Some pictures are so impressive that you just have to stop what you are doing and stare at them for a while.
I’m not sure exactly why I find this picture so interesting. Perhaps it’s about seeing a city from a new angle? Perhaps it’s the breadth of the shot? Perhaps it’s the surprising size of the lake in the park? Anyway, to do it justice, view it full screen by clicking on the image.
The balance of opinion in the UK seems to be that Prince Harry’s actions are not too serious. This view was summed up excellently by Dan Hodges in his post for the Telegraph earlier today.
I agree with this opinion. While Harry may have been foolish to allow the photos to be taken, he’s perfectly entitled to let his hair down once in a while. And what’s more, I don’t think his actions are likely to cause too much damage to the reputation of the Royal Family.
During the 10 hour flight back to London, he’ll no doubt be doing a lot of thinking about what to say in response. If he wants to draw a line under this and move past it, he needs to say something fairly soon. Otherwise the media will continue to control the story and run with whatever gossip is being thrown around. In my opinion he should make a statement within the next 24 hours. It should be apologetic, but not too apologetic. Here is what I think he should say.
I am truly sorry for the embarrassment that my actions have caused to those who are close to me. As someone who lives his life in the public eye I should have been more careful in choosing the people with whom I spent my time whilst on holiday. I deeply regret the fact that some images of me at a private party have made their way into the public domain. While these did not come from me directly, I recognise that I bear some responsibility.
In the past eighteen months I have witnessed, and been part of, some of the proudest moments of national celebration in my lifetime. Last April, it was a huge honour for me to stand shoulder to shoulder with my brother as his best man on his wedding day. More recently, I was immensely proud to be involved in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations; a time of real national celebration and unity. And of course, in the last few weeks it was a privilege to be an Olympic Ambassador during the great spectacle of the London Olympics.
I feel great pride in my country and consider it an honour to have been able to fight for her in Afghanistan on several occasions. Indeed I look forward to returning to the front line to be with my Army colleagues again soon.
If my recent actions have in any way, called into question my commitment to the Army, to my family or to Great Britain; I’m sorry. I recognise that the role I have carries a great deal of responsibility. While I do not think it is unrealistic for someone in my role to enjoy some ‘down time’, in future I will exercise better judgment and will endeavour to be more discrete.
I now look forward to drawing a line under this episode and returning to my duties as a soldier and as an ambassador of Great Britain.
This morning I had one of those moments when you read a sentence that surprises you so much that you have to pause and then read it again. Here it is:
In the vast majority of [US] states, a rapist has the same custody and visitation rights to a child born through his crime as other fathers enjoy.
Wow. I honestly don’t know what to make of that. Maybe there are other elements of US law not mentioned that protect and support the raped woman and her child? Or maybe the law has a harsh face but is applied compassionately? Whatever the full story may be, the facts are discomforting.
The quote comes from this article by Shauna Prewitt, which is an open letter to Rep. Todd Akin following his ridiculous and offensive comments about “legitimate rape”. Shauna’s article is an emotional tale of someone coming to terms with being raped and getting pregnant from it. The letter also reminds us about how difficult it is to make meaningful changes to legislation when our law-makers are so out of touch. Shauna sums up this point nicely:
I believe that the way we as a society, and especially legislators, speak about rape — often wrongly and without a sound, reasoned basis — restricts our ability to pass laws offering meaningful protections.
On the same subject, Louise Mensch has this excellent article in today’s Telegraph that looks at the recent comments and actions of Todd Akin, Julian Assange, and George Galloway. Well worth reading.
One of the reasons I love survey data is because it provides a window into the lives and opinions of real people. On Thursday I had the pleasure of listening to a briefing from Mohamed Younis – a Senior Analyst from Gallup and a specialist in the MENA region. For obvious reasons, survey data coming out of the post-revolution MENA countries is valuable both as a gauge for what’s happening now but also as a predictor for what might happen in the future.
Mohamed’s informal and informative briefing covered trends form the region as well as country specific data. A lot of time was spent discussing Egypt and Libya, particularly the UK and US involvement in the Libyan revolution. When he spoke it was clear that Mohamed is passionate about the region and is full of fascinating stats and interesting notes from the polling data he works with.
The briefing covered more ground than a short post can do justice, so I’ll just pull out some of the stats that stuck out for me:
Mohamed suggested that this wave of positivity won’t last for ever and in fact we have arrived at an important moment for UK Foreign Policy in Libya. The UK is perceived as a helper and a key ally in delivering the Libyan people from the Gadhafi regime and into a new era of democracy.
The UK has an opportunity to ride the wave of popularity and to be involved in the transition. Whether this comes in the form of economic aid – as many Libyans favour – or in other forms of assistance, the window of opportunity seems to be open now.
But this, of course, won’t necessarily be easy. A country’s transition to democracy is not straightforward and often messy. What is more, if we’ve learned anything from the recent events in Egypt, it’s that democracy doesn’t always look how we think it will look; it has different flavours and presents different challenges wherever it takes root.
The briefing was fascinating and I came away feeling that I somehow knew the people of the MENA region. Thanks to Mohamed for taking the time, thanks to Andy Rzepa for setting it up, and thanks to Gallup for consistently producing first-rate survey data that sheds light on some of the most challenging issues we face today.
The links to the data used in this post on the Gallup site are as follows:
A selection of articles that I have enjoyed over the last few days…
– The Credit Illusion, David Brooks in the NYT
– We Are Great Britain, Daily Telegraph Editorial
– Why We Should be Worried About Mali, Will Inboden on Foreign Policy
– Why Paul Ryan? Ross Douthat at the NYT
– Hedemonics or Humanomics? Carol Graham for the Brookings Institution
– Baroness Trumpington Interview, Daily Telegraph
– David Cameron’s Spanish holiday wardrobe continues to underwhelm, Daily Telegraph
Following on from my last post, I’ve noticed that my former colleague (and all round top guy) Will Inboden, has posted on the relationship between national power and Olympic success.
Will includes a comparison between medal success and GDP and military expenditures (both he happily admits are crude proxies for national power). He concludes:
Overall that wealth, military spending, and Olympic success seem to go together — not too surprising. The national characteristics necessary to produce Olympic-level elite athletes seem to involve a blend of hard and soft power quotients. The most obvious hard power dimension is economic; nations with more wealth are able to devote more resources to supporting Olympic training and facilities. Population levels are certainly a factor, but in relation to overall wealth. In the domain of soft power, nations with functioning governance can effectively direct their resources for determined purposes, such as developing a system to encourage Olympic athletes. Some dimension of culture is another soft power quotient that may play a part, for the self-evident reason that cultures that value sports in general, and in many cases particular sports, are more likely to produce Olympic athletes…
The other side of the coin is countries that are ascendant as economic and/or military powers but who still punch below their weight at the Olympics. From the table above, the three countries that stand out the most are India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — all of which rank much higher in GDP and defense spending than in Olympic medal counts. This is understandable given that ascendant powers usually first focus on getting their fundamentals of economic growth, infrastructure, and defense on track before devoting national resources to sports sponsorship. Conversely, Olympic results are often a lagging indicator for declining powers. Nations such as Russia that are otherwise in relative economic and military decline still produce Olympic successes, perhaps partly due to the inherited infrastructure and tradition of supporting elite Russian athletes.
Below is an article I co-authored on the relationship between a country’s prosperity and their Olympic medal success (perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between the two). We also used the relationship to predict the number of medals that would be won by certain countries at this year’s Games. I particularly like the second table in the article because it shows which countries are the most successful when population size is taken into account – which is an angle not often considered when we think of Olympic performance.
Can a nation’s prosperity predict its Olympic success?
The greatest city on earth is currently hosting the greatest show on earth. The expectant gaze of the watching world has settled on London. The stadia are built. The athletes are trained. The tickets are purchased.
And while most of the pre-match analysis focussed on how terrible the trafficand weather would be, we are now not thinking about any of that (ok maybe the weather). Now the first starting pistol has been fired, the first ball has been kicked, the first pole has been vaulted, most of us are not giving a second thought to the special bus lanes on the M4.
The big question is who will win the most medals? And which nations will do better – and worse – than expected? How will Team GB perform? Economists have investigated whether a country’s economic status can explain its achievements in the Olympics. In a recent report, Goldman Sachs finds that income levels are “positively and strongly associated with medal attainment” but the report also notes that “there is more to medal attainment than simply high income levels”. Therefore, if we want to use a nation’s prosperity to predict their Olympic success, we need a predictor of success based on more than just wealth.
