George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Face saving, not planet saving agreement

As talks in Copenhagen continue this evening, at least for the moment, spirits are rather low.

America and China produce over 50% of the world's carbon emissions: any deal here tonight will require them work together. Unfortunately, there appears to be stalemate.

Prior to today there was some hope that the US had come to the negotiating table ready to play ball. Hillary Clinton suggested that they might come forward with an offer of more money and concrete commitments.

Unfortunately that looks like it was all posturing. President Obama instead used his speech simply to assert that the US is ready to do a deal if China and others are prepared to be transparent.

China is refusing to budge. There's a bit of a culture clash here as the Chinese perceive international monitoring of their efforts as "snooping" and a breach of sovereignty, or at least that is the reason they are giving for refusing to open up.

That is a real shame. China has to understand that economic development should go hand in hand with political maturity. It is in their own interests to play a full role in international affairs, including the fight against climate change.

The draft Copenhagen Accord continues to look like a face saving, not a planet saving agreement.

Even the leaders' "family photograph" has now been postponed indefinitely. We wait for more news.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Obama's speech moves US position by inches when we need him to go the extra mile

What did we learn from President Obama's address to the Copenhagen conference? The answer to that has to be 'not much'.

The scheduled proceedings were delayed by two hours as Obama held talks with nineteen other world leaders in a closed session. We thought that we might get some answers after they emerged and Obama took to the podium but no, not even a hint of progress.

We got the same resounding rhetoric from the President. He told us that he believes now "is the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose." He added that world leaders were ready to get the job done today.

Good, because many delegates and even more protesters think they might have to wait to COP16 in Mexico for a legally binding agreement.

What we heard from Obama was not enough at this late stage. To give him credit, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to China on the transparency issue and that gave a certain amount of positive momentum to proceedings yesterday.

But there has been very little movement in terms of targets from America. At the start of the process they said they would commit to a 17% cut in CO2 emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. This equates to about 4% below 1990 levels.

Let's put that in context. The African delegation, who walked out earlier in the week, wants a commitment to 40% cuts below 1990 levels. That is a huge gulf to bridge with only hours remaining of the Conference.

I hoped for more movement towards the European Parliament's position of 20:2020 - 20% reduction by 2020, with room to move up to 30% if other big emitters commit to big cuts.

President Obama's speech moved America forward by inches only. With the clock ticking we need every country to go the extra mile.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Slogans and pressure - what can Obama expect at COP15?

"Global justice now", "COP15, big failure", "One world, one consequence, one will?"

Just some of the slogans and chants being used at the final day of the Copenhagen climate summit. You certainly feel the pressure to deliver as you walk through the main entrance to the Bella Centre where the conference is being held.

People thrust flyers into your hands reminding you of the consequences of a two degree rise in global temperatures. They hold banners that show anything from a polar bear's habitat melting to famine in Africa. Some people even tried to convince me to become a vegan to stop global warming - not the most convincing argument to make to a former President of the NFU.

For me, one of the most moving protests was a group of people who decided to start shaving their heads, angered by the slow progress at the talks. This included young girls with long hair who started crying as it happened.

It is loud, very loud, and can be intimidating.

This is the welcome that President Obama will get when he arrives to address the conference. As if he could forget, he will be reminded by all the protesters that they are counting on him to deliver a global deal. Delegates are expectant, if not necessarily confident, of an agreement being reached by the days end.

The centre of Copenhagen came to a stand still in preparation for his motorcade as I walked from the train station to the conference centre. When he leaves later on this evening, the protestors will know if their slogans were listened to.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Clinton puts figure on develping nations fund for first time

Conferences like this are always consumed by rumour and speculation, claim and counter claim. Today I heard, from my MEP colleagues, that the EU was considering only putting 25% on the table, instead of the expected 30% that the Parliament were pushing for, in hope of kick starting a deal as the final day of negotiations approaches.

This was quickly denied by a spokesperson, recognising that many parliamentarians, including myself, would see this as a fatalistic move that would only serve to encourage other groups to lower their ambitions.

There is hard news though. One positive was Hillary Clinton’s speech to the Conference delivered earlier today. For the first time she put a figure to the amount of money developing countries need to help their economies grow while keeping emissions low.

She told delegates that it would take $100billion. The US Secretary of State would not put that on the record unless the US had some intention of putting real cash on the table to help developing countries buy into a deal.

With President Obama arriving tomorrow there are now signs that he will put his shoulder to the wheel and go the extra mile to secure an agreement.

So there are some sign of progress but it is becoming increasingly clear that a deal will be political, with no legal underpinning.

At a briefing a few minutes ago, the Swedish delegation, who hold the EU Presidency at the moment, said they were hopeful that a fringe group would be set up to try to clear some of the remaining obstacles to help them move towards an agreed text. Time is running out.

Rift? What rift? - Eddie Barnes

Gordon Brown has clarified that, contrary to reports this morning claiming that President Obama had ignored his requests for some face time while in New York, in fact they have never stopped talking since he arrived there.

Following widespread reports in this morning's press that the White House snubbed Brown over a meeting, Brown says today: "I talked to President Obama."

For good measure, he adds: "I talked to him at the meetings."

Just in case we hadn't got the message, he goes on: "I talked to him before I came to the meetings here."

He continues: "I had a long talk with him after Monday’s meeting."

And just so as it's crystal clear, he concludes: "We are meeting today, we are chairing two meetings."

Got that? President Obama had better make sure he keeps his bedroom door locked tonight.

David Maddox: Afghanistan - the Peter Principle

Dr Laurence J. Peter (pictured right), the Canadian born hierarcheologist, is probably best known for the Peter Principle that "everybody rises to the level of their incompetence."

He argued that at some point every position was held by somebody incompetent to do the job and the real work was done by those who had not yet reached their own level of incompetence.

It sounds like former RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin's professional epitaph.

And any observer of politicians would know that this is especially true in the world of politics where the threshold for the level of incompetence is all too often very low.

Which brings us on neatly to the continuing conflict in Afghanistan and the historical vortex of incompetence that the world's various powers have found themselves in for more than 150 years.

A less well known but even more pessimistic quotation from Dr Peter is on history.

"History teaches us the mistakes we are going to make," he said.

It seems a very apt quote on the day that Gordon Brown orders more troops into Afghanistan following President Obama's plea for more support in a conflict that eventually, if we look at historical precedent, seems doomed to failure.

The late George MacDonald Fraser's novel Flashman perhaps offers most readable object lesson in history for Afghanistan. it charts the demise of the British army's first catastrophic foray into Afghanistan under the command of the incompetent Scottish Major General Lord Elphinstone(an historical example of the Peter principle) ending up with his force's massacre in January 1842.

MacDonald Fraser's building of history around the hilarious antics of the cowardly, womanising bully Flashman (of Tom Brown's Schooldays infamy) adds pathos to an unfolding tragedy known as the First Afghan War.

Since 1842 the British have been back, the Russians had a go, the Americans have been in along with the British (again) and others. Even with more technical weaponry, none have tamed that country or its warlords.

The cause of stopping terrorism, saving women from the Taliban's awful abuses and turning a failed state into a successful democracy are all worthy and just ones. And it is also true that British troops are currently out-killing Taliban ones - 15 to 200 in the last month.
But in the end every major army has failed in Afghanistan, the sooner this is recognised and the allies get out the less lives may be wasted.

Gerri Peev: Waiting for Gordo - and Obama

Long wait this morning for US President Barack Obama in the Locarno Room at the Foreign Office. Not a grain of coffee in sight.
It should have been a stampede but the early morning must have put off a lot of hacks. Mr Prez himself looked a bit weary. Jet lag and trying to rescue the world will do that to you (or perhaps it was just breakfast with the PM).
Biggest dilemma: Do hacks stand for the US President, or risk looking like they are staging a "sit in" if their US colleagues rise for their head of state? Traditionally, British journalists do NOT stand for the American president. To do so would be deferential. I resolve not to stand. As it turns out, the two leaders launch straight into their statements so there is no time.
Best quote: (From the President Obama): "Don't short change the future because of fear in the present."
One observation: President Obama picked two women and a male journalist when taking questions - all of them wire services.
Brown picked four males, three broadcasters, one tabloid political editor.
The British hacks are overwhelmingly white, middle aged and male in comparison to the more diverse journos who have flown with the President. Wonder if he notices?

Kenny Farquharson: Do you Twitter?

The Steamie is now available on Twitter (www.twitter.com/thesteamie).

If you have no idea what that sentence means you are:

a. not in tune with the zeitgeist

b. not paying attention

or

c. a High Court judge

For the uninitiated, Twitter is a micro-blogging site where posts are limited to 140 characters.

Everyone's doing it, from Barack Obama to Gordon Brown to Andy Murray to Stephen Fry to, er, me (www.twitter.com/KENNYFARQ).

There's even a rather good spoof Alex Salmond site www.twitter.com/Alex_Salmond (sample posting from the past few days: "Got to love American portion sizes...")

Get tweeting...

David Maddox: Sinister developments in the White House as the left seizes power again

Many of my fellow lefties will no doubt share my delight that we can now count the most powerful man in the world among our number.

I am of course referring to the fact that Barack Obama is left-handed, as the picture of him signing the order ending Guantanamo Bay prison camp illustrates.

And according to academic research the return of a southpaw to the Oval Office should be a good thing after eight years of right-handedness from George W. Bush.

Chris McManus of University College London claims that left-handed people as a group have historically produced an above average quota of high achievers. He adds that left-handers' brains are structured differently in a way that widens their range of abilities, and the genes that determine left-handedness also govern development of the language centres of the brain. It has also been argued for a long time that lefties are more creative.

But, one thing is sure is that the hand which a politician uses to write has little to do with his political leanings.

This is underlined in the list of previous US Presidents who were or are lefties which in recent times have included Ronald Reagan and George Bush snr. The first lefty US President was James Garfield in 1881, but this obviously did not go down to well because he was assassinated four months into office. The next two were Herbert Hoover (1929 – 1933) and Harry Truman (1945 – 1953) but five of the last seven now have been lefties including Gerald Ford (1974 – 1977) and Bill Clinton (1993 – 2001).

In terms of British prime ministers we have only had two lefties. One was possibly the greatest, Winston Churchill, the other one of the worst, James Callghan.

However, despite the evidence that left-handedness may be a sign of superiority, we southpaws are still discriminated in every day language. Words indicating evilness and clumsiness like sinister, gauche or having "two left feet" on the dance floor come from an anti-left agenda, whereas right for correct or ambi-dexterous (two right hands) come from a pro-right agenda. How ironic that sinister and gauche would more likely to be applied to Mr Obama's predecessor the right-handed George W. Bush.

Brown Speaks to The One - Eddie Barnes

So Gordon Brown has finally got his prized phone call from Barack Obama, 72 hours after The One's inauguration. An event with the Prime Minister in Glasgow this afternoon was delayed while Brown waited for his phone to ring. We are told Brown got a full 45 minutes with Obama . "They spoke about the economy, the Middle East and other international issues. The tone of the conversation was friendly and substantive," says a spokesman. To quote David Cameron, presumably Brown didn't tell Obama that this was "no time for a novice".

It now seems increasingly the case that Brown is going to lose out in the race to become the first foreign guest to the Obama White House, with Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel seen as the most likely first footers.
The consolation prize - being Obama's first host - is still up for grabs for Brown however - Obama is due in London in early April for the G20 economic summit.

David Maddox: The business of government (2)

Arrived this morning to discover an e-mail from Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's chief spin doctor, regarding the posting yesterday on the Scottish Cabinet watching President Obama's inauguration as part of their official cabinet meeting. Nice to know that the powers behind the throne are reading The Steamie.
In response to me asking why they weren't getting down to the business of running Scotland and sitting around watching TV instead, he had a (slightly tongue in cheek) answer.
"I detected a shared agenda between President Obama and the Scottish Government! - not least on renewable energy," he said.
Perhaps a nod too to my prediction in the blog that it wouldn't take long for our politicians to attach Obama's name to their policies. As ever, the SNP got in first.

Kenny Farquharson: Obama Mia!

Enjoy the inauguration?
At 4pm today I'll be hosting a live online discussion about yesterday's events and President Obama's inauguration speech.
If you'd like to take part, simply log on to www.scotlandonsunday.com and click on my happy smiling face.
See you there!

Tom Peterkin on Salmond and Obama

There was a thought provoking column in yesterday's (Tuesday's) Times. Angus Macleod picked up on an article in the most recent Scotland on Sunday in which we revealed that Alex Salmond has sent an invitation to Barack Obama to a Burns Supper the First Minister is hosting in Washington next month as part of Scotland Week.

Angus remarked that it can only be a matter of time before Obama is invited by someone at Holyrood to learn the words of "My Granny's Heilan' Hame" as he lamented the "small country-itis" that appears to be infecting Scotland.

It has also occurred to me that we are seeing more and more Brigadoonery, tartanalia and shortbreaditis (if those are words) festooned about the place in this year of Homecoming.

Angus went on to say that Obama "would be well-advised to steer clear of the event (the Burns Supper) rather than risk an interminable Salmond lecture on how Scots invented and discovered everything worthwhile and how the whole world is obsessed by a small country on the northwest fringe of Europe".

The contributions offered by Scots to the world (penicillin, the telly, telephone, the Tunnock's tea cake) are surely things to be justifably proud of, although the swaggering "Wha's Like Us" attitude is in danger of being overdone.

On balance, however, I almost prefer that sort of attitude to the talk of ending the "Scottish cringe" that was such a feature of Jack McConnell' s administration. I never knew what the "Scottish cringe" was. Was it something to do with an inferiority complex? In any case, nothing made me cringe more than listening to McConnell blethering on about ending it.

BBC and Barack - Eddie Barnes

Like most people, I instinctively turn to the Beeb for big events like the Obama inauguration, but after the waffle-fest which we endured yesterday, I'm not so sure.
Apart from an excellent background documentary about Obama's rise to power presented by Clive Myrie on BBC 2, I waited in vain for some decent analysis of the day's events. All we seemed to get were dozens of reporters running around the Mall asking people "did you ever think you'd see this day?" (three cheers to the black guy who said "yes") and a stream of guff from the supposed in-house experts as they sought to fill in time. Even the Great Paxo was reduced at one point to asking some random academic: "Did you cry?"

I suppose I would say this wouldn't I, but if you want some good analysis of yesterday's events, buy a newspaper.

David Maddox: The business of government

The Scottish Cabinet meeting this afternoon will be getting down to the serious business of erm... watching television, I have just been told.
Like many of us, the senior ministers want to see the inauguration of Barack Obama and particularly what he has to say in his inauguration speech. New hope, brave new world etc.
I suppose the odds are quite long on him mentioning Scotland and astronomical on him telling the world he will be accepting the new Obama tartan being offered him by the Scottish Tories.
But, while accepting that people like to share these historic moments with friends (assuming all the Scottish Cabinet like one another), if this was so important for Alex Salmond and co, you have to wonder why they did not reschedule their Cabinet meeting and get down to their own serious business of running Scotland?
One thing that is sure to happen is that the name Obama is going to be dropped into lots of speeches to justify various political positions over here with tiresome regularity.

Gerri Peev: Porn barons' bonkers request

If you thought it was mad for the uncompetitive US car industry to demand a bail out, what about the founder of Hustler wanting to hustle some cash out of the US government?
Magazine publisher Larry Flynt and Joe Francis, chief executive of Girls Gone Wild (as opposed to Boy Gone Mad) have issued a joint plea for Congress to er, pump 5 billion US dollars (£3.3 billion) into their industry. Confusingly, Mr Francis said the money was to “just to see us through hard times”.

It seems that the appetites of usual purveyors have been deflated by the economic downturn.
Mr Flynt said: "With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind.
“It is time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly.”

One assumes that the porn barons are teasing and it is highly unlikely that Barack Obama will allow himself to taken for a ride.

Kenny Farquharson: Obama online

One of the crucial factors in Barack Obama's US presidential election victory - apart from his charisma, his intellect, his integrity and his opponent - was his campaign's use of the internet.

It was the way he raised his cash - tens of thousands of small donations, solicited online, gave him the edge on McCain's big cheques from big business. But the real revolution was in the way the internet was used to foster a direct relationship between candidate and voter.

I joined up to his Facebook group and received regular emails from him. Okay, I know they were written by an aide and sent out in their millions, but it never failed to give me a small shiver when an email from "Barack Obama" appeared in my in-box, and the message started with "Hi Kenny..."

The remarkable thing is that now, seven weeks after the election, the emails keep on coming. And their content gives an insight into how how the lessons learned about the internet during the campaign are likely to be carried through into the Obama administration.

One email landed last night, urging supporters to hold house meetings to discuss what the administration's policy priorities should be. There was even a link to a video of one such meeting to help set the tone.

http://my.barackobama.com/meetingvideo

House meetings were one of the most effective tools of the Obama campaign - a good example of the revolution we're seeing in participatory politics in the US.

I wonder which of the UK parties will learn these lessons most effectively. David Cameron was the first party leader to start a blog, and last year the Scottish Labour leadership candidates all had a presence on social networking websites.

But we've yet to see anyone really use the net to bring politics into hearts and homes in the same way as Obama showed was possible.

Will it be the big political battleground of 2009, potentially a general election year?