The Real Cost of Energy

“Vote blue, go green” we were told by David Cameron after he became Conservative leader – at the height of an era in which concern for the sustainability of the planet was fashionable, and in which the country could afford to put its money where its mouth was.

Now, times are tougher, people’s pockets are shrinking… and, of course, politicians are pandering to those whims instead. Today the Prime Minister told the House of Commons – to the audible surprise of even many in his own party – that he wanted to “roll back some of the green regulations and charges that are putting up bills”.

This echoes a similar pledge by Nicola Sturgeon on Friday, who said that an SNP government of an independent Scotland would deliver “a real and lasting cut, not a short-term fix” by removing environmental levies from energy bills (that these would instead have to be paid out of general taxation attracted strangely less attention at the conference).

Of course, these are not unilateral changes in policy; they reflect shifting attitudes in society. Hence the unity of purpose that saw Mr Cameron posing with huskies for our newspapers while Ed Miliband was adding green taxes to our energy bills is now being shown as the same two rivals fall over themselves in trying to demonstrate that they really are on our side.

Meanwhile at Grangemouth, the fight to save one of Scotland’s most significant industrial sites – and one of the largest remaining relics of 20th-century energy production – suffered a major blow when the owners, citing massive losses and employees’ unwillingness to compromise, announced that they were closing the petrochemical plant that employs 800 people.

The decision could have huge implications for the UK’s (especially Scotland’s) energy security – the refinery supplies 70% of the fuel used north of the border and also contributes to stocks elsewhere. The closure of such a significant resource is likely to increase our dependence on fuel imported from Europe and the US.

It is also another reminder of the urgent need to invest meaningfully in other, more sustainable forms of production. The current model of subsidies is an unworkable, patchwork solution that relies on a ‘base’ level of continued supply from increasingly volatile sources.

Yet at what is a crunch time for decision-making on this issue, the politicians are bogged down in arguments over whose fault it is, and who would save households more money. The debate has been distorted ever since Mr Miliband launched his populist price-fixing policy, with the government preoccupied in giving us several (very valid) reasons why we shouldn’t be fooled.

But whatever the outcome, it will change nothing about the way we manage our energy supply. Part of the problem is that dire warnings about the uncertain future are so routinely hijacked by sensationalist headlines about ‘the lights going out’ as to be dismissed by those who refuse to believe that the prospects could ever be allowed to get so grim.

And therein lies the political problem – no government will ever admit (even implicitly) that urgent action is needed, for fear of being blamed for creating the situation in the first place.

But the power is in governments’ hands – not by dictating energy firms' business model, but by incentivising a change of priorities, for the good of their own future, as well as the country’s. That way, people like those being abandoned at Grangemouth will not be betrayed by their employers who told them they had a career in an industry with no future.

It’s the sort of predicament that makes politics so infuriating yet so compelling.

No Ordinary Party Conference Season

Normally, party conferences are an excruciating ritual in which a series of politicians, both high-ranking and grassroots, demonstrate a vast overestimation of the importance of their annual shindig (not to mention of themselves), and political journalists work painfully hard to follow suit.

Normally, it’s a desperate struggle to convince even casual followers of politics such as the Sage – let alone Joe Public – that anything that is said or done really matters or has any real consequence. But this year’s conference season wasn’t like how it normally is; this year was different.

Over the past few weeks, the three main Westminster parties – whose gatherings continue to enjoy such complete dominance of the airwaves as to make you think they’re the only choices available – have been marking their territory in preparation (already) for the next general election.

And even at this early stage – with more than 18 months to go – the positions they have staked are the most strikingly differentiated since the days of Thatcher. One has shifted rightwards, while another has bolted to the left; the other has leapt onto the vacant centre ground with a mix of relief and glee.

For at least a generation, political purists have commonly complained that there is little to choose between the main protagonists at election time, as both/all of them have moved ever closer together in recognition of a similar shift in the views of the majority of voters.

New Labour under Tony Blair is widely blamed for starting – or at least validating – this trend; now, we may well be seeing the start of a new era, initiated by two leaders who appear to have sensed, almost simultaneously, a change in the British public to one that is increasingly strong-willed, clear-minded… and divided.

Is it the effects of the economic crisis? Is it the experience of coalition government? Is it a sign of the times? Whatever has led to this ideological empowerment of the British electorate, and however genuine or otherwise it is, the politicians appear to be responding to it, and in doing so, endorsing and reinforcing it.

