This question cannot be answered because, in truth, we have never fought such a battle. If only we had. Instead, we have been sold a myth – a lie if you will – about a supposedly dogged pursuit of drugs, their users and suppliers by the various arms of the state. The reality is sadly rather different.

In response to my above assertion of there never having been a war on drugs, Joshua Lachovic wrote on his blog:

And you haven’t noticed the war on drugs? You haven’t noticed that the global prohibition kills thousands each year? You haven’t heard practically every politician of the past thirty years refer in some way to the ‘war on the drugs’? You haven’t heard any policeman who refers to the war on drugs? You haven’t noticed the £1.5bn that the UK spends yearly on the war? Nor have you noticed the time spent by every police force in the country trying to fight this war on drugs?

All the while, there are still drug users (as there will forever be), people still die because of drugs and people’s lives are still ruined because of drugs. Relaxing the enforcement and governing of banned substances? I suppose you hadn’t noticed mephedrone be criminalised because of media hysteria last year. I suppose you hadn’t noticed magic mushrooms be criminalised earlier this decade. Nor had you noticed that with a police force such as the one in Sussex, over the past decade crime has fallen, while drug crime has increased. To imply that we aren’t fighting a war on drugs is frankly naive, to say the very least.

Unfortunately for poor Joshua, he makes a number of glaring errors in his argument. To begin with, what he calls the ‘global prohibition’ of drugs (which doesn’t exist, because it is not prohibition) does not kill thousands each year. Drugs kill people; ‘prohibition’ does not.

Even if certain politicians, sections within the media and parts of the police ‘service’ refer to a ‘war on drugs’, this does not mean we are actually fighting one. Repeating a lie or a mistruth enough times still does not make it the truth.

If we were really fighting a ‘war on drugs’ then we would be locking up drugs users for long periods of time, or fining them heavily, or raiding University campuses. But we are not. Instead, most drugs users, if they are even bothered by an unlikely visit from the police, are given a caution (which essentially means being let off) or at most a suspended sentence (again, being let off). So very rare is it that a person is sent to prison for using drugs, even with multiple previous convictions. Does that sound like a ‘war on drugs’?

As for the magic mushrooms and mephedrone Joshua mentions, what of them? Adding extra drugs to a list of banned substances means very little when the ban remains largely unenforced. As it is, we’ve seen a less than half-hearted attempt to pay even lip service to the existing laws, and a law is only as good as its enforcement.

The pro-legalisation rabble within the media and political class find it incredibly convenient to pretend we are having a real ‘war on drugs’. This allows them, coupled with the continual undermining and weakening of the law and its enforcement, to claim said ‘war’ to be lost, with the consequence as the pursuit of legalisation.

However, where Joshua is correct is when he says there will always be drug users. Most laws are not one hundred percent effective, but the purpose of enforcing a real ban on certain substances is to discourage as many people as possible from their use. Let us not forget, these are extremely harmful substances, whose effects on brain chemistry, behaviour and the human body are still not fully understood. They cannot be taken safely or indeed more safely as the harm reduction lobby would have us believe.

We were also graced with an article, currently behind the pay-wall of yesterday’s Times newspaper, by Anushka Asthana (who she?) claiming:

The bankruptcy of prohibition is becoming ever more apparent as it fails to keep up with the plethora of ‘legal highs’. As one is banned, ten more emerge. There will be no need to go to dark alleys in Brixton soon: the internet will offer people everything they want. Some form of legalisation – in which users are no longer criminalised but the market is regulated – is inevitable for some substances. So we might as well start thinking about how to do it now.

It doesn’t really seem to matter how many times you point out to the likes of Ms Asthana and fellow travellers that Britain has no such manner of prohibition, they just won’t listen. This is because they are attempting to draw comparison between the perfectly winnable battle (if we were to actually fight it) against drugs in Britain with actual prohibition of alcohol in the United States of the 1920s, which was doomed to failure before it even began.

The divide lies between those of us who wish to see the current laws strengthened and enforced, and those who believe users are somehow able to take these drugs more safely. They call it ‘harm reduction’, though it is anything but. Furthermore, Ms Asthana casually repeats that old lie which claims drug users are criminalised by the law, where in fact it is users who criminalise themselves by taking their poison in the first place.

Louise Mensch is one of those rather airily vacant MPs who would be as comfortable in the New Labour party as she is in Cameron’s modern, liberal Conservatives. In fact, in 1996 she was a member of the Labour party, with Peter Hitchens remarking:

No surprise there. Miss Bagshawe has the political grasp of a Teletubby and was – like so many other Cameron fans – a supporter of the Labour Party in 1996.

Having had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting Mrs Mensch in Bournemouth in 2006 (when she was but a mere Bagshawe), I think the description of her by Peter Hitchens, writing on another occasion, rings wonderfully true:

The irresistibly charming thing about Miss Bagshawe, now prospective Conservative candidate for Corby in Northamptonshire, is that – like David Cameron himself, only with less pretence about it – she is clearly only slightly interested in politics, and has a marvellously limited understanding of what it involves. She will, I fear, go very far. A sweet vagueness swirls round all she does, the kind of vagueness that often conceals weapons-grade ambition.

Her extracted partial confession in The Daily Express on her use of banned substances comes as little of surprise. Like David Cameron and the liberal circles that both moved in, taking drugs was seen as just a little bit of harmless, giggly fun. She said:

Although I do not remember the specific incident, this sounds highly probable. Additionally, since I was in my twenties, I’m sure it was not the only incident of the kind; we all do idiotic things when young. I am not a very good dancer and must apologise to any and all journalists who were forced to watch me dance that night at Ronnie Scott’s.

Note the rather obvious lack of an actual apology for taking the drugs. Notable too was hold fellow Commons Culture Select Committee member, Tom Watson, was quick to defend her on Newsnight saying he didn’t much care about what she ‘did in nightclubs in the 1990s’.

Interestingly, when I first read the accompanying BBC article last night, I recalled the Watson creature being quoted as claiming to ‘admire her for what she has done’. According to the News Sniffer archives this comment was silently edited out. Now, I wonder why that may have been…

If we were to allow Tom Watson to have his own way then he would try and bring everything back to his precious phone hacking scandal, saying as he did:

What she has effectively done today is give a very big finger to a… journalist who is trying to dig up dirt on her from many years ago, probably because she is involved in exposing the truth about hacking and what went on on our committee.

As is so often the case with modern British politics, the political class can be seen to close ranks to protect one of their own, revealing the truth that they have more in common with one another than the voting public. That little bit of giggly, harmless fun they enjoyed when younger may have done them no harm (or so they like to believe), but in weakening our laws and undermining their enforcement, they condemn thousands of others to suffer an unpleasant, but avoidable fate.

The Conservative party and the Taxpayers’ Alliance have always had a very close relationship. The appointment of Isaby as Political Director, apparently responsible for ‘building links with Ministers, MPs and MEPs’, means the partnership will become cosier still.

This appointment brings to mind an occasion in 2006 when I visited Conservative Central Office at its former residence in Victoria Street. During the meeting, our group were informed by Mark Clarke, who was then the pompous Chairman of Conservative Future, and Ian Oakley, at the time a Conservative candidate in Watford, that the newly formed Taxpayers’ Alliance were simply a front organisation set up by the Tories to attack Labour on tax.

The ‘brilliant idea’, so we were told, was to create a separate organisation that could attack Blair and Brown on economic issues, meaning the Labour party, BBC and print media couldn’t just dismiss the complaints as being irrelevant because they had come from the Conservatives.

I even recall mention of how the organisation was to be funded by existing donors to the Tory party and indirectly, the Conservative party itself. At the time I wrote a blog entry on my website making note of a few of these remarks on the TPA, and criticised Mark Clarke and Ian Oakley for being slimy and insincere. Not long afterwards Clarke contacted me by email to ask that I withdraw the article, not, so he said, due to the personal criticism, but for revealing matters about the workings of the TPA at a private meeting in CCHQ. Naturally I refused, and that was the end of the matter as far as I saw it. Furthermore, in subsequent years my observations on the disgraceful Ian Oakley were rather vindicated by events.

