Chandler's

New home for Chandler

2005-11-20T20:45:00.000Z

Due to my professional engagement and my general laziness, I unfortunately don't have enough time to run my own blog any longer.

Therefore I have decided to move into Will Porter's (mostly German language-) porterHaus blog.

Thanks Will.

The porterHaus lives under: porterhaus.blogspot.com

German general elections: more of the same

2005-09-19T08:51:00.000+01:00

Well. Flying back from two weeks on the Maldives (brilliant) yesterday - I was reading the latest issue of the Economist which emphasized the need for change in Germany.

Yesterday's general elections however, have not brought any change. Even if Merkel's conservatives could secure a disappointing 1 percent victory - the outcome is still a stalemate.

Hence, nobody will be able to form a powerful coalition able to conduct decisive actions to liberalize Germany's rigid labor structures. Even a so called 'grand coalition' formed of the two major parties will probably lead to half-hearted compromise rather than to a policy of progressive change.

So, more of the same it is in Germany and one will see how long this country will bear these political configuration before calling for elections again.

Met Campaign against domestic violence

2005-09-06T14:12:00.000+01:00

Read the following advertising by the MET to fight domestic violence, and think what is not right:

No - it's not the fact that the MET is fighting domestic violence. It's the fact that the MET is proud to be able to arrest men without any statement, without any evidence.

And why is it focussing on men only?

Don't blame Bush - Help!

2005-09-03T10:00:00.000+01:00

While the Guardian fears that more than 10,000 people have become victims of hurricane Katrina, the media has concentrated all its resources on the disaster.

From accusations about underestimated climate changes onto mismanagement of the emergency itself - we have heard it all. Shocking images of looting mobs have made their way around the world - always mixed with a little bit of schadenfreude - because 'we always knew that this government' can only cause problems.

This way of media coverage, especially in Europe, isn't of any help for the people who are still in the city and the affected areas. It isn't of any help for those who are still fighting to survive and even those who have managed to get out - they probably have lost their existence.

in this situation - do we really need discussions on whether Bush underestimated the global warming or whether too many national guard soldiers have been deployed to Iraq? No, we certainly do not!

New Orleans and the southern states are experiencing one of the worst traumas a civilized society can experience. The society seems to be threatened by rioting zealots and help isn't working as expected. This city needs immediate help and focused planning in order to ease the immediate and long term pain for those who have lost their houses, jobs and loved ones.

This help can be provided indirectly by the international community, by means of money, international oil stocks and economic and logistic management to avoid price increases and shortages of required goods.

The urgent support, as medical assistance, food and shelter has to provided by the US government immediately - they have the resources to do so.

Even the most sophisticated emergency plan could not have prevented the civil unrest - that is not so much resulting from the disaster itself, but from the social tensions which are so inherent to many US major cities (And I have to say many British cities too). Let's not forget that many refused to leave the city - among them those who were hoping for looting and lawlessness. Let's not forget that the same people fired on rescue helicopters and busses who arrived after the disaster.

This is a problem but this is not to blame on the president and the national administration solely. The example of Giuliani's New York has shown how much of a difference a decisive urban strategy can make. And civil unrest could always been found in the recent history of the states.

So please - and this goes out to the European media - please stop to fall for ridiculous connections between the Bush administration and the disaster itself - those arguments are solely originating from a deep aversion against his presidency - not from scientific facts.

Katrina: Blog reports from New Orleans

2005-09-01T18:23:00.000+01:00

Well, what can we say. It's like the pictures from the tsunami but this time it hit an highly developed country with enormous recourses available - but the results are not less devastating.

New Orleans is an demonstration on how easily civil order and security can break down, a reminder on the importance and luxury of our daily life, that too often is taken for granted.

The Broken Windows blog reports from New Orleans and shows what the TV and the News cannot show - the feelings of despair and fear among those who are watching their friends, and those who are trapped inside the growing chaos.

Lord of the Rings star joins 24's CTU

2005-08-27T13:20:00.000+01:00

Yep. It's probably mainstream rubbish, it's shallow, repeptative and fukkin bloody wicked! So - I like it. Big time.

And good news are to be announced since FOX announced that Sean Astin, previously known as a hobbit from LOTRs, will join Los Angeles CTU in the series' 5th installment. Unfortunately FOX isn't telling much about the plot - so we simply have to wait...

Sooooo mean.

Binge-Spin

2005-08-26T16:52:00.000+01:00

Whatever the government wants to tell you - we Brits are not the only ones that have a nice old binge drinking problem.

The IHT online features an interesting article on our South Corean fellow drinkers:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/26/news/drink.php

Animal Rights Terrorists

2005-08-26T11:04:00.000+01:00

Animal Rights activists might have a case when it comes to cosmetics.

But even that is debatable since cosmetic and medical evidence is often intertwined.

Saying that - there are no justifications whatsoever to applt violent measures and terrorism against operators and workers of animal research facilities.

It's not an easy business, and despite its importance not really appreciated in public.

IIn my opinion the government should apply the full power of the law against mindless zealots who have nothing better to do than sabotaging valuable research - aimed at saving lives and fightig deseases.

Further information:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1748664,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/0,11917,687263,00.html

Davi Brent goes to Hollywood

2005-08-24T22:11:00.000+01:00

Ricky Gervais aka Managament Guru David Brent is about to kick of his Hollywood career in a film named 'For Your Consideration'.

Word on the street is that he will play a producer having problems to get his film successfully throug to the awards.

Great news I say - Brentism will spread around the world and become the new school of everything.

Spin Doctors

2005-08-23T15:56:00.000+01:00

As the International Herald Tribune announces, Bush and his allies are starting a pr campaign to boost support for the Iraq engagement.

Since there might be a need to do so in the US, this certainly is the case in the UK where support - despite the London bombings, is continuously decreasing.

It's unsure however, if Blair will be able to explain the good causes for the war to Britain's critical public and if not the mere attempt to do so might have negative drawbacks for his popularity.

"Why buy a book when you can join a library."

2005-08-21T13:01:00.000+01:00

R. Gervais

V for Music

2005-08-20T23:39:00.000+01:00

All the hype around the Live8 concert for a really crappy day of C-rated music. The real deal probably is the V festival - with a line up that leaves Glastonbury crying in shame:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4166524.stm

No alternative to 'shoot to kill' practice

2005-08-20T08:07:00.000+01:00

The unfortunate death of Jean Charles de Menezes has not highlighted, as many suggest in these days, the failure of the shoot to death policy employed by the police when it comes to stopping suicide bombers.

Rather it has shown how delicate and fragile the human decision making process works - especially situations with a high level of stress. Mistakes have been made because the human element failed to act in rational ways - and humans will continue to fail in those situations.

Granted, for the family and also the shocked public the de Menezes incident might be hard to believe - but it merely emphasizes how important it is to continue a high level intelligence operation to collect as much information as possible on potential terrorist threats.

It emphasizes that we cannot construct a perfect protection and that security always is an illusion. However, using this tragic case of human failure to build a case against the shoot to kill practice would be a major mistake.

Shoot to kill might be the only way to stop a person - determined to kill himself and others - from detonating a device in a crowded area. Certainly - it is the last resort, but without this option - what should we tell the police men who are pursuing a man who might have the power to kill them at will? Why should we care about protection at all?

So whom to blame for the de Menezes death? The officers that fired the bullet? Not if they really believed that Menezes was a suicide bomber. The intelligent officers who provided the wrong information? No - because the same argument applies for them. The police, who issued the shoot to kill order in general? Certainly not!

So whom - in my opinion there is only one answer - the terrorists who attacked and tried to attack London.

Guardian: Police rethink shoot to kill policy

Nuclear Crisis - Will Tehran succeed?

2005-08-11T11:58:00.000+01:00

Iran is pursuing the nuclear bomb - that goes without question. The middle-east country has ignored the requests of the European Union not to re-start the processing and enrichment of uranium as long as the negotiations are going on. This is undermining Iran's assertions to continue talking to the UK, France and Germany about a diplomatic conclusion of the situation.
Iran is claiming to strive for the peaceful use of nuclear technologies only.

But how can one believe in this hollow statement since the Isfahan site is fully equipped to process yellow cake for the production of nuclear bombs? How can one sincerely believe that a nation steered by hardliners will resign from its well known and established plans to get the bomb that is regarded so highly in order to establish a level playing field with the countries two great enemies - Israel and the US.

The election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the pressure to re-start the countries nuclear programme (if it was ever fully stopped) coincides with the progress of Iranian scientists . This is worrying news and it is not unlikely that Tehran may be successful in preventing the US and the European Union from taking its worries in front of the security council.

An military operation seems to be unbearable. To expensive - and especially under the light of the recent terror attacks on London to hard to sell. Iran knows this and sees a glorious end to its ambition to become the most powerful Islamic country - the only one that possesses the nuclear bomb and managed to resist the 'evil' alliance of the infidels.

This is a dangerous situation - especially since time is running out. The European 3 are in risk of continuing fruitless negotiations while at the same time Iran is finishing the job. The US has all reasons to become growingly suspicious on this approach - but on the other hand has no viable alternatives to consider.