For most of the three years following the last election, the conventional wisdom was that Britain had entered an age in which coalitions were to be the norm at Westminster, just as they are in most of continental Europe, in many local councils and – with the odd notable exception – in other legislatures such as the Scottish Parliament.

But the British people have never quite been comfortable with the idea of a government that ‘nobody voted for’. A year later, faced with a choice between the current, outdated electoral system and a less-than-perfect proportional system that would make such an outcome almost unavoidable, they chose to retain the age-old status quo.

That same day, Scottish voters overcame a system specifically designed to moderate the power of individual parties in giving the SNP an overwhelming mandate to continue unilaterally the work they had started in coalition, and pursue a referendum on independence.

Then, the English local council elections awakened the Conservatives, in particular, to the threat posed by rivals positioned on the outer wings of the political spectrum to whom voters may migrate should they become dissatisfied by the perceived lack of strength of the three main Parliamentary players. A victory for those on one side brought about by a split vote on the other would be the same defeat for democracy that many perceive a coalition to be.

But as always with elections, the calculations are not solely political. The recession and the slow recovery that has followed, hampered by austerity at home and financial troubles overseas, have hardened – even polarised – the opinions of voters across the economic as well as political scale. Whoever one blames for one’s own circumstances, events will surely have stiffened one’s determination to ensure one’s enemies are not allowed to do more of the same next time.

Of course, there remain many in the country who do not belong to one ‘camp’ or the other – those whom Labour describe as the ‘squeezed middle’ and whom the Tories like to call ‘hard-working people’ – and they will still (probably) both define the campaign and decide the result in 2015.

But it is what this conference season has shown about how the parties intend to reach out to those undecided voters that is so striking, so unusual, and so (potentially) game-changing.

Ed Miliband was rightly berated – and not just by those with a vested interest – for his ridiculous and unworkable price-fixing proposal, but it will inevitably appeal to the thousands of families feeling pressured by rapidly rising energy bills, and aggrieved by the profits being racked up by the ‘big six’ suppliers.

David Cameron was attacked for proposing further tough restrictions on access to benefits, but his defence of his ‘earning or learning’ approach to welfare reform will chime with many who are frustrated by the apparent sense of entitlement felt by a significant minority for whom work still isn’t worth the effort.

Nick Clegg, meanwhile, avoided criticism of his policy announcements, because there weren’t any. Not that this wasn’t a bold pitch by the Lib Dems – their approach to the forthcoming election appears to be along the lines of ‘whichever party wins, we’ll stop them doing half of what they were voted in for’.

At least they’re being honest this time – and incredibly, it might just work. The gamble that Mr Clegg is taking is that large sections of the British electorate, having got so used to marginal decisions, may not be ready for the stark choice that they seem likely to face this time around.

Quite apart from being squeezed between two converging heavyweights, the Lib Dems seem set to benefit from the vacuum created by their rivals’ departure from the centre ground. Thus, a party whose support has dwindled in the light of its first experience in government may yet hold the balance of power once again, as a moderating influence on either warring faction.

So, far from being the usual charade, this year’s party conference season appears not only to have defined the campaign for the next election, but possibly also to have shaped the British party political landscape for several years to come. Just don’t expect the man on the street to have noticed.

Politics and the Independence Referendum

It has already been a busy week for Scotland. The deadline for ticket applications for next year’s Commonwealth Games in Glasgow closed on Monday; today it was revealed that Edinburgh’s trams (yes, that is really happening) would finally be running by May next year; and biggest of all, the new Proclaimers musical premieres tonight.

Tomorrow, meanwhile, marks exactly a year until the people of Scotland decide the country’s constitutional future. Some readers may wonder how the campaign can possibly still have so far to run, but if last week’s budget announcement is anything to go by, it’s unlikely that any political discussion north of the border during the next 12 months will be able to escape the spectre of the referendum.

Waxing lyrical about the human, physical and intellectual capital that exists north of the border, John Swinney lamented that he “should be able” to deliver a more generous budget but instead was unfairly and unnecessarily constrained by Westminster’s budget cuts, especially those to the welfare state. His opponents didn’t miss the trick.

Swinney was playing a dangerous game. Putting the control of Scotland’s finances wholly in Scottish hands, enabling tax-and-spend policies that can be better targeted to the needs of Scots is a persuasive argument. But on such a sensitive issue, he would do well not to be seen to be playing politics with the livelihoods of the most vulnerable.

