Banking: ‘Market competiveness’…

BANKING & FINANCIAL MARKETS

From the desk of MD

SINCE the economic turmoil that followed the banking crisis, restoring financial stability has been of paramount importance for the British government, as it has been for many other countries around the world. Worries, in Britain, about limiting the exposure of taxpayer’s have clearly fallen into second place. And, the need for banking customers to continue to enjoy a competitive market has fallen way down the list on the government’s priority agenda. Indeed, the government waived competition rules to let Lloyds TSB take-over Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), Britain’s biggest mortgage lender. Though, initially, the move seemed to hold up an ailing market, the merger proved to be a disaster for Lloyds, as the merged group then required a massive state bail-out.

Now that the crisis is abating, fostering a competitive banking market is becoming more significant again. The intervention of the European Union’s competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, earlier this month, forced ING, a rescued Dutch Bank, to split its banking and insurance operations. Kroes also imposed restrictions on lending and deposit-taking at Northern Rock, a nationalised mortgage lender which the British government is currently splitting into a “good” bank, which it intends to privatise, and a “bad” part, containing toxic assets, that is to be wound-down.

 

ON NOVEMBER 3^rd, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and the merged Lloyds Banking Group gave announcement that it would set out divergent paths for the two biggest banks that the British government had to rescue. But, at the commissioner’s insistence, both must now pay a price, through disposing of some of their business, in return for the state aid they received. More than 900 bank branches are to be put on the market over the next four years with some well-known insurance firms also to be sold.

The government’s aid for the two banks came in two forms. First, both received a huge input of equity capital as an emergency measure, worth £20-billion for RBS and £17-billion for Lloyds, when the banking system verged on the point of collapse a year ago. Then, early this year, as banks raised anxieties over losses from a savage recession, RBS and Lloyds agreed in principle to join an Asset Protection Scheme (APS). Under such a scheme the taxpayer would cap losses by providing a form of catastrophe insurance in return for fees paid by the banks. Altogether the APS was to cover £585-billion of suspect loans and other assets, £325-billion at RBS and £260-billion at Lloyds. 80% of that total sum derived from HBOS’s poor lending decisions.

For some time, Lloyds has been trying to evade the clutches of the APS, because it perceives its terms – an upfront insurance fee of £15.6-billion – as onerous in relation to the likely risks on the assets covered. Instead of joining the APS, Lloyds is to shore up its capital by making a rights issue of £13.5-billion, and turning £7.5-billion of bonds into ones that convert into equity during times of stress, named as “contingent convertibles”. The government will subscribe £5.7-billion to the rights issue, in line with its 43.3% holding in Lloyds, but will receive £2.5-billion for the implicit cover offered by the APS since March.

In contrast, the more decimated RBS, which made an ill-fated take-over of ABN AMRO, another Dutch Bank, on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, must stay in the APS. However, the state insurance scheme will now cover £282-billion of loans rather than the £325-billion originally intended. The bank is to cover, though, the first £38.7-billion of any losses it suffers, up from the initially stated £19.5-billion. As already planned, albeit in stages, the Treasury will provide an additional £25.5-billion of equity capital to bolster the bank’s balance-sheet, raising the government’s economic interest in the bank to 84%; its ordinary shareholding will remain at 70%.

 

THOUGH Lloyds may no longer need the government’s insurance scheme, it has clearly benefited from the state injections of equity capital, old and new. As a resultant cost it will have to dispose of at least 600 branches across the UK, reducing its share of the ‘personal current account’ market by 4.6 percentage points and its mortgage book by almost 20% (in each case Lloyds currently dominates the national market with around a 30% share). RBS, for its part, will have to sell over 300 branches, mainly in England, which will reduce its share of the retail-banking market by two percentage points. It is also required to sell off its lucrative insurance business arms, which includes Churchill, Direct Line and Green Flag. To assuage popular anger over bankers’ pay, both banks have pledged not to pay discretionary cash bonuses to staff earning over £39,000 this year.

 

/…

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

NHS: ‘The fundamental problem’…

THE STATE OF THE NHS

From the desk of MD

THERE is a resounding truth about modern healthcare that, in the politics of the day, appears to be consistently ignored. The presumption that ‘demand will always exceed supply’ is a maxim that could be written every day with the same basic inherent message holding true. Put simply, there is never enough. The latest instance is that one in twenty NHS posts for doctors and dentists is vacant; the places filled with exorbitantly expensive agency and contract staff.

With the public finances in a rather parlous and unpredictable state of disrepair, the public has every right to expect the debate to rise above the iteration of details, particularly as the NHS could become one of the main battlegrounds in the General Election of 2010, even though both main political parties have pledged to protect spending on healthcare.

The pressure on cost is remorseless. A recent report from the King’s Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) showed how the NHS cannot provide a comprehensive service on current assumptions after 2011. To freeze the budget again would require an extra £10.6 billion over the next spending review period. Some of the shortfall could, in principle, come from increased productivity, up to 7.7 per cent per annum, according to the IFS. This, though, is a heroic assumption in a service which, as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) recently showed, productivity fell by 4.3 per cent over the decade from 1997.

This immediate cyclical pressure on the NHS is bad enough. After the next General Election, the service will be a major political headache for whichever party inherits it. Even more serious is the structural deficit in health spending: the IFS has concluded that, even if the NHS budget is not cut in real terms over the next spending review period, funding is likely to fall short of the population’s healthcare needs by more than £30 billion.

That is because the demands we have of the service are now out of all alignment with our willingness to pay for them. There are more pensioners than there have been in any previous era and they are living to the ripe old ages at which they contract expensively treatable diseases. The innovative genius of health scientists has made more diseases treatable, usually with new and advanced drugs that are, at least initially, very costly. It is not surprising that citizens demand all that can be done. In any public and economic system, every citizen is sensitive to pain and insensitive to price. The elasticity of demand: price economics teaches this in proven style.

At the same time, healthcare is actually getting less effective at preventing conditions, such as obesity and its associated links with diabetes, an illness, particularly Type 2 diabetes, which is the upshot of dietary and lifestyle choices. Yet, the NHS has never really been ineffective or any less effective at what it has always done. In the eyes of many, the National Health Service has become more of a national illness fixing service. The health of the nation actually has rather little to do with the NHS and that poor correlation is getting worse, to costly effect.

 

THESE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS, but the solutions are not difficult to enumerate, even if they may be hard to swallow. We cannot afford all that we can do so healthcare will have to be rationed further. We can do this by price, by availability or by time. Patients can (and possibly should) be charged for some services that are currently free, some elective and non-catastrophic services may have to be excluded from the core set of NHS interventions; or, people will again have to get used to waiting a long time.

The disposable income of Britain in 2009 is vastly greater than it was in 1948. It makes no sense to pretend that a full and comprehensive health provision can all be funded out of general taxation. That is not, in anyway, to impugn upon the founding idea and principles of the NHS. On the contrary, it is the only way to protect it. The greatest danger to healthcare in Britain comes from those false advocates who still pretend that we do not need to change. The NHS will not be able to continue delivering all clinical services ‘free at the point of delivery’.

 

Related:

• Lord Darzai’s 10-year review of the NHS
• “UK/US: Healthcare Systems” viz. Saturday Essay

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Afghanistan: ‘Drones – How effective are they?’…

DRONES/UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

From the desk of MD

DRONES, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), now in frequent use in Afghanistan by Western forces, are deemed a vital asset and source of information gathering against the Taliban. The Army says unmanned planes are invaluable in fighting a “shadowy enemy”. But, to others, namely civilians on the ground in Afghanistan, they have been dubbed the “silent killers”.

The wreckage left behind when a US drone destroyed the home of Baitullah Mehsud, killing the Pakistani Taliban leader.

The picture (right) shows the wreckage left behind when a US drone destroyed the home of Baitullah Mehsud – which also, it is believed, killed the former Pakistan Taliban leader.

Surveillance, in such instances, is perhaps worthy for public consumption. The black and white footage gathered from images relayed back to ground, often grainy and indistinct, caught two men, recently, dragging a body along a scrubby field under the direction of a third standing on a mud bank and wearing a dark turban. These were Taliban fighters attempting to dispose of the corpse of a fallen Afghan soldier near Gereshk in the volatile Helmand province; a scene that was being streamed in real-time by an unmanned British drone to a UK command centre at Camp Bastion, also in Helmand province. It was on a subsequent mission to recover that body that a member of the British forces, Private Jason Williams, lost his life last weekend, the 196^th British fatality. 204 British soldiers have now lost their lives since being on active deployment in Afghanistan.

While one Hermes 450 UAV filmed and recorded the movements of these Taliban fighters, another aircraft was hovering above relaying images that appeared to be a freshly dug hole in the road, possibly indicating a recently buried roadside bomb outside the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah.

As the munitions used by the insurgents exact a devastating toll on the lives of British, NATO and Afghan troops, these drones are being increasingly utilised in an attempt to gain informed glimpses into the shadowy world of the Taliban.

 

THE UAVs are flown out of Camp Bastion in support of military missions. Flying at around 7,000ft, fairly inconspicuous and unheard, they are capable of spying on people burying devices on the ground and can even track disturbed earth. The information assimilated is then passed on to commanders on the ground who decide what to do with it.

The Taliban, particularly in recent months, have switched tactics by making more use of ground to air attacks: a Ukrainian helicopter, for example, under contract to NATO was shot down, recently, killing six crew. By using unmanned aircraft, the risks are considerably reduced.

The use of drones, though, in the conflict that has spread across Afghanistan and Pakistan has stoked controversy. Whilst a number of senior insurgent commanders have been executed by the so-called “silent killers”, there have been repeated complaints that these strikes have also killed many civilians, most often the families of the targets.

 

DOUBTS over the continued use and policy of drones have been raised from a number of quarters. Lord Bingham, a former senior Law Lord, has questioned the “legality” of such attacks. Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, an Australian Army officer who advised the US General David Petraeus in Iraq and is helping to shape policy for Afghanistan, warned that NATO risked losing public support from those Afghans and Pakistanis that do subscribe to liberation.

