Ashley Mooney

There is something approaching a consensus that executive pay is too high, And the behaviour of Crest Nicholson shows that the corporate sector is in no mood to give an inch.

There is support for various ideas; higher minimum wage, pay ratios, binding shareholder votes . . . and more. Some voluntary. Some legislated. However, maybe now is a good time to take more fundamental look.

All the proposals that I have heard accept the fundamental basis of capitalism, as if it were some fundamental force in the universe. It is not. It is a result of the rules that we make and it is time to examine the rule that shareholders are entitled to ALL the profit that a business makes.

Value in any business derives from; capital, labour and scarcity. Scarcity would be things like; mineral rights, technology, brand, intellectual property. It seems to me that the owners of capital are entitled to a return on their capital, but a return on the labour of their employees as well?

The rules as written just now allow for labour to contract with an employer, and they get what they negotiate. The problem with that is that it is not a fair negotiation, with the glaring exception of the senior executives who are doing a prodigious job on their own behalf. How about if the profit left after the shareholders have had a reasonable return on their capital was distributed amongst the workforce. John Lewis in the UK might be a suitable model.

And why would any company do this? The executives making these decisions will clearly not be trousering quite the packets they do today if a significant amount of the profit is going to the workforce. They would need to be encouraged; and I would think that a different corporate tax structure, for a business with this kind of structure in place, would do the job. It could be entirely tax neutral, with a slightly lower tax arrangement for such companies being offset by a slightly higher tax arrangement for companies with the existing remuneration structure.

Maybe we need other changes as well, but Capitalism is failing and we do need a fundamental re-think.

So it has happened. UKIP’s only MP has left UKIP. Those who wilfully misunderstand UKIP may say that he was forced out because he was not racist enough. The truth is more mundane and rather sad.

Douglas is MP for Clacton, which is one of three Westminster constituencies that are in the geographical bounds of Tendring District Council. I was a UKIP member on Tendring District Council. I have met Douglas on many occasions and I have a decent feel for what the rank and file Ukippers in Clacton wanted from their party. My sadness is that, overwhelmingly Douglas and the UKIP membership want the same things.

And what they want is a fair crack of the whip for everyone in the United Kingdom. Yes – that involves leaving the EU [obviously]. And – Yes it involves reducing the numbers of immigrants. It definitely involves reinvigorating our democratic processes and ending the crony corporatist government that has mis-governed the UK until now. It involves taking back control not only from Brussels, but also from Westminster. Government needs to be held to account by servants of the people in a way that does not happen at the moment.

One of Douglas’ favourite aphorisms was that it was the role of an insurgent party to change the political landscape, so that it was in the political self-interest of your opponents to make good decisions. He did that in spades with Brexit. Yes – of course we owe Nigel Farage a huge debt for his tireless service. And – Yes, of course Nigel Farage should have been knighted by now. However, it was Douglas that scared the wits out of David Cameron by leaving the Conservative Party and joining UKIP. Without that action there would have been no referendum promise from David Cameron!

We will have to wait and see how Douglas influences the political landscape in future. However, now would be a good moment to remember that Douglas Carswell alone gave us the Brexit referendum. And we should all be mightily grateful for that.

 

Apple NZ has paid no tax in New Zealand for over a decade. It pays tax in Australia instead. There is no suggestion that Apple has broken any laws. The story has been covered in both the UK, in The Guardian, and in New Zealand, by Stuff. Incidentally, most of Apple’s profit in Australia and New Zealand is diverted to Ireland.

What caught my eye in this story was the response of Deborah Russell, a senior lecturer at Massey University’s school of accountancy in Palmerston North in New Zealand. She expressed the view that it would be surprising if the New Zealand government could compel Apple to pay tax in New Zealand, saying; “I think Apple is bigger than New Zealand – they’ve got tremendous resources to fight back. Every time a government comes up with a new way to rein in these multinationals, clever tax accountants come up with a way around it. That’s essentially their job.”

