Daily View: Wikileaks on China's attitude to North Korea

Commentators consider the implications of cables released by Wikileaks which show that Chinese leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally.

CNN Beijing Bureau Chief Jaime FlorCruz says the Wikileaks revelations are not new news:

"This is an interesting revelation but it is hardly new information, at least not among Korea- and China-watchers. We have heard of similar characterizations of the Chinese mindset in recent months from Western diplomats, describing Chinese frustrations with their North Korea allies. This document simply confirms that.
"China's frustrations have come out in the open a few times. When North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2009, China broke ranks with North Korea and voted in the U.N. Security Council in favor of imposing sanctions on its North Korean allies. In the past, China, which wields a veto vote as a permanent member of the Security Council, would have simply abstained and let the resolution pass."

David Sanger's analysis in the New York Times suggests the cables are more ambiguous than some have suggested:

"The cables about North Korea - some emanating from Seoul, some from Beijing, many based on interviews with government officials, and others with scholars, defectors and other experts - are long on educated guesses and short on facts, illustrating why their subject is known as the Black Hole of Asia. Because they are State Department documents, not intelligence reports, they do not include the most secret American assessments, or the American military's plans in case North Korea disintegrates or lashes out. They contain loose talk and confident predictions of the end of the dynasty that has ruled North Korea for 65 years."

Editor of chinadialogue.net Isabel Hilton says in the Guardian that the revelation that China might accept the idea of reunification under South Korea could make an unstable situation worse:

"Beijing has proved unequal to the task of keeping North Korea in line, or, as yet, of persuading it to follow China's transition to a market economy. China is regarded as the last country that has influence in Pyongyang, but the leaked cables confirm how limited that influence is.
"Beijing has been unwilling to put real muscle into its persuasion, pointing to North Korea's desire to talk on equal terms with the US. China has facilitated the now stalled six-party talks, but has shied away from enforcing responsible behaviour or allowing the regime to collapse. The US, in turn, is reluctant to concede North Korea's demands for recognition and pleads with China to get its junior ally under control. Now the WikiLeaks revelation that China is beginning to accept the once unthinkable alternative - a reunification under South Korean control - may make an unstable situation worse."

Former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said on the Today programme that the leak may have put back a shift in Chinese policy by years:

"The tragedy of these Wikileaks is that if China is contemplating what would be a historic change in its attitude to North Korea and possible support for reunification, this premature revelation - because of statements made to an American diplomat which now appear in the world's press - that would have put that back by years. That shows the damage that can be done by unauthorised leaks of highly sensitive information and private conversations between diplomats."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

In contrast, the Guardian editorial argues that we should not assume that the release of this information is harmful.

"Today's revelation from the embassy cables that North Korea had lost its strategic value to China as a buffer state between their forces and US ones, and that Beijing would accept the reunification of the peninsula under Seoul's leadership, should send shivers down the spine of the right person - the ailing dictator Kim Jong-il. Pyongyang could be about to lose its only insurer. Long before last week's lethal shelling of a South Korean island, it is clear from the private views of senior Chinese officials that their strategic asset had turned into a major liability... If the leaking of these cables was read and absorbed by North Korea's ageing generals, this would be an example of disclosure instilling realism into a military dictatorship which so clearly lacks it."

View the original article here

Daily View: Pope condom comments

Commentators discuss Pope Benedict XVI's comments that the use of condoms is acceptable in exceptional circumstances, such as for a male prostitute.

In the Times Libby Purves expresses astonishment [subscription required]:

"The last two words, for me, are the dynamite. Living sexuality! And in the context of a gay prostitute! Never mind the Aids issue; lay that aside for the moment, and just observe that the words come from a Pope seen as a rottweiler, a hardline enforcer of strict doctrine, the Cardinal who said all homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and an evil. 'A more human way of living sexuality' ...!"

The editor of the Catholic weekly the Tablet Catherine Pepinster explains in the Independent that the Pope's announcement remains consistent with Catholic teachings:

"He's not chucking overboard the Catholic Church's traditional stance against artificial birth control; rather, he is suggesting the prophylactic is used to prevent harm. Catholic teaching says sexual intercourse should be open to the creation of life - that is a good - but various Catholic theologians and cardinals have said for some time that condoms could be used to help halt the evil of the spread of disease and death."

