2012
This will be my last blog post this year. Tonight we go off to Scotland for a repeat of the New Year's holiday of two years ago, so no blogging again until 6 January. Which makes it the ideal time to think about the year that has gone.
All in all it was pretty up and down. On the upside, my children seem to be doing well, which always gives a good feeling, and my mother visited in June, which was a major event for someone of her age. Then there were the Olympics, which I visited in person and in which I had a family interest, since my son was in the G.B. handball squad. On the other hand, one of my best friends committed suicide around the same time, so trips to the Olympic park were interspersed with a funeral. I have wanted to write something about this for some time, but have not yet managed to. One of my New Year resolutions will be to do so in 2013.
Outside of the family, I thought that the world didn't get any better, and in some ways got decidedly worse. Wars in Syria and Afghanistan rumbled on, and will worsen in the coming years, in my view. There were bouts of madness, such as the recent shooting of all those children in America. There were continuing economic problems in both Europe and the U.S., which politicians seem incapable of solving. More fundamentally, it became increasingly clear that the whole way in which rich countries have chosen to order their societies was pretty much a house of cards. That's not going to change for a number of years. In fact, I think there may well be conflicts within societies, as the young rail against pensioners, the unemployed against those with jobs, the domestic-born against immigrants, the poor against the rich. We may have realised that the ways of the noughties were somehow not right, but we have not yet managed to replace them with an alternative.
If that all sounds rather gloomy, then it probably reflects the mood I am in these days. Let's hope that I am wrong, and that 2013 will be a better year than 2012. Happy New Year to all who read this!
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 27 December 2012
Monday 24 December 2012
CHRISTMAS 2012
Like last year, I am alone in the house at this time. The others have gone off to church, while I watch over the bird, and make the bread sauce.
This year will be the first time ever that not all of our family of five will be at home at Christmas. My elder son (he of the Globe 6 Adventures blog) has been in America this autumn, and has decided to stay on for as long as his visa allows. I spoke to him on Skype about an hour ago, but it won't be the same as if he were here. The end of an era, I suppose.
After rushing to Basel and back, I have had a pretty lazy day. I made coffee and tea for my other son and daughter, fetched some wood for the stove, stuffed the turkey, and prepared the Brussels sprouts. My daughter then gave me a Christmas haircut, including eyebrows and ears (what is the evolutionary point of men having less hair on their heads as they grow older while having ever more hair in their ears?), before the turkey went into the oven at 12.00. All I have to do now is have a shave and a shower, and I'll be ready.
A very happy Christmas to all who read this.
Walter Blotscher
Like last year, I am alone in the house at this time. The others have gone off to church, while I watch over the bird, and make the bread sauce.
This year will be the first time ever that not all of our family of five will be at home at Christmas. My elder son (he of the Globe 6 Adventures blog) has been in America this autumn, and has decided to stay on for as long as his visa allows. I spoke to him on Skype about an hour ago, but it won't be the same as if he were here. The end of an era, I suppose.
After rushing to Basel and back, I have had a pretty lazy day. I made coffee and tea for my other son and daughter, fetched some wood for the stove, stuffed the turkey, and prepared the Brussels sprouts. My daughter then gave me a Christmas haircut, including eyebrows and ears (what is the evolutionary point of men having less hair on their heads as they grow older while having ever more hair in their ears?), before the turkey went into the oven at 12.00. All I have to do now is have a shave and a shower, and I'll be ready.
A very happy Christmas to all who read this.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 23 December 2012
GOULASH SOUP
I tend to associate goulash soup with skiing holidays. At the top of the mountain you find one of those little restaurants, serving a small range of things for lunch. A bowl of goulash soup and a beer, and you are all set for the afternoon's exertions.
The other association is with Basel. I had it when I visited my son last spring, also at the top of a mountain (albeit without snow). So when I went to pick him up over the weekend, it was the obvious choice for lunch on Saturday. I had it in a Raststätte on the A5, somewhere in the hills between Kassel and Frankfurt. And as with the skiing holiday, it was the perfect pick-me-up to see me through the afternoon.
2280km from Denmark to Basel and back in two days is a bit of a slog; I felt a bit like one of those Le Mans drivers by the time I got back this evening. I had borrowed my mother-in-law's car, since I didn't trust mine to last the distance, and my wife's doesn't have enough room for all of my son's stuff. Getting on the wrong side of my mother-in-law is not a sensible policy, so I decided not to thrash it, keeping to a maximum of 110 km/hour, even though it would take more hours. There is no speed limit in parts of Germany, so I was continually overtaken by people going nearly twice as fast as that.
Despite being the last weekend before Christmas, there wasn't too much traffic. I only had one bout of Stau, after an accident just north of Frankfurt on the way home. Otherwise, it was relatively painless. The car's headlight bulbs conked out somewhere around Hannover, so I had to drive the last 300km in the dark with the headlights on full beam. That managed to irritate quite a lot of German and Danish drivers, and it will probably irritate my mother-in-law when I get around to telling her. Still, it could have been a lot worse.
Walter Blotscher
I tend to associate goulash soup with skiing holidays. At the top of the mountain you find one of those little restaurants, serving a small range of things for lunch. A bowl of goulash soup and a beer, and you are all set for the afternoon's exertions.
The other association is with Basel. I had it when I visited my son last spring, also at the top of a mountain (albeit without snow). So when I went to pick him up over the weekend, it was the obvious choice for lunch on Saturday. I had it in a Raststätte on the A5, somewhere in the hills between Kassel and Frankfurt. And as with the skiing holiday, it was the perfect pick-me-up to see me through the afternoon.
2280km from Denmark to Basel and back in two days is a bit of a slog; I felt a bit like one of those Le Mans drivers by the time I got back this evening. I had borrowed my mother-in-law's car, since I didn't trust mine to last the distance, and my wife's doesn't have enough room for all of my son's stuff. Getting on the wrong side of my mother-in-law is not a sensible policy, so I decided not to thrash it, keeping to a maximum of 110 km/hour, even though it would take more hours. There is no speed limit in parts of Germany, so I was continually overtaken by people going nearly twice as fast as that.
Despite being the last weekend before Christmas, there wasn't too much traffic. I only had one bout of Stau, after an accident just north of Frankfurt on the way home. Otherwise, it was relatively painless. The car's headlight bulbs conked out somewhere around Hannover, so I had to drive the last 300km in the dark with the headlights on full beam. That managed to irritate quite a lot of German and Danish drivers, and it will probably irritate my mother-in-law when I get around to telling her. Still, it could have been a lot worse.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 21 December 2012
ARMAGEDDON
I am writing this post from the planet Zog. I arrived here last night, after a UFO picked me up from rural Denmark. Earth is apparently going to disappear tomorrow, so I thought it best to get out while I could. I am not feeling very well, as I tend to get queasy in aircraft, and the UFO pitched around a lot. The locals here say that I will soon get over it.
My first impressions are that Zog is a bit of a dull place. There are a couple of wizened old Mayan guys and a lot of survivalists, mainly American. The Mayans are making circles or something, while the others tend to hang out and mutually admire their impressive supplies of weaponry. They also like eating out of tin cans with a Swiss army knife. I'm not really into canned food, but there's not much else to eat here, really.
The worst thing is that there's nothing to do. Zog is sort of rocky and volcanic, so you can't even go for a bike ride. There's masses of T.V. and internet, and they do have some pretty impressive time machines; but there are no parks or beaches or fields.
There's a rumour going around that a UFO is going off to the Pic de Bugarach in France tonight in order to pick up the last emigres. I think I might try to sneak a lift on it. Better to be vapourised on Earth than stay here.
Walter Blotscher
I am writing this post from the planet Zog. I arrived here last night, after a UFO picked me up from rural Denmark. Earth is apparently going to disappear tomorrow, so I thought it best to get out while I could. I am not feeling very well, as I tend to get queasy in aircraft, and the UFO pitched around a lot. The locals here say that I will soon get over it.
My first impressions are that Zog is a bit of a dull place. There are a couple of wizened old Mayan guys and a lot of survivalists, mainly American. The Mayans are making circles or something, while the others tend to hang out and mutually admire their impressive supplies of weaponry. They also like eating out of tin cans with a Swiss army knife. I'm not really into canned food, but there's not much else to eat here, really.
The worst thing is that there's nothing to do. Zog is sort of rocky and volcanic, so you can't even go for a bike ride. There's masses of T.V. and internet, and they do have some pretty impressive time machines; but there are no parks or beaches or fields.
There's a rumour going around that a UFO is going off to the Pic de Bugarach in France tonight in order to pick up the last emigres. I think I might try to sneak a lift on it. Better to be vapourised on Earth than stay here.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 20 December 2012
CORPORATE TAXES (2)
In an earlier post, I argued that there were good economic and administrative reasons for not taxing companies on their profits, but instead waiting until those profits were paid out in some form or another (wages, dividends etc) and then taxing the - now richer - recipient. There would be a timing difference, but nothing else; and there would be a lot less haggle and bureaucracy.
Politicians have of course not listened to this idea (which, I might add, is not mine, but one that I would support). Instead, in various countries, they have started to point accusing fingers at companies that pay little or no corporate tax. In America, many companies do not remit profits back to the home country, since there is a tax shelter for profits earned abroad. In the U.K., companies such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks have been pilloried for holding their European intellectual property in a low-tax environment such as Luxemburg, and then charging hefty licence fees to their U.K. subsidiaries, so that the latter have no profits and so pay no tax. Never mind that in both cases, companies are merely responding rationally to tax laws passed by said politicians. Indeed, since company directors have a fiduciary duty to promote the interests of their shareholders, it would be wrong for them not to arrange their affairs in this way. Still, logic and responsibility never stopped a politician from banging a drum.
But what is perhaps surprising is that Danish politicians have now decided to get in on the act. Yesterday the tax authorities published details of the tax paid by all companies in 2011, their taxable income, whether they had offset that income with losses from previous years, and whether the company is taxed as part of a group. Not surprisingly, it emerged that a number of large companies paid no Danish corporate tax at all last year. The list includes Arla Foods, Rockwool, Vestas and Dong Energy. Others, such as Carlsberg and Danfoss, paid nowhere near the official tax rate on profits of 25%.
I have serious reservations about this wheeze. The first is that it is a clear breach of the standard principle - in all countries - that relations between a taxpayer and the tax authorities remain confidential. Ministers say that they believe that openness will lead to companies' paying more tax. But since the authorities already have all of the relevant information to hand, that extra tax can only come from public pressure making companies change their behaviour.
And here comes my second objection. As a qualified accountant, I know that there are a number of reasons why companies don't pay corporate taxes. The first, and most obvious, is that they make operating losses; either a loss in the relevant year, or losses in previous years that they have not yet fully recovered. The second is that they have made major investments, for which they get such large tax deductions that their operating profits are turned into taxable losses. Hopefully, the investments will eventually lead to extra profits in the future, that will then be taxed. But an interested citizen will find it difficult to see that from the raw data, particularly since it only covers one year, namely 2011.
My third objection is that how much a company pays in corporate tax says absolutely nothing about its general contribution to society, either in the narrow sense of paying taxes, or in the wider sense of economic and/or social benefit. Consider, for instance, a company that makes kr.100 million a year in profit, but decides, because its owner is a quirky philanthropist, to distribute all of those profits to the workers in the form of year-end bonuses. Its corporate tax contribution is now zero; but the amount of tax going to the Government rises, because wages are taxed at much more than 25% (an argument for my thesis above). So concentrating on just the corporate aspect is misleading. Or what about a trading company that has huge sales (thereby making lots of VAT payments to the Government), but which makes a modest profit (because margins on those sales are wafer-thin)? The same would be true.
Politicians often go after particular people or groups in order to deflect attention from other things where they can be held responsible. I think this is the case here. Denmark is in the middle of tough times, because of silly economic decisions taken by the powers-that-be, and it helps to change the mood music. The not-so-subtle underlying message, of course, is that if only Danish companies paid more corporate tax, then times wouldn't be so tough for Danish citizens. But that is nonsense, and the politicians know it. Shame on them.
Walter Blotscher
In an earlier post, I argued that there were good economic and administrative reasons for not taxing companies on their profits, but instead waiting until those profits were paid out in some form or another (wages, dividends etc) and then taxing the - now richer - recipient. There would be a timing difference, but nothing else; and there would be a lot less haggle and bureaucracy.
Politicians have of course not listened to this idea (which, I might add, is not mine, but one that I would support). Instead, in various countries, they have started to point accusing fingers at companies that pay little or no corporate tax. In America, many companies do not remit profits back to the home country, since there is a tax shelter for profits earned abroad. In the U.K., companies such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks have been pilloried for holding their European intellectual property in a low-tax environment such as Luxemburg, and then charging hefty licence fees to their U.K. subsidiaries, so that the latter have no profits and so pay no tax. Never mind that in both cases, companies are merely responding rationally to tax laws passed by said politicians. Indeed, since company directors have a fiduciary duty to promote the interests of their shareholders, it would be wrong for them not to arrange their affairs in this way. Still, logic and responsibility never stopped a politician from banging a drum.
But what is perhaps surprising is that Danish politicians have now decided to get in on the act. Yesterday the tax authorities published details of the tax paid by all companies in 2011, their taxable income, whether they had offset that income with losses from previous years, and whether the company is taxed as part of a group. Not surprisingly, it emerged that a number of large companies paid no Danish corporate tax at all last year. The list includes Arla Foods, Rockwool, Vestas and Dong Energy. Others, such as Carlsberg and Danfoss, paid nowhere near the official tax rate on profits of 25%.
I have serious reservations about this wheeze. The first is that it is a clear breach of the standard principle - in all countries - that relations between a taxpayer and the tax authorities remain confidential. Ministers say that they believe that openness will lead to companies' paying more tax. But since the authorities already have all of the relevant information to hand, that extra tax can only come from public pressure making companies change their behaviour.
And here comes my second objection. As a qualified accountant, I know that there are a number of reasons why companies don't pay corporate taxes. The first, and most obvious, is that they make operating losses; either a loss in the relevant year, or losses in previous years that they have not yet fully recovered. The second is that they have made major investments, for which they get such large tax deductions that their operating profits are turned into taxable losses. Hopefully, the investments will eventually lead to extra profits in the future, that will then be taxed. But an interested citizen will find it difficult to see that from the raw data, particularly since it only covers one year, namely 2011.
My third objection is that how much a company pays in corporate tax says absolutely nothing about its general contribution to society, either in the narrow sense of paying taxes, or in the wider sense of economic and/or social benefit. Consider, for instance, a company that makes kr.100 million a year in profit, but decides, because its owner is a quirky philanthropist, to distribute all of those profits to the workers in the form of year-end bonuses. Its corporate tax contribution is now zero; but the amount of tax going to the Government rises, because wages are taxed at much more than 25% (an argument for my thesis above). So concentrating on just the corporate aspect is misleading. Or what about a trading company that has huge sales (thereby making lots of VAT payments to the Government), but which makes a modest profit (because margins on those sales are wafer-thin)? The same would be true.
Politicians often go after particular people or groups in order to deflect attention from other things where they can be held responsible. I think this is the case here. Denmark is in the middle of tough times, because of silly economic decisions taken by the powers-that-be, and it helps to change the mood music. The not-so-subtle underlying message, of course, is that if only Danish companies paid more corporate tax, then times wouldn't be so tough for Danish citizens. But that is nonsense, and the politicians know it. Shame on them.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 19 December 2012
THE LOCAL CINEMA (7)
I had big news to announce at this evening's do at the local cinema. We have just placed an order for 78 new seats from China to replace the 114 that we presently have. The seats will be wider and smarter than the current, rather faded, chairs, and there will be a lot more legroom between the rows. They will also be attached to a newly sloping floor, that will be built during July when we close for the summer. When we re-open in August, it will be to a completely refurbished auditorium.
After digesting that, all the volunteers watched this week's film, Hypnotisören ("the Hypnotist"). A typical Scandinavian thriller from Sweden, full of dark, frozen landscapes, dark, frozen souls, and lots of dead bodies. I rather liked it.
Walter Blotscher
I had big news to announce at this evening's do at the local cinema. We have just placed an order for 78 new seats from China to replace the 114 that we presently have. The seats will be wider and smarter than the current, rather faded, chairs, and there will be a lot more legroom between the rows. They will also be attached to a newly sloping floor, that will be built during July when we close for the summer. When we re-open in August, it will be to a completely refurbished auditorium.
After digesting that, all the volunteers watched this week's film, Hypnotisören ("the Hypnotist"). A typical Scandinavian thriller from Sweden, full of dark, frozen landscapes, dark, frozen souls, and lots of dead bodies. I rather liked it.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 17 December 2012
JULEFROKOSTER
December is the time for "julefrokoster". Although that Danish word literally means "Christmas lunches", most take place in the evening. For companies, other workplaces, clubs, associations, any organisation really. Large amounts of beer and schnaps are the norm.
This week is going to be fairly heavy duty, since today I have my last badminton match of the year, followed by a julefrokost. Tomorrow will be the last bridge evening of the year, followed by a julefrokost. Wednesday will be an event at the local cinema, followed by a film, and Thursday evening will be the gala at the school where I teach (thankfully, it will be non-alcoholic, though I have to serve). Friday I will collapse, before a weekend spent driving down to Basel and back to fetch my son and all of his stuff. Next Monday I have to make the turkey.
Somewhere in between I have to buy a Christmas tree, and do other assorted stuff. I am already looking forward to the 25th, when I can relax.
Walter Blotscher
December is the time for "julefrokoster". Although that Danish word literally means "Christmas lunches", most take place in the evening. For companies, other workplaces, clubs, associations, any organisation really. Large amounts of beer and schnaps are the norm.
This week is going to be fairly heavy duty, since today I have my last badminton match of the year, followed by a julefrokost. Tomorrow will be the last bridge evening of the year, followed by a julefrokost. Wednesday will be an event at the local cinema, followed by a film, and Thursday evening will be the gala at the school where I teach (thankfully, it will be non-alcoholic, though I have to serve). Friday I will collapse, before a weekend spent driving down to Basel and back to fetch my son and all of his stuff. Next Monday I have to make the turkey.
Somewhere in between I have to buy a Christmas tree, and do other assorted stuff. I am already looking forward to the 25th, when I can relax.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 16 December 2012
SVEN NYS (2)
Sven Nys just keeps going. He is dominating this year's cyclo-cross season, with 11 victories and five podium finishes already, and is the hot favourite to win the world title in Louisville, Kentucky, in February.
Now aged 36, he should be at the tail end of his career, not in the prime of his life. He attributes the good form to his training during the summer for the mountain bike race at the Olympic Games. Cyclo-cross races tend to last about an hour; since mountain bike races are longer, it has increased his stamina.
Whatever. A great champion, however you look at it.
Walter Blotscher
Sven Nys just keeps going. He is dominating this year's cyclo-cross season, with 11 victories and five podium finishes already, and is the hot favourite to win the world title in Louisville, Kentucky, in February.
Now aged 36, he should be at the tail end of his career, not in the prime of his life. He attributes the good form to his training during the summer for the mountain bike race at the Olympic Games. Cyclo-cross races tend to last about an hour; since mountain bike races are longer, it has increased his stamina.
Whatever. A great champion, however you look at it.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 15 December 2012
THE ORIGINS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR
The reasons why Europe went to war in August 1914 are some of the most debated themes amongst historians. At the time, Europe led the world in virtually every field; militarily, economically, in science, culture and the arts. By the time the war and its inevitable consequence, the 1939-45 conflict, were over, Europe led in none of these. It was a period of collective madness, that resulted in death, destruction and misery on a scale never seen before or since.
The outbreak of war also broke a long period of European peace, since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 put a final end to the Napoleonic wars. True, European countries had at various times been at war since then; but they tended to be either localised conflicts (eg the Crimean War) or colonial fights (eg the Zulu and Boer Wars). Germany had comprehensively stuffed first Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and then France (1870) in the course of its transformation from a collection of independent states dominated by Prussia to the German Empire (also dominated by Prussia). Yet each of the campaigns consisted essentially of one battle, in which the losing army was annihilated; the conflicts didn't really last long enough that they could be described as wars.