Really? The UK is hamstrung for now by its membership of the European Union. However New Zealand ought to be able to require any company to pay tax on it New Zealand business. If they avoid tax on their profits, through any one of a range of profit/cost transfer schemes, then it would be relatively simply to tax them on their sales in New Zealand.

Let’s hope Ms Russell’s views are not shared by the New Zealand government and, indeed the UK government in due course. If governments start with a supine and defeatist attitude, the multinationals will continue to ride roughshod over the best interests of the societies within which they operate.

Stuff runs a story today about the “time we lose stuck in peak time traffic”. This reports on Tom Tom data that compares the time for journeys made in rush hour compared to the same journey made in free flowing traffic. For Wellington commuters the result is an extra 72%. That amounts to an extra 20 working days a year – a 4 per cent increase from last year

So much, so normal. It was the response from the “Wellington City Council transport strategy and operations portfolio leader Chris Calvi-Freeman” that caught my eye.

He is quoted as saying “The 72 per cent extra time means that traffic is flowing fine in the middle of the day. If people have no choice to commute in peak hours, or are foolish enough to drive in that time, they are going to be stuck in traffic, because they are traffic.”

I cannot imagine the responsible councillor in a major UK city offering this response. In the UK we have always tried to build road capacity to cope with peak-time demand, only to find that demand rises to fill the available capacity.

This difference derives in significant part from New Zealand having to fund infrastructure for a land mass the size of the UK with 7% of the population / tax base. In New Zealand the concept of “we cannot afford it” is politically acceptable. The fact that it is not in the UK is a major reason why, after seven years of “austerity” the UK is still running a budget deficit of around 5% of GDP, whilst New Zealand runs a surplus. The New Zealand approach seems entirely sensible and actually more grown up to me.

With New Zealand gearing up for one of its triennial parliamentary elections later this year, there is more interest than usual in the polls. These are less frequent than in the UK.. The latest one shows this:

National	46%	Conservatives
NZ First	11%	UKIP
Labour	30%	Labour
Greens	11%	Lib. Dem.
Other ( Mana /   Maori / ACT )	2%

There is the usual difference of view over the latest figures in the UK from the Labour Force Survey reported by the ONS (Organisation for National Statistics).

The Daily Telegraph goes with: “Nearly 450,000 more migrants are working in the UK while the number of British-born people in work has fallen by 120,000, according to new figures.”

The Guardian goes with: “Of the 303,000 more people in work between October and December compared with a year earlier, 233,000 were non-UK nationals, taking the total to 3.48 million according to the Office for National Statistics. UK nationals working in Britain increased by 70,000 over the same period to 28.44 million.”

British workers “falling”, or British workers “rising”. Take your pick. This difference lies in whether we regard being “British” as “British born” or “British nationals”. For what it is worth, I am a British national, born in Ghana.

This is clearly a difficult area. Looking on the BBC website, I find . . . absolutely nothing on this important topic!

The Guardian goes on to say in a related article on wages that: “Employers have also been able to find workers from overseas. Between the final three months of 2015 and the final three months of 2016, the number of people employed rose by just over 300,000. Of those, 70,000 were UK nationals and 230,000 were non-UK nationals. The increase in the supply of labour has helped to keep the lid on wage increases.”

Eh! This is the Guardian, and they note that the availability of non-British labour, whichever way you define it, has “helped” to keep the lid on wage increases. HELPED!

If you are one of the traditional working class people in the Stoke Central constituency who  voted for “Leave” in the Brexit referendum, I imagine that you would rather view wage increases as not just a very good thing, but a suitable objective of government policy.

The liberal elite see the quarterly ONS employment numbers as a pit of vipers to be treated with extreme care, or not at all (BBC). Is there any other issue that encapsulates so clearly the yawning gulf between the UK electorate and the elite who have mis-governed them for so long?

 

In general, I write about the differences between the UK and New Zealand. In this case the similarity is striking. Donald Trump’s decision to issue an executive order re-imposing the ban on NGOs that provide abortion services or offering information about abortions if they receive US funding, has been stridently condemned in the UK and in New Zealand.

It is the lead opinion piece in The Guardian today. And it is the lead article on Stuff. Both take aim at this picture in particular:

This might, of course, be the usual luvvies in the Main Stream Media – but it is an opinion shared by my those I talk to here. Summed up nicely by Martin Belam, Social & New Formats Editor at The Guardian, who tweeted; “As long as you live you’ll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs”.

Presumably this will be reversed by the next president. In the meantime it is hard not to worry that this will not prevent abortions, but it will prevent safe abortions.

 

I have just received a letter from the electoral commission her in New Zealand informing me that if I qualify as an elector then I am “required by law to be on the electoral roll”. Actually, I do not qualify. Though I will qualify if , as planned, I gain residency in New Zealand later this year. Two thoughts came to mind.

First; I do not know how they knew of me; bank account, driver’s license, house purchase, work visa? But, I am impressed that the electoral commission is sufficiently on the ball to know that I exist. Further, the letter came from a named person with a phone number and an email. An exchange of emails confirmed that I do not [currently] qualify, within a day. How easy is that!

Second; what a good idea to make it compulsory to be on the electoral role. It takes all the debate about sections of society being under-represented on the electoral role completely out of play. Also, it allows time to ensure that the electoral role is not begin tampered with in some way. If there is a rush of registrations leading up to an election, it will inevitably be difficult to check for fraudulent registrations. However, over the parliamentary election cycle, three years here in New Zealand, it is clearly possible to do a more thorough job.

 

 

2016 was the warmest year since reliable records began in 1979. It exceeded the previous hottest year, 1998, by 0.02°C. The surface of the earth (the lower troposphere to be precise) has been warming by 0.001°C per year over the last 19 years. There was a significant El Nino associated spike in temperature early in 2016. December 2016 was the coldest month since September 2014.

What is curious is the coverage. Here in New Zealand there has been coverage on national television and in the press. We turn to NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research) as our primary source for data relating to New Zealand. They inform us that 2016 was 0.8°C above the 1981-2010 annual average. This is a big number. Sadly, they use a “seven-station series”. These are ground stations, and given the liberties that have been taken with the ground station series for the world as a whole, it is difficult to be confident that this figure is all it seems. Satellite data for New Zealand is available and NIWA could, and should, be using that.

For interest the satellite data for the world shows that the world was 0.5°C hotter in 2016 than the 1981-2010 average. And, remember that 1981-2010 is a very odd reference period. It includes a period, 1981-1998, when the world was warming; and a period, 1998-2010 when the world was not warming (actually cooling very slightly).

And in the UK . . .  Well not a lot. A search of the Guardian and Independent websites brings up nothing. Do they feel that the current cold conditions in Europe make this a bad time to run their usual global warming narrative? Are they disappointed that the rise is so close to zero as make no difference? Are they worried that 2017 seems destined to be cooler than 2016?

This last possibility deserves a little clarification. How can I be so certain on Jan 10th 2017 that 2017 will be cooler than 2016? Well, 2016 was a exceptional year, as was 1998. No other years come close. And 2017 is starting cold. So 2017 would have to change from being cool by recent standards to being exceptionally hot by recent standards, for it to compare with 1998 and 2016.

Whilst the Global Warming crowd work out how to play this, the rest of us may remain sceptical.

There has been plenty of coverage of the vote in the UN Security Council condemning Israel for its settlements in the occupied territories, in the UK media. It even commanded editorial comment, such as this from Simon Tisdall in the Guardian. However, as far as I can find it, nothing in the New Zealand press. Not a Dickie bird! Which is especially odd given that New Zealand was one of the non-permanent members, final month of the two year membership, that voted for the resolution; and was one of the two countries singled out by Israel to have their ambassador withdrawn.

For those of you who feel that the press reporting has overstated the severity of the wording in this resolution, please do have a look for yourself here. In this case the journalists are doing no more than reporting the facts.

Hopefully, the lack of reporting in NZ shows that New Zealanders are less concerned with geopolitics and more concerned with getting on with their lives. I think Queen Elizabeth II would approve.