Almost a month ago there were three elections, two of which remained unsettled. But today, Afghanistan has a president, and I have a District Health Board. Congratulations to Hamid Karzai, and congratulations to Datamail and Electionz.com, who ensured that what should have been a simple election took as long to resolve as one requiring ballots to be transported on donkeys and a probe into irregularities...
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Bigger news than it sounds
I know people can't hear about the link between cows and global warming without cracking up with laughter at the thought of cow flatulance and "fart taxes" - so I don't really expect people to have paid much attention to today's story in the Dominion-Post about a wee pill to save the planet. But it's big news, and good news, and worth paying attention to.
The short version: urine - cow, human, or otherwise - has nitrates in it. When "deposited", nitrates do two things: they act as fertiliser, which (given the tendency for water to flow downhill) eventually ends up in the nearest stream, then the nerest large body of water, and gives us messes like Lake Rotoiti and algal blooms. And secondly, it breaks down into nitrous oxide, a very powerful greenhouse gas which makes up a large portion of New Zealand's (and the world's) emissions.
The good news is that New Zealand scientists have invented a pill that reduces the amount of nitrogen in cow urine. Which means less pollution in our waterways, and lower greenhouse emissions (which with the Kyoto Protocol almost certain to come into force, will save us money). There's also the prospect of international sales - which will help other countries reduce their emissions as well.
The problem is that there seems to be little incentive for farmers to actually use the thing, and therefore little incentive to reduce emissions. And any policy to make them do it (by regulation, for example) is going to have significant enforcement problems. The easiest mechanism would have been to rely on market incentives - a pollution tax on cows, with a rebate for reduction - but the government has already backed away from this sort of mechanism (the fools). Which leaves direct subsidies (which still run into the incentive problem), or using the projects mechanism. I think the latter is the answer, but rather than offering carbon credits to farmers on an individual basis, it would be better to try and cut a deal with Fonterra to provide credits in exchange for their enforcing emission reduction through a code of practice.
Shrinking coalition watch
Hungary is next off the sinking ship, and will withdraw its 300 troops by March. While they're non-combatants (similar to New Zealand's contingent), it still marks a withdrawl of international support for the US project in Iraq, backed by enormous public opposition to the US in Hungary.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Four More Years
While Ohio is still undecided, things aren't exactly looking good, and several media outlets have called the election for Bush. It's looking as if we'll be facing four more years. Four more years in which Bush will further isolate the world's most powerful nation from the international community. Four more years in which Bush will continue to undermine human rights and international law. And four more years in which America will continue its transformation from a shining beacon of freedom into a shitty little despotism which condones (if not practices) torture and disappearances.
A recent New Statesman editorial commented that having watched one great beacon of hope - the Soviet Union - collapse into a nightmare, the world could hardly bear it if the other one - the United States - fell as well. But that seems to be what is happening. There's not a fuck of a lot separating Osama bin Laden's Islamofascists and Dubya's Christian fundamentalists - they even follow the same god. The only real difference lies in who they want to kill. There's nothing there worth believing in, and nothing to hope for, except maybe that they'll all kill each other so that we members of the reality-based community can get on with our lives in peace.
Amputation
It's clear after yesterday's question time that Helen Clark is preparing to amputate the supperating wound that is John Tamihere. Pressed on the allegations against him, she repeatedly declared that she shared the opposition's concerns. And in monday's press conference, she said she that she would not wait for the SFO to finish its investigation before making a decision. The implication is that Tamihere will be sacked from Cabinet when the QC's investigation is complete. Depending on what it finds, he may later be reinstated, but certainly not while the SFO is still looking into possible fraud.
The question then is whether Tamihere will go for a by-election (and thereby force an early election), or whether he'll take his medecine like a good boy...
Update: The amputation is happening sooner than I thought - according to One News, Tamihere will resign his cabinet seat within the hour, and retire to the backbenches.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
The world holds its breath
That's what it feels like. America has a choice today, between being a part of the world or waging war upon it. And everyone is watching and waiting to see which way they jump...
Turnout
According to a secondhand report from a friend-of-a-friend in Milwaukee (hi Jim!), early voting is so popular there that there is a four hour wait to vote. And according to Kevin Drum,
In Florida, Iowa, and Tennessee, about a third of all registered voters have already voted.
