SPORT IN JANUARY
Almost two years ago, on 31 January 2010, I started this blog with a post on the Australian Open. 602 posts later, it is fitting that the Australian Open again features.
In the longest Grand Slam final ever, Novak Djokovic yesterday won his third Australian Open title, his fifth Grand Slam tournament, and his third in a row. In beating Rafael Nadal 7-5 in the final set, he came back from 4-2 down in the fifth, and extended his winning run against the world's number two player to seven in a row, the last three of which have been in Grand Slam tournaments. Djokovic fully deserves his number one ranking.
As at the U.S. Open last year, the semi-finals came down to the top four players. Nadal beat Roger Federer in a match that I thought Federer would win. However, at 30, Federer no longer has the legs (or perhaps the desire) to run for absolutely everything, and that's what Nadal made him do for four gruelling sets. In the other semi-final Andy Murray had Djokovic on the ropes with two break points on Djokovic's serve at 5-5 in the fifth. But the Serb produced the sort of resilience that has been the hallmark of his game since the beginning of 2011, and that was that.
Comparisons will inevitably be made, but I think they are difficult. What separates the really top players in tennis is will. Djokovic has oodles of it; but he still only has five Grand Slam titles, so it is not surprising. Federer has 16, which means that he is not going to drag his aching body over the same sort of obstacle courses that the younger man does. Having said that, I still believe that Federer has the talent to win another one, not least because he husbands his body rather well.
In another arena, Denmark yesterday won the European handball championships (widely held to be the most difficult) in Serbia, beating the host nation 21-19 in the final. The Danes had a miraculous tournament, since they lost two of their opening three games, and entered the super 6 stage of the competition needing both to win their last three games, and to get help from other teams. They beat Macedonia on a goalie save with 8 seconds to go and a breakaway goal with 2 seconds to go; beat Germany and Sweden; and then watched as Poland beat Germany, after being two goals down with two minutes to play. That was enough to get them to the semi-finals, where they won comfortably over Spain, and then took the hosts in the final. The latter had survived a heated semi-final against arch-rivals Croatia, in which one of the Serbian players suffered an eye injury caused by a thrown coin.
Underdogs going into the tournament, Serbia showed how important playing at home in front of passionate fans can be. The big disappointment were France, reigning Olympic, world and European champions, who won only one of their games and finished a lowly ninth.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 30 January 2012
Sunday 29 January 2012
LIAR'S POKER
There are two reasons to read Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis, which I have just done, some 20 years after I first did. For one, it is extremely well written and very funny in parts, surprising attributes of a book about business (basically, the history of Salomon Brothers and the bond market during the 1980's).
Secondly, and more importantly, it is extremely prescient. First published in 1989, it has everything in it that any reasonably well-read regulator/bank CEO/politician would need in order to avoid the financial crisis that erupted some two decades later. True, the products, the companies and the people had changed in the meantime. In 1987 it was mortgage bonds and junk bonds, thrifts, Salomon Brothers and Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, John Gutfreund and Michael Milken; in 2007 it was collateralised debt obligations and sovereign risk, Lehmann Brothers and AIG, Hank Greenberg and Dick Fuld. Other than that, the problems were the same. If a trade was good for the financial institution, then it nearly always meant that it was bad for the client (and vice versa); there were no controls, so the obvious way to recoup a loss was to try to double your money; senior management had no idea what subordinates were doing; compensation was out of touch with reality.
But the most egregious problems came from two sources. First, Government meddling (the mortgage bond market took off in the U.S. because of a tax break misguidedly designed to support the savings & loan industry). Secondly, terrible management decisions by those in charge of financial institutions (all four of the above companies either no longer exist or had to be bailed out by the U.S. Government). Basically, the top people "running" large financial institutions have no real idea what their companies do, they are bureaucrats (in the true sense of the word), relying on systems. Those systems are in one sense incredibly sophisticated, being made up of high-powered computers spawning zillions of bytes of data. On the other, they are peopled by individuals whose interests vary wildly, and are only rarely in synch with the organisation whom they work for.
The current financial crisis was dressed up as being about markets, but ultimately, it was all about power. And, as Lord Acton once succinctly put it, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Until that changes, we are all in for another crisis in x years' time, no matter what anybody says.
Walter Blotscher
There are two reasons to read Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis, which I have just done, some 20 years after I first did. For one, it is extremely well written and very funny in parts, surprising attributes of a book about business (basically, the history of Salomon Brothers and the bond market during the 1980's).
Secondly, and more importantly, it is extremely prescient. First published in 1989, it has everything in it that any reasonably well-read regulator/bank CEO/politician would need in order to avoid the financial crisis that erupted some two decades later. True, the products, the companies and the people had changed in the meantime. In 1987 it was mortgage bonds and junk bonds, thrifts, Salomon Brothers and Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, John Gutfreund and Michael Milken; in 2007 it was collateralised debt obligations and sovereign risk, Lehmann Brothers and AIG, Hank Greenberg and Dick Fuld. Other than that, the problems were the same. If a trade was good for the financial institution, then it nearly always meant that it was bad for the client (and vice versa); there were no controls, so the obvious way to recoup a loss was to try to double your money; senior management had no idea what subordinates were doing; compensation was out of touch with reality.
But the most egregious problems came from two sources. First, Government meddling (the mortgage bond market took off in the U.S. because of a tax break misguidedly designed to support the savings & loan industry). Secondly, terrible management decisions by those in charge of financial institutions (all four of the above companies either no longer exist or had to be bailed out by the U.S. Government). Basically, the top people "running" large financial institutions have no real idea what their companies do, they are bureaucrats (in the true sense of the word), relying on systems. Those systems are in one sense incredibly sophisticated, being made up of high-powered computers spawning zillions of bytes of data. On the other, they are peopled by individuals whose interests vary wildly, and are only rarely in synch with the organisation whom they work for.
The current financial crisis was dressed up as being about markets, but ultimately, it was all about power. And, as Lord Acton once succinctly put it, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Until that changes, we are all in for another crisis in x years' time, no matter what anybody says.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 28 January 2012
HUNGARY
Hungary has always been a bit different. Magyar, its language, is (along with Finnish and Estonian) a member of the Finno-Ugric family, making it unlike other European languages, which are almost all part of the Indo-European family. The Magyars were a terror to Christian Europe in the early 10th century, until stopped by Otto at the Battle of the Lech in 955, an event which marked the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire. Thereafter they settled down on the Hungarian plain, where they remain. In 1000, Hungary was recognised as part of Christendom, when Pope Sylvester II awarded Stephen a royal crown.
For most of the Middle Ages, Hungary was the frontline protecting Christian Europe from the intrusions of the Ottoman Turks. After the disastrous Battle of Mohacs in 1526, the crown (and the mission) passed to the Habsburgs, who held it for the next 400 years. However, Hungary was not like the other lands run by the family, in that there was an extremely large class of petty nobles instead of the normal hierarchichal pyramid. Although many of them did not own land, they did have status, and ruled themselves through decentralised counties. As the Holy Roman Empire declined in the 18th century, and the Habsburgs increasingly tried to turn their collection of disparate territories into a coherent state, Austrian centralism clashed with Hungarian localism. After a Magyar revolution in 1848, the eventual compromise in 1867 was the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary; two realms with a common monarch. The compromise was however unsustainable. In the Hungarian part, other nationalities chafed under the imposition of Magyar rule; while in the Austrian part, other nationalities (Germans, Czechs, Poles) wondered why they couldn't have the same terms as the Magyars.
It took some time for the compromise to founder. But when Austria-Hungary and Germany were defeated in the First World War, the old Habsburg Empire splintered more than any other. Greater Hungary came to an end in 1920 with the Treaty of Trianon, under which the country lost 71% of its territory and 66% of its people. Roughly one third of the ethnic Hungarian population ended up as minorities in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia, where they remain. Both Hungarian nationalism (within Hungary), and anti-Hungarian discrimination (in those countries) are still live issues today.
I gleaned much of the above from two excellent books that I have read this winter. One is A.J.P.Taylor's history of the Habsburgs from 1800 onwards; and the other is Between the Woods and the Water, by Patrick Leigh Fermor. In 1934, aged 18, he decided - as one did in those days - to walk from London to Constantinople. In the first book, A Time of Gifts, he gets to the Slovak-Hungarian border; the second one takes him through Hungary and Romania and on into (what was then) Yugoslavia. Staying mainly in old castles and stately homes, he describes a world of polyglot minor aristocrats, conscious of family ancestry, yet struggling to cope with ending up in Romania, the "wrong" country. The Habsburg idea of different nationalities all living under a benevolent common monarch has been replaced by a harsher kind of nationalism, with penalties for those who are no longer top dog. And an even harsher kind of nationalism looms on the horizon as the 1930's draw to an end.
Hungary is now part of the E.U., an architecture designed to stop those sorts of things. However, as the recent spat over the illiberal aspects of the new Hungarian constitution shows, they are not completely dead and buried. Furthermore, Hungary's "get lost" reaction demonstrates clearly that it is one thing to sign up to treaties, it is another to believe them. Hungary continues to be a bit different from the rest of Europe.
Walter Blotscher
Hungary has always been a bit different. Magyar, its language, is (along with Finnish and Estonian) a member of the Finno-Ugric family, making it unlike other European languages, which are almost all part of the Indo-European family. The Magyars were a terror to Christian Europe in the early 10th century, until stopped by Otto at the Battle of the Lech in 955, an event which marked the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire. Thereafter they settled down on the Hungarian plain, where they remain. In 1000, Hungary was recognised as part of Christendom, when Pope Sylvester II awarded Stephen a royal crown.
For most of the Middle Ages, Hungary was the frontline protecting Christian Europe from the intrusions of the Ottoman Turks. After the disastrous Battle of Mohacs in 1526, the crown (and the mission) passed to the Habsburgs, who held it for the next 400 years. However, Hungary was not like the other lands run by the family, in that there was an extremely large class of petty nobles instead of the normal hierarchichal pyramid. Although many of them did not own land, they did have status, and ruled themselves through decentralised counties. As the Holy Roman Empire declined in the 18th century, and the Habsburgs increasingly tried to turn their collection of disparate territories into a coherent state, Austrian centralism clashed with Hungarian localism. After a Magyar revolution in 1848, the eventual compromise in 1867 was the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary; two realms with a common monarch. The compromise was however unsustainable. In the Hungarian part, other nationalities chafed under the imposition of Magyar rule; while in the Austrian part, other nationalities (Germans, Czechs, Poles) wondered why they couldn't have the same terms as the Magyars.
It took some time for the compromise to founder. But when Austria-Hungary and Germany were defeated in the First World War, the old Habsburg Empire splintered more than any other. Greater Hungary came to an end in 1920 with the Treaty of Trianon, under which the country lost 71% of its territory and 66% of its people. Roughly one third of the ethnic Hungarian population ended up as minorities in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia, where they remain. Both Hungarian nationalism (within Hungary), and anti-Hungarian discrimination (in those countries) are still live issues today.
I gleaned much of the above from two excellent books that I have read this winter. One is A.J.P.Taylor's history of the Habsburgs from 1800 onwards; and the other is Between the Woods and the Water, by Patrick Leigh Fermor. In 1934, aged 18, he decided - as one did in those days - to walk from London to Constantinople. In the first book, A Time of Gifts, he gets to the Slovak-Hungarian border; the second one takes him through Hungary and Romania and on into (what was then) Yugoslavia. Staying mainly in old castles and stately homes, he describes a world of polyglot minor aristocrats, conscious of family ancestry, yet struggling to cope with ending up in Romania, the "wrong" country. The Habsburg idea of different nationalities all living under a benevolent common monarch has been replaced by a harsher kind of nationalism, with penalties for those who are no longer top dog. And an even harsher kind of nationalism looms on the horizon as the 1930's draw to an end.
Hungary is now part of the E.U., an architecture designed to stop those sorts of things. However, as the recent spat over the illiberal aspects of the new Hungarian constitution shows, they are not completely dead and buried. Furthermore, Hungary's "get lost" reaction demonstrates clearly that it is one thing to sign up to treaties, it is another to believe them. Hungary continues to be a bit different from the rest of Europe.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 26 January 2012
THE HONOURS LIST (3)
It is nice to see that I am not the only one who dislikes the U.K. Honours List. The Government has just been forced (under the Freedom of Information Act) to list all of the names who declined an honour between 1951 and 1999, and who have since died. Apparently that information used to be so secretive that it was not even included in official papers released under the 30-year rule. Which just goes to show what a nonsense the system had become.
It is however surprising that the number is so few, just 277 over a period of almost 50 years. The Brits are a sucker for gongs.
Walter Blotscher
It is nice to see that I am not the only one who dislikes the U.K. Honours List. The Government has just been forced (under the Freedom of Information Act) to list all of the names who declined an honour between 1951 and 1999, and who have since died. Apparently that information used to be so secretive that it was not even included in official papers released under the 30-year rule. Which just goes to show what a nonsense the system had become.
It is however surprising that the number is so few, just 277 over a period of almost 50 years. The Brits are a sucker for gongs.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 25 January 2012
DATA DUMP (2)
I must admit I was feeling pretty depressed after my hard drive crashed last week. Not only was there a fair chance that I had lost a lot of valuable data, but I had nobody to blame except my stupid self.
However, that was before Q-data got going. They have some pretty nifty techie stuff that can help in this sort of situation, and the upshot is that they have managed to retrieve all of the data on the hard drive.
So, I now have all my data, plus a back-up hard drive that I can use as and when I get a new computer. And all for the low price of kr.1.599. It is probably the best investment I have ever made in my life.
Walter Blotscher
I must admit I was feeling pretty depressed after my hard drive crashed last week. Not only was there a fair chance that I had lost a lot of valuable data, but I had nobody to blame except my stupid self.
However, that was before Q-data got going. They have some pretty nifty techie stuff that can help in this sort of situation, and the upshot is that they have managed to retrieve all of the data on the hard drive.
So, I now have all my data, plus a back-up hard drive that I can use as and when I get a new computer. And all for the low price of kr.1.599. It is probably the best investment I have ever made in my life.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 24 January 2012
E.U. MATTERS
It's worth stepping back from the endless discussions about the "imminent" collapse of the Euro/Greek default/spat with the U.K. (take your pick), and looking at longer term trends with regard to the E.U. Two recent developments stand out in that regard.
The first is Sunday's referendum in Croatia about whether to join the E.U. Although turnout was low (under 50%), those who voted were clearly positive, by a 2 to 1 margin. If ever there was a time not to join the European club, a decision which includes a legal commitment to join the Euro at some point, then it is now. So the fact that ordinary Croats still choose to do so is important. Being part of the largest single market in the world obviously still counts for more than the restrictions on individual countries' freedom of manoeuvre that come from bowing to majority voting. U.K. politicians of a Little England, Eurosceptic ilk, are fond of calling for a renegotiation of their country's status within the E.U. rather than outright withdrawal, ending up in a similar position to Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. However, the latter are all, in one way or another, both special and small, which the U.K. is not. The biggest problem with that position is "why on earth would the other E.U. countries agree to it?". After all, new countries (and after Croatia comes - possibly - Serbia) are perfectly happy to sign up to the existing arrangements, warts and all.
The second is the law passed by France's Parliament, making it a crime for anyone to deny that the mass killing of Armenians under Ottoman rule was genocide. A number of countries have come close to this position in the past (the Armenian diaspora is very influential); but this is the first time that it has been put on the statute book. Turkey is furious.
The E.U.'s relations with Turkey have long been difficult. Turkey has been trying to get into the E.U. or its predecessor bodies since 1959, and the standard response has always been "yes, but not yet". Although negotiations have progressed, opinion in recent years has gone into reverse, and both France and Germany nowadays favour a position in which Turkey is outside the E.U., but closely associated with it. Recent unrest in Syria (which would be on the E.U.'s border if Turkey were let in) has probably hardened that position, which is why President Sarkozy will almost certainly sign the genocide bill. Apart from the immediate quarrel, the long-term consequences are likely to be that Turkey gives up trying to join the E.U. and looks to become one of the leaders in the Middle East instead.
So, the E.U. will become both a bigger club, and a more European club. Some would say a more Christian club, but I think that that is both oversimplistic and wrong. As I said in my earlier post, I just don't think that the southeastern border of Europe lies close to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; nor has it ever done.
Walter Blotscher
It's worth stepping back from the endless discussions about the "imminent" collapse of the Euro/Greek default/spat with the U.K. (take your pick), and looking at longer term trends with regard to the E.U. Two recent developments stand out in that regard.
The first is Sunday's referendum in Croatia about whether to join the E.U. Although turnout was low (under 50%), those who voted were clearly positive, by a 2 to 1 margin. If ever there was a time not to join the European club, a decision which includes a legal commitment to join the Euro at some point, then it is now. So the fact that ordinary Croats still choose to do so is important. Being part of the largest single market in the world obviously still counts for more than the restrictions on individual countries' freedom of manoeuvre that come from bowing to majority voting. U.K. politicians of a Little England, Eurosceptic ilk, are fond of calling for a renegotiation of their country's status within the E.U. rather than outright withdrawal, ending up in a similar position to Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. However, the latter are all, in one way or another, both special and small, which the U.K. is not. The biggest problem with that position is "why on earth would the other E.U. countries agree to it?". After all, new countries (and after Croatia comes - possibly - Serbia) are perfectly happy to sign up to the existing arrangements, warts and all.
The second is the law passed by France's Parliament, making it a crime for anyone to deny that the mass killing of Armenians under Ottoman rule was genocide. A number of countries have come close to this position in the past (the Armenian diaspora is very influential); but this is the first time that it has been put on the statute book. Turkey is furious.
The E.U.'s relations with Turkey have long been difficult. Turkey has been trying to get into the E.U. or its predecessor bodies since 1959, and the standard response has always been "yes, but not yet". Although negotiations have progressed, opinion in recent years has gone into reverse, and both France and Germany nowadays favour a position in which Turkey is outside the E.U., but closely associated with it. Recent unrest in Syria (which would be on the E.U.'s border if Turkey were let in) has probably hardened that position, which is why President Sarkozy will almost certainly sign the genocide bill. Apart from the immediate quarrel, the long-term consequences are likely to be that Turkey gives up trying to join the E.U. and looks to become one of the leaders in the Middle East instead.
So, the E.U. will become both a bigger club, and a more European club. Some would say a more Christian club, but I think that that is both oversimplistic and wrong. As I said in my earlier post, I just don't think that the southeastern border of Europe lies close to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; nor has it ever done.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 22 January 2012
SCOTTISH FOOTBALL
Scottish football is very dull. Teams come and go, but there are only two that really matter, Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers. Since the Scottish league started in 1890, only 11 clubs have ever won it. Rangers have won it 54 times, Celtic 42. The next highest number of wins is 4, by Hearts and Hibs (the two Edinburgh clubs) and Aberdeen. When one of the Glasgow clubs wins, the other is usually the runner-up. In the current season, Celtic lead with 59 points and Rangers are second with 55; the next three clubs all have 35 points, and so are out of contention already.
Since 1965, when Kilmarnock won, either Rangers and Celtic have won in every season except 1980, 1984 and 1985, when it was Aberdeen (under Manchester United's current manager Sir Alex Ferguson). Both have had runs of 9 years in a row. In the 1986 season Hearts, needing a draw from the last game away to Dundee, were 7 minutes from winning for the first time since 1960; but they let in two late goals and lost the title to Celtic on goal difference.
There is a Scottish Cup; but the "Old Firm" tend to win that as well. Rangers have in fact won the double 17 times in their history. What is the point of supporting any other club, when all you get is guaranteed disappointment?
Other countries (eg Spain, with Real Madrid and Barcelona) sometimes have football oligopolies, and there are only half a dozen or so clubs, that could win the English Premier League today. Nevertheless, Scotland does seem to be in a league of its own, if you forgive the pun. The way forward in my view is to extend the geographical coverage of the English leagues to include Scotland and Wales, something that the Glasgow clubs have long wanted. However, that would run up against the Scottish independence issue, which is presumably why it won't happen any day soon.
Walter Blotscher
Scottish football is very dull. Teams come and go, but there are only two that really matter, Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers. Since the Scottish league started in 1890, only 11 clubs have ever won it. Rangers have won it 54 times, Celtic 42. The next highest number of wins is 4, by Hearts and Hibs (the two Edinburgh clubs) and Aberdeen. When one of the Glasgow clubs wins, the other is usually the runner-up. In the current season, Celtic lead with 59 points and Rangers are second with 55; the next three clubs all have 35 points, and so are out of contention already.
Since 1965, when Kilmarnock won, either Rangers and Celtic have won in every season except 1980, 1984 and 1985, when it was Aberdeen (under Manchester United's current manager Sir Alex Ferguson). Both have had runs of 9 years in a row. In the 1986 season Hearts, needing a draw from the last game away to Dundee, were 7 minutes from winning for the first time since 1960; but they let in two late goals and lost the title to Celtic on goal difference.
There is a Scottish Cup; but the "Old Firm" tend to win that as well. Rangers have in fact won the double 17 times in their history. What is the point of supporting any other club, when all you get is guaranteed disappointment?
Other countries (eg Spain, with Real Madrid and Barcelona) sometimes have football oligopolies, and there are only half a dozen or so clubs, that could win the English Premier League today. Nevertheless, Scotland does seem to be in a league of its own, if you forgive the pun. The way forward in my view is to extend the geographical coverage of the English leagues to include Scotland and Wales, something that the Glasgow clubs have long wanted. However, that would run up against the Scottish independence issue, which is presumably why it won't happen any day soon.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 21 January 2012
JOINT ENTERPRISE
Two people have a shootout in a car park in South London. They don't hurt each other, but an innocent bystander, a Polish care worker, is accidentally shot in the head and killed. A is known to the police, and there is ample evidence that he was involved; he is arrested and tried. The police have an idea who B is, but do not have enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; he remains at large. The ballistics evidence shows clearly that the single bullet that killed the bystander came from B's gun. A is clearly guilty of crimes against B (attempted murder, and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life); but what, if anything, is he guilty of in respect of the bystander?
Murder is the answer, at least in England and Wales. That is the outcome of the recent decision by the U.K. Supreme Court in R v. Gnango. The case is interesting, because the precise combination of circumstances has apparently never happened before; complicated, since it involves a number of interlocking principles of criminal law; and controversial, since the lone dissent in the 6-1 decision is to my mind the most persuasive.
The first principle is that of transfered malice. If I shoot at someone, intending to kill them, but miss and accidentally kill someone else, then I am guilty of murdering that person. That is so, even if I absolutely don't want to kill the victim (because, for instance, she is my wife, whom I love). I have "transfered my malice" from my intended victim to the actual victim.
The second principle is that of joint enterprise, which has a number of parts. First, if two people commit a crime together, then they are both guilty of it. Secondly, if one person "aids, abets, counsels or procures" another person in the commission of a crime, then they are equally guilty, even if they are not present at the crime scene. So a gang leader is guilty of a drug crime, even if it is only the mule that is caught at customs (proving the link beyond reasonable doubt is of course the difficult bit evidentially, but the principle is straightforward). Thirdly, two people can be jointly guilty of a more serious crime if they are already engaged in criminal activity, and the more serious crime is one that the "innocent" party had foreseen might happen. The classic example given is of two people committing a burglary. During the course of the burglary, the owner disturbs them and one of the burglars kills him. The other burglar would be equally guilty (of murder or manslaughter), if he had foreseen that this might happen during the burglary, perhaps because his partner had taken a loaded shotgun with him. If, on the other hand, the killer pulled out a knife which his partner did not know he had on him, then he would not be.
The third principle is that you can't be guilty of a crime under the aiding and abetting rule, if you are yourself the victim of it.
In the Gnango case, B was clearly guilty of the murder of the bystander under the transfer of malice doctrine, even if it couldn't be proved who B was. Furthermore, A (Gnango) was not considered to be a victim of B's crime, since he was actively shooting back. So the nub of the case against Gnango rested on finding a "joint enterprise" that he was engaged in with B. As part of that joint enterprise, he would have foreseen that B might accidentally shoot and kill an innocent bystander. Since he foresaw it, and since that was indeed what happened, then Gnango would be guilty of murder, just like B.
At first instance, the judge ruled out the shootout as the joint enterprise. Yes, both men were shooting; however, their intents were not joint, but equal and opposite, namely to kill the other without being killed. With that ruled out, the prosecution instead relied on the crime of affray, a common law concept of ancient lineage, which essentially means unlawful violence which causes someone at the scene to fear for their personal safety (eg a fight at a football match). With affray as the joint enterprise, Gnango was convicted of the murder of the bystander. However, this approach was rejected by the Court of Appeal, who pointed out that the offence of affray does not require a joint purpose, since a fearful bystander will not know whether two people are fighting, or one person is fighting and one is merely defending himself. Since affray can not be an automatic joint enterprise, and the prosecution had not proved that it was, the Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction.
In the prosecution's subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, the judges all agreed that affray would not do. Instead, the majority went back to the shootout as the joint enterprise; the agreement was not an agreement to shoot, but an agreement to shoot and be shot at. In other words, B attempted to murder Gnango; Gnango, not being a victim aided and abetted B in this attempt, and so was in a joint enterprise with B; Gnango must have foreseen that one of the consequences of this was that an innocent bystander might get shot by B; an innocent bystander did indeed get shot and killed by B; so Gnango is equally guilty of B's transfered malice.
All very neat. There is however a big snag, which is why Lord Kerr's lone dissent is so persuasive. The snag is that this approach was specifically considered by the judge and then ruled out, and so it was never put to the jury. Appeal courts should, as a general principle, not uphold a conviction based on an argument not considered by the jury.
In some ways you can sympathise with their lordships. The authorities were under great pressure to come up with a conviction. Gnango is undoubtedly an unpleasant character; and if his conviction had been quashed, then it would have meant that justice had been given to B, a murderer on the run, but not to the innocent bystander. As Lord Brown put it, "the general public would in my opinion be astonished and appalled if in those circumstances the law attached liability for the death only to the gunman who actually fired the fatal shot". That may well be so as a statement of the law. However, it would have been better in my view if the court had set out the general principles involved, but then upheld the quashing of the conviction on the ground that the principles were not followed in this particular case. Trials must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair.
At the end of the day, the court was giving a strong public statement. Voluntary violence, whether duelling, prize fighting or shooting, should not be tolerated as a matter of public policy. In 1994, the House of Lords gave a similar statement in a case (R v. Brown) involving acts of violence by a group of homosexual sado-masochists, where they were consensual, there were no children involved, and everything took place in private. That case was very controversial, not least because it was a 3-2 decision; I suspect that the Gnango case will also turn out to be.
Walter Blotscher
Two people have a shootout in a car park in South London. They don't hurt each other, but an innocent bystander, a Polish care worker, is accidentally shot in the head and killed. A is known to the police, and there is ample evidence that he was involved; he is arrested and tried. The police have an idea who B is, but do not have enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; he remains at large. The ballistics evidence shows clearly that the single bullet that killed the bystander came from B's gun. A is clearly guilty of crimes against B (attempted murder, and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life); but what, if anything, is he guilty of in respect of the bystander?
Murder is the answer, at least in England and Wales. That is the outcome of the recent decision by the U.K. Supreme Court in R v. Gnango. The case is interesting, because the precise combination of circumstances has apparently never happened before; complicated, since it involves a number of interlocking principles of criminal law; and controversial, since the lone dissent in the 6-1 decision is to my mind the most persuasive.
The first principle is that of transfered malice. If I shoot at someone, intending to kill them, but miss and accidentally kill someone else, then I am guilty of murdering that person. That is so, even if I absolutely don't want to kill the victim (because, for instance, she is my wife, whom I love). I have "transfered my malice" from my intended victim to the actual victim.
The second principle is that of joint enterprise, which has a number of parts. First, if two people commit a crime together, then they are both guilty of it. Secondly, if one person "aids, abets, counsels or procures" another person in the commission of a crime, then they are equally guilty, even if they are not present at the crime scene. So a gang leader is guilty of a drug crime, even if it is only the mule that is caught at customs (proving the link beyond reasonable doubt is of course the difficult bit evidentially, but the principle is straightforward). Thirdly, two people can be jointly guilty of a more serious crime if they are already engaged in criminal activity, and the more serious crime is one that the "innocent" party had foreseen might happen. The classic example given is of two people committing a burglary. During the course of the burglary, the owner disturbs them and one of the burglars kills him. The other burglar would be equally guilty (of murder or manslaughter), if he had foreseen that this might happen during the burglary, perhaps because his partner had taken a loaded shotgun with him. If, on the other hand, the killer pulled out a knife which his partner did not know he had on him, then he would not be.
The third principle is that you can't be guilty of a crime under the aiding and abetting rule, if you are yourself the victim of it.
In the Gnango case, B was clearly guilty of the murder of the bystander under the transfer of malice doctrine, even if it couldn't be proved who B was. Furthermore, A (Gnango) was not considered to be a victim of B's crime, since he was actively shooting back. So the nub of the case against Gnango rested on finding a "joint enterprise" that he was engaged in with B. As part of that joint enterprise, he would have foreseen that B might accidentally shoot and kill an innocent bystander. Since he foresaw it, and since that was indeed what happened, then Gnango would be guilty of murder, just like B.
At first instance, the judge ruled out the shootout as the joint enterprise. Yes, both men were shooting; however, their intents were not joint, but equal and opposite, namely to kill the other without being killed. With that ruled out, the prosecution instead relied on the crime of affray, a common law concept of ancient lineage, which essentially means unlawful violence which causes someone at the scene to fear for their personal safety (eg a fight at a football match). With affray as the joint enterprise, Gnango was convicted of the murder of the bystander. However, this approach was rejected by the Court of Appeal, who pointed out that the offence of affray does not require a joint purpose, since a fearful bystander will not know whether two people are fighting, or one person is fighting and one is merely defending himself. Since affray can not be an automatic joint enterprise, and the prosecution had not proved that it was, the Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction.
In the prosecution's subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, the judges all agreed that affray would not do. Instead, the majority went back to the shootout as the joint enterprise; the agreement was not an agreement to shoot, but an agreement to shoot and be shot at. In other words, B attempted to murder Gnango; Gnango, not being a victim aided and abetted B in this attempt, and so was in a joint enterprise with B; Gnango must have foreseen that one of the consequences of this was that an innocent bystander might get shot by B; an innocent bystander did indeed get shot and killed by B; so Gnango is equally guilty of B's transfered malice.
All very neat. There is however a big snag, which is why Lord Kerr's lone dissent is so persuasive. The snag is that this approach was specifically considered by the judge and then ruled out, and so it was never put to the jury. Appeal courts should, as a general principle, not uphold a conviction based on an argument not considered by the jury.
In some ways you can sympathise with their lordships. The authorities were under great pressure to come up with a conviction. Gnango is undoubtedly an unpleasant character; and if his conviction had been quashed, then it would have meant that justice had been given to B, a murderer on the run, but not to the innocent bystander. As Lord Brown put it, "the general public would in my opinion be astonished and appalled if in those circumstances the law attached liability for the death only to the gunman who actually fired the fatal shot". That may well be so as a statement of the law. However, it would have been better in my view if the court had set out the general principles involved, but then upheld the quashing of the conviction on the ground that the principles were not followed in this particular case. Trials must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair.
At the end of the day, the court was giving a strong public statement. Voluntary violence, whether duelling, prize fighting or shooting, should not be tolerated as a matter of public policy. In 1994, the House of Lords gave a similar statement in a case (R v. Brown) involving acts of violence by a group of homosexual sado-masochists, where they were consensual, there were no children involved, and everything took place in private. That case was very controversial, not least because it was a 3-2 decision; I suspect that the Gnango case will also turn out to be.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 19 January 2012
DATA DUMP
For the past 10 years or so I have had a laptop computer, which I have used (inter alia) to write this blog. My children have long told me that it was a useless piece of outdated stone-age rubbish, and I was finally getting around to thinking about buying a new one, which was more suitable for my super-fast 30/30 optic fibre connection. However, as of yesterday morning, I had not made said purchase. Even worse, I had not made a back-up of the hard drive on the laptop, which I know I should have done.
Yesterday morning, I experienced a data dump, where everything shut down. My neighbour is an IT-man, so I went round to his house to see if he could save the hard disk, not for the computer as such but for the data (pictures, E-Mail addresses, some important templates etc). He could not. He also told me rather brutally that there are two types of men in the world, who own laptops; those who make back-ups of the hard disk and those who weep. Well, I didn't weep; but I wasn't a particularly happy bunny last night.
However, he also gave me the name of a company in the nearby town, that specialises in sorting out the problems of IT-idiots like me. So I took my laptop down there this afternoon, and gave it to them to have a go. They didn't look particularly fazed , and said that it was a rare case indeed where they couldn't retrieve the data from a damaged hard disk. So perhaps I'll be able to get my blog pictures back after all.
And in case you're wondering, I am writing this from the computer at the local cinema. We normally use it to run some of the new digital equipment, but it will have to do until I get my new laptop. One thing I do know after using it a couple of times; my children were right.
Walter Blotscher
For the past 10 years or so I have had a laptop computer, which I have used (inter alia) to write this blog. My children have long told me that it was a useless piece of outdated stone-age rubbish, and I was finally getting around to thinking about buying a new one, which was more suitable for my super-fast 30/30 optic fibre connection. However, as of yesterday morning, I had not made said purchase. Even worse, I had not made a back-up of the hard drive on the laptop, which I know I should have done.
Yesterday morning, I experienced a data dump, where everything shut down. My neighbour is an IT-man, so I went round to his house to see if he could save the hard disk, not for the computer as such but for the data (pictures, E-Mail addresses, some important templates etc). He could not. He also told me rather brutally that there are two types of men in the world, who own laptops; those who make back-ups of the hard disk and those who weep. Well, I didn't weep; but I wasn't a particularly happy bunny last night.
However, he also gave me the name of a company in the nearby town, that specialises in sorting out the problems of IT-idiots like me. So I took my laptop down there this afternoon, and gave it to them to have a go. They didn't look particularly fazed , and said that it was a rare case indeed where they couldn't retrieve the data from a damaged hard disk. So perhaps I'll be able to get my blog pictures back after all.
And in case you're wondering, I am writing this from the computer at the local cinema. We normally use it to run some of the new digital equipment, but it will have to do until I get my new laptop. One thing I do know after using it a couple of times; my children were right.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 17 January 2012
LOCAL RULES (3)
The 31 December deadline for putting up new post boxes has come and gone. It seems that most people waited until the very end, and then did it during the Christmas holidays. Whatever; there are now lots of new boxes lining the streets of the town where I live.
Today I handed out the new flyers for the next 8-week programme at the local cinema, so I had the opportunity to look at a number of these boxes close-up. Some are - like mine - elegant and fit in with the local surroundings. Others are very ugly, humungous great things that seem to have been built to withstand dynamite. As with everything else in life, some people just don't have any aesthetic sense.
So the new post box rules have come to a close. What's next on the rule agenda? The only certainty is that there will be something. Sådan er det bare, as they say in Denmark.
Walter Blotscher
The 31 December deadline for putting up new post boxes has come and gone. It seems that most people waited until the very end, and then did it during the Christmas holidays. Whatever; there are now lots of new boxes lining the streets of the town where I live.
Today I handed out the new flyers for the next 8-week programme at the local cinema, so I had the opportunity to look at a number of these boxes close-up. Some are - like mine - elegant and fit in with the local surroundings. Others are very ugly, humungous great things that seem to have been built to withstand dynamite. As with everything else in life, some people just don't have any aesthetic sense.
So the new post box rules have come to a close. What's next on the rule agenda? The only certainty is that there will be something. Sådan er det bare, as they say in Denmark.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 16 January 2012
NIGERIA
Nigeria is a major oil producer, yet imports nearly all of its refined products. These are heavily subsidised, which means that one of the country's biggest businesses is smuggling those cheap products across the border to neighbouring countries, where they are sold for closer to a proper price. The subsidies cost the Government about US$8 billion a year, a lot of money in a poor country; yet most of it eventually ends up in the pockets of a few well-connected people.
President Goodluck Jonathan understandably wants to get rid of this charade, abolishing the subsidy and using the money saved to invest in infrastructure, not least refining capacity and improvements to the electicity supply. The problem is that in doing so, the pain is immediate and certain; while the benefits come later and are uncertain. Given Nigerian Governments' lamentable track record, it is not surprising that the average citizen is sceptical, to say the least, about the trade-off.
The President decided to go for a big bang solution, abolishing the subsidy at a stroke on 1 January. Protests and demonstrations duly followed, some of them violent. Today he backed down, and restored roughly half of the subsidy; the price first went from 65 naira per litre to 140 naira, and is now back to 97, or US$0.60, still very cheap seen with European eyes. The protests have been called off.
Both sides can claim victory. The people have shown that their Government has to earn their trust. While the President has managed to save a couple of US$ billion, which goes a long way in Africa. He now has to show that he can spend it wisely.
Walter Blotscher
Nigeria is a major oil producer, yet imports nearly all of its refined products. These are heavily subsidised, which means that one of the country's biggest businesses is smuggling those cheap products across the border to neighbouring countries, where they are sold for closer to a proper price. The subsidies cost the Government about US$8 billion a year, a lot of money in a poor country; yet most of it eventually ends up in the pockets of a few well-connected people.
President Goodluck Jonathan understandably wants to get rid of this charade, abolishing the subsidy and using the money saved to invest in infrastructure, not least refining capacity and improvements to the electicity supply. The problem is that in doing so, the pain is immediate and certain; while the benefits come later and are uncertain. Given Nigerian Governments' lamentable track record, it is not surprising that the average citizen is sceptical, to say the least, about the trade-off.
The President decided to go for a big bang solution, abolishing the subsidy at a stroke on 1 January. Protests and demonstrations duly followed, some of them violent. Today he backed down, and restored roughly half of the subsidy; the price first went from 65 naira per litre to 140 naira, and is now back to 97, or US$0.60, still very cheap seen with European eyes. The protests have been called off.
Both sides can claim victory. The people have shown that their Government has to earn their trust. While the President has managed to save a couple of US$ billion, which goes a long way in Africa. He now has to show that he can spend it wisely.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 14 January 2012
A NEW CAR
My wife has bought a new car. After the tribulations suffered on the way to Copenhagen before Christmas, the old car was consigned to the knacker's yard. There was nothing to be done except buy a new one.
The new car was collected yesterday, and today we went out for a spin in it. And very nice it is too. One surprising aspect was that the price in 2012 was almost exactly the same - a little less, in fact - as the price paid for the last car in 2002. True, the other car was a bit bigger; but it was also 6 years old at the time, and had done more than 100,000 km, whereas the new one is brand new and had done precisely 15 km. Furthermore, the new one has a 5-year warranty and a 5-year free breakdown agreement. This seems to confirm my view, expressed before, that goods prices are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Indeed, that view was confirmed by the destination of today's spin, a supermarket in Odense that sells every kind of accessory to do with cars. There we bought rubber floor mats, a cycle holder, make-up mirrors, and a de-icing thingy, all for virtually nothing.
Walter Blotscher
My wife has bought a new car. After the tribulations suffered on the way to Copenhagen before Christmas, the old car was consigned to the knacker's yard. There was nothing to be done except buy a new one.
The new car was collected yesterday, and today we went out for a spin in it. And very nice it is too. One surprising aspect was that the price in 2012 was almost exactly the same - a little less, in fact - as the price paid for the last car in 2002. True, the other car was a bit bigger; but it was also 6 years old at the time, and had done more than 100,000 km, whereas the new one is brand new and had done precisely 15 km. Furthermore, the new one has a 5-year warranty and a 5-year free breakdown agreement. This seems to confirm my view, expressed before, that goods prices are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Indeed, that view was confirmed by the destination of today's spin, a supermarket in Odense that sells every kind of accessory to do with cars. There we bought rubber floor mats, a cycle holder, make-up mirrors, and a de-icing thingy, all for virtually nothing.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 13 January 2012
A HEALTH CHECK
My wife and daughter have been badgering me, since I turned 50, to have a health check. Although I do a fair amount of exercise, they think that I eat really badly; in particular, they think that I eat too many biscuits and similar rubbish.
And so this week, two and a half years late, I went and had one. They took a load of blood samples and sent them off to the lab for tests. Yesterday I got the results, and they were ok. Everything within the normal parameters, even my cholesterol values. And my blood pressure was 117 over 73, which is good.
So, I am allowed to keep eating biscuits. Which is a good thing, since I am about to have one with my evening cup of tea.
Walter Blotscher
My wife and daughter have been badgering me, since I turned 50, to have a health check. Although I do a fair amount of exercise, they think that I eat really badly; in particular, they think that I eat too many biscuits and similar rubbish.
And so this week, two and a half years late, I went and had one. They took a load of blood samples and sent them off to the lab for tests. Yesterday I got the results, and they were ok. Everything within the normal parameters, even my cholesterol values. And my blood pressure was 117 over 73, which is good.
So, I am allowed to keep eating biscuits. Which is a good thing, since I am about to have one with my evening cup of tea.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 12 January 2012
SCOTLAND
The country of which I am a citizen is formally called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is made up - at least for political and football purposes - of four bits; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has been under England's thumb since at least Henry VIII's time. The island of Ireland, having been treated essentially as a colony for centuries, was formally joined to the mainland from 1 January 1801. This was not a satisfactory relationship, and a large part of the British politics of the late 19th century was taken up with the "Irish Question". Eventually Ireland was divided into two, the northern part remaining with the mainland and the southern going its own way; but the consequences of that decision are still being worked out today.
Scotland was an independent country for much of the Middle Ages, and a resolute enemy of England, often teaming up with England's arch-enemy France and often (notwithstanding Robert the Bruce and Braveheart) getting a bloody nose from the English for doing so. But in 1603, Henry VIII's daughter Queen Elizabeth died, having never married; and the throne passed to her cousin James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England and the founder of the Stuart dynasty. The union of the two countries was a personal union; there were two separate countries, who happened to have the same king. However, this was considered unsatisfactory and there were various attempts (in 1606, 1667 and 1689) to formalise the arrangement. These all failed, and it was not until the early eighteenth century that the political establishments in both countries could agree on a merger. This took place on 1 May 1707, after acts of union had been passed by the Parliaments in each country. The two Parliaments were abolished and replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain, sitting at Westminster.
Although Great Britain has now been one country for 300 years, there are significant differences between Scotland and England/Wales, most notably in law and education. The law of England is the common law, later exported to the English-speaking world (the U.S., Australia and so on); while Scots law, with its "delict" and "subjects", is based much more on Roman law, and so is closer to the civilian systems in continental Europe. In education, English students sat 'A' levels and went on to do three-year university courses; in Scotland they did 'Highers' and went on to four-year courses. The differences are being eroded with time, but they exist nevertheless; there is, for example, no concept of a trust in Scots law.
The 1707 union was engineered by Scots aristocrats anxious to get money and influence in London, and was unpopular with the population at large. So there has always been a movement in Scotland to reverse the process and become independent again. That movement, headed by the Scottish National Party, gained in influence first with the discovery of North Sea oil (most of which lay in Scottish waters) and secondly with the U.K.'s entry into the European Union. Under Tony Blair, both Scotland and Wales were at the end of the 1990's given devolution powers. The former's are more extensive than the latter's, and provided for Scotland to have its own Parliament and effective autonomy in most areas of domestic policy. In the years since then, the SNP has gradually increased its support, and at the last Scottish election in May 2011, it secured an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament. There was now a clear path to a referendum on Scottish independence, long the SNP's aim.
But by whom? By the Scots, of course, says the SNP's leader and First Minister Alex Salmond. By securing an absolute mandate, he has unquestioned support for his flagship policy, which allows him to call the referendum at a time of his choosing and on a question of his choosing. Not so fast, say politicians at Westminster, including the Prime Minister (of the United Kingdom) David Cameron. The Scotland Act which devolved power to Scotland specifically reserved constitutional matters to the U.K. Parliament. Recognising the SNP's popular mandate, Westminster is happy to delegate the legal power to hold a referendum. But the question and timing would not be Mr. Salmond's alone.
Mr. Salmond is well aware that any judicial dispute between Scotland and the U.K. would in all probability go in the latter's favour, not least because the law is pretty clear and the issue would be decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdon, which sits in London. It suits his purpose to portray the powers at Westminster as "interfering in Scottish affairs", something Scots dislike. But if and when this skirmish is sorted out, and it comes to a definitive decision, would Scotland really choose to become independent again? To do so, the SNP would have to overcome two awkward facts. The first is that most of the oil in the North Sea has already been extracted, so there would not be the natural resource bonanza in (say) 2020 that there could well have been in 1980. Secondly, under the so-called "Barnett formula", Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) has always been generously treated in terms of public spending, receiving a significantly higher dollop of cash per person than the U.K. as a whole (in the fiscal year 2009-10, £11,370 versus £10,320). This would disappear if Scotland were to become independent and had to finance itself. True, independence is not just, or even mostly, about money. Nevertheless, there remains a suspicion that the Scots are in fact happy to have it both ways; effective independence under the leadership of a party continually pushing for more, while accepting subsidies (and other things, such as defence) from the more numerous English south of the border.
I have lived all my life as a citizen of a unified Scotland and England. But I also spent the first 40 years of my life in a Europe divided between East and West. The latter disappeared in 1989; might the former also? If and when the referendum comes, it will be an exciting moment.
Walter Blotscher
The country of which I am a citizen is formally called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is made up - at least for political and football purposes - of four bits; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has been under England's thumb since at least Henry VIII's time. The island of Ireland, having been treated essentially as a colony for centuries, was formally joined to the mainland from 1 January 1801. This was not a satisfactory relationship, and a large part of the British politics of the late 19th century was taken up with the "Irish Question". Eventually Ireland was divided into two, the northern part remaining with the mainland and the southern going its own way; but the consequences of that decision are still being worked out today.
Scotland was an independent country for much of the Middle Ages, and a resolute enemy of England, often teaming up with England's arch-enemy France and often (notwithstanding Robert the Bruce and Braveheart) getting a bloody nose from the English for doing so. But in 1603, Henry VIII's daughter Queen Elizabeth died, having never married; and the throne passed to her cousin James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England and the founder of the Stuart dynasty. The union of the two countries was a personal union; there were two separate countries, who happened to have the same king. However, this was considered unsatisfactory and there were various attempts (in 1606, 1667 and 1689) to formalise the arrangement. These all failed, and it was not until the early eighteenth century that the political establishments in both countries could agree on a merger. This took place on 1 May 1707, after acts of union had been passed by the Parliaments in each country. The two Parliaments were abolished and replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain, sitting at Westminster.
Although Great Britain has now been one country for 300 years, there are significant differences between Scotland and England/Wales, most notably in law and education. The law of England is the common law, later exported to the English-speaking world (the U.S., Australia and so on); while Scots law, with its "delict" and "subjects", is based much more on Roman law, and so is closer to the civilian systems in continental Europe. In education, English students sat 'A' levels and went on to do three-year university courses; in Scotland they did 'Highers' and went on to four-year courses. The differences are being eroded with time, but they exist nevertheless; there is, for example, no concept of a trust in Scots law.
The 1707 union was engineered by Scots aristocrats anxious to get money and influence in London, and was unpopular with the population at large. So there has always been a movement in Scotland to reverse the process and become independent again. That movement, headed by the Scottish National Party, gained in influence first with the discovery of North Sea oil (most of which lay in Scottish waters) and secondly with the U.K.'s entry into the European Union. Under Tony Blair, both Scotland and Wales were at the end of the 1990's given devolution powers. The former's are more extensive than the latter's, and provided for Scotland to have its own Parliament and effective autonomy in most areas of domestic policy. In the years since then, the SNP has gradually increased its support, and at the last Scottish election in May 2011, it secured an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament. There was now a clear path to a referendum on Scottish independence, long the SNP's aim.
But by whom? By the Scots, of course, says the SNP's leader and First Minister Alex Salmond. By securing an absolute mandate, he has unquestioned support for his flagship policy, which allows him to call the referendum at a time of his choosing and on a question of his choosing. Not so fast, say politicians at Westminster, including the Prime Minister (of the United Kingdom) David Cameron. The Scotland Act which devolved power to Scotland specifically reserved constitutional matters to the U.K. Parliament. Recognising the SNP's popular mandate, Westminster is happy to delegate the legal power to hold a referendum. But the question and timing would not be Mr. Salmond's alone.
Mr. Salmond is well aware that any judicial dispute between Scotland and the U.K. would in all probability go in the latter's favour, not least because the law is pretty clear and the issue would be decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdon, which sits in London. It suits his purpose to portray the powers at Westminster as "interfering in Scottish affairs", something Scots dislike. But if and when this skirmish is sorted out, and it comes to a definitive decision, would Scotland really choose to become independent again? To do so, the SNP would have to overcome two awkward facts. The first is that most of the oil in the North Sea has already been extracted, so there would not be the natural resource bonanza in (say) 2020 that there could well have been in 1980. Secondly, under the so-called "Barnett formula", Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) has always been generously treated in terms of public spending, receiving a significantly higher dollop of cash per person than the U.K. as a whole (in the fiscal year 2009-10, £11,370 versus £10,320). This would disappear if Scotland were to become independent and had to finance itself. True, independence is not just, or even mostly, about money. Nevertheless, there remains a suspicion that the Scots are in fact happy to have it both ways; effective independence under the leadership of a party continually pushing for more, while accepting subsidies (and other things, such as defence) from the more numerous English south of the border.
I have lived all my life as a citizen of a unified Scotland and England. But I also spent the first 40 years of my life in a Europe divided between East and West. The latter disappeared in 1989; might the former also? If and when the referendum comes, it will be an exciting moment.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 11 January 2012
SHANTARAM
If you only read one book this year, then you will be hard pressed to find a more enjoyable one than Shantaram, recommended to me by my son and which I have just finished. Based (exactly how much is not 100% clear) on the real-life experiences during the 1980's of Australian Gregory David Roberts, it's very well written and a great story.
When Roberts' marriage breaks up, he turns to heroin and a series of armed robberies in order to pay for it. Caught and sentenced to 19 years in prison, he manages to escape in broad daylight, and flees to India on a false passport. In Mumbai he lives in a slum, running a free health clinic and engaging in a series of petty criminal activities. These gradually lead to greater and greater involvement in a branch of the city Mafia, headed by an Afghani who becomes a surrogate father to him. Along the way, he is put in a local jail for a while, and goes to Afghanistan to fight the Russians (being wounded in the process). He learns the local languages, falls in love, nearly dies, gets involved in lots of fights, and makes some great friends. It's a rollicking good 900-page read.
(After his Indian adventures, he is caught in Germany in 1990, and extradited back to Australia, where he completes his original sentence. The book is published in 2003 after he gets out.)
The film rights to Shantaram were sold to Johnny Depp, who would make a great lead character. But it seems to have got lost somewhere along the way. A pity.
Walter Blotscher
If you only read one book this year, then you will be hard pressed to find a more enjoyable one than Shantaram, recommended to me by my son and which I have just finished. Based (exactly how much is not 100% clear) on the real-life experiences during the 1980's of Australian Gregory David Roberts, it's very well written and a great story.
When Roberts' marriage breaks up, he turns to heroin and a series of armed robberies in order to pay for it. Caught and sentenced to 19 years in prison, he manages to escape in broad daylight, and flees to India on a false passport. In Mumbai he lives in a slum, running a free health clinic and engaging in a series of petty criminal activities. These gradually lead to greater and greater involvement in a branch of the city Mafia, headed by an Afghani who becomes a surrogate father to him. Along the way, he is put in a local jail for a while, and goes to Afghanistan to fight the Russians (being wounded in the process). He learns the local languages, falls in love, nearly dies, gets involved in lots of fights, and makes some great friends. It's a rollicking good 900-page read.
(After his Indian adventures, he is caught in Germany in 1990, and extradited back to Australia, where he completes his original sentence. The book is published in 2003 after he gets out.)
The film rights to Shantaram were sold to Johnny Depp, who would make a great lead character. But it seems to have got lost somewhere along the way. A pity.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 10 January 2012
DIGGING (3)
I have reached the other side of the barn. The closer I got, the more muddy and swamp-like the ground became. I guessed that it was because the drain was blocked at some point, and this turned out to be true. I have now unblocked it, and the water is gurgling happily into the pipes on the other side of the barn wall, on its way to the paddock and eventually the sea.
I am going to let the trench drain for a day or two, before joining up the last section tomorrow or Thursday. I just have to hope it doesn't rain again before then.
Walter Blotscher
I have reached the other side of the barn. The closer I got, the more muddy and swamp-like the ground became. I guessed that it was because the drain was blocked at some point, and this turned out to be true. I have now unblocked it, and the water is gurgling happily into the pipes on the other side of the barn wall, on its way to the paddock and eventually the sea.
I am going to let the trench drain for a day or two, before joining up the last section tomorrow or Thursday. I just have to hope it doesn't rain again before then.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 9 January 2012
POINTS SYSTEMS (2)
A points system for potential immigrants was one of those nasty things that the Danish People's Party demanded as the price for their approving the 2011 Finance Bill. It had nothing to do with macroeconomic or fiscal policy and everything to do with their using their political leverage.
Following last autumn's general election, the Government changed from right of centre to left of centre, and the DPP are now without influence. Today the new Government announced that the points system will be scrapped, and replaced with a Danish language test.
A small, but significant, change, both practically and politically. And most welcome.
Walter Blotscher
A points system for potential immigrants was one of those nasty things that the Danish People's Party demanded as the price for their approving the 2011 Finance Bill. It had nothing to do with macroeconomic or fiscal policy and everything to do with their using their political leverage.
Following last autumn's general election, the Government changed from right of centre to left of centre, and the DPP are now without influence. Today the new Government announced that the points system will be scrapped, and replaced with a Danish language test.
A small, but significant, change, both practically and politically. And most welcome.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 8 January 2012
ROYAL JUBILEES
2012 will bring major jubilees in the two countries I am most associated with. Next weekend marks the 40th anniversary of the accession of Denmark's Queen Margrethe II. While later in the year the U.K. will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II.
The two women share more than just distant kinship (Edward VII, Queen Victoria's successor, married a Danish princess). The first is that they are women in what, throughout history, has been very much a male profession. Women in England have always been able to ascend the throne, though it has happened only rarely. But in Denmark, the constitution had to be changed in a referendum so that Margrethe could become queen, after the political elite took fright at the prospect of her father's nearest male heir.
Secondly, they both bear the name of a famous predecessor. Elizabeth 1 of England was Henry VIII's daughter and ruled for most of the second half of the turbulent 16th century, playing off other countries against each other and overseeing the great victory of 1588 over the Spanish Armada. Margrethe I of Denmark was a powerful woman of the Middle Ages, engineering the Union of Kalmar in 1397 that brought Norway, Sweden and Denmark together under one monarch, an arrangement which lasted until the 1500's.
Thirdly, they have both been monarch for a long time. Longevity is a huge asset for a monarch. Since they are supposed to represent the nation in some way, it helps if generations grow up, knowing no other. Furthermore, in their dealings with Prime Ministers and others, experience counts for a lot. Many "new" political policies are, in the way of these things, in reality returns to old ones, and you have an advantage if you were on the throne when they were implemented first time round. Been ther, done that.
Both monarchs are extremely popular in their countries, even if some of their nearest and dearest are not. So I fully expect the jubilees to be happy occasions, confining those who believe that monarchies are anachronisms and/or expensive sideshows to the fringes.
Walter Blotscher
2012 will bring major jubilees in the two countries I am most associated with. Next weekend marks the 40th anniversary of the accession of Denmark's Queen Margrethe II. While later in the year the U.K. will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II.
The two women share more than just distant kinship (Edward VII, Queen Victoria's successor, married a Danish princess). The first is that they are women in what, throughout history, has been very much a male profession. Women in England have always been able to ascend the throne, though it has happened only rarely. But in Denmark, the constitution had to be changed in a referendum so that Margrethe could become queen, after the political elite took fright at the prospect of her father's nearest male heir.
Secondly, they both bear the name of a famous predecessor. Elizabeth 1 of England was Henry VIII's daughter and ruled for most of the second half of the turbulent 16th century, playing off other countries against each other and overseeing the great victory of 1588 over the Spanish Armada. Margrethe I of Denmark was a powerful woman of the Middle Ages, engineering the Union of Kalmar in 1397 that brought Norway, Sweden and Denmark together under one monarch, an arrangement which lasted until the 1500's.
Thirdly, they have both been monarch for a long time. Longevity is a huge asset for a monarch. Since they are supposed to represent the nation in some way, it helps if generations grow up, knowing no other. Furthermore, in their dealings with Prime Ministers and others, experience counts for a lot. Many "new" political policies are, in the way of these things, in reality returns to old ones, and you have an advantage if you were on the throne when they were implemented first time round. Been ther, done that.
Both monarchs are extremely popular in their countries, even if some of their nearest and dearest are not. So I fully expect the jubilees to be happy occasions, confining those who believe that monarchies are anachronisms and/or expensive sideshows to the fringes.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 7 January 2012
THE F.A.CUP
I love the F.A.Cup. It's the sudden death element to it that appeals, which gives the underdog teams a real chance, particularly if they are playing at home on a crappy pitch and with frenzied support. Other countries' cup competitions (Spain, for instance) play home and away matches, and it's very difficult for the lower division teams to win on aggregate. Their only chance is a 1-off, where they play at 100mph, hope to get the first goal, and then hang on.
Ronnie Radford's screamer for non-league Hereford in the third round replay against Newcastle United in 1972 was one of the great memories of my youth. Hereford had surprisingly drawn 2-2 away against the top-flight side, after taking the lead after just 17 seconds; and the replay was played on a mudbath in front of a packed ground in which people were hanging in the trees outside. Newcastle scored in the 82nd minute, but Radford equalised with five minutes to go, before Ricky George scored the winner in extra time. Both Hereford goals sparked a pitch invasion, and Radford's was later voted the goal of the season. It was terrific stuff.
I have just watched Fleetwood, from the fifth best league, against Blackpool, from the championship (second best). The two clubs are only 10 miles from each other, so it was a full house at Fleetwood's small ground. Blackpool got an early lead, which should have spelled disaster; but Fleetwood played brilliantly for the rest of the first half and should have equalised. However, they didn't; and Blackpool's greater professionalism told after the break, as they ran out winners 5-1.
Walter Blotscher
I love the F.A.Cup. It's the sudden death element to it that appeals, which gives the underdog teams a real chance, particularly if they are playing at home on a crappy pitch and with frenzied support. Other countries' cup competitions (Spain, for instance) play home and away matches, and it's very difficult for the lower division teams to win on aggregate. Their only chance is a 1-off, where they play at 100mph, hope to get the first goal, and then hang on.
Ronnie Radford's screamer for non-league Hereford in the third round replay against Newcastle United in 1972 was one of the great memories of my youth. Hereford had surprisingly drawn 2-2 away against the top-flight side, after taking the lead after just 17 seconds; and the replay was played on a mudbath in front of a packed ground in which people were hanging in the trees outside. Newcastle scored in the 82nd minute, but Radford equalised with five minutes to go, before Ricky George scored the winner in extra time. Both Hereford goals sparked a pitch invasion, and Radford's was later voted the goal of the season. It was terrific stuff.
I have just watched Fleetwood, from the fifth best league, against Blackpool, from the championship (second best). The two clubs are only 10 miles from each other, so it was a full house at Fleetwood's small ground. Blackpool got an early lead, which should have spelled disaster; but Fleetwood played brilliantly for the rest of the first half and should have equalised. However, they didn't; and Blackpool's greater professionalism told after the break, as they ran out winners 5-1.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 6 January 2012
CONGESTION CHARGES
Congestion charges, designed to reduce traffic in city centres, have been introduced in London, Oslo and Stockholm. Quantifying their effects is controversial, but it seems that they are an idea that will stay. Indeed, the then left-of-centre Opposition in Denmark made the introduction of such a system in Copenhagen one of the planks of their election campaign last autumn. Now in Government, they have the task of making it happen.
Which is when the difficulties start. Because congestion charges are one of those things, like airport expansions and new high-speed rail links, that everyone can sign up to, providing they don't affect them directly. The list of people who now want to scrap Copenhagen's proposed "payment ring" include the Opposition, commuters, businesses within the ring, and people living just outside the ring (worried about parking). With some of those, the Government can take the view "well they would say that, wouldn't they?". But the most worrying anti's are surely the group of mayors in the local authorities of the western and southwestern suburbs, who are almost all Social Democrats like the Prime Minister. Mayors have real clout in Denmark's decentralised local government system, and they fear a voter backlash at the next communal elections, if this project goes ahead.
The Government is maintaining its line that the ring is needed in order to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, and to provide extra resources that can be ploughed back into improving public transport. They also say that once the system in place, people will naturally come to accept it. Coming from the U.K., I have never thought Copenhagen a particularly crowded or dirty place, and I am naturally suspicious of any Government that says it needs to take money from one group of citizens in order to improve the lot of another. At the moment, it seems that a lot of residents in the Greater Copenhagen area think the same.
Having invested so much political capital in this project, the Government will be loth to drop it, for fear of looking weak. But going against the wishes of your natural supporters is always difficult. The chances of the payment ring's happening are evenly balanced.
Walter Blotscher
Congestion charges, designed to reduce traffic in city centres, have been introduced in London, Oslo and Stockholm. Quantifying their effects is controversial, but it seems that they are an idea that will stay. Indeed, the then left-of-centre Opposition in Denmark made the introduction of such a system in Copenhagen one of the planks of their election campaign last autumn. Now in Government, they have the task of making it happen.
Which is when the difficulties start. Because congestion charges are one of those things, like airport expansions and new high-speed rail links, that everyone can sign up to, providing they don't affect them directly. The list of people who now want to scrap Copenhagen's proposed "payment ring" include the Opposition, commuters, businesses within the ring, and people living just outside the ring (worried about parking). With some of those, the Government can take the view "well they would say that, wouldn't they?". But the most worrying anti's are surely the group of mayors in the local authorities of the western and southwestern suburbs, who are almost all Social Democrats like the Prime Minister. Mayors have real clout in Denmark's decentralised local government system, and they fear a voter backlash at the next communal elections, if this project goes ahead.
The Government is maintaining its line that the ring is needed in order to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, and to provide extra resources that can be ploughed back into improving public transport. They also say that once the system in place, people will naturally come to accept it. Coming from the U.K., I have never thought Copenhagen a particularly crowded or dirty place, and I am naturally suspicious of any Government that says it needs to take money from one group of citizens in order to improve the lot of another. At the moment, it seems that a lot of residents in the Greater Copenhagen area think the same.
Having invested so much political capital in this project, the Government will be loth to drop it, for fear of looking weak. But going against the wishes of your natural supporters is always difficult. The chances of the payment ring's happening are evenly balanced.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 5 January 2012
AN EXPENSIVE FISH (2)
A year ago, I wrote a post about someone in Japan paying 32.49m yen (roughly US$400,000) for a blue fin tuna at the Tokyo fish market's New Year auction.
That turns out to have been a snip. This year someone paid 56.49m yen (roughly US$736,000) for a fish of the same species. The increase in price is even more remarkable, given that this year's fish was smaller than last year's (269kg v. 342kg), giving a whopping price per kilo of US$2,737. That makes for some pretty expensive sushi.
Financial crisis? What financial crisis?
Walter Blotscher
A year ago, I wrote a post about someone in Japan paying 32.49m yen (roughly US$400,000) for a blue fin tuna at the Tokyo fish market's New Year auction.
That turns out to have been a snip. This year someone paid 56.49m yen (roughly US$736,000) for a fish of the same species. The increase in price is even more remarkable, given that this year's fish was smaller than last year's (269kg v. 342kg), giving a whopping price per kilo of US$2,737. That makes for some pretty expensive sushi.
Financial crisis? What financial crisis?
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 4 January 2012
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Double jeopardy is a common law concept of ancient lineage. Basically it means that you are not allowed to be tried for the same crime twice; and that holds, even if, after an acquittal, it later becomes crystal clear that you really did do it.
The reasoning is as follows. Crimes are prosecuted by the powers-that-be, originally the king but nowadays the authorities, acting in the monarch's name. They have the full resources of the state at their disposal and can take as long as they like to build a case. The suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high threshold; but the prosecution only initiate a trial when they are pretty sure that they are going to win. If, having given it their "best shot", the evidence turns out to be unconvincing and the defendant is acquitted, then it would be unfair to the defendant to have to go though the whole process again.
Although the rule is centuries old, major new developments in forensic science over the past 20 years led to calls for its modification. In England and Wales, this took place in 2005, when it was dropped in relation to about 30 serious crimes, including rape and murder. The change doesn't allow the prosecution to try again whenever they feel like it; "new and compelling evidence" must be provided that is sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the acquittal and order a retrial. A reasonable development? At the time, civil liberties groups were against it, since they feared that it would allow the police to be less than rigorous in their investigations, and to persecute known criminals without having to prove their suspicions of new crimes. I shared those concerns, but I have been won round to the opposite view by the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence case.
In April 1993, 18-year old Mr. Lawrence was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of youths while he waited with a friend at a bus stop in Eltham, South London. What gave the case notoriety was that he and his friend were black, while the attackers were white. Already by the next day the police knew whom to look for, since someone had left a letter with the suspects' names on it in a public telephone box. Five men were arrested and Mr. Lawrence's friend positively identified two of them. Yet the police messed up the investigation, and the case was dropped. In September 1994 Mr. Lawrence's parents launched a private prosecution (possible under English law, though always difficult) of three of the five, but it failed; all three were acquitted.
The focus then moved to the Met, the police force responsible for London. In 1997 a public inquiry was set up under the Chairmanship of a former judge. When he reported in early 1999, he castigated the Met for "institutional racism" and made 70 recommendations for change. The clear implication was that the police were not interested in clearing up race-related crimes. That explained why the initial investigation had been so inept; but it did nothing to bring Mr. Lawrence's killers to justice.
In 2007, a cold case review established new forensic evidence. Clothing taken from two of the five men in the aftermath of their arrest in 1993 had a small blood stain and a strand of hair on them; DNA analysis - not available at that time - demonstrates conclusively that they must have come from Mr. Lawrence. The two are arrested in 2011 and sent for trial. And it is here that the change in the double jeopardy rule becomes important, since one of the two men is also one of the three acquitted back in 1994. The Court of Appeal accepts the evidence as new and compelling, and quashes the acquittal of the suspect in question. The trial starts in November 2011, and yesterday, both men were convicted of murder. The police still think that all five men were involved, but don't have the evidence to prosecute the other three.
So, a legal change that many feared would lead to sloppy police investigations has in fact enabled a sloppy police investigation to be rectified. Jailing the killers of Stephen Lawrence does not mean that blacks and Asians are always treated by the police in the same way as white citizens are, nor that they will be in future. However, it does mean that Britain has moved a small step further along the road to being a genuine multicultural society. That would not have been possible without a change in the law.
Walter Blotscher
Double jeopardy is a common law concept of ancient lineage. Basically it means that you are not allowed to be tried for the same crime twice; and that holds, even if, after an acquittal, it later becomes crystal clear that you really did do it.
The reasoning is as follows. Crimes are prosecuted by the powers-that-be, originally the king but nowadays the authorities, acting in the monarch's name. They have the full resources of the state at their disposal and can take as long as they like to build a case. The suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high threshold; but the prosecution only initiate a trial when they are pretty sure that they are going to win. If, having given it their "best shot", the evidence turns out to be unconvincing and the defendant is acquitted, then it would be unfair to the defendant to have to go though the whole process again.
Although the rule is centuries old, major new developments in forensic science over the past 20 years led to calls for its modification. In England and Wales, this took place in 2005, when it was dropped in relation to about 30 serious crimes, including rape and murder. The change doesn't allow the prosecution to try again whenever they feel like it; "new and compelling evidence" must be provided that is sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the acquittal and order a retrial. A reasonable development? At the time, civil liberties groups were against it, since they feared that it would allow the police to be less than rigorous in their investigations, and to persecute known criminals without having to prove their suspicions of new crimes. I shared those concerns, but I have been won round to the opposite view by the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence case.
In April 1993, 18-year old Mr. Lawrence was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of youths while he waited with a friend at a bus stop in Eltham, South London. What gave the case notoriety was that he and his friend were black, while the attackers were white. Already by the next day the police knew whom to look for, since someone had left a letter with the suspects' names on it in a public telephone box. Five men were arrested and Mr. Lawrence's friend positively identified two of them. Yet the police messed up the investigation, and the case was dropped. In September 1994 Mr. Lawrence's parents launched a private prosecution (possible under English law, though always difficult) of three of the five, but it failed; all three were acquitted.
The focus then moved to the Met, the police force responsible for London. In 1997 a public inquiry was set up under the Chairmanship of a former judge. When he reported in early 1999, he castigated the Met for "institutional racism" and made 70 recommendations for change. The clear implication was that the police were not interested in clearing up race-related crimes. That explained why the initial investigation had been so inept; but it did nothing to bring Mr. Lawrence's killers to justice.
In 2007, a cold case review established new forensic evidence. Clothing taken from two of the five men in the aftermath of their arrest in 1993 had a small blood stain and a strand of hair on them; DNA analysis - not available at that time - demonstrates conclusively that they must have come from Mr. Lawrence. The two are arrested in 2011 and sent for trial. And it is here that the change in the double jeopardy rule becomes important, since one of the two men is also one of the three acquitted back in 1994. The Court of Appeal accepts the evidence as new and compelling, and quashes the acquittal of the suspect in question. The trial starts in November 2011, and yesterday, both men were convicted of murder. The police still think that all five men were involved, but don't have the evidence to prosecute the other three.
So, a legal change that many feared would lead to sloppy police investigations has in fact enabled a sloppy police investigation to be rectified. Jailing the killers of Stephen Lawrence does not mean that blacks and Asians are always treated by the police in the same way as white citizens are, nor that they will be in future. However, it does mean that Britain has moved a small step further along the road to being a genuine multicultural society. That would not have been possible without a change in the law.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 2 January 2012
UPDATE ON ARAB DEMOCRACY
A year ago, in my first post on this topic, I cautioned against believing that the Arab world would suddenly "tip" to democracy, in the way that Eastern Europe did after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surveying the region today, I still think that is right.
Tunisia is doing well, and Morocco and Jordan appear to be introducing reforms. Libya and Egypt have got rid of long-standing dictators, as has Yemen (though the details there are unclear). However, in the last three, the next stage of the transition, creating a democratic process, is not going smoothly. Violence is still going on, albeit at a relatively low level.
Elsewhere, Syria is both violent and unreformed, Saudi Arabia has not budged an inch, and the Israeli - Palestinian process is not moving. Sudan is still a mess.
Perhaps the most worrying country is the one that has formally implemented most of the elements of democracy, namely Iraq. Recent developments suggest that with the withdrawal of American military forces, the country could well split into the three ethnic components of Shia Muslims (roughly 60%), Sunni Muslims (20%) and Kurds (20%), in an old-fashioned scrap over oil resources.
It may be that 2012 brings progress on a number of fronts. But I have to say that I doubt it. All in all, I am pessimistic about prospects for the region.
Walter Blotscher
A year ago, in my first post on this topic, I cautioned against believing that the Arab world would suddenly "tip" to democracy, in the way that Eastern Europe did after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surveying the region today, I still think that is right.
Tunisia is doing well, and Morocco and Jordan appear to be introducing reforms. Libya and Egypt have got rid of long-standing dictators, as has Yemen (though the details there are unclear). However, in the last three, the next stage of the transition, creating a democratic process, is not going smoothly. Violence is still going on, albeit at a relatively low level.
Elsewhere, Syria is both violent and unreformed, Saudi Arabia has not budged an inch, and the Israeli - Palestinian process is not moving. Sudan is still a mess.
Perhaps the most worrying country is the one that has formally implemented most of the elements of democracy, namely Iraq. Recent developments suggest that with the withdrawal of American military forces, the country could well split into the three ethnic components of Shia Muslims (roughly 60%), Sunni Muslims (20%) and Kurds (20%), in an old-fashioned scrap over oil resources.
It may be that 2012 brings progress on a number of fronts. But I have to say that I doubt it. All in all, I am pessimistic about prospects for the region.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 1 January 2012
HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT
Denmark's first female Prime Minister has had a torrid opening three months. After a poor election as head of the Social Democratics, she was elected to the post as the leader of a 3-party minority coalition. Since then, a series of scandals about individual Ministers, the dropping of pre-election promises, and a general air of incompetence have caused a drop in popularity for both the Government and her personally. True, she inherited economic problems not of her making; nevertheless, she has managed neither to tar the opposition with responsibility for the problems, nor to provide a clear plan for solving them.
The tradition in Denmark is for the monarch to give an (apolitical) televised speech to the nation at 6.00pm on New Year's Eve, and for the Prime Minister to give a (very political) one at 7.15pm on New Year's Day. With such a large captive audience, it is a wonderful opportunity for a politician to improve their public standing. Last year, for example, Lars Løkke Rasmussen managed to spice up a tired 10-year old Government by using the speech to announce the reform of efterløn, the long-standing third rail of Danish politics. It was not enough to get him re-elected in September, but it was a close-run thing.
Ms. Thorning-Schmidt's speech this evening was quite good. She was honest enough to admit that the economic crisis will last for years, that unemployment will almost certainly rise in 2012, and that living standards will probably fall. She also said that the only way out of the mess is for everyone to pull together (as Danes have traditionally done in the past). The problem with it was that, with the situation as bad as it is, ordinary voters will probably not be satisfied with warm, if correct, sentiment; they want concrete actions that will save their job/protect their mortgage/give them an education.
Unfortunately, those solutions are in very short supply, both in Denmark and in the rest of Europe. Indeed, by taking on the Presidency of the E.U.'s Council of Ministers from today, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt is in the awkward position of being responsible for events outside her own country, an impossible task. I fully expect both her, and her Government's, popularity to continue to fall during 2012.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark's first female Prime Minister has had a torrid opening three months. After a poor election as head of the Social Democratics, she was elected to the post as the leader of a 3-party minority coalition. Since then, a series of scandals about individual Ministers, the dropping of pre-election promises, and a general air of incompetence have caused a drop in popularity for both the Government and her personally. True, she inherited economic problems not of her making; nevertheless, she has managed neither to tar the opposition with responsibility for the problems, nor to provide a clear plan for solving them.
The tradition in Denmark is for the monarch to give an (apolitical) televised speech to the nation at 6.00pm on New Year's Eve, and for the Prime Minister to give a (very political) one at 7.15pm on New Year's Day. With such a large captive audience, it is a wonderful opportunity for a politician to improve their public standing. Last year, for example, Lars Løkke Rasmussen managed to spice up a tired 10-year old Government by using the speech to announce the reform of efterløn, the long-standing third rail of Danish politics. It was not enough to get him re-elected in September, but it was a close-run thing.
Ms. Thorning-Schmidt's speech this evening was quite good. She was honest enough to admit that the economic crisis will last for years, that unemployment will almost certainly rise in 2012, and that living standards will probably fall. She also said that the only way out of the mess is for everyone to pull together (as Danes have traditionally done in the past). The problem with it was that, with the situation as bad as it is, ordinary voters will probably not be satisfied with warm, if correct, sentiment; they want concrete actions that will save their job/protect their mortgage/give them an education.
Unfortunately, those solutions are in very short supply, both in Denmark and in the rest of Europe. Indeed, by taking on the Presidency of the E.U.'s Council of Ministers from today, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt is in the awkward position of being responsible for events outside her own country, an impossible task. I fully expect both her, and her Government's, popularity to continue to fall during 2012.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
