POLITICAL PACKAGES (2)
The growth package announced on Tuesday by the Danish Government foresees economic growth of 1.3% pa from now to 2020. The growth figures for 2012 announced this morning show just how difficult that is going to be to achieve.
The economy shrank by 0.6% in 2012. Even worse, the anaemic growth of the summer was replaced by a fall of 0.9% in the last quarter. Which means that the Government is starting its growth package with an economy in reverse gear. Even the Government's supporters had difficulty reconciling these two things on the news programmes, and were reduced to calling the growth target "challenging, but possible".
I would call it unrealistic. Since the crisis began in 2008, the Danish economy has shrunk by 4%. True, this is better than the 7.5% experienced in Italy. But it compares very badly with the 2% growth in Germany and 6% in Sweden over the same period. These are Denmark's neighbours and biggest trading partners, and they are doing a lot better. The growth package is a good thing for Danish companies, but it is not going to get Denmark back onto the right track. More is needed.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 28 February 2013
Wednesday 27 February 2013
GAME OF THRONES
My wife is in Belgium this week on a school exchange, so it is just my son (he of handball fame) and I at home at the moment.
Life has become very male, meaning lots of premier league and F.A. cup football on the television, and rudimentary cooking. Plus he has introduced me to Game of Thrones, the HBO blockbuster now about to show its third season. I had never seen it before, but my enterprising son has managed to illegally download the first five episodes onto his computer, so that his dad can watch them. Only another fifteen to go and I'll be up to date.
Walter Blotscher
My wife is in Belgium this week on a school exchange, so it is just my son (he of handball fame) and I at home at the moment.
Life has become very male, meaning lots of premier league and F.A. cup football on the television, and rudimentary cooking. Plus he has introduced me to Game of Thrones, the HBO blockbuster now about to show its third season. I had never seen it before, but my enterprising son has managed to illegally download the first five episodes onto his computer, so that his dad can watch them. Only another fifteen to go and I'll be up to date.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 26 February 2013
POLITICAL PACKAGES
It's a recent trend that changes in Danish political life are presented as "packages", a bit like at Christmas. Last week there was an S.U. package, and yesterday there was a "kontanthjælp" package, a proposal to change (i.e. cut) the transfer income paid to the worst off in society. Today it was the turn of a "growth" package, designed to kickstart the economy and create jobs.
Denmark has lost roughly 170,000 private sector jobs since 2008, all of them well-paid (by European standards) and nearly all of them destined never to return. The Government had hoped that by now, the economy would have climbed out of the trough into which it had sunk, but that has not happened. A number of Danish companies are making a lot of money; but that money is being made abroad and is not being translated into new jobs at home. When combined with the disastrous aspects of the Danish fiscal cliff, something had to be done.
The core of that something is a cut in corporation tax from 25% to 22%, the dropping of a number of planned burdens on business, plus Dkr.4 billion to be spent on renovating buildings. This will be financed by reducing the planned growth of the public sector from 0.8% to 0.4% and holding it on a tight rein for the next seven years, plus savings generated by the other reforms outlined above. All in all, the Government expects the measures to produce 150,000 new jobs by 2020, which is roughly the amount that have been lost during the crisis.
There are however two big problems with the package. First, there is a good deal of scepticism about that prospective job figure. The measures will undoubtedly make Danish companies more profitable. But as noted above, more profitability does not necessarily translate into more Danish jobs. Secondly, and more immediately, the package creates a political problem. Basically, it involves taking money from some of the least well-off in society (students, those on the dole, people reliant on public services) and giving it to companies. Standard stuff for a right-of-centre Government; eventually those companies will generate more jobs and wealth. But this is a left-of-centre coalition, that was elected on the premise that Danish welfare could, and would, be maintained. The people that voted for that coalition have already begun to howl, and look set to continue to do so.
It's a recent trend that changes in Danish political life are presented as "packages", a bit like at Christmas. Last week there was an S.U. package, and yesterday there was a "kontanthjælp" package, a proposal to change (i.e. cut) the transfer income paid to the worst off in society. Today it was the turn of a "growth" package, designed to kickstart the economy and create jobs.
Denmark has lost roughly 170,000 private sector jobs since 2008, all of them well-paid (by European standards) and nearly all of them destined never to return. The Government had hoped that by now, the economy would have climbed out of the trough into which it had sunk, but that has not happened. A number of Danish companies are making a lot of money; but that money is being made abroad and is not being translated into new jobs at home. When combined with the disastrous aspects of the Danish fiscal cliff, something had to be done.
The core of that something is a cut in corporation tax from 25% to 22%, the dropping of a number of planned burdens on business, plus Dkr.4 billion to be spent on renovating buildings. This will be financed by reducing the planned growth of the public sector from 0.8% to 0.4% and holding it on a tight rein for the next seven years, plus savings generated by the other reforms outlined above. All in all, the Government expects the measures to produce 150,000 new jobs by 2020, which is roughly the amount that have been lost during the crisis.
There are however two big problems with the package. First, there is a good deal of scepticism about that prospective job figure. The measures will undoubtedly make Danish companies more profitable. But as noted above, more profitability does not necessarily translate into more Danish jobs. Secondly, and more immediately, the package creates a political problem. Basically, it involves taking money from some of the least well-off in society (students, those on the dole, people reliant on public services) and giving it to companies. Standard stuff for a right-of-centre Government; eventually those companies will generate more jobs and wealth. But this is a left-of-centre coalition, that was elected on the premise that Danish welfare could, and would, be maintained. The people that voted for that coalition have already begun to howl, and look set to continue to do so.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 25 February 2013
THE OSCARS (2)
I don't watch the Oscar award ceremony, it's just too painful. But I do have an interest in the outcome, not least because of the effect it might have on the local cinema. In the next batch of eight films, we are showing Lincoln, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty and Les Miserables, all of which were nominated for, and won, Oscars. Since all four are non-Danish, we rely a fair amount on publicity to generate local interest, which the Oscars provide. Whether it will be enough to get the locals - other than me - in to watch an almost three-hour long Quentin Tarantino spaghetti western remains to be seen.
One film we got wrong was Operation Argo, which we showed in the first week of January and which last night won the award for best picture. I think the timing was not right. After the Christmas and New Year binges, I think that people are rather sick of spending money. Perhaps we should have opened between Christmas and New Year and shown it then instead.
Walter Blotscher
I don't watch the Oscar award ceremony, it's just too painful. But I do have an interest in the outcome, not least because of the effect it might have on the local cinema. In the next batch of eight films, we are showing Lincoln, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty and Les Miserables, all of which were nominated for, and won, Oscars. Since all four are non-Danish, we rely a fair amount on publicity to generate local interest, which the Oscars provide. Whether it will be enough to get the locals - other than me - in to watch an almost three-hour long Quentin Tarantino spaghetti western remains to be seen.
