The objective observer?

Roger Harrabin of the BBC – objective? Dear me, no! Not according to Biased BBC.

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

The unsustainable BBC

An excellent piece of work by The Register brings to light the unsavoury connection between Lord Oxburgh - the official chosen to chair the second Climategate inquiry at the University of East Anglia – and a shadowy environmental advocacy organisation called Globe International.

We have not given a great deal of time to tracking the Climategate inquiries, partly because it was a foregone conclusion that they would be stitched up, and partly because others are already doing the job better – and there are few enough of us "powerful vested interests" around. We do not have the resources to duplicate effort.

Thus, the latest development can be picked up on the Register, while the ongoing saga can be followed on Bishop Hill, who ploughs his own high-quality furrow in splendid isolation.

Taking the issue further, though, we find from a speech given by Stephen Byers in June last, in his capacity as president, that Globe International is closely allied with another organisation called Complus, which describes itself as "the sustainable development communications alliance".

That a shadowy political grouping, chaired by an ex-Labour minister (now under investigation for peddling influence) is allied to a shadow "communications" alliance is one thing – the sort of grouping one might expect. But what makes this especially significant and important is that one of the founding partners of Complus is the BBC World Service Trust, part of the BBC's overseas propaganda arm masquerading as a charity.

The implications of the BBC's involvement come clear when you see Complus offering itself as "a diverse global alliance of organisations committed to scaling-up the impact of sustainable development communications through partnership and collaboration."

It then tells us that, "by offering a platform to share expertise, develop best practice and create synergies, COMplus actively supports creative and inspiring communications that advance a vision of sustainable development that builds on its social, environmental and economic foundations."

As a tax-funded organisation bound by its charter to political neutrality and impartiality, the BBC has no business allying itself to any organisation devoted to advancing "a vision" on anything, much less in concert with an overtly political organisation chaired by a Labour MP. But it gets worse.

Alongside the BBC as founding members of Complus are several other extremely partisan players. There is, for instance, Conservation International, another environmental advocacy group, this one which boasts as the chair of its executive committee, Rob Walton, chairman of the board of the supermarket giant Wal-Mart Stores.

Then there is the Global Environment Facility, one of the funding agencies which supported the WWF in its Amazon venture, alongside the World Bank, which was the main funder and a leading advocate of forest-based carbon credits. So, when the news broke last weekend of the scam, and the World Bank's involvement in it, the BBC was silent. What a coincidence.

Also silent was the news agency Reuters, but then the Reuters Foundation is also a founding member of Complus.

Yet another extremely partisan founding member is UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, which just happens to be the primary sponsoring organisation for the IPCC – prop. Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So there we have the BBC hand in glove in a formal alliance with the UN body which founded the IPCC.

Others of the "usual suspects" include Globescan, the "global public opinion and stakeholder research" company, One Planet, the TV production company which is so often used by the BBC, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, of which Pachauri's TERI is a member.

The news agency IPS is also a founding member, as is the film maker TVE a ghastly green propaganda unit. That outfit was founded by Central Television, WWF-UK and the UNEP. It is funded by, amongst others, Al Jazeera International, the BBC and the WWF and has Winnie De'Ath, director of communications, WWF-UK, as one of its trustees. Thus we have the BBC formally allied with a film-maker founded with and sustained by WWF money, with formal links with the organisation.

Then add the International Federation of Environmental Journalists, a "network" of "around 7500 journalists associated with every type of medium, scientific authors, filmmakers, etc." Its president is Darryl D'Monte, former Resident Editor of The Times of India.

And just to round off this unholy partnership, an "associated partner" is the Green consultancy, an advertising agency which does work for the Green Party.

Taking money from the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian governments, it is also funded by DFID and the Netherlands government, plus – of course – the BBC, Complus tells us that "communications professionals and media outlets are key to advancing an enlightened global debate on sustainable development."

They can, we are also told, "be a unique force in bringing environmental, social and economic issues closer to the public, raising both awareness and concern." The need, says Complus, "to communicate action at global, national and individual levels has never been greater."

And, in that endeavour, there is no greater nor more enthusiastic member than the BBC, its function being to generate "public support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and to promote "ecosystem management principles to adapt to climate change through multimedia channels, dialogues, and media training."

This is the BBC we know and love, already fingered by Biased BBC which has a collection of posts: - here, here, here, here, here and here - which attest to how far down the line our state broadcaster has gone. Sustainable this is not.

COMMENT THREAD

An unbiased view?

That is the latest offering from the BBC in its so-called "green room". Of course, it would help us better judge her argument if we knew more about Malini Mehra – details which the BBC does not provide.

For instance, she is a "political scientist" (whatever that is) and gender specialist by training. Having "worked" on the NGO circuit, variously for Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, she participated in the UK-funded Sustainable Development Dialogues and served as a member of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations.

She also contributed to UN publications such as the Human Development Reports on Democracy (2002) and Human Rights (2000) respectively. She has been involved on climate issues since the United Nations’ conference in Kyoto (1997) where she coordinated the input of Friends of the Earth International.

From that, the question really should be, are Malini Mehra's views worth the paper they are not printed on?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Follow the money

This time, make the link with the BBC. Biased BBC spills the beans.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Well, I listened to it

Having written at length about many things stirring in the European debate (and no thanks to the main parties or their outriders) over on Your Freedom and Ours, I felt duty-bound to listne to the BBC programme. As it was Analysis, the only things that is even remotely rational and balanced on the Beeb, it was not bad at all.

Of course, it was still unbalanced, with four europhiliacs a.k.a. people who supported the idea of Britain staying in the EU against two eurosceptics, who wanted to come out. These were Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Daniel Hannan MEP. In all fairness, both put up a credible performance with Lord Pearson specifically demolishing the Common Fisheries Policy as a method of conservation.

