WIKILEAKS
It is hard to know what to say about Wikileaks. The main difficulty is that in an age that demands almost instantaneous responses, it is impossible to read hundreds of thousands of documents in the space of 24 hours.
However, bearing that caveat in mind, I do have some thoughts.
1. When the world's powers unite in condemning you, sometimes in almost apocalyptic terms, then you know that you have hit a raw nerve.
2. That impression is reinforced by said powers' almost universal statement that Wikileaks' actions are a threat to national security, which puts citizens' lives at risk. Invoking national security is a typical trick by the powerful, since - by definition - it cannot be challenged; to answer would be to put lives at risk etc etc. Nobody ever says exactly who would be put at risk, or by whom, or in what way. It is a bit like the mediæval church's invocation of the devil to rebut all difficult questions.
3. If, in a particular case, we don't know whether to lean towards openness or secrecy, I think we should lean towards openness. Edmund Burke once said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". In other words, we need people actively to hold authorities to account. Bodies such as Wikileaks may well get it wrong from time to time, that is one of the risks; but better that than that nobody does it.
4. That becomes relevant when you stop to consider that some of the things that Governments (particularly the American Government) have done, or have thought about doing, would be illegal - and punished as such - if done by private citizens. A good example is spying.
5. More generally, the decade of the noughties showed what happens when powerful people push their own agendas and ordinary citizens and/or Parliaments acquiesce. The world got itself into two major conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), both of which were futile and hugely costly in terms of lives and resources, and at least one of which was illegal. If, by publishing documents about these conflicts, Wikileaks has made it more likely that political leaders will think twice before doing such things in the future, then they will have done the world - in other words, all of us - a favour.
Finally, we should spare a thought for the person/people who actually gave Wikileaks the documents. In the same way as the mediæval church was ferocious in its persecution of heretics, fellow Christians who simply disagreed with the political powers in some way, so the world's "free" countries will be ferocious with the leaker(s) if and when they catch them. Freedom apparently does not mean freedom to criticise.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Monday 29 November 2010
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
It is interesting how political parties change over time. Take the Republicans and Democrats, who, since the former's founding in 1854, have (with only minor changes from time to time) provided the 2-party political system in the United States.
In the mid-1850's the Democrats were the biggest party overall, and they dominated the South. As such, they were either actively pro-slavery or tolerant of it. They were also against protectionist tariffs on trade, since the core of the Southern economy was cotton, much of which was exported, whereas tariffs were generally placed on manufactured goods, many of which the South had to import, using their cotton earnings. The Republicans, on the other hand, gathered up the remnants of former parties such as the Whigs, in a shared dislike of slavery, a dislike which developed into Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War, and a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery in its immediate aftermath. They were an exclusively Northern party to start with, and they supported protectionist tariffs, seeing them as a boost to manufacturing industry, of which the bulk was in the North.
Fast forward to 2010. Very few Afro-Americans now vote for the party of Lincoln, with 90%+ supporting the Democrats, as exemplified by President Barack Obama. Today it is the Republicans who are more likely to be free traders, and the Democrats to be supporters of tariffs, and other forms of protectionism. And in terms of geography, it is the Republicans who dominate the South, while the Democrats are strongest in Northern areas such as New England.
In short, although the parties have the same names as 150 years ago, they have been turned upside down.
Walter Blotscher
It is interesting how political parties change over time. Take the Republicans and Democrats, who, since the former's founding in 1854, have (with only minor changes from time to time) provided the 2-party political system in the United States.
In the mid-1850's the Democrats were the biggest party overall, and they dominated the South. As such, they were either actively pro-slavery or tolerant of it. They were also against protectionist tariffs on trade, since the core of the Southern economy was cotton, much of which was exported, whereas tariffs were generally placed on manufactured goods, many of which the South had to import, using their cotton earnings. The Republicans, on the other hand, gathered up the remnants of former parties such as the Whigs, in a shared dislike of slavery, a dislike which developed into Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War, and a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery in its immediate aftermath. They were an exclusively Northern party to start with, and they supported protectionist tariffs, seeing them as a boost to manufacturing industry, of which the bulk was in the North.
Fast forward to 2010. Very few Afro-Americans now vote for the party of Lincoln, with 90%+ supporting the Democrats, as exemplified by President Barack Obama. Today it is the Republicans who are more likely to be free traders, and the Democrats to be supporters of tariffs, and other forms of protectionism. And in terms of geography, it is the Republicans who dominate the South, while the Democrats are strongest in Northern areas such as New England.
In short, although the parties have the same names as 150 years ago, they have been turned upside down.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 28 November 2010
MOLE WARFARE (4)
When the ground is frozen, as it is at the moment, the Mole Army faces a difficult choice. It can either dig deep, which is safe, but hard work. Or it can use existing well-worn tunnels, which is easy, but makes the moles dead ducks (or, rather, dead moles) for an experienced general such as myself.
And so it proved. Last night I nabbed one on the way out of the compost heap on the main supply route into the wood. Am I good or am I good?
Walter Blotscher
When the ground is frozen, as it is at the moment, the Mole Army faces a difficult choice. It can either dig deep, which is safe, but hard work. Or it can use existing well-worn tunnels, which is easy, but makes the moles dead ducks (or, rather, dead moles) for an experienced general such as myself.
And so it proved. Last night I nabbed one on the way out of the compost heap on the main supply route into the wood. Am I good or am I good?
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 27 November 2010
UNLUCKY OR WHAT?
The weather is bad here at the moment, with freezing cold and lots of unseasonal snow. That combination results in lots of road accidents. But one farmer must be thinking himself particularly unlucky. His farm stands on a T-junction at the bottom of a hill. During the night no less than 4 different vehicles came slithering down the hill, couldn't turn to either left or right, and ploughed straight into his building. Given what had happened, he was taking it pretty well, when interviewed on the news this evening. I am not sure I would have been quite so relaxed.
Walter Blotscher
The weather is bad here at the moment, with freezing cold and lots of unseasonal snow. That combination results in lots of road accidents. But one farmer must be thinking himself particularly unlucky. His farm stands on a T-junction at the bottom of a hill. During the night no less than 4 different vehicles came slithering down the hill, couldn't turn to either left or right, and ploughed straight into his building. Given what had happened, he was taking it pretty well, when interviewed on the news this evening. I am not sure I would have been quite so relaxed.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 26 November 2010
WINTER (2)
This morning I woke up to a white world, gently falling snow and bitter cold. It is not supposed to snow in Denmark in November; but it is icy up in Northern Norway and Sweden at the moment (minus 21C in Kiruna this week), and that is affecting us here. With a strong easterly/north-easterly wind, it is not pleasant to be outdoors.
Whenever snow comes, people seem to be unprepared. There is a frantic rush to change from summer to winter tyres, the number of traffic accidents skyrockets, drivers get stuck in their cars. It is almost as if it has never happened before.
I kept warm this afternoon by bashing out an old concrete pigsty in the barn with a sledgehammer. With temperatures set to stay well below zero for at least a week, I expect I will be doing more of that sort of thing.
Walter Blotscher
This morning I woke up to a white world, gently falling snow and bitter cold. It is not supposed to snow in Denmark in November; but it is icy up in Northern Norway and Sweden at the moment (minus 21C in Kiruna this week), and that is affecting us here. With a strong easterly/north-easterly wind, it is not pleasant to be outdoors.
Whenever snow comes, people seem to be unprepared. There is a frantic rush to change from summer to winter tyres, the number of traffic accidents skyrockets, drivers get stuck in their cars. It is almost as if it has never happened before.
I kept warm this afternoon by bashing out an old concrete pigsty in the barn with a sledgehammer. With temperatures set to stay well below zero for at least a week, I expect I will be doing more of that sort of thing.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 25 November 2010
THE LOCAL CINEMA
After watching Inception at my local cinema the other week, I have been back the past two Thursdays with my daughter.
Last week we saw a pastiche of the Twilight books and films called Vampires Suck. With judicious editing, the trailer had looked quite funny. The reality was different. It was not quite the worst film I have ever seen, but close. The verdict? Vampires Suck sucks.
Tonight we saw Salt with Angelina Jolie. This had a somewhat old-fashioned plot about Russian moles in the CIA, sleeping for long periods of time before emerging to wreak havoc; and was full of cross and double-cross and double-double-cross. The difference from similar films of 30 years ago was the action scenes, with more sophisticated weaponry and souped-up pyrotechnics. The film also ended in a way, which easily allows for a sequel Salt II if audiences have shown that they like the first one. I have never been a great fan of Ms. Jolie, but it was good entertainment on a cold winter's evening.
Walter Blotscher
After watching Inception at my local cinema the other week, I have been back the past two Thursdays with my daughter.
Last week we saw a pastiche of the Twilight books and films called Vampires Suck. With judicious editing, the trailer had looked quite funny. The reality was different. It was not quite the worst film I have ever seen, but close. The verdict? Vampires Suck sucks.
Tonight we saw Salt with Angelina Jolie. This had a somewhat old-fashioned plot about Russian moles in the CIA, sleeping for long periods of time before emerging to wreak havoc; and was full of cross and double-cross and double-double-cross. The difference from similar films of 30 years ago was the action scenes, with more sophisticated weaponry and souped-up pyrotechnics. The film also ended in a way, which easily allows for a sequel Salt II if audiences have shown that they like the first one. I have never been a great fan of Ms. Jolie, but it was good entertainment on a cold winter's evening.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 24 November 2010
NORTH KOREA
We have known for some time that North Korea's President Kim Jong-Il was barmy; anyone with that hair and dress sense must be. But the latest episode in the struggle between the two Koreas shows that perhaps the whole country is.