The drones used by the British from Camp Bastion – the Hermes 450 and Desert Hawk III – are unarmed and are used, specifically, for intelligence gathering. The information they glean can have devastating consequences.

In the last few days, one piece of footage showed a group of men near Gereshk burying a device, said to be a bomb, while a lookout kept watch. The details were passed to NATO commanders and, a few minutes later, a US F-16 warplane struck with ferocious canon fire. Three of the men on the ground were seen to disappear in the explosion, another took refuge in a nearby field, and the last ran 400-metres to seek protection in a nearby hamlet, all the while tailed and filmed by the drone’s camera.

The UAV handlers, such as Captain Giles O’Sullivan-Wade, of 12^th Regiment, Royal Artillery, state that diligent procedures are followed in identifying targets:

… We have to watch out for any sign of women or children being present, or, indeed, males who are not involved in suspicious activities.

… We have to be very, very careful. We analyse shadows cast on the ground to see whether any of the suspects we are tracking are children.

Sergeant Dean Mitchisson, of 32^nd Regiment, Royal Artillery, says that drones can help a lot and is a useful tool in counter-insurgency. Expressing that the protocol and rules of engagement are very strict, he adds:

… If I breach the rules of engagement, then I could be legally culpable.

… The decisions are left with the commanders on the ground.

Both the men say the utmost care must be taken in using armed drones:

… There is a danger that you become judge, jury and executioner, and one has to be very, very careful about the rules governing that.

The Hermes craft, which is just less than 5ft long, costs around £1.5-million to manufacture. The Desert Hawk III, which, at just 18in is around the size of a model remote controlled airplane, costs in the region of £10,000 and is normally flown at around 300ft.

As of today’s date, none of the UAVs have yet been shot down. The Hermes flies too high and can’t be heard, and the Desert Hawk is so small it resembles a bird.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

NHS (Scotland): ‘Fairness and funding’…

PRESCRIPTION CHARGES & NHS FUNDING

From the desk of MD

PRESCRIPTION CHARGES have become central in the arguments over to how to stretch the NHS budget to provide the best medical care for as many people as possible.

The NHS, founded on the principle of being ‘free at the point of need’, becomes eroded if patients cannot afford the medicines they are prescribed. However, if people who can afford to do so pay some of the cost of their prescriptions, many millions of pounds could be re-invested in front-line health services.

 

IN SCOTLAND, the SNP government has taken the decision to abolish prescription charges from 2011, at a cost of £57-million a year. As part of the phasing-out process, the cost of pre-payment certificates for people on long-term, multiple medications was halved last year, resulting in a 25.9% increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed through prepayment certificates. That indicates that many people with chronic illnesses were not previously getting all the medications they had been prescribed, presumably because they felt unable to afford the previously expensive charge of £6.85 per item, which was reduced, in 2008, to £5.

Such an interpretation is backed by support groups for people with long-term conditions, such as Asthma UK Scotland, which has reported that 28% of patients can afford to take only some of their prescriptions to the pharmacist. Indeed, there is no reason to disbelieve them: there has long been anecdotal evidence from GPs that they are asked by patients which medicine is more important. Such a stance undermines the effectiveness of healthcare and negates the principle of universality.

There were no prescription charges when the NHS came into being in 1948, but they were introduced in 1952 as a result of unfeasibly high demand. The present system of exemptions for children, pensioners and those with specific medical conditions is the result of the policymakers’ struggle ever since in an attempt to balance effectiveness with the protection of the vulnerable. As the list of qualifying illnesses has grown, however, so have the anomalies: people who need several different drugs for chronic asthma or high blood pressure have to pay, while others who need fewer prescriptions are exempt.

 

HOW to make the system fairer (better-off over-60s are exempt, for example) has taxed health economists and politicians, who must also try to achieve best value for money for the NHS. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Health Secretary, argues that abolishing charges achieves parity without the costly bureaucracy that would result from a more complex system of qualifying conditions or means-testing. With prescriptions free in Wales since 2007 and charges set to continue in England, comparisons will become possible. That opportunity, I believe, should be seized and more comparitives provided in Scotland before charges are phased out in 2011.

It is quite clear from the increased uptake of pre-paid prescriptions that cost is a deterrent. At the same time, though, the NHS will continue to face increased demand for expensive new drugs and if the cost is not met over the counter it must be found from taxation.

…PRESCRIPTION CHARGES have become central in the arguments over to how to stretch the NHS budget to provide the best medical care for as many people as possible.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Research: ‘Long-term side effects of influenza’…

RESEARCH

From the desk of MD

SYMPTOMS OF INFLUENZA include a runny nose, fever, fatigue and, commonly, the feeling of a persistent chill. But, in research carried out by this site, what about a heart attack, suffered 60 years later?

Scientific research is now suggesting that such distant health problems may be linked to early exposure to the flu – as early as a foetus in the womb – according to a restricted study that analysed survey data collected between the years 1982 to 1996. Researchers found, for instance, that people who were born in the United States just after the 1918 flu pandemic (i.e. people who were still in utero when the disease was at its peak) had a higher risk of cardiac arrest in their adulthood than those born before or long after the pandemic.

Related:

• Swine Flu: ‘The threat must be taken seriously’
• Swine Flu: ‘Vaccine gamble that has not been fully tested’…
• NHS: ‘The fight against deadly hospital superbugs’

The new findings are based largely on survey data available on some 100,000 American citizens who were born between the years 1915-1923. Overall, these populations had approximately an equivalent rate of heart attack year-to-year – some 200 heart attacks per 1,000 people – when they were studied some six decades later. But, among the subset of people born between October 1918 and June 1919, when the flu pandemic was at its worst, the number of heart attacks increased by more than 20%.

Caleb Finch made initial findings, a professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California. He is also known to have combed through U.S. Army enlistment data for about 2.7-million men born between 1915 and 1922 and identified other trends among flu babies. Professor Finch reported:

… Men born in 1919 were shorter by about 0.05 inches relative to surrounding cohorts.

Finch believes such a finding is significant and somehow related to maternal flu exposure. He remains confident of establishing a correlating link because the data is specific to that one particular year. The size amounts to about a millimetre’s difference, or the thickness of a credit card.

IN the past decade, there have been several similar studies in the United States, Britain, Brazil and elsewhere that have delivered comparable conclusions. For instance, children born just after flu pandemics have higher rates of physical disability, perform worse in academic tests and have lower income compared with babies born before or after pandemics. Economist Ming-Jen, of Taiwan University, in a paper yet to be made public, says:

… The cohort [born in 1919] has shorter height and lower weight as teenagers, and a higher percentage of various health issues.

Perhaps, though, the most commonly cited paper is one by scientific researchers at Columbia University, which associated a mother’s influenza with her child’s risk of mental illness. In that landmark study, analysts collected blood samples from 12,000 pregnant women in Alameda County, California, between 1959 and 1966 and monitored their offspring for more than three decades. Children born to women who had been infected with a flu virus were three to seven times more likely to develop schizophrenia later in life, the study concluded.

Understanding or proving the link between a mother’s influenza and her child’s cardiac health, physical stature or risk of that child developing mental illness later in life is extremely difficult. For a start, and as paradoxical as it is to the theme of this journal entry, it’s probably not the flu virus itself. There is no known biochemical mechanism that links heart disease, or indeed other health outcomes, to prenatal exposure to flu. And the flu virus, unlike the pathogens that cause herpes, German measles and syphilis, is not teratogenic (i.e. it doesn’t cause malformations in the foetus).

THE BEST RESEARCH estimate is that a flu infection causes stress in the mother, which might in turn affect fetal development.  During pregnancy, a woman’s heart and lungs are working significantly harder than usual, her immune system is subsequently compromised, so a few infections – like influenza – may potentially become more intense. Although most pregnant women who get the flu survive with no serious problems, they are still far more likely than other healthy adults in developing respiratory failure and secondary bacterial infections like pneumonia – potentially fatal conditions that may require hospitalisation and mechanical ventilation. It is these severe cases that are dangerous for both the mother and her baby.

The idea that environmental conditions in the womb may have lifelong effects on the foetus is certainly not a new idea. D. J. Barker, the British epidemiologist, first proposed his theory of “Fetal origins” in 1992, arguing that when the foetus doesn’t get enough nutrition in utero, for example, an increased risk of future heart disease and diabetes somehow gets “programmed” into his or her development. At the time Barker made his theory known there was a little data to back up his propositions but, over the years since, a wealth of animal and human data has suggested it’s true.

Maternal conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes, and behaviours like smoking and drinking, have all been identified as factors that can harm fetal development. Each risk factor may lead to various long-term consequences, including mental retardation, low birth weight or an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes or schizophrenia.

However, the “flu-stress theory” is still just a theory. There is only epidemiological evidence to support it; a clinical trial measuring the effects of flu-induced maternal stress would, of course, be unethical. And, how many unknown variables is the link affected by? It’s impossible to know.

It might be argued, too, that there are few other immediately obvious alternative hypotheses, given the cluster of outcomes among babies born at certain times. For example, is it rational to ask why it is only those born in 1919 that showed a spike in heart disease? Would it not be feasible to assume people who were born just before and after the flu should also be affected?

Whatever the exact biological pathway, the findings should have a practical relevance. It should reinforce the importance of getting vaccinated against the flu, especially for pregnant women, many of who say they are reluctant to receive the 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Many believe that introducing a foreign body is harmful as well as thinking that the risk of H1N1 infection has been over-hyped.

But, in the view of this site, even if pregnant women avoid catching the H1N1 flu, the vaccine has other benefits. For instance, the baby of a woman who got the influenza vaccine, during pregnancy, will be born with antibodies to influenza. Immunity, albeit temporary, would greatly reduce the chances of the infant coming down with the flu during the first few months of its life.

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘This is where you belong’…

FAITH

Teaching from Scotland

IMAGINE yourself as a young Jew returning to Judea from Babylon in the fifth century BC. Jerusalem, about which you have heard so much, is still in chaos. You become disheartened by what you see and by the opposition you encounter as, with many others, you try to build a new life in a country which, though yours, in one sense is far from your big-city birthplace.

