British Tories tearing each other apart; UKIP basks in the aftermath

Over the weekend, the leadership of a major center-right political party may have been exposed as out of touch with its own voters and joyously comfortable in its elitism – as it bleeds voters.

If your first thought goes to Richmond, you’re really not paying attention to the rest of the world.

A senior British Conservative – without naming himself, but insisting he was close to Prime Minister David Cameron – referred to the party members as “mad, swivel-eyed loons.” The ensuing rage unleashed on “Number 10″ was extraordinary, leading Cameron himself to try putting out the fire. Here’s the Telegraph headline:

David Cameron to Tories: ‘I’m not sneering at you’

There’s an inspirational message.

The story also noted a recent poll that put the United Kingdom Independence Party (a right-wing alternative to the Tories that wants Britain to leave the European Union) at 22%, only two points behind Cameron’s party.

Now that’s a real split.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

London Meteorological Office caught upping the temperature data – again

“The Met” – as it is known – didn’t bother to warn anyone that is had “updated” their temperature data for their HADCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 data sets, choosing instead to simply unleash them on the public.

The folks at WUWT couldn’t help but notice that the data “updated”….

…are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.

Also, some of the regional changes appear quite contrived, e.g. it looks like they found five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple years.

South America they found almost a tenth of a degree of warming over the last decade;

Africa, had five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the last few years;

and Australia/New Zealand a tenth of a degree of additional warming over the last few years.

I left out the accompanying graphs, you can find them here. The WUWT fellows also note how this is part of a pattern of “adjusting” recent temperature data upward.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmists, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago. More to the point, they don’t seem capable of stopping.

In this case, however, it is especially important to remember that the “adjustments” come right smack in the period of the data that has given alarmists their worst headaches: the post-1996 temperature stability. It could very well be that the “solution” is to simply jack up the numbers to make the stability go away…

The Hollande endorsement, one year later

A year ago last Monday, I made my first ever left-wing endorsement for national leadership when I backed Francois Hollande for President of France. I did so for a particular reason – to stop, or at least slow down, the Fiscal Union agreement. Sadly, Hollande basically agreed to cosmetic changes in the FU, and even went forward with his own Fauxsterity debacle for his country. Despite that, I must say the ascension of M Hollande to the presidential office has been far more beneficial than even I expected – albeit for reasons that had nothing to do with his own policy ambitions.

For starters, his attempt to wring the prosperous for enough revenues to keep his government afloat has managed to jolt the business community in France out of its corporatist slumber (Reuters). Economic arguments that are more the norm in Britain and the US were usually swept under the Gaullist rug – until now. France will be infinitely better off now that economic policy will truly be debated, for the first time in decades.

Moreover, while Hollande didn’t push much on the FU, he has shattered the “Merkozy” relationship between Paris and Berlin. The unexpected result has been a slow-motion German reassessment of its place in Europe. At the top, Angela Merkel is finding David Cameron – of all people – more of a kindred spirit on European matters than her French neighbor. More importantly, euro-skepticism in Germany is finding its voice at last, with a new anti-euro party already reaching the support level needed to enter parliament…despite being in existence for less than a month (Reuters).

In short, while Hollande did not stop or slow the FU as I specifically wished, he did break one of the key bonds that gave the disastrous EU the strength it had. The end of that bond has already had repercussions for national sovereignty (none of them bad, that I can see). All in all, I think the endorsement was still a good call.

The Chinese Communist Party is becoming Africa’s new colonial master

Robert Rotberg has a slew of foundation titles, but it is his piece in Canada’s National Post that gets my attention today. It is an excellent analysis of the situation in Africa, where despots across the continent have sold their people down the river for favors and funds from the CCP:

African autocrats absolutely adore China’s President Xi Jinping. At a meeting last month with 13 prominent African leaders in Durban, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea’s hard-fisted President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo led the others in lavishing praise on China. The front page of the weekend China Daily for March 29 trumpeted their obsequieousness and China-Africa friendship.

None of Africa’s despots dare bite the hand that has fed so well, and so consistently. While Chinese support keeps rolling in, these leaders enrich themselves and their inner circles while their people go without.

China directly supports the leaders and enables their continued internal tyrannies by refusing to “interfere” in local politics, by willfully ignoring well-documented trails of human rights violations, by turning a blind eye to egregious corrupt practices, and by protecting presidents such as Zimbabwae’s Robert Mugabe and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir…

That’s just the first few paragraphs. The whole piece goes into exquisite detail as to how the CCP enables Africa’s dictators to run roughshod over their own people – and, in Zimbabwe’s case, make an end-run around the power-sharing deal with the opposition:

In impoverished Angola, one of Africa’s largest producers of petroleum, President José Eduardo dos Santos and the men around him have pocketed $3- or $4-billion a year. One of the three big diamond mining enterprises in Zimbabwe is Chinese, in partnership with the heads of the country’s security apparatus. It, and the other Mugabe-related, firms illicitly transfer diamonds to Dubai and Hong Kong in defiance of officials in the Zimbabwean Treasury (which has been run by a Mugabe rival).

