AUSTAUSCH (2)
My wife runs the exchange programme at her school. Each of the five classes exchanges with a school abroad; this year, one from Poland, two from Belgium and two from Germany. The children spend a week there and welcome the foreigners to a week here. All communication takes place in English.
Three classes have been here in Denmark this past week, while the other two went visiting. At the weekend, each child goes home with his/her foreign partner, so the teachers are at a bit of a loose end. Last night, we had two Polish, two Belgian and two German teachers to dinner, plus three Danish teachers and me. Each time this happens, we have very traditional Danish food, prepared in advance by the school kitchen; herring washed down with beer and schnaps, some sort of pork dish, cheese and coffee. Since the guests often bring with them assorted forms of alcohol from their home country, it usually ends up being a pretty boozy affair. Last night was no exception.
Two things always strike me about these events. First, they are great fun; despite all of our differences, we share a common interest in getting to know people from other countries. As a native speaker and joint host, I have some sort of responsibility to make sure that everybody has a good time. But it is not very difficult.
Secondly, it is amazing how much interest and effort people will put into speaking English. If the Brits had half as much enthusiasm for learning foreign languages, then the country would experience real gains, in my view. Sadly, however, it ain't going to happen.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 31 October 2010
Friday 29 October 2010
MORNING COFFEE
I love that first cup of coffee in the morning. Even though I drink coffee throughout the day, that first cup is always the best. It has to be real coffee, in a big cup, and very strong, with milk but no sugar. One of the best decisions I have made in my life (along with the outsize shower head) was to put on my Christmas wish list one of those espresso or mocha coffee pots, the ones where the water in the bottom boils up through the ground coffee and into the top compartment.
Given that I am a Brit and my wife is Danish, it is perhaps surprising that I drink coffee in the morning and my wife drinks tea. I like tea at teatime; and I have taken to drinking it late at night. But in the morning, it has to be coffee.
I am reminded of all this because my trusted coffee pot has got a crack in it, so the water trickles out of the bottom. I went to the local "Isenkram", which otherwise tends to sell everything, but they don't have them. So I'll have to use a cafetiere tomorrow morning. OK, but not quite the same.
Walter Blotscher
I love that first cup of coffee in the morning. Even though I drink coffee throughout the day, that first cup is always the best. It has to be real coffee, in a big cup, and very strong, with milk but no sugar. One of the best decisions I have made in my life (along with the outsize shower head) was to put on my Christmas wish list one of those espresso or mocha coffee pots, the ones where the water in the bottom boils up through the ground coffee and into the top compartment.
Given that I am a Brit and my wife is Danish, it is perhaps surprising that I drink coffee in the morning and my wife drinks tea. I like tea at teatime; and I have taken to drinking it late at night. But in the morning, it has to be coffee.
I am reminded of all this because my trusted coffee pot has got a crack in it, so the water trickles out of the bottom. I went to the local "Isenkram", which otherwise tends to sell everything, but they don't have them. So I'll have to use a cafetiere tomorrow morning. OK, but not quite the same.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 28 October 2010
INCEPTION
There is a cinema in the small town near where I live. Being a small town, it is a small cinema, with around 100 seats. It is run by volunteers, both the projectionist and the ticket lady. It is open every day except Saturdays.
But small and off the beaten track doesn't mean that they only show films that nobody else will. This evening I went with my wife and daughter to see Inception, the new blockbuster with Leonardo di Caprio. It was a perfect cinema experience. We arrived at 7.28pm to find no queue, and only four other customers. I munched my Danish Rolo's while we watched the local ad's and then lots of previews (I love the previews). Then came the film itself, with nobody in the next row blocking the screen, or talking in the quiet bits.
Inception itself was great. It's all about going into a person's parallel dream world, and then into a dream world within that, a bit like a Russian doll. All nonsense, of course. But good nonsense, very well done with lots of action; and surprises that more than matched the fact that my daughter had paid for my ticket.
Walter Blotscher
There is a cinema in the small town near where I live. Being a small town, it is a small cinema, with around 100 seats. It is run by volunteers, both the projectionist and the ticket lady. It is open every day except Saturdays.
But small and off the beaten track doesn't mean that they only show films that nobody else will. This evening I went with my wife and daughter to see Inception, the new blockbuster with Leonardo di Caprio. It was a perfect cinema experience. We arrived at 7.28pm to find no queue, and only four other customers. I munched my Danish Rolo's while we watched the local ad's and then lots of previews (I love the previews). Then came the film itself, with nobody in the next row blocking the screen, or talking in the quiet bits.
Inception itself was great. It's all about going into a person's parallel dream world, and then into a dream world within that, a bit like a Russian doll. All nonsense, of course. But good nonsense, very well done with lots of action; and surprises that more than matched the fact that my daughter had paid for my ticket.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 27 October 2010
NEWS ABOUT THE NEWS
Is it only me, who is irritated by the trend in which television newsreaders tell you what they are going to read about in the news, instead of just reading it?
When I lived in New York in 1980-81, I used to get intensely irritated by having films interrupted for advert breaks (something which, until that point, never happened in the U.K.). Particularly when such interruptions were of the "five die in fire in the Bronx, more at 10" kind. I reluctantly accepted that American TV trends often crept their way into European programmes x years later; and that has duly happened. Many TV news stations nowadays have dual anchors, where the interplay between the two is supposed to add spice. There is now also that intensely irritating banter between the anchors and the reporter out at the scene, where they do this "over to you, Brian", "back to you, Ted", "thanks Brian" routine. But although Denmark's state-owned but commercial TV2 succumbed to all that sort of thing long ago, DR1 seemed mercifully old-fashioned, with a single anchor talking to the camera, and relatively few Brian and Ted phrases.
Until now. DR1 have a daily programme called the "Evening Show", from 6.00-6.30pm and 7.00-7.30pm, the two halves sandwiching the early evening news from 6.30-7.00pm. At 6.28pm or thereabouts, the co-anchors on the Evening Show cut to the newsdesk in order to ask the newsreader what is going to be on the news that evening. This drives me nuts, not least because two minutes later, after returning to the Evening Show for a wrap-up, the news starts in traditional fashion, with headlines. The effect is that we get news about news, then headlines, and only then the news itself.
Call me an old fogey, but what was wrong with the old system?
Walter Blotscher
Is it only me, who is irritated by the trend in which television newsreaders tell you what they are going to read about in the news, instead of just reading it?
When I lived in New York in 1980-81, I used to get intensely irritated by having films interrupted for advert breaks (something which, until that point, never happened in the U.K.). Particularly when such interruptions were of the "five die in fire in the Bronx, more at 10" kind. I reluctantly accepted that American TV trends often crept their way into European programmes x years later; and that has duly happened. Many TV news stations nowadays have dual anchors, where the interplay between the two is supposed to add spice. There is now also that intensely irritating banter between the anchors and the reporter out at the scene, where they do this "over to you, Brian", "back to you, Ted", "thanks Brian" routine. But although Denmark's state-owned but commercial TV2 succumbed to all that sort of thing long ago, DR1 seemed mercifully old-fashioned, with a single anchor talking to the camera, and relatively few Brian and Ted phrases.
Until now. DR1 have a daily programme called the "Evening Show", from 6.00-6.30pm and 7.00-7.30pm, the two halves sandwiching the early evening news from 6.30-7.00pm. At 6.28pm or thereabouts, the co-anchors on the Evening Show cut to the newsdesk in order to ask the newsreader what is going to be on the news that evening. This drives me nuts, not least because two minutes later, after returning to the Evening Show for a wrap-up, the news starts in traditional fashion, with headlines. The effect is that we get news about news, then headlines, and only then the news itself.
Call me an old fogey, but what was wrong with the old system?
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 26 October 2010
A TRAGEDY
I am gutted, as footballers would say. Paul the psychic octopus, who correctly guessed the outcome of 8 games in the recent football World Cup, including all of Germany's wins and eventual defeat, has died aged 2. Which is apparently a fair age for an octopus.
I had been counting on the prophetic cephalopod to help me bet during the European Championships in 2012. Now I'll have to find someone - or something - else.
Walter Blotscher
I am gutted, as footballers would say. Paul the psychic octopus, who correctly guessed the outcome of 8 games in the recent football World Cup, including all of Germany's wins and eventual defeat, has died aged 2. Which is apparently a fair age for an octopus.
I had been counting on the prophetic cephalopod to help me bet during the European Championships in 2012. Now I'll have to find someone - or something - else.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 25 October 2010
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
As the world gets ever smaller, the number of people choosing foreign partners gets ever larger. From a legal point of view, marrying is the easy bit. The difficulty comes with divorce, and the possibility of international disputes about child custody and/or the division of financial and property assets.
Which makes last week's judgment by the U.K.'s Supreme Court in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v. Granatino an interesting read. Ms. Radmacher was, and is, a very wealthy German. She fell in love with Mr. Granatino, a Frenchman who, although an investment banker, was not in the same financial league. One of the conditions for her inheriting more of the family estate was that the future husband sign a pre-nuptial agreement under German law, waiving any claims to the wife's assets if things went wrong; which he duly did. After marrying, they settled in the U.K. , and subsequently had two children. He got fed up with investment banking, and enrolled as a postgraduate research student at Oxford University. However, after 8 years, the marriage fell apart, and Ms. Radmacher went to live abroad with the children. In the divorce proceedings in the U.K., Mr. Granatino asked for more money than simply enough in order to support (his share of) the costs of raising the children, essentially asking the High Court to disregard the pre-nuptial agreement. The Court did this, and awarded him £5.5m. Ms. Radmacher appealed to the Court of Appeal and won. Mr Granatino in turn appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for the original verdict to be reinstated. Sitting as a 9-man court (instead of the more usual 5) in view of the seriousness of the issues involved, the Supreme Court essentially decided 8-1 that the pre-nuptial agreement should be upheld.
Pre-nuptial agreements are common (and valid) in many Continental jurisdictions and elsewhere (eg in some U.S. states); most people seem to agree that if the Granatino's had divorced in Germany, then the pre-nuptial agreement would have been legally binding. The problem for the Supreme Court was first, that the U.K. has chosen not to sign the relevant legal convention which resolves documentary disputes under the law of that document (in this case, German law). And secondly, that the common law of England and Wales evolved from a very different starting point. Historically, when a husband and wife got married, they became one person, and that person was the husband. Wives lost control of their property, which was unilaterally managed by the husband, and they could not contract with third parties, let alone with their husband. Although, beginning in the late 19th century, Parliamentary legislation began to eat into this essentially paternalistic starting point, it remained a rule of public policy that pre-marital agreements which envisaged married couples getting divorced were null and void. This was on the grounds that they might be seen as "encouraging" couples to avoid the legal duties involved in marriage, such as living together. One result of this was that loveless couples rarely divorced, but merely lived apart, if they could afford to do so. If they could not, they usually had to just grin and bear it.
