Dines Days

EU praise - from the Tories

FOR BAREFACED cheek, you can't beat today's Tory chortling over the European Commission's condemnation of the way the Labour government here is tackling the budget deficit.

This is the same Tory Party which rails against EU pronoucements and rulings and "Brussels meddling."

Whether Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alastair Darling are right or wrong is irrelevant. It is not for the Commission to intervene so close to an election, especially as the UK is not part of the Eurozone.

Mr Darling defended his actions on deficit reduction. "We are doing it in a way which is sustainable, manageable, and which does not damage the social and economic fabric of our country."

But he added: "My judgment is that this is the right thing to do, and that judgment is shared by many economic commentators: the Commission advice is wrong.''

He said the Conservatives would have to find £25 billion extra to they were prepared to follow the Commission's approach, adding: "The Tories have jumped on a passing bandwagon, and, unusually for them, it happens to be a European one."

That said the Tories should say where the extra £25billion would come. Silence, of course, from Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.

Ashcroft's millions no worse than Unite's millions

CHARLIE Whelan is the political officer of the Unite trade union, which is pumping millions of pounds into Labour's election campaign.. He is also Gordon Brown's best buddy. Which makes it rather strange that Unite should be embarking on a strike which could not only damage or even bankrupt British Airways but also ruin Labour's election chances.

Labour, which couldn't keep quiet about Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party, stayed tight-lipped about their own funding scandal. And of course its tame supporters in the media didn't raise the subject because the impression had to be put out that the Tories remained a party of sleaze.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis broke cover yesterday to condemn the BA strike, which will ruin the holiday and business plans of tens of thousands of passengers and leaving many affected customers vowing they'll never fly "the world's favourite airline" again.

Now Gordon Brown, fearing the consequences of silence and the allegations of two-faced hypocrites, has now joined in. "It is not in the company's interest, it is not in the workers' interest and it is certainly not in the national interest. I hope that this strike will be called off.''

Too little, and far too late. Labour has taken £11million from Unite for its marginal seats campaign. That's far more than Lord Ashcroft has handed over to the Tories. How much longer can this current bunch of ministers get away with distorting the truth.

Marginal doubts over the Tories

THE Conservatives have pinned their hopes - and directed Lord Ashcroft's millions - on winning back Labour's marginal seats.

But the strategy is faltering, according to an opinion poll in The Times this morning. Labour and the Conservatives are neck and neck in these marginals, the swing seats that will determine the outcome of the general election.

The election won't be won or lost in Maldon or Sheffield Brightside, but in constituences such as Ipswich, Tynemouth and Dorset South. The polls gives a swing of 6.7% from Labour to the Tories, with no indication of how the Tories are doing in Liberal Democrat seats.

In a survey for The Times carried out by Populus in 100 key seats currently held by Labour and targeted by the Conservatives, there are above average numbers of voters swinging directly from Labour to the Conservatives.

But they are not doing so to the same extent of last year and certainly well below the numbers hoped for by David Cameron's strategists.

In fact, if these figures don't change, it could well be that just 20 or so seats are gained by the Tories, presenting us with the possibility that Gordon Brown will remain Prime Minister after the election.

There are still nagging votes about Cameron. The poll shows that in the key marginals 41% of all voters, and 45% of women, believe that it is “time for a change” but are not sure the change should be to the Conservatives.

Thirty-four per cent think it is “time for a change” to the Tories, with 19% saying that it does not seem like “time for a change” from Labour. Everything yo play. I still have a hunch that Cameron will be Prime Minister after polling day - but I'm glad I didn't bet this year's council tax on it.

UPDATE AT 16:10 Mea culpa maxima - I did not read all the small print. The Times assumed the Conservatives would win Labour's 50 most vulnerable seats, and therefore the figures relate to target numbers 51 onwards. So Gordon Brown does not have that much to celebrate because the poll's result indicates that the Tories will be the largest party in the Commons.

Farewell Michael Foot

ONE by one, the great politicians of my youth and early working career are passing on. Michael Foot, who died today, led Labour to one of its worst ever defeats - the unilateralist who would have pulled the UK out of the European Union and discarded our nuclear missiles if he had won the 1983 General Election.

Mr Foot was elected Labour leader in 1980, succeeding Jim Callaghan, but stood down after a being trounced by Margaret Thatcher in the post-Falklands election.

