Sahco Pt. II

Normaali

Viikko 17


 

Date: Apr 24th, 2017
Motion: THB that over time the social and health care overhaul will succeed
Role: Chair (opp.)


I have mused on the social and health care overhaul in Finland a little, and christened it ”Sahco”. I have been disappointed with what the earlier one and present regime have accomplished (= little, or nothing), so I think it’s time I presented you with an alternative vision about the reform that we ”have to” do, or are to do, at any rate. Let us first run through the basics.

The way that I understand the Sahco reform drive is that pressures from both doctors and patients have forced politicians to declare that the present state of health care, and to a lesser extent, social care, is inadequate, which has prompted a trend towards centralisation. There is also the financial question, or the seesaw between smaller units and the state, as to who will foot the bill.  As far as I can see, on the human level the reform is informed by

  1. patients’ desire for quality treatments
  2. patients’ desire to be able to jump queues and get quick fixes and
  3. doctors’ desire to have the most amount of colleagues and the best kind of equipment available

At present, there are several models and key numbers that rival each other:

  • Municipalities will shed off the responsibility for health affairs
  • There are 19 legacy provinces in the country
  • However, only 18 provinces are taken into account
  • There should be 12 hospitals with full service on a 24/7 duty
  • 1 extra hospital with full service on a 24/7 duty is being required by the Swedish-speaking, who want to have a hospital of their own due to their special, evident lingual needs.
  • Maternity wards at hospitals where fewer than 1,000 babies are born annually will be shut down
  • Specialised health care, (whatever that means), will be divided between 5 administrative and regional units

Even so, I think that the controversy is pointless, as it seems that the changes would be minimal compared to the amount of debate that has been maximal. To redeem the volume of ink that has so far been spent on the issue, I propose that the following, more drastic model be put into action to implement the reform.

  1. People need major operations fairly seldom in their lives. Most people are operated once, twice or thrice in their lives. As the need is fairly rare and the biggest concentration of expertise is based in the capital city Helsinki, I would have all operations of a major magnitude (by-pass operations, cancer removals, plastic surgery, hip replacements) performed in Helsinki. Helsinki has the best hospitals, the best doctors and the best nurses. And everyone who needs a surgery of the big sort can afford to have the operation in Helsinki, even with additional costs from accommodation, travel, eating out and so on.
  2. Giving birth is the only major operation that many people go through in life that can’t be classified as an accident, defect, disease, emergency, injury or illness but which requires a hospital. I would apply the same kind of thinking here as before. As labour is part of one’s life likely only once, twice or thrice, I would place maternity wards at only three hospitals within the country. To serve Northern, Central and Southern Finland equally, I would place baby-delivery services in Rovaniemi, Jyväskylä and Helsinki. They would allow any pregnant Finn, but more logically people would choose the one that they would consider the nearest. As an aside, Kuopio, which is a town with a university hospital, could be regarded as an alternative to Jyväskylä, as it may have a more central location within Central Finland. The country would be divided up geographically with diagonal northwest-southeast lines into three sectors.
  3. All minor medical procedures (dental care, injuries, vaccinations etc.) would be carried out at health centres around the country as usual. Services could be offered by corporate or communal players. Politicians could set the bar of state-sponsored services at the desired percentage.

The enclosed image depicts the model that I favour. It could be considered the ”3 + 1” model. I hope that this bolder, more radical and drastic model will gather support, once people realise that they need medical services, but that they do not need them as frequently and as near to them as they think they do.

Thank you.


Arvio: Edellisellä viikolla katsoin, että opposition muut jäsenet voisivat tehdä erinäisiä muita asioita, jos sihteeri keskittyisi lääkäreihin, kun tästä nimenomaisesta aloitteesta puhutaan. Tässä nyt sitten opposition puheenjohtaja esittää vaihtoehtoisen mallin. Nimenomaan hän tekee sen, koska väittelyssä ”järein” aines sopii ensin puhuvalle.

 

What’s Up, Doc?

Normaali

Viikko 16


 

Date: Apr 18th, 2017
Motion: THB that over time the Social And Health Care Overhaul will succeed
Role: Secretary (opp.)


In Finland, there has been a longstanding project to overhaul the environment of social and healthcare. It has been abbreviated as ”sote” or capitalised as ”Sote”. In English, it could be abbreviated and translated as ”Sahco” (short for social and health care overhaul), or ”Sochel” (a letter longer).

However, however much people flip and fling the issue, results have been thin on the ground and people have grown tired of the tardy process. So far, nobody has brought up the role of physicians in this question. As I see it, they play a key role in necessitating and complicating the issue.

Doctors of the medical kind have long been a pampered group and profession in this country. This heightened importance is to some extent universal, while it likely stems from the time when only doctors could prevent the spread of infectious, debilitating disease, such as polio, syphilis, tuberculosis, typhoid fever and the like. This has led to a situation, where physicians have enjoyed the best salaries for about a century now. They are in demand, and they know it.

In the past, doctors did tour the countryside and small towns, but even then they knew their status as a pampered professional. Many did it only when they were freshly released graduates from their institutions, young and possibly without a family and a partner. According to some of them, they could quite freely collect easy money from these tours of the farther corners of the country, as the doctor-depleted localities were willing to spend generously on ”life & death”.

Many smaller towns don’t have any specialist doctors that would be the most desired. We are not talking about infectious disease anymore. We are talking about experts on ad/hd, anorexia, autism, obesity, plastic surgery, oncology and heart disease. Should the need for one arise, the patient has to go to the nearest place that affords such consultations. All of those doctors reside in Helsinki or other key cities in the nation. Often the cities that physicians favour have a university hospital downtown or on the outskirts.

I claim that physicians endanger the health of the nation by settling in cities where they can consume in the freest possible way. Since physicians enjoy salaries in the high four digits, they require a place to live where they can spend that money in a way that they consider dignified. They spend on apartments, high-end sports, cars, their children and travels. Small towns and the countryside cannot supply the services that these professionals demand and desire. Consequently, they settle in the biggest available consumption centers. And that is the root reason why patients have to follow them there, if they want to be treated.

So far, the ”Such Hell” situation has been addressed in trying to create an additional level of governance or administration between the existing levels of patient, Community (or Municipality) and the State. As far as I can see, this Provincial (or County) level is nothing less than a way to divide the country up in neat slices that follow quite nicely the way the country has been divided up and supplied with a university hospital.

So, it seems that politicians do not want to question the role of physicians, doctors and medical professionals in any way. Should they blame anyone, they would tend to blame the patients seeking treatment or members of another political party. Politicians just want to go out of their way to create a setting for medical pros in which the latter are able to ”flourish” and consummate their role as a consumer.

Thanks.


Arvio: Puheessa lähdetään siitä, että oppj on jo antanut täyslaidallisen koko reformia vastaan sinänsä. Sitten sihteeri tässä käy yllättäen lääkäreiden kimppuun, siinä missä edustajalle jäävät vapaat kädet valintansa mukaan joko a) tuomita koko projekti julkisen sektorin hyödyttömänä puuhasteluna, b) tarjota vaihtoehtoinen malli projektin saattamiseksi loppuun tai jopa c) vaatia ns. yövartijavaltiota. Oppositiolla on täten selkeästi helpompi rooli kuin hallituksella.

Väittely eli Debatti eli Inttämiskohkaus

Normaali

Viikko 15 +


Väittelyseurassa yliopistossa väitellään eri aiheista. Yliopistoväittely eroaa yliopistoväitöksistä siinä, että niitä ei valmistella 15:tä vuotta eikä niistä voi saada hylättyä. Niissäkin on kuitenkin opponentti tai opponentteja ja kustos eli chair. Jos haluat yliopistollisen väittelykoulutuksen, hakeudu yliopistojen väittelyseuroihin. Yliopistojen väittelyseurat toimivat yliopistokaupungeissa tai kaupungeissa, joissa on yliopisto. Väittelyseuraa saatetaan kutsua väittelyklubiksi, väittelysosieteetiksi, väittelyseuraksi tai väittelykerhoksi. Vastaavasti sitä saatetaan kutsua debattiklubiksi, debattisosieteetiksi, debattiseuraksi tai debattikerhoksi. Debatointi on kehittävä harrastus. Debatti ei koskaan laannu, jos se debatoijista debattiseuroissa on kiinni. Jos menee debattinoviisina debattikilpailuun, tekee debattidebyytin. Debyyttipuhe voi olla monta minuuttia pitkä, tai sitten puhujanpöntössä voi vain jäätyä. Debatointi ei ole deprivoivaa eikä aiheuta depressiota, ellei ole itse debiileillä kannanotoillaan saanut debattia diskvalifioiduksi. Tuomarointi eli dumaaminen debateissa on dumareiden eli tuomareiden tehtävä. Siihen voi saada koulutuksen, mutta tärkeintä on silti hyvä mutu eli musta tuntuu -tuntuma. Debatointi ilman tuomaria on kuin kirjan kirjoittaminen ilman kustannustoimittajaa. Yksin debatoinnissa kirjoitetaan vain yksi puhe ja esitetään se itse itselle, debatti keskenänsä. Monen hengen debatissa keskustelijoita on 2 viiva 8. Kaksinkertaisessa monen hengen debatissa keskustelijoita on 16 tai alle. Debatin jälkeen alkaa post-debatti eli post-väittely. Post-debatissa saa nauttia virvoitusjuomia. Debatissa saa nauttia vain vettä ja kansalaisluottamusta. Post-väittelyn päättymiselle ei ole takarajaa eli väittely-deadlainia. ”Tilatkaa jo taksi” voi olla viimeinen kannanotto yliopistossa käydyn harjoitusdebatin eli inttokohkauksen eli kokeiluväittelyn päätteeksi.


