OFF ON HOLIDAY
Tomorrow morning I am off to the U.K. for my annual walking holiday in the Lake District. After so many years of good weather (plus the same for the last two months), I fear a drenching, and will dress accordingly. I will however still be taking my cycling kit in order to give the lads a fright; bright pink and blue Lampre colours this time.
I will also be visiting my Mum, whom I haven't yet seen this year. I will get a lift back to Derby with my friend, who will then be given tea by my mother, a bit like a sealion getting a fish when they have done something right. My mother is very good at making tea; and my friend is very good at eating it. A win-win deal.
I have just checked the kitchen garden and nothing appears to be happening yet. However, I have great expectations that there is a lot of growing activity going on underground, and that there will be masses to see when I get back. I leave my daughter in charge of weeding and defending against moles.
I don't blog when I am on holiday, so you'll have to hold your breath for 10 days. Back on 8 June.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 28 May 2011
Friday 27 May 2011
THE FRENCH OPEN
Tennis is a great sport to watch on television. One reason is that the court fits almost exactly into a rectangular television screen. I have been to Wimbledon a couple of times; but the matches are not as good live, either because you sit too far away or because the ball travels faster than your head can spin on your neck. There are also no sofas at Wimbledon that you can sprawl in while you watch.
This week and next it's the French Open, the only one of the four major championships that is played on clay courts. Clay is much slower than other surfaces, and the ball sits up more than on grass or hard courts. So it favours southern Europeans who grow up on it and disadvantages serve and volley players, who are otherwise dominant on grass. One reason why Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are considered two of the best players of all time is that they have won all four majors on three different surfaces. By contrast, although Bjorn Borg won six French Opens and five Wimbledons, he never won the U.S. or Australian Opens; while Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg could never master clay, even if they were brilliant elsewhere.
The first week has already produced some great tennis. Both the top seeds in the women's draw, Caroline Wozniacki and Kim Clijsters, are out, which paves the way for a new name on the trophy. In the men's draw, Federer has been playing sublimely while Nadal has struggled. This evening I saw the first two sets in the intriguing third round match between Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro. Djokovic hasn't lost a match yet this year, and will take over the number one spot from Nadal if he reaches the final. While del Potro is coming back from a long injury lay-off, and is a much better player than his current ranking of 25. It was one set all this evening, and they will finish it tomorrow; it would not surprise me if the winner of the match ended up winning the whole thing.
Walter Blotscher
Tennis is a great sport to watch on television. One reason is that the court fits almost exactly into a rectangular television screen. I have been to Wimbledon a couple of times; but the matches are not as good live, either because you sit too far away or because the ball travels faster than your head can spin on your neck. There are also no sofas at Wimbledon that you can sprawl in while you watch.
This week and next it's the French Open, the only one of the four major championships that is played on clay courts. Clay is much slower than other surfaces, and the ball sits up more than on grass or hard courts. So it favours southern Europeans who grow up on it and disadvantages serve and volley players, who are otherwise dominant on grass. One reason why Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are considered two of the best players of all time is that they have won all four majors on three different surfaces. By contrast, although Bjorn Borg won six French Opens and five Wimbledons, he never won the U.S. or Australian Opens; while Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg could never master clay, even if they were brilliant elsewhere.
The first week has already produced some great tennis. Both the top seeds in the women's draw, Caroline Wozniacki and Kim Clijsters, are out, which paves the way for a new name on the trophy. In the men's draw, Federer has been playing sublimely while Nadal has struggled. This evening I saw the first two sets in the intriguing third round match between Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro. Djokovic hasn't lost a match yet this year, and will take over the number one spot from Nadal if he reaches the final. While del Potro is coming back from a long injury lay-off, and is a much better player than his current ranking of 25. It was one set all this evening, and they will finish it tomorrow; it would not surprise me if the winner of the match ended up winning the whole thing.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 26 May 2011
KYSSEPIGER
Under my influence, my daughter is getting interested in cycling. It helps that my prediction of Contador to win the Giro (now in its third week) looks likely to be correct, whereas her friend's prediction of Nibali started going wrong the moment he mentioned it. But I also think there is the seed of a genuine enthusiasm.
So I asked her the other today if she would like to become a kyssepige (literally a "kissing girl"). Kyssepiger are the good-looking young women, who pop up on the podium at the end of each stage of a bike race and plant a kiss on the cheeks of the various winners (at a minimum the stage winner, overall leader, points leader, king of the mountains, and leading young rider). They wear the well-cut and stylish clothes of the sponsors of the various competitions - Esta Tea, for instance, is this year's sponsor of the overall leader's pink jersey - and smile for the camera. And that, pretty much, is all that they do.
My daughter told me in no uncertain terms that she has no desire to become a kyssepige. I think she quite likes the idea of the free clothes. But she also remembers the times I have come home from my 30km trips, prompting a curt "you smell". If my efforts only last an hour or so, think what it must be like to kiss a man who has just spent 6 hours in the saddle and has barely had time to put a sponsor's cap on. L'Oreal Paris Men Expert is another of the Giro's sponsors; I can see that there would be demand for their product.
In this modern world, it is somewhat surprising that there still exists the job of kyssepige, which is essentially a sexist relic. When the Giro started in Amsterdam last year, a number of gay men applied for the job; they rather liked the idea of kissing a fit, sweaty man. Needless to say, they didn't get it.
Walter Blotscher
Under my influence, my daughter is getting interested in cycling. It helps that my prediction of Contador to win the Giro (now in its third week) looks likely to be correct, whereas her friend's prediction of Nibali started going wrong the moment he mentioned it. But I also think there is the seed of a genuine enthusiasm.
So I asked her the other today if she would like to become a kyssepige (literally a "kissing girl"). Kyssepiger are the good-looking young women, who pop up on the podium at the end of each stage of a bike race and plant a kiss on the cheeks of the various winners (at a minimum the stage winner, overall leader, points leader, king of the mountains, and leading young rider). They wear the well-cut and stylish clothes of the sponsors of the various competitions - Esta Tea, for instance, is this year's sponsor of the overall leader's pink jersey - and smile for the camera. And that, pretty much, is all that they do.
My daughter told me in no uncertain terms that she has no desire to become a kyssepige. I think she quite likes the idea of the free clothes. But she also remembers the times I have come home from my 30km trips, prompting a curt "you smell". If my efforts only last an hour or so, think what it must be like to kiss a man who has just spent 6 hours in the saddle and has barely had time to put a sponsor's cap on. L'Oreal Paris Men Expert is another of the Giro's sponsors; I can see that there would be demand for their product.
In this modern world, it is somewhat surprising that there still exists the job of kyssepige, which is essentially a sexist relic. When the Giro started in Amsterdam last year, a number of gay men applied for the job; they rather liked the idea of kissing a fit, sweaty man. Needless to say, they didn't get it.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 25 May 2011
HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA (3)
If anyone doubted that healthcare in the U.S. is a big political issue, then the results of this week's congressional by-election in New York state should make things clear.
The 26th district is heavily Republican, and the party's candidate, Jane Corwin, spent US$3.4 million on her campaign. Normally that would be enough. But things began to unravel when she endorsed the 2012 budget plan passed by the House Republicans. This calls - amongst other things - for the abolition of Medicare, the federal spending programme that provides healthcare for pensioners, and replacing it with a voucher system in which they purchase private insurance. When Democrat Kathy Hochul started running television adverts highlighting her opponent's stand, her poll ratings started to go up and Ms. Corwin's nosedived. The Republican poll lead evaporated, and the Democrat won easily.
The shock result ought to give the Republican leadership in Congress pause for thought. However, that seems unlikely. At the moment, all of its potential Presidential candidates are competing to put forward policies with the smallest Governmental input, preferably zero. On current showing, voters are unlikely to support them.
Walter Blotscher
If anyone doubted that healthcare in the U.S. is a big political issue, then the results of this week's congressional by-election in New York state should make things clear.
The 26th district is heavily Republican, and the party's candidate, Jane Corwin, spent US$3.4 million on her campaign. Normally that would be enough. But things began to unravel when she endorsed the 2012 budget plan passed by the House Republicans. This calls - amongst other things - for the abolition of Medicare, the federal spending programme that provides healthcare for pensioners, and replacing it with a voucher system in which they purchase private insurance. When Democrat Kathy Hochul started running television adverts highlighting her opponent's stand, her poll ratings started to go up and Ms. Corwin's nosedived. The Republican poll lead evaporated, and the Democrat won easily.
The shock result ought to give the Republican leadership in Congress pause for thought. However, that seems unlikely. At the moment, all of its potential Presidential candidates are competing to put forward policies with the smallest Governmental input, preferably zero. On current showing, voters are unlikely to support them.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 24 May 2011
BOB DYLAN
Bob Dylan is 70 today. Born Robert Zimmerman in Minnesota, he became one of the most influential songwriters ever, and is still going strong after a career lasting 50 years.
I was too young to really know him in the sixties, so he was never one of my absolute favourites (unlike, say, Jethro Tull, the Jam, or the Eagles). But he wrote so many songs, it is hard not to like some of them. His best work in my view was when he collaborated with the Band, who were very talented in their own right. I also loved the first Travelling Wilburys album, another collaborative effort.
I once got drunk and stayed up all night in Oxford in a queue in order to be sure of buying a ticket to a Bob Dylan concert when the theatre opened in the morning. The episode stuck in my mind, because one of my fellow drunk queuers managed to dislocate his shoulder while we were playing with a tennis ball. We got it back in again, though; and got a ticket.
Walter Blotscher
Bob Dylan is 70 today. Born Robert Zimmerman in Minnesota, he became one of the most influential songwriters ever, and is still going strong after a career lasting 50 years.
I was too young to really know him in the sixties, so he was never one of my absolute favourites (unlike, say, Jethro Tull, the Jam, or the Eagles). But he wrote so many songs, it is hard not to like some of them. His best work in my view was when he collaborated with the Band, who were very talented in their own right. I also loved the first Travelling Wilburys album, another collaborative effort.
I once got drunk and stayed up all night in Oxford in a queue in order to be sure of buying a ticket to a Bob Dylan concert when the theatre opened in the morning. The episode stuck in my mind, because one of my fellow drunk queuers managed to dislocate his shoulder while we were playing with a tennis ball. We got it back in again, though; and got a ticket.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 23 May 2011
STATESMANSHIP
Statesmanship is, in my view, one of those things that is very difficult to define, but you know it when you see it.
Two very different forms of statesmanship were on view in Ireland this week. First up was the Queen, trying to heal almost a thousand years of difficult history between the English mainland and the island of Ireland. Her style, as always, is not to say very much (so no chance of a gaffe), to make a few shrewd gestures and visits, and to look elegant. 60 years of experience have taught her to keep her trap shut; politicians the world over should take note.
She was followed by President Obama, visiting his ancestral roots on the way to a G8 summit. His style on such occasions is to be a regular guy, drinking Guinness in the local pub, thanking the local people for their contribution to America, saying that the country's terrible economic problems can be overcome if everyone pulls together. Platitudinous words in the hands of most politicians, but he manages to sound sincere, and so make them inspirational.
Both visits were judged to be a great success and rightly so. Interestingly, both wowed their hosts by throwing in a few words of Gælic (a note to all foreigners, trying to appreciate the local culture goes down well with the locals). Even more interestingly, the two masters of their craft will be meeting each other soon, since the President will take in a State visit to the U.K. as part of his European tour. I would love to be a fly on the wall; not at the State banquet with the great and the good, but when they have a cup of tea together, on their own.
Walter Blotscher
Statesmanship is, in my view, one of those things that is very difficult to define, but you know it when you see it.
Two very different forms of statesmanship were on view in Ireland this week. First up was the Queen, trying to heal almost a thousand years of difficult history between the English mainland and the island of Ireland. Her style, as always, is not to say very much (so no chance of a gaffe), to make a few shrewd gestures and visits, and to look elegant. 60 years of experience have taught her to keep her trap shut; politicians the world over should take note.
She was followed by President Obama, visiting his ancestral roots on the way to a G8 summit. His style on such occasions is to be a regular guy, drinking Guinness in the local pub, thanking the local people for their contribution to America, saying that the country's terrible economic problems can be overcome if everyone pulls together. Platitudinous words in the hands of most politicians, but he manages to sound sincere, and so make them inspirational.
Both visits were judged to be a great success and rightly so. Interestingly, both wowed their hosts by throwing in a few words of Gælic (a note to all foreigners, trying to appreciate the local culture goes down well with the locals). Even more interestingly, the two masters of their craft will be meeting each other soon, since the President will take in a State visit to the U.K. as part of his European tour. I would love to be a fly on the wall; not at the State banquet with the great and the good, but when they have a cup of tea together, on their own.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 22 May 2011
STRONG BELIEFS
I have nothing against people having strong beliefs. Quite the contrary; I have a fair few myself, and they appear regularly in this blog. However, I do have a problem with beliefs if they are crazy; the idea that England are good enough to win the World Cup, for instance, or most of the Republican candidates' economic policies.
The latest crazy belief was propagated by a Christian radio network in the U.S. called Family Radio. Spurred on by its 89-year old head, evangelist preacher Harold Camping, the station predicted that yesterday would be the end of the world. Following a giant earthquake at 18.00, Jesus Christ would return to earth. True believers would be "raptured" up to heaven, while non-believers would have a problem; by 21 October, they would all be dead.
It's very difficult for me to take this sort of thing seriously. I am not a particuarly religious person, but one question immediately springs to mind; if God exists and is omnipotent, why on earth would he want to do this? Just before the Queen stage of the Giro and the day before the start of the French Open. Would he really want to make life miserable for so many sports fans? I don't think so. He's probably a tennis nut himself; after all, only God could have fashioned Roger Federer's on-court elegance.
But if I don't, plenty of people do, apparently. One retired New Yorker spent US$140,000 of his own money (i.e. a serious amount of dosh) paying for billboards, advertising the fact. Another man drove 3,000 miles across America to Family Radio's headquarters, in order to be in the right place for this event. Not surprisingly, when nothing happened last night, they were puzzled. That's probably putting it rather mildly.
The most bizare aspect of the story, though, is that Mr. Camping has what British policemen call "form" in this area. Back in 1994, he also predicted the end of the world, and - as we all know - that didn't happen. Why would anybody want to believe someone with such a track record?
Walter Blotscher
I have nothing against people having strong beliefs. Quite the contrary; I have a fair few myself, and they appear regularly in this blog. However, I do have a problem with beliefs if they are crazy; the idea that England are good enough to win the World Cup, for instance, or most of the Republican candidates' economic policies.
The latest crazy belief was propagated by a Christian radio network in the U.S. called Family Radio. Spurred on by its 89-year old head, evangelist preacher Harold Camping, the station predicted that yesterday would be the end of the world. Following a giant earthquake at 18.00, Jesus Christ would return to earth. True believers would be "raptured" up to heaven, while non-believers would have a problem; by 21 October, they would all be dead.
It's very difficult for me to take this sort of thing seriously. I am not a particuarly religious person, but one question immediately springs to mind; if God exists and is omnipotent, why on earth would he want to do this? Just before the Queen stage of the Giro and the day before the start of the French Open. Would he really want to make life miserable for so many sports fans? I don't think so. He's probably a tennis nut himself; after all, only God could have fashioned Roger Federer's on-court elegance.
But if I don't, plenty of people do, apparently. One retired New Yorker spent US$140,000 of his own money (i.e. a serious amount of dosh) paying for billboards, advertising the fact. Another man drove 3,000 miles across America to Family Radio's headquarters, in order to be in the right place for this event. Not surprisingly, when nothing happened last night, they were puzzled. That's probably putting it rather mildly.
The most bizare aspect of the story, though, is that Mr. Camping has what British policemen call "form" in this area. Back in 1994, he also predicted the end of the world, and - as we all know - that didn't happen. Why would anybody want to believe someone with such a track record?
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 21 May 2011
BREAKFAST
They say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I agree; I can't do anything in the morning without a full tummy. Last Sunday I did 70kms of cycling, starting at 9.00am, after I had got up too late at 8.20am. That left far too little time to digest my breakfast properly, which meant that I was struggling from halfway up the first hill. Since I am going cycling again tomorrow morning, I will have to set the alarm for 7.00am.
When I lived in New York for a year as a 21-year old, I ate breakfast out every morning. A full cooked breakfast with unlimited coffee was ridiculously cheap if you ate it before 11.00am; under a dollar, if I remember correctly. American coffee shops being thin on the ground in rural Denmark, I have to make it myself. And over the past year or so, it has gelled into a fairly fixed ritual.
Breakfast nowadays consists of; either cereal with milk and no sugar or half a fresh grapefruit with sugar (it was grapefruit this morning), followed by two pieces of toast with butter and marmalade. This is washed down with a large cop of very strong coffee made in my new espresso coffee machine. That is generally enough to get me through until "elevenses", when I have a cup of coffee and a biscuit or two.
When I visit my mother's (as I will do in a couple of weeks), I get to smear the toast with Roses' lime marmalade, which is absolutely the best marmalade in the world. I must remember to bring back a jar, along with the Branston Pickle.
Walter Blotscher
They say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I agree; I can't do anything in the morning without a full tummy. Last Sunday I did 70kms of cycling, starting at 9.00am, after I had got up too late at 8.20am. That left far too little time to digest my breakfast properly, which meant that I was struggling from halfway up the first hill. Since I am going cycling again tomorrow morning, I will have to set the alarm for 7.00am.
When I lived in New York for a year as a 21-year old, I ate breakfast out every morning. A full cooked breakfast with unlimited coffee was ridiculously cheap if you ate it before 11.00am; under a dollar, if I remember correctly. American coffee shops being thin on the ground in rural Denmark, I have to make it myself. And over the past year or so, it has gelled into a fairly fixed ritual.
Breakfast nowadays consists of; either cereal with milk and no sugar or half a fresh grapefruit with sugar (it was grapefruit this morning), followed by two pieces of toast with butter and marmalade. This is washed down with a large cop of very strong coffee made in my new espresso coffee machine. That is generally enough to get me through until "elevenses", when I have a cup of coffee and a biscuit or two.
When I visit my mother's (as I will do in a couple of weeks), I get to smear the toast with Roses' lime marmalade, which is absolutely the best marmalade in the world. I must remember to bring back a jar, along with the Branston Pickle.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 19 May 2011
THE COST OF BEING OLD
I have on a number of occasions mentioned in this blog the unsustainable future costs (in rich countries, at least) of pension commitments and healthcare. A new report from the OECD, the rich country club, confirms this.
By 2050, it is estimated that 10% of the population in these countries will be over 80, up from 4% in 2010, and less than 1% in 1950. People that old need lots of care and attention. Current spending on long-term care is around 1.5% of GDP; but this proportion will probably have to double, or even triple (the fastest growing population segment will be centenarians). Indeed, it may have to go up even more, since many current arrangements are carried out - free - by family members, who won't have the time in the future, since they will be working so hard trying to create that GDP.
The sensible solution is immigration from poorer countries, to import lots of care workers. However, that is not something that politicians want to think about in these straightened times, so it won't happen for a while. But it will happen eventually.
Walter Blotscher
I have on a number of occasions mentioned in this blog the unsustainable future costs (in rich countries, at least) of pension commitments and healthcare. A new report from the OECD, the rich country club, confirms this.
By 2050, it is estimated that 10% of the population in these countries will be over 80, up from 4% in 2010, and less than 1% in 1950. People that old need lots of care and attention. Current spending on long-term care is around 1.5% of GDP; but this proportion will probably have to double, or even triple (the fastest growing population segment will be centenarians). Indeed, it may have to go up even more, since many current arrangements are carried out - free - by family members, who won't have the time in the future, since they will be working so hard trying to create that GDP.
The sensible solution is immigration from poorer countries, to import lots of care workers. However, that is not something that politicians want to think about in these straightened times, so it won't happen for a while. But it will happen eventually.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 18 May 2011
MOLE WARFARE (7)
Some of you may have been wondering what's happened to the moles. So have I. Since I got the sleeper under the house on 9 April, there has been a surprising dearth of the furry critters. I think there is one in the wood somewhere, but that's OK; he can chew that up to his heart's content.
I have used the lull in the fighting to take back some ground in the orchard, which is now much less Somme-like than it was. Perhaps my steady aggression has caused them to lose faith in their cause. I hope so.
Walter Blotscher
Some of you may have been wondering what's happened to the moles. So have I. Since I got the sleeper under the house on 9 April, there has been a surprising dearth of the furry critters. I think there is one in the wood somewhere, but that's OK; he can chew that up to his heart's content.
I have used the lull in the fighting to take back some ground in the orchard, which is now much less Somme-like than it was. Perhaps my steady aggression has caused them to lose faith in their cause. I hope so.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 17 May 2011
THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO IRELAND
Great Britain's (well, England's, really) relationship with Ireland makes that between Denmark and Germany look like a mild tiff. Starting in the 12th century, about a hundred years after the Norman Conquest, mainlanders viewed Ireland as a source of land and riches to be exploited, and its people as not much more than primitive savages. Differences between natives and interlopers were given a further twist after the Reformation, when much of Ulster was settled by Protestants from Scotland. There have been countless rebellions and uprisings, systematic repression, the banning of the Gælic language, the exclusion of Catholics from public office, and so on and so forth. No wonder the Irish wanted to get rid of us.
The great Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone spent much of the second half of the nineteenth century trying to organise Home Rule (i.e. semi-independence) for Ireland. However, his many attempts all failed on the rock of Ulster Unionism, which refused to accept a severing of ties to the mainland, and used its votes in the Westminster Parliament to block all proposals for devolution. Eventually things exploded in the rebellion of 1916 and consequent civil war, before the Irish Free State was born in 1922. This did not include the six counties of Ulster, which were partitioned off in 1920 to form part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the formal name for the country of which I am a citizen.
There was only one problem with that solution; it was not a solution. Anti-Catholic discrimination continued in the north; while many Irish supported the IRA, which was committed to booting the Brits out of the north by force and then uniting the whole island of Ireland. Decades of "the Troubles" cost many lives, but also confirmed that neither of the two tribes in the north could win. They have now reached an accomodation, and today rule the province jointly.
Which in turn paves the way for the Queen's state visit to Ireland, which started today. The last visit to Dublin by a British monarch was by the Queen's grandfather George V in 1911, before Ireland's independence, so the visit can genuinely be called historic. That is reflected in the list of places the Queen will visit. Today she laid a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance, which is dedicated to those who fought for independence. Tomorrow she will attend a ceremony to honour the 50,000 Irish soldiers who died in the First World War. Then she will make a visit to Croke Park, the home of Gælic sports, but also a place where 14 spectators were shot dead by British forces in 1920.
The sporting link is relevant in another way. Ever since the Gælic Athletic Association was founded in 1884, sport in Ireland has been run on an "all-Ireland" basis. So the Ireland rugby team includes players from Ulster; it is also the reason why athletes compete in the Olympic Games for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. This community-wide organisation has held, despite the bitter sectarianism in virtually every other aspect of life over the past hundred years. Since the Queen is often at sporting events, and may well open the Olympic Games in London next year, she might reflect on that seeming paradox, as she steps out on the hallowed turf of Irish nationalism tomorrow.
Walter Blotscher
Great Britain's (well, England's, really) relationship with Ireland makes that between Denmark and Germany look like a mild tiff. Starting in the 12th century, about a hundred years after the Norman Conquest, mainlanders viewed Ireland as a source of land and riches to be exploited, and its people as not much more than primitive savages. Differences between natives and interlopers were given a further twist after the Reformation, when much of Ulster was settled by Protestants from Scotland. There have been countless rebellions and uprisings, systematic repression, the banning of the Gælic language, the exclusion of Catholics from public office, and so on and so forth. No wonder the Irish wanted to get rid of us.
The great Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone spent much of the second half of the nineteenth century trying to organise Home Rule (i.e. semi-independence) for Ireland. However, his many attempts all failed on the rock of Ulster Unionism, which refused to accept a severing of ties to the mainland, and used its votes in the Westminster Parliament to block all proposals for devolution. Eventually things exploded in the rebellion of 1916 and consequent civil war, before the Irish Free State was born in 1922. This did not include the six counties of Ulster, which were partitioned off in 1920 to form part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the formal name for the country of which I am a citizen.
There was only one problem with that solution; it was not a solution. Anti-Catholic discrimination continued in the north; while many Irish supported the IRA, which was committed to booting the Brits out of the north by force and then uniting the whole island of Ireland. Decades of "the Troubles" cost many lives, but also confirmed that neither of the two tribes in the north could win. They have now reached an accomodation, and today rule the province jointly.
Which in turn paves the way for the Queen's state visit to Ireland, which started today. The last visit to Dublin by a British monarch was by the Queen's grandfather George V in 1911, before Ireland's independence, so the visit can genuinely be called historic. That is reflected in the list of places the Queen will visit. Today she laid a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance, which is dedicated to those who fought for independence. Tomorrow she will attend a ceremony to honour the 50,000 Irish soldiers who died in the First World War. Then she will make a visit to Croke Park, the home of Gælic sports, but also a place where 14 spectators were shot dead by British forces in 1920.
The sporting link is relevant in another way. Ever since the Gælic Athletic Association was founded in 1884, sport in Ireland has been run on an "all-Ireland" basis. So the Ireland rugby team includes players from Ulster; it is also the reason why athletes compete in the Olympic Games for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. This community-wide organisation has held, despite the bitter sectarianism in virtually every other aspect of life over the past hundred years. Since the Queen is often at sporting events, and may well open the Olympic Games in London next year, she might reflect on that seeming paradox, as she steps out on the hallowed turf of Irish nationalism tomorrow.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 16 May 2011
ICE HOCKEY (4)
The World Ice Hockey Championships have just finished in Slovakia.
For much of the tournament, it looked like being a repeat of last year's events, where the Czech Republic beat Russia in the final. The Czechs played well, the Germans played surprisingly well, the Finns played poorly, the Russians played surprisingly poorly, and the Swedes moved unobtrusively through the qualifiying rounds. There was even a repeat quarterfinal, where the Russians upped their game to beat Canada.
Things then changed in the semi-finals. Sweden gained revenge over the Czech Republic; while the Finns stifled the Russians 3-0, following an opening "lacrosse-style" goal, that was one of the highlights of the tournament. That left the two Nordic nations facing off against each other for the fifth time in a world or Olympic final.
Since the IIHF changed to the playoff system in 1992, Finland have been the perennial also-rans, with six silver medals and three bronzes. Only once, in 1995, have Finland become world champions. That was in Sweden, and against the host nation. The Swedes had otherwise won the three other finals, the last time in the Olympic Games in 2006.
After a goalless first period, the Swedes took charge in the second, scoring for a 1-0 lead and hitting the post shortly thereafter. But with just 7 seconds left in the period, the game changed completely, as the Finns equalised on a power play slapshot. They then came out charging in the third, and scored two quick goals. The Swedes were forced to open up, leaving counterattacking opportunities, where the Finns could take advantage. They scored three more goals for a resounding 6-1 victory, and a lifting of that "also-ran" tag from their shoulders.
Sweden had three of the six players in the tournament "all-star" team, including their goalie as the MVP. But Finland got the title that mattered. There will be celebrations in Helsinki.
Walter Blotscher
The World Ice Hockey Championships have just finished in Slovakia.
For much of the tournament, it looked like being a repeat of last year's events, where the Czech Republic beat Russia in the final. The Czechs played well, the Germans played surprisingly well, the Finns played poorly, the Russians played surprisingly poorly, and the Swedes moved unobtrusively through the qualifiying rounds. There was even a repeat quarterfinal, where the Russians upped their game to beat Canada.
Things then changed in the semi-finals. Sweden gained revenge over the Czech Republic; while the Finns stifled the Russians 3-0, following an opening "lacrosse-style" goal, that was one of the highlights of the tournament. That left the two Nordic nations facing off against each other for the fifth time in a world or Olympic final.
Since the IIHF changed to the playoff system in 1992, Finland have been the perennial also-rans, with six silver medals and three bronzes. Only once, in 1995, have Finland become world champions. That was in Sweden, and against the host nation. The Swedes had otherwise won the three other finals, the last time in the Olympic Games in 2006.
After a goalless first period, the Swedes took charge in the second, scoring for a 1-0 lead and hitting the post shortly thereafter. But with just 7 seconds left in the period, the game changed completely, as the Finns equalised on a power play slapshot. They then came out charging in the third, and scored two quick goals. The Swedes were forced to open up, leaving counterattacking opportunities, where the Finns could take advantage. They scored three more goals for a resounding 6-1 victory, and a lifting of that "also-ran" tag from their shoulders.
Sweden had three of the six players in the tournament "all-star" team, including their goalie as the MVP. But Finland got the title that mattered. There will be celebrations in Helsinki.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 15 May 2011
ADVICE FROM MY MOTHER-IN-LAW
On Friday I asked my mother-in-law to visit mi hacienda in order to advise me on matters garden.
She didn't like the big stone, saying that she nearly drove into it (good; that means it will keep those pesky postal vans away). She pointed out those plants which were dead (where I was waiting patiently for them to blossom). And she told me to cut down one of the two shoots from my resilient apple tree, now rather than at the end of the year. Her will shall be done.
Best of all, she approved the ground which has been cleared in preparation for the 2011 project, the kitchen garden. So after 70kms this morning on the bike with the local cycling club, my daughter and I planted three rows of potatoes, one row each of carrots, spinach and lettuce, and assorted wild flowers. Now all we have to do is sit and wait for things to happen.
After all that physical activity, we were knackered. So we sat down in front of the tele with the remains of last night's rhubarb crumble to watch the Etna stage of the Giro d'Italia on Norwegian T.V. and argue about whether Nibali or Contador will win the overall (she, supported by her cycling nut friend, goes for Nibali, I tip Contador). The crumble was eaten with ordinary, rather than whipped, cream, which she now admits is better. If only she had read last year's post a bit earlier ...
Walter Blotscher
On Friday I asked my mother-in-law to visit mi hacienda in order to advise me on matters garden.
She didn't like the big stone, saying that she nearly drove into it (good; that means it will keep those pesky postal vans away). She pointed out those plants which were dead (where I was waiting patiently for them to blossom). And she told me to cut down one of the two shoots from my resilient apple tree, now rather than at the end of the year. Her will shall be done.
Best of all, she approved the ground which has been cleared in preparation for the 2011 project, the kitchen garden. So after 70kms this morning on the bike with the local cycling club, my daughter and I planted three rows of potatoes, one row each of carrots, spinach and lettuce, and assorted wild flowers. Now all we have to do is sit and wait for things to happen.
After all that physical activity, we were knackered. So we sat down in front of the tele with the remains of last night's rhubarb crumble to watch the Etna stage of the Giro d'Italia on Norwegian T.V. and argue about whether Nibali or Contador will win the overall (she, supported by her cycling nut friend, goes for Nibali, I tip Contador). The crumble was eaten with ordinary, rather than whipped, cream, which she now admits is better. If only she had read last year's post a bit earlier ...
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 14 May 2011
GOING OFF THE RAILS
I have always thought the trains were good in Denmark. The service is regular and efficient, prices are reasonable (particularly when compared with the U.K.), the carriages are clean, and there is not too much overcrowding at peak times. DSB is a good example of a state-owned company that runs well and turns a profit.
Lately, however, it has run into difficulties, for two reasons. The first was its decision, in December 2000, to buy 83 next generation IC4 train sets from the Italian producer AnsaldoBreda for the princely sum of kr.5 billion. The contract has been plagued by delays. Originally scheduled to start in service in 2004, only 43 units have been delivered so far. Furthermore, it has still not been possible to run a service with two train sets coupled together (coupling of the IC3 train sets is one of the main reasons why Danish railways are efficient, since trains running west out of Copenhagen can be uncoupled and sent in various directions when they reach Jutland). Under a compromise thrashed out in 2009, AnsaldoBreda agreed to pay back kr.2.25 billion of the contract sum because of the delays. However, it appears that the delivered units will never be able to be coupled, and DSB have now asked their lawyers to find a way to break the contract.
As well as lacking new rolling stock, DSB has now lost a train load of money. After the Government decided to outsource the sparsely populated lines in West Jutland to Arriva, DSB went hunting for similar opportunities abroad. One tender it won, in conjunction with the British company First, was to run the coastal routes on the Danish and Swedish sides of the Øresund. Not only has this investment been a disaster, costing some kr.725 million, but the terms of the joint venture were such that DSB ended up on the hook for financing the whole thing, First didn't have to pay a penny.
Not surprisingly, heads have rolled, including the M.D., the Finance Director and the Chairman of the Board. In consensus-minded Denmark, that is a lot of blood on the carpet. Whether it will be enough to get the company back on the rails remains to be seen; I have to say that I doubt it. DSB is not yet in the same category as British Rail, but it is heading in that direction.
Walter Blotscher
I have always thought the trains were good in Denmark. The service is regular and efficient, prices are reasonable (particularly when compared with the U.K.), the carriages are clean, and there is not too much overcrowding at peak times. DSB is a good example of a state-owned company that runs well and turns a profit.
Lately, however, it has run into difficulties, for two reasons. The first was its decision, in December 2000, to buy 83 next generation IC4 train sets from the Italian producer AnsaldoBreda for the princely sum of kr.5 billion. The contract has been plagued by delays. Originally scheduled to start in service in 2004, only 43 units have been delivered so far. Furthermore, it has still not been possible to run a service with two train sets coupled together (coupling of the IC3 train sets is one of the main reasons why Danish railways are efficient, since trains running west out of Copenhagen can be uncoupled and sent in various directions when they reach Jutland). Under a compromise thrashed out in 2009, AnsaldoBreda agreed to pay back kr.2.25 billion of the contract sum because of the delays. However, it appears that the delivered units will never be able to be coupled, and DSB have now asked their lawyers to find a way to break the contract.
As well as lacking new rolling stock, DSB has now lost a train load of money. After the Government decided to outsource the sparsely populated lines in West Jutland to Arriva, DSB went hunting for similar opportunities abroad. One tender it won, in conjunction with the British company First, was to run the coastal routes on the Danish and Swedish sides of the Øresund. Not only has this investment been a disaster, costing some kr.725 million, but the terms of the joint venture were such that DSB ended up on the hook for financing the whole thing, First didn't have to pay a penny.
Not surprisingly, heads have rolled, including the M.D., the Finance Director and the Chairman of the Board. In consensus-minded Denmark, that is a lot of blood on the carpet. Whether it will be enough to get the company back on the rails remains to be seen; I have to say that I doubt it. DSB is not yet in the same category as British Rail, but it is heading in that direction.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 13 May 2011
EFTERLØN (2)
In my earlier post on efterløn, I said that all of the Danish political parties faced a tricky decision. There's a big hole in the state's public finances, yet the obvious way to plug it, by raising the state pension age and getting rid off/worsening efterløn, would run up against commitments not to do exactly that. What to do?
One answer came today, with an agreement between the minority Government, its steadfast supporters the right-wing Danish People's Party, and the middle-of-the-road (and somewhat mis-named) Radical Left. The pension age will be raised from 65 to 67; and the starting age for efterløn from 60 to 64, thereby reducing efterløn from 5 years to 3. The two measures will save some kr.18 billion by 2020, and keep an extra 65,000 people in work. The economic hole is thereby plugged.
Although the negotiations have been going on for some time, they were probably the easiest part. The difficult bits concern the political posturing that comes from ditching all those commitments. To give you a flavour:
1. The agreement will not come into effect until after the next election, due to be held this year. The parties to the agreement may not have the necessary 90 votes in the Folketing after the election, so the changes may never happen.
2. The opposition Social Democrats/SF Party will campaign in that election to maintain the existing 2006 deal. However, they have also said that if they don't get the necessary 90 votes which will give them power, then they will want to try to renegotiate today's agreement. Left-of-centre voters are already confused.
3. So too are DPP supporters. Having said that "under no circumstances" would they tinker with the 2006 deal, they have just done so. Is this a breach of promise, or an unfortunate necessity?
4. The Radical Left are also in difficulties. Having said long ago, that they would support the Social Democrats' leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt as the next Prime Minister, the Social Democrats/SF Party alliance promptly ignored them. Getting rid of efterløn was, and is, a key Radical Left policy, so today's agreement is a great success for them. But they have also said that they will still support Helle Thorning-Schmidt for Prime Minister after the next election. Can you support both sides of the political divide at the same time?