Perhaps his greatest achievement was to hold Labour together when the Gang of Four - Williams, Jenkins, Owen and Rogers - left to form the Social Democrats. Yet he was the catalyst for these defections - Labour shifted so far to the left that it was just short of being a Soviet satellite.

Foot was a figure of fun for the right wing media, no more so than when he tipped up at the Cenotaph for the Remembrance Day service wearing a donkey jacket. It seemed that this man of peace was not even prepared to pay proper respects to our glorious war dead.

An MP for 42 years, he was a fine parliamentarian and a true orator - perhaps the last great orator the House of Commons has produced.

Michael Foot stood up for what he believed in. And that was his undoing - he was never one to seek personal popularity.

Reform of the House of Lords will solve problem of non-doms

SO Lord Ashcroft is a non dom for taxation purposes. It may not be ideal, but he is not the only party donor whose tax status is such that they only pay income tax to the UK Treasury on UK earnings and not on how much they rake in from overseas - in Lord Ashcroft's case Belize, the former colony British Honduras.

Ashcroft is by far the biggest donor to the Tory Party, and much of his cash is flowing into the marginal constituencies which is where the outcome of the General Election will be decided, leading to Labour accusations that Ashcroft is buying the election.

The problem Ashcroft and the Tories have is that his life peerage in 2000 was approved on the understanding that his tax status would be changed to that of an ordinary UK citizen and that all his earnings would be subject to income tax.

In a statement on his website, Lord Ashcroft said: "Throughout the last 10 years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue. My precise tax status therefore is that of a 'non-dom'. While I value my privacy, I do not want my affairs to distract from the general election campaign.''

Lord Ashcroft released a letter he sent to then Tory leader William Hague in which he pledged to "take up permanent residence again" in the UK but which made no explicit mention of his tax status.<

"In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation in the first undertaking of the words 'permanent residence' was to be that of 'a long term resident.'

Ashcroft's tax status has dogged the Tories for years. Yet as the Conservatives point out, there are Labour donors who are non-dom, notably Lord Paul, who was recently created a member of the Privy Council on Gordon Brown's recommendation.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw insisting the Tories had covered up a failure to meet them for a decade, and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg saying it was "wholly wrong'' for a "non-dom'' to fund an election campaign.

The law is being changed, with all-party support, to bar non doms sitting in parliament. There is another solution - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected senate. That would end the problem once and for all.

Call for Change: round one to Labour

TALKING to senior Tories in Brighton yesterday at their Spring Conference, I didn't detect any sign of panic at the party's slide in the opinion polls - although admittedly that was before today's YouGov poll in The Sunday Times which narrows the lead to 2%, enough to give Gordon Brown victory, with a little help from the Liberal Democrats.

The Tories maintain that their polling in the key marginals shows them well ahead and on course for victory. Whether that's disinformation, I have as much idea as anyone else.

Labour shouldn't get too excited. There's a long way to go and although the trend is towards Labour, the polls are all over the place.

It is clear that now the date of the election draws near, the Tories in general and David Cameron and George Osborne in particular are under the microscope. Voters seem to fear that a Tory slash and burn policy could push up unemployment, especially in the public sector. I have no dopubt that whoever wins the election will have to slash investment in public services.

The Tories would do it immediately, while Labour would embark on a managed and targeted programme with the aim of not pushing the economy back into recession. The Tories yesterday unveiled in Brighton their election slogan - Call for Change. To my mind it's weak and ineffective, just like the Tory tree which replaced the party's torch logo.

Call for change versus Labour's punchy new slogan A Future Fair for All - round one to Labour.

Darling's revenge set to stymie Brown

ALISTAIR Darling has got his own back.

The Chancellor finally gave vent to his inner feelings when he told a TV interviewer that "the forces of Hell" had been unleashed against him after he declared the recession would be the worst for 60 years.

"The forces of Hell" was coded talk for Damian McBride, the Downing Street spin master who was dumped after a plot smearing senior Tories was uncovered last year. Last year, Darling was briefed against unmercislessly, with suggesions that he was about to be sacked in favour of Brown's boot boy Ed Balls.

Naturally, David Cameron took full advantage of the Chancellor's wrath to try to lynch Gordon Brown at this afternoon's PMQ's. That he did not score a knockout gives rise to the feeling that Cameron and the Tories have peaked and that his below par performances in the Commons since Christmas have woken voters out of their Conservative love-in and are looking Brown in a new light. To roars of approvals from his own MPs, Brown retorted: "I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor." If you believe that . . .

