Ashley Mooney

I keep an eye on the Lower Troposphere data release month by month by the remss.com website. I missed the June release and have just looked at the June and July figures. I noticed that the figures for Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl and May have all been significantly increased since they were released, by 0.18 degC on average, without any explanation.

Dr Christopher Essex  has shown conclusively that the “scientists” have been fiddling with the surface measurement data so comprehensively that it can no longer be of any use to anyone. Have they started doing the same thing to the satellite data?

Emirates New Zealand won the Americas Cup, beating Oracle USA by 6-1 in the final in Bermuda’s Great Sound. Redemption after losing the final 8-9 four years ago, having lead 8-1. A great story. And one that is fully reported in New Zealand. Not surprisingly.

However, when I open the sports section my hard copy Daily Telegraph this morning? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And BAR UK was one of the teams competing in this competition. BAR UK lost to Emirates NZ in the quarter finals.

To be fair, the BBC do report the Americas cup result; just below “Shrewsbury Town are first club to apply for safe standing” and above ” Roy of the Rovers cartoonist who made putting an art form”.

Are we really such bad losers in the UK? Or so parochial? Maybe, at a time when the MSM are full of what may go wrong in Brexit negotiations, they have also lost the plot on other international events as well?

The UK electorate has an impressive way of getting what it wants, whatever the newspapers and pollsters may encourage them to believe.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power, can anyone doubt that the UK electorate had had enough of Union Power. They elected a government that would fix that.

When Tony Blair came to power, who can doubt that the UK electorate had had enough of state services being run down – especially schools and hospitals. So the elected a government that would spend on public services.

When David Cameron came to power at the head of a coalition with the Lib Dems, who can doubt that the UK electorate wanted some fiscal sanity to be restored, without the unbridled free markets that the Conservatives offered. So they elected a government of Conservative fiscal rectitude with a Lib Dem restraining hand.

When David Cameron was elected with an absolute majority, who can doubt that the UK electorate wanted the EU referendum, to cure this chronic ailment in British politics. So, in 2015 they elected the only party offering that referendum. In 2010 the Lib Dems were the only party offering an EU referendum, but by 2015 they had lost their way in a blaze of red boxes and ministerial limousines.

And last week? Who can doubt that the UK electorate has had enough of the kind of austerity where the rich get ever richer whilst the rest get poorer. Jeremy Corbyn offered hope of a fairer society. But the UK electorate had no appetite for 1970’s style socialism. So they elected a minority Conservative government that will maintain some fiscal sense, constrained to do so in a fairer way.

And what of Brexit, in what was initially dubbed as the “Brexit Election”? The UK electorate knew better. In 2015, of the 650 MP’s elected, nine (9) were for Brexit (DUP [8] and UKIP [1]) and 641 were for Remain. In 2017, 591 are for Brexit and just 59 are for Remain (SNP [35], Lib Dem [12], Sin Fein [7], Plaid Cymru [4] and Green [1]). As soon as the election was called the UK electorate knew it would return a parliament overwhelmingly in favour of implementing Brexit. So they were free to vote on other matters.

Would any of this have been different under some form of proportional representation? Given the impressive ability of the UK electorate to get its way under First Past The Post, it has to be likely that they would work out how to get their way under any other system. The wisdom of crowds is a wonderful thing.

I was heartened to read an article The Independent that was reporting on an article in Nature. The apocalyptic headline “Humans are ushering in the sixth mass extinction of life on earth” was followed by the warning that “tens of thousands of species are now threatened with extinction. The number may or may not be accurate – have they counted them? – but most would agree that there is a major problem. Over-fishing, poaching, pollution and loss of habitat will result in the irreversible loss of species on a large scale.

Nothing very heartening in any of that, but the article goes on say that it “it was not inevitable that this process would continue”. The abstract from the original Nature article says; “Proactive international efforts to increase crop yields, minimize land clearing and habitat fragmentation, and protect natural lands could increase food security in developing nations and preserve much of Earth’s remaining biodiversity”.

