What is more, the Labour Party, as a whole, are ideologically in favour of the European project and ever closer union between EU member states. They are willing backers of the increasing burden of unaccountable regulation that arrives daily from Brussels and now enthusiastically support ‘the destruction of a thousand years of history’ as their former leader Hugh Gaitskell once pertinently observed. They do little to disguise their views on the issue.

Meanwhile, millions of conservatives will feel deeply betrayed by the Conservative Party; an organisation in which they had placed their trust and support, often over decades, through the ballot box and paid membership. Cameron’s climb down on his formerly ‘cast iron’ guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has signalled that the party no longer represents their interests.

Even after all that has happened many millions of people will continue to consider the Conservative Party to be ‘eurosceptic’ – a phrase that supposedly betokens a stance of disapproval and opposition to the European Union and all its works. In reality however, ‘euroscepticism’ has revealed itself to be nothing more than a facade for Conservative politicians both past and present to make vaguely anti-EU statements in opposition, only for them to betray their voters and capitulate to the perpetual slow motion coup d’état of ever closer union once safely in Government.

Tomorrow, David Cameron will announce his party’s new stance on the European Union. Do not expect much. Despite knowing for months that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would be likely, they had not prepared for such an eventuality. Such planning does not exactly bode well for their performance in Government.

In his statement tomorrow, much will be made by Cameron of Labour’s deceit in reneging on their promise of a referendum. Much will be made of how the Treaty will have been implemented into EU and our law by the time of any UK General Election in which the Conservatives could obtain office. Little however will be made of what the Conservatives might do about this. It will all be rather vague. Pointers will be made to the repatriation of powers, though without specifics or indeed how this will be achieved.

Cameron is therefore set for an historic moment. As Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph noted, he will be the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments before even taking office. Warner also remarked that:

There is always some shambling excuse, some pseudo-sophisticated ‘reason’ for submitting to humiliation: we cannot have a referendum on a ratified treaty… It would lead to our ejection from the European Union… We mustn’t let Labour back in… The illusion of inevitability – a fundamental Marxist tenet – has successfully been foisted upon British voters by the Frankfurt School Marxists who control the EU.

Despite Team Cameron’s best efforts to sideline the major issues surrounding our membership of the European Union, they have come back to bite him in the backside – as we knew they would.

Mr Purnell called for the resignation of Gordon Brown as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister and for an immediate election contest to replace him. Yet, like so many other Labour rebels who have taken to the airwaves in recent days, Mr Purnell did not cite a disagreement with the policies of Mr Brown.

It is the case that Mr Purnell and all the other Labour rebels do not actually have any problems with the current policies of the Labour Party. They merely disagree with the way in which they are being presented and the negative light that the media now continually cast upon Gordon Brown and the Labour Party.

Thus, this is not an issue of policy but personality and rather blatant careerism. Sky News claimed tonight that in resigning Mr Purnell sacrificed his career on principle. Rubbish. James Purnell had only his career in mind and believes that, by ditching Brown, he could further it. Similarly, to which principles exactly was he adhering? Certainly not those of policy or ideology.

Furthermore, if you honestly think that a UK General Election will change anything other than the personalities of those MPs in Westminster and Whitehall then you are sadly mistaken. Mr Cameron and the Conservatives seek to continue the policies and political direction of the current Government with only very minor alterations. If you do not believe this to be true then please prove my assertion to be incorrect with cold hard evidence. If you cannot then you must accept that I am right.

It does not matter whether or not Gordon Brown is replaced as Prime Minister by another Labour leader or by the Conservative Party and David Cameron; the governance and policies in Westminster will remain identical for the foreseeable future, as they have done for the past two decades. Nothing will change.

It never ceases to amaze me how newspapers and our media manage to ignore the elephant in the room on this issue which is, of course, EU regulatory and legislative influence.

Why, they wonder out loud in their inverted columns, are Gordon Brown and the Government so determined to privatise Royal Mail and risk unpopularity from their voters and backbench MPs? Many times has this important question been asked, but so very rarely has the real answer been revealed by our mainstream press.

As I had previously discussed here, here and here, the European Union’s Postal Service Directives are responsible for this latest bout of angst over privatisation. Many journalists and MPs know about these laws, but, because it is not part of their official narrative, they are publicly ignored, as if they did not even exist.

Desperately they struggle on, twisting and turning over the same old ground in a bitter attempt to come up with any reason, any excuse, anything about the privatisation of Royal Mail by the Labour Government, except to mention the EU dimension.

Yet, the power and influence of the EU can only be ignored for so long. I realise that there are many on the Left who have for some time seen it as an entirely favourable proposition to abolish Britain because it does not conform to their political vision.

Britain has retained its monarchy and yet is democratic, it was traditional and yet able to modernise, was capitalist but had a social conscience, and had a class system but did not present a bar to talent. According to the theories of the Left, Britain should not have existed, and so, slowly but surely, they have sought to make absolutely sure that it did not.

Britain is being dismantled before our very eyes, piece by piece. Centuries of tradition have and are being swept away to be replaced with bland conformism and blind allegiance to the benevolent new social and political order.

Yet, there are those within the Labour Party and the Left who still do not believe that capitulation to the anti-democratic European Union is right. These people must quickly learn that if they want to remain a member of the European Union then they will have to accept that their country will be run by the European Union to an ever increasing extent – with further privatisation down the road.

You cannot, as the Conservative Party pretends, find a solution between two such opposing ends of the spectrum. Either you pledge yourself to ‘ever closer union’ and privatisation, or leave.

Perhaps, for some of those on the Left, the privatisation of Royal Mail by their eurofanatical leaders will act as a wakeup call. The national institutions including the Postal Service that they cherish will be wiped away by Euro decree unless they make a stand.

But it cannot simply be a stand against their party’s leaders but a stand against our real Government in Brussels and for the rapid reimplementation of British Parliamentary sovereignty. Only then can we have an open and honest debate about privatisation. Only then will we be able to save our Postal Service.

But how exactly can you vote for a change when the alternative is virtually identical? What exactly are David Cameron and the Conservative Party going to do that is fundamentally different to the current Labour administration?

The BBC article suggests that Conservative run councils will ‘keep council tax down’. Yet, what is really mean by this is that taxes will rise by less than under the current administration. How very considerate, but what of all those millions of people who wish that their taxes would actually go down, rather than up?

At the weekend Neil Parish, likely to be the next Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, told me that the Conservatives, when in Government, can’t lower taxes in the face of terrible economic conditions. But is it really that they can’t, or won’t – and is it any wonder when the Conservatives have now largely accepted the economic and high taxation arguments of the Left?

David Cameron also said that the Conservative Party believes in localism. So do I, but I know that such a view is incompatible with our membership of the EU. Will David Cameron admit that?

What’s more, when eighty per cent plus of our regulations and new laws are dictated to us by the European Union, without scrutiny from our Parliament, then the main political parties have even less reason to be radically different from one another on a whole range of issues over which we no longer have any control.

Yet, even if David Cameron and the Conservatives win the next UK General Election (which is still not anywhere near as certain as the media would have you believe) then we will, by and large, end up with exactly the same government we have already. The personalities will change, the policies will not.

Since the 1960s, when Labour’s Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland first decided on the importance of controlling society through culture rather than just the economy, the political Left have ideologically pursued a comprehensive state education system whose aim has been ‘equality’ rather than to give children a good and rigorous education.

It should also be said that much of the Left have not actually changed their views or indeed their end goals in any conceivable way. What they have done is simply changed the way in which they have gone about achieving those goals, through culture and social engineering rather than economic means.

What is more, unsurprisingly for a party (the Conservatives) who tend to measure their success in office by how many years they have occupied 10 Downing Street, rather than what they have actually achieved in that time, then they have been completely outmanoeuvred by this fundamental shift in attention by the Left.

In fact, in an effort to remain in office, rather than in power, the Conservatives have consistently accepted and adopted the Left’s proposals on education – especially regarding comprehensive schooling and the reintroduction of academic selection – along with many other issues, as can now be seen once again under the leadership of David Cameron.

Returning again to the matter of independent faith schools, they are most certainly next in Labour’s sights as the Government attempts to gain its coveted monopoly over primary and secondary education. Incidentally, for the same ideological reasons, the Government have also recently attacked home schooling (which has seen a dramatic increase in recent years as parents have realised how thoroughly the comprehensive education system is failing their children) by claiming without basis that home education may be a cover for child abuse.

Peter Hitchens, who covered in some depth the Government’s attacks on home schooling, perceptively observed:

What the modern left really don’t like about homeschooling is that it is independent of the state, and threatens its egalitarian monopoly from below. If it became a mass movement, it would be very dangerous to their project of enforcing equality of outcome, while using the schools to push radical ideas on sex, drugs, morality and politics.

Much the same can be said for faith schools. They challenge the state’s egalitarian monopoly and that is why our Labour Government will, in due course, attempt to bring them to heel. In that sense The Telegraph story perfectly illustrates the classic way in which the Labour party first attacks its chosen target. The Telegraph’s Education Editor, Graeme Paton, writes:

Ed Balls insisted ‘concerns’ had been raised about the extent to which [faith] schools were preparing pupils for ‘life in wider British society’.

But by whom exactly have these mysterious ‘concerns’ been raised? Parents? Teachers, perhaps? Trade Unions? Nope. It doesn’t take long to find out where these ‘concerns’ have originated from, with the next paragraph reading:

It follows a report last month from the think-tank Civitas which claimed some Islamic schools were promoting fundamentalist views.

So, we have the source. A think-tank. Not criticism from parents, or teachers or trade unions or any other such organisation actually related to the schools in question, but a think-tank.

In addition, it’s not even all faith schools that have raised these pressing ‘concerns’ but specifically a small minority of Islamic educational institutions. But, of course, while these supposed ‘concerns’ may only be directed at a small number of faith schools, any Governmental legislative or regulatory response will be targeted at all faith schools, regardless of religion.

Here we have not the reason but the excuse for government intervention, however tenuous the supporting evidence may be. Furthermore, when the comprehensive state education system has, in the opinion of many, an increasingly poor record of preparing pupils for ‘life in wider British society’ – whatever that phrase may really mean – then the Government hardly have the moral high ground in criticising independent establishments.

This leads us back to the original point that the Labour party and much of the modern left are not interested in rigorous and good education, but are instead ideologically committed to instilling in all children radical ideas on sex, drugs, morality and politics, as well as attempting to enforce equality of outcome, whatever the cost of such an exercise may be.

Similarly, Gordon Brown said in a speech in Bristol yesterday that private investment in Royal Mail was imperative in being able to guarantee its £25bn pension fund and maintain a universal postal service.

The strength of feeling on this issue in the Labour party is clearly quite strong. I was in the Lords Gallery on Wednesday when the Labour peer Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who is a former postman, shouted ‘shame on you’ as Lord Mandelson brought the Bill to the House of Lords for a first reading. In the House of Commons well over one hundred Labour MPs have signed an early day motion criticising the Government’s plans to sell a stake in Royal Mail.

Furthermore, in opposition to Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, told BBC News that the privatisation plan was ‘baffling’ and just didn’t make any sense. He also said to Sky News:

I don’t want to see Mrs Thatcher’s ideas, Conservative ideas, being introduced by a Labour government. Let’s be clear: 25%, 30%, Peter Mandelson has talked about 49% owned by a foreign company.

That’s not what people in the Labour Party want, that’s not what people in the country want – they want to see a modern Royal Mail.

Yet, despite so much anger and bitter opposition from many of their key supporters, the Labour Government has ploughed on regardless with the privatisation of Royal Mail.

There has been much discussion in the media and in political circles about why Mr Brown and Lord Mandelson would risk the ire of the Unions and a backbench rebellion when the Labour party is in a weak position in the opinion polls. Unsurprisingly most of this speculation has been far wide of the mark.

The answer is actually quite obvious to anyone who looks further than the end of their own nose – an act which our perennially blind media and political class seem incapable of doing.

The fact of the matter is that Gordon Brown and his Labour administration have no real choice in the matter. They must privatise Royal Mail, not because of pension problems or the need for increased investment in the universal postal service, but because they are required by force of law to obey the European Union’s 3rd Postal Services Directive.

As I previously highlighted, the European Union’s 3rd Postal Service Directive 2008/6/EC clearly states that our Postal Service must be privatised, saying:

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2010 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

So, if the likes of those such as CWU Union leader, Billy Hayes, are confused as to why Labour are pushing ahead with Royal Mail privatisation in the face of adversity, then they now should have their answer. It’s an undemocratic decision with which the Unions will have to live – as unfortunately will we all.

I suppose I could briefly highlight what may seem like an interesting contrast between the likely sale of a longstanding public service to a foreign postal company by our Government and the fact that Labour are still imagined by many to be against the privatisation of public industries – but then, what exactly would be the point?

We should know by now that Labour and the Left haven’t been interested in nationalisation and the ownership of industry for years. Labour’s supposed clause four moment in which Blair amended the Labour party’s constitution and its commitment to ‘secure … the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’ was entirely irrelevant.

Decades before that moment there had been a radical revolution in thinking on the Left, since which Leftists have become steadily more interested in bringing about cultural rather than political revolution in order to successfully pursue their social and political agenda. As such the Left and the Labour party haven’t seriously been committed to nationalisation since the early sixties.

Nonetheless, we should still be asking ourselves why our Labour Government has been so openly hasty in seeking to privatise Royal Mail. As usual though, it doesn’t take us long to discover the answer, with unsurprisingly the European Union having had a major hand in this affair – specifically in the form of Directive 2008/6/EC (aka. The European Union Postal Services Directive) which amends Directive 97/67/EC and came into force in EU law (ie. our law) in February of this year.

Under Directive 97/67/EC, incumbent national postal services such Royal Mail were allowed to hold on to a ‘reserved area’ to maintain their positions as universal service providers. However, the recently adopted Directive 2008/6/EC makes clear that the ‘reserved area’ will be abolished and that monopoly providers must be opened up to competition. And like good little Europeans our Government have merely been doing our EU masters bidding.

The supposed purpose of these EU Directives is to introduce competition into the postal systems of European member states as a benefit to consumers. However, as Richard North noted previously back in May:

The postal services directives have exactly the same agenda as all the other so-called ‘liberalising’ instruments, whether they are dealing with energy, rail, telecommunications, or whatever. The intent is to break up national monopolies, not for the sake of it, but in order to recreate then on a European level, under the direct control of the EU commission.

The attack on national monopolies is not an attack on the monopolies, per se but an attack on nationalism – it is an attack on the nation state, an attempt to reduce the power and influence of the member states. As such, the EU has no rooted objection to monopolies – it is, after all, itself a monopoly. Its apparent enthusiasm for ‘competition’ is simply a smokescreen to gull free-market liberals into supporting its deeper agenda.

Our undemocratic and unaccountable government in Brussels continues to busily legislate away on the future of important national services, proving once again (if it were needed) that we do not any longer govern ourselves.

This comes after Labour’s Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas had been forced to partially backtrack on comments he’d made in an interview with the Times about reducing the number of immigrants entering Britain.

In a post-Times interview, Phil Woolas told the BBC’s One Show:

I think, frankly, there’s a lot of nonsense talked about the cap…

The European Union population can come and go just as we from Britain go and live in Spain, perhaps, or France – so, too, can others come to our country.

So it’s very difficult to see, even if we are in favour of a cap, what it should be.

And here, for once, we have the truth from a Government Minister – well, almost. Phil Woolas is indeed right that there is ‘a lot of nonsense talked about the cap’. It is nonsense because, as even the dim-witted journalists at the BBC have finally grasped:

Immigration from inside the EU cannot be controlled, and neither can a limit be placed on genuine claims for asylum.

We cannot control immigration whatsoever within the European Union as our old friend EU Commission Directive 2004/38/EC put pay to that. However, in his interview with the One Show, Phil Woolas fails to actually mention the elephant in the room (ie. the role of the European Union). To mention the EU directly in British Westminster politics is just not the done thing.

It didn’t take long for our Shadow Immigration Minister, Dominic Grieve to chime in after Phil Woolas’ comments, saying:

The minister has admitted that behind his words there is no action.

We will do more than give warm interviews. We will introduce an annual limit on non-EU immigration, transitional controls on immigration from new member states, and establish a dedicated UK border police force.

In an article for the London Evening Standard Dominic Grieve also informed readers that:

For a long time ministers buried their heads in the sand, ignoring the problems that uncontrolled immigration was steadily building up.

Net immigration has quadrupled under Labour – fuelled both by the lack of transitional controls on new EU member states and a failure to control economic migration from outside the EU.

So, as you can see, the Conservatives have realised that they cannot control EU immigration (where most of our immigration comes from) by their consistent references wishing only to control ‘non-EU immigration’. They will not actually act as an opposition but instead will content themselves with fiddling around at the margins of a system over which we could have real control if we left the EU. The Conservatives offer ‘no action’ and no choice in part because they can’t and in part because they won’t. Now tell me – who is really burying their heads in the sand?