We know how furious Brown was when forced to did his "Labour investment versus Tory cuts" line because his Chancellor blew the whistle on such nonsense. Darling had refused to leave the Treasury in favour of Balls, he's stayed put, and now he's turning the knife against "bully" Brown.

It now looks as if Brown will not go to the country before May, which means Darling will have to present a doom and gloom Budget in March which could scupper's Labour's election hopes. Perhaps Brown should reflect on the old saying "you reap what you sew."

BBC's strange priorities

THE BBC has just Twittered that several miners are trapped after a collapse in Turkey. As tragic a personal story as that is, surely it is not worthy of what used to be known in the media as a news flash.

I make this observation after reading on Sunday that a number of leading personalities, politicians and members of the Royal Family have been downgraded to a secondary category in the event of their death or serious injury.

It means programmes across the BBC will not be pulled for a news flash on the deaths of Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, the Princess Royal, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and former Prime Ministers. They will become continuity breaks after EastEnders or re-runs of Gavin and Stacey.

Top category news flashes which interrupt programmes are to be reserved only for the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William and the Duke of Edinburgh. If there is any justification for the BBC to continue being poll tax funded, then it is for news, and news which is of importance to those people forking out cash each year for the TV licence.

I suggest that the deaths of the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, or Prince Harry - especially if he were to be killed in action in Afghanistan -are far more worthy of an instant news flash than a mining disaster in Turkey.

RAF is in danger

MY blog on defence cuts, and the threat to the RAF, has easily become my biggest hit so far this year, so I make no apology for returning to the subject.

Leafing through the current issue of Desider - the magazine for defence equipment and support - shows how hard it will be for whichever party is in charge after the General Election to make cuts without hitting the capacity of our armed forces to defend both these islands and to take part in overseas missions.

A glance at the current procurement budget just shows how much is being spent and invested in making sure our defence forces are fit for purpose.

RAF: has just taken delivery of a seventh C-17 strategic transport plane, part of a £900million package of enhancements to boost operations in Afghanistan. Test flights are under way by the A400M which has tactical and strategic airlift, the RAF's 22 Mark 3 Merlin helicopters are being fitted with beyond-line-of-sight satellite communications systems, capability, the first two of eight modified Mark 3 Chinooks have been delivered, and a ten year £865 million contract has been placed with Rolls-Royce for a spares inclusive availability service for the engines of the advanced Typhoon jet.

Army: 100 protected delivery vehicles are being supplied every month. The Army Air Corps has taken delivery of the first four upgraded Lynx Mark 9

Royal Navy: Contracts worth £333 million have been awarded by companies across the UK to help build the Royal Navy's two giant Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrieres, which will be the biggest ships ever deployed by the Navy and described by the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Quentine Davies as "the cornerstone of the Royal Navy." The total value of sub-contracts awarded so far on the programme is almost £1.2billion. The huge bulbous bow of HMS Queen Elizabeth, similar in size to a convetional submarine, is nearing completion. And new sonar systems are being fitted to the 13-strong Duke class frigates,

Both the RAF and the Navy will deploy Lockheed Martin's F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter with a short takeoff/vertical landing propulsion system. And of course, the Government - and the Tories - are committed to replacing the Trident nuclear submarines which can deliver the UK's independent nuclear bombs.

The staggering cost of, and the length of time it takes to deliver, procurement means the MoD is already looking decades ahead to what we need. So if the strategic defence review is to tackle rising costs, it is the command structure of the services and the headquarters staff at the Ministry of Defence which will be looked at in detail.

Over the years, Government's have severely weakened the armed forces through cuts to budgets. John Nott, probably the worst defence secretary this country has ever had, wanted to sell the three aircraft carriers. A few months later, this folly was highlighted when the Falklands war showed the value of having a seaborne air strike force.

Since the fall of the Berlin war, the cuts have come thick and fast. There is little meat left, which is why I maintain that the RAF is the one service which could be carved up between the other two.

Lucky Norwich, unlucky Ipswich

NORWICH gets the prize of unitary government, but Ipswich does not. It's a blow for the county town of Suffolk, but it has probably lost out because the Tory-Lib Dem run council didn't back it all the way. Norwich is also a more Labour counci. Let's hope this is the end of it.

It looks like curtains for the RAF

IT'S not what Liam Fox said, but what he didn't say, when he spoke about the UK's defence capabilities in the years to come if the Conservatives win the next General Election.

The Tories are determined to shake-up the Ministry of Defence and that will inevitably spill over to the military. "The next Strategic Defence and Security Review will have to be a step change and full overhaul of the status quo - not a minor tinkering to the system," says Fox.

"It will be carried out ruthlessly and without sentiment. Tough decisions will be made and there will be winners and losers at the end of the process but Britain will be safe and our interests secure.

"We are at a tipping point in Britain. We need to decide if we want to stay in the First Division or slide into the Second Division. I choose the former."

It's clear the Army will be protected by the Conservatives from spending cuts, because it is bearing the brunt of the attrition in Afghanistan, and before that Iraq. If we are to continue with land based operations, then it's clear that the strength of the Army must be such that it can still protect the UK while operating in other theatres.

Trade is vital to the UK, which means our sea lanes have to be kept open. That's the Royal Navy's job, and it is the one branch of the armed forces that is capable of operating anywhere in the world backed by the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the Royal Marines.

The Navy will also continue to operate the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. We cannot expect to depend on others when the push comes to shove - if anything was learned from the Falklands conflict, it was we have to be militarily self sufficient.

In his speech, Fox touched on the Falklands: "We must be able to defend our 14 overseas territories and, of course, the main focus is on the Falklands. The recent legislation passed in Argentina attempting to exert Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory is completely unacceptable. The Falkland Islands are and will remain British."

Which means the Royal Navy must have its two new aircraft carriers - without them, how would the Fleet Airm Arm be able to stop further Argentine aggresion

That leaves the Royal Air Force - which apart from bombing some Argentine airfields, was not involved in the Falklands - standing out like a saw thumb. Yes it did operate successfully in Iraq, but I can't see any drawback to it becoming part of a joint Navy-Air Force.

Merging it with the Royal Navy would save billions of pounds a year. The drawback? The defence industry is a large employer. Closure of military establishments will lead to large scale unemployment.

Whatever the outcome of the review, and whichever party carries it out, it's obvious that the global economic downturn has focused minds as never before that now the Cold War is over, we don't need to be over defended, but what defence services we do maintain must be properly and adequately armed, equipped and clothed.

Gordon wants Groundhog Day to go on and on

TODAY is Groundhog Day, when the good folk of Gobbler's Knob - wouldn't you just like to live there - near Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, pay homage to Punxsutawney Phil who predicts the weather in the weeks ahead, Yesterday, those hoping for an early spring were disappointed by his warning of winter lasting another six weeks.

Phil, emerged from his burrow to see his shadow and tradition holds that if a hibernating animal sees its shadow on February 2, winter will be long. If no shadow is seen, legend says spring will come early

In the film Groundhog Day, meteorologist Bill Murray finds himself reliving February 2 day after day, a timeloop from which he struggles to free himself. No doubt dear Gordon would dearly love to repeat today time after time, coming as it does with a slide in the opinion polls for Cameron's Conservatives and the sowing of seeds of doubt that the Tory path to Downing Street is not as easy as they have confidently predicted.

There is a glimmer of hope for Labour and all the proportional representation buffs are predicting a tie-up between Labour and the Lib Dems after the election in recognition of Brown's embracing of the alternative vote today. But that's not going to happen . . .

Blair charms the inquistors

AS I've yet to hear anyone involved with the New Labour "project" apologise for anything - Gordon Brown's stubborn refusal to say sorry for the 10p tax fiasco still shames him - I wasn't expecting a mea culpa performance from Tony Blair at today's Iraq inquiry hearings in London.

Having sloped into the Queen Elizabeth conference centre through a back entrance two hours ahead of the hacks and demonstrators hoping to waylay him, Blair was never going to be anything other than an unrepentant , selfserving justifier of a dodgy dossier backing up an illegal war.

I always opposed military action in Iraq. Seven years' later, I'm more convinced than ever that the invasion was only about regime change, and in the aftermatrh, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in fractional infighting in the country's cities and countryside.

Today's appearance by Blair was heralded as his toughest day since he left Downing Street in 2007. It certainly didn't look like it. With that beguiling smile, this one-time barrister was always on top of his brief and nothing could dislodge him from his belief that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

No doubt it is. But that's not the point - if we went around overthrowing a government we don't like of a sovereign nation, we'd have sent tanks long ago down the Champs Elysee to rid the world of General de Gaulle. And the argument that the world is better off without a tyrant falls flat when we do nothing to remove Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

In his evidence to the inquiry, Blair said he was convinced by the intelligence reports he was receiving that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction. "When you are the prime minister and the Joint Intelligence Committee is giving you this information, you have got to rely on the people doing it, with the experience and with the commitment and integrity as they do.

