Savagely vindicated ... again

I first wrote about it on 28 July 2004, marking it down as "another blunder of Eurofighter proportions".

This is the £16 billion FRES programme, which I have consistently opposed, writing over 100 pieces about it. Yet I was almost a lone voice, stacked up against an indifferent and ignorant media, with only Booker for support in the media, and the tenacious Ann Winterton in Parliament.

On the other side of the divide, its greatest supporter has been General Sir Richard Dannatt, with the wholehearted approval of the Defence Committee and the Tory defence team.

But now we learn that FRES is dead in the water. "It's a dead duck. It is the definition of everything that is wrong with the MoD's procurement process," says a senior Ministry of Defence source. Actually, this isn't a procurement issue - it is a definition problem. The Army couldn't get its act together and make a coherent case for its future needs.

Fortunately, the project has not gone so far down the acquisition path that it is incapable of being cancelled. And, although I say it myself – because no one else will – that is in no small measure due to the opposition of this blog. Such was its reach and its sister blog DOTR, that we had the then procurement minister coming onto our forum to plead the case, after I had written this.

This I remarked at the time was when the blogosphere came of age. A blog was setting the agenda and forcing ministers to respond. We in turn responded with this - a case which was never satisfactorily countered.   Few people know the effect that piece had on the defence establishment, and why. I do.

You can read much of the background in Ministry of Defeat, still the only book that gets near telling the story. It has a recent review here.

Yet it is the Gen Dannatt who is lauded as the great expert, doyen of The Daily Telegraph - the man who "knows". This is the man who would have lumbered us with that useless pile of junk called FRES, and its lifetime costs in excess of £60 billion. By contrast, this blog won't even get a look in, shunned by the great and the good for telling the inconvenient truths.

Even then, the media doesn't get it. That idiot political editor Patrick Hennessy, who writes the piece about FRES being ditched, states: "The decision will mean that the Army will be forced to fight in Afghanistan and in future conflicts with its existing fleet of ageing vehicles, some of which first entered service in the 1960s."

In his little Westminster bubble, the world passes him by. Has he not heard of the Mastiff, Ridgeback, Wolfhound, Ocelot? How you can be that ignorant and still be a journalist is one of those modern miracles. No wonder they think Dannatt is an expert.

COMMENT THREAD

A crude characterisation

"Just who is this Guido Fawkes, aka Paul Staines - the semi-literate, extreme right-wing, public-school educated, foreign-born former bankrupt and convicted criminal blogger whose ineptly written innuendoes may yet put an end to the career of one of Britain's better politicians, (the completely blameless - ed) William Hague?"

So writes Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times (yes, it does still exist, although I had to check to make sure), but I'm not sure whether this is serious, or a wind-up. He continues, in classic style, answering his own rhetorical question:

Well, Mr Staines is Bloggsville incarnate - the very essence of that vast network of talentless and embittered individuals tapping away at their keyboards in the intellectual vacuum of cyberspace, only occasionally leaving their computer screens to heat up a Tesco microwave-ready mini filled garlic and corriander nan bread with Indian dip selection before returning to spew out some more unsubstantiated bile.

I must say that I really do object to this crude characterisation. I most certainly do not use Tesco ready-meals. Ooop North where it's really grim, we have to get ours from Morrinsons - it's that bad. As for leaving the computer screen ... nah! I get Mrs EU Referendum to pop them on grate along with the tripe sandwiches, after she has emptied the coal from the bath.

But says the great Liddle, of blogging in general, "This is anti-journalism, and nobody takes any notice of it - except, of course, the mainstream media and the government." Do you think I should take him to the PCC?

As for serious blogging, I took one look at The Sunday Telegraph this morning, with its yards of guff on Dannatt, and decided not to bother today. There are times when you simply cannot compete with the narrative, knowing full well that the paper has learned nothing and, more importantly, is not capable of learning anything.

COMMENT THREAD

Whatever happened to the internet?

This was supposed to be the internet election and, for once, The Daily Telegraph has asked an intelligent question ... what happened?

Unfortunately, the paper then asked Iain Dale to answer the question, a prominent member of the political claque who has done more than most to emasculate political discourse on the blogosphere, treating it as if it were a soap opera.

Most probably the reason why the election has not set the "new media" on fire is the same reason people aren't talking about it in pubs or elsewhere – the sheer tedium and artificiality of the contest. None of the real issues are being entertained, as the politicians try to dominate and limit the debate, confining it to the "safe" issues that they are prepared to discuss.

As it stands, I could get more interested in writing a lengthy discourse on the behavioural dynamics of brush-applied coatings on timber in domestic environments than explore Mr Cleggerown's latest vapourings.

But that does not mean that people, or the blogosphere for that matter, are not interested in politics or the election. It's just that there is a limit to how many times you can write or say that they're all a bunch of low-grade drongos with not a fag-paper between them, and that you'd sooner stick your head in a vat of boiling oil than vote for any of them.

Thus it is that the "new media" is alive and kicking, as active and vibrant as it has even been. The fact that it has not followed the election is not its failure – the failure is of the political system that cannot even hold our interest.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Only a blogger

A rainy, cold Bank Holiday has a dynamic of its own. You don't really feel like getting stuck into anything serious, and there is not a great deal happening which leaves a sort of vacuum. There is also a sense of phoney war, the last break before the general election campaign starts, when we will have wall-to-wall politics until 6 May.