In fact, the only thing missing from Rotberg’s column is the word that best describes the relationship the CCP is having with so many African regimes: colonizer. True, as Rotberg notes, the CCP…

neither desires land (aside from leasing agricultural properties on which to grow food crops for export back to China) nor seeks, as Europeans did, to “civilize” Africans. But it does want access to African oil, African copper, African ferrochrome, African iron ore, and many more minerals. For that overriding mercantile reason, China is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to befriend even the most outrageous African despots, and to help to support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

In effect, the tyrants have become CCP viceroys – enriching themselves on their support for their Zhongnanhai benefactors while their people starve and their lands are depleted of natural resources.

Is the relationship as dependent as the Korean colony (a.k.a. “North Korea”)? Perhaps not, but there is no way these regimes can even claim to be truly sovereign, let alone independent-minded and dedicated to the people they tyrannize.

Sadly, Rotberg doesn’t seem to realize that the corruption, decadence, and depravity that comes with the CCP are features, rather than bugs. Still, while he may have the cause wrong, he nails the symptoms.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby

Germany elite’s euro solution: tax the (other) rich

Some of the closest advisers to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – who is desperate top avoid hitting up her taxpayers again to prop up the euro – have found a solution: soak the European rich outside Germany (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph):

Senior advisers to Chancellor Angela Merkel are pushing for better-off households to pay towards the cost of any future bail-outs for the weaker members of the single currency.

The proposals, from members of Germany’s council of economic experts, raise the prospect of taxes being imposed on property in a country like Spain if its government was forced to seek a bail-out.

The council, known as the “Five Wise Men”, is often used to test new policies that are later adopted officially.

The German suggestion is the latest sign that Berlin is intent on imposing even tougher rules on weaker southern euro members in exchange for using its economic might to support their finances.

. . .

Senior figures in Germany are now arguing that some richer home owners in countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece have so far avoided paying their fair share to rescue the euro, leaving Germany paying too much.

Taxes on property or other assets would mark a significant change in Europe’s approach to funding bail-outs for eurozone members. Until now, the cost of rescue packages for countries like Ireland, Greece and Portugal has fallen largely on people who invest money in either those countries’ bonds or – in the case of Cyprus – bank accounts.

Anyone who’s stuck “underwater” or is “land rich and cash poor” can only marvel at the breathtaking arrogance of the “Wise Men.” The editors of the Telegraph explain how backwards thinking has led to this:

Their starting point is “What is necessary to save the euro?” From there, they end up advocating policies of quite startling brutality. Yet the very differences in housing wealth between nations illustrate, once again, the folly of locking disparate economies into a shared currency. Those in Brussels and Berlin must ask instead: “What is necessary to restore prosperity to our benighted continent?” The answer is to recognise (UK sp) that the euro, in its current form, is bringing ruin to all too many of the nations trapped inside it.

The simple fact is that German exporters are calling the political tune. The euro has been weaker than the old Deutschmark, which has been good for those exporters, but not so good for consumers. The corporatist mindset of the German elite ensures that the exporters get their way. Thus, they start with “What is necessary to save the euro?”

As it happens, the German people can at last have their voice heard on this with the rise of Alternative for Germany – the first Euroskeptic party Germany has seen since long before the common currency was inflicted upon them.

Data issues and errors spread from global warming alarmism to economics…and from left to right

Whenever I mention the statistical chicanery, data manipulation, and errors behind “global warming,” my friends on the left go into high dudgeon. They can’t fathom that such things could occur among the “experts.” Well, this week, a new example of data issues (along with an error) popped up – in my discipline (economics), and from a paper largely used on the American and European right.

James Kirkup (Telegraph) explains the importance of the paper, known in academic-speak as Reinhardt and Rogoff, for the Conservative/Liberal Democratic Coalition in the United Kingdom:

“Rogoff and Reinhart” are Kenneth and Carmen, two economist (sic) whose influence over the Coalition’s economic policy is hard to over-state.

In essence, the economists argue that government above a certain level – 90 per cent of GDP – is catastrophically bad because it exerts a “significant negative effect on economic growth”.

Their argument, backed up with empirical data from lots of countries, played a major part in persuading Mr Osborne and his colleagues that the No 1 priority for the Coalition’s economic policy should be the reduction of the deficit and, ultimately, a check on UK government debt levels.

Mr. Osborne is George Osborne, the Britain’s Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Paul Ryan has also relied on the R&R paper as evidence to bring the American budget into balance, and it has also been part of the inspiration behind the Mediterranean being driven to Fauxsterity.