Nevertheless, welfare is certain to be a major trump card for the current Scottish Government during the coming campaign. It is one of a handful of issues on which Salmond and co can trap their Labour counterparts between a rock and a hard place – opposing the SNP on one front and the Conservative-led coalition on the other.

Add to that the issue of timing – while the London base of the party is putting on its best poker face ahead of a potentially era-defining battle in 2015, the Scottish wing will have to show its hand long before then. In order not to give too much away, Labour’s main defence on welfare is likely to be that redistribution is most efficiently and equitably performed across the largest possible population. Whether that is true is another debate for another blog on another day.

What emerges from arguments like this, though, is the depressing likelihood that a decision with such deep and lasting consequences will be fought as much on the grounds of short-term policy squabbles as long-term constitutional considerations.

When it comes to such insignificant matters as EU membership, monetary union with London and the future of Trident, slurs and statistics have been flying in both directions in almost equal measure, so it’s no wonder that these issues – and thus the independence debate in general – have so far failed to capture the public’s imagination, or make much impact on opinion polls that show a stable but not irreversible majority in favour of the Union.

Tomorrow’s milestone will no doubt be marked with much orchestrated fanfare by a Scottish Government understandably keen at least to retain the initiative – to win the public-relations battles, if not (as it stands) the public-opinion war. It will also be a reminder that there is still a very long way to go.

Parliament, Syria and the Spectre of Iraq

David Cameron has today denied that he has “no hand to play” following last Thursday’s Commons vote that delivered by far his biggest political defeat since becoming Prime Minister. He must be quite a poker player.

The shock rejection by MPs of a motion that merely sought backing for a “strong humanitarian response” to the crisis in Syria – possibly involving military action but only subject to a further Commons vote, having made “every effort” to secure a UN resolution – has wrong-footed not just the British government but also their counterparts in Washington.

Cameron’s response in the moments after the result was announced was stark, and has drawn both praise – for its decisiveness – and criticism, for its abruptness. But what choice did he have at the time? He knew his authority had been undermined by the night’s events, and feared a mauling in the political press the next day.

What is more, any other form of words would have raised suspicions that he was planning to put a similar motion back in front of Parliament, possibly within days, in an attempt to get the ‘right’ answer from them. The rhetoric on that prospect has since softened, though, with talk of a fresh debate should circumstances “change very significantly”… whatever that means.

In the meantime, the UK remains in a very weak position on the international stage. How can even British representatives at the UN advocate military action without Parliamentary backing? By one interpretation, that puts us on the same side as Russia and China – more persistent but also more familiar foes for American diplomats.

If the government regrets one thing above all, it may be the timing of the vote – especially given the embarrassment caused by President Obama’s decision to wait until Congress reconvenes next week before seeking his own legislative mandate.

What was originally intended to be a swift, unequivocal response to the chemical-weapons atrocities committed by the Assad regime a week earlier ended up looking like a knee-jerk reaction driven by emotion rather than calculation.

Cameron insists that he recalled Parliament because he couldn’t otherwise have guaranteed MPs a say on British participation in an American-led action – which many had believed was to be launched that weekend (one wonders whether a simple phone call to the White House might have put his mind at ease). 

In the end, being called back to Westminster early for such an apparently inconsequential vote probably riled MPs more than the content of the motion itself.

The move also showed up the coalition’s vast underestimation of the extent to which the Iraq fiasco still scars the British public’s conscience. Ten years on, the prospect of once again voting in support of intervention in the Middle East before gaining UN approval clearly spooked Members on both sides of the House.

That is to say, spooked them more than the appalling images of innocent civilians writhing in the wake of one of the worst war crimes in living memory. And that is a measure of the damage done by that saga to public confidence in our political leaders’ military judgement – and the ethical consequences of that collapse in trust.

So what happens next? This weekend’s G20 summit in St Petersburg – already fired up by the spat between America and Russia over Edward Snowden – just got even more potentially explosive (then again, it is the G20, so a damp squib should probably be expected).

Next week, Congress is likely – in an increasingly rare act of unity – to deliver a resounding vindication of the President’s position, further humiliating the Prime Minister. Meanwhile Assad will no doubt carry on as before, watching with incredulity the West’s continuing failure to act, and wondering just how much more he can get away with. 

