Kiwiblog

Rupert Murdoch writes in the Daily Telegraph:

And, here is something else we are not hearing about: we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free.

The cold, commercial word “market” disguises its human character – a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires. Typically, those of us who believe in free markets make our arguments by extolling the market’s economic superiority.

But I believe we need to do something very different from what we are used to.

We need to defend the market on precisely the grounds that its critics attack it: on justice and fairness. Yes, the morality of free markets.

To the contrary, too many people think that the market succeeds because it is based on a vice: greed. And that socialism is better because it is based on a virtue: sharing.

As Murdoch says, a market is simply letting individuals make their own choices and decisions to meet their aspirations and desires.

The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.

Yep.

Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg writes in The Australian:

Yes, global warming is real and mostly man-made, but our policies have failed, predictably and spectacularly. I was one of the strongest critics of the Kyoto climate change treaty, back when it was considered gospel. People were aghast when I criticised it then. Now Kyoto has no friends, and everyone remembers how they really did not believe in it.

Kyoto achieved almost nothing, because the major emitters were excluded.

When economists estimate the net damage from global warming as a percentage of gross domestic product, they find it will indeed have an overall negative impact in the long run but the impact of moderate warming (1C-2C) will be beneficial. It is only towards the end of the century, when temperatures have risen much more, that global warming will turn negative. One peer-reviewed model estimates that it will turn into a net cost only by 2070.

We need to stop claiming that it will be the end of the world. Just as it is silly to deny man-made global warming, it is indefensible to describe it as the biggest calamity of the 21st century.

So what are the possible costs?

Here is how to quantify this. The most well-known economic model of global warming is the DICE model by William Nordhaus, of Yale University. It calculates the total costs (from heat waves, hurricanes, crop failure and so on) as well as the total benefits (from cold waves and CO2 fertilisation). If you compare these over the next 200 years, the total cost of global warming is estimated at about $33 trillion.

While this is not a trivial number, you have to put it in context. Over the next 200 years, global GDP will run to about $2200 trillion, so global warming constitutes a loss of about 1.5 per cent of this figure. This is not the end of the world but a problem that needs to be solved.

1.5% of global GDP is a significant amount of money. As Lomborg says it is a problem that needs solving, but it is not doomsday.

No matter what carbon cuts we make in the next couple of decades, they will make no measurable difference until the second half of the century, because the climate system is such a super-tanker. This means that a smart climate policy is not about doing just anything now but doing something significant that will be sustainable and cut a large amount of CO2 in the long run. This is the difference between doing something that feels good and focusing on something that will do good.

Similarly, the emissions that matter in the 21st century are from the developing world. Yes, we in the rich world emitted most of the CO2 in the 20th century, but we are slowly sliding towards insignificance. Today we emit just 43 per cent and by the end of the century, we will be down to 23 per cent.

All the rich countries’ climate policies will not matter much unless China, India and the rest of the world are in on them. And they really are not right now, because our feelgood policies are all high cost for little benefit, which poor countries cannot afford.

An agreement without China and India will have almost no environmental impact. But the problem is that there is little economic incentive for them to agree to a cap.

Second, even if successful, this approach would not solve the problem. If everyone implemented Kyoto, temperatures would drop by the end of the century by a minuscule 0.004C. The EU policy will, across the century, cost about $20 trillion; yet will reduce temperatures by just 0.05C.

One can believe global warming is a problem, but believe Kyoto was economic insanity.

The only way to move towards a long-term reduction in emissions is if green energy becomes much cheaper. If it cost less than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, including the Chinese.

This, of course, requires breakthroughs in green technologies and much more innovation.

At the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, found that the best long-term strategy was to increase dramatically investment in green research and development. They suggested doing so 10-fold to $US100bn a year globally. This would equal 0.2 per cent of global GDP.

Of course, R&D holds no guarantees. We might spend billions and still come up empty-handed in 40 years’ time. But it has a much better chance of success than continuing the futile efforts of the past 20 years.

That sounds a good plan to me. It is similar to the investment we are making in research into reducing agriculture emissions. Science is the answer.

This is what the US has done with fracking. It spent about $US10bn in subsidies over the past three decades on innovation, opening up huge new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits: a dramatic fall in natural gas prices and a shift in US electricity generation from 50 per cent coal and 20 per cent gas to 37 per cent coal and 30 per cent gas. This has reduced US annual CO2 emissions by 400 million-500 million tonnes — about twice what the rest of the world has achieved over the past 20 years.

The fracking bonanza also creates long-term social and economic benefits through lower energy costs: US consumers benefit by about $100bn in lower gas prices. By contrast, estimates show that a 330 million-tonne CO2 reduction in the EU using carbon taxes would cost $240bn. It illustrates why we must confess to the failures of the past 20 years. As long as renewables are not ready, we are spending vast sums of money on tiny cuts in CO2. Instead, we should focus on investing dramatically more in R&D into green energy over the next 20-40 years.