This is good news for democracy - high turnout is always better than low - and good news for the Democrats - if people actually vote, they tend to win. But of course we won't know until tomorrow afternoon...
Maori representation
Span has a good post on the history of the Maori seats, in which she attacks the myth that they were established to ensure Maori representation, pointing out that their history is one of ensuring that Maori were under-represented. She begins with the establishment of the seats in 1867:
At that time eligible Maori voters (considerably less than the number of adult Maori) were at least a quarter of the voting population. But non-Maori were given 60 seats to represent them, while Maori were given four. Yes, four. You read that right - four (4). Quite ignoring the voter eligibility dodginess, they should still have got 20, to be proportionate. But no, four was deemed sufficient to represent Maori in Parliament.
There's some quibbling over the numbers - according to the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, there were 72 general seats, not 60 - but the fact remains that from their outset, Maori were consciously denied full representation by the New Zealand government, and while the dramatic growth of the non-Maori population made this under-representation less severe, it was still present, and still deliberate. While many of the problems with the Maori seats (such as the denial until 1937 of a secret ballot, or until 1949 of a formal electoral roll) seem to have stemmed from neglect - lawmakers just not caring about Maori - one thing that Span misses is that underrepresentation was consciously and deliberately renewed as recently as 1976. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government introduced the "Maori option" allowing Maori to choose which roll they would be on; they also made Maori seats subject to the rules as other seats, with their number varying with the numbers on the Maori roll, and their boundaries set by the Representation Commission rather than the Governor-General. Muldoon kept the former change, but reversed the latter. While coincidentally there would have been around four Maori seats at that time, not permitting the number of seats to increase along with the roll represented a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise Maori.
Much is made by the right of the fact that the Maori seats were originally a temporary measure, designed to ensure (under)represenation until permanant arrangements were made (similar measures were taken for West Coast gold-miners). But this overlooks the fact that the seats were made permanent in 1876 and reaffirmed by subsequent legislation. Hearkening back to "original intent" misses the fact that that intent changed in response to changing circumstances. But then, isn't that what conservatives do?
As for the seats themselves, it's instructive to read the Royal Commission report. They recognised the importance of the seats to Maori as a recognition of their status under the Treaty, and felt very strongly that Maori interests ought to be represented by Maori MPs. However, they also noted that the Ghettoisation of the Maori vote reduced its power, in that general MPs were not accountable to Maori, while the fact that the Maori electorates were all safe Labour seats meant that Labour could to some extent take them for granted. The Royal Commission believed that Maori interests would be best served if all parties had to compete for the Maori vote, and favoured the elimination of the seats in favour of an electoral system which properly represented minorities. However, it seems that MMP has met this challenge by making all parties accountable to Maori through the party vote. The number of Maori seats has since grown with the Maori roll, emphasising their importance to Maori, but they have no more effect on the outcome than any other electorate seat.
No more Holmes!
I don't like Holmes, and avoid watching him unless I absolutely have to. His "interview" style is grating, to say the least - he seems to think that the purpose of an interview is to expound his views rather than question his guests - and the braying voice and bullshit lifestyle articles (Algy the one-legged spider, anyone?) just make it worse. And after seeing his caricature on Face Lift, it seemed that he had descended to the level of self-parody. So I'm not sorry at all to see him go - hopefully TVNZ can take this opportunity to get a real news and current affairs program.
Benefits of Genetic Modification
Non-allergenic cats. It's certainly a better application than GM-decaf coffee...
Monday, November 01, 2004
Andreas Schafer
Remember Andreas Schafer, the New Zealander who spent three months in coalition custody in Iraq? His story is in Salon. It's not particularly flattering to the Americans, who Schafer says couldn't imagine that anyone would "come to a country less pleasant than their own, unless they're invading it" and at one stage after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke threatened to transfer him there with the implication that he would be abused. And the IPs don't exactly come across well either. While they treated him well,
Schafer says that Iraqi police under coalition authority tortured suspects regularly. He claims to have seen beatings by police and, after he was transferred to a more brutal prison in Kut, at least one instance of an Iraqi electrocuted to the point of unconsciousness lasting three days. Americans, he says, visited the prison regularly and did nothing to stop or discourage the torture.