After all, if the events of 21 August don’t constitute a ‘red line’, what on earth does?

Fracking: A Protest Goes Political

The ongoing events in the West Sussex village of Balcombe mark the escalation of what started as an ordinary demonstration of one community’s opposition to the actions of one private company, into a much larger protest by seasoned environmental campaigners against the latest in a long line of controversial new methods of energy production.

Cuadrilla’s ‘crime’ is to begin exploratory drilling in an area thought to be the site of a potentially useful quantity of so-called shale gas – believed by many to be the holy grail in the search for a reliable and abundant source of cleaner energy.

At first, resistance came in a wholly predictable form – residents of nearby villages desperate to prevent the perceived industrialisation of their local countryside; the sort of people that any organisation must win over – or at least put up with – when undertaking this sort of operation.

But over the past few days this localised dispute has been hijacked by political interest groups keen to impose their own agenda and thus raise the profile of the situation; appallingly, this mission has been led by the irresponsible actions of an elected Member of Parliament, Caroline Lucas – whose arrest will merely serve to undermine any attempt by her party to prove that they are fit for such a role, and that they are anything other than a single-issue pressure group.

Ms Lucas claims that her actions and those of her fellow protestors are justified because they have the support of ‘most’ of the local community, and because as soon as they depart the scene, the drilling will resume. This second point is a strategic gift to their opponents – no matter whose offices they waste their time ‘occupying’ – while the first is simply nonsensical.

Even if the opinion analysis were true, it would not give a vocal minority the right to ignore police orders to wilfully obstruct others’ daily lives; in reality, it’s likely that many within the mob that descended on Balcombe over the weekend will have fully intended to enter into this sort of confrontation – and the news companies that followed them there have obliged their attention-seeking motives.

But the fundamental error of judgement being made by the environmentalists is their failure to understand the implicit position they are taking on the issue of sustainable energy. Describing shale gas as a fossil fuel and thus placing it in the same bracket as coal and oil is misleading, at best.

It may not rank alongside wind and solar power for environmental friendliness, but fracking is a much cleaner form of resource extraction than burning other fossil fuels. The same group currently causing havoc around Balcombe last hit the headlines when they did the same thing at a gas-fired power station in Nottinghamshire last year; 21 people pleaded guilty in court.

With the same people likely to react in similar fashion to investments in wind farms, what exactly do they see as Britain’s energy future? Almost every week, the Daily Mail and others deliver fresh warnings about ‘looming’ blackouts and ‘soaring’ utility bills (both trends, of course, unlikely to affect those able to spend their days sitting on a road rather than at a desk) - so what exactly is their solution?

Ms Lucas talked today about the role of the extraction of fossil fuels on climate change – suggesting that we should leave two thirds of known fossil fuel reserves “in the ground” in order to save the planet from the arbitrary 2-degrees warming that is already inevitable anyway and has long since been discredited as a legitimate political aim.

But has she – a left-wing politician – stopped to think about what this would mean for those on whom resource scarcity would have the most impact; whose lives and livelihoods depend on an affordable, reliable supply of energy?

It is true that the future of energy in Britain and beyond is an extremely important issue that requires active debate; it is unfortunate that so often it is characterised by such futile gestures by such short-sighted individuals.

Payday Loans and the Church

In between ‘that’ baby and the tragic events in Spain this week, another story has been brewing that once again exemplifies the Church of England’s tendency to reach into areas of life that it really should leave well alone.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury may be gearing up to christen the new prince, but the week of the royal birth is one that Justin Welby will probably want to forget.

“We’re not trying to legislate you out of existence; we’re trying to compete you out of existence” was the excruciating message delivered to the boss of one commercially savvy organisation by the head of one that is rather less so; to complete the irony, the revelation was made in that other great meeting place of religious minds – Total Politics magazine.

Archbishop Welby believes that by expanding credit unions, he can help steer many thousands of people back onto the straight and narrow when it comes to their personal financial affairs, and in doing so bring down a business that was turning over 9-figure sums long before it was brought into the public spotlight.

The Church appears to believe that the only reason that Wonga is able to thrive is because the market is not sufficiently competitive; were there to be more options (yes, even more options) available to those needing to borrow, the fundamental business model of payday lending would no longer be viable. They thus appear oblivious to the idea of supply and demand.