Saitin käyttäjälle:
Näitä puheita voi selata laittamalla saitin domain-nimen (p–.w–.c–) päätteeksi sanat /category/x-puhuja-arkistosta/ <laita x:n tilalle roomalainen numero välillä i-vi>, niin silloin saa allekkain kaikki tietyssä yhdessä puhujaroolissa tehdyt puheet. Niitä tulee myös jatkuvasti lisää, joten lista on aina hieman vajavainen. Myös tageilla voi hakea puheita. Harvassa puheessa on kuitenkaan sama tagi hakuperusteena.

Ch-ch-ch-changes…

Normaali

Viikko 15


 

Date: Aug 26th, 2013
Motion: THW make people experiment with drugs so as to bring about positive changes in their lives
Role: MP (opp.)


I want to talk about change. As I see it, there are at least three kinds of change, alteration or transformation. The variants range from desirable change to destructive change, and it would be anyone’s duty to avoid the latter kind. Without further ado, let’s plunge into an enchanted world…

The easiest way, which is within the radius of one’s comfort zone, to change as a person, would actually be to stick with one’s routine. Anyone can do that. When doing so, it seems that everything remains the same, but that is NOT true. There is a buffer, margin or niche for change in our routines. What this means in practise is that our broadband carrier, clothing, cuisine, friends, music taste, relationship with relatives, and so on, undergo constant, timebound erosion and regeneration. Even with incremental changes we might end up eating Italian-style cooking at the end of the year, if we make one experiment that costs us nothing in preparing cannelonis at the beginning of January. Likewise, arguing with our boss once in March could get us fired by the the end of October, if and when stress and things and stuff piled up insurmountably. Life undergoes change in this way. I call it evolving routine.

A subset of routine is addiction and an addicted way of life. People may be addicted to gambling, nicotine, caffeine, other people, near people, strange people, and of course substances ranging from THC to sleeping pills, LSD, PCP and opioids. If one cultivates this side of one’s life without inhibitions, one is stuck in a rut that can only lead to trouble. The definition of a junkie according to a reformed user was this; ”someone who does the same freaking thing every day, and hopes that it will one day lead to a different result”, this in reference to the standard ”kick” that people experience from any given drug of our choice (and the coming down off the drug, which is arguably often eventless). Of course, nothing ever changes. Instead, one gets carved inside by the drug, and this weakens us so that we become resistant to any true change and more positive outcomes and prospects in life. I call it destructive routine.

The only real, good way to evolve and change is to do it for real. This means putting one’s foot on it. The schedule has to be cleared. There needs to be a vacant slot in the year, preferably spring, summer or autumn. Routine cannot be part of the day anymore. One has to eat when one can, what one can (maybe out of a can). One week could and should be devoted to just one particular activity. Why? Because this would ultimately lead on to results, for the better or for the worse. Change of this sort happens usually only when the time is ripe, things have come to a head, and nothing else would work. Crises are the catalysts for change of this sort, but they don’t always function as wake-up calls. One can go living one’s life on the principle of an evolving or a destructive routine (as outlined earlier on), even if the writing was on the wall and a looming need to change was on the horizon. Routine is easier for the human body and soul, even if the human spirit is disdainful of it. I call and consider changes after crises subverting routine.

People need to move and relocate; change, develop and evolve. The reasons may be corporal, mental or social — it does not matter. Two good earthly, secular motives for change that other people understand as well are, of course, financial reasons and fulfillment in life. Change propels us both away from and toward happiness. But only we ourselves can define what genuine happiness is. Saving oneself is (on) everyone’s responsibility.


Arvio: Puhe on kenties yllättävä äkkisyvältä filosofiselta näkökannaltaan. Tämä puhe sopii MP-puheeksi siksi, että se ottaa kohteekseen aloitteen loppupuolella vastaan tulevan toisen avainsanan muutoksia, ”changes”. Pj:n ja hänen kumppaninsa voidaan ajatella käyneen sanasotaa tähän mennessä jo aloitteen mainitsemaa ensimmäistä avainsanaa, huumeet, vastaan. Tämän jälkeen whip saa solmia paketin kasaan, jos kaikki osapuolet ovat asiansa hoitaneet.

Matter Triumphs Over Spirit

Normaali

Viikko 14


 

Date: Apr 5th, 2017
Motion: THB that greed stands in the way of self-realization
Role: PM (gov.)


One may ask oneself why the world is in constant economic turmoil.

I think I’ve got the answer for that. The simple reason is that everyone is taking more and giving less. This happens across the board, and that’s why the world is in constant state of economic flux.

Let us take a closer look.

There are those who are able to achieve a Big Thing. When someone is able to do something unique, this world rewards the individual in question lavishly. Basically, (s)he can rake home however big a sum (s)he pleases. This is not even a question of age. The youngest self-made millionaires are barely out of their teens. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to F1 drivers, star football players, start-up entrepreneurs who get the public’s attention (and money, in some cases), patent holders, TV hosts, big industry leaders, big service-industry leaders, chairmen of the board, CEOs, CFOs, CCOs, CTOs, actors, directors, producers, and so on, and so on. All of them contribute something valuable to the economy, but the contribution is often lopsided to the amount of money they make while they’re doing so. The worrisome aspect is not the money per se, as if it was somehow corruptive, but the fact that the incentive to improve and go on working for a living may have vanished after the initial success, as it has brought in so much money that working beyond that point would be futile as seen from a layman’s point of view.

Then there are those who are able to do Something. These people have a far lower profile in society, and they cannot usually be categorised as celebrities or even any kind of ”concealebrities”, as they usually make a lot less dough than the aforementioned and don’t get recognised by the media. A lot of times the earning power of these people is tied up to holding some kind of a coveted, prestigious degree. They may not be able to even do their work properly, but as they get a position holding that degree, the workplace coalesces around them, and then they can delegate the actual work to their underlings and bask in the warmth of having generated something ”together”. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to administrators, principals, lawyers, doctors, middle management, clergymen (priests, ministers, bishops, archbishops), consultants, day traders, high-paid journalists, diplomats and so on, and so on. I’m not saying that they all are useless, but having hundreds of thousands of analysts and experts on a payroll with a salary is a very expensive business.

Finally, there are some (and it’s a growing number) who can do Nothing. These people have a varying background. Some come from well-off families but most come from working-class or underclass parents. These people blame just about everything in their lives (that is wrong) on society. That they’re fat is society’s fault. That they don’t know how to run a business is society’s fault. That they don’t have offspring is society’s fault. For all that, towards and until the end of their lives they will be dependent on social-security subsidies and transfers, such as a pension or unemployment benefit. Other taxpayers fund their way of life. The amount of money they get is paltry compared with what others get, but the point is that it extends very far in time and it has not been earned in any way. Because they live like that to the end of their lives, the sum total won’t be nearly as big as the sum total of what a well-off person has spent during one’s life, but it is still going to be something astonishing as a tally.

What unites people (unless they’re really really good, and really cool) is that they tend to take more than give. This is universal. This is ingrained. The sense of entitlement runs very deep through the marrow of Western Society. And it has also its counterparts in Russian, Indian, Arabic and Asian societies. If we have something to give, we tend to take fourfold. And why the heck do we do this?

Going after the Fat of the Land is sensible and understandable to some extent. People have needs. People’s families have needs. I understand and accept that people want to

  1. have a fast car (as it’s not merely aesthetic to look at but also convenient)
  2. throw a sumptuous wedding
  3. live in a villa on a hill (as it’s not merely convenient but also healthy)
  4. be able to fund all of their children’s education at a most expensive foreign university
  5. pay for their own funerals with the biggest tombstone and the most comfortable coffin

Many people, in any event, could pay for all of this after having earned about 10 million. Still, many more go out of their way to earn sums way above and beyond that kind of a sum.

