Two big social experiments of huge significance

One of the great virtues of the USA is that individual states have a great deal of autonomy over large swathes of policy-making, and can effectively conduct experiments that the rest of us can watch.  Could be viewed as an extension of 'fail fast, fail cheaply' capitalism that confers those systematic advantages that so bewilder socialists and statists all over - because of course when they take an action, it's because they are right - and there'll be no going back or letting empirical failure get in the way of determined execution of the policy. 

If that's the hardened mindset, then the warnings of conservatives like Burke and Johnson against making changes without serious proof of benefit, are doubly appropriate.  What are we to make of the two ultra-significant social experiments about to be kicked off?

Australia's move to ban under-16s from having social meejah accounts is perhaps in the 'US states experimental' category.  A relatively small western country, with representative social concerns, is trying something prima facie of enormous difficulty but with clear social ramifications.  Perhaps it's so implausible they'll succeed as to make it all a bit hypothetical (I don't recall the illegality of underage drinking stopping me buying a pint in a pub at the age of 16**).  What if it has a genuine impact?  FB et al sure as hell don't want to trip up complacently on this one, and have it sweep the rest of the world.  How will they react: ultra-cooperative? dismissive?  faux-cooperative?  Go Australia!, I say: let us know how you get on. 

Here at home we have the looming Assisted Dying Act as the Bill goes into further stages.  What have people made of 'experiments' etc elsewhere?  To hear the Bill's sponsors, they've thought of everything.  But here's an interesting article on the Oregon 'precedent', which shows how what we might call "legal interpretation creep" is an ever-present possibility.  We also know that some proponents of euthanasia have every intention of broadening the scope at the first opportunity.  Why couldn't the Act be for a trial period of, say, 5 years with a sunset clause?

I'm sure there are many wise thoughts out there on both issues (Kev has already contributed on the second), which I hereby solicit BTL.

ND

____________

** I'll bet many of you have the same experience.  The principle in those days was: "Lads gotta learn how to handle their drink & take their turn at bar billiards quietly in the corner". 

AUKUS - welcome news indeed

Back in June I wrote here [OK, Cold War It Is]:

Joe, you and your new posse gotta rescue already-suborned New Zealand, and make Australia feel a lot more comfortable with its situation.  Fast.  Otherwise it'll be clear that your reach is only to those lazy countries that are a comfortable distance away from the coming action in the Far East.   And even they will still be defending their precious Sino-exports and graduate-student fee income, hoping nobody will notice or mind too much.

He was listening!  And now we have AUKUS, replete with new nuclear subs for Oz.  (Gotta love the choice of name: not sure AUSUK would have worked at all ...  At least someone was giving half a thought to the matter.)

A bit of context.  What has recently become common parlance as "the Five-Eyes (intelligence) community" is officially AUSCANUKUS, with the 'Aus' being Australasia.  (You will sometimes find people, e.g. Wiki, inserting an 'NZ' but that's technically spurious.)  Sadly, NZ has been so thoroughly suborned by China, they've effectively self-selected themselves out of the inner circle; and we have to guess Canada had no particular reason to be in on this latest one.  Pity, but there it is.

Now to the reactions.  China very hostile, natch: say no more.  France, hahah!  Crocodile tears all around.  They were screwing up their own Oz-deal, and had it coming.  What are they going to say to us - if you don't back-track, we'll let all those refugees sail across the Channel?  (Oh, wait a minute ...)   In fact, what we'll be saying to them is: pipe down, Johnny Frog, or we'll leave those troops of yours in Central Africa with no helicopter support or aerial reconnaissance.

And everyone else on the world stage?  Well, by Heaven, after the Afghan debacle, something had to be done, or else the Taiwanese and many others besides would have been starting to make their accommodations.  Let's hope there are several other good ideas where this one came from rolling out over the weeks and months - most especially including something significant and soon for New Zealand, please.  As often noted here before: the lines of logistics in politics - particularly in foreign policy - can be very short.  Imagination is everything.

Which brings us to the Labour Party - which rushed to applaud the whole thing!  With a speed that must leave plenty of domestic lefties just reeling.  Even the Graun is more or less onside, even if leaving themselves a bit of equivocal wriggle-room.  (Gad, these people are so easily blindsided!)  We can expect some pushback to this amusingly tame position, I expect, in the run-up to Party Conference.  (Perhaps Starmer's Lotto crowd plans to make it yet another dividing line for advancing their really quite ruthless purge.)

Anyhow: credit where it's due - hats off to Biden this time.  

(I reserve the right to call him senile again if he drops the ball next time, though.)

ND

Turnbull: Not-so-much Wizard of Oz

Reports coming from the other side of the world are not so bright these days.  For whatever it is worth, Turnbull didn't seem to hit it off with Trump - even if that's now being spun as a Good Thing.   More concretely, Australia looks set to be the first major nation to screw up energy policy so badly that blackouts are increasingly the result  (most people had Germany down for that honour).  Its mining policy looks to be a mess, as well - and highly dependent on Chinese demand.

I've been surprised that Malcom Turnbull hasn't been a more immediately successful Prime Minister.  Our paths crossed briefly when he was at Oxford but not so much as I could form a proper assessment of him.  But a friend who knows him well and whose judgement on people and politicians tends to be excellent, reckons him the most dynamic, ambitious and purposeful getter-of-things-done he's ever met.  Turnbull's CV rather bears this out; and reaching the top of the greasy antipodean pole seemed a natural career progression.

So what's up down under?  Turnbull's Oz should be one of our best and most useful friends in the post-Brexit world - and perhaps even more importantly during the extended phase of pