Conscious UN-coupling

Ryan Bourne in yesterday's City AM:

According to the UN, Britain is ranked 156th out of 165 participating countries for “kids’ rights”. If you think this is a genuine reflection of the welfare and rights of children here relative to other countries – including Venezuela and Saudi Arabia – who are ranked higher than us, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Then again, what are we to expect from an organisation whose Human Rights Council recently appointed a representative from Saudi Arabia to its 2018-2022 “Commission on the Status of Women”, which is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality”? In Saudi Arabia, women are still banned from driving.

But no doubt we can look forward to that Commission criticising Britain’s so-called “gender pay gap”, as representatives from Sudan and Algeria did in our 2012 Universal Review. This featured other delights, such as Russia criticising “police brutality” in the UK, Vietnam denouncing our “austerity”, Cuba urging us to protect economic and social rights, and China discussing the freedom to protest...

Why are British taxpayers funding this nonsense?

It's a good question and I don't know the answer. I'd ask the same about our membership of NATO.

"UN adopts historic 'land grab' guidelines"

From the BBC:

The United Nations has adopted global guidelines for rich countries buying land in developing nations.

The voluntary rules call on governments to protect the rights of indigenous peoples who use the land. It is estimated that 200m hectares, an area eight times the size of Britain, has been bought or leased over the past decade, much of it in Africa and Asia.

Etc etc blah blah blah. This whole problem can be easily fixed by introducing Land Value Tax. It wouldn't matter if there has been a corrupt deal (or indeed even a perfectly above board and legal deal. On a moral level, they are all corrupt - you can't sell what you don't own) in the past, a people/government which is minded to obtain justice for itself can just reclaim the [economic value] of that land by taxing it.

And once LVT has been introduced, there is no incentive to "grab land". If wicked Western corporations come along wanting to use the land because they can use it more efficiently than indigenous people, then the indigenous people will be happy for them to do so, because they will be compensated in full.

Solving the "land grab" issue using LVT, rather than just laying down guidelines and trying to prevent evil capitalists from using the land, has the added bonus of annoying the do-gooders who think that indigenous people like being indigenous. Do they heck! They want medicine and fridges and cars and televisions just like the rest of us.
-----------------------------
Which leads me on to another topic. The USA is one of the rabid land grabbers of all, it seems to have military bases in or on about half the countries of the world. No individual country has the nerve/strength to stand up to the USA, but what if we all did it simultaneously?

What if the UK, Panama, Puerto Rica, Cuba, Germany, Diego Garcia, Greenland, Japan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc etc all got together and told the Americans to clear off?

Welfare For The Wealthy (2)

The Daily Mail continues tapping into the same rich vein:

Tony Blair is facing fresh questions over his role as a Middle East peace envoy after claims that he has used the position to promote lucrative business deals for clients of an investment bank that pays him £2million a year.

As a representative of the Quartet –the UN, the EU, the U.S. and Russia – the former prime minister is tasked with fostering peace between Israel and Palestine.

But he has also used the post to promote two contracts worth more than £1billion in Palestine with British Gas and mobile phone firm Wataniya – both major clients of J P Morgan, the U.S. investment bank which employs him as a senior adviser.

"High childcare costs forcing poor families to turn down work"

From The Metro:

Parents spend almost a third of their incomes on childcare – more than anywhere else in the world, say the Save the Children and Daycare Trust charities... Fiona Weir, of the charity Gingerbread, said government plans for childcare are a ‘ticking time-bomb for welfare reform’...

Ho hum.

Save the Children, total income £203 million, of which half was from various governments, primarily UK government, the EU, the US government and the United Nations (2009 accounts).

Daycare Trust, total income £1,115,450. They received £349,352 from the Dept of for Education; £120,000 from London Councils and £16,907 from the Equality and Human Rights Commission for "Policy, research and other projects" (2010 accounts).

Gingerbread, total income £3,125,643, of which £1,576,203 was payments from DWP for "back to work" type stuff (including income for training people to run "back to work" schemes) and £891,361 was grants (almost certainly from the government) (2010 accounts).
-------------------------
As to the substantive issue, they are all missing a right old trick here. From the point of view of an individual, it is only worth working if

[wages minus income tax/benefit withdrawal] > [costs of travel, childcare minus subsidies].

So hiking the subsidy is much the same as reducing income tax on lower earners.

