Friday, May 8, 2015
A brief comment
I shall be writing a longer blog about the election results later on and have many things to say. Well, you would not expect me to keep quiet.
First, however, I shall gloat: who predicted that the Conservatives will win a small overall majority and UKIP will end up with just one seat? And who gets no money for her analyses and predictions? Going on from there, allow me to ask how many of those highly paid analysts and experts who got everything wrong will do the decent thing and resign? Ha! The answer is a nice round number.
On that and much more (for instance what do we do about Scotland now and whither UKIP) later on, after I have done a stint on the BBC Russian Service.
In the meantime, let us rejoice in the discomfiture of many of our enemies, particularly the highly paid analysts and experts. I suspect I shall be reminding them of the drivel they wrote in the last few weeks for some time to come.
Oh and I shall be arguing that UKIP is a classic example of a Continental party. Heh!
Well, nobody has ever said that I was a nice person or particularly ladylike.
First, however, I shall gloat: who predicted that the Conservatives will win a small overall majority and UKIP will end up with just one seat? And who gets no money for her analyses and predictions? Going on from there, allow me to ask how many of those highly paid analysts and experts who got everything wrong will do the decent thing and resign? Ha! The answer is a nice round number.
On that and much more (for instance what do we do about Scotland now and whither UKIP) later on, after I have done a stint on the BBC Russian Service.
In the meantime, let us rejoice in the discomfiture of many of our enemies, particularly the highly paid analysts and experts. I suspect I shall be reminding them of the drivel they wrote in the last few weeks for some time to come.
Oh and I shall be arguing that UKIP is a classic example of a Continental party. Heh!
Well, nobody has ever said that I was a nice person or particularly ladylike.
And now ...
01.30
From the BBC website:
01.28
At 01.10 Nick Robinson tweeted this on the BBC:
01.20
Is it time to start asking what role the DUP will play in the new Parliament and the new government?
01.17
Conservatives have held two seats and Labour has held four, one of which is Nick Brown's in Newcastle East, though there seem to be swings to the Tories. Rumour has it that George Galloway has lost (still only a rumour so let us not rejoice too soon) and, as a fact, he has been reported to the West Yorkshire police for tweeting exit polls before said polls had closed.
There are also rumours that Nigel Farage may have lost in South Thanet. As part of his reason for contesting that seat was to make sure that Craig McKinlay does not get in, one can but hope that he will fail to achieve that aim.
00.03
Exit polls, which were fairly accurate in 2010 but not always before that, put the Conservatives at 316, comfortably ahead but with no overall majority with Labour winning 239 seats, Lib-Dems 10, the SNP 58 (could the Scots be that mad really?) and UKIP 2, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Greens 2, which is more than anyone predicted for them and is rather a depressing thought. So far the three results in are all seats in Sunderland, held by Labour and tells us very little.
From the BBC website:
Polling expert John Curtice says the results so far broadly reflect the exit poll. The initial forecast is looking "certainly reasonably OK". He does not rule out the Conservatives taking 323 seats, which would give them a majority in the Commons.Ha! I may yet proved to be right on a small Tory majority.
01.28
At 01.10 Nick Robinson tweeted this on the BBC:
If this exit poll is correct, for Ed Miliband's Labour Party to do worse than Gordon Brown's Labour Party would be amazing. After the banking crisis that we had under Brown, after his personal unpopularity, it really, really would be quite extraordinary.Quite so.
01.20
Is it time to start asking what role the DUP will play in the new Parliament and the new government?
01.17
Conservatives have held two seats and Labour has held four, one of which is Nick Brown's in Newcastle East, though there seem to be swings to the Tories. Rumour has it that George Galloway has lost (still only a rumour so let us not rejoice too soon) and, as a fact, he has been reported to the West Yorkshire police for tweeting exit polls before said polls had closed.
There are also rumours that Nigel Farage may have lost in South Thanet. As part of his reason for contesting that seat was to make sure that Craig McKinlay does not get in, one can but hope that he will fail to achieve that aim.
00.03
Exit polls, which were fairly accurate in 2010 but not always before that, put the Conservatives at 316, comfortably ahead but with no overall majority with Labour winning 239 seats, Lib-Dems 10, the SNP 58 (could the Scots be that mad really?) and UKIP 2, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Greens 2, which is more than anyone predicted for them and is rather a depressing thought. So far the three results in are all seats in Sunderland, held by Labour and tells us very little.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Well, we've made it
[I wrote the following paragraphs at 4.27 this afternoon, then abandoned it for other activity, which included watching the 1948 film Cry of the City at the National Film Theatre. I have only just sat down in front of the computer and decided to post this as a kind of a prediction before I look at the news.]
We've made it to election day at least though there is plenty of time left for pundits to pour out silliness by the bucket-load. That will continue throughout this evening and I am not at all sure I shall bother to stay up late. It will have to be very late as we are unlikely to have any clear ideas about the future for some time. This is not 1997.
For what it's worth I think we shall have a Conservative government with a tiny majority or in a minority. Whether that will mean another coalition with the Lib-Dims remains to be seen. Furthermore, I do not think UKIP will do well. This is being acknowledged by all and sundry but the likelihood of them peaking long before election day was fairly clear to me for some time.
OK, OK, tomorrow I might have to eat crow but not, I suspect, about UKIP.
We've made it to election day at least though there is plenty of time left for pundits to pour out silliness by the bucket-load. That will continue throughout this evening and I am not at all sure I shall bother to stay up late. It will have to be very late as we are unlikely to have any clear ideas about the future for some time. This is not 1997.
For what it's worth I think we shall have a Conservative government with a tiny majority or in a minority. Whether that will mean another coalition with the Lib-Dims remains to be seen. Furthermore, I do not think UKIP will do well. This is being acknowledged by all and sundry but the likelihood of them peaking long before election day was fairly clear to me for some time.
OK, OK, tomorrow I might have to eat crow but not, I suspect, about UKIP.
Um, no it doesn't
EurActiv quotes Norway’s minister for EEA and EU Affairs, Vidar Helgesen, on the subject of Brexit and the debates around them.
Three things need to be said before we look at what Mr Helgesen said. Firstly, the country he represents is not a member of the EU because its people have consistently voted against that membership; secondly, the country has remained an active player on the international scene; and thirdly, despite what the article says, Brexit has not been "high on the British election campaign agenda" precisely because David Cameron promised "an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership if he is re-elected". What was relatively high on the agenda was the referendum and whether one should be held. The question of Brexit itself was neatly shelved for the time being.
Nevertheless, it seems that Mr Helgesen is sufficiently worried to issue a warning.
As for the position of influence (I am aware that I have not completed my discussion of that subject), one has to say that within the EU's common foreign policy Britain has about zero, unlike the influence and, indeed, the choice of action it has within NATO.
Still it is good of Mr Helgesen to admit that it is the British people who should determine that. Just as the Norwegian people have determined twice that this was not for them.
Three things need to be said before we look at what Mr Helgesen said. Firstly, the country he represents is not a member of the EU because its people have consistently voted against that membership; secondly, the country has remained an active player on the international scene; and thirdly, despite what the article says, Brexit has not been "high on the British election campaign agenda" precisely because David Cameron promised "an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership if he is re-elected". What was relatively high on the agenda was the referendum and whether one should be held. The question of Brexit itself was neatly shelved for the time being.
Nevertheless, it seems that Mr Helgesen is sufficiently worried to issue a warning.
But Helgesen says there are some important aspects of EU membership that have been left out of the British debate so far.I am not sure what of the debate Mr Helgesen has been reading but the questions of defence, security and foreign policy have come up a few times and discussed from various angles.
For example, a British exist - or 'Brexit' - could leave the UK out of the comprehensive trade agreement being negotiated with the United States.
'Brexit' would also leave the UK out of important EU foreign ministers meetings addressing the standoff with Russia over Ukraine.
“Leaving that position of influence… I have a hard time seeing that. I don’t think it would serve Europe, but ultimately that is the British people who should determine that,” he said.
As for the position of influence (I am aware that I have not completed my discussion of that subject), one has to say that within the EU's common foreign policy Britain has about zero, unlike the influence and, indeed, the choice of action it has within NATO.
Still it is good of Mr Helgesen to admit that it is the British people who should determine that. Just as the Norwegian people have determined twice that this was not for them.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
We are getting there
I do not believe I have ever watched or experienced a more boring, stupid and content-less campaign in all the years (since my school days) that I have been interested in politics. As the last day of campaigning wears on I shall write about it some more but now I'd like to concentrate briefly on one subject that is supposed to be the political holy of holies: the NHS.
We all know what a lot of nonsense is spoken about it; we all know how ridiculous is the claim that without the NHS most people would not have access to healthcare because, it would seem, in all other developed countries sick people are simply dying in the streets; and we also know that there is a great deal of nonsense spoken about the NHS being untouchable because everyone adores it and would not have things any other way. People might (but only might as I don't trust the way hacks reinterpret things) say that but the number of British people who have some kind of a health insurance is growing all the time and most employers offer some form of it as part of the employment package.
A good many of my frustrations with people who seem unable to think straight about healthcare were summed up by an interesting briefing paper, recently produced by the Institute of Economic Affairs, entitled What Are We Afraid Of? and subtitled Universal healthcare in market-oriented health systems. It is not a long paper and well worth reading (the link takes you to the pdf version of it).
Kristian Niemietz, the author, says a couple of times that he is not producing solutions to the enormous problems all healthcare systems in the developed world face but he is advocating a more rational discussion that looks at systems that are not single-payer ones, like the NHS and not the US system, which, in his opinion (and I agree) "is singled out because its well-known flaws make it a relatively easy target to attack".
The three countries he does look at have various versions of social health insurance (SHI) systems and are none the worse for it. They are Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland, where the population as a whole has access to high level of medical care but where the funding system is complex and involves a great many private for profit and non profit organizations. Yet, this systems, which would be relatively easy to introduce in the UK and they may well improve the healthcare we have, are never discussed because that might destroy the myth of the NHS's uniqueness.
Two paragraphs from the Summary give a very good idea of the inadequate standard of discussion:
Read the whole paper. The subject is not going to go away, not even after tomorrow.
We all know what a lot of nonsense is spoken about it; we all know how ridiculous is the claim that without the NHS most people would not have access to healthcare because, it would seem, in all other developed countries sick people are simply dying in the streets; and we also know that there is a great deal of nonsense spoken about the NHS being untouchable because everyone adores it and would not have things any other way. People might (but only might as I don't trust the way hacks reinterpret things) say that but the number of British people who have some kind of a health insurance is growing all the time and most employers offer some form of it as part of the employment package.
A good many of my frustrations with people who seem unable to think straight about healthcare were summed up by an interesting briefing paper, recently produced by the Institute of Economic Affairs, entitled What Are We Afraid Of? and subtitled Universal healthcare in market-oriented health systems. It is not a long paper and well worth reading (the link takes you to the pdf version of it).
Kristian Niemietz, the author, says a couple of times that he is not producing solutions to the enormous problems all healthcare systems in the developed world face but he is advocating a more rational discussion that looks at systems that are not single-payer ones, like the NHS and not the US system, which, in his opinion (and I agree) "is singled out because its well-known flaws make it a relatively easy target to attack".
The three countries he does look at have various versions of social health insurance (SHI) systems and are none the worse for it. They are Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland, where the population as a whole has access to high level of medical care but where the funding system is complex and involves a great many private for profit and non profit organizations. Yet, this systems, which would be relatively easy to introduce in the UK and they may well improve the healthcare we have, are never discussed because that might destroy the myth of the NHS's uniqueness.
Two paragraphs from the Summary give a very good idea of the inadequate standard of discussion:
The UK is far from being the only country which has achieved universal access to healthcare. With the notable exception of the US, practically all developed countries (and plenty of developing countries) have managed to do so in one way or another. But Britain is probably the only country where universal healthcare coverage is still celebrated as if it was a very special achievement.Curiously enough, soon after I finished reading the paper I came across one of those "you have one day in which to save the NHS" comments on another forum in which UK system was lauded more or less because it managed to save one person's life. Apparently, no other system could do anything of the kind.
The NHS is often unduly eulogised for minor achievements, because it is being held to unrealistically low standards. The NHS should not be compared with the state of healthcare as it was prior to 1948, or with a hypothetical situation in which all healthcare costs had to be paid out of pocket. Rather, it should be compared with the most realistic alternative: the social health insurance (SHI) systems of Continental Europe, especially the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany.
Read the whole paper. The subject is not going to go away, not even after tomorrow.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Back home
Back in Britain I find that not only nothing much has changed - the same dull election campaign going on in the same dull fashion - but we seem to have regressed. Open Europe tells us
After all, the Director of Open Europe has the following to contribute:
The latest British Chambers of Commerce EU barometer found that 63% of the 3,800 businesses surveyed said that withdrawing from the EU would have a negative impact, while 12% and 11% said it would have a positive impact or no impact respectively. The poll also found that 55% of businesses felt that remaining inside the EU but with specific powers transferred from Brussels back to Westminster would be a positive scenario compared to 10% who felt it would be negative.That's good. Has anyone told those businesses or their representatives who were packed off to answer the survey, that there really is very little possibility of specific powers coming back to Westminster in the circumstances as they are? Probably not.
After all, the Director of Open Europe has the following to contribute:
I think the Conservatives could reclaim some powers, strengthen the role of the UK Parliament and have more of a Common Market-style membership. That’s what the UK joined for in the first place.Not exactly Mr Persson. What the UK joined and what a number of people thought they joined are two different things. That appears to be the problem to this day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)