Thus wholly unmotivated, one scans idly the blogosphere, coming across a post on Witterings from Witney which in turn refers to a post by the great BBC sage Rory-Cellan Jones. He is asking, rhetorically of course because he's already made up his mind: "Does the blogosphere matter?" Jones has decided it doesn't.

He is, as one might imagine, referring to political blogs and names the "usual suspects". But what caught my eye was his comment, noting of the "more prominent bloggers" that "it's a while now since any them has produced a real scoop."

Not wishing to be accused of false modesty - to add to my many other sins – I would tend to regard myself as a "prominent blogger". And, as regards scoops, I think I can point to my December story on Tata Steel and its surplus carbon credits, the outing of Rajendra Pachauri, "Amazongate", "Africagate" and the WWF and REDD as qualifying.

But EU Referendum is not on Rory-Cellan Jones's radar because, in his tiny little, self-referential world, we are not a political blog, and most certainly not part of the claque.

To the likes of Rory-Cellan Jones, "climate change" is a peripheral issue, of only marginal importance. He would, for instance, never dream of visiting Watts up with that? Energy, and a host of other vital issues, does not even factor in his mental checklist. "Europe" – as he would term it – is something only "fruitcakes" discuss. He is into real politics.

And that explains why so-called political commentators get it wrong so often and why they will continue to get it wrong. Having so narrowly defined politics, and then retreated to their little bubble, they really do not have the first idea of what is going on in the real world.

But as to the question, "Does the blogosphere matter?" – I don't think anyone knows the answer. But if I didn't personally think it did, I wouldn't invest so much time and energy in it. My guess is that it is a lot more influential than Rory-Cellan Jones thinks, but in ways that he cannot even begin to imagine.

But then, what do I know? I'm only a blogger.

COMMENT THREAD

A new blog on the block

Rarely does one use the words "an exciting new venture" – they don't come easy from a jaundiced old cynic such as this writer. But to have Norman "Polecat" Tebitt front a new venture which aims to be a right-wing UK version of Huffington Post does have a certain attraction, and it could be quite fun.

Called Critical Reaction, it launched quietly last Wednesday, and will build up over term as it recruits a galaxy of writers and commentators, including this jaundiced old cynic.

The plan is also to have a group blog, which could be very interesting, especially if it does the sort of job that Conservative Home set out to do, but does no longer – offer a commentary on conservative (rather than the not-the-Conservative-Party) affairs.

Anyhow, a publication that lets yours truly loose on its pages has to be all good – or bad, depending on your point of view - so we'll keep an eye on it and report what it has to say from time to time.

COMMENT THREAD

The group-think with no clothes

"A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation held together by shared values and beliefs succeeded in accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century."

That is the view of Prefero, an organisation which describes itself as a "global marketing agency that delivers extraordinary consumer experiences."

It is responding to the publicity picked up by Watts up with that? last week. Then, it had been disclosed that the agency had been commissioned by Oxfam to produce a report which, according to the left-wing political blog, LeftFootForward dealt with "combating the growing influence of climate sceptics".

The agency, we learned, had "shed new insights into the way climate sceptics' networks operate," and, although the report has not yet been published, we were treated to the "network map" reproduced above. This purports to be part of the analysis of online coverage of the Climategate "debacle", tracking its progress from "fringe blogs" to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.

We can only assume that the "map" is genuine and not an elaborate spoof, designed to mislead the sceptic "community". But if it is genuine, that rather calls into question the agency's claim to be a "collective of brilliant, original thinkers". It is a shoddy, inaccurate and superficial piece of work.

Not least, one of the major players in the early days of Climategate was Devil's Kitchen, which did some of its best work then, and helped spread the word with its cogent analysis. But this site does not even appear on Prefero's radar.

By contrast, this blog, its author and "umbrellog" are shown separately, when they are effectively the same entity. But the direct links shown to other blogs are entirely imaginary, as indeed is the link between Geoffrey Lean and The Times.

What is not shown, however, is the very direct link between Booker and myself, and thence to The Sunday Telegraph. Furthermore, the agency seems incapable of distinguishing between the Sunday paper and The Daily Telegraph which hosts writers with diametrically opposing views, with Lean and Delingpole writing for the same title.

However, if Prefero did set out to portray an accurate representation of the "loose federation" they claim to have detected, then the map is an extremely useful aid – not for what it tells us about a mythical "federation" but for what it tells us about the warmist perceptions of their opposition. To that extent, it is a map of their innermost thinking. They reveal more about themselves than they do about us.

Then, even the general "take" of the agency is a gross distortion. We achieved our coup, it says, "by significantly influencing public perception of anthropogenic global warming by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad."

Here, I cannot speak for others, but my perception is that we did no such thing as "single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad." Individually, we saw a story and ran with it, as much in competition with each other as acting in concert.

And where Prefero also gets it wrong is in its portrayal of the network. The links exist not so much between the different blogs as between the blogs and their readers – it is the readers who form the "community", bouncing between blogs and MSM. They also created an invisible network of e-mail correspondence – which was at least as important in disseminating information.

And while it is flattering to be credited with "accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century," this is probably overhyping the achievement. The most important thing about Prefero's input is that it betrays (one assumes) the ignorance of our opposition, and their failure to understand what they are dealing with. Not, of course, that we really understand the phenomenon of which we were part, other than to know that the Prefero portrayal is false.