The biggest beneficiaries appear to be the minority Government, who sought a deal to reform efterløn and got one. Their only problem was that in order to get it, they (but not the Radical Left, another complication!) had to go along with one of the DPP's anti-immigrant tub-thumps. This was to reintroduce permanent border controls, ostensibly in order to reduce the influx of East European criminals, but really to distance Denmark from the E.U. The E.U. Commission has already said that this probably breaches E.U. law and the Schengen agreements, in which case it won't come to pass. The Government will say otherwise, but probably won't mind that.
Clear?
Walter Blotscher
In my earlier post on efterløn, I said that all of the Danish political parties faced a tricky decision. There's a big hole in the state's public finances, yet the obvious way to plug it, by raising the state pension age and getting rid off/worsening efterløn, would run up against commitments not to do exactly that. What to do?
One answer came today, with an agreement between the minority Government, its steadfast supporters the right-wing Danish People's Party, and the middle-of-the-road (and somewhat mis-named) Radical Left. The pension age will be raised from 65 to 67; and the starting age for efterløn from 60 to 64, thereby reducing efterløn from 5 years to 3. The two measures will save some kr.18 billion by 2020, and keep an extra 65,000 people in work. The economic hole is thereby plugged.
Although the negotiations have been going on for some time, they were probably the easiest part. The difficult bits concern the political posturing that comes from ditching all those commitments. To give you a flavour:
1. The agreement will not come into effect until after the next election, due to be held this year. The parties to the agreement may not have the necessary 90 votes in the Folketing after the election, so the changes may never happen.
2. The opposition Social Democrats/SF Party will campaign in that election to maintain the existing 2006 deal. However, they have also said that if they don't get the necessary 90 votes which will give them power, then they will want to try to renegotiate today's agreement. Left-of-centre voters are already confused.
3. So too are DPP supporters. Having said that "under no circumstances" would they tinker with the 2006 deal, they have just done so. Is this a breach of promise, or an unfortunate necessity?
4. The Radical Left are also in difficulties. Having said long ago, that they would support the Social Democrats' leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt as the next Prime Minister, the Social Democrats/SF Party alliance promptly ignored them. Getting rid of efterløn was, and is, a key Radical Left policy, so today's agreement is a great success for them. But they have also said that they will still support Helle Thorning-Schmidt for Prime Minister after the next election. Can you support both sides of the political divide at the same time?
The biggest beneficiaries appear to be the minority Government, who sought a deal to reform efterløn and got one. Their only problem was that in order to get it, they (but not the Radical Left, another complication!) had to go along with one of the DPP's anti-immigrant tub-thumps. This was to reintroduce permanent border controls, ostensibly in order to reduce the influx of East European criminals, but really to distance Denmark from the E.U. The E.U. Commission has already said that this probably breaches E.U. law and the Schengen agreements, in which case it won't come to pass. The Government will say otherwise, but probably won't mind that.
Clear?
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 11 May 2011
GREECE (3)
Greece is in real trouble. Last year it got a Euro110 billion bail-out from other E.U. countries and the IMF, but it was not enough. The economy is still shrinking, so tax revenues are falling. Yields on Government bonds are well over 10% and still rising. Today's protests against further Government austerity measures turned to riots, with tear gas from the police and injured demonstrators.
There is talk of restructuring the country's huge debt, of the E.U.'s giving them more money, of Greece's leaving the Euro, and of a combination of all three. My take on this is that the third is unlikely, the second is certain, and the first is possible (though it will probably be dressed up as something else). Supporting all three is my judgement that Germany has too much invested in the whole Euro project to let it fail. Lending money to those profligate southerners will be painful, but the alternative would be worse.
The financial crisis is not over, not by any means.
Walter Blotscher
Greece is in real trouble. Last year it got a Euro110 billion bail-out from other E.U. countries and the IMF, but it was not enough. The economy is still shrinking, so tax revenues are falling. Yields on Government bonds are well over 10% and still rising. Today's protests against further Government austerity measures turned to riots, with tear gas from the police and injured demonstrators.
There is talk of restructuring the country's huge debt, of the E.U.'s giving them more money, of Greece's leaving the Euro, and of a combination of all three. My take on this is that the third is unlikely, the second is certain, and the first is possible (though it will probably be dressed up as something else). Supporting all three is my judgement that Germany has too much invested in the whole Euro project to let it fail. Lending money to those profligate southerners will be painful, but the alternative would be worse.
The financial crisis is not over, not by any means.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Monday 9 May 2011
TIME
We are used to thinking about time as absolute. Even though Einstein came along and demonstrated that it is in fact relative, we refuse to believe it. Our modern lives are dominated by the clock.
So it is a breath of fresh air to learn that Samoa has decided to get rid of a day. It will do this on 29 December by jumping over to the west side of the international date line and joining Australia and New Zealand in the first hours of the day instead of being almost 24 hours behind in the last hours of the day. The country is doing this for economic reasons, since a large part of its trade is done with these nations. This is currently difficult, since a working Friday in Samoa is Saturday in New Zealand; while a working Monday in New Zealand is Sunday in Samoa.
Interestingly, this change is taking place some 119 years after Samoa jumped the other way, in order to try to increase its trade with the U.S. and Europe. It is yet another sign of how Asia is becoming increasingly important in the world economically.
When Great Britain shifted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in September 1752, there were riots in the streets by citizens wanting to get back their "lost" 11 days. Let's hope there aren't similar disturbances on Samoa.
Walter Blotscher
We are used to thinking about time as absolute. Even though Einstein came along and demonstrated that it is in fact relative, we refuse to believe it. Our modern lives are dominated by the clock.
So it is a breath of fresh air to learn that Samoa has decided to get rid of a day. It will do this on 29 December by jumping over to the west side of the international date line and joining Australia and New Zealand in the first hours of the day instead of being almost 24 hours behind in the last hours of the day. The country is doing this for economic reasons, since a large part of its trade is done with these nations. This is currently difficult, since a working Friday in Samoa is Saturday in New Zealand; while a working Monday in New Zealand is Sunday in Samoa.
Interestingly, this change is taking place some 119 years after Samoa jumped the other way, in order to try to increase its trade with the U.S. and Europe. It is yet another sign of how Asia is becoming increasingly important in the world economically.
When Great Britain shifted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in September 1752, there were riots in the streets by citizens wanting to get back their "lost" 11 days. Let's hope there aren't similar disturbances on Samoa.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 8 May 2011
A BIG STONE
Sometimes it helps if your neighbours have some heavy equipment. When Claus chewed up all the ground as part of the 2011 Project, he told me that his "stubfræser" had hit a stone, and that it might be a good idea to remove it. Since the area poking out of the soil was about the size of a dinner plate, I agreed.
So I started to dig. And I dug and I dug and I dug, removing more and more soil and revealing what turned out to be a humungously large piece of rock. There was no way that I was going to be able to get rid of that stone on my own.
Yesterday I rang my neighbour. We have a barter deal going, whereby he gets the hay in the paddock for his horses, in return for various unspecified services. This was a time to specify one of those services. Could he come with his tractor, which has a large fork on the front, dig out this stone, and move it somewhere else?
He could indeed; and duly did (see above). I had him place the stone by the front entrance, where it will be both an artistic ornament, and (even more importantly) an impediment to the post vans and dustcarts, who like to drive over the edge of our lawn instead of sticking to the road.
Walter Blotscher
Sometimes it helps if your neighbours have some heavy equipment. When Claus chewed up all the ground as part of the 2011 Project, he told me that his "stubfræser" had hit a stone, and that it might be a good idea to remove it. Since the area poking out of the soil was about the size of a dinner plate, I agreed.
So I started to dig. And I dug and I dug and I dug, removing more and more soil and revealing what turned out to be a humungously large piece of rock. There was no way that I was going to be able to get rid of that stone on my own.
Yesterday I rang my neighbour. We have a barter deal going, whereby he gets the hay in the paddock for his horses, in return for various unspecified services. This was a time to specify one of those services. Could he come with his tractor, which has a large fork on the front, dig out this stone, and move it somewhere else?
He could indeed; and duly did (see above). I had him place the stone by the front entrance, where it will be both an artistic ornament, and (even more importantly) an impediment to the post vans and dustcarts, who like to drive over the edge of our lawn instead of sticking to the road.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 7 May 2011
VOTING FOR CHANGE (2)?
The result is in. On a 42% turnout, supporters of retaining the status quo First Past The Post system of voting in the U.K. won a thumping victory, by 68% to 32%. The alternative option, the Alternative Vote system, was at the same time both too complicated to understand easily and only marginally different from what everyone long had been used to. That's never a good basis for change.
The result is a crushing blow to the Liberal Democrats, and especially to their leader Nick Clegg. Having played his hand with great skill a year ago in order to create the Coalition Government, he made a strategic blunder in my view in not then pressing for a referendum on swtiching to Proportional Representation. PR is not without difficulties, but the devil is in the details. In contrast to AV, it does at least have a fairly snappy overall message that everyone can understand; "if you get x% of the votes, you get x% of the seats, and that is fair".
Worst of all, the no vote for change is liable to put back the cause of political reform for a generation. The last U.K. referendum was in 1975, so it is quite possible that there won't be another one for 30 years or more.