Andrew Brown says in the Guardian that in the example of male prostitutes conception is impossible, but the question is trickier for the majority of people:

"The really interesting question is whether his remarks are supposed to apply even in cases where conception would be possible: may a female prostitute demand that her customers use condoms (assuming for the moment that either party takes much notice of the pope's opinions)? May a wife whose husband is infected? May a husband who has married an HIV positive woman?"

Former editor of the Catholic Herald Cristina Odone says in the Telegraph that this should put an end to the difficulty she had in answering questions on the church's ban on condoms in Africa:

"Atheist hate-mongers will have to change their script. The philosopher Pope has freed his people from an ugly ghetto. We languished there, vulnerable targets of strident secularists who portrayed the teaching on condoms as the essence of a backward Church. We were full of self-doubt as we had to defend the indefensible. Now, Benedict has sprung us out of this captivity: we can get on and do good."

In the Guardian Stephen Bates wonders if the Pope's shift on condoms is the thin end of the wedge, and what else may change:

"If this can change, what else might follow, if not under this ageing pontiff then his successor? We already have some married priests, converted from Anglicanism. What if the next pope, in response to a divine revelation to answer the shortage of vocations, decided that women could be ordained too? Where would Church of England refugees be then?"

View the original article here

Daily View: Wikileaks release

US State Department assessments of governments and statesmen, including from Hamid Karzai, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy have been published by Wikileaks. Commentators discuss whether this is a serious blow to diplomacy or just embarrassing.

Libby Purves argues in the Times [subscription required] that Wikileaks threatens to destroy the role of diplomats:

"[T]he likelihood is that the vast majority of material being hurled into the limelight by the insouciant Mr Assange will not reveal any actual treacheries or scandals. It will consist mainly of what diplomats call 'frank assessments'.
"And while the UK can probably forgive and forget a few frank assessments - OK, ripe insults - about Gordon Brown's social skills. David Cameron's inexperience or who the hell is this Clegg guy, there is real fear that the touchier countries around the world will be outraged. Especially in the Muslim nations, where it seems to be all right for pretty senior voices to refer to us as kuffar, dogs, infidels, etc, whereas the slightest reservation about anything Islamic is considered an atrocity second only to the Crusades.
"...If diplomats no longer dare to send undiplomatic, unvarnished truths to their governments on encrypted cables, the world's peace will be in more danger."

Blake Hounshell in Foreign Policy calls the leaks troubling:

"US diplomats should be able to share their assessments candidly with the folks back in Washington without fear of waking up and finding their cables splashed across the front page of the New York Times. People who take great risks to share sensitive information with embassy officials won't come forward if they worry that the Kremlin, or the Mugabe regime, is going to punish them for their candor. And sometimes too much media attention can get in the way of quiet progress, as in the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Max Boot in Commentary magazine condemns newspapers' involvement with the leak:

"There was a time when editors and reporters thought of themselves as citizens first and journalists second. There were damaging leaks even during World War II, but when they occurred they were generally denounced by the rest of the press. We now seem to have reached a moment when the West's major news organizations, working hand in glove with a sleazy website, feel free to throw spitballs at those who make policy and those who execute it. This is journalism as pure vandalism. If I were responsible, I would feel shame and embarrassment. But apparently, those healthy emotions are in short supply these days."

In contrast Benedict Brogan argues in the Telegraph that the leaks are embarrassing but not serious:

"The Wikileaks story is great fun. The embarrassment of others always is. But however much the Guardian, the New York Times and Julian Assange assure us that this represents a shattering blow to every assumption we hold about foreign relations, the fact remains that it's a collection of little substance that will do nothing to reshape geo-politics. The Saudis would like someone to whack Iran? No kidding. Afghanistan is run by crooks? Really? Hillary Clinton would like to know a lot more about the diplomats she is negotiating against? You surprise me. The Russian government may have links to organised crime? Pass the smelling salts, Petunia. The Americans are secretly whacking al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen? What, you thought the Yemenis were doing it? Muammar Qaddafi has a full time, pneumatic Ukrainian 'nurse'? Nice one. Diplomats are terrified of Pakistan's nukes? Me too. And so on, ad infinite boredom."

Writing on the website Arabist Issandr El Amrani says that while this may not reveal anything new for the US, the leaks are still significant:

"There is so much information flowing around about US policy - and often, a good deal of transparency - that a smart observer with good contacts can get a good idea of what's happening. Not so in the Arab world, and the contents of the conversations Arab leader are having with their patron state are not out in the Arab public domain or easily guessable, as anyone who reads the meaningless press statements of government press agencies will tell you. Cablegate is in important record from the Arab perspective, perhaps more than from the US one."

The chief executive of Index on Censorship John Kampfner makes a prediction in the Independent about how Wikileaks will prompt changes in the law:

"Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr Assange's industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr Assange to be the conduit. Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power."

View the original article here

Daily View: Ireland's debt and the euro

The Irish debt crisis has highlighted the problems of eurozone membership - a country cannot devalue its currency in order to deal with debt nor can it set its own interest rates. Commentators ponder whether the euro will survive.

Conservative MP John Redwood suggests in his blog that Ireland's bail-out will only work if underlying problems are solved:

"[M]any EU states spend too much and collect too little in tax revenue. They need faster growth to make bringing these two figures into balance easier. Will they get faster growth from the policy mix favoured by the EU and IMF? The inability to devalue within the Euro removes one of the normal ways heavily indebted and less competitive states sort out their problems. Euro states have to do it by cutting wages and cutting public spending, which is tough and difficult to do in democracy."

In the New Statesman Paul Mason points to another problem with the euro:

"The eurozone comprises a currency and a central bank without a government. But a currency is only as sound as the public finances of the state that issues it. In the eurozone, fiscal discipline was supposed to be enforced through treaty obligations and common oversight. But it was not. This is the systemic flaw, previously hidden behind what the journalist Gillian Tett has called 'social silence', that was exposed by the global crisis."

James Meek in the London Review of Books blog argues that the loan could bring on a new stage in the privatisation of government by the financial system:

"What is being presented as a loan by the British government to the Irish government is, in fact, a loan by the British government to the remnants of Ireland's commercial banks, which are melting down. And the reason the British government is lending to the Irish banking system is because British commercial banks lent so much money to Ireland in the boom years. British banks hold less than £10 billion worth of Irish government bonds. But they hold something like £130 billion worth of other Irish debt - property loans, business loans."

In the Financial Times Neil Hume calls the argument that the UK is helping out Ireland due to a sense of community "risible", pointing to the fact that Ireland is the UK's biggest trading partner.

Finally, chief executive officer of the Centre for Economic and Business Research
Douglas McWilliams said on the Today programme that he predicts the euro only has a 20% chance of survival, saying it has fundamental problems:

"It's going to be quite hard. There are lots of challenges. First of all they haven't managed to harmonise inflation; secondly they haven't managed to harmonise borrowing. And thirdly they've got this problem in some countries of property price inflation, property price boom and bust."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

View the original article here

Daily View: North Korea attack

Commentators consider what could have triggered North Korea's artillery attack on South Korea.

Senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Cambridge, John Swenson-Wright says in the Independent there may be an internal reason for the attack:

"[A]t a time when the North has been grappling with weak economic conditions, food shortages brought about by flooding and the uncertainty surrounding the succession process for the young heir Kim Jong-un, the government may be looking to a foreign crisis as a means of shoring up support at home. Conflict abroad can mobilise domestic opinion, reinforcing the position of the military and legitimising a leadership in transition."

In the Times Bronwen Maddox says [registration required] the latest artillery attack comes at a time when the Kim regime struggles to maintain its isolation:

"Life in the North continues to be harsh, plagued by shortages of food and energy. But those living there can now compare their lives with the South, as television and film from south of the border are increasingly available. Those governments who protest - in vain, so far - at the flood of counterfeit DVDs from China washing around the globe might take comfort from their effect in North Korea. Even that regime cannot keep them out, and the films show North Koreans that another life could be - and should be - theirs."

The English language South Korean newspaper the Dong-A Ilbo points the blame squarely at Kim Jong Il, saying the attack was planned:

"The North attacked Yeonpyeong Island after unveiling new uranium enrichment facilities to an American nuclear expert as recently as two weeks ago. Obviously, Pyongyang thoroughly planned and prepared to launch Tuesday's attack.
"The North staged the aggression by protesting the joint 'Patriotic Drill' conducted by the South Korean armed forces from Monday. The South Korean military simply carried out artillery exercises in South Korean waters west of Baeknyeong Island and south of Yeonpyeong Island inbetween the two islands Tuesday morning. Having tried to find an opportunity to blame the South, the North launched the attack."

