quinta-feira, 30 de julho de 2026

The Spectator - Spain has reinvented football

 

(personal underlines)

LBC - Over 600 years of alliance, and it is the greatest enemy that is idolized...

                                                                                                             

Spain has reinvented football

The team’s triumphs go beyond this World Cup

(Getty)

There is something intimidating about sporting royalty in the stands. At many great clubs, retired legends seem almost gargoyle-like, perched high above the pitch, judging those sent to inherit their legacy. Manchester United have long played beneath the watchful gaze of Sir Alex Ferguson; other clubs have their own ghosts.

Spain’s World Cup triumph offered a different spectacle. As the Spanish greats of the past – from David Villa to Iker Casillas – watched Lamine Yamal, Rodri and co defeat reigning champions Argentina, they resembled something more saintly; a reassuring reminder of Spanish supremacy. It was a far cry from the shaking head of Ronaldo watching yet another Brazilian disappointment or protestations of England’s World Cup alumni. The ease with which one generation gives way to the next is no coincidence. It is one of the defining features of modern Spanish football.

Spain’s  footballing journey did not begin at the start of this tournament when they won their second World Cup nor in 2008 when they won their first of three European championships this century. To understand it, we have to travel back to Barcelona in 1988, when an uncompromising Dutchman arrived with a radically different idea of how football should be played. 

When Johan Cruyff became Barcelona manager, Spanish football was not regarded as the game’s intellectual centre. The national side possessed flashes of brilliance but an enduring reputation for underachievement. Barcelona itself had won only a single European Cup. For 30 years, if you wanted to understand football, you went to Italy to AC Milan, Juventus or Inter. The Italian league Serie A was where tactics evolved and where the world’s greatest players congregated. 

But, as Italian football became burdened by debt during the 1990s, Spain invested in something less glamorous but ultimately more durable: youth development. While Serie A looked increasingly backwards, signing older, high-profile players, Spain’s La Liga began educating the next generation of coaches and footballers. Cruyff built something more ambitious than assembling a successful team. He created a philosophy that would outlive him with coaches like Pep Guardiola carrying the torch. 

Influenced by the Dutch ideals of ‘Total Football’, which emphasises fluid tactics and positions,  Cruyff insisted that technical ability and intelligence mattered more than physical stature. Young players were encouraged to solve problems with the ball rather than without it, to understand space before strength and angles before athleticism. Barcelona’s academy La Masia ceased to be a production line for footballers and became a school of ideas.

The principles spread far beyond Catalonia. Top-tier teams such as Villarreal, Athletic Bilbao, Real Sociedad and Valencia CF invested in technically demanding academies. Meanwhile, Spain’s thriving futsal culture – a scaled-down version of football – taught young players to think quickly in confined spaces, making close control and spatial awareness second nature. By the early 2000s, Spain was dominating the game at club and national level and the rest of the world was trying to follow in their footsteps.

But there were bumps in the road, bumps that risked derailing this football revolution altogether. In September 2006, Spain travelled to Belfast for their Euro qualifying match and suffered a chastening 3–2 defeat to Northern Ireland. Familiar accusations resurfaced that the national team, while talented, were poorly managed. Critics, both inside and outside the country, doubted Spain’s methods and called for a new coach.

Instead, then Spain manager Luis Aragonés doubled down. Rather than reverting to a more direct, physical style, he placed greater faith in the technically gifted players who would soon define an era. The rewards transformed international football. Their victory at Euro 2008 was followed by the World Cup in South Africa and two other European Championships in 2012 and 2024. On the surface it looked like a ‘golden generation’. Perhaps it was never a golden generation at all, but the first generation of a new footballing order. 

The country’s success now far extends that of the national team. Last season, Premier League champions Arsenal were coached by Mikel Arteta, a product of San Sebastián and Barcelona. The Champions League was won by Luis Enrique, the Spanish football manager of Paris Saint Germain. Unai Emery lifted the Europa League trophy with his team Aston Villa. Both Liverpool and Chelsea have recruited Spanish managers this summer in the forms of Andoni Iraola and Xabi Alonso. After dominating the Premier League, Manchester City now have a stand named after Cruyff’s heir, Pep Guardiola.

For all its success, then the Premier League – La Liga’s closest rival at a national level – is very much a Spanish affair. Indeed, Spain’s greatest footballing achievement may not be its silverware but getting the rest of the world to play the game on its terms. The Premier League possesses the TV money and global audience, but increasingly it imports its footballing ideas from Spain. England owns the richest competition on earth; Spain supplies much of the expertise that makes it worth watching.

That perhaps is Spain’s greatest triumph. Trophies can be won by golden generations, but changing the way the rest of the world thinks about football is something altogether rarer. The legends celebrating in the stands in New Jersey on Sunday were not just watching another success but also the philosophy they popularised triumph. 

The Spectator - How London parks turned into velodromes

 

(personal underlines,...silent thoughts)

How London parks turned into velodromes

Cyclists are going nowhere, and they know it

(iStock)

Pity the tufted ducks: Regent’s Park hasn’t been this manic since Donald Trump militarised it in 2018, and his very oedipal Chinooks terrorised the birds. Read about Trump’s father Fred, and you will understand him, and the Chinooks. But Trump left, and the cyclists multiplied.  

I don’t live in London, so I don’t see the mission creep. The last time I was in the rose garden in the Inner Circle it was a weekday afternoon in early spring, and it was empty, doing what it is designed for: peace in a howling city. But that was then. Last Sunday morning the Inner Circle had the sound of approaching war again: of cyclists using it not as an oasis, but a velodrome for athletes who aren’t that good.  Give me the thighs of my dreams so I can sit on you, is their cry. You share an oasis but dominate a velodrome. Regents Park is two circles. They are going nowhere, and they know it. That’s the point. 

This is not about cycling, because there is nothing wrong with cycling. Rather, it is how they cycle: on slender whiny bikes in a pitch hateful to the ear in a costume that says we are better than you – though strong bodies never looked uglier – and much too fast. A woman was killed in the Outer Circle in 2022, and it wasn’t the cyclist’s fault apparently, because there is no speed limit for bikes. He was travelling at 29mph, a speed lap. Riders are encouraged by fitness apps to boast about their speed online: academics say this creates obsessive tendencies. There is a voluntary guideline of 20mph for cyclists – the legal limit for cars in the park – but guidelines are made to be broken. 

When I heard this I thought: it was always going to be this way. An elderly woman, defined in reports as ‘a grandmother’, as if she existed only in reference to others, would be killed by a cyclist near a rose garden, and it would be her fault for existing in his space. Nor is it about exercise – they call it recreation, because they are appalling – because there is nothing wrong with exercise either. But they should be on an exercise bike, or a racetrack. They act like they are: a dog walker was hit in the same spot in 2024. 

Sunday morning is a time for families and lovers. Don’t whine about the rights of the single. You get a council tax discount, and you get to sleep. My near collision was absolutely my fault: she wouldn’t need expensive lawyers to traduce my corpse. I lingered in the road asking my boy if he wanted sugar in his tea from the café. Out she came, racing ghosts I cannot see, screaming, ‘get out the way!’ in the voice of the American liberal who can take no more infringements on her liberty. She was, coincidentally, dressed as a beetle that wants to fly away but lacks the wingspan. If it were me, I would have slowed down or moved into the empty oncoming lane.  But since this is about ownership, not pleasure, she did neither. She rode at me, screaming. She is like the bodyboarders of Sennen Cove – they race into idling paddlers in groups – but at least they stay in the sea.  

I can understand cycling on the Outer Circle. It’s a real roadway with eight sets of traffic lights – the cyclists ignore them – and there’s a good chance you might run over Peter Mandelson. You’d probably get off. (See above). But the Inner Circle was designed for the contemplation of the nightingale’s song. It’s outrageous that tradesmen cannot use the park at weekends, if in their vans – tradesmen have children too, and weekends – but these ghouls can. Of course they are rich: they moan about their £4000 bikes being stolen by gangs, and I smile at this, though I shouldn’t.  

Their defences are absurd. Cars kill more people than cyclists, they say: well, so does Ebola. So would the Martians if they visited Regent’s Park, as they did in The War of the Worlds, and perhaps they could deal with the cyclists. It’s hardly the point. Ban cyclists from the Inner Circle now, and not just because they call it a “0.65-mile loop” and, as such, are unworthy of it.  

The Spectator - Schools out: the dissolution of private education

 

(personal underlines)

Schools out: the dissolution of private education

St Joseph’s College in Reading survived two world wars, the Great Depression and a pandemic. But it could not weather two years under this Labour government. Next month, its 500 pupils will be among thousands across the country who do not return to the schools from which they broke up for the summer holidays. These are the casualties of the government’s decision to impose VAT on private school fees and remove business rate relief – a policy ministers promised would not have such consequences.

We still haven’t seen the full effects of Labour’s recklessness. The true damage will take time to set in. We know that during the financial crisis, parents struggling to pay fees avoided moving their children until they reached a natural break in their education: the end of primary school, GCSEs or a key stage. Governors exhaust every alternative before admitting defeat, pursuing mergers, selling assets and cutting costs in the hope of surviving another year. But the rot has set in, and faster than expected.

Century-old Victorian institutions are closing or morphing into unrecognisable organisations. It will not be long before we are left with a sector transformed: a small number of globally elite schools with fees so high they function only as finishing schools for the rich; parents obtaining certificates proving their child has deficiencies which cannot be accommodated in the state sector; and a handful of religious and eccentric schools able to obtain funding outside of normal fees.

The Department for Education (DfE) initially predicted that 14,000 pupils would leave the private sector by this summer. So far, the figure is 30,000 pupils, at least. Sarah Cunnane, from the Independent Schools Council, describes the rate of closures as ‘very concerning’ and suggests that healthy schools, which ‘would have been open for years to come’ and which were not previously in financial trouble, are at risk.

The changes to VAT and business rate relief did not land in isolation. Schools have also had to absorb the increase in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and the minimum wage, both introduced in April last year. State schools received additional public funding to offset the higher NIC bill; independent schools did not. For a sector where staffing accounts for the majority of costs, the effect has been severe.

Proponents of charging VAT only want to talk about Eton and Harrow. But Britain’s elite public schools were never going to fall victim to this policy. These schools know they can pass on costs to parents. And if British parents can’t pay, there is no shortage of wealthier international families who will stump up to secure a British education.

Richer schools have also been cushioned by endowments and donations. The regional pattern is revealing: 9.6 per cent of mainstream independent schools in the East Midlands have closed since January last year, compared with 3.9 per cent in London and 3.6 per cent in the south-west.

Girls’ schools are also disproportionately struggling. More than twice as many have closed as boys’ schools. Girls’ schools are often newer and lack historic funds. In an attempt to avoid closure, many single-sex institutions have been forced to pivot to a co-educational model. Cheryl Giovannoni, the chief executive of the Girls’ Day School Trust, warns that these changes risk ‘girls becoming something of an afterthought in the decisions about what is best for them, and how their futures will be defined’.

Durham High was one of the schools that became co-ed shortly after the introduction of VAT, but this was not enough to save it from closure last month. A former member of the board of directors notes that the school wasn’t well endowed, and that it ‘was the plumbers and the sparkies and the scaffolders’ who paid the fees, with a significant number of pupils on assisted places. He speaks of the ‘tremendous pride and admiration’ he had for the staff, who during lockdown were unique ‘among both private and state schools in the area in continuing to deliver the full curriculum’.

Durham High’s fees ranged from £14,475 to £19,323 a year – comparably modest for day education in the region. Parents will struggle to find a similar local offering for their children.

The school was owned by Galaxy Global Education, controlled by Shangqin Gao, a Chinese businesswoman. The group has recently purchased a number of English schools and closed three of them down, including Malvern St James in the West Midlands and Ruthin School in Wales, all with little notice, leaving pupils without a school place and teachers without work.

Labour’s Mary Kelly Foy has accused the company of a land grab. Because private schools are a rapidly declining asset, it may make far more sense from a commercial perspective to buy them and sell off their grounds to developers. Galaxy denies that this was its strategy, claiming that the schools were unable to operate against the backdrop of ‘unprecedented pressures’.

When governors are struggling to make ends meet and reconcile rising costs, they often look to a sale to save the school. More than 30 independent schools have been sold to Chinese investors in the past decade. As more schools battle insolvency, that number is likely to rise. But these buyers are far more ruthless than a governor team made up of parents and community figures. They aren’t interested in a school’s history and may choose closure if the value of an institution’s assets outstrips its profit-making potential.

Private equity funds now also dominate the educational landscape, which may seem strange since the sector is dogged by mounting overheads. But these firms have hit on a way to make money against the backdrop of VAT.

The one growth sector in private education is special needs. This is because children in possession of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which states they have needs that can only be met in a private school, will have their fees paid in full by the local council, ensuring no fall in pupil numbers. The council can also claim the VAT back. As of February this year, 30 per cent of independent special schools were backed by private equity firms. Roughly a third of these are based outside the UK – in Jersey, Guernsey, the US, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

There is now a strong incentive for families previously paying for education to obtain an EHCP to retain a private school place. The former education secretary Damian Hinds has pointed out that many families are likely to ‘find that they cannot afford the extra 20 per cent, so they will apply for an EHCP and the child could get placed back in the same school, with the entire cost now being picked up by the state’.

There are currently 538,547 pupils with an EHCP, up 11.6 per cent from 2025. While not all of these plans will require councils to pay for private education, many will, and it is conceivable that more parents have sought them to ensure council funding for their children’s education because they themselves cannot afford to pay increased fees.

The DfE claims that there is no scandal in the story of school closures. Its often trotted-out line is that ‘more private schools opened than closed’ since VAT was introduced. This may be technically true, but it misses how the sector is drifting away from its roots. Eighty-four per cent of schools which have closed were mainstream. Many were centuries-old centres of academic excellence, while 89 per cent of openings are special schools.

We have replaced Malory Towers with another exercise in infantilisation, placing large numbers of children in a state of learned helplessness by sending them to institutions specialising in ADHD, dyslexia or ‘emotional difficulties’. Meanwhile, England’s exceptional schools are struggling. The Purcell School, Yehudi Menuhin School and Chet-ham’s School of Music – where, respectively, Jacob Collier, Nicola Benedetti and Thangam Debbonaire, Labour’s former shadow culture secretary, trained – have all been hit by VAT and business rate relief changes.

Specialist music and dance schools are among the most vulnerable to government vandalism. Due to their participation in the DfE’s Music and Dance Scheme, which provides income-determined grants, many of these schools effectively have their fees set by the government. They cannot simply hike them to cover rising costs. They are also among the most expensive schools in the country to run. Students require one-on-one teaching and extensive contact hours. Class sizes are small and boarding is necessary to house so many talented students in one place.

Baroness Keeley has warned that Chetham’s in Manchester is in particular ‘financial distress’ due to ‘rising costs and the introduction of VAT on fees’. The school fears it may be forced to close in the next few years. Ninety per cent of Chetham’s pupils receive financial support. Their parents do not have extra money lying around to finance VAT hikes. It is also one of the only music schools of its calibre in the north of England.

The Royal Ballet School also faces financial threat. The school requires a pianist for each class and regularly imports costumes from Europe for productions. To cut costs would be to undermine the future of English ballet. One of the school’s heads, David Gajadharsingh, has warned that VAT will ‘destroy opportunity’ for young dancers.

While the government has increased grant funding for these schools, with the Treasury paying itself back some of the tax hike, the money isn’t enough to cover rising costs and is only applied to families earning less than £45,000 per annum. The principal of the Purcell School has identified a £4 million shortfall in funding, in part caused by VAT and business relief changes.

Labour told us that it was taxing private schools to fund the recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers. But the number of full-time equivalent teachers in England’s state-funded schools has fallen by 1,900. And the policy might not even be revenue-raising at all. In Scotland, the VAT raid has already cost more than it raised. Every child that moves into the state education sector does so at a cost of £8,850 to the public purse. The policy’s net fiscal gain is slowly being eroded by that cost.

What has Labour actually achieved? It has forced the closure of at least 78 schools, 87 per cent of which weren’t selective. It has robbed 8,429 pupils of their school places. It has forced girls’ schools to abandon the single-sex principles on which they were founded. Where we once had Victorian institutions, we will now have Chinese-owned schools vulnerable to asset stripping, and private equity-backed special schools sucking at the taxpayer’s teat.

The policy has made Britain one of only two countries in the world to tax children’s education like a consumer service. It is also one of the only times that the government has removed tax relief from a whole class of charities -– paving the way for future policy. If the government doesn’t like what your charity provides, it is now free to remove relief and with it your ability to function.

If ministers wanted to raise revenue, why did they bring in VAT changes in the middle of a school year, with just five months’ warning? Would it not have made more sense to allow private schools to prepare for lost revenue? And why did it bring down the second blow of business-rate relief removal three months later?

None of this should surprise us, though. Bridget Phillipson, the former education secretary, has said she is ‘not the only spiteful class warrior out there’ and showed off T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan. Lucy Powell, the recently appointed Education Secretary, was waging a war on private education long before she got the job. In 2016 she opposed an Independent Schools Council proposal to introduce 10,000 free private school places at the same cost to the government of sending a child to state school. She told the Conservatives to stop ‘fixating on independent and grammar schools as silver bullets to school improvement’.

Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour wanted to abolish private schools. Now it might not even need to bother. A sector too depleted to offer bursaries, unable to train the next generation of musicians and dancers and increasingly dependent on foreign capital may simply cease to exist in the form Britain has known for generations.

Cartoon - Jim Unger Herman

 








Observador - Como é barulhenta a felicidade em 2026 (Alexandre Borges)

 



(sublinhados pessoais)


Como é barulhenta a felicidade em 2026

Já não sabemos estar no silêncio. Não conseguimos ser. Ouve-se demasiado o nosso vazio. Fica demasiado espaço para o pensamento.

Duas pessoas, num sábado à tarde, procuravam uma esplanada tranquila para conversar. Conhecendo o tempo e o movo, não se lançaram tresloucadamente à aventura; fizeram planos prévios, estudos, cálculos: vamos a esta, que fica num jardim pouco conhecido nas traseiras de uma biblioteca – deve estar calma. Mas, à chegada, o terror: o jardim tinha sido cedido para uma festa dita de folclore colombiano, com reggaeton a níveis transatlânticos de decibéis, grelhas a expelirem fumo e cheiro a bifana por três quarteirões, barraquinhas disto e daquilo, o povo espalhado pela relva a beber imperiais em copos de plástico, fazendo tempo para o concerto que os instrumentos já montados num palco, por ora, abandonado, denunciavam.

Plano b): aquele outro jardim discreto, atrás dum cinema, de que nunca ninguém se lembra. Nem sinal de folclore colombiano ou baile funk; só um arraial montado para uma festa de crianças, ainda ou já sem crianças, com fitas coloridas e música alegadamente infantil em volume capaz de produzir lesões irreversíveis no tímpano do misantropo.

Avança o plano de emergência: o improviso. Ronda pela cidade, às escondidas, fingindo desinteresse nas esplanadas, até avistar por fim uma sem sinais de festa, fitas, balões, palcos, grelhas ou barracas. Um oásis. Pedem dois cafés – não; um latte e uma cerveja, que esta corrida pela cidade numa tarde de Verão deixa marcas. Sentam-se, enfim. E eis que, duma mesa do canto, dois putos começam a botar hip-hop dos telemóveis. E atrás, uma velhota decide que também vai ver a telenovela no dela, como se estivesse em casa, e não a 30 centímetros da cabeça de outro ser humano.

Já não sabemos estar no silêncio. Não conseguimos ser. Ouve-se demasiado o nosso vazio. Fica demasiado espaço para o pensamento – e sabemos como o pensamento pode ser intrometido. Por todo o lado, e indiferentemente das gerações, consideramos o ruído um direito elementar. Impomos o nosso barulho ao outro como se ele fosse constitucionalmente obrigado a aguentá-lo – de preferência, sem se queixar.

Antes da pandemia, se alguém se punha a ver vídeos em alta voz no telemóvel, ainda se conseguia perguntar se não tinha fones (a palavra “auscultadores” desapareceu do léxico comum, o que, em si mesmo, é sintomático). Desafie-se hoje quem quiser a tentar fazê-lo numa esplanada ou transporte público; seria como tentar parar o vento com as mãos. Há uns tempos, o escriba, que tentava ler algumas páginas de um livro no “food court” de um centro comercial posicionado como chic, perguntou educadamente a um indivíduo que lá estava a usar o telemóvel como uma televisão-bebé e o mundo como a sua sala de estar, se não teria uns exemplares dos ditos fones. O fulano desligou e levantou-se de pronto, garantindo que já estava de saída, para depois atirar, quando já se apresentava a distância confortável, se por acaso não teríamos casa para ler, se tínhamos de ir ler para ali.

Sim. Sabemos dos grandes incómodos causados pelo acto da leitura em público. Imaginem que pega. Que alguma criança vê.

Há uma directiva europeia que proíbe que se faça barulho com o telemóvel nos transportes públicos e estipula multas para quem o faça; durou 10 anos a ser transposta para a lei portuguesa e posta em vigor. Por toda a parte, gente de todas as tribos faz videochamadas ou telefonemas em alta voz, ouve e grava áudios de WhatsApp como se falasse a um walkie-talkie dos anos 80, impõe a coluna bluetooth na praia ou no parque ao congénere incauto que tenha saído de casa sem fones com bloqueador de ruído, sem ao menos aquela lata provocadora do bimbo que, antigamente, carregava ao ombro o tijolo das cassetes.

Serve de pouco ter o nosso próprio telemóvel no silêncio quando, em volta, metade do mundo não se importa de ser interrompida de 10 em 10 segundos pelo plim ou zumbido de mais um email, mais uma mensagem de WhatsApp, mais uma parte duma parte duma parte duma mensagem de WhatsApp, uma notificação do Instagram, outra do Facebook, uma do Tik Tok e mais umas da Uber, da Glovo, da Bolt, da agenda, do jogo, do banco, do MB Way e da dating app. Somos milhões a receber e mandar milhões de mensagens, mais os biliões de mensagens automaticamente enviadas por bots. O mundo é uma notificação. Ininterrupta.

Até há poucos anos, era fácil chamar a polícia para pôr fim ao ruído do vizinho que se aventurava numa obra ao domingo – experimente agora. Os donos costumavam ficar embaraçados perante a insistência dos cães em ladrar a estranhos – experimente agora. São os próprios serviços públicos a dar o exemplo com recolhas do lixo à uma ou duas da manhã, a que, no caso de Lisboa, se acrescenta uma sirene insuportável quando os camiões se deslocam vagarosamente em marcha-atrás nas ruas sem saída.

Mas nada fala tanto desta psicose generalizada como a praia. Numa sociedade que reduziu a ideia do paraíso a um areal ao sol, a música é a materialização fabricada da alegria. A música de praia, especificamente – seja lá o que isso for – de preferência, em volume capaz de comunicar com o radar de uma baleia a quilómetros da costa. Onde haja um pouco de água e um guarda-sol, o bar de apoio emite música para o mundo como se tudo fosse só mais um tórrido dia nas Caraíbas. Mesmo que, na verdade, seja a praia fluvial de Tabuaço, a albufeira do Alqueva, uma enseada de calhau, em mais um dia nublado nos Açores. Há sempre uma festa ao pôr-do-sol chamada sunset. Mas o sunset matou o pôr-do-sol. É quase impossível viver um em silêncio. Não estar radiante sem reggaeton.

Havia uma funcionária na biblioteca da escola a quem chamávamos Chaleira por passar o tempo a mandar-nos calar com os mais longos “schius” da história. Nunca soubemos o nome dela. Creio que nunca lhe ouvimos uma palavra, sequer, para lá daquela onomatopeia. Nunca pensei um dia ter saudades da Chaleira. Espero que se fale baixinho, onde quer que esteja.


quarta-feira, 29 de julho de 2026

The Spectator - Germany is quietly falling apart

 

(personal underlines)

Germany is quietly falling apart

The AfD, which held its conference in Erfurt, eastern Germany, is reaping the political rewards from Germany's decline (Getty images)

In Germany, the trains have stopped running on time, bridges have been shut over safety fears, and the country’s largest carmaker, Volkswagen, is cutting a sixth of its workforce. The government’s response amounts to a shrug, dressed up as reform. It seems like Germany is on a bad streak – and the AfD looks set to reap the rewards.

Take the railways, the infamous Deutsche Bahn. A few weeks ago, they ground to a total halt. Every train in the country stood still, because the radio system that lets drivers talk to signal boxes – a system that appears to date, in spirit if not in silicon, from the Kaiserreich – simply stopped working. For several hours, nothing moved on the tracks of Europe’s largest economy.

Stranded passengers shrugged at reporters when asked how they felt about it. This is just what Deutsche Bahn does, several said, with the weary resignation of people describing the weather rather than a national infrastructure failure. That reaction tells you more about the current German mood than the failure itself does. It is not anger. It is fatalism.

Transport minister, Patrick Schnieder, responded with the platitude every politician reaches for in a crisis: he demanded “comprehensive clarification”. It is a mark of quite how unglamorous his brief has become that Schnieder – a man nominally responsible for one of the most consequential portfolios in government – remains almost entirely unknown to the German public. Nobody expects him to fix anything. Nobody, really, expects anyone to.

Consider the rest of the news from the past month. The new Stuttgart railway station, a project that has been under construction for more than two decades, will now open in 2031 – a decade later than originally planned, and that is the optimistic scenario. This barely made headlines, because nobody in Germany still believes Stuttgart 21 will ever actually finish on schedule; they have simply stopped counting.

Then the Rhine bridge carrying the Autobahn A565 near Bonn – a critical east-west artery through one of the country’s busiest regions – was shut without warning because it was structurally unsound. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the industrial heartland of the Bundesrepublik, one in three motorway bridges is now judged to need repair. True to form, the work is delayed until the danger becomes so acute that bridges are occasionally closed on the very day the inspectors find the fault. The public receives this news with a shrug too.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen, the company whose name is practically synonymous with German industrial identity, is reportedly preparing to cut 100,000 of its 600,000 jobs worldwide, with four domestic factories on the chopping block. The unions and the SPD blame management. They might more usefully blame a decarbonisation timetable so aggressive, and a combustion-engine ban so rigid, that it left German carmakers with nowhere to hide when cheaper Chinese electric alternatives arrived. Naturally, nobody in government will admit as much. The correction, when it comes, is grudging and half-hearted.

It is worth dwelling on what all this represents, because it is not merely a bad month. “Vorsprung durch Technik” was not just an Audi slogan; it was the self-image of an entire nation – a country that ran on the twin pillars of relentlessly capable infrastructure and an industrial base that fused engineering excellence with genuine innovation. The Institute for German Economic Research has tracked, for over a decade, how many companies feel held back by crumbling roads and rail. In 2013, 59 per cent said yes. Today it is 84 per cent, with the share reporting severe disruption rising sharply since 2018. Every delayed train and closed bridge is, in the driest possible sense, a tax on German growth.

Berlin’s answer to all this, delivered with much self-congratulation, was a package of pension and tax reforms that the governing parties have spent the past fortnight applauding themselves for, with the press obligingly joining the chorus. The reforms are overdue; they modernise a welfare system that, like the rail network’s signalling, has rather too much Kaiserreich still baked into it. But updating the redistribution of German prosperity is not the same thing as generating any. And generating it is precisely the problem nobody in Berlin wants to confront.

Look closer at the package and the ambition thins out fast. The centrepiece tax relief amounts to barely more than the inflation adjustment the constitutional court had already ordered. A promised cut to red tape is genuinely welcome – fewer reporting obligations, faster permitting – but it sits alongside a new state-owned housebuilding company and an expanding subsidy regime, which rather undercuts the idea that Berlin is serious about shrinking its own footprint in the economy. On energy prices, the single biggest drag on German industrial competitiveness, the package says almost nothing.

Take Lower Saxony’s minister-president Olaf Lies, whose state owns a stake in Volkswagen. As Chinese manufacturers take a huge chunk of market share from VW, his solution is protectionism: keeping Chinese carmakers out of Europe rather than asking why German ones can no longer compete on their own merits. It is the same reflex every time: more regulation, more state, less market, less competition. It is an approach that has served Germany rather well for explaining decline, and rather poorly for reversing it.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz came to office promising, in his own words, a “great leap forward” for German competitiveness – a phrase whose previous owner, Mao, drove his country into famine, though one assumes Merz meant it more kindly. What he has delivered so far is a reform package built on the smallest common denominator between two reluctant coalition partners: welcome, as far as it goes, but nowhere near the scale of the structural crisis Germany is in – arguably its deepest since the Republic’s founding.

None of this is without political consequence. The AfD, which held its party conference this weekend, looks, by common consent, unstoppable. It is not hard to see why: a country that watches its trains stop, its bridges close and its flagship manufacturer shed a sixth of its workforce, while its government congratulates itself on a tax tweak barely larger than inflation would have delivered anyway, is primed to reward whoever promises to notice the rot.

Yet the more pressing question is simpler and more damning: why does a country that still thinks of itself as Europe’s engine room seem to have lost the ability to fix its own bridges? It seems to be symptomatic for Germany’s current state.

The country that once exported “Vorsprung durch Technik” to the world is now struggling to keep its own trains and bridges functioning – and its government is coming up with a reform package that doesn’t deserve to be called as such.

Until Berlin’s political class stops treating that as an inconvenient footnote and starts treating it as the central story, the shrugging fatalism on Germany’s platforms and building sites will keep finding somewhere to go. And Germany will continue to fall apart quietly.

The Spectator - The radical left will regret embracing political violence

 

(personal underlines - silent desires...)

The radical left will regret embracing political violence

What are the circumstances in which it is right to smash up a building? When might one justifiably destroy an artwork? And what are the conditions under which one might splinter someone’s spine with a sledgehammer?

Many on the left seem to have satisfied themselves on all these questions. But I wonder if they have even begun to reckon with the consequences.

Back in 2019 a group of activists from Extinction Rebellion took their views on fossil fuels to Belvedere Road in central London. There, at the site of the Shell building, they smashed windows, spray-painted walls and caused other criminal damage. At their subsequent trial at Southwark Crown Court, the judge instructed the jury that the accused had no defence in law. The jury acquitted them anyway, having apparently decided it is permissible to smash a building up if said building belongs to an oil and gas company.

As the years go on it becomes ever clearer that this country could have done with an energy policy which did not demonise oil and gas. But once it is decided that the headquarters of Shell, BP and any other energy company are fair game, you tilt the balance. Suddenly ‘activists’ become the provisional wing of the net-zero zealots and ‘direct action’ takes a step into acceptability.

Fast-forward a few years to March 2024 and it was a painting by the great Hungarian émigré artist Philip de Laszlo that was attacked. The portrait of Lord Arthur Balfour was hanging on a wall at Trinity College, Cambridge when an activist filmed themselves slashing it and spray-painting it red. So far as I can work out nobody has ever been charged with the attack.

De Laszlo was a Jewish-born painter, but it seems his painting was attacked because his subject was guilty of signing the ‘Balfour declaration’ in 1917, setting out the conditions under which the British government was willing to recognise the recreation of a Jewish state. Neither de Laszlo nor Balfour seem to have many defenders today – certainly not at Cambridge University. And so another precedent was set. If you would like to find an exquisite portrait of a person from the past whose actions you disagree with, then go ahead and destroy it if you like.

And so we come to the question of the sledgehammer. Some figures on the British left appear to have decided that people should be excused from smashing the spines of policewomen with sledgehammers. It is nearly two years now since a group of ‘activists’ – once again from Palestine Action – went into an arms company’s headquarters outside Bristol. Dressed in boilersuits and carrying sledgehammers, they started by smashing up computers; when the police arrived one of the activists took two swings at a female police officer, using a seven-pound sledgehammer, fracturing her spine.

In the days since some of those activists received sentences for their crimes, portions of the left have decided that the issue in question is whether or not the disabling of a female police officer was ‘intentional’ or not. Grievous bodily harm in itself seems not to be a particular problem for them. The question is ‘intent’ and the circumstances in which GBH is now permissible. As with the attack on the de Laszlo portrait the general justification seems to be ‘but genocide’.

As it happens the claim that there has been anything like a genocide in Gaza is a malevolent lie. What has been happening since 7 October 2023 has been a war – one which Hamas started. But the genocide lie – which started around 2005 – is pushed by people who then insist, as one left-wing British journalist put it this week: ‘You have a responsibility to do everything in your power to stop it.’ So the ‘stop the genocide’ lobby whip themselves up into a state of rage over a lie and then make excuses for each other when they start swinging sledgehammers. An action that used to be regarded as the place where political disagreement stopped and political violence began becomes tolerated.

This not-so-subtle erosion of values mirrors something that has lately been happening in the US, where the murder of a healthcare executive on the streets of New York has been turned into a moral argument by the American left. Under what circumstances is it permissible to shoot a married father of two? In the same way there have been those who have decided that the words of someone like Charlie Kirk can best be responded to not with words but with bullets. A conservative activist was assaulted this week on the streets of Britain, doing something similar to Kirk, and we shall see how tolerated that is.

One can only hope that the people who urge on such ‘direct action’ have no idea of how slippery a slope they are on and that they have not worked out yet that political violence need not solely belong to one political side. In the US most weapons are held by people on the political right. It really wouldn’t be in the interests of the political left to embolden the idea of ‘direct action’.

In the UK the stakes are – for now – measurably less severe. But they are there. If buildings can be smashed up for a ‘righteous cause’, works of art can be destroyed for historically illiterate ‘moral’ reasons and police can have their spines smashed for a good cause then I have news for the radicalising left. Which is that – as unrest from Southport to Belfast has shown – the violence might come from surprising places.

Many people think they have a moral cause. Many people are angry about many things. Some of their grievances are justified. Others are imaginary. But the debate does not stop when the sledgehammers come out. It simply becomes something different. For now, ‘direct action’ has been justified by only one political side. The radical left better hope that their opponents don’t notice if the rules of the game are changing.

Livros comprados (encomendados) na Bertrand

 





Observador - Morreu o meu Maxi, um cão como nós (ou como eu)

 



Morreu o meu Maxi, um cão como nós (ou como eu)

Este texto não é sobre os exames ou sobre Luís Neves – é sobre a morte de um cão, sobre como estabelecemos laços com os animais e sobre os excessos de um animalismo que faz equivaler humanos e animais

O cão imita-nos a todos, tudo o que ele faz é para que se repare nele e se lhe dê mais carinho. Não é por ser cão que ele não tem sentimentos. Cão como nós, pensei. Mas preferi calar-me.
Manuel Alegre, Cão como nós

Sabemos que vai acontecer, os cães têm uma vida relativamente curta, são cachorros apenas uns meses, velhotes alguns anos, e depois deixam-nos, com ou sem aviso, as mais das vezes sem um queixume – ou sem um queixume para além daquele que adivinhamos no seu olhar.

Desta vez chegou o adeus do Maxi. O meu Maxi. A minha sombra branca, como costumávamos dizer. O mais pequeno mas também o mais velho da matilha, mas que não esperava que fosse o primeiro a despedir-se de nós, com 12 anos e duas semanas.

Mas é assim e sabemos que é assim e por isso, agora que o primeiro luto está feito depois de lhe pegarmos ao colo uma última vez e de o depositarmos na terra, embrulhado na manta em que dormia e não longe de onde ele gostava de se colocar à minha espera sempre que ouvia o portão a abrir-se e o carro a entrar, ficamos com as suas memórias. Com a recordação da sua companhia. Com a esperança de que também ele era um cão como nós – na expressão feliz de Manuel Alegre –, eu egoisticamente a acreditar que era um cão como eu.

Quem me escuta na rádio Observador sabe que, por vezes, o ladrar dos meus cães perturba a emissão (sobretudo às quintas-feiras, dia de embirrações). Esses latidos não vão desaparecer, o Maxi quase nunca era dos que ladravam, e esses por cá continuam, espero que por muito tempo mesmo sabendo que há outros que já estão velhotes e cheios de maleitas. Fazem parte da minha vida – da vida da minha família – como outros fizeram antes. No meu caso, desde que nasci pois havia um cão em casa dos meus pais, depois houve anos de interrupção, sobretudo no período em que, com crianças pequenas e a viver num andar, nunca senti que tivesse condições para cuidar de um animal de companhia. Por fim, desde que pude fazê-lo, pude também testemunhar como tem mudado a nossa relação com os animais – para melhor e às vezes mas também para pior.

O Maxi – ou o “baixinho”, o “rodas baixas” – era um westie (nome completo: West highland white terrier) e um sobrevivente. Último e o mais pequeno de uma ninhada de um criador nosso amigo, esteve alguns dias entre a vida e a morte logo ao nascer, pelo que sempre se pode dizer que toda a sua vida foi um ganho. Recebemo-lo numa altura em que ainda recuperávamos de um conjunto de outras perdas e juntou-se a outros sobreviventes, rafeiros abandonados que acolhemos ou animais magoados de que os donos tinham desistido.