That said, the purpose of the study – or so we are led to believe – is an attempt by Oxfam to understand the blogging and new media phenomena, specifically in order to replicate it in the service of the warmist cause. This is something also that the political parties have sought to do – without any real success. Like as not, the warmists will fail as well.

The reason might be that none of us can really claim to understand the medium with which we work – why some blogs take off and why some don't, why some posts go "viral" and other, apparently better posts do not, why the media picks up on some stories and not others.

But then, the ultimate answer is perhaps that blogging as a genre is not capable of analysis. The blogosphere is not a single entity but a disparate, anarchic group of individuals with their own motivations, skills and capabilities, each bringing their own individuality to the table.

And that might be the reason why the warmists will fail – as indeed will the politicians. This is group-think versus individualism. The former can never replicate the latter and nor can it win. The individual will always prevail – after all, it only took one boy to point out that the emperor had no clothes.

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

Real politics

The statement last week from the Met Office that they were no longer going to rely on their seasonal forecasts provoked obvious responses, but one wonders whether the implications have fully sunk in.

While the headline "barbeque summer" predictions have provided endless entertainment, these forecasts have a strategic purpose. They are used by local authorities, power generators and others for planning purposes. And it was last year's optimistic forecast that contributed to the lack of preparedness for the hard winter, leaving many highway authorities short of grit and salt.

Thus, if the Met Office is no longer going to offer forecasts to public utilities and other commercial users, these will be "flying blind", and will either have to plan on a worst case scenario or risk not being able to deliver if we experience next winter anything like we have just suffered – or even worse.

No more so it this the case than with electricity generation. During the intense cold last month, reserve capacity was briefly down to seven percent. An outage by a major power station would have precipitated power cuts, leaving vast areas of the country in the dark and cold.

Delays and incompetence by successive administrations, and the slavish adherence to the "green" agenda means that we are already operating with inadequate margins. And, to that extent, we are already living on borrowed time. Our lights stay on in the winter entirely by luck, rather than judgement.

For sure, the utilities are responding to an expected shortfall by building new CCGT plants, which means that price rather than power cuts may be the future issue. But that does not rule out the possibility of major breakdown, or a deterioration in the political situation elsewhere in the world, that leaves us short of power.

Thus, the Booker column today is particularly apposite, with him pointing out that, in order of political priorities, the security of our energy supplies probably comes second only to dealing with the mounting deficit.

The specific issues that Booker raises have been rehearsed so frequently on this blog that they need no repetition, other than to point out that Mr Cameron seems to be on the brink of achieving what many might have thought impossible – delivering an energy policy which is even worse than Labour's.

What is particularly damning though is that the Tory response, as is so often the case, is simply to ignore the issue. One assumes that they hope that by not talking about it, it will not become a debating point during the election campaign.

However, that may be a forlorn hope. Last week, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband – possibly sensing that there is political advantage to be gained - challenged Cameron to spell out his "renewable energy strategy", claiming that conflicting signals from Conservatives were "creating uncertainty for industry".

Miliband homed in on the inconsistencies in the Tory approach to wind power, where they are opposing onshore turbines, allowing free rein to Conservative controlled councils which have turned down 60 percent of applications for new wind farms.

This challenge, if repeated, may force Cameron out into the open, fronting a repost with his commitment (so far unpublished) to ramp up micro-generation. This stance could propel energy policy into the mainstream as the likes of Monbiot pitch in and tear the Tory plans to shreds. That will sour both the greens and the hard-headed realists, leaving the Boy with another political wreck on his hands.

One can see the Boy's problems though. The only short-term answers to this mess are to commit to lifting the closure threat to the coal-fired powers stations, imposed by the EU's large combustion plant directive, supporting the rapid development of new coal-fired plants, expanding the coal industry and ditching the renewable policy altogether.

In the longer term, he needs to put the nuclear energy programme on an emergency footing, with the sort of priority afforded to it that is usually only given in wartime.

Not only would that be personally impossible for Cameron to do – he is, after all, a sincere believer in the warmist cult – it would destroy his party's carefully nurtured, if fading, green credentials. Tellingly, it would also put him on a collision course with the EU. None of those things the Boy could even contemplate. The fact that a robust, no-nonsense approach might win him the election is neither here nor there.

Thus, it seems, the Tories will continue to attempt a fudge, skirting round the edges, trying to avoid a real debate. Labour will continue cherry-picking inconsistencies while studiously avoiding mention of their own, aided and abetted by the political claque and the media lobby correspondents who are completely out of their depths.

Yet, despite their self-important prattling, this time they may not have it all their own way. There is now the growing influence of the internet. Legend has it that president Obama's online presence and e-mail campaigning made a significant contribution to his electoral victory last year, and this is provoking discussion on this side of the Atlantic on the role the "new media" will play in the election.

Some pundits appear to be believe it will be quite limited, not least as the overtly political blogs have degenerated into poor replicas of MSM political diaries, concentrating on low-grade party political tat and personality politics.

But that is to ignore the wide range of "technical" blogs such as Watts up with that, which have readership levels which outstrip even the biggest of the British political blogs. They are dealing with highly political issues – real politics instead of Westminster bubble gum. And it is real politics, such as whether the lights are going out, which may increasingly call the shots and decide where votes are cast.

Unless Mr Cameron can answer satisfactorily the deceptively simple question, "how are you going to keep the lights on?", he may be riding for a fall.

COMMENT THREAD

Convenient criminals

Not on our beat, but a new blog looking at the downstream effect of police crime targets – and other injustices. Well written, and stark.