The International Herald Tribune's editorial says it is difficult to tell why the conflict has come about now:

"It is nearly impossible to know what is going on there, but these outbursts are almost certainly tied to the struggle over replacing the ailing leader, Kim Jong-il."

While Simon Tisdall is more confident in the Guardian, saying there is no mystery behind North Korea's actions as their demands have been clear for years:

"First, the regime wants respect, through recognition of its legitimacy, however distasteful that idea may be. Second, it wants a peace treaty - finally ending the Korean war - that guarantees its territorial sovereignty and banishes the spectre of regime change (they watched the Iraq movie, too).
"Third, Kim wants an end to international sanctions and diplomatic isolation - the monicker of America's chief bogeyman is no longer for him. Fourth, he wants food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse."

View the original article here

Daily View: Education White Paper

Commentators discuss Education Secretary Michael Gove's White Paper which aims to improve teachers' standards.

Nick Clegg and Michael Gove at Durand Academy Primary School

Sacked after talking about failing schools at the Tory party conference, teacher Katharine Birbalsingh suggests in the Telegraph that Michael Gove's idea, which will allow heads to sack bad teachers and give pay rises to good ones, may be halted by workplace politics:

"The problem with Michael Gove's reforms is that as well as requiring head teachers to be robust enough to implement them, they also require the young, talented teacher, just out of university, to have enough backbone not to mind being scorned by his colleagues. For that's what is likely to happen if you pay them more for being good at their jobs. After all, teachers, like pupils, want to be liked, and they want to have friends in the workplace."

In the Daily Mail Max Hastings offers a list of those he predicts will resist change:

"But be in no doubt about the significance of the Education Secretary's plans: they amount to a declaration of war on the teaching establishment and the principles which have dominated state schools for more than 40 years.
"Educational theorists, along with many civil servants in the Whitehall education machine, the zealots who run teacher training colleges and tens of thousands of teachers will fight tooth and nail against almost everything Mr Gove wants to do."

In the Guardian Zoe Williams says that Mr Gove has missed the obvious target for reform - Ofsted:

"So a government appoints people who aren't teachers to set targets; those same people then attack schools for being too target-driven; and a new regime sets new targets to break the spell of the old targets. It would be more interesting, productive - and cheaper - to reform Ofsted, so that it drew its inspectors from among the best of the active teaching population. The 'target' problem would probably solve itself."

Steve Richards argues in the Independent that there is an inconsistency in Mr Gove's aim to drive up standards while allowing free schools to make their own decisions:

"In its complacent selfishness, the drive for free schools is part of an atomised reactionary vision at odds with Mr Gove's resolution at the centre. I know he would disagree intently, arguing that his resolute ambition is all about giving power and responsibilities away to teachers, heads and parents, but I do not see a coherent picture. There is a difference between a [reactionary's] desire to let a thousand flowers bloom even though many will die in the creative chaos, and a ministerial recognition that a government must seek a rise in standards in every school, especially those with the least promising intakes."

David Blackburn says in the Spectator that he supports the idea but that Mr Gove's efforts to improve school standards may be in vain:

"I fear that the White Paper will not be transformative, for a simple reason: the schools system is broken. It doesn't respond to instructions. The Education Secretary does not run education - power rests with local authorities and the teaching unions. They're not too keen on Gove, and have allies in parliament ready to insert the odd amendment into legislation. Top-down instructions won't work. Only competition can deliver the transformation he seeks. That can only come from his 'free schools' programme."

View the original article here

Daily View: Immigration cap

Commentators discuss the anticipated announcement by the home secretary of a cap on immigration of skilled workers coming to Britain from outside Europe at 43,000 a year.

The founder of the all-party Parliamentary group on migration Labour MP Jon Cruddas says in the New Statesman that immigration has become the new fault line cutting across the British political landscape:

"Immigration, the elephant in the room? Not any more. Now it's parading down the high street, garlanded in ribbons, leading a three-ring circus. This detonation over migration has shaken both left and right. For the Conservatives, who had long seen the issue as a licence to print votes, the increase in support for the BNP has presented a serious political problem, akin to UKIP in bovver boots. It has also generated a wider debate within David Cameron's inner circle about whether tough lines on immigration cut across the 'New Tory' brand, a debate heightened by the awareness that both William Hague and Michael Howard, when they were Tory leader, ran hard on the issue, to little tangible benefit."

Jan Boucek at the Adam Smith Institute blog asks David Cameron to break his promise on immigration, urging change elsewhere:

"Probably what riles most anti-immigration sentiment is a sense that, in recent years, too many immigrants with no skills, no income and no assets have moved to the UK for its seemingly generous but inefficient benefits system, not to mention free health care and education for their children. But the fundamental problem here isn't immigration, it's the benefits system and the universal access to health and education."

The Economist leader last week said the cap is at best pointless and might be damaging:

"The trouble with the Tories' pledge, and indeed with Britain's immigration policy in general, is that most of the key variables are beyond its politicians' sway. Net migration is affected by both inflows and outflows: the government has little direct influence over the latter (Britons leaving) and only severely circumscribed control of the former (people arriving). Roughly half of all immigrants are either Britons returning from abroad or citizens of other European Union states, whose entry is guaranteed by rules on freedom of movement in the EU. Many of the rest arrive either as students or under provisions that enable family reunions. Foreign students are lucrative for universities; restricting family reunions might seem inhumane, or even violate human-rights law. The government says it will look at both categories, but has seized on non-EU economic migrants - 12% of the total, by one count, though they bring a similar number of dependents - as the most pliable group."

On the Today Programme Andrew Green from the organisation Migration Watch calls the cap sensible, conceding that the numbers affected will be relatively small:

"There's much more to this than meets the eye. For a start, it focuses on people that companies actually need. People who come on spec hanging around looking for a job are going to be cut right back. Secondly there's a minimum salary for transfers between companies which will make a big difference."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

The Sun suggests that one area that should be targeted is bogus colleges. However, the Daily Mail editorial points out that the Labour government also promised to crack down on bogus colleges.

View the original article here

Daily View: Tuition fees, protests and the Lib Dems

Commentators discuss tuition fees after another round of student protests and talk of Liberal Democrat MPs abstaining from a vote on changes.

Having reported on student protests around the world, the writer of the Economist's Bagehot's notebook predicts these protests are not a British revolution in the making:

"At the risk of being proved horribly wrong by some stunning act of civil unrest on a campus, I think the current band of student demonstrators are too incoherent, too diverse and - in many cases - simply too polite and sensible to constitute any threat to the Government. This is not going to be a sneering blog posting, though on today's showing, British students are a lot more muddled when it comes to political ideology than their peers in other countries where I have reported. On the contrary, though I disagreed with almost every student I talked to in Trafalgar Square and later at UCL in Bloomsbury (now in its seventh day of a sit-in), I found myself oddly relieved.
"The contrast was striking with student demonstrations I have reported on elsewhere, over the years. In France and China, for example, students are fantastically articulate, but in a slightly creepy, parrot-like fashion."

In the blog Political Betting Andy Cooke echoes Bagehot's notebook, saying the message is not clear:

"All that the NUS are marching for is to insist that all graduates pay the same fees, regardless of where they studied, what they studied and for how long they studied. So why is it that they don't make this explicit? Why did I have to go an look? Why isn't it being shouted from the rooftops (of Millbank Towers)?"

Former Conservative candidate Iain Dale blogs that he isn't impressed with the methods of the student fees protesters:

"Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the idea behind protesting about something was to garner support for your cause. Silly me. Because the way that students are rampaging around London today is achieving the very opposite... Most MPs haven't had a single student lobby them in Parliament during the course of any of the protests.
"What a bizarre way to lobby. They may be very good at getting on the TV or radio, but I don't know of any MPs who have been persuaded by the manner in which they have conducted their protests."

The Guardian editorial defends the student protests:

"[G]raduates are less vulnerable than the frail and the impoverished who are suffering from other cuts. These are all truths that ought not to be buried, and yet the indignation of the students who took to the streets yesterday was nonetheless justified - and not just because the coming fees hike is both big and ugly..."