So when three economists at the University of Massachusetts (Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin) tried to replicate R&R’s work – and couldn’t – they were naturally concerned. They were, however, able to access Reinhardt and Rogoff’s data…and what they found stunned them.

To wit….

• Regarding data itself, Herndon et al found ”data exclusions with three other countries: Australia (1946-1950), New Zealand (1946-1949), and Canada (1946-1950).” Now while one could argue that post World War II data should be excluded due to unusual circumstances, it does not explain why United States data was not excluded. As a result of the exclusion, Australia and Canada went from five years where the Debt/GDP ratio was above 90% to zero.  Meanwhile, New Zealand’s data went from five years (with an average of +2.8%) to one (with GDP growth at -7.9%). Speaking of the Kiwi data…
• “RR adopts a non-standard weighting methodology for measuring average real GDP growth within their four public debt/GDP categories. After assigning each country-year to one of four public debt/GDP groups, RR calculates the average real GDP growth for each country within the group, that is, a single average value for the country for all the years it appeared in the category.” Translation: Britain’s 19 years of data at high debt levels were given equal weight with New Zealand’s one year. I don’t think I need further explain the problem with this, especially given New Zealand’s prior data issues. It should be noted that Britain averaged 2.4% growth during the aforementioned 19 years. Belgium had 25 years of relevant data, but in addition to the weighting issue, the Belgian data was felled by…
•  ”A coding error in the RR working spreadsheet (which) entirely excludes five countries, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, and Denmark, from the analysis.” As it happens, the first problem already dropped Australia and Canada, while Austria and Denmark had no relevant data anyway, but Belgium’s 25 years were excluded by the error.

So, when all of the above issues are backed out of the data and model, Herndon et al still find a reduction in economic growth when debt/GDP ratio hits 90%, but it’s a much smaller value than R&R found, and it turns out to be statistically insignificant. In fact, a regression analysis of the data found the inflection point (where things go from good to not-so-good) to be at 30% of GDP, not 90% (and that’s if one chooses to ignore the hideous R-squared statistic of 0.04 – on a scale of zero to one – which means the data explains hardly any of the changes in economic growth).

As it happens, my concern regarding government is more about its scope, size, and cost (in that order) than about how much it borrows. That said, many on the right have used R&R in part as justification for reducing deficits and debt. Based on the above, they may want to look to something else.

More to the point, this shows that climate policy isn’t the only political issue that has – to quote Coldplay – “castles stand…upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand.”

The Fauxsterity Chronicles: Greece

At first read, the Examiner headline gives the impression that Greece is finally getting the message about what needs to be done – “Greek Workers to be Fired.” Here are the details:

The civil service redundancies, with a target of 15,000 by the end of next year will target “disciplinary cases and cases of demonstrated incapacity, absenteeism, and poor performance, or that result from closure or mergers of government entities”.

The sackings will overturn a Greek constitutional guarantee of jobs for life for civil servants, aimed at protecting public sector workers from unfair dismissal due to their political affiliations.

The special protections and widespread political cronyism or corruption led to the Greek civil service becoming bloated, with 700,000 officials in a country of less than 11 million people.

“It’s still a taboo to dismiss people from the public sector. There have been no forced dismissals of employees whose positions are eliminated or who for some reason do not perform,” said Mr Thomsen.

Note that “Mr. Thomsen” refers to Paul Thomsen, who speaks for the International Monetary Fund on the Greek file – and who, at first, looks like he finally drove the important message home.

Well…not so fast (Boston Globe, emphasis added):

(Greek PM Antonis) Samaras said 15,000 civil servants would be removed by the end of 2014, with 4,000 of them by the end of this year. New young employees will be hired in their place.

. . .

Minister for Administrative Reform Antonis Manitakis said Greece’s creditors had long been pressing for 15,000 public sector workers to be sacked without being replaced, but the agreement to hire new workers in their stead followed the higher-than-anticipated number of retirements — more than 180,000 of which are expected between 2010-2015.

On one level, this is just maddening; on another level, it is revealing. The IMF, European Central Bank, and European Union – by agreeing to this – have made it abundantly clear that this was never about genuine economic reform. Governments in Europe can be just as big, bloated, and burdensome on the private sector as they wish. They just have to make sure the accounting isn’t out of whack.

This is classic big-government-on-the-cheap – or, as I now prefer, Fauxsterity – and the “troika” just endorsed it.

In other words, Europe will never fix itself, because Brussels doesn’t want that. So it will be more tax increases and chicanery like this, until it all comes crashing down…

…after German voters are duped into thinking all is well on Election Day, of course.