The beauties of blogging

No sooner is the Africagate piece up then Bishop Hill comments on it. That brings up further comments which identify this article from the National Geographic News.

Confirming the observations of the Tunisian government in its "initial national communication" (where it suggested that rainfall might increase), the National Geographic article is headed: "Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?"

It states that, contrary to the picture painted of "desertification, drought, and despair" by the IPCC, emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists, we are told, are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. Furthermore, it seems, this desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

Crucially, much of this relies on work done in 2005, when a team led by Reindert Haarsma of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, forecast significantly more future rainfall in the Sahel. The study in Geophysical Research Letters predicted that rainfall in the July to September wet season would rise by up to two millimeters a day by 2080.

Haarsma now says that satellite confirms that during the last decade, the Sahel is indeed becoming more green. Nevertheless, as one might expect, climate scientists don't agree on how future climate change will affect the Sahel: Some studies simulate a decrease in rainfall. "This issue is still rather uncertain," Haarsma says.

Max Planck's Claussen says North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modellers. Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen adds. "Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend."

That precisely reflects the uncertainty projected by Professor Conway and others, and completely contradicts the doom-laden certainty offered by Dr Pachauri and his IPCC colleagues. More to the point, since Haarsma was carrying out his studies in 2005, when the IPCC was in the throes of writing up the Fourth Assessment Report, it could or should have been aware of the work.

Instead, it relies on a secondary source written by an obscure Moroccan academic, and published by an advocacy group, which did not even accurately reflect its own primary sources. Yet, it takes bloggers to bring this to the fore, and more bloggers to expand and develop the theme, backed up by their readers with their invaluable input on comments sections, forums and e-mails.

In the free (and rapid) exchange of information and ideas (and mutual criticism), it is us working as a loose community who most closely approach the scientific ideal. This is, of course, why we are winning the intellectual argument. The political battle, though, has yet to come.

(Ed note: I have to drive to Bristol today, and back, so blogging is going to be a bit light - Heaven's knows when I'll be back, but I'll try and post a Horlix. There is tons of stuff to look at, but much of it will have to wait until Monday.)

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

A couple of blogs

A humorous piece on Autonomous Mind which tells us: "Climate change deceit close to making the Pachauri extinct", is followed by Subrosa with: "Warming News for Climate Change Deniers".

Since the blogosphere is very much part of the story now (and always has been), I'll try to do a round-up of interesting climate-related blogs tomorrow.

Oh! And I nearly forgot - Fox News has done "Amazongate" big time, and was not afraid to link to EU Ref. The thing I enjoy most about this is that bloggers can now reach out to the world, without huge resources, and make an impact.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The tyranny of the net

Nick Cohen writes a thought-provoking piece on the role of the internet and freedom of speech in this week's edition of Standpoint magazine. Amongst the passages which stood out was this:

The overwhelming majority of political writers on the internet do not fact-check allies or warn them that they are making a mistake. Indeed, the standard web author rarely sees the need to spell out what his or her side believes in and argue for it in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, they encourage group loyalty and group-think by denouncing opponents. Free access to content makes the building of tribal identification by ritual jeering at opponents the dominant style.

That seems to be a singularly apt analysis of the failure of the British political blogosphere. Rather than developing as a free-ranging forum of ideas, argument and intellectual discourse, it has simply reinforced the inherent tribalism, with dominant players in each tribe awarded with the approbation of their respective claques, with a tight circle of cross-links that create a virtual community just as narrow as the real thing.

Thus, of Guido Fawkes, Cohen writes that he:

... does not argue for right-wing policies. Like most other conservative bloggers, he takes their inherent merit for granted and devotes his time to disparaging the Left. Instead of conducting a thorough debate on why its government has failed, Left-wing blogs imitate the Right and respond in kind. For neutral readers, it is like watching drunken football fans shouting abuse at each other.

There is a reason why such blogs are so singularly unattractive, and Cohen has just articulated it. Outside their narrow group of tribal supporters, they have no depth of interest and offer nothing of any consequence. Thus does Cohen conclude:

Whether they are communists in China, mullahs in Tehran or censorious libel judges in London, all opponents of freedom of expression must be grateful for the cover such empty-headed determinism provides. They can carry on as before, while their deluded citizens believe that the mere fact that they can blog and tweet is enough to free them from the long, grinding and often dangerous tasks of political reform.

Sadly, the man speaks the truth.

COMMENT THREAD

Not part of the blogosphere

In a follow-up to the his piece on Cameron backtracking on the constitutional Lisbon Treaty, Tim Montgomerie was basking in the limelight, recording the "blogosphere" reaction to his revelation ... which had actually been circulating for some time - starting in early October.

Tim's idea of the "blogsphere", however, is three MSM "clogs", Iain Dale and Guido. Despite two reaction pieces on this blog, one from my co-editor and the other from myself, EU Referendum - the premier anti-EU site - does not exist. It does not get a mention, much less a link.

We find the same with Defence of the Realm. We get a lot of links from US, Canadian and other foreign sites (and some of the smaller British blogs), but never any from the self-proclaimed "big-hitters" in the British political blogosphere. And that is despite a readership in the corridors of power that the likes of Dale would kill for. (How do you think we are so well-informed?)

But that is how it is. We've broken ranks many times, and criticised blogs – on the basis that no-one is beyond criticism. But, while the blogs love to criticise the MSM, they can't take it themselves. Step outside the claque and they go shrieking to mummy, and then bury their heads deeply in the sand, from which posture they commune with themselves – and only themselves – through the only orifices left exposed to the air.