Occasionally, prophets like Haggai and Zechariah stir you to spiritual action. The scholarly teaching of people like Ezra helps you develop your distinctive Jewish lifestyle, and the zeal and skill of men like Nehemiah gives shape to civic life.

But over a frugal meal one dark evening, you wonder if the long trek ‘home’ from the green-banked canals and rich streets of Babylon was really worth it. You feel a rootless refugee. You set out with high hopes but where is the miracle-working God of your fathers? Life seems so hard.

Teachings for Sunday, 15 November 2009, are given from the Old Testament Books of Chronicles.

Enter the Chronicler. He has written his books especially for you. He tells you how Israel under the great king David degenerated and became two kingdoms, Israel and Judah. Then he traces how your branch of the tree, Judah, degenerated further and was exiled to Babylon.

The story spans some 500 years, and as you skim over it you see the temple and what it stands for at the centre of your people’s story. Chronicle’s focuses on the temple and Jerusalem, and reflects on the faith of God’s people.

As you read, you discover that this is the start of your story. You are in the stream of God’s purposes. And you begin to see how important it is for you to keep the law, to focus on the temple, and to honour God. He’s not doing great miracles at the moment, but all the same he’s a faithful God. So you go to bed inspired to be a loyal disciple once again.

BELIEF IN THE UNSEEN

IN a scientific age we can be tempted to want proof of everything. We believe only what we can see. Far from losing their faith in the unseen, those who have suffered for their faith down through the ages have often found strength and comfort. In Germany during the Second World War, Jews in hiding left this inscription on a cellar wall:

… “I believe in the sun even when it is not shining. I believe in love even when feeling it not. I believe in God even when he is silent.” [Anon. (20^th century)]

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Put God’s house before yours’…

Is there anyone among you who can still remember how splendid the Temple used to be? How does it look to you now? It must seem like nothing at all. [Haggai 2: 3]

 

SERVICE & WITNESS

MOVING home is never easy. There are new areas to discover, new people to meet, perhaps a new job to settle into, and the inevitable decorating and gardening.

The Judean exiles in Babylon have returned home to Jerusalem, courtesy of Persian king Cyrus who, in 538 BC, conquered Babylonia and issued an amnesty to political prisoners. Some accepted the offer, returned in 537, and laid the foundation of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed (cf. Ezra 1-4). That was 17 years ago, and the temple is still in ruins.

Today, on Remembrance Sunday, we remember all those who have fought and died in pursuit of liberation and freedom.

Haggai says that God should have been their first thought, not their last. They have built their own houses, but not his. In modern terms, that means service and witness for God should be our first priority. Of course we need balanced diaries with home and work getting their fair share. But when something has to go, generally we should ask: ‘how may I best honour God?’

If we have gifts to use, it is a sin not to use them. Religion is not a hobby horse to be ridden in spare moments; it is a vehicle which will take us further towards God himself.

IT IS, perhaps, a terrible put-down to be told that your predecessor was a ‘hard act to follow’. The result of such a remark is either to make you quake at the prospect, or determine to be different for difference’s sake in order to make your own mark.

Solomon’s temple was an impossible act to follow. It had been spectacularly beautiful and richly decorated. The returned exiles couldn’t hope to match it (2: 2). Probably some of the older ones could remember it; most would have heard vivid descriptions from their parents.

Haggai says that it doesn’t matter. The people had done their best with what they had. That pleased God and counted for more than architectural acclaim. When we work for God, we are simply to use our gifts and opportunities to the best of our ability and not compare them with others or with what we think ‘might have been’. Perfectionism can be a sin.

If we try to be better than someone else, we run the great risk of becoming proud. If we aim to do better than others did before us we will create competiveness among organisers, and activities will lose their spiritual vision and impact. We can, of course, improve on mistakes made in the past, but ‘bigger and better’ is not a virtue in itself.

After the encouragement, however, comes a challenge. These people had done well, but were beginning to slip into sin again (2: 14). They had accepted failed harvests as misfortunes and not as God’s warnings that all was not well (2: 15-18).

Yet, God does not threaten them but promises to bless them (2: 19). Instead of the stick, he uses the carrot. Having pointed out the sin, he immediately offers forgiveness.

The natural reaction to that kind of generosity is worship. The proper response to love is love. God makes that same offer to us through Christ, and we should be equally generous to one another. Sometimes love will have a more positive effect on someone than criticism.

 

The Lord bless you, and keep you:

the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you:

the Lord lift his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dedication:

• “Love Divine All Loves Excelling”

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Afghanistan: ‘Security on the ground essential’…

SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN

From the desk of MD

PUBLIC opposition to Britain continuing its campaign in Afghanistan is growing. According to an interview that Eddie Mair of Radio-4 had with Lord Paddy Ashdown, that opposition is now 75% and growing.

Gordon Brown now insists that Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, must get his act together otherwise the Western mission in Afghanistan will fail. This is the first time the Prime Minister has used such language openly.

Simply withdrawing at this stage is not a viable option, as much as everyone would like for our troops to return home. Karzai has a number of things he must now do if he is to secure the Western protection he seeks. One of those things is a need for constitutional reform and for Mr. Karzai to appoint competent ministers to his government. Another, is a willingness to engage with moderate elements of the Taliban if a political settlement is ever to be found.

The security on the ground has to remain in tack. It is the basis by which warring factions can come together in seeking a new and better way forward. Despite Afghanistan’s history, most conflicts that have seemed intractable around the world have always required a security presence to prevent further bloodshed. That same principle has to hold true in Afghanistan, too.

• MarkDowe SkyNews Community 

Related:

• The ‘Saturday Essay‘ 07 Nov 2009 viz. “Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai & political reform”
• ‘Political settlement’ in Afghanistan remains key

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Ralph McTell: ‘Streets of London’…

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘A conquering hero’…

If my people … humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. [2 Chronicles 7: 14]

 

CHRONICLES

Teaching from Scotland

BY COMPARING the way people in different ages use the same word, we can trace changes in culture. In 1000 BC, heroes are brave warriors who risk their lives to secure David’s kingship. Less than 300 years later, the same society’s heroes were those who could hold their drink (Isaiah 5: 22).

The twentieth century saw the same process compressed into less time when wartime heroes such as the physically legless RAF airman Douglas Bader gave way to sports and screen anti-heroes who became emotionally legless devotees of wine, women and narcotics.

In our more passive and indulgent age, we may have difficulty in identifying with the battle heroes of Chronicles. Today’s role models may be the unsung heroes of the emergency services, or an intrepid conservationist.

Teachings for Sunday, 01 November 2009, are given from the Old Testament Books of Chronicles.

To appreciate Chronicles we must enter the mindset of a different era. David was the Lord’s anointed, and he (and the Lord) were worth dying for. These are the heroes who inspired Jewish readers in different walks of life. They lifted spirits and gave vision. The author may want to show that people from all the Israelite tribes were loyal to David and prepared to die for him. This would have been important in later years as people looked back over the tragic story of the individual kingdom. In fact, he plays down the role of Judah and Benjamin, which later formed the nation of Judah and took on the story of God’s people.

David’s apparently disdainful waste of the water brought to him at great risk by ‘The Three’ was actually an act of worship and thanksgiving. (Water was poured out ‘before the Lord’ in several rituals.) David, at this stage, was giving God all the glory and regarded anything done for himself as an act of service to the God who had chosen him.

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

 

Dedication:

“Eternal Father strong to save”

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Surname Traceability: ‘Dowe’…

DOWE

RECORDED as Dow, Dowe, Dove, Dew and possibly others, this is a Scottish (and sometimes Irish) surname. The surname is a ’sept’ of the clan Buchanan, the most ancient and historic clan of Scotland.

It is of pre 10th century Gaelic origins, of which it has several as shown. It can be a developed form of David, or derive from the ancient word “dubh”, meaning dark or black. This word was originally used as a personal name, by itself or as a shortened form of a longer double-stemmed name, and later as a nickname or byname for a swarthy man, or perhaps for someone of “dark” temperament.

Early examples of the surname recordings include Brokynus Duff in the year 1341, when he was a juror in Aberdeen, and Ede Douw who held lands in the city of Edinburgh in 1362. John Dowe was juror on an inquest in Berwick in 1370, and John Dove, given as being the landlord of the Whitefoord Arms, Mauchline, in the 18th century, and whom had been mentioned by Robert Burns in poetry written when Burns tendered the land as a tenant farmer in Mauchline, Ayrshire. He was known as Johnie Doo or Johnie Pidgeon! The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Duncan Duff. This was dated 1275, in the “Charters of the Priory of Beauly”, during the reign of King Alexander III of Scotland, 1249 – 1286.

Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to “develop” often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights reserved

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Ministry of Defence: ‘Afghanistan RAF Nimrod Crash 2006′

SACRIFICING SAFETY

From the desk of MD

IN 2006, 14 British service personnel died, after an RAF Nimrod MR2 crashed in Afghanistan. Yesterday, Wednesday, 28 October, the Ministry of Defence was accused of sacrificing safety in order to minimise costs. Charles Haddon-Cave, QC, found the loss of the Nimrod in September 2006 had occurred because of a “systemic breach of the military covenant”.

In a devastating report Mr. Haddon-Cave said financial cuts within the MoD – in the wake of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review – had resulted in a “cascade” of organisational changes which had led to, “a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MoD”.

The report described a safety review of the ageing Nimrod MR2, carried out by the MoD in conjunction with BAE Systems and QinetiQ, as a “lamentable job” which clearly failed to identify “key dangers”.

… Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency and cynicism. The best opportunity to prevent the accident to XV230 was tragically lost.

Concluding, Mr. Haddon-Cave wrote:

… In my view, XV230 was lost because of a systemic breach of the military covenant brought about by significant failures on the part of all those involved.

… This must not be allowed to happen again. 

IN a long awaited report the Queen’s Bench Barrister condemned openly the change of organisational culture within the MoD between 1998 and 2006, the period when financial targets came to distract from the more pressing point of air safety. Quoting a former senior RAF officer, who told his inquiry:

… There was no doubt that the culture of the time had switched.

… In the days of the RAF chief engineer in the 1990s, you had to be on top of airworthiness.

… (But) By 2004 you had to be on top of your budget if you wanted to get ahead.

BOB AINSWORTH, the Defence Secretary, told the House of Commons, yesterday, that he accepted the review’s findings and would be publishing the MoD’s detailed response before the Christmas Parliamentary break.

He said:

… I am sorry for the mistakes that have been made, and that lives have been lost as a result of our failure.

Mr. Ainsworth informed Parliament that two officers still serving with the RAF, one of whom has since been promoted, and both of whom were severely criticised in the report, had been moved to other posts where they had no responsibility for safety or airworthiness.

The RAF would now consider what further action they should face in the light of the report’s findings.

AN RAF BOARD OF INQUIRY had previously concluded that the crash had occurred shortly after AAR (air-to-air refuelling) when fuel leaked onto one of the aircraft’s hot air pipes.

Mr. Hadden-Cave, in his report, was highly critical of both the culture within the MoD – which had produced a military airworthiness system that was “not fit for purpose” – and of the “safety case” that was carried out on the Nimrod MR2 between the years 2001-2005.

Pointedly, he said that the Ministry of Defence had suffered a period of “deep organisational trauma” in the wake of the 1998 strategic defence review:

… Financial pressures and cuts drove a cascade of of multifarious organisational changes which led to a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MoD, and distraction from safety and airworthiness issues as the top priority …There was a shift in culture and priorities in the MoD towards ‘business’ and financial targets, at the expense of functional values such as safety and airworthiness.

SINGLING OUT BAE Systems for criticism on elements of safety and care, Mr. Haddon-Cave said the company bore “substantial responsibility” for its failure. The first two phases were “poorly planned, poorly managed and poorly executed … work was rushed and corners were cut”, raising again question marks about the “prevailing ethical culture” at BAE Systems.

RAF Nimrod MR2. The type that crashed in Afghanistan in 2006 that cost the lives of 14 British service personnel.

The author of the report also laid bare the defence firm QinetiQ which, he said, bore a “share of responsibility” and said that it had been “fundamentally lax and compliant” in carrying out its role and duties as an independent adviser to the MoD’s Nimrod Integration Project Team (IPT). Highlighting the fact that project management within the IPT had been delegated to a relatively junior person who was “without adequate oversight or supervision”.

Mr. Haddon-Cave said that the IPT had been “sloppy and complacent” and had assessed fire risks to the Nimrod MR2 that were “manifestly inadequate, flawed and on an unrealistic basis.”

Among the senior official criticised in the report were General Sir Sam Cowan, Chief of Defence Logistics from 1999 to 2002, and his successor, Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger.

Mr. Haddon-Cave said three individuals at the MoD – the IPT leader Air Commodore George Barber, the head of Air Vehicle Wing Commander Michael Eagles, and safety manager Frank Walsh – shared responsibility for the failure of the IPT.

He named three senior BAE managers – Chris Lowe, Richard Oldfield, and Eric Prince – who he said bore “primary responsibility” for the company’s failings in relation to the safety case.

He also criticised two named managers at QinetiQ – Martin Mahy and Colin Blagrove.

QUOTING other serious accidents, Mr. Haddon-Cave said many of the organisational causes for the loss of XV230 were echoed through other major accident cases, such as the loss of the Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia, the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and the King’s Cross fire.

BAE Systems said in a statement that it would support the MoD in implementing the review’s recommendations:

… The circumstances surrounding the tragic loss of this aircraft and its crew whilst on active duty are such that the cause of the accident will never finally be determined.

… Following receipt of the report today, the company will consider and assess how best to support the MoD in the implementation of the recommendations for improving processes to further enhance the operational safety of aircraft in military use.

QinetiQ said it had cooperated “fully and frankly” with the review.

© Mark Dowe 2008-2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Social Reforms: ‘Robert Owen’…

1809

From the desk of MD

BY THE AGE of 19, Robert Owen was already the manager of a cotton mill, employing some 500 people. With his intelligence, energy and administrative ability, he made his mill the best of its kind in the country. In this factory, Owen used the first imports of American sea-island cotton ever to be used in Britain. He is deemed to be the first cotton-spinner in England, and made big improvements to the quality of spun cotton. He became a partner in the Chorlton Twist Company in Manchester, and persuaded his partners to buy the infamous New Lanark Mills and manufacturing village at New Lanark in Scotland.

It was at New Lanark that Owen set about creating a model community for the 2000 people who worked in the mills, with better housing, improved working conditions and better education. Among the inhabitants were 500 children brought in as cheap labour from the various poorhouses and charities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. There was little provision for the children’s education; the housing conditions were appalling; the sanitation poor; and, there was a high rate of crime and vice associated with very low morale amongst the employees generally.

 

ROBERT OWEN set about improving every aspect of these people’s lives, training them to higher standards of order and cleanliness and improving their homes. He built an Institute for the Formation of Character and a school, which incorporated the world’s first day nursery and playground. The school offered evening classes for those at work during the day. He also built a village store that offered goods at little more than cost price; this was the birthplace of the co-operative movement.

Although his social reforms were successful, they were expensive, and his partners complained about the effect they were having on profits. In 1813, Owen formed and constituted New Lanark into a new company with collaborators who included Jeremy Bentham and the Quaker William Allen. This time Owen forestalled criticism by guaranteeing his partners a 5% return for their capital; Owen was in return to have more freedom of action on the philanthropic side of the firm. In his book, A View of Society, he expounded his ideas of educational philanthropy, arguing that character is formed by social environment.  The great secret in the development of a person’s character is to place him or her under the right influences from the earliest years; this was why he was prepared to invest so much care and attention in schooling and schools. From an early age he left all religious belief behind, becoming a thorough-going humanist and socialist and evolving his own creed and doctrines. After New Lanark, Owen went on to create more co-operative ‘Owenite’ communities, including New Harmony in Indiana and Orbiston near Glasgow between the years 1825-28, and Ralahine in Ireland (1831-33). However, these were all deemed failures.

 

IN 1815, Owen launched a single-handed campaign to make factory-owners and managers adopt more humane practices. He drafted a bill directed at all textile factories, banning the employment of children under 10, banning night work for young people under 18, limiting working hours to 10 hours a day for all under 18, and providing for workplace inspection. There were many who sympathised with Owen’s bill; it was introduced in Parliament, but it was Owen who was left disappointed by the way Parliament amended it to a point where it became unrecognisable. He was a man before his time, by at least a couple of decades, but a very necessary man as he was at the spearhead of nineteenth century social reform in Britain. 

 

IN 1817, he put forward a report to the House of Commons committee on the Poor Law, outlining his socialist co-operative scheme. His detailed and comprehensive plans for dealing with poverty in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars were initially given a warm reception in the press and supported by many influential people. Owen could count the Duke of Kent, Queen Victoria’s father, among his many friends and supporters. At a large public meeting in London, though, Owen declared his avowed hostility to all organised forms of religion. This lost him at a stroke the support of the establishment. He himself thought the radicals, to whom he might have looked for support, were wrong-headed. Owen threw away his chance of getting large-scale government support for his idea of comprehensive reform through whole communities. Instead, he was left to work for social reform in a piecemeal fashion, finding supporters who would help set up small communities as they arose.

 

OWEN DECLARED in his Report to the County of Lanark that what was needed was not a reform but a transformation of the social order. This had a great appeal to the young and for the next ten years there was mounting pressure for Owen’s doctrine to be accepted as the aspiration of the ordinary working class people of Britain. When Owen returned to England from New Harmony in 1829 he found himself hailed as a leader.

Robert Owen worked towards the empowerment of workers, emphasising that labour is the source of all wealth. Various labouring groups formed craft-oriented unions, such as the National Operative Builders Union. Owen himself organised the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union in 1833, and vast swathes of workers made application to join. Both the employers and other members of the British establishment became alarmed and adopted counter-measures to stop the trade union movement becoming any stronger. It was to be another two generations before socialism again directly influenced trade unionism.

 

OWEN’S benevolent, practical and philanthropic ideas did not amount to a new philosophy, but their application to whole communities was entirely new. The New Lanark experiment was a model to those socialist activists who believed and subscribed to social engineering. His work in the 1820s and 1830s to achieve social transformation through the trade union movement was heroic, albeit premature, and a model to later political activists. He prepared the way for the Rochdale Pioneers Co-operative Society founded in 1844, which in turn gave birth to the worldwide Consumers’ Co-operative Movement. In a sense, Robert Owen prepared the way and defined uniquely what was meant by a socialist revolution.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

The U.S. Dollar: ‘Why the currency is falling’…

AMERICAN DOLLAR 

From the desk of MD

IN EARLY MARCH an index of the value of the U.S. dollar against six other major currencies touched 89.11, its highest point this year. Since, then, however, its value has been on a steady downward drift. Just last week, on Tuesday, October 20^th, the dollar index had slipped to 75.24, its lowest point in more than a year.

The dollar’s current worth hardly signals or constitutes a collapse, nor is its present value necessarily any cause for concern. American exporters, whose goods have now become more competitive abroad, might be happy with their weaker currency. Domestic producers, for instance, may be cheered that rival, imported goods are more expensive. European tourists, too, may be heartened that more can be bought with their euros during weekend shopping excursions to America. However, the continued depreciation of the dollar does come against a backdrop of worrying murmurs from the likes of China and Russia, both of whom hold much of their reserves in dollars, about the need to shift their reserves away from dollar dependency. Brazil’s imposition of a 2% levy on portfolio inflows is also an ominous sign that other countries are becoming nervous about their currencies rise against the dollar.

Worries about the dollar are hardly a novelty. Well before the credit-crunch some were anxious that a collapse in the currency and a jump in Treasury bond yields, as foreigners balked at funding America’s current-account deficit, would precipitate an economic crisis. Instead, sub-prime mortgages and over-leveraged financial institutions plunged the world into its worst recession since the Great Depression.

The recession, which reduced America’s imports as consumers tightened their belts, has improved its trade imbalance, shrinking its current-account deficit. But, ironically, this has been accompanied by a systemic and ongoing weakness for the dollar.

 

THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION for the currency’s decline is based on risk-aversion. On days when risky assets fall, the value of the dollar tends to go up; when risky assets rise, the dollar falls. Since March, the dollar has fallen steadily, a period that has seen stockmarkets enjoy a phenomenal rally. Domestic American investors may be driving the relationship, repatriating funds in 2008 when they were nervous about the state of financial markets and sending the money abroad again this summer because of a perception that the global economy was recovering.

Yet, although risk-aversion may be a factor, describing the dollar as a “safe haven” seems suspect. Certainly, the weakness of American fundamentals has revived the longstanding bearish case against the currency. Some commentators, for instance, cite the US budget deficit, expected to be 13.5% of GDP this year. There is little sign that the Obama administration has any plan to reduce it, and health-care reform may add to it.

Nonetheless, if foreign investors are so concerned, why is the dollar’s decline not accompanied by a sharp rise in bond yields? One reason may be that the Federal Reserve has been buying so much of the year’s debt issuance, as part of its quantitative easing (QE) programme. That has helped to keep yields down.

The simple dynamics of supply and demand may be at work. Last year the market was short of dollars because investors needed the American currency to meet their liquidity needs. This year, though, QE is creating a surplus of dollars (and pounds) and is, hitherto, driving both currencies down.

The use of QE also creates a problem for central banks as they contemplate their exit strategies. An early abandonment of the approach could cause bond yields to rise sharply, unless there is a dramatic and fortuitous improvement in the fiscal position. But, continuing QE could cause further currency weakness, too.

 

IT IS HARD to see what the US Treasury and Federal Reserve could do to bolster their currency even if they wanted to. Low yields offer little support to the dollar. The Fed seems highly unlikely to raise interest rates from their near-zero levels over the next 12-months or so, making government securities an unattractive investment, meantime.

To think of a parallel in history is, also, hard. A country heavily in debt to foreigners, with a government deficit it is making little headway at controlling, is creating vast amounts of additional currency. Why, on this basis is it allowed to get away with very low interest rates? Eventually, such arrangements must surely break down, bringing a new currency system into being, just as the Bretton Woods accord (World Bank and IMF) emerged in the 1940s.

The absence of a credible alternative to the dollar means that, despite its depreciating value, its status as the world’s reserve currency is not seriously under threat. However, what isn’t inconceivable is that the system could change in other ways. A world where currencies traded within bands, for instance, or where foreign creditors insist on America issuing some debt in other currencies, is two distinct and real possibilities as the world adjusts to a declining dollar.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘God’s wrath’…

BOOK OF ROMANS

… I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes… just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ [Romans 1:16,17]

 

UNDERSTANDING GOD’S ‘WRATH’

Teaching from Scotland

THE DEVASTATING CATALOGUE of human perversity written upon in Romans 1:18-32 poses the question of whether God has lost his rag. Paul says three times: ‘God gave them over…’ (vv 24, 26, 28). It is his way of describing the start of God’s ‘wrath’ (v 18).

Parents cannot watch their children defy them wilfully or adopt potentially harmful behaviour patterns. And, God cannot sit by and watch people sin without any sort of reaction.

God could stamp out the bad behaviour by destroying its perpetrators at once. Or he could make long-term provision for justice to be done, for just deserts to be received, and opportunity for offenders to see their errors and to return to him like the prodigal son of Luke 15. He chose the latter, much to the dismay of victims of injustice and much to the relief of repentant prodigals.

Teachings for Sunday, 25 October 2009, are given from the New Testament Book of Romans 1:18-32

Meanwhile, God’s ‘wrath’ is not a red-faced temper tantrum. He expresses his displeasure simply by leaving us to stew in our own juices. Having given us freedom, he allows us to reap the bitter fruits of misusing it. As C. S. Lewis one wrote, “They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved.”

Sensual pleasure is subject to the law of diminishing returns: it doesn’t satisfy unless it is repeated with greater intensity. Fulfilment and pleasure are as fleeting as the wind. The wind of God’s ‘wrath’ blows away our hopes and dreams. God made us to relate to himself, in whom alone lasting pleasure is to be found.

Amen.

 

BE OF GOOD CHEER

The nineteenth-century preacher Robert Murray McCheyne died young, (1813-1843), but had made a significant impact in his seven years of ministry in Scotland. Here he writes to his church about suffering:

“God has called you to suffer, and you go, like Abraham, not knowing whither you go … Still, be of good cheer, suffer with Christ! God marks your every step … He that loves you with an infinite, unchanging love, is leading you by his spirit and providence. He knows every stone, every thorn in your path.”

 

Dedication:

• “The King of Love My Shepherd is”

 

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Climate Change: ‘British lessons’…

POLICIES

From the desk of MD

THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE on Climate Change, due to be held in December, is focusing the world’s attention on international negotiations. International agreements are helpful but only in so far as they encourage individual countries to control their own emissions. What matters more, though, is the successful implementation of domestic policies which those countries put in place.

The report by Britain’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is an important one. It shows how weak policy can be strengthened. In particular, it describes that when the market is left to its own devices, it will fail to deliver. Consumers, for example, are not buying enough energy-efficient appliances or doing enough to insulate their homes; carmakers are failing to get their emissions down; and power companies still prefer utilising the burning of fossil fuels to greener alternatives. With such behavioural patterns brought into context, a bracing dose of re-regulation was prescribed: the CCC suggests compulsory emissions caps for cars, feed-in tariffs to help green-power producers and a state-enforced minimum carbon price to encourage nuclear and “clean” coal power stations through the provision and use of carbon sequestration facilities.

The bulk of the British ideas are good, with strong persuasive arguments in the Committee’s report as to why the initiatives in Britain should be adopted. However, there are elements which require public and political examination in pursuit of an alternative approach. No-doubt we can all agree that Britain’s headline figures in dealing with Climate Change is fairly impressive. Our greenhouse-gas emissions have fallen by 15% since 1990 – comfortably inside the targets set under the Kyoto protocol – compared with the 2% drop in the EU as a whole and a 14% rise in America. Critically, however, most of the decline in Britain is attributed not as the result of a big policy effort but of the “dash for gas” – i.e. the move away from coal-fired power stations that followed the end of coal mining. The decline has, now, almost stopped. Emissions are falling by less than a percentage point each year, and the government has admitted that it will “fail” to meet a self-imposed target of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on 1990 levels by next year, even though the recession has cut economic activity. Policy, in other words, is not driving emissions reductions.

Cutting carbon is politically sensitive because it incurs additional pressure on energy prices. Yet, whilst the government set up the CCC with the notion of making changes, the committee should be deemed independent enough in criticising the weakness of existing policy whilst promoting ideas and initiatives that might strengthen it.

EFFECTIVELY, there are three sorts of policies now in place that help to reduce carbon emissions – carbon pricing, regulations to encourage efficient use of energy and subsidies for renewable energy. None of these are having much effect in Britain. The carbon price, set by the European Emissions-Trading Scheme (ETS), is actually too low to make a difference – not just because of the economic impact of the recession, but also because governments across the EU have resisted, sometimes strenuously, the European Commission’s attempts to impose tighter emissions limits.

…International agreements are helpful but only in so far as they encourage individual countries to control their own emissions. What matters more, though, is the successful implementation of domestic policies which those countries put in place.

It is correct to assert that Britain has become more energy efficient, year by year. Those increases have been incrementally marginal and there is plenty of scope for further improvements. Attempts, for example, to encourage renewable energy have had so little effect that its contribution to Britain’s aggregate electricity supply increased from 1% in 1995 to only 1.3% in 2005.

The CCC has a plentiful supply of ideas in how policy might be strengthened. The best of them is to simply raise the carbon price. However, that is difficult because the ETS sphere is controlled by the European Commission. Levering argument against those countries that want looser emission caps, such as Italy and the most of Eastern Europe, could, though, make inroads. If not, Britain could perfectly well introduce a carbon tax on top of the EU scheme, as France has done.

Another excellent initiative is for the government to audit the housing stock and to inform householders how to cut their emissions and their utility bills. Buildings are known to waste a huge amount of energy, and since the market has done a rather poor job of making them more efficient, some direct government action may now be necessary.

Feed-in tariffs, another idea tabled by the committee, falls short on grounds of efficiency. Such tariffs, hefty subsidies in favour of renewable energy, are far less effective than a carbon price and distort the market. Anecdotally, one needs to look no further than Spain’s solar feed-in tariff, which signalled an industrial boom and bust, something which should be guarded against given the slow recovery of domestic economies or the possibility that another economic downturn might occur in the future.

GOVERNMENTS do regard subsidies as being politically easier to handle, rather than taxing carbon. But, that is short-termist, generally quite typical of British attitudes within government and industry. In the long-term, “bad” policy will raise the costs of “decarbonising” the world economy, increasing the danger of a taxpayers’ revolt. Would that not amount to the biggest political difficulty of all?

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

(Re-live) Kelly Clarkson: ‘Because of you’…

 

From MD’s Video Juke Box:

• (By Request) Kelly Clarkson: ‘Already Gone’

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Preparing the way’…

BOOK OF ISAIAH

A voice cries out, “Prepare in the wilderness a road for the LORD! Clear the way in the desert for our God! … Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind will see it. The LORD himself has promised this.” [Isaiah 40: 3-5]

 

PREPARATION

Teaching from Scotland

PICTURE two remote towns in a hilly area, with only a footpath between them: laying aside any conservation concerns, imagine, too, the earth-movers carving a swathe through the hillside.

In ancient times there were only footpaths or sheep tracks outside the towns. The main caravan routes were only trodden-down earth. If a king or army wanted to get somewhere quickly, a battalion of engineers was sent ahead to clear the path of obstacles, bridge the worst ravines with rubble, lessen the steepest gradients, and tread down the path to reduce the risks of tripping.

Teachings for Sunday, 18 October 2009, are given from the Old Testament Book of Isaiah.

The context of this prophecy is the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon. They faced a 900-mile trek on foot. They could not build roads, but they still had to prepare for such an arduous journey. It provided the Prophet with a timeless image.

It was applied in the New Testament to the ministry of John the Baptist (Matthew 3: 1-3). It can be further applied to any Christian’s witness. There are, for instance, always boulders of prejudice and stumbling blocks of ignorance to clear away; there will always be rifts in relationships to bridge; and, steep uphill paths we must travel on our journey to win people’s confidence and respect.

Preparatory work is boring, as anyone who has wallpapered or painted a room will know. Stripping off the old layers is hard and cumbersome, but essential work. If we want people to meet God, we have to prepare them to recognise and welcome him.

 

ASK AND YOU WILL RECEIVE

… Jesus taught that those who seek God will find answers and direction. He also assured his followers that faithful prayer will be answered.

‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.’

Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.

Gospel Truth: — [Matthew 7: 7-8, 21:22]

 

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

 THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

 

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

 

Afghanistan: ‘Policy, Politics and Generals’…

POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN?

From the desk of MD

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA is pondering one of the hardest decisions of his presidency: whether to deploy additional soldiers to Afghanistan as part of an ongoing “surge” and as requested by his General there, Stanley McChrystal. Embroiled within the question of whether to send up to 40,000 troops lies the crucial question of whether to change strategy against the Taliban insurgency.

European leaders, too, are coming under increasing pressure to do more in Afghanistan. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, may well decide to send more troop reinforcements if America’s policy transpires to follow the former policy of pursuing surging troop numbers. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, may be willing to do so too, with her re-election and freshly looking new government now safely formed. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has yet to make good on previous pledges made that his country will dispatch more soldiers to the war zone.

 

BARACK OBAMA is not only President of the United States; he is also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. In that capacity, the decision that he makes, whilst being the most difficult of his presidency, will determine how effective he proves to be as a leader of the Western world. Will he accede to the demand of General McChrystal, Commander of US and Allied forces in Afghanistan, for a further 40,000 troops to bolster the NATO forces fighting the Taliban? Or, will he prolong the extraordinary public debate within his Administration as he searches for an elusive consensus?

---

Focus:

• CBS News, 13/10: “Obama Okayed 13,000 More Afghan Troops”
• New York Times, 14/10: “Britain to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan“
• Reuters, 14/10: “Obama holds new round of talks on Afghan strategy“

---

It is understandable, to a certain degree, that Mr. Obama has remained determined in taking his time to assess any new strategy in a war that seems far more retractable than anyone had realised. He insists that he will not be rushed, or swayed by the rising opposition in Congress, or even by the rapid deterioration in public support for a conflict that has claimed almost 800 American lives. Crucially, though, the longer he waits, the lower morale will become among the troops. Pointedly, Senator John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, has told Mr. Obama that his process of review should not be a “leisurely process” – a charge that has clearly stung and reverberated around the world.

 

DECISIONS are, now, much needed if, for anything, to avoid the charge of dithering. It is perhaps apt in remembering, too, that any War should not be run by Generals. The Commander-in-Chief is elected to decide how best to safeguard security. He should tell his commanders what the strategy in Afghanistan is; the task of military commanders, however senior, is to lay-out the military options, to warn the President of imminent and forecast dangers and to implement any decision that has been made at governmental level.

• ‘The Saturday Essay’, viz. General Sir Richard Dannatt

General Sir Richard Dannatt, who retired as Head of the British Army, last week, described General McChrystal as “very capable”, testament to his shrewdness as a military commander as well as being a candid analyst. There is no-doubt that he enjoys the trust and confidence of his troops, as well as having gained the respect of the allies and coalition forces, which also fall under his command. But his earlier announcement that the present strategy is not working, coupled with his public lobbying, is beginning to conflict directly with the reigns of power in Washington. Such disparity bolsters the resurgent Taliban’s belief that NATO is on the run.

 

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES, here, brought into sharp focus: how best to prosecute the war against the Taliban, and who ultimately takes that decision. In pursuit of the former, it shouldn’t be overlooked that the defeat of Islamist militancy is becoming ever more essential to Western security. The tactical question, though, of how to secure it is, still, secondary to the essential constitutional principles of democratic government. President Truman was vilified when he dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination in the Korean War. Yet, the decision was right. Truman confirmed, “Civilian governments” take “policy decisions”. The parallels in Afghanistan couldn’t be closer.

Such principles also extend to the UK too. Sir Richard, so often outspoken during his tenure in office, stated in 2006 that British troops should leave Iraq “some time soon” – a remark that led to Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat Leader, to term a “clear constitutional breach”.

General Dannatt has continued to test the convention of not questioning government policy, and now out of office, has been appointed as defence adviser to the Conservative Party. He looks set to be given a ministerial appointment should the Conservatives win the next General Election, due to be held before June 2010. Richard Dannatt is an admirable general, fired by commendable intentions. But, his own timing, done immediately on leaving office, will not have helped his own cause: his leap from the Army to Senior Tory ranks was hasty and will have unnecessarily stoked concerns about the politicisation of the Armed Forces. Those who continue to lead men, particularly in Afghanistan, require stability of leadership; that should stem directly from the arena of politics and elected politicians. It is the duty of Generals to implement governmental policy to the best of their ability and not seen to be openly questioning the authority of their masters.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

(Re-live firing) Mosul, Iraq: ‘U.S. Helicopter Gunship’…

IRAQ

– Helicopter gunship firing hellfire missles at taliban in Iraq.

 

Protected: BAE Systems and the Serious Fraud Office…

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Eddi Reader: ‘Dainty Davie’…

President Barack Obama: ‘Nobel Peace Prize’…

OPINION: BARACK OBAMA

VERY many congratulations to President Barack Obama who, today, has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The award has come as a surprise to many given that Mr. Obama has been in presidential office for just 8-months. However, the president’s “extraordinary efforts” in building a rich international climate and his efforts to reduce nuclear arms, in a world of tension and conflict, and the efforts which the Obama administration is continuing to make in redressing the serious issue of climate change and global warming, makes this award hugely deserving for a popular leader who understands and respects cultural and societal diversity.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

U.N. Sets Date for Iran Inspection

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

THE head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog on Sunday, 04 October, described a ‘’shifting of gears” in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program and said inspectors would visit the country’s new uranium processing site on Oct. 25.

Mohamed ElBaradei spoke in Tehran following talks with Iranian officials over the recently revealed facility that has caused consternation around to world over the extent and purpose of Iran’s nuclear program.

”I see that we are at a critical moment, I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation,” said Elbaradei as he announced the new inspection date.

”I hope and trust Iran will be helpful with our inspectors so it is possible for us to be able to assess our verification of the facility as early as possible,” he added, while sitting next to Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s nuclear program.

The revelation that Iran has been building a new nuclear plant near the holy city of Qom has heightened the concern of the U.S. and many of its allies, which suspect Tehran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for developing a weapons-making capability.

Iran denies such an aim, saying it only wants to generate energy.

Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran’s actions ”raised grave doubts” about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

ElBaradei admitted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has ”concerns about Iran’s future intentions,” but that added that ”the agency has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran,” he added.

”We need transparency on the part of Iran and we need cooperation on the part of the international community,” he said.

Iran agreed to allow U.N. inspectors into the facility at a landmark meeting with six world powers near Geneva on Thursday that put nuclear talks back on track and included the highest-level bilateral contact with the U.S. in three decades.

Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran says the new facility won’t be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.

The IAEA has said that Iran is obliged under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to notify the organisation when it begins to design a new nuclear facility.

Suspicion that Iran’s newly revealed nuclear site was meant for military purposes was heightened by its location, at least partly inside a mountain and next to a military base.

ElBaradei also discussed a plan to allow Russia to take some of Iran’s processed uranium and enrich it to higher levels to fuel a research reactor in Tehran.

He said that there would be a meeting Oct. 19 in Vienna with Iran, the U.S., France and Russia to discuss the details of that agreement.

 

Source/attribution:

New York Times/Associated Press (04 October 2009)

Afghanistan: ‘America’s commitment may be waning’…

TURNING POINT?

From the desk of MD

PRESIDENT OBAMA has committed America to the long haul in Afghanistan. Heavy losses and continual dissent, though, is forcing him to reconsider the strategy and possibly even turning it on its head. Of concern to Mr. Obama is the fact that public support for the war has dropped sharply since his presidential inauguration in January.

Six months after declaring a new commitment to the war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama is under growing pressure to make what would amount to a U-turn in US policy and scale back America’s commitment to a protracted conflict that many experts, and a majority of the public, now fear may be unwinnable.

• Afghanistan: ‘Political settlement remains key’…
• Intelligence Briefing: ‘A strategy against the Taliban’

Deep divisions have surfaced within Mr. Obama’s higher echelon of advisers, thrown into the light of day by the recent leaked report of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has warned that the war might be lost within a year if a further boost in troop strength and a major change to strategy is not forthcoming to combat the manifesting spread of the Taliban insurgency.

General McChrystal’s bleak assessment and outlook, coupled with Washington’s frustration with President Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, and the corrupt-ridden election over which he presided, has reignited a rift between Vice-President Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, over how the war should be waged.

 

BEHIND the debate lurks the shade of Vietnam. In a devastating 66-page memorandum delivered by General McChrystal, concerns were expressed relating to future tactics that the Pentagon and White House said might endanger US troops on the front lines in Afghanistan. Some commentators, such as Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, have compared the document to the secret history of the Vietnam War that caused a sensation when it was obtained by the New York Times in 1971. The so-called “Pentagon Papers” came out eight years too late, according to Mr. Woodward.

The stakes are, undoubtedly, huge. If Washington is perceived as opposing a further boost to troop manning levels, or potentially leaning towards a reduction, then other countries in the coalition, where the eight-year long war is as equally unpopular, might rush for the exits. So high are the stakes that President Obama barely even mentioned Afghanistan in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, last week.

 

AFGHANISTAN, seen hitherto as a “war of necessity” was entered into in an attempt to curb any repeat of the 9/11 attacks, directed from Afghanistan by Al-Qaeda and sheltered by the Taliban.

Underlining Mr. Obama’s reinvigorated commitment when he came to office was an authorised increase in US strength in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of the year. It was then that he named General Stanley McChrystal, formerly in charge of American Special Forces, as his new commander on the ground. Later, recommendations of a further boost by up to 40,000 confronts Mr. Obama with a dilemma akin to that facing his predecessor over Iraq three years ago: to implement a surge, or not. Troubling for the President, now, is that views differ sharply within his administration.

Strategically, whilst the line is a fine one the choice is between the subtleties of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. The rhetoric and sentiments of General McChrystal would seem to lean towards the latter in preventing the Taliban from returning to power. Such a view is also shared by Mrs. Clinton.  In recent days she had scathing words for those who argued that Al-Qaeda was no longer a factor in Afghanistan:  

… If Afghanistan is taken over, again, by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast Al-Qaeda would be back.

Conversely, Mr. Biden wants a narrower focus of attention on Al-Qaeda itself – both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Notably, security forces have scored some important recent successes against terrorist operatives and its splintered allies. Under this approach, the US would require fewer forces on the ground.

Under the Biden approach, the effort would not be so much protecting the general population from the Taliban or in operating a “hearts and minds” policy to win over civilian support, but would concentrate more specifically on targeted air strikes against Al-Qaeda. This approach would rely heavily on unmanned drones (UAVs), even greater use of missile attacks and increased mobility for the Special Forces. There is also credible thinking to suggest that under such an approach the training of Afghan government forces would be speeded up.

Still, further, a third faction has emerged within Washington that advocates a compromise. This would involve scaling back the requested troop increase, or even by starting to reverse it, while at the same time trying to ensure that the country does not collapse into the abyss.

Mr. Obama and his team, including his special advisers, are continuing to study the report. The Pentagon has indicated that it will be “weeks” before a decision is made but, President Obama, once so trenchant on the subject, says that all options are now on the table. Mr. Obama, in an interview with CNN, said:

… The first question is, are we doing the right thing?

 

AS IT IS, public support for the conflict is dropping sharply, with measured divisions now emerging. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 59 per cent of those surveyed were now “less confident” that the US could achieve a successful end to the war. Over half opposed an increase in American forces, while almost 35% wanted an immediate pullout.

Such pessimism is also visible on Capitol Hill. Earlier, last month, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, gave stark warning that neither Capitol Hill nor ordinary voters are in any mood for sending more soldiers to a war that has already claimed the lives of 900 Americans. Michigan’s Carl Levin, chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, declared in August that the US should send no more troops before a “surge” in Afghan security forces. Training Afghan forces, though, up to the required standards of competence seems certain to be even more of a difficult task than it was in Iraq.

 

TO complicate matters even further, Congress is now demanding personal accounting from General McChrystal on how the war is going. But, for the moment, at least, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, has resisted the pressure and has said that the commander will only appear on Capitol Hill when a new policy has been decided. However, if US casualties and fatalities continue to grow, he may have little choice in the matter. The President appears increasingly cornered.

Mr. Obama is reminded by Republican opponents that, if the US was to wind down its commitment it would send a message of weakness and inconsistency, to its allies and foes. Yet, to press on with a long and inconclusive war in a distant corner of Asia carries perilous risks.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com, Twitter: MarkDowe2009

Labour Party Conference: ‘Prime Minister’s Speech’…

LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE 2009

Speech as given to the Labour Party Conference, in Brighton, by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon Gordon Brown MP:

AND so today, in the midst of events that are transforming our world, we meet united and determined to fight for the future.

Our country confronts the biggest choice for a generation. It’s a choice between two parties, yes. But more importantly a choice between two directions for our country.

• Watch: ‘PM’s Speech at the Labour Party Conference’

IN the last eighteen months we have had to confront the biggest economic choices the world has faced since the 1930s.

It was only a year ago that the world was looking over a precipice and Britain was in danger. I knew that unless I acted decisively and immediately, the recession could descend into a great depression with millions of people’s jobs and homes and savings at risk.

And times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence, so let me share with you a little about the choices we are making.

Mindtracker: 'Rate the Leader' -- Sky News

The first choice was this: whether markets left to themselves could sort out the crisis; or whether governments had to act. Our choice was clear; we nationalised Northern Rock and took shares in British banks, and as a result not one British saver has lost a single penny. That was the change we chose. The change that benefits the hard working majority, not the privileged few.

Iran: ‘Nuclear-enrichment facilities’…

CLANDESTINE FACILITIES

From the desk of MD

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, Iran’s President, has warned President Obama against pressing Tehran about new revelations that Iran has been constructing a clandestine uranium-enrichment plant.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s caution came during last week’s G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, after Barack Obama made a dramatic announcement that Iran has been constructing a second uranium-enrichment facility whose existence had been kept secret in violation of the non-proliferation agreements to which Tehran is a signatory.

President Obama – supported by Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy – warned that Iran would be held accountable if it failed to live up to its international obligations. Fearing imminent disclosure of the plant, which is being built into a mountain near the Seminary city of Qum, the Iranians were prompted to write to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to confirm its existence.

However, Ahmadinejad insists that his country was, and is not, keeping anything from the IAEA:

… We have no secrecy; we work within the framework of the IAEA.

Still, many analysts described the Iranian leader as being nonplussed when President Obama revealed the Qum plant’s existence. Ahmadinejad’s response meandered from the defensive to the aggressive. The identification of the Qum plant raises additional questions as to whether Iran is covertly operating other additional unknown sites. Mr. Ahmadinejad said:

… This does not mean we must inform Mr. Obama’s Administration of every facility that we have.

Western intelligence suggests that the site is less extensive and complex than the main enrichment plant situated as Natanz, containing only 3,000 centrifuges. (IAEA records show that Natanz has an inventory of 8,308 installed). The site at Qum is still under construction and not yet producing enough uranium. Ahmadinejad confirmed that the site won’t be operational for at least 18-months and said work on the facility was not a direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But, crucially, as in the case of Natanz, the second plant’s existence was initially kept secret and only acknowledged when Iran was about to be confronted with direct and invioable evidence.

President Obama’s attempt to hold the Iranian regime to account may disappoint many who have been closely monitoring and tracking the US effort to back Tehran away from the nuclear threshold – not because of any particular lack of American resolve, but because the resolve and commitment of others remains in question. Whilst the British and French have been adamant and consistent in their support, with President Sarkozy warning, that “if by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, tough new sanctions would be applied”. Germany, though, which has recently shown reticence to expand sanctions without approval from the entire European Union, has been inexplicably and notably absent from discussions concerning further action. The Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, and China’s Hu Jintao have given hints that both countries might be willing to support broader sanctions, but their failure to appear alongside Barack Obama in confronting the secret plants underscores Mr. Obama’s difficulty in building a coalition to pressure Iran.

The absence of Germany, Russia and China will come as all the more disappointing given the fact that the United States has spent more than a year in careful deliberations aimed at securing a consensus among all six countries, whose representatives will meet again with Iranian negotiators in Geneva on 1^st October. The U.S. strategy is intended to offer a clear choice for Iran: engage in broad talks without precondition, aimed at bringing its nuclear program back into line with international agreements, or, face the “crippling sanctions” of which Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, warned last spring.

Iran has proven adept over the years at dividing the international community, having weakened skilfully the effects of past sanctions and buying time to advance its nuclear programs which, in the view of some experts, has now acquired enough low-enriched uranium to enable the regime to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon.

America has placed great emphasis in recent days on Russia’s apparent willingness to support new sanctions. Mr. Medvedev’s absence from the G-20 podium during Barack Obama’s international address spoke far more loudly of the difficulty the US faces in mustering a durable coalition for sanctions. Without Russian help, it will be very difficult to build a united front, even in the light of Iran’s new transgressions.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com, Twitter: MarkDowe2009

Military: ‘RAF Tornado GR4′…

RAF Tornao GR4, low level manoeuvring (Image Credit: Michael Leek)

Nuclear Weapons: ‘A pledge to cut Trident’…

TRIDENT MISSILES

From the desk of MD

PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN seems set to endorse President Barack Obama’s ambitious goal of removing nuclear weapons from the world. According to the final draft of a resolution to be put to a rare UN summit of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the leaders will seek to resolve “a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”.

In a show of support for President Obama’s recent attempts to withdraw nuclear arsenals, Gordon Brown is expected, tomorrow, to unveil plans that will reduce the number of Trident nuclear submarines from four to three. Mr. Obama convened the extraordinary summit-level session of the Security Council – which also includes France, Russia and China – to give extra impetus and momentum in his mission to denuclearise the world as the crisis surrounding Iran and North Korea, both intent on acquiring atomic weapons, appears to be deepening.

Understanding the world we live in is an integral part of blogging: plug-in to Mark Dowe's Journal for incisive and relevant day commentary.

The American President first proclaimed his dream of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague at the end of March. For his proposal (now) to be adopted formally by the UN Security Council amounts to a significant endorsement by the world’s leading powers. In addition, Mr. Obama’s stance is gaining rapid support amongst the non permanent members of the council, including Libya, which was, until recently, an aspiring nuclear state.

 

IN BRITAIN, the Trident programme is due to be upgraded at a cost of around £25-billion, approved by the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Britain’s stock of warheads has already been reduced by 20%; scrapping one nuclear submarine would not mean, though, it could cut-back further as the Government’s policy is to retain the minimum number needed for an effective deterrent. Whilst the decision to downsize Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet is one for the full UK Cabinet, Mr. Brown’s plan looks certain to be approved. The perception that Britain is playing its full part in global disarmament talks is an important one, as well as saving up to £5-billion. Savings from Trident seem certain to part of the Government’s public spending cuts to be used in balancing the nation’s books.

Critics argue and describe Trident as a Cold War relic, and will be disappointed by Britain’s continued commitment in retaining its independent nuclear deterrent. However, that is likely to remain “non-negotiable” because of the threat that a rogue state like Iran might acquire, or even use nuclear weapons.

 

THE RESOLUTION makes reference, and applauds, the continued efforts between the US and Russia in cutting their arsenals further as they negotiate the 1991 START treaty that is soon to expire. As in Prague, the resolution sets to reaffirm the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which comes up for review next May. Continued caution is given that nuclear materials might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

The proposed resolution also contains clear and explicit warnings to both Iran and North Korea as they continue to defy calls to relinquish their covert nuclear programmes. The document states:

…particular concern at the current major challenges to the non-proliferation regime;

and, demands:

… the parties concerned comply fully with their obligations.

The naming of either country was thwarted by Russia and China. The stand-off with Iran remains contentious and threatens to eclipse the adoption of the resolution.

Portentously, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s energy chief, announced this week that his scientists had perfected a new generation of centrifuges for enriching uranium, and is now testing them:

… Chains of 10 centrifuges are now under test and will be gradually increased.

Worryingly, too, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remains steadfast that he will not cede the “sovereign right” for his country to develop nuclear technology, which he insists is strictly civilian in nature. Such sentiments have, again, been echoed by Mr. Ahmadinejad prior to the meeting of the Security Council.

 

NEW SANCTIONS against Iran seem uncertain. Some Western countries, such as France, indicated that they would not support any US proposals to impede Iranian imports of refined fuel. Bernard Kouchner, France’s Foreign Minister, said that he felt such a step would amount to a “full-blown blockade”.

The five permanent members of the Security Council, joined by Germany, will discuss their position ahead of new talks scheduled in Geneva on 1 October, with Iran. Washington has quietly promoted the idea of a petrol embargo against Iran that would have a big chance of hurting the regime.

If France stands fast to its belief this would likely infuriate Israel, which has been threatening air-strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites situated at Natanz, Arak and Bushehr. Israel would feel that any potential country contesting the will to discipline Iran could weaken its authority to act against a country that is continually provocative against the territory of Israel and its people.

 

Related:

• Nuclear weapons and the NPT?
• Nuclear disarmament?
• The Saturday Essay, viz. ‘European Missile Defence’
• North Korea: ‘Uranium enrichment programme’…

 

UN Talks:

• AFP, 24 Sept 2009 Obama pushes nuclear arms-free world at UN talks
• [G20] New York Times, 25 Sept 2009: Iran and secret nuclear sites

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Site Note…

NOTE

IT will be my intention this week, as far as written work on this site is concerned, to conclude the introductory openings on ‘Sociological Studies & Methods’. Further research and investigation has been needed since the opening work on this area was published.

Readers will no doubt appreciate the significance of presenting accurate information, and in keeping with internet and digital best-practices.

 

CONTINUED thanks to Alpha Inventions (www.alphainventions.com) and its members who have shown a continued interest in the work displayed on this site. AI is a tremendously powerful blogosphere tool that seeks to promote websites, worldwide.

Reconfiguration on this site is also ongoing.

 

MD

Protected: (Re-Live): ‘Battle Helmand Province, Afghanistan’…

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

UK Politics: ‘Political posturing’…

POLITICAL POSTURING

– [REVISED VERSION]

From the desk of MD

THIS SITE seeks for the establishment of an independent Scotland. Devolution has always been, in my view, a stepping-stone towards independence.

The Scottish Government is headed by a minority SNP administration at Holyrood. As part of this year’s parliamentary legislative programme in Scotland, our leader, Alex Salmond, will make possible a referendum on independence. That pledge was given before the party took office, and is a central tenet of the party’s standing. Scotland should grasp its opportunity by seeking a mandate for self-governance.

The history of the union should speak for itself. Until Devolution came into being – just over a decade ago – Scotland was nothing more than a mere region of English counties. Scotland’s industries, ripped from the heart of Scotland, was done by a former Conservative Party that sought to appease English voters. Those times should not be forgotten, and should be chalked-up by both the SNP in Scotland and by New Labour in London, before the next General Election. History in Scotland matters.

Keep out! -- Image Credit: Guardian Newspaper, 21 August 2008

Devolution was afforded to Scotland (and other parts of the UK) through the reforms made by New Labour, proposals that were rejected by Tories but, now, more than a decade on, quite conveniently accepted by them. The ideological stance of Conservatism – free markets, periods of retrenchment and serving business before the nation’s people – is a position that will continue to belie its existence and core values.

How so dire and pitiful the Tory image was after it left many hundreds of thousands of families in poverty, exasperated by their entrenched policy of dealing with poverty in absolute terms: a policy that drove many to unrelenting despair. Now, less than 9-months before the next General Election, we hear David Cameron and his cronies speaking up of the necessity (in their view) for yet more retrenchment; Tory policies that aim, in essence, to hit the less well-off, again, for the mistakes and errors of a ballooning public sector deficit created largely through financial mishandling by bankers, and the resultant multi billion pound government bail-out of a number of high street banks.

Watch one of Scotland's best singers, Annie Lennox, perform her new single "Shining Light".

To their credit, Labour, under Gordon Brown, has sought to protect the most vulnerable in society. It raised millions of children out of poverty since it came to office in 1997, and did its utmost to help people and small firms during the current economic downturn. In terms of the General Election, I believe people will reflect on the tough political decisions that Mr. Brown made in helping the economy to move out of recession. The Tories, though, had no suitable alternative plans; at best Conservative politics could only be described as half-baked, evidenced from the lack of substance in all of its counter initiatives. Still, many have been skewed by Cameron’s deft aptitude when making public announcements. Look a little closer, and most if not all Tory policies are framed that hide bigger questions. Shakers and movers, Tories seek to gain office by whatever it takes. The Tory bandwagon and its relentless pusuit for office is opportunism that masks its utter distaste for redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor. That much is certain.

The Conservative Party remains the greatest threat to the Union as we know it. No- one outside of England requires nor needs a Tory party in office at Westminster. Its values are alien to all other parts of the United Kingdom, and we should never need, or see a desire for voting in a Tory party that can only rupture the Union even further.

 

Highly recommended reading:

• Anne Johnstone, Herald Scotland, 17 September 2009: “Working problems with simplifying benefits”

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

 

Danxia Landform: ‘Gansu Province, China’…

Red Sandstone: This unique geological phenomenon, known as a 'Danxia Landform', can be seen in several places in China. This example is located in Zhangye, Gansu Province. The colour is a result of millions of years of accumulated red sandstone and other sediments which have dried and oxidised -- Image Credit: HAN CHUANHAO / XINHUA / LANDOV

G20: ‘Financial reform and regulation’…

G20 FINANCE

From the desk of MD

THE LATEST ROUND of G20 talks, involving finance ministers and central-bank governors, was held in London just over a week ago. They last met in London in April, and prior to that in Washington, DC, last November, when fear and uncertainty reigned following the near collapse of financial markets around the world. Meetings held on September 4-5^th took place against a different backdrop.

The global economy is still fragile but far more stable than it was six months ago. The argument now is how best (and when) to withdraw fiscal and monetary stimulus packages as against knowing and understanding what more needs to be done. The meeting between ministers and bank governors has set the stage for a gathering of national leaders later this month in Pittsburgh; the emphasis directed towards the implementation of expansionary policies “until recovery is secured” and “transparent plans to withdraw those programmes” when the time is right.

Understanding the world we live in is an integral part of blogging: plug-in to Mark Dowe's Journal for incisive and relevant day commentary.

The build-up to this latest meeting was driven largely by noisy European calls, orchestrated by the French and Germans, to rein in bank bonuses after a round of rather extraordinary quarterly profits. On financial reform, though, not much discussed was new. Rather, ministers duly made compensation and governance reform as matters for priority. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), a Basel-based body of regulators, is to report to the Pittsburgh meeting with detailed proposals on global standards concerning pay disclosure and structure. A French suggestion to impose absolute caps on bonus payments, whilst not out-rightly rejected, seems to be headed for the long grass.

Overhauling compensation structures has been part of G20 thinking since the Washington summit, so isn’t exactly new in terms of addressing liquidity concerns. Even those who have previously promulgated a free and uninhibited market agree on the need for some change. Whilst the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in Britain issued guidelines on compensation policy in August that adheres to the principles set out by the FSB in April, others such as the Americans have moved much less quickly on pay: a broad consensus does exist among international regulators (and within most of the industry) that large chunks of bonus payments be deferred and that “clawback” provisions become commonplace enabling firms to reduce variable pay if risk-taking decisions go wrong.

The basic framework behind financial reform was made known at the Washington meeting: higher base capitals, a greater focus on systemic risk, and countercyclical rules in forcing banks to build better bank buffers during healthier times. A range of initiatives are under way in each of these areas, with some having started to yield positive results – such as the higher capital charges for instruments like the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Swift progress is likely to be difficult. Many issues are highly technical which, by implication, infers that rule-making will take time. Many of the initiatives currently being considered would also likely have the effect of dampening growth and so will not be implemented while economies are fragile and weak.

 

IF LONDON’S G20 gathering on September 4^th and 5^th struggled to find anything new to say, much may be the same when officials meet up again in Pittsburgh. However, governance reform within the IMF may provide world leaders with one major breakthrough. For some politicians, like Gordon Brown, who argued for a new Bretton Woods Accord – one that is fit for modern day challenges – any headline-grabbing agreement on IMF reform would be welcome. Others may say that reform of the IMF will hardly matter because reforming the world’s financial system is bound to take time; resolving the problem of global finance, whilst critical, will require an ongoing process of international conciliation. Others argue, too, that the row over pay is largely synthetic and underlines just how difficult it is for any one country to press ahead alone with measures to constrain the industry.

Yet, too, there are dangers. Agreeing the detail of reform is much harder than merely setting the direction. Recent worrying fractures between the U.S. and U.K, on the one hand, and the continental Europeans, on the other, on how much tighter the rules on a bank’ capital needs to get, has exposed divisions in how supervision is meant to improve, or how new regulations might be implemented. The supervision and resolution of large, cross-border institutions have yet to produce answers to sensible calls for meaningful change. Tier-1 capital ratios are an important aspect for consideration.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com