Further, from the point of view of society as a whole or the taxpayer in particular, the calculation is different. Is it better, for example, for three mothers to stay at home with their young children (not paying a penny in income tax) or for one of them to work in a nursery looking after all of the kids and the other two mothers to go out to work?

Assuming the latter (which is up to personal choice, of course), then up to a certain level of subsidy for childcare, there is no net cost to the taxpayer, as long as the income tax etc. paid/generated by the three working women is equal to or greater than the amount of the subsidy, it's just a sort of clumsy tax refund.

I'm not sure what that optimum level of subsidy (or personal allowance) is, but it's almost certainly higher than what it is presently.

Health Scare Story Du Jour

From The Metro:

The deadly bird flu virus could be returning this winter after reports of a new mutation of the disease in Eastern European countries, the UN has warned.

The bird flu virus has reached as far as Bulgaria and Romania, raising fears that it may spread farther across the continent and infectious disease experts at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) are also warning of a new mutation of the H5N1 virus. The mutation is able to get around vaccines currently in use, making it much more difficult to stop.

Jan Slingenbergh, senior officer in animal health services at FAO, said the disease had re-emerged in several countries where it was thought to have been eradicated. He said it could spread further into Europe in coming weeks when birds begin to migrate from Siberia and other parts of Asia.

‘It would appear to be an issue of growing importance,’ he said. 'There is of course the possibility that there will be secondary spread to the UK, but I don’t think this is an area of particular concern for the moment.’

Awesome!

In order, I can see "could", "reports of", "UN has warned", "raising fears", "may", "experts... are warning", "vaccines currently in use", "thought to have been", another "could", "would appear to be", "growing importance", "the possibility". Strip all those out and what is actually left of the article?

Fun Online Polls: Lost Causes and EU propaganda

Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll, excellent turnout of 169 in only four days. I deliberately didn't have a 'none of the above' option because I was depressed enough. Results as follows:

Which of the following "lost causes" do you support?

Above the line (more than 85 votes):
Allow smoking in pubs and cafes 122 votes
Leave the EU, the UN etc. 121 votes
Legalise cannabis 111 votes
Legalise brothels 108 votes
Allow fox hunting 105
Replace entire welfare system with a Citizen's Income 93 votes

Below the line (fewer than 85 votes):
Replace old age pensions with a Citizen's Pension 78 votes
Replace as many taxes as possible with Land Value Tax 75 votes
Use Proportional Representation 69 votes
Turn off the traffic lights 59 votes

The Citizen's Pension was the joker in the pack as Iain Duncan Smith is going to do it anyway; I'm obviously disappointed about lack of support for LVT; proportional representation is a secondary issue; and I'm particularly surprised about the lack of enthusiasm for turning off traffic lights.
----------------------------------------
And lo, to this week's Fun Online Poll.

We've established on several occasions that the readers of this 'blog would vote to leave the EU in an In-Out referendum, and it's just about conceivable that if there were a snap In-Out referendum next week that a slim majority would vote for "Out" but that's not really the issue.

As we have learned from the No2AV campaign, you can get any result you want if you pump out enough propaganda; and I imagine that if They announced that there'd be In-Out Referendum in six months' time, then we would be subjected to a 24/7 barrage of a few simple - but somehow plausible - lies for those six months and the result would be "Stay in".

So this week's Fun Online Poll is whether you think that They would be able to pump out enough propaganda to swing the vote their way.

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

WHO makes these stupid rules! (1)

Just a few days after Call Me Dave declared war on red tape and threatened to drag bureaucrats that make stupid rules into his office for a stiff talking to, his Health Secretary proudly announced the commencement of stage 2 of the WHO war on smokers governments new 'Tobacco Control Plan for England. In 2012 Tesco will be forced to hide their fags under the counter, by 2015 Mr Patel will only be allowed to display a small written list of brand names and prices in his newsagents. Nightclub vending machines will be a thing of yesterday by next year too.

Something the politicians and media never like to mention is who actually makes these rules, that's because WHO, part of the UN, do. Ever since the UK and around 100 other nations (including many dictatorships) signed up to their Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003 we agreed to eradicate tobacco (well to hand the lucrative trade in tobacco over to foreign criminals).

It works like this. WHO publish a rather subjective treaty urging signatories to protect people from the perils of tobacco smoke. For example, have a look at Article 13:

"Each Party shall, in accordance with its constitution or constitutional principles, undertake a comprehensive ban of all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. This shall include, subject to the legal environment and technical means available to that Party ..."

In 2003 do you think anyone read that as fags had to go under the counter? Well, it is subjective isn't it, so WHO helpfully publish 'Guidelines for Implementation'. In 2008 they instructed the world:

"Display of tobacco products at points of sale in itself constitutes advertising and promotion. Display of products is a key means of promoting tobacco products and tobacco use, including by stimulating impulse purchases of tobacco products, giving the impression that tobacco use is socially acceptable ..."

They continue:

"To ensure that points of sale of tobacco products do not have any promotional elements, Parties should introduce a total ban on any display and on the visibility of tobacco products at points of sale ... the ban should also apply in ferries, airplanes, ports and airports."

Vending machines?

"Vending machines should be banned because they constitute by their very presence a means of advertising or promotion under the terms of the Convention."

There you go, that is how it works. Politicians who are soft in their implemention of the FCTC are targeted by the lobby. The more draconian you are, the more the FCTC people like you, the more they laud you and the more you get to ride the WHO gravy train. The UK is actually putting many tyrannical dictatorships to shame!

More to come on the FCTC and Lansley's other plans for smokers over the next week or two.

Why relief efforts in Haiti are failing so badly

From Money Week:

Why isn't rebuilding taking place?

Lack of money, incompetent governance, and the sheer quantity of rubble are all factors... Put simply, it is hard to be sure who owns what. So the motivation to rebuild is – for the time being – minimal. Most of those living in tents did not own their homes; they were renting.

But even those who did own property are unlikely to have proof. Only about 5% of Haiti's land is accounted for in public records – and the building that housed title deeds was flattened in the earthquake. Long before the quake, land ownership was hugely contentious in Haiti, where land is concentrated in the hands of a few big landowners, known as grandons (or grands-hommes, big men).

Moreover, there is no proper land-registry system. Land titles pass informally from one generation to the next, largely because titling costs several thousand dollars and public officials are generally held to be corrupt.

What has been the result?

According to the UN, the "prevalence of the informal land tenure as well as contradictory laws and weak institutions of enforcement" mean "land tenure security is not established". That has been made worse by the chaos of a city in ruins: with around a quarter of a million people dead, the inheritance and sale of land is subject to even greater uncertainty. For example, is the property owner known to be dead and/or does he have any living heirs?

Moreover, insecure land and property rights have not only undermined reconstruction, but are stifling the chances of an economic recovery. Many small businesses struggle to get loans because the owners cannot prove they own property, and foreign investors – and donors – are discouraged from investing in the country.

The reality on the ground

Corail-Cesselesse is a Westminster-sized area of disused sugarcane land between the sea and the barren mountains about 15km to the north of Port-au-Prince – real estate that has been earmarked for a major new post-earthquake city. The government wants to build 300,000 new homes here – transitional shelters at first; later expanding into permanent homes. But the area is subject to all the land issues that plague the whole reconstruction effort, and no progress is being made.

Multiple families claim ownership of almost every scrap of land. Homeless people 'squatting' the land in makeshift homes are locked in constant battle with hired thugs working for big landowners, and the government lacks the power to negotiate compulsory purchase orders at reasonable prices.
------------------------------------------------
As I always like to say...

1.'Land ownership' and 'the state' are synonymous. You cannot have one without the other. There appears to be no particular government in Haiti, the place is run by [thousands of] different relief agencies, who are doing a pretty bad job of it because the 'land owners' (who have contributed nothing to the relief efforts) are trying to enforce any claims they might have had against the old government, which has ceased to exist, against the new government (the relief agencies), who are stupidly trying to respect them.

2. As a general rule, when faced with any economic or social problem, the first question is "Would Land Value Tax sort this out? And if so, why?" In this case, it's pretty clear. You can't have LVT without land registration, but with LVT, nobody would claim more land than he can put to good use (for living, farming or business). Right now, the rental value of land in Haiti would appear to be very, very low, so by the same token, LVT receipts would be very, very low. The relief agencies could simply give each family $10 and let them get bidding.

3. If there are 'competing claims' all with equal validity, let's say, then whoever sets the tax rate can bump it up auction-fashion until only one party is left in the bidding. There's no need for a particular compensation scheme - whatever the revenues are can be put to good use building homes and factories and infrastructure, once the economy has got going again, the surplus LVT goes in a pot and gets dished out as a Citizen's Dividend.

4. The new government can announce in advance where the roads, sewage works, schools, housing etc is going, and so they will be able to tell quite quickly which of these projects 'add value', because the amount of LVT that people are prepared to pay for a plot in those areas will be correspondingly higher.