Which provides some confirmation of the allegations of torture by the Iraqi regime originally carried in the Oregonian, as well as a powerful reason why we should not be providing aid or assistance to the Iraqi regime.
As sure as night follows day
The Lancet study alleging that the invasion of Iraq caused an estimated 100,000 deaths has naturally drawn criticism from those who desperately want to believe that wars don't kill people. Crooked Timber has an excellent response to those criticisms here.
Disgusting
National has reacted to Helen Clark's visit to Niue by accusing her of a $20 million shopping spree in an effort to "buy the votes" of Niueans in New Zealand. This is simply disgusting - there's just no other way to put it. Why? Because first and foremost, Niueans are New Zealanders, every bit as "kiwi" as you or I. And secondly, while they are self-governing, New Zealand has a continuing responsibility under the Niue Constitution Act 1974 "to provide necessary economic and administrative assistance" and to co-operate in any other area as required. What this adds up to is that Niueans have a right to expect (and the New Zealand government has an obligation to provide) basic public services of the sort enjoyed by people in New Zealand. You don't see National bitching when the government spends money to ensure that New Zealanders in Eketahuna or Geraldine or on Stuart Island have access to acceptable education and medical care, and you don't see them bitching when the government spends money on disaster relief for New Zealanders in the Manawatu or Bay of Plenty - so why are they bitching when the government does exactly the same thing for New Zealanders in Niue?
There's an obvious answer, and it doesn't reflect at all well on the National Party or their view of who is and who is not a fellow New Zealander.
Made it
The Campaign for Civil Unions has made their target and raised the money needed to put their ad in the paper. However, they note that
It is still possible to sign the ad until Friday 12 November - every name makes our statement stronger
If you want to add to the strength of that statement and haven't already done so, you can do it here.
Democratic Transparency VIII
National has finally come through with their votes on the HART Bill - kindof. Generally, National split 22-5 on the bill, with the larger faction voting in favour. The factions were:
For: Ardern, Brash, Carter, D, Collins, Connell, Goudie, Hutchison, Key, McCully, Mapp, Power, Rich, Ryall, Scott, Simich, Smith, L, Smith, N, Sowry, Tisch, Wong, Worth, Williamson.
Against: Brownlee, Carter J, English, Heatley, Te Heuheu.
Unfortunately, their disclosure has been less than full. I am still seeking answers as to whether it was always the same split, or whether some members changed their votes on some amendments, and on who was absent from the house on ocassions when the split was 20-4. But more importantly, there are a number of controversial amendments which were supported by a single National MP. One of these, from United Future's Judy Turner, attempted to redefine "embryo" to include any cell or group of cells that "has the capacity to develop into an individual" in order to bar stem-cell research. A second attempted to restrict genetic selection to the very limited purpose of preventing serious genetic disorders. The National Party has so far refused to name the MP or MPs who voted for these amendments. Which is precisely why voting records must be completely public. At least one National MP is an unreconstructed right-to-life fanatic. We have a right to know this, so we can judge them and their party accordingly.
Reason to be suspicious
Many on the left are suspicious of the third way as providing semantic cover for a shift to the right, and after reading Anthony Giddens' latest article in the New Statesman, I can't blame them one bit. In an article headlined The left must open up more clear water between itself and its opponents, Giddens compares the current situation of social democratic or left parties in Europe with the triumphalism of the Blair / Schroeder joint statement. Where once social democrats held power in thirteen states of the European Union, they are now reduced to nine. According to Giddens, this is due to too little "revisionism". Social democratic parties have failed to move to the right far enough or fast enough. The German Social Democratic Party is in trouble because its members have rejected the revolutionary neo-liberal "reforms" laid out in Schroeder's joint statement (which is a very familiar recipe to New Zealanders: tax cuts for the rich, flexible labour markets, and a move to a low-wage, low skill, service economy); in Denmark and the Netherlands, the left lost power because they "failed to anticipate and respond to a wave of [anti-immigration] right-wing populism". Giddens' "solution" is for left-wing parties to adopt wholesale neo-liberal economic policies, and on other fronts to
...generate left-of-centre solutions to "rightist" problems - such as those to do with crime or immigration.
