12 hours ago
David, this is where precision matters, because you are arguing against a position I have not taken.
No serious critic of Europe’s current trajectory is arguing against redistribution per se. Every successful Western economy redistributes. Progressive taxation, social insurance, public education, and basic healthcare are not “woke” inventions; they are pillars of liberal capitalism. When designed well, they support social stability and even growth.
The academic literature you cite, including IMF work, makes exactly this distinction. Redistribution that reduces extreme inequality, given an underlying growth engine, can be neutral or mildly positive for growth. Redistribution that becomes a substitute for growth, productivity, and competitiveness is different. That is not theoretical; it is observable in outcomes.
Europe’s problem is not that it redistributes. It is that redistribution has increasingly been treated as a primary policy objective. At the same time, the conditions that generate the wealth to redistribute, such as innovation, investment, labour market dynamism, energy security, and industrial competitiveness, have been neglected or actively obstructed. That is what I am criticising.
The IMF papers you flag are explicit. Redistribution becomes growth-damaging in “extreme cases”. The uncomfortable question Europe must now confront is whether it has drifted into precisely that territory: very high tax wedges, rigid labour markets, ballooning transfer systems, weak productivity growth, and capital flight, combined with moral narratives that treat growth as morally suspect and profit as evidence of exploitation.
This is not “growth for the rich”. It is the opposite. When growth stalls, inequality hardens. Mobility collapses. The poor do not catch up; they fall further behind. Redistributing a shrinking pie does not produce justice; it produces frustration and the populism you rightly worry about.
History is brutally consistent on this point. The largest reductions in global poverty and inequality did not come from redistribution-heavy welfare states; they came from growth-led transformations in East and South Asia, later followed by targeted social spending. Redistribution followed growth; it did not precede it. Where redistribution tried to replace growth, the result was stagnation and greater inequality.
The real disagreement between us is not about fairness. It is about causality. You see redistribution as the engine of justice. I see it as a stabiliser that only works when an engine already exists and fires on all cylinders. Europe once understood this balance intuitively. It is now relearning it the hard way.
It is simply economic realism.
No serious critic of Europe’s current trajectory is arguing against redistribution per se. Every successful Western economy redistributes. Progressive taxation, social insurance, public education, and basic healthcare are not “woke” inventions; they are pillars of liberal capitalism. When designed well, they support social stability and even growth.
The academic literature you cite, including IMF work, makes exactly this distinction. Redistribution that reduces extreme inequality, given an underlying growth engine, can be neutral or mildly positive for growth. Redistribution that becomes a substitute for growth, productivity, and competitiveness is different. That is not theoretical; it is observable in outcomes.
Europe’s problem is not that it redistributes. It is that redistribution has increasingly been treated as a primary policy objective. At the same time, the conditions that generate the wealth to redistribute, such as innovation, investment, labour market dynamism, energy security, and industrial competitiveness, have been neglected or actively obstructed. That is what I am criticising.
The IMF papers you flag are explicit. Redistribution becomes growth-damaging in “extreme cases”. The uncomfortable question Europe must now confront is whether it has drifted into precisely that territory: very high tax wedges, rigid labour markets, ballooning transfer systems, weak productivity growth, and capital flight, combined with moral narratives that treat growth as morally suspect and profit as evidence of exploitation.
This is not “growth for the rich”. It is the opposite. When growth stalls, inequality hardens. Mobility collapses. The poor do not catch up; they fall further behind. Redistributing a shrinking pie does not produce justice; it produces frustration and the populism you rightly worry about.
History is brutally consistent on this point. The largest reductions in global poverty and inequality did not come from redistribution-heavy welfare states; they came from growth-led transformations in East and South Asia, later followed by targeted social spending. Redistribution followed growth; it did not precede it. Where redistribution tried to replace growth, the result was stagnation and greater inequality.
The real disagreement between us is not about fairness. It is about causality. You see redistribution as the engine of justice. I see it as a stabiliser that only works when an engine already exists and fires on all cylinders. Europe once understood this balance intuitively. It is now relearning it the hard way.
It is simply economic realism.
David Bull commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
14 hours ago
The evidence for a negative correlation between redistribution and growth is highly doubtful. For example (one of many academic studies): " lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth, for a
given level of redistribution. These results are highly supportive of our earlier work.And third, redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth; only in
extreme cases is there some evidence that it may have direct negative effects on growth. Thus
the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the
resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth.
While we should be cognizant of the inherent limitations of the data set and of cross-country
regression analysis more generally, we should be careful not to assume that there is a big trade-
off between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support
that conclusion" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999325000999)
See also https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/022/0048/003/article-A004-en.xml
And https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/3083/2011-Duflo_final.pdf
given level of redistribution. These results are highly supportive of our earlier work.And third, redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth; only in
extreme cases is there some evidence that it may have direct negative effects on growth. Thus
the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the
resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth.
While we should be cognizant of the inherent limitations of the data set and of cross-country
regression analysis more generally, we should be careful not to assume that there is a big trade-
off between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support
that conclusion" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999325000999)
See also https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/022/0048/003/article-A004-en.xml
And https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/3083/2011-Duflo_final.pdf
Yesterday
You have packed a lot of assertion with little argument. Name the policy and show the evidence. You praise energy and immigration comments as obvious, then turn around and dismiss defence. That’s inconsistent. If your problem is threats, you can not have it both ways. Either you take risks seriously, or you do not.
Saying “exclude Chinese goods” as if tariffs are a magic wand ignores higher consumer prices, supply-chain shock, and retaliation. You can argue we need protective industrial policy, but don’t pretend it’s cost-free.
The WW2 analogy is flawed. The economic crisis did not automatically create fascists. It created conditions that extremist actors exploited. That is not fatalism; it is a warning. We should treat rising economic insecurity as a risk, not a threat. Declaring a “full-blown emergency” is useful only if you propose scalable, realistic fixes. Scare language without a plan is demagoguery, not leadership.
If you believe people can not be bought off with cheap goods forever, argue for a concrete industrial and social strategy, not for vague calls for “funnelling resources” or selective nostalgia. Jobs, energy, retraining, regional investment and technology deployment are the levers.
Saying “exclude Chinese goods” as if tariffs are a magic wand ignores higher consumer prices, supply-chain shock, and retaliation. You can argue we need protective industrial policy, but don’t pretend it’s cost-free.
The WW2 analogy is flawed. The economic crisis did not automatically create fascists. It created conditions that extremist actors exploited. That is not fatalism; it is a warning. We should treat rising economic insecurity as a risk, not a threat. Declaring a “full-blown emergency” is useful only if you propose scalable, realistic fixes. Scare language without a plan is demagoguery, not leadership.
If you believe people can not be bought off with cheap goods forever, argue for a concrete industrial and social strategy, not for vague calls for “funnelling resources” or selective nostalgia. Jobs, energy, retraining, regional investment and technology deployment are the levers.
In Response to a comment by TheWatSan
Yesterday
I perhaps should have added that, in 2002, I actually used five maps - the same four as above plus a last one, entitled: "The Final Solution ?" which showed no Palestine at all. Arithmetically, using the 10:1 rule, it is easy to work out when the fifth map will become the result.
TheWatSan commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Yesterday
So many holes in this argument...On energy he is correct, of course. Hardly requires great insight. On immigration he is broadly correct. As for wokeism? What exactly is that? Advocating the funnelling of resources into defence? Seriously. Who benefits? Not the people of Europe. And defence against whom? Russia? Does Russia have designs on Europe? That is not a serious argument.
What Europe needs is cheap plentiful energy and a comprehensive industrial policy. This would probably require excluding Chinese goods to a large extent to preserve employment, which if not preserved, would cause social rupture. That is not something we would want to witness.
If I said that the US caused WW2, it would seem absurd...Until you consider that the ‘29 crash brought to power Adolf, I'll Duce, Franco and a host of other radical actors, all with axes to grind and hordes of angry and hungry supporters.
The same potential exists today.
A hungry man is an angry man.
We need to treat the situation not as a bad state of affairs, requiring correction, but as a full-blown emergency.
If we fail to stop the losses of jobs resultant from deindustrialisation, AI and the current form of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, things are going to get very bad, very fast.
The answer is not to militarise, but rather to ensure that we can convert matter and energy, through human ingenuity, in the presence of water...the source of all prosperity...Whilst defending the environment against ourselves.
What Europe needs is cheap plentiful energy and a comprehensive industrial policy. This would probably require excluding Chinese goods to a large extent to preserve employment, which if not preserved, would cause social rupture. That is not something we would want to witness.
If I said that the US caused WW2, it would seem absurd...Until you consider that the ‘29 crash brought to power Adolf, I'll Duce, Franco and a host of other radical actors, all with axes to grind and hordes of angry and hungry supporters.
The same potential exists today.
A hungry man is an angry man.
We need to treat the situation not as a bad state of affairs, requiring correction, but as a full-blown emergency.
If we fail to stop the losses of jobs resultant from deindustrialisation, AI and the current form of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, things are going to get very bad, very fast.
The answer is not to militarise, but rather to ensure that we can convert matter and energy, through human ingenuity, in the presence of water...the source of all prosperity...Whilst defending the environment against ourselves.
Yesterday
David, I think you illustrate exactly the problem I was trying to highlight. You assume that anyone who questions redistribution first must be defending “growth for the rich” or opposing fairness. That framing is emotionally satisfying, but it is not supported by evidence. The uncomfortable reality is that policies that prioritise pulling the better-off down have never lifted the poor anywhere. If they had, the global landscape would look very different today.
If you take even a cursory look at economic history, one pattern repeats with painful consistency. Where growth and opportunity were prioritised, the poor moved up dramatically. Where redistribution and ideological equality, by decree, were prioritised, stagnation set in and inequality often worsened, because there was less wealth to distribute in the first place.
This is not a left–right talking point. It is observable in outcomes. Communist experiments tried to redistribute poverty into equality, but they ended by redistributing misery. Market-driven reforms in China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, and much of Southeast Asia lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. To say so is not “anti-UNICEF.” It is simply a recognition of what has worked for the world’s poorest.
You mention inequality, and I agree that it is a serious issue. But the question is what reduces inequality in a way that actually improves lives, rather than producing the illusion of moral virtue. Europe’s model of high social protection, combined with strong competitiveness and innovation, used to work extraordinarily well. What does not work is an ideological drift in which redistribution becomes an end in itself, while growth, productivity, and competitiveness are treated as secondary or even suspect. That path does not reduce inequality. It locks it in because stagnant economies have no upward mobility.
As for UNICEF, a world with more poverty, slower growth, and weaker economies does not produce more fiscal space for child rights; it produces less. Pretending that economics is irrelevant to outcomes for children is a luxury belief that reality does not support. In development work, we used to talk about the distinction between “poverty reduction” and “poverty management.” Europe today risks choosing the latter by default, redistributing a shrinking pie while congratulating itself for its intentions.
I would genuinely welcome a debate about what policies have actually lifted the poor, rather than what feels morally satisfying. But that requires looking at evidence, not ideological comfort. If Europe wants to remain a model of fairness, justice, and inclusivity, as I hope it will, then it needs to recover the foundations that made fairness possible in the first place: growth, competitiveness, competent governance, and the confidence to prioritise what works over what sounds virtuous.
If you take even a cursory look at economic history, one pattern repeats with painful consistency. Where growth and opportunity were prioritised, the poor moved up dramatically. Where redistribution and ideological equality, by decree, were prioritised, stagnation set in and inequality often worsened, because there was less wealth to distribute in the first place.
This is not a left–right talking point. It is observable in outcomes. Communist experiments tried to redistribute poverty into equality, but they ended by redistributing misery. Market-driven reforms in China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, and much of Southeast Asia lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. To say so is not “anti-UNICEF.” It is simply a recognition of what has worked for the world’s poorest.
You mention inequality, and I agree that it is a serious issue. But the question is what reduces inequality in a way that actually improves lives, rather than producing the illusion of moral virtue. Europe’s model of high social protection, combined with strong competitiveness and innovation, used to work extraordinarily well. What does not work is an ideological drift in which redistribution becomes an end in itself, while growth, productivity, and competitiveness are treated as secondary or even suspect. That path does not reduce inequality. It locks it in because stagnant economies have no upward mobility.
As for UNICEF, a world with more poverty, slower growth, and weaker economies does not produce more fiscal space for child rights; it produces less. Pretending that economics is irrelevant to outcomes for children is a luxury belief that reality does not support. In development work, we used to talk about the distinction between “poverty reduction” and “poverty management.” Europe today risks choosing the latter by default, redistributing a shrinking pie while congratulating itself for its intentions.
I would genuinely welcome a debate about what policies have actually lifted the poor, rather than what feels morally satisfying. But that requires looking at evidence, not ideological comfort. If Europe wants to remain a model of fairness, justice, and inclusivity, as I hope it will, then it needs to recover the foundations that made fairness possible in the first place: growth, competitiveness, competent governance, and the confidence to prioritise what works over what sounds virtuous.
Ramesh Shrestha commented on "Consumer responsibility and Greenhouse Gases : Ramesh Shrestha"
2 days ago
Thanks for your comments, which I fully agree with. I was not suggesting lowering the living standard, which no one will agree with. My suggestion was to limit excessive consumption which would limit GHG emission. Indeed, there are good examples of different phases of development from green revolution to industrial revolution and we just arrived at the revolution in cyber technology which is changing every aspect of our life and living.
Solar and wind generated power is catching up but the size of storage batteries required are a kind of a problem in itself due to short shelf life and tremendous amount of incombustible waste (wind blades and solar cells just about 25 years). Nuclear energy yes, becoming cheaper but given our geopolitics a lot of countries will never be allowed to develop nuclear energy.
The most promising ongoing technology is on carbon capture during stages of fossil fuel combustion. At least a dozen countries are experimenting and hopefully a technology that could be adopted on a wide scale will come by soon. Since it is not an income generating scheme initial funding must come from the government. Once its practicality and efficiency have been demonstrated the technology could be sold to industries. But until then I still believe that citizens can contribute to GHG in reduction without sacrificing their living standard and comfort.
Solar and wind generated power is catching up but the size of storage batteries required are a kind of a problem in itself due to short shelf life and tremendous amount of incombustible waste (wind blades and solar cells just about 25 years). Nuclear energy yes, becoming cheaper but given our geopolitics a lot of countries will never be allowed to develop nuclear energy.
The most promising ongoing technology is on carbon capture during stages of fossil fuel combustion. At least a dozen countries are experimenting and hopefully a technology that could be adopted on a wide scale will come by soon. Since it is not an income generating scheme initial funding must come from the government. Once its practicality and efficiency have been demonstrated the technology could be sold to industries. But until then I still believe that citizens can contribute to GHG in reduction without sacrificing their living standard and comfort.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
David Bull commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
2 days ago
My reading of this anti woke statement is that it is an attack on economic policies that seekseekredistribute wealth as a policy priority. Personally I think such policy is absolutely right and desirable, and I'm happy to be woke in that respect. Inequality is a scourge that leaves billions in poverty - the people Unicef exists to support. It also leads to political populism and polarisation. Growth that rewards the already rich and further disadvantages the poor is a very bad idea, but that appears to be the proposition here. It is not only bad economics, it is also inhumane. I suggest everyone reads this article based on a new report on increasing inequality - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/dec/10/visual-breakdown-worlds-wealthiest-people. I hope Europe maintains its commitment to fairness, justice and inclusivity, despite the threat from Trump's America.
Unknown commented on "Consumer responsibility and Greenhouse Gases : Ramesh Shrestha"
2 days ago
These are the first few paragraphs of a recent article by Bill Gates on climate change.
"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.
Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world."
"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.
Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world."
Dec 11, 2025
Thank you, Ramesh. But I find myself arriving at a rather different conclusion.
If we look at the history of major global challenges, they were not solved by voluntary reductions in living standards. Human progress has consistently come from technological breakthroughs that allowed us to improve living standards.
Not so long ago, we were assured that population growth would condemn the world to mass starvation. The Green Revolution, with new crop varieties, fertilisers, and irrigation, solved a problem that moralising never could. The same was true for the Luddites. They feared mechanisation would destroy livelihoods. Instead, technology made societies richer and raised productivity.
Climate change, in my view, falls into the same category. It is difficult to imagine that hundreds of millions of people in India or Indonesia, rightly tasting the fruits of development at long last, will voluntarily give up flying, air-conditioning, a scooter, or a better diet. This is not moral weakness; it is the normal human desire for a better life.
The only path consistent with both climate goals and global development is a massive technological shift in how we produce energy. Fortunately, the potential for such a shift is enormous. Both solar and wind energy are becoming less expensive. New-generation nuclear has become dramatically safer, cheaper, and more modular. Fusion, long dismissed as distant, now has credible industrial momentum. Advanced geothermal, using deep-drilling techniques borrowed from the oil industry, could provide baseload power almost anywhere in the world. And yes, reforestation at scale remains a good form of carbon capture, helped, ironically, by the CO₂ fertilisation effect that makes trees grow faster.
This trajectory mirrors past human achievements: innovation solves the problems, not moralising. If we want to reduce global emissions while maintaining political legitimacy and human dignity, the priority should be accelerating the development and deployment of the next generation of clean energy technologies. That is where the real leverage lies.
Changing consumption patterns may make us feel virtuous, but changing the energy system will actually make a difference.
If we look at the history of major global challenges, they were not solved by voluntary reductions in living standards. Human progress has consistently come from technological breakthroughs that allowed us to improve living standards.
Not so long ago, we were assured that population growth would condemn the world to mass starvation. The Green Revolution, with new crop varieties, fertilisers, and irrigation, solved a problem that moralising never could. The same was true for the Luddites. They feared mechanisation would destroy livelihoods. Instead, technology made societies richer and raised productivity.
Climate change, in my view, falls into the same category. It is difficult to imagine that hundreds of millions of people in India or Indonesia, rightly tasting the fruits of development at long last, will voluntarily give up flying, air-conditioning, a scooter, or a better diet. This is not moral weakness; it is the normal human desire for a better life.
The only path consistent with both climate goals and global development is a massive technological shift in how we produce energy. Fortunately, the potential for such a shift is enormous. Both solar and wind energy are becoming less expensive. New-generation nuclear has become dramatically safer, cheaper, and more modular. Fusion, long dismissed as distant, now has credible industrial momentum. Advanced geothermal, using deep-drilling techniques borrowed from the oil industry, could provide baseload power almost anywhere in the world. And yes, reforestation at scale remains a good form of carbon capture, helped, ironically, by the CO₂ fertilisation effect that makes trees grow faster.
This trajectory mirrors past human achievements: innovation solves the problems, not moralising. If we want to reduce global emissions while maintaining political legitimacy and human dignity, the priority should be accelerating the development and deployment of the next generation of clean energy technologies. That is where the real leverage lies.
Changing consumption patterns may make us feel virtuous, but changing the energy system will actually make a difference.
Dec 11, 2025
Sinéad, thank you for the double-postscript and the clarification. Yes, I did get the joke; my eyes appear heroically half-closed in that photo. In my defence, I was actually looking down at something, but the result does make me look like I am midway between a nap and a reflection on the state of Europe.
On the retirement question: if you have 15 years to go, then you are exactly on time. XUNICEF seems to work on the same principle as European policymaking. People come and go when they feel like it, and no one is quite sure who authorised it.
On the retirement question: if you have 15 years to go, then you are exactly on time. XUNICEF seems to work on the same principle as European policymaking. People come and go when they feel like it, and no one is quite sure who authorised it.
Dec 10, 2025
Lovely to hear about the joys of retirement Detlef!! And thanks for the clarification…:)
In Response to a comment by Detlef Palm
Dec 10, 2025
Life truly begins after retirement. But on XUNICEF, you can enjoy it earlier.
Dec 10, 2025
PPS I assume you understood the comment - your eyes are closed in the photo, i.e. asleep, i.e. not awake, i.e. opposite of woke....???
Dec 10, 2025
PS Am i in the wrong place? I'm nearly 15 years from retirement but XUNICEF....??!!
Fouad commented on "Femicides in 2024 : Shared by Kirsi Madi"
Dec 10, 2025
The good news is that Quebec provincial authorities are proposing a motion to equate feminicide with first degree murder ie that it is a premeditated offence with all that it implies in the courts.
Lou M commented on "AI Is Being Used to Impersonate People You Trust : Shared by Lou Mendez"
Dec 9, 2025
I know it sounds rather funny almost outlandish but when discussing finances online (chat or verbal) with the family - we have code words to ensure identity.
Dec 9, 2025
Sinéad, thank you. I appreciate both the mea culpa and the good-humoured spirit. If nothing else, this exchange has confirmed that my profile photo is far more politically expressive than I ever imagined. I may need to commission a UN-neutral version with a strictly expressionless gaze.
On your substantive point, UNICEF’s mandate is the rights and well-being of children. My point was that the geopolitical environment affects the fiscal space and political priorities of major donors, which in turn shapes budgets, partnerships, and ultimately programmatic choices. Not a moral argument, simply a practical one.
But I take your larger point: this is a retirement blog, not a General Assembly side-event, and we should keep things enjoyable as well as spirited. If my attempt at “fun argument” occasionally wanders into heavier terrain, feel free to blame the profile picture again.
Wishing you a lovely week too.
On your substantive point, UNICEF’s mandate is the rights and well-being of children. My point was that the geopolitical environment affects the fiscal space and political priorities of major donors, which in turn shapes budgets, partnerships, and ultimately programmatic choices. Not a moral argument, simply a practical one.
But I take your larger point: this is a retirement blog, not a General Assembly side-event, and we should keep things enjoyable as well as spirited. If my attempt at “fun argument” occasionally wanders into heavier terrain, feel free to blame the profile picture again.
Wishing you a lovely week too.
Dec 9, 2025
In fairness, I wasn’t going for serious engagement. I chuckled after reading your argument focusing on ‘woke’ challenges to see your ‘unawoke’ photo. Childish. Mea culpa. I will say I am a passionate believer that the UN was set up on a promise of neutrality and impartiality. You’re 100% entitled to your opinion but I question your defence for your POV being appropriate based on where UNICEF’s funding might come from next. It’s imperative that the strategic plan is focused on the right of the child. That’s our promise. Other than that, fun argument but not in the context of UNICEF’s strategic plan. Hope you have a lovely week…:)
Dec 9, 2025
This article was copied from the BBC, published on the 9th December 2025.
"In a village in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, a woman receives a small but steady sum each month - not wages, for she has no formal job, but an unconditional cash transfer from the government.
Premila Bhalavi says the money covers medicines, vegetables and her son's school fees. The sum, 1,500 rupees ($16: £12), may be small, but its effect - predictable income, a sense of control and a taste of independence - is anything but.
Her story is increasingly common. Across India, 118 million adult women in 12 states now receive unconditional cash transfers from their governments, making India the site of one of the world's largest and least-studied social-policy experiments.
Long accustomed to subsidising grain, fuel and rural jobs, India has stumbled into something more radical: paying adult women simply because they keep households running, bear the burden of unpaid care and form an electorate too large to ignore.
Eligibility filters vary - age thresholds, income caps and exclusions for families with government employees, taxpayers or owners of cars or large plots of land.
"The unconditional cash transfers signal a significant expansion of Indian states' welfare regimes in favour of women," Prabha Kotiswaran, a professor of law and social justice at King's College London, told the BBC".
If India can do this, why can't Africa? That is the uncomfortable question raised by one of the most striking social-policy experiments in the world today. In Africa, traditional aid has for decades poured money into expatriate-heavy delivery systems. An international aid worker can easily cost $300,000–400,000 per year once salary, allowances and all overheads are counted. How many African women could be supported with that amount? How many children’s school fees could have been paid? How many households stabilised?
For sixty years, the continent has absorbed enormous volumes of aid, yet much of it has been consumed by administrative machinery rather than reaching ordinary people. Imagine if that money had gone into direct cash transfers for women, the people who actually keep households and communities afloat. Africa might not have slipped further behind the rest of the world.
"In a village in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, a woman receives a small but steady sum each month - not wages, for she has no formal job, but an unconditional cash transfer from the government.
Premila Bhalavi says the money covers medicines, vegetables and her son's school fees. The sum, 1,500 rupees ($16: £12), may be small, but its effect - predictable income, a sense of control and a taste of independence - is anything but.
Her story is increasingly common. Across India, 118 million adult women in 12 states now receive unconditional cash transfers from their governments, making India the site of one of the world's largest and least-studied social-policy experiments.
Long accustomed to subsidising grain, fuel and rural jobs, India has stumbled into something more radical: paying adult women simply because they keep households running, bear the burden of unpaid care and form an electorate too large to ignore.
Eligibility filters vary - age thresholds, income caps and exclusions for families with government employees, taxpayers or owners of cars or large plots of land.
"The unconditional cash transfers signal a significant expansion of Indian states' welfare regimes in favour of women," Prabha Kotiswaran, a professor of law and social justice at King's College London, told the BBC".
If India can do this, why can't Africa? That is the uncomfortable question raised by one of the most striking social-policy experiments in the world today. In Africa, traditional aid has for decades poured money into expatriate-heavy delivery systems. An international aid worker can easily cost $300,000–400,000 per year once salary, allowances and all overheads are counted. How many African women could be supported with that amount? How many children’s school fees could have been paid? How many households stabilised?
For sixty years, the continent has absorbed enormous volumes of aid, yet much of it has been consumed by administrative machinery rather than reaching ordinary people. Imagine if that money had gone into direct cash transfers for women, the people who actually keep households and communities afloat. Africa might not have slipped further behind the rest of the world.
Dec 9, 2025
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dec 8, 2025
Sinéad, thank you for your close reading of the argument - straight to the profile photo, the natural starting point for any serious engagement.
But since we are pretending to discuss substance, nothing I wrote qualifies as a manifesto, let alone an audition tape for the MAGA world. Pointing out Europe’s policy failures does not magically align me with Trump’s National Security Strategy.
The real concern is that Europe’s economic engine is sputtering. GDP growth has been anaemic for years, productivity has slipped badly compared with the US and parts of Asia, and competitiveness has to be earned. These are not ideological observations; they are the basic metrics any policymaker should worry about. Ignoring them will not make the gap shrink.
Rearmament, controlled immigration, and a balanced energy mix are likewise not fringe positions; they are where the European mainstream now sits. One does not have to squint very hard to notice that.
If someone wants to reduce this to a culture-war caricature, that is their prerogative. I will stick with arguments rather than profile-photo commentary.
But since we are pretending to discuss substance, nothing I wrote qualifies as a manifesto, let alone an audition tape for the MAGA world. Pointing out Europe’s policy failures does not magically align me with Trump’s National Security Strategy.
The real concern is that Europe’s economic engine is sputtering. GDP growth has been anaemic for years, productivity has slipped badly compared with the US and parts of Asia, and competitiveness has to be earned. These are not ideological observations; they are the basic metrics any policymaker should worry about. Ignoring them will not make the gap shrink.
Rearmament, controlled immigration, and a balanced energy mix are likewise not fringe positions; they are where the European mainstream now sits. One does not have to squint very hard to notice that.
If someone wants to reduce this to a culture-war caricature, that is their prerogative. I will stick with arguments rather than profile-photo commentary.
Dec 8, 2025
You got one thing right - your 'anti-woke' profile photo....;)
Dina commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 8, 2025
Thank you Fouad.
In Response to a comment by Fouad
Dec 8, 2025
What I have written is not a manifesto, and it is certainly not MAGA messaging. I am simply pointing to some real policy failures in Europe over the past two decades and suggesting where change is needed. I honestly do not see how this can be interpreted as support for Mr Trump’s National Security Strategy.
For the record, I am not a Trump supporter, and I do not find much to endorse in his new strategy. The idea that the United States should distance itself from long-standing democratic allies in Europe while seeking warmer ties with an autocratic Russia seems both unwise and against American interests. My own writing is clearly critical of Russia and of Putin.
Europe does need to rearm and take responsibility for its own defence. That is now widely accepted. And while I do not favour open borders, I do support controlled and well-managed immigration that benefits everyone involved. I also think nuclear power is a necessary part of a stable energy mix, together with renewables.
None of these points is extreme. They reflect views held by a large majority in Europe. The real challenge is for political leaders to move from words to action so that Europe can remain secure, competitive, and confident in the years ahead.
For the record, I am not a Trump supporter, and I do not find much to endorse in his new strategy. The idea that the United States should distance itself from long-standing democratic allies in Europe while seeking warmer ties with an autocratic Russia seems both unwise and against American interests. My own writing is clearly critical of Russia and of Putin.
Europe does need to rearm and take responsibility for its own defence. That is now widely accepted. And while I do not favour open borders, I do support controlled and well-managed immigration that benefits everyone involved. I also think nuclear power is a necessary part of a stable energy mix, together with renewables.
None of these points is extreme. They reflect views held by a large majority in Europe. The real challenge is for political leaders to move from words to action so that Europe can remain secure, competitive, and confident in the years ahead.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 8, 2025
This reads less like serious analysis than AI‑generated, hard‑right MAGA propaganda dressed up as intellectualism — a thinly veiled endorsement of Mr Trump’s latest National Security Strategy.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 8, 2025
This is a home run. You aren’t just poking holes in the old narrative; you’re tearing it down. The way you frame "moral performance" as the enemy of "strategic foresight" is a game-changer. You speak "truth-to-power" that grabs the reader by the collar and doesn't let go. You’ve distilled a twenty-year history of policy blunders into a clear-eyed wake-up call that is both urgent and overdue. That line, "Strength protects values, not the other way around," is a mic-drop moment. You’ve taken a complex geopolitical reality and turned it into a powerhouse slogan that resonates. This is a manifesto for a realistic future. It’s bold, it’s unapologetic, and it’s exactly what the conversation needs. Keep that foot on the gas.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Fouad commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Two of the most iconic cafes would have complemented your excellent photos..Cafe Flore @nd Les Deux Magots,
You have given us an extra urge to re visit Paris. Un Grand Merci.
You have given us an extra urge to re visit Paris. Un Grand Merci.
Dec 7, 2025
Kul and Detlef, thank you both for your thoughtful interventions. But I believe you underestimate the extent to which a very specific ideological climate, not simply “mistakes in context,” nor the normal give-and-take of democratic debate, shaped Europe’s strategic blind spots. These were not isolated policy errors. They were patterns, repeated across sectors, defended for years, and enforced socially and politically long after their consequences became clear.
Yes, perhaps very few today openly call for “open borders,” or claim colonialism explains everything, or argue that Europe should indefinitely outsource its security to wishful thinking. But these explicit positions were never the core problem. The core problem was a moralised atmosphere in which raising legitimate concerns about migration, energy policy, industrial competitiveness, or defence was treated as indecent, reactionary, or beyond the pale. That atmosphere didn’t emerge from nowhere; it was curated by a set of ideological convictions that dominated universities, NGOs, major media, and much of Europe’s political class for the past 20 years.
Those convictions did not simply vanish because they became inconvenient. They are still there, less vocal, perhaps, but not less influential. And as The Economist pointed out last week, if there were a “magical solution” to the Ukraine war tomorrow, the same voices would return with renewed confidence, insisting that Europe abandon the very hard-won realism that is only now beginning to re-emerge.
This is not a matter of demonising anyone. It is a matter of accurately diagnosing how Europe became simultaneously energy-dependent on Russia, militarily underprepared, economically sluggish, and politically self-doubting. These outcomes were not accidents of history. They were the predictable results of elevating moral performance above strategic foresight.
Nor is pointing this out “ideological.” The ideological part was pretending that Europe could enjoy peace without deterrence, prosperity without competitiveness, and social cohesion without a serious integration policy, while treating dissent from this narrative as a moral failure. Europe is now paying the price for that illusion.
I agree that we share common values like human rights, liberal democracy, and peace. Precisely for that reason, Europe must protect the conditions that allow those values to survive. And values alone cannot protect anything. Strength protects values, not the other way around.
Europe must resist the temptation to retreat to comforting narratives, whether they are romantic pacifism, post-colonial guilt, or the belief that intentions matter more than outcomes. Europe needs the courage to confront how it got here, and the clarity to ensure it does not repeat the same patterns under new guises.
That discussion is not ideological. It is long overdue.
Yes, perhaps very few today openly call for “open borders,” or claim colonialism explains everything, or argue that Europe should indefinitely outsource its security to wishful thinking. But these explicit positions were never the core problem. The core problem was a moralised atmosphere in which raising legitimate concerns about migration, energy policy, industrial competitiveness, or defence was treated as indecent, reactionary, or beyond the pale. That atmosphere didn’t emerge from nowhere; it was curated by a set of ideological convictions that dominated universities, NGOs, major media, and much of Europe’s political class for the past 20 years.
Those convictions did not simply vanish because they became inconvenient. They are still there, less vocal, perhaps, but not less influential. And as The Economist pointed out last week, if there were a “magical solution” to the Ukraine war tomorrow, the same voices would return with renewed confidence, insisting that Europe abandon the very hard-won realism that is only now beginning to re-emerge.
This is not a matter of demonising anyone. It is a matter of accurately diagnosing how Europe became simultaneously energy-dependent on Russia, militarily underprepared, economically sluggish, and politically self-doubting. These outcomes were not accidents of history. They were the predictable results of elevating moral performance above strategic foresight.
Nor is pointing this out “ideological.” The ideological part was pretending that Europe could enjoy peace without deterrence, prosperity without competitiveness, and social cohesion without a serious integration policy, while treating dissent from this narrative as a moral failure. Europe is now paying the price for that illusion.
I agree that we share common values like human rights, liberal democracy, and peace. Precisely for that reason, Europe must protect the conditions that allow those values to survive. And values alone cannot protect anything. Strength protects values, not the other way around.
Europe must resist the temptation to retreat to comforting narratives, whether they are romantic pacifism, post-colonial guilt, or the belief that intentions matter more than outcomes. Europe needs the courage to confront how it got here, and the clarity to ensure it does not repeat the same patterns under new guises.
That discussion is not ideological. It is long overdue.
Ken Gibbs commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Interesting. I visited France in 1963 and I found the word 'garcon' to be humiliating; rather like calling someone in South Africa, 'boy'. Put it down to my family upbringing. I also couldn't get my head around the use of 'garcon' to apply to waitresses as well, as if they were gender neutral. That said, when I worked for MSF after my time with UNICEF, I discovered that the way to hail someone fishing on a river or canal was to say, 'merde' which I was told was standard for wishing the fisherman 'Good luck'. Odd, to say the least - but then the French are a bit different, aren't they - it was the French who said, 'Vive la difference', wasn't it ? . . . .
Unknown commented on "Sudan - An Appeal : Tony Lake"
Dec 7, 2025
Why are the wealthy countries that have aided and abetted this war not held responsible?
Dina commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Thank you Myra!
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Dina commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Thank you Ken. Actually, ALL except Le Gout du Venezuela are NOT self-service. There are still waiters around in the cafés and brasseries and they are called garçons, but you do not call them out as such (can be interpreted as rude).
Dina Craissati commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Thank you Detlef. Paris would not be Paris without croissants (and demos ... hahaha).
In Response to a comment by Detlef Palm
Dec 7, 2025
To claim that the current Swedish government is far-right overlooks several important facts. Sweden has among the highest taxes and one of the strongest welfare systems in the world. With a population of less than 11 million, Sweden supports hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants living on welfare. More than 800,000 migrants are illiterate in Swedish, making it difficult for them to integrate and become self-sufficient. Despite this, Sweden accepted another 100,000 refugees this year. Even after the government cut the aid budget, Sweden remains one of the largest per capita aid donors in the world. Any political scientist analysing Sweden would conclude that the current government is one of the most left-wing in the democratic world, and the Gini Coefficient would support this conclusion.
The xenophobic Sweden Democrats gained popularity at the same rate as uncontrolled migration. While correlation does not imply causation, in 2011, Sweden had a GDP per capita of $60,000 (higher than the US at the time), but today it stands at $57,000. Over the same period, Sweden has shifted from being one of the safest countries in Europe to one of the most violent and dangerous.
Sweden has been the largest aid donor to Tanzania since the country's independence. Many Swedish politicians maintained close relationships with Tanzania's first president, supporting his socialist vision for Africa. However, any objective evaluation of Swedish aid to Tanzania would conclude that it was, at best, ineffective.
The xenophobic Sweden Democrats gained popularity at the same rate as uncontrolled migration. While correlation does not imply causation, in 2011, Sweden had a GDP per capita of $60,000 (higher than the US at the time), but today it stands at $57,000. Over the same period, Sweden has shifted from being one of the safest countries in Europe to one of the most violent and dangerous.
Sweden has been the largest aid donor to Tanzania since the country's independence. Many Swedish politicians maintained close relationships with Tanzania's first president, supporting his socialist vision for Africa. However, any objective evaluation of Swedish aid to Tanzania would conclude that it was, at best, ineffective.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 7, 2025
Dina, ...Checking out the Paris cafe scene has always been a pastime of mine when in the City of Light, so your wonderful photos were a joy! A bit of the avant-garde plus the modern really captured the ambience... Thanks for your interesting feature! Myra Rudin
Unknown commented on "The Aid Illusion: Tanzania and the Failure of Good Intentions by Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 7, 2025
To abandon Tanzania in its time of greatest need is shameful. It goes to show how right-wing the Swedish government has become, retaining power solely through the support of the xenophobic 'Sweden Democrats.' This action should not be emulated; it should be denounced.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Dec 7, 2025
Political decisions are made within the context of their time. What seemed right then may turn out to be a mistake; it is important to learn from it. Hindsight always makes us smarter, but it's not helpful to dismiss every opinion that differs from one's own as ideology.
We in this discussion group share the same values, including those related to social justice, human rights, and peace. Neither an overbearing "woke" ideology nor the ideological demonization of "wokeness" will get us anywhere.
We in this discussion group share the same values, including those related to social justice, human rights, and peace. Neither an overbearing "woke" ideology nor the ideological demonization of "wokeness" will get us anywhere.
Unknown commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 7, 2025
Right! The XUNICEF blog should be about sharing positive work experiences, from around the world, how we are enjoying our retirements and hard-earned pensions, not about aggressive and confrontational debates about geopolitics that many of us don't follow and none of us can do anything about.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Dec 7, 2025
Kul, thank you for your thoughtful contribution. We may agree on more than it may seem, but I believe your response downplays some central realities that Europe can no longer afford to ignore.
The claim that references to ideological drift are “strawmen” underestimates how deeply certain ideas have shaped European policymaking. Not many today argue that colonialism and slavery explain everything or that borders should be open, but these positions are not the issue. The issue is that a moralised political climate has made pragmatic debate in many areas like migration, energy and security very difficult. It is because sensible leaders favour “growth with equity” that Europe should be alarmed when policy routinely prioritises symbolism over competitiveness and moral posturing over institutional competence. This is not a strawman. It is the reality of Europe’s last couple of decades.
The principled case for pacifism cannot survive contact with Vladimir Putin’s worldview and behaviour. It is a comforting fiction to believe that resisting defence spending weakens the “military–industrial complex”. In practice, it has weakened only Europe. The countries that most strongly embraced post-Cold War idealism were also the ones left dangerously exposed when Russia acted on its ambitions. Peace cannot be defended by wishes alone. There is nothing morally superior about leaving one’s security to others, nor about hoping an aggressive autocracy will restrain itself. Europe’s rearmament is not warmongering. It is the minimum requirement for preventing further war.
Europe cannot credibly promote peace, human rights, or multilateralism if it is strategically weak, economically stagnant, and dependent on hostile powers for energy, trade routes, and security. The truth is that Europe’s moral confidence and diplomatic influence depend on its material strength.
The gravest threat to European stability is not Western self-assertion but Western self-doubt. A continent that no longer believes in its achievements, its model of governance, or its right to defend itself is a continent that will be shaped by others, not by its own values.
The claim that references to ideological drift are “strawmen” underestimates how deeply certain ideas have shaped European policymaking. Not many today argue that colonialism and slavery explain everything or that borders should be open, but these positions are not the issue. The issue is that a moralised political climate has made pragmatic debate in many areas like migration, energy and security very difficult. It is because sensible leaders favour “growth with equity” that Europe should be alarmed when policy routinely prioritises symbolism over competitiveness and moral posturing over institutional competence. This is not a strawman. It is the reality of Europe’s last couple of decades.
The principled case for pacifism cannot survive contact with Vladimir Putin’s worldview and behaviour. It is a comforting fiction to believe that resisting defence spending weakens the “military–industrial complex”. In practice, it has weakened only Europe. The countries that most strongly embraced post-Cold War idealism were also the ones left dangerously exposed when Russia acted on its ambitions. Peace cannot be defended by wishes alone. There is nothing morally superior about leaving one’s security to others, nor about hoping an aggressive autocracy will restrain itself. Europe’s rearmament is not warmongering. It is the minimum requirement for preventing further war.
Europe cannot credibly promote peace, human rights, or multilateralism if it is strategically weak, economically stagnant, and dependent on hostile powers for energy, trade routes, and security. The truth is that Europe’s moral confidence and diplomatic influence depend on its material strength.
The gravest threat to European stability is not Western self-assertion but Western self-doubt. A continent that no longer believes in its achievements, its model of governance, or its right to defend itself is a continent that will be shaped by others, not by its own values.
Unknown commented on "The Aid Illusion: Tanzania and the Failure of Good Intentions by Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 7, 2025
Sweden’s decision to end development aid to Tanzania by 2026 is more than a policy shift — it is a damning verdict on the global aid model itself. No nation has been more patient or more generous than Sweden. For six decades it poured money, trust and political goodwill into Tanzania, long after other donors quietly lost faith.
If even Sweden is walking away, the aid industry should hear alarm bells.
Tanzania was supposed to be the success story — billions in support, endless programmes, unwavering donor enthusiasm. Yet chronic mismanagement, weak institutions and persistent corruption outlasted every initiative. The problem was never “insufficient aid”; it was the refusal of the system to confront failure.
Sweden’s continued diplomatic presence is sensible. But its aid exit exposes an uncomfortable truth: if the most committed donor of all has concluded that transformative development never arrived, then the rest of the aid circus should stop pretending it will.
This is not Tanzania’s failure alone — it is the failure of an aid architecture built to avoid accountability.
If even Sweden is walking away, the aid industry should hear alarm bells.
Tanzania was supposed to be the success story — billions in support, endless programmes, unwavering donor enthusiasm. Yet chronic mismanagement, weak institutions and persistent corruption outlasted every initiative. The problem was never “insufficient aid”; it was the refusal of the system to confront failure.
Sweden’s continued diplomatic presence is sensible. But its aid exit exposes an uncomfortable truth: if the most committed donor of all has concluded that transformative development never arrived, then the rest of the aid circus should stop pretending it will.
This is not Tanzania’s failure alone — it is the failure of an aid architecture built to avoid accountability.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Kul C Gautam commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 7, 2025
Thomas Ekvall makes many common sense points worth careful consideration by sensible policymakers.
But some of the examples cited are a strawman used to beat a dead horse. For example, “Growth versus distribution” is an old caricature. Sensible leaders and policy makers speak about “growth with equity”.
Nobody defends open borders and unfettered immigration. States have a duty to regulate immigration considering its pros and cons, and certain humanitarian considerations. The days of blaming colonialism for all the ills of developing countries are long gone, but ignoring some of its continuing impact or glorifying it as “mission civilisatrice” would be yet another caricature.
“Wokeism” is a convenient hobby horse to thrash as elaborated by the authors of “Project 2025” and recently updated in the National Security Strategy promulgated by the US that predicts “civilizational erasure of Europe”.
I am an unabashed peacenik, opposed to any advocacy of increased military spending. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Advocating for massive increase in military spending to counter the Russian or any other threat, including US pressure on NATO, is just feeding the insatiable greed of the military-industrial complex that we must all resist even at the risk of being labeled naïve.
What we need is a judicious balance between pragmatism and idealism. Finnish President Alexander Stubb’s recent article in Foreign Affairs, calling for “value-based realism” might perhaps be the Golden Middle Path to pursue at present.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/wests-last-chance
But some of the examples cited are a strawman used to beat a dead horse. For example, “Growth versus distribution” is an old caricature. Sensible leaders and policy makers speak about “growth with equity”.
Nobody defends open borders and unfettered immigration. States have a duty to regulate immigration considering its pros and cons, and certain humanitarian considerations. The days of blaming colonialism for all the ills of developing countries are long gone, but ignoring some of its continuing impact or glorifying it as “mission civilisatrice” would be yet another caricature.
“Wokeism” is a convenient hobby horse to thrash as elaborated by the authors of “Project 2025” and recently updated in the National Security Strategy promulgated by the US that predicts “civilizational erasure of Europe”.
I am an unabashed peacenik, opposed to any advocacy of increased military spending. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Advocating for massive increase in military spending to counter the Russian or any other threat, including US pressure on NATO, is just feeding the insatiable greed of the military-industrial complex that we must all resist even at the risk of being labeled naïve.
What we need is a judicious balance between pragmatism and idealism. Finnish President Alexander Stubb’s recent article in Foreign Affairs, calling for “value-based realism” might perhaps be the Golden Middle Path to pursue at present.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/wests-last-chance
Dec 6, 2025
What’s in a name
Said somebody of fame
Its the child that we care
So let no one dare
Take the C out of our name
For we have much more to do
For them their future is now!!
Said somebody of fame
Its the child that we care
So let no one dare
Take the C out of our name
For we have much more to do
For them their future is now!!
Unknown commented on "How Wokeism Drove Europe to the Brink: Thomas Ekvall"
Dec 6, 2025
Distorted proaganda similar to MAGA views again!. Does not fit XUNICEF debate. So, not wirth commenting.
Ken Gibbs commented on "PARIS WOULD NOT BE PARIS - Dina Craissati"
Dec 6, 2025
Nice photography as befits Paris. However, it seems that all - except 'Le Gout du Venezuela' - must be self service. When I visited Paris 'Garcons' still meant Waiters.
Dec 6, 2025
What I deleted is replaced by this: "Sweden will phase out its development assistance to Tanzania by August 31, 2026. This decision is part of a broader reorientation of Sweden’s development aid, reflecting shifting foreign policy priorities and emerging global security challenges. The current cooperation strategy between Sweden and Tanzania has been extended until the phase-out date, ensuring continuity in ongoing programmes. Despite the change, Sweden will retain a permanent presence in Tanzania through its embassy in Dar es Salaam, focusing on political affairs, trade, investment, and support for Swedish citizens in the country".
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Dec 6, 2025
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dec 6, 2025
An Office became a Division then a Group,
This was not due to a coup,
Simply somebody's morning hoop,
Who needed to create a scoop,
Or simply rise above the stoop.
But it energized the whole troupe
To shout in unison, Whoop-di- Doop !
We found the break in the loop,
And created a new alphabet soup.
This was not due to a coup,
Simply somebody's morning hoop,
Who needed to create a scoop,
Or simply rise above the stoop.
But it energized the whole troupe
To shout in unison, Whoop-di- Doop !
We found the break in the loop,
And created a new alphabet soup.
Dec 6, 2025
BRAVO BOB for the successful manner in which you tailored your second career. You proved that there is "life after UNICEF" in a very meaningful way. I did not know your partner Paul but followed the Rain Barrel activities through other colleagues who cooperated with you. You can now rest on your laurels and enjoy LIFE ! Regards.
Dec 6, 2025
His religion has nothing to do with his personality ,Lewis has been an honest and thoughtful humanist and one of the ablest orators I have known. In fact when Jim Grant engaged Lewis it was for the purpose of representing
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Many interesting comments, but not one about the few sentences in a box at the top of last week's newsletter, informing all of us that it will disappear in early 2026 if retirees or other members do not step forward. I wish I could, but am heavily involved in some important volunteer work in the US. Hoping we do not forfeit this wonderful network ...
ReplyDelete