However, if the referendum was rather dull, some of the other results (for local elections) were not. Scotland in particular represented huge change, as the minority Government Scottish National Party won an extra 23 seats to get an absolute majority of 69 in the 129 seat Scottish Parliament. All the other major parties suffered, with Labour posting its worst election result in Scotland since the 1930's and losing 7 seats, and the LibDems falling from 17 seats to just 5. Both of the parties' Scottish leaders have already resigned.
This is the first time that one party has had an overall majority in Scotland, since devolution took place in the late 1990's. What makes it especially interesting is that it is likely to lead to the SNP's calling a referendum on full independence for Scotland later in the Parliamentary term. Scotland is big enough to be an independent country, and has separate legal and educational systems from those in England. Up until now, opinion polls have suggested that the Scots like the SNP to lead them, but not to take them out a union that has formally existed since 1707. But perhaps that will change.
Interestingly, although the Scots, like the rest of the U.K., voted not to change the FPTP system for elections to the Westminster Parliament, the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament is different. 73 seats are decided on a traditional FPTP system. But there are then a further 56 seats, with 7 members for each of the 8 regions used in European elections, which are decided by a form of PR.
Meanwhile, the LibDems are licking their wounds. As well as losing the referendum on voting reform and being stuffed in Scotland, they also took a drubbing in local council elections in England, losing control of 9 out of 19 councils (including Mr. Clegg's home town, Sheffield) and almost a third of their councillors across the country. Not surprisingly, the big winners here were Labour, who benefitted from voters worried about cuts in public services. But the Conservatives still managed modest gains, suggesting that voters' wrath about the current economic situation has been vented on the junior Coalition partner alone. Calls for his demise have been muted, but Mr. Clegg is undoubtedly under pressure.
Walter Blotscher
The result is in. On a 42% turnout, supporters of retaining the status quo First Past The Post system of voting in the U.K. won a thumping victory, by 68% to 32%. The alternative option, the Alternative Vote system, was at the same time both too complicated to understand easily and only marginally different from what everyone long had been used to. That's never a good basis for change.
The result is a crushing blow to the Liberal Democrats, and especially to their leader Nick Clegg. Having played his hand with great skill a year ago in order to create the Coalition Government, he made a strategic blunder in my view in not then pressing for a referendum on swtiching to Proportional Representation. PR is not without difficulties, but the devil is in the details. In contrast to AV, it does at least have a fairly snappy overall message that everyone can understand; "if you get x% of the votes, you get x% of the seats, and that is fair".
Worst of all, the no vote for change is liable to put back the cause of political reform for a generation. The last U.K. referendum was in 1975, so it is quite possible that there won't be another one for 30 years or more.
However, if the referendum was rather dull, some of the other results (for local elections) were not. Scotland in particular represented huge change, as the minority Government Scottish National Party won an extra 23 seats to get an absolute majority of 69 in the 129 seat Scottish Parliament. All the other major parties suffered, with Labour posting its worst election result in Scotland since the 1930's and losing 7 seats, and the LibDems falling from 17 seats to just 5. Both of the parties' Scottish leaders have already resigned.
This is the first time that one party has had an overall majority in Scotland, since devolution took place in the late 1990's. What makes it especially interesting is that it is likely to lead to the SNP's calling a referendum on full independence for Scotland later in the Parliamentary term. Scotland is big enough to be an independent country, and has separate legal and educational systems from those in England. Up until now, opinion polls have suggested that the Scots like the SNP to lead them, but not to take them out a union that has formally existed since 1707. But perhaps that will change.
Interestingly, although the Scots, like the rest of the U.K., voted not to change the FPTP system for elections to the Westminster Parliament, the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament is different. 73 seats are decided on a traditional FPTP system. But there are then a further 56 seats, with 7 members for each of the 8 regions used in European elections, which are decided by a form of PR.
Meanwhile, the LibDems are licking their wounds. As well as losing the referendum on voting reform and being stuffed in Scotland, they also took a drubbing in local council elections in England, losing control of 9 out of 19 councils (including Mr. Clegg's home town, Sheffield) and almost a third of their councillors across the country. Not surprisingly, the big winners here were Labour, who benefitted from voters worried about cuts in public services. But the Conservatives still managed modest gains, suggesting that voters' wrath about the current economic situation has been vented on the junior Coalition partner alone. Calls for his demise have been muted, but Mr. Clegg is undoubtedly under pressure.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 6 May 2011
RURAL ETIQUETTE
Here's a puzzle to start the weekend. When you live in a rural area, should you (or should you not), mow the grass verges between your and your neighbour's property, even though those verges are not on either of your properties?
It should be said up-front that the local council won't do it. On the grounds - presumably - of road safety, they get a local farmer to trim the overhanging trees once a year. But the verges don't cause traffic problems, not least because there are only four houses on our road, and it's a cul-de-sac. I did once back out of my drive into the path of a stray tractor pulling a gylle wagon. But the prospect of being covered in 20,000 litres of pig urine has made me more careful since then.
OK, back to mowing. As readers will know, I am a big fan of mowing. But there are divergent opinions on whether it should extend to the verges. My daughter's girlfriends, for example, think I am clearly bonkers. However, since the chances of my daughter's girlfriends getting their hands around a lawnmower and pushing it are about as small as my hitting a gylle wagon, I am inclined to disregard their views. Basically, I think it looks nice when the verges have been mown, as you can see below. I hope you agree.
Walter Blotscher
Here's a puzzle to start the weekend. When you live in a rural area, should you (or should you not), mow the grass verges between your and your neighbour's property, even though those verges are not on either of your properties?
It should be said up-front that the local council won't do it. On the grounds - presumably - of road safety, they get a local farmer to trim the overhanging trees once a year. But the verges don't cause traffic problems, not least because there are only four houses on our road, and it's a cul-de-sac. I did once back out of my drive into the path of a stray tractor pulling a gylle wagon. But the prospect of being covered in 20,000 litres of pig urine has made me more careful since then.
OK, back to mowing. As readers will know, I am a big fan of mowing. But there are divergent opinions on whether it should extend to the verges. My daughter's girlfriends, for example, think I am clearly bonkers. However, since the chances of my daughter's girlfriends getting their hands around a lawnmower and pushing it are about as small as my hitting a gylle wagon, I am inclined to disregard their views. Basically, I think it looks nice when the verges have been mown, as you can see below. I hope you agree.
Thursday 5 May 2011
ANTIGONE
I went to see Antigone, by Sophocles, last night with my wife and daughter.
My knowledge of Greek tragedy is pretty much zilch. All I knew was that life in the plays is very difficult, and that they all die in the end. This is exactly what happens in Antigone. But it was well-performed, and not very long (less than two hours, including an interval), so I enjoyed it.
Walter Blotscher
I went to see Antigone, by Sophocles, last night with my wife and daughter.
My knowledge of Greek tragedy is pretty much zilch. All I knew was that life in the plays is very difficult, and that they all die in the end. This is exactly what happens in Antigone. But it was well-performed, and not very long (less than two hours, including an interval), so I enjoyed it.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 4 May 2011
THE CANADIAN ELECTION
Canadians could be forgiven for being grumpy this week at having to traipse to their fourth general election in 7 years. They responded by dropping a bombshell.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservatives had won the previous two, though without obtaining an overall majority. This week's election took place after he had lost a vote of confidence, when the opposition parties ganged up on him. Far from agreeing with the opposition, the voters rewarded him with 167 seats in the 308-member House of Commons, a clear majority and up 24 from the previous Parliament.
Not content with that, they delivered a crushing blow to two of those opposition parties, the Liberals falling from 77 seats to 34, and the Bloc Quebecois from 47 to just 4. The Liberals were Canada's "natural" party of Government for most of the twentieth century, and it is the first time ever that they have not finished either first or second. Their leader, former Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff, lost his seat in Toronto, and has already said that he will be resigning. The Bloc represents the aspirations of Quebec for greater autonomy within Canada and/or independence from it. After being a major issue for most of the past 20-30 years, it appears that Canadians are now much happier with the constitutional status quo. Their leader Giles Duceppe also lost his seat, and has resigned as leader.
The other big winners, apart from the Conservatives, were the New Democratic Party, a left-of-centre group with strong roots in the west of the country, who increased their representation from 36 to 102, with notable gains in Quebec. In the process they replaced the Liberals as the official opposition. It was also a good day for the Greens, who won their first ever seat in the House of Commons, in a British Columbia constituency.
Opposition Parliamentary managers must be ruing the decision to call that no-confidence vote.
Walter Blotscher
Canadians could be forgiven for being grumpy this week at having to traipse to their fourth general election in 7 years. They responded by dropping a bombshell.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservatives had won the previous two, though without obtaining an overall majority. This week's election took place after he had lost a vote of confidence, when the opposition parties ganged up on him. Far from agreeing with the opposition, the voters rewarded him with 167 seats in the 308-member House of Commons, a clear majority and up 24 from the previous Parliament.
Not content with that, they delivered a crushing blow to two of those opposition parties, the Liberals falling from 77 seats to 34, and the Bloc Quebecois from 47 to just 4. The Liberals were Canada's "natural" party of Government for most of the twentieth century, and it is the first time ever that they have not finished either first or second. Their leader, former Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff, lost his seat in Toronto, and has already said that he will be resigning. The Bloc represents the aspirations of Quebec for greater autonomy within Canada and/or independence from it. After being a major issue for most of the past 20-30 years, it appears that Canadians are now much happier with the constitutional status quo. Their leader Giles Duceppe also lost his seat, and has resigned as leader.