Do businesses like Wonga get a bad press? Yes. Do they deserve it? Maybe. Do people ignore the fact that – as with so many of the perils that society’s spokesmen get high and mighty about – the single biggest factor that maintains them is our own tendency to feed them? Absolutely.

While the moralist would bemoan the cynicism of Wonga’s heavy marketing at a time of high unemployment and low wage growth, the rationalist would praise its business sense.

True, the equivalent annual percentage rates on these loans would make even the most hard-headed economist baulk – and the average headline writer salivate – but then payday loans are not intended to last for anything like that long.

That as many as 1 in 10 recipients do end up saddled with spiralling debts, as one missed repayment is compounded by another, is not the fault of the company offering the service.

If used prudently, a short-term loan can help an individual avoid missing repayments on far less forgiving loans. If the Sage had the option to avert the risk of a visit from the bailiffs, he is fairly sure ethical concerns – even if he believed them – would be low on the list of priorities.

But whatever the rights and wrongs of Archbishop Welby’s point of view – one he has not hesitated to express since the early days of his tenure – his misery was complete when, within hours, it turned out that his own Church had invested tens of thousands of pounds in a fund that had bought into the very company he wanted to destroy.

To a long-term sceptic of the Church and its many misplaced social missions, such a rapid and devastating fall from grace offers a certain sense of satisfaction. For the fledgling Archbishop, it’s hugely embarrassing and humbling.

Yet he is now committed to this project to cure the world of nasty money men, hence his attempts to modify his message – tolerating the world’s ills whilst retaining his resistance to them. The Church is an expert at lame stances, but this one’s right up there.

Perhaps the Archbishop should stick to the day job – christenings and all.

Egypt Self-Destructs

What a difference a week makes.

The weekend before last, Mohammed Morsi was preparing to mark a year in office as Egypt's President. Although that landmark had not exactly been arrived at seamlessly, and it was known that a demonstration was planned by his growing ranks of opponents, few could have imagined what came next – or that it would all happen so quickly.

Today, with the deposed leader still (as far as anyone can tell) under house arrest – ousted by an army that was supposed to defend him, and replaced by an unelected official for an ominously unspecified period – a country that two years ago was a beacon of democratisation and progress is once again in turmoil, governed by mob rule, and arguably more polarised than it was at any time under the authoritarian leadership of Hosni Mubarak.

The ramifications for the future of the nation, and the whole of the Middle East, are dire.

In the Arab Spring of 2011, as societies throughout the region fought to have their voices heard, it was Egypt - the heartbeat of the Arab world - that led the way, grabbing the biggest headlines and inspiring the greatest optimism across the globe.

A year later, elections were held, then a constitution was (however controversially) drawn up and approved, and Egypt finally seemed to push on and realise the massive untapped potential that it undoubtedly possesses – and in doing so prove to its neighbours and the West that this great experiment of 21st-century development could be a success.

Now, not only does that process seem wasted, but the appeal of democracy to other Arab societies has been destroyed – the dream shattered – courtesy of the apparent ease and speed with which a vocal minority (albeit relatively large and extremely well-organised)  has been able to ride rough-shod over the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate as a whole.

What message will that send to other peoples in the region?

After all, to put the result of last year's presidential vote in context (a poll which Western monitors were satisfied was free and fair), it's worth pointing out that Mr Morsi won a larger majority than President Obama did when he was re-elected last November.

Talking of whom, what has been Washington's response so far? Suffice to say, Mr Obama is outdoing himself by prevaricating even more than he did when his country's long-time friend and ally was under siege two years ago – and this time, the UK is joining in too.

The reason – although the West was happy to see Egyptians choosing their leaders, they weren’t comfortable with the leaders they chose. We may now never know for sure, but the Muslim Brotherhood might well have been banking on a strategy of gaining legitimacy before attempting to succeed in Egypt where Iran has thus far failed – becoming a stable Islamic state.

No-one, though, would wish to defend the events of the past few days, in which apparently innocent supporters of the banished President have been shot and killed by armed forces, who claim that they were provoked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever get to the truth.

Meanwhile, the army’s PR operation is in full swing, claiming that they will respect peaceful protest, and have no wish to remain in power – only to help build a lasting democratic state by installing a technocratic government before paving the way for fresh elections.

However, those words are falling on deaf ears. Even those who supported Morsi’s removal have withdrawn from this process in disgust at the army’s brutality. With the politics stalling and the economy facing paralysis, the likely outcome is continuing social unrest for many days and weeks to come – and almost certainly more bloodshed.