It was all very civilized, which is a good thing, as we want to make it clear that this debate needs to be conducted. The two outlined several scenarios that involved gradual withdrawal and subsequent agreements and friendly relations. The other four, specifically Sir Stephen Wall, an arch-europhiliac admitted that nothing disastrous will happen if Britain withdraws though they all worried that people might not realize that somewhere down the line there might be bad consequences, such as loss of influence in the world. How anyone can still say that with a straight face, I do not know. As Daniel Hannan pointed out, tiny Norway has more influence in the world than good-sized, rich and militarily quite strong Britain does as long as the latter remains in the EU.

The stupidest comments came from Professor Simon Hix of the London School of Economics, who appeared to think that once Britain was outside the EU all goodies will disappear from supermarkets and we shall be back to boiled mutton and cabbage with no cheap flights anywhere. Just to state that, as Daniel Hannan said, shows how risible that argument is.

As it was not a debate in the real sense of that word, nobody pulled up Gisela Stuart MP as she produced the usual canard about Norway having to obey those "faxed" directives. The amount of EU legislation that Norway has had to accept is minute compared to the amount Britain has had to accept and much of that is because Norway's trade with the other European countries is proportionately far greater than Britain's.

The Norwegians do not have to accept EU legislation about fish, agriculture or oil; they pass their own legislation on most issues and are in control of their foreign and defence policy though they have always been stalwart members of NATO.

There will be two points that, I suspect, many listeners will remember.

The first is that the arguments against withdrawal have now turned almost entirely into threats. Will the other EU member states punish Britain? Sir Stephen Wall and Gisela Stuart thought probably not, Simon Dix thought probably yes and the Lib-Dim MEP could not make up her mind and just droned on about the beauties of having MEPs, Commissioners and other suchlike personages. In principle, she was in favour of people making decisions about the exact nature of the relationship as it happens in Switzerland but in practice, she did not think it was applicable to Britain. Of course not. Democracy is always for other people.

The second is the particularly important one. The BBC, in the shape of the interviewer, has now formally acknowledged that the debate is not going to go away; that despite no main party and no main publication supporting it 55 per cent of the population is in favour of withdrawal; and that the concept is no longer unthinkable. Though they still prefer to think that the people will come to their senses.

COMMENT THREAD

Nothing to lose but your chains

The little Beeboids must be getting a little worried about their favourite construct, enough at least to broadcast a programme called "Divorcing Europe" this evening on BBC Radio 4.

To judge from the publicity blurb, it will be the usual amalgam of "one the one hand, this – on the other, that", without coming to any overt conclusion, although you can bet that the subliminal message will be that it is all too difficult, so we'd better make the most of it.

As always with the Beeb, they go for the usual "talking heads", so – at least from what is on offer in the blurb – there is very little new, or illuminating. We see the same old sound-bites and the same over-rehearsed, tired arguments that we have always heard.

Perhaps, as it does with the EU, the BBC is aiming to bore us to death with the "eurosceptic" argument, making it so dull and deadly that Joe Average simply walks away.

There is nothing, for instance, at least in the blurb, about immigration from the EU, common asylum policies and other such sensitive issues, which would spark a real debate. Therefore, the essence of the Beeb grip – and the hidden bias – is what is not said, rather than what is.

As an example of just this, we have the notorious Europhile, Stephen Wall, who bemoans "a major loss of British influence" with the UK no longer being part of the EU. But he is talking about trade.

"There is no alternative way of advancing the British national interest," he says. In trade negotiations for example "the Americans play hard ball… you have to have the strength to hit them hard where it hurts in response. On our own, it's quite difficult for us to do that".

This is moonshine. As it stands, we have no voice in trade talks, other than through the Council, where we agree a "common position" with the other 26 members, and then are forced to leave the EU to do the negotiations, in which the French agenda invariably predominates.

On the other hand, as an independent nation – and one of the largest food importers in the world – we would have enormous clout, not least if we allied ourselves with the Cairns Group. Under our leadership, this could become a powerful third force in global trade politics, and help to balance out the monolithic blocs of the USA and the EU. In other words, we would have far more influence out than in.

That sort or argument, however, you will not hear from the Beeb, or indeed from the born again eurosceptics. Having discovered "Europe" rather late in the day, with the zeal of the convert, they are rehearsing issues which were being addressed well over ten years ago, with as little success then as they will have now.

We refer, of course, to the TPA (of which my co-editor has some views) – which is bidding for the position of High Priest of euroscepticism. Frankly, they are welcome. But, to focus on the money issue is rather old hat. More than two decades ago, when people were fully aware of the amount of money pouring into the coffers of Brussels (remember Maggie and the rebate argument?), it never gained much political traction.

If there is an issue which will get Joe Average worked up, it is immigration and open borders, but that is not on the TPA agenda. But, more to the point, eurosecpticism, under its new proprietors, seems to be locked into an 80s groove, with very little to offer, and nothing by way of a serious view of how we might look for a way out.

At the heart of the problem is the limited understanding of the way we are governed these days. We, for instance, have written of the role of international quasi-legislative organisations – such as UNECE. In this context, when it comes to the fabled "single market", many of the standards which are promulgated as EU law originate with these organisations.

This actually makes the EU merely the "middle man" translating the standards into law – and we could well do without Brussels, dealing direct and taking part in these international negotiations, as do so many other countries without need the EU to hold their hands.

All that, though, is detail. The real issue is independence – the right of a sovereign people to have their own government and their own legislature, which it can hold accountable for its actions. Without our own government, we have the status of slaves, and the universal cry of freedom has a resonance down the ages. That is, or should be, at the heart of the eurosceptic message.

That is a message you will not hear from the Beeb tonight, although you will hear about the risk of losing cheap flights – which are not so cheap any more, since the "colleagues" started loading taxes on them, with more to come. Should we keep our chains simply to enjoy the embrace of Ryanair – carbon allowances permitting? Tonight, we will not be asked.

COMMENT THREAD

Coprophagia watch

There was much warmist trumpeting last week, led by The Independent and the BBC, over a German businessman's claim that two of his ships had managed to sail round the Arctic coast of Russia, writes Christopher Booker in today's column.

Indeed there was, with even Time magazine joining the fray last Friday. Hilariously, the caption to its picture pronounced, "A pair of German merchant ships traverse the fabled Northeast Passage". Yet the lead ship of the two shown was the Russian nuclear icebreaker 50 let Pobedy.

Despite ample evidence that the story was false, the BBC just could not leave it alone. Yesterday, the coprophiles on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme were back on the case telling us that the northeast passage had until recently "been too icy to navigate."

Coprophagic Richard Galpin had been despatched to Archangel (at our expense) to meet one of the two German ships which had just completed the journey. There, he breathlessly told us that "the fact that it is now possible to sail through the northeast passage in the summer months is all down to one thing – that the ice cover in the Arctic Sea has been shrinking rapidly in recent years."

He then cited the "environmentalist" Alexi Kakorin, who was "convinced that man-made climate change is the most important reason behind this." And then we got: "Many scientists do believe that it is only a matter of decades before there'll be no ice at all in the Arctic regions during the summer months."

This tosh was then repeated on television news (pictured - top) throughout the day, with Galpin signing off his piece by telling us that "the dream of a major shipping route through the Arctic is becoming reality, but only as the result of an environmental disaster."

You have to give it to the BBC, in pursuit of their religion, they are utterly shameless. Any lies will do, as long as they support the cause.


The more one looks into this, however, the more outrageous the claims become. Pictured above is the nuclear powered ice-capable transport Sevmorput, built specifically for the northeast passage and launched in 1988, whence it had been plying the route ever since, only recently having been withdrawn for conversion into a drilling ship.

Meanwhile, the Murmansk Shipping Company – which is the specialist operator in the northern sea route - is currently running a fleet of 303 vessels with a total deadweight of about 1.2 million tons. In 2006, the company shipped 2 million tons of cargo through the route. Pictures of some of the fleet are here, with some of the ships currently plying the northern sea route shown below.









The northern sea route, however, is a mere walk in the park. To July 2008, no less than 71 surface ships have reached the North Pole. The first was the ice breaker Arktika, which arrived at the Pole on 17 August 1977. It is estimated that a total of about 20,000 people have visited the North Pole, the vast majority on sea expeditions in Russian ships.

Nothing of this, however, can penetrate the brains of the BBC coprophiles and their fellow travellers. The only good news is that, by Christmas, The Independent might be closed down. The pity is that the BBC will not be following it.

COMMENT THREAD

Proud of ourselves?

For what it is worth, I had to record this.

An ICM/Guardian poll has found that support for the BBC has risen in the last five years with almost four out of five people believing it is an institution of which to be proud.

The poll showed that 77 percent were proud of the BBC, up from 68 percent in a similar poll from 2004. Some 63 percent thought the corporation provided good value for money, up four percent from five years ago. And support for the licence fee has grown from 31 per cent in 2004 to 43 percent.

Well, you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but this would seem to confirm that you can fool an awful lot of people most of the time.

Do you ever feel you are fighting a losing battle?

COMMENT THREAD

The battle of the corporates

A glorious little spat is developing between James Murdoch and sundry vassals of the BBC empire, faithfully recorded by The Guardian.

This follows a speech by the son and heir to the Murdoch empire on Saturday evening at the Edinburgh festival, when he launched a "scathing attack" on the BBC, describing the corporation's size and ambitions as "chilling" and accusing it of mounting a "land grab" in a beleaguered media market.

"The corporation is incapable of distinguishing between what is good for it, and what is good for the country," claimed Murdoch junior. "Funded by a hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered to offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market. The scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling."

Murdoch added that the BBC's news operation was "throttling" the market, preventing its competitors from launching or expanding their own services, particularly online.

"Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it," he said, then adding: "We seem to have decided to let independence and plurality wither. To let the BBC throttle the news market, and get bigger to compensate."

Needless to say, the great monolith was not impressed. BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, immediately countered with a broadside of soothing platitudes, declaring that: "British broadcasting is admired around the world". Speaking from a well-honed corporate crib-sheet, long ago committed to memory, he then extruded yardage of verbal material of a width (if not quality) that only a time-served BBC executive could produce.

"Its diversity of broadcasters and their variety of funding methods is a strength and not a weakness," he trilled. "The public tell us that they ... trust the BBC and value the wide range of services we provide. The BBC Trust ... is here to strengthen the BBC for the benefit of licence fee payers, not to emasculate it on behalf of commercial interests."

Not having a dog in this fight – regarding the BBC and Murdoch output equally detestable – it is at least entertaining to see the corporates slugging it out over the same bone. With his dad hankering after charging for online content, Junior knows full well that the moment he tries it, users will migrate to the "free" Beeb and other free content providers, leaving his websites sucking thin air.

However, the Murdochs (both dad and junior) have a point. As long as there is a BBC imbibing at the tit of public finance, jailing people for not paying a tax on owning a television, it is going to be very hard to develop a paying model for online journalism. But, if the alternative is a Murdoch-dominated media, some might say that the Beeb is worth having, even if its only role is to spike News Corp's guns.

The public could, of course, be the deciding factor, if it so wished, simply by ignoring the BBC's increasingly dire output – as we tend to do. But then there are so many people who do genuinely believe the BBC is "wonderful" that it ain't going to happen in a hurry. We will just have to be content with seeing the Murdochs stuffed and take what little enjoyment we can out of the battle of the corporates.

COMMENT THREAD

They mock themselves

In the aftermath of the Operation Panther's Claw, on 28 July, David Miliband, our current foreign secretary was full of himself, telling us that several hundred British troops will remain in the area to provide ongoing security. "Hopefully," he said, "there will be a credible turnout at the Afghan elections in August."

He then cited Brigadier Tim Radford, Commander Task Force Helmand, who had said: "We are creating the conditions, as we have done in many other campaigns, so that a political process can take place above us, and that security at the moment is going extremely well."

