His “EU olive branch”, as the FT puts it, comes as The Guardian reports Nicolas Sarkozy’s warning to the Conservatives over defence co-operation in Europe. The French president’s ire follows news the Tories plan to pull out of the European Defence Agency if elected.

M Sarkozy, who is due to meet David Cameron on Friday, will tell him that the Tories’ stance “risks forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy” if a future Conservative government refuses to engage over the future of Europe.

The Americans have also voiced fears over the prospect of a hostile, Eurosceptic Tory government, with the National Journal reporting concern in Washington that a “self-absorbed” Tory government would be “a more tentative and less reliable” ally.

Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, told the Journal an anti-European British government would be viewed as a “liability” by the administration:

“For Britain to take an obstructionist approach within the E.U. will be seen more as a liability than as a badge of honor in Washington…

“You should not underestimate the visceral anti-European sentiment of his party … If Cameron doesn’t have a decent majority, it will create space for euro-skeptics [sic] to make trouble.”

Katinka Barysch, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, added that Britain had been “spoiling for a fight” with Europe, a fight the Tories, in spite of the shadow foreign secretary’s apparent calm, may well engage in:

“The risk here is that the Conservatives will underestimate the reaction from the Continent … They will burn political bridges. Then there will be consequences on things that really matter, because they will have no goodwill.“

The biggest warning from the Journal, however, comes from Helen Wallace, a leading expert on the European Union, who believes Tory Europhobia could imperil the special relationship; if so:

“The U.S. will need another interlocutor in Brussels.”

Europe minister Chris Bryant, meanwhile, joined in the attacks on the Tories’ European policies, telling a Progress audience last night that:

“The Tories are still the same old euro-phobic dogma-driven obsessives that they always have been: Cameron is not in charge of his own destiny in relation to Europe but in hock to his back-benchers; Cameron has hand-picked for himself a set of extremely unsavoury allies in Europe; Cameron’s proposals on Europe are naïf, unworkable, undesirable and unachievable; and the Tory position is already damaging the national British interest.“

Yesterday, Left Foot Forward reported a joint attack on the Conservative party’s European policies from foreign secretary David Miliband and Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey, Miliband speaking of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

Prisoner re-offending costs every household £400 a year, the National Audit Office (NAO) has revealed, a total annual cost to the country of £10 billion. Today’s Telegraph reports that around 60,000 offenders are jailed for less than a year – at a cost of £286 million a year – three-fifths of whom went on to re-offend within a year, with each having an average of 16 previous convictions. Edward Leigh, chairman of the public accounts committee, which oversees the NAO, said short jail sentences served “little purpose over and above taking the offenders in question out of the community for a short time”, adding: “Only a tiny proportion of prison budgets is spent on activities to rehabilitate offenders serving short prison sentences. The uncomfortable truth is that they are not working, studying or doing almost anything constructive with their time.” The head of the NAO, meanwhile, told the Standard that “reducing reoffending by short-sentenced prisoners is challenging both because there are so many prisoners and because of the few weeks they have in custody”.

The United States concealed evidence of torture from MI5, reports today’s Times. Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, claimed last night that US intel services had “deliberately concealed their mistreatment of terror suspects”, saying: “The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing.” Baroness Manningham-Buller also said that allegations MI5 officers were complicit in torture could damage the fight against terrorism: “The allegations of collusion in torture and the lack of respect for human rights will wound those individuals personally and collectively, and in some respects – whether proven or not – it will make it harder for them to do their jobs.” The Telegraph reports that she “had protested to the Americans about their treatment of detainees” and her insistence that “torture could never be justified even if it saved lives”.

David Miliband will today urge Hamid Karzai to start peace talks with moderate elements of the Taleban, reports The Guardian. In a major speech in the US, the foreign secretary will urge the Afghan government to step up if its efforts to secure peace, amidts fears the conflict could escalate and drag on. He will say: “My argument today is that now is the time for the Afghans to pursue a political settlement with as much vigour and energy as we are pursuing the military and civilian effort … The Afghans must own, lead and drive such political engagement … It will be a slow, gradual process. But the insurgents will want to see international support. International engagement, for example under the auspices of the UN, may ultimately be required.” However, Gerard Russell, of the Carr Centre for Human Rights at Harvard University, warned that he had yet to see a workable plan from the Karzai Government: “We had a look at the Afghan government’s thinking on reconciliation, but we haven’t seen a concrete proposal or a workable methodology.”