Some have seen war as inevitable, once Germany had allied itself with Austria-Hungary and Italy, and Russia had allied itself with France (and, more loosely, Britain). In this scenario, pressure between the two triple power blocks would mount and eventually explode. But the pressure between the two European power blocks during the 1950's and 1960's was intense and ideological (Edwardian Englanders could travel to Berlin and St. Petersburg in a way that 1950's Englanders could not); and the destructive firepower at their disposal was even greater than in 1914. Yet the Cold War never really became hot. And it doesn't explain why Italy deserted its Germanic allies in 1914, and eventually entered the war the following year on the Allied side.
Others have seen the source of the conflict in the Balkans. A ragbag of states emerging as the European part of the Ottoman Empire slowly disintegrated, they were a perennial source of potential conflict between the empires of Austria-Hungary and Russia. However, there had been Balkan crises at various times in the early part of the century, and all had been successfully contained. Not always without fighting, but they did not result in a general European war.
Yet another view points the finger at the rapid build-up of forces in every country, and the technological developments such as the machine gun, heavy artillery, and dreadnought battleships that greatly increased collective firewpower. With so much "gunpowder" lying around the continent, all that was needed was a spark, and that was provided by the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne and his wife on 28 June 1914. The Archduke Francis-Ferdinand was visiting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the Serbian defeat at the mediæval Battle of Kosovo, when he was shot by a member of the Black Hand, a Serb society opposed to Habsburg rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, even this theory is not totally convincing. Austria undoubtedly wanted to teach Serbia a lesson, and made outrageous demands; but Serbia's initial response was conciliatory. Not much happened for nearly all of July; the British Foreign Secretary, for instance, spent all of his weekends fishing in Hampshire, the German Emperor went on a cruise in the Baltic.
The real reason seems to be that key people panicked. Armies at the time were highly dependent on mobilisation and railway timetables. Germany in particular was terrified of having to fight a war on two fronts, and had developed the Schlieffen Plan, whereby they raced to Paris and knocked France out of the war before the huge, but lumbering, Russian armies arrived in the east (as it happens, German fears were overblown; they fought for nearly four years on two fronts, winning in the east and holding their own in the west, plus a lot of other theatres around the world). Against that background, in an age of non-instantaneous communications, and at a time of year when key people were on holiday, the temptation was to mobilise first, in order not to be put at a disadvantage if the other side did. Since everybody felt the same way, it was difficult not to set things in motion. And once mobilisation had been put in place, it was incredibly difficult to stop it.
And therein lies the lesson for the modern world, in my view. Better communications and the introduction of "hot lines" between the White House and the Kremlin greatly reduced the likelihood of an accidental nuclear launch during the Cold War. Yet in other conflicts, the temptation to "strike first" has been huge. The West went into Iraq in order stop potential weapons of mass destruction being used against it; those weapons turned out not to exist. A similar head of steam is building up over Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
Anybody who has played the board game Diplomacy will know well the military choices which the various countries had to take during the First World War. But the game starts once war has already been declared. The knack for political leaders is not to start a conflict; the events of 1914 show how easy it is to drift into one.
Walter Blotscher
The reasons why Europe went to war in August 1914 are some of the most debated themes amongst historians. At the time, Europe led the world in virtually every field; militarily, economically, in science, culture and the arts. By the time the war and its inevitable consequence, the 1939-45 conflict, were over, Europe led in none of these. It was a period of collective madness, that resulted in death, destruction and misery on a scale never seen before or since.
The outbreak of war also broke a long period of European peace, since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 put a final end to the Napoleonic wars. True, European countries had at various times been at war since then; but they tended to be either localised conflicts (eg the Crimean War) or colonial fights (eg the Zulu and Boer Wars). Germany had comprehensively stuffed first Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and then France (1870) in the course of its transformation from a collection of independent states dominated by Prussia to the German Empire (also dominated by Prussia). Yet each of the campaigns consisted essentially of one battle, in which the losing army was annihilated; the conflicts didn't really last long enough that they could be described as wars.
Some have seen war as inevitable, once Germany had allied itself with Austria-Hungary and Italy, and Russia had allied itself with France (and, more loosely, Britain). In this scenario, pressure between the two triple power blocks would mount and eventually explode. But the pressure between the two European power blocks during the 1950's and 1960's was intense and ideological (Edwardian Englanders could travel to Berlin and St. Petersburg in a way that 1950's Englanders could not); and the destructive firepower at their disposal was even greater than in 1914. Yet the Cold War never really became hot. And it doesn't explain why Italy deserted its Germanic allies in 1914, and eventually entered the war the following year on the Allied side.
Others have seen the source of the conflict in the Balkans. A ragbag of states emerging as the European part of the Ottoman Empire slowly disintegrated, they were a perennial source of potential conflict between the empires of Austria-Hungary and Russia. However, there had been Balkan crises at various times in the early part of the century, and all had been successfully contained. Not always without fighting, but they did not result in a general European war.
Yet another view points the finger at the rapid build-up of forces in every country, and the technological developments such as the machine gun, heavy artillery, and dreadnought battleships that greatly increased collective firewpower. With so much "gunpowder" lying around the continent, all that was needed was a spark, and that was provided by the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne and his wife on 28 June 1914. The Archduke Francis-Ferdinand was visiting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the Serbian defeat at the mediæval Battle of Kosovo, when he was shot by a member of the Black Hand, a Serb society opposed to Habsburg rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, even this theory is not totally convincing. Austria undoubtedly wanted to teach Serbia a lesson, and made outrageous demands; but Serbia's initial response was conciliatory. Not much happened for nearly all of July; the British Foreign Secretary, for instance, spent all of his weekends fishing in Hampshire, the German Emperor went on a cruise in the Baltic.
The real reason seems to be that key people panicked. Armies at the time were highly dependent on mobilisation and railway timetables. Germany in particular was terrified of having to fight a war on two fronts, and had developed the Schlieffen Plan, whereby they raced to Paris and knocked France out of the war before the huge, but lumbering, Russian armies arrived in the east (as it happens, German fears were overblown; they fought for nearly four years on two fronts, winning in the east and holding their own in the west, plus a lot of other theatres around the world). Against that background, in an age of non-instantaneous communications, and at a time of year when key people were on holiday, the temptation was to mobilise first, in order not to be put at a disadvantage if the other side did. Since everybody felt the same way, it was difficult not to set things in motion. And once mobilisation had been put in place, it was incredibly difficult to stop it.
And therein lies the lesson for the modern world, in my view. Better communications and the introduction of "hot lines" between the White House and the Kremlin greatly reduced the likelihood of an accidental nuclear launch during the Cold War. Yet in other conflicts, the temptation to "strike first" has been huge. The West went into Iraq in order stop potential weapons of mass destruction being used against it; those weapons turned out not to exist. A similar head of steam is building up over Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
Anybody who has played the board game Diplomacy will know well the military choices which the various countries had to take during the First World War. But the game starts once war has already been declared. The knack for political leaders is not to start a conflict; the events of 1914 show how easy it is to drift into one.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 14 December 2012
GREENLAND
Greenland is a huge place, with very few people. For centuries it was a colony of Denmark, who imported fish and other products, and returned the favour by exporting such European delicacies as smallpox. As with other arctic societies, it has big social problems, notably domestic violence and alcoholism.
However, it has also long wanted to be free of its rich colonial master. And Danes, being generally of a liberal bent, have long accepted this. In 1953, Greenland's status was raised from that of a colony to an autonomous province, and it was given representatives in the national Parliament, the Folketing. In 1979, that status was upgraded to a separate country, with a local Parliament and local control over such things as health and social services. A large Greenlandic majority had voted against joining the then EEC in 1973, but went in together with Denmark, the UK and Ireland. In the 1980's, a referendum allowed Greenland, despite being part of Denmark, to leave the E.U.; though a treaty allows it access to the single market.
Following the deliberations of a commission, a 2003 report outlined six options for the future of Greenland. One of these was submitted to a referendum in 2008 and passed with a 75% majority. The referendum was non-binding, but the Folketing had promised to uphold the result, which came into effect in the summer of 2009. Greenland now has increased home rule in 30 defined areas, including police and the courts, and Greenlandic is the sole official language; in return, the Danish economic subsidies, which had represented roughly a third of the island's GDP and two thirds of the local government budget, are to be phased out. Part of the impetus behind home rule was the increasing awareness of Greenland's mineral potential, and a desire to have greater control over its exploitation. Subsidies from Copenhagen will eventually be replaced by royalties from international oil, gas and mining companies.
All very sensible in theory, but the arrangements have run into their first major practical twist. Greenland has just passed a "large scale law", which defines the terms under which foreign companies can exploit large-scale mining projects. This allows the mass importation of foreign (read Chinese) workers, who can be employed for kr.80 an hour, the minimum wage for unskilled Greenlanders, and for as little as kr.62 an hour, after company-provided board and accomodation are offset (to put this in perspective, my 18-year old daughter currently earns around kr.110 an hour in her part-time job at the local bakery, and much more at the weekend).
Normally, laws passed by the Greenland home rule Parliament are then rubber-stamped by the Folketing. However, the twist is provided by the fact that one of the policy areas reserved to the mother country is immigration. The genuine concern is that 5,000 imported Chinese workers would have a very large impact on a local population of around 50,000. The hidden concern for some Danish politicians is that Greenland could become a Trojan horse for social dumping, and an influx of undesirable foreigners who would eventually make their way to Denmark.
At bottom, the issue is how far the ex-colonial power should dictate events post-independence, and how much leeway the colony should have in making its own decisions, even if those decisions are not particularly sensible (as viewed by outsiders). Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt has so far taken an admirably adult line, saying that it is patronising to give Greenland home rule and then not accept its decisions. However, as things currently stand, she lacks a Parliamentary majority to rubber-stamp the large scale law. Yet another problem for a hard-pressed coalition Government.
Walter Blotscher
Greenland is a huge place, with very few people. For centuries it was a colony of Denmark, who imported fish and other products, and returned the favour by exporting such European delicacies as smallpox. As with other arctic societies, it has big social problems, notably domestic violence and alcoholism.
However, it has also long wanted to be free of its rich colonial master. And Danes, being generally of a liberal bent, have long accepted this. In 1953, Greenland's status was raised from that of a colony to an autonomous province, and it was given representatives in the national Parliament, the Folketing. In 1979, that status was upgraded to a separate country, with a local Parliament and local control over such things as health and social services. A large Greenlandic majority had voted against joining the then EEC in 1973, but went in together with Denmark, the UK and Ireland. In the 1980's, a referendum allowed Greenland, despite being part of Denmark, to leave the E.U.; though a treaty allows it access to the single market.
Following the deliberations of a commission, a 2003 report outlined six options for the future of Greenland. One of these was submitted to a referendum in 2008 and passed with a 75% majority. The referendum was non-binding, but the Folketing had promised to uphold the result, which came into effect in the summer of 2009. Greenland now has increased home rule in 30 defined areas, including police and the courts, and Greenlandic is the sole official language; in return, the Danish economic subsidies, which had represented roughly a third of the island's GDP and two thirds of the local government budget, are to be phased out. Part of the impetus behind home rule was the increasing awareness of Greenland's mineral potential, and a desire to have greater control over its exploitation. Subsidies from Copenhagen will eventually be replaced by royalties from international oil, gas and mining companies.
All very sensible in theory, but the arrangements have run into their first major practical twist. Greenland has just passed a "large scale law", which defines the terms under which foreign companies can exploit large-scale mining projects. This allows the mass importation of foreign (read Chinese) workers, who can be employed for kr.80 an hour, the minimum wage for unskilled Greenlanders, and for as little as kr.62 an hour, after company-provided board and accomodation are offset (to put this in perspective, my 18-year old daughter currently earns around kr.110 an hour in her part-time job at the local bakery, and much more at the weekend).
Normally, laws passed by the Greenland home rule Parliament are then rubber-stamped by the Folketing. However, the twist is provided by the fact that one of the policy areas reserved to the mother country is immigration. The genuine concern is that 5,000 imported Chinese workers would have a very large impact on a local population of around 50,000. The hidden concern for some Danish politicians is that Greenland could become a Trojan horse for social dumping, and an influx of undesirable foreigners who would eventually make their way to Denmark.
At bottom, the issue is how far the ex-colonial power should dictate events post-independence, and how much leeway the colony should have in making its own decisions, even if those decisions are not particularly sensible (as viewed by outsiders). Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt has so far taken an admirably adult line, saying that it is patronising to give Greenland home rule and then not accept its decisions. However, as things currently stand, she lacks a Parliamentary majority to rubber-stamp the large scale law. Yet another problem for a hard-pressed coalition Government.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 12 December 2012
AUSTERITY?
We're supposedly all tightening our belts at the moment after the excesses of the noughties. Except that not everybody is. Luxury carmaker Porsche has announced that 2012 will be its best sales year ever, beating the previous record, which was 2011. Last year, the company sold 118,868 units; this year, it had already sold 128,978 units by the end of November. Weak demand in Europe was more than compensated by strong demand from emerging markets.
My model is on order ....
Walter Blotscher
We're supposedly all tightening our belts at the moment after the excesses of the noughties. Except that not everybody is. Luxury carmaker Porsche has announced that 2012 will be its best sales year ever, beating the previous record, which was 2011. Last year, the company sold 118,868 units; this year, it had already sold 128,978 units by the end of November. Weak demand in Europe was more than compensated by strong demand from emerging markets.
My model is on order ....
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 11 December 2012
LIONEL MESSI
Barcelona's attacking midfielder Lionel Messi has just broken Gerd Müller's phenomenal 1972 record of 85 goals for club and country in a calendar year; and with a couple of games left before the new year, there is every chance that he will extend the record beyond the current 86. Three times voted world player of the year, Messi is the odds-on favourite to win again this year.
I well remember Müller. He broke England's hearts in the 1970 World Cup quarter final, scoring the winning goal in extra time when Germany came back from 2-0 down to win 3-2. He also scored the winner when Germany beat Holland 2-1 in the 1974 World Cup Final, which was Müller's last international match. He was short, stocky, very powerful and an instinctive poacher. Many of his goals were scored from within the 6-yard area.
Messi is also short, stocky and very powerful, but there the similarities end. He is a tremendous dribbler, with explosive pace and terrific ball control, particularly in confined spaces. He is very similar to his fellow Argentinian Diego Maradona, who was also a left-footed attacking midfielder.
Barcelona are one of the world's great clubs, and Messi has already won more than a dozen titles. But the one forum where he has had little success is in the World Cup for Argentina. In South Africa in 2010, he was marked out of the game and did very little, thereby confirming that football remains a team game. As Pele has said, until Messi has won three World Cups (as the Brazilian did), it's a bit premature to call him the greatest player ever.
Walter Blotscher
Barcelona's attacking midfielder Lionel Messi has just broken Gerd Müller's phenomenal 1972 record of 85 goals for club and country in a calendar year; and with a couple of games left before the new year, there is every chance that he will extend the record beyond the current 86. Three times voted world player of the year, Messi is the odds-on favourite to win again this year.
I well remember Müller. He broke England's hearts in the 1970 World Cup quarter final, scoring the winning goal in extra time when Germany came back from 2-0 down to win 3-2. He also scored the winner when Germany beat Holland 2-1 in the 1974 World Cup Final, which was Müller's last international match. He was short, stocky, very powerful and an instinctive poacher. Many of his goals were scored from within the 6-yard area.
Messi is also short, stocky and very powerful, but there the similarities end. He is a tremendous dribbler, with explosive pace and terrific ball control, particularly in confined spaces. He is very similar to his fellow Argentinian Diego Maradona, who was also a left-footed attacking midfielder.
Barcelona are one of the world's great clubs, and Messi has already won more than a dozen titles. But the one forum where he has had little success is in the World Cup for Argentina. In South Africa in 2010, he was marked out of the game and did very little, thereby confirming that football remains a team game. As Pele has said, until Messi has won three World Cups (as the Brazilian did), it's a bit premature to call him the greatest player ever.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 10 December 2012
PRESS PRESSURE
After it emerged that newspapers, notably the News of the World, had hacked into various people's mobile phones, the U.K. Government set up an inquiry under a senior judge, Lord Justice Leveson, to look at the role of the press, its links to politicians and the police, and how it should be regulated in the future. The police also got into gear, investigating the (illegal) hacking and payments made by newspapers to individual police officers who agreed to give them prior information about crimes. The furore and general public disgust led to the News of the World's being closed by its owner, Rupert Murdoch. A number of former executives and editors at the paper have since been arrested and are facing criminal charges.
The Leveson report was damning. Its main conclusion was tougher self-regulation, backed by legislation. The last probably won't happen, and not just because Prime Minister David Cameron is not in favour; one of the judge's technical advisers, the head of Liberty, has pointed out that statutory regulation may breach the Human Rights Act's commitment to protect free speech. But whatever does emerge will be a good deal tougher than what has been in place beforehand.
However, nothing will really change unless journalists use a bit more common sense. The public interest is not whatever interests the public, and although journalists should be in the business of investigating the shenanigans of the rich and powerful, too many reams of print are spent on things that don't remotely meet that test.
Against that background, the recent experience of a couple of Australian radio journalists might act as a bit of a wake-up call. The Duchess of Cambridge, wife of the British heir-to-the-throne-but-one, is apparently pregnant, and had to be admitted to hospital with severe morning sickness. The journalists hit on the idea of ringing the hospital, pretending to be the Queen, and getting information about the pregnancy. This they managed to do. However, two days later, the night-shift nurse who fell for the ruse is dead, having probably committed suicide.
What started out as a prank has backfired in a particularly painful way. The Aussies are naturally distraught. But I couldn't help thinking "why didn't they think?". When you're continually in the limelight, you tend to forget how uncomfortable it makes the vast majority of us. A free press is a good thing; a thoughtful free press is even better.
Walter Blotscher
After it emerged that newspapers, notably the News of the World, had hacked into various people's mobile phones, the U.K. Government set up an inquiry under a senior judge, Lord Justice Leveson, to look at the role of the press, its links to politicians and the police, and how it should be regulated in the future. The police also got into gear, investigating the (illegal) hacking and payments made by newspapers to individual police officers who agreed to give them prior information about crimes. The furore and general public disgust led to the News of the World's being closed by its owner, Rupert Murdoch. A number of former executives and editors at the paper have since been arrested and are facing criminal charges.
The Leveson report was damning. Its main conclusion was tougher self-regulation, backed by legislation. The last probably won't happen, and not just because Prime Minister David Cameron is not in favour; one of the judge's technical advisers, the head of Liberty, has pointed out that statutory regulation may breach the Human Rights Act's commitment to protect free speech. But whatever does emerge will be a good deal tougher than what has been in place beforehand.
However, nothing will really change unless journalists use a bit more common sense. The public interest is not whatever interests the public, and although journalists should be in the business of investigating the shenanigans of the rich and powerful, too many reams of print are spent on things that don't remotely meet that test.
Against that background, the recent experience of a couple of Australian radio journalists might act as a bit of a wake-up call. The Duchess of Cambridge, wife of the British heir-to-the-throne-but-one, is apparently pregnant, and had to be admitted to hospital with severe morning sickness. The journalists hit on the idea of ringing the hospital, pretending to be the Queen, and getting information about the pregnancy. This they managed to do. However, two days later, the night-shift nurse who fell for the ruse is dead, having probably committed suicide.
What started out as a prank has backfired in a particularly painful way. The Aussies are naturally distraught. But I couldn't help thinking "why didn't they think?". When you're continually in the limelight, you tend to forget how uncomfortable it makes the vast majority of us. A free press is a good thing; a thoughtful free press is even better.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 9 December 2012
NORTHERN IRELAND (2)
I said in an earlier post on this subject that I have never really understood Northern Ireland. Last week's events have not changed that.
In principle there is an uneasy peace between the two tribes in Northern Ireland. As part of that tortuous process, Belfast City Council voted on 3 December not to fly the British Union Jack flag all the time, but only on 20 designated days. The nationalists on the council had wanted the flag, the archetypal loyalist symbol, taken down completely. But the centrist Alliance Party, which holds the balance of power on the council, managed to broker the eventual compromise.
Unfortunately, compromise is not what many people in Northern Ireland want. Since the decision, there have been protests, riots, death threats and the trashing of Alliance Party offices. Yes, flags are symbols, but they are not that big a deal, in my view. But, as I say, I don't understand Northern Ireland.
Walter Blotscher
I said in an earlier post on this subject that I have never really understood Northern Ireland. Last week's events have not changed that.