Radford went on to say that which has only recently been repeated by Nick Gurr, the MOD's Director of Media and Communication, viz:

As a result of our forces' efforts, around 80,000 more Afghans in Helmand now live in areas under government control, giving around 20,000 more the chance to vote, with 13 additional polling centres becoming useable. That does not mean that turnout in Helmand will match that in less troubled provinces. Helmand is at the heart of the insurgency and that is bound to have an effect. But more people will be able to exercise their democratic choice than was the case before Panther's Claw.

Now cut to The Times of yesterday, and we read: "... fewer than 150 people actually cast their ballots in Nad e-Ali (at the heart of the Panther's Claw operation) out of about 48,000 registered voters, according to Engineer Abdul Hadee, the local head of the Independent Election Commission.

Then we read: "Mullah Ghulam Mohamamd Akhund, a Taleban commander in the district, said: 'Everything was fine. There were no polling centres and no voting. We didn't face any problems.'"

That this might be empty rhetoric is not borne out by other reports. For instance, here we read that only one of the three polling stations in Babaji was open (the other area on which Panther's Claw concentrated), and in Nad-e Ali voting only took place in the centre of town, with outlying stations remaining closed.

The situation, however, is perhaps even worse than that. Kim Sengupta reports for The Independent that, at one polling station in Nad-e-Ali, just over 400 people had voted by 1pm.

Three hours later, he writes, the figure had apparently surged to some 1,200. This [was] despite the fact the streets were empty, all shops and businesses were shut and an Afghan army officer saying his men standing guard had hardly seen any civilians heading to these particular voting booths.

Heedless of the so-called "security envelope" provided by Panther's Claw, the largest election monitoring group had refused to come to the district, deeming it still too dangerous. On the day there were rockets, machine-gun fire and mortar fire, roadside bombs, deaths and injuries.

Thus, at the conclusion of the poll, Sengupta tells us that election officials were seen counting piles of ballot papers, without even checking the choices, simply declaring the votes had been cast for incumbent president Hamid Karzai.

Still we have the twittering of the ghastly Caroline Wyatt and the attempts of the BBC to downplay the violence, yet in Kandahar province, 122 Taleban rockets were fired, with 20 falling on the city. Four people were killed and 12 wounded. This has not stopped the BBC presenting the election as a success.

In the real world, such has been the effect of the Taleban that, despite the ballot stuffing and rigging, in the disputed provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul, turnout is estimated to be as low as 5 to 10 percent. That is half of what it was in those regions in the first presidential election five years ago – the last three of which have seen intensive fighting and repeated claims of how the Taleban has been beaten.

The uncertainty has allowed Karzai and his leading rival, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, to claim victory but the official results will not be declared until 25 August, but there are no bets as to who will actually come out on top. Karzai will "win", coming out with a clear majority, even if the ink is still wet on the ballot papers.

The farcical and corrupt nature of this election - with Gerald Warner suggesting that an Afghan ballot box with an untampered seal would probably fetch a fortune at Christie's for its rarity value - puts into perspective Nick Gunn's spin on behalf of his masters. In the words of one of our forum members: "Quite how our troops in Afghanistan would manage without the Herculean efforts of Nick and his team I just don't know. We're obviously very lucky to have him. The only remaining mystery is how the bastard sleeps at night."

What applies to Gurr, however, must apply to the whole sorry crew. Either Operation Panther's Claw was grossly oversold and the stated objectives were unrealistic, or they simply were not attained. Either way, the hopes of Mr Miliband were not fulfilled, even though 13 men had died in the effort to bring them to fruition – with many more injured. As for the election itself, rather than a move closer to a solution, it looks to opening wide the divisions in Afghanistan and reducing still further the legitimacy of the central government.

Says The Times, the credibility of the election "hangs in the balance". But, for their exaggerated claims, the credibility of Mr Miliband and the rest of those who trot out their glib phrases is already shot to pieces. You do not have to mock them. They mock themselves and, sadly, those who died for their witless posturing.

COMMENT THREAD

It's a good day for us

An honest reporter Michael Yon certainly is. I do not know how well the elections turned out in other parts of Afghanistan, he writes, but here in North Helmand Provence, near Sangin, I am told that less than 300 people voted.

In this area the day was marked by serious fighting, he tells us. Apache attack helicopters were firing their cannons throughout the day. The howitzers fired many times. The mortars were firing. Various bases were attacked. On the mission I accompanied the snipers were firing. We got into a firefight, and the soldier beside me had his antenna shot off.

Much the same story comes from Anthony Loyd, stationed in Sangin itself. Streaked with sweat, caked in dust and stinking of cordite, he writes, British soldiers in Sangin spent Afghanistan's election day defending their main base in the town from almost ceaseless Taleban assaults.

By the time polls closed and the final echoes of air strikes, artillery and gunfire died away, he tells us, barely 500 Afghans had managed to vote in a district of 70,000 people, a number signifying victory for the Taleban's power of fear and intimidation.

"It’s a bad day," Sangin's governor told Loyd. This was Haji Faisal Haq, glowering in anger as the polls closed to the rattle of machinegun fire. "My people were not able to come out and vote. I would never wish a day like this upon them again." "I can't say how they feel about it," he adds, as the deep-throated rip of A-10 cannon fire cut the sky above him. "I don't even know how I feel about it yet."

Nevertheless, Yon refuses to characterise this as a failure of the elections. It was a local setback. We saw the same in Iraq in early 2005, where some people boycotted the elections. The situation here is not good, but this is only one area of Afghanistan. I do not know what happened elsewhere, he concludes.

No such doubts trouble the BBC's Caroline Wyatt, based in Lashkar Gah. Although part of a convoy transporting Helmand governor Gulal Mangal, which suffered an IED and rocket attack, she happily reports: "Violence fails to deter Afghans", adding to the earlier, ludicrous report proclaiming: "Afghan poll hailed a success".

These bizarre reports from the BBC, topping up its refusal to publish any details of the shot-down Chinook – a story to which The Daily Telegraph adds – puts the state broadcaster out on its own in the British media.

