Monthly Archives: November 2009

Tribal voices in Afghanistan

Peter Hain has given an interview in today’s Times, much of which – though by no means all – I agree with.  It focuses on Afghanistan and the issues of governance and democracy that bedevil that country and will sadly continue to do so, notwithstanding the confirmation of Hamid Karzai as president.

In particular, I agree strongly with the following analysis:

For too long Afghanistan was misunderstood by the West, he says. “Mistakes were made in the past. In Iraq they had a state run by an evil dictator but Afghanistan has always been feudal. They don’t have a state, they have never had a state. We have to build a system of government that is more organic. We can’t just have a besieged government in Kabul — not just in terms of terrorist and security threats, but contempt from the people.”

Earlier this week, I spent a fascinating hour in the company of an Afghan tribal chief, elected to that position earlier this year,  He and a  number of other tribal leaders have combined to create an overarching local authority, with a view to improving security in their home areas and liaising with the US and British military commanders.  I found him an inspirational man, and a brave one, too; he has survived a number of attempts to take his life.

The tribes, it seems to me, offer one avenue of real hope for the Western powers to find a way through the Byzantine complexity of Afghan social and political structures and engage with the local population.  How the Karzai government can be accommodated in that process is a matter that remains to be worked out.

Oh yes, and there’s water on the Moon

Driving over to the Wirral to speak to Ellesmere Port and Neston Conservatives this evening, I listen to the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4. 

About 25 minutes into the 30 minute bulletin, we are informed that NASA has found substantial quantities of water on the Moon.

This must be one of the most significant scientific discoveries of all of human history, yet it appears below an item on free-to-air sports coverage and just before the final summary.

What in the world has gone wrong with BBC News’s editorial priorities?

The Mandy Show

Peter Mandelson is really setting the tongues wagging around Westminster today.

Hard on the heels of Paul Waugh’s blogpost that the First Secretary is doing his best to return to Europe as high representative (the EU’s “foreign secretary”) comes an article in the Guardian claiming that Mandy is shortly to be appointed Minister for Information and to have a weekly televised slot beamed from Downing Street.

The excitement is becoming almost unbearable: is Mandy about to depart these shores and head for the fleshpots of glamorous, exotic Brussels or will he be presenting avuncular fireside chats to an eager audience straight from the nerve centre of British government?

Be sure to stay tuned for the next enthralling episode.

Adieu, Mandy

Paul Waugh reports that Lord Mandelson is being put forward for the role of EU high representative, now that David Miliband appears to have ruled himself out.  Le Monde has apparently reported that Mandelson himself has “discreetly sounded out” President Sarkozy for the job.

If this is indeed the case, it could hardly be worse news for Gordon Brown.  Not only is Mandelson effectively running the show at No 10, from whence his departure would leave the Government rudderless, but his return to Europe would send out a flashing neon signal that the First Secretary considers the PM a busted flush.

Dropping Albert in it

Rhodri Morgan has told BBC Wales that the Welsh Assembly Government “sees no need for new nuclear build in Wales”.

Given that the WAG has no input into large-scale electricity generation, which is not a devolved issue, one might have thought that Mr Morgan would feel constrained to keep his counsel, as he did over the Iraq war, if only out of consideration to his Labour colleague, Albert Owen, who will be defending Ynys Môn at the next general election, and for whom Wylfa B must be manna from heaven.

Knife crime – still more to do

I approve wholeheartedly of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, that murderers who use knives in the commission of their crimes can expect to serve a minimum sentence of 25 years.

However, this goes only part of the way to amount to a sufficient deterrent to the spreading epidemic of knife crime.

Speaking to a group of 16 year-olds a few weeks ago, I was shocked to be told that all of them knew of individuals who routinely went out equipped with a knife.

There can be no excuse whatever for this, but the law at present is not sufficiently tough to act as a proper deterrent.  Currently, more than a third of young people found in possession of a knife are let off with a caution or final warning.

If ever the wrong message was being sent out, this is surely it.  Everyone, without exception, found carrying a knife should expect to be prosecuted and, if convicted, to receive an automatic prison sentence.

Well done, Miliband – but rather late

The news that Wylfa has been identified by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband as the site of one of the new-generation nuclear power stations will be very well received on Anglesey; the only pity is that the Government effectively wasted ten years by refusing to endorse nuclear in its first energy white paper.

Still, there is more joy in heaven and all that…

Even the former CND member and civil nuclear power opponent, Peter Hain, has given the Wylfa announcement a fairly enthusiastic welcome:

“It is important for the energy security of our country that we get a new nuclear round of building started as soon as possible.

“A new nuclear power station at Wylfa will provide us with a stable energy mix which includes renewable generation such as wind and tidal, as well as our investment in clean coal technology.”

Problem is that the only one of those technologies that may be described as in any developed is wind power, which makes it the low hanging fruit of renewables; it is, however, less than 30 per cent efficient.  Tidal power is pitifully underdeveloped and clean coal is at little more than the experimental stage.

So nuclear is really the only means of reliable baseload generation that does not produce carbon emissions.  Ed Miliband’s announcement is therefore, I repeat, most welcome.

Despite being  ten years late.

Gordon: you’re fired

Sir Alan – oops, Lord – Sugar, is rapidly becoming a godsend to bloggers across Britain.

He is in the papers again today, having accused women of being more likely than men to discriminate against other women on grounds of gender.  He has also suggested that he would be unlikely to employ a pregnant woman (“Why would anyone give anybody a job knowing … unless it was a temporary job?”), although he later went on to say that “he could imagine why he might want to give a full-time job to a woman expecting a baby”.

Even more interestingly, Lord Sugar has hinted that he might step down as the Prime Minister’s “enterprise champion”:

“Too much negative stuff is really unhelpful. I may decide that this is simply not worth it, when you are giving your time free of charge for no agenda,” he said.

“No agenda”?  So Sir Alan hasn’t got a job description then?

Not surprising, really, I suppose.  His appointment was made in the frenetic couple of days in June after the Euro election trouncing and James Purnell’s resignation, when it appeared that Gordon’s days at Downing Street were numbered.

Sugar was appointed to give the impression that the PM had absolutely not run out of ideas, but, on the contrary, was positively fizzing with them.  Putting the irascible star of The Apprentice in charge of looking after the interests of business seemed a good, eye-catching, idea at the time.

Unfortunately, however, Gordon hadn’t a clue what he wanted Lord Sugar to do and Sugar himself is looking increasingly unhappy in the role.

If Sugar does decide to walk, I won’t blame him.  He is famous for firing potential apprentices; perhaps now is the time for him to fire his boss.

A cold, dark election

For many months, 6 May 2010 has been generally regarded as the most likely date of the next general election.  It is, in fact, almost the last date upon which one may be held. The received wisdom has been that the Prime Minister will not want to go to the country before he absolutely has to; he will wish Labour’s position in the opinion polls to recover as much as possible and, in any event, he is temperamentally hard-wired to avoid confrontation for as long as he possibly can.

Recently, however, there have been mutterings around Westminster that 25 March now looks an increasingly likely date.  This has caused some surprise, principally because a March poll date would mean canvassing during the shorter, colder days before the clocks go forward.  Across the country, many thousands of valuable canvassing hours would be lost.

Today’s Sunday Times reveals why the March date is coming to the fore: Labour may not have the money for a later campaign.  The party’s stream of donations appears to have dried up and its banks have clamped down on its credit.  Labour’s general secretary has tried to make use of its national property portfolio to provide security for loans, but the National Executive Committee has refused to co-operate, for fear of losing assets.

On the one hand, an early election would be welcome, if it means getting rid of Brown and the rest of them six weeks sooner.   The activists are up for it and we’d have no trouble turning them out.

On the other hand, canvassing in February is no fun.  I know; I’ve tried it.  Your hands get so cold that you can’t knock on doors and your lips become so rigid that you can’t speak.

But consider: if a winter campaign is less than appealing to an opposition well organised and hungry for victory, how likely it to inspire a demoralised, poorly led and poorly resourced Labour party?  Are they going to be able to find the activists they need for a March poll? 

And, if they do,  how well disposed will those activists be feeling toward Mr James Gordon Brown as they scrabble around for leaflets in the torchlight?

Ageing Guardian

The Guardian’s Steve Bell has a very strange cartoon in today’s edition. 

It depicts Mervyn King and Alistair Darling shaking bottles of Pepsi-cola over a grave marked “The British Economy RIP”.   Darling is saying: “Where am I? What are we doing?”, while King is singing: “Come Alive! Come Alive!”

Come alive! was a successful advertising slogan for Pepsi.  But they stopped using it as long ago as 1967. 

So what are we to conclude when the Guardian’s cartoonist makes an arch reference that will be understood only by people well over the age of 50?  Something about the age profile of the paper’s readership?

Human rights corner

The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow reports a ministerial statement by the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, announcing that he is discontinuing the rule requiring judges to declare membership of the freemasons, having been threatened with a human rights action by the United Grand Lodge of England.  The statement concludes that:

The review of the policy operating since 1998 has shown no evidence of impropriety or malpractice within the judiciary as a result of a judge being a freemason and in my judgment, therefore, it would be disproportionate to continue the collection or retention of this information.

When I became a member of the Welsh Assembly in 2002, I was told that standing orders required me to declare if I was a freemason.  As it happened, I was, but had not been active for over three years (and, indeed, have not been active since). 

I had always enjoyed my time as a mason and the companionship that came with it.  If anyone had asked me if I was a freemason, I would have been happy to confirm that I was.  However, I saw no justification for a standing order that compelled me, on pain of penalty, to make a declaration of membership.  Nevertheless, I duly signed.  I was more than a little surprised, not to say sceptical, when I later discovered that I was apparently the only mason in the Assembly.  I remain sceptical to this day.

Some time later, there was a debate in the Assembly about the “freemasonry” standing order.  There had been concern that it amounted to a contravention of human rights legislation.  A committee had been established to consider the matter and had come up with the rather dubious solution of requiring members of any  association to declare membership of that association.  I voiced my objections pretty strongly, saying that the proposal was simply a device for continuing a disreputable vendetta against the masons.

That didn’t go down too well.  I was astonished to discover a virulent anti-masonic prejudice among South Wales Assembly members that I had never experienced in the North.  Some of them appeared, without supplying any evidence in support, to attribute most of the world’s ills to freemasonry.  It was really quite shocking.

The standing order remained unchanged on that occasion, but has since been amended to extend the obligation to make a declaration to members of any “private society or a private club which has entry requirements for membership”. 

In the light of Jack Straw’s ministerial statement yesterday, the Assembly may soon be under pressure to review standing order 32 yet again. 

It seems to me that if requiring a declaration from a small group of people amounts to an infringement of their human rights, you haven’t solved the problem by extending the requirement to a larger group; you’ve just given more people grounds to sue you.

How true

Precisely one year to the day after Barack Obama’s stunning victory, the Democrats have suffered reverses in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Democrats, however, do not appear overly upset: Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, warned against reading too much into the votes:

“The results of these elections tend to be over-read,” he told the NBC network’s Today programme. “These are local races. There’s 18,000 lifetimes between now and next November.”

18,000 lifetimes?  If only I could understand that comment, I’m sure I’d find real wisdom there.

Sweet advice

I’m sure that yesterday’s outburst by Alan Sugar, the Government’s new “enterprise champion”, will have gone down extraordinarily well with the business community.

Speaking at an event in Manchester, organised “to champion the causes of viable small companies with banks”, Lord Sugar said:

“Don’t just talk to me in inverted commas about ‘banks being horrible and nasty.’ Regretfully, when we delve into some examples of the companies that have gone to them saying ‘lend me some money’, I wouldn’t lend them one penny.

“They are bust. The moaners are bust. They are bust and they don’t need the bank — they need an insolvency practitioner.”

One might, of course, say much the same thing about many of the banks, which have been bailed out at such eye-watering cost by taxpayers,  including the “moaners”, who no doubt found Lord Sugar’s business advice extremely helpful.

Grand tour

If you live in Newquay, Cornwall, and want to visit your old mum, who happens to live in the Scottish fishing village of Kyle of Lochalsh, and decide to travel first class by train, you will pay a whopping £1,002 for your return ticket.  For the first time ever, a journey on Britain’s railways costs in excess of a grand.  What is worse, the trains on the first and last legs of the journey don’t even have first-class carriages.

Regular railway travellers will certainly have noticed significant increases in fares.  A friend of mine was recently astonished to see a traveller from Crewe stumping up £316 for a return ticket to London.

How can the railways justify these eye-watering fares?  We have now arrived at the point where a return journey from one end of our small country to the other costs more than a round-the-world air ticket (£755), a ride on the Trans-Siberian railway from Moscow to Beijing (£995) or a trip on the Orient Express from London to Zurich, fine dining included (£1,000).

The railways have been successful in wooing increasing numbers off the roads and onto their trains.  If, however, the current upward spiral in prices continues, we may soon see even more cars cluttering our already choked motorways.

The buck stops with the top man

I was deeply disappointed to read this account of  former Speaker Michael Martin’s evidence to the Commons committee investigating the Damian Green affair.

Lord Martin appears to be laying the lion’s share of  the blame for allowing the police into the Commons upon the Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, and the Commons clerk, Dr Malcolm Jack.

The fact is that, when Martin knew that the police wanted to arrest an MP, which was the day before the raid, he should have made it his personal business to investigate the background to the request and satisfy himself that it was right for the police to enter the Commons – which would have been, by any standards,  a most remarkable thing.

Despite refusing to accept blame for the Green affair, Martin acknowledged to the committee that “the House through its Speaker was not served as well as it ought to have been”.

That, I am afraid, is self-evidently true.