Why, oh why?
There’s my question.


Arvio: Pääministeri lataa päälinjaukset pöytään tällä puheella. Jos ajatellaan, että hän puhuisi taloudellisesta näkökulmasta, tiimikaveri ja seuraava puhuja poliittisesta ja edustaja kenties psykologisesta, tämän puolen henkinen anti olisi aika lailla taputeltu. Puhe loppuu hienosti kysymykseen, joka hiillostaa molempia puolia eteenpäin.

Partistan

Normaali

Viikko 13


 

Date: Mar 28th, 2017
Motion
: THW regard parties as listed, public shares on a stock exchange
Role: PM (govt.)


The municipal or communal elections are at hand. In early April, we will have new councils. With that in mind, it might be useful to muse a little upon parties and their ikigai. Where do they come from, where are they and where are they headed for?

In the US, there are two parties that count. In the UK, there are 2^2 parties. The ones you’re not thinking of are the latecomers. In Finland, there are 2^3 parties. If all that are registered as parties had seats everywhere, Finns would have 2^4 parties, so we’re good at cell division. A party seems to elicit a counterforce. Hence the root number 2.

The following chart shows the present support for political parties in Finland. These parties are, in English, in order of popularity: The Social Democratic Party, The Center Party, The Coalition Party, The Green Party, The (True) Finns Party, The Left Alliance, The Swedish People’s Party and The Christian Democratic Party.

The uppermost threesome represents livelihoods. It’s a neat trichotomy. Social democrats get their money from wage-based industrial work or salary-based labour often carried out on behalf of the community or the State, Centrists from ownership and labour in primary production (agriculture, aquaculture, mining) and Coalitionists from owning their own, sometimes inherited business. In any country, these three could be thought of as the basis of the economic structure. That explains away their popularity. It’s about the source of the money, dude.

The next one, the Green Party, has often been cited as the only new party, in all of the countries it operates in, but in fact it’s not that novel nonetheless. It’s more like a symbiotic party for those who idealise either living in a big city or in the countryside, for apparent reasons. In politics, it combines Leftist and Liberal tendencies. But it offers little to those who are currently living in a small or midsize town.

Then come the ”angrier” alternatives to the traditional Left and Right: the Left Alliance and True Finns. They formulate opinions and stances that would not be allowed in the more moderate flagship parties of the Right and the Left. Basically, they are for the unemployed members of the Right/Left, whereas Coalition and SDP are for the (hard-)working members of the respective leanings. Both are symmetrically about as far from the middle line in their own directions. Who are the Angry Birds?! Revenge against the Pigs!

Last and perhaps Least come Christian Democrats and the Swedish-speaking. Both parties could be described as having a loyal, slightly stubborn following. In a sense, they are parties for those who are a) adherent and b) believers, as a Christian element has often played a part in their from-election-to-election-continuing, modest popularity.

I think it pays off to look at parties in this kind of an objective way. One can see how parties form clusters, in a way that they cannot always see themselves. Politics, as it is experienced in the casual way, is often about faces, impressions, numbers, slogans, themes and an urging to vote, but that hides away what political parties are and what kind of a vacuum they originally tried to address. Each time there is a hole in society, a political party usually emerges to try and fill it up.

It also pays off to think about one’s own political niche. Do I represent resoundingly any of the followings of any of these parties? If I do, I may vote for the mother parties. But if I don’t, chances are good that politically I will go on wandering in the desert, becoming part of the so-called ”swing vote” or restraining from voting altogether, becoming a member of the so-called ”Slumber Party”.

It also pays off to see if parties give any kind of a ”dividend”, when you ”buy” one of their ”shares” in casting a vote for them at the elections. If they promise the moon but deliver nothing, the question arises if they are any good and worthy of a place in the first place wherever decisions are made. I think there is grounds to say that political parties act and look like shares on a stock exchange.


Arvio: Puhe aloittaa pitkän ketjun aloitteen todistelemiseksi. Siinä mielessä voi olla hyvä, että mukana on kuva, vaikka niitä yleensä ei käytetäkään eikä näytetäkään. Ongelmaksi muodostuu se, että aloitteen alku (THW regard parties) toteutuu, mutta loppuosa jää huomioimatta ihan loppua lukuunottamatta. Nyt PM alustaa debatin rautalangasta ja puhuu puoliviihteellisesti politiikasta yleisesti. Tiimin muille jää kuitenkin varsinainen työ spesifin aloitteen puolesta puhumisessa.

I’m All Right Jack

Normaali

Viikko 12


 

Date: Mar 19th, 2017
Motion: THB that the Left still know how to (re)distribute wealth in the future
Role: Secretary (opp.)


Dear Ladies, Gentlemen, Chair and Assemblage,

As the secretary to the opposition, I speak against the motion. I think that political parties may function in two ways. First of all, their voters can think that they do a better job at handling people’s affairs, and therefore they vote for them. Alternatively, people identify with the members of the parties, their professions, image, children, livelihoods etc. and therefore they vote for them. Historically, parties have gotten landslide victories at elections benefiting from both of these viewpoints and voting channels.

The Left has been a potent force in European countries for a long time. They have been seen as good ”managers” of people’s affairs, but more importantly, they have been identified with. Any wage-earner or salaryman identifies with someone who does NOT get capital gains from or own the workplace (s)he is working for. As a utopian goal, some people may have meditated if the Left could be gotten rid of completely, given that it is notoriously strapped for new ideas. In that case, the premise would need to be the fact that most people were capitalists, in other words, people who owned their businesses and enjoyed full control over its profits (and losses). Then, the temptation to vote for the Left would be infinitesimal, as the Left does not care for the ”plight” of the Owning classes. When one owns one’s own business, all the ideas of the Right begin to make sense. Monetarism, night-watchman states, ”there is no society as such”, ”taxation is theft”; all of that begins to make sense once one is part of the extended meaning of being bourgeois.

How would this be attained in practise?

Well, first of all there should be a muster of all of those who can produce something. The core of Capitalism is producing, not consuming. The product may be an object, a copyright, a patent, a service, a disservice; lots of things. Then, this productive person should be taught how to commodify this thing of his or hers properly. This falls under the purview of production economics & engineering. There is always a ”best way” to produce something from scratch, on the cheap, and also to be able to scale the production up, if and when the demand for the product rose considerably. And it should, as people would be in this for the profit rather than the labour. Finally, the product should be able to be spread all over the world using different mechanisms and methods. This is the part that is called logistics. The product would be spread all over the world under the aegis and the three tenets of Globalisation:

  1. The sender and the receiver are allowed to be a world apart (literally)
  2. All aspects of age, gender, race and religion and so on are to be overlooked
  3. English (language) and the Internet are the platforms that enable the (trans)action reliably enough

This way, anyone could spread his or her wares around the world efficiently enough, without being dependent on some shady deal with a mega-distributor, who would exact an exorbitant sum for its services. The idea would be to get enough profit under the belt to be able to survive, pay off the mortgage/rent, pay taxes, pay for a pension, and maybe raise a family, if the business was high-flying enough.

In the end, it would turn out that not everyone has it in him or her to act as a business(wo)man. Also, there would be a need for extra pairs of hands once the business began to flourish. Then, the owner would have the grateful task of employing someone to do the nitty-gritty jobs for a compensation. That is the role all Leftists everywhere have most often seen themselves and their constituents in. Consequently, in a world rife with owners, there would still be room for workers, the working classes, manual labour, menial tasks and everything else that the Left has held Guardianship over.

And this matters. If there has so far been (in the economic structure) a ratio of 20 % of owners to 40 % of workers and, maybe, 40 % of people who register themselves as ”something else”, the ratio could change to 50 % of owners to 30 % of ”something else” to 20 % of workers. That would change the dynamics considerably and make a future reality better correspond to the present trends and attitudes.

I am bringing this up, because politics is about choices, but it is also about life choices. You may ask yourself: Who am I a) able and b) entitled to vote for? The ambit of voting would be more interesting if more people in the real world realised their entire, full potential.

Thank you.


Arvio: Puhe on tarkoitettu sisällykkäämmäksi pariksi sitä edeltävälle, todennäköisesti tunteikkaammalle oppositiojohtajapuheelle. Tarkoitus on osoittaa, että 1-oppositio tekee hommansa tehokkaasti kyllä. 2-tiimi voi sitten kinastella sydämensä kyllyydestä. Puhe on pitkä, eikä sen ajalle mahdu kysymyksiä. Siinä on lyhentämisenkin varaa, mikä on makuasia kohtansa suhteen.