The Guardian tells us that the Taleban's campaign of violence to disrupt the elections "appeared to have succeeded in discouraging voter turnout in the militant south." Throughout the day, the paper says, Taleban fighters launched sporadic rocket, suicide and bomb attacks that closed scores of election sites. Other polling stations saw only a trickle of voters.

As election officers began the formidable task of counting votes, Afghan government officials said the Taleban had "launched 73 attacks in 15 provinces during the voting, killing at least 26 Afghan civilians and members of the security forces." Only then are we told that, "Despite the violence, president Hamid Karzai – who is hoping for re-election – declared the poll a success."

It seems that Kandahar, the country's second largest city and the Taleban's spiritual home, was one of the worst affected locations: turnout there was estimated to be down 40 percent on the numbers seen voting in 2004's election. Constant rocket attacks had largely discouraged voters. Across the country election officials suggested turnout could be 40-50 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters.

Ben Farmer, based in Kabul, writes for The Daily Telegraph, citing a "western diplomat" who estimated turnout in some parts of the south as low as 10 percent though "average to good" in the north.

A colonel in the Afghan army said voting in the southern border province of Paktika had been confined to town centres. In Helmand, an observer said voting was well below levels seen in the previous presidential election. Zabul, another Pashtun province, was described as "eerily quiet" by one monitor.

Another eye witness, Norine MacDonald, was live blogging for the Afpak Foreign Policy website. She had spent a day touring polling stations. In each she had asked the officials whether the turnout had been at the level they were expecting. All said no, they were overstaffed. Disastrously, the number of women voting was only 25 to 35 percent of the male count, and – confirming the accounts of other witnesses - she conveyed the view from her staff, that in the south that voter turnout had been low and female turnout very low.

Of course, we weren't "there", so we cannot possibly vouch for the truth of what has been going on. But it is also true to say that no one was "there" in the sense that they were able to be physically present in every city, town and village. We are all relying, to a greater or lesser extent, on second-hand reports in order to assess the big picture.

From these emerge a picture totally odds with that presented by the BBC, its view shared only by an increasingly delusional officialdom, stretching from Kabul to London and Washington.

And it is far from over. Andrew Wilder, an Afghanistan expert at the Tufts International Center in Medford, Mass, cautions that it's too early to judge if the elections were a relative success or failure.

Wilder sees the security questions as secondary to the fraud finger-pointing likely to come. "Election day is not really when we should expect the most problems," he says.

He points out that most of the fraud that marred the 2005 presidential election occurred after the polls had closed. "In 2005, parliamentary election day went really smoothly but the real delegitimisation of the election happened during the counting process," he reminds us.

Yet still, on this flawed process, the Western states of the coalition are basing their optimism about the future of Afghanistan. That view can be about as reliable as the BBC reports, which have sunk to a new nadir of corrupt, biased inadequacy. Caroline Wyatt and her fellow BBC hacks may delude themselves that they are reporting "fairly and accurately" but they, like our government, are only deluding themselves.

The last word, however, must go to an artilleryman in besieged Sangin, interviewed by Anthony Loyd. "It's a good day for us," he remarks happily. "It's what we became soldiers for - to shoot at people shooting at us. Beats getting blown up anyway."

COMMENT THREAD

The hand of the censor

To my certain knowledge, whenever an RAF aircraft crashes, it is news, even if the crash is an accident. And, under normal conditions, the BBC agrees, giving the accidental crash of the Tornado in Afghanistan in July full coverage. Even training accidents in the UK are fully reported.

But, having just watched the BBC main evening TV news, with lengthy coverage of Afghanistan, one could not help notice a rather striking omission – there was absolutely no mention of the downed Chinook. A British helicopter gets shot down by the Taleban and this is not news?

The incident was covered briefly by the BBC website when the story broke early this morning – before it was known that the helicopter had been shot down. There has been no update and the link to the original story is now dead. The lead story on the website is "Afghan poll hailed a success".

No one is going to convince me that this is accidental. A clue as to what is going on comes from The Guardian which reports that the Afghan government had ordered a "clampdown" on reporting poll violence.

It also cites a BBC spokesman saying that it would proceed with its plans for covering the presidential election. "We have a duty to our audiences to report on the situation in Afghanistan fairly and accurately, and we will continue to do so," says the spokesman.

Indeed the BBC does have that "duty", but with the hand of the censor so rampantly obvious, it is very clear that the term as interpreted by the BBC is highly elastic. This is not healthy.

COMMENT THREAD

The hidden enemy

In an expected but nevertheless "shock" move, bosses at Anglesey Aluminium Metal (AAM) have confirmed that smelting activities at the Wylfa plant will cease on 30 September.

The impending demise of this plant – a major employer in Anglesea – we reported in January, the closure precipitated by EU state aid rules which prevented the state owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns the Wylfa power station, selling electricity to the plant at below market price.

Even though that arrangement – a continuation of the previous contract, a type common in the industry for bulk buyers – was profitable for both parties, by virtue of recent state acquisition of the power plant, this was deemed contrary to EU rules and, thus deprived of a cheap source of electricity the aluminium plant was scheduled for closure.

This brought hasty action by the government, conscious of the devastating effect the closure would have on local employment – the plant then employed around 540 people at the site - with the offer of a four-year £48m loan, styled as a "government rescue package" to keep the plant in operation.

However, the joint owners, Rio Tinto Alcan and Kaiser Aluminium, have decided that even the availability of cheap money – which would, of course, have to be repaid – was not sufficient to return the plant to viability and have therefore decided on its closure.

This leaves Welsh secretary Peter Hain to utter the usual platitudes, saying: "I am bitterly disappointed we could not reach an agreement to secure the long-term future of the smelter ..." but neither he nor the the BBC give any hints as to the real reason for the closure.

The BBC, in fact, cites a man who has been working at the plant for five years. This is Peter Owen, who tells the BBC that there had been no explanation of why the £48m rescue package had been turned down. "I can't understand what happened," he says.

With the benefit of the bigger picture, we could tell Mr Owen what had been going on, but you can be sure that the BBC won't. The hidden enemy must never be revealed.

COMMENT THREAD

Procurement on the map

Following the Channel 4 News lead on the Gray report yesterday, the BBC has allowed procurement minister Quentin Davies (pictured) to deny that the report has been suppressed

Despite this "non-suppression" though, more details are emerging, not least via the unlikely medium of a BBC clog which has obtained a slide presentation of the Gray report. Among other things, the slides charge that the "Ministry of Defence does not really know the price of any kit, and project management does not exist in the Department."

With the procurement minister in full flow, this has elicited a halfway sensible comment from the Coffee House clog (which proves it is possible) to the effect that: "the slides point to long-term structural problems within the MoD, which will take an enormous effort for a future Tory government to reverse."

Suddenly, therefore, defence procurement is on the map, with the leader in The Daily Telegraph airing its views on the "procurement scandal", noting that: "The problems at the MoD still run very deep indeed." The Times also takes a robust view, declaring:

The problem is that the military chiefs want everything they see in the sweet shop and the officials and politicians can't say no. When they run out of money, as they always do, orders are merely postponed, which raises costs and stores up more problems.

That is indeed one of the problems, but only one. Readers of DOTR will be aware of many, many more, none of which are referred to in any of the current media commentary. Having "discovered" procurement for themselves, they have no need for mere blogs.

However, at least the media are dimly aware that there are systemic problems. Maybe, just maybe, they can stay the course and more Tory MPs might start asking the right questions. And maybe pigs will start flying as well, but what we have is a start.

COMMENT THREAD

The Lazarus project

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die".

Well, the defence ministers of the seven countries mad enough to want to buy the thing certainly believe in it. Way beyond the fourth day, the Airbus A-400M has risen from the dead, and is on its way to becoming a real aeroplane. Certainly, we're getting to the point where we wish the damn thing would fly, as we're getting sick of endlessly posting computer graphics to illustrate posts on it. The one above is the real thing, by the way – firmly earthbound.

For the non-blog readers to get to know what is going on, though, they will have to go to Reuters or even the New York Times, or the BBC website. I don't know what it is about these European projects, but the British media never seems to report on them. It was the same with Galileo – they just drop off the edge.

Anyhow, at a meeting between the seven yesterday, all parties – including the UK - decided not to cancel their orders and instead renegotiate the whole contract, starting afresh as it were, with plans to "relaunch" the programme in December, when it is hoped that the prototype will make its first flight.

This is the projects that is already €5 billion over budget and nearly four years behind schedule. Its customers have already spent €5.7 billion on it, the parent company EADS has written off an additional €2.3 billion and it is costing €100 million a month without ever having left the tarmac.

Yet our own defence procurement minister Quentin Davies is right up there, despite the huge problems the delay has created for the RAF. He has agreed to enter the renegotiation "on an equal footing" with it six partners and is saying "I hope we can save the programme."

It can still be cancelled in December, if the negotiations break down, but that is looking increasingly unlikely and, if this goes they way all European projects seem to go, the only outcome of the further talks will be that it is going to cost us a whole bundle more. And when it is actually going to be delivered to the RAF is anyone's guess.

The huge irony is that, whatever it costs, a Tory government will most likely have to pay for it, while it will be a Tory defence minister who will be have to explain why, in a few years time, the RAF is critically short of airlift. And Tory turncoat Mr Quentin Davies, by then on the back-benches, will be able to reflect that it was a Conservative government which bought into the project into the first place. What comes round, goes round.

COMMENT THREAD

A dangerous self-indulgence?

Twice we've called "time" on the controversy over equipment for our troops in Afghanistan, yet it continues almost unabated. It was with more than some interest, therefore, that we watched author and analyst Michael Griffin on BBC News 24 yesterday, expressing similar puzzlement over the intensity of the "debate".

Viewed wholly objectively, with the focus narrowed down to whether troops have enough helicopters, there is nothing to sustain it. As it stands, there is no shortage of helicopters in theatre to support current operations. The prime minister is right on this.

That most of the helicopters are American is neither here nor there. But there are Dutch, Canadian and British as well, all "pooled" in a vast coalition fleet which is being used not for British or American operations, but for coalition operations, of which the national contingents are an integral part.

In that sense, complaining about the shortfall of British helicopters is about as rational as anyone arguing against the use of B-17s of the US 8th Army Air Force to extend the strategic bombing campaign against Germany in 1943. Allies work together, and harness their collective assets to the common cause. That is what we did then and that is what we are doing now.

In seeking to explain the furore, however, Griffin linked the campaign in Afghanistan with Iraq, suggesting that in the latter, the British Army had not performed well, to the disappointment of the Americans. And in Helmand too, its grasp of counter-insurgency had been maladroit, again leading to a less than admiring response from the Americans.

To an extent, ventured Griffin, the military were seeking to transfer the blame for their own poor performance onto the politicians. Similarly, he felt, the military had some considerable control over the types of helicopters purchased and their deployment. Problems could not be laid entirely at the doors of the politicians.

If that is one element which is driving the controversy, the other is clearly the Conservative Party, anxious to find yet another stick with which to beat the government. The attitude is summed up in the recent comment from Liam Fox, who declares: "It is abundantly clear that we are asking our troops to fight a war for which Labour has not properly equipped them."

Notice there, the use not of the word "government" but of "Labour", revealing an overt partisanship which puts the alleged default wholly in a political context. There is no room in Fox's kitbag for any equivocation or shared responsibility.

Gordon Brown, nevertheless, is playing his own political games, relating helicopter requirements to current operations, but the distinction between these and the "general campaign" is becoming clear, with an acknowledgement that, while troops are able to fulfil their tasks at the moment, there is an overall shortfall of helicopters. This, we are told, is to be redressed by the Merlins which will at last be despatched by the end of the year, by the re-engined Lynxes and, next year, by additions to the Chinook fleet.

That things could have been done quicker, better and considerably more cheaply is indisputable, but the fact is that issues are being addressed, further confirming the "totemic status" of helicopters. In other words, this controversy isn't really about helicopters at all – or even about equipment.

Returning to Griffin, at the end of the interview – to the evident discomfort of his BBC interrogator – he broke away from the script to express his concern over the exaggerated level of publicity about an issue which lacked that substance. He warned that the Taleban would be monitoring programmes such as these, and the furore would improve their morale considerably.

Therein does lie a huge trap, created by the concern over casualties and the focus on helicopters. We have alluded to this before, in that if the Taleban were successfully to bring down a Chinook laden with troops, it is very hard to see how continuing the campaign could be politically sustainable.

The problem is that the Taleban know that, and they will do everything possible to make it so, while seeking generally to maximise the British casualty rate. This much is being recognised, with Dannatt at last taking the IED threat seriously.

As to the remarkable controversy that we have been witnessing for the best part of three weeks, this – if Griffin is right – is a dangerous self-indulgence which we simply cannot afford, motivating the Taleban to greater efforts on the basis that the home front can be so weakened that British troops will have to be withdrawn. We are, unwittingly, sending them a message that there is everything to gain from killing British troops.

This is not a happy message, and one that is difficult to change, as these media storms tend to have a life of their own. But the military, the politicians and the media – and indeed this blog – need to think very hard about the message they are sending, and to whom.

COMMENT THREAD

Propaganda daily

Embraced by the BBC and occupying nearly half a page in the print edition of The Daily Telegraph - the warmists' favourite newspaper – is an outrageous "puff" for the rather seedy government of Tuvalu, proclaiming that it is set to become the world's first zero-carbon country.

Missing from the on-line edition, however, is the short, but telling phrase which tells us that the state "relies on foreign aid as its main source of income". As such, the government is playing to its paymasters who have long exploited the totemic significance of an island that is supposed to be threatened with submergence as a result of rising sea levels due to climate change.

The premise is, of course, absolute tosh, debunked fully in the Booker column in March. That piece, incidentally, came under sustained attack from the warmists, via the Press Complaints Commission, which has been seen off.

Any halfway respectable and honest journalist would be questioning why about £12 million is to be spent on this fatuous and wasteful project, in a tiny, impoverished country, and why it is being used for a transparent propaganda exercise instead of being used to more worthwhile ends.

The uncritical presentation of this story, however, tells you a great deal about the modern media. It no longer offers news, but simply projects a series of narratives, shaping a "world view" to which the receiver is expected to conform. Any deviation from the narratives is treated as an abnormality, to be shunned, all in the interests of securing conformity.

It seems extreme, nevertheless, to categorise the media as the "enemy", but that it has become, by act and default in failing to challenge those influences which are encroaching on our freedoms and prosperity, while actively supporting those who would do us harm. The worst is that too few people recognise it for what it is, or has become.

COMMENT THREAD

Brains into neutral

The D-Notices (or "Defence Advisories" as they are called) are flying around at the moment, keeping a damper on speculation on the "dodgy chopper" that went in at Sangin yesterday.

Sarah Montague for the BBC Today Programme was actually in Sangin this morning – flown in by a US Army Blackhawk helicopter with General Dannatt for an an interview. Yet, neither then nor on the web report did the fair Sarah mention the crash, even though it is the talk of the base and the biggest incident since the death of the 2nd Rifles soldiers last week.

Nor indeed has the British media covered the story, except for the briefest mention in The Times, where the helicopter is wrongly described as delivering "humanitarian aid". Yet, much of the BBC report was about helicopter capacity and here you have a 50-ton helicopter – the largest production helicopter in the world - delivering supplies to the base, crashing and burning not a mile from the gates, after being shot down by the Taleban, leaving seven dead.

And that does not even rate a passing mention? That isn't news? Pull the other one.

Instead, the media agenda is Dannatt wanting more targets for the Taleban boots on the ground. Thus we can see more young officers mowing the grass, with no sense of mission, getting shot for their pains. All that so the General and his mob can keep up with the Joneses Americans, while DFID build more latrines for grateful Taleban Afganis and erect another Ferris wheel.

The other item of the day is why Dannatt flew in an US helicopter, something about which The Daily Mail drooled, not realising – or caring – that much of the reason why we do not have enough machines is down to the saintly General himself, who has been shafting the Army ever since he took office as CGS – and before.

Of course, to turn the critical spotlight on the saintly General goes against the narrative and while Tom Newton Dunn is still beating the drum about the dreadful Lynxes in The Sun, he too is muzzled and cannot tell the full story.

For instance, every defence journo knows that the RAF is operating for the special forces Russian-built Mi-8 MTVs in Afghanistan. That is widely known in theatre and you can bet the Taleban know.

But we are not allowed to know ... there is a "D-Notice" out preventing us being told officially. And why? Well, if it was more widely known just how successful these machines really were – they were designed specifically for operations in Afghanistan – then there might be agitation to get more. And, with a bit of effort, we could have machines in place within WEEKS and a full squadron up and running in months, with as many more as we needed.

But that would mean that the RAF would not have got more Merlins, it would not have got to raise another squadron, and it would not be able to milk the Treasury for more and more staff, upgrades and the rest. That would never do. Empire-building is far more important than capacity or soldiers' lives.

However, with a media only able to report under license from the MoD and its "D-Notice" system, this leaves the field wide open for the blogosphere. Except that, as my co-editor observed, the British blogosphere has largely sold its soul to the MSM, following rather than leading the agenda. If it is outside the "comfort blanket", most of them don't want to know.

So, when EU Referendum/Defence of the Realm comes up with a real scoop – "Moldavian gun-runners flying supplies to 'Our Boys' in dodgy choppers", while Dannatt swans about in US choppers because he personally blocked a cheaper alternative to his beloved Future Lynx - with the full backing of the Tory defence team and the defence contractors' lobby - no one wants to know ... EXCEPT this brilliant piece HERE, which has really got the point - and one more here.

Dannatt, however, is the saintly figure, that "fine soldier speaking out for his men". That's the narrative so the claque puts its brains into neutral and falls into line. It's all Gordon Brown's fault, doncha know.

P****d off? Yea ... I'm officially p****d off as well.

COMMENT THREAD

Mowing the grass

In The Daily Telegraph today are moving extracts from the personal journal written by Lieutenant Mark Evison, 1st Bn The Welsh Guards. They are moving because in May he died from wounds received in Afghanistan.

According to the MoD website, Lt Evison was the Officer Commanding Number 7 Platoon, which was part of the Number 2 Company Group operating in the south of Nad e-Ali.

The company had four patrol bases or check points, one of which - Haji Alem - was occupied by Lt Evison and his platoon. In addition to defending the check point they were responsible for patrolling the local area in order to deter insurgent activity and improve security for the local population.

On 9 May 2009, Lt Evison was leading such a patrol when they came under enemy fire. He was hit in the shoulder by a single round, and was evacuated back to the hospital in Camp Bastion. Despite the best medical treatment available, he was showing no sign of recovering, and he was flown back to Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham. His family were with him when he died.

There are several aspects of the journal which invite comment, but the one entry which is particularly poignant is Lt Evison's description of the old smuggling fort which his platoon took over as its base. He wrote:

Around the fort it is hard patrolling country. There is not much cover and therefore movement is restricted. If we move to the SW then extraction back is difficult. There is a canal directly outside which although gives good cover is terribly exposed on both banks and can be covered by at least three or four firing points. Although one must not set patterns, with only two routes into that area it is virtually impossible. There is a definite lack of steer from above as to how to play this one. I am yet to be given a definite mission and clarity as to my role out here.

In this environment, therefore, Lt Evison and his men are committed to routine patrols, otherwise known as "mowing the grass". Evison himself is uncertain of his mission and the tactical situation is such that patrols are exposed to unavoidable hazards, in an extremely hostile area, where it would seem that the tragic result of his death was almost inevitable.

It would be wrong to draw too much from this single episode but it is reasonable to pose the question as to why Evison and his men were there, and what it was they were supposed to achieve. How did placing men in extreme jeopardy, carrying out a routine which was only too obvious to their enemy gain anything? How did his death, or his patrol routine, actually help further the declared aims of our government or the interests of the Afghani people?

Nad e-Ali district, as we now know, is the focus of a much larger operation, codenamed Panther's Claw, aimed at pushing the Taleban out of the area, following which British troops will, presumably, be repeating on a larger scale, that which Lt Evison's patrols were doing. And it is precisely that type of activity which led to the deaths of five soldiers from 2nd Bn The Rifles, last week.

Crucially, though, the ambush which led to their deaths was mounted in Sangin, a supposedly pacified area yet one in which violence continues, right up to date with the report of a civilian Mi-26 having been downed about a mile from the British base in Sangin, with six killed in the aircraft, and a child killed on the ground.

It is germane to note, in passing, that had this been a British military helicopter - as so easily it could have been - with British soldiers and airmen killed, this would have been at the top of the news agenda. But it seems that the deaths of civilians, to say nothing of an innocent child, are of little media concern.

And now it is that Dannatt bleats to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that: "A high number of deaths inevitably makes you question what we are doing, how we are doing it. The conclusion one has to reach is, going right back to basics on this, that this mission is really important."

This is a man who is professional head of an Army which was unable give one of its front-line officers a "definite mission" and clarity as to his role, having him and his men "mowing the grass" and getting him killed. Dannatt is right to talk about "going right back to basics", but we cannot avoid thinking that he should have been looking in the mirror when he said those words.

COMMENT THREAD

Evenly balanced?

Says The Guardian, after a week in which British military deaths in Afghanistan passed those in Iraq, there has been no immediate backlash in public opinion. An ICM poll shows support for the war is substantially greater than three years ago and opposition slightly lower.

Research, we are told, was carried out as news broke of the deaths of eight soldiers in 24 hours – taking the British death toll in Afghanistan past the total for Iraq. Yet opposition to the war, at 47 percent, is only just ahead of support, at 46 percent.

Backing for Britain's role in the conflict has thus grown since 2006, the last time an ICM poll was conducted on the subject – up 15 points from 31 percent. Opposition has fallen over the same period by six points, from 53 percent.

That may surprise some, says the paper, but the experience of Iraq shows the public feel loyal to the armed forces while they are in action. The research, carried out by ICM for The Guardian and BBC Newsnight, also suggests the government has been effective in getting across its case for the war.

The Daily Telegraph notes that in November – contrary to its competitor's assertion, an ICM poll was conducted for the BBC. It asked had whether Britain should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan within the next 12 months. Of the 1,013 adults questioned, 68 percent said yes and 24 percent said they should stay. Then, in March, a ComRes poll for the BBC found 60 percent of Britons were unconvinced by the government's arguments for keeping troops there.

Nevertheless, says The Telegraph, media coverage of soldiers being brought home in flag-draped coffins and grieving parents' criticisms of equipment deficiencies which they say put their sons' lives at risk has only increased doubts.

Warwick University politics professor Wyn Grant is cited, saying support for the war could crumble if there was a continuing high death rate. "When you get a high level of casualties, people ask what the point of the engagement is," he says.

This is a serious point. But what confuses the issue is that, while Iraq was active, the two campaigns were conflated in the public mind, with the unpopularity of the one reflecting on the other. With full withdrawal in Iraq now imminent, for the first time Afghanistan is exposed to full public gaze in its own right. From that perspective, the current poll is in fact the baseline.

Furthermore, public opinion is ever-fickle and immediate reactions to high profile events are never a good guide of sentiment. We will have to wait a while before a trend emerges to give us a guide as to where the nation really lies. Evenly balanced, says this poll. We shall see.

COMMENT THREAD