With the move to "no-fault" divorce and other things, the Supreme Court clearly felt that these historical principles were out of date, and time to go. Whereas a pre-nuptial agreement will not be totally definitive, neither will it be null and void, as was previously the case. If it was freely negotiated and entered into, with a clear understanding of the consequences, then the starting point is that it should be upheld, providing that there are no extenuating circumstances (eg financial penury for the children). In short, it will be a valid contract like any other properly drafted contract.
So, a welcome modernisation of English family law that puts it on a par with other countries? Well, maybe. The most interesting part of the case was the lone dissent, interesting because it came from Lady Hale, the only woman involved in the decision and the only woman ever to have been appointed to the House of Lords/Supreme Court. She pointed out that pre-nuptial agreements are often used to favour the economically more powerful partner at the expense of the weaker. Although, in this particular case, that more powerful partner happened to be a woman, in general it would be a man. Secondly, she said that overturning long-standing principles should not be done in this way, through the decision of a single case, but through Parliamentary legislation (as, indeed, the changes to the law of divorce itself were made). Everybody agreed that the law of marital and divorce agreements was in a mess, the Law Commission were reviewing this whole area, and it would be better to await their proposals, and then get them enshrined in legislation.
It strikes me that Lady Hale's worries have more than a little merit. The Granatino's are, by any definition, wealthy people who can afford the vast expense of having their personal, private dispute handled by hotshot lawyers and settled by the highest court in the land. That they are also both foreigners merely makes it more complicated and more expensive. But the majority of people divorcing, whether within or across borders, are not like that. They need simple, clear, strightforward rules that the average local solicitor can understand, and then advise their client accordingly. It is a moot question whether the Coalition Government, obsessed with deficits and other financial matters, will find the time to address something which might well end up affecting around half of all married couples. But like Lady Hale, I think they should.
Walter Blotscher
As the world gets ever smaller, the number of people choosing foreign partners gets ever larger. From a legal point of view, marrying is the easy bit. The difficulty comes with divorce, and the possibility of international disputes about child custody and/or the division of financial and property assets.
Which makes last week's judgment by the U.K.'s Supreme Court in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v. Granatino an interesting read. Ms. Radmacher was, and is, a very wealthy German. She fell in love with Mr. Granatino, a Frenchman who, although an investment banker, was not in the same financial league. One of the conditions for her inheriting more of the family estate was that the future husband sign a pre-nuptial agreement under German law, waiving any claims to the wife's assets if things went wrong; which he duly did. After marrying, they settled in the U.K. , and subsequently had two children. He got fed up with investment banking, and enrolled as a postgraduate research student at Oxford University. However, after 8 years, the marriage fell apart, and Ms. Radmacher went to live abroad with the children. In the divorce proceedings in the U.K., Mr. Granatino asked for more money than simply enough in order to support (his share of) the costs of raising the children, essentially asking the High Court to disregard the pre-nuptial agreement. The Court did this, and awarded him £5.5m. Ms. Radmacher appealed to the Court of Appeal and won. Mr Granatino in turn appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for the original verdict to be reinstated. Sitting as a 9-man court (instead of the more usual 5) in view of the seriousness of the issues involved, the Supreme Court essentially decided 8-1 that the pre-nuptial agreement should be upheld.
Pre-nuptial agreements are common (and valid) in many Continental jurisdictions and elsewhere (eg in some U.S. states); most people seem to agree that if the Granatino's had divorced in Germany, then the pre-nuptial agreement would have been legally binding. The problem for the Supreme Court was first, that the U.K. has chosen not to sign the relevant legal convention which resolves documentary disputes under the law of that document (in this case, German law). And secondly, that the common law of England and Wales evolved from a very different starting point. Historically, when a husband and wife got married, they became one person, and that person was the husband. Wives lost control of their property, which was unilaterally managed by the husband, and they could not contract with third parties, let alone with their husband. Although, beginning in the late 19th century, Parliamentary legislation began to eat into this essentially paternalistic starting point, it remained a rule of public policy that pre-marital agreements which envisaged married couples getting divorced were null and void. This was on the grounds that they might be seen as "encouraging" couples to avoid the legal duties involved in marriage, such as living together. One result of this was that loveless couples rarely divorced, but merely lived apart, if they could afford to do so. If they could not, they usually had to just grin and bear it.
With the move to "no-fault" divorce and other things, the Supreme Court clearly felt that these historical principles were out of date, and time to go. Whereas a pre-nuptial agreement will not be totally definitive, neither will it be null and void, as was previously the case. If it was freely negotiated and entered into, with a clear understanding of the consequences, then the starting point is that it should be upheld, providing that there are no extenuating circumstances (eg financial penury for the children). In short, it will be a valid contract like any other properly drafted contract.
So, a welcome modernisation of English family law that puts it on a par with other countries? Well, maybe. The most interesting part of the case was the lone dissent, interesting because it came from Lady Hale, the only woman involved in the decision and the only woman ever to have been appointed to the House of Lords/Supreme Court. She pointed out that pre-nuptial agreements are often used to favour the economically more powerful partner at the expense of the weaker. Although, in this particular case, that more powerful partner happened to be a woman, in general it would be a man. Secondly, she said that overturning long-standing principles should not be done in this way, through the decision of a single case, but through Parliamentary legislation (as, indeed, the changes to the law of divorce itself were made). Everybody agreed that the law of marital and divorce agreements was in a mess, the Law Commission were reviewing this whole area, and it would be better to await their proposals, and then get them enshrined in legislation.
It strikes me that Lady Hale's worries have more than a little merit. The Granatino's are, by any definition, wealthy people who can afford the vast expense of having their personal, private dispute handled by hotshot lawyers and settled by the highest court in the land. That they are also both foreigners merely makes it more complicated and more expensive. But the majority of people divorcing, whether within or across borders, are not like that. They need simple, clear, strightforward rules that the average local solicitor can understand, and then advise their client accordingly. It is a moot question whether the Coalition Government, obsessed with deficits and other financial matters, will find the time to address something which might well end up affecting around half of all married couples. But like Lady Hale, I think they should.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 24 October 2010
SIN LIMITS
You have to be 18 in order to buy cigarettes from a supermarket in Denmark, but just 16 in order to buy alcohol. Why the difference?
(The difference was even bigger, until the Government raised the alcohol limit from 15 a couple of years ago.)
Virtually everybody knows that alcohol and cigarettes are bad for your health. And, at the same time, that they are pleasurable (though personally, I have never been a smoker). Since the latter means that they can never be eradicated, Governments address the former by regulating, licensing and taxing them. They also have special rules to protect children by banning their use under a certain age. One can agree or disagree about where that age should be, but it does seem odd that one is higher than the other. Indeed, the U.K. Government accepted that very argument when it raised the cigarette age from 16 to 18 in 2007 in order to match that for alcohol.
Most Governments seem to align the age at which you can smoke and drink with the age at which you become an adult; which seems reasonable. Looking ahead, I believe the next test will be marijuana. Having tried it myself, I would put it on a par with alcohol, and regulate it in the same way. That increasingly seems to be the view in the U.S., where a number of initiatives to legalise (or, at least, decriminalise) marijuana are on the ballot box in next month's mid-term elections. European Governments seem less likely to countenance such changes, so I don't expect any change soon. But then we don't have murderous Mexican drug gangs just over the border.
Walter Blotscher
You have to be 18 in order to buy cigarettes from a supermarket in Denmark, but just 16 in order to buy alcohol. Why the difference?
(The difference was even bigger, until the Government raised the alcohol limit from 15 a couple of years ago.)
Virtually everybody knows that alcohol and cigarettes are bad for your health. And, at the same time, that they are pleasurable (though personally, I have never been a smoker). Since the latter means that they can never be eradicated, Governments address the former by regulating, licensing and taxing them. They also have special rules to protect children by banning their use under a certain age. One can agree or disagree about where that age should be, but it does seem odd that one is higher than the other. Indeed, the U.K. Government accepted that very argument when it raised the cigarette age from 16 to 18 in 2007 in order to match that for alcohol.
Most Governments seem to align the age at which you can smoke and drink with the age at which you become an adult; which seems reasonable. Looking ahead, I believe the next test will be marijuana. Having tried it myself, I would put it on a par with alcohol, and regulate it in the same way. That increasingly seems to be the view in the U.S., where a number of initiatives to legalise (or, at least, decriminalise) marijuana are on the ballot box in next month's mid-term elections. European Governments seem less likely to countenance such changes, so I don't expect any change soon. But then we don't have murderous Mexican drug gangs just over the border.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 23 October 2010
LEAVING HOME (2)
When my elder son left home in August to start at Copenhagen Business School, I said that it was more likely that we would visit him than the other way round.
We did just that today. We took him out to lunch in a local cafe, and then pottered around the National Museum for a while, before having tea and cake. He then showed us the pub, where he has a part-time job. It is right on Nyhavn, a canal that sticks up into Kongens Nytorv, one of the smartest parts of Copenhagen. People staying at the posh Hotel D'Angleterre or going to the National Theatre often wander down to Nyhavn for an evening drink; so tips are good. So was the beer he served us.
Like other capital cities, Copenhagen is constantly changing, as neighbourhoods move up and down. The area where he lives, not far from the central station, was originally the mediaeval cattle market and was notorious for prostitutes 20 years ago. Although some remain, it is now being gentrified with new cafes and will probably become even more expensive once the second metro line, running directly underneath the main throroughfare, is completed. Since many students have to live a fair way out from the centre, I think my son has landed on his feet.
As he started his evening shift, my wife and I walked back through Stroeget, the world's first ever pedestrian area, and past Tivoli, packed with families enjoying the autumn holidays. I was reminded how easy it is to get around Copenhagen, a decidedly small and accessible big city. I suspect that we will be back before long.
Walter Blotscher
When my elder son left home in August to start at Copenhagen Business School, I said that it was more likely that we would visit him than the other way round.
We did just that today. We took him out to lunch in a local cafe, and then pottered around the National Museum for a while, before having tea and cake. He then showed us the pub, where he has a part-time job. It is right on Nyhavn, a canal that sticks up into Kongens Nytorv, one of the smartest parts of Copenhagen. People staying at the posh Hotel D'Angleterre or going to the National Theatre often wander down to Nyhavn for an evening drink; so tips are good. So was the beer he served us.
Like other capital cities, Copenhagen is constantly changing, as neighbourhoods move up and down. The area where he lives, not far from the central station, was originally the mediaeval cattle market and was notorious for prostitutes 20 years ago. Although some remain, it is now being gentrified with new cafes and will probably become even more expensive once the second metro line, running directly underneath the main throroughfare, is completed. Since many students have to live a fair way out from the centre, I think my son has landed on his feet.
As he started his evening shift, my wife and I walked back through Stroeget, the world's first ever pedestrian area, and past Tivoli, packed with families enjoying the autumn holidays. I was reminded how easy it is to get around Copenhagen, a decidedly small and accessible big city. I suspect that we will be back before long.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 22 October 2010
SPENDING CUTS
So we now know where the pain is going to fall. Wednesday's statement by the U.K.'s Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) held almost exactly to the total spending cuts of £83 billion by 2014-15 that he had already announced in his June Budget. With international aid rising sharply in order to meet the U.N. commitment of 0.7% of GDP, the national health service ringfenced in order to meet an election pledge, and debt interest largely out of his control, that meant an average cut in the Government's departmental budgets of 19%. Since education and defence will not be hit as hard as that, other departments will be hit even harder. Grants to local authorities will fall by 27%, and the Department for Communities and Local Government will lose a whopping two thirds of its budget. About half a million public sector jobs will disappear.
In essence, the Government is betting on two things happening. First, that those public sector jobs will be more than offset by new private sector ones, as confidence in the economy recovers, now that there is a credible plan to reduce the public sector deficit. That may or may not happen. Secondly, that by starving programmes, particularly at the local level, of cash, it will produce some radical re-thinking of the way in which public services are provided. Given the U.K.'s highly centralised public sector, more innovation at the local level is sorely needed. However, without the ability to manage the revenue side of the account, local authorities may not be able to implement change, even if they want to; as most organisations know, it often requires an investment in order to be able to make long-term savings. Furthermore, by giving health a free ride, there is very little incentive to manage better a public service that will inevitably grow in the future.
The third issue is that the announcement is just that, namely a plan; those cuts now have to be implemented. Reactions, particularly from affected or likely-to-be-affected public sector employees, have been swift. The U.K. has not yet seen the same sorts of protests that have been occurring in France. But it is very early days; 2014-15 is still a long way into the future.
Walter Blotscher
So we now know where the pain is going to fall. Wednesday's statement by the U.K.'s Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) held almost exactly to the total spending cuts of £83 billion by 2014-15 that he had already announced in his June Budget. With international aid rising sharply in order to meet the U.N. commitment of 0.7% of GDP, the national health service ringfenced in order to meet an election pledge, and debt interest largely out of his control, that meant an average cut in the Government's departmental budgets of 19%. Since education and defence will not be hit as hard as that, other departments will be hit even harder. Grants to local authorities will fall by 27%, and the Department for Communities and Local Government will lose a whopping two thirds of its budget. About half a million public sector jobs will disappear.
In essence, the Government is betting on two things happening. First, that those public sector jobs will be more than offset by new private sector ones, as confidence in the economy recovers, now that there is a credible plan to reduce the public sector deficit. That may or may not happen. Secondly, that by starving programmes, particularly at the local level, of cash, it will produce some radical re-thinking of the way in which public services are provided. Given the U.K.'s highly centralised public sector, more innovation at the local level is sorely needed. However, without the ability to manage the revenue side of the account, local authorities may not be able to implement change, even if they want to; as most organisations know, it often requires an investment in order to be able to make long-term savings. Furthermore, by giving health a free ride, there is very little incentive to manage better a public service that will inevitably grow in the future.
The third issue is that the announcement is just that, namely a plan; those cuts now have to be implemented. Reactions, particularly from affected or likely-to-be-affected public sector employees, have been swift. The U.K. has not yet seen the same sorts of protests that have been occurring in France. But it is very early days; 2014-15 is still a long way into the future.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 21 October 2010
AUTUMN HOLIDAYS
It is the autumn holiday in Denmark this week, where all children are off school, and many parents join them for all or part of it. Since my wife is a teacher, she has the whole week off; and that means at least one day of outside cleaning.
The windows are de-cobwebbed and washed, the guttering is cleared, and vast numbers of fallen leaves in the yard are removed to the compost heap. Garden furniture that has stood outside for the summer is put in the barn, and the yard is de-weeded and swept. We are now ready for the onset of winter.
It was a perfect day for leaf-clearing, a bit of wind for a broom to help them on their way, but not too much. All in all, it was pretty "hyggeligt", as they say in these parts.
Walter Blotscher
It is the autumn holiday in Denmark this week, where all children are off school, and many parents join them for all or part of it. Since my wife is a teacher, she has the whole week off; and that means at least one day of outside cleaning.
The windows are de-cobwebbed and washed, the guttering is cleared, and vast numbers of fallen leaves in the yard are removed to the compost heap. Garden furniture that has stood outside for the summer is put in the barn, and the yard is de-weeded and swept. We are now ready for the onset of winter.
It was a perfect day for leaf-clearing, a bit of wind for a broom to help them on their way, but not too much. All in all, it was pretty "hyggeligt", as they say in these parts.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 20 October 2010
FRENCH PENSIONS (2)
A month and a half ago I predicted that the row over the raising of the French retirement age would be "a fight to the death for preservation of the French way of life". That prediction is coming true in spades. During the past six weeks, the number of protesters and the violence of the protests have steadily increased. After blockades of the country's 12 refineries caused shortages of petrol, President Sarkozy and his Interior Minister sent in the paramilitary police, and there have been a number of arrests. It is quite possible that people could get hurt.
The President is still insisting that the reform should go ahead; from an economic and budgetary point of view, he has little choice. The real question mark is over what happens when (as is likely) the Senate passes the necessary legislation later this week. Will the millions of protesters shrug their shoulders, accept that the inevitable has happened, and stay indoors? Or will the protests get worse? The answer to that question will shape French (and European) politics for most of the next two years, until the next Presidential election.
Walter Blotscher
A month and a half ago I predicted that the row over the raising of the French retirement age would be "a fight to the death for preservation of the French way of life". That prediction is coming true in spades. During the past six weeks, the number of protesters and the violence of the protests have steadily increased. After blockades of the country's 12 refineries caused shortages of petrol, President Sarkozy and his Interior Minister sent in the paramilitary police, and there have been a number of arrests. It is quite possible that people could get hurt.
The President is still insisting that the reform should go ahead; from an economic and budgetary point of view, he has little choice. The real question mark is over what happens when (as is likely) the Senate passes the necessary legislation later this week. Will the millions of protesters shrug their shoulders, accept that the inevitable has happened, and stay indoors? Or will the protests get worse? The answer to that question will shape French (and European) politics for most of the next two years, until the next Presidential election.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 19 October 2010
A VISIT TO AN ISLAND
Denmark is a country of islands; 406 of them, in fact. Plus Greenland, a pretty big island in its own right, and the Faroe Islands (oh, and Jutland, which sticks up from Germany). The many islands mean that no Dane lives more than 52km (about 30 miles) from the sea.
We live in the southern part of Fünen, the big island in the middle, which has Odense as its main town. Although itself an island, Fünen feels like part of the mainland, partly because it is fairly big, but mainly because it is connected to both Jutland and Sealand by bridges (the latter 18km long). Off the southern coast of Fünen, in what is known in Danish as the "island sea", are a host of small islands, some of them inhabited, many of them not. I have just come back from a 2-day visit to Aeroe with my wife and daughter. It was lovely.
Since Aeroe lies due east of the Danish-German frontier on Jutland, the island throughout much of the Middle Ages came under the duchy of Schlesvig-Holstein, either wholly or in part. This made relations with the Danish Kingdom proper rather tricky at times, owing to the curious constitutional anomaly whereby the Danish King was also Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, albeit in personam. In 1750, the island was united under the duchy; and when the Prussians scored their great victory over the Danes in 1864, it should have gone to the Germans along with the rest of the duchy. However, it was saved for Denmark by swapping it for royal enclaves of land elsewhere.
How does a small island like Aeroe, roughly 30km by 8km and with just under 7,000 people, survive in the modern economy? Pretty well, it seems. There are ferries to four different places, and a reasonable bus service on the island itself. The original small farms have been consolidated, and the superfluous buildings converted to summer houses, frequented by both Danes and Germans. In the small fishing towns of Aeroeskoebing and Marstal, the old mediaeval houses have been well preserved, providing a haven for artists of one kind or another. The debilitating effects of industry, roads, and heavy lorries have been kept at bay.
We took the ferry over on a fantastic autumn day, with the Baltic Sea as calm as a millpond. Sitting on the southern cliffs at sunset, we saw the sun go down over the Flensburg Sound, and could see south towards Eckernfoerde and Kiel. It was easy to see how the Hanseatic League would have got going in the Middle Ages; sea links between Northern Germany and Southern Denmark would have been much easier than land links to (say) Bavaria. Pottering about in the excellent maritime museum in Marstal, I learned an awful lot about sailing ships. I also managed to buy a Norwegian wool sweater for a very cheap price. Altogether a wonderful little autumn mini-break.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark is a country of islands; 406 of them, in fact. Plus Greenland, a pretty big island in its own right, and the Faroe Islands (oh, and Jutland, which sticks up from Germany). The many islands mean that no Dane lives more than 52km (about 30 miles) from the sea.
We live in the southern part of Fünen, the big island in the middle, which has Odense as its main town. Although itself an island, Fünen feels like part of the mainland, partly because it is fairly big, but mainly because it is connected to both Jutland and Sealand by bridges (the latter 18km long). Off the southern coast of Fünen, in what is known in Danish as the "island sea", are a host of small islands, some of them inhabited, many of them not. I have just come back from a 2-day visit to Aeroe with my wife and daughter. It was lovely.
Since Aeroe lies due east of the Danish-German frontier on Jutland, the island throughout much of the Middle Ages came under the duchy of Schlesvig-Holstein, either wholly or in part. This made relations with the Danish Kingdom proper rather tricky at times, owing to the curious constitutional anomaly whereby the Danish King was also Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, albeit in personam. In 1750, the island was united under the duchy; and when the Prussians scored their great victory over the Danes in 1864, it should have gone to the Germans along with the rest of the duchy. However, it was saved for Denmark by swapping it for royal enclaves of land elsewhere.
How does a small island like Aeroe, roughly 30km by 8km and with just under 7,000 people, survive in the modern economy? Pretty well, it seems. There are ferries to four different places, and a reasonable bus service on the island itself. The original small farms have been consolidated, and the superfluous buildings converted to summer houses, frequented by both Danes and Germans. In the small fishing towns of Aeroeskoebing and Marstal, the old mediaeval houses have been well preserved, providing a haven for artists of one kind or another. The debilitating effects of industry, roads, and heavy lorries have been kept at bay.
We took the ferry over on a fantastic autumn day, with the Baltic Sea as calm as a millpond. Sitting on the southern cliffs at sunset, we saw the sun go down over the Flensburg Sound, and could see south towards Eckernfoerde and Kiel. It was easy to see how the Hanseatic League would have got going in the Middle Ages; sea links between Northern Germany and Southern Denmark would have been much easier than land links to (say) Bavaria. Pottering about in the excellent maritime museum in Marstal, I learned an awful lot about sailing ships. I also managed to buy a Norwegian wool sweater for a very cheap price. Altogether a wonderful little autumn mini-break.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 17 October 2010
POLITICAL ORATORY
In this internet age, where we are bombarded with information from a host of people talking a lot, but saying little (most politicians, this blog perhaps?), it is reassuring to know that we can still be inspired by the past.
One such source of inspiration is the Gettysburg Address. Apologies to American readers, who often learn it by heart at school, but the address is not as well-known on this side of the pond as it should be. To recap, the 3-day battle of Gettysburg in early July 1863 was the biggest of the American Civil War. Buoyed up by crushing victories at Fredericksburg in December and Chancellorsville in May, the South's Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania in order to cut the North's main east-west railroad and take Washington. The invasion was stopped at Gettysburg, at huge cost; 23,000 casualties, more than a quarter of the Army of the Potomac's strength. Yet the South lost even more men, 28,000, more than a third of its (smaller) army, not least because it did most of the attacking in a misguided bid to obtain a knock-out blow. The battle did not mean that the South had lost the war, which rumbled on for almost two more years; but it did mean that it could no longer win it.
The following November, President Abraham Lincoln was asked to give a speech at the consecration of the huge new war cemetery in Gettysburg that had been formed in order to house the dead. An audience of nine thousand turned up, and Lincoln was accompanied by foreign ambassadors, high-ranking military officers, nine state governors, members of Congress, and three of his own Cabinet. The warm-up act was provided by Edward Everett, a well-known orator and former President of Harvard, who spoke for two hours. After he had sat down, Lincoln stood up, pulled a piece of paper from his pocket, and spoke for just two minutes. This is what he said.
"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Politicians, beat that. If you compare it with (say) George W. Bush's unfortunate speech from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier, "closing" the Iraq War, then you will know what I mean. And you will know why, contrary to what Lincoln himself stated, we do long remember what was said that Thursday morning, 19 November 1863.
Walter Blotscher
In this internet age, where we are bombarded with information from a host of people talking a lot, but saying little (most politicians, this blog perhaps?), it is reassuring to know that we can still be inspired by the past.
One such source of inspiration is the Gettysburg Address. Apologies to American readers, who often learn it by heart at school, but the address is not as well-known on this side of the pond as it should be. To recap, the 3-day battle of Gettysburg in early July 1863 was the biggest of the American Civil War. Buoyed up by crushing victories at Fredericksburg in December and Chancellorsville in May, the South's Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania in order to cut the North's main east-west railroad and take Washington. The invasion was stopped at Gettysburg, at huge cost; 23,000 casualties, more than a quarter of the Army of the Potomac's strength. Yet the South lost even more men, 28,000, more than a third of its (smaller) army, not least because it did most of the attacking in a misguided bid to obtain a knock-out blow. The battle did not mean that the South had lost the war, which rumbled on for almost two more years; but it did mean that it could no longer win it.
The following November, President Abraham Lincoln was asked to give a speech at the consecration of the huge new war cemetery in Gettysburg that had been formed in order to house the dead. An audience of nine thousand turned up, and Lincoln was accompanied by foreign ambassadors, high-ranking military officers, nine state governors, members of Congress, and three of his own Cabinet. The warm-up act was provided by Edward Everett, a well-known orator and former President of Harvard, who spoke for two hours. After he had sat down, Lincoln stood up, pulled a piece of paper from his pocket, and spoke for just two minutes. This is what he said.
"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Politicians, beat that. If you compare it with (say) George W. Bush's unfortunate speech from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier, "closing" the Iraq War, then you will know what I mean. And you will know why, contrary to what Lincoln himself stated, we do long remember what was said that Thursday morning, 19 November 1863.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 16 October 2010
SACHIN TENDULKAR
The Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketing phenomenon. He scored a century on his first class debut for Bombay at the age of 15, and was picked for his country while still only a 16-year old schoolboy. Now aged 37, he is still going strong. He holds the record for the most number of test matches played (171), the most runs scored (14,240 and counting) and the most centuries (49). His career test average is 56.96, the highest of any current player, and the tenth highest of all time (apart from the incredible Don Bradman, who had a career average of 99.94, just three cricketers have averages of over 60, and a further five above Tendulkar in the 50's).
However, he doesn't just reign supreme in the 5-day test arena, he is also brilliant at the one-day game (though comparisons with earlier times are impossible, since the 1-day game didn't get going until the 1970's). Again, he holds the records for the most international matches played (442, even though he doesn't always get picked nowadays), the most runs scored (17,598) and the most centuries (46). His career average of 45.12 is the eleventh best of all time.
Many great batsmen decline in form as they get older, as their reactions slow. The West Indian Viv Richards ended his career with an average of just over 50 - the mark of the truly great batsman - after many years in which it was closer to 60. Current Australian captain Ricky Ponting's average rose almost to the magical 60 a couple of years ago, but has since declined to below 55. Tendulkar himself had a pretty lean patch - by his standards - between 2002 and 2007, during which time a number of commentators urged him to retire. However, he has since come back with a vengeance, and has just been chosen as the International Cricket Council's cricketer of the year. In the recent 2-match series against Australia, which India won 2-0, he was man of the match in the second test, and man of the series, having scored more than 400 runs at the astonishing average of 134.5. Those records of his look like they will get even bigger.
Walter Blotscher
The Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketing phenomenon. He scored a century on his first class debut for Bombay at the age of 15, and was picked for his country while still only a 16-year old schoolboy. Now aged 37, he is still going strong. He holds the record for the most number of test matches played (171), the most runs scored (14,240 and counting) and the most centuries (49). His career test average is 56.96, the highest of any current player, and the tenth highest of all time (apart from the incredible Don Bradman, who had a career average of 99.94, just three cricketers have averages of over 60, and a further five above Tendulkar in the 50's).
However, he doesn't just reign supreme in the 5-day test arena, he is also brilliant at the one-day game (though comparisons with earlier times are impossible, since the 1-day game didn't get going until the 1970's). Again, he holds the records for the most international matches played (442, even though he doesn't always get picked nowadays), the most runs scored (17,598) and the most centuries (46). His career average of 45.12 is the eleventh best of all time.
Many great batsmen decline in form as they get older, as their reactions slow. The West Indian Viv Richards ended his career with an average of just over 50 - the mark of the truly great batsman - after many years in which it was closer to 60. Current Australian captain Ricky Ponting's average rose almost to the magical 60 a couple of years ago, but has since declined to below 55. Tendulkar himself had a pretty lean patch - by his standards - between 2002 and 2007, during which time a number of commentators urged him to retire. However, he has since come back with a vengeance, and has just been chosen as the International Cricket Council's cricketer of the year. In the recent 2-match series against Australia, which India won 2-0, he was man of the match in the second test, and man of the series, having scored more than 400 runs at the astonishing average of 134.5. Those records of his look like they will get even bigger.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 15 October 2010
MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
For a small country, Denmark has always had a sophisticated mortgage market. Most mortgages are supplied by credit unions, who cannot by law lend more than 80% of the value of a residential property and 60% of that of a commercial property. Other people - banks, insurance companies, individuals - can and do provide some of the rest, in return for a higher interest rate. But the credit unions always have the first security, thereby giving valued stability to the underlying mortgage market.
Since credit unions in turn issue long-dated bonds to the capital markets in order to fund these mortgages, it has always been possible to get a 20- or 30-year mortgage at a fixed interest rate. That compares with the supposedly more sophisticated financial markets in the U.K. (where floating rates are the norm) or the U.S. (where many fixed-rate mortgages only work because of an implicit or explicit government guarantee). When you buy a house here, the loans on it often pass with the transfer, if they are favourable; or, if not, the estate agent will arrange new ones for you. Indeed, the role of the estate agent in Denmark is much more that of a facilitator than of a mere transaction agent. To give an example, when we bought our house, the estate agent (as part of his service) arranged for the transfer of the utilities into our name, and organised the final meter readings.
In recent years, innovation in the mortgage market has come in two areas. First, it is now possible to have an interest-only mortgage for the first 10 years of its life. Secondly, you can have variable rate loans, in whole or in part. We have three loans on our house, each of them in the form of a "guarantee loan". The rates are variable, but there is a guaranteed maximum (for two of them 5%, for the third 6%), reflecting the coupon interest rate on the bond that the credit union originally issued. This gives us, essentially, a 1-way bet; if rates are low, we get the benefit, but rates can't ever rise above the maximum, no matter what happens over the next 25 years.
Because central banks are busily pumping liquidity into world markets at the moment, interest rates are currently very low. We have just received a letter saying that for the next 6 months, the coupon rate on the 5% guarantee loans will be 2.34% while that on the 6% guarantee loan will be a meagre 1.99%. That's about as low as it is possible to get. My sister-in-law has just moved into a tiny flat in the neighbouring village, and pays more in rent than we do on our mortgage.
But if life for borrowers is good at the moment, the other side of the interest rate coin is that it is not so good for savers and investors. My mother has had a bank widow's pension with one of the major U.K. banks ever since my father died in 1961. This year was the first year ever, that the pension was not increased.
Walter Blotscher
For a small country, Denmark has always had a sophisticated mortgage market. Most mortgages are supplied by credit unions, who cannot by law lend more than 80% of the value of a residential property and 60% of that of a commercial property. Other people - banks, insurance companies, individuals - can and do provide some of the rest, in return for a higher interest rate. But the credit unions always have the first security, thereby giving valued stability to the underlying mortgage market.
Since credit unions in turn issue long-dated bonds to the capital markets in order to fund these mortgages, it has always been possible to get a 20- or 30-year mortgage at a fixed interest rate. That compares with the supposedly more sophisticated financial markets in the U.K. (where floating rates are the norm) or the U.S. (where many fixed-rate mortgages only work because of an implicit or explicit government guarantee). When you buy a house here, the loans on it often pass with the transfer, if they are favourable; or, if not, the estate agent will arrange new ones for you. Indeed, the role of the estate agent in Denmark is much more that of a facilitator than of a mere transaction agent. To give an example, when we bought our house, the estate agent (as part of his service) arranged for the transfer of the utilities into our name, and organised the final meter readings.
In recent years, innovation in the mortgage market has come in two areas. First, it is now possible to have an interest-only mortgage for the first 10 years of its life. Secondly, you can have variable rate loans, in whole or in part. We have three loans on our house, each of them in the form of a "guarantee loan". The rates are variable, but there is a guaranteed maximum (for two of them 5%, for the third 6%), reflecting the coupon interest rate on the bond that the credit union originally issued. This gives us, essentially, a 1-way bet; if rates are low, we get the benefit, but rates can't ever rise above the maximum, no matter what happens over the next 25 years.
Because central banks are busily pumping liquidity into world markets at the moment, interest rates are currently very low. We have just received a letter saying that for the next 6 months, the coupon rate on the 5% guarantee loans will be 2.34% while that on the 6% guarantee loan will be a meagre 1.99%. That's about as low as it is possible to get. My sister-in-law has just moved into a tiny flat in the neighbouring village, and pays more in rent than we do on our mortgage.
But if life for borrowers is good at the moment, the other side of the interest rate coin is that it is not so good for savers and investors. My mother has had a bank widow's pension with one of the major U.K. banks ever since my father died in 1961. This year was the first year ever, that the pension was not increased.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 14 October 2010
THE CHILEAN MINE RESCUE
Mining is a dangerous business, even in modern times. And plenty of other people are killed in natural disasters of one kind or another. Yet it is hard not to be caught up in the rescue of 33 miners, who had spent a record-breaking 69 days underground, after a cave-in had trapped them 622 metres below the desert in Copiapo, Chile. There was something extraordinarily uplifting about it. Many of the miners felt it had been the work of God; but to me it showed the capability of the human spirit. Chile's President was surely right when he said that the country will never be the same again. Would that that same spirit was more on display in other parts of the world; as humanity, we need it.
Walter Blotscher
Mining is a dangerous business, even in modern times. And plenty of other people are killed in natural disasters of one kind or another. Yet it is hard not to be caught up in the rescue of 33 miners, who had spent a record-breaking 69 days underground, after a cave-in had trapped them 622 metres below the desert in Copiapo, Chile. There was something extraordinarily uplifting about it. Many of the miners felt it had been the work of God; but to me it showed the capability of the human spirit. Chile's President was surely right when he said that the country will never be the same again. Would that that same spirit was more on display in other parts of the world; as humanity, we need it.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 13 October 2010
DANISH VETERANS
Denmark is not used to being at war. The catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864 was the making of the country, both economically and socially, as the population turned inwards in the aftermath. Denmark stayed out of the First World War and was occupied for most of the Second. Nor did it have the large number of colonies that have provided fertile opportunities for military action during the past 50 years. Compare that record with (say) Britain, which during the same period took part in the Crimean War, the Zulu Wars and other 19th century colonial adventures, the Boer War, the First World War, the Irish Civil War, the Second World War, the Korean War, Malaya, the Mau Mau Rebellion, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and the Falkland Islands. Plus other bits and pieces along the way.
However, in this new century Denmark has been fighting alongside Britain and the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister at the time and now Secretary General of Nato, led the country into battle, but did not think through some of the consequences. An almost miraculous absence of casualties early on has led to the usual drip drip of young men returning home in coffins, or - in some ways worse - with horrific and lifelong injuries. Those injuries include psychological scarring and trauma. Yet until last year, when an annual Flag Day was introduced, Denmark had no official ceremony for remembering its military personnel (such as the annual 11 November Armistice Day in the U.K.) and no organisation for veterans akin to the British Legion or the US$90 billion U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Which makes today's belated announcement by the Government of a veterans' policy all the more welcome. True, a number of the 19 points in the programme are general in nature, waffly even (eg an investigation into the effects on soldiers' partners and children). And the money involved pales in comparison with that spent in other countries. But it is a start. Not least in the recognition that if a society decides to go to war, then there will be adverse consequences that that same society needs to face and deal with.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark is not used to being at war. The catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864 was the making of the country, both economically and socially, as the population turned inwards in the aftermath. Denmark stayed out of the First World War and was occupied for most of the Second. Nor did it have the large number of colonies that have provided fertile opportunities for military action during the past 50 years. Compare that record with (say) Britain, which during the same period took part in the Crimean War, the Zulu Wars and other 19th century colonial adventures, the Boer War, the First World War, the Irish Civil War, the Second World War, the Korean War, Malaya, the Mau Mau Rebellion, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and the Falkland Islands. Plus other bits and pieces along the way.
However, in this new century Denmark has been fighting alongside Britain and the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister at the time and now Secretary General of Nato, led the country into battle, but did not think through some of the consequences. An almost miraculous absence of casualties early on has led to the usual drip drip of young men returning home in coffins, or - in some ways worse - with horrific and lifelong injuries. Those injuries include psychological scarring and trauma. Yet until last year, when an annual Flag Day was introduced, Denmark had no official ceremony for remembering its military personnel (such as the annual 11 November Armistice Day in the U.K.) and no organisation for veterans akin to the British Legion or the US$90 billion U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Which makes today's belated announcement by the Government of a veterans' policy all the more welcome. True, a number of the 19 points in the programme are general in nature, waffly even (eg an investigation into the effects on soldiers' partners and children). And the money involved pales in comparison with that spent in other countries. But it is a start. Not least in the recognition that if a society decides to go to war, then there will be adverse consequences that that same society needs to face and deal with.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 12 October 2010
MANON LESCAUT
Last night my wife and I went to see Manon Lescaut, the opera by Puccini that was his first big success.
Opera is in many ways ridiculous. Characters fall instantly in love, and end up dying (though it usually takes a while, as they have to get through a couple of arias during the death throes). In Manon, the hero (des Grieux) and heroine (Manon) are, respectively, an impoverished student and an 18-year old waif. Yet the middle-aged tenor had a tummy three times the size of mine, while the soprano was built like a battleship. It strained credulity to see the young lovers rolling around on the bed in the second act, you feared for the bed.
Yet opera can also be brilliant and deeply moving. You need to have a fair amount of lung capacity to sing an opera role, which makes svelte singers rather rare. If I shut my eyes, the singing was wonderful, particularly in conjunction with some fantastic orchestral playing in the third and fourth acts. Yes, it was all over the top and melodramatic. But I loved it.
Walter Blotscher
Last night my wife and I went to see Manon Lescaut, the opera by Puccini that was his first big success.
Opera is in many ways ridiculous. Characters fall instantly in love, and end up dying (though it usually takes a while, as they have to get through a couple of arias during the death throes). In Manon, the hero (des Grieux) and heroine (Manon) are, respectively, an impoverished student and an 18-year old waif. Yet the middle-aged tenor had a tummy three times the size of mine, while the soprano was built like a battleship. It strained credulity to see the young lovers rolling around on the bed in the second act, you feared for the bed.
Yet opera can also be brilliant and deeply moving. You need to have a fair amount of lung capacity to sing an opera role, which makes svelte singers rather rare. If I shut my eyes, the singing was wonderful, particularly in conjunction with some fantastic orchestral playing in the third and fourth acts. Yes, it was all over the top and melodramatic. But I loved it.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 11 October 2010
GEERT WILDERS
The Dutch have been without a formal Government since February, when a coalition headed by the Christian Democrats' Jan Peter Balkenende collapsed after a row about the country's military involvement in Afghanistan.
The reason is simple; electoral arithmetic. The subsequent elections in June gave no plausible coalition permutation a majority in the 150-seat Parliament, not least because of a surge of support for Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which bagged 24 seats. Mr. Wilders is, to put it mildly, a divisive figure, an extreme right-wing politician who has not only campaigned for restrictions on immigration to the Netherlands and a tightening of rules for immigrants already in the country, but who has said some very strong things against Islam and the Koran. Indeed, so strong that he is currently on trial in Amsterdam for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
Despite that, he currently holds the balance of power in Dutch politics. After lengthy negotiations, the new Dutch Government will be a minority coalition of the Liberals under Mark Rutte (who will become Prime Minister) and the Christian Democrats, now led by Maxime Verhagen. Between them, they have only 52 seats; however, with Mr Wilders' 24, they will just manage to get to the threshold required for a majority of 76.
Mr. Rutte and Mr. Verhagen are betting that it is better to have Mr. Wilders inside the tent than outside; after all, one reason for his success is that Dutch voters are united in thinking that "something must be done" about immigration and integration. Yet the experience of Denmark should give them pause for thought. Since 2001, that country has also been run by a 2-party right of centre minority coalition, tacitly supported from outside the Government by the very right-wing and virulently anti-immigrant Danish People's Party. The DPP have played their hand with consummate skill, using Parliamentary arithmetic to get their pet causes passed into law, while managing to avoid being tarnished with messy things such as responsibility for the financial crisis and rising unemployment. The one constant trend in the last nine years has been a rise in the DPP's support, and a corresponding fall in that of the coalition's junior partner.
Mr. Wilders is certainly as good a demagogue as the DPP's leader Pia Kjaersgaard. If he is half as good a politician as her, then the Freedom Party can look forward to happy times. Whether the Dutch people can is of course another matter entirely.
Walter Blotscher
The Dutch have been without a formal Government since February, when a coalition headed by the Christian Democrats' Jan Peter Balkenende collapsed after a row about the country's military involvement in Afghanistan.