Gordon Brown, in a speech to Reuters in Canary Wharf, will today warn that the “economic storm” is not yet over, and that “substantial risks” still threaten the recovery. His speech, reports the Telegraph, comes amid “intense speculation” that the date of the budget will be March 24, soon after which he is expected to call the election. The prime minister will say: “We are weathering the storm; now is no time to turn back … We will hold to our course. And we will complete this mission. We have got through this storm together but there are still substantial risks ahead … There will be bumps in the road. And I believe the only way to overcome them is by displaying the same strength and resolve as we did during the crisis.” On the election, The Independent reports that May 6 is “looking increasingly firm for polling day”.

And The Guardian reports another rebuke to the Conservatives over Europe, with Nicolas Sarkozy set to warn David Cameron over defence co-operation. The French president will deliver a “firm warning” to the Tories, telling them they “risk forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy” if they “refuse to engage over the future of Europe”. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, in a speech today, will, however, “hint at a willingness to work with the French” – stating that a key Conservative foreign policy objective will be to “retain the ability to project power on a strategic level when working alongside the United States or France, with speed, precision, safety and effect”.

This will come as a blow to those looking to the export sector to strengthen the UK economy’s recovery from recession.

Sterling’s effective exchange rate fell by 25 per cent in 2008; this was supposed to make UK industry more competitive and boost overseas sales of British goods. So far, there is little evidence that this is happening.

The January data are probably a blip – trade data are among the most erratic of all data releases. More worrying is the underlying trend, which shows only modest growth in export volumes over the last year.

Of course, this is due in no small part to the weakness of demand in the UK’s main export markets, particularly in the rest of Europe, and it should be that export growth will improve once Europe’s economic recovery picks up speed.

There are also some grounds for optimism in the latest business surveys. The Bank of England’s agents’ report and the CBI’s survey of manufacturing both show a steady improvement in optimism about the outlook for exports in recent months.

However, the Bank of England does note that some companies are taking advantage of sterling’s weakness to push up profit margins, rather than allowing it to feed through into enhanced competitiveness.

Depending what happens to these higher profits, this probably means some of the potential benefits of sterling’s fall – in terms of more exports, more output and more jobs – are being lost.

The shadow home secretary’s office are the only people able to release the complete details of the “study” – which is, in fact, “not a study at all”, as a spokeswoman for the House of Commons Library explained to Left Foot Forward:

“I’m afraid I cannot send you the information you require, it was an individual request for information from a member. I can’t even tell you who that member is because it was a confidential request, though it’s pretty obvious who it was.

“In any case, it’s not a study at all, just some answers to a request from a member.”

All of which poses a number of questions, both for Grayling and the papers which ran with his figures:

• Why is Grayling so reluctant to release the full details?

• Why didn’t any newspapers press him on the details?

• Would Grayling have released any figures at all if they had contradicted his hypothesis?

• Would anyone have found out about his request if he had failed to release the findings?

Left Foot Forward has previously reported that violent crime is down, on a range of indicators, both in the past year and over the past 15 years.

The recent “Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09″ shows homicides down 14% from 2007/8 – the lowest level for ten years – “Sharp instrument” homicides down 6%, shooting homicides down 26% and all firearms offences down 18% – the fifth consecutive fall.

The official figures also reveal all violent crime, classed as robbery, sexual offences, assault and murder, is down nearly 50 per cent since peaking in 1995.

Last night on BBC News, David Cameron told Nick Robinson:

“I have sorted out the debts of the conservative party. I have sorted out the funding of the conservative party. I have made it less reliant on a few wealthy people. I have broadened its base. I have paid off loans including a very large loan to Michael Ashcroft so the party is not in his debt one piece. That is what I have done.”

Watch it:

But the only loan of this nature recorded on the Electoral Commission website is from Lanners Services Limited, which was paid back in March 2007. According to the Belize Government Gazette (p.14), Lanners Services Limited was subsequently “dissolved and duly struck off” the International Business Companies register on May 10, 2007.

When Left Foot Forward contacted the Electoral Commission today to ask why the loan referred to by David Cameron was not on their website, they referred us to paragraph 2.17 of their investigation into the £5.1 billion donation from Bearwood Corporate Services which said:

“references to Lord Ashcroft as the donor were ‘loose language’ rather than to be interpreted literally.”

David Cameron isn’t the first person to use “loose language” in relation to the Lanners Services loan. The Conservative party’s 2006 accounts say:

On 30 January 2006 an amount of £3,600,000 was lent to the Conservative Central Office by a company in which Lord Ashcroft has an interest. This loan together with interest was repaid on 12 March 2007″.

While in his book, ‘Dirty Politics Dirty Times‘, Lord Ashcroft writes (p.318):

After David was elected leader, I renegotiated the terms of the loan that I had made to the party. Not only did I defer the repayment of £2.5 million due on 31 January 2006 but I increased the amount of the loan by a further £1.1 million.