Brazil: Football, Fighting, and the Future

This week sees the climax of the Confederations Cup, a football tournament between the winners of each continent's most recent international championship, which is also seen as a test event for the following year's World Cup.

Brazil are the favourites to lift the trophy on Sunday, and while the action on the pitch has been marked by the arrival on the world stage of the hosts' latest superstar, Neymar, it is the events on the streets for which the past few weeks will be remembered as a watershed moment in the country's history.

Not so long ago, Brazil's was a relatively small economy, growing fast; now, this rapid economic emergence has translated into social development, too – people's horizons have broadened, their expectations have been raised – and their voices have got louder.

Many Brazilians now feel entitled to the riches that they have enjoyed as a result, and they expect their leaders to continue to deliver them.

But that hasn't happened – Brazil's growth rate has plummeted; the cost of living has spiked and public services have failed to keep up – largely due, say the protestors, to the billions being spent on stadia for both next year's festival of football and the Olympics in Rio in 2016.

The protests may have begun in response to a rise in bus fares in Sao Paulo, but that was never really the issue. Rather, for the thousands who took to the streets, it was a gesture that typified the authorities’ attitudes to ordinary people, and which provided an excuse for the people to strike back.

A single-issue dispute quickly became a nationwide demonstration of anger and frustration at politicians' apparently misplaced priorities, and as more and more people joined in and the unity of purpose was diluted, things inevitably got nasty – especially when police viciously tried to clamp down on the unrest.

On the whole, though, the behaviour of the Brazilian people, and especially the reaction of the country's leaders, offer a stark contrast to the scenes witnessed, almost simultaneously, on Europe's periphery.

Just like their South American counterparts, the protestors who took to the streets of Istanbul did so in opposition to a single, controversial decision – to redevelop a popular city-centre park; similarly, the sense of liberation sank deeper and spread wider, leading to nationwide demonstrations against a political leadership that seemed to have lost its way.

But there the similarities end, because whereas Brazil’s first-term President, Dilma Rousseff, has struck a moderate tone in defending people’s right to speak out, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – winner of three elections and seeking the Presidency next year – has responded with an iron fist, confronting the protestors verbally and ordering the police to do so with systematic violence intended to quell the unrest.

The contrast boils down to different understandings of – and attitudes to – democracy. Mr Erdogan is apparently unable to understand why his triple electoral mandate has not delivered to him the harmony and stability he craves as the basis for his bid for the top job.

Ms Rousseff, on the other hand, may not have the political leadership qualities of her revered predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, but she does at least appear to understand the limits of her power. 

Yesterday, she offered an olive branch to her opponents, pledging to focus on improving public services and tackling corruption, because she realises the importance - to herself as well as the country - of being seen to be on the people's side.

Her task is to harness her political support, the strength of Brazil’s civil society and the opportunities that Brazil’s time in the spotlight offers, so that at the end of it all, Brazil can emerge looking like a country that, for all its faults, is moving forward economically and socially.

Turkey, on the other hand, looks like a nation at war with itself, with religious divisions and over-zealous leadership threatening the country’s future. People used to talk about future EU membership – now it seems that even by that club’s standards, such a move would be quite an own goal.

Tackling Terror On The Streets

It was a brutal act of murder that brought a whole nation together in shock and disgust. Committed in broad daylight and surrounded by onlookers, the crime brought the unsettling realisation that the country had not, after all, rid itself of home-grown, homeland terrorism.

Almost immediately, questions were being asked about why it happened, how it could have been allowed to happen, and whether it might happen again. For the politicians, already fighting battles on several other fronts, it was an unwelcome distraction.

Whether it’s the Boston marathon bombing or the Woolwich street attack that the Sage is alluding to, however, what is striking about the recent events is the way that they seem to signal a new kind of terrorism – one that is much more difficult to explain, understand and (especially) prevent.

In both cases, the two men responsible studied in the country of their attack before converting to radical Islam; in both cases, they were known to the police or security services, but on minor or unrelated grounds, arousing suspicions only possible with the benefit of hindsight; in both cases the offences have been investigated as a criminal act as much as in terms of terrorism.

In both cases, they did little to ‘disappear’ after the attack, instead gifting the authorities every chance to apprehend them and thus afford them the opportunity to publicise their message; in both cases, that message was that the attack was revenge for the killing of Muslims by Western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the long-term response of the two countries has differed markedly.