All of this without the usual, lazy references to “Global Warming”. Whether the US administration dumps the Paris Accord or not makes next to no difference to the future of biodiversity. The Paris Acccord is about CO2 emissions. For all the virtue signalling that goes on in connection with CO2, there is no evidence that it raises temperatures in the real world (no temperature rise in the last 20 years), and it may even be beneficial (global greening).

I have blogged about this before and the whole CO2 footprint debate is a wretched distraction from the real issues so neatly summarised on the Nature abstract. If scientists and media are now turning away from flogging the CO2 horse, then that should hearten all of us.

I came across this gem today. I had always thought that subsidiarity meant that if something could be done better at the national or regional level, rather than at the EU level, then it would be done at national or regional level. No. Apparently that was me being credulous!

Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union says this: “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”

So, if something falls within the competence of the EU, such as health and safety legislation, then any action must happen at the EU level. On the other hand, if something does not fall within the competence of the EU, such as defence, then the EU may act if it decides that the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states.

The wording is carefully asymmetric, in favour of action at the EU level. The UK is so much better off out!

The headline from Stuff, in New Zealand, on the Conservative Party manifesto for the UK election is “New Zealand, Australian workers to suffer under Theresa May’s immigration pledges”. This angle has been entirely ignored in the UK press, which does have the feel of a nation turning inwards.

One of the pledges will require UK companies who employ a migrant worker to pay £2,000 per employee, per year to the UK government. That is probably low enough so that current employees are not going to be fired en masse. And, high enough to discourage new employment of migrant workers, including those earning significantly more than the minimum wage.

Incidentally, with around 6m non-UK born workers in the UK, this amounts to a tax grab of some £12bn per year.

There is a problem with the over-supply of low-skilled, low-wage labour in the UK. It is a shame that the Conservatives are unable to focus on that. Other countries will reply in kind. This is a nasty, inward looking measure.

I have now read the manifestos for the UK 2017 election from the; Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservatives. I think it would be fair to say that after closing out Brexit, the unifying theme is the unfairness of the workplace. By this I mean the phenomenon of the rich getting [much] richer, while the rest don’t [or worse].

The parties are all committed to raising the minimum wage, with some adding in variants of things like; workers on boards, and binding share holder votes on executive pay. The Labour party has the eye-catching policy of a maximum ration of 20:1 between the highest and lowest paid in public sector and companies tendering for public sector contracts.

However, they all collude in the skills and training “deceit”. That is to say they all emphasise increased skills through training as a way to lift people into higher wage jobs. Clearly, better skills, and the improved productivity that might come with it, are a good thing. However, it does not solve the low pay problem.

The reason for this is that, whilst one individual may train up and move from a minimum wage job into something better paid, the minimum wage job remains. There are whole swathes of the economy which requires low skilled labour; harvesting, hospitality, care, retail . . . That is not to say that all jobs in these sectors are paid minimum wage, but very large numbers are, and will remain so. Changing the bedding in a hotel or a care home, serving a customer in a coffee shop, cutting lettuces, picking items in a fulfilment centre – are all jobs that are not going to be somehow “upskilled”. Yes, some of these jobs may be automated – though losing those jobs raises a shed-load of different problems.

What is needed is to pay the people doing these low skilled jobs better. And raising the minimum wage comes close to being a sledge-hammer to miss a nut. It does not allow for those who would willingly work for less, so those businesses do not exist. And it does not help the low paid to earn more than the minimum wage.

The Lib-Dem manifesto pledge to give workers in listed companies with more than 250 employees the right to request shares, confuses fair pay with ownership. Employees add value [hugely] to companies and should share in the profitability,  without any claim on the ownership of the company.

All the parties manifestos treat capitalism as if it was an immutable law of nature. Currently, the law stipulates that ALL the profit of a company is the property of the shareholders.  That needs to change; so that employees benefit in their pay packets, from the success of the businesses they work in.