"Of course now, with the benefit of hindsight, we look back on the situation differently.

He strongly defended his claim in the Government's Iraq dossier, published in September 2002, that the intelligence had established "beyond doubt'' that Iraq had WMD.

"What I said in the foreword was that I believed I was beyond doubt. I did believe it and I did believe that it was beyond doubt,'' he said.

He accepted the dossier should have made clear the now notorious claim that Iraq had WMD which could be launched in 45 minutes referred to battlefield weapons and not long-range missiles.

"It would have been better to have corrected it in the light of the significance it later took on,'' he said.

No-one would disagree with that. "The decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?

"I had to take the decision. I believed, and in the end the Cabinet believed - so did Parliament incidentally - that we were right not to run that risk."

Do you believe him? Cut through the smugness - is he a liar whose legacy will only ever be the Iraq war, or a prophet whom history will prove to have been right? Judging from the reactions of relatives of the British war dead to today's evidence session, Blair and Iraq will be yoked together for ever in the below-the-line list of deceit and manipulation.

Hattie - the question answerer from Hell

BRING on the Second XI. With Gordon Brown jetting off to Belfast to try to save the peace process and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was left to Hattie Harman to answer questions on his behalf.

Unlike on previous occasion, she made an utter cods of it. Brown's visit to Ulster coincided nicely with the wonderful news that in the last quarter of 2009, the British economy had grown by 0.1%. That makes the UK bottom of the G20, a matter which Brown no doubt was pleased to avoid being questioned on in the normally febrile atmosphere of Prime Minister's Questions.

As custom dictates, Hattie was not grilled by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but was given a less severe mauling from William Hague and Vince Cable, who I must say looked particluarly nervous.

First question up was from Maldon & Chelmsford East Tory John Whittingdale, who asked if she was aware that the compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence to the families of those killed in action "is then taken into account when calculating benefit assessments, with the result that some families receive no compensation at all and others are actually left worse off? Will she look at that as a matter of urgency to see what can be done to put it right?"

Hattie failed to answer the question - she had prepared for a different question and was therefore rather caught out - and in so doing will have upset the relatives of the UK's war dead. "The Ministry of Defence has been very concerned indeed to ensure that we support those who have been injured in the line of service," she intoned. "The Secretary of State for Defence produced a Command Paper that particularly addressed the issue of support for veterans. There has been a big upgrading of the compensation scheme and a further review of the scheme is under way. The Secretary of State for Defence has been working closely with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on this."

Whoops! No marks out of 10 I'm afraid.

And so it went on, as she flustered and fluttered from subject to subject. When Hague asked her to look ahead to Thursday's Afghan conference in London "should we not recall the lessons of the previous Afghan conference in London in 2006, which set dozens of extremely ambitious objectives for Afghanistan, most of which have never been met? Do the Government agree that, this time, the conference should focus on realistic goals that can be delivered, concentrating on improved governance and reintegrating former Taliban members?"

Hattie was far from gracious in her reply. "I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to support the work that will go on tomorrow instead of simply carping."

Carping indeed. Surely not. Hague hit back: "Immediately after Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will visit President Karzai to push forward exactly the same agenda as the Government, so there is no need to make party political points about that important subject."

And so she stumbled on. Not her finist 30 minutes, and she coulnd't even get her answers right when it came to equality matters.

The Commons chamber was not exactly full this lunchtime. In particular, Labour members were not much inevidence. Judging from this performance, I think it safe to predict that Hattie Harman will never become leader of the Labour Party.

Scottish Labour MPs no different to Non-Doms

THE double standards of this Government are legendry, but the latest outpouring by Sister Hattie Harman really does take the biscuit for downright cheek.

During questions on Non-Doms evading tax but being allowed to sit in the Commons and Lords, Hattie intoned: "We are determined to make sure that we can't have a situation where people purport to represent taxpayers in their constituency, or legislate in ways that affect taxpayers in the House of Lords, and yet not themselves be prepared to be registered as taxpayers domiciled in this country."

What about the phalanx of Scottish Labour MPs whom the Government calls to vote on English affairs which do not concern their constituents?

Of course, that's different. Bend the rules for Labour and screw eveyone else.

One Law for New Labour, and one for rest of us.