The reason is simple; electoral arithmetic. The subsequent elections in June gave no plausible coalition permutation a majority in the 150-seat Parliament, not least because of a surge of support for Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which bagged 24 seats. Mr. Wilders is, to put it mildly, a divisive figure, an extreme right-wing politician who has not only campaigned for restrictions on immigration to the Netherlands and a tightening of rules for immigrants already in the country, but who has said some very strong things against Islam and the Koran. Indeed, so strong that he is currently on trial in Amsterdam for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
Despite that, he currently holds the balance of power in Dutch politics. After lengthy negotiations, the new Dutch Government will be a minority coalition of the Liberals under Mark Rutte (who will become Prime Minister) and the Christian Democrats, now led by Maxime Verhagen. Between them, they have only 52 seats; however, with Mr Wilders' 24, they will just manage to get to the threshold required for a majority of 76.
Mr. Rutte and Mr. Verhagen are betting that it is better to have Mr. Wilders inside the tent than outside; after all, one reason for his success is that Dutch voters are united in thinking that "something must be done" about immigration and integration. Yet the experience of Denmark should give them pause for thought. Since 2001, that country has also been run by a 2-party right of centre minority coalition, tacitly supported from outside the Government by the very right-wing and virulently anti-immigrant Danish People's Party. The DPP have played their hand with consummate skill, using Parliamentary arithmetic to get their pet causes passed into law, while managing to avoid being tarnished with messy things such as responsibility for the financial crisis and rising unemployment. The one constant trend in the last nine years has been a rise in the DPP's support, and a corresponding fall in that of the coalition's junior partner.
Mr. Wilders is certainly as good a demagogue as the DPP's leader Pia Kjaersgaard. If he is half as good a politician as her, then the Freedom Party can look forward to happy times. Whether the Dutch people can is of course another matter entirely.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 10 October 2010
NEIGHBOURS (2)
Our new neighbours have just moved in, so my wife and I went round this morning to welcome them to the village. In accordance with local tradition, we gave them a gift, and they gave us coffee.
They seem very nice, a couple around 40. And we have already put out feelers for the sort of barter trade that you do with your neighbours. He can have some of my wood for his wood-burning stove, if he uses his chainsaw to help me cut up my trees. A good start.
Walter Blotscher
Our new neighbours have just moved in, so my wife and I went round this morning to welcome them to the village. In accordance with local tradition, we gave them a gift, and they gave us coffee.
They seem very nice, a couple around 40. And we have already put out feelers for the sort of barter trade that you do with your neighbours. He can have some of my wood for his wood-burning stove, if he uses his chainsaw to help me cut up my trees. A good start.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 9 October 2010
CONKERS
Danes don't play conkers. When I once asked my wife what they did with all those horse chestnuts lying around in the autumn, she looked at me blankly and said "nothing".
I was amazed. As a prep school boarder from the age of 7 to 10, I spent most of my time outside of lessons climbing trees, or playing football, tag, or hot rice (a game where the catchers had to hit the others below the knee with a tennis ball). In the summer, we exchanged football for cricket, where the ultimate thrill was to hit a six into the next door ruin of Ashby Castle, thereby making it a little bit more of a ruin and scaring the tourists at the same time. And for a magical month or two in the long autumn term, 120 boys were focussed 100% on conkers. My blazer pockets bulged with 10-20 newly gathered shiny specimens, which I would then surreptitiously skewer in class, by using my dividers. You pushed the string through, tied a knot, and hey presto, you were ready for action.
The rules of conkers are simple. You have three attempts to break the opponent's conker and knock it off the string. The opponent then has three attempts, and so on, until one player wins. A new conker is called a "none'er", and the winner takes the loser's score, plus one. So the winner of a fight between two none'ers becomes a one'er; and the winner between a three'er and a five'er becomes a nine'er (note that it is the conker that's the winner, not the player). I once owned a conker that was over a hundred'er.
A conker from the previous year returning to the battlefield was called a "laggie". These were usually gnarled, wizened things, rock hard, and sometimes illegally pickled in vinegar during the winter months or baked in the oven. Though even at that young age, there was a strong moral code; 9-year old conker owners caught cheating were shunned by other 9-year olds.
Ooh, I am getting goose bumps thinking about all of this again. There are plenty of conkers around here at the moment, the only problem is that I don't have anybody to play with!
Walter Blotscher
Danes don't play conkers. When I once asked my wife what they did with all those horse chestnuts lying around in the autumn, she looked at me blankly and said "nothing".
I was amazed. As a prep school boarder from the age of 7 to 10, I spent most of my time outside of lessons climbing trees, or playing football, tag, or hot rice (a game where the catchers had to hit the others below the knee with a tennis ball). In the summer, we exchanged football for cricket, where the ultimate thrill was to hit a six into the next door ruin of Ashby Castle, thereby making it a little bit more of a ruin and scaring the tourists at the same time. And for a magical month or two in the long autumn term, 120 boys were focussed 100% on conkers. My blazer pockets bulged with 10-20 newly gathered shiny specimens, which I would then surreptitiously skewer in class, by using my dividers. You pushed the string through, tied a knot, and hey presto, you were ready for action.
The rules of conkers are simple. You have three attempts to break the opponent's conker and knock it off the string. The opponent then has three attempts, and so on, until one player wins. A new conker is called a "none'er", and the winner takes the loser's score, plus one. So the winner of a fight between two none'ers becomes a one'er; and the winner between a three'er and a five'er becomes a nine'er (note that it is the conker that's the winner, not the player). I once owned a conker that was over a hundred'er.
A conker from the previous year returning to the battlefield was called a "laggie". These were usually gnarled, wizened things, rock hard, and sometimes illegally pickled in vinegar during the winter months or baked in the oven. Though even at that young age, there was a strong moral code; 9-year old conker owners caught cheating were shunned by other 9-year olds.
Ooh, I am getting goose bumps thinking about all of this again. There are plenty of conkers around here at the moment, the only problem is that I don't have anybody to play with!
Walter Blotscher
Friday 8 October 2010
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE E.U.
William Hague, the British coalition Government's Conservative Foreign Secretary, announced at his party's annual conference this week that a "sovereignty clause" would be introduced into an E.U. bill later this year. According to Mr. Hague, such a clause would "place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo". This would thereby underline that ultimate sovereignty over E.U. law rests with the British Parliament.
Standing under a huge conference banner which read "together in the national interest", this proposal got thunderous applause. The Conservative Party has always been big on sovereignty, despite the fact that it was Ted Heath who took Britain into the E.U., Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act, and John Major who oversaw the Maastricht Treaty. Yet applause from the party faithful is one thing; what will Mr Hague's proposed sovereignty clause really mean in practice?
In any overlapping political-legal system, there must be clear rules about which part of the system takes precedence when there is a conflict. The European Court of Justice, the legal guardian of the E.U. system, has long been clear in its own mind about what should prevail. Ever since the famous case of Costa v. ENEL in 1964, it has consistently held that E.U. law should have supremacy over the national laws of the Member States. Various national constitutional courts, notably Germany's, have not always accepted this principle in theory; in the so-called Solange ("as long as") rulings, the German constitutional court said that it would only accept E.U. supremacy as long as the E.U. in its turn accepted the principles behind the German constitution. But since the E.U. does accept those principles, the practical effect is that E.U. law does take precedence over German domestic law.
What about the U.K., which has no formal written constitution and no constitutional court to interpret one? Unlike in some other countries, the signing of a treaty by the Government has no legal effect; so when Britain joined what later became the E.U., Parliament had to enact the European Communities Act 1972 in order to give effect to the Treaty of Rome and other E.U. legislation. Given its potential effect, the 1972 Act is a remarkably short document, with only two real sections. S.2 incorporates the E.U. treaties and other stuff lock, stock and barrel into U.K. law; while S.3 makes it clear that ultimate interpretation of the legal effect of them rests with the ECJ and its case law (including Costa v. Enel). In particular, unless a legal issue involving E.U. law is absolutely clearcut (a so-called "acte clair"), a lower court may, and a domestic court of final appeal must, refer the matter to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Taken together, all that gave E.U. law precedence over domestic law.
British judges were quick to work this out. But British politicians and the British public were not. There were various mutterings and raised eyebrows during the next 15 years; but it was not until the celebrated Factortame case reached the House of Lords in 1989 that the sovereignty issue fully exploded.
Spain and Portugal joined the E.U. in 1986. At the time, Spain had the community's largest fishing fleet, and Spaniards felt constrained by the reduced fishing quotas that had been enacted in order to preserve fish stocks. So they started establishing companies in the U.K. (of which Factortame Ltd was one of many), which owned and operated fishing vessels that could take advantage of the U.K. quota. Under the old merchant shipping act, a fishing vessel was British if it was owned by a British company (which Factortame and the others were). However, after complaints from British fishermen, Parliament passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which defined a fishing vessel as British only if the British company that owned it was itself owned at least 75% by British citizens. Factortame and the other companies went to court to get this new law set aside, on the grounds that it breached the community principle that people could set up companies and businesses wherever they liked.
The High Court said that this was a matter of E.U. law, and so asked the ECJ for a ruling. However, since this would take about 2 years, Factortame also asked the court for an injunction against the Government to have the new rules temporarily set aside (on the grounds that if they could not fish for two years, then they would go bust). The Divisional Court granted the injunction, and it was this decision that was eventually appealed to the House of Lords in what became known as Factortame 1.
Factortame 1 is one of the great British constitutional law cases, and should be required reading for anyone with an interest in Britain and its relationship with the E.U. (i.e. every voter). In the unanimously agreed single speech, Lord Bridge had to answer the question whether an English court of law could issue an injunction setting aside a validly passed Act of Parliament. He said two things. Under English law, no. Secondly, however, since 1972 the U.K. had also operated under E.U. law. The injunction involved a matter of E.U. law; and under the terms of E.U. law, the House of Lords being a domestic court of final appeal, he was bound to hand the question over to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ duly held that E.U. law must be upheld, even if that meant overturning long-cherished notions and principles of domestic law. The House of Lords went on to uphold that decision (and the injunction) in Factortame 2. Put shortly, E.U. law prevailed.
(That was by no means the end of the Factortame saga. There was then the question whether the Government should compensate the companies involved for their losses, and that also went to the House of Lords and ECJ; the answer was yes. Adding on various subsidiary issues, the litigation dragged on for over a decade.)
Back to Mr. Hague and his sovereignty clause. In the same conference speech, he also said that the clause "will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law". But if it doesn't alter the existing order, what does it do? The only plausible thing a sovereign British Parliament could "undo" without altering the existing order would be to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and take Britain out of the E.U. That is indeed theoretically possible; but is the only thing in this whole debate that ain't going to happen. And if it ain't going to happen, where is the real sovereignty? Mr. Hague is simply playing to the gallery of the Tory faithful.
That view is reinforced by the other measure he announced. The E.U. bill will also include a supposed "referendum lock", meaning that there has to be a referendum before any further treaties are signed transfering powers from Westminster to Brussels. However, unlike the E.U. issue, that measure is something that can simply be reversed by a future British Parliament without a problem. It's a lock that remains locked only as long as Parliament wishes to keep it locked.
In his brilliant book "This Blessed Plot", former columnist Hugo Young castigated British Governments of all complexions for not being honest with their electorates about what the E.U. project represented, and how it worked in practice. I am sure he will be chuckling in his grave at Mr. Hague's new antics.
Walter Blotscher
William Hague, the British coalition Government's Conservative Foreign Secretary, announced at his party's annual conference this week that a "sovereignty clause" would be introduced into an E.U. bill later this year. According to Mr. Hague, such a clause would "place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo". This would thereby underline that ultimate sovereignty over E.U. law rests with the British Parliament.
Standing under a huge conference banner which read "together in the national interest", this proposal got thunderous applause. The Conservative Party has always been big on sovereignty, despite the fact that it was Ted Heath who took Britain into the E.U., Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act, and John Major who oversaw the Maastricht Treaty. Yet applause from the party faithful is one thing; what will Mr Hague's proposed sovereignty clause really mean in practice?
In any overlapping political-legal system, there must be clear rules about which part of the system takes precedence when there is a conflict. The European Court of Justice, the legal guardian of the E.U. system, has long been clear in its own mind about what should prevail. Ever since the famous case of Costa v. ENEL in 1964, it has consistently held that E.U. law should have supremacy over the national laws of the Member States. Various national constitutional courts, notably Germany's, have not always accepted this principle in theory; in the so-called Solange ("as long as") rulings, the German constitutional court said that it would only accept E.U. supremacy as long as the E.U. in its turn accepted the principles behind the German constitution. But since the E.U. does accept those principles, the practical effect is that E.U. law does take precedence over German domestic law.
What about the U.K., which has no formal written constitution and no constitutional court to interpret one? Unlike in some other countries, the signing of a treaty by the Government has no legal effect; so when Britain joined what later became the E.U., Parliament had to enact the European Communities Act 1972 in order to give effect to the Treaty of Rome and other E.U. legislation. Given its potential effect, the 1972 Act is a remarkably short document, with only two real sections. S.2 incorporates the E.U. treaties and other stuff lock, stock and barrel into U.K. law; while S.3 makes it clear that ultimate interpretation of the legal effect of them rests with the ECJ and its case law (including Costa v. Enel). In particular, unless a legal issue involving E.U. law is absolutely clearcut (a so-called "acte clair"), a lower court may, and a domestic court of final appeal must, refer the matter to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Taken together, all that gave E.U. law precedence over domestic law.
British judges were quick to work this out. But British politicians and the British public were not. There were various mutterings and raised eyebrows during the next 15 years; but it was not until the celebrated Factortame case reached the House of Lords in 1989 that the sovereignty issue fully exploded.
Spain and Portugal joined the E.U. in 1986. At the time, Spain had the community's largest fishing fleet, and Spaniards felt constrained by the reduced fishing quotas that had been enacted in order to preserve fish stocks. So they started establishing companies in the U.K. (of which Factortame Ltd was one of many), which owned and operated fishing vessels that could take advantage of the U.K. quota. Under the old merchant shipping act, a fishing vessel was British if it was owned by a British company (which Factortame and the others were). However, after complaints from British fishermen, Parliament passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which defined a fishing vessel as British only if the British company that owned it was itself owned at least 75% by British citizens. Factortame and the other companies went to court to get this new law set aside, on the grounds that it breached the community principle that people could set up companies and businesses wherever they liked.
The High Court said that this was a matter of E.U. law, and so asked the ECJ for a ruling. However, since this would take about 2 years, Factortame also asked the court for an injunction against the Government to have the new rules temporarily set aside (on the grounds that if they could not fish for two years, then they would go bust). The Divisional Court granted the injunction, and it was this decision that was eventually appealed to the House of Lords in what became known as Factortame 1.
Factortame 1 is one of the great British constitutional law cases, and should be required reading for anyone with an interest in Britain and its relationship with the E.U. (i.e. every voter). In the unanimously agreed single speech, Lord Bridge had to answer the question whether an English court of law could issue an injunction setting aside a validly passed Act of Parliament. He said two things. Under English law, no. Secondly, however, since 1972 the U.K. had also operated under E.U. law. The injunction involved a matter of E.U. law; and under the terms of E.U. law, the House of Lords being a domestic court of final appeal, he was bound to hand the question over to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ duly held that E.U. law must be upheld, even if that meant overturning long-cherished notions and principles of domestic law. The House of Lords went on to uphold that decision (and the injunction) in Factortame 2. Put shortly, E.U. law prevailed.
(That was by no means the end of the Factortame saga. There was then the question whether the Government should compensate the companies involved for their losses, and that also went to the House of Lords and ECJ; the answer was yes. Adding on various subsidiary issues, the litigation dragged on for over a decade.)
Back to Mr. Hague and his sovereignty clause. In the same conference speech, he also said that the clause "will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law". But if it doesn't alter the existing order, what does it do? The only plausible thing a sovereign British Parliament could "undo" without altering the existing order would be to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and take Britain out of the E.U. That is indeed theoretically possible; but is the only thing in this whole debate that ain't going to happen. And if it ain't going to happen, where is the real sovereignty? Mr. Hague is simply playing to the gallery of the Tory faithful.
That view is reinforced by the other measure he announced. The E.U. bill will also include a supposed "referendum lock", meaning that there has to be a referendum before any further treaties are signed transfering powers from Westminster to Brussels. However, unlike the E.U. issue, that measure is something that can simply be reversed by a future British Parliament without a problem. It's a lock that remains locked only as long as Parliament wishes to keep it locked.
In his brilliant book "This Blessed Plot", former columnist Hugo Young castigated British Governments of all complexions for not being honest with their electorates about what the E.U. project represented, and how it worked in practice. I am sure he will be chuckling in his grave at Mr. Hague's new antics.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 7 October 2010
Wednesday 6 October 2010
CLOTHES AND POLITICS
Clothes have always had a sexual element to them (think men's codpieces and hose, or women's high heels and cleavages). But it seems that they are also getting more politicised.
On this side of the Atlantic, politicians in various countries are attempting to ban the burqa and niqab on the grounds that they are too modest and restrict women's freedom. Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, a young woman in Brazil was expelled from a private university in Brazil for wearing a minidress that was too immodest and gave her too much freedom.
True, the Brazilian university backed down and readmitted 21-year old Geisy Arruda. It was also subsequently ordered by a court to pay her US$23,600 in compensation, a sum which this modestly clad non-Brazilian thought outrageously high. But not high enough for her "trampled dignity"; her lawyers are planning an appeal.
Yes, there is a trend towards the politicisation of clothing. But it is still a long way behind the trend of litigious disputes.
Walter Blotscher
Clothes have always had a sexual element to them (think men's codpieces and hose, or women's high heels and cleavages). But it seems that they are also getting more politicised.
On this side of the Atlantic, politicians in various countries are attempting to ban the burqa and niqab on the grounds that they are too modest and restrict women's freedom. Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, a young woman in Brazil was expelled from a private university in Brazil for wearing a minidress that was too immodest and gave her too much freedom.
True, the Brazilian university backed down and readmitted 21-year old Geisy Arruda. It was also subsequently ordered by a court to pay her US$23,600 in compensation, a sum which this modestly clad non-Brazilian thought outrageously high. But not high enough for her "trampled dignity"; her lawyers are planning an appeal.
Yes, there is a trend towards the politicisation of clothing. But it is still a long way behind the trend of litigious disputes.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 5 October 2010
AUTUMN LEAVES
The leaves have begun to fall. Yes, they look very pretty, all those russets and golds (when else do people use the word russet?). However, if you live next to a wood, and under the shade of a big beech tree, then they can quickly become a bit of a pain. Dry leaves simply wither away to nothing over time; but wet leaves in gutterings turn into a swampy mess that requires said gutterings to be unblocked (by me). I was up a ladder in August unblocking them all, and they are already full to bursting again. So I will have to go up again before long. The only difference this time is that the blocked water in them will be ten degrees colder.
There are also an awful lot of them. I was reminded of this when I trimmed our hedge this afternoon. My wife cheerily announced that she wanted the height of the hedge reduced by a foot or so, so that she had a better view from the dining room window. When we bought this house, we inherited a large number of farm and gardening implements, including an electric hedge trimmer; so I could hardly plead a lack of tools in order to get out of doing it. Little did I realise just how hard on the forearms it is to reduce the height of a 30 metre long hedge, or just how many barrowloads of twigs and leaves it produces. Thankfully, you only have to trim it twice a year.
Still, my wife was pleased. Which I suppose is compensation enough. Now she is just waiting for me to clear out the guttering ......
Walter Blotscher
The leaves have begun to fall. Yes, they look very pretty, all those russets and golds (when else do people use the word russet?). However, if you live next to a wood, and under the shade of a big beech tree, then they can quickly become a bit of a pain. Dry leaves simply wither away to nothing over time; but wet leaves in gutterings turn into a swampy mess that requires said gutterings to be unblocked (by me). I was up a ladder in August unblocking them all, and they are already full to bursting again. So I will have to go up again before long. The only difference this time is that the blocked water in them will be ten degrees colder.
There are also an awful lot of them. I was reminded of this when I trimmed our hedge this afternoon. My wife cheerily announced that she wanted the height of the hedge reduced by a foot or so, so that she had a better view from the dining room window. When we bought this house, we inherited a large number of farm and gardening implements, including an electric hedge trimmer; so I could hardly plead a lack of tools in order to get out of doing it. Little did I realise just how hard on the forearms it is to reduce the height of a 30 metre long hedge, or just how many barrowloads of twigs and leaves it produces. Thankfully, you only have to trim it twice a year.
Still, my wife was pleased. Which I suppose is compensation enough. Now she is just waiting for me to clear out the guttering ......
Walter Blotscher
Monday 4 October 2010
CCTV CAMERAS
I hired a car this time I went to the U.K. Which meant I had plenty of opportunity to observe at first hand how many CCTV ("Closed Circuit Television") cameras there are in the country.
They are everywhere. In car parks, shopping malls, individual stores, city centre streets, and (most relevant for motorists) on many, if not most, main roads. You are for ever moving from one speed-controlled area to another, accompanied by a warning that speed cameras will be waiting for you at some point (which they duly are).
This plethora of cameras, and the fines that accompany breaches of the rules, almost certainly reduce speed and the number of deaths on the road (though by how much and at what cost is not very clear). If true, then that is a good thing. However, the move to a "Big Brother" society is not, in my view. Britain has one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras in the world. A year ago, it was calculated that there were more than 4.2 million cameras in the country, more than the whole of control-obsessed China, and one for every 14 people; the total today will be higher. On an average day, an average person is estimated to be caught on camera at least 300 times. To what end? Proponents will point to examples such as the perpetrators of the London Tube bombings in 2005, who were caught on camera at a suburban railway station on their way to the capital. But there is a difference in my view between large public spaces such as railway stations, and individual shop fronts.
There will always be a tension between the need for security and the desire for freedom (and its associate, privacy). But we should be careful in allowing an erosion of the latter in the name of the former. After all, CCTV cameras did not stop the London bombers from carrying out their design, they merely speeded up the process of identification; by which time, it was too late.
Walter Blotscher
I hired a car this time I went to the U.K. Which meant I had plenty of opportunity to observe at first hand how many CCTV ("Closed Circuit Television") cameras there are in the country.
They are everywhere. In car parks, shopping malls, individual stores, city centre streets, and (most relevant for motorists) on many, if not most, main roads. You are for ever moving from one speed-controlled area to another, accompanied by a warning that speed cameras will be waiting for you at some point (which they duly are).
This plethora of cameras, and the fines that accompany breaches of the rules, almost certainly reduce speed and the number of deaths on the road (though by how much and at what cost is not very clear). If true, then that is a good thing. However, the move to a "Big Brother" society is not, in my view. Britain has one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras in the world. A year ago, it was calculated that there were more than 4.2 million cameras in the country, more than the whole of control-obsessed China, and one for every 14 people; the total today will be higher. On an average day, an average person is estimated to be caught on camera at least 300 times. To what end? Proponents will point to examples such as the perpetrators of the London Tube bombings in 2005, who were caught on camera at a suburban railway station on their way to the capital. But there is a difference in my view between large public spaces such as railway stations, and individual shop fronts.
There will always be a tension between the need for security and the desire for freedom (and its associate, privacy). But we should be careful in allowing an erosion of the latter in the name of the former. After all, CCTV cameras did not stop the London bombers from carrying out their design, they merely speeded up the process of identification; by which time, it was too late.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 2 October 2010
AIRCRAFT SUBSIDIES
Should Governments subsidise the development of new commercial aircraft? That question is prompted by the recent ruling by the World Trade Organisation that Boeing receives illegal subsidies from the U.S. Government, mainly in the form of research grants channelled through the Defence Department. It follows an earlier ruling by the WTO in June that Boeing's arch-rival Airbus also receives illegal subsidies, in the form of launch aid from its shareholder governments. Since Boeing and Airbus dominate the passenger jet market, particularly for planes with more than 100 seats, that effectively means that the whole industry is subsidised.
The traditional industry argument for subsidies is simple. Large aircraft are undoubtedly expensive, so the risks of developing a new one are large, far too large for any one company to bear. Hence the need for governmental support. However, apart from the fact that that support is, under the WTO rules that everybody purports to uphold, illegal, there are two counterarguments. First, if all governments are subsidising, then the benefits tend to cancel each other out. Anecdotedly, that appears to be true. Yes, Airbus has managed to grab half of the market for big passenger jets in recent years; but that means that Boeing still has the other half.
More fundamentally, are those risks really so large? Compared with (say) introducing new car models worldwide, or a new computer chip, or a new drug, or a new nuclear power plant design? A new drug may turn out to be ineffective or have horrible side effects (i.e. demand will, literally, be zero). Yet air travel is booming, particularly in Asia; furthermore, both the number of people in the world and their desire to travel seems set to keep on growing (i.e. demand is, and will be, strong). True, airlines still have to pick one manufacturer's product over that of another. But there aren't that many manufacturers to choose from, airlines tend (for maintenance reasons) to stick with one manufacturer over time, and no manufacturer starts developing a new aircraft before it has carried out exhaustive market research amongst its existing airline clients. Not all of those factors apply in other business sectors.
Against that background, the WTO's two rulings come at exactly the right time. Smaller manufacturers of regional (50-100 seat) aircraft (eg Embraer of Brazil and Bombardier of Canada) are gearing up to start building bigger planes. A clear message that they have to do it on their own, withut government support, is to be welcomed. Governments can then use the savings to finance things that governments ought to support.
Walter Blotscher
Should Governments subsidise the development of new commercial aircraft? That question is prompted by the recent ruling by the World Trade Organisation that Boeing receives illegal subsidies from the U.S. Government, mainly in the form of research grants channelled through the Defence Department. It follows an earlier ruling by the WTO in June that Boeing's arch-rival Airbus also receives illegal subsidies, in the form of launch aid from its shareholder governments. Since Boeing and Airbus dominate the passenger jet market, particularly for planes with more than 100 seats, that effectively means that the whole industry is subsidised.
The traditional industry argument for subsidies is simple. Large aircraft are undoubtedly expensive, so the risks of developing a new one are large, far too large for any one company to bear. Hence the need for governmental support. However, apart from the fact that that support is, under the WTO rules that everybody purports to uphold, illegal, there are two counterarguments. First, if all governments are subsidising, then the benefits tend to cancel each other out. Anecdotedly, that appears to be true. Yes, Airbus has managed to grab half of the market for big passenger jets in recent years; but that means that Boeing still has the other half.
More fundamentally, are those risks really so large? Compared with (say) introducing new car models worldwide, or a new computer chip, or a new drug, or a new nuclear power plant design? A new drug may turn out to be ineffective or have horrible side effects (i.e. demand will, literally, be zero). Yet air travel is booming, particularly in Asia; furthermore, both the number of people in the world and their desire to travel seems set to keep on growing (i.e. demand is, and will be, strong). True, airlines still have to pick one manufacturer's product over that of another. But there aren't that many manufacturers to choose from, airlines tend (for maintenance reasons) to stick with one manufacturer over time, and no manufacturer starts developing a new aircraft before it has carried out exhaustive market research amongst its existing airline clients. Not all of those factors apply in other business sectors.
Against that background, the WTO's two rulings come at exactly the right time. Smaller manufacturers of regional (50-100 seat) aircraft (eg Embraer of Brazil and Bombardier of Canada) are gearing up to start building bigger planes. A clear message that they have to do it on their own, withut government support, is to be welcomed. Governments can then use the savings to finance things that governments ought to support.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 1 October 2010
HADDON HALL AND BAKEWELL PUDDING
I took my mum to see Haddon Hall the other day. Located on a bend of the River Wye a couple of miles from Bakewell in Derbyshire, it is one of the best preserved fortified manor houses in the country. Parts of it date back to the twelfth century, and there are mediaeval rooms, replete with original tapestries and lovely wooden wall-panelling. The 17th century civil war in England led to the ruin of many such homes through cannon fire; but the Manners family, Dukes of Rutland then and now, were influential in the Peak District area, and somehow managed to stay neutral. However, after they decided to concentrate their energies on the ducal seat, the much larger Belvoir Castle, Haddon Hall fell into disuse. The house and gardens were not finally restored until the 1920's.
Some old castles are a bit disappointing, either because there is not much to see, or because there are too many people trying to see it at the same time. But Haddon is a bit off the beaten track, and there is a lot to see. The chapel, with newly rediscovered frescoes (Reformation Protestants took exception to painting in churches and whitewashed over them), the hall, the kitchens, the master bedroom, the dining room, an upstairs walking gallery (so-called, because it was here that Elizabethan women took their exercise), and lovely terraced rose gardens overlooking the river. There was also a great video on how to cook food in Tudor times, and which explained the origin of the expression "to eat humble pie". The humbles are apparently the innards of a deer, which used to be put in a pie and eaten by the servants, while the rich folk ate the venison. You learn something every day ....
Afterwards, my mum took me for tea in Bakewell, a lovely old market town in the heart of the Derbyshire Dales, which still has many well-preserved stone buildings. In the bakery where the first Bakewell pudding was made, I had a cream tea consisting of tea, scone with butter, jam and cream, and one of these puddings. They are made of flaky pastry with a layer of jam, and an egg and almond filling that sets like custard (the better known Bakewell tart, which in fact originates from America, is a sort of pre-fab version). It was more than a bit piggy, not least because I also had half of my mum's. But you should be allowed to be piggy once in a while, particularly if you have done some serious historical studying beforehand.
Walter Blotscher
I took my mum to see Haddon Hall the other day. Located on a bend of the River Wye a couple of miles from Bakewell in Derbyshire, it is one of the best preserved fortified manor houses in the country. Parts of it date back to the twelfth century, and there are mediaeval rooms, replete with original tapestries and lovely wooden wall-panelling. The 17th century civil war in England led to the ruin of many such homes through cannon fire; but the Manners family, Dukes of Rutland then and now, were influential in the Peak District area, and somehow managed to stay neutral. However, after they decided to concentrate their energies on the ducal seat, the much larger Belvoir Castle, Haddon Hall fell into disuse. The house and gardens were not finally restored until the 1920's.
Some old castles are a bit disappointing, either because there is not much to see, or because there are too many people trying to see it at the same time. But Haddon is a bit off the beaten track, and there is a lot to see. The chapel, with newly rediscovered frescoes (Reformation Protestants took exception to painting in churches and whitewashed over them), the hall, the kitchens, the master bedroom, the dining room, an upstairs walking gallery (so-called, because it was here that Elizabethan women took their exercise), and lovely terraced rose gardens overlooking the river. There was also a great video on how to cook food in Tudor times, and which explained the origin of the expression "to eat humble pie". The humbles are apparently the innards of a deer, which used to be put in a pie and eaten by the servants, while the rich folk ate the venison. You learn something every day ....
Afterwards, my mum took me for tea in Bakewell, a lovely old market town in the heart of the Derbyshire Dales, which still has many well-preserved stone buildings. In the bakery where the first Bakewell pudding was made, I had a cream tea consisting of tea, scone with butter, jam and cream, and one of these puddings. They are made of flaky pastry with a layer of jam, and an egg and almond filling that sets like custard (the better known Bakewell tart, which in fact originates from America, is a sort of pre-fab version). It was more than a bit piggy, not least because I also had half of my mum's. But you should be allowed to be piggy once in a while, particularly if you have done some serious historical studying beforehand.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
