That explains it …

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

That explains it …

Following our piece earlier today on the change in policy toward Afghani redevelopment, we see in the Guardian News Blog a piece on the French forces in Afghanistan.

The strap, in part, reads: "Roadbuilding in a far-flung valley under the guard of French forces augurs well. " Embedded in the piece, we read:

On the other hand, the breathing space won by the French has allowed work on the road to begin along the lower reaches of the Panjshir river. It is due to be given an asphalt surface within three weeks. After years of pleading from Afghan provincial governors, roads are at the centre of the new strategy being pursued in Afghanistan by the head of Central Command, General David Petraeus, and the force commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan.

Last year, the Taliban succeeded in making the main road that rings the country more or less impassable as it passed through the south, suffocating much of the economic gains the government and its foreign backers are trying to eke out.

"We would not even have thought of building this road a few months ago," Spellmon said. When it is completed, trucks will no longer have to sit in long lines in the congested capital on the way north. It will also mean that the seedless pomegranates, for which the Pashtun villages of southern Kapisa are famous, can be taken more rapidly to more markets.

There had to be a reason for the sudden shift in policy that we observed – and thus we see the fingerprints of David Petraeus, leader of the "surge" in Iraq. Note the quoted excerpt: "After years of pleading from Afghan provincial governors, roads are at the centre of the new strategy being pursued in Afghanistan …".

After a redevelopment strategy based around "feel-good" projects, heavily biased towards schools, clinics, gender development schemes, and thousands upon thousands of latrines (I kid you not), it seems that sense is prevailing. The people on the ground have been calling for a shift in priorities for years and, with Petraeus in post, their calls have been heeded.

The interesting thing is that this is a genuine and important shift in policy which, if maintained, could make a strategic difference. But, as we observed earlier, so distant is the media from the reality, it has not taken on board the importance of what is happening.

One can’t avoid noting either that, once again, the Tories have missed a trick. It has been evident for some time that the development priorities have been badly skewed and that infrastructure has not been given the importance it needs. Had the Tories picked this up and been calling for change, they could be preening themselves, claiming a victory. That is one of the arts of good opposition.

But, as always, guess who has recently been making the running! To give him his due, Michael Ancram was on the case in 2004 but, as with so many things, there was no follow-up.

Despite that, things may not look as bleak as we thought, even if there is a long way to go yet.

COMMENT THREAD

Warming on hold

This is getting like the latter days of the BSE scare. When the panic over "mad cow disease" was rampant and half a million people were going to die every year from it, the incubation period was two years. When the epidemic did not materialise, it became five years and when, obstinately, the epidemic still did not appear, it became ten and then 20 …

Eventually, we hypothesised that the incubation period was really 100 years. We would all die of BSE but for one minor problem … we were all going to die of old age first. And so it is with global warming. It looks as if an awful lot of people are going to be in their graves before we next see any of the blessings of higher temperatures.

That is according to Kyle Swanson and his climate team at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Following a 30-year trend of warming, they have finally recognised that global temperatures have flat lined since 2001 "despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Swanson, however, is not going to let go of his one true God. Global warming has only "gone into hiding". While the current cooling trend may continue for 30 years, that is "just a hiccup". With humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gasses, it will certainly come back to haunt us.

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," says Swanson. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."

That should see him nicely through to his pension and beyond, giving him and his many fellow-travellers plenty of time to continue their careers before it the final whistle blows on the most expensive scare in history – an ingenious device which enables evidence of cooling to be discounted.

Unfortunately, it also gives plenty of time for the "colleagues" in Brussels to play their dire games, although some of these seem to be grounding not on the evidence of cooling but lack of money.

EU environment ministers met yesterday in Brussels to consider EU aid to "poorer countries" to enable them to reduce their own emissions, only to confront the spectre of having to find €175 billion per year by 2020.

Somewhat daunted by the prospect of a sum which is actually bigger than the entire EU budget, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas noted that, "We were not quite able to reach consensus on the financing mechanism." He added darkly, "This is an issue where the (EU) council (of nations) will need more discussion time."

Perhaps Mr Dimas should consult Kyle Swanson. According to him, they might have 30 years. But, by the end of that period, it will become 40 and then 50 and then 60. Eventually, we're all going to die of global warming but for one minor problem …

COMMENT THREAD

There's no business like snow business

Gordon Brown's attempts to portray himself as a global leader in a time of crisis have been dealt a blow by … Washington's worst snowstorm in years. Downing Street officials discovered last night that Prime Minister would not, as had been widely reported, hold a joint press conference with President Obama after their talks at the White House today. 

British officials, denying any deliberate snub, said that the event planned in the Rose Garden had been cancelled because the grounds of the White House are blanketed in snow. 

COMMENT THREAD

Who are they kidding?

The EU commission is very worried about the collapse of the recycling market, with "growing concern" that it may result in increased landfilling.

It suggests that it is crucially important to maintain "public trust" in recycling and also maintain the existing targets. And its solution to the pressing problem of "maintaining public trust"? Ah! The council and the commission are to "make a public statement".

Problem solved!

COMMENT THREAD

Tories v UKIP

Just to prove that what I sounded (for the time being) was the Reveille, not the Last Post, here is an article about the latests brouhaha between UKIP and the Conservatives. Disregarding past experience the Tories have decided to go for what they consider to be their greatest enemy - UKIP.

Tactically, this is about as stupid a thing to do as anyone can think of. Firstly, UKIP is a small party and, therefore, it does not appear to be quite the most appropriate thing for Her Majesty's Opposition to concentrate fire on it. Secondly, the Tories are trying to build up their image as the "real" eurosceptic party. From their point of view, therefore, it appears to make sense to attack the one rival in that field (actually, now there are two with the BNP acquiring a following) but from the point of view of the electorate it seems rather odd that the fire should be reserved for their putative allies rather than their enemy. Thirdly, providing UKIP with badly needed publicity may not be quite what the Tories really want.

As it happens, I do not agree with the boss about Robin Page. I consider the man to be a crashing bore with the political nous of a backward gnat. His whining about his maltreatment at the hands of UKIP leaves me cold as, I suspect from past experience, that he is really miffed because of not being given sufficient respect. Tant pis.

Whoever engineered the Robin Page story may well live to regret it. The net result of it has been more coverage of UKIP in the media, both old and new, than it has had for a long time with Nigel Farage coming out fighting in theDaily Telegraph. I think the boss is wrong - neither UKIP nor Farage are finished any more than they were finished all those other times it was predicted by many.

I had better declare something resembling an interest here. In a way, I am responsible for recruiting Nigel Farage into what was then the Anti-Federalist League and he played some part in my purge from what afterwards became the UK Independence Party. Therefore, I have known about the Farage problem (if I may call it that) and the general UKIP problem for some time - longer than most people who sound off on the subject. And I still think the Tories are making a tactical mistake but there is very little space for them to manoeuvre in.

At present, the Conservative campaign for the European Parliament seems to be, roughly speaking, vote for us or you will get socialism and federalism with the rider that if you vote UKIP then you will also get socialism and federalism because Labour will get more seats. There are so many things wrong with that argument that it is difficult to know where to start.

Let me make a few points. Anyone who argues that MEPs can or that Tory MEPs will alter the EU's development either knows nothing about that organization or does not care about the truth as long as he or she can get in there. Furthermore, federalism is somewhat outdated; it is many years since most of us have realized that the EU is not intending to be a federalist state in the way the USA or Canada are.

In fact it matters very little who gets in to the Toy Parliament but, rightly or wrongly and I think wrongly, the Tories see the forthcoming June election as a trial run for next year's general one. If they do well in the European and local elections then the road to Number 10 will be open, which is the only thing they care about. What they will do when they get there is anybody's guess.

One of the bloggers to pick up the story is Iain Dale, who has a higher opinion of Nigel Farage than the boss does and has interviewed the man for next month's GQ Magazine. He, too, links to the article in the Independent, not precisely the best source for accurate information about politics in general and UKIP in particular, mostly because they have been wrong so often about so many things.

In this article we also have a throw-away comment about Professor Tim Congdon rejoining the Conservative Party. There have been rumours about disagreements between UKIP leadership and Professor Congdon before and the boss duly documented them at the time. It is hard to tell whether the good professor has gone the whole hog and rejoined the Tories as this is the only official claim I have seen of such a development.

When Professor Congdon left the Tories and joined UKIP he did so with flags flying and guns blazing. There was a long article in the Daily Telegraph that listed all the many things he found wrong with the Boy-King and his party. Most, if not all of those things are still there. That may be the reason why there has been so little publicity about the prodigal's return if, indeed, it has happened. Professor Congdon may not like the idea of having to explain why he has now decided to overlook all the problems he thought to be insurmountable two years ago.

Iain Dale also suggests that Malcolm Pearson may well be the next to follow. This is wishful thinking. In the first place, given the Lord Pearson's track record on the European issue from Maastricht onwards, the Tories would not really want him back but, more to the point, he really cares very passionately about it, believing not just that Britain must come out of the EU but that the entire Treaty of Rome should be torn up and we must start again.

In other words, both he and his colleague, Lord Willoughby de Broke are men of principle. That is about as far from the Conservative "eurosceptics" as one can be. I suspect that Nigel Farage will work considerably harder to keep the two peers on board than he would ever have bothered with the tiresome Robin Page, as they are of far greater use to UKIP and as he, though, perhaps, not every Tory, knows there are alternatives for them: the House of Lords still has a section for Cross-Bench, that is independent peers, a very valuable part of the House. Let us hope neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron (if it be he after the next election) get round to abolishing them.

The real problem the Tories have is that they have become a one-issue party as well. Their issue is "get rid of Gordon Brown". Nothing wrong with that and it will probably win them the next election though one can never be quite certain in a democracy but it is not sufficient for the future as John O'Sullivan, for one, has pointed out.

Why, I keep asking various ToryBoys and Girls, should I vote for you in the European election? Come to think of it, what are you going to do when you have got your snouts in the trough and your leader is in Number 10? Maybe, instead of telling us that a vote for UKIP is a vote for socialism (as, let's face it, a vote for the Tories is a vote for socialism) they should concentrate on answering that question.

COMMENT THREAD

Last man standing

An interesting article from The Independent on UKIP, in the wake of Robin Page's resignation.

There is also a letter in The Daily Telegraph from Farage (spool down). He says: "We will not allow the anti-EU voice in Britain to belong to the extremists." This, however, may no longer be within his power to control.

COMMENT THREAD