In practice, this means outflanking right-wingers on the right, by being even more vicious and reactionary. And so we see the paradigm third way government, Tony Blair's New Labour, demonising asylum seekers and eroding civil and human rights in an effort to win the bidding war for the redneck vote. If there's "clear water" being opened here, it's on the other side of the right-wing boat.
Then there's Giddens' attitude towards dissent. Internal division must be suppressed in order to achieve electoral victory. "Reforms" must be rammed regardless of objections from party rank and file; delays simply make the "backlash" greater. There's more than a whiff of the Douglas blitzkrieg here, which is surprising from someone who claims that democracy must be democratised.
Looking at this program, there is every reason to be suspicious. Giddens' third way isn't a third way at all - it's a wholesale appropriation of the policies of the extreme right, and a sacrifice of core left-wing values for electoral advantage. While it's necessary for left-wing parties to gain power to actually achieve anything, applying Giddens' recipe means forgoing any chance of achieving anything worthwhile. As with the war on terror, if you have to sacrifice everything that would make winning valuable in order to achieve victory, then you really have to wonder what the point is.
But what's truly tragic is that the total compromise Giddens advocates isn't even necessary. Take Britain, for example: it's argued that 18 years of Thatcherism has created an ideological hegemony and destroyed any support for anything closer to "traditional" social democratic policies. Which sounds reasonable, until you realise that in the most recent British election, turnout dropped by 20% as traditional Labour supporters stayed home rather than vote for Blair. Factor in those who held their noses, and it's clear that traditional social democracy (or at least a far "lefter" compromise) still has a large constituency - but urged on by people like Giddens, Blair has simply abandoned them.
A special nag for American readers
I probably don't have to say this, but: if you're an American reading this, please remember to vote on Tuesday. While electoral systems and constitutional forms may vary, one thing that is true of all the world's democracies is that they only work properly when people participate. The United States of America is supposed to be the example to the world of democratic government. Please do your bit to make it true.
Unlike other people, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for - it's your decision, not mine, and you are the people who will primarily have to live with the results. What I will say is that if you can't stomach any of the candidates, don't stay at home - let them know. The number and type of Presidential candidates will only change if there is public demand for it; using a write-in option or spoiling your ballot by writing "none of the above" on it are both ways of expressing that demand (alternatively, writing to your local paper or calling talkback radio is probably more productive). If you're dissatisfied, doing nothing will not solve the problem.
Policies for the labour shortage
At the end of a post discussing the documentary In A Land of Plenty, Big News notes that "at the moment, we seem to have too many employers chasing too few qualified workers", and then asks
what is the answer to increasing productivity (and skills and wages), and decreasing unemployment in this current political climate
To which I'd answer that in the short term, the labour shortage itself should see to that. Employers cannot simply add more workers anymore, so they have little alternative but to invest in their staff or invest in their plant. Wages should also naturally rise as a consequence of the free-market boot being on the other foot, helped along by the restoration of employee and union bargaining power under the ERA. As for decreasing unemployment, the market seems to be dealing with that as well. The problem is really with skills, but the government seems to have reasonable policies to encourage training, and has reduced the economic risk of moving from a benefit to full-time work, so I'm not sure what else can be done in this area (other than encouraging migrants with the right skills - but that doesn't really lower unemployment).
What I am sure of is that Brash-style policies of engineering a labour surplus solely for the purposes of keeping wages (and hence inflation) down is not any sort of solution. In fact, that's one of the reasons we've fallen behind Australia: real improvements in our standard of living come from investing in increasing productivity, but the ECA and Reserve Bank-engineered high unemployment gave employers no incentive to do this, and instead encouraged them to slash wages and hire more lower-skilled workers. Unfortunately, ACT is still stuck in this mindset, as betrayed by their calling solo parents a "130,000-strong latent workforce". I guess Marx was right about employer's desire for a "reserve army of labour" to hold worker's claims in check - either that, or Muriel Newman couldn't find anyone to clean her toilet...