In America, there seems to be no prospect of further legislation, or of any action that might further alienate potential domestic enemies; if anything the attack has strengthened President Obama’s determination to reduce his nation’s antagonistic ways – by deploying unmanned drones more sparingly, for example.

He might even fulfil his 2008 election pledge to close Guantanamo… or perhaps not.

In Britain, on the other hand, the government (spurred on, as usual, by much of the media) has leapt into reactionary mode, with the Home Secretary, in particular, desperate to be seen to be doing something – whether or not that ‘something’ is necessary or even helpful.

The Data Communications Bill, effectively abandoned earlier this year due to disagreements within the coalition, appears to be back on the table.

In updating existing surveillance legislation to capture 21st-century forms of communication, the content of the Bill is eminently sensible, but its introduction would look like a knee-jerk reaction that might do more harm than good – to the government’s credibility and the nation’s security.

Yesterday, meanwhile, saw the formation of a new anti-terrorism ‘task force’, intended to find practical ways to reduce the risk of disillusioned young Muslims drifting into extremism (but forgive your correspondent for not holding his breath).

What that is likely to mean is the state finding more ways to shake its fist in an attempt to impose peace on those already set on war. Instead, the authorities should go about tackling renegade mosques the way they deal with ordinary criminal gangs – which first means understanding why they exist and why their members are so drawn to them.

Otherwise, just as the foreign policy of previous governments did for today’s brand of terrorist, those in power will merely be giving the next generation an excuse for the inexcusable.

UKIP - Fruit Cake to Humble Pie

It’s exactly a fortnight since a seismic shock began reverberating through the bedrock of British party politics, as a fourth tectonic plate barged its way in alongside the three that had, for a generation previously, formed the foundations of Westminster’s power structure.

The United Kingdom Independence Party was by no means a new presence on the scene, and they had already done (and moreover, said) enough to unsettle some within the Conservative Party – but never had those forebodings been borne out at the ballot box, nor had anyone imagined the scale of the intrusion that these unwelcome guests could achieve in one day.

David Cameron himself had once dismissed the party as “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies”.

But led by its irrepressibly charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, and (helpfully) at a time when the Tories are in a twist over Europe – ironically UKIP’s main stage until now – the party attracted the same share of the vote in wards in which they fielded candidates as the Conservatives themselves did nationwide.

Since that night, the Prime Minister has been torn between the obvious need to keep faith with the centre-right position that (just) restored his party to power, and the growing importance of ensuring that its core voters and members are not drawn in by his new rival’s breakthrough.

One of his party’s highest-profile MPs is even talking about electoral pacts.

Admittedly, protest votes in local elections are inevitable at this stage of any government, never mind one that is pursuing such an unpopular set of policies – but this time it’s different. Rarely does such a result have an impact much beyond the weekend papers and the credibility of the victors, but the government is clearly shaken by UKIP’s abrupt emergence.

Unusually for him, Farage wasn’t exaggerating when he talked about a game- changer. And not surprisingly, the main subject of contention so far has been Britain’s relationship with Europe.

Having already promised an in-out referendum in the event of EU rule changes that affect Britain, Cameron is now facing demands for an unconditional pledge, from Tory backbenchers doubtless unnerved by fresh doubts about their job prospects, and angered by the absence of a draft referendum bill in last week’s Queen’s Speech (although one has now been proposed).

The posturing and positioning ahead of the 2015 election has already well and truly begun.

Whatever goes on in the Westminster village, though, by far the biggest danger for the political establishment – especially the Conservatives, and as usual, the one they seem least aware of – is that they could all end up alienating many more voters than UKIP could ever hope to gain on their own, by appearing hopelessly out of touch with ordinary people’s priorities.

Meanwhile, the task for UKIP (once the warm glow of victory wears off) is to demonstrate their credibility by making a meaningful contribution in local government. Little is currently known about their domestic policies, but their success gives them a valuable platform from which to launch an assault on the three main parties where it really hurts – at a general election.

The party should not underestimate the size of its task – it took the Lib Dems a generation (not to mention a succession of leaders) to go from fringe force to serious players. The first step is often the hardest – yet theirs has been a colossal leap. And in what is, anyway, an era of uncertainty and instability in British politics, the establishment has every right to be anxious.

Never mind fruit cake – it’s humble pie on the menu in Downing Street.