The Legatum Prosperity Index™ measures a country’s total prosperity (this includes income and citizen wellbeing) and as such provides a more complete assessment of national success. Using the Prosperity Index to predict medal wins we predict that Team GB can expect to win 73 medals, an increase of 26 from the last Games in Beijing (this estimate also includes a ‘home nation premium’ as history demonstrates that the host nation usually wins more medals than expected).
2012 Medal Predictions based on the
Legatum Prosperity Index™
| Team | London 2012 Medal Prediction | Beijing 2008 Total | Change 2008-12 |
| United States |
91 |
110 |
-19 |
| China |
83 |
100 |
-17 |
| Russia |
73 |
73 |
0 |
| United Kingdom |
73 |
47 |
26 |
| Australia |
45 |
46 |
-1 |
| Germany |
43 |
41 |
2 |
| France |
41 |
41 |
0 |
| South Korea |
33 |
31 |
2 |
| Italy |
26 |
27 |
-1 |
| Japan |
23 |
25 |
-2 |
When we consider historical Olympic performance, the relationship between the Prosperity Index scores and total Olympic medals won per head is clear: the more prosperous countries win more Olympic medals. There is no straightforward explanation for this but the results reveal interesting stories that arise not only from pure economic differences but also from particular cultural, institutional, and political conditions. Bangladesh, for example, a country of 100 million people has never won an Olympic medal. This reveals much about Bangladesh’s economic and political conditions as well as its under-developed infrastructure, low levels of health, and poor education system.
Nordic countries excel both in terms of prosperity and Olympic medals per head (see table below). By exploring this relationship in more detail we find that a country’s economic performance is actually one of the weakest predictors of Olympic success. A more accurate predictor is the safety and security in a country, the level of entrepreneurship in the society and the quality of education.
Total Olympic Medals Won (1896 – 2008) per Million People
Compared to 2011 Prosperity Ranking
| Country | Medals per million people | 2011 Prosperity Rank |
| Norway |
91.22 |
1 |
| Finland |
84.26 |
7 |
| Sweden |
64.26 |
5 |
| Hungary |
46.50 |
36 |
| Switzerland |
39.49 |
8 |
| Austria |
34.17 |
14 |
| Denmark |
31.09 |
2 |
| Estonia |
29.23 |
33 |
| Bulgaria |
29.07 |
48 |
| Jamaica |
20.37 |
55 |
| Australia |
20.05 |
3 |
| New Zealand |
19.77 |
4 |
| Germany |
19.73 |
15 |
| Netherlands |
19.53 |
9 |
| Romania |
13.95 |
58 |
These latter factors are the results of developed institutions, infrastructure, and societal organisations that represent the legacy of long-term policies and objectives. As a consequence the current economic downturn that has affected most developed economies, such as Southern Europe countries, is unlikely to have much of a negative effect on the performance of these countries in the Olympics.
Although the relationship between prosperity and Olympic medals holds globally, some interesting stories are found in the outliers. It is surprising to see that India (population 1.2bn) has won only 20 Olympic medals in the last 100 years while Kenya (population 41m) has won 75 medals in the last 50 years, even though Kenya ranked lower in terms of prosperity in 2011; India 91st and Kenya 102nd.
This means that Kenya has won more medals per head than both Argentina and Brazil. Kenya has risen up the Prosperity Index since 2009 and, if this is reflected into its Olympic performance, Kenya is likely to break its record of 14 medals. On the other hand, India’s prosperity has deteriorated since 2009 and, therefore, we do not expect India to improve its performance in the London Games.
While the Olympics are primarily a sporting event, it is almost impossible to keep the Olympics and politics apart. From Hitler’s attempt to use the 1936 Berlin Games to propagate the Nazi ideology of racial supremacy to Tommie Smith and John Carlos’s Black Power salute in Mexico City in 1968, history shows us that the Olympic Games have often served as an arena for geopolitical debates and strategic rivalry.
And while much attention is given to the surrounding politics, the purpose of the Olympics is of course to celebrate sporting achievement. Rarely during the Olympics will our thoughts be on the politics of the Games. Instead our newspapers and our discourse will be filled with sporting events from table-tennis to taekwondo, boxing to beach volleyball, and water polo to weightlifting. We’ll speculate about whether Usain Bolt will break his own 100m record, whether Tom Daley can bring glory to Team GB from the diving board, and whether Mo Farah will win the 5000m (and if he’ll celebrate with the now famous “Mobot”).
The Olympics provides an opportunity to speculate about some underlying factors that contribute to a nation’s sporting success. Whether our predictions come true or not, the main point of the coming weeks is to enjoy the Olympics for what they are: games.
An abbreviated version of this article was published in City AM on August 1st. Due to space restrictions, that article did not contain the full medal predictions tables. The full version of the article was, therefore, reproduced on the Legatum Institute website.
This morning the Telegraph has reported that the Coalition’s plans for an elected House of Lords may be abandoned. Tim Montgomerie has suggested that the Coalition might instead support David Steel’s bill, which was approved by the Lords last session but ran out of time in the Commons.
In fact, the Government has already agreed to let the Bill pass through the Commons early in the new session of Parliament, as Lord Steel revealed to the House of Lords on 30th April. Lord Steel said that it has been agreed that his Bill will be “put through the House by expedited procedure”. And so if today’s Telegraph article is correct, it looks like we will see David Steel’s Bill on the statute books very soon.
I’ve written about the merits of the Steel Bill (as it is known), which I think is an excellent little Bill that would do a lot to improve the Lords. The crucial thing about this Bill is that it would make these improvements without making the fundamental constitutional changes that many people fear would undermine the current relationship between the Lords and the Commons.
Below I have pasted the article I wrote on this subject for ConservativeHome in May. This provides a little more detail about the Steel Bill and why, I think, the government would do well to support it. The original article on ConHome can be found here.
Conservatives have an opportunity to support reform without upsetting the constitutional apple cart.
Last Friday, the House of Lords (Amendments) Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons having passed through the Lords with universal support. However, the bill was not moved for debate and there is no indication when the Bill will progress further.
This was perhaps predictable judging by the timing of the debate (Friday afternoon graveyard slot), as well as the complete lack of coverage it received. It is now safe to assume that this short Bill has been thrown into the long grass.
This is unfortunate because the bill (known as the Steel Bill, after it’s author Lord Steel of Aikwood) could be just what the Conservatives are looking for.
Lords reform has always been a constitutional headache for the government but over the last fortnight it has developed into a full-blown migraine. This Bill could be the much-needed paracetamol the Prime Minister is searching for.
The Steel Bill provides cover for Conservatives who want to uphold their commitment to reform the Lords but who also fear a backbench rebellion over more far-reaching proposals. By supporting the Bill, Conservatives can place themselves on the side of reform without completely upsetting the constitutional applecart. A win-win scenario.
The Bill is short, simple, and, specific. It should be viewed as the first step on the road to reform. In contrast to other proposals, it doesn’t attempt to bundle together every facet of Lords reform into a single package. Rather it would enact several important but relatively uncontroversial reforms that seek to improve the House of Lords.
As Lord Steel has explained, the current version of his Bill does only three things:
The question at this point is not should the Lords be reformed but how best to do it. The recent (and much discussed) fiery meeting of the 1922 Committeedemonstrates the uneasiness that is felt among Conservative MPs about the current reform plans – particularly with the commitment to forge ahead with an 80% elected House of Lords. This Bill could be the answer the government needs, for now at least.
The bigger issues of reform won’t go away, nor should they. Both the Conservative Manifesto and the Coalition Agreement make reference to an elected House of Lords (although it is worth noting that neither document promises to bring forward legislation; the Coalition Agreement simply commits to establish a committee). Further, this issue has generated so much attention and debate both in Westminster and beyond that we have gone past the point of no return – action is needed.
By supporting the Steel Bill and placing it on the statute books, the government would buy itself time to properly consider the more controversial areas of reform while at the same time implementing proposals that get to the heart of the anomalies that exist in the upper house. What is more, these are the anomalies that tend to generate the most unfavourable headlines for the House of Lords.
The Steel Bill has a lot going for it: it was universally supported in the Lords; it would reduce the running cost of the Lords; it would reduce the number of Lords without sacrificing expertise; it does not require huge constitutional change.
Lord Steel has described how he has tried in vain to persuade senior Lib Dem colleagues about the merits of his Bill. He concludes that Nick Clegg has his heart set on “Big Bang” reform rather than smaller, incremental changes that would deliver genuine improvements to the upper house.
I suggest that Conservatives who support reform but fear what is currently proposed, should listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has to say.
Nathan Gamester 