Douglas Murray

If you can’t win then you have to redefine what winning means. That is what David Cameron has tried to do with his statement about Afghanistan: ‘mission accomplished’. As Isabel notes, the PM’s speech in Camp Bastion has come up with a new definition of victory: ‘The most important part of the mission … The absolute driving part of the mission is the basic level of security so that it doesn’t become a haven for terror.’ Of course the Prime Minister has to define victory like that because everything else has been such an utter and complete disaster. ‘Our man’, Hamid Karzai has, predictably enough, been stepping away from coalition forces as they themselves prepare to step away from Afghanistan next year.

This week's Mail on Sunday carried two stories on the same page about immigration. Perhaps unwittingly the two stories — and one man in particular — demonstrate the craziness of this country's immigration debate. One story was about a Conservative party candidate at the 2010 election who has defected to UKIP. Her ex-husband has released a video made while she was a Conservative candidate saying stuff about sending illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers back home. The second story is about a Labour party pollster who tweeted sarcastic comments about Labour voters who express concerns about immigration levels.

Hallelujah, vaguely. The Prime Minister’s extremism task force set up in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has just reported and its findings, ‘Tackling Extremism in the UK’ include the following admission: ‘We have been too reticent about challenging extreme Islamist ideologies in the past, in part because of a misplaced concern that attacking Islamist extremism equates to an attack on Islam itself. This reticence, and the failure to confront extremists, has led to an environment conducive to radicalisation in some mosques and Islamic centres, universities and prisons.’ Who could possibly remain opposed to such prevailing common sense?

Well Alan Rusbridger has certainly received a glowing review from his own newspaper for his appearance in Parliament yesterday. In a moving paen, Roy Greenslade today describes how his boss ‘was able to bat away MPs' concerns without raising a sweat, despite bluster from a couple of them who sought to suggest he might be guilty of breaching the Terrorism Act.’ Which, if it is true, says more about the MPs than it does about Rusbridger. As it happens, I don’t know why some of the Select Committee MPs went into some of the cul-de-sacs they did. Why the ‘outing’ of the sexuality of some people working at GCHQ should have been such a prominent issue for Michael Ellis I do not know.

David Cameron has taken a trade delegation to see the People's Republic of China. The hope is obviously to stir up trade for Britain. Nothing wrong with that. Except that when Mr Cameron was in Sri Lanka the other week he chose to lecture the Sri Lankan government over the manner in which they put down their Tamil separatist problem a few years back. This must have been galling to more than a few Sri Lankans since much of the funding for the Tamil Tigers over the years came from open fundraising in the UK. However, you may recall that relations between London and Beijing turned very frosty after David Cameron met with the Dalai Lama. Indeed, an earlier trade delegation was cancelled by Beijing. But now we are told that Britain has 'turned a page' with China.

What is wrong with the now almost daily apologies about mass immigration? Today it is the turn of Jack Straw.  The former Home Secretary has just admitted that opening Britain’s borders to Eastern European migrants was a ‘spectacular mistake.’  He acknowledges that his party's 2004 decision to allow migrants from Poland and Hungary to work in Britain was a ‘well-intentioned policy we messed up'.  The Labour government famously predicted that a few thousand people would come, while the actual figure ended up being closer to a million. Of course apologies are normally intended to draw a line under a matter.  But how could that possibly occur when all three main parties are currently committed to making the exact same mistake again?

‘A historic catastrophe’ is how Martin Bright describes it. He is referring to the policy by which successive governments in the UK, Conservative, Labour and coalition, are accused of having promoted the worst people into the positions of Muslim community leaders. The specific case that sparks this reflection is the case of Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Since leaving Bangladesh and becoming a British citizen he has been at the very pinnacle of Britain’s interfaith and moderate Muslim industry. Here he is with Prince Charles at the Islamic Foundation in Leicester. Major politicians of all parties as well as numerous ‘faith leaders’ have rubbed shoulders with him.

One of the most amusing ideas of the dim (as opposed to decent) left is that fascism is a force from the right at constant risk of re-eruption. So widespread has this idea become that even members of the Conservative party often feel forced to describe themselves as ‘centre right’ just so as to make clear they aren’t ‘right wing’ because ‘right wing’ is just in from ‘far right’ and ‘far right’ basically means fascist. However, one of the strange things about these so-called ‘anti-fascists’ is that their fascist sensors seem completely befuddled whenever they meet anybody who behaves distinctly fascistically yet is thought to come from ‘the left’. For instance, here is an interesting one.

Last night the BBC screened a documentary called ‘When Tommy met Mo’. It was good television, challenging and thought-provoking in a way that public broadcasting ought to be, is often said to be, but too rarely is. I would urge you to watch it. The programme followed Tommy Robinson during the period in which he was stepping away from the organisation – the English Defence League (EDL) – which he founded. It showed Robinson travelling around the country with a Muslim ‘spokesman’ called Mohammed Ansar.