Largely, the "independent" political blogosphere has chosen to shackle itself to the corpse of the MSM, which is why it accepts the "clogs" into its closed little club. It is also why the British blogosphere largely follows rather than makes the agenda, and has neither the reach nor the influence that characterises the US blogosphere.

And, do you know what? We don't give a damn. We are on the outside. That is where we belong, and are happy to be there. We tell it as we see it, not for the self-referential claque which demands as the price of its approval a degree of conformity and an absence of informed criticism that no censor could impose.

Just occasionally though, it is quite fun tweaking their tails ... whence they resolutely ignore us with even more determination, ramming their heads further into the sand. But we don't do it too often these days – it is too much of a waste of energy. As the media start picking up on Dave's betrayal though, as it is now doing, things are going to get very dirty and very nasty. That will sort the sheep from the goats, and the "clogs" from the blogs. And we know where we stand. We know our place.

Apologises for the light blogging, incidentally – some rather sombre family business to attend to. That probably also explains the mood of this post. Sometimes, events happen which make you think hard about where you stand. Some things which you thought very important, suddenly are not so important. Others become more so. The little bloggy-weenies can play their games. To put it bluntly, we don't give a shit. We'll be back on the treadmill later today, with more posts for the timorous wee bloggies to ignore.

COMMENT THREAD

Danse macabre

So it came to pass that, on the final Prime Ministers' Questions before the recess, David Cameron made as the focus for his set-piece attack on Gordon Brown ... helicopters in Afghanistan. Thus did he reflect the Tories' "line", selected at the weekend as the most profitable – and, for them, least embarrassing – area on which to score political points.

Now up on Hansard, we can read – without having to listen to the cheering, hooting and jeering which our honourable members so love – how Cameron steers the safe path, relying on formulaic questioning the like of which we have been hearing all week.

Without needing – or wanting - to go into the details, one can easily determine from the narrative the Boy's game plan. For the main evening news, he wants from Brown an admission that "the number of helicopters in Afghanistan is simply insufficient." Brown, on the other hand, knows that is the game plan and, furthermore, Cameron knows he knows. And Brown's game plan is quite simple – he is not going to make that admission.

Thus does the dreary charade play out. Cameron makes his pitch, Brown dead-bats it and the exchange goes nowhere, leaving the chef de claque to pronounce a 6-4 "win" for his Boy. This is politics à la blogosphere for you. Scintillating it ain't.

What the Boy could have asked, of course, is why the MoD did not follow the example of the Canadians: bring some Bell 412s into service, and hire some Mi-8 MTVs.

Cameron could also have asked why, since they are available off the shelf, the prime minister did not instruct the MoD to procure rapidly some UH-60 Blackhawks. And, for good measure – just to put the prime minister on the rack, he could have asked what steps were being taken to make good the sudden shortfall of capacity arising out of yesterday's events.

One can speculate as to why the Great Leader did not suggest these options but, given his party's view on the Future Lynx and other high-value procurement projects, it is not untoward to suggest that he has no more interest in expeditiously solving the helicopter "crisis" than does the General Staff.

Thus, do we see this obscene and ultimately sterile danse macabre where, to put it bluntly, the bodies of dead service personnel are but another tool to be exploited in the endless pursuit of headlines. And that is really what this is about, which makes the chef's "win" of 6-4 a tad sick. The real score is 184-0, and rising.

COMMENT THREAD

Brains into neutral

The D-Notices (or "Defence Advisories" as they are called) are flying around at the moment, keeping a damper on speculation on the "dodgy chopper" that went in at Sangin yesterday.

Sarah Montague for the BBC Today Programme was actually in Sangin this morning – flown in by a US Army Blackhawk helicopter with General Dannatt for an an interview. Yet, neither then nor on the web report did the fair Sarah mention the crash, even though it is the talk of the base and the biggest incident since the death of the 2nd Rifles soldiers last week.

Nor indeed has the British media covered the story, except for the briefest mention in The Times, where the helicopter is wrongly described as delivering "humanitarian aid". Yet, much of the BBC report was about helicopter capacity and here you have a 50-ton helicopter – the largest production helicopter in the world - delivering supplies to the base, crashing and burning not a mile from the gates, after being shot down by the Taleban, leaving seven dead.

And that does not even rate a passing mention? That isn't news? Pull the other one.

Instead, the media agenda is Dannatt wanting more targets for the Taleban boots on the ground. Thus we can see more young officers mowing the grass, with no sense of mission, getting shot for their pains. All that so the General and his mob can keep up with the Joneses Americans, while DFID build more latrines for grateful Taleban Afganis and erect another Ferris wheel.

The other item of the day is why Dannatt flew in an US helicopter, something about which The Daily Mail drooled, not realising – or caring – that much of the reason why we do not have enough machines is down to the saintly General himself, who has been shafting the Army ever since he took office as CGS – and before.

Of course, to turn the critical spotlight on the saintly General goes against the narrative and while Tom Newton Dunn is still beating the drum about the dreadful Lynxes in The Sun, he too is muzzled and cannot tell the full story.

For instance, every defence journo knows that the RAF is operating for the special forces Russian-built Mi-8 MTVs in Afghanistan. That is widely known in theatre and you can bet the Taleban know.

But we are not allowed to know ... there is a "D-Notice" out preventing us being told officially. And why? Well, if it was more widely known just how successful these machines really were – they were designed specifically for operations in Afghanistan – then there might be agitation to get more. And, with a bit of effort, we could have machines in place within WEEKS and a full squadron up and running in months, with as many more as we needed.

But that would mean that the RAF would not have got more Merlins, it would not have got to raise another squadron, and it would not be able to milk the Treasury for more and more staff, upgrades and the rest. That would never do. Empire-building is far more important than capacity or soldiers' lives.

However, with a media only able to report under license from the MoD and its "D-Notice" system, this leaves the field wide open for the blogosphere. Except that, as my co-editor observed, the British blogosphere has largely sold its soul to the MSM, following rather than leading the agenda. If it is outside the "comfort blanket", most of them don't want to know.

So, when EU Referendum/Defence of the Realm comes up with a real scoop – "Moldavian gun-runners flying supplies to 'Our Boys' in dodgy choppers", while Dannatt swans about in US choppers because he personally blocked a cheaper alternative to his beloved Future Lynx - with the full backing of the Tory defence team and the defence contractors' lobby - no one wants to know ... EXCEPT this brilliant piece HERE, which has really got the point - and one more here.

Dannatt, however, is the saintly figure, that "fine soldier speaking out for his men". That's the narrative so the claque puts its brains into neutral and falls into line. It's all Gordon Brown's fault, doncha know.

P****d off? Yea ... I'm officially p****d off as well.

COMMENT THREAD

A la lanterne

I was going to quote from the Marseillaise, as it is quatorze juillet, but no appropriate words presented themselves and, in any case, as every school child ought to know but probably does not, Le Chant de guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin, otherwise known as La Marseillaise was not composed till 1792. So, the cry "á la lanterne" will have to do.

For it seems entirely fitting on this day to remind everyone that we of the Third Estate do not remain obedient for ever. The day comes when we lock ourselves in a tennis court and swear an oath to deal with matters; I am sure most of our readers know what happens after that. Ah ça ira, ça ira, ça ira … (OK, that was not written till 1790 either but the spirit had been there from the beginning.)

All of which is a preamble to the fact that, with the boss's agreement I am announcing that I am now officially p****d off. So is he and we shall come to that.

This morning I received an e-mail which was relaying a request from a well-known and undoubtedly highly paid journalist to find out for him when the last opinion poll about the Lisbon Treaty had taken place in Britain. The journalist in question writes for a number of publications, including The Spectator and the News of the World and is one of the media bloggers who have taken over the British blogosphere and tamed it to become part of the political establishment.

My rather surly response was that the journo in question is paid considerably more than I am (not that that would be difficult at the moment) and can do his own digging. Undoubtedly, I have just lost an ally, shaky though that alliance was.

Later on I found out something that annoyed me even though I knew that the annoyance is childish. When Better Off Out was relaunched we wrote about it on the blog (here and here) regardless of the fact that there was a very clear indication that we, as mere writers and researchers would not be asked to any of the meetings, not even to brief the parliamentarians of various stripe. Our material may be used though, unlike that of Open Europe, it will probably not be acknowledged.

One gets used to being on the wrong side of the green baize door and both the boss and I shrugged our shoulders. That is the role of the Third Estate until such time …

Frankly, the events have not seemed all that exciting though the occasional link from the blog might have been useful. After all, EUReferendum has done the odd posting here and there about the EU. And I was delighted when Tim Montgomerie, the onlie begetter of Conservative Home (now shared with Jonathan Isaby) joined the organization. The more the merried, thought I, and Tim is a good egg all round, if a little too entranced by the goings-on inside the Conservative Party.

Discussing his membership with certain gentlemen of the Taxpayers' Alliance I asked when they were going to be gracing Better Off Out with their presence. In response I got one charming and enigmatic smile and one equally enigmatic comment that there would be news some time in the autumn that I shall be very pleased about. Can't wait.

Today I find that Mr Montgomerie, unlike the poor plebs, was invited to a parliamentary meeting of BOO, not, one assumes, to brief the politicians but to join in the general mutual congratulatory session.

Now, do not get me wrong. This is not about Tim Montgomerie, who is a good friend and ally on issues that are truly important. It is not even about the unnamed but clearly delienated journalist who thought that some unpaid skivvying from someone more knowledgeable was in order.

The reason I am officially p****d off and the boss is spitting tacks is because much of it is part of a pattern. Our work is lifted with no acknowledgement, let alone payment. This has been particularly noticeable in the last few days when everybody suddenly started rehashing without much comprehension what the boss has been laboriously putting together for many months.

Our postings are ignored unless some specific information is needed.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

By not joining the establishment and persisting in running an independent blog we have put ourselves beyond the pale, a problem both the boss and I have faced before.

The question is why carry on. Yes, it is true that over the years our work, rarely acknowledged unlike the rather inadequate production and downright nonsense produced by some of the grander organizations (we all know who they are), has helped to turn opinion in the country. When I compare the debate now with that of 1992, the year of Maastricht, when I first became involved I cannot help noticing how far we have moved and I cannot help claiming credit for those of us labouring behind the green baize door, allowed into the drawing room occasionally to bow and curtsey to the aristocracy.

Nevertheless, treading water, being ignored until the information is inescapable when someone else claims credit for producing a messy version of it, is not particularly pleasant and the time has come for us, the boss and me to rethink the whole situation.

This posting is laying down a marker. It will not be linked to the forum because at this stage any discussion will be counterproductive. But, well, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira …

The home front

It is essential to stop Afghanistan becoming an "incubator for terrorism" and a launchpad for attacks on the UK and other countries says David Miliband.

The badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan – that border area – have been used to launch terrible attacks, not just on the United States, but on Britain as well. Thus, he says, "We know that until we can ensure there is a modicum of stability and security provided by Afghan forces for their own people, we are not going to be able to be secure in our own country."

The thought is echoed by The Times which affirms that, "The campaign in Afghanistan is crucial," adding that, "It has been advanced by British servicemen of extraordinary courage and real heroism."

"The failures in the campaign have been on the home front: the British Government has been dilatory and uncertain in making the case for the war," it goes on to say. "Nor has it provided sufficient armoured vehicles for the troops already there or adequate and consistent numbers of troops on the ground to establish the security that is the foundation for building a new nation in Afghanistan."

More on Defence of the Realm

A view from the blogosphere

Things must be pretty desperate – or appear to be so – if Tory Boy Blog wakes from its torpor and suddenly realises there's a war going on in Afghanistan.

But having awakened from the sleep of the dead, its stunning contribution is to observe that: "You can't win a war on a peacetime budget". It is apparently unaware of the fact that the Labour government is pouring money into the military campaign, approximately £3.5 billion this financial year – equivalent to a ten percent top-up on the defence budget.

Since all this is achieving is to keep a reinforced brigade in position, mowing the grass and getting an increasing number of vehicles trashed – unfortunately with troops still inside them – it might not be a terribly bad idea to ask what the military is doing, much less achieving, with the money in supporting what must be one of the most expensive brigade deployments in the history of mankind.

For want of this, the fair Montgomerie, noting in passing that, "It is not clear what the Tory position is" (we are shocked, I tell you, shocked!), posits the idea that we might consider raiding the NHS to pay for this gold-plated war which boasts amongst its achievements the installation of a Ferris wheel for the grateful citizens of Lashkah Gar.

One can doubtless make a case for British grannies – and even aged Afghani immigrants – being deprived of their hip replacements to fund yet more Ferris wheels, but, needless to say, Mr Montgomerie does not make it. Instead, he offers the "bold option" espoused by his hero, president Obama, that of pledging to do "whatever is necessary to secure victory."

What "victory" might actually be and what we might need to do to achieve it, is of course not specified. Once it is achieved though, we can look forward to riding off into the sunset to the applause of grateful Afghanis, breaking clear of the crowds of crippled grannies clutching their Zimmer frames in agony.

But there you are – there is no need to think about what is actually needed. The Boy has actually spoken, demanding a "clarification of our mission", and that should be good enough for the legions of adoring fans who can now flock to the polling booths in the certain knowledge that the brightest minds in the land are on the case, and that we will do "whatever it necessary", once they've worked out what that is.

COMMENT THREAD

The great divide

In this topsy-turvey world, there seems to be another of those dividing lines emerging – those who are interested (and concerned) about the increasingly lethal campaign in Afghanistan and those who are determinedly ignoring it.

On the one side, for a change, is the British media, which has devoted an unprecedented amount of space and time to the campaign, with the tardy intervention of the Clegg, who at least has political antennae sensitive enough to realise that it is an issue which has some considerable public resonance.

Apart then from the occasional, formulaic intervention of Liam Fox, who has yet to decide whether he has anything useful to say, the running is being made by the government, with Ainsworth's keynote speech to Chatham House yesterday, and by an increasing number of military and ex-military commentators, as well as specialist journalists.

On the other hand, as far as the opposition goes, this seems to be a politics-free zone, and especially as far as the British political blogosphere is concerned. Although US and Canadian blogs are full of comment, one struggles to find anything but the occasional reference on the British side of the pond. It is odd that the MSM, so derided by the blogs, is making the running, while the blogosphere is opting out.

Clearly, though – from our readers' comments on the forum, and the hit-rate, there is significant interest. My publisher also tells me that Ministry of Defeat is "moving" after a slow start, further suggesting that there is real public concern over what has been a neglected issue.

We thus remain committed to running with the debate, although it is slightly unbalancing the blog, for which I apologise. This also means that other subjects are not getting the coverage they deserve, but we'll try and pick up on some of the news in the occasional round-up piece.

As the current torrent of coverage dies down, as and when, normal service – if there is such a thing on this blog – will be resumed.

COMMENT THREAD

Intensely political

With two more British soldiers killed today, there is every indication that the defence debate raging in today's newspapers is about to ramp up a notch, especially as one of the reported casualties is a soldier from The Light Dragoons, who was killed by an IED. The Light Dragoons are known to operate Jackals and a recent Dragoon casualty, L/Cpl Nigel Moffet, was also killed in a Jackal.

According to The Times, however, the Light Dragoons soldier was killed by an explosion while he was on foot and the other soldier, from the Mercian Regiment, died when he was hit during a rocket-propelled grenade attack against his Scorpion (sic) armoured reconnaissance vehicle. That does not sound right – the Mercians do not operate Scorpions (which were withdrawn in 1994), while the Dragoons actually operate Scimitars. There may be a mix-up here.

Anyhow, despite the intensity of that debate in the media, as we have observed several times in the last few days, it really is quite remarkable how the political classes have opted out. For once, the MSM has its finger on the pulse but go to the British political blogosphere and you would hardly be aware of the controversy. Other matters are of more concern.