Thus, from its inception, the Taxpayers’ Alliance existed as a Conservative sanctioned group used to indirectly assault the Labour administration over their economic incompetence, high tax policies and runaway spending habits. Of course, now that Labour are no longer in office and the Tories (and Lib Dims) have replaced them, the situation has somewhat changed.

In 2006 we had TPA reports on ‘The Real Cost of Gordon Brown’ and ‘Moving Britain Backwards’ – the latter claimed to ‘tear apart Gordon Brown’s economic record and shows how Britain’s economy has become less competitive and less able to meet the coming challenges’. Likewise, in 2008 we had ‘Gordon Brown’s Economic Failure’ and ‘Brown’s Borrowing Will Be Double The Debt Needed To Win World War One’, which, in Daily Mail-esque language, had William Norton stating:

British taxpayers enter this downturn like lions led by donkeys. Not only will full recovery take twice as long as the First World War lasted, but we are going to take on twice as much debt. Alistair Darling is sending the taxpayer over the top to face a financial Battle of the Somme.

However, since the general election the Taxpayers’ Alliance has been rather muted in their criticism of the Coalition – unsurprising given their origins. Under George Osborne the ‘official’ national debt has increased from £700bn to what Christopher Booker mockingly called ‘a much more manageable £900bn’. Where therefore are the regular TPA proclamations denouncing excessive Government debt as there were under Gordon Brown?

Likewise, where are the TPA talking heads on the BBC and Sky condemning the Prime Minister for increasing taxes and hiking governmental spending? It has all gone eerily quiet – particularly when you consider that the Coalition has increased taxes, increased the national debt and given away even more money to the IMF and EU than before.

Should the TPA ever overstep the mark and lose its special Tory stamp of approval, then it is unlikely the organisation could support itself for too long. At the moment it is a rather wealthy group, taking in over a million pounds in donations and managing to employ quite a few highly paid staff. It dare not bite the Tory hand which feeds it lest those generously charitable gifts dry up.

Similarly, the Conservative party to some small extent needs the Taxpayers’ Alliance. As one of its ‘approved’ partners, party donors and supporters may be encouraged to give money, resources and time to it, with Dave and company safe in the knowledge that it will be funnelled up a blind alley rather than spent on anything that may meaningfully change Britain.

This is not to say that the TPA is entirely useless in absolutely ever report it writes or campaign it runs. As Helen Szamuely remarked:

In the past my comments about the Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) have been mixed. Sometimes they do good work, sometimes it is a bit shoddy and their habit of not crediting anyone with previous research is annoying.

But, the point is that they are far too close to the Conservatives to be of any real, long-term worth – and the appointment of the likes Jonathan Isaby, who is seen as a ‘safe pair of hands’ by the Tories, confirms just that.

In light of the recent media speculation, John Gill on the Freedom Association’s website asks whether the Conservative party have rediscovered euroscepticism? He says:

The Daily Express refers to these revelations as a ‘surge in anti-Brussels feeling within the Government’; and, whilst I have my reservations as to how accurate these reports are, it is encouraging nonetheless that even arch Cameroons, such as Letwin and Hilton, are beginning to see just how damaging an institution the EU is.

Whilst I won’t hold my breath that this will happen any time soon, I am confident that sooner, rather than later, the Tories will have to rediscover euroscepticism to stand any chance of keeping up with public opinion.

While John says he won’t hold his breath at this happening, even to believe that it could happen is of course wishful thinking. In fact it is so wishful as to be almost pure fantasy, since you cannot rediscover something if you had never discovered it in the first place – the Tories never having been a ‘eurosceptic’ or anti-EU party.

Eurosceptic as a definition is pretty much meaningless these days, which could best be summed up as ‘supports the EU but pretends not to’. We’ve had three decades to gaze upon the workings of the European Union and to understand it for what it really is. This is very much a black and white issue. You either do not agree with the European Project and wish to leave it, or you support it and wish to remain within it. There is no in-between, wishy-washy, middle ground. The EU cannot be reformed or changing from within, in part because there is no overall will to do so from the majority of pro-EU member states and even if there were then no mechanisms to bring about such ‘reform’ exist. Therefore ‘euroscepticism’ is a ploy to dupe the gullible into voting for so called ‘eurosceptics’ who are politicians who support the EU because they do not wish to leave.

Further to John’s point, I am not sure I view this supposed ‘surge’ of ‘anti-Brussels feeling’ as an encouraging trend at all. The Tories likely intend to absorb the supposedly ‘eurosceptic vote’ (again, whatever you define that as) and then continue to do nothing about the EU – therefore back to good old business as usual.

It all seems just a little too convenient doesn’t it? It’s all rather wink and nod. Vague hints with nothing officially announced. All is done through smoke and mirrors, speculation by journalists (particularly pro-Government journalists), with nothing substantial or concrete.

As Richard North noted only a few weeks ago, Steve Hilton must be utterly useless as a political adviser to have only just noticed the vast transfer of powers the UK has passed to the EU. Still, this is after all the same man who encouraged Dave to hug-a-hoodie, and who purportedly voted for the Green party at the General Election in 1997. Yet, having said that, Steve Hilton and the Tory advisers are not entirely stupid either. As Helen Szamuely highlighted, there is a common theme in all this:

…the presentation of the Conservative Party as the one and only truly eurosceptic political organization in this country, for which all ‘true’ eurosceptics should vote.

Perhaps the Coalition is not as harmonious as we thought, and that an early election could be likely? Who knows? Or maybe Dave and co have finally realised that the plan to woo Lib Dim voters has spectacularly failed (though one would have thought the General Election would have been proof of that). Whatever the reason, the briefings that have led to this latest round of speculation will have been with votes rather than the voters in mind.

In all likelihood therefore, this is a plan devised by Tories to create the illusion of Conservative opposition to the EU where none in fact exists. David Cameron has spoken on many occasions of his support for the EU and his desire to prevent the British people having a referendum on membership in case we voted to leave. Month after month the EU’s Directives are passed through our Parliament on the nod without as much as a squeak of opposition. And now, suddenly, as if out of the blue, Government ministers think we should leave the EU, without a train of reasoned thought or analysis. Honestly, do they really believe we are all so gullible? Clearly so.

He observed that despite all the highly public ‘disagreements’ and arguments between the Tory ‘opposition’ (I use this term very loosely) and the Labour Government over the number of helicopters in service or the appointment of Sir Richard Dannatt as a political adviser, the two parties have practically identical policies on Afghanistan.

And it is true. The Conservatives, on this issue among so many others, have very little to say about Afghanistan or Iraq that radically differs from what is currently on offer. Both parties, save an honourable few among their ranks, enthusiastically endorsed the war by voting for it. Neither has altered their stance since.

Eight years later, some among those many who voted for the war are beginning to reconsider their position. Many more already have. After nearly a decade we have had ample time to survey the scene, to agonise over the many needless deaths and to debate the ins and outs of why we are still there. Indeed, The Times notes that opinion continues to swing towards withdrawal.

One must have concluded by now, as many did long before the invasion, that it was a bad idea to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Many have tried before and all have failed. The war was borne out of opportunity and mistaken idealism that imposing democracy was a simple matter rather than a process that takes time, experience and many generations.

Our presence in Afghanistan, like Iraq, does us no favours. It is high time that we left; high time that we got out of Afghanistan.

The promise by the Conservatives is, however, not worth the manifesto paper it will likely be printed on. This is because it is practically impossible for any UK Government to abolish Home Information Packs because they have been inflicted upon us by our continued membership of the European Union.

One need only refer to Directive 2002/91/EC which explains the certification of homes and building energy efficiency levels. The Directive came into full force on the 4th of January 2003 when it was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and all member states (including Britain) had to comply with the legislation by the 4th of January 2006.

The deadline of full compliance has of course long since past. We must, by European law (which now takes precedent), certificate all our buildings and homes regardless of whether we wish to or not – all in the name of tackling ‘Global Warming’. We cannot escape from doing so, and while the Conservatives may try to change the name of the Home Information packs to something else, the energy certification which is the essence of the packs must be retained.

