I know that this is a statistical freak, a 'spike' which will correct itself before long, but I am still deeply pained. Has the Prime Minister actually crossed the line between economy with the truth and outright lying and then been caught? Has he been found with his hand in the till, up a skirt, round a windpipe? Or, less likely, has the Leader of the Opposition found the politician's equivalent of the alchemist's stone?

None of this appears to be the case. Here is the story so far. In April 2000 the United Kingdom Parliament approved a modest rise in the taxation on fuel without a murmur.

In the budget, the Labour Government had abandoned its practice, and that of its Conservative predecessors, of increasing gasoline and diesel taxation at 3% above inflation. This so-called "Escalator" had ostensibly been introduced as an ecological measure but was nothing more than another way of getting more tax.

As this pretence had been rumbled the 'stealth' tax was no longer stealthy so the escalator was halted.

In early August there was a call by truck drivers, supported by right-wing newspapers, to boycott gas stations for a single day to protest at the rising price of fuel, almost entirely resulting from the rise in the world price of oil. A few trucks drove in convoy clogging up city centres but that was that. Then, a week later, the French fishermen protested about the rising price of boat fuel. They were supported by truckers and farmers, the Channel ports and Tunnel to England were blockaded. The right-wing papers said this was a scandal. The French government caved in and was castigated by them as pitiful.

Such is the accountant's dislike of idle stock that within three days the country's private transport had ground to a halt and public services were in danger. The police had powers to dislodge the protesters but did not use them. As the protesters were not in a body corporate, such as a labour union, they could not be prosecuted under laws against picketing. On this basis, the Government had no party with which it could negotiate. It pleaded with the protesters to lift these phantom blockades and it urged the oil companies to instruct drivers to distribute fuel but the companies said the tanker drivers were frightened of the non-existent threats.

As the situation eased, three things were clear.

• First, the oil companies, enjoying unprecedented profits, were pleased to underline their importance by sitting on their hands and allowing the chaos to develop.
  
  
• Secondly, the protesters, co-ordinated through cell-phones, were a collection of self-interested, self publicising economic terrorists, accountable to no one and nothing but their own private grievances.
  
  
• Thirdly, this undemocratic and unprincipled action was supported by the Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, and by a substantial body of the press which, in spite of its condemnation of French Government weakness, called on the British Government to cave in to demands for fuel tax cuts. The Prime Minister was supposed to give way to inchoate pressure, without a two-way deal.

There are, accordingly, three lessons which need to be learned.

• First, modern society is extremely vulnerable to sudden attacks of economic terrorism (even with the kind of oil stocks on which President Clinton drew in late September).
  
  
• Secondly, governments find it difficult to secure the interests of a country if the cause of the disruption is not a powerful organisation with the mandate to make deals and enforce them on its membership. If the Government had caved in and cut taxes the terrorism might have revived simply because another tiny group, inspired by the first concession and not bound by it, felt inclined to take the matter further. Hague, short-sighted as usual, was quite prepared to weaken his own hand in future for the sake of a temporary political advantage.
  
  
• Thirdly, one has to doubt the usefulness of opinion polls which put the question "Which way would you vote were there an election tomorrow?" when most of the replies are to the question: "How angry are you at the moment with the Government which will not call an election for at least nine months and maybe 21?"

The sad but crucial lesson is that no matter how idealists may urge a government to be brave, to stand up to the "Right", to pragmatists, to a biased media, the first imperative of any government --- but particularly one with leanings towards the progressive --- is to be ultra cautious.

If a Government as cautious and competent as Blair's can have its poll rating almost halved by a combination of a few economic terrorists supported by the press then the consequences of progressive bravery cannot be contemplated.

There is a final lesson to be learned with which the United States will sympathise. If there is a choice between cheap gasoline for automobiles and an adequate environment for our grandchildren, we will choose our own personal selfishness.

Next time you see a dewy-eyed Granddad talking about how much he wants to make a better world for his grandchildren, ask him what fuel tax he will pay and what cut in consumption he will tolerate in order to ensure what he desires.
On that bench in the quiet night of Western Australia my faith in my silly, selfish country was finally broken forever.

Blair, through skill and good luck, will almost certainly recover from this political setback but the country will not; this hysteria of irrationality and selfishness has marked another stage in our terminal decline. To perfidy, never wholly useless in diplomacy, as the French will attest, we have added fickleness.