Why do the Conservatives, including their leader, keep on using “loose language” to refer to the Lanners loan as coming from Lord Ashcroft? Could it be the case that Lord Ashcroft is the true donor and that the loan was therefore wrongly designated under Section (54) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act? Left Foot Forward is awaiting an answer from CCHQ.

The discussion was held as part of a major Chatham House project, ‘Rethinking the UK’s International Ambitions and Choices’.

Speaking on David Cameron and his shadow foreign secretary’s decision to take Conservative MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, the three clashed on Hague’s contention that it is fanciful to suggest that you cannot work with other nations in Europe “as long as you set out in the right way and have the right agenda”, and that “the niceties of European political parties and alliances are a minor consideration by comparison”.

The difficulties of this view were highlighted by Miliband’s argument that the ability to have influence in Europe depends on the quality of your ideas as well as the quality of your alliances:

“… and honestly to believe that if you’re outside the mainstream you’ve got more influence than if you’re inside the mainstream simply doesn’t add up.”

Furthermore, Miliband recalled that European foreign ministers at the monthly Foreign Affairs Council meetings have told him that they see the Conservative move as a “symbol” of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

Indeed, as Davey insisted, Conservative policy would weaken British influence worldwide.

Pointing out that the Chinese are incredibly impressed by the development of the single market because they look at economic aspects very importantly, he declared that:

“The fact that one of the main British parties isn’t able to influence really directly, hands-on … European legislation on the single market and its relations in trade policy with the rest of the world … does a disservice.”

Nor, Davey reminded us, is Conservative policy welcome in the US. In fact the Obama administration has consistently encouraged the Conservatives in the direction of Europe, finding it strangely out of tune with the President’s rectification of the unilateralism of the Bush years.

However it was Miliband who made the strongest case for Britain’s active involvement in the EU and the differences between the parties, arguing that:

“If we want to avoid a G2 world, then you need to build up European foreign policy strength because we’re not going to have a G2 plus Britain…

“We should at least be honest that there is a profound difference on this European issue. It is a consistent position that William and his party has held but I think it’s a profoundly damaging one.”

Left Foot Forward outlined the UUP’s hostility towards such moves yesterday, and while a failure of the UUP to support the transfer of powers would not numerically pull the plug on a successful “yes” vote, Democratic Unionist Party deputy leader Nigel Dodds has previously warned that a failure of the UUP to support a deal could cause the entire process to collapse.

A recent poll, published by the Northern Ireland Office, suggests three-quarters of those in Northern Ireland supported the devolution of policing and justice, with support among the only political party to be mentioned, the UUP, reported to have been at 73 per cent.

Ahead of the vote, Northern Ireland secretary Shaun Woodward, evoking the first anniversary of the murder of PC Steve Carroll at the hands of dissident republicans, said:

“Politicians should remember that exactly one year on from the brutal murder of Constable Carroll … a yes vote can send out the strongest possible signal to dissident republicans that politics is the only way forward in Northern Ireland and that violence has no place in the present or the future.”

In response, Danny Kennedy, UUP deputy leader, said Woodward was engaging in “political and emotional blackmail”, adding:

“This is not the first time that the NIO has released dubious polling data at a dubious time on the issue of devolution of policing and justice. However the Ulster Unionist Party will not be bullied by Shaun Woodward on this issue.”

All of which raises several important points:

• Can the devolution of policing and justice be sustained without the support of all parties in the Assembly?

• Was the decision by the Conservatives to form an alliance with the UUP a complete mis-judgement by David Cameron?

• What credibility would he have in Government if he can’t persuade his political partners to back the Hillsborough Agreement whilst in opposition?

• With US politicians now directly seeking to shore up the devolution agreement, was it premature of Hilary Clinton to tell the Northern Ireland Assembly in October last year that the US would not “meddle” in its affairs?

When parties agreed to a process to see the devolution of policing and justice earlier this year, the News Letter described the agreement as being “historic”; the UUP’s failure to back the agreement, could also make history for all the wrong reasons.

Rachel Sylvester in the Times writes that:

Like Lord Ashcroft, Unite has been generous financially, contributing £3.6 million to Labour last year, nearly a quarter of the total donations the party received. Since March 2007 it has given more than £11 million.

The latter is clearly a big number but put in context it looks rather smaller. According to a written parliamentary answer from 2009, 1,291,408 Unite members contribute to its political fund – working out at under £3 per member per year since March 2007. Rather less than the average of £1 million a year donated by Lord Ashcroft’s company Bearwood Corporate Services over the same period.

Meanwhile, Tom Baldwin reports that:

Four of the most recent selections by constituency parties in winnable seats have led to senior trade union officials becoming parliamentary candidates.

But although it may be shocking to those who wish to see the destruction of the trade unions, Unite’s parliamentary group already has 156 members. Indeed, a number of senior Labour politicians of the past and present had prominent trade union backgrounds. These include

• Jim Callaghan – Assistant Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation before going on to become Prime Minister

• Ernest Bevin – General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and later foreign secretary

• Alan Johnson – General Secretary of the Communications Workers Union and current Home Secretary

The Times examines a report by the Royal Society which has found that a cost-cutting raid on the science and research budget would be a false economy risking “relegation from the scientific premier league”. Competitors such as the US, China, France and Germany are all increasing their support for science and Britain’s future prosperity will deteriorate if this is not matched. The BBC reports that former Labour and Conservative science ministers, Lords Sainsbury and Waldegrave, were both supporting the call. Lord Sainsbury said: “We’ve gone from ‘brain-drain’ to ‘brain-gain’ and if we’re not careful and we start cutting – that will reverse. That would be hugely damaging.” Britain’s public spending on science has doubled in real terms over the past 10 years to more than £6 billion.

A new poll for the Times shows that Labour and the Conservatives are “neck and neck in the marginal seats that will determine the outcome of the general election.” The Populus poll targeted the 100 Labour-held seats where the Tories came second at the last general election and which are 50 to 149 in their list of targets. It puts the two main parties on 38 per cent and would mean the Conservatives taking 97 Labour-held seats but not an overall majority. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports on how the three main parties are finalising their public-facing campaign teams. George Osborne is likely to be sidelined for Ken Clarke on economic issues as he focuses on his role as campaign coordinator.

The Conservative party have announced a u-turn on the research and development tax credit. The Financial Times says, “the Conservatives have decided to spare the research and development tax credit from the chop if they win the general election, reversing indications given in the party’s 2006 tax reform commission.” The move comes after the publication of James Dyson’s ‘Ingenious Britain’ report for the Conservative party. Meanwhile, David Cameron’s head of strategy is said by the Guardian to be losing a battle for a Conservative government to introduce a Whitehall “living wage” of £7.60 per hour. The policy topped Left Foot Forward’s list of progressive manifesto ideas.

The Guardian’s front page exclusive carries the headline: “Bush to Tories: don’t derail Ireland deal”. The paper says that “in his most active intervention since leaving the White House”, George W. Bush asked David Cameron to support the Northern Ireland peace process, “amid widespread concern in the US about the Tories’ new electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists.” But the intervention appeared to have failed since, as reported on Left Foot Forward yesterday, Cameron’s allies in the UUP oppose the devolution of policing and justice powers to Belfast.

The Independent again covers the Lord Ashcroft story with news that MPs will investigate how the conditions surrounding the Tory deputy chairman’s peerage were changed. The Public Administration Select Committee want to know how Ashcroft’s promise to become a “permanent” resident in Britain as a condition of securing his peerage in 2000 was changed to “long-term” resident, which allowed him to be “non-domiciled” for tax purposes. A note from the parliamentary Labour party to its candidates claims there is a contradiction between William Hague, who said he found out about Lord Ashcroft’s tax status in recent months, and the former Whitehall mandarin Sir Hayden Phillips, who said at the weekend that the Tories agreed the change of wording in the peer’s undertaking in 2000 when Hague was leader.

Today’s OECD report also reveals 62 per cent of women in paid work, with a quarter of all women working part time compared to just 6 per cent for men. Women spend more time doing unpaid work and “spend at least twice as much time on caring than men”, adds the report, with the number of children in a household one of the biggest determining factors.

Another point of note was that public spending on childcare and pre-school services in OECD countries was on average only 0.6% of GDP, the amounts again varying sharply, from 0.1% in Greece to 1.3% in Denmark, with Britain once more in line with the average.

Earlier today, the prime minister described the absence of women from the boards of some of Britain’s top companies as “completely unacceptable”, saying it was “wrong” that only a tenth of directors in the UK’s top 100 companies are women.

His remarks come in the wake of recent evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) showing the movement of women into positions of power and influence had reversed or stalled, reports today’s Guardian:

“It [the EHRC] likened women’s progress to a snail’s pace and said it would take a snail 73 years to crawl from Land’s End to John O’Groats and halfway back again before the numbers of women becoming directors of FTSE 100 companies was the same as men.

“The snail would have to cross the length of the Great Wall of China in 212 years before women would be equally represented in parliament.”