While David Cameron would like to keep quiet about ‘Europe’ (by which presumably he means the EU), as Daniel Hannan noted yesterday:

Almost all the things that really annoy people come from Brussels – home information packs, fortnightly bin collections, metric measures, compulsory car seats, all stem from EU directives.

Thus, in most instances you cannot honestly discuss domestic issues in Britain without considering European Union legislation and regulation. This becomes more apparent to people by the day, but still Mr Cameron, the Conservative Party and much of the media refuse to acknowledge the giant EU elephant in the room.

I have also increasingly disliked the way in which ConservativeHome has become almost completely sycophantic towards the Conservative Party and its leadership, rather than remaining a home for conservative opinion that is independent of the political party as was originally the website’s core aim.

However, today Tim has made the right decision. He announced that he applied to join the Freedom Association’s Better Off Out campaign and stated unequivocally that he believes that Britain must leave the European Union. This is a view with which I fully and wholeheartedly agree – and which I’m glad Tim now shares.

Leaving the European Union is but a stepping stone towards the re-establishment of our national sovereignty, our Parliamentary democracy, and the implementation of the absolutely necessary conservative reforms that our society so desperately requires.

Yet, this is not the view of the Conservative Party, nor do I think it may ever be. The party has become too wrapped up with the desires of the liberal political class and national media, and far too interested in the pursuit of office for its own sake to take action over the detrimental nature and rule of ever closer union.

If Tim really believes that Britain should leave the European Union then he will eventually discover, as I have, that the Conservative Party is not the vehicle through which that will be achieved.

The FT article briefly notes that Cameron wishes to cut the size of the Commons by at least ten per cent, which in real terms would account for around sixty MPs and could lead to the axing of a number of safe Labour seats.

In spite of the supposed independence of the Boundaries and Electoral Commissions, as Zehra Zaidi rightly remarks, Labour has helped create a substantial imbalance within the system over the past ten years – which of course has been to their benefit.

Therefore, as all political parties that obtain power attempt, in some way or other, to use the system to garner electoral benefits, it’s not that surprising that the Conservatives have now said they will try to rebalance the system if elected.

However, these proposals also come after a notable increase in the number of reports over previous years highlighting the decreasing legislative workload of MPs. For example, The Daily Telegraph noted back in October 2007 that:

MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament.

In the Financial Times, David Cameron is also quoted as having said that in his efforts to cut public spending he thought:

The House of Commons could do the job that it does with 10 per cent fewer MPs without any trouble at all.

Back in 2007, when The Telegraph originally covered the increase of holidays for MPs the Chief Executive of the Taxpayer’s Alliance, Matthew Elliott was quick to wade in and comment, saying:

A three-month holiday for MPs is a ridiculous luxury, especially since the politicians have also been awarding themselves larger pensions and higher pay. But having MPs sitting in Parliament for shorter periods may at least mean fewer new taxes and regulations.

The question we should really be asking ourselves though is why our MPs have so little to do, and why it is that David Cameron could possibly propose to do away with ten percent of them and still maintain the same level of output?

Well, you don’t have to look far to discover the answer. With approximately eighty percent of our legislation originating in Brussels, our Westminster Parliament has simply become a rubber stamping institute through which EU law passes without amendment or debate. Then there are EU Regulations which are decided on in Brussels and don’t even have to pass through our Parliament to be enacted.

This is why the comment by Matthew Elliott is so ridiculous. It doesn’t really matter for how long our own MPs sit in Parliament or how many of them there are these days, the volume of legislation coming from the EU, which we cannot prevent, will arrive and be passed into our law regardless.

There are alternatives of course. Back in June of last year, Conservative MP Peter Lilley proposed that all MPs should have their pay cut if they gave away powers to the European Union. Such a system might actually bring home to MPs the importance of the powers and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them by the British people.

Then there is our direct financial contribution to the European Union which amounts to roughly some £14bn an annum – far greater if you take into account the costs that EU legislation and regulations impose on us. Therefore, the costs saved from leaving the European Union would far outweigh the comparably insignificant sum of money Mr Cameron would supposedly like to save in reducing the number of Members of Parliament.

Sadly though, it appears that once again Mr Cameron has chosen to tackle the symptom rather than the cause of the problem in our Parliamentary system.