Peter Hitchens has a thing or two to say about this, and the Conservatives in particular, which rather puts contemporary party politics into perspective – hence the picture. While the Tories and their blogging claque indulge in their own obsessions, the world goes on without them.

Hitchens himself expresses his frustration about the response to Lt-Col Thorneloe's death and the use of "unsafe" Vikings, asking why it is that the Opposition has not demanded a proper debate about it. But then, as we have noted, the Tories – along with Labour and the rest of the MPs - don't "do" defence any more, along with "Europe", immigration and many other issues.

The trouble is that, in leaving the debate to the media, you get the sort of editorial we see in The Sunday Telegraph, telling us that "Frontline troops must now be a spending priority". This frames the debate in a way that neither government nor opposition politicians would prefer.

With pressure on public spending, like never before, the last thing the Tories will want when they take over the administration next year is to be confronted with the prospect of increased defence spending – and exactly the same complaints of "underfunding" that they have been flinging at Labour.

Had the Tories got their wits about them, there is plenty of evidence in the MoD of waste and miss-directed spending, sufficient for them to argue that defence effects could be achieved with little or no extra spending, and even with a modest reduction.

However, having opted out of the debate, the way is left clear for The Sunday Telegraph to argue that the purchase of the weapons and vehicles that "those serving on the front line need and demand – must not merely be maintained. It must be increased." Anything less, the paper says, "would be a criminal failure to honour the responsibility politicians have to the men and women they order into battle."

In the Observer, we see a similar line taken, with Henry Porter asserting that, "The soldiers give all, while the politicians starve them of cash". And, with The Times yesterday also equating equipment shortfalls with lack of cash, offering the strap, "Money is scarce but there is no excuse for conducting a battle with inadequate equipment," the terms of the debate are being set outside the control of the politicians.

That is the bizarre aspect of this whole issue – politics without politicians, the latter having vacated the field. They, as well as our troops and ourselves, will be the losers.

COMMENT THREAD

In the media

Read this and then read this. Now read the offering from The Times and wonder.

Looking at the bigger picture, Matthew Parris reckons we can't win, while Tim Collins, on a narrower front, writes about Rupert Thorneloe and ventures that this was war. "Things like this happen, and often they are flukes," he says.

We beg to differ. We all accept that, in war, soldiers die. What is not acceptable is unnecessary deaths - deaths which could have been avoided with a modicum of care and forethought.

In Aden in the 60s, British forces were issued with mine/IED protected vehicles. In the 70s, the Rhodesians developed a range of such vehicles and saved many lives. In Bosnia, the designs were used by British troops. In Iraq, US forces developed a greater range of such vehicles, which reduced IED casualties by 80 percent.

Col Thorneloe's death was not a "fluke" - it was a duff piece of kit called the Viking, that was not armoured against an underbelly threat. It should never have been allowed into theatre. Our military vehicle designers, the MoD and the military have sat on their hands for nigh on 30 years, ignoring the mine/IED threat.

This is the result - 35 percent of our dead in Afghanistan have occurred in poorly-protected vehicles. In the one properly designed vehicle we have out there, the death rate has been nil. Go figure.

Rarely has the death of one soldier invoked such an intensity of comment – and never in recent times. Ainsworth has been forced to defend the MoD's position, insisting that British forces in Afghanistan were "better equipped than they have ever been". Many are not entirely convinced.

In one thing, therefore, we were absolutely right, suggesting that Col Thorneloe's death was "a major incident with huge political ramifications". Our earlier pessimism about the behaviour of the media was perhaps unwarranted, although it is largely The Times making the running. It was The Daily Telegraph that made the running yesterday.

The Times has Michael Evans reporting that Thorneloe's death "reignites equipment row" – although he is falling for the MoD line that the Viking was adequate when it was introduced to theatre – which it never was – and accepts uncritically the idea that the Warthog replacement will resolve the problem. It will not.

In another piece, Deborah Haynes compares US performance with the British in delivering MRAPs to theatre - 12,000 as opposed to Britain's 235. She does not go into why that is the case, and why the British Army is so reluctant to embrace mine/blast protected vehicles. Exploring that might give her (and her readers) some real insight into what is going on.

Instead - and in both pieces - Liam Fox is quoted. In the first, he is blaming the lack of helicopters on Mr Brown’s refusal to supply adequate funds for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan when he was Chancellor. "Gordon Brown denied the Armed Forces the funds they needed," he declares. As always, little Liam has never sussed the real story.

In the second piece, he asks, "Why is it that other countries are able to give their armed forces what they need, when they need it and where they need it, but under the current Government we are unable to do the same?" His answer to his own question is not recorded.

Fox, therefore, is offering the usual, low-grade, formulaic stuff but, even then, he is on his own - other than renta-mouth Mercer who, like Fox, is complaining of shortage of funds. But then, the Tories have never been able to get their heads round the fact that this is not about money. Their stance is politically maladroit and illogical. It is in their interests to find cheaper ways of doing things as they will not be able to throw money at the problems. They are setting themselves up for a fall,

Nevertheless, the lack of focused opposition does not entirely surprise us. Nor does the lack of engagement in the political blogosphere. When we see this, however, we suspect they have lost it.

I don't know what is more worrying – the piece itself, or that there are 197 comments (at the time of writing). If this is in any way indicative of the future under a Tory administration, our troops would be well advised to look for a quick exit.

COMMENT THREAD