A republic, any republic

Asking if you want a republic, particularly when dreamt up by former communist Green MP Keith Locke, is a bit like asking if you want something to eat, and not knowing if you'll get a gourmet meal, fast food, some expired food from a supermarket bin.

A republic in and of itself it not necessarily a good thing. Not PC akins it to accepting a kidney transplant from a bureaucrat, but I think it is more like a trojan horse. It looks like something good, but you don't know what's inside, or why you got it. The motivations of some advocating a republic should be cause for worry.

You see a republic can range from being a constitutionally limited one, that is meant to constrain the role of the state, like the United States, or it may be a corrupt dictatorship, like the Republic of Tajikistan. I don't expect Keith Locke wants a "People's Republic" although he has been cheerleader for this in the past, but I also don't expect he wants to emulate the United States.

So whilst a debate on this is good, indeed very good, be wary of those who push a republic for the sake of a republic. If a republic appears in the coming years, it is a once in a lifetime chance to fundamentally change the constitutional structure of New Zealand and ringfence the role of the state - and equally to constitutionally demand an expansion or entrenchment of it.

Have a guess to what extent Keith Locke wants to constrain the role of the state, and to what extent he wants to expand and entrench it.

Then ask yourself if you really think that those who will advance a republic will predominantly share that view, or will they advance a republic should tightly define the state as an entity to protect individual rights and freedoms.

I doubt it is the latter, and as a result, whilst I would advocate for the latter, I'd prefer the status quo to any vision of a republic Keith Locke has.

Idiot Savant's analysis woeful (updated)

Idiot Savant's latest post exclaims "The way the right talks, you would think that government policy was all about wealth and increasing GDP. Today, we have a stark reminder that that is not the case, in the form of the European Quality of Life Index".

Well no, some people talk about freedom as well, he chooses to select what he listens to about standard of living.

He continues "According to the index, the UK has the lowest quality of life in Western Europe...This is where NeoLiberal growth maximisation gets you: a country where no-one wants to live and everyone feels miserable. The lesson for New Zealand ought to be obvious."

So what IS the Index? Where does the data come from? How comprehensive is it? The answers are, a shonky piece of publicity, difficult to tell and not at all. Even with that, the conclusions he draws are little to do with neo-liberalism. All in all it's very woeful analysis that doesn't stack up.

The European Quality of Life Index did not come from a university, government institution, think tank or international organisation. It came from a private company that makes money running a price comparison website for consumers to choose the best value utility companies. Uswitch. Frankly, whilst it is nice for private companies to do a bit of research that they pay for, I'd like some robustness around it. So how does it fail?

1. Idiot Savant claims this is about Western Europe, yet it leaves out at least 10 other countries. Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Iceland, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal. Given it includes Poland, you might ask why not also Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. So really who knows if the UK ranks bottom?

2. The dates for data used are often missing with the sources. In some cases there are no sources (e.g. average working hours a week), others quote a date with the source but is that publication date (as some look like) or year? If years are not common across data, then it should be justified, as you are not comparing like with like.

3. GDP per capita is used, not GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power parity, although the report looks like creating its own PPP measure. Frankly, I'd rather trust the more widely used ones. PPP matters for the same reason anyone comparing earning £ to NZ$ without looking at purchasing power makes it look like anyone living in the UK is rich.

4. Under wealth the report talks of council tax and travel expenses in the UK, but doesn't say the same for similar taxes or charges elsewhere, or housing costs. The UK may cost more than many for both, but is the highest?

So all in all, it looks a bit shabby. More shabby are the conclusions that this is about "neo-liberal" policies. Why?

1. One of the measures is "hours of sunshine", no need to explain why the UK comes out worse than France and Spain on this measure. Not a lot to do with government.

2. Education spending for the UK is similar to the average, as is France, Spain is less. So how does spending more on this matter? Finland is the interesting case as it is seen by some as a model, but it isn't included. Note Sweden spends more and has a voucher system.

3. The UK has one of the most centralised health systems of all, and the outcomes are relatively poor. The NHS is a huge central bureaucracy, compared to insurance based models in France, Germany, the Netherlands and others. However, that's been ignored as well as something "neo-liberal" when the UK is anything but.