One film we got wrong was Operation Argo, which we showed in the first week of January and which last night won the award for best picture. I think the timing was not right. After the Christmas and New Year binges, I think that people are rather sick of spending money. Perhaps we should have opened between Christmas and New Year and shown it then instead.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 24 February 2013
A BIG FIRE
With all of the work involved in building the back lawn and pruning the orchard, a huge compost heap has built up in my my garden. Compost heap is in fact a bit of a misnomer, since it is mainly wood, not compost; thin sycamore trees, the parts of felled fruit trees that are too small to be used in the wood-burning stove, last year's Christmas tree etc etc. We are talking of a pile roughly 10 metres long by two wide by two high.
Today I decided to burn it. I want to do it before the trees around it start to blossom, since the smoke is not good for them. It has also been dry for the past week or so, though bitterly cold. And there was a wind, which I thought would help.
I thought wrong. After six hours of trying, and copious amounts of petrol, I have managed to burn roughly one square meter. I will have to try again another day.
Walter Blotscher
With all of the work involved in building the back lawn and pruning the orchard, a huge compost heap has built up in my my garden. Compost heap is in fact a bit of a misnomer, since it is mainly wood, not compost; thin sycamore trees, the parts of felled fruit trees that are too small to be used in the wood-burning stove, last year's Christmas tree etc etc. We are talking of a pile roughly 10 metres long by two wide by two high.
Today I decided to burn it. I want to do it before the trees around it start to blossom, since the smoke is not good for them. It has also been dry for the past week or so, though bitterly cold. And there was a wind, which I thought would help.
I thought wrong. After six hours of trying, and copious amounts of petrol, I have managed to burn roughly one square meter. I will have to try again another day.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 22 February 2013
DEFENCE SPENDING (2)
They have been putting it off for some time, but now Danish politicians have to decide exactly which military bases they are going to close, in order to achieve the Dkr.2.7 billion of savings in the defence budget to which they have already signed up.
The Chief of Staff has recommended the closure of barracks in Fredericia, Haderslev and Sønderborg (all in southern Jutland) and on the island of Bornholm, plus one on Zealand, either Vordingborg or in the neighbourhood of Copenhagen. The latter is likely to escape, since it services the life guards who in turn support the monarchy. Probably sensible militarily, but it hands the politicians a hot potato. Because all of the bases scheduled for closure are in "udkants" (out-in-the-sticks) Denmark, which already had the view that people in the big city were ignoring it, and which now has the evidence to prove it.
And so there has been a stream of local politicians taking the train up to Copenhagen, armed with economic arguments about how important military bases are to the local community (true) and long lists of signatures supporting their staying open. Whether it will have any immediate effect is a moot point. However, whatever the Government decides, there will be a reaction in November. There are local elections then.
Walter Blotscher
They have been putting it off for some time, but now Danish politicians have to decide exactly which military bases they are going to close, in order to achieve the Dkr.2.7 billion of savings in the defence budget to which they have already signed up.
The Chief of Staff has recommended the closure of barracks in Fredericia, Haderslev and Sønderborg (all in southern Jutland) and on the island of Bornholm, plus one on Zealand, either Vordingborg or in the neighbourhood of Copenhagen. The latter is likely to escape, since it services the life guards who in turn support the monarchy. Probably sensible militarily, but it hands the politicians a hot potato. Because all of the bases scheduled for closure are in "udkants" (out-in-the-sticks) Denmark, which already had the view that people in the big city were ignoring it, and which now has the evidence to prove it.
And so there has been a stream of local politicians taking the train up to Copenhagen, armed with economic arguments about how important military bases are to the local community (true) and long lists of signatures supporting their staying open. Whether it will have any immediate effect is a moot point. However, whatever the Government decides, there will be a reaction in November. There are local elections then.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 21 February 2013
THE 2012 PROJECT (5)
Endless days with sub-zero temperatures mean that there is not much to be done in the garden. Except two things.
The first is bagging the odd mole that dares to come up to the surface. I got another one this morning.
The second is continuing with the 2012 Project, which is to knock the orchard into shape. Last year I cut most of the large trees half way down. Now I am cutting them right down to the ground, in the hope that they will shoot again, once the temperature is positive. It's set to stay frozen for most of the next week, so if I do a tree a day, I should be finished by the end of this month.
Walter Blotscher
Endless days with sub-zero temperatures mean that there is not much to be done in the garden. Except two things.
The first is bagging the odd mole that dares to come up to the surface. I got another one this morning.
The second is continuing with the 2012 Project, which is to knock the orchard into shape. Last year I cut most of the large trees half way down. Now I am cutting them right down to the ground, in the hope that they will shoot again, once the temperature is positive. It's set to stay frozen for most of the next week, so if I do a tree a day, I should be finished by the end of this month.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 20 February 2013
S.U.
Denmark has the most generous education system in the world. Not only is tuition free up to and including university and other higher education courses, but after-school students receive a Government grant ("S.U.") towards living expenses, currently kr.5,800 (a bit over £600) a month for those living on their own. Outside of Copenhagen that's probably enough to live on. Get a part-time job, and a student should not have financial worries.
However, generous also means expensive. And in these difficult times, the Government has decided to cut back on the system. The main elements are a reduction in the inflation rate used to uprate S.U. payments; reduced S.U. for some students who live at home with their parents, who will now have their payments means-tested; and a 5-year limit for receiving S.U. (the current limit is six years, even though a Masters course generally takes only five years). Together these measures should save about kr.2 billion a year by 2020.
This is trimming rather than radical reform; nobody is suggesting charging tuition fees, for example. Yet it is still likely to get the Government into trouble, since the coalition programme thrashed out in the aftermath of the last general election promised not to cut S.U. Less than eighteen months later, Ministers are doing just that.
So what, you might say? Changed times require a change of tack. Yet Government programmes carry weight in Denmark, and voters - not just students - are likely to view the reform as a broken promise. Yet another problem for a Prime Minister already struggling with a weak economy, high unemployment and low poll ratings.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark has the most generous education system in the world. Not only is tuition free up to and including university and other higher education courses, but after-school students receive a Government grant ("S.U.") towards living expenses, currently kr.5,800 (a bit over £600) a month for those living on their own. Outside of Copenhagen that's probably enough to live on. Get a part-time job, and a student should not have financial worries.
However, generous also means expensive. And in these difficult times, the Government has decided to cut back on the system. The main elements are a reduction in the inflation rate used to uprate S.U. payments; reduced S.U. for some students who live at home with their parents, who will now have their payments means-tested; and a 5-year limit for receiving S.U. (the current limit is six years, even though a Masters course generally takes only five years). Together these measures should save about kr.2 billion a year by 2020.
This is trimming rather than radical reform; nobody is suggesting charging tuition fees, for example. Yet it is still likely to get the Government into trouble, since the coalition programme thrashed out in the aftermath of the last general election promised not to cut S.U. Less than eighteen months later, Ministers are doing just that.
So what, you might say? Changed times require a change of tack. Yet Government programmes carry weight in Denmark, and voters - not just students - are likely to view the reform as a broken promise. Yet another problem for a Prime Minister already struggling with a weak economy, high unemployment and low poll ratings.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 19 February 2013
THE YOUNG ARE DIFFERENT
The young are different from me; to put it in a nutshell, they are young. Or, to use a concrete example, the new young weatherman on DR1 changes the weather graphics not by using one of those old-fashioned, mouse-like click things, but by holding an iPad as he talks and changing them on his touchscreen with his fingers.
Another concrete example is that the young can't read anything longer than three sentences without getting bored and switching off, so, since this is the third sentence of this blog post, I will keep going until I have finished it, and then stop.
Walter Blotscher
The young are different from me; to put it in a nutshell, they are young. Or, to use a concrete example, the new young weatherman on DR1 changes the weather graphics not by using one of those old-fashioned, mouse-like click things, but by holding an iPad as he talks and changing them on his touchscreen with his fingers.
Another concrete example is that the young can't read anything longer than three sentences without getting bored and switching off, so, since this is the third sentence of this blog post, I will keep going until I have finished it, and then stop.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 18 February 2013
THE F.A.CUP (2)
February brings cold, darkness and the F.A.Cup. Tonight it's Manchester United against Reading. Not the most exciting game in the world, but good enough for a Monday evening with my son.
Walter Blotscher
February brings cold, darkness and the F.A.Cup. Tonight it's Manchester United against Reading. Not the most exciting game in the world, but good enough for a Monday evening with my son.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 17 February 2013
FAME
Andy Warhol once said that "in the future, everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes". If that is true, then I think that Walter Blotscher has already had his allotted time span.
I have subscribed to, and read, the Economist newspaper on a regular basis since I was at university, which was roughly 35 years ago. The magazine has followed me around the world from the U.K. to the U.S., Belgium, Africa and now Denmark. A couple of weeks ago, there was a survey on the Nordic countries, which I disagreed with; not in the case of Sweden, but definitely in the case of Denmark. My letter to the paper was printed in this week's edition, and here is the link http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21571848-nordic-countries-private-schools-immigration-sandhurst-ed-koch-richard-iii.
Back to obscurity for the rest of my life ......
Walter Blotscher
Andy Warhol once said that "in the future, everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes". If that is true, then I think that Walter Blotscher has already had his allotted time span.
I have subscribed to, and read, the Economist newspaper on a regular basis since I was at university, which was roughly 35 years ago. The magazine has followed me around the world from the U.K. to the U.S., Belgium, Africa and now Denmark. A couple of weeks ago, there was a survey on the Nordic countries, which I disagreed with; not in the case of Sweden, but definitely in the case of Denmark. My letter to the paper was printed in this week's edition, and here is the link http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21571848-nordic-countries-private-schools-immigration-sandhurst-ed-koch-richard-iii.
Back to obscurity for the rest of my life ......
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 16 February 2013
BLADE RUNNER
Despite starring Harrison Ford and being directed by Ridley Scott, Blade Runner did poorly at the box office when it was first released in 1982. Since then, however, it has become a bit of a cult hit.
The film is set in the future, when large parts of Earth's population live on other planets; "off-world". There they are helped by genetically produced androids called replicants, who are banned from returning to Earth on pain of death ("retirement" in the jargon). If they do manage to escape, then they are hunted down on Earth by special policemen, blade runners. Harrison Ford plays a burnt-out cop, who is brought back to find and retire a group of four particularly dangerous replicants, led by Rutger Hauer.
Having seen the film when it first came out, I watched it again last night after 30 years. My son thought it was weird, and left halfway through, but I really liked it. What was particularly interesting was the early 1980's view of what the future would look like; the film is set in 2019, and that is just around the corner today. In Los Angeles, it is dark and continually raining, and most of the remaining population is Asian. There is video telephony, but all of the screens are rounded (as in old televisions), there is no concept of a flat-screen. Cars can both drive on roads, and fly through the air. Replicants are made by a sinister conglomerate called the Tyrell Corporation, whose owner and chief employee are geniuses, but also rather creepy. Everything is damp and rather soulless.
Predicting how things will pan out in 50 years is a mug's game. When I first started work in 1980, I still had to write everything in hand and have a secretary type it up. I don't know what will be around in 30 years' time, the only thing I know is that it will surprise me.
Walter Blotscher
Despite starring Harrison Ford and being directed by Ridley Scott, Blade Runner did poorly at the box office when it was first released in 1982. Since then, however, it has become a bit of a cult hit.
The film is set in the future, when large parts of Earth's population live on other planets; "off-world". There they are helped by genetically produced androids called replicants, who are banned from returning to Earth on pain of death ("retirement" in the jargon). If they do manage to escape, then they are hunted down on Earth by special policemen, blade runners. Harrison Ford plays a burnt-out cop, who is brought back to find and retire a group of four particularly dangerous replicants, led by Rutger Hauer.
Having seen the film when it first came out, I watched it again last night after 30 years. My son thought it was weird, and left halfway through, but I really liked it. What was particularly interesting was the early 1980's view of what the future would look like; the film is set in 2019, and that is just around the corner today. In Los Angeles, it is dark and continually raining, and most of the remaining population is Asian. There is video telephony, but all of the screens are rounded (as in old televisions), there is no concept of a flat-screen. Cars can both drive on roads, and fly through the air. Replicants are made by a sinister conglomerate called the Tyrell Corporation, whose owner and chief employee are geniuses, but also rather creepy. Everything is damp and rather soulless.
Predicting how things will pan out in 50 years is a mug's game. When I first started work in 1980, I still had to write everything in hand and have a secretary type it up. I don't know what will be around in 30 years' time, the only thing I know is that it will surprise me.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 15 February 2013
HORSEMEAT
A couple of things have struck me about the wave of panic that seems to have hit European consumers and authorities over the past week, after it was discovered that meat sold as beef in fact contained horsemeat.
The first is the mind-boggling complexity of the European food chain. It seems to be quite common for meat to be sold through six or seven companies in six or seven Member States before it eventually gets to the consumer in the form of a pre-prepared lasagne. Why this should be so is not immediately obvious. But it is undoubtedly an awfully long way from the practice of even 50 years ago, when people tended to eat what their neighbour had reared.
The second is the absolute revulsion people seem to have about horse flesh, particularly when set against the meat from cows, pigs or sheep. I have eaten horsemeat once, when I was in France. I didn't think it was brilliant; on the other hand, although it was a bit odd, I didn't think it was awful. Yet it seems in the current climate to be treated on a par with rat or snake. True, there is a labelling issue; people should be able to purchase what is purported to be sold. But this "scandal" is not nearly the same as (for instance) Perrier water containing carcinogens.
A butcher in rural Denmark has admitted that for the past 20 years, he has been delivering meat to pizzerias that was a mixture of beef and horsemeat. As he has pointed out, nobody has died or even gotten ill from eating it, and the meat was properly labelled. Having said that, he has also admitted that he won't be supplying any more of the mixture in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
A couple of things have struck me about the wave of panic that seems to have hit European consumers and authorities over the past week, after it was discovered that meat sold as beef in fact contained horsemeat.
The first is the mind-boggling complexity of the European food chain. It seems to be quite common for meat to be sold through six or seven companies in six or seven Member States before it eventually gets to the consumer in the form of a pre-prepared lasagne. Why this should be so is not immediately obvious. But it is undoubtedly an awfully long way from the practice of even 50 years ago, when people tended to eat what their neighbour had reared.
The second is the absolute revulsion people seem to have about horse flesh, particularly when set against the meat from cows, pigs or sheep. I have eaten horsemeat once, when I was in France. I didn't think it was brilliant; on the other hand, although it was a bit odd, I didn't think it was awful. Yet it seems in the current climate to be treated on a par with rat or snake. True, there is a labelling issue; people should be able to purchase what is purported to be sold. But this "scandal" is not nearly the same as (for instance) Perrier water containing carcinogens.
A butcher in rural Denmark has admitted that for the past 20 years, he has been delivering meat to pizzerias that was a mixture of beef and horsemeat. As he has pointed out, nobody has died or even gotten ill from eating it, and the meat was properly labelled. Having said that, he has also admitted that he won't be supplying any more of the mixture in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 14 February 2013
HJEMFALDSPLIGT
Hjemfaldspligt is a long Danish word that essentially means the right to repurchase. In this case, the right to repurchase a piece of land that the local authority had originally sold to someone wanting to build a house. This is now causing problems.
English common law is very flexible when it comes to ownership of property, and it has long been possible for someone to own a freehold, while others at the same time own a leasehold on the same property. Civilian systems struggle with this, since they tend to have a strong concept of ownership (dominium, inherited from Roman law) in which there is only one owner at any one time. Hjemfaldspligt is the Danish legal way of creating a sort of freehold, but it can only be done by including in the original sale a right to repurchase the land, perhaps 100 years in the future, at the original price.
With long leases, the freehold reversion right tends to have little value, with one exception, namely when the lease is about to end. Then it is worth a lot. So too with Hjemfaldspligt. Not that the local authority in fact wants to buy the land back, what they want is for the house owner to buy out that right. Which of course is expensive.
The problems are occurring because Danes have not been reading the small print of their house deeds, particularly if they are not the original owner. The hjemfaldspligt is tucked away as a "servitude", and most people don't even know that it exists. They have now woken up to the fact that in places like Copenhagen, if they don't want to lose their house in 2040, they will have to buy out the local authority's right, at a cost of up to a million kroner and rising.
This is a battle that is pitching house owners against cash-strapped local authorities. So far, the local authorities are winning, since they have the law on their side. But as that 2040 date approaches, expect more squealing from affected homeowners. This is an issue that is not going to go away.
Walter Blotscher
Hjemfaldspligt is a long Danish word that essentially means the right to repurchase. In this case, the right to repurchase a piece of land that the local authority had originally sold to someone wanting to build a house. This is now causing problems.
English common law is very flexible when it comes to ownership of property, and it has long been possible for someone to own a freehold, while others at the same time own a leasehold on the same property. Civilian systems struggle with this, since they tend to have a strong concept of ownership (dominium, inherited from Roman law) in which there is only one owner at any one time. Hjemfaldspligt is the Danish legal way of creating a sort of freehold, but it can only be done by including in the original sale a right to repurchase the land, perhaps 100 years in the future, at the original price.
With long leases, the freehold reversion right tends to have little value, with one exception, namely when the lease is about to end. Then it is worth a lot. So too with Hjemfaldspligt. Not that the local authority in fact wants to buy the land back, what they want is for the house owner to buy out that right. Which of course is expensive.
The problems are occurring because Danes have not been reading the small print of their house deeds, particularly if they are not the original owner. The hjemfaldspligt is tucked away as a "servitude", and most people don't even know that it exists. They have now woken up to the fact that in places like Copenhagen, if they don't want to lose their house in 2040, they will have to buy out the local authority's right, at a cost of up to a million kroner and rising.
This is a battle that is pitching house owners against cash-strapped local authorities. So far, the local authorities are winning, since they have the law on their side. But as that 2040 date approaches, expect more squealing from affected homeowners. This is an issue that is not going to go away.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 13 February 2013
TOO FEW BABIES
One of the themes of this blog has been that Denmark will not be able to continue to afford the world's most expensive welfare state without major structural changes. There are simply too few workers paying the taxes that can support the hordes of pensioners that either already exist or will leave the labour market during the next two decades.
One way to solve the problem would be if those workers were replaced by new ones. Yet that is highly unlikely. The number of births last year was 57,916, the lowest figure for 26 years. With those sorts of numbers, not only is the demographic profile of the population ageing, but the population itself is falling.
This is not a problem confined to Denmark, virtually all European countries are wrestling with the same issues. Indeed, Europe is the only continent where the population will fall during the next 30 years. This will avoid some problems (eg land pressure) which are prevalent elsewhere in the world; but it does mean that the pressure on the individual of working age is likely to rise.
Walter Blotscher
One of the themes of this blog has been that Denmark will not be able to continue to afford the world's most expensive welfare state without major structural changes. There are simply too few workers paying the taxes that can support the hordes of pensioners that either already exist or will leave the labour market during the next two decades.
One way to solve the problem would be if those workers were replaced by new ones. Yet that is highly unlikely. The number of births last year was 57,916, the lowest figure for 26 years. With those sorts of numbers, not only is the demographic profile of the population ageing, but the population itself is falling.
This is not a problem confined to Denmark, virtually all European countries are wrestling with the same issues. Indeed, Europe is the only continent where the population will fall during the next 30 years. This will avoid some problems (eg land pressure) which are prevalent elsewhere in the world; but it does mean that the pressure on the individual of working age is likely to rise.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 12 February 2013
A CHANGE OF SERVICE PROVIDER
My sister-in-law used to cut my hair. Then the job was taken over by my daughter. Then she decided to go off to India and do yoga, and my hair grew wild and woolly. So I have gone back to my sister-in-law.
On Sunday she attacked it with a trimmer, and I now have a haircut that looks quite a lot like the one I had when I was seven years old. It should last me a couple of months.
Walter Blotscher
My sister-in-law used to cut my hair. Then the job was taken over by my daughter. Then she decided to go off to India and do yoga, and my hair grew wild and woolly. So I have gone back to my sister-in-law.
On Sunday she attacked it with a trimmer, and I now have a haircut that looks quite a lot like the one I had when I was seven years old. It should last me a couple of months.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 11 February 2013
AN UNEXPECTED RESIGNATION
Pope Benedict XVI has just announced that he is resigning with effect from the end of this month. Aged 85, he has been looking frail in recent months, so it is understandable that he wants to stop.
Nevertheless, it is a surprising event. For popes, like monarchs, tend to be in the job until they die. Only a handful have ever resigned, the last being in 1415, when Gregory XII did it. That happened because the number of popes and anti-popes had become a bit ridiculous, with three in the frame. The Council of Constance cut through the Gordian knot by getting rid of all three of them and then electing Martin V in their place.
Given the timing, it is likely that a new pope will be elected in time for Easter. A number of people are hoping for a further surprise, with the Catholic church opting for someone completely new; an African, perhaps, or South American. However, after two non-Italians in a row, I suspect that the conclave will go back to the traditional choice, and pick an Italian again.
Walter Blotscher
Pope Benedict XVI has just announced that he is resigning with effect from the end of this month. Aged 85, he has been looking frail in recent months, so it is understandable that he wants to stop.
Nevertheless, it is a surprising event. For popes, like monarchs, tend to be in the job until they die. Only a handful have ever resigned, the last being in 1415, when Gregory XII did it. That happened because the number of popes and anti-popes had become a bit ridiculous, with three in the frame. The Council of Constance cut through the Gordian knot by getting rid of all three of them and then electing Martin V in their place.
Given the timing, it is likely that a new pope will be elected in time for Easter. A number of people are hoping for a further surprise, with the Catholic church opting for someone completely new; an African, perhaps, or South American. However, after two non-Italians in a row, I suspect that the conclave will go back to the traditional choice, and pick an Italian again.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 10 February 2013
DANISH AGRICULTURE (4)
Danish agriculture is a powerhouse. Yet even powerhouses need a helping hand, as recently published figures show.
Between 2006 and 2011 Danish agriculture made a collective profit in only the first and the last years. Much of this can be put down to the financial crisis, which has affected all industries; 2011's kr.5 billion profit shows that the sector is slowly pulling itself out of the black hole of 2008.
However, if E.U. subsidies are taken into account, the picture is much bleaker. Without help from Brussels, Danish agriculture would have made a loss in every year. The kr.2.4 billion real loss in 2011 was admittedly much less than the kr.16.9 billion in 2008, but it was still a loss.
Which makes Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt's triumphalism about the outcome of the E.U. budget negotiations a bit odd. Yes, Denmark got the kr.1 billion rebate it had long been demanding. But the cuts in agricultural support inherent in the new 7-year framework will result in a loss of at least 20% (or kr.1.4 billion) in subsidy. Danish farmers are already talking nervously about further bankruptcies later this year.
If Danish agriculture can't make money, what hope is there for Danish other stuff? This is worrying.
Walter Blotscher
Danish agriculture is a powerhouse. Yet even powerhouses need a helping hand, as recently published figures show.
Between 2006 and 2011 Danish agriculture made a collective profit in only the first and the last years. Much of this can be put down to the financial crisis, which has affected all industries; 2011's kr.5 billion profit shows that the sector is slowly pulling itself out of the black hole of 2008.
However, if E.U. subsidies are taken into account, the picture is much bleaker. Without help from Brussels, Danish agriculture would have made a loss in every year. The kr.2.4 billion real loss in 2011 was admittedly much less than the kr.16.9 billion in 2008, but it was still a loss.
Which makes Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt's triumphalism about the outcome of the E.U. budget negotiations a bit odd. Yes, Denmark got the kr.1 billion rebate it had long been demanding. But the cuts in agricultural support inherent in the new 7-year framework will result in a loss of at least 20% (or kr.1.4 billion) in subsidy. Danish farmers are already talking nervously about further bankruptcies later this year.
If Danish agriculture can't make money, what hope is there for Danish other stuff? This is worrying.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 9 February 2013
GERMAN EX-DOCTORS
The Germans take titles very seriously. It takes a lot to "dutzen", to say the informal you form to someone else. People can easily work with each other for 30 years and still say Sie ("they") to each other. It's not considered stiff or formal, just proper.
No title in Germany is taken more seriously than that of Doctor. People who have it expect to be addressed as Herr Doktor or Frau Doktor, even in situations which in other countries would be viewed as not so formal. So the discovery that someone has plagiarised their way to a doctorate is a very big deal indeed.
It happened a couple of years ago to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, then Germany's Defence Minister and the star of the Government. He tried to hold onto his job, despite having his law doctorate removed because of plagiarism. The written indignation of 20,000 academics was a key factor which eventually caused him to fall on his sword.
One of those indignant academics was the federal Education Minister Annette Schavan, who was scathing in her denunciation of a fellow Cabinet Minister and Doktor. This week Ms. Schavan resigned, after Düsseldorf University decided to remove her own doctorate on the grounds of plagiarism. Ms. Schavan disputes the decision, and says that she will be taking legal action against the university. It is difficult to see her getting very far.
Both ex-doctors were caught out by the internet, which allows both the disinterested and the partisan to analyse, compare and inform in a way which would have been unthinkable when the doctoral theses in question had first been written. Critics say that this puts an impossible burden on the purity of intellectual research; supporters say that this is precisely what the prestigious title such as a doctorate is supposed to reward. Whatever the merits of the arguments, I suspect that there will be more German ex-doctors in the future.
Walter Blotscher
The Germans take titles very seriously. It takes a lot to "dutzen", to say the informal you form to someone else. People can easily work with each other for 30 years and still say Sie ("they") to each other. It's not considered stiff or formal, just proper.
No title in Germany is taken more seriously than that of Doctor. People who have it expect to be addressed as Herr Doktor or Frau Doktor, even in situations which in other countries would be viewed as not so formal. So the discovery that someone has plagiarised their way to a doctorate is a very big deal indeed.
It happened a couple of years ago to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, then Germany's Defence Minister and the star of the Government. He tried to hold onto his job, despite having his law doctorate removed because of plagiarism. The written indignation of 20,000 academics was a key factor which eventually caused him to fall on his sword.
One of those indignant academics was the federal Education Minister Annette Schavan, who was scathing in her denunciation of a fellow Cabinet Minister and Doktor. This week Ms. Schavan resigned, after Düsseldorf University decided to remove her own doctorate on the grounds of plagiarism. Ms. Schavan disputes the decision, and says that she will be taking legal action against the university. It is difficult to see her getting very far.
Both ex-doctors were caught out by the internet, which allows both the disinterested and the partisan to analyse, compare and inform in a way which would have been unthinkable when the doctoral theses in question had first been written. Critics say that this puts an impossible burden on the purity of intellectual research; supporters say that this is precisely what the prestigious title such as a doctorate is supposed to reward. Whatever the merits of the arguments, I suspect that there will be more German ex-doctors in the future.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 8 February 2013
DANMARKS INDSAMLING
Today is Danmark's Indsamling ("Denmark's collection") for Africa. Celebrities compete with each other in order to get Danes to spend money, man the telephone banks to take their offerings, and do all sorts of worthy things in order to raise money for Africa. The total will come to more than kr.100 million, which will then be channelled through twelve of the country's biggest charities to needy people and places in Africa.
A great idea. So why does it annoy me? The main reason is that, unlike most of the people involved above, I have actually lived in Africa, eighteen months in Lesotho and eight years in Tanzania. As such, I have seen literally hundreds of well-meaning aid projects provided by rich country Governments and citizens. They all had worthy aims, they all wanted to make things better; but the vast majority of them were an utter waste of time.
It's not a question of whether kr.100 million will do some good; if you have that amount of money, it's hard not to do some good, even if you are a complete idiot. Rather the question is whether this is the best way to improve the livelihoods of poor people in a poor continent. Based on my direct experiences, I would say "definitely not". This weekend's activities will make Danes feel better about themselves; sadly, they will not do much to make Africa a better place.
Not the message being massively broadcast over the airwaves this evening. But don't worry, I suspect that this weekend, Denmark will not be listening to what I think.
Walter Blotscher
Today is Danmark's Indsamling ("Denmark's collection") for Africa. Celebrities compete with each other in order to get Danes to spend money, man the telephone banks to take their offerings, and do all sorts of worthy things in order to raise money for Africa. The total will come to more than kr.100 million, which will then be channelled through twelve of the country's biggest charities to needy people and places in Africa.
A great idea. So why does it annoy me? The main reason is that, unlike most of the people involved above, I have actually lived in Africa, eighteen months in Lesotho and eight years in Tanzania. As such, I have seen literally hundreds of well-meaning aid projects provided by rich country Governments and citizens. They all had worthy aims, they all wanted to make things better; but the vast majority of them were an utter waste of time.
It's not a question of whether kr.100 million will do some good; if you have that amount of money, it's hard not to do some good, even if you are a complete idiot. Rather the question is whether this is the best way to improve the livelihoods of poor people in a poor continent. Based on my direct experiences, I would say "definitely not". This weekend's activities will make Danes feel better about themselves; sadly, they will not do much to make Africa a better place.
Not the message being massively broadcast over the airwaves this evening. But don't worry, I suspect that this weekend, Denmark will not be listening to what I think.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 7 February 2013
THE E.U. BUDGET (3)
Last November's summit meeting to decide on the E.U.'s next 7-year (2014-20) budget duly ended in deadlock, as I had predicted. So European leaders are meeting again today and tomorrow in order to try again.
My guess is that they will fail to reach agreement again, and for the same reasons. Too many countries (and the Parliament) have too many different views on what the budget is for, and what the money should be spent on. If money were available, then that could be used to oil the process. But it is precisely money that is lacking in all 27 Member States.
In advance of the summit, countries have been turning up the volume in their various demands. David Cameron wants a real terms cut rather than a spending freeze, while Denmark's Helle Thorning-Schmidt has threatened to veto the whole process unless the Danes get a kr.1 billion rebate. The local newspapers this morning suggested that she had been offered a percentage of that, but she rejected it.
Since any one of the 27 (and the Parliament) can veto the whole thing, the odds are not looking good. Expect everyone to come back and try again in three months' time.
UPDATE: Well, I got that one wrong, didn't I? Not only did they agree a budget framework, but it was the first ever cut in the budget framework in real terms, and the Danes got their kr.1 billion rebate. That Danish farmers will lose more than that in reduced help for agriculture rather got lost in the official press release playing up Helle's victories.
Having said that, the European Parliament has yet to approve it in order for it to take effect. The four largest parties there have all already said that they cannot accept it as it stands. So perhaps this is not the last word on the issue after all.
Walter Blotscher
Last November's summit meeting to decide on the E.U.'s next 7-year (2014-20) budget duly ended in deadlock, as I had predicted. So European leaders are meeting again today and tomorrow in order to try again.
My guess is that they will fail to reach agreement again, and for the same reasons. Too many countries (and the Parliament) have too many different views on what the budget is for, and what the money should be spent on. If money were available, then that could be used to oil the process. But it is precisely money that is lacking in all 27 Member States.
In advance of the summit, countries have been turning up the volume in their various demands. David Cameron wants a real terms cut rather than a spending freeze, while Denmark's Helle Thorning-Schmidt has threatened to veto the whole process unless the Danes get a kr.1 billion rebate. The local newspapers this morning suggested that she had been offered a percentage of that, but she rejected it.
Since any one of the 27 (and the Parliament) can veto the whole thing, the odds are not looking good. Expect everyone to come back and try again in three months' time.
UPDATE: Well, I got that one wrong, didn't I? Not only did they agree a budget framework, but it was the first ever cut in the budget framework in real terms, and the Danes got their kr.1 billion rebate. That Danish farmers will lose more than that in reduced help for agriculture rather got lost in the official press release playing up Helle's victories.
Having said that, the European Parliament has yet to approve it in order for it to take effect. The four largest parties there have all already said that they cannot accept it as it stands. So perhaps this is not the last word on the issue after all.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 5 February 2013
MOLE WARFARE (11)
January involved lots of snow, which has now melted, followed by lots of rain. The combined result is that the water table on my property is the highest it's been in the twelve years I have lived here. My kitchen garden is completely under water, for instance.
All of which has made the battlefield with the Mole Army even more Somme-like than usual. Throw in the terrible casualties that they have suffered during the past decade, and they must be close to collapse. The current offensive has all the makings of a last-ditch effort.
Moles not wanting to live under water any more than I do, I trapped this guy between the flood and the compost heap, and then slowly reeled him in. And this morning I got him. Current score for 2013; Blotscher 1, Mole Army 0.
Walter Blotscher
January involved lots of snow, which has now melted, followed by lots of rain. The combined result is that the water table on my property is the highest it's been in the twelve years I have lived here. My kitchen garden is completely under water, for instance.
All of which has made the battlefield with the Mole Army even more Somme-like than usual. Throw in the terrible casualties that they have suffered during the past decade, and they must be close to collapse. The current offensive has all the makings of a last-ditch effort.
Moles not wanting to live under water any more than I do, I trapped this guy between the flood and the compost heap, and then slowly reeled him in. And this morning I got him. Current score for 2013; Blotscher 1, Mole Army 0.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 4 February 2013
CYCLO-CROSS
At the world championships this weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, the winners were Sven Nys and Marianne Vos. He for the second time, she for the sixth.
Worthy winners.
Walter Blotscher
At the world championships this weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, the winners were Sven Nys and Marianne Vos. He for the second time, she for the sixth.
Worthy winners.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 3 February 2013
WILLIAM PITT THE YOUNGER
No Brit (and very few people in the world) have had such a meteoric political career as William Pitt the Younger. First elected as an M.P. at the age of 21, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) at 23, and First Lord of the Treasury, the technical name, then as now, for Prime Minister, at 24, having already turned the top job down the year before. He proceeded to hold the post, other than for a gap of three years, until he died at the beginning of 1806 at the relatively young age of 46. No other British Prime Minister has ever had the job so young, and very few have started it at a younger age than when he finished.
True, Pitt had some decided advantages. Eighteenth century British politics was essentially a family affair, and the Pitts were one of the relatively few families involved. On his mother's side (the Grenvilles), one uncle was in the House of Lords, and two in the House of Commons, one as Prime Minister. Pitt's cousin would be his Foreign Secretary and eventual successor as Prime Minister. On his father's side, his great-grandfather, grandfather and uncle had all been M.P.'s. Most fortunately of all, his father, William Pitt the Elder and First Earl of Chatham, had been the dominant politician of his generation and also Prime Minister. Out of office, the elder Pitt decided to stay aloof from politics and home school his precocious second son, with the result that the younger Pitt went up to Cambridge University at the age of 14. By then he had thoroughly mastered the art of declaiming in Latin and Greek, with the result that giving speeches in the House of Commons, one of the most important aspects of a politician's job at the time, became a bit of a doddle.
Pitt was also favoured by circumstances. Having imbibed politics since he was a baby, he entered public life in the aftermath of the key event of the latter part of the eighteenth century, namely the loss of the American colonies. At that time, the king (George III, who ruled from 1760-1820) played a much more important constitutional role than later, and George felt humiliated by the American debacle. Pitt had the twin advantages of not being involved in the war (even better, his father had opposed it, and that rubbed off on him) and of not being Charles James Fox, the leading opponent of the war, but a man whom George positively loathed and refused to deal with. When George looked round for someone to head his Government, all the other candidates were discredited in his eyes. Pitt alone was not tainted.
But if he was lucky in getting the job so young, Pitt still had to deliver in order to keep it, and here his character shone through. Basically, he was a workaholic. He needed to be, since by modern standards, his workload was extraordinary. Not only was he Prime Minister, but he kept the job of Chancellor. Furthermore, since nearly everyone else in his Cabinets was a peer, he was effectively Leader of the House of Commons as well. And he had to do all three jobs without a civil service as we would know it today, but just a couple of helpers. Although convivial and witty in male company, he never had any relationships with women outside of his family and never married (indeed, he might well have been gay). Basically, his two interests in life were political power and drinking with his political mates, and it was the combination that eventually killed him.
Pitt's essential political philosophy was prosperity through peace. The industrial revolution was beginning to take hold in Great Britain, and he saw the increasing wealth that it provided as the key to everything else. He made major reforms to the nation's finances, sorting out the customs and tax systems, investing heavily in the navy and ordering the national debt. This essentially pragmatic programme underpinned other policies such as the abolition of the slave trade and the union with Ireland. On the first, Pitt was great friends with William Wilberforce, the man behind the movement to abolish the trade (which eventually took place just after Pitt's death)). Yet whereas Wilberforce wanted to abolish it out of religious conviction, Pitt always looked on it as economically inefficient, and was always sensitive to the commercial interests that would be adversely affected by its abolition. On the latter, Pitt firmly believed that the problems of Ireland were caused by economic repression. Uniting Great Britain with Ireland would give the Irish access to a bigger single market; with more wealth, they would eventually stop rebelling.
Adept at getting and retaining power, Pitt was not afraid to use it. He appointed his elder brother to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, but then sacked him when it turned out his brother was no good at the job (one of the most important at the time). Personally uncorrupt by the standards of the age, he turned down titles and sinecures, even though it left him with no money. On his death, Parliament unanimously voted £40,000 to help pay off his debts, a figure equivalent to roughly £2 million in today's money. Yet if he kept his own snout out of the trough, he also used patronage to great effect. The union with Ireland in 1800 required the separate Irish Parliament to abolish itself, and that could only be achieved by a liberal sprinkling of money and new peerages, bribes by any other name.
However, as with Margaret Thatcher two centuries later, the downside of being absolutely sure of the direction you want to take the country, and of having the means to do it, is that you can be derailed by events. Yearning for peace, Pitt ended up being Great Britain's longest ever war Prime Minister, as the French Revolution of 1789 gradually developed into a continent-wide conflict. Meticulous in financial matters, Pitt was forced to invent income tax in order to finance the war effort (it was abolished when the war ended). And in offering the Irish the unstated quid pro quo for the union of Catholic emancipation, he underestimated the unwillingness of George and the Anglican Church to concede anything which (in their eyes) undermined its position as the established religion. This was the issue that led to his resignation in 1801; by the time he returned in 1804, he was already on the path of ill health that would lead to his death.
It would be left to his successors, notably Sir Robert Peel, to finish off the work that Pitt had started. Peel made income tax a permanent feature of the fiscal landscape, and brought about both Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the corn laws, the latter in particular underpinning Britain's prosperity in the nineteenth century. However, even Peel would have recognised that he couldn't have done his work without Pitt's reforms. Pitt was the first Prime Minister to turn the job into leader of the country, as opposed to the nominal figurehead amongst a group of colleagues, and the first leader to make the Treasury the engine of Government. The fact that that remains the case today is tribute to his efforts; he did not achieve all he set out to achieve, but he still achieved a lot.
Walter Blotscher
No Brit (and very few people in the world) have had such a meteoric political career as William Pitt the Younger. First elected as an M.P. at the age of 21, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) at 23, and First Lord of the Treasury, the technical name, then as now, for Prime Minister, at 24, having already turned the top job down the year before. He proceeded to hold the post, other than for a gap of three years, until he died at the beginning of 1806 at the relatively young age of 46. No other British Prime Minister has ever had the job so young, and very few have started it at a younger age than when he finished.
True, Pitt had some decided advantages. Eighteenth century British politics was essentially a family affair, and the Pitts were one of the relatively few families involved. On his mother's side (the Grenvilles), one uncle was in the House of Lords, and two in the House of Commons, one as Prime Minister. Pitt's cousin would be his Foreign Secretary and eventual successor as Prime Minister. On his father's side, his great-grandfather, grandfather and uncle had all been M.P.'s. Most fortunately of all, his father, William Pitt the Elder and First Earl of Chatham, had been the dominant politician of his generation and also Prime Minister. Out of office, the elder Pitt decided to stay aloof from politics and home school his precocious second son, with the result that the younger Pitt went up to Cambridge University at the age of 14. By then he had thoroughly mastered the art of declaiming in Latin and Greek, with the result that giving speeches in the House of Commons, one of the most important aspects of a politician's job at the time, became a bit of a doddle.
Pitt was also favoured by circumstances. Having imbibed politics since he was a baby, he entered public life in the aftermath of the key event of the latter part of the eighteenth century, namely the loss of the American colonies. At that time, the king (George III, who ruled from 1760-1820) played a much more important constitutional role than later, and George felt humiliated by the American debacle. Pitt had the twin advantages of not being involved in the war (even better, his father had opposed it, and that rubbed off on him) and of not being Charles James Fox, the leading opponent of the war, but a man whom George positively loathed and refused to deal with. When George looked round for someone to head his Government, all the other candidates were discredited in his eyes. Pitt alone was not tainted.
But if he was lucky in getting the job so young, Pitt still had to deliver in order to keep it, and here his character shone through. Basically, he was a workaholic. He needed to be, since by modern standards, his workload was extraordinary. Not only was he Prime Minister, but he kept the job of Chancellor. Furthermore, since nearly everyone else in his Cabinets was a peer, he was effectively Leader of the House of Commons as well. And he had to do all three jobs without a civil service as we would know it today, but just a couple of helpers. Although convivial and witty in male company, he never had any relationships with women outside of his family and never married (indeed, he might well have been gay). Basically, his two interests in life were political power and drinking with his political mates, and it was the combination that eventually killed him.