Oh noes! We are going to be farted to death!

The story was featured on Radio 4 this morning, but I can't find on the BBC website yet, so this write up will have to do:

The UN's weather agency has used the press release announcing its annual report on greenhouse gas levels to raise the spectre of rising temperatures triggering the rapid release of methane, a powerful warming gas, that could accelerate climate change. The announcement comes on the eve of the The United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010.

The WMO's 2009 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin report is published today (24 November).

The report highlights that methane levels have been rising since 2007 but cautions that the cause of this increase is not known. "The reasons for renewed growth of atmospheric methane are not fully understood, but emissions from natural sources (from northern latitudes and the tropics) are considered potential causes," the report states.

Typically around two thirds of methane comes from direct human emissions and the balance from natural sources such as permafrost. Large quantities of methane are locked away in permafrost which could be released as it melts. Methane is thought to contribute around one fifth of the greenhouse gas warming effect...

And so on an so forth, you get the gist.

"UN Secretary General urges world to speed up aid to Pakistan"

Reports the BBC.

The poor chap seems to be getting confused - most people in most countries have already sent what they think is approrpriate, which, in most cases, is nothing, and the Pakistanis received that within minutes of their town-planning failures becoming evident.

Ageing rockers in the headlines

A lot of people have picked up on the proposal by The Nice for minimum alcohol pricing, but let's not forget that The Who have been pushing this agenda for years.

The proposal is complete nonsense of course, but the real problem is that these people will never admit that they are wrong/were lying*. It'll be like The War On Drugs all over again: a minimum price of 50p per unit won't achieve what they claim, and instead of doing the obvious thing and scrapping it again, they'll just up the ante and go for 70p or £1 or £2 or whatever.

* Delete according to degree of cynicism.

Fun Online Polls: England's Future & Fergie

Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll, there was a good turnout of 158 voters.

As we do these things by simple majority, there appear to be only two supra-national organisations of which England would remain a member:
The United Kingdom - 99 votes (although possibly as a looser federation)
European Free Trade Association - 90 votes

England/the UK will be leaving the following (the number of votes are votes to stay in):
NATO - 69 votes (I'm surprised, but pleasantly so)
United Nations - 46 votes
G7 to G20 - 44 votes
World Trade Organisation - 42 votes (I don't agree on this one, but that's democracy)
IMF and World Bank - 31 votes
European Union - 13 votes

England/the UK will not be joining:
Schengen Area - 9 votes
Euro-zone - 5 votes

The computer was playing up when I set up the poll, so in my rage and frustration I missed off 'Commonwealth', i.e. a putative 'Commonwealth Free Trade Area'. Seeing as the UK alone dwarfs EFTA, I suppose it wouldn't so much be a question of the UK joining EFTA but the Commonwealth Free Trade Association concluding a mutual free trade agreement with EFTA. Details, details.
---------------------------------------
It appears that Fergie is in trouble again. What puzzled me is that she says she will repay the $40,000 that the undercover reporter gave her. In her position I'd make the best of a bad job and keep it.

What would you do?

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Fun Online Polls: Next General Election & 'Government by international treaty'

There was a very high turnout in last week's Fun Online Poll; results as follows:

Days - 0
Weeks - 10
Months - 131
Years - 56
Other (please specify) - 5

I voted 'months' as well, FWIW, so now let's sit back and see what happens...
--------------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll is based on this fine diagram showing some of the international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, see also my post of a couple of days ago.

It's multiple choice, and you can choose from The United Kingdom, Euro-zone, European Union, Schengen Area, European Free Trade Association, United Nations, G7 to G20, IMF and World Bank, World Trade Organisation, NATO, and last but not least, 'None of the above or Other, please specify'.

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

UPDATE: Oops. Lola points out that I forgot to include 'Commonwealth', so I'll assume you'd like to stay in that, unless enough people say otherwise.

Where would you like to see The United Kingdom?

Woman On A Raft linked to an excellent diagram in the comments a week ago, which looks like this:It doesn't show a lot of the other organisations and treaty bodies of which the UK is a member, such as NATO, UN, G7, G20 and so on; neither does it show that there are four constituent nations in The United Kingdom itself, but it's a good place to start.

Personally, I'd like to see the UK in the outer pale pink circle, or even better in the dark blue area at the perimeter.

Fun Online Polls: privately collected taxes & Tiger Woods

I am pleased to see that on a low-ish turnout (86 votes), 80% of people who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll agreed with the statement "All money that changes hands purely because of existing laws (as distinct from free exchange) counts as 'tax'."

I gave examples of such privately collected taxes last week, the basic idea being that all 'rent-seekers' (such as Messrs Osterhaus and Pachauri, who are on the swine-flu and climate-change bandwagons respectively) are trying to funnel money into their own pockets. Whether that goes via the state (i.e. our taxes pay for the NHS, which then pays for immunisations and Tamiflu) or direct from one private business to another (selling carbon permits which your business obtained for free) is neither here nor there.

The problem is that while right-wingers lambast this type of rent-seeking, they have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the rent-seeking that they indulge in themselves, primarily via the land market. A majority of commenters on this post thought it was an outrage to expect those land-owners who stand to benefit enormously from the construction of Crossrail to make some sort of modest financial contribution to its construction costs, even if the decision to do so were taken democratically.

With that in mind, it puzzles me that so many people voted as they did. Ah well.
--------------------------------------
In a more light-hearted vein, and inspired by Rantin' Rab, this week's Fun Online Poll asks "Have you had an affair with Tiger Woods?"

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

If you say you don't believe in Global Warming, then a Bangladeshi has to die...

From The Metro:

She may be fictional but Tinkerbell has been named as the first 'honorary ambassador of green' by the UN. Peter Pan's fairy friend has been recruited to help promote awareness of the environment among younger children.

This is wrong on so many levels ...

From the BBC:

Taliban demand air strike inquiry

The Taliban have called for a UN and human rights investigation into an air strike in Afghanistan on Friday that killed dozens of people.

The independent Afghanistan Rights Monitor group says up to 70 civilians died in the Kunduz province raid. The Nato air strike targeted fuel tankers hijacked by the insurgents. The BBC's David Loyn in Kabul says the Taliban call is a change to its usual policy of opposing all foreign involvement in Afghanistan...

Yet somehow so deliciously right. I just can't decide.

Pluck a number out of the air and then treble it

From the BBC:

Protecting societies against the impacts of climate change will be much more expensive than previously believed, according to a new analysis.

In 2007, the UN climate convention came up with a sum of $49 - $171bn per year. The new report says the UN sums omitted important factors and the true cost will be two to three times higher. Developing nations want [to blackmail] rich countries to provide major sums for adaptation as part of the new UN climate deal due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.

PS, I love the caption to the picture:

"Some fear that a shortfall in the Asian monsoon is linked to climate change."

If there is a shortfall in the Asian monsoon, then that is climate change, surely, and not just linked to it? A more fitting caption might have been: "Some people believe we can influence the weather by turning back the economic clock two centuries. Others believe we can influence the weather by wearing garlands of flowers and sitting in rain butts."

[Masterclass] Victimhood Poker: The World Series

In case you're struggling for inspiration, here's a masterclass from The Metro:

A UN expert says Australia breached Aborigines' rights during a crackdown on child abuse in Outback communities.

The UN special rapporteur on indigenous human rights, James Anaya, said the country breached international obligations on human and indigenous rights by imposing radical restrictions on Aborigines during the crackdown.

He said his 12-day fact-finding tour of Australia revealed that the Aboriginal minority still suffers from "entrenched racism." But he said he was particularly concerned by restrictions imposed on Aborigines in the Northern Territory in response to a 2006 government-commissioned report that found child sex abuse was rampant in remote indigenous communities. The government suspended its own anti-discrimination law so it could ban alcohol and hard-core pornography in Aboriginal communities and restrict how Aborigines spend their welfare checks. The restrictions do not apply to Australians of other races*.

"These measures overtly discriminate against aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatised communities," Anaya told reporters in the national capital of Canberra.

The measures were too broad and had been imposed for too long, despite a lack of evidence that the ban on alcohol had reduced alcohol abuse, he said. Anaya described as "demeaning" the policy of forcing Aborigines to set aside a portion of their welfare checks for essentials such as food and rent. "They have to carry a card around that marks them as someone who can't manage their own funds," he said..

* The flipside of this is e.g. Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim (and increasingly Islamic) state, where the government allows non-Muslims to drink alcohol, but not Muslims. What does Mr J Anaya have to say about that? How is that any different? Clue: The Australians are "racists" and the Malaysians are "protecting their own religious and cultural identity".

Yup. That'll fix it.

UN tells Israel and Hamas: Just stop now

"But that's not fair! They started it!"

"No, you did!"

"No, you did!"

Continued page 94.