In principle there is an uneasy peace between the two tribes in Northern Ireland. As part of that tortuous process, Belfast City Council voted on 3 December not to fly the British Union Jack flag all the time, but only on 20 designated days. The nationalists on the council had wanted the flag, the archetypal loyalist symbol, taken down completely. But the centrist Alliance Party, which holds the balance of power on the council, managed to broker the eventual compromise.
Unfortunately, compromise is not what many people in Northern Ireland want. Since the decision, there have been protests, riots, death threats and the trashing of Alliance Party offices. Yes, flags are symbols, but they are not that big a deal, in my view. But, as I say, I don't understand Northern Ireland.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 8 December 2012
WOLVES
In olden times wolves were common across the whole of northern Europe. They were hunted in forests, baited with dogs, and even used by kings as instruments of punishment (hence the expression "throw him to the wolves"). However, as more and more forest was cleared and used for crops or grazing, wolves became a pest, and were increasingly exterminated. There are still packs of wild wolves in Sweden, Norway and Finland, but a wolf has not been registered in the wild in Denmark since 1813. It was shot, of course.
Until today. A couple of weeks ago, a large carnivore was found dead in a national park up in North Jutland; it had apparently starved to death. It had been sighted on a couple of occasions before then, but not clearly enough for zoologists to be sure that it was a wolf. However, once dead, the carcass could be subject to a formal autopsy, and this has now confirmed that it was indeed a wolf. A sore on its body had turned cancerous, and eventually grown so large that it killed the animal.
The wolf had almost certainly come from Germany, where there are also wild wolf packs, and managed to find its way over the border and then up through Jutland. The wolf population down there is growing, so it is unlikely that Danes will have to wait until 2213 before they sight the next one. I am wondering whether I should invest in bigger mole traps.
Walter Blotscher
In olden times wolves were common across the whole of northern Europe. They were hunted in forests, baited with dogs, and even used by kings as instruments of punishment (hence the expression "throw him to the wolves"). However, as more and more forest was cleared and used for crops or grazing, wolves became a pest, and were increasingly exterminated. There are still packs of wild wolves in Sweden, Norway and Finland, but a wolf has not been registered in the wild in Denmark since 1813. It was shot, of course.
Until today. A couple of weeks ago, a large carnivore was found dead in a national park up in North Jutland; it had apparently starved to death. It had been sighted on a couple of occasions before then, but not clearly enough for zoologists to be sure that it was a wolf. However, once dead, the carcass could be subject to a formal autopsy, and this has now confirmed that it was indeed a wolf. A sore on its body had turned cancerous, and eventually grown so large that it killed the animal.
The wolf had almost certainly come from Germany, where there are also wild wolf packs, and managed to find its way over the border and then up through Jutland. The wolf population down there is growing, so it is unlikely that Danes will have to wait until 2213 before they sight the next one. I am wondering whether I should invest in bigger mole traps.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 7 December 2012
CYCLING WEATHER (2)
My earlier post described the best weather for cycling; today was probably one of the worst. It's been very cold in Denmark this past week, not a lot of snow, but freezing during the day and even more freezing at night. Not the most enticing meteorology for pedalling. But with Christmas coming up, with its associated vast quantities of food and alcohol, I felt that I needed to do some pre-emptive exercise.
It nearly killed me. Despite my thermals, a jumper and two jackets, it was very cold, the sort of cold that makes your lungs ache. The first five kilometres, all on the flat, were awful. By then my heart rate was up and it got a bit easier. But it was still tough.
When I got back I had a hot shower. But my toes had become so cold that it was positively painful to have them warmed up. Not sure that I'll be going cycling again this weekend.
Walter Blotscher
My earlier post described the best weather for cycling; today was probably one of the worst. It's been very cold in Denmark this past week, not a lot of snow, but freezing during the day and even more freezing at night. Not the most enticing meteorology for pedalling. But with Christmas coming up, with its associated vast quantities of food and alcohol, I felt that I needed to do some pre-emptive exercise.
It nearly killed me. Despite my thermals, a jumper and two jackets, it was very cold, the sort of cold that makes your lungs ache. The first five kilometres, all on the flat, were awful. By then my heart rate was up and it got a bit easier. But it was still tough.
When I got back I had a hot shower. But my toes had become so cold that it was positively painful to have them warmed up. Not sure that I'll be going cycling again this weekend.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 5 December 2012
POLITICAL NEPOTISM
A political neophyte is made Culture Minister, charged with supporting cultural activities in Denmark. He faffs around for most of the last year, not making friends but lots of enemies. It then emerges at the weekend that he has spent more than kr.180.000 (around £19,000) on dinners and meetings held at an institute where he used to be a Board director, despite being warned by an official that this was not a good idea. The institute also got kr.6m for 2013 in the most recent finance act. And the Minister's husband (he is gay) was given a job there in March.
The Minister has apologised. Despite that, he himself, plus his party leader and the Prime Minister that leads the Government of which he is part, went out of their way to say that he had done nothing wrong. This facade cracked this evening, when Uffe Elbæk resigned. And rightly so.
What is puzzling is that so many otherwise sensible people fail to see how the man on the Copenhagen omnibus will view such matters. What planet are they living on?
Walter Blotscher
A political neophyte is made Culture Minister, charged with supporting cultural activities in Denmark. He faffs around for most of the last year, not making friends but lots of enemies. It then emerges at the weekend that he has spent more than kr.180.000 (around £19,000) on dinners and meetings held at an institute where he used to be a Board director, despite being warned by an official that this was not a good idea. The institute also got kr.6m for 2013 in the most recent finance act. And the Minister's husband (he is gay) was given a job there in March.
The Minister has apologised. Despite that, he himself, plus his party leader and the Prime Minister that leads the Government of which he is part, went out of their way to say that he had done nothing wrong. This facade cracked this evening, when Uffe Elbæk resigned. And rightly so.
What is puzzling is that so many otherwise sensible people fail to see how the man on the Copenhagen omnibus will view such matters. What planet are they living on?
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 4 December 2012
SCHOOL REFORM
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, with probably the most developed welfare state. Can that be sustained in the future, as the combination of an ageing population, ferocious economic competition from (relatively) poorer countries, and the popularity of free schools increases? Yes, say Danish politicians (well they would, wouldn't they). Yet even they also say that it will only be possible if the next generation of Danes are more educated than both their ancestors and their international peers.
Which makes today's announcement of a major proposed reform of the "folkeskole" (the state school system from ages 7-16) both more interesting and more important. The key elements are, first and foremost, a much longer school day; the school week for a 7-year old will go up from 18.3 to 30 hours a week (an extra 60%+), that for a 16-year old from 28.4 to 37 hours a week, the same as the adult working week. The extra lessons will focus primarily on Danish and mathematics, and English will start in grade 1 (i.e. at the age of 7 or 8) instead of grade 3. More freetime activities such as sports, which today take place mainly out of school in clubs, will be brought within the school system in order to ensure that all children participate.
It's one thing to mandate more classtime, but someone has to provide it. Which means that we are shaping up for a massive fight between the teachers unions and the local authorities who pay for their services (schools in Denmark being run locally). For some time, politicians of all stripes have felt that teachers get too cushy a deal, with too little classroom teaching and too much administration and courses; and that this is an issue that needs to be tackled head on, once and for all. Perhaps emboldened by what they have seen take place in SAS, they have decided that now is the time to take on the teachers. Watch this space!
Walter Blotscher
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, with probably the most developed welfare state. Can that be sustained in the future, as the combination of an ageing population, ferocious economic competition from (relatively) poorer countries, and the popularity of free schools increases? Yes, say Danish politicians (well they would, wouldn't they). Yet even they also say that it will only be possible if the next generation of Danes are more educated than both their ancestors and their international peers.
Which makes today's announcement of a major proposed reform of the "folkeskole" (the state school system from ages 7-16) both more interesting and more important. The key elements are, first and foremost, a much longer school day; the school week for a 7-year old will go up from 18.3 to 30 hours a week (an extra 60%+), that for a 16-year old from 28.4 to 37 hours a week, the same as the adult working week. The extra lessons will focus primarily on Danish and mathematics, and English will start in grade 1 (i.e. at the age of 7 or 8) instead of grade 3. More freetime activities such as sports, which today take place mainly out of school in clubs, will be brought within the school system in order to ensure that all children participate.
It's one thing to mandate more classtime, but someone has to provide it. Which means that we are shaping up for a massive fight between the teachers unions and the local authorities who pay for their services (schools in Denmark being run locally). For some time, politicians of all stripes have felt that teachers get too cushy a deal, with too little classroom teaching and too much administration and courses; and that this is an issue that needs to be tackled head on, once and for all. Perhaps emboldened by what they have seen take place in SAS, they have decided that now is the time to take on the teachers. Watch this space!
Walter Blotscher
Monday 3 December 2012
LEAVING HOME (5)
My two sons are coming home again, one from Basel for Christmas and one from the U.S. just after. They are going to be staying in Denmark for the next period of their lives.
However, my daughter leaves for three months in India at the end of January, and will then go to university in the U.K. next September.
A lot of international movement in the next generation. I, on the other hand, will be staying put. After all, someone has to stay behind and defend the lawn against the moles ...
Walter Blotscher
My two sons are coming home again, one from Basel for Christmas and one from the U.S. just after. They are going to be staying in Denmark for the next period of their lives.
However, my daughter leaves for three months in India at the end of January, and will then go to university in the U.K. next September.
A lot of international movement in the next generation. I, on the other hand, will be staying put. After all, someone has to stay behind and defend the lawn against the moles ...
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 1 December 2012
MONEY AND POLITICS
Most people would agree that there is too much money in politics. The days when a British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, could say that the cost of winning a general election was not much more than a couple of phone calls, have long gone. It is estimated that total spending on the most recent U.S. electoral cycle (from the Presidential election in 2008 to the Presidential election in 2012) topped US$6 billion, enough to buy you zillions of phone calls and much else besides.
Many people would also move on from that and say that you can't win in politics unless you spend a lot of money. In other words, we are moving from a correlation - lots of money goes hand in hand with politics - to a causation - lots of money drives politics. This has now become received wisdom; like much such wisdom, it is wrong.
Start with anecdotal evidence. At the beginning of 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, it held that the constitution's First Amendment on free speech precluded any restrictions on political campaign spending by companies, unions and independent groups. This decision was widely viewed as being helpful to the Republican Party, which tends to have richer sympathisers than the Democrats; and indeed, Mitt Romney received far more money from these sorts of organisations than did Barack Obama. Yet running as an experienced businessman against an incumbent who had disappointed and with an (at best) poor economic record, Mr. Romney still lost the recent race for President.
Anecdotal evidence is not of course proof. Can one find proof? As it happens, you can, it's one of the topics discussed in Freakonomics. The U.S. House of Representatives is unusual as a political legislature, in that its 435 members are elected for the relatively short period of two years, and nearly all of the races are between just two people, namely a Republican and a Democrat. Because of that combination, representatives spend a lot of their time in almost permanent campaigning, and many of the formal election campaigns are between the same two people. When Steven Levitt looked at the data, he found almost 1,000 examples of consecutive congressional elections since 1972 in which the same two candidates had run against each other. In other words, the only thing that changed was the amount of money each candidate spent.
His analysis of the data showed that "the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all". A winning candidate first time round could cut his spending in half and lose only 1% of the vote. A losing candidate who then doubled his campaign spending would pick up about the same. What mattered to voters was not how much money you spent, but who you were. Some politicians are attractive to voters, some are not. I suspect that at bottom, the Obama-Romney election was like that.
All of which is vaguely reassuring, since I have yet to be offered a vast sum of money to run for office by some fabulously wealthy tycoon. Which means in turn that my future political career might still just happen ....
Walter Blotscher
Most people would agree that there is too much money in politics. The days when a British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, could say that the cost of winning a general election was not much more than a couple of phone calls, have long gone. It is estimated that total spending on the most recent U.S. electoral cycle (from the Presidential election in 2008 to the Presidential election in 2012) topped US$6 billion, enough to buy you zillions of phone calls and much else besides.
Many people would also move on from that and say that you can't win in politics unless you spend a lot of money. In other words, we are moving from a correlation - lots of money goes hand in hand with politics - to a causation - lots of money drives politics. This has now become received wisdom; like much such wisdom, it is wrong.
Start with anecdotal evidence. At the beginning of 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, it held that the constitution's First Amendment on free speech precluded any restrictions on political campaign spending by companies, unions and independent groups. This decision was widely viewed as being helpful to the Republican Party, which tends to have richer sympathisers than the Democrats; and indeed, Mitt Romney received far more money from these sorts of organisations than did Barack Obama. Yet running as an experienced businessman against an incumbent who had disappointed and with an (at best) poor economic record, Mr. Romney still lost the recent race for President.
Anecdotal evidence is not of course proof. Can one find proof? As it happens, you can, it's one of the topics discussed in Freakonomics. The U.S. House of Representatives is unusual as a political legislature, in that its 435 members are elected for the relatively short period of two years, and nearly all of the races are between just two people, namely a Republican and a Democrat. Because of that combination, representatives spend a lot of their time in almost permanent campaigning, and many of the formal election campaigns are between the same two people. When Steven Levitt looked at the data, he found almost 1,000 examples of consecutive congressional elections since 1972 in which the same two candidates had run against each other. In other words, the only thing that changed was the amount of money each candidate spent.
His analysis of the data showed that "the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all". A winning candidate first time round could cut his spending in half and lose only 1% of the vote. A losing candidate who then doubled his campaign spending would pick up about the same. What mattered to voters was not how much money you spent, but who you were. Some politicians are attractive to voters, some are not. I suspect that at bottom, the Obama-Romney election was like that.
All of which is vaguely reassuring, since I have yet to be offered a vast sum of money to run for office by some fabulously wealthy tycoon. Which means in turn that my future political career might still just happen ....
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