North Korea's decision to lob a whole load of artillery shells onto a South Korean island just over the maritime border, killing two marines and injuring a number of others, must be one of the daftest political decisions in years. It achieved nothing, other than robust condemnation from the U.S., E.U., Russia and the U.N., and studied silence from its only ally China (studied silence being communist code for condemnation). It also reminded the world - if, indeed, it needed reminding - just how unreliable and dangerous the country is. The sight of a young, female North Korean newsreader issuing dire threats in the event of retaliation reminded me very much of Saddam Hussein's similarly deluded information minister during the invasion of Iraq.
Some analysts believe that the artillery orders are somehow connected with the ailing Mr. Kim's recent attempts to hand power over to his youngest son Kim Jong-Un. At the end of the day, as with most things in North Korea, we simply do not know. But I suspect that there is a real danger that the country will implode in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
We have known for some time that North Korea's President Kim Jong-Il was barmy; anyone with that hair and dress sense must be. But the latest episode in the struggle between the two Koreas shows that perhaps the whole country is.
North Korea's decision to lob a whole load of artillery shells onto a South Korean island just over the maritime border, killing two marines and injuring a number of others, must be one of the daftest political decisions in years. It achieved nothing, other than robust condemnation from the U.S., E.U., Russia and the U.N., and studied silence from its only ally China (studied silence being communist code for condemnation). It also reminded the world - if, indeed, it needed reminding - just how unreliable and dangerous the country is. The sight of a young, female North Korean newsreader issuing dire threats in the event of retaliation reminded me very much of Saddam Hussein's similarly deluded information minister during the invasion of Iraq.
Some analysts believe that the artillery orders are somehow connected with the ailing Mr. Kim's recent attempts to hand power over to his youngest son Kim Jong-Un. At the end of the day, as with most things in North Korea, we simply do not know. But I suspect that there is a real danger that the country will implode in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 23 November 2010
RURAL SUPERMARKETS
Unless you can get special permission, supermarkets in Denmark have a maximum size of 3,500 sqm (roughly 35,000 sq ft), which is small compared with the rest of Europe, and tiny compared with the U.S. Hypermarkets just don't exist here.
Which means two things. First, the amount of retail space per inhabitant is higher than anywhere else in Europe. Secondly, prices for groceries are higher as well, at least 10% more than in neighbouring countries, according to the consumer council.
The Government, as part of its plan to get the economy moving again, is mulling over the idea of relaxing the maximum size rule. Bigger supermarkets, the argument goes, would both allow the stocking of a wider range of goods, and attract the interest of companies like Wal-Mart. Buying in greater bulk, more efficient distribution, and greater competition would together put downward pressure on prices, to the benefit of consumers (i.e. everybody).
There is, however, a definite cost to this benefit. Hypermarkets would almost certainly be sited on the edge of large towns. Which in turn would mean a) that people would end up travelling more in order to do their daily shopping, and b) that many rural supermarkets would close (many have already under the existing rules). This is certainly what has happened in Sweden. Since the presence of a local supermarket is one of the most important single indicators for the health of a rural community, this could have potentially adverse consequences for the outlying areas of Denmark far away from Copenhagen and Aarhus. Promoting these areas, or at least not wishing them to decline, is already one of the Government's stated policies. As is reduced Co2 emissions, which increased travel would do nothing to help.
Getting the balance right in this decision will not be easy. That is reflected in the fact that one half of the governing coalition (Venstre) wants to liberalise, whereas the Conservatives do not. My own view, based on admittedly selfish reasons, is that they shouldn't. We have two supermarkets in the small town (3,000 inhabitants) where I live, the second of which opened only this year. Being able to shop for groceries, either by car or bicycle, 3km away from my house is something which I value. Quite a lot. People in worse situations than me (eg the elderly, without access to a car) value it even more.
Moreover, as retail experts have also pointed out, it is not certain that liberalising the supermarket rules will in fact attract the likes of Wal-Mart. Denmark is a small country of 5.5m people, not much more than the population of the Hamburg metropolitan region. It also has one of the highest cost labour forces in the whole of Europe. Trying to muscle in on such a market (which otherwise functions very well) doesn't seem particularly attractive in comparison with the much larger populations of (say) Poland, or even Russia.
Anyway, no decision has yet been taken. It will be interesting to see the outcome of yet another potential conflict between economic liberalism and social protection.
Walter Blotscher
Unless you can get special permission, supermarkets in Denmark have a maximum size of 3,500 sqm (roughly 35,000 sq ft), which is small compared with the rest of Europe, and tiny compared with the U.S. Hypermarkets just don't exist here.
Which means two things. First, the amount of retail space per inhabitant is higher than anywhere else in Europe. Secondly, prices for groceries are higher as well, at least 10% more than in neighbouring countries, according to the consumer council.
The Government, as part of its plan to get the economy moving again, is mulling over the idea of relaxing the maximum size rule. Bigger supermarkets, the argument goes, would both allow the stocking of a wider range of goods, and attract the interest of companies like Wal-Mart. Buying in greater bulk, more efficient distribution, and greater competition would together put downward pressure on prices, to the benefit of consumers (i.e. everybody).
There is, however, a definite cost to this benefit. Hypermarkets would almost certainly be sited on the edge of large towns. Which in turn would mean a) that people would end up travelling more in order to do their daily shopping, and b) that many rural supermarkets would close (many have already under the existing rules). This is certainly what has happened in Sweden. Since the presence of a local supermarket is one of the most important single indicators for the health of a rural community, this could have potentially adverse consequences for the outlying areas of Denmark far away from Copenhagen and Aarhus. Promoting these areas, or at least not wishing them to decline, is already one of the Government's stated policies. As is reduced Co2 emissions, which increased travel would do nothing to help.
Getting the balance right in this decision will not be easy. That is reflected in the fact that one half of the governing coalition (Venstre) wants to liberalise, whereas the Conservatives do not. My own view, based on admittedly selfish reasons, is that they shouldn't. We have two supermarkets in the small town (3,000 inhabitants) where I live, the second of which opened only this year. Being able to shop for groceries, either by car or bicycle, 3km away from my house is something which I value. Quite a lot. People in worse situations than me (eg the elderly, without access to a car) value it even more.
Moreover, as retail experts have also pointed out, it is not certain that liberalising the supermarket rules will in fact attract the likes of Wal-Mart. Denmark is a small country of 5.5m people, not much more than the population of the Hamburg metropolitan region. It also has one of the highest cost labour forces in the whole of Europe. Trying to muscle in on such a market (which otherwise functions very well) doesn't seem particularly attractive in comparison with the much larger populations of (say) Poland, or even Russia.
Anyway, no decision has yet been taken. It will be interesting to see the outcome of yet another potential conflict between economic liberalism and social protection.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 22 November 2010
DENMARK AND GERMANY (3)
Readers of this blog will know that for centuries, the Kings of Denmark were also Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein in personam. They lost nearly all of the duchies to Prussia following the catastrophic 1864 defeat. But this was partially redressed in the aftermath of the First World War, when a plebiscite was held in 1920 in Schleswig, the more northerly of the two duchies. The result of a complex series of votes designed to maximise Danish territorial gains was that the northern half of Schleswig, from the current border north to just below Kolding, would go to Denmark; the southern half remained in Germany.
The plebiscite left some Danes in the "wrong" country; and the "Syd Slesvig" Danish minority occupies a disproportionately large place in the national pysche. Queen Margrethe II, for example, goes out of her way to greet them (along with former colonies Greenland and the Faroe Islands) in her annual New Year's Eve address to the country. And the Danish People's Party pop up there from time to time, as if to give the impression that the current borders are merely temporary.
Against that background, it is worth noting the recent election of Simon Faber from the Syd Slesvig minority party to be the mayor of Flensborg (Flensburg in German), the major town just south of the current border. It was the first time in more than 60 years that this had happened. In order to beat his CDU opponent in a run-off, Mr. Faber gathered support from the other parties on a platform of increased cross-border trade and other links. Until Schleswig-Holstein became a "question", this was the norm in this part of the world, as Danes and Germans mingled in an area more in thrall to the Hanseatic League than to any monarchical power. If Mr. Faber has his way, then we should expect more bilingual noises, and a softening of Denmark's historical antipathy towards its larger southern neighbour.
Walter Blotscher
Readers of this blog will know that for centuries, the Kings of Denmark were also Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein in personam. They lost nearly all of the duchies to Prussia following the catastrophic 1864 defeat. But this was partially redressed in the aftermath of the First World War, when a plebiscite was held in 1920 in Schleswig, the more northerly of the two duchies. The result of a complex series of votes designed to maximise Danish territorial gains was that the northern half of Schleswig, from the current border north to just below Kolding, would go to Denmark; the southern half remained in Germany.
The plebiscite left some Danes in the "wrong" country; and the "Syd Slesvig" Danish minority occupies a disproportionately large place in the national pysche. Queen Margrethe II, for example, goes out of her way to greet them (along with former colonies Greenland and the Faroe Islands) in her annual New Year's Eve address to the country. And the Danish People's Party pop up there from time to time, as if to give the impression that the current borders are merely temporary.
Against that background, it is worth noting the recent election of Simon Faber from the Syd Slesvig minority party to be the mayor of Flensborg (Flensburg in German), the major town just south of the current border. It was the first time in more than 60 years that this had happened. In order to beat his CDU opponent in a run-off, Mr. Faber gathered support from the other parties on a platform of increased cross-border trade and other links. Until Schleswig-Holstein became a "question", this was the norm in this part of the world, as Danes and Germans mingled in an area more in thrall to the Hanseatic League than to any monarchical power. If Mr. Faber has his way, then we should expect more bilingual noises, and a softening of Denmark's historical antipathy towards its larger southern neighbour.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 21 November 2010
PHYSICAL WORK
I am knackered. I spent five hours today pulling up the planks in the barn. These 6-8 metre long monsters were nailed across the top of the beams some 20 years ago in a tongue and groove system. They used huge six inch nails, which they hammered in at an angle precisely so that it would be difficult for people like me to pull them up. The construction was strong enough to bear all of the machinery and other stuff that they stored in the loft of the barn.
The stuff went, when we moved into the house in 2002. But the planks remained, and it has been my job to pull them out. In order to do that I have to stand on a ladder, and use a hammer and crowbar to lever the end nails out. Then I have to go to the next beam and do the same. It is gruelling on the arms.
However, I cleared the area I wanted to. And after a "handyman" beer and a shower, I am now sitting on the sofa, ready to watch the Minnesota Vikings v. the Green Bay Packers live. My arms are killing me, but I feel surprisingly satisfied.
Walter Blotscher
I am knackered. I spent five hours today pulling up the planks in the barn. These 6-8 metre long monsters were nailed across the top of the beams some 20 years ago in a tongue and groove system. They used huge six inch nails, which they hammered in at an angle precisely so that it would be difficult for people like me to pull them up. The construction was strong enough to bear all of the machinery and other stuff that they stored in the loft of the barn.
The stuff went, when we moved into the house in 2002. But the planks remained, and it has been my job to pull them out. In order to do that I have to stand on a ladder, and use a hammer and crowbar to lever the end nails out. Then I have to go to the next beam and do the same. It is gruelling on the arms.
However, I cleared the area I wanted to. And after a "handyman" beer and a shower, I am now sitting on the sofa, ready to watch the Minnesota Vikings v. the Green Bay Packers live. My arms are killing me, but I feel surprisingly satisfied.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 20 November 2010
RUBBISH SERVICE
The Danes are big on sorting rubbish. Every small town, including the one I live in, has a municipal dump, where an impressive array of containers (around 35 in our case) stand ready to receive our assorted - and sorted - detritus. The local council does collect your rubbish in a dustcart, once a week in the summer and once a fortnight in the winter. But you pay for the service by weight, which gives you a big incentive to take as much as you can yourself to the dump, which is free. Saturday morning is usually the busiest for traffic in town, as a procession of husbands - and, let's face it, it is nearly always the husband - heads for the dump with a small Brenderup trailer behind the car piled high with "stuff".
The council dump has two employees, whose job is to keep things in order, and advise citizens on what to put in which container. In the old days, when the kommune was pretty much just the town, these two employees were proto-fascists, who delighted in the exercise of absolute power over their carefully demarcated little kingdom. Many is the time that I have been hauled over the coals for (eg) putting the old planks from the barn in "large and burnable" instead of "wood" (even though there was no real wood left in them), or dumping plastic wrapping in "hard plastic", instead of the plastic bags specially put out for the purpose.
But then the kommune merged with five others from the beginning of 2007, and the personnel changed. I don't know whether the proto-fascists were sent to another part of the now larger kingdom, or were fired; but it was certainly a very good decision to get rid of them. The new guys are young, cheerful and even give advice instead of muttering, criticising or just looking surly. When I was up there this morning, I mistakenly put my plastic wrapping in the special plastic bags. I say mistakenly, since there is apparently so much wrapping that a new container has been established to take it all. However, instead of chewing my ignorant ear off, the young man explained the situation with a smile, and even offered to transfer my deposit from the one to the other. Rubbish rubbish service has apparently been transformed into good rubbish service.
Walter Blotscher
The Danes are big on sorting rubbish. Every small town, including the one I live in, has a municipal dump, where an impressive array of containers (around 35 in our case) stand ready to receive our assorted - and sorted - detritus. The local council does collect your rubbish in a dustcart, once a week in the summer and once a fortnight in the winter. But you pay for the service by weight, which gives you a big incentive to take as much as you can yourself to the dump, which is free. Saturday morning is usually the busiest for traffic in town, as a procession of husbands - and, let's face it, it is nearly always the husband - heads for the dump with a small Brenderup trailer behind the car piled high with "stuff".
The council dump has two employees, whose job is to keep things in order, and advise citizens on what to put in which container. In the old days, when the kommune was pretty much just the town, these two employees were proto-fascists, who delighted in the exercise of absolute power over their carefully demarcated little kingdom. Many is the time that I have been hauled over the coals for (eg) putting the old planks from the barn in "large and burnable" instead of "wood" (even though there was no real wood left in them), or dumping plastic wrapping in "hard plastic", instead of the plastic bags specially put out for the purpose.
But then the kommune merged with five others from the beginning of 2007, and the personnel changed. I don't know whether the proto-fascists were sent to another part of the now larger kingdom, or were fired; but it was certainly a very good decision to get rid of them. The new guys are young, cheerful and even give advice instead of muttering, criticising or just looking surly. When I was up there this morning, I mistakenly put my plastic wrapping in the special plastic bags. I say mistakenly, since there is apparently so much wrapping that a new container has been established to take it all. However, instead of chewing my ignorant ear off, the young man explained the situation with a smile, and even offered to transfer my deposit from the one to the other. Rubbish rubbish service has apparently been transformed into good rubbish service.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 19 November 2010
THE THIRTY YEARS WAR
The Thirty Years War from 1618-48 was an early modern slugfest that devastated most of what is today Central Europe. Historians disagree about exactly how many people died; but there is broad agreement that it was at least 15% of the affected populations, mostly from famine and disease rather than battle casualties (though there were plenty of those). That 15% figure would make it by far the most destructive conflict in European history, eclipsing by some margin the 5.5% in the First World War (of which two thirds were due to the 1918 flu pandemic) and the 6% in the Second World War (where deaths were boosted through deliberate genocide). Even Soviet Russia, which suffered appalling casualties in that conflict, more than any other participant, lost less than 12% of its population.
The Thirty Years War has sometimes been portrayed as a straightforward fight between Catholics and Protestants, but that is far too simplistic a view. Confession undoubtedly played a role, particularly in the various propaganda battles; and there were zealots on both sides, for whom the religious aspect was the be-all and end-all of the fighting. But dynastic, commercial and political issues were more important. This is reflected in the fact that the main solution to the problem of prisoners - other than occasional massacres - was to press them into the victorious army, which thereby quickly became multi-denominational. It also explains the long-standing alliances between Lutheran Sweden and Catholic France on the one side, and Lutheran Saxony and the Catholic powers of Bavaria and the Emperor himself on the other. In all these cases, state interests trumped religious belief.
At the heart of the war was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, that complex agglomeration of electorates, dukedoms, ecclesiastical princes and imperial cities that stretched from Holstein in the north to Mantua in the south, from Dunkirk in the west to the border with Poland in the east. The imperial title was elected, rather than hereditary, but the electors were pragmatic folk, who tended to choose the person with the largest amount of land, in return for monetary and other favours. From 1438 until the end of the Empire in 1806, with only a brief interlude from 1742-4, that person was a member of the Habsburg family of Austria, the biggest landowners and acknowledged masters of the European dynastic marriage market. However, the history of the Habsburgs is not the same as the history of the Empire, not least because the family owned substantial lands outside it. They had inherited Hungary in 1526, and their Spanish cousins ruled Spain, together with Portugal, a fair part of Italy and the Spanish Netherlands (modern Belgium; though, confusingly, that was part of the Empire). After initial success in the war, it seemed at one point that the Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II might be able to turn the Empire into a sort of Germanic Habsburg kingdom, passed down under the hereditary principle. Fear of that possibility provoked a natural reaction from both inside and outside the Empire, which culminated in Gustavus Adolphus' stunning victory over the Imperialist forces at the battle of Breitenfeld in 1631. This didn't end the war; but it did shatter the Habsburg dream of hegemony. Nobody could imagine abolishing the Empire as such; but few wanted to be directly ruled by the Habsburgs. After 30 years of fighting to make that clear, the end result was an exhausted draw.
At the Peace of Westphalia, a series of intricate compromises was worked out by the 109 delegations over a period of years, and incorporated in a number of formal treaties. The clearest example of the need for compromise concerned the Palatine electorate. The Emperor had been chosen by seven electors ever since the Golden Bull of 1356. But when the Bohemians revolted in 1618 - the trigger for the start of the war - and offered Ferdinand's Bohemian crown and electorate to the Protestant Elector Palatine, he was put under the Imperial ban for accepting it. The Palatine electorate was given to Catholic Bavaria, who had provided the bulk of the army that crushed the rebellion at the battle of White Mountain, just outside Prague. Since Bavaria's red line in the peace negotiations was to keep the electoral title, a new, eighth, electoral title was created for the Prince Palatine, son of the former Elector.
Despite the draw, the wars and the treaties produced major changes in the map and politics of Europe. Spain finally accepted, after 80 years, that the northern Dutch Republics (the modern Netherlands) would not stay united with the southern ones. The Republics and Switzerland formally left the Empire. Sweden gained a territorial foothold in northern Germany, and took over Denmark's role as the leading power in the Baltic, using that to oust Denmark from its 600-year rule over southern Sweden some 20 years later. France obtained the bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun in Lorraine, and 10 cities in Alsace, thereby gaining the first bits of the lands which would have such influence on Franco-German relations more than two centuries later. The Habsburgs, realising that their power as Emperor would never revive, decided to concentrate their efforts on their hereditary lands, including those such as Hungary, which were outside the Empire. As part of that policy, Bohemian (Czech) nationalism, which had started the war, was extinguished until 1918.
Finally, 1648 saw the start of a new era in international relations. The Peace of Westphalia emerged from the first ever diplomatic congress, based on the concept of negotiations between sovereign states of equal weight, instead of the former hierarchy with the Emperor at the apex. As with modern diplomatic congresses, professions of peace did not necessarily mean peace in practice; in particular, Spain and France remained at war for a further eleven years. But the idea of sovereignty was one which was destined to flourish in the years to come.
Walter Blotscher
The Thirty Years War from 1618-48 was an early modern slugfest that devastated most of what is today Central Europe. Historians disagree about exactly how many people died; but there is broad agreement that it was at least 15% of the affected populations, mostly from famine and disease rather than battle casualties (though there were plenty of those). That 15% figure would make it by far the most destructive conflict in European history, eclipsing by some margin the 5.5% in the First World War (of which two thirds were due to the 1918 flu pandemic) and the 6% in the Second World War (where deaths were boosted through deliberate genocide). Even Soviet Russia, which suffered appalling casualties in that conflict, more than any other participant, lost less than 12% of its population.
The Thirty Years War has sometimes been portrayed as a straightforward fight between Catholics and Protestants, but that is far too simplistic a view. Confession undoubtedly played a role, particularly in the various propaganda battles; and there were zealots on both sides, for whom the religious aspect was the be-all and end-all of the fighting. But dynastic, commercial and political issues were more important. This is reflected in the fact that the main solution to the problem of prisoners - other than occasional massacres - was to press them into the victorious army, which thereby quickly became multi-denominational. It also explains the long-standing alliances between Lutheran Sweden and Catholic France on the one side, and Lutheran Saxony and the Catholic powers of Bavaria and the Emperor himself on the other. In all these cases, state interests trumped religious belief.
At the heart of the war was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, that complex agglomeration of electorates, dukedoms, ecclesiastical princes and imperial cities that stretched from Holstein in the north to Mantua in the south, from Dunkirk in the west to the border with Poland in the east. The imperial title was elected, rather than hereditary, but the electors were pragmatic folk, who tended to choose the person with the largest amount of land, in return for monetary and other favours. From 1438 until the end of the Empire in 1806, with only a brief interlude from 1742-4, that person was a member of the Habsburg family of Austria, the biggest landowners and acknowledged masters of the European dynastic marriage market. However, the history of the Habsburgs is not the same as the history of the Empire, not least because the family owned substantial lands outside it. They had inherited Hungary in 1526, and their Spanish cousins ruled Spain, together with Portugal, a fair part of Italy and the Spanish Netherlands (modern Belgium; though, confusingly, that was part of the Empire). After initial success in the war, it seemed at one point that the Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II might be able to turn the Empire into a sort of Germanic Habsburg kingdom, passed down under the hereditary principle. Fear of that possibility provoked a natural reaction from both inside and outside the Empire, which culminated in Gustavus Adolphus' stunning victory over the Imperialist forces at the battle of Breitenfeld in 1631. This didn't end the war; but it did shatter the Habsburg dream of hegemony. Nobody could imagine abolishing the Empire as such; but few wanted to be directly ruled by the Habsburgs. After 30 years of fighting to make that clear, the end result was an exhausted draw.
At the Peace of Westphalia, a series of intricate compromises was worked out by the 109 delegations over a period of years, and incorporated in a number of formal treaties. The clearest example of the need for compromise concerned the Palatine electorate. The Emperor had been chosen by seven electors ever since the Golden Bull of 1356. But when the Bohemians revolted in 1618 - the trigger for the start of the war - and offered Ferdinand's Bohemian crown and electorate to the Protestant Elector Palatine, he was put under the Imperial ban for accepting it. The Palatine electorate was given to Catholic Bavaria, who had provided the bulk of the army that crushed the rebellion at the battle of White Mountain, just outside Prague. Since Bavaria's red line in the peace negotiations was to keep the electoral title, a new, eighth, electoral title was created for the Prince Palatine, son of the former Elector.
Despite the draw, the wars and the treaties produced major changes in the map and politics of Europe. Spain finally accepted, after 80 years, that the northern Dutch Republics (the modern Netherlands) would not stay united with the southern ones. The Republics and Switzerland formally left the Empire. Sweden gained a territorial foothold in northern Germany, and took over Denmark's role as the leading power in the Baltic, using that to oust Denmark from its 600-year rule over southern Sweden some 20 years later. France obtained the bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun in Lorraine, and 10 cities in Alsace, thereby gaining the first bits of the lands which would have such influence on Franco-German relations more than two centuries later. The Habsburgs, realising that their power as Emperor would never revive, decided to concentrate their efforts on their hereditary lands, including those such as Hungary, which were outside the Empire. As part of that policy, Bohemian (Czech) nationalism, which had started the war, was extinguished until 1918.
Finally, 1648 saw the start of a new era in international relations. The Peace of Westphalia emerged from the first ever diplomatic congress, based on the concept of negotiations between sovereign states of equal weight, instead of the former hierarchy with the Emperor at the apex. As with modern diplomatic congresses, professions of peace did not necessarily mean peace in practice; in particular, Spain and France remained at war for a further eleven years. But the idea of sovereignty was one which was destined to flourish in the years to come.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 18 November 2010
THE FUTURE QUEEN OF ENGLAND
We now know who the future Queen of England will be in a couple of decades. Assuming there are no revolutions that abolish the monarchy, and that normal life expectancy rates hold, then the next queen but one will be called Kate, after Kate Middleton this week accepted an offer of marriage from her long-standing boyfriend Prince William. Many congratulations to them both!
Miss Middleton has already said that joining the British royal family will be "daunting", which is a bit of an understatement. No less daunting will be managing the ever-present and fickle British press. That process starts almost immediately with the choice of wedding venue, a potential minefield given bad memories of Prince William's parents' marriage and the state of the economy. If she gets through the next year relatively unscathed, then she will have demonstrated that she has what it takes to be queen.
Walter Blotscher
We now know who the future Queen of England will be in a couple of decades. Assuming there are no revolutions that abolish the monarchy, and that normal life expectancy rates hold, then the next queen but one will be called Kate, after Kate Middleton this week accepted an offer of marriage from her long-standing boyfriend Prince William. Many congratulations to them both!
Miss Middleton has already said that joining the British royal family will be "daunting", which is a bit of an understatement. No less daunting will be managing the ever-present and fickle British press. That process starts almost immediately with the choice of wedding venue, a potential minefield given bad memories of Prince William's parents' marriage and the state of the economy. If she gets through the next year relatively unscathed, then she will have demonstrated that she has what it takes to be queen.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 16 November 2010
WORKING WITH EXPERTS
It is always interesting watching experts at work, even if you are not particularly interested in trying to emulate what it is that they do. Recent examples have included the thatching of my neighbours' house, and a snooker player on television clearing the table in one go.
This morning I sat next to an IT expert while he upgraded my computer. As readers of this blog will know, I am pretty much an idiot when it comes to computers, so it was fascinating to watch someone with real knowledge ply his trade. In the space of about an hour, he upgraded my Office pack from 2000 (Stone Age, I know) to 2007, sorted out my security (Microsoft have for the past 18 months been sending me dire warnings about virus updates, even though - he tells me - they were in fact being updated every day), and got rid of a whole load of stuff that was clogging up the works. While at the same time cheerfully discussing the pros and cons of I-Pads, smartphones and Blackberries in words which I could understand.
He also installed a VPN for me, so I can do work for a company from a remote location while accessing their server via the internet. Even my computer-literate son didn't know what a VPN was. For the ill-informed (i.e. like me half an hour ago) it means Virtual Private Network.
Walter Blotscher
It is always interesting watching experts at work, even if you are not particularly interested in trying to emulate what it is that they do. Recent examples have included the thatching of my neighbours' house, and a snooker player on television clearing the table in one go.
This morning I sat next to an IT expert while he upgraded my computer. As readers of this blog will know, I am pretty much an idiot when it comes to computers, so it was fascinating to watch someone with real knowledge ply his trade. In the space of about an hour, he upgraded my Office pack from 2000 (Stone Age, I know) to 2007, sorted out my security (Microsoft have for the past 18 months been sending me dire warnings about virus updates, even though - he tells me - they were in fact being updated every day), and got rid of a whole load of stuff that was clogging up the works. While at the same time cheerfully discussing the pros and cons of I-Pads, smartphones and Blackberries in words which I could understand.
He also installed a VPN for me, so I can do work for a company from a remote location while accessing their server via the internet. Even my computer-literate son didn't know what a VPN was. For the ill-informed (i.e. like me half an hour ago) it means Virtual Private Network.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 15 November 2010
HAITI
Not much is going well for Haiti these days. A massive earthquake, then tropical storms, and now cholera. Apparently almost 1,000 people have already died of the disease, a figure which will undoubtedly rise.
Yet in many ways the worst thing for the country must be the rest of the world's indifference. I got the 1,000 people figure from the main Danish evening news, where it was the fourth item to be read out. The top story was the state of children's lunchboxes in kindergartens, which shows where people's priorities lie.
Walter Blotscher
Not much is going well for Haiti these days. A massive earthquake, then tropical storms, and now cholera. Apparently almost 1,000 people have already died of the disease, a figure which will undoubtedly rise.
Yet in many ways the worst thing for the country must be the rest of the world's indifference. I got the 1,000 people figure from the main Danish evening news, where it was the fourth item to be read out. The top story was the state of children's lunchboxes in kindergartens, which shows where people's priorities lie.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 14 November 2010
THE COVENTRY BLITZ
Today is Remembrance Sunday in the U.K., the annual ceremony that pays tribute to soldiers and civilians who have died in conflict. It always takes place on the Sunday closest to 11 November, the date of the armistice, which ended the First World War.
Today is also the 70th anniversary of the Coventry Blitz. During the summer and autumn of 1940, Nazi Germany launched huge bombing raids on London and other English towns, trying to knock out industrial capacity and hoping to sap the will to fight of the civilian population. Coventry was home to a number of car factories that could be adapted to produce military vehicles and armaments, and the raid on 14 November 1940 was one of the biggest of the whole war. Most of the mediæval city centre, including the famous cathedral, was destroyed, and over 1,200 people were killed.
I have to admit to an interest in this event. Both my parents grew up in Coventry, and my mother was a 14-year old schoolgirl at the time. During the air raid, she sheltered under the stairs with her parents and older sister. A cluster of bombs hit her street, and when she climbed out the next morning, the stairs were pretty well the only part of the house that was still standing. Her neighbours' houses had also been destroyed; but unlike her family, some of the inhabitants were dead.
When I last visited my mother, she showed me a documentary film that had been made about the Blitz. It incorporated personal reminiscences from people who had lived through it, either as children or young adults. For many of them, as indeed for my mother, it was as if it had happened yesterday.
The group of people who can personally remember the First World War is almost extinct. The number who can personally remember the Second World War is shrinking fast. Those remaining should help to ensure that their stories are told, if only to make it a tiny bit less likely that such things will happen again.
Walter Blotscher
Today is Remembrance Sunday in the U.K., the annual ceremony that pays tribute to soldiers and civilians who have died in conflict. It always takes place on the Sunday closest to 11 November, the date of the armistice, which ended the First World War.
Today is also the 70th anniversary of the Coventry Blitz. During the summer and autumn of 1940, Nazi Germany launched huge bombing raids on London and other English towns, trying to knock out industrial capacity and hoping to sap the will to fight of the civilian population. Coventry was home to a number of car factories that could be adapted to produce military vehicles and armaments, and the raid on 14 November 1940 was one of the biggest of the whole war. Most of the mediæval city centre, including the famous cathedral, was destroyed, and over 1,200 people were killed.
I have to admit to an interest in this event. Both my parents grew up in Coventry, and my mother was a 14-year old schoolgirl at the time. During the air raid, she sheltered under the stairs with her parents and older sister. A cluster of bombs hit her street, and when she climbed out the next morning, the stairs were pretty well the only part of the house that was still standing. Her neighbours' houses had also been destroyed; but unlike her family, some of the inhabitants were dead.
When I last visited my mother, she showed me a documentary film that had been made about the Blitz. It incorporated personal reminiscences from people who had lived through it, either as children or young adults. For many of them, as indeed for my mother, it was as if it had happened yesterday.
The group of people who can personally remember the First World War is almost extinct. The number who can personally remember the Second World War is shrinking fast. Those remaining should help to ensure that their stories are told, if only to make it a tiny bit less likely that such things will happen again.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 13 November 2010
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
The release of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi from her long-standing house arrest in Rangoon is a welcome development, albeit (as many politicians put it) long overdue. But although in some ways it represents progress, in also leaves many questions unanswered. This is not a Nelson Mandela moment, a man released from prison after 25 years by a Government whose apartheid policy was on the brink of collapse owing to internal inconsistency. The Myanmar junta is firmly entrenched, with (as in the old Soviet Union) a core constituency that has a vested interest in keeping it that way. The country's huge neighbour China dislikes opposition dissent, and wants stability in order to allow it to exploit Myanmar's raw materials. Ms. Suu Kyi has undoubted popular support, not least as daughter of the independence hero Aung San. But she has been out of politics for years, and the National League for Democracy is in any event nowhere near as well-organised as (say) the ANC.
It would be great if Ms. Suu Kyi were to become the catalyst for serious reform in the country. But I suspect that the odds against her are simply too high.
Walter Blotscher
The release of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi from her long-standing house arrest in Rangoon is a welcome development, albeit (as many politicians put it) long overdue. But although in some ways it represents progress, in also leaves many questions unanswered. This is not a Nelson Mandela moment, a man released from prison after 25 years by a Government whose apartheid policy was on the brink of collapse owing to internal inconsistency. The Myanmar junta is firmly entrenched, with (as in the old Soviet Union) a core constituency that has a vested interest in keeping it that way. The country's huge neighbour China dislikes opposition dissent, and wants stability in order to allow it to exploit Myanmar's raw materials. Ms. Suu Kyi has undoubted popular support, not least as daughter of the independence hero Aung San. But she has been out of politics for years, and the National League for Democracy is in any event nowhere near as well-organised as (say) the ANC.
It would be great if Ms. Suu Kyi were to become the catalyst for serious reform in the country. But I suspect that the odds against her are simply too high.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 12 November 2010
POINTS SYSTEMS
The politics of running Denmark's minority right-wing Government have their own ritual. Needing to pass a Finance Act each year, but knowing that they don't have the votes to get it passed on their own, Ministers hold discussions with the other parties. Those with the opposition last about five minutes, before the real negotiations start with the Government's steadfast supporter, the extreme right-wing Danish People's Party. Since their votes would give the Government a majority, the DPP uses its electoral muscle to get its pet causes passed; support for pensioners, more police and prisons, and (above all) restrictions on immigrants. The last are given added prominence whenever the finances look a bit ropey; there is nothing in Denmark more guaranteed to distract attention from budget cuts than a "debate" about the supposed overrunning of the homeland by perfidious Muslims.
This year's dance was no exception. With the public finances showing a huge black hole, and unemployment high and still rising, there was a need to draw attention away from the pressure on social services and welfare. This duly arrived in the DPP proposal, accepted by the Government, to tighten the notorious "24 year rule". This prevents immigrants from coming into the country in order to marry or be with their existing spouse unless they are 24 years old. The official theory is that this discourages arranged marriages with people from conservative (i.e. Muslim) cultures. My view is that it is just a ruse to limit immigration. Anyway, the new proposal is that in future, not only will the immigrant have to be 24 years old, but a points system will create a further barrier; only those with higher education, or special skills, or a good command of a world language, will be allowed in.
The proposal is not law yet. The points system has not been thrashed out in detail, and there have already been disagreements about what was agreed (eg is Chinese a world language? Obviously yes, but the DPP says no). However, it has already achieved its primary purpose of deflecting attention away from more unpleasant domestic matters. And it has had the added benefit of splitting the opposition, which had otherwise seemed more united than for many years.
Both the Social Democrats and left-wing Socialists are divided on the issue. The top leadership, not wishing to be "out-immigrated" by the right, say that they can see merit in the proposal, provided that the points system is "fair and reasonable". However, the rank and file are against it on principle, and make the point that in a country whose constitution specifically gives everybody the right to marry whom they wish, no points system could be considered fair and reasonable if some present or future spouses are excluded. Interestingly, the latter group includes some Social Democratic mayors in the heavily immigrant West Copenhagen suburbs. As they say, it would be politically stupid to introduce laws that might end up penalising Danes more than the immigrants they are supposedly being protected from. The trickle of Danes - often female and well-educated - appearing on television to bemoan the fact that the new rules would mean that they can't marry the - ill-educated - love of their life, and will therefore have to move abroad, has already begun.
The opposition leadership is obviously hoping that the points system will die in the trenches of the details, allowing them to portray themselves as pro-Danish in the lead-up to next year's compulsory general election. However, judging from reactions that I have seen, they have merely shown themselves to be parties bereft of principles. The real winners of the whole sorry affair have been the DPP, who have shown themselves - yet again - to be both the cleverest and most repellant political party in the country.
Walter Blotscher
The politics of running Denmark's minority right-wing Government have their own ritual. Needing to pass a Finance Act each year, but knowing that they don't have the votes to get it passed on their own, Ministers hold discussions with the other parties. Those with the opposition last about five minutes, before the real negotiations start with the Government's steadfast supporter, the extreme right-wing Danish People's Party. Since their votes would give the Government a majority, the DPP uses its electoral muscle to get its pet causes passed; support for pensioners, more police and prisons, and (above all) restrictions on immigrants. The last are given added prominence whenever the finances look a bit ropey; there is nothing in Denmark more guaranteed to distract attention from budget cuts than a "debate" about the supposed overrunning of the homeland by perfidious Muslims.
This year's dance was no exception. With the public finances showing a huge black hole, and unemployment high and still rising, there was a need to draw attention away from the pressure on social services and welfare. This duly arrived in the DPP proposal, accepted by the Government, to tighten the notorious "24 year rule". This prevents immigrants from coming into the country in order to marry or be with their existing spouse unless they are 24 years old. The official theory is that this discourages arranged marriages with people from conservative (i.e. Muslim) cultures. My view is that it is just a ruse to limit immigration. Anyway, the new proposal is that in future, not only will the immigrant have to be 24 years old, but a points system will create a further barrier; only those with higher education, or special skills, or a good command of a world language, will be allowed in.
The proposal is not law yet. The points system has not been thrashed out in detail, and there have already been disagreements about what was agreed (eg is Chinese a world language? Obviously yes, but the DPP says no). However, it has already achieved its primary purpose of deflecting attention away from more unpleasant domestic matters. And it has had the added benefit of splitting the opposition, which had otherwise seemed more united than for many years.
Both the Social Democrats and left-wing Socialists are divided on the issue. The top leadership, not wishing to be "out-immigrated" by the right, say that they can see merit in the proposal, provided that the points system is "fair and reasonable". However, the rank and file are against it on principle, and make the point that in a country whose constitution specifically gives everybody the right to marry whom they wish, no points system could be considered fair and reasonable if some present or future spouses are excluded. Interestingly, the latter group includes some Social Democratic mayors in the heavily immigrant West Copenhagen suburbs. As they say, it would be politically stupid to introduce laws that might end up penalising Danes more than the immigrants they are supposedly being protected from. The trickle of Danes - often female and well-educated - appearing on television to bemoan the fact that the new rules would mean that they can't marry the - ill-educated - love of their life, and will therefore have to move abroad, has already begun.
The opposition leadership is obviously hoping that the points system will die in the trenches of the details, allowing them to portray themselves as pro-Danish in the lead-up to next year's compulsory general election. However, judging from reactions that I have seen, they have merely shown themselves to be parties bereft of principles. The real winners of the whole sorry affair have been the DPP, who have shown themselves - yet again - to be both the cleverest and most repellant political party in the country.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 11 November 2010
SPENDING CUTS (2)
When the U.K. Government announced its brutal spending cuts last month, I said that it is one thing to announce unpleasant plans, quite another to implement them. The protests in London this week by university students - which turned violent, when a part of the demonstration attacked Conservative Central Office, smashing windows - were the first test of the coalition's will to force the British public to take its medicine.
University tuition used to be free in the whole of the U.K. In one of the most painful U-turns of Tony Blair's decade in power, he gave universities the right to charge fees, up to a maximum (currently £3,290 per annum). It was painful because the legislation prompted a big rebellion by his own party and was only passed thanks to help from the opposition Conservatives. Tuition fees are now the norm in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, on the other hand, the devolution government decided not to introduce university tuition fees; so only students from England, but studying in Scotland, pay them.
The huge increase in the numbers attending University in the U.K. has caused a financial crisis. The introduction of tuition fees was meant to deal with that, but the consensus is that it is not enough. A recent review of university funding in England by Lord Browne recommended abolishing the cap entirely. This was felt to be too radical, so Ministers have proposed keeping the cap, but raising it to £9,000 in 2012. It was this announcement that led to the demonstration by up to 50,000 angry - and articulate - people.
For Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, developments have taken an unwelcome turn. In the run-up to the general election, the party's official policy was the abolition of university tuition fees over six years; and Mr. Clegg himself signed a pledge organised by the National Union of Students not to vote for any increase in fees if re-elected. He is now saying that the dire state of the nation's finances has forced him to rethink, a reasonable argument, on the face of it. However, as this week's events have shown, reasonable arguments have a tendency to go out of the window, whenever interest groups see a threat to their benefits. This was the first of many battles in what will be a long war.
Walter Blotscher
When the U.K. Government announced its brutal spending cuts last month, I said that it is one thing to announce unpleasant plans, quite another to implement them. The protests in London this week by university students - which turned violent, when a part of the demonstration attacked Conservative Central Office, smashing windows - were the first test of the coalition's will to force the British public to take its medicine.
University tuition used to be free in the whole of the U.K. In one of the most painful U-turns of Tony Blair's decade in power, he gave universities the right to charge fees, up to a maximum (currently £3,290 per annum). It was painful because the legislation prompted a big rebellion by his own party and was only passed thanks to help from the opposition Conservatives. Tuition fees are now the norm in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, on the other hand, the devolution government decided not to introduce university tuition fees; so only students from England, but studying in Scotland, pay them.
The huge increase in the numbers attending University in the U.K. has caused a financial crisis. The introduction of tuition fees was meant to deal with that, but the consensus is that it is not enough. A recent review of university funding in England by Lord Browne recommended abolishing the cap entirely. This was felt to be too radical, so Ministers have proposed keeping the cap, but raising it to £9,000 in 2012. It was this announcement that led to the demonstration by up to 50,000 angry - and articulate - people.
For Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, developments have taken an unwelcome turn. In the run-up to the general election, the party's official policy was the abolition of university tuition fees over six years; and Mr. Clegg himself signed a pledge organised by the National Union of Students not to vote for any increase in fees if re-elected. He is now saying that the dire state of the nation's finances has forced him to rethink, a reasonable argument, on the face of it. However, as this week's events have shown, reasonable arguments have a tendency to go out of the window, whenever interest groups see a threat to their benefits. This was the first of many battles in what will be a long war.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 10 November 2010
MPs' EXPENSES (3)
The criminal trials of three former Members of Parliament and one peer caught up in the expenses scandal in the U.K. will now go ahead. They had been charged under S.17 of the Theft Act for false accounting, but the trials were delayed while the courts first considered their defence of Parliamentary Privilege. As I mentioned in my blog of 6 February, this is an ancient privilege normally used to protect what MPs and peers say in Parliament and similar fora; until now, it had not played a part in enabling parliamentarians to remain above the law.
The courts agreed that it should continue not to do so. The trial judge, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (sitting as a body of 9 instead of the usual 5) all dismissed the defence. The first trial is now likely to start later this month.
Quite right, too. Public confidence in politicians is never going to rise, if the normal rules of society are not applied equally to all. The idea that stealing taxpayers' money is OK if you happen to have been elected by them is ridiculous. Well done, the judges.
Walter Blotscher
The criminal trials of three former Members of Parliament and one peer caught up in the expenses scandal in the U.K. will now go ahead. They had been charged under S.17 of the Theft Act for false accounting, but the trials were delayed while the courts first considered their defence of Parliamentary Privilege. As I mentioned in my blog of 6 February, this is an ancient privilege normally used to protect what MPs and peers say in Parliament and similar fora; until now, it had not played a part in enabling parliamentarians to remain above the law.
The courts agreed that it should continue not to do so. The trial judge, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (sitting as a body of 9 instead of the usual 5) all dismissed the defence. The first trial is now likely to start later this month.
Quite right, too. Public confidence in politicians is never going to rise, if the normal rules of society are not applied equally to all. The idea that stealing taxpayers' money is OK if you happen to have been elected by them is ridiculous. Well done, the judges.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 9 November 2010
OXFORD PRIME MINISTERS
There have been 54 Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its predecessors since Sir Robert Walpole invented the job in the early eighteenth century. Ten of them did not go to university, one (Neville Chamberlain) went to Birmingham and two (Lord Russell and Gordon Brown) went to Edinburgh. Of the other 41, 14 went to Cambridge and an eye-opening 27 to Oxford, including the current incumbent David Cameron. As an educational establishment, Oxford University dominates national politics like none other in the world.
Some of this is historical; Oxford and Cambridge were founded in the early middle ages, whereas many other universities only got going in the nineteenth centuries. Aristocrats also had special privileges, which allowed them to send their children to Oxford, even if they were as thick as a plank. However, the historical angle only goes so far, and doesn't explain the two to one lead over Cambridge. Moreover, some of the greatest holders of the office were Oxford men, at a time when there were educational alternatives; Sir Robert Peel, William Gladstone, the Marquess of Salisbury, Clement Attlee. And since the second world war, of the 13 Prime Ministers, only Winston Churchill, James Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown did not go to Oxford.
(Note that I used the word "men" deliberately. The only woman to hold the office, Margaret Thatcher, also went to Oxford. But unlike some, I don't consider her to have been a great Prime Minister!)
There is in fact another connection between academia and Number 10, Downing Street. 19 Prime Ministers - more than one third of the total - have been to just one school, Eton College. Founded by King Henry VI in 1440, it lies on the other side of the river Thames from Windsor Castle, and is the school which Princes William and Harry attended (as did David Cameron). 13 of those future Prime Ministers went on to Oxford, and many other Cabinet Ministers throughout history have started their education at Eton.
I have a good friend who holds a senior post at the school, so I have visited it a number of times. Whatever you may think of the concept of elite, private education, Eton undoubtedly has fantastic resources and facilities. It is, therefore, not surprising that so many of its alumni have gone on to run the country. After all, that's pretty much what they are all trained to do.
Walter Blotscher
There have been 54 Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its predecessors since Sir Robert Walpole invented the job in the early eighteenth century. Ten of them did not go to university, one (Neville Chamberlain) went to Birmingham and two (Lord Russell and Gordon Brown) went to Edinburgh. Of the other 41, 14 went to Cambridge and an eye-opening 27 to Oxford, including the current incumbent David Cameron. As an educational establishment, Oxford University dominates national politics like none other in the world.
Some of this is historical; Oxford and Cambridge were founded in the early middle ages, whereas many other universities only got going in the nineteenth centuries. Aristocrats also had special privileges, which allowed them to send their children to Oxford, even if they were as thick as a plank. However, the historical angle only goes so far, and doesn't explain the two to one lead over Cambridge. Moreover, some of the greatest holders of the office were Oxford men, at a time when there were educational alternatives; Sir Robert Peel, William Gladstone, the Marquess of Salisbury, Clement Attlee. And since the second world war, of the 13 Prime Ministers, only Winston Churchill, James Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown did not go to Oxford.
(Note that I used the word "men" deliberately. The only woman to hold the office, Margaret Thatcher, also went to Oxford. But unlike some, I don't consider her to have been a great Prime Minister!)
There is in fact another connection between academia and Number 10, Downing Street. 19 Prime Ministers - more than one third of the total - have been to just one school, Eton College. Founded by King Henry VI in 1440, it lies on the other side of the river Thames from Windsor Castle, and is the school which Princes William and Harry attended (as did David Cameron). 13 of those future Prime Ministers went on to Oxford, and many other Cabinet Ministers throughout history have started their education at Eton.
I have a good friend who holds a senior post at the school, so I have visited it a number of times. Whatever you may think of the concept of elite, private education, Eton undoubtedly has fantastic resources and facilities. It is, therefore, not surprising that so many of its alumni have gone on to run the country. After all, that's pretty much what they are all trained to do.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 8 November 2010
Aa or Å?
Danish has three letters not found in non-Scandinavian languages. 'Æ' is an amalgam of a and e, as you sometimes see in words like mediæval; while 'ø' is like the German 'ö', and is also used as the empty set in mathematics. The third one, 'å', was originally a long 'a' which gradually came to be written 'aa' (even though it is pronounced a bit like the o in the word go; the Danish word for go is, in fact, gå). Following a spelling reform in 1948, Danish adopted, instead of 'aa', the "bolle a" with the little o on top, which had been formally incorporated into Norwegian in 1917, and which had existed in Swedish as far back as the Middle Ages.
Who gives a ... , as my elder son would say? Well, some Danish people give a lot, for two reasons. The first is that 'a' is the first letter in the alphabet, whereas 'å' is the last one, so people flicking through an index of (say) place names are less likely to have the patience to get to the 'å' section at the end. That was the reason why the town of Aabenraa was given a dispensation, and allowed to retain its old-style spelling instead of changing to Åbenrå.
Secondly, in an electronic age dominated by the English language, it is felt that 'å' words are put at a disadvantage, since they can't be searched on the average English keyboard. That at any rate is the view of the city council of Århus, Denmark's second city. They have just decided that from 1 January next year, the name of the town will be Aarhus. Changing all of the signs will undoubtedly cost money; but that will be more than outweighed in their view by increased numbers of visits from simple-minded foreigners, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to find it.
Mmm. I have to admit I am not convinced by either of the above arguments. In fact, I have never seen the point of the extra letter; if it sounds like an 'o', why not just write 'o'? But then I am just a fåreigner.
Wålter Blåtscher
Danish has three letters not found in non-Scandinavian languages. 'Æ' is an amalgam of a and e, as you sometimes see in words like mediæval; while 'ø' is like the German 'ö', and is also used as the empty set in mathematics. The third one, 'å', was originally a long 'a' which gradually came to be written 'aa' (even though it is pronounced a bit like the o in the word go; the Danish word for go is, in fact, gå). Following a spelling reform in 1948, Danish adopted, instead of 'aa', the "bolle a" with the little o on top, which had been formally incorporated into Norwegian in 1917, and which had existed in Swedish as far back as the Middle Ages.
Who gives a ... , as my elder son would say? Well, some Danish people give a lot, for two reasons. The first is that 'a' is the first letter in the alphabet, whereas 'å' is the last one, so people flicking through an index of (say) place names are less likely to have the patience to get to the 'å' section at the end. That was the reason why the town of Aabenraa was given a dispensation, and allowed to retain its old-style spelling instead of changing to Åbenrå.
Secondly, in an electronic age dominated by the English language, it is felt that 'å' words are put at a disadvantage, since they can't be searched on the average English keyboard. That at any rate is the view of the city council of Århus, Denmark's second city. They have just decided that from 1 January next year, the name of the town will be Aarhus. Changing all of the signs will undoubtedly cost money; but that will be more than outweighed in their view by increased numbers of visits from simple-minded foreigners, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to find it.
Mmm. I have to admit I am not convinced by either of the above arguments. In fact, I have never seen the point of the extra letter; if it sounds like an 'o', why not just write 'o'? But then I am just a fåreigner.
Wålter Blåtscher
Sunday 7 November 2010
WINTER
Winter has arrived. A bit early, in my view, in the first week of November. This morning there was frost on the ground; and, although beautifully sunny, it was decidedly chilly when I went cycling this afternoon.
I spent most of the day with a chainsaw, chopping up wood for the wood burning stove. As I say, winter has arrived.
Walter Blotscher
Winter has arrived. A bit early, in my view, in the first week of November. This morning there was frost on the ground; and, although beautifully sunny, it was decidedly chilly when I went cycling this afternoon.
I spent most of the day with a chainsaw, chopping up wood for the wood burning stove. As I say, winter has arrived.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 6 November 2010
ENGLAND v. NEW ZEALAND
England opened their autumn campaign against the southern hemisphere rugby nations with a 26-16 loss at Twickenham to New Zealand, the current world number one ranked team. It was their ninth defeat in a row against the All Blacks; and, despite a stirring second half in which they created some chances, they never really looked like ending that dismal run. Too often the ball was knocked on at the crucial moment; while in fly-half Dan Carter, New Zealand had the classiest player on the pitch.
Rugby is a minority sport in Denmark, so I couldn't watch the game on television, despite my 40 channels. However, I managed to watch it on my computer, courtesy of www.myp2p.eu. I have never quite worked out how they manage to show live - and free - something which Sky Sports have paid quite a lot of money to broadcast, and which they presumably wish to keep exclusive. But hey, I am not complaining, if it works, it works.
Football, on the other hand, is not a minority sport here, and my 40 channels include, apart from the Danish matches, live Premier League and Championship ties, plus the best from La Liga in Spain and the Bundesliga in Germany. After the rugby, I watched the second half of Derby v. Portsmouth from the Championship. Since Derby were my boyhood team and they won 2-0, it sort of made up for the England defeat.
Walter Blotscher
England opened their autumn campaign against the southern hemisphere rugby nations with a 26-16 loss at Twickenham to New Zealand, the current world number one ranked team. It was their ninth defeat in a row against the All Blacks; and, despite a stirring second half in which they created some chances, they never really looked like ending that dismal run. Too often the ball was knocked on at the crucial moment; while in fly-half Dan Carter, New Zealand had the classiest player on the pitch.
Rugby is a minority sport in Denmark, so I couldn't watch the game on television, despite my 40 channels. However, I managed to watch it on my computer, courtesy of www.myp2p.eu. I have never quite worked out how they manage to show live - and free - something which Sky Sports have paid quite a lot of money to broadcast, and which they presumably wish to keep exclusive. But hey, I am not complaining, if it works, it works.
Football, on the other hand, is not a minority sport here, and my 40 channels include, apart from the Danish matches, live Premier League and Championship ties, plus the best from La Liga in Spain and the Bundesliga in Germany. After the rugby, I watched the second half of Derby v. Portsmouth from the Championship. Since Derby were my boyhood team and they won 2-0, it sort of made up for the England defeat.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 5 November 2010
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
With many of the world's economies in deep trouble, you would think that there would be a demand from voters for serious financial analysis. Yet a high proportion of the financial items on the television news are superficial, trivial even. First, because they tend to concentrate on stock markets. Stock markets are an important component of the financial markets, but they are just that; one component out of many. Secondly, because within stock markets, they concentrate on the headline indices. Again, while important, these indices represent only a fraction of the total market, not the whole market and perhaps not even the most important part of it.
On the Copenhagen stock exchange, the main index is the C20, covering Denmark's 20 biggest companies. These include four banks, two insurance companies, three shipping companies, a brewery, four pharmaceutical companies and Vestas, the world's leader in wind energy. However, they do not give a good picture of the domestic economy, not least because there is nothing agricultural amongst them (all those pigs, for instance). So, having a daily news item on the rise or fall of the C20 index may be interesting to day traders, but can hardly be considered serious financial journalism.
Given that we are all, through our taxes, paying for the clean-up of the current mess, I think it would be a good idea if the television media upped their game, and started doing more serious things. Like, for instance, explaining to the general public what quantitative easing means. However, since that is unlikely to happen, I am going to go back to my Economist.
Walter Blotscher
With many of the world's economies in deep trouble, you would think that there would be a demand from voters for serious financial analysis. Yet a high proportion of the financial items on the television news are superficial, trivial even. First, because they tend to concentrate on stock markets. Stock markets are an important component of the financial markets, but they are just that; one component out of many. Secondly, because within stock markets, they concentrate on the headline indices. Again, while important, these indices represent only a fraction of the total market, not the whole market and perhaps not even the most important part of it.
On the Copenhagen stock exchange, the main index is the C20, covering Denmark's 20 biggest companies. These include four banks, two insurance companies, three shipping companies, a brewery, four pharmaceutical companies and Vestas, the world's leader in wind energy. However, they do not give a good picture of the domestic economy, not least because there is nothing agricultural amongst them (all those pigs, for instance). So, having a daily news item on the rise or fall of the C20 index may be interesting to day traders, but can hardly be considered serious financial journalism.
Given that we are all, through our taxes, paying for the clean-up of the current mess, I think it would be a good idea if the television media upped their game, and started doing more serious things. Like, for instance, explaining to the general public what quantitative easing means. However, since that is unlikely to happen, I am going to go back to my Economist.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 4 November 2010
THATCHING
Our new neighbours live in the oldest house in the village, a farmhouse dating from the late 1700's. Their predecessors spent most of the past 8 years doing it up themselves, while having three small children in the middle of a building site. However, they didn't manage to get around to rethatching the roof before they divorced and decamped. That has now been remedied; and it has been a pleasure to watch the process unfold over the past couple of weeks.
A surprising number of houses in southern Fünen still have thatched roofs. Surprising, since Danes put a lot of effort into their houses, with underfloor heating and wooden windows as standard, and an emphasis on quality workmanship. The easiest way to get a Danish carpenter to laugh is to talk about English houses, in which the main sewage outlet pipe is on the outside of the brickwork. In his view, the ugly thing should be hidden away between the - double - walls.
But is a thatched roof really a "pile of old crap", as my father-in-law used to put it? Seen with this admittedly unprofessional eye, it seems almost a work of art, as the unwieldy bunches of reeds are aligned, tied, and trimmed. Done properly, it is completely waterproof. Insurance premiums are higher, in order to take account of the heightened fire risk. But the overall effect matches the style of the house much better than alternative roof structures.
One difference from English thatched roofs is that Danish ones don't have any netting on them, they usually just have faggots on the top for decoration. I always thought that the netting was to stop birds from nesting in amongst the thatching. But there are birds in Denmark, and they don't seem to get in there. Perhaps they are like the carpenters, and simply laugh at British building habits.
Walter Blotscher
Our new neighbours live in the oldest house in the village, a farmhouse dating from the late 1700's. Their predecessors spent most of the past 8 years doing it up themselves, while having three small children in the middle of a building site. However, they didn't manage to get around to rethatching the roof before they divorced and decamped. That has now been remedied; and it has been a pleasure to watch the process unfold over the past couple of weeks.
A surprising number of houses in southern Fünen still have thatched roofs. Surprising, since Danes put a lot of effort into their houses, with underfloor heating and wooden windows as standard, and an emphasis on quality workmanship. The easiest way to get a Danish carpenter to laugh is to talk about English houses, in which the main sewage outlet pipe is on the outside of the brickwork. In his view, the ugly thing should be hidden away between the - double - walls.
But is a thatched roof really a "pile of old crap", as my father-in-law used to put it? Seen with this admittedly unprofessional eye, it seems almost a work of art, as the unwieldy bunches of reeds are aligned, tied, and trimmed. Done properly, it is completely waterproof. Insurance premiums are higher, in order to take account of the heightened fire risk. But the overall effect matches the style of the house much better than alternative roof structures.
One difference from English thatched roofs is that Danish ones don't have any netting on them, they usually just have faggots on the top for decoration. I always thought that the netting was to stop birds from nesting in amongst the thatching. But there are birds in Denmark, and they don't seem to get in there. Perhaps they are like the carpenters, and simply laugh at British building habits.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 3 November 2010
BARACK OBAMA AT HALFWAY
Barack Obama was propelled into office two years ago with such ridiculously high expectations, that he was bound to disappoint. What was unclear until today was how big that disappointment would be. With the results of the mid-term elections in, we now know the answer; very big.
The Democrats got a drubbing. The Republicans gained more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them control of the House and the Speakership. They also won seats in the Senate, though not enough to gain a majority. Perhaps the most alarming defeats for the Democrats were in the races for state governors, where they lost around a dozen, and state legislatures, where the Republicans now control more seats than they have since 1928. These results matter, since the new state legislatures will have the task of drawing up electoral boundary changes based on the 2010 census, thereby making it possible to entrench Republican gains.
Not all of this is the President's fault. He was dealt a terrible hand, with two full-on wars and the worst economic recession since the 1930's. On both fronts, he has made progress, ending the fighting in Iraq, getting a stimulus package passed, rescuing General Motors, and saving the financial system. He has also managed to enact changes to the ridiculously expensive U.S. healthcare system. However, the amount of progress has not been enough, not least because unemployment has remained stubbornly high. Furthermore, perceptions have turned against him. Where he was seen as cerebral and refreshingly non-partisan in 2008, he now looks to be aloof and uncaring in 2010. Both perceptions are probably wrong, or at least too one-dimensional, but that is how it plays out in the public mind. Politics can be a cruel business.
Using the remaining half of his term of office to make major changes will be difficult. The Republican House will try to dismantle what he has already achieved (notably on healthcare), the Senate will block those attempts, and the President can veto the few that manage to get through the defences. That doesn't look like constructive politics, but the alternative of "consensus across the middle" looks likely to be a pipe dream. As one Tea Party Republican put it, legislative gridlock may be unattractive, but at least it is an improvement on President Obama's policies. I suspect he means it.
All of which makes the title of this blog more than just a possibility; maybe Barack Obama will be just a one-term President. True, there is a long way to go before 2012. The Republicans may believe their own rhetoric and choose a nutcase candidate - Sarah Palin springs to mind -, or something awful may happen that causes the nation to rally round the President. However, the chances are that one of those new Republican governors will do something brilliant enough in their home state that it can be used as a springboard for a party nomination and a serious run for the Presidency. Barack Obama is not yet history; but he has got a fight on his hands if he is to get a second term in his country's highest office.
Walter Blotscher
Barack Obama was propelled into office two years ago with such ridiculously high expectations, that he was bound to disappoint. What was unclear until today was how big that disappointment would be. With the results of the mid-term elections in, we now know the answer; very big.
The Democrats got a drubbing. The Republicans gained more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them control of the House and the Speakership. They also won seats in the Senate, though not enough to gain a majority. Perhaps the most alarming defeats for the Democrats were in the races for state governors, where they lost around a dozen, and state legislatures, where the Republicans now control more seats than they have since 1928. These results matter, since the new state legislatures will have the task of drawing up electoral boundary changes based on the 2010 census, thereby making it possible to entrench Republican gains.
Not all of this is the President's fault. He was dealt a terrible hand, with two full-on wars and the worst economic recession since the 1930's. On both fronts, he has made progress, ending the fighting in Iraq, getting a stimulus package passed, rescuing General Motors, and saving the financial system. He has also managed to enact changes to the ridiculously expensive U.S. healthcare system. However, the amount of progress has not been enough, not least because unemployment has remained stubbornly high. Furthermore, perceptions have turned against him. Where he was seen as cerebral and refreshingly non-partisan in 2008, he now looks to be aloof and uncaring in 2010. Both perceptions are probably wrong, or at least too one-dimensional, but that is how it plays out in the public mind. Politics can be a cruel business.
Using the remaining half of his term of office to make major changes will be difficult. The Republican House will try to dismantle what he has already achieved (notably on healthcare), the Senate will block those attempts, and the President can veto the few that manage to get through the defences. That doesn't look like constructive politics, but the alternative of "consensus across the middle" looks likely to be a pipe dream. As one Tea Party Republican put it, legislative gridlock may be unattractive, but at least it is an improvement on President Obama's policies. I suspect he means it.
All of which makes the title of this blog more than just a possibility; maybe Barack Obama will be just a one-term President. True, there is a long way to go before 2012. The Republicans may believe their own rhetoric and choose a nutcase candidate - Sarah Palin springs to mind -, or something awful may happen that causes the nation to rally round the President. However, the chances are that one of those new Republican governors will do something brilliant enough in their home state that it can be used as a springboard for a party nomination and a serious run for the Presidency. Barack Obama is not yet history; but he has got a fight on his hands if he is to get a second term in his country's highest office.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 2 November 2010
ONE MAN WENT TO MOW (3)
On Sunday I mowed the front lawn for what I hope will be the last time this year. I got in a quick hour before the sun went down, and am jolly glad that I did, since it has rained ever since, and the days are getting dark by 4pm, now that the clocks have gone back. The grass seems to have realised all of this, and has gone to sleep for the winter. I merely tucked it up and added a duvet.
Garden activity this winter will now concentrate on pruning the apple trees. Apart from one which fell over, and provided a fair amount of fuel for the wood-burning stove, they haven't really been looked at since we moved in in 2002. That is about to change.
Walter Blotscher
On Sunday I mowed the front lawn for what I hope will be the last time this year. I got in a quick hour before the sun went down, and am jolly glad that I did, since it has rained ever since, and the days are getting dark by 4pm, now that the clocks have gone back. The grass seems to have realised all of this, and has gone to sleep for the winter. I merely tucked it up and added a duvet.
Garden activity this winter will now concentrate on pruning the apple trees. Apart from one which fell over, and provided a fair amount of fuel for the wood-burning stove, they haven't really been looked at since we moved in in 2002. That is about to change.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 1 November 2010
CAROLINE WOZNIACKI
Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting star in Denmark. Still only 20, she already lives in Monaco, a sure sign that she earns a lot of kroner. And she has just finished the year as the world's number one ranked woman tennis player. No wonder the Danish press hang on her every word and deed.
But is she the best player in the world? The doubters point to the fact that she has yet to win one of the four major "Grand Slam" tournaments, and to her never having beaten either of the Williams sisters, Kim Clijsters or Justine Henin. Since three of these are currently injured, Wozniacki owes her ranking to having played a lot of tournaments, doing consistently well in all of them, and staying injury-free. However, when it comes to the big events, she tends to falter at the final hurdle. Indeed, in the end of season tournament in Doha last week, which pitted the best 8 (injury-free) players against each other, it was Clijsters who emerged on top, defeating Wozniacki in the final in three sets.
So no, I don't believe that she is the best player in the world at the moment; for me, that would be Clijsters. However, Wozniacki's greatest advantage is that she is still very young, whereas her rivals are in their late twenties or older. She has time to improve her game, particularly at the net, they do not. Whether it is enough to win one of the majors, I think 2011 will be the crucial year that makes or breaks her.
In the meantime, let Denmark be happy that it has found a world-class sportswoman (even if she is half Polish).
Walter Blotscher
Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting star in Denmark. Still only 20, she already lives in Monaco, a sure sign that she earns a lot of kroner. And she has just finished the year as the world's number one ranked woman tennis player. No wonder the Danish press hang on her every word and deed.
But is she the best player in the world? The doubters point to the fact that she has yet to win one of the four major "Grand Slam" tournaments, and to her never having beaten either of the Williams sisters, Kim Clijsters or Justine Henin. Since three of these are currently injured, Wozniacki owes her ranking to having played a lot of tournaments, doing consistently well in all of them, and staying injury-free. However, when it comes to the big events, she tends to falter at the final hurdle. Indeed, in the end of season tournament in Doha last week, which pitted the best 8 (injury-free) players against each other, it was Clijsters who emerged on top, defeating Wozniacki in the final in three sets.
So no, I don't believe that she is the best player in the world at the moment; for me, that would be Clijsters. However, Wozniacki's greatest advantage is that she is still very young, whereas her rivals are in their late twenties or older. She has time to improve her game, particularly at the net, they do not. Whether it is enough to win one of the majors, I think 2011 will be the crucial year that makes or breaks her.
In the meantime, let Denmark be happy that it has found a world-class sportswoman (even if she is half Polish).
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
