Morning:
8°c
It is still right for us to be in Afghanistan
11 Sep 2009Eight years on from the attacks on New York and Washington of 11 September, 2001, experts say al Qaeda has been greatly weakened.
Yet our troops are still in Afghanistan, with the war more controversial than ever.
The aftermath of last month's elections provides reminders both of why it is right for Britain to be there - and of the challenges still facing us.
There has been mounting criticism of alleged voting irregularities committed by President Hamid Karzai to ensure his re-election.
Today it has emerged that in the area of Helmand province which British forces sought to secure during Operation Panther's Claw this summer, an offensive aimed primarily at making it safe for people to vote, there appears to have been ballot-box stuffing at three out of four polling stations.
President Karzai allegedly secured up to 98 per cent of the vote. His main rival, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, has denounced the results and refused to work with him.
It seems a sad result for scores of British troops to have died for this summer. Yet US envoy Richard Holbrooke has warned against jumping to conclusions before the election complaints commission has investigated.
More importantly, we should keep some perspective on what it is possible to achieve in Afghanistan.
The election was never going to be close to a British poll in terms of fairness; that it could be held at all, in a country at war and until recently under the grip of the anti-democratic Taliban, is a significant advance.
Britain's leaders have often been less than honest about the conduct and duration of the war in Afghanistan. Where that evasiveness makes our troops' task harder, we condemn it.
But eight years after the horror of the World Trade Center, the fundamental reasons for being in Afghanistan are still right: to combat international Islamic terrorism and to bring order and democracy to one of the world's most dangerous failed states.
That was never going to be easy - but it is still right.
LDA bunglers
Our report today on the latest disaster at the London Development Agency will make sobering reading for the Mayor.
Irregularities at the LDA under Boris Johnson's predecessor, exposed by this newspaper, were a significant factor in Ken Livingstone's defeat.
Yet now it has emerged that the LDA severely bungled projects to buy up land for the 2012 Olympics, knocking a £159 million hole in its budget.
An internal report seen by the Standard predicts "major implications for the medium and long-term financial position" of the agency as a result, reducing funds available to help London businesses.
While most of the damage appears to have been done under the LDA's previous management, when inadequate controls were in place, the report suggests a continuing cavalier attitude.
The LDA's proposals for dealing with the shortfall are revealing: this year it proposes to save £45 million by cutting projects offering "poor or no value for money".
What on earth was it doing planning to pump tens of millions into such projects in the first place? The new leadership installed by Mr Johnson at the LDA has certainly provided a welcome professionalism after the cronyism and waste of the Livingstone years.
But the impression persists of a bureaucracy accustomed to frittering large sums of public money on questionable projects, with minimal public debate. The Mayor should look hard at reining it in and cutting it back.
The Prince's passion
Prince Charles's various enthusiasms often attract controversy, from classical architecture to organic food, but his commitment to young people remains admirable and far-sighted.
In our interview with the Prince today during a visit to Camila Batmanghelidjh's Kids Company in south London, his dedication to helping troubled young people comes across as clearly as it did when he launched the Prince's Trust back in 1976.
London should be grateful for the young lives he has rescued.
