The Year in Retrospect- Part 2

.
Passing the Banner Award – David Cameron
.
The political landscape in the UK changed in 2005, and it had nothing to do with the election. The election was a yawn, Labour lost some seats, the Tories gained a handful – but it was a foregone conclusion. Blair celebrated a third consecutive Labour win, and he earnt it by being resolute and leading the only party in the House of Commons that looked like it could govern. Now, several months later – the Conservative Party, which had been written off, was in the resurgence and it is due to one man – David Cameron.
.
Besides his youthful charisma, he started to show a new more liberal Conservative Party – that wasn’t afraid of women, people with non-white skin and gay people, and he was not afraid of questions about him taking drugs while at university. Like water off a duck’s back he didn’t let it distract him from his key message, which was – in effect – to take over where New Labour left off and what it couldn’t do. Much as Ruth Richardson took over where Roger Douglas left off, David Cameron will take over as Tony Blair bows out for Gordon Brown.
.
The British electorate are sick of the Labour government, sick of its spin and now that Blair is under attack from a host of rebel leftist MPs, they see old Labour rearing its ugly head again – Britain defeated old Labour in 1979 and had not wanted it back. Gordon Brown is New Labour, but one that looks back – and Blair recent capitulation of part of Britain’s EU rebate is just another nail in the coffin. On top of that Cameron promising to back Blair's excellent education reforms shows he is above some of the petty politicking that is often rife among Opposition parties.
.
So here is to David Cameron, a promising start, the polls have the Tories effectively neck and neck with Labour now – maybe there is hope for Britain yet. The banner of reforming Britain has moved from Blair to Cameron, now we just have to wait.
.

Misdirected attempt to save the world award – Bob Geldof
.
Bob Geldof and Bono wanted world governments to give loads of money to Africa and to wipe off debt that corrupt governments have taken out in the name of their citizens. The held Live 8 – it called for an end to poverty, it did little to further that goal.
.
What the developing countries need are three things:
.
- Open world markets: This means free trade, it means no bans, quotas or tariffs on their goods entering other countries. It also means no subsidies against their competition. This means that producers can sell their goods and services to willing buyers, and they will all be better off. It is very simple, most developing countries protect their own markets and the very worst of the developed countries do the same, particularly the EU and Japan. Bob Geldof didn’t call for free trade – had he done so he might have helped destroy the arguments of the so called “fair trade” advocates, protectionists in drag – and he would have needed to confront the European Union.
.
- Stable, uncorrupt, independent governments to enforce personal and property rights, and contracts: The basic infrastructure of rule of law, so that people can keep what they own, enforce contracts and not have to spend most of their energy protecting themselves from looters (private or government) is what lacks in so much of Africa. This wont come from state aid, but it needs encouragement. Wiping debt in exchange for good government may be one way forward, as it will pay off enormous dividends when countries have growing economies (and markets for our own goods). The wiping of debt which has been promised is to be linked to good governance, but not tightly enough – too many Africans live under kleptocracies.
.
- A culture that respects success and diversity, and values reason over superstition and faith: This means not wanting to loot from the successful man, and not wanting to suppress dissenting views, new ideas and differences in approach. It means allowing people to be free to grow, to learn and to take risks. It means respecting the use of the mind over the environment, and rejecting the totems of blind religious worship, fear and rumour. It means taking the enormous energy and willingness to learn and work hard that is apparent in most African schoolchildren – and having a society that values that and respects them.

Geldof doesn't really understand much of this - the left supported him, along with some very very wealthy stars (who are obsessed with something they have so little of - poverty!) - he raised some money and awareness, but besides assuaging his guilty conscience, did little else. Next time, he should read some books about economics.

Most ignored dictator of the year - Saparmurat Niyazov "Turkmenbashi"

President of Turkmenistan, building a Stalinist state, arresting journalists who sway at all from the sycophantic line towards his regime. No one is allowed to mention how short Turkmenbashi is (around 5 feet) and that he wears a toupee. All religious groups are closely monitored, there are internal passports to manage movement of people, women under 35 are allegedly not allowed exit visa unless they have given birth to at least 2 children. Exit visas are difficult to get regardless without one undertaking official state business. All public gatherings, including weddings, in the capital must be registered in advance. Non governmental organizations must be registered or its members face criminal prosecution. Read more about Turkmenistan's appalling human rights record here.

What is being done about it? Well, bugger all actually - he is surrounded by states that are slightly lesser bullies, he declares his country neutral so we all sit back and watch him putting up big statues of himself in the capital Ashgabat. As long as he gets some oil and gas revenue he'll probably be happy that he is not starving his people like Kim Jong Il is, and he probably wont cause any trouble for other countries - but he is a sign that dictatorship is NOT gone, and can rise again. Turkmenistan is probably the only former Soviet republic WORSE off since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Big Brother Britain

The Independent (UK) reports on plans to use automatic number plate recognition cameras for crime prevention across Britain’s roads. Big Brother is associated more and more with a TV reality show - when it needs to be associated with George Orwell's 1984. This is very much the road to hell being paved with good intentions. The Independent reports..

“Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.”

The Police have clearly seen that with the war on terror, they can increase their surveillance of citizens many times over- the UK already has the greatest numbers of CCTV cameras in public in the world. It is one thing to use cameras on roads to catch traffic offences, such as running red lights or avoiding road tolls, quite another to use it for state surveillance across the board.

.
“What the data centre should be able to tell you is where a vehicle was in the past and where it is now, whether it was or wasn't at a particular location, and the routes taken to and from those crime scenes.”

.
This will be sold on the basis that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear – which is how all totalitarian regimes operate too. In short, Britons have everything to fear. It is one thing to have a search warrant to get details from a suspect on their property, or in their car or from a place where you know they have been frequenting – if the roads were privately owned, and there were cameras identifying vehicles, you may even justify a warrant to get individual details about whether the vehicle of a murder suspect went past a particular point – especially if someone has gone missing under suspicious circumstances.

.
However, this goes far further. This is a database of where everyone has gone, being held for years – it can be abused by the Police, it can be used to snoop on where people are doing business, where they might be socializing, who they might be seeing and where they go on holidays. The state has no business knowing where anyone is, until that person is a suspect – this reverses that principle. Now the state will know where you are, but wont use it unless it suspects you.

.
The real test will be whether new Tory Leader David Cameron comes out against this proposal. I expect the Liberal Democrats to do so, but they have little influence alone. The Conservatives unfortunately have always wanted to be seen as tough on crime, but this is not about that – it is about the privacy of peaceful citizens. New Labour has never understood individual personal liberty – that is one of its biggest let downs – is this the state Britons want defended from Islamic fundamentalists? A police state as invasive as any of our enemies would want?

(Update - No Right Turn has also blogged on this, why don't the so called right wing bloggers post on this much? Is it the libertarians and the left?)

Your taxes for Russia

Your taxes are going to help pay for Russia to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons and decommission its last plutonium producing nuclear reactor. Yes it is only $1.3 million – but it is the principle. Anything wrong with the task itself? No - it is good that a semi-authoritarian state is getting its chemical weapons capability destroyed and will have reduced capacity to build more nuclear weapons. My question is - why do New Zealand taxpayers have to pay for it?

Does Russia not have enough money, with its enormous gas and oil companies worth billions, so it needs New Zealand taxpayers to help it develop a fossil fuel based power plant. Its GDP grew by over 7% in 2003 and will have grown around this much in the last year or so due to the high price of oil and gas. It has foreign exchange reserves of over US$73 billion, GDP per capita now at over US$10000 per annum. It really needs aid from NZ?

100% marginal income tax rate

New blogger Who Cares is coming up with some excellent stuff. Read his analysis and proposed solutions here related to the article on Gareth Morgan’s site about someone with an income of $32000 paying an effective marginal rate of income tax of 100% if they increase their salary to $35128, given Labour’s “Working for Families” package. This, of course, is what happens when you start welfare for the middle classes. It isn’t just assistance for the very poor, it becomes part of most families’ day to day income - but it penalises those who improve their lot at the margins. It is outrageous that the mainstream media haven’t cottoned onto this, even MORE outrageous that Peter Dunne, the leader of the so called family friendly United Future party is supporting this.

However I disagree with some of Who Cares’ solutions. The simplest way out is to cut income tax and abolish Working for Families, a good first step would be to eliminate the top two tax brackets of 39 and 33%, leaving the lower rate of 21% to be cut to 15% as a flat rate. Negative income tax is one option as a transition to replace welfare advocated even by some libertarians, and economist Milton Friedman, but should be no more than that. However, I wouldn’t increase GST, in fact I’d cut it back to 10% immediately before eliminating it altogether.

Regardless of the way forward, the fact remains is that Labour has increased the size of the welfare state by making middle income families dependent on handouts instead of tax cuts – so instead of getting your own money back, you get money back through a bureaucratic process. This is what Labour, the Greens, United Future and NZ First are giving you - more dependency!

National MP shows her Nanny State credentials

It didn’t take long for the new National caucus to start revealing its own Nanny Statists. Jacqui Dean, newly elected Otago MP has launched a petition for a review of the legal status of party pills.

Whaleoil says “Whilst I can see where she might be coming from, and can see how it might be a popular move, I’m not quite sure the answer lies in tighter restrictions.”

I agree with that although I don’t agree with Whaleoil’s conclusion “Good on Jacqui though for taking on a cause which is important to her and is a concern of constiuents. At the very least, a review of the party pills situation will not hurt anyone.”

I would NOT congratulate an MP asking for a lot of signatures for tightening up on something which is not her business. Why should she be telling adults what they can and cannot put into their bodies? Her concerns about misuse are understandable – and her energies may be better placed in promoting how to use such pills safely and responsibly. Driving it underground would put up the price and prohibit any messages about using BZP safely.

I also suspect this is the reflection of a rural electorate of people who regard BZP as something new and alien, whereas alcohol, which is far more dangerous and pervasive, is accepted as legal and available. I suspect blogger BZP will have something to say about this too
-->

The year in retrospect - Part 1

A few bloggers have been retrospective for 2005, and since I am fleeing to France for Christmas, I thought I should list who I think deserve some mention as 2005’s greatest successes and failures politically:

New Zealand’s great political survivor Award: Helen Clark

After the disappointing budget, the reactionary approach to race relations and bungle after bungle, she is the first Labour Leader to win power in three consecutive elections. Only the first Labour government won three elections, but with Savage then Fraser as leaders. Regardless of the ins and outs of it, she pulled off a nailbiting finish against the National Party, shored up the leftwing vote and lost only a small percentage compared to 2002. She runs Cabinet and this government with an iron fist, and only Cullen comes close to her in terms of power and influence, (excluding H2). She is an intelligent, organised and hard working individual – and has a high level of political astuteness, and she knows what she wants and believes in. She will sell out her friends for power (Greens) and will sell her soul for it too (deal with Peters and Dunne), but knows that she is on top. I strongly dislike her politics, her view of the state and so much of what her government has done – but Helen Clark remains number 1.

The great comeback Award: National Party

Just look to see what a bit of backbone can do. National came back from the brink in this year’s election and we have an Opposition again. This is due to Don Brash. To rescue National from its worst ever result of 21% - a result of Bill English’s mealy mouthed inability to appear to stand for anything or to offend anyone was a monumental task while the economy continues to ride well with high international commodity prices, and the dynamism unleashed through the reforms of the 80s and 90s. However, Dr Brash did it. He got a higher proportion of the vote for National in 2005, than it got in any MMP election and more than it did in 1993 when it won by a slender margin. He did it by focusing mainly on two issues – race relations and tax. He campaigned, mostly, on eliminating race based laws and funding, which many New Zealanders could relate to – and on cutting tax, instead of increasing welfare for families. He proved that taking a principled stance won votes, and by far his biggest blunder was to prevaricate on any other matters of principle. Nuclear ships, the brethren campaigning issue – all of those weakened his image of credibility and honesty. The left were terrified of Brash, and still are. Only John Key matches Brash for a clear mind and principled approach – National has learnt it can turn its back on the vapid soporific nothingness of the Bolger and English leadership and win votes. National has captured rural and provincial New Zealand by storm - it has yet to make enough inroads in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch - this is where it needs to focus. If it keeps up the focus on principle and strategy and screwing down the government's failures - it should be able to take the Treasury benches after the next election.

Politically lost but personally won Award: Winston Peters

Having lost his personality cult like Maori constituency to the Maori Party, some of the greedy grey grizzlers to the National Party – Winston Peters played a rather half hearted trump card in choosing the party with the largest number of seats to provide confidence and supply, and now he is invisible. Winston saw his party slip from 10.4 to 5.7% of the vote, he lost his electorate, lost a legal challenge to the newly elected MP Bob Clarkson, and after campaigning against holding the baubles of office – now enjoys first class air travel around the world as Minister of Foreign Affairs outside Cabinet. He can’t speak up against the government he supports credibly – he doesn’t have influence on policies decided in Cabinet, because he isn’t in it. In short, having been stripped of his Tauranga electorate base, Winston, now 60 years of age, is setting himself up for retirement. So has he lost? Personally no. He is getting lots of trips, getting a Minister’s salary and can enjoy the quiet life having been a major force for change in NZ politics for over 13 years. Winston almost cost the National party the 1993 election, and he shook up Maori politics more than any other party before in 1996. He will have given support to keep Jim Bolger and Helen Clark –arch opponents – as Prime Ministers, and he helped the campaign for MMP. Winston can spend the next few years looking back on a remarkable political career as a maverick, and live comfortably for it, and convincingly kept his private life, by and large, outside the purview of the media.
.
Man happiest to step back from Cabinet Award: Paul Swain

With a sexy wife (Toni Reeves-Swain) just over half his age, Paul Swain is thrilled to step back from Cabinet and enjoy himself, with her. He can spend time with his new daughter, did I mention his sexy wife? Good for him. If only more Labour MPs would just live life to the fullest and stop trying to run everyone else’s.

.

Phew we made it, but that's it Award: jointly won by the Greens and ACT

With the peak oil campaign flop, no big issue was in front of the public and some Greens supporters were more concerned about keeping Labour elected than voting for their potential (always potential, never actual) coalition partner. The Greens slipped in with 5.3% of the vote, and then found themselves cast adrift by Helen Clark, as the numbers looked better going with NZ First and United Future. Once again, the Greens are on the sidelines, for their third term in Parliament - not in Cabinet. Having lost one of their more important MPs (Rod Donald) they look bereft, and many voters are tiring of their armageddon vision of the future, and "do what we say" view of environmental politics. It will be hard work for Jeanette Fitzsimons to turn around.

.

ACT was decimated by Don Brash bolstering the Nats and giving it a chance to win, not helped by opinion polls that made a vote for ACT seem like a wasted vote. ACT had always won votes because the National Party looked like it wouldn't win, or had lost its way in terms of being a principled party on the right - well the Nats found their way, took ACTs tax cut policy (watered down), its race relations policy and law and order policy - ACT had little left beyond "me too and more of it", but most voters were not convinced. Despite having a principled leader in Rodney Hide who believed more in the libertarian ideals of ACT than many of its backers and his fellow MPs, it floundered because a vote for ACT seemed pointless - it was National that was the real opposition for once. Rodney Hide focused on Epsom and took it, from a staid and virtually irrelevant Richard Worth - he saved ACT from what would have been oblivion, and now it is on life support with 2 MPs. It will be a challenge to see if he can differentiate ACT from National and win new votes for the centre-right - at the moment it doesn't look promising.

.

The God Works in Mysterious Ways Award: Destiny, United Future and Christian Heritage

Having hooked his wagon to the former Christian Democrats, Peter Dunne got a powerful network of soft Christian supporters peddling United Future as a party of the Christian right, ready to defend the family and commonsense morality. However, it was stuck between the urban liberals who liked a party of the centre, and the Christian supporters who opposed civil unions and the like. Furthermore, many Christian voters saw little point in voting for a party which kept Labour in power for three years, which was seen as the source of "anti family" legislation - they either slipped towards Destiny or supported National. They were more motivated to get Labour voted out, than to vote for a soft Christian party. A vote for United Future was seen as a vote for nothing in particular and its vote halved. Peter Dunne is now propping up Helen Clark for another three years expanding the welfare state - great for a family party. Once he retires, this party is gone too.

More delightfully after marches of black t-shirted largely Polynesian and Maori men in Auckland and Wellington, Destiny Church's Brian Tamaki's Destiny NZ party (sorry he isn't the leader - no) got a paltry 0.6% of the vote. This is around what the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party got in 2002 - fire and brimstone fundamentalist Christian Ayatollahs are not welcome in New Zealand.

Finally, following the disgrace of Graham Capill, Christian Heritage is a mere shadow of the party that nearly slipped into Parliament (with what was the Christian Democrats) with 0.12% of the vote. Soul searching time indeed.

More on blog roll

I've added a few more blogs to my disjointed sidebar in the last few days, all of them liberal/libertarian in one form of another - specifically:

Sir Humphreys
Socialist Free Haven
Who Cares
NZ Pundit
Lindsay Mitchell
Teenage Pundit and
Oswald Bastable.

Some are new, some not so new, but all have posted articles recently that I liked so it is just courtesy to list them :)

End of the Carbon Tax

The government is canning the Carbon Tax - probably thanks to NZ First and United Future, making the Greens livid and making David Farrar cheer.

It follows a 400 page report from the Ministry of the Environment which concluded "the proposed charge was unfair, inefficient and unlikely to substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions".

Given how committed so many in that Ministry are to the ecological agenda, this is damning stuff. I have dealt with a few MfE officials in my time, and they are at the least, very ecology conscious, and at the other extreme would have been very comfortable with a Green Party Minister. The Greens should read this report and see what an organisation that believes in their objectives does when it objectively analyses a policy - this sort of turnaround is not a small one.

However, as much as the Greens wanted NZ to be part of the moral leadership of the world - the only reason other countries signed up to Kyoto was because they would be net recipients - because they are experiencing economic decline, flat population growth (e.g Russia) or significant improvements in the efficiencies of their industries (e.g. former Soviet bloc countries) which means they are cutting net carbon emissions.

Moral leadership was to cost NZ a 0.2% decrease in GDP by 2012. That, under current values, is around $234 million a year - $59 for every man, woman and child that you would not be able to spend every year. The Greens would say this is a small price to pay for moral leadership - is it?

More fundamentally, the Greens are wrong - the planet is not burning, the world is not coming to an end - it has been ending for centuries, there was an ice age imminent in the 1970s, now it is global warming. The scaremongering and hatred of the productive with phrases like "They are putting the corporate pursuit of short-term profits ahead of the planet’s and our grandchildren’s future" are irresponsible.

These profits keep people fed, clothed and sheltered - they employ people, they produce the goods that we use everyday, they allow people to communicate, move, socialise and enjoy their lives. They pay for the professionals, the medication, the facilities for our infrastructure from plumbing to healthcare to heating. Most people don't make profits to put in a money bin like Uncle Scrooge, they do so to produce and consume and spend on what they want - which is to spend on what others produce.

As PC said some weeks ago, the question is whether government interference or benign neglect are better approaches when dealing with global warming.

Unfortunately the final call from the Greens was concern about what services will get cut or taxes increased to pay for Dr Cullen's "loss of revenue" - how about less government spending on bureaucracies, subsidies and crazy rail projects?

Bolivia's new socialist President

Also reported by Clint Heine, It looks like Evo Morales, leader of the Movement Towards Socialism party and member of the indigenous Aymara people will win the Bolivian Presidential election. Now Bolivia is ranked as a partly free country by Freedon House, but this victory is being acclaimed by many worldwide as a victory for indigenous people and the left.

Can the people of Bolivia look forward to a brighter future? Well that is less clear. Many on the right will fear him, because of his declared anti-Americanism and support for Castro, but it is a little more complicated than that.

He wants to legalise growth of the coca leaf, if not cocaine – which will challenge the US War on Drugs. This is good. The coca leaf is used extensively in Bolivia for its narcotic and pain relieving qualities, and banning it clearly has failed. As a locally used crop (as well as the basis for cocaine), Morales campaigned in favour of it, but will face pressure if the US threatens to cut aid because of his policies. This is sad - the war on drugs is one of the greatest travesties of US government policy and should be ended because it has failed miserably, and it is immoral to persecute adult users of drugs. It is also immoral to persecute the people who grow the crop.

More ominously Morales has talked about nationalising private company investment in oil and gas, although he is more likely to renegotiate contracts with foreign energy companies. That will cost Bolivia dearly. Curiously he said his party will respect private property rights, although “vacant unproductive land” would be turned over to farmers with little or no land (what sort of farmer has no land?). Though none of the reports I have found has said much more about his policies.

Morales is an ally of Castro and Venezuelan bullyboy Hugo Chavez, neither are friends of individual freedom or tolerate political dissent – it would be a disaster if Bolivia slipped towards a one-party state like Venezuela is doing. However, it will also be sad for Bolivia if by renegotiating the contracts with foreign energy companies, he strips so much value from them that they leave – or stop investing. Hopefully he will renegotiate genuinely – not with the threat of force – and all parties can come away satisfied. Hopefully he will not succumb to the corruption often rampant in Latin America, and confiscates wealth for the aggrandisement of himself and his cronies.

Brazil's left wing President Lula de Silva campaigned on socialism, but has largely maintained the liberalising reforms of his predecessors, when his own economic illiteracy hit reality (although he has been tainted by corruption) - hopefully Morales will face the same. Time will tell if he avoids being the state bullies that Castro and Chavez are, or the corrupt leaders that his predecessors were.

Auckland rail money gone - like that!

How do you wipe out the value of hundreds of millions of dollars in an instant? Easy - spend it on a railway in New Zealand.

The government is going to spend $540-$600 million of your money on upgrading Auckland’s commuter rail network (which it bought from Tranz Rail for $81 million in 2001), which means finishing the double tracking of the Western line, a branch line to Manukau city and some resignalling and other improvements. Divided by Auckland households, that is around $1800 a household - would you rather have that money in your pocket, spent on healthcare, your kid's local school or on some railway tracks (before the trains have even run on them)?

So an asset that had a book value of $81 million (I’m being generous in not considering market value) is going to have at least $540 million poured into it, and after that? It will still have a book value of $81 million. Fabulous investment isn’t it? Could the private sector take money by force and eliminate its value so quickly and get away with it?

Ah, there are profits to be made from that investment that aren't realised in capital. Um no. No profits, in fact you can't even cover your day to day operating costs.

Ah, the rail advocates say, you forget the social and environmental benefits of being able to run more passenger trains because of reduced car traffic and traffic congestion. No I haven’t. They are just too infinitesimal to measure. The passenger train operational costs are 80% subsidised and the majority of users were former bus patrons. Many of those buses were not subsidised – so there is no net gain at all there in terms of congestion, just increased cost (a few buses off the road will make virtually no difference). The shift from car to rail is also very low – and makes virtually no impact on congestion - work done by the ARC a few years ago indicated that road traffic speeds would be improved by less than 0.5km/h. This taxpayer funding is around 50% more than the cost of building the Mt Roskill and Manukau extensions of SH20 (both of which will make a noticeable difference to congestion) - and those are funded from petrol tax, so are paid for by road users.

Remember the $540 million for rail does NOT include money for running the trains, or upgrading stations or new trains.

So should Auckland ratepayers be thrilled? Well being saved from funding the rail track infrastructure upgrade is one thing – but the quid pro quo is that capital expenditure on stations and trains will be entirely funded by ARTA, which means ARC rates and Auckland Regional Holdings dividends and cash assets. Operating costs continue to be subsidised 60% by Land Transport NZ (your petrol tax) and 40% from ARC rates. That will cost ratepayers a packet, and you wont see congestion reduce. The marginal difference to congestion made by these projects is tiny – because rail is very expensive, and most trains don’t go near where most Aucklanders work. Buses do better, they carry around 30% of commuters into downtown Auckland, but they are not sexy – and some of them are not subsidised. It costs little to put in bus lanes, or other measures to speed up bus journeys.

Ah but the trains provide Aucklanders with an option to bypass congestion. Well, if you can walk or bike or bus quickly to a station and there is another station on your line that is close to where you want to go -yes, if the train stopping at every station is faster than driving continuously. However only 13% of Auckland employment is downtown where most of the trains terminate. Look at a map of Auckland and where most people live, it isn't near the railway stations.

Of course the Greens want to spend even more money, electrifying the network (when that has not been proven to be worth the additional cost) and building lines all over the place, with little care for where the money comes from to pay for it - you see it is ok to make unnecessary journeys, wasting electricity and other people's money, as long as you are on an electric train.

Iran bans Western Music

Yes, the nuclear weapon seeking, child soldier using, terrorist backing, Holocaust denying Islamic Republic of Iran is now banning western music according to the BBC.

Kenny G may no longer be background music on Iranian television - (lucky them).

None of this is on the official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting news site, just lots of bland news about co-operation with other countries - much like most authoritarian regimes have for official news.

Note also PC's report on how limp wristed the West is about Iran - the big question is what to do with it? Should its nuclear facilities lie there untouched until it gets nukes and is as untouchable as North Korea? I guess the Greens would say yes... but for how long can you let snoozing bullies lie? It will be too late when Iran is found to have sold a nuclear warhead to terrorists who let it off in Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, Sydney or London. More on this later...

Unseen North Korea

The BBC carries a series of photos from an anonymous businessman who took some images rather freely in the country - they show a sad, hard working people, struggling to survive and large empty roads.

Smoking ban for England?

England may have total ban on smoking in public places, because a partial ban (for pubs that serve food). is considered “unenforceable” as reports the Telegraph. This will follow similar bans soon to come in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Unfortunately, none of the debate about this in England is about what it should be about – property rights.

The arguments are always vacuous claims about the “rights” of smokers to smoke wherever they want (which is nonsense) or the “rights” of workers to not be exposed to smoke.

The only right at stake here is the property right of the owner of the premises. Either you have the right to permit (or ban) any legal activity on your own property or not. That means the right to ban smoking in YOUR pub or to allow it, or make it compulsory. The same would apply to a dress code, a language code or allowing people to perform sexual acts or enforcing silence. It is NOT a place that anyone else has to right to enter except on your terms – and that includes employees. I watched an absurd item on the BBC news last night with a pub owner saying he wished smoking was banned in pubs, because he doesn't like it - as if anyone is stopping him from banning it! Clearly he prefers the income from smoking customers to having cleaner air inside his pub - but he should make that tradeoff, not the government.

and I am speaking as a non-smoker, who has asthma and much prefers pubs which have no smoking, so I have no vested interest from that perspective, but I have an interest as a property owner. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do on my property, as long as I am not initiating force against anyone else on my property - and unless I force someone to remain on my property while I or others smoke, then I am not infringing on anyone's rights.

Freedom House ratings

Hat tip to DPF for blogging about Freedom House’s annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties, and it is important to remember what that actually means. All the detailed results are here.

Political rights and civil liberties cover the right to vote for all adult citizens (with fair and transparent elections), protest and criticise the government, with political parties having access to the public freely and openly directly and through the media. None of this covers the state’s role in the economy regarding what you can do with your property, income or choices to set up business, or if you can publish a magazine about cannabis, engage in consensual adult homosexual acts or other freedoms – but, nevertheless, without political and civil liberties little else matters.

Most interesting are the ones that are now in the top ranking, along with New Zealand, Australia and most other “Western” countries that one generation ago would have been well down the list:

Cape Verde (yes go look it up)
Chile (Pinochet’s legacy is well and truly gone)
Czech Republic (ex. Soviet disaster)
Estonia (ditto)
Hungary
Latvia (improved on last year)
Lithuania (also improved)
Poland
Portugal (look it up, just like Franco)
Slovakia
Slovenia (ex. Titoist disaster)
Spain (remember Franco?)
Taiwan (free China vs. the mainland)
Uruguay

A mixture of former socialist and military dictatorships now free is not insignificant, and there are more not far behind (Bulgaria, Greece, Grenada, Panama, South Africa, South Korea).

Optimism also with some of the more notable improvements:

Afghanistan (thank you USA)
Colombia
Georgia
Indonesia
Iraq (Andrew Falloon reports that improve freedoms in Iraq are a reason to celebrate)
Kyrgzystan
Romania
Ukraine
Vietnam (higher rating than China for civil liberties due to easing religious expression)

Of some of the pinup countries of the left, Cuba remains in the bottom ranking, while Venezuela under leftist President Hugo Chavez has dropped because of voter intimidation and increased corruption.

And a further note of concern about those that have dropped, in most cases a handful of states from Africa and the Americas, but also sadly Nepal (which is facing full on civil war thanks to Maoist rebels), the Philippines (due to electoral fraud and intimidation of the opposition)) and Uzbekistan, one of the former Soviet republics to be stepping backwards.

Reason to be cheerful? Yes.
Reason to be vigilant? Yes - the war against terror is a legitimate fight against those who would destroy our freedoms and civil liberties, but civil liberties should not also be destroyed as part of that. This is something that politically only the Greens (of those in Parliament) actually seem to understand, and that is what Ahmed Zaoui is all about.

Air NZ engineering part saved by sensible union

There appears to be a deal for part of Air NZ’s engineering services in Auckland and Christchurch to remain, thanks to the EPMU and the Aviation and Marine Engineers' Association negotiating sensibly with the airline to provide service efficiently. Around $38 million worth of savings have been agreed.

However, it will still mean the end of jet engine maintenance as that can clearly be done at lower cost elsewhere. This is not surprising, Air NZ is not a big airline and the economies of scale of bigger operations elsewhere go against it.

This should be seen as a win-win, especially as many of the engine workers who will be made redundant could be snapped up by other employers.

It is also a feather in the cap to Andrew Little and the unions involved - better to negotiate and find a way forward that suits both parties than stand your ground and find you lose it all - Air NZ, after all, has to compete with other airlines. I doubt that many who are supportive of the workers always fly Air NZ to show solidarity.

Nevertheless, Sue Bradford is holding out claiming that engine maintenance is a strategic asset. Well it isn't for Air NZ, and how is it for NZ inc? The engines are not made here, the fuel is not local in origin, and planes are, funnily enough, rather portable. What strategic goal would there be? Would there be a war and our airliners can't hop across the Tasman to get their engines' fixed?

Sue needs to join the 20th century - companies do not need to own all factors of production to operate effectively and efficiently, and they probably shouldn't! Air NZ doesn't make planes or produce jet fuel, or airline seats or anything else - it is an operator, marketer and provider of services. You could argue it "strategically" needs to do everything from fuel to planes - it doesn't - and it shouldn't undertake an activity because it can - because that will cost more, and it will cost the airline - either by increasing fares (reducing market share) or reducing net dividends (and the capital able to reinvest in new planes or other areas of better return).

It's called running a business - which is what it is - and unfortunately, too many Green MPs have little to no understanding of basic economics. Air NZ has needed bailing out twice by the taxpayer in its history, in both cases following excessive interference in its business by the government - as long as the government owns it, it should be left well alone.

EU Budget agreement - Blair's disgrace

Britain conceded to French demands to cut its rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, on a pledge by the worm (see below) to revisit agricultural subsidies in 2008-09.

Attempts by Britain to open up the vile Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and to cut administration spending were stymied by a coalition of the bludgers from the CAP (France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Ireland), the bludgers of administration (Belgium, Luxembourg) and the linking of budget cut proposals by them to the new central european members (Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).

£198 billion per annum in agricultural subsidies - yes BILLION - is spent by the European Union every year.

France said no change till 2013 - because of an agreement 3 years ago to not change the CAP till after that date. Britain agreed to cut its rebate, the part applying to contributions that are spent in new member states, costing British taxpayers over £1 billion a year, and they get back absolutely nothing. Tony Blair has dropped the ball here - Chirac is thrilled, and it is embarrassing for Britain.

A proposal by Britain to cut spending by £2 billion per annum was laughed off, the new central european members saw that as less aid to them, and the old parasites wouldn't stand for it. The budget will grow to 1.045% of European GDP, less than the 1.24% asked by the bureaurats, but more than what Britain sought (1.03%).

The European Union is good for two reasons, but bad for many more. It is good because it has removed borders to free trade, in goods, services and movement of people between its member states. It is good because it has required liberalisation of domestic markets - so trade WITHIN member states is liberalised. However, it has also seen a growth in harmonised bureaucracy, and subsidies, and a fortress mentality to the rest of the world. For example, Moldova has as one of its fears Romania joining the EU, because it may shut out one of its most important trading partners for vegetable exports - Moldovan farmers have little hope against the cossetted billion euro subsidised farmers of the EU.

The EU needs pairing back, to the bone, to simply be a movement for maintained liberalisation among members -and to enforce a common rule of law among newer members in particular - thankfully the EU does not set tax or welfare policies in member states, yet. However there is little hope the EU will stop growing - even though most of the older EU members have!

WTO agreement tentative - no thanks to France

Jacque Chirac is a worm - and the WTO talks have essentially confirmed that.

A deal is imminent at the WTO talks in Hong Kong, but the South Korean farmers (who can afford to fly en masse to Hong Kong, but afraid to compete with rice produced in Thailand) shouldn't fear - Jacque Chirac has saved their bacon, and helped maintain distorted trade in agriculture, with a tiny concession for 2013. In doing that, farmers in Thailand, Bolivia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, Australia and many other countries have little reason to be grateful.

The European Union looks likely to concede a 2013 threshold for abolishing agricultural export subsidies (but nothing on import quotas, tariffs or domestic subsidies), even though the US was pleading for 2010 and the Cairn’s Group (including New Zealand) were pushing for earlier removal of export subsidies and progress on other restrictions. Export subsidies for cotton will go in 2006, largely affecting the US and benefiting a number of developing countries.

Least developed countries will get quota and tariff free access to developed country markets for most of their exports, not that this will help agriculture much when the EU maintains export subsidies till 2013, and domestic subsidies continue to grossly distort trade.

Developing countries have also agreed to some liberalisation in the access they give to imported manufactured goods and services, particularly telecommunications, banking and transport.

So what does this mean?

Not a lot, it is glacial progress. It wasn’t without a lot of goodwill from developing countries and the US – and of course New Zealand was at the forefront of advocating free trade.

Frankly, it means the French, by and large, have screwed efficient agricultural producers - rich and poor. Why?

Because it was the EU which refused to make further substantive progress – NOT the US (although it is touchy about domestic cotton subsidies) and not developing countries.

At the EU, there are two blocs on agricultural trade - the reformist group (the UK, Scandinavia, Netherlands) and the ostriches (French, Italians, Spanish and Austrians). The French basically said no, and were not even happy with the 2013 deadline to get rid of export subsidies for agriculture. Lets note that export subsidies consist of 2% of the total value of all agricultural subsidies. France would veto any EU offer that went further.

The USA is often painted as the great world villain exploiting the poor and holding them back, but the US had pushed hard to abolish export subsidies no later than 2010 and to make progress on domestic subsidies. The US agreeing to accept abolishing cotton export subsidies next year is a worthwhile step forward, all export subsidies should go then at least.

The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union is fundamentally immoral – it props up the wealthiest farms in Europe with subsidies, including those owned by the Queen and Prince Charles – it inflates the price of food to European consumers, and because it is a high proportion of EU spending, costs European citizens in tax. It shuts out efficient producers like New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan, Bolivia and South Africa from the European market. The EU uses export subsidies of around US$3 billion per annum to prop up exports of sugar, dairy products and beef.

My earlier post outlines some of the absurdities of the CAP.

It is unrealistic to expect the European Union – basically a project that unnaturally marries free trade with socialist central planning – to abolish all agricultural protection overnight. However, it should. It uses four types of protectionism to screw up world trade in agricultural products:

- Export subsidies (undercutting efficient producers worldwide);
- Import quotas and bans (shutting out efficient producers from the European market);
- Import tariffs (taxing imports from efficient producers);.
- Domestic subsidies (propping up the wealthiest domestic producers).

These should go in quick succession – by 2010. With export subsidies, which currently cost US$3 billion per annum abolished first. This would match the offer by the Bush Administration to do the same, and challenge it to follow through on its own import restrictions and agricultural subsidies – for now, Chirac the worm has told the developing countries to go fuck themselves if they want to trade on a less tilted level playing field in OTHER countries, because the French want their “right” to use their taxes to undercut them, till 2013.

However, will you see Bono or Bob Geldof going to Paris to protest against this intransigence? Will you see any of the venom directed at Bush for being, well, Bush – directed at Chirac, the French government and the European Union? I doubt it…

Swedish nightclubbing

I've not been to Sweden yet, but hat tip to PC who has a powerpoint presentation of some highlights.

Such as...

not a bad way to start the weekend.

Bunks on planes - as long as you're upfront

The next generation Boeing 747-8 will look a bit different on the inside as reported by this site in Seattle. There will be a skylight, and the option for airlines to install bunks which are located in the ceiling space currently filled with wires and ducts (which are being consolidated and moved to the sides) - this means premium passengers could sit in a regular seat for takeoff and landing, but have a bed for overnight flights - not just a seat that folds down. All the photos are here.

One of the more amusing concepts is the "DreamLav" a more spacious bathroom than the closets currently on board, by using design more cleverly.

However, don't get too excited, it hasn't flown yet and wont till 2009, and only freight versions have been ordered so far. The likelihood that economy class passengers will experience much different beyond the toilet is probably low, as it is first and business class passengers that make most long haul flights profitable (and where the greatest competition on service, comfort is).

Nevertheless, rumour has it that several airlines that serve NZ, including Air NZ, Qantas and Cathay Pacific are interested, given that the mega Airbus A380 is too big for most routes into NZ.

Business NZ go back to the 70s

A report commissioned by Business NZ and a host of other industry associations has been slammed by the Greens for damning the carbon tax.

The report states that carbon tax will result in energy input costs increasing between 11% and 35% for the seven companies surveyed. Which is no surprise, it IS a new tax after all.

Business NZ rightfully damns it as making New Zealand less competitive. The Greens, prophets of armageddon, see it as a "thinly disguised attack from big business on one of the few positive moves New Zealand has made toward protecting the planet for future generations". Of course the carbon tax will make not one iota of difference to any global warming, but will boost the coffers of the state - it is a transfer from the private sector to the government - and since the Greens don't like businesses much and like government, it makes sense for them. They are correct about one point though - the carbon tax will increase the incentive on businesses to reduce energy costs, that's economic fact. That is why the Greens support it, it will have a marginal effect on energy demand, because it is fiddling with the price of energy.

However, the Greens neglect to note that businesses have powerful incentives to be efficient now, through the profit motive (which they don't like). The commercial sector is far more ruthless than the state sector, and private individuals. That is why the carbon tax makes a marginal difference.

So why is Business NZ going back to the 70s? It is because it suggests:

“This study indicates that New Zealand should seek some way other than a carbon tax to meet their Kyoto commitments - perhaps by way of assistance to help companies invest in energy efficient technology - instead of purchasing carbon credits on the international market.”

It wants a subsidy - it goes from opposing a new tax (which is fine) to wanting to tax OTHERS more, to pay for energy efficient technology. However, this is happening anyway. Take aviation, where the average jet airliner has improved in fuel efficiency by 1-2% per year, due to improvements in engine technology and the weight of airframes. That is achieved not by government intervention, but by the demand of airlines for lower costs - technology and capitalism working for good.

Business NZ should stop calling for subsidies, it IS a slip back to the 1970s when business in NZ lobbied government for special treatment, protection, tax incentives, subsidies and the like, instead of wanting to be left alone - it is NOT a sign of good business to seek the government to help you out. Governments almost always only help at the cost of others - you should only call in the government when you or your property are under threat of force or fraud - you call them, don't let them call you.