, second, we must think hard about the commitments we make. Who seriously thinks the USA actually needed us in the Iraq war? No-one. Bush even told Blair he could do without him but he decided to commit our troops anyway - whilst standing in for striking firemen, it should be said.

Politicians, Menzies Campbell included, have to get serious about defence. It is not a Westminster game but a serious business of life and death. And it is the best this country has to offer that are doing the dyeing. If they must commit troops, then they have a moral and political duty to see that they are best equipped for the job.

So Menzies, you have written a thoughtful and perceptive article but what we want to hear is not an outline of the issues but your proposal for a way forward. That is what you are in Parliament for.

Help for Heroes Rugby Challenge Match was a triumph in more ways than one

It is difficult to imagine that anyone who attended the Help for Heroes Rugby Challenge Match at Twickenham, today, could have left with anything other that a feeling of warm approval. Not only did the sun shine bright all day but the announcer reported that the event had raised a total of £1.1 million in aid of the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court. A fun day out and a sack load of cash for a superlative cause; what more could one want?

Although the 82,000 capacity ground was not sold out, there were over 52,000 people present, including The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. For those that know the layout of Twickenham, the entire ground tier and three sides of the middle tier were full. The South end of the middle tier, behind the posts, was left empty along with all of the top tier. But, this did not detract from an otherwise perfect day where the Help for Heroes XV ran out 29-10 winners against the International XV.

In the stands, there was clearly a large military contingent, past and present, considering the number of shirts brandishing Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force emblems. This was, of course, to be expected, but there were also a large number of plain old rugby fans, itching to see some legends run out onto the pitch just one more time. Lawrence Dallaglio, Martin Johnson, Jason Robinson and Will Greenwood were all there for the H4H XV, and Scott Gibbs, Kenny Logan, Colin Charvis and Shane Byrne provided the celebrity names for the International XV. Jonah Lomu would have, also, caused a stir if he had been able to take to the field; he had picked up an injury in training. A sprinkling of military players and youthful professionals completed the line ups.

One thing that strikes you on entering the stadium is how immaculate it is. The newly completed stadium has everything in its place and the pitch surface is as manicured as a Test Cricket outfield. To see a fully fledged international would be an awesome experience, the stadium being full to the rafters and the atmosphere electric with competition and civilised tribalism.

This particular game, however, exemplified the power of voluntary acts of support and welfare. Some have wondered why such an event should be needed in the first place: surely rehabilitation is the sort of thing the defence budget should cover? But, the specific need for a new swimming and rehabilitation pool has enabled the general public and sports stars to do their bit, even in a comparatively small way.

We tend to talk of the military covenant in terms of healthcare, accommodation, bereavement welfare and injury compensation but for the nation to fully keep with its side of the bargain, it must transcend the physical and connect with the Armed Forces and their sacrifice on a moral and intellectual level. This emotive and thoughtful connection is as important to Servicemen as hard cash, often more so. And events like this, do just that.

Debate the Military Covenant at the Conservative Conference

Frances Done CBE, Director General of the Royal British Legion,has taken the opportunity to publicise the importance of the Military Covenant on ConservativeHome ahead of the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool next week. She plans to hold a fringe event to discuss the Military Covenant and how better to honour it. It should expand on the Legions own campaign to Honour the Covenant.

Any publicity for and discussion of the Military Covenant is most welcome as it serves as a useful reminder of its importance. But, in our criticism, we are in danger of making some false assumptions about the complaint over its perceived dishonouring.

Compensation, health care and bereavement support were key issues when I joined the Army in 1997 and remain key to this day. The issue is not that the Army and MOD were oblivious to their importance, and have only started to look at them recently. That is just not the case. The real issue is not whether any attention has been paid to these three things at all but whether or not the Army and MOD are paying them enough attention and dealing with them in the most appropriate way, today.

And here is the crux of the matter. The Army has been trying, after all it is the Army's people that are directly affected, but it has found it difficult. And this is significantly down to political leadership.

Money is also a factor and we know that the defence budget is under severe pressure from extended operational deployments above planning assumptions. If asked the question, any soldier would prefer adequate ammunition and weapons to an extra appointment with the Doctor. They are the ones that pay the opportunity costs and so their opinion is paramount.

But, with extra funding or better funding - some areas of the budget are indeed wasted and spent on inappropriate things - it is quite possible to do both. And this comes down to government. If they can commit £100billion to underwrite Northern Rock then why not a few extra billion to defence?

Therefore, it is worth remembering that it is not that these key aspects of the Military Covenant are being totally ignored but that they can simply be improved with a little bit of will, a little bit of empathy and understanding from politicians and, of course, a little bit more money.

Another danger is this: although material benefits like health care, compensation and lawyers for bereavement are important, we are in danger of seeing the military covenant, too much as a physical thing. The relationship between a soldier and the nation should not just be a crude, monetary contract but a deeply moral and intellectual compact that expresses citizenship, selflessness and sacrifice for a common good - the common good of the nation. We must not forget that.

Final Salary Pensions are a dead weight around the necks of business

If you needed any more persuading that Final Salary Pension Schemes (Defined Benefit) were a ludicrous invention then read this.  How can it make sense for a company to waste time managing a pension fund when it is trying to run a business at the same time; it is nothing but a distraction.  And how can it make sense for a company to commit to making payments to employees who have long stopped working.  These pensions are dead weights around a company's neck.

 

But, until the government takes the lead and scraps all Final Salary Pensions in the public sector and moves to a Defined Contribution system, then major companies will continue to find it difficult to get the change past a reluctant public.  Still, as more and more companies go to the Contribution system, the competitive edge of the UK will improve.

Other interesting posts

1. Centre for Policy Studies - A reduction in tax rates does not have to mean a reduction in tax revenues.
2. Waendel Journal - Labour neglect the Armed Forces SHOCKER.
3. Kremlinology - Georgian saints and Russian sinners.  Who started the war?

Trading on the Russian Stock Market has been suspended

It would appear that Russia, attempting to ignore international forces and forge her own way in the world, has been given a shock she cannot, and indeed, has not been able to ignore.

Down 60% since its May peak, the trading on the Russian Stock Market has been suspended. To put this slump in perspective, the FTSE has fallen by about 16% since its peak and we think that is bad. Crickey!

It would appear that Russia is suffering from the Global fallout we are all suffering from but what has made things far worse is the pull out of global investment since the conflict with Georgia. With global finance in a delicate state all around the world, it seems that potential Russian aggression has been a risk too far for fickle investors.

Perhaps those that say a globalised world is a safer world have a point. Even Russian Presidents are more likely to check their behaviour when faced with financial meltdown. But then, we don't know what Medvedev or Putin will do next. Watch with interest.

Is Islamism more dangerous abroad than at home?

Kevin Myers writes a typically excellent article in the Irish Independent and it is well worth a read from start to finish. In fact, the entire portfolio is worth a read. The robust style he adopts is refreshing for obvious reasons but it is his willingness to enter debates that most others are too afraid to enter that makes his stand out.

In this one he concentrates on staying the course in Afghanistan. Whilst we can certainly do a lot of damage to Islamism there, it is worrying how the preoccupation with operating in Afghanistan, treating it as the 'good war', can tend to divert us from what is happening at home. There is more, much more, to the fight against Islamism than just its conduct in Afghanistan.

First and foremost there is the acceptance that we are in a deadly serious struggle against Islamism, both for our lives and more importantly for our culture. We in the West, generally, do not accept this point, preferring to think that Islamism will stop causing trouble when we evacuate 'their' lands. Apart from the dispute historians might have over what constitutes their lands, this seems like wishful thinking for the simple reason that the Caliphate is not constrained by geography; the world is Allah's and his people are on the march, just as they have been throughout history.

Second, if we accept that they will not stop if we leave Afghanistan then we must ask the question: can we defeat, or significantly inhibit Islamism across the globe by fighting it in Afghanistan? It would seem that the answer to this is no to the first but yes to the second. However, to inhibit them is not to defeat them. Afghanistan is merely the focal point of their anger and rage, as was Iraq a few years ago and parts of the Balkans before that. If Afghanistan was eradicated from existence, the more violent elements would just reappear elsewhere.

Third, If we accept that Afghanistan is not fundamental to the fight against Islamism, we must look elsewhere for solutions. We in the West are preoccupied with the terrorist dimension to the Jihad, seemingly ignorant of the peaceful, cultural, political and colonial jihad going on around us. If a particular Imam does not have a bomb strapped to his body, it is assumed he belongs to the moderate cohort of Islam. But, his preaching and aspiration for Sharia to unify the secular and religious dimensions is just as destructive, if not more so. There used to be an offense called subversion; where did that one go?

Fourth, if we accept that peaceful Jihad is undermining our societies just as much as violent Jihad, we are left with the conclusion that the fight must take place at home and not abroad, or not just abroad. What is the point of defeating Islamism in someone else's country when it defeats us at home?

The point is that, whilst we can cause them attrition in Afghanistan and any other foreign land we choose to fight them in, we convince ourselves that the military operations abroad will defeat the entire threat. It will not. We must defeat them by understanding what they are doing in the peaceful, colonial Jihad as much as the violent one. Now what was that phrase? Ah yes, the Armalite and the ballot box. It is happening again. Only we should hope that our politicians do not kowtow to the method this time as they did before.

Preview of the Military Covenant Commission Report

The Conservative Party's Military Covenant Commission, set up in March this year by David Cameron, is due to report at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham later on this month, but, the Sunday Times has reported that 22 recommendations are going to be made.

A more detailed analysis of the full recommendations will be made when officially released, but, some aspects are already known: an increase in pay; reform of the method for deciding pay levels where the Armed Forces Pay Review Body no longer decides rates in isolation, but, enters into a negotiation with the Armed Forces; changes to operational leave so only days in the UK are counted instead of days in transit; and increases in injury compensation.

Any recommendation to improve the conditions of service in the Armed Forces is to be welcomed, but, two points are worth noting. First, any recommendation, if implemented, must be funded with new money. We occasionally hear of a bright new initiative but all too often it ends up being funded from within the existing budget. The result is merely to spread the already thin jam, that little bit thinner.

Second, the debate has so far been largely restricted to the physical aspects of service life: more pay, better housing and health care, good schools and more compensation. These are all good things and are critical to the upkeep of the Military Covenant, but, it distracts us from the intellectual and moral dimensions.

For soldiers to maintain high morale and a sense of purpose, they must be convinced that what they are sent to do is just, vital for the interests of the country and appreciated by their fellow countrymen. They must also have a deep rooted belief that the real sacrifice is worth it and the very concept of service to the nation is worthy. And for that, the nation needs to be celebrated and protected by the gentle and loyal patriotism we once took for granted.

It is not good enough for politicians to talk about how proud they are of Service personnel, only to short change them in their conditions of service. Many of them do try but they fail to make the moral and intellectual connection between service to one's country and the integrity of that country. Ask any soldier and they will say they want recognition and better service conditions; who would not? But ask them again, in private, when they are willing to speak their mind and they will hint at the importance of the nation and patriotism to their reasons for serving.

The refusal to understand this connection is, in fact, the great neglect of successive governments and this is where the true strength of the Military Covenant between a nation and its Service personnel lies. Let's see if the other recommendations acknowledge this aspect of the Covenant.

School reform is important, so let's get it right

It is pleasing to see that the Conservatives are grappling with the problems of structure and ethos in our education system but their plan for Swedish style independent schools funded by the state has some weaknesses. Here are a few comments:

• Their plan to make these new schools, up to 3,000 in the first decade, independent is fundamental. It is the politicised and suffocating hand of the ministry and the town hall that prevents so many state schools from developing their own ethos and taking responsibility. But, why should we limit this to just new schools. All state schools should be transferred to this new independent model. That way, parents and teachers can take responsibility for the education of children, not political ideologues like Ed Balls.
• However, their plan that parental choice will be achieved on a first come, first served basis is ludicrous. It seems that to get into a school of their choice, parents will have to sign their children up at birth. What on earth does this mean for parents with children of schooling age that have to move home. Presumably they have to make do with the worst school in the district. The whole point of parental choice is that it combines with teacher choice so a school community and ethos can be created through selection. Without selection, this is near impossible.
• School competition for pupils with a 'premium' - presumably more funding - might seem progressive but it perpetuates the politicisation of education. Who decides which children are worth more funding? That's right, politicians. The game of moral superiority and demonstrable largess for a client group will continue. No child needs more money than another child to be educated. All they need is good teachers, text books and stationery, a classroom and a good school ethos. None of these things cost extra money.
• That anyone can set up a school is a good thing but children should not be entirely cast out into the market. Schools still need a constitutional framework that takes account of parents, teachers, children and the local communities the school serves. Therefore, ownership can belong to anyone, but governance must belong to a triumvirate of teachers, parents and local governors. These three parties must have real, local power. In this, I agree that education must not be put solely in private hands but in the hands of those that matter.
• The intention to reform planning regulations, to prevent council vested interests from blocking planning permission for new schools is a good one. But, local democracy must not be prevented from exercising its democratic rights to control planning. However, much of this can be circumvented by turning all existing schools into state independent schools. Councils should have no choice in this matter. It is for parents and teachers to decide where and how their children are educated.
• Another point on choice. It is disingenuous to claim that parents will have unbridled choice. We must accept that there will be two parties involved in the choosing: parents and schools. We must leave it to the individual school to set its own selection criteria, within the law, of course.
• Catchment areas should, indeed, be abolished. Leave it to the schools.

The fundamental point of education reform must be to put the power back in the hands of the parents and the professionals. Parents must be free to apply for any school. Schools must be free to select any pupil. That is the bottom line. In fact, this model is truly democratic, placing the power at the lowest level possible and in the hands of those directly affected by the institutions.

The Army does not tolerate true bullying

If the Army wants the nation to uphold their part of the Military Covenant, it has a duty to behave in a way that commands respect from that nation. Therefore, it is a blow when stories of bullying appear in the news. That they seem to appear with the regularity of a social liberal showing indignation is all the more disappointing. But then, the two events are often linked.

It appears that the BBC have carried out a sting operation where a reporter posed as a recruit at the Infantry Training Centre in Catterick. I will not rehearse the scenario here, they seldom differ, but we all know the sort of thing that will feature in the film.

That the tag of bullying damages the Army's reputation is a given. No-one wants bullies in their organisation, least of all the Army that has gone to great lengths to address the problem. However, let's not confuse the issue.

• The Army is a robust institution and conducts itself in a way the liberals and other laophobes would abhor.
• The Army is preparing its recruits to kill and be killed in the service of their country. They need to be tough and if they get upset by a dig in the ribs then they do not have the robustness to fight and survive in war.
• The Deepcut tragedy was caused primarily by political changes in defence training where soldiers were replaced by civilian contractors who ceased to take any responsibility after the training day had ceased. It was the absence of military personnel from this organisation, rather than their presence, that was the critical factor.
• The Army goes to great lengths to curb unnecessary violence and inappropriate behaviour.
• Soldiers are recruited from mainstream, working class Britain. It should be no surprise to us if they demonstrate some of the attitudes of their civilian countrymen.

True bullying is abhorrent to most military personnel and the overwhelming majority do not tolerate it in any form. But, when it does happen, as it happens in all walks of life, we should remind ourselves that they are an institution apart and are preparing for war. We stay at homes should be slower to judge and quicker to trust.

The effects of Pakistan's torn society is a lesson to us all

Further to my previous post on the danger of creating a society divided along political and cultural lines, this inciteful piece in the New York Times by Dexter Filkins illustrates the tendency for conflict in such a society.

Pakistan is and always was crucial to Western efforts in Afghanistan because of its cultural affiliation with much of Afghanistan. In fact, the border areas, such as Waziristan, are little different from Afghanistan, with more similarities than with the remainder of the Pakistani state. For them to be separated from each other is like separating East and West Sussex, therefore, it should be no surprise to us that Taliban move between the two areas with ease.

The point, though, is that Pakistan is a torn country. It is torn between its tribal parts in the border, mountainous areas, and the lower lying, urban areas where a living more akin to Western city life can be found. On the one hand there is a virulent and brutal form of Islam and on the other there is a more moderate and secular form. The two are in direct conflict and this conflict spills over into violence, murder and civil war. This is the key battle facing Pakistan and we should take a sobering lesson from its causes.

Terrorism can be combated but a torn society is beyond hope

We hear that prosecutors are considering a retrial of seven people for an alleged plot to blow up planes on their way to the USA with liquid bombs. Whatever happens over this, we are reminded of the horrors of 9/11 and 7/7: the violent manifestation of political and cultural difference between and within countries. This focus is understandable, considering these attacks have an immediacy in their destruction of life and material, but it serves to hide the silent confrontation going on under our noses.

The concern for many is not just the violence but the underlying change being brought to this country. We hear of mega-mosques, encroaching Sharia, Islamic faith schools that make convents look like dens on iniquity, and the division of cities along religious and racial lines which could well lead to the communalism Enoch Powell warned us against. Charges of racism are, of course, laid on anyone airing such concerns but in the blogosphere, people feel more able to write their mind, free from the opprobrium and hatred levelled at anyone who speaks publicly.

Why is cultural change as important as the violence, if not more so? Because it is the cultural and political difference that sets the conditions for conflict and violence. At the root of Islamic terrorism and separatism is political and cultural difference. British loyalty and peace is based on acceptance of territorial jurisdiction, manifested in the nation state, but Islam, through the Koran and Mohammad, is based on universality and the Caliphate that fights against local difference. In the extreme, Sharia will rule over us all as a law set in stone that cannot be moulded to suit local custom and tradition.

This makes for a strikingly different political experience that makes it difficult to reconcile the two. Until Islam embraces a separation of the temporal from the spiritual (the nearest example of this is in Turkey but it is still too early to tell if this is an experiment that will last) there will be an uncompromising source of friction that we could do with out. It is hard enough to maintain the peaceful and civilised society without having to try and balance such competing traditions and loyalties.