A one sided threat - like those of the US and the UK prior to the Iraq Invasion - would be laughed at in Tehran. Furthermore - the discordances between Old Europe and the Alliance has led to a bloody but successful strategy of terror - Al Qaida was no longer trying to hit the main enemy - the US or Israel - but his allies of which it is knows that the war against terror is seen critical in large parts of the public opinion.

But unity and decisive actions are now required to stop a small group of fanatics from laying their hands on the most destructive weapon there is - and preventing a war in the middle east.

Livingstone blames West's appetite for oil for London Bombings

2005-07-20T11:02:00.000+01:00

Apparently Ken Livingstone - Mayor of London, whose main job it usually is to expand the c-charge zone up to the Irish Sea, has now fallen to the Spin of radical pacifists and Muslims:

"Mr Livingstone was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme what he thought had motivated the bombers.

He replied: "I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. "

Harsh, isn't it? Especially for a Mayor of a town which is the latest victim of terrorism - which was purely motivated by hate towards the western and Christian way of life. No foreign citizens from poor, exploited Oil countries were involved - just fish battering and Cricket playing Brits - all of them radicalized in good old Blimey's mosques.

But Ken doesn't stop there - he urgently felt the need to express his understanding for suicide bombers in general:

"Mr Livingstone said he did not just denounce suicide bombers.

He also denounced "those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come, irrespective of the casualties it inflicts, women, children and men".

He continued: "Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves." "

It seems fairly obvious that Kenny Boy has neither a clue of his own party's policy nor of history at all - which of course doesn't really for being a Mayor of a city as diverse and multi-cultural as the capital.

But it is certainly highly important to emphasize that those countries, that were exploited under British occupation - such as India - are now completely impoverished - and their only way to get back on track is to bomb commuters to smitherness ;-).

Yes - and of course - it would happen in England - remember the legions of Northern Irish suicide bombers during the height of the Ulster conflict - yeah right, they used only car bombs and were usually polite enough to give the Yard a call... but who cares!

Nice one, Ken!

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm

How to prepare against Suicide bombers

2005-07-14T09:38:00.000+01:00

The BBC features an interesting article on how security forces might be able to defend themselves against suicide bombers.

Written by Crsipin Black - an intelligence analyst with Janusian SRM - it provides an unbiased and informed view on intelligence tactics and the phenomenon of the suicide bomber.

Good morning London

2005-07-08T08:45:00.000+01:00

Yes, London was the major target terrorist tried to hit so long - at least since the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.

But no, it was not the shining victory for the Islamic terrorist - they didn't paralyse Britain's capital and didn't succeed in spreading the same surprise and horrors as in New York and Madrid.

This is partly due top the fact that no one really was surprised by the attacks - and partly to the high level of preparation and calm reactions of both, the emergency services and the public itself.

London is used to this - the Blitz is long ago but struggles with the IRA in Northern Ireland and the bombs of the 80s and 90s in London have taught us invaluable lessons - plus the increased security training since 9/11.

It is highly likely that the terrorists failed in hitting their main targets - it's hard to believe that the bombs were really scheduled to go off in the tunnel - probably Liverpool Street Station was the only prime target that was hit - other targets may include the big stations like Paddington (probably the explosion on Edgware road), Kings Cross and Bank station - were delays were reported earlier in the morning.

Furthermore the numbers of innocent victims is going down since New York - which is mainly due to the increased security measures which prevent terrorists from attacking high risk targets as airlines, nuclear power plants etc.

That's a good thing - and even if the death toll is still rising - London seems to be back on track. Travelling to work this morning showed the familiar red busses - tube stations are prepared for re-opening Hyde Park was full of cyclists and pedestrians on their way to work.

Terrorist will fail more and more to cause civil disruption. People are getting used to it and the more they do the less understanding there is for the stupid atrocities of the Islamic fanatics.
And then there is the thing with the G8 - probably the terrorists thought it was a clever idea to hit Britain while hosting the world's 8 most powerful man. Nope! It was not. At no other occasion those who should be united in the war against terror had the chance to stand really united behind their words - and those who where doubtful in the past - like Germany's Schroeder or Russia's Putin, will see how important a united answer to such senseless violence is.

There is no room for childish disputes. There is no room for explaining how important it is to understand the causes of the terrorists. There is only room for united, strong and decisive action. And the mere image of the G8 leaders standing behind Tony Blair was not what the terrorist could have whished for.

Since the Madrid bombings their strategy was one of planting schisms between the world leaders - trying to force out countries of the coalition against terror by seeding fear. They succeeded in Spain and Germany and France - but now they achieved something different - they forced the leaders to re-unite.

Sure there will be struggles on the way ahead - but every strike, every bomb will do nothing as strengthening the commitment of the free world to stick to it's values and to fight it's enemies.

Good morning London!

First Hints on prevented attacks

2005-07-07T16:23:00.000+01:00

Only hours after the attacks on the London Transport system first rumours and hints on prevented attacks start to spread.

Eyewitnesses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm) report of delays caused by security incidents prior to the main blasts. It might be that those incidents are due to the normal routine on the underground but it might also be that the increased security levels since 9/11 have prevented further devastation. Especially the Northern Line and Bank Station were subject to delays and closed stations before the explosions took place.

So far an initial analysis shows that:
-Londoners remained calm - panicking was widely avoided
-LU staff and Emergency Services worked together in an outstanding manner
-London probably will not be as traumatised as New York was after the blast

We have to say a big THANK YOU to the work that was done since 9/1. The often annoying security measures (missing bins etc.) are now paying off - even if there are casualties and fatalities which is still terrible and beyond every comprehension.

But the war on terror is not won yet - and it will not only take years or decades but an ongoing investment in the spread of democracy.

London Blasts - How right they were...

2005-07-07T11:58:00.000+01:00

In Britain - similar to many core European countries we had and probably still have a broad opposition to the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately we had to learn the hard way how right those were, who emphasized the vital importance of the war against terror.

Now, in front of the eyes of the G8 leaders it has become clear that TERROR is the most important issue on the agenda - not poverty, not Kyoto!

Update:

First information hint towards an al-Qaeda involvement in today's attacks on the London transport system. Also there seemed to be warnings on very short notice from the Israelian gobernment.

We have been warned, though - believing that we are save in a world where terrorists in Iraq can manage to held up strong resistence against the British and American forces show that there is a lot to do - retreat is no option.

Surpreme Court: Live or let Die?

2005-07-05T10:16:00.000+01:00

The government's influence on the Supreme Court and therefore America's course of justice is undoubted. The president basically fills the seats of the Court which are available while his administration is in office.

This has proven efficient in many cases, allowing the administration to underline its general way of governing and get confirmation for controversial laws and decisions. Nevertheless it is important to say that the Supreme Court by no means is an disguised instrument of the administration - especially since Judges tend to stay in office much longer than the President itself.

But since I support the current administration - because like Britain's it is without a real alternative - it might be the time to speak about the weaknesses of a system which does not always support a clean cut between the administration and the guards of the law. A good example is the dispute on finding a successor for the vacated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - a centrist, by European standards liberalist Stanford alumni - who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The vacancy arose in a time when critical and controversial decisions on rights of abortion and the right to die are on the docket of the Court. Day O'Connor who always supported the protection of the women's health when it came to state abortion rights was very much the only insurance for those rights to survive - it is highly likely that a newly appointed conservative judge will turn the mood within the court towards the government's 'no-tolerance' approach.
While I support President Bush's views on international relations, world trade, and terrorism I firmly disagree with his support for the pro-live campaign.

The Court, including Day O'Connor ruled out some state laws which didn't include an health exception - allowing women who would evidently suffer from not ending the pregnancy - e.g. raped teenagers - to consider abortion after reasonable consultation - with a ratio of 5 - 4. Since government appeals against this verdicts are pending - it is expected that Bush will seize the opportunity and make sure that the right minded candidate will be in place to turn a 5 - 4 vote into a 4 -5.

Furthermore - the verdict would be seen as a role model for the other states who could jump on the conservative bandwagon in order to avoid hassle with the opposition and the strong religious lobby.

Other pending issues on the docket include the right-to-die laws and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy practised by the military during court hearings. While my personal opinion would tend towards the governments view on this cases - the weakness system is apparent.

Instead of being an neutral instance - according to the constitutional principle of checks and balances - the court's opinion tend to lean strongly towards the government's view - especially if one administration manages to remain in office of if one party manages to fill the President's seat successively.

As stated above, this might not be a bad thing for smooth law making and by no ways a threat to democracy - but a in any case it's a good occasion to value the work of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and say thank you to a balanced decision maker - free of ideological prejudices.

Why Bob (really) did it again...

2005-07-02T23:15:00.000+01:00

"Most people get into bands for three very simple rock and roll reasons: to get laid, to get fame, and to get rich."

Bob Geldof

Europe: Blair's highlights the need for change

2005-06-23T11:47:00.000+01:00

Considering that the European Union is a slow, over-bureaucratic organisation Tony Blair's speech in front of the European Parliament is somewhat refreshing. We can just hope that some other member states will realise the urgent need for change - otherwise the Union is doomed.

Tony Blair's speech to the European Parliament:

It is an honour to be here in the European Parliament today. With your permission, I will come back after each European Council during the UK Presidency and report to you. In addition, I would be happy to consult the Parliament before each Council, so as to have the benefit of the views of the European Parliament before Council deliberations. This is a timely address. Whatever else people disagree upon in Europe today, they at least agree on one point: Europe is in the midst of a profound debate about its future.

I want to talk to you plainly today about this debate, the reasons for it and how to resolve it. In every crisis there is an opportunity. There is one here for Europe now, if we have the courage to take it. The debate over Europe should not be conducted by trading insults or in terms of personality. It should be an open and frank exchange of ideas. And right at the outset I want to describe clearly how I define the debate and the disagreement underlying it.

The issue is not between a "free market" Europe and a social Europe, between those who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe as a political project. This is not just a misrepresentation. It is to intimidate those who want change in Europe by representing the desire for change as betrayal of the European ideal, to try to shut off serious debate about Europe's future by claiming that the very insistence on debate is to embrace the anti-Europe.

It is a mindset I have fought against all my political life. Ideals survive through change. They die through inertia in the face of challenge. I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975 in the British referendum on membership and I voted yes.

In 1983, when I was the last candidate in the UK to be selected shortly before that election and when my party had a policy of withdrawing from Europe, I told the selection conference that I disagreed with the policy. Some thought I had lost the selection. Some perhaps wish I had. I then helped change our policy in the 1980's and was proud of that change. Since being Prime Minister I signed the Social Chapter, helped, along with France, to create the modern European Defence Policy, have played my part in the Amsterdam, the Nice, then the Rome Treaties. This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens. It always will be.

I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market. To say that is the issue is to escape the real debate and hide in the comfort zone of the things we have always said to each other in times of difficulty. There is not some division between the Europe necessary to succeed economically and social Europe. Political Europe and economic Europe do not live in separate rooms. The purpose of social Europe and economic Europe should be to sustain each other.

The purpose of political Europe should be to promote the democratic and effective institutions to develop policy in these two spheres and across the board where we want and need to cooperate in our mutual interest. But the purpose of political leadership is to get the policies right for today's world. For 50 years Europe's leaders have done that.

We talk of crisis. Let us first talk of achievement. When the war ended, Europe was in ruins. Today the EU stands as a monument to political achievement. Almost 50 years of peace, 50 years of prosperity, 50 years of progress. Think of it and be grateful. The broad sweep of history is on the side of the EU.

Countries round the world are coming together because in collective cooperation they increase individual strength. Until the second half of the 20th Century, for centuries European nations individually had dominated the world, colonised large parts of it, fought wars against each other for world supremacy. Out of the carnage of the Second World War, political leaders had the vision to realise those days were gone. Today's world does not diminish that vision. It demonstrates its prescience. The USA is the world's only super power.

But China and India in a few decades will be the world's largest economies, each of them with populations three times that of the whole of the EU. The idea of Europe, united and working together, is essential for our nations to be strong enough to keep our place in this world.Now, almost 50 years on, we have to renew. There is no shame in that. All institutions must do it. And we can. But only if we remarry the European ideals we believe in with the modern world we live in.

If Europe defaulted to Euro-scepticism, or if European nations faced with this immense challenge, decide to huddle together, hoping we can avoid globalisation, shrink away from confronting the changes around us, take refuge in the present policies of Europe as if by constantly repeating them, we would by the very act of repetition make them more relevant, then we risk failure. Failure on a grand, strategic, scale. This is not a time to accuse those who want Europe to change of betraying Europe. It is a time to recognise that only by change will Europe recover its strength, its relevance, its idealism and therefore its support amongst the people.

And as ever the people are ahead of the politicians. We always think as a political class that people, unconcerned with the daily obsession of politics, may not understand it, may not see its subtleties and its complexities. But, ultimately, people always see politics more clearly than us. Precisely because they are not daily obsessed with it. The issue is not about the idea of the European Union.

It is about modernisation.

It is about policy.

It is not a debate about how to abandon Europe but how to make it do what it was set up to do: improve the lives of people. And right now, they aren't convinced. Consider this.

For four years Europe conducted a debate over our new constitution, two years of it in the convention. It was a detailed and careful piece of work setting out the new rules to govern a Europe of 25 and in time 27, 28 and more member states.

It was endorsed by all Governments. It was supported by all leaders. It was then comprehensively rejected in referendums in two founding Member States, in the case of the Netherlands by over 60 percent. The reality is that in most member states it would be hard today to secure a 'yes' for it in a referendum.There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the constitution and disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis of the majority No.

This was not an issue of bad drafting or specific textual disagreement.The other explanation is that the constitution became merely the vehicle for the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe.

I believe this to be the correct analysis.

If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions, it is a crisis of political leadership. People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They worry about globalisation, job security, about pensions and living standards. They see not just their economy but their society changing around them. Traditional communities are broken up, ethnic patterns change, family life is under strain as families struggle to balance work and home.

We are living through an era of profound upheaval and change. Look at our children and the technology they use and the jobs market they face. The world is unrecognisable from that we experienced as students 20, 30 years ago. When such change occurs, moderate people must give leadership. If they don't, the extremes gain traction on the political process. It happens within a nation. It is happening in Europe now.Just reflect. The Laeken Declaration which launched the constitution was designed "to bring Europe closer to the people". Did it?

The Lisbon agenda was launched in the year 2000 with the ambition of making Europe "the most competitive place to do business in the world by 2010". We are half way through that period. Has it succeeded?

I have sat through council conclusions after council conclusions describing how we are "reconnecting Europe to the people". Are we?It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening?

Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as part of the solution not the problem?

That is the context in which the budget debate should be set. People say: we need the budget to restore Europe's credibility. Of course we do. But it should be the right budget. It shouldn't be abstracted from the debate about Europe's crisis. It should be part of the answer to it.

I want to say a word about last Friday's summit. There have been suggestions that I was not willing to compromise on the UK rebate; that I only raised (Common Agricultural Policy) reform at the last minute; that I expected to renegotiate the CAP on Friday night. In fact I am the only British leader that has ever said I would put the rebate on the table. I never said we should end the CAP now or renegotiate it overnight. Such a position would be absurd. Any change must take account of the legitimate needs of farming communities and happen over time.

I have said simply two things: that we cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational Budget; and that this must allow such a budget to shape the second half of that perspective up to 2013. Otherwise it will be 2014 before any fundamental change is agreed, let alone implemented.

Again, in the meantime, of course Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. I might point out that on any basis we would remain the second highest net contributor to the EU, having in this perspective paid billions more than similar sized countries.So, that is the context. What would a different policy agenda for Europe look like?First, it would modernise our social model. Again some have suggested I want to abandon Europe's social model.

But tell me: What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy -- skills, research and development, patents, IT, is going down not up.

India will expand its biotechnology sector fivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on research and development in the last five. Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe. The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete, to help our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its opportunities and avoid its dangers.

Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a social Europe that works.

And we've been told how to do it. The Kok report in 2004 shows the way. Investment in knowledge, in skills, in active labour market policies, in science parks and innovation, in higher education, in urban regeneration, in help for small businesses. This is modern social policy, not regulation and job protection that may save some jobs for a time at the expense of many jobs in the future.And since this is a day for demolishing caricatures, let me demolish one other:

The idea that Britain is in the grip of some extreme Anglo-Saxon market philosophy that tramples on the poor and disadvantaged. The present British Government has introduced the new deal for the unemployed, the largest jobs programme in Europe that has seen long-term youth unemployment virtually abolished. It has increased investment in our public services more than any other European country in the past five years. We needed to, it is true, but we did it.

We have introduced Britain's first minimum wage. We have regenerated our cities. We have lifted almost one million children out of poverty and two million pensioners out of acute hardship and are embarked on the most radical expansion of childcare, maternity and paternity rights in our country's history.

It is just that we have done it on the basis of and not at the expense of a strong economy.

Secondly, let the budget reflect these realities. Again the Sapir report shows the way. Published by the European Commission in 2003, it sets out in clear detail what a modern European Budget would look like. Put it into practice. But a modern budget for Europe is not one that 10 years from now is still spending 40 percent of its money on the CAP.

Thirdly, implement the Lisbon Agenda. On jobs, labour market participation, school leavers, lifelong learning, we are making progress that nowhere near matches the precise targets we set out at Lisbon. That agenda told us what to do. Let us do it.Fourth, and here I tread carefully, get a macroeconomic framework for Europe that is disciplined but also flexible. It is not for me to comment on the Euro zone. I just say this: If we agreed real progress on economic reform, if we demonstrated real seriousness on structural change, then people would perceive reform of macro policy as sensible and rational, not a product of fiscal laxity but of commonsense. And we need such reform urgently if Europe is to grow.

After the economic and social challenges, then let us confront another set of linked issues -- crime, security and immigration.

Crime is now crossing borders more easily than ever before. Organised crime costs the UK at least £20 billion annually.

Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of the migration is healthy and welcome. But it must he managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all our nations, and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that 70 percent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised crime groups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking whereby organised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention of exploiting them when they arrive. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked globally each year.

Every year over 100,000 women are victims of trafficking in the European Union.Again, a relevant JHA agenda would focus on these issues: implementing the EU action plan on counter-terrorism which has huge potential to improve law enforcement as well as addressing the radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists; cross-border intelligence and policing on organised crime; developing proposals to hit the people and drug traffickers hard, in opening up their bank accounts, harassing their activities, arresting their leading members and bring them to justice; getting returns agreements for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants from neighbouring countries and others; developing biometric technology to make Europe's borders secure.

Then there is the whole area of (Common Foreign and Security Policy). We should be agreeing practical measures to enhance European defence capability, be prepared to take on more missions of peacekeeping and enforcement, develop the capability, with NATO or where NATO does not want to be engaged outside it, to be able to intervene quickly and effectively in support of conflict resolution. Look at the numbers in European armies today and our expenditure. Do they really answer the strategic needs of today?

Such a defence policy is a necessary part of an effective foreign policy. But even without it, we should be seeing how we can make Europe's influence count. When the European Union agreed recently a doubling of aid to Africa, it was an immediate boost not just for that troubled continent, but for European cooperation. We are world leaders in development and proud of it. We should be leading the way on promoting a new multi-lateral trade agreement which will increase trade for all, especially the poorest nations. We are leading the debate on climate change and developing pan-European policies to tackle it.

Thanks to Javier Solana, Europe has started to make its presence felt in the MEPP. But my point is very simple: A strong Europe would be an active player in foreign policy, a good partner of course to the US but also capable of demonstrating its own capacity to shape and move the world forward.

Such a Europe -- its economy in the process of being modernised, its security enhanced by clear action within our borders and beyond -- would be a confident Europe. It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat, as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful union. Because be under no illusion: If we stop enlargement or shut out its natural consequences, it wouldn't, in the end, save one job, keep one firm in business, prevent one delocalisation.

For a time it might but not for long. And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective and those who garner support will be those no in the traditions of European idealism but in those of outdated nationalism and xenophobia. But I tell you in all frankness: It is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe's membership but against opening up its economy.If we set out that clear direction; if we then combined it with the Commission -- as this one under Jose Manuel Barroso's leadership is fully capable of doing -- that is prepared to send back some of the unnecessary regulation, peel back some of the bureaucracy and become a champion of a global, outward-looking, competitive Europe, then it will not be hard to capture the imagination and support of the people of Europe.

In our presidency, we will try to take forward the budget deal; to resolve some of the hard dossiers, like the Services Directive and Working Time Directive; to carry out the union's obligations to those like Turkey and Croatia that wait in hope of a future as part of Europe; and to conduct this debate about the future of Europe in an open, inclusive way, giving our own views strongly but fully respectful of the views of others.Only one thing I ask: Don't let us kid ourselves that this debate is unnecessary; that if only we assume "business as usual", people will sooner or later relent and acquiesce in Europe s it is, not as they want it to be. In my time as Prime Minister, I have found that the hard part is not taking the decision, it is spotting when it has to be taken.

It is understanding the difference between the challenges that have to be managed and those that have to be confronted and overcome.

This is such a moment of decision for Europe.The people of Europe are speaking to us. They are posing the questions. They are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.

Britain is missing out on 'Son of Concorde' plans

2005-06-16T10:47:00.000+01:00

Japan and France have announced that they are working on a new supersonic jet - basically a top-notch successor of the recently retired Concorde. Britain who participated in the development of the first generation jet are so far not involved in the aviation plans.
It's know that Britain is not the greatest friend of doing business with the French, even the Airbus consortium is often regarded as somewhat dodgy in good old Blimey. But missing out on this development isn't good for Britain at all.

It is expected that traditional routes for the new plane will feature mainly Japanese and French airports beside the obvious American destinations. Given that Britain has one of Europe's most mobile labour forces which are increasingly deployed on short- to mid-term projects in Asia & the Pacifics we urgently need a better way of managing our human capital. This will increase with consolidation going on in the financial sector of the capital and its strong bonds with Asia.

A London - Hong-Kong or India route would certainly benefit Britain's increasing investment in those economies and furthermore enrich the Europe-wide importance of the transport hub that is Heathrow. Not to speak on the technologic knowledge which still exists as an heritage from the Concorde era.

At least in this regard we should overcome our euro-scepticism and throw our pounds in with the French.

Live 8 - Bob is back: 'But not support him - you should'

2005-06-02T14:40:00.000+01:00

Bob Geldof is doing it again. Bob for charity - Bob to relieve the poor. Bob for the rescue!
And all the big ones in the bizz are taking part - well it's all fitting so nicely - helping the poor, maybe with a little bit support of Madonna's Kabbalah - and meanwhile listening to pop music's finest - probably in 5 minute medleys - it's mainstream!

Not enough that Sir Bob has molested us with an unbearable stupid TV series on marriage and the fathers4justice movement last autumn - no, he managed to re-produce the old Band Aid record with exactly the same stupid line up but and an even less bearable outcome. But everybody fancies something different and since it was for charity - well, you didn't have to buy it right?

Worse than the accumulation of bad music is that Bob is managing to exploit public support - and worse, public monies for his own political causes.

His campaign for releasing the debts of 'poor' countries is nothing less than a socialist, anti-globalisation campaign trying to disguise itself as charity. With the help of pop stars (well, as well as a few ageing friends back from the days) he is building up pressure on politicians to use public monies - gained from taxes - to help the so called 'developing countries' to ease the pain they suffered because of globalisation.

He even strives to combine his Live 8 Concert in London with an anti-globalisation march to the Edinburgh G8 summit - by threatening heads of state to 'join the party or to fuck of'. T
A lot of the poor countries are totalitarian systems and currently fighting out civil wars - often financed with western development aides.

Furthermore it is dubious to try to give away tax monies. Especially not without the tax payers authorization to do so. You can't force people to spend their money for charity - and you can't force states to do so. The G8, The UN, the EU and the national governments are doing a lot for the developing countries - and so is the economy by heavily investing monies in stable economies - and thereby setting incentives to follow the likes of India by ending civil wars and introducing human rights to attract foreign directed investment.

However, it is good to know that the Charity Commission has denied Charity Status to the Live 8 campaign (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1637287,00.html) - which means that they have to pay tax! This is good and righteous - why should someone who is promoting his political view be spared of taxes! But Bob is really doing it again - he managed to successfully rally against taxes for the first Live Aid concert as well as the Band Aid Records - and he probably will be successful again.

However, I won't apply for tickets and I will do everything to stay away from this mass event of political stupidity promoted by mainstream music. A little bit like 'Hollywood versus George Bush'. But you have to forgive 'em - they don't know what they are doing.

Turner price nominees announced

2005-06-02T13:15:00.000+01:00

The Times features an article on this year's Turner price nominees. While the winners of the past not always represented what I understand of modern art - they always were somehow progressive and innovative.

Gillian Carnegie, however, who paints classic still lifes (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7951-1637912,00.html) is simply boring - and not progressive at all.

The only way to understand it is to consider the mere nomination of Carnegie as a statement of provocative art itself.

The French Vote: A good day for Europe

2005-05-30T00:48:00.000+01:00

Believe it or not – the French NON to the European Constitution is goof for Europe. The campaign battles across Europe, including Britain, are hardly ones of anti-Europe nationalists versus pro European liberalists. No that is to easy an excuse for those who connect their political fate to the constitution.

It is easily forgotten these days, that the constitution is not Europe. Thus, those who claim ‘NO’ is the right vote are Pro Europe as well. Europe is part of our everyday life, it facilitates our economical transactions and has a deep influence on our mindsets and perception of reality. Nobody in Europe who is right in his mind wishes to bring the Achievements of the European Union down.

The struggles many feel – are about what the Union has not achieved – and about what the Union is obviously not capable to do. The Union, originally founded as an economical and diplomatic organisation to defend market liberalisation and ease bilateral talks has become a bureaucratic monster which is controls vast amounts of public moneys and at the same time becoming more and more uncontrollable. It is more than an economic club with common interests – it creates laws and decides about legislation which directly influence the way people live their lives. It has a social impact – without being controlled or even authorised by the people of Europe.

As long as it was an organisation which was controlled by the states – it was ok – because those were authorised by the transfer of sovereignty. However, it has changed. In a slow and often disguised process the Eurocracy has taken control over the national governments. No authorisation. No transfer of sovereignty.

Well, that’s the case for the constitution one might think. And one is right – a super national state like the EU is striving to be – and in some areas already is – needs a constitution. But there are issues:

The first one is a fundamental one. Do we want the EU to be a super national state? Do we want them to handle more than economical and maybe security issues? I would say no – and in this case a constitution is not required.

However, the transfer of competencies has already begun – it is highly unlikely that those will be handed back to the national governments. In this case a proper transfer of sovereignty is crucial – it must be ensured what the EU is allowed to do and what not. However, such an important manifesto needs time and commitment – not a few political pensioners who are bored to death and try to ensure their place in history by putting together this piece of crap that’s called a constitution.

No transfer of sovereignty is included – only the question yes or no – and that’s not enough. Participation is eminent and cultural and political diversity must be thoroughly considered. A European market cannot and shouldn’t be modelled solely after a Germanic-Franco model of social security and state influence.
Furthermore, there is a lot of redundancy between what the states do and what the union does – in some cases even a third level of regional governments joins the game.

My point is, that we need to think very carefully about what we want the Union to be – after all it’s a very young experiment and we should assess if we are happy with the outcomes so far. Only then, we can think about how to manifest those values and goals – and a constitution is just one solution.

Thus, the French NON is a good day for Europe – it gives us more time – time we need.

Liverpool, the French, and the Constitution

2005-05-27T23:55:00.000+01:00

What a week! The weather is awesome, Arsenal beat ManU and those Lads from Liverpool showed the Italians how to play it right.

Even if you don't like them, you have to admit that they did well in good ol'blimey's sake - as well, and that's even more surprising, as the French probably will do by showing Europe how to play it right.

And I want to make it very clear - I'm not against a European agreement in order to facilitate internal market liberalism, free travel and in somehow even a common line of international politics. But giving up our rights as the sovereign - NON, NON, NON!

The Economist - Friday 28th of May 2005

Germany: Social Democrats wasted - Early National Elections announced

2005-05-22T17:52:00.000+01:00

The German magazine 'Der Spiegel' reports that the social democrat led government has announced early national elections after they have been dumped in their most important stronghold North Rhine Westphalia.

The elections are about to take place in autumn 2005 - one year earlier than planned.

Germany's regional elections - rationality versus ideology

2005-05-22T14:03:00.000+01:00

All eyes on Germany. The regional elections at the western state of North Rhine Westphalia will be as important for Germany's politic and economic fate as they are for Europe.

The campaign was tainted with nasty anti-capitalistic and anti-liberal language from Schroeder's middle left party who is in charge in North Rhine Westphalia and Berlin. If the SPD looses today's elections it is unsure if Schroeder can continue with his attempts to implement further desperately needed economic reforms. It is highly likely that the Berlin government has to adjust his politics to fit the ideologies of its left wing members who demand stronger state control on foreign investment - something Germanys wounded economy really doesn't need know.

This development is worrying, and can be seen as a result of the major parties failure to convince the public of the need for reforms. However, given that North Rhine Westphalia can choose between electing the left striving social democrats of weekend chancellor Gerhard Schroeder or the conservatives who are likely to win next year's national elections there isn't really a choice.

Unlike in Britain, where the Labour Government managed to sort out its leftist and union based heritage - Germany's social democrats have failed to do so. In times of economic struggles, rational planning and decision making is crucial - not sticking to wearn off ideologies. It's time for a change and the earlier it comes the better it is for an economy which is so important for Europe's overall performance.

The FA Cup: YES!

2005-05-21T20:45:00.000+01:00

What a week - first the takeover of Martin Glazer - which will be good for ManU by the way, but brings da beef up in them :-) - and now the FA Cup win for the Gunners:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/

Yes! That bloody Kraut saved our arse! You can't beat them in penalties.

Khodorkovsky Trial

2005-05-17T14:52:00.000+01:00

A political execution - slow and in public. Conducted as a warning for the west:

http://www.supportmbk.com/

http://www.mbktrial.com/

Kylie and the World Shocking News

2005-05-17T13:41:00.000+01:00

Having lunch at my employer's cafeteria provided me with the doubtful opportunity to enjoy ITV's Lunchtime News programme.

Todays catchy opener was presented at the 'world shocking' news of Kylie Minogue having breast cancer. Of course this is more important than the State Opening of the Parliament and therefore I ignored the BBC broadcast on the other side of the room and paid Kylie my full attention.

How bad this might be for herself and her family - I'm sure that she will get the best treatment that money can buy and that the Australian is way better off than the majority of British women who are reliant on the menace that calls istelf the NHS.

This organisation incorporates everything that didn't work in Thatcherism and refuses young women and men proper cancer prevention treatments.

Back to the news - ITV's journalists - those modern day heroes of the enlightened society - wisely connected Kylie's world shocking revelation with a special on breast cancer. After having informed the public how good the available treatments are and how dangerous the illness is they stated that at least one in 200 women will suffer from breast cancer before they are 40.

Instead of concluding their report with providing information on detection and preventive screening - they repeated the well known NHS spin on how ineffective and useless prevention measures are for young women because of the density of the breast.

I'm not a medicine but a short research walk using Google and websites like the National Cancer Institute (US) showed how dangerous this assertion is. Of course - the risk for younger women is lower and it might be harder to detect cancer - but this is to easy an excuse for neglecting a 100-150$ (Cancer Institute) breast screen. It only shows how incompetent the NHS really is - despite the tremendous efforts of the British Cancer research in the last years.

However, one lesson that Britain yet has to learn is that proper prevention is better than the best treatment - and for the economists: it's even cheaper!

George W. Bush: He must have done something right

2005-05-10T14:20:00.000+01:00

After last year's presidential election the world - and the liberal America was shocked. Four more years. Why the hell did they elect him again - after all he has done?

Well, he must have done something right:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/news/georgia.php

Simple Economics

2005-05-06T20:23:00.000+01:00

'When the economy is booming, we pound a six-pack of Bud with our buddies and watch the game. When the economy is lousy, we pound a six-pack of Coors with our buddies and watch the game. When the economy is flat, we pound a six-pack of Miller with our buddies and watch the game.'

Daniel Gross, Slate.com on economics and the beer industry

Update: Gordon’s finest hour

2005-05-06T16:57:00.000+01:00

Well, looking at yesterday’s general election results won’t surprise the majority of us. Basically everything went as expected. The Liberal Democrats didn’t manage to realize their opportunities, the Conservatives gained a couple of seats despite letting Michael Howard lead the campaign, and Blair’s Labour party lost a few vote over the Iraq issue and won the election for a historical third time in a row.

So, who’s the winner? Blair who can return to Downing Street? One could think so, but the answer should be Gordon Brown. The leftist Scott who is probably the most popular politician in Britain will regard the outcome of the election as a private victory – just enough seats to remain in power but enough losses to blame Tony for the defeat and take over the country after 2, maybe even 1 one year.

Despite being considered an ideal candidate by most Britains I think this is a real danger for Britain’s economy. Brown is less liberal and progressive than Blair and certainly will increase state influence on the expense of economic growth and flexible markets.

--------

Update:

Wordsmith of the Adam Smith Blog thinks:

May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.
- Psalm 109, verse 8

I disagree!

--------

Although everybody expects Brown to take over after a while – his agenda was not communicated in the general election at all. One could say Britain voted for a prime minister who didn’t even run for the job and whose plans are unknown. What a fuck!

Tony wins with 150 seats..., Tony wins with 80 seats..., Tony wins with only 40 seats...

2005-05-05T16:19:00.000+01:00

The Independent had a really creative idea and prepared covers for different general relation results with the corresponding facial expressions of Tony Blair and Michaael Howard. If you have a few pence left buy a copy and use the rest for fish’n chips.

Vote Labour - have some pints

2005-05-02T19:32:00.000+01:00

It's summertime in London - and despite doing some work related stuff in the city I managed to enjoy yesterday's splendid evening with a few colleagues and pints in the Bank of England at Fleet Street.

After exchanging our opinions on Chelsea's premier league win - the upcoming election was discussed with way to much booze in our brains.

Like the majority of Britain's population I don't think that Mr Blair is the best possible Prime Minister I could think of. On the other hand, I honestly think that - all contenders and their manifestos taken into consideration - Mr Blair and his Labour party is the only choice for England's future.

Labour has done well in economic terms. Even if there are remarkable weak spots like the NHS. However, the conservatives would pursue the same path - with less capable and experienced personal of course - not speaking of the costs a change in No.10 always bears.

So why change a winning team? The proposals Labour made for the NHS are steps in the right direction - and let's face it - transforming this bureaucratic monster is not a task one can handle in a couple of weeks - it will take its time and money.

Having this in mind there are only two things to do right next Thursday - giving Tony some Edgar time at No. 10 and enjoying the London spring with a few pints of cold lager.

Oh dear, Britain

2005-04-28T00:51:00.000+01:00

It's not a secret that we are the greates nation on earth - but we should worry a little bit about our intelligence - found on the website of Private Eye:

Les Dennis: Name something people believe in but cannot see.

Contestant: Hitler.

(Family Fortunes, Challenge TV)

Good night then...

Equal Opportunities: Positive Discrimination?

2005-04-27T12:54:00.000+01:00

Having a background of management sciences, spending your days in an huge MNC might sometimes be quite disturbing. Almost every day you will discover management policies and practices which seem to be totally wrong and counterproductive.
Since Enron and WorldCom companies are very much obsessed with ethics and morale. CEOs are trying everything to keep the companies image clean. That’s not bad at all – but the extent to which this is done is often bizarre.

Especially when it comes to gender or minority policies – no means seem to be unreasonable enough to design an" equal opportunities" company. That those companies does not exist – despite all the efforts made – comes without question.

Even worse - companies are really starting to believe in the benefits of their parboiled policies. A few weeks ago The Economists mentioned how useless and damaging CSR (Corporate Social Behavior) can be for the firm – but managers doesn’t seem to appreciate those findings which go along with research conducted in the States and Europe.

Back to gender – sure companies often discriminated women in the past – and the effects of discrimination are negative since discrimination is based on building up selection criteria which are not related to the organizational goals. If they are though – it’s not discrimination – even if the society doesn’t agree. Therefore there seems to be a simple rule – select whatever personal you need for outperforming your competition and achieving the best results on the market place.

However, if selecting personal based on gender is influencing these goals you have to select on gender – positive discrimination will hurt to the same extent as any other discrimination. But it goes further – positive discrimination is always negative since it implies that not the best one – but the best woman will be selected – even if there is a better man out there.

I honestly cannot see why companies should feel obliged to go along with this nonsense. It limits the capability of an organization to make free market base decisions aligned with its organizational goals. Listening to the women’s right movement and the public opinion has a bad taste – and external influence on internal decision management is never good.

So please my dear scholars and managers - put the notion of positive discrimination where it belongs – on the garbage dump for really bad ideas. In my opinion companies and science has come to the wrong conclusions: The great crashes of the early 20th century haven’t so much highlighted the need for ethics in the market place. They rather have shown that the system is working and that companies who are not playing by the rules of the market will fail.

Thus we don’t need any zero tolerance policies, we don’t need laws to limit managerial decision making and we certainly don’t need an artificially created quotient of women in the boardroom. What we need is the freedom to act.

Web Logs: Fire at will

2005-04-18T20:58:00.000+01:00

Tom Zeller Jr. of the New York Times writes about the danger of loosing your job because of work-related blogs:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/18/business/blog.html

Since GAAP standards and zero tolerance policies apply to MNCs around the globe this is not only affecting our colleagues in the States.

Certainly worth a read.

National Health Services: The Killer Bug

2005-04-17T16:58:00.000+01:00

The General Elections on May 5th are closing in and the topics which are regarded as ammunition for one or the other sides are shot at the public with an increasing frequency.
One of those topics is the ‘killer bug’-scientifically known as MRSA.

All you have to know about MRSA is that, if– regardless if enjoying a private health scheme or the NHS’ basic services – you have to stay in one of the Empire’s hospitals you have a good chance to be wiped out it.

The MRSA is a very British problem – not that the bug or similar diseases are only existent in Britain – but the disability to use the right means in order to sort the problem out is, excuse me, delightful and somewhat in the tradition of our beloved country.

Labour’s strategy was basically to do nothing at all - resulting in shocking surveys showing that in many British hospitals there is now policy for medical personals to fumigate their hands and tools before and after treating patients. Many doctors simply didn’t know that this is a simple but effective method to get rid of the nasty little bug.

But does this lack of knowledge justify the lack of soap dispensers in hospitals and medical facilities? And does it justify a labour government stating that the numbers of infections are falling despite public knowledge that this isn’t the case at all:

‘HALF the hospitals in Greater Manchester have seen a rise in cases of the super bug MRSA over four years, despite government claims that rates had fallen.

The latest statistics available, from April to September 2004, show that the number of MRSA cases has increased 6.9 per cent since 2001. The 2001/2004 comparison has been used because this is the same time period used by the government.

Last month it was revealed the number of deaths linked to the MRSA super bug has almost doubled over four years.’

Germany’s Social Democrats: Back to the roots?

2005-04-13T21:22:00.000+01:00

Karl Marx once made a famous remark on repeating history:

'History always repeats itself twice: first time as tragedy, second time as farce.'

Perhaps Franz Muentefering (Head of SPD) should think about this before he opens his mind to the public:

'Our criticism targets the growing international predominance of the [financial] capital and the trend to a total economy of short-winded profit oriented behavior.

The internationally labored strategies of profit maximization are threatening our democracy.'

Film Choice: The Assassination of Richard Nixon

2005-04-12T12:52:00.000+01:00

Everybody who wants to see a brilliant Sean Penn performing in a very good film should consider to watch "The Assassination of Richard Nixon"

Further Information:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364961/

Eurocracy: Slowing down the processes

2005-04-10T13:59:00.000+01:00

The European Union was developed as a system to promote the economic interests of its members. Much has changed since those good old days and nowadays the European Union is merely known as a bureaucratic monster slowing down the decision making processes of its member states by introducing new layers of administration.

Don’t get me wrong. I really think that an European Market and an European representation of interests is a good thing. But the way it’s done right now is dysfunctional. Whatever economic theory you fancy, almost all of them tell us to keep it simple – systems can only deal with a certain amount of external complexity – which is why they try to reduce this by setting goals, allocating resources and putting up boundaries. Within those systems you usually find a surprisingly high degree of complex processes – but those are easier to deal with since their share the common denominator that is the system itself.

Back to the European Union and its members – the latter are usually quite reluctant to give up their national autonomy. Rather than finding ways of delegating responsibilities either to the European or to the national level – core areas of political decision making can be found in Brussels as well as in the national capitals.

But in terms of economics, redundant decision making costs time, resources and therefore money. It slows down the processes between the two layers of the European system by introducing the need for adjusting deviating decisions and the costs of communication are enormous.

How can we solve these problems in times, where it is rather unpopular to drive a national election campaign with promoting the European idea? It sounds harsh for many liberalists, but the only way is to re-engineer the design of the layers themselves – both of them. It means that there should be a clear allocation of responsibilities for both governmental levels. This will in turn lead to a reduction of redundancies, hence increasing the decision making processes.

But who can make this clear definition of what a national government will be and what the European Union will be – I have lost my faith that the Eurocracy itself will be able to clean up the processes. The change process must be triggered on national levels – and this is hard to achieve in a 25 plus union of egoistic states.

Leaders

2005-04-09T14:49:00.000+01:00

A divine leader

Yesterday Ioannis Paulus II was buried in Vatican City. One of the most important leaders of the last century therefore finds the final peace he deserves. We only can hope, that he will be beatified for his life’s work.

A great leader

Today the Prince of Wales is marrying Camilla Parker Bowles, the new Duchess of Cornwall. We hope that the only man who is able to restore the image of the Royal Family finally will earn the respect and the crown he deserves.

Lousy leaders

On the 5th of May, Britain will elect a new prime minister. Closely examining the likely choices opposes us with a dilemma – neither Howard nor Blair is able to perform the leadership the country needs in these days.

The Catholic Church and the Idiots

2005-04-05T23:00:00.000+01:00

The Holy Father is dead. And while millions of mourners are on their way to Rome to express their respect for one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century - an army of idiots and upcoming c-class politics has started to bother the world with their visions of what the next pope should do and where he should come from.

The loudest cries are those for ‘modernisation’ and ‘liberalisation’ of the Catholic Church. Ideally the next Holy Father has to come from a third world country or at least from the South Americas in order to represent the poor and surpressed of the world.

Frankly, I’d say that is a load of bullshit. The Catholic Church and especially the Vatican is not only one of the oldest institutions of the world, but probably also the most successful organisation we have ever seen. It not only survived wars, all kinds of major external changes and crises, political conflicts, National Socialism and last but not least the protestants, but also managed to do what most modern organisation and even states usually fail to do so at some point in their life cycle: it kept its very core values and therefore ensured its survival.

Every organisation scientists, when asked about the theory of the firm, will tell you that those core values must not be touched when they are working. And for the Catholic Church this is the case.

When demanding liberalism, women in priesthood, or getting rid of the celibacy – people like Dr Lavina Byrne forget that those values are not only crucial to the Church’s survival but also and that is more important, are desperately needed and desired by the Church’s followers.

Who the hell cares if the Church is not playing the democratic rules, who the hell cares of the church is centralised and does not want feminists and homosexuals in their rows. The Church is not, I repeat NOT a political organisation that has to play by any rules other than their own ones.

But the really nice bit is, that unlike in many public discussions, those calls for change will not have an impact.

Not even a little impact. Nope.

Hence, there will be no influence at the decision making process of the Council – a well established and proven routine since hundreds and hundreds of years. But you can be sure that we will see many Dr Lavina Byrnes , that will re-analyse and re-assess the choice in an never ending foolishness that is so typical for todays media.

In deepest respect - In deepest mourning

2005-04-02T22:22:00.000+01:00

Ioannes Paulus PP. II died in the age of 84

Olympics: Don’t back the Bid!

2005-04-02T18:07:00.000+01:00

London is a great city. Without doubt one of the most brilliant places to spend your days. And London is bidding for the Olympic Games 2012 – ‘Make Britain proud’ is the slogan Londoners can read these days in every tube that’s crawling slowly beneath the mighty metropolis.

Almost all big names of UK.PLC, like BA, BT, Virgin, Accenture and EDF and SIEMENS are sponsoring the bid. Among those Sponsors is also the company I happen to work for – and attending a presentation by the organizational committee of the London bid did make very clear why London thinks it deserves the games:

‘The bloody French can’t win over us – never!’
London offers a top transport system (at least by 2012)
London has major tourist attractions like the Tower or the London eye
Venues will include locations such as Regent Park and Greenwich
London offers great accommodations for Tourists and Athletes.

Errr... – pretty lame don’t you think. Not one of those arguments is really unique and some, like the transport statement, are simply lies. Right – beach volleyball by the horse guards might be interesting – but can it beat the skyline of the Eiffel Tower? Pretty much all other candidate cities offer the values mentioned above – and nobody likes the French – but when it comes down to an showdown between the two major European candidates – Paris beats London clearly.

Not only is it simply cheaper for Tourists to come and to stay in Paris – but public transport is actually working properly. London is a mess when it comes to accommodations – hotels are expensive and those who offer acceptable rates are below all hygiene standards known in the civilized world.

So there isn’t really a point in preferring London over Paris – unless you are a property owner who has invested heavily in houses and flats in the dockhand area – because that’s for sure: prices on the stressed property market will hit the ceiling when London will be announced as the winner of the bid – but you can prevent it:

DON’T BACK THE BID

Those Bloody People

2005-04-01T09:37:00.000+01:00

All the props to Prince Charles who said what had to be said.: The British yellow press media is unethical, disrespectful and operating on a very low standard.

Business Ethics: Zero Tolerance

2005-03-29T22:00:00.000+01:00

When it comes to successful businesses innovation and risk plays a major role. But developing innovative business cases requires rules to be broken, frontiers to be trespassed and new methods to be tried.

This is supported by theoretical research as well as practical experience in real life companies. Management Consultants spend their days to teach others how to do this and companies are spending loads of moneys for increasing their flexibility. The Japanese model for example explicitly mentions the importance of risk and rule breaking is a crucial part of organisation theories.

For years this requirement was accepted but now something has changed. When I logged into my computer I received a corporate note that the company is introducing a new "zero tolerance" policy: everybody who does not comply - or of whom the company thinks that he does not comply - will be dismissed immediately.

This might be justified for obvious rule breeches like surfing for pornography, sexual harassment, insider training etc. - but it the most US companies it is due for everything and nothing. Like the International Herald Tribune states today Wall Street Personal has been dismissed for following tips in order to sell deals. The former head of Boeing had to go because of having a mistress. Other cases are known in which employees have been dismissed simply for moral reasons - whatever that means.

In the aftermath of Enron and Worldcom those behaviour might be understandable - but only to a certain extent. It has severe consequences for corporation - most often bad ones. It will not prevent future frauds - but it will decrease morale, loyalty but first of all it will damage the companies ability to create ideas, innovations and taking risks.

In an article on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) The Economist accurately stated a few weeks ago that capitalism and morale cannot fit always - one could say that the both notions are a difference rather than an entity. Companies cannot do both - please society and make a living. Ploys, tricks and dodgy strategies lie at the heart of capitalism - and that's not a bad thing as long as there are a few enforced roles.

But Zero Tolerance is not only the most ignorant and stupid answer to the public image problem - it will also worsen the situation by doing harm to the core the organisation.

Eurocracy: Edition N

2005-03-28T18:09:00.000+01:00

Anti monopoly legislation is a good thing. At least when it is done properly. Ordering Microsoft – the world larges Software Company – to sell a cut down version of its current operating system Windows XP is not a case of proper anti trust action.

The European Commission was unhappy that Microsoft not only dominated the market for Operating Systems – which is because customers worldwide has decided to buy Windows instead of the competitors products – but also that Microsoft dared to offer an integrated solution for playing media files like music or movies.

Basically they argued that customers are way too stupid or lazy to remove the Media Player or simply use other software – which often is available for free. Thus competition in the media player market was terminated by Microsoft. Therefore they decided to help us stupid customers by ordering the evil, evil Gates Corporation to offer a version of Windows not containing the even more evil Windows Media Player.

Microsoft finally agreed – you can’t argue with eurocrats – but was even not allowed to name the cut down version the way they liked. His is ridiculous and the Brussels justification for this is hilarious:

“Microsoft wanted consumers to be clear what they were buying but the Commission said it should not put off consumers, like Microsoft's first choice, "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition." “ (CNN)

Hence Brussels is now telling companies not only how to behave in terms of monopolies but also – and that’s a shame – how to sell their products. What’s even more important – they want Microsoft to take the piss out of their customers by selling them something what they won’t get.

Eurocracy at it’s best.

A plea for life

2005-03-24T23:55:00.000Z

The case of the poor woman Terri Schiavo is pretty much known to everybody in the world. No surprise, that pretty much everybody has a slightly different view on how to deal with this difficult question on life and death. Even if we can roughly divide the different opinions in pro-feeding and anti-feeding – the dilemma of not finding a satisfying solution remains.

The facts are known – so let’s not talk about those. If you’re keen – you will find the background in your daily media.

The only reason for me to mention this case is to express my opinion – not so much regarding only the Schiavo case rather than euthanasia in general.

I understand when people who express that hey wish to die, when they imagine who cruel diseases and the consequences of aging and accidents can be.

I understand that people who know that they are at the beginning of a fatal or heavy medical condition often express that they would prefer to die if it gets worse.

But I do not believe that this is an option – and I – and that’s for sure – do not believe that any court, any doctor, any politician or any family member has the right and the authority to decide to stop a life.

I belief – and I have seen it – that facing death is something that most people cannot imagine – even less than pain and heavy disease. We all know pain in some form– we all know different diseases and the often unbearable circumstances.

But when it comes down to it – we are animals. And animals have a primary instinct to live. When it comes down to it we want to live – to survive – even if we are not in the situation to express this deep primary instinct.

But the slightest chance that someone might change his mind – and we don’t know about it – is enough to make every external decision on ending ones life a no starter – this is not an option!

"It is the United States, not Europe, that is defending the Pacific"

2005-03-20T19:11:00.000Z

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Europe's plans to lift the
embargo for sophisticated arms on China.

Rice uses her Beijing visit to emphasize not only the American's interest in an independent Taiwan, but also to find strong words for Europe's foolish plans to sell weapons and arms defense technology to China.

But certainly it remains highly questionable if this word of warning will be heard and understood by a Europe which is willing to intimidate its most important ally for short term economic reasons.

Fallen Neighbours

2005-03-19T21:50:00.000Z

Two years after the beginning of the Iraq war things start to turn to the better – not only in Iraq, but in the whole region. Democracy is on the way in Lebanon and countries like Syria feel increased pressure to behave.

A good thing, one might think and actually the mood in many of the former anti-war coalition countries like France or Germany is changing. People start to think about the fact that the really bad PR campaign for the war actually has disguised a higher cause.

But there are a few people who will never change: leftist journalists who cannot admit that things might have come different than from what they thought. We can find this kind of journalism all over the globe, the British BBC, the Guardian, the German DER SPIEGEL but also – and that comes somewhat as surprise the American Washington Post.

“Fallen Neighbours” is the name of an article about the 70 (!) people from the Washington Area (they mean Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC – alone Washington has more than 5 Million citizen) that fell in the war.

70 People from a crowded metropolitan area which millions of people died within two years – those people are heroes. But instead of emphasising this – the Washington Post speaks about missed anniversaries, broken dreams and other sentimental stuff.

That is sad – because without the commitment of those 70 dead we all had to expect hundreds of thousands of victims of a brutal and ruthless regime of terror.

David Brent's School of Management I

2005-03-18T23:00:00.000Z

"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."

David Brent (Ricky Gervais)

Transatlantic Relations: Sushi instead of Bratwurst

2005-03-18T19:54:00.000Z

According to the Washington Post the US Secretary of State Condie Rice has announced that the US is actively supporting Japan’s bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. During her Tokyo visit she furthermore mentioned a global partnership between Japan and the US.
This announcement is of course an reward for Japan’s support in the war against terror and during the Iraq conflict and a mild slap in the face of Germany, that also aspires to get their feet in the council.

Whatever the Germans might have thought after the last Bush visit (everybody was smiling) – the aftermath of their refusal to support the US during the Iraq war was regarded as a serious hit against Germany’s former most important ally. And the US, that’s for sure, isn’t forgetting that fast.

Germany will have to live with the consequences for a couple of years – and it seems that only a change of government can really wipe the slate clean between the two countries. And it also shows that some of the new European countries have done really well – even if their population was against the war – the long term benefits of pleasing the US will be way higher than sending a few support troops to Iraq.
And let’s face it – nobody expected from the Krauts to send their fighting forces to the hot zones of the conflict – just a little bit of good will would have made life so much easier for Germany in the next few years.

Drinking and the Irish

2005-03-18T17:02:00.000Z

When I walked home from the office in London yesterday with a few of my colleagues, we met quite a lot of people which were fairly wasted. Mots of them wore some form of green and black garments with large shamrocks and Guinness logos on it – St. Patrick’s Day.

My fellow rat racers – real English guys like they say – mentioned with a rather stiff look that the Irish’s national holiday is merely an excuse to get dunk: ‘Them Irish, only booze in their minds!’

Saying that – they walked in the next good old English pub, ordered a couple of pints and got pissed themselves.

World Bank: European Monkey Business

2005-03-17T22:24:00.000Z

Since President Bush announced that his dear friend Paul Wolfowitz is nominated for leading the World Bank in the next few years, it has become very obvious that Europe is not amused. Almost all European leaders emphasized that they wouldn’t like a World Bank under Wolfowitz’ leadership. For France’s Chirac that’s not a surprise. The French probably have a clause in their constitution which forbids them to like anything American. Also that German’s government is not really happy about Ol’ George’s choice comes not really as a surprise. Despite their latest efforts to cheer up their transatlantic relations they still think they are acting on a higher morale level than the American cowboys. So, let’s not care about those guys – it’s politics and of course there are the bloody French.

Tony, what the heck are you doing?

Therefore critic from the old anti-war coalition is nothing new. But what about Tony Blair and his government? Why the heck is he criticizing Wolfowitz nomination – is he pissed of by the fact that Bono is merely a useful charity idiot rather than a respectable official? Or is the UK criticizing the political attitude and professional proficiency of Wolfowitz?

The first would be surprising – of course Blair is facing serious problems at home and the British public never supported the war in Iraq – but the political elite itself always granted America its support – regardless on which issues. Does this mean that there is a major shift in British transatlantic politics?

Maybe it is to early to say - but there are a number of indicators that Britain is slowly moving away from a ‘pro-American’ to a ‘pro-Brussels’ position is clearly visible.

This is partly due to the fact the Britain, which wants to stay in the EU and knows that it is highly dependent on the European market, desperately needs Brussels support for the upcoming referendum on the European constitution. What ever one is thinking of the constitution – for Britain this is a decision on whether it wants to play a major role in Europe or not. And it’ not really doing well by getting public support. Therefore earning a few brownie points by moving away from pro-American positions might not hurt.

The pressure to do so is high, the latest torture cases, but also the rising body count of British soldiers (even if remarkable low), internal abuse cases in the army and the unloved anti-terror legislation (which is to be honest crap) have led to decreasing public support for all war and anti-terror related issues. Furthermore, the ongoing fight between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair is not doing some good to this situation at all.

Britain – America or Europe?

More important indicators for a shift of Britain’s transatlantic priorities is the fact that the UK is actively supporting the European case to drop the embargo which forbids to sell weapons to China – alongside with France and Germany. Also Britain is supporting the approach followed by France, Germany and Britain to persuade Iran by means of diplomacy to abandon their nuclear weapon program rather than supporting the US by threatening to apply more decisive matters.

This will irritate some friends in Washington – that is for sure – but in the long term it will also hurt the shilly-shally Tony Blair who is up for re-elections next year.

Broad front against Wolfowitz

But not only Blair and the usual suspects are doing everything to discredit the man who might be not the worst candidate for the Job. Groups like Greenpeace, and Oxfam as well as the washed-up John Kerry think that Wolfowitz is not the right man for the Job. One criticize that he will not be loved by the Europe and the rest of the world (well, he shouldn’t care anyway) – others claim that he is simply not competent enough. That of course is bollocks.

Wolfowitz who is holding a degree in politics as well as in mathematics has not only professional experience in the most difficult administrative organization of the world. He has worked for a number of presidents which alone proves his diplomatic skills. Whoever claims that the Head of the World Bank should be a banker is a complete moron – leading an international organization like the World Bank requires organizational, diplomatic and relational skills. To wrap up – he needs to be a manager with excellent contacts. Someone who has worked for almost all US administrations in the last three decades can certainly claim this.

Which alternatives do we have: Bono – an Irish charity wh….e, Carly Fiorina – an aging power feminist who messed up big time at HP, and Elaine Chao – Secretary of Labor and maybe the only really alternative – but without having enough international experience. So what’s so wrong with Wolfowitz? And what’s so wrong with Bush’s decision? After all the US is the largest stake- and ‘shareholder’ of the World Bank and traditionally chooses the head of the organization while the Europeans do the same with the IMF.

Hence there is no reason for complaints and whining other than pure anti-Americanism and the fear of a very powerful and well connected man. The World Bank after all, is a rule enforcing organization. It needs power, and it needs strength – and thus it needs the support of the most powerful nation in the world.

Only then, it can accomplish its mission of fighting poverty and supporting upcoming economies – because this is closely connected to fighting terror and totalitarianism throughout the world. Without that power the World Bank is merely a small copy of the already weak United Nations.

What a day!

2005-03-16T22:23:00.000Z

Being a professional might sometimes be somewhat time consuming. But to be honest, even after some years in the business I am sometimes surprised how time consuming it really is.

Yesterday I started this web log and I thought I would have some time to spend with my new baby. After all there was plenty to write about: Wolfowitz is now George W. Bush’s hottest candidate to lead the World Bank – which at least is way better than Bono. The IRA is in its deepest crises ever since the Yanks are pretty much pissed off by the McCartney murder and are threatening to stop sending money over to Ulster. Meanwhile in California Michael Jackson thinks the world needs to know that he is starting his days with prayers – yeah right – and probably a little bit of Jesus’ Juice, too.

However – how could I even think that I would have some spare time for all these important stuff? I should have seen it coming – after all it’s not my first day in the rat race. Whatever you want to do and whatever you want to accomplish – you can be sure there is always someone who is messing up your plans – most often because of their total incompetence and always, always, always when it comes to what you think is the end of the day – useless!

Are most people really that stupid? Slow - unable to survive without other’s assistance? Is it just my arrogant perception of the world around me? I don’t know – but I’m more and more convinced that actually only a small number of human beings are able to think things through and that it is very hard to keep this people away from all the idiots who continuously try to waste the valuable time of the previous group.

So it’s half ten in the evening – I’ve actually found some time to type this down – and there’s only one meeting between me and my end of the day.

Life is beautiful, isn’t it?

Europe: Germany on the leap?

2005-03-16T17:44:00.000Z

Looking at Germany from an outsiders perspective might still draw the renown picture of a strong economy with a well educated work force supported by a modern state. Having a look at the German media creates a different image.

Unemployment is high and still growing, the constitution seems to hinder fast political decision making which is crucial in times of change and the government is either to week or too reluctant to trigger decisive reforms of the ‘ueber’-structured employment and tax system. Therefore the moaning might be justified – at least to a certain extent. But on the other hand some base assets are still outstanding compared to other major economies. The medical system, or public transport for example is still considered as the world’s finest and the workforce is still highly educated.

Enemies at the gates

There is a need for change – international competition is getting tougher and former third world countries are offering cheaper production combined with increasing levels of quality. Therefore Germany needs to shape up fairly quickly in order to compete with the emerging stars, not to mention the established economies.

But is Germany willing to change?

The last three governments were not really motivated when it came to reforms and only implemented minor, half-born laws and projects like the ‘Agenda 2010’. The goal, it seems, was to have an easy life in the governmental offices and the highest priority not to piss off anybody. This is due for all parties and governments – for the conservative Christian democrats as well as for the somewhat leftist social democrats. The smaller parties were useless – gaining attention only by tabloid style affairs and non-existent leadership. Especially the liberals tried – and are still trying everything to ruin their heritage.

The IMF chap’s speech

Yesterday, former head of IMF Horst Koehler held a speech in front of an influential panel of employers which exceeded the expectations and can be seen as a milestone in Germany’s run to catch the structural reform plan.

Rather than speaking about isolated problems and solutions he addressed the current economic decline as a major theme and a challenge for the whole society. He named reduction of labour costs, delivery of innovative products, increased quality of education and research as one of the most important goals in order to enable economic growth and reduce mass unemployment in the long term. Additional reforms should aim at simplifying the countries complicated , er.. let’s face it: ridiculous tax system, removing labour market thresholds and regulations.
A major shift in the paradigm of German Politics – which are usually always al little bit more cosy and little bit less liberal and market orientated than those of it’s G8 counterparts – might be triggered in turn by reminding Germany of a few basic rules of capitalism:

- The State should enforce what is necessary to guarantee the highest possible degree of freedom in decision making.

- A healthy economy should be seen as the foundation of a striving society – not the other way around.

Hence the speech was a milestone – it emphasised the responsibility not only of the political actors but of society as an entity.
In order to achieve this, the big players have to change their narrow mindsets and try to have look at the bigger picture. I am not sure if the current government chaps are able and willing to make this happen. To high is the pressure for all stakeholders to comply with their given interests and this will not change just because of the presidents speech.

Welcome to Chandler's

2005-03-15T23:33:00.000Z

Guys - it's late and therefore I will keep it short. I am Mike Chandler and this is my Blog - called Chandler's.

The reason why I have started this blog is because it provides me with an opportunity to talk about my view on politics, society, and every day life - in short all the big things out there, without being politically correct and sticking to stupid rules.

Hence, expect this thing to be emotional and personal, offensive and aggressive but also thoughtful and intelligent. I'm happy to get every kind of feedback and don't care if you share the values I mentioned above :-)

I'm not quite sure what will happen in the next weeks and month, but since change happens to be one of the most interesting phenomenons at all, I'm happy to give it a try.

More details to be posted soon - in the meantime pop me an e-mail to talkchandler@hotmail.com

Chandler