Pitt's essential political philosophy was prosperity through peace. The industrial revolution was beginning to take hold in Great Britain, and he saw the increasing wealth that it provided as the key to everything else. He made major reforms to the nation's finances, sorting out the customs and tax systems, investing heavily in the navy and ordering the national debt. This essentially pragmatic programme underpinned other policies such as the abolition of the slave trade and the union with Ireland. On the first, Pitt was great friends with William Wilberforce, the man behind the movement to abolish the trade (which eventually took place just after Pitt's death)). Yet whereas Wilberforce wanted to abolish it out of religious conviction, Pitt always looked on it as economically inefficient, and was always sensitive to the commercial interests that would be adversely affected by its abolition. On the latter, Pitt firmly believed that the problems of Ireland were caused by economic repression. Uniting Great Britain with Ireland would give the Irish access to a bigger single market; with more wealth, they would eventually stop rebelling.
Adept at getting and retaining power, Pitt was not afraid to use it. He appointed his elder brother to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, but then sacked him when it turned out his brother was no good at the job (one of the most important at the time). Personally uncorrupt by the standards of the age, he turned down titles and sinecures, even though it left him with no money. On his death, Parliament unanimously voted £40,000 to help pay off his debts, a figure equivalent to roughly £2 million in today's money. Yet if he kept his own snout out of the trough, he also used patronage to great effect. The union with Ireland in 1800 required the separate Irish Parliament to abolish itself, and that could only be achieved by a liberal sprinkling of money and new peerages, bribes by any other name.
However, as with Margaret Thatcher two centuries later, the downside of being absolutely sure of the direction you want to take the country, and of having the means to do it, is that you can be derailed by events. Yearning for peace, Pitt ended up being Great Britain's longest ever war Prime Minister, as the French Revolution of 1789 gradually developed into a continent-wide conflict. Meticulous in financial matters, Pitt was forced to invent income tax in order to finance the war effort (it was abolished when the war ended). And in offering the Irish the unstated quid pro quo for the union of Catholic emancipation, he underestimated the unwillingness of George and the Anglican Church to concede anything which (in their eyes) undermined its position as the established religion. This was the issue that led to his resignation in 1801; by the time he returned in 1804, he was already on the path of ill health that would lead to his death.
It would be left to his successors, notably Sir Robert Peel, to finish off the work that Pitt had started. Peel made income tax a permanent feature of the fiscal landscape, and brought about both Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the corn laws, the latter in particular underpinning Britain's prosperity in the nineteenth century. However, even Peel would have recognised that he couldn't have done his work without Pitt's reforms. Pitt was the first Prime Minister to turn the job into leader of the country, as opposed to the nominal figurehead amongst a group of colleagues, and the first leader to make the Treasury the engine of Government. The fact that that remains the case today is tribute to his efforts; he did not achieve all he set out to achieve, but he still achieved a lot.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 2 February 2013
CYCLING WEATHER (3)
Today was the perfect day for cycling. The snow of the past month has finally melted, the sun was out, and there was very little wind.
The only problem was that I haven't been on my bike since before Christmas. And it showed. Fifteen very laborious kilometers, for which the only recompense was afternoon coffee at my mother-in-law's.
I can already tell it's going to be a hard spring.
Walter Blotscher
Today was the perfect day for cycling. The snow of the past month has finally melted, the sun was out, and there was very little wind.
The only problem was that I haven't been on my bike since before Christmas. And it showed. Fifteen very laborious kilometers, for which the only recompense was afternoon coffee at my mother-in-law's.
I can already tell it's going to be a hard spring.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 1 February 2013
CLIMATE CHANGE (4)
When I came back from my annual walking tour last April, there were hosepipe bans in most of England, and a further 19 counties had just been added to the list of those designated as undergoing a drought. Yet 2012 ended as the second wettest ever for the U.K. since records began in 1910; for England, it was the wettest ever. Basically, as soon as I left, it started chucking it down, and didn't really stop. Average rainfall in January to March was below average, in March 61% so; thereafter, it was above average in every month except May. There was 50% more in July and December, 76% in April (given our sunny holiday, it must have been miserable thereafter), and a staggering 103% more in June. At the beginning of 2012, politicians, farmers and water companies were holding "water summits" to discuss the crisis in places such as East Anglia. By the end of the year, the discussion had turned to poor crop yields and compensation for lost produce.
These facts seem to be backed up by ever increasing reports of flooding. When I was a boy, flooding seemed to be something that happened as often as England winning at rugby (i.e. hardly ever); now it's on the news - the Danish news too - pretty regularly. Some 8,000 houses in England and Wales were flooded last year, and flood warnings were sent out to 200,000 households and businesses. Flooding has also taken place on a very parochial level. My mother's lawn has flooded a lot during the past couple of years, which is a new development; neither I nor she can remember that ever happening before, even though she has lived in the same house in an unchanged neighbourhood in Derby since she first moved there in 1958.
The inescapable conclusion is that things are happening to the climate. Yet as evidence piles up that "something is changing", efforts to do something about it seem to be diminishing. My last post on climate change followed the Durban conference at the end of 2011. I think that there has been a further conference since then, but I have to admit that I can't remember anything about it, not even where it was. Don't expect much to happen in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
When I came back from my annual walking tour last April, there were hosepipe bans in most of England, and a further 19 counties had just been added to the list of those designated as undergoing a drought. Yet 2012 ended as the second wettest ever for the U.K. since records began in 1910; for England, it was the wettest ever. Basically, as soon as I left, it started chucking it down, and didn't really stop. Average rainfall in January to March was below average, in March 61% so; thereafter, it was above average in every month except May. There was 50% more in July and December, 76% in April (given our sunny holiday, it must have been miserable thereafter), and a staggering 103% more in June. At the beginning of 2012, politicians, farmers and water companies were holding "water summits" to discuss the crisis in places such as East Anglia. By the end of the year, the discussion had turned to poor crop yields and compensation for lost produce.
These facts seem to be backed up by ever increasing reports of flooding. When I was a boy, flooding seemed to be something that happened as often as England winning at rugby (i.e. hardly ever); now it's on the news - the Danish news too - pretty regularly. Some 8,000 houses in England and Wales were flooded last year, and flood warnings were sent out to 200,000 households and businesses. Flooding has also taken place on a very parochial level. My mother's lawn has flooded a lot during the past couple of years, which is a new development; neither I nor she can remember that ever happening before, even though she has lived in the same house in an unchanged neighbourhood in Derby since she first moved there in 1958.
The inescapable conclusion is that things are happening to the climate. Yet as evidence piles up that "something is changing", efforts to do something about it seem to be diminishing. My last post on climate change followed the Durban conference at the end of 2011. I think that there has been a further conference since then, but I have to admit that I can't remember anything about it, not even where it was. Don't expect much to happen in the near future.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