4. One of the measures is cost of fuel, alcohol and cigarettes, all very high in the UK because of? Tax. Yes, nothing "neo-liberal here". The Netherlands and the UK have the higher fuel tax in Europe, so surprise surprise, they have they highest prices of fuel.

So what does this piece of work prove? Precious little. The data is hard to compare, but what can be compared shows that the countries with the best standard of living, have the most sunshine, spend the same or less on education, have insurance based health systems and lower taxes on commodities.

Hardly neo-liberalism vs socialism is it now, even if you do think a price-comparison website operator is a sound source for analysis.

UPDATE: Seems he has removed the link to this post from his website, doesn't like criticism does he? You'd think something ostensibly interested in free speech would allow his reliance on a pathetic piece of publicity driven research to be critiqued?

Hottest political leader?

According to this blog John Key ranks 72, ahead of Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd (84 and 93), but beneath such gods as Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus.

Does Kim Jong Il really deserve last?

Besides of course, it strictly speaking isn't heads of state. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the Head of State for more than couple of countries.

Of course you can all guess the obvious question, what would the country rankings have been a year ago when some of those were different?

Geert Wilders allowed into the UK

Geert Wilders says he is a libertarian. He is a Dutch MP. He hates Islam with a passion and was banned from entering the UK earlier this year. He was banned because Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said ... wait for it... "his opinions threatened community security and therefore public security".

Land of the free? No. Except the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have overturned the ban. It has disappointed the neo-fascists at the Home Office who "oppose extremism in all of its forms", and have done such a stunning job at stopping it.

Even the Quilliam Foundation, which finds his views offensive, did not want him banned, but wanted his views on Islam debated. The British Government couldn't allow that. You can publicly criticise Christianity, you can be a Muslim preaching anti-Western sentiments, but you can't be a European citizen hating Islam (not Muslims he explicitly says).

You can hate Christianity, capitalism, fascism, environmentalism and communism in the UK, but not Islam.

So that is why Geert Wilders has been branded "far right" although many of his policies are quite libertarian, with much lower tax, smaller government, much smaller role for the EU, although he also seeks to ban non-European immigration, founding new mosques and Islamic schools and some populist statements about public services.

The point is that he expresses an opinion about a religion, which should be protected free speech in the UK. I hate Islam, I have no time for religion preaching submission, and I have yet to see anything in it to like. I also have no time for any other religion, but should I be banned from expressing that view?

What's most galling is the House of Lords got to see Wilders's controversial film criticising Islam which is here. His visit to the UK might inflame and upset some people, but so what? As long as he does not do violence and does not incite violence, then he is not to blame. If others seek to do violence to him or his supporters, the law should punish them.

The UK should be a country where people accept the right of free people to have freedom of speech, religion (or no religion) and political belief. That means tolerating the spectrum of opinion and philosophies. Those who don't like it may also express that view, but if they wish to impose their views on others, they should simply leave.

There are plenty of countries in the world that tolerate only an official line on religion and politics. Europe was once overrun with such governments. Today it should proudly assert that it rejects this, and anyone who lives in Europe or enters Europe who seeks to use force or democracy to destroy free, secular, liberal democratic government, should simply be asked to go.

British politicians misuse taxpayers' money

SO Gordon Brown finally catches up threatening MPs to pay back money or else he will consider withdrawing the whip from them, after David Cameron said he would ban Tory MPs from standing in the next election unless they paid back the money.

Yawn.

So they mismanage money that isn't theirs. This is a pittance, because every day the British government borrows £500 million. Yes, it is equal to £8.33 per man, woman and child every day in extra debt. About the only significance of this scandal is it has brought politicians into disrepute for how they spend other people's money.

Yet it hasn't changed fundamental opinions on whether such people can be trusted to make decisions on buying healthcare, education, pensions or infrastructure.

Of course it happens in New Zealand too, yet most people still trust them.

Why? Why would you trust a significant number of not particularly clever people to spend between a third and a half of your money buying services from providers you might not choose otherwise? Do you really think you can't do better? Do you really think the private sector would provide something worse?