Portugal Constitutional Court rejects Fauxsterity Plan A, pushes Fauxsterity Plan B

The Portugese government, like just about every other deficit-crippled government in the Mediterranean, has responded to Brussels’ demands for belt-tightening with what I like to call big-government-on-the-cheap (or Fauxsterity), i.e., cut government salaries and bonuses, along with tax hikes.

Portugal’s highest court – the Constitutional Court – just shot that down today (New York Times), but that isn’t good news either:

The measures rejected by the court represented about 1.4 billion euros, or $1.8 billion — more than a fifth — of the 5 billion euro austerity package of spending cuts and tax increases. Among its rulings, the court drew a line on cuts aimed specifically at civil servants, who it said were being singled out for punishment and therefore discriminated against.

The decision has now called into question how the government can meet its budgetary goals in the near term and raised the broader issue of just how much austerity will be tolerated, not only by disgruntled citizens but also by justices who often act as the guardians of the Continent’s cherished social welfare system.

“The ruling could be interpreted as saying that all public spending cuts that affect civil servants are unconstitutional,” Fitch, the credit rating agency, wrote on Monday. “If that interpretation is correct, the ruling represents a setback to future fiscal adjustment efforts in Portugal.”

It added, “This is a greater concern than its immediate impact.”

…Luis Cabral, a Portuguese economist and professor at New York University, said the court still went beyond a legal ruling and delivered what amounted to “a significant political statement,” which means that “effectively, government expenditure cannot be reduced.” In terms of Portugal’s budgetary commitments, Mr. Cabral added, “when you put it all together, it’s clear that things do not add up.”

In other words, the court is demanding Lisbon raise more taxes, period, the very thing that has failed… just about every other deficit-crippled government in the Mediterranean.

This will not end well.

Margaret Thatcher, RIP

Good leaders give us hope throughout their political careers; great ones can do it throughout their lives. Only a special few can also do it with their passing. One of them, Margaret Thatcher, did just that as she departed this life today.

Those of us who admired her from five times zone away (or more) are in the midst of a crisis of confidence that she would remember from her own personal history in post-World War II Britain. You can hear it in the conversations, read it in the private emails (well, if you had access to them), or see them in blog posts or comments across the rightosphere: there is a sense that America is different, never to return to its older, prouder history, destined to a permanent decline along the glide path much of Western Europe has taken over the last 50-60 years.

In her passing, and by leaving us at this moment, Margaret Thatcher reminds us of her 11 years in power – and more to the point, she reminds us again that decline, social democracy, and political squalor are not inevitable, never set in stone, and always ready for a good smack from a decent handbag.

By any indicator, Great Britain in 1979 was far, far worse than we are now. Yet she grabbed the United Kingdom by the scruff of the neck, reversed its economic decline and made it a global power again.

For me, however, what made Thatcher someone to take seriously was the Falklands War. As a nine-year-old geek who thought he knew everything, and full of social studies textbook verbiage about decolonization, I was convinced that Argentina’s seizure of the Falklands was yet another stage in the inevitable decline of Europe and European colonies. It was a shock to see Britain stand up for her countrymen on those far away bits of rock, but she did it – and in the process defended the self-determination of the Falklands, restored British honor, and even scored a bank-shot for democracy in Argentina (the battlefield defeat doomed the Argentine military junta).

More than anyone else, Margaret Thatcher’s life and tenure were proof that the future is far from certain, that the left has no monopoly on progress or power, and that no state of weakness is irreversible.

In passing, Thatcher has reminded us of her past – and thus given us on this side of the Atlantic hope for our future.

How the UN Covered Up a Cholera Epidemic in Zimbabwe

Title courtesy of The Atlantic, whose story (by Amin Rosen) details the how the United Nations chief official in Zimbabwe” decided that his own closeness with ZANU-PF overrode his responsibility to the UN’s missions and values.”

ZANU-PF is the criminal organization – errrrrr, political party – run by dictator Robert Mugabe. Apparently, Agostinho Zacarias (and his UN buddies back in New York) felt keeping Mugabe happy was worth letting hundreds of Zimbabweans die. When Georges Tadonki said otherwise, he was fired.

Under the bizarre nature of UN procedure – which exempts the organization from being sued – Tadonki had to search for recompense from a panel internal to the UN. As Rosen himself puts it:

Because the UN cannot be sued, tribunals convened by the UN itself deal with employment claims, pseudo-courts that don’t adhere to several important aspects of accepted U.S. and European legal procedure.

So it’s significant the tribunal’s 104-page ruling in this case is such a damning survey of misplaced priorities and institutional rot.

Significant indeed.

Of course, the UN is appealing the ruling, and Zacarias still has a cushy job with them.

I had always felt the UN was too incompetent, and its people too lacking in intelligence, to be a serious danger. In light of this, I may have to question that assumption: incompetence and stupidity combined with favoritism killed at least 4,000 in Zimbabwe alone.