The solution is not to make fossil fuels so expensive that nobody wants them because that will never work but to make green energy so cheap that eventually everybody wants it.

He speaks a lot of sense.

The Dom Post editorial:

Of all the millions of words that will be written about Margaret Thatcher in the coming days none will more succinctly sum up the impact of the late British prime minister than those uttered by her former press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham: “She knew what she wanted to do, and did it.”

So true.

What Baroness Thatcher will be remembered for is breaking the power of the unions, privatising British Telecom, British Gas and dozens of other publicly owned companies, going to war over the Falkland Islands and resisting Soviet expansionism.

Not a bad list.

She changed the world, too. In the 1980s, building more missile bases and condemning Soviet totalitarianism at every opportunity was viewed as dangerously provocative. But, with the benefit of hindsight, Baroness Thatcher and her closest political ally, then United States president Ronald Reagan, were indisputably right.

People forget this. Tens of millions demanded that the West basically unilaterally disarm and appease the Soviet Union.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Margaret Thatcher’s social views stemmed from her Christianity and a belief in the importance of individual rights. If there was nothing novel in this, nor did she invent a new economic policy. Rather, she and Ronald Reagan brought monetarism into the mainstream, with their advocacy of reduced state intervention, free markets, entrepreneurialism, less taxation, and the privatisation of state assets. The implementation of this programme was made the easier by Britain’s dire state when she claimed power. The country was commonly described as the sick man of Europe. A postwar decline had been exacerbated by the power wielded by trade unions and a general sense of despondency.

Margaret Thatcher proposed to change all of this, and she did. From 1982, Britain provided a ready canvas as it started to pull out of its worst post-World War II slump. Spurred on by her leadership and a sharp curbing of inflation and interest rates, people soon had the confidence to start their own businesses and buy shares. This sparked a high level of social mobility – and the yuppie.

With time, I think people forget how morbid the UK was in the 1970s. It was sick beyond belief.

Her uncompromising style allowed her to be outstanding in foreign as well as domestic policy, an achievement rare among politicians. In the midst of her first term, Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands provided the opportunity to establish her credentials. If Britain’s recapture of the islands was a close-run thing, it, nevertheless, occasioned a wave of patriotism, and applause for her decisiveness. In President Reagan, she found a leader who shared her view of the world. Transatlantic co-operation blossomed, especially with the taking of a sterner approach to the Soviet Union. Ultimately, this played a part in the end of the Cold War and the downfall of communism.

In 100 years time, Thatcher will be the only UK Prime Minister still talked about, post WWII. She was a force of nature.

Audrey Young reports:

New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing, Carl Worker, passed on a salient fact to Prime Minister John Key while they were waiting for President Xi to welcome them into the meeting room at the stately Bo’ao guest house.

If the southern Guangdong province (where Key arrived last night) were to break away from China – and there’s no suggestion it ever would – its economic strength is such it would immediately be in the G10, the top 10 economies of the world.

That’s quite extraordinary. That one province would make the G10.

Key recounted the fact on the balcony of his own hotel in Bo’ao before a mad dash to the airport for the next leg of his trip (to Guangdong) because the meeting with Mr Xi had gone well over time.

Mr Key was fizzing about the meeting about the state of relationship so far, the personal rapport between the leaders themselves but mainly because of the readiness of both parties to take it to a new level.

The fact that Key could raise something as serious as direct currency conversion between the Kiwi dollar and the reminbi with a senior minister at lunchtime and have it ticked off by Xi for further work in the talks a few hours later would make any former banker go giddy.

The possibility of direct currency conversion is fascinating. Not so much for what it means for China and NZ, but equally the decline of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This is what happens when you start to print money because you are spending too much.

The scale of development is huge – Xi said yesterday within five years it is projected that China’s imports could be worth $US10 trillion.

He could see a day when 400 million Chinese a year could be outbound tourists.

I noticed in South Africa that a huge proportion of tourists were Chinese. As a Chinese middle class numbering several hundred million gets wealthier and spends more, the potential economic growth is immense.

Fran O’Sullivan also reports:

Like other leaders Key planned to acknowledge Xi’s recent ascension to the presidency. But his main game was to position New Zealand as a valuable partner to China in developing global supply chains to feed its people. “It makes sense to team up with Chinese capital and use other countries’ land masses to produce food we can’t produce in New Zealand,” Key says.

New Zealand has limited arable land left for developing new farms. If the nation’s agricultural businesses want to expand, they should take their expertise overseas and form partnerships in countries with bigger land masses.

Which is why the Landcorp partnership with Shanghai Pengxin should be seen as a great opportunity, instead of being condemned by xenophobic MPs from the left.

This graph shows annual exports to China. Readers will recall that the Greens and NZ First railed against the Free Trade Agreement with China signed in 2007.

Margaret Thatcher has died, aged 87.

I was fortunate enough to meet Margaret Thatcher around a decade ago. It was an incredible privilege to meet the woman who I regard as the best post-war Prime Minister we have seen.

But what I remember most about that function, was all the young Eastern European politicians who got to meet her. Words can’t describe their emotions as they met one of the people they regarded as having been crucial in helping secure them their freedom.  She was to them, what George Washington was to early Americans.

Of course her respect and popularity was far from universal. She would be disappointed if she ever traded popularity for doing the right thing. There are many who battled against her policies. But people go into politics to make a difference, and Thatcher was proof that one person with conviction and strength can make a huge difference.

People forget how crippled the United Kingdom was economically when she took over. She put the Great back into Great Britain. Her greatest legacy is that after 18 years of Conservative Governments, the new Labour Government basically retained most of her policies – and in some cases Tony Blair pushed her reform agenda further. She forced UK Labour to abandon socialism and embrace the free market. ironically she helped make Labour electable.

She wouldn’t surrender to the Soviet Empire, the IRA, Argentina or the Mining unions. If she thought her cause was just, she stood by it.

Her legacy is not just what she did as Prime Minister, but getting there. She was the daughter of a shop keeper from Grantham. To rise to the leadership of her party and country was an extraordinary achievement for the 1970s.

The Daily Telegraph has a collection of quotes and reactions. A few to highlight:

Paddy Ashdown

If politics is defined as having views, holding to them and driving them through to success, she was undoubtedly the greatest PM of our age.

Lech Walesa

She was a great person. She did a great deal for the world, along with Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Solidarity, she contributed to the demise of communism in Poland and Central Europe.

Vaclav Klaus

Thatcher was one of the greatest politicians of our time, in the Czech Republic she was our hero.

Tony Blair

Margaret Thatcher was a towering political figure. Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader. Her global impact was vast. And some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour Government, and came to be implemented by governments around the world.

As a person she was kind and generous spirited and was always immensely supportive to me as Prime Minister although we came from opposite sides of politics.

Even if you disagreed with her as I did on certain issues and occasionally strongly, you could not disrespect her character or her contribution to Britain’s national life. She will be sadly missed.

Ed Milliband

She will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation. She was Britain’s first woman Prime Minister. She moved the centre ground of British politics and was a huge figure on the world stage.

The Labour Party disagreed with much of what she did and she will always remain a controversial figure. But we can disagree and also greatly respect her political achievements and her personal strength.

She also defined the politics of the 1980s. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and I all grew up in a politics shaped by Lady Thatcher. We took different paths but with her as the crucial figure of that era.

She coped with her final, difficult years with dignity and courage. Critics and supporters will remember her in her prime.

David Cameron

She didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country.

I think she will come to be seen as the greatest Prime Minister our country has ever seen.

Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well.. She showed immense courage.

People will be learning about her for decades and centuries to come.

Boris Johnson

Very sad to hear of death of Baroness Thatcher. Her memory will live long after the world has forgotten the grey suits of today’s politics.

Her final years were very tough. May she indeed now rest in peace, secure in the knowledge she will never be forgotten for what she achieved.

The Herald reports:

Radicals both right and left are sensing that France’s political tide is rising in their favour, driven by a President plumbing record unpopularity less than a year after taking office.

Francois Hollande, a Socialist already under fire for economic mismanagement, is bogged down in a scandal unleashed by his Budget Minister, Jerome Cahuzac.

Svelte and smooth-tongued, Cahuzac had been leading Hollande’s campaign to fill the state’s coffers by raising taxes, urging citizens to pay their fiscal dues as “solidarity” towards others.

Last week, Cahuzac quit after admitting he had had a secret bank account in Switzerland for decades.

David Shearer is lucky he remembered about his foreign bank account while he was Opposition Leader. Imagine the impact if he been a Minister or Prime Minister and it emerged.

Hollande romped to the presidency on May 6 on campaign promises to govern France competently, fairly and cleanly. He declared he would roll back unemployment, meet the EU’s targets on borrowing and, after decades of scandals embroiling both left and right, give France an “exemplary” government.

Today, his approval rating stands at only 27 per cent, the lowest of any president in modern French history at such an early point in his tenure.

Unemployment has risen like an express lift, affecting 3.188 million people, or nearly one in nine of the workforce – a tad short of a record set in 1997.

The budget deficit is 4.8 per cent of GDP, compared to Hollande’s pledge, since abandoned, to meet the EU’s limit of 3 per cent last year.

Public debt rose in 2012 to an astronomical 90.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 85.8 per cent in 2011 – and Hollande’s own target of 89.9 per cent.

Socialism doesn’t work. He’s hiked taxes and spending, and I think Labour’s housing plan is based on his pledge to build 500,000 homes a year.

To get some idea of how unpopular he has become, Reuters reports that National Front Leader Marine Len Pen has a higher approval rating than Hollande.

I get TED talks on my podcast to listen to while exercising. Found this one interesting enough to share, and embedded below.