It goes on to also defend Vince Cable's possible abstention from a tuition fees vote:

"The strategy might, however, provide the party with a way of muddling through, since it is consistent with the coalition agreement that members overwhelmingly endorsed. The difficulty is that Liberal Democrats have not been hearing a sufficiently distinctive message from their wing of the coalition, making such totems of identity as fees more important than ever. The leadership badly needs to learn how to sing in harmony, as opposed to in unison, within the coalition choir. Until it does, it will struggle to escape the student debt trap."

In the Financial Times' Westminster blog Alex Barker argues that abstention is understandable:

"To be fair, there are no good options. They will be punished for breaking their pledge to vote against a rise. But it seems that after countless hours of excruciating debate, they've decided the best way to minimise the pain is to not vote at all." "Why? Clegg and Simon Hughes are placing a premium on unity. They fear the party will look shambolic by splitting three ways -- with some ministers voting for, some ministers and MPs abstaining and the die-hards voting against. Abstention is the best compromise to build a common defence."

BBC Westminster blogger Mark D'arcy explains why students may not appreciate the abstentions:

"I wonder if angry student voters will be impressed by abstentions, or even outright votes against, by individual MPs. The coalition's majority will only be threatened if a large number of Lib Dem MPs vote against, rather than abstain... and if the senior Lib Dem coalitionists vote for, that would be enough to ensure the measure goes through."

View the original article here

Daily View: Measuring wellbeing

Commentators discuss David Cameron's countrywide consultation to assess the nation's happiness.

The Minister for Universities and Science David Willetts tries to clarify in the Times [subscription required] the difference between measuring happiness and what the government intends to do, measuring wellbeing:

“It is much more to do with the pursuit of external goals and happiness comes as a by-product of that. The Canadian provinces with the highest life satisfaction are the ones where there is most volunteering. The Harvard psychologist Brian Little has put the point very pithily: what makes life worth living is not the pursuit of happiness but the happiness of pursuit.
“The ONS is not, therefore, going to try to find out how happy we are.”

Alexander Chancellor says in the Guardian that he likes Mr Cameron for wanting to find out what makes everyone happy, but suggests that we all know anyway:

“We want first of all good health and financial security, and then we want good public services, ideally all of them free. We want people to be kind and polite to us, especially policemen and other motorists. We want nice pubs and corner shops and post offices all over the place. The trouble is we will never be able to have more than a few of these things, and it's the government that has to decide which ones matter most.”

Michael Babad at Canada’s Globe and Mail questions the prime minister's timing:

“The British government may not have picked the best time to begin testing the national mood…
“It's not that the index is a bad idea, it's that one wonders what the government will find given the state of its economy.
“Britain, like other countries in Europe, is hurting. It has unveiled tough austerity measures that include cuts to welfare, it is drowning in debt, and its jobless rate is at 7.7 per cent, with almost 2.5 million people unemployed.”

Melanie Phillips says in the Spectator that efforts may be futile:

“Measuring happiness, eh? Even defining the thing has taxed philosophers and other thinkers since time immemorial. As I suggested here, never since the attempt to extract sunbeams from cucumbers on Swift’s Island of Laputa has there been such a preposterous conceit...
“It is presumably beyond futile to point out that historically rulers who set out to create Utopia invariably developed into murderous tyrants. So it is that as HMS Ark Royal gives way to General Wellbeing, Prime Minister Pangloss may be not merely destroying his country’s ability to resist tyranny but actually himself substituting a soft despotism in its place.”

BBC trustee Diane Coyle argues in her personal blog Enlightenment economics that measuring happiness is nonsense:

“It ought to be obvious that measuring 'Gross National Happiness' is a bad idea simply from the fact that its advocates hold up Bhutan as a model. Bhutan? It's one of the poorest countries in the world, with low life expectancy, poor literacy levels and scant political freedom. I don't care how 'happy' its not-very-free people claim to be when they're asked in a survey.”

Finally, Andrew Gimson suggests in the Telegraph that David Cameron may have done well to get comedian Ken Dodd to introduce him, given the intellectual debt Mr Cameron owes him:

“Dodd’s 1964 hit song, Happiness, went unmentioned. The core of Dodd’s message, or of Doddism as it will become known, is found in the lines: ‘I hope when you go to measuring my success, That you don’t count my money count my happiness.’
“Mr Cameron is a less radical thinker than Dodd, and wants to go on counting the money too.”

View the original article here