The Heffer offers a rant today, railing against the venal denizens of Parliament, with particular venom for Jacqui Smith. We have received the following joint statement from Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the joint sponsors of Geert Wilders's invitation:Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Another day, another prediction
From the Met Office that told us that the summer of 2008 was going to bethe warmest on record, we have yet another of their wonderful predictions.
According to this august source, or so we are told, the Scottish ski industry could disappear "within decades" due to global warming.
Despite the fact that the country's five resorts are currently enjoying exceptional conditions after heavy snowfall in the Highlands, climate change "may mean" they have less than 50 years of skiing left.
Alex Hill, chief government advisor with the Met Office, said the amount of snow in the Scottish mountains had been decreasing for the last 40 years and there was no reason for the decline to stop. He added: "Put it this way, I will not be investing in the ski-ing industry. Will there be a ski industry in Scotland in 50 years' time? Very unlikely."
I don't know what it is about the warmists, but they seem to have it in for skiing – maybe it’s the killjoy streak in them, a modern version of the Puritans. But last May they were having a go at the Alpine ski resorts, predicting many of them were finished – just before they were to enjoy record snowfalls.
The one thing about the warmists though – they never let duff predictions stop them. One might recall that, not so very long ago, they were predicting a five foot rise in sea level in 50 years. Another source was warning us that:A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by a hundred feet and some of it by more than a thousand feet, according to marine geologists. The environmental and economic consequences will be felt much farther inland.
Both those predictions, interestingly enough, were made in 1986, published in mainstream newspapers – the latter one in The New York Times. The headline was: "Signifigant (sic) rise in sea level now seems certain". Unabashed, they're still at it, even though the measurements from the period 1993–2003 indicated a mean rate of less than an eighth of an inch a year (and even that's disputed).
But hey! What's a duff prediction between friends? Just scrap the last one and make another. By the time it is proven wrong, nobody will ever remember and you'll be getting your nice comfortable pension. Meanwhile, we can all go water-skiing, in the Alps!
COMMENT THREADA symptom of our consensus of cowardice
In some ways, it is more of the same, that we recounted yesterday, with Moore and Melanie Phillips having a go. But Heffer takes a slightly different line. It is, he says, all our fault:So we let those whose decisions affected our lives proceed largely without account. In Parliament, a large Labour majority neutered backbenchers, an opposition with nothing to say and an ineffectual Speaker allowed free rein to a ruthlessly manipulative Government. The executive became overbearingly powerful. Parliament was rarely included in its counsels. Even when it was, the docility and lack of quality of so many people in it hardly made any impact on the Government's arrogance and control-freakery.
In a way, he his right. Both my co-editor and I are wont to say that we get the government we deserve. And I have been known to say that democracy is not a spectator sport. Basically, use it or loose it.
The trouble is that we have lost it. It will take a fleet of tumbrels to get it back. Anybody here got an NVQ in tumbrel driving?
COMMENT THREADIt hasn't gone away
Despite having dropped out of the news recently, the kerfuffle over
British jobs for British workers has not gone away. The continuing effects of commissioner Reding's "space without boundaries" are still too visible.
The latest outcrop of unrest is outside the Staythorpe power station in central England, where around 400 workers have demonstrated over the use of foreign contractors appointed by France's Alstom. A smaller demonstration has also taken place at a plant at the Isle of Grain in southern England, owned by German utility E.ON.
Hundreds of Spanish workers have been hired at Staythorpe, while Polish workers have been brought in at the Isle of Grain.
Steve Syson, regional officer for the Unite union, explains: "We've got a situation on the site at Staythorpe where there's potential work available and the UK lads aren't being given proper consideration for that work so there's anger about that."
The Staythorpe project, we are told, has defined rates of pay for local workers under a national agreement agreed by unions with the engineering construction industry. But workers fear a loophole in labour law is being exploited, allowing overseas workers to be brought in and paid less than British workers, undercutting the market.
Alstom, of course, deny this, claiming that it is not discriminating against British workers and that all workers are paid the same rates for the job. That may be the case but British workers are not being hired.
Much as the politicians would like to bury their heads in the sand, this issue is not going to go away. People are genuinely angry about this and, whatever the tranzie tendency might say, and however much they rationalise their "space without boundaries", when local people see jobs being given to foreigners, while they themselves are consigned to the dole, there is going to be a reaction.
This is not politics – it is human nature. Whatever intellectual, economic or other arguments there might be, it is going to be seen as a black and white issue by those who are most affected.
And the fact is that, whatever the bosses and the corporates – with the backing of the politicos – might claim, when British workers are on the dole while foreign workers are doing jobs they could do, we the taxpayers end up footing the bill. When this displacement effect is taken into account, I somehow doubt that the economic equation looks quite so advantageous.
The trouble is that these external costs are not borne by the enterprises which employ foreign labour, so they do not come into their calculations. They are for the politicians to work out and so far they are diving for cover.
However, "economic nationalism" is a force that cannot be denied. In times of strife, whether you like it or not, employment – like charity – begins at home. But, if the "colleagues" think the "space without boundaries" is so wonderful, perhaps commissioner Reding would like to explain its benefits to the picket line at Staythorpe – without a police escort.
COMMENT THREADMark of the beast
Despite the world going to hell in a handcart, the "colleagues" are still oblivious to the real world and remain fixated with their one and only agenda – European integration. A small but important clue to this comes from EU commissioner for information security and media, Viviane Reding.
You would think that, with what is happening around her would force her to focus on more weighty matters – but not a bit of it. Her current preoccupation is promoting her beloved 112 emergency number, launching yet another initiative to encourage greater awareness.
However, while this might seem unimportant to the point of being trivial, the real agenda shines through in commissioner Reding's statement. Extolling the virtues of the "universal emergency number", she declares:All citizens have a right to travel throughout Europe as if they were at home. Europe is a space without boundaries, and as a home for its citizens it should create ways for these people to move throughout it in a safe way.
Come rain or shine, financial collapse, destitution, earthquake, war or famine, there is only one EU agenda: reshaping Europe as "a space without boundaries". And, of course, that space must be "managed", which gives the commission and its hangers-on their justification for existing.
Interestingly, we always thought that 666 was the "mark of the beast". It turns out to be 112.
COMMENT THREADStatement from Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Joint press statement from Lord Pearson of Rannoch and The Baroness Cox
The press conference remains booked: "The Koran and Freedom of Speech" A screening of Fitna (2008 – 17 mins) plus a Q&A with Geert Wilders MP (Holland).
The Koran and Freedom of Speech – Her Majesty's Government bans Geert Wilders from the United Kingdom
Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said "Ban the Bible"?
Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement.
We do not agree with Geert Wilders that the Koran should be banned – even in Holland where 'Mein Kampf' is banned. We don't want it banned but discussed – particularly by the majority Muslim community; and specifically as to whether it may promote or justify - or has promoted or justified - violence. We are therefore promoting freedom of speech.
Geert Wilder's 'Fitna' film (available on the web) is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence.
They react in fury and menace to our intention to show the film and have boasted that their threats of aggressive demonstrations prevented its previous showing in the Mother of Parliaments. This was not the case – the event was postponed to clarify issues of freedom of speech. The threat of intimidation in fact increases the justification for the film to be shown and discussed in Parliament and by the British and international press.
Indeed, any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film’s message and the need for it to be shown.
The subsequent action by the Home Office to try to deter Mr Wilders from coming to the UK has, we believe, been rightly condemned by the Dutch foreign minister, and is a further example of the appeasement policies of the British government in giving in to the threats of militant Islam.
We intend to show and discuss the film with members of the British Parliament and the press as previously indicated, with or without Mr Wilders.
COMMENT THREADJustified pessimism
In a change of pace, it is worth looking around at the wider world and casting an eye on what is still something of a "forgotten war" – our military expedition in Afghanistan.
If it is largely forgotten, that is because the anally-retentive MoD has still not got to grips with the basic idea that, to retain interest in a long-running and complex campaign, it is vitally necessary to offer a "road map" telling people very specifically what it is trying to achieve, and then to offer a narrative, imparting some sense of continuity and direction to otherwise disparate military operations.
The same faults were evident in the MoD's coverage of the Iraqi campaign, although there the obfuscation was undoubtedly deliberate, to divert the public gaze from quite how disastrously ineffective the military effort actually was.
Given the same basic lack of information, the suspicion must be that the MoD is playing the same trick, a suspicion given sustenance by a report todaythat has a "leading US military expert" predicting that the war "could be lost by summer" – without, that is, changes in counter-insurgency strategy
The expert in this case is Col John Nagl, who is consulting the US government as it conducts four separate policy reviews on Afghanistan. The fear – which was also articulated in the context of Iraq – is that Afghanistan will become the new president's Vietnam. It will not. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but the sentiment obviously suggests that the endeavour is at risk of bogging down.
The change needed – we are told – is more troops (with a further 30,000 US troops soon expected) and the adoption of the approach that worked well in Iraq. US forces will concentrate less seeking out and killing insurgents and instead will follow a "clear, hold, build" strategy designed to consolidate gains and prevent captured towns falling back into enemy hands.
Col Nagl is saying that the gains made by the Taleban over the past two years need to be reversed by the end of the traditional fighting season, around late September or early October, or else the Taleban will establish a durable base that would make a sustained Western military presence futile.
But he also believes that a change in military tactics urgently needs to be accompanied by a "civilian surge", which will clarify the roles and goals of international agencies and governments trying to steer the impoverished country's development.
This all sounds very good, but while Afghanistan is not Vietnam, it is not Iraq either. The danger is in thinking that because a strategy worked in Iraq, it will also work in this theatre. It will not.
The crucial differences are that Iraq is significantly more urbanised than Afghanistan, had a better infrastructure – particularly the road network – and, of course, had oil – and sea access. Afghanistan is still mainly "rural" with 80 percent relying on agricultural activities, although there is massive urban drift which is also creating problems - and to allow them to get to this stage has been criminally stupid. Most importantly, the infrastructure is extremely poor and in many areas the roads are barely passable.
The problem for the coalition forces is that, with such a widely dispersed population – in a vast area (Helmand is four times the size of Wales) - even the additional troops proposed will not permit much in the way of "hold", much less build.
With the Taleban being able to pick and chose its targets, it can chip away at civilian reconstruction teams, forcing an increasing amount of the resource to be expended on force protection and security. This, in the end, becomes self-defeating.
The essential requirement, therefore, is to prioritise the reconstruction, putting the effort into where the greatest "added value" can be gained. This, in a nutshell, amounts to road-building and repair, and the provision of electricity.
But, since the force protection effort required is so great, you end up with a situation where as many forces end up in protection duties as are doing the work. The only answer, therefore, is to have "self protecting" units which, effectively, means that the Army has to do the reconstruction.
Until the politicians get their head round this – and are able to resolve the bickering between the agencies involved - the counter-insurgency is going nowhere.
Speaking of politicians, Milband has also been putting his oar in, and he too is talking of troops stuck in a "stalemate". His comments come on the back of a poll of 1,500 Afghanis commissioned by the BBC and two other international broadcasters. It has found that only 40 percent of Afghans still believe their country is heading in the right direction, compared with 77 percent in 2005.
Miliband thinks this figures is "realistic" and he is probably right. Examining the metrics of the reconstruction programme, it is either going backwards or failing to get even near key objectives. The Nato forces, in the subjective terms by which they are judged by the Afghanis, are achieving nothing.
Miliband also admits that the Taleban have managed to create "a strategic stalemate in parts of the country through their use of improvised explosive devices". That, of course, comes as absolutely no surprise at all – something which happened in Iraq, and something we and many others were predicting would happen three years ago. Yet the major and highly necessary force protection package was only ordered last October and it will only start coming on-stream next year, after the next fighting season.
The problem with the IED, of course, is that it hampers tactical mobility and, in a country the size of Afghanistan, this has a devastating effect. Without protection measures in place, extra troops are simply cannon-fodder, adding to the growing toll of casualties. The expected "mini-surge" from the British could, therefore, simply end up as a mini-surge of coffins coming the other way.
There are many other intractable problems, but the main need for the forces in theatre is to show some permanent progress which, so far, they have not been able to do. The activity is more akin to mowing the grass than it is rebuilding a nation.
On all counts, therefore, the pessimism from the different quarters is justified. In some of those quarters, there is as understanding of what needs to be done, but a way of adapting the mechanisms to achieve a result has so far remained elusive. And, of course, the Army sitting on its hands for three years, resisting the purchase of specialised protected vehicles while it held out for FRES, has not helped at all.
The danger is now that we will get into the same rut that we found ourselves in Iraq. Being unable to force a decision, the British moved the goalposts, redefining their objectives in terms of what looked achievable. And when those too turned out to be unachievable, the spin machine got going to create an illusion that failure was in fact success.
Already, there seems to be some sign of that happening all over again, with the British understood to be pushing for the "Afghanisation" of the Afghan war, seeking to persuade Washington to drop the original aim of creating a fully-fledged democracy in Afghanistan. Instead, it want the US to embrace "a reasonable objective, in a reasonable time-frame, with a reasonable prospect of success."
Bush nearly fell for that one, but changed his mind and rejected both the siren voices of the British and the defeatist advice of the Iraq Study Group. But a new, inexperienced President might just be gullible enough to buy the line and abandon Afghanistan on the basis of a flawed analysis and wishful thinking.
The ultimate test, though, is whether either the British or the US population will care enough to protest. To judge from the Iraqi experience, the British will be silent and the siren voices will prevail.
COMMENT THREADWell, now we have a problem
It is no longer just the Dutch; we, too, have a problem. Actually, there is nothing new about lack of freedom of speech in this country. What do you think those draconian libel laws are for? The latest development is going a little further as well as, we suspect, breaking EU rules.
This afternoon I was told that the meeting with Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and general trouble-maker, in the House of Lords was going ahead. It was to be a private meeting at which Mr Wilders was given an opportunity to explain his point of view to invited MPs and Peers, despite the threats made by Lord Ahmed of bringing many thousands of rage-filled Islamists along.
(Lord Ahmed is, incidentally, awaiting sentencing for dangerous driving, to wit causing the death of another motorist as he was texting and receiving messages while speeding along the motorway. If Jack Straw's new rules are brought in, he may lose his peerage, if imprisoned as at least one other driver in similar circumstances has been. Then again, pigs might fly.)
It seems, however, that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs (yes, the wretched Straw Jacqui Smith again) or his minions do not think that members of the House of Lords should have the right to invite people to give them presentations.
As Reuters reports:A Dutch member of parliament facing prosecution because of his anti-Islam remarks said on Tuesday that Britain had refused him entry to the country as a threat to public security.
Uh-huh! What's the state of play on Abu Hamza a.k.a. Captain Hook? And what of Lord Ahmed who not only goes around causing death of innocent motorists through dangerous driving but threatens to disrupt meetings in the House of Lords through violence? That, of course, is not extremism.
Geert Wilders had wanted to show a short film, "Fitna," which accuses the Koran of inciting violence, in the British parliament, but said the British authorities had told him he was excluded from the country.
"The secretary of state (minister) is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film "Fitna" and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the United Kingdom," Wilders told Dutch television a letter he had received from the British government said.
Wilders faces prosecution by an Amsterdam court for inciting hatred and discrimination.
Britain's Home Office (interior ministry) declined to comment on Wilders' exclusion, but a spokeswoman said the government opposed all forms of extremism.
"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country," she said.
However, the situation can become quite awkward. Mr Wilders has not been found guilty of anything (unlike Lord Ahmed) and is a parliamentarian in another EU member state. Does the Home Office have the right to exclude him from the country?
It seems that the Dutch government is not happy.Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban and said he "deeply regretted" that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred access.
By the way, the second invitation to Mr Wilders came from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom this blog admires unreservedly for all his work.Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to show "Fitna" at the House of Lords on Thursday, said he was "very surprised that the British government should ban a European citizen — and an elected Dutch MP at that — from coming to this country."
I am putting my money on Lord Pearson. Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs. Rien ne va plus.
He called his government's decision "weak and unacceptable in the extreme."
Pearson said he took exception to some of Wilders' statements but wanted to show his film "precisely to uphold his right to freedom of speech, even if we disagree with what he's saying."
He added that he would do his best to help Wilders to show his film in the UK, despite the ban.
UPDATE: Mr Wilders has announced that he will travel to Britain despite the ban. Will he be arrested and deported? Dutch politicians of all stripes remain unhappy, as well they might be.
COMMENT THREAD
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Posts
