Polish election

I am taking time out from fruitless discussions with members of the Conservative Party who assure me that a referendum on the EU would hurt the country because "it is the economy, stupid". The referendum on the EU, in my opinion would hurt the eurosceptic cause but would hardly affect the country. I tried the bombard them with question tactics: do these people know how much of our economy is controlled, one way or another, by the EU; have they read the treaties and the various directives and regulations; have they understood Qualified Majority Voting; and so on. The response I got mostly was that we are in this and so we had better stay in for the duration (which is what we are likely to do, sadly) and, anyway, the government has the right idea by fighting for Britain's national interests within the EU. I rest my case: we need an in/out referendum like a hole in the head.

Anyway, I am taking time out to survey other countries. First up, Poland, where parliamentary elections are taking place today. Voice of America reports

Opinion polls in the past week showed Tusk's party favored by 31 percent of respondents, and the opposition conservative Law and Justice Party of former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski with 21 percent.

Analysts say no party will win an outright majority, and those predicting a Tusk victory say he will likely be forced to form a ruling coalition similar to the one forged with the Peasants' Party after 2007 polls.

Official results are expected by early Monday.

Pre-election polls also indicated that three other parties would also win parliamentary seats in the election. The new socially and economically liberal Palikot Support Movement, the Democratic Left Alliance and the current coalition partner, the Polish People Party.

If Tusk's Civic Platform wins it will be the first time in post-Communist Poland that a party has held power beyond one term.

The BBC thinks that the contest will be fairly close. Reuters agrees. Much depends on the turn-out. According to Polish Radio News things do not look very good:

The National Election Commission has announced that at 18.00 CET, turnout was 39.6 percent, down on the same time, four years ago. Turnout during the 2007 election was officially 53.8 percent.

Polls are about to close, as Poland is one hour ahead of the UK.

UPDATE: Exit polls say that Tusk's party is likely to win though no word yet on the turn-out. Official results expected tomorrow.

A few more updates here. Looks like Civic Platform will be largest party and, probably, the same coalition will be re-negotiated. However, the one to watch is the Palikot Movement that was created last year and has achieved 10 per cent of the vote.

Janusz Palikot, who founded his new party only last year after he left the ruling Civic Platform because he thought they were too socially conservative, was overjoyed at getting 10 percent of the vote, nationwide, according to exit polls.

“This is phenomenal. Eighteen months ago, opinion polls gave the Palikot Movement from one to two percent [in support],” he said tonight.

Palikot has taken votes from socially liberal Civic Platform supporters and the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), support for which has fallen to 7.7 percent from 13 percent in the last elections four years ago.

The Catholic Church may well find that these people are more formidable than Tusk's lot.

Welcoming another nation into the Anglophone family

The BBC reports that the newest country in Africa and, indeed, the world, South Sudan has decided to make English its official language, which is a very sensible move for anybody who wants to get ahead in the modern world. One can but hope that they will start adopting other Anglospheric ideas in politics, economics and, above all, the law; ideas that we have, for some reason abandoned in this country.

The colourful banners and billboards hung out to celebrate South Sudan's independence back in July, and still adorning the streets now, are all in English. As are the names of the new hotels, shops and restaurants.

After decades of Arabisation and Islamisation by the Khartoum government, the predominantly Christian and African south has opted for English as its official language.

At the Ministry of Higher Education, Edward Mokole, told me: "English will make us different and modern. From now on all our laws, textbooks and official documents have to be written in that language. Schools, the police, retail and the media must all operate in English."

How can one not be inspired by this story:

Brigadier-General Awur Malual had asked the British Council to teach his soldiers.

The general had grown up speaking his tribal tongue Bor and Juba Arabic, a colloquial form of Arabic, but can now speak remarkably good English.

When I asked him how he had learned it, he told me: "By picking up books in the bush when I was fighting. I read some things about that man Shakespeare."


"What about Dickens or Jane Austen?" I asked. He scratched his head and said: "I don't know them."

I promised to send the general some Dickens.

It is a pity that the British Council director's response was a shade on the mealy-mouthed side:

After 65 years operating in Sudan, the council appointed Tony Calderbank to oversee the spread of English in the new nation.

Wherever Tony went, I saw people approach him, desperate for courses, books, teachers and grants.

"English has become a tool for development," Tony told me, "and, even if the British in Sudan are sometimes seen as colonial overlords, the English language is respected."

Goodness me, the man can barely hide his excitement. Would it not be a good idea for him to learn some of the country's history? For example something about the real oppression the South Sudanese have had to put up with, that coming from their northern neighbour, Sudan, and the Arab slave traders. He might then understand that there are many reasons why the South Sudanese might prefer to have English as the unifying language.

No-one ever accused Hamas of being diplomatic

Ismail Haniya, Hamas Leader and periodic Prime Minister of the Gaza strip, depending on your point of view, has managed to annoy the government of the new country of South Sudan as well as let the cat out of the bag (not that it was ever much in that bag) about Hamas's attitude to Israel and the creation of the Palestinian state.

According to a report published by the daily Sudanese newspaper Al-Ahdath last week, Haniya was delivering a Friday prayer sermon on 30 October when he described South Sudan as a “foundling state” as he strongly advocated the view that Palestinians should seek to establish their state through armed struggle not at the UN General Assembly.

“We have not heard in history that states were established through international resolutions, even this foundling state in South Sudan, which was severed from Sudan’s main homeland, did not come to exist through a UN resolution but rather through fighting and agreements,” he was quoted.

Haniya further said that establishing a Palestinian state with its capital Jerusalem is the goal of all Palestinian people, stressing that it is not acceptable that a Palestinian state be established in exchange for ceding a span of the hand of Palestinian territories.”

“We support the establishment of a Palestinian state on liberated territories but without recognizing the [Israeli] occupation,” he added.

Reacting to his statement, the government of South Sudan expressed regret and denunciation over Haniya’s remarks.

The head of South Sudan’s diplomatic mission in Egypt, Farmina Makueit, described Haniya’s statement as “irresponsible” and called on him to apologize to South Sudanese people.

Will he be criticized by the Guardian? Just asking.

Two interesting takes on Steve Jobs

Although Steve Jobs's contribution to people's ability to express themselves feely and to communicate openly was enormous, I have not written about his death because I did not think I could add anything of real interest or importance to the oceans of coverage the event received.

However, two pieces have caught my attention (yes, all right, they are both by friends even if one of them is a cyber friend and co-blogger on Chicagoboyz merely) that I thought were worth linking to.

Shannon Love analyzes why Jobs should have evoked the kind attention and admiration that is not usually given to entrepreneurs.

Psychologists have long noted that people don’t resent all wealthy equally. People resent millionaire bankers but don’t resent actors, athletes or musicians who make as much or more for less work of far less import. The key differences seems to be that the work of bankers is mysterious and largely invisible to the ordinary person while the work of actors and athletes occurs right out in the open where everyone can see it. People can connect specific songs or other works of art with specific artists. People don’t seem to intuitively begrudge great wealth and power as long as they can “see” the work that created the wealth and connect that to an individual.

When people used a Mac, iPhone, iPad or iTunes, they got an intuitive sense of results of Jobs work. In a sense, they could “see” him working just like they could see the work of an athlete or an actor. When people held an iPhone, they thought, “Steve Jobs created this.”

Though I still find it extraordinary that people should resent the wealth of business people but not that of empty celebrities or lottery winners, I think Mr Love has a point. I am not a Mac user (though I am wondering whether to change) but I can see and understand the achievements of Apple. Those who are users can do so a hundred-fold.

The other piece is by Jim Bennett, the godfather of the Anglosphere as Andrew Roberts put it (I am going in for an orgy of name-dropping today), published on the RFE/RL website.

There are, fundamentally, two subspecies of entrepreneur. One starts from the present, and visualizes the next logical step from where things are now. This type figures out how to make something better, cheaper, or more widely available, and manages to clear the financial, regulatory, and market barriers to getting it into the marketplace. The other visualizes a different world, one in which things are different and better from the way they are now, and then figures out what path of evolution brings us to that world, and, as the last step, what is the least ambitious step possible that will move things toward that goal.

Steve Jobs was one of the latter group, and one of the most successful of his time. It’s common to use the term “visionary entrepreneur” in describing the founder of any successful large-scale start-up business. Yet this term is only really applicable to the latter type. Often, what the former is visualizing is a really large pile of money, which differs from the ambitions of the common man only in the size of the pile. Steve Jobs genuinely merited the title of visionary.

Of course, not all visionaries are successful in implementing their vision and not all visions benefit mankind. Far from it, as the history of the twentieth century can attest. In the case of Jobs, his vision was beneficial and he did succeed in implementing it. Read the whole piece.

Good things here

If you want to read good arguments about the morality of capitalism (let's face it, the only political system that spreads wealth fairly widely) then you might like to have a look at this book. The Morality of Capitalism is free to download and my friend Tom Palmer (another cat-lover) wrote the introduction as well as a couple of chapters.

Silent majority is much liked as long as it stays silent

Many moons ago I recall having an exchange of letters in the columns of a newspaper (cannot recall which one) with someone who asserted that Fidel Castro was immensely popular in Cuba for all the things he had done for the people of that country. Without going too deeply into the question of what had he done exactly, I asked why Comrade Castro, if he knows how popular he is, had never put that to the test by calling a free election. There was no reply.

Far it be from me to suggest that the EU and its members are in the same position as the unfortunate Cubans have been for the last sixty-plus years but one cannot help wondering where employees of the European Commission get their political understanding from.

According to Johannes Laitenberger, head of cabinet to the European Commission president, the commission has more allies in its bid to re-assume control of the eurozone debt crisis - currently managed in a piecemeal fashion by member states - than is apparent at first sight.

"The first and best ally that we have in all of this is the silent majority who too often is drowned out by a very vocal minority of sceptics and critics but which is much more solid than we care to think," Laitenberger said Tuesday (4 October) at an event organised by the European Policy Centre.

"I am very confident that there are enough people, enough institutions, enough forces, that can be mobilised. You sense that the tide is turning. Many people who at the beginning of the discussion did not raise their voices are more forceful, more decisive and saying more clearly what needs to be done."

There is, as it happens, no evidence for any of this though I have no doubt plenty of institutions, particularly those that are part of the European project one way or another, will support the calls for a single economic governance.

Of course, the great advantage of a silent majority is that one can attribute any opinion to it under the sun. The only condition is that it should remain silent and that can be achieved by making sure that nothing important is ever put to the vote.

I wonder ...

The news that Sarah Palin has decided not to run for the Republican Party's candidacy is not exactly a surprise though somewhat more so than Prime Minister Putin's decision to take on the mantle of presidency in Russia. (OK, that's a joke. I am not comparing the two and please don't send comments telling me that there is no difference between them.)

She is most definitely not retiring from politics but intends to continue her somewhat anomalous but perfectly understandable position of being the most outspoken promoter of small government, free trade and low taxation. So far so good. Undoubtedly many people will try to interpret her decision and the explanation she gave Mark Levin (she has learnt her lesson about unfriendly reporters).

Via Instapundit we come to an interesting article on American Thinker, which calls the decision the right one and the performance pitch-perfect

Last night, Sarah Palin's statement -- and her breaking news interview with Mark Levin -- stressed some extremely important ideas. As such, her not running might well be among the least important topics she touched on. Yes, I know that's the news that everybody was waiting for -- but what interested me most was what Palin said about her vision for America and how she said it. It was crafted very intentionally --and it was simply pitch-perfect.

Palin spoke of ideas and priorities. These were above and beyond what particular position she -- or anyone else -- might play in our arena of ideas. That she's still very much in the arena -- and planning on making a difference -- is obvious.

So, what have we here? That rare bird, a politician to whom future of country matters more than her own immediate career? A politician who is playing a deep and, so far, successful game? Either way, she is not the ditz-headed moron that the MSM and the left (but I repeat myself) like to portray but then we knew that.