Some facts he cited:

• Since 2000 there are eight million more AIDs patients getting antiretroviral drugs.
• Eight countries in Africa have cut their malaria rate by 75%
• The same countries have 2.65 million fewer child deaths a year or 7,256 a day.
• The number of people living in extreme poverty has reduced from 43% in 1990 to 21% in 2010.
• At the current rate of decline, the number of people in extreme poverty would be close to zero by 2030

Curia’s monthly newsletter is out. The executive summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 66, March 2013

 March saw just three political polls published in New Zealand – a DigiPoll and two Roy Morgan polls.

 The average of the public polls has National 11% ahead of Labour – 3% less than in  February. The seat projection is centre-right 58 seats, centre-left 60.

 Australia has Labor and Gillard’s ratings seriously tanking.  The Coalition has a two party preferred lead of 16% to 18%, and is projected to win three times as many seats as Labor in the September election. Gillard has only 26% positive approval and 65% negative.

In the United States Barack Obama’s approval rating is has dropped significantly by 7%.

In the UK the Conservatives are still 11% behind Labour and the UK Independence Party is now polling at the same level as the Liberal Democrats.

In Canada the Conservatives are on 31%, NDP 28% and Liberals 27%. Likely Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is already leading the Preferred PM polls.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both by considerable margins.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on asset sales, constitutional issues, a four year term, Christchurch schools, same sex marriage, The Hobbit, cats, List MPs, and nuclear powered ships plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please e- go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

News.com.au reports:

THE Australian labour movement will wage a pre-emptive strike against the federal opposition as the election nears, ACTU boss Ged Kearney says.

This means spend a shitload of money. They’ll need to as the latest poll projects 109 seats for the Coalition and just 36 for Labor.

In a candid address to a NSW Teacher’s Federation conference in Sydney on Saturday, Ms Kearney indicated the ACTU was bracing for a coalition win on September 14 and a royal commission into union corruption.

That could be devastating for them.

“The royal commission is coming – because of the HSU, because of the whole slush fund stuff, they will come at us with lawyers and barristers and queen’s counsels and they will try to send us broke,” she said.

They should welcome a Royal Commission to clean their mess up.

The Herald reports:

North Korea has warned diplomats in Pyongyang that it can’t guarantee the safety of embassies in the event of a conflict and suggested they may want to evacuate their staff, Russia’s top diplomat said Friday.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is demanding an explanation from the North Koreans asking whether the warning is an order to evacuate the North Korean capital or merely a proposal to consider doing so.

It is very difficult to analyse what North Korea is doing, because the leadership is so abnormal. The cold war between US and USSR never became a major conflict because both sides could analyse what the other side was thinking and would do.

The recent rhetoric from North Korea is much more aggressive and specific than in the past.  With most countries this is a cause for alarm, because you can’t back down from such aggressive language without losing face.

However as the regime controls almost all communications within North Korea, they can just lie to their people and claim the US has agreed to withdraw a warship or something and claim it as a huge victory. The poor people will probably never know better.

But there is a not insignificant risk that North Korea will want some sort of “victory”. They are unlikely to attack the US directly as that would be regime suicide. but could they attack some South Korean targets? Yes.

What if they lob a couple of missiles at some non populated areas in South Korea? Or sink a ship? Does South Korea retaliate? If they do not, then they may invite more unprovoked attacks. If they do, then war could eventuate.

My pick and hope is North Korea will declare some sort of fake victory and not actually attack. But this is far from certain.

The Economist has published their 2012 democracy index.

Our score out of a maximum 10 is 9.26. Norway is top on 9.93. North Korea bottom on 1.08.

25 countries are classified as full democracies, 54 as flawed democracies, 36 as hybrid regimes and 52 states as authoritarian.

In terms of the global population only 11.3% live in a full democracy compared to 37.1% who live in authoritarian regimes.

NZ scores are:

• Electoral process and pluralism 10.00
• Functioning of Government 9.29
• Political participation 8.89
• Political culture 8.13
• Civil liberties 10.00

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

The New Zealand flag has been lowered for the final time at Kiwibase in Bamiyan marking the official close of the Provincial Reconstruction Team and this country’s 10-year involvement with it.

The United States and Malaysian flag, representing other nations in the PRT, were also lowered leaving the Afghan flag flying alone. …

At the flag-lowering ceremony Governor-General Jerry Mateparae said the final “crib 21″ rotation could now start the 13,000km trip home.

“You leave a legacy of which you can be proud.”

Sir Jerry read out the names of the 10 Kiwi soldiers who died in Afghanistan: Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, Private Kirifi Mila, Corporal Dougie Grant, Lance Corporal Leon Smith, Corporal Dougie Hughes, Lance Corporal Rory Malone, Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer, Corporal Luke Tamatea, Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris.

He said they had come to resists tyranny, promote democratic values and bring peace to troubled lands. …

Nato’s deputy senior civilian Andrew Steinfeld, who arrived with other official in a fleet of Black Hawk helicopters just before the event, thanked the PRT for its effectiveness. It had helped make big improvements in health outcomes, especially for children and had lifted the number of girls going to school.

He said it was appropriate Afghanistan now take the lead, but it would not have to do so alone.

Bamiyan Governor Habiba Sarabi thanked Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman for the PRT’s “remarkable service” and said the withdrawal should not indicate the end of the friendship and support of New Zealand but expected “a more sustainable friendship and … continued humanitarian support”.

New Zealand will continue to support two “legacy” aid projects including agriculture and the establishment of three solar powered generators that will start coming on stream in May and provide power for 2500 users in business, government buildings and residents.

Afghanistan is never going to turn into a post-war Germany or Japan. But life is way way better for the ordinary Afghani since the fall of Taliban, especially for women.

The Economist looks at the history and pitfalls of an FTT:

A group of 11 European Union member states, among them France, Germany and Italy, wants to impose a 0.1% tax on equity and debt transactions, and a 0.01% charge on derivatives transactions. These countries are pressing ahead on their own because other EU members, including financial hubs like Britain and Luxembourg, are opposed. …

The rates proposed sound negligible, but the tax would be imposed at each point in the transaction chain. A 0.1% rate therefore translates into something much bigger as securities move from seller to buyer via financial intermediaries. Even the headline rates are less innocuous than they look. A 0.1% charge on repo transactions, a way for banks to finance themselves overnight, turns into a 25% charge over the course of a working year. A 0.01% tax on a derivative trade sounds small, but is a hefty increase in costs given the large notional amounts involved—up to 18 times more than current costs in the most liquid markets, according to one calculation.

And how have they worked in practice?

After Sweden levied an FTT in the 1980s, 60% of trading volume in the most actively traded share classes moved to London; the tax was repealed in 1991.

It will send capital fleeing offshore.

The Herald reports:

North Korea issued its latest belligerent threat yesterday, saying it has entered “a state of war” with South Korea. It came a day after its leader threatened the US because two American bombers flew a training mission in South Korea.

Analysts say a full-scale conflict is unlikely and North Korea’s threats are instead aimed at drawing Washington into talks that could result in aid and boosting the image of leader Kim Jong Un at home.

But the harsh rhetoric from North Korea and rising animosity from the rivals following UN sanctions over Pyongyang’s February 12 nuclear test have raised worries of a misjudgment leading to a clash.

In a joint statement by the government, political parties and organisations, North Korea said it will deal with all matters involving South Korea according to “wartime regulations”. It also warned it would retaliate against any provocations by the US and South Korea without “any prior notice”.

I know this is just rhetoric from North Korea, and any actual conflict would be a terrible loss of life.

But there is a little bit of me that almost hopes the North Korean regime does launch an attack, so that they lose their ability to continue to threaten the region, and more importantly so that 25,000,000 citizens are freed from their slavery and brain-washing.

North Korea arguably has the worst human rights record of any country on Earth, and their grinding levels of poverty and starvation are entirely self-imposed. I hope within my life-time, those 25 million human beings get to reclaim their human rights – preferably without conflict.

I blogged last week that so far I thought the new Pope was looking very promising, and he continues to impress. I’m not Catholic but I want the Catholic Church to have a leader who will do well.

The Herald reports:

Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world’s poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.

Francis’ decision to disregard church law and wash the feet of two girls, a Serbian Muslim and an Italian Catholic during a Holy Thursday ritual has become something of the final straw, evidence that Francis has little or no interest in one of the key priorities of Benedict’s papacy: reviving the pre-Vatican II traditions of the Catholic Church.

One of the most-read traditionalist blogs, “Rorate Caeli,” reacted to the foot-washing ceremony by declaring the death of Benedict’s eight-year project to correct what he considered the botched interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s modernising reforms.

So what is the fuss over including two girls?

There were certainly none of those trappings on display Thursday at the Casal del Marmo juvenile detention facility in Rome, where the 76-year-old Francis got down on his knees and to wash the feet of 12 inmates, two of them women. The rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the feet of his 12 apostles during the Last Supper before his crucifixion, a sign of his love and service to them.

The church’s liturgical law holds that only men can participate in the rite, given that Jesus’ apostles were all male. Priests and bishops have routinely petitioned for exemptions to include women, but the law is clear.

Francis, however, is the church’s chief lawmaker, so in theory he can do whatever he wants.

“The pope does not need anybody’s permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him,” noted conservative columnist Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register. But Akin echoed concerns raised by canon lawyer Edward Peters, an adviser to the Vatican’s high court, that Francis was setting a “questionable example” by simply ignoring the church’s own rules.

Papal infallibility can come in useful sometimes

“People naturally imitate their leader. That’s the whole point behind Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. He was explicitly and intentionally setting an example for them,” he said. “Pope Francis knows that he is setting an example.”

Yep, an example that probably thrilled many female Catholics around the world.