The latest figures show that net immigration into New Zealand was 71,932 for the year to 31st March 2017. This is roughly three times higher, per head of population, than currently for the UK. It is a huge political issue in the UK, but much less so in New Zealand. The issues are eerily familiar to one used to the debate in the UK.

On the one hand immigration places pressure on; housing, roads, schooling, healthcare. It is also widely believed to keep wages down for unskilled labour.

On the other  hand migrant labour is regarded as essential for the construction, agricultural and hospitality industries. And, of course, migrants do raise GDP and increase the tax base.

These figures come from arrivals cards, which is somewhat better than the UK questionnaire sample approach. However, it still requires the person entering the country to honestly declare the intended length of their stay.

A major factor here is the strength of the NZ economy relative to its neighbours. And the net figure is boosted by a lower Kiwi net immigration figure (“returning Kiwis”).

The biggest single source of immigrants is Australia, with which NZ virtually has a “free movement” agreement. So NZ is struggling with an economy that is strong relative to a larger near neighbour, in a way that is strikingly similar to the UK and the EU. Foreign students at NZ universities are also a significant factor, again just as in the UK.

There is a difference with the UK in terms of cultural assimilation, as the immigrants are overwhelmingly Eurasian or pacific islanders, coming into an overwhelmingly Eurasian and Maori population. Any problems in New Zealand are minor compared to those in the UK, where a significant proportion of the immigrants come from a significantly different cultural background, and may not even speak English.

So, New Zealand is faced with a very similar problem to the UK. Just as well that this is not a major political hot potato here; as there is no appetite to restrict the movement of people from Australia, or to prevent Kiwis from returning home! Current proposals tinker with the NZ points based immigration system, whilst everyone waits for the Australian economy to pick up. If only there was a realistic prospect of the EU economy picking up in a significant, sustained way.

Today is the Anzac day holiday here in New Zealand, and also in Australia. It marks the anniversary of the landing of New Zealand and Australian soldiers – the Anzacs – on the Gallipoli Peninsula in 1915.

2779 New Zealanders died in this campaign, about a sixth of those who served on Gallipoli, which was a military disaster. 44,000 allied soldiers died, along with 87,000 turks, and at the armistice in November 1918 Galipoli was still held by Turkey.

The day is marked here with dawn services of remembrance, at war memorials around the country; prominently featuring current and retired service personnel and their families. This is a major event in the New Zealand calender, whilst armistice day is not. Indeed, so important is the actual date, that the New Zealand government passed a law in 1949 to prevent the national holiday being “monday’ised”. It fell on a Tuesday this year, and Monday was a normal working day; even if many did take it as holiday to give themselves a long weekend.

As much as a day of remembrance for the fallen, Anzac day in New Zealand is also a day when New Zealand remembers its emergence onto the world stage as a significant entity in its own right for the first time. In 1919 the New Zealand prime  minister signed the Treaty of Versailles, giving New Zealand membership of the League of Nations in its own right. Australia was also a signatory, but not, for instance, India. In 1939 the New Zealand government would make its own decision to enter the Second World War.

Reports in the UK on Theresa May’s announcement that there will be a general election on June 8th has received rather different treatment in the UK than here in New Zealand.

UK newspapers and the BBC stress conflict. Whereas Stuff in New Zealand makes the point that the British Labour party supports the call for a snap general election. Incidentally the Stuff article is not on the front page. You find it fifth article in the “World” section. Discovery of a 3,000 year old tomb in Egypt was third!

Interestingly coverage of changes to rules for skilled immigration into New Zealand are the other way around.

The Guardian states the NZ government line in full, with just a short paragraph near the end to mention the Labour party opposition description of the changes as “tinkering”. The UK reader will probably miss the point that the NZ labour party is calling for more restrictions on immigration than are being proposed.

Meanwhile Stuff leads with Labour party opposition to the changes, calling it a “‘Callous attempt to hold power”.

Is there a tendency for news coverage, in New Zealand and the UK, to look for the sensational in their coverage of domestic stories?