Violence and terrorism in isolation can be countered and its effects mitigated against but a society, once divided along political, cultural and religious lines, is a society that will be plagued by conflict and violence for centuries. Look only at the history books and the nature of conflict around the world today.

Roger Scruton in The Clarion Review

For anyone that happens to stumble across these pages, this interview with Professor Roger Scruton in the Clarion Review is thoroughly recommended. It cannot be adequately summarised except to say that it demonstrates, as one expects from Scruton, a human interpretation of culture and society beyond the narrow confines of political dogma. Therefore, I leave it to you.

The problem with the EU does not stop with British membership

It seems that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, speaking at the Global Vision & Daily Telegraph's conference on Britain's relationship with the EU, is suggesting that Britain should have some sort of opt out from future integration just so long as it accepts the status quo of today.

Whilst some would grasp this with both hands, others will remain unhappy because it is not what is likely to happen in the future that is the problem but what has already taken place. They would prefer to withdraw completely and perhaps join EFTA. That there will be others, mainly in the British 'elite', that would want no such opt out, preferring the lure of super politics at the EU top table, is a given, but they are surely swimming against the electoral tide.

Would it be a good idea to adopt the Emperor's proposal? Maybe, it would be better than continued integration, but the problem with the EU is not whether the UK is a full member of not, but the way it is developing as an anti-democratic, centralised, power bloc, increasingly defined by its opposition to other global blocs including Russia, China and perhaps even the US.

The EU's latest rhetoric against Russia over Georgia suggests that it prefers paper confrontation (it does not have the military might to stand up to perceived Russian aggression) rather than considered engagement. The last thing we want is a new 'iron curtain', dividing our continent, with Western and Central Europe on one side and the Russian bloc on the other. Failure to engage with Russia has left them outside the European fold, of which they are a rightful member.

Therefore, the deeper EU member states integrate under a single political identity, the harder it will be to reconcile with Russia. What we need is a looser union based more on culture, academe, dialogue and trade, that creates an open, outward looking continent rather than the inward and defensive bloc it has become.

A British slow lane might be an improvement for us, but with the EU going on as before, intent on recreating the European empire, engagement with the rest of the world, especially Russia, will be increasingly difficult, leading to a world that is more not less dangerous.

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Founded in 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation includes: Russia, China, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as full members and Iran, Pakistan, India, Mongolia and the Belarus as observer countries. Set up as a balancing organisation to NATO and the EU, it appears that the rest of the world has its own concerns, priorities and plans.

Perhaps it is already too late for us to woo Russia into the European fold. This is a crying shame because, despite troubled European history, Russia is our natural ally. It might also serve as a reminder that our delusions of importance are just that, delusions.

4 out of 5 want lower immigration

In a recent YouGov poll it was found that supporters of all three major parties wanted immigration to be reduced, not controlled or better managed but reduced. Labour voted 81% in favour of reductions, Liberal Democrats voted 83% and Conservatives 89%. We need not ask what the BNP figures would have been had they been included.

What does this tell us? If the poll is truly representative of the supporters of all three parties then it means that for every 5 people in these groups, 4 of them want a reduction in immigration. Such majorities are the stuff of dreams for the average politician.

And we still hear the very same politicians and pressure groups spouting out the same, tired, but politically safe, claptrap that there is no immigration problem except that it is not managed well enough.

The immigration policies, or non-policies, we have been following since the 1950's and more recently since Labour came to power, damage the cohesion of the country and break up existing communities on the alter of supranational and human rights dogma. They make good and peaceful patriotism difficult to sustain, being substituted as it is by a combination of ambivalence, suspicion and hatred. Under such conditions, the concept of nation is unsustainable.

The EU must change and court Russia, not peripheral states

The short conflict in Georgia, over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has brought the plans of NATO and the EU to the fore, as we are presented with the political effects of expansion East. We should take this as a warning of what might be in store for us over the next decade, especially in Ukraine, a country with many similarities to Georgia: it has a sizeable Russian population; it is former Soviet state; and it lies within the Russian sphere of influence, no matter what people say.

But, it is the EU and NATO's jockeying for influence with Russia, over these former soviet territories, that is contributing to the friction. Many in the West want to accept Ukraine into the EU as soon as possible, thinking it will prevent Russian aggression and promote democracy in Europe, but, it appears that Russia has other ideas.

This new, or renewed, geopolitical struggle merely highlights the fundamental flaw in the EU: the union is far too deep and centralised which means that with every move to expand, the whole edifice becomes less stable. It is also confrontational in the way it is set up as a trading block, with those on the outside excluded from the trade terms that member states take for granted. So, rather than putting our heads down and pushing further East, hanging the consequences, we must start to look at the structure of the EU and determine whether it is right for the 21st Century and an expanded union.

