THE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE
I used this expression in my post yesterday. When I did so, I was reminded of a comment from one of my Danish colleagues, who said that he had never understood it. How could an exception prove a rule?
This is one those paradoxes that turns out not to be a paradox at all. Because prove is in fact a bastardisation of the French word epreuve, which means a test or a challenge. In other words, the expression really means the exception that tests the rule. Which is pretty logical.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 30 September 2014
Monday 29 September 2014
UKIP
With the exception of the Celtic fringes, third parties tend to do dreadfully in British politics. For more than 300 years, a combination of demography and the first-past-the-post system has produced two large political groupings; originally for or against the Crown, nowadays broadly right of centre (Conservative) or left of centre (Labour). Labour replaced the Liberals at the beginning of the last century, but otherwise the system has pretty much remained the same throughout. The current Conservative-Liberal coalition is the exception that proves the rule.
The UK Independence Party, whose only coherent policy is to leave the E.U., has done better in European and local elections, where proportional representation is the norm. In this year's European elections it came first, narrowly beating Labour into second and the Conservatives into third, and winning 24 of the U.K.'s 73 seats. It is now trying to break into the British Parliament. Will it do any better than the Greens, Social Democrats, British National Party and other odds and sods who have failed in the past?
Its strategy seems to be to get Eurosceptic Conservative MP's to defect, resign their seats, and thereby force a by-election under the UKIP flag that they will then win. By-elections are a rather curious British idea. If a Danish MP, for instance, dies, goes on maternity leave, or gets fed up with being in Parliament and wants to leave before time, then their seat gets taken over by the next person on the party list. However, under FPTP, there are by definition no party lists, so no substitutions.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has so far managed to persuade two Conservative MP's to embrace his strategy, both from areas south and east of London where people are concerned about immigration, particularly of the European sort. The by-elections will be held this autumn, and UKIP has a very good chance of winning at least one of them.
The timing couldn't be worse for the Government. A general election is due in 2015, and both immigration and the UK's tortured relationship with the E.U. will be high on the agenda. The irony is that by voting for UKIP (and thereby splitting the right of centre vote), it is more likely that Labour will be part of the next Government. The fact that voters know that and still vote for UKIP shows just how hard it will be for David Cameron to remain in office.
Walter Blotscher
With the exception of the Celtic fringes, third parties tend to do dreadfully in British politics. For more than 300 years, a combination of demography and the first-past-the-post system has produced two large political groupings; originally for or against the Crown, nowadays broadly right of centre (Conservative) or left of centre (Labour). Labour replaced the Liberals at the beginning of the last century, but otherwise the system has pretty much remained the same throughout. The current Conservative-Liberal coalition is the exception that proves the rule.
The UK Independence Party, whose only coherent policy is to leave the E.U., has done better in European and local elections, where proportional representation is the norm. In this year's European elections it came first, narrowly beating Labour into second and the Conservatives into third, and winning 24 of the U.K.'s 73 seats. It is now trying to break into the British Parliament. Will it do any better than the Greens, Social Democrats, British National Party and other odds and sods who have failed in the past?
Its strategy seems to be to get Eurosceptic Conservative MP's to defect, resign their seats, and thereby force a by-election under the UKIP flag that they will then win. By-elections are a rather curious British idea. If a Danish MP, for instance, dies, goes on maternity leave, or gets fed up with being in Parliament and wants to leave before time, then their seat gets taken over by the next person on the party list. However, under FPTP, there are by definition no party lists, so no substitutions.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has so far managed to persuade two Conservative MP's to embrace his strategy, both from areas south and east of London where people are concerned about immigration, particularly of the European sort. The by-elections will be held this autumn, and UKIP has a very good chance of winning at least one of them.
The timing couldn't be worse for the Government. A general election is due in 2015, and both immigration and the UK's tortured relationship with the E.U. will be high on the agenda. The irony is that by voting for UKIP (and thereby splitting the right of centre vote), it is more likely that Labour will be part of the next Government. The fact that voters know that and still vote for UKIP shows just how hard it will be for David Cameron to remain in office.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 28 September 2014
CHILLIES
Last night, at the school where I work, my colleague gave a lecture on the chillies that he grows in his greenhouse. That was interesting in itself. But not half as interesting as the tasting we did afterwards. I am proud to say that I ate a piece of Carolina Reaper, which is reckoned to be the hottest chilli in the world.
When I say piece, I mean a very small piece, smaller than a peanut. Given its size, it was incredible the effect it had on my body. It was like a petrol bomb exploding in my mouth. Because I have eaten spicy food before, I managed to cope with its effect better than some of the students; but it was still a challenge. I drank lots of milk (better than water, since it contains fat) before I managed to get the heat under control.
My colleague promises another tasting later in the year. I am up for it.
Walter Blotscher
Last night, at the school where I work, my colleague gave a lecture on the chillies that he grows in his greenhouse. That was interesting in itself. But not half as interesting as the tasting we did afterwards. I am proud to say that I ate a piece of Carolina Reaper, which is reckoned to be the hottest chilli in the world.
When I say piece, I mean a very small piece, smaller than a peanut. Given its size, it was incredible the effect it had on my body. It was like a petrol bomb exploding in my mouth. Because I have eaten spicy food before, I managed to cope with its effect better than some of the students; but it was still a challenge. I drank lots of milk (better than water, since it contains fat) before I managed to get the heat under control.
My colleague promises another tasting later in the year. I am up for it.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 26 September 2014
AUTOPSIES
Whether or not to carry out an autopsy ought not to be something which changes a lot over time or across countries. At least I would have thought so.
As it happens, it does. The number of autopsies carried out in Denmark has fallen dramatically in recent years, from 2,915 in 2007 to 1,736 in 2010 and a mere 1,120 in 2013. The fall is all the more remarkable, given the dramatic developments during that period in (for example) research into inherited diseases.
Denmark is also out of kilter with the rest of the Nordic world. Only 4% of deaths result in an autopsy, compared with 7% in Norway, 11% in Iceland, 14% in Sweden and 30% in Finland.
Is it because all of those dark Scandinavian murders are carried out in Finnish forests? Or is the reason more prosaic? It is the police who are mostly responsible for ordering an autopsy. Danish police forces were reorganised (and reduced) some years ago, and there is a general feeling that they are short of cash. Not ordering an autopsy is an easy way to save money.
Walter Blotscher
Whether or not to carry out an autopsy ought not to be something which changes a lot over time or across countries. At least I would have thought so.
As it happens, it does. The number of autopsies carried out in Denmark has fallen dramatically in recent years, from 2,915 in 2007 to 1,736 in 2010 and a mere 1,120 in 2013. The fall is all the more remarkable, given the dramatic developments during that period in (for example) research into inherited diseases.
Denmark is also out of kilter with the rest of the Nordic world. Only 4% of deaths result in an autopsy, compared with 7% in Norway, 11% in Iceland, 14% in Sweden and 30% in Finland.
Is it because all of those dark Scandinavian murders are carried out in Finnish forests? Or is the reason more prosaic? It is the police who are mostly responsible for ordering an autopsy. Danish police forces were reorganised (and reduced) some years ago, and there is a general feeling that they are short of cash. Not ordering an autopsy is an easy way to save money.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 24 September 2014
DAGPENGE (2)
As recently as August, the only official figure on the number of people falling out of the dagpenge system was 34,000, a drastic rise on the prognosis of 2-4,000 published when the reform of the dagpenge system took place in 2010.
However, the latest data show that that number is already out of date. The most up-to-date figure from the end of May 2014 is 41,028.
Dagpenge is the third rail of Danish politics and is going to cost Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt her job.
Walter Blotscher
As recently as August, the only official figure on the number of people falling out of the dagpenge system was 34,000, a drastic rise on the prognosis of 2-4,000 published when the reform of the dagpenge system took place in 2010.
However, the latest data show that that number is already out of date. The most up-to-date figure from the end of May 2014 is 41,028.
Dagpenge is the third rail of Danish politics and is going to cost Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt her job.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 23 September 2014
PLANNING LAWS
The disadvantage of living in a rich, well-ordered society is that there are lots of rules. And nowhere are there more rules than in the area of planning. As an example, no new building is allowed within 300 metres of the coast; and there are severe restrictions in the area up to 3km from the coast. Since Denmark has lots of coast (nobody lives more than 52 km from the sea) that's a big restriction. Local authorities in particular chafe at the straitjacket these rules impose in developing tourism.
So they were quick to welcome the Government's announcement this week that 10 tourist development projects will be allowed within the 300 m area as an experiment. They quickly followed up that welcome by saying that ten were not nearly enough. But it's a start.
Walter Blotscher
The disadvantage of living in a rich, well-ordered society is that there are lots of rules. And nowhere are there more rules than in the area of planning. As an example, no new building is allowed within 300 metres of the coast; and there are severe restrictions in the area up to 3km from the coast. Since Denmark has lots of coast (nobody lives more than 52 km from the sea) that's a big restriction. Local authorities in particular chafe at the straitjacket these rules impose in developing tourism.
So they were quick to welcome the Government's announcement this week that 10 tourist development projects will be allowed within the 300 m area as an experiment. They quickly followed up that welcome by saying that ten were not nearly enough. But it's a start.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 22 September 2014
A PRACTICAL PIG
Today was a day for doing practical things.
First, our new oil tank arrived, and was installed. Secondly, our new satellite dish was set up at the cinema, meaning that we can now have live shows from the Royal Theatre and elsewhere. Thirdly, I took my lawnmower to be repaired.
All in all, I got a lot done.
Walter Blotscher
Today was a day for doing practical things.
First, our new oil tank arrived, and was installed. Secondly, our new satellite dish was set up at the cinema, meaning that we can now have live shows from the Royal Theatre and elsewhere. Thirdly, I took my lawnmower to be repaired.
All in all, I got a lot done.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 21 September 2014
VOTER PARTICIPATION
People are fed up with politics, and are voting less and less. That's the reason why the 85% participation rate in Scotland's independence referendum was the highest for 60 years.
However, the above statement is not true everywhere. In Sweden's general election last Sunday, the participation rate was an extraordinary 85.8%. This was a rise of 1.24% on the last vote, in 2010. The rate has in fact risen in every election in Sweden since 2002. There must be something in the water.
Walter Blotscher
People are fed up with politics, and are voting less and less. That's the reason why the 85% participation rate in Scotland's independence referendum was the highest for 60 years.
However, the above statement is not true everywhere. In Sweden's general election last Sunday, the participation rate was an extraordinary 85.8%. This was a rise of 1.24% on the last vote, in 2010. The rate has in fact risen in every election in Sweden since 2002. There must be something in the water.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 20 September 2014
SEA MIST (2)
The weather is changing tonight, from an Indian summer period with the wind in the East to the normal showers, with the wind in the West. Today was the mid-point of the change, and it was completely still.
I had a 2-hour bike ride in the early evening sunshine. Coming home, there was sea mist over the Baltic, which was as calm as a millpond. I haven't seen that for a while.
Walter Blotscher
The weather is changing tonight, from an Indian summer period with the wind in the East to the normal showers, with the wind in the West. Today was the mid-point of the change, and it was completely still.
I had a 2-hour bike ride in the early evening sunshine. Coming home, there was sea mist over the Baltic, which was as calm as a millpond. I haven't seen that for a while.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 19 September 2014
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE
I have to admit that it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I woke up this morning and switched on the television news. After all, it was possible that the country of which I have been a citizen for all of my 55 years, namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, might no longer exist. Scotland might have voted no longer to be part of it.
I had always thought that the vote would be a close victory for the no's, even when, at the start of the campaign, opinion polls showed a big majority for maintaining the status quo. The no campaign was likely to be, and was, stodgy, wooden, and patronising; while the yes campaign was exciting, fun and optimistic. However, in the end, the margin against independence was bigger than expected, 55% to 45%. The head had won over the heart.
This was a relief. I have no doubt that Scotland could survive as an independent country; there are plenty of modern states that have a similar or smaller population. Things wouldn't have been as rosy as the yes campaign liked to present them, but they could have managed fairly well. The problem is that it would have been a disaster for England. The Celtic peripheries provide an extremely useful brake on the English tendency to be smug, superior and condescending. Without Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland in due course?) the rump would have been in danger of becoming a permanently conservative, grumpy, anti-immigrant, isolationist kingdom. One which I would have had more than a little difficulty supporting.
But although voters chose to maintain the union, that doesn't mean that things won't change. Panicked by opinion polls showing a dead heat or even a slight lead for the yes campaign, the leaders of Westminster's three main political parties at the last minute promised further devolution to the Scots (which, in practice, means further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland as well). This is unabashedly a good thing. The U.K. is one of the most centralised states in the world, with 95%+ of all tax revenues circulating through London before they are doled out to the provinces. The Mayor of London, a world-class city with more people than the whole of Denmark, has less power than my local authority, with only 40,000 people (5,000 before a local authority reform here). Major provincial English metropolitan areas such as Manchester and Leeds have almost no independent power at all.
In the end, more power to Scotland will probably satisfy everyone there, both yes and no voters. For if there is one message to take from the campaign (in which 85% of people voted, including 16 and 17-year olds for the first time), it is that ordinary people are fed up with being bossed around by an elitist set of politicians housed a long way away in London. If their influence can be reduced, then it will be good for the whole of the union, and not just Scotland.
Walter Blotscher
I have to admit that it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I woke up this morning and switched on the television news. After all, it was possible that the country of which I have been a citizen for all of my 55 years, namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, might no longer exist. Scotland might have voted no longer to be part of it.
I had always thought that the vote would be a close victory for the no's, even when, at the start of the campaign, opinion polls showed a big majority for maintaining the status quo. The no campaign was likely to be, and was, stodgy, wooden, and patronising; while the yes campaign was exciting, fun and optimistic. However, in the end, the margin against independence was bigger than expected, 55% to 45%. The head had won over the heart.
This was a relief. I have no doubt that Scotland could survive as an independent country; there are plenty of modern states that have a similar or smaller population. Things wouldn't have been as rosy as the yes campaign liked to present them, but they could have managed fairly well. The problem is that it would have been a disaster for England. The Celtic peripheries provide an extremely useful brake on the English tendency to be smug, superior and condescending. Without Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland in due course?) the rump would have been in danger of becoming a permanently conservative, grumpy, anti-immigrant, isolationist kingdom. One which I would have had more than a little difficulty supporting.
But although voters chose to maintain the union, that doesn't mean that things won't change. Panicked by opinion polls showing a dead heat or even a slight lead for the yes campaign, the leaders of Westminster's three main political parties at the last minute promised further devolution to the Scots (which, in practice, means further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland as well). This is unabashedly a good thing. The U.K. is one of the most centralised states in the world, with 95%+ of all tax revenues circulating through London before they are doled out to the provinces. The Mayor of London, a world-class city with more people than the whole of Denmark, has less power than my local authority, with only 40,000 people (5,000 before a local authority reform here). Major provincial English metropolitan areas such as Manchester and Leeds have almost no independent power at all.
In the end, more power to Scotland will probably satisfy everyone there, both yes and no voters. For if there is one message to take from the campaign (in which 85% of people voted, including 16 and 17-year olds for the first time), it is that ordinary people are fed up with being bossed around by an elitist set of politicians housed a long way away in London. If their influence can be reduced, then it will be good for the whole of the union, and not just Scotland.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 18 September 2014
SLOW TV
Slow TV is television, where ordinary events are given marathon live coverage in their entirety. The world's leader in this new phenomenon is undoubtedly Norway. It started in 2009 with the complete 7-hour train drive on the Bergen line, as seen from the driver's cab. That was followed in 2011 by live coverage of the 134-hour long Hurtigruten "quick route" ferry journey up the coast to the far north of the country. Both events attracted a lot of media coverage and many more viewers than expected. Since then, they have held an 8-hour marathon on knitting and a 12-hour one on firewood for wood-burning stoves.
Yesterday it was the turn of the weather, an event eventually stretching to 36 hours and including live chats with the weather experts of virtually every other country on the planet.
Norway's initiative, if it can be called that, has attracted both interest and critical praise from other nations. Whether it can be exported elsewhere is however another matter. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, where people have a lot of time on their hands. That's an unusual combination of circumstances.
Walter Blotscher
Slow TV is television, where ordinary events are given marathon live coverage in their entirety. The world's leader in this new phenomenon is undoubtedly Norway. It started in 2009 with the complete 7-hour train drive on the Bergen line, as seen from the driver's cab. That was followed in 2011 by live coverage of the 134-hour long Hurtigruten "quick route" ferry journey up the coast to the far north of the country. Both events attracted a lot of media coverage and many more viewers than expected. Since then, they have held an 8-hour marathon on knitting and a 12-hour one on firewood for wood-burning stoves.
Yesterday it was the turn of the weather, an event eventually stretching to 36 hours and including live chats with the weather experts of virtually every other country on the planet.
Norway's initiative, if it can be called that, has attracted both interest and critical praise from other nations. Whether it can be exported elsewhere is however another matter. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, where people have a lot of time on their hands. That's an unusual combination of circumstances.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 17 September 2014
THE SWEDISH ELECTION
The outcome of Sunday's election in Sweden looks remarkably like that in Denmark back in 2011.
Voters were fed up with the ruling right of centre coalition, and booted it out (though in contrast to Lars Løkke Rasmussen here, outgoing Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also resigned the leadership of his party, Moderaterne). The leader of the Social Democrats, Stefan Löfven, was duly given first shot at forming a Government.
However, as in Denmark, not wanting the right is not the same as embracing the left. In both countries, the Social Democrats have been the natural party of Government for more than a century. But the Swedish version could not increase its share of the vote at the right's expense; and despite having allies to the left and in the Green Party, Mr. Löfven has not got a Parliamentary majority. Like Helle Thorning-Schmidt in 2011, he will have to cut a deal with one of the small centrist parties or run a minority government in order to stay in office.
So if neither right nor left are winning, who is? Again, the answer is strikingly similar. In Denmark, the party with the most momentum over the past decade has been the far-right, anti-immigrant, Danish People's Party; in Sweden, it is the much newer Sweden Democrats, a clone of the DPP, which has copied the Danish version's tactics almost to the letter. They increased their share of the vote from 5.7% to 12.9% and are now Sweden's third largest party. As in Denmark, working class Swedes, who in the past would reliably have supported the Social Democrats, have crossed the political aisle, spooked by immigrants (real or imagined) and the threat (real or imagined) caused by them to jobs, public services and "Swedishness".
Despite the similarities, there is however still one big difference between the two countries. In Denmark, the DPP supported the former right of centre minority government during the noughties, doing ad hoc political deals that gave it great influence. In Sweden, the election was fought by all of the established parties on the explicit platform that there was no way they would deal with the Sweden Democrats. This was an admirable position; it remains to be seen whether it can hold. After all, it is difficult to exclude for ever a political party - however unsavoury - if it is supported by an eighth of the population.
Walter Blotscher
The outcome of Sunday's election in Sweden looks remarkably like that in Denmark back in 2011.
Voters were fed up with the ruling right of centre coalition, and booted it out (though in contrast to Lars Løkke Rasmussen here, outgoing Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also resigned the leadership of his party, Moderaterne). The leader of the Social Democrats, Stefan Löfven, was duly given first shot at forming a Government.
However, as in Denmark, not wanting the right is not the same as embracing the left. In both countries, the Social Democrats have been the natural party of Government for more than a century. But the Swedish version could not increase its share of the vote at the right's expense; and despite having allies to the left and in the Green Party, Mr. Löfven has not got a Parliamentary majority. Like Helle Thorning-Schmidt in 2011, he will have to cut a deal with one of the small centrist parties or run a minority government in order to stay in office.
So if neither right nor left are winning, who is? Again, the answer is strikingly similar. In Denmark, the party with the most momentum over the past decade has been the far-right, anti-immigrant, Danish People's Party; in Sweden, it is the much newer Sweden Democrats, a clone of the DPP, which has copied the Danish version's tactics almost to the letter. They increased their share of the vote from 5.7% to 12.9% and are now Sweden's third largest party. As in Denmark, working class Swedes, who in the past would reliably have supported the Social Democrats, have crossed the political aisle, spooked by immigrants (real or imagined) and the threat (real or imagined) caused by them to jobs, public services and "Swedishness".
Despite the similarities, there is however still one big difference between the two countries. In Denmark, the DPP supported the former right of centre minority government during the noughties, doing ad hoc political deals that gave it great influence. In Sweden, the election was fought by all of the established parties on the explicit platform that there was no way they would deal with the Sweden Democrats. This was an admirable position; it remains to be seen whether it can hold. After all, it is difficult to exclude for ever a political party - however unsavoury - if it is supported by an eighth of the population.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 15 September 2014
THE RESILIENCE OF TREES (3)
My resilient apple tree has finally produced fruit! The only problem is that the apples are on the higher branches, too high for me to pick them without a ladder. For some reason, the lower branches (which, being closer to the root system, should in my non-scientific view be better able to suck up nutrients from the ground) have no apples on them whatsoever.
So, mixed feelings. Who ever said that life should be easy?
Walter Blotscher
My resilient apple tree has finally produced fruit! The only problem is that the apples are on the higher branches, too high for me to pick them without a ladder. For some reason, the lower branches (which, being closer to the root system, should in my non-scientific view be better able to suck up nutrients from the ground) have no apples on them whatsoever.
So, mixed feelings. Who ever said that life should be easy?
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 14 September 2014
TUNA
In Denmark tuna are viewed as exotic fish. Eaten out of small tins, they are more readily associated with bloodbaths in Mediterranean harbours or fantastical prices at Tokyo fish markets.
Yet bluefin, or Atlantic, tuna was once a regular feature of Danish waters and fish markets. In the 1950's the annual catch was between 800 and 2,000 tons and there are pictures of tuna filling the whole of a Danish auction shed. Then in the 1960's the fish suddenly disappeared.
Until now. Two adult bluefin tuna have just been caught in the Denmark Strait, the body of water between Iceland and Greenland. Even though tuna are known to be a species that's not particularly sensitive to water temperature, that's a long way north. Scientists are currently puzzled, but suspect that rising water temperatures in the Atlantic may have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, it will be good to have tuna back on the menu in Denmark, it tastes much better than cod.
Walter Blotscher
In Denmark tuna are viewed as exotic fish. Eaten out of small tins, they are more readily associated with bloodbaths in Mediterranean harbours or fantastical prices at Tokyo fish markets.
Yet bluefin, or Atlantic, tuna was once a regular feature of Danish waters and fish markets. In the 1950's the annual catch was between 800 and 2,000 tons and there are pictures of tuna filling the whole of a Danish auction shed. Then in the 1960's the fish suddenly disappeared.
Until now. Two adult bluefin tuna have just been caught in the Denmark Strait, the body of water between Iceland and Greenland. Even though tuna are known to be a species that's not particularly sensitive to water temperature, that's a long way north. Scientists are currently puzzled, but suspect that rising water temperatures in the Atlantic may have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, it will be good to have tuna back on the menu in Denmark, it tastes much better than cod.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 13 September 2014
LA VUELTA A ESPAÑA (3)
Alberto Contador effectively won his third Vuelta a Espana this afternoon. True, there is still a 9.7km time trial tomorrow evening in Santiago de Compostela to negotiate; but since he now has a lead of a minute and 37 seconds over his nearest challenger, Chris Froome, only a complete disaster (both crashing and doing so so badly that he couldn't continue) will stop him.
The Contador-Froome duel should have been the highlight of this year's Tour de France. However, both crashed out of that race and broke bones, tibia and wrist respectively, so it was postponed. That both of them could participate at all in a 3-week, 3,000 km bicycle race less than 2 months later says much about modern professional cyclists' fitness and recuperative properties, as well as their mental strength. The big question, downplayed by both of them before the start, was whether they could win.
The answer was a resounding yes. Before today's last mountain stage, which ended with a brutal 12 km hike at a gradient of more than 8% up to the Puerto de Ancares in Galicia, they led the race. The gap between them was just over a minute, a gap that could easily be made up if Froome had a good day and Contador did not. Somewhat surprisingly, most of that gap was due to the 36.7 km time trial on 2 September, where Contador took 53 seconds out of his rival in a discipline where Froome is generally held to be the better rider.
As expected, Froome's Sky team set a furious pace on the final climb, before Froome attacked with just under 8 km to go. The acceleration got rid of everyone except Contador, who stuck doggedly to his wheel. Further attacks put Contador on his limit, but each time he managed to hang on. Finally, after one last attack had been neutralised with a km or so to go, Contador counter-attacked and won the stage by 16 seconds.
A great achievement and one that goes some way to easing the pain that Froome inflicted on Contador in the 2013 Tour de France. The stage is now set for a fantastic Tour next summer, with Froome, Contador and Nibali (all past winners) expected to line up at the start. Providing, of course, that they don't crash again. This year's Giro d'Italia winner, Nairo Quintana, was leading the Vuelta when he crashed during that 2 September time trial and had to quit the race. As Nibali succinctly put it when asked if his Tour victory this year was diminished by the forced withdrawal of his two main rivals, "staying on your bike is an important part of the game". Indeed.
Walter Blotscher
Alberto Contador effectively won his third Vuelta a Espana this afternoon. True, there is still a 9.7km time trial tomorrow evening in Santiago de Compostela to negotiate; but since he now has a lead of a minute and 37 seconds over his nearest challenger, Chris Froome, only a complete disaster (both crashing and doing so so badly that he couldn't continue) will stop him.
The Contador-Froome duel should have been the highlight of this year's Tour de France. However, both crashed out of that race and broke bones, tibia and wrist respectively, so it was postponed. That both of them could participate at all in a 3-week, 3,000 km bicycle race less than 2 months later says much about modern professional cyclists' fitness and recuperative properties, as well as their mental strength. The big question, downplayed by both of them before the start, was whether they could win.
The answer was a resounding yes. Before today's last mountain stage, which ended with a brutal 12 km hike at a gradient of more than 8% up to the Puerto de Ancares in Galicia, they led the race. The gap between them was just over a minute, a gap that could easily be made up if Froome had a good day and Contador did not. Somewhat surprisingly, most of that gap was due to the 36.7 km time trial on 2 September, where Contador took 53 seconds out of his rival in a discipline where Froome is generally held to be the better rider.
As expected, Froome's Sky team set a furious pace on the final climb, before Froome attacked with just under 8 km to go. The acceleration got rid of everyone except Contador, who stuck doggedly to his wheel. Further attacks put Contador on his limit, but each time he managed to hang on. Finally, after one last attack had been neutralised with a km or so to go, Contador counter-attacked and won the stage by 16 seconds.
A great achievement and one that goes some way to easing the pain that Froome inflicted on Contador in the 2013 Tour de France. The stage is now set for a fantastic Tour next summer, with Froome, Contador and Nibali (all past winners) expected to line up at the start. Providing, of course, that they don't crash again. This year's Giro d'Italia winner, Nairo Quintana, was leading the Vuelta when he crashed during that 2 September time trial and had to quit the race. As Nibali succinctly put it when asked if his Tour victory this year was diminished by the forced withdrawal of his two main rivals, "staying on your bike is an important part of the game". Indeed.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 12 September 2014
PROPERTY TAXES
A hand grenade exploded in Danish politics this week, namely the report of the commission of experts into property taxes.
Property taxes are, in principle, good things. There are fewer houses than people; they don't run away or try to hide themselves in offshore havens; they are easy to collect (you give the bill to the person living there); they put a natural damper on asset bubbles; and they are broadly progressive (richer people tend, on average, to live in bigger and more expensive houses). Done right, they generate lots of income (some kr.40 billion a year in Denmark).
However, in rich societies, where most people own their own house, they also represent traps for the unwary. The biggest of these is failing to keep up with valuations in the market. Mrs. Thatcher's government in the 1980's made that mistake, tried to rectify it by replacing the rates with the hated poll tax, and ended up ejecting its leader.
In Denmark, there are two property taxes, one administered nationally on the value of the house and one administered by the local authority on the value of just the land, without the building (the justification being that the local authority is responsible for sewerage and other local services to that land). The first problem came at the beginning of the noughties when the former right of centre government under Anders Fogh Rasmussen froze the national tax. With the economy booming and house prices rising sharply, this made all houseowners happy at first (it also gave a huge hidden windfall to already rich people, which was rather un-Danish). Local authorities, on the other hand, whose spending budgets were being squeezed by the central government, continued to base their tax on the value of - ever increasing - land values, and even to increase the % on that value. The result was that similar properties, particularly on the borders between local authorities, ended up being valued markedly differently for tax purposes.
That system was made worse (as had been done 20 years earlier in the U.K.) by taking responsibility for valuations away from independent valuers and handing it in 2003 to the tax authorities, themselves hard pressed by budget cuts, personnel reductions and other "efficiency" measures. The result was a system in which less than two in three valuations were correct (i.e. more than one in three were wrong). Not surprisingly, the number of complaints went through the roof.
Against that background, it was entirely reasonable to kick the problem into the long grass, and ask experts to come up with a better system. On one level, they have done that; the chances of getting a correct valuation will rise from an estimated 62.9% to 67.5% under their proposals. However, that still leaves householders with the knowledge that more than 30% of all valuations will be wrong. You don't have to be a politician to work out that 30% is way, way too high.
The experts have tried in vain to explain that no system exists that can value all properties correctly. But that is a message that the politicians do not want to hear. Those of the left have a problem in that they are currently in Government and so have responsibility for fixing things; those of the right have a problem in that their ill-advised tax freeze helped create the mess in the first place. Against that background, it will be interesting to see how they address a problem that affects roughly two thirds of the population, all of whom can vote.
Walter Blotscher
A hand grenade exploded in Danish politics this week, namely the report of the commission of experts into property taxes.
Property taxes are, in principle, good things. There are fewer houses than people; they don't run away or try to hide themselves in offshore havens; they are easy to collect (you give the bill to the person living there); they put a natural damper on asset bubbles; and they are broadly progressive (richer people tend, on average, to live in bigger and more expensive houses). Done right, they generate lots of income (some kr.40 billion a year in Denmark).
However, in rich societies, where most people own their own house, they also represent traps for the unwary. The biggest of these is failing to keep up with valuations in the market. Mrs. Thatcher's government in the 1980's made that mistake, tried to rectify it by replacing the rates with the hated poll tax, and ended up ejecting its leader.
In Denmark, there are two property taxes, one administered nationally on the value of the house and one administered by the local authority on the value of just the land, without the building (the justification being that the local authority is responsible for sewerage and other local services to that land). The first problem came at the beginning of the noughties when the former right of centre government under Anders Fogh Rasmussen froze the national tax. With the economy booming and house prices rising sharply, this made all houseowners happy at first (it also gave a huge hidden windfall to already rich people, which was rather un-Danish). Local authorities, on the other hand, whose spending budgets were being squeezed by the central government, continued to base their tax on the value of - ever increasing - land values, and even to increase the % on that value. The result was that similar properties, particularly on the borders between local authorities, ended up being valued markedly differently for tax purposes.
That system was made worse (as had been done 20 years earlier in the U.K.) by taking responsibility for valuations away from independent valuers and handing it in 2003 to the tax authorities, themselves hard pressed by budget cuts, personnel reductions and other "efficiency" measures. The result was a system in which less than two in three valuations were correct (i.e. more than one in three were wrong). Not surprisingly, the number of complaints went through the roof.
Against that background, it was entirely reasonable to kick the problem into the long grass, and ask experts to come up with a better system. On one level, they have done that; the chances of getting a correct valuation will rise from an estimated 62.9% to 67.5% under their proposals. However, that still leaves householders with the knowledge that more than 30% of all valuations will be wrong. You don't have to be a politician to work out that 30% is way, way too high.
The experts have tried in vain to explain that no system exists that can value all properties correctly. But that is a message that the politicians do not want to hear. Those of the left have a problem in that they are currently in Government and so have responsibility for fixing things; those of the right have a problem in that their ill-advised tax freeze helped create the mess in the first place. Against that background, it will be interesting to see how they address a problem that affects roughly two thirds of the population, all of whom can vote.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 11 September 2014
FLIGHT TO THE CITIES (3)
Danish Governments may not know how to stop the drift from the countryside to the cities, but they have an impressive system for ameliorating its worst effects. Basically, it involves taking money from rich local authorities and redistributing it to poor ones, in order that every local authority can deliver roughly the same level of service, irrespective of its structural financial position.
That sounds relatively straightforward. However, this being Denmark, the one system is in fact three. The biggest, covering roughly kr.48 billion, does as I have explained above. However, there are also two "mini-systems"; the first shuffles an extra kr.2.6 billion around 34 local authorities in the greater Copenhagen area, and the second gives an extra kr.4.7 billion to particularly hard hit local authorities outside of that area.
With three overlapping, and sometimes contradictory, systems, it has become a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, given that the Copenhagen area is already the main beneficiary of the population drift outlined yesterday, the extra money given to the capital is under attack from provincial cities who would like to get their hands on it. So some sort of reform of the system is likely during the next few years. But with 98 snouts in the trough, the devil will be in the details.
Walter Blotscher
Danish Governments may not know how to stop the drift from the countryside to the cities, but they have an impressive system for ameliorating its worst effects. Basically, it involves taking money from rich local authorities and redistributing it to poor ones, in order that every local authority can deliver roughly the same level of service, irrespective of its structural financial position.
That sounds relatively straightforward. However, this being Denmark, the one system is in fact three. The biggest, covering roughly kr.48 billion, does as I have explained above. However, there are also two "mini-systems"; the first shuffles an extra kr.2.6 billion around 34 local authorities in the greater Copenhagen area, and the second gives an extra kr.4.7 billion to particularly hard hit local authorities outside of that area.
With three overlapping, and sometimes contradictory, systems, it has become a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, given that the Copenhagen area is already the main beneficiary of the population drift outlined yesterday, the extra money given to the capital is under attack from provincial cities who would like to get their hands on it. So some sort of reform of the system is likely during the next few years. But with 98 snouts in the trough, the devil will be in the details.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 10 September 2014
FLIGHT TO THE CITIES (2)
It is widely known that there is currently a population shift in Denmark from the countryside to the cities. New projections by the statistical office show that this trend will continue.
Of the ten local authorities projected to have the most growth in people between 2014 and 2030, eight of them are in the greater Copenhagen area and all by more than 10%; Copenhagen Kommune, essentially the inner city, will grow by an extraordinary 27%. The other two in the top ten are Aarhus, the second city, and Horsens in Jutland.
At the bottom of the list, with shrinking populations, are a number of islands (Ærø, Samsø, Bornholm, Læsø and Langeland) and the depressed areas of Lolland and Falster, at the southern end of Zealand. Lolland is expected to lose around a sixth of its population, probably the most productive people, which will put a big strain on those left behind.
On Fünen, where I live, the only local authority projected to grow is that of Odense, the main town. All the others will shrink (though by less than 10%).
Large population shifts within countries can be very destabilising. Those services which are most needed in declining areas - healthcare, support for the elderly - are precisely those which find it difficult to attract young people. Entrepreneurs prefer to start new businesses in places where there are customers. Houses left vacant can quickly become derelict. It can become a vicious circle.
Some people might say "so what?". Eventually, prices will fall so far that it becomes economic to move to poorer areas. However, if you are a rich country that prides itself on its egalitarianism, such a laissez-faire attitude is not really an option. The problem is that alternative policies are not easy to see.
Walter Blotscher
It is widely known that there is currently a population shift in Denmark from the countryside to the cities. New projections by the statistical office show that this trend will continue.
Of the ten local authorities projected to have the most growth in people between 2014 and 2030, eight of them are in the greater Copenhagen area and all by more than 10%; Copenhagen Kommune, essentially the inner city, will grow by an extraordinary 27%. The other two in the top ten are Aarhus, the second city, and Horsens in Jutland.
At the bottom of the list, with shrinking populations, are a number of islands (Ærø, Samsø, Bornholm, Læsø and Langeland) and the depressed areas of Lolland and Falster, at the southern end of Zealand. Lolland is expected to lose around a sixth of its population, probably the most productive people, which will put a big strain on those left behind.
On Fünen, where I live, the only local authority projected to grow is that of Odense, the main town. All the others will shrink (though by less than 10%).
Large population shifts within countries can be very destabilising. Those services which are most needed in declining areas - healthcare, support for the elderly - are precisely those which find it difficult to attract young people. Entrepreneurs prefer to start new businesses in places where there are customers. Houses left vacant can quickly become derelict. It can become a vicious circle.
Some people might say "so what?". Eventually, prices will fall so far that it becomes economic to move to poorer areas. However, if you are a rich country that prides itself on its egalitarianism, such a laissez-faire attitude is not really an option. The problem is that alternative policies are not easy to see.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 9 September 2014
MARIN CILIC
Croatian Marin Cilic' performance in winning the U.S. Open tennis tournament on Monday was extraordinary. The final was the first for a Grand Slam tournament since January 2005 (the Australian Open final between Leyton Hewitt and Marat Safin) which did not include one or more of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or Andy Murray. And he was the lowest ranked seed (14) to win a major since Pete Sampras (17) did it in 2002. But what was really impressive was that he won the last three rounds - over Tomas Berdych, Roger Federer, and Kei Nishikori respectively, all seeded higher then him - without dropping a set. All three were simply blown away.
A year ago Cilic was serving out the last months of a ban for taking a forbidden substance. That punishment seems to have been the grit in the oyster for a remarkable comeback. He hired Goran Ivanisevic, a former Wimbledon champion, as his coach. Goran told him to go for his shots, and boy, did he do so. I thought Federer had good chances to win his semi-final, but he was simply demolished.
The big question now is whether Cilic is a one-major wonder (a la Juan Martin del Potro) or whether he will go on to win many more. Professionals often say that the most difficult major to win is not the first, but the second. Whatever the case, Cilic has certainly shaken up the world of men's tennis.
Walter Blotscher
Croatian Marin Cilic' performance in winning the U.S. Open tennis tournament on Monday was extraordinary. The final was the first for a Grand Slam tournament since January 2005 (the Australian Open final between Leyton Hewitt and Marat Safin) which did not include one or more of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or Andy Murray. And he was the lowest ranked seed (14) to win a major since Pete Sampras (17) did it in 2002. But what was really impressive was that he won the last three rounds - over Tomas Berdych, Roger Federer, and Kei Nishikori respectively, all seeded higher then him - without dropping a set. All three were simply blown away.
A year ago Cilic was serving out the last months of a ban for taking a forbidden substance. That punishment seems to have been the grit in the oyster for a remarkable comeback. He hired Goran Ivanisevic, a former Wimbledon champion, as his coach. Goran told him to go for his shots, and boy, did he do so. I thought Federer had good chances to win his semi-final, but he was simply demolished.
The big question now is whether Cilic is a one-major wonder (a la Juan Martin del Potro) or whether he will go on to win many more. Professionals often say that the most difficult major to win is not the first, but the second. Whatever the case, Cilic has certainly shaken up the world of men's tennis.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 8 September 2014
CZECH
One of the nice things about my trip to the Czech Republic last week was being in a European country where I neither knew nor could guess any of the language. Which in turn meant that I had to work hard in order to be understood.
First up, somewhat surprisingly, was German rather than English. We were in the northern part of the country, close to the Polish border, in what was once called the Sudetenland. This was the German-speaking part of the former Czechoslovakia that Hitler annexed prior to the Second World War. After the war the Germans, both Nazi-sympathisers and not, were unceremoniously booted out, a decision which continues to affect German-Czech relations today. The German influence lingers on in the large number of tourists, and the fact that people in the service industries - waitresses, hotel staff - are more likely to speak German than English.
Thereafter, I could use the smattering of Czech words that I learned; hello, thank you, etc. It's amazing how much affect it has if you say something to another person in their own language, way beyond the literal meaning of the words themselves.
Slavic languages have not taken off in other countries in the same way that (say) Spanish has. One reason may be the difficult grammar. Russian, Polish and Czech all have lots of cases, just like Latin (Czech has seven). German still has four, but the fiddly things have died out in other Latin-derived languages, as well as in Scandinavian languages and English. Perhaps if the same thing had happened in Czech, then more foreigners would speak it.
Walter Blotscher
One of the nice things about my trip to the Czech Republic last week was being in a European country where I neither knew nor could guess any of the language. Which in turn meant that I had to work hard in order to be understood.
First up, somewhat surprisingly, was German rather than English. We were in the northern part of the country, close to the Polish border, in what was once called the Sudetenland. This was the German-speaking part of the former Czechoslovakia that Hitler annexed prior to the Second World War. After the war the Germans, both Nazi-sympathisers and not, were unceremoniously booted out, a decision which continues to affect German-Czech relations today. The German influence lingers on in the large number of tourists, and the fact that people in the service industries - waitresses, hotel staff - are more likely to speak German than English.
Thereafter, I could use the smattering of Czech words that I learned; hello, thank you, etc. It's amazing how much affect it has if you say something to another person in their own language, way beyond the literal meaning of the words themselves.
Slavic languages have not taken off in other countries in the same way that (say) Spanish has. One reason may be the difficult grammar. Russian, Polish and Czech all have lots of cases, just like Latin (Czech has seven). German still has four, but the fiddly things have died out in other Latin-derived languages, as well as in Scandinavian languages and English. Perhaps if the same thing had happened in Czech, then more foreigners would speak it.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 7 September 2014
WASPS
Some people have a thing about wasps, and some are allergic to their stings. Basically, I don't have a problem with them.
Having said that, I was stung by one on my upper lip yesterday, which was not very pleasant. It was trying to get into the can of beer that I was drinking at the time, when I noticed it and very nearly ate it. My lip swelled up, but then went down again after a couple of hours.
What was most interesting about this event is that it took place while I was sitting in a canoe in the middle of Kolding Fjord. I have no idea what a wasp would be doing out there in the middle of a September afternoon, but there it was.
Walter Blotscher
Some people have a thing about wasps, and some are allergic to their stings. Basically, I don't have a problem with them.
Having said that, I was stung by one on my upper lip yesterday, which was not very pleasant. It was trying to get into the can of beer that I was drinking at the time, when I noticed it and very nearly ate it. My lip swelled up, but then went down again after a couple of hours.
What was most interesting about this event is that it took place while I was sitting in a canoe in the middle of Kolding Fjord. I have no idea what a wasp would be doing out there in the middle of a September afternoon, but there it was.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