Ganhou depressa o seu espaço e depressa confirmou a fama de que é mesmo a sombra branca do dono, pois fazia questão de estar sempre ao pé de mim – a sua cama ficava do meu lado da cama, o sofá em que me sento tinha sempre de ter espaço para ele saltar e se deitar ao meu lado quando eu pousava um computador ou um livro sobre os joelhos, não podia sair a passear com os companheiros maiores que não se plantasse junto ao portão, sem se mexer, às vezes horas a fio, até que eu voltasse.

As suas pernas curtas já não lhe permitiam acompanhar as caminhadas, pelo que há bastante tempo tinha comprado uma mochila para o levar às costas e ele lá ia, sempre tranquilo excepto quando nos cruzávamos com outros cães e exigia que voltasse a pôr no chão – mesmo sendo o mais pequeno da matilha, corria a ladrar e, se estivéssemos perto de casa, o seu território, fazia-o com ar ameaçador e de dente arreganhado, o que só não metia medo porque os dentes eram pequenos.

Eu olhava para ele, olhava para os outros que nessa altura muitas vezes também achavam que tinham de mostrar serviço, depois lá os recolhia comprovando como é bem verdade que os animais podem ser senhores de fortes personalidades. Diria mesmo mais: se podemos tentar prever a personalidade de um cão ao escolhê-lo pelas características da raça, mesmo isso tem limites pois podem evoluir de forma bastante diferente, e creio não me enganar se acrescentar que essa evolução às vezes quase nos surge como simbiótica com os donos. Cães como nós.

Mas serão mesmo? Podem estes animais, que partilham 99,96% do seu genoma com os lobos selvagens (Canis lupus), de que todos eles descendem, ser algo diferente de “um lobo dentro de casa”?

O tema faz todo o sentido porque se é verdade que os cães foram os primeiros animais a passar por um processo de domesticação – trabalhos recentes indicam que a divergência entre linhagens poderá ter começado há 30 mil anos, sendo que já haveria cães bem diferenciados há entre 11 e 16 mil anos, o que significa que estes animais começaram a acompanhar os homens ainda antes do desenvolvimento da agricultura –, se também é verdade que hoje há uma enorme variedade de raças, não nos podemos esquecer que a nossa relação com ele mudou imenso nos anos mais recentes. Até há pouco mais de um século a maioria dos cães trabalhava para viver, cada raça adaptada a uma função específica. Hoje a maioria está confinada a um papel bem mais doméstico, muitas vezes os seus donos nem sequer compreendem as suas necessidades, os seus hábitos ou os seus sinais.

E no entanto tanto que se pode aprender. Nunca me esqueci, por exemplo, de uma entrevista que fiz há mais de 20 anos à grande primatóloga Jane Goodall (de quem nos despedimos recentemente), onde ela recordou como, após as primeiras observações no terreno dos chimpanzés da África Central, quando chegou a Cambridge os académicos desfizeram o seu trabalho: “Disseram-me que tinha feito tudo mal, que não devia ter dado nomes aos chimpanzés, que não devia falar dos seus sentimentos, que não podia pensar que cada um deles tinha uma personalidade diferente e única. Mas eu sabia que não tinham razão porque cresci com um cão extraordinário que me ensinou que os animais podem ter personalidade.”

Não me esqueci desta observação e nunca deixei de dar atenção às diferentes personalidades dos cães com que vivo, mesmo quando se trata de um dos seus instintos mais básicos, o do caçar. Tenho os que desenterram e perseguem toupeiras, os que conseguem caçar ratos, um que apenas se fascina com borboletas, e tinha o Maxi que nunca conseguiu entrar nestas competições por muito que tentasse. Nessas alturas lembramo-nos bem de como descendem de um grande predador e de como na natureza os predadores têm um papel indispensável e não segue as regras dos que gostam de amalgamar animais e seres humanos, porventura aplicando-lhes o mandamento do “não matarás” que, claramente, não faz parte do seu código de vida.

Creio que a minha sombra branca nunca compreenderia essas confusões, mesmo quando se punha a jeito para eu o enfiar na mochila e levar para a serra. Cão como nós, cão como eu, mas com limites. Companheiro, mas não filho, e talvez por isso, até para o recordar e honrar, possamos citar de novo Manuel Alegre:

(Sei muito bem que as pessoas saem dos retratos, sei isso desde pequeno, mas tu não, estás proibido de voltar a fazer o que fizeste esta noite, não posso entrar na sala e ver outra vez a tua moldura vazia.)

Mas a moldura está mesmo vazia, meu Maxi, mas há uma planta que cresce onde te depositámos na terra.

PUB • MAIS CONTEÚDO OBSERVADOR A SEGUIR

Siga-me no FacebookTwitter (@JMF1957) e Instagram (jmf1957).

Livros - História de Portugal (Vol I)

 Que bom é ler História quando bem escrita e fundamentada!




Séries - Eu, Jack Wright

 




Almoço - Plateias d'arte

Almoço com o grupo da Plateias D'Arte, em 12.07.2026 no restaurante d. Isilda. 

De pé da esquerda para a direita: Odete, Rui, Zézinha, João Novo, Anabela,...., Gonçalo, Diogo Novo e mãe, Lucinda  Aida, João, tia do Diogo, Venâncio

De joelhos: Inês, mãe da Inês , Filipa, Albino, eu

...último almoço?...




Livro - Remigração