The real focus of EU attention after the fall of the Berlin Wall should have been Russia itself, but we decided to focus on its satellites and encroach on her former territory. The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is at pains to say that Ukraine and Georgia, as sovereign states, have nothing to do with Russia and can join Western institutions if they wish, but this simply ignores the geopolitical realities. Russia is the power of Eastern Europe and, so, Russia is the power we must court.

But, because of the centralised and deep nature of the EU, it is extremely difficult for it to expand to include Russia, for the simple fact that Russia would not want to join the EU as it stands, still being proud enough to want to be independent. Cultural Europe extends from the Atlantic to the Urals, comprising the nations shaped by Christianity whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Why limit its reach, antagonising Russia in the process.

For this to happen, however, the EU needs to change. It needs to forget its aspirations for statehood and revert to an area of cultural and economic partnership. Sovereignty and democracy is not protected by the EU, it is undermined and in its relentless expansion East and drive to more centralisation, it sets the conditions for a confrontation with Russia that is entirely unnecessary.

Tax cuts or a reduction in the national debt?

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, has apparently pledged to cut £20 billion from public spending. This sounds like a constructive pledge so far. We are then told that this reduction will be used to reduce the tax burden of middle earners.

This might seem hard to believe, from a party that only recently pledged to add 1p to income tax, but Clegg says it is "impeccably liberal" and emphasises that "the absolute core of Liberal Democrat belief is that government is too intrusive". Quite right but how does this reconcile with social liberalism?

This all sounds great but seeing as government still spends about £40 billion more than it takes in tax receipts, one might have thought that a bolder statement was required. National debt is a disgrace at approximately £600 billion. It undermines economic performance and it affects the value of the pound. We need a government that recognises this systemic weakness in Britain and pledges to pay it off. This is economically as well as morally desirable.

UKIP should revert to single issue politics and concentrate on the EU elections

It is understandable that around political conference time, stories of plots and schism appear in the press, but this year it appears that UKIP really might have a serious problem of division. For those frustrated by continued submersion in the EU and yet to be convinced that the Conservative Party will do anything concrete about it, this division should be a concern.

UKIP may or may not be on the point of implosion but it is worth highlighting the fundamental flaw in the party's approach that makes it difficult for all EU sceptics to support them. This flaw is that rather than concentrating on the single issue of EU membership, the party is trying to imitate the other parties by having a view and policy on all issues.

This might appear sensible but, by becoming a multiple issue political party, they must come down somewhere on the political spectrum. Are they socialists or conservatives? Are they libertarians or statists? If they, for sake of argument, become a conservative party, only committed to leaving the EU, then how will Labour sceptics vote for them? They will be torn between the relative importance of the EU issue and all others.

There are people on the left, in the centre and on the right of politics that all want to leave the EU but have very different ideas as to what should happen then. These diverse views and attitudes can never be reconciled whilst UKIP involves itself beyond the single issue of EU membership.

Just a suggestion, but UKIP should revert to single issue politics and only concentrate on the EU elections. Like the SNP, it could gain a majority by not putting people off by their views on other issues, and concentrating on the objective all patriots and democrats can rally behind: withdrawal from the EU and a reattachment with our political inheritance.

What is the determining factor that shapes history?

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History, gives an interesting insight into which forces shape history. He acknowledges greed and altruism as significant drivers of human activity but rounds the piece off by recognising the determining factor as: the stupidity of man. This can, of course, be reworded to 'the infallibility of man'. We have seen and heard it all before but that fallibility seems to necessitate the repetition of the message for every generation.

This will send a shiver down your spine

Economic troubles point to a more significant malaise in the national psyche

As we head into recession we begin to remember that economic performance is what it is all about. Surely James Carville's phrase, "The economy, stupid", coined during the 1992 Clinton Presidential campaign, is the single lesson any politician should learn. But it seems that every generation loses sight of this essential concern, as it convinces itself through hubris and conceit that it knows best.

When economic performance is good, a people gain a swagger and air of confidence that convinces them of the worth of their society, culture and nation. More than anything else, it can be argued that economic strength is a sign of national virility. It produces wealth which enables a nation to afford things that others cannot afford: strong defence, good health care, education and learning, technology and consumer products. When we have these things, modern man truly knows that God shines his light upon him.

But today, economic performance in Britain is on the edge of a precipice, if not already heading over the edge. Growth during the second quarter of 2008 was o.o%. We might think this OK because we were quite rich before this period but when inflation is running at above 4%, our economy is, in fact, shrinking.

The currency is falling, too. Yesterday, the pound closed at $1.76 when in July it was worth $2. Sterling is also down against the Euro. Exporters might like a currency devaluation as it tends to make their goods more competitive abroad, but, for an economy that is dependent on imports for much of its consumption, devaluation becomes inflation as these goods become more expensive. And in the price of oil, sold in dollars, our entire economy suffers as rising prices are exacerbated further by currency devaluation, not to forget the tax premium running at about 66% of the value of a tank.

What of inflation itself? The CPI sits at 4.4% with a target of 2% and the RPI sits at a higher 5%. True, this is not as high as some years in the past but any inflation eats away at our wealth. Savers are penalised and borrowers rewarded. Something wrong here. Unemployment is also rising, on top of the 5 million already being paid by the tax payer not to work, and house repossessions are also up and likely to rise further as people's finances continue to be squeezed.

The question should always be: why is this happening? If we can find the answer to this question then we are in a better position to avoid the same conditions in the future. This might be obvious but we always seem to end up in the same place, generation after generation.

International factors are, of course, a significant contributor. The credit crunch, doing more to affect the building trade and other business as the debt they previously relied on vanishes away, did originate in the sub-Prime disaster of the USA. But it was a British Bank, Northern Rock, that adopted an idiotic business model that left them almost entirely dependent on external credit for their liquidity.

Commodities are also rising due to the changing balance of economic power in the world. The price of oil is rising as demand outstrips supply, food is becoming more scarce as population grows faster than agriculture can accommodate. We are also heaping the pressure on by reallocating agricultural land to the production of bio-fuels. All this puts the squeeze on the UK and there is little we can do to directly effect things. Gordon Brown's attempt to get the oil producers to pump more oil was embarrassing.

But, despite the government's wish to concentrate on these external factors, domestic decisions are surely more significant, at least in determining how we deal with these external pressures. If we know the rains are heavy in winter, we build a strong roof, do we not?

Tax continues to rise as a proportion of GDP, the government continues to shrink the private sector to pay for a bloated public sector, even spending more than it gets in tax receipts. This government debt puts an extra burden on the wealth generating part of the economy and when joined by ever more regulation, mostly from the EU, the economy becomes clogged up and uncompetitive. And the only way to continue spending at existing levels is to sell the family silver. One day we will run out of things to flog to rich Russians or Arabs and we will find ourselves in real trouble, not even owning our own country.

To exacerbate things further, the money supply, M4, still grows at about 10% despite the supposed contraction of the money supply from the credit crunch. With growth rates significantly higher than this over the last decade, the currency has been debauched and inflation fuelled, only our measure did not account for real inflation. We are now seeing the fruits of this mad policy in the housing crash, falling exchange rates and continued inflation.

Both external and internal factors are, of course, important, but we should really be asking ourselves what has led us to make these decisions in the first place. It is, after all, people that decide these things. What sort of nation exposes itself to risks from abroad with no apparent care in the world? We are now hopelessly reliant on Russian gas and Middle Eastern Oil that there is little we can do to protect ourselves from their whim, as we are seeing in Georgia.

What sort of culture thinks it is morally right to live on other people's money, both at the national and personal level? Debt is obscene, epitomised by the mortgage orgy that led to many of our current problems and the public debt is not much better. This sort of indulgence, that says I want something now even if I cannot pay for it, is not only corrosive in itself but revealing as to the type of country we have become.

We can argue the toss over this for an eternity but at its root is a sense that we are a nation of individuals with no responsibility for anyone but ourselves. The state will look after our families, they will pay me not to work and the banks will give me money that is not mine. With this lack of responsibility comes a withering of nationhood. There is no us, only me. Therefore, there is no such thing as nation. And if there is no such thing as nation, we cannot act collectively, even if we wanted to.

We need a genuine resurgence of national purpose, underpinned by a moral philosophy that we can all buy into. How we do that is another matter, but as a start we can accept that patriotism must play its part. Patriots love their nation, therefore, they can love their neighbour. When we can do this we can begin to act as us, instead of just plain old me.

Let's get this straight - falling house prices are a good thing

The Halifax House Price Index for August 2008 shows an annual reduction of 10.9%, bringing the average house price to £174,178. Whilst this might be unfortunate for those that bought properties at the top of the market, there are many more that only see falling house prices as a good thing.

So, why do many politicians and commentators emphasise the plight of the former rather than the latter and insist that falling house prices are generally bad news? If people buy an asset and it then goes down in value, who cares. We do not squeal quite so much for those who make losses on shares or other assets. It is not as if these people are completely denied housing. They are simply denied the use of that particular house. they can quite easily go and rent like many other people who could not afford to get on the roller coaster.

Falling house prices are, in fact, a good thing. In the months before the Credit Crunch began in August 2007, many of us were still lamenting the fact that so many were grossly priced out of the market, so, surely we wanted prices to come down. What is happening today is good news for the country. If only politicians would curb their tendency to meddle.

As the Westminster cretins come up with illiterate initiatives to bolster the market they once again believe that they can control the markets like some all powerful and benevolent God - blasphemers. It was only those intoxicated by the housing bubble - buyers, sellers, builders and estate agents - that thought eternal price rises were first, a good thing, and second, a sustainable thing.

And the politicians thought it represented real growth in the economy, ushered in by the New Labour economic paradigm of continual growth and an end to boom and bust. But we were simply on the boom phase of the cycle, only, they refused, in their Brownian conceit, to believe this.

Even Canute knew he could not hold back the tide when those around him exhorted him to do so. Falling house prices might be associated with a drastically reduced availability of mortgage credit, but all that is happening is that the market is correcting itself. When house prices return to a lower proportion of average income then when the credit crunch is over, more people will be able to buy a house. And this time they will be buying it with debt they are more likely to be able to pay back.

No, lower house prices are a good thing despite the casualties caught in the storm. bottom line is this: if you buy an asset, be prepared for it to go down in value as well as up. Let the buyer beware, as they say.

Arguing the toss over military R&R dates

David Cameron's recent visit to the troops in Afghanistan has been used as an opportunity to make a policy commitment on mid-tour leave. This is a symbolic move that brings practical expression to the work begun in the Conservative Party's Military Covenant Commission, but what is actually being said and what are the implications?

Current practice is that during an operational tour, usually of six months, Service personnel receive 14 days leave which affords them an opportunity to return home. Understandably, this takes time and a number of days at the beginning and end of the leave period are taken up in travel, sometimes exacerbated by delayed schedules and other stop overs on their way home.

The Conservatives have proposed a change in the way this period is calculated so the 14 days of leave only begin when they arrive in the UK and end when they leave the UK. The implication is that the days lost at the beginning and end of the period in travel are to be made up in theatre.

This might seem like a good and well intentioned idea, and maybe it is, but it misses a few points. First, the 14 day leave period is not actually a period of 14 days home leave. It is a period of 14 days away from operational tasks, out of the firing line, to allow Service personnel to relax. They do not need to do this in the UK and, indeed, in previous operations in which the British Army has been involved, operational tour leave, or Rest & Recuperation as it is more accurately known, was often taken in the theatre itself and sometimes in neighbouring, friendly countries.

Second, the 14 day period is calculated by operational planners so they know when units and sub-units are available for operational tasking. The implication of the Conservative proposal is that leave is to be longer than 14 days, of a duration no-one quite knows. What is the implication for the planners? If, on day one, soldiers are stood down from duty and they begin their trip home, the clock has not actually started until they arrive in the UK. If delays occur, this might be 1, 2, 3 or more days before the 14 day period actually starts. This then puts a significant delay on the date they are back in theatre and ready for operations with the knock on effect that may have. What happens to the unit that is waiting for leave and delayed for a number of days until the returning unit arrives back, ready to take their place in the line? What happens if one unit only uses 2 days in travel and another ends up using 6 days in travel? That means that one unit has 4 extra days away from operations. Will there be friction?

Being of the British Armed Forces, units do not really care about this, but it is all in the definition of what that 14 days is for. Is it 14 days, mandatory in the UK, or 14 days away from operational tasking? With this initiative, the relationship on leave shifts from an operational decision and privilege to a political decision and right. These are two things of which the Armed Forces should be wary.

Perhaps leave will simply be reduced from 14 days to 10 days to allow for extra travel time. It might be that this is a good idea and one which the military endorses, but let us hope that it is ultimately a military decision and not a political one.

Falling exchange rates tell us that our economy is weak, not strong

Apparently the Pound has devalued 8% against the US Dollar over the month of August. Some argue that this is a good in itself as our exports appear cheaper and therefore more competitive against foreign goods.

Whilst a devaluing exchange rate can indeed strengthen our balance of payments, we should remind ourselves that a devaluing exchange rate does not mean our economy is strong. Quite the reverse. Currencies devalue because the economy is weak and the devaluation is merely the recalibration of its worth by the rest of the world.

Well done Brown. Great work. And if our problems are the result of weaknesses in the US, why is our currency the one losing value and why is the US retaining a growth rate of about 3%?