How Long Is A Piece Of String In Afghanistan?

Today Gordon Brown promised that Britain "cannot, must not and will not walk away" from Afghanistan, but this is an unusual war in many respects, and if Britain is willing to continue its missions in Afghanistan, then it must be prepared to complete any predefined objectives. In short, Britain, America and her NATO allies must be prepared to undertake what effectively is nation building.

This is as difficult as it sounds and the process will make the situation in Iraq look like a walk in the park on a mild summer's day. In any context the comparison with Iraq is a false one; since all the aspects required for completing nation building were already in situation in Iraq, whereas none are existent in Afghanistan.

As Francis Fukuyama describes in his book State Building;

"... [we] talk about the problem of 'getting to Denmark', where 'Denmark' stands generically for a developed country with well-functioning state institution. We know what 'Denmark' looks like, and something about how the actual Denmark came to be historically. But to what extent is that knowledge transferable to countries as far away historically and culturally from Denmark as Somalia or Moldova?"

In Afghanistan there is no history of a 'civil society', the rule of law that transcends tribal divisions, trusted institutions and any process that represents democratic continuity. It will take decades, if not centuries, for these institutions to mature and incorporated in to the concept of a "democratic Afghanistan".

Britain was a liberal country, in many aspects, centuries before it ever became a liberal democracy...

Britain and America must learn from the mistakes of leaving a power vacuum in Afghanistan as was allowed to happen after the Soviet Union's withdrawal in 1989, in which the Taliban were the only viable form of governance.

It's A New Dawn, But Same Day

Another month and another indicator that the British economy is slowly lurching out of recession. The Halifax have announced that house prices in Britain have risen by 1.2% in October and which represents a slight fall of 1.5% compared to a year ago, which is the smallest decline in the year on year statistic since this credit crunch began.

This, as a simplistic statistic, can appear to be encouraging news for the economy, demand increasing which implies that more people have renewed faith in their economic futures. Also the access to credit is becoming more freely available, so good news all around...

Not quite. Beneath the encouraging facade of these statistic, lays an uncomfortable truth; the rise in house prices might indicate economic recovery, but they almost definitely indicate a huge shortage of new houses. This short fall distorts the simple concepts of supply and demand, in which demand is relativity constant and supply is so small that drives up the price to the extent that it matches demand.

Until recently, people in the UK needed relatively easy access to credit in order to purchase a modest property, this can be seen in the incredibly dangerous mortgage deals that allowed people to borrow at six times their own salary. The result was this only masked the housing short fall, but did not attempt to solve the underlying issues.

Furthermore, the low interest rates that mortgage holders are currently enjoying are further masking this most serious of problems. The Government has lacked a coherent housing policy since 1997, arguments between government and councils are common place, but it is the government that should display effective leadership on the matter.

If the government does not address the serious issues in their housing policy Britain is doomed to repeat the simple mistakes of the past...

Stuck in the Middle with CWU

As the dark spectre of another set of postal strikes looms large over the nation, it seems increasingly unlikely that a resolution will be soon announced. With both sides seemingly more concerned about posturing and public opinion, than resolution, a winter of discontent lurches ever closer to people and businesses that rely on the monopoly that the Royal Mail provides.

Amidst this maelstrom is a passive government, refusing to publicly denounce, support or offer any context for reconciliation to either party; with Lord Mandelson seemingly more intent to disrupt any immediate possible solution. It is unsurprising that the government is taking such a publicly quiet stance, since how can it possibly remain objective when it is constantly pursuing potential suitors to privatize the Royal Mail.

However, it was refreshing to hear Clive James' pragmatic appraisal of the dispute, in which he argues that British management and workers must find a 'happy' equilibrium in which both sides have equal involvement in a successful company. He states,

"A labour-management concord was the solution in Germany and Japan and one way or another it will be the solution here - it's just slow to come. Making the slowness slower, alas, is the still lingering twin effect - weaker now but not dead yet - of a conservatism that thinks the workers are out to wreck the nation and a radicalism that would like to see the nation wrecked, as if some kind of purity could ensue if people no longer had to work for a living."

With representatives of the workers on the board of a company, such as the Royal Mail, the workers would feel as if they had a stake in modernization and the management would have a more efficient and stable company.

It is when management and workers converse as equal partners, rather than historic rivals, that synergy can potentially produced.

Why did Alan Johnson Sack Expert?

In a period where the Government is being attacked for the majority of its new policy initiatives, from almost every angle, it is surprising that it opted to pursue a political risky strategy by sacking Professor David Nutt from his role as Head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

This strategy of sacking the Chairman of a quasi-independent public Council is baffling at best and at worst creates a unwelcoming precedence in which the Government is willing to ignore (and often contradict) scientific advise in favour of winning support from tabloid media outlets. There are three potential political reasons for Home Secretary Alan Johnson to sack Prof David Nutt:

1. Alan Johnson believes that Prof David Nutt's claim concerning cannabis, ecstasy and LSD is contradicting Government advice, and therefore his position became untenable.
   
2. The Government wished to create a smoke screen for the criticism it faces concerning the reduction in funding for the Armed Forces and the TA. Funding for the Armed Forces and the TA is becoming a central plank for both the Labour and Conservative Party in the run up to the forthcoming election. Any perceived weakening in either party's commitment to the troops will be political suicide.
3. The Government wanted to appear to be tough on drugs to appeal to the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the tabloids.

The decision whether the reclassification of these drugs is correct is a matter for debate. But the main issue to arise from Prof David Nutt's sacking, is the Government's willingness to ignore independent, scientific and evidence based reasoning in favour of pursuing an ideological or political decisions designed to carry favour with current columnists and editors of newspapers.

The purpose of a quasi-independent body, such as, the ACMD is to advise the Government on their areas of expertise, not to becoming a whipping boy of the ministers to demonstrate how tough the Government can be on controversial issues.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said "Advisers advise and ministers decide".