The inclusion of women in the rite is problematic for some because it could be seen as an opening of sorts to women’s ordination. The Catholic Church restricts the priesthood to men, arguing that Jesus and his 12 apostles were male.

Francis is clearly opposed to women’s ordination. But by washing the feet of women, he jolted traditionalists who for years have been unbending in insisting that the ritual is for men only and proudly holding up as evidence documentation from the Vatican’s liturgy office saying so.

I think people are reading too much into it, if they think this will lead to female priests.

The BBC reports:

A school’s decision to ban triangular flapjacks after a pupil was hurt has been labelled “half-baked” by the Health and Safety Executive.

It follows an incident at Castle View School in Canvey Island, Essex, when a boy was hit in the face by a flapjack.

Catering staff at the school have been told only to serve square or rectangular flapjacks.

The school said the “isolated accident” had led to a review of “the texture and shape of the flapjacks” provided.

Words fail me.

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said: “We often come across half-baked decisions taken in the name of health and safety, but this one takes the biscuit.

“The real issue isn’t what shape the flapjacks are, but the fact that pupils are throwing them at each other – and that’s a matter of discipline, and has got nothing to do with health and safety as we know it.

“We’re happy to make clear that flapjacks of all shapes and sizes continue to have our full backing.”

Good that in this case the regulator is the one with common sense, and it is the school that is over-reacting.

Daniel Altman at Foreign Policy writes:

In 1999, the traditionally hard currencies of Europe’s north merged with the softer currencies of the south to form a new money that was somehow supposed to be stronger than any of the ones it replaced. Under the stewardship of the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt, the euro was meant to — and did — become a reserve currency to rival the dollar. Though the supposedly prudent northern countries didn’t always keep their budget deficits under control, they still managed to survive the worst of the global economic downturn. By contrast, the profligacy of the south, together with its flawed banking systems, has created a hotbed of crises that stretch 2,300 miles from Lisbon to Nicosia.

These crises would have been a lot shorter if the countries involved — Greece, Portugal, Spain, now Cyprus, soon Slovenia, and perhaps Italy for a second time — had possessed their own currencies. But all of them use the euro, so their monetary policy is set in Frankfurt at the ECB. Instead of devaluing their currencies in order to spur exports and ease the repayment of debts, all of these countries have had to undergo some combination of fiscal austerity, deflation, and, most notably in Cyprus’s case, loss of assets.

The lesson is you can’t have monetary union without fiscal union. Monetary policy and fiscal policy need to work together.

The interesting thing is the impact on political stability as well. They have a table showing how Parliaments in southern Europe have become more fragmented and extreme, which threatens Europe as a whole to a degree. They use the  Herfindahl Index to calculate the fragmentation.

The NZ Parliament Herfindahl Index is currently 0.34.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Seated across from each other in a New York restaurant they made for an unlikely couple.

On one side of the table was John Howard, one of Australia’s most successful prime ministers; darling of the political Right, bogeyman of the Left after taking the role as America’s deputy sheriff in the Pacific, and becoming the villain in the Tampa affair.

His lunch companion was Helen Clark, the socially liberal former New Zealand prime minister, a flag-flying Iraq war opponent, standard bearer for the Left-wing social democratic movement – and the woman who even now, four years on from losing the election, can spark visceral dislike among many on the Right.

Mates? Of course, says Howard, after they caught up recently for a chinwag in New York.

“We don’t just exchange Christmas cards.”

It reflects well on both Howard and Clark that they worked well together, despite being from different sides of the political spectrum.

 But historic and geographical ties have not always been enough to put the relationship on a friendly footing. Before Howard and Clark it was Lange and Hawke, Muldoon and Fraser. Tension, backstabbing, and suspicion reigned.

Fraser was an idiot, and Muldoon a bully. Hawke thought Lange was a flake, and he was right. There was also Bolger and Keating – Keating was just simply untrustworthy.

Gillard and Key, again polar opposites politically, have forged even stronger bonds than Clark and Howard.

Key says getting the personal dynamics in the relationship right is “critical”. With Gillard, it helps that their partners get on as well.

Once all the official business was out of the way during their two-day summit in Queenstown last month, Key and Gillard escaped to the exclusive Millbrook resort for dinner with partners Bronagh and Tim. They did the same in Melbourne last year.

“We have a no officials, casual dinner, have a drink together,” Key said.

A good relationship between leaders is no guarantee of success, but it is almost a precursor.

The big unknown is a possible Tony Abbott government – though he and Key have already struck up a good relationship, and speak to each other regularly.

Howard, meanwhile, is confident Abbot can only be good for New Zealand.

“He’s got a good start. His wife is a New Zealander.”

Heh, that may be useful.

Jill Lawless at NZ Herald reports:

Margaret Thatcher felt betrayed by close ally President Ronald Reagan over the Falkland Islands, according to newly released papers that reveal how isolated Britain’s Prime Minister was in her determination to repel the Argentine invasion by force.

When Argentina seized the British territory off the South American coast in April 1982, Thatcher’s Government presented a united front in public.

But private papers released yesterday by the Thatcher archive at Cambridge University show that the British leader’s closest advisers urged her to negotiate over the islands’ future rather than go to war.

And the Reagan Administration backed a peace plan that called for Britain to drop its insistence on self-determination for the islanders – a stance that led Thatcher to say Anglo-American friendship had brought her “into conflict with fundamental democratic principles”.

I think it is simple. If any other person had been Prime Minister, the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands would have been successful, and they would still be in possession of the islands today.

It reminds me of that great quote along the lines that if you think one person can’t make a difference, the history of the world is quite the opposite.

Commodore Bainimarama has released his draft constitution for Fiji. I can’t find it online anywhere but the Government kindly sent me a copy so I have embedded it below.

The proposed constitution is actually very good in the main, and a huge improvement over the former constitution. I’ll go through what I see as the major good and not so good points of it.

Concern remains over the process. The independent constitutional panel’s report was basically sidelined and the pledge to have the draft considered by a Constituent Assembly has now been dropped also. The ends do not justify the means.

The draft constitution proposes it can only be amended by referendum. If so, then the constitution itself must be adopted by referendum, not by decree. It also should require the same vote in favour as will be needed to amend it.

The Commodore’s summary is:

• it gives sovereign control to a single house in Parliament, which is represented by members elected by you;
• the size of parliament shall be 45 with a four year term. The idea is to attract good quality and honest parliamentarians who will be paid accordingly and who won’t be corrupt;
• it provides for not only civil and political rights, but also, for the first time in our constitutional history, it provides for a wide range of socio-economic rights. As seen through the constitutional submissions, many Fijians are concerned about their day to day living and access to better facilities and utilities. The draft Constitution has rights to housing and sanitation, reasonable access to transportation, adequate food and water and social security schemes. It also for the first time gives specific rights to persons with disabilities and to children;
• it creates a secular state which will allow all Fijians to practice their own faiths;
• it has proportional representation through a multi member constituency which will give enhanced opportunities for women and the youth to be in Parliament;
• it gives more independence to the Judiciary,  to control their own budget and finances as approved by Parliament. FICAC and the DPP’s office shall control their own affairs;
• it creates a Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to give protection to all citizens irrespective of their backgrounds or socio-economic status;
• it creates a truly independent electoral commission  with appropriate powers; and
• for the first time in our history, it gives you the right to change the constitution once implemented via a referendum;

As I said, overall it looks to be be very good, and worth adopting. But there area areas of potential improvement. My key take from it is:

• Explicitly rules unconstitutional any future coups, or immunities for future illegal actions. A valiant attempt to stop the coup culture. Of course those with guns can ignore laws, as we have seen, unless soldiers are trained to arrest any commanding officer who gives an illegal order.
• Clearly defines Fiji as a secular state with freedom of religion, and that religious beliefs are subservient the the constitution and laws. Excellent.
• All citizens are equal, regardless of racial background.
• A comprehensive bill of rights. Of course having the Commodore back state officials who torture prisoners makes you wonder about the will to enforce this.
• The freedom of speech section has a long list of limitations which could in fact lead to fairly restricted speech. Will depend on how independent the Judiciary is.
• A 45 MP proportional representation Parliament, with four multi-member electorates.
• No hereditary upper house
• A four year fixed term unless two thirds of Parliament vote for an early election.
• There is an Independent Electoral Commission but four members are appointed by PM and one by the Opposition Leader. Would be far better for all to be consensual appointments.
• A neutral President appointed by Parliament. Ceremonial powers only. Would be better to require President to have a super-majority so backed by Govt and Oppn.
• PM, not President, is Commander-in-Chief of Military.
• An independent Judiciary
• The PM appoints the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.
• The role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is “to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all its residents”. I think that is far too wide a role, and can be used to justify the military doing almost anything they want, so long as they believe it is necessary to the “well-being” of Fiji. It is not their job to decide. Their job should be to protect Fiji from external threats.
• Grants immunity to all those involved in past coups etc, and this section can never be amended or repealed.
• Constitution can only be amended by a bill in Parliament that is then ratified by a three quarters majority in a referendum. Happy with that, but the adoption of the constitution MUST also be subject to a three quarters majority referendum to be morally valid.

Overall, as I said, it looks to be a sound document.

2013 – Fiji Draft Constitution

The best quote about the failed putsch against Julia Gillard I saw was along the lines that if you have the numbers you use them, if you don’t have the numbers you talk about it.

Gillard has now beaten Rudd three times in a row. Is this the end? Probably until they get wiped out in the election.

Rudd’s talk of how he will keep his word and not challenge is simply code for he did not have the numbers. If he did, then they would have no confidenced Gillard and he could have them declared he is not challenging but there is a vacancy. His supporters have been waging a destabilisation campaign with Crean meant to be the Kingmaker. Instead Crean’s career is now as over as Rudd’s.

Gillard comes out of this internally stronger, but the public must be even more wary of someone whose caucus is so divided.

Tony Abbott must think it is Christmas Time. He had a wonderful quote, which may resonate with the public:

“You deserve a government which is focused on you, not on itself,” he said.

Nice. Also true.

The Australian Labor Party is tearing itself apart. Great political theatre. News.com.au is doing a live update. Developments today include:

• Labor hid polls from their own leader so Rudd could be rolled in 2010
• A Labor MP has called om the Chief Govt Whip to resign for disloyalty to Gillard
• Rudd and Crean discussing a leader-deputy ticket to roll Gillard
• Simon Crean has both called on party to unite behind Gillard and also attacked her for “the class warfare politics she has waged”
• Labor has backed down and withdrawn their media regulation bills
• Crean has now called for a leadership spill and says he will not stand for leader, but will for deputy.

Glorious fun,

Michael Field at Stuff reported:

The United States and New Zealand have announced they are planning to create the world’s largest marine protected area.

The 4.9 million square kilometre Ross Sea MPA in Antarctica would be nine times the size of New Zealand.

The plan has been announced in Washington by new US Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand ambassador to Washington, Mike Moore.

They were speaking at the screening the National Geographic Museum of The Last Ocean by New Zealand film-maker Peter Young. …

The US, the European Union and 23 other countries including New Zealand will decide in July whether to approve permanent protections for the Ross Sea and for a second area in East Antarctica, or to allow large-scale industrial fishing to continue.

An attempt last November to create the MPA at a meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, failed. …

Key areas to protect include a full range of marine habitats; from the ice edge to deep oceanic basins. The proposal protects the ecologically important features and habitats, including winter ice-free areas, the entire Victoria Coast from McMurdo Sound to Cape Adare, the Balleny Islands, and almost the entire Ross Sea continental shelf.

The large bulk of the MPA, the general protection zone, will be a no-take area.

Under the proposal the toothfish fishery would continue in areas outside the MPA.

It is good to have the US and NZ in agreement, as previously there were different proposals.

And it is good they are proposing a vast marine reserve for most of the Ross Sea.

But there is still an issue of whether the marine reserve should include the entire Ross Sea – just as all of Antarctica is protected for scientific research, not just some of it.

I don’t think there is a shortage of other areas to fish. Some ecosystems should be left undisturbed, and Antarctica is one of them.

Antony Green has launched his 2013 election calculator. Antony is the premier election analyst in Australia.

It makes predictions for all 150 seats on the basis of either the swing or two party preferred vote. But it has some additional nifty features.

• Can select the results from a recent poll
• Can set individual swings for each state (and swings do not tend to be uniform across the country)
• Can factor in retiring MPs
• Can over-ride the projected result in a few marginal seats

On the latest (Neilsen) poll Labor is projected to lose 25 seats and win 47 while the Coalition is projected to gain 25 seats and win 98.

On the best poll to date for the Coalition, they would win 110 seats to 35 for Labor.

One can see why some of the Labor MP are thinking the unthinkable and Rudd may challenge again.

Tyler Cowen writes in the NYT:

ECONOMICS is sometimes associated with the study and defense of selfishness and material inequality, but it has an egalitarian and civil libertarian core that should be celebrated.

Specifically:

At least since the 19th century, the interest of economists in personal liberty can be easily documented. In 1829, all 15 economists who held seats in the British Parliament voted to allow Roman Catholics as members. In 1858, the 13 economists in Parliament voted unanimously to extend full civil rights to Jews. (While both measures were approved, they were controversial among many non-economist members.) For many years leading up to the various abolitions of slavery, economists were generally critics of slavery and advocates of people’s natural equality

I see it as partly being a rationalist.

For example, Adam Smith cited birth and fortune, as opposed to intrinsically different capabilities, as the primary reasons for differences in social rank. And the classical economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill promoted equal legal and institutional rights for women long before such views were fashionable.

Equality of opportunity!

More recently, a tradition from University of Chicago economists asserts that deep down, all human beings have the same desires, even though they may face different circumstances and incentives. Gary Becker, the Nobel laureate who is one of the founders of this approach, used the economic method to lay bare the selfish motives behind racial and ethnic discrimination.

Discrimination tends to be a very selfish act.

Often, economists spend their energies squabbling with one another, but arguably the more important contrast is between our broadly liberal economic worldview and the various alternatives — common around the globe — that postulate natural hierarchies of religion, ethnicity, caste and gender, often enforced by law and strict custom.

A nice contrast.

Economics evolved as a more moral and more egalitarian approach to policy than prevailed in its surrounding milieu. Let’s cherish and extend that heritage. The real contributions of economics to human welfare might turn out to be very different from what most people — even most economists — expect.

Cowen is of course one of my favourite economists.