The other big winners, apart from the Conservatives, were the New Democratic Party, a left-of-centre group with strong roots in the west of the country, who increased their representation from 36 to 102, with notable gains in Quebec. In the process they replaced the Liberals as the official opposition. It was also a good day for the Greens, who won their first ever seat in the House of Commons, in a British Columbia constituency.
Opposition Parliamentary managers must be ruing the decision to call that no-confidence vote.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 3 May 2011
VOTING FOR CHANGE?
On Thursday the British will hold a referendum, the first since 1975 (on whether to leave the E.U.), in which voters will be asked whether they wish to change the system under which they vote in Parliamentary elections. Although theoretically eligible, I am no longer on the electoral roll, and so won't be voting. But I have a view nevertheless.
Most of the United Kingdom (but not Northern Ireland) uses the First Past The Post system. Candidates stand in single-member constituencies, often with historical boundaries tied to cities and counties, and the candidate that obtains the most votes is elected; everyone else goes home. Its advantages are that it is easy to understand, particularly for those who are not good at maths, provides a strong link between the M.P. and the local electorate, and tends to produce a two-party system in which the parties alternate in forming strong Governments with overall majorities. Tories and Whigs in the 18th century, Conservatives and Liberals in the 19th, Conservatives and Labour in the 20th. Or Republicans and Democrats in the U.S., another country that uses it.
There are, however, disadvantages as well. The downside of a strong one-party Government is the "tyranny of the executive", since the opposition is, by definition, in a minority, while backbench M.P.'s from the governing party tend not to rock the boat on legislative proposals, lest they miss out on the possibility of becoming a Minister. Moreover, because of regional concentrations, very few seats are genuinely competitive; in the 650-member House of Commons, the Conservatives always get 250 seats without trying, as do Labour. While at the local level, M.P.'s can be elected with only a minority of votes; in the 2005 election, for instance, only three (yes, three) M.P.'s secured the votes of more than 40% of their constituents, after taking non-voters into account. Which means in turn that massive amounts of votes are wasted, either because they are not needed in order for the winning candidate to get elected, or because they are cast for losing candidates. In 2005, 70% of votes, or some 19 million ballots, were in this category.
Worst of all, in the eyes of many, it squeezes third parties, if their support is evenly spread across the country. Under FPTP, a party can in theory win 49.99% of the vote nationwide and be the most supported party, yet not win any seats, if in each constituency some other party's candidate gets 50.01% of the vote. For the past few elections, the squeezed third party has been the Liberal Democrats, who have accordingly long campaigned for a change to Proportional Representation. Although there are various forms of PR, the basic idea is that provided a party gets over a minimum threshold (2%, 4% or whatever), it is guaranteed representation in Parliament, with the number of seats being roughly proportional to the party's share of the national vote. When the U.K. election in 2010 surprisingly failed to give either Labour or the Conservatives an overall majority, the LibDems seized their chance. As part of the deal that led to the Conservative-LibDem coalition, it was agreed to hold this referendum.
Which immediately raises the first question. Because the referendum gives voters the chance to switch from FPTP not to PR but to the Alternative Vote system, and AV is not a form of PR. AV is, in essence, a form of FPTP, that deals with the problem outlined above, whereby the constituency M.P. may well be elected by a minority of voters. Constituencies are still single-member; but instead of voting for one candidate and only one, voters rate the various candidates in order. If a candidate gets 50% of the first-preference votes, then they win; if they don't (which is likely), then the candidate in last place drops out and his or her second-preference votes are distributed amongst the others. This goes on until one candidate reaches the magic 50% threshold.
This is the system used in Australia (and the party leadership contests for both Labour and the LibDems). Its advantages are that there is no need to change the constituency boundaries, and that it makes candidates chase second- and third-preference voters, and thereby generate a "broad church" locally (so the chances of negative campaigning are reduced). Furthermore, there is no need to vote tactically, since first preferences always count.
But, but, but. In Australia, voting is compulsory, in the U.K. it is not. Furthermore, in Australia, voters have to rank every candidate, so that you get true AV; under the U.K. proposal, voters can rank their first-preference candidate, and stop there. If that happens, either because people don't understand what they are supposed to do, or don't care, then the end result will be somewhere between FPTP and AV. Secondly, and more fundamentally, although AV doesn't require it, the constituency boundaries are being changed, as the House of Commons is reduced from 650 to 600 seats. The general population trend, whereby people have moved from the inner cities to the suburbs, means that for some time, it has required fewer voters to elect a Labour M.P. than a Conservative M.P. Redrawing the constituency boundaries, so that they are nearly all exactly the same size, was the Conservative quid pro quo for the LibDems getting their cherished referendum.
Which raises the second question. Not only have the LibDems accepted a referendum which would lead to a system they don't really like very much (their leader Nick Clegg once called it a "miserable little compromise"), but the Conservative side of the grand bargain has already been passed into law by M.P.'s bound by party whipping, while the LibDem side has to be approved by an electorate suspicious of change, confused that PR is not on the agenda, and who will quite possibly say no to AV.
The short answer is that in the pre-coalition haggling, AV was the best deal on offer, what the LibDems now call a "baby step" on the way to full PR. One disadvantage of AV is that it may attract lots of first-preferences for extremist parties (the anti-E.U. UK Independence Party, for instance), whose candidates nevertheless do not get elected, since they don't pick up any second-, third- or fourth-preferences. Howls of protest from those disappointed first-preference voters (and their candidates) would then lead to demands for moving to full PR. This is a thin argument, in my view. The British are notoriously conservative (with a small c) when it comes to politics, and chopping and changing electoral systems on a regular basis is highly unlikely (indeed, it is not clear that this referendum will produce any change). The LibDems would have been better served by holding out a year ago for full PR, on an everything or bust strategy. One big argument for doing so is that PR is the system used in most other E.U. countries, and also for elections within the U.K. to the European Parliament.
Despite my thinking that the LibDems have rather bungled things, I would nevertheless have voted for AV if I were voting in the referendum. For two reasons. First, AV is not a particularly good system, but FPTP is a bad one. In 1951, 97% of all voters voted for either Labour or the Conservatives; in 2010, only 65% did, yet the two main parties still got almost the same number of seats, and that is not fair. Secondly, I think it's time for a change, even if AV represents only a modest one; British politics has been stuck in the mud for far too long.
Walter Blotscher
On Thursday the British will hold a referendum, the first since 1975 (on whether to leave the E.U.), in which voters will be asked whether they wish to change the system under which they vote in Parliamentary elections. Although theoretically eligible, I am no longer on the electoral roll, and so won't be voting. But I have a view nevertheless.
Most of the United Kingdom (but not Northern Ireland) uses the First Past The Post system. Candidates stand in single-member constituencies, often with historical boundaries tied to cities and counties, and the candidate that obtains the most votes is elected; everyone else goes home. Its advantages are that it is easy to understand, particularly for those who are not good at maths, provides a strong link between the M.P. and the local electorate, and tends to produce a two-party system in which the parties alternate in forming strong Governments with overall majorities. Tories and Whigs in the 18th century, Conservatives and Liberals in the 19th, Conservatives and Labour in the 20th. Or Republicans and Democrats in the U.S., another country that uses it.
There are, however, disadvantages as well. The downside of a strong one-party Government is the "tyranny of the executive", since the opposition is, by definition, in a minority, while backbench M.P.'s from the governing party tend not to rock the boat on legislative proposals, lest they miss out on the possibility of becoming a Minister. Moreover, because of regional concentrations, very few seats are genuinely competitive; in the 650-member House of Commons, the Conservatives always get 250 seats without trying, as do Labour. While at the local level, M.P.'s can be elected with only a minority of votes; in the 2005 election, for instance, only three (yes, three) M.P.'s secured the votes of more than 40% of their constituents, after taking non-voters into account. Which means in turn that massive amounts of votes are wasted, either because they are not needed in order for the winning candidate to get elected, or because they are cast for losing candidates. In 2005, 70% of votes, or some 19 million ballots, were in this category.
Worst of all, in the eyes of many, it squeezes third parties, if their support is evenly spread across the country. Under FPTP, a party can in theory win 49.99% of the vote nationwide and be the most supported party, yet not win any seats, if in each constituency some other party's candidate gets 50.01% of the vote. For the past few elections, the squeezed third party has been the Liberal Democrats, who have accordingly long campaigned for a change to Proportional Representation. Although there are various forms of PR, the basic idea is that provided a party gets over a minimum threshold (2%, 4% or whatever), it is guaranteed representation in Parliament, with the number of seats being roughly proportional to the party's share of the national vote. When the U.K. election in 2010 surprisingly failed to give either Labour or the Conservatives an overall majority, the LibDems seized their chance. As part of the deal that led to the Conservative-LibDem coalition, it was agreed to hold this referendum.
Which immediately raises the first question. Because the referendum gives voters the chance to switch from FPTP not to PR but to the Alternative Vote system, and AV is not a form of PR. AV is, in essence, a form of FPTP, that deals with the problem outlined above, whereby the constituency M.P. may well be elected by a minority of voters. Constituencies are still single-member; but instead of voting for one candidate and only one, voters rate the various candidates in order. If a candidate gets 50% of the first-preference votes, then they win; if they don't (which is likely), then the candidate in last place drops out and his or her second-preference votes are distributed amongst the others. This goes on until one candidate reaches the magic 50% threshold.
This is the system used in Australia (and the party leadership contests for both Labour and the LibDems). Its advantages are that there is no need to change the constituency boundaries, and that it makes candidates chase second- and third-preference voters, and thereby generate a "broad church" locally (so the chances of negative campaigning are reduced). Furthermore, there is no need to vote tactically, since first preferences always count.
But, but, but. In Australia, voting is compulsory, in the U.K. it is not. Furthermore, in Australia, voters have to rank every candidate, so that you get true AV; under the U.K. proposal, voters can rank their first-preference candidate, and stop there. If that happens, either because people don't understand what they are supposed to do, or don't care, then the end result will be somewhere between FPTP and AV. Secondly, and more fundamentally, although AV doesn't require it, the constituency boundaries are being changed, as the House of Commons is reduced from 650 to 600 seats. The general population trend, whereby people have moved from the inner cities to the suburbs, means that for some time, it has required fewer voters to elect a Labour M.P. than a Conservative M.P. Redrawing the constituency boundaries, so that they are nearly all exactly the same size, was the Conservative quid pro quo for the LibDems getting their cherished referendum.
Which raises the second question. Not only have the LibDems accepted a referendum which would lead to a system they don't really like very much (their leader Nick Clegg once called it a "miserable little compromise"), but the Conservative side of the grand bargain has already been passed into law by M.P.'s bound by party whipping, while the LibDem side has to be approved by an electorate suspicious of change, confused that PR is not on the agenda, and who will quite possibly say no to AV.
The short answer is that in the pre-coalition haggling, AV was the best deal on offer, what the LibDems now call a "baby step" on the way to full PR. One disadvantage of AV is that it may attract lots of first-preferences for extremist parties (the anti-E.U. UK Independence Party, for instance), whose candidates nevertheless do not get elected, since they don't pick up any second-, third- or fourth-preferences. Howls of protest from those disappointed first-preference voters (and their candidates) would then lead to demands for moving to full PR. This is a thin argument, in my view. The British are notoriously conservative (with a small c) when it comes to politics, and chopping and changing electoral systems on a regular basis is highly unlikely (indeed, it is not clear that this referendum will produce any change). The LibDems would have been better served by holding out a year ago for full PR, on an everything or bust strategy. One big argument for doing so is that PR is the system used in most other E.U. countries, and also for elections within the U.K. to the European Parliament.
Despite my thinking that the LibDems have rather bungled things, I would nevertheless have voted for AV if I were voting in the referendum. For two reasons. First, AV is not a particularly good system, but FPTP is a bad one. In 1951, 97% of all voters voted for either Labour or the Conservatives; in 2010, only 65% did, yet the two main parties still got almost the same number of seats, and that is not fair. Secondly, I think it's time for a change, even if AV represents only a modest one; British politics has been stuck in the mud for far too long.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 2 May 2011
THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Osama bin Laden was a very bad man. He twisted a religion to try to justify killing people who did not agree with his interpretation of things. He was responsible, both directly or indirectly, for the murder of thousands of innocents, both Muslims and others. He admitted to these atrocities, indeed revelled in them. The world is undoubtedly a better place, now that he is dead. Why then do I feel a sense of unease more than anything else?
Two reasons, I think. The first is the manner of his death. We will never know the full details of what happened in a residential compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan. But it had all the hallmarks of a liquidation; the U.S. is back in the assassination business. Even if you accept that the "war on terror" is a real war, rather than just dealing with a series of criminal incidents, there are rules. One rule is that if your enemy surrenders, then you take him prisoner and keep him in accordance with international conventions. Was bin Laden given a chance to surrender? Probably not. Contrast that with what happened after the Second World War. The leaders of the Nazi industrial killing machine, which, let's be honest, makes al-Qaeda look like hapless neophytes, were arrested and tried in an internationally sanctioned court of law, which then sentenced them on the basis of evidence presented to that court. They were not simply taken out the back of the building and shot. Or with Saddam Hussein, who was handed over to the Iraqi authorities to be tried in a court of law.
Get real, I hear you say, President Obama had to do it to assuage domestic political opinion. I dislike these realpolitik, "the end justifies the means", arguments. Osama bin Laden was a bad man, but there are plenty of those around in the world. Who is next on the list? How bad do your actions have to be before you get on it? It seems from the crowds of people shouting "USA, USA" that the American people like what has been done on their behalf; but they also look remarkably similar on television to crowds of people in other countries shouting "down with USA, down with USA".
However, even more than the realpolitik arguments, I dislike the moral ones. President Obama chose, in his address to the nation telling them what had happened, to justify his actions in the following way:
"Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth and power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."
My concept of justice obviously does not accord with his. Obviously, capture and trial would not have been risk-free, even though the evidence against bin Laden would have been overwhelming. But it would have shown to the world that the West really does practice what it preaches. Yes, the U.S. has gained a lot today; but I also believe that when the world looks back on this day in 100 years' time, it will feel that the U.S. lost a little bit as well.
The second reason for unease is that bin Laden was killed only 100km from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. It has long been the view that elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and nothing in what happened last night suggests that this view was wrong. I personally find it difficult to believe that someone can live in such a large house in a poor country for so long without someone else knowing. Which suggests in turn that although al-Qaeda has lost its head, it may not be finished as an organisation.
Finally, does the death of Osama bin Laden make the world a safer place? On that, only time will tell.
Walter Blotscher
Osama bin Laden was a very bad man. He twisted a religion to try to justify killing people who did not agree with his interpretation of things. He was responsible, both directly or indirectly, for the murder of thousands of innocents, both Muslims and others. He admitted to these atrocities, indeed revelled in them. The world is undoubtedly a better place, now that he is dead. Why then do I feel a sense of unease more than anything else?
Two reasons, I think. The first is the manner of his death. We will never know the full details of what happened in a residential compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan. But it had all the hallmarks of a liquidation; the U.S. is back in the assassination business. Even if you accept that the "war on terror" is a real war, rather than just dealing with a series of criminal incidents, there are rules. One rule is that if your enemy surrenders, then you take him prisoner and keep him in accordance with international conventions. Was bin Laden given a chance to surrender? Probably not. Contrast that with what happened after the Second World War. The leaders of the Nazi industrial killing machine, which, let's be honest, makes al-Qaeda look like hapless neophytes, were arrested and tried in an internationally sanctioned court of law, which then sentenced them on the basis of evidence presented to that court. They were not simply taken out the back of the building and shot. Or with Saddam Hussein, who was handed over to the Iraqi authorities to be tried in a court of law.
Get real, I hear you say, President Obama had to do it to assuage domestic political opinion. I dislike these realpolitik, "the end justifies the means", arguments. Osama bin Laden was a bad man, but there are plenty of those around in the world. Who is next on the list? How bad do your actions have to be before you get on it? It seems from the crowds of people shouting "USA, USA" that the American people like what has been done on their behalf; but they also look remarkably similar on television to crowds of people in other countries shouting "down with USA, down with USA".
However, even more than the realpolitik arguments, I dislike the moral ones. President Obama chose, in his address to the nation telling them what had happened, to justify his actions in the following way:
"Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth and power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."
My concept of justice obviously does not accord with his. Obviously, capture and trial would not have been risk-free, even though the evidence against bin Laden would have been overwhelming. But it would have shown to the world that the West really does practice what it preaches. Yes, the U.S. has gained a lot today; but I also believe that when the world looks back on this day in 100 years' time, it will feel that the U.S. lost a little bit as well.
The second reason for unease is that bin Laden was killed only 100km from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. It has long been the view that elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and nothing in what happened last night suggests that this view was wrong. I personally find it difficult to believe that someone can live in such a large house in a poor country for so long without someone else knowing. Which suggests in turn that although al-Qaeda has lost its head, it may not be finished as an organisation.
Finally, does the death of Osama bin Laden make the world a safer place? On that, only time will tell.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 1 May 2011
MAY DAY
Danes are pretty big on May Day. Many workers get a half, or even a whole, day's holiday (though they wouldn't have needed it today, of course). However, rather than dancing round the maypole or similar, they support the more modern version of the day as International Workers' Day. That means going to political rallies in the park, complete with flags, bands and beer, and where various party leaders tell them why things are going to be so much better, if only they were elected.
Having a picnic with your family in the park on a sunny day is a nice idea. But why combine that with listening to politicians? I can't think of anything more boring. Which is why I played in a bridge tournament instead.
Walter Blotscher
Danes are pretty big on May Day. Many workers get a half, or even a whole, day's holiday (though they wouldn't have needed it today, of course). However, rather than dancing round the maypole or similar, they support the more modern version of the day as International Workers' Day. That means going to political rallies in the park, complete with flags, bands and beer, and where various party leaders tell them why things are going to be so much better, if only they were elected.
Having a picnic with your family in the park on a sunny day is a nice idea. But why combine that with listening to politicians? I can't think of anything more boring. Which is why I played in a bridge tournament instead.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
