The Times
...continue What next for Mail Rail?]]> The Royal Mail is to sell off the Post Office Underground Railway, better known as Mail Rail. For the uninitiated, this is basically the Crossrail project (the East-West rail link across London that is as eagerly anticipated by commuters as it is delayed by politicians and dreaded by taxpayers). The only differences: it exists in reality, not just as a gleam in John Prescott’s eye, and it only carries sacks of mail. Millions of them per day. Like Crossrail, however, it is too expensive – the Post Office says it is simply not economic to run any more.

The Times [to which Samizdata does not link], asks in today’s Leader for ideas on what use may be put to such a railway, bearing in mind it is only tall enough to carry passengers if they lie down like guests in a Japanese capsule hotel. Surely the collective ingenuity of Samizdata can come up with some good ideas?

Here’s two to start the ball rolling:

• Cross-London packet sevice. Surely it could continue in its present role if anyone – private individual, corporation, courier or freight company – could use it. Modern barcode technology could make it easy to identify the right packet to serve up at the receiving station. Mail Rail is infrastructure; if the Post Office opened their pipes to competing “content”, like telcos and ISPs do, then perhaps the infrastructure would be viable, and even extended?
• The real Crossrail. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to widen a tunnel that already exists than to build a new one? Everyone knows that Crossrail is desperately needed if London is not to sieze up – and risk losing companies migrating elsewhere to restore the balance. Everyone also knows that the £4bn estimate is likely to be spent several times over before the system goes into service – these projects always overrun. Isn’t this a good opportunity to cut costs?

The usual prize (kudos, not cash) for the most innovative suggestion.

- Dennis McShane, Minister for Europe

I never referred to… [civil war] in the Labour Party. Calling for a referendum… would launch a long civil war in the UK with everyone fighting everyone.

- Dennis McShane, Minister for Europe, subsequent clarification.

[Source: BBC News at Ten, BBC online]

Oh well, that’s all right then.

- Charlotte Church, chairing BBC2′s Have I got News for You. Out of the mouths of babes and children

30th November 1491 To: Their Hispanic Majesties Fernando II and Isabella From: The Special Committee on the Quality of Life Re: The environmental impact upon Spain of the proposed expedition of the Genoese navigator Cristóbel Colón, styled in his native Italian Cristoforo Colombo. The commission of learned men and mariners, established by your Majesties under the chairmanship of Fr. Hernando de Talavera, during the period 1486-90
...continue Report of the Special Committee on the Quality of Life]]>

Others already having remarked that it is a slow news day here on Samizdata, I share the following extract by Harry Turtledove in the spirit of a sunny Friday evening. Have a good weekend.

30th November 1491
To: Their Hispanic Majesties Fernando II and Isabella
From: The Special Committee on the Quality of Life
Re: The environmental impact upon Spain of the proposed expedition of the Genoese navigator Cristóbel Colón, styled in his native Italian Cristoforo Colombo.

The commission of learned men and mariners, established by your Majesties under the chairmanship of Fr. Hernando de Talavera, during the period 1486-90 studied exhaustively the proposals set forth by the Genoese captain Colón and rejected them as being extravagant and impractical. In the present year a second commission, headed by the great cardinal, Pedro González de Mendoza, has also seen fit to decline the services of Colón. The present Special Committee on the Quality of Life finds itself in complete accord with the actions of the previous two bodies of inquiry. It is our unanimous conclusion that the rash scheme advocated by this visionary would, if adopted, do serious damage to the finances and ecology of Spain; that this damage, if permitted, would set a precedent for future, more severe, outrages of our environment; that even if successful it would unacceptably alter the life-style of the citizens of Spain; and, most important, that the proposed voyage would expose any sailors engaged thereon to unacceptable risks of permanent bodily illness and injury, and even death.

Complete text of the report appears in Departures, short stories by Harry Turtledove.

- Labour MP David Taylor explains “Why I’ll defy party line over reforms” and vote against foundation hospitals, in today’s Evening Standard (print edition only)

Governments should distinguish between “essential, privately non-insurable and non-affordable services”, such as emergency treatment, and those where “private financing might be more efficient”.

In truth, the actual ECB report [pdf file] does not say anything quite so bluntly. The actual report is full of careful conditionals and non-assertions: “governments may have to rise contribution rates”, such co-payments could increase efficiency”, “pre-financing
...continue “Euro means end of NHS”]]> The European Central Bank has said that joining the Euro would mean the end of the free NHS, reports The Times (we do not link to the Times). Apparently the April edition monthly report of the ECB said that:

Governments should distinguish between “essential, privately non-insurable and non-affordable services”, such as emergency treatment, and those where “private financing might be more efficient”.

In truth, the actual ECB report [pdf file] does not say anything quite so bluntly. The actual report is full of careful conditionals and non-assertions: “governments may have to rise contribution rates”, such co-payments could increase efficiency”, “pre-financing [of geriatric care] has been proposed” and “It has been argued that setting of budget caps…can improve overall performance”. (page 45) Nonetheless, this report should be taken very seriously. It is the formal monthly report; not a mere research paper or discussion document, but the official view with the imprimatur of the body charged with running the Euro. Given the sanctity of free NHS provision in mainstream British politics, to have its underlying rationale brought into question by a multilateral institution of such power and influence is a political bombshell. We are not talking ‘Private Finance Initiative’ here; the ECB is suggesting that for most operations patients should arrange their own insurance voluntarily, pay up when they need it, or go without. In suggesting patient co-payments for operations, rather than mere privatisation of provision with continuing government funding, the report goes far further than anything suggested by the Conservatives.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is due to report to Parliament on the ‘Five Tests’ for Euro membership shortly. Before then there will be a major Labour rebellion on Foundation Hospitals; giving hospitals slightly greater control of their own funds and services is already too radical for many MPs (including, with little concealment, Gordon Brown). This report is therefore also be an amazingly timed intrusion into that debate.

One can imagine the glee with which Iain Duncan-Smith will seize upon this report: he will be able to simultaineously portray the Foundation Hospitals policy as unduly timid, with the full weight of the ECB as ‘independent experts’, while also saying that the NHS is only ‘safe in Tory hands’ because of the government’s committment in principle to joining the Euro. After all the kerfuffle on IDS’ leadership in recent days, I shall be reserving my judgement on his capabilities to see whether he makes real capital out of this absolute gift from Europe.

IDS responded to the resignation by sacking frontbench spokesmen called Burgess, Maclean and Philby, just to be on the safe side.

It is impossible for outside commentators to be absolutely certain of the authenticity of these documents. Perhaps they have been planted by British intelligence. Perhaps they were written by the Iraqi foreign office as a prepatory insurance policy, for blackmail. Perhaps there is
...continue The Honourable Member for Baghdad Central]]> The Daily Telegraph is running an impressive scoop of documents allegedly proving that George Galloway MP was in the pay of Saddam’s regime. George Galloway has long been ridiculed as the “Member for Baghdad Central” for his defense of Iraq; now it appears that he was motivated by pure greed rather than just a love of controversy.

It is impossible for outside commentators to be absolutely certain of the authenticity of these documents. Perhaps they have been planted by British intelligence. Perhaps they were written by the Iraqi foreign office as a prepatory insurance policy, for blackmail. Perhaps there is even an innocent explanation, though I do not see how there could be.

Occam’s razor, however, suggests that George Galloway MP was corruptly attempting to change government policy towards an hostile nation from the floor of the House of Commons, that he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy for personal gain.

I believe there is a legal term for that.

Jordan bleats that he had to protect CNN staffers who were also Iraqi citizens, even if this meant hiding terrible atrocities. If this is true, I fail to understand why CNN employed Iraqi citizens, rather than US citizens who could be brought back to safety. An organisation like CNN could readily train new translators if Iraqi-Americans would not have been granted visas. Failing to report these events, and failing to
...continue The Sound of Silence]]> Eason Jordan, CNN’s chief news executive, confesses to covering up torture and murder by the Saddam regime in the NYT (free registration required; link via The New Republic and Instapundit).

Jordan bleats that he had to protect CNN staffers who were also Iraqi citizens, even if this meant hiding terrible atrocities. If this is true, I fail to understand why CNN employed Iraqi citizens, rather than US citizens who could be brought back to safety. An organisation like CNN could readily train new translators if Iraqi-Americans would not have been granted visas. Failing to report these events, and failing to give a proper characterisation to the brutality of the regime, certainly risked prolonging the suffering of the Iraqi people; either that, or CNN is merely in the light-entertainment business, in which case it should not have been in Iraq at all.

Two days after publication, this may be old news, but with no previous mention here I thought it was shocking (literally, shocking) enough to post belatedly.

There are some pretty major fights going on behind closed doors in Washington at the moment, it seems pretty clear. Tony Blair seems keen to side with American doves – and the views of France, Russia et al are even more predictable than they are irrelevant.

The question is this: whose flag shall fly over the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance? At
...continue Flying the Flag, Part 2]]> Defences of US marines raising the US flag in Baghdad may have been missing the point. Before that statue fell, the topic was war. As soon as it hit the ground, the question is “What next?”

There are some pretty major fights going on behind closed doors in Washington at the moment, it seems pretty clear. Tony Blair seems keen to side with American doves – and the views of France, Russia et al are even more predictable than they are irrelevant.

The question is this: whose flag shall fly over the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance? At the moment US troops have that special diplomatic immunity that comes from firing big guns. But when things settle down a little, will they be subject to Iraqi law? Will there be a semi-permanent US forces base established in Iraq, under US jurisdiction? Will General Garner, the designated head of ORHA, be answerable to the Iraqi head of an Iraqi Interim Authority, or will it be the other way around? Most of all, will ORHA have a free reign to root out Ba’athists and stamp on ongoing corruption? These are very important questions, and as yet it seems President Bush has not decided the answers.

If you want a vigourous programme of de-Ba’athification, and if you see a shining future of a liberal, secular, democratic, capitalist Iraq undermining its neighbours’ autocracies with blue jeans and Big Macs, then having the Iraqi government chaperoned by an extended period of benignly authoritarian military administration may be the only way to get there.

If Bush chooses to go this route, and fancies some delicious payback for Schroeder, look to see spokesmen from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute making public comparions with post-war Germany real soon now.

But many Westerners believe that that is unrealistic, that it fails to respect local culture, that it will unite Islamists and nationalists in violent rebellion, and believe that the best the West can do in the Middle East is to tread very carefully and try not to upset the local balance of power. For them, the best the US can do is find a reasonably credible Iraqi to appoint as the next President and get out of there as quickly as possible.

Of course, most adherents to the latter school of thought would never have gone into Iraq in the first place. That’s not to say that their worries are without foundation: a bigger criticism is to ask whether the war was worth the trouble, if only to replace Saddam with a cut-price Saudi prince.

It would indeed be a big gamble to go for the big prize. We could indeed see escalation as Syrian-backed insurgents make Bagdad a perpetual Beirut. But this is the moment of the big opportunity. Maybe it is time to leave our winnings on the table and let it ride.

To me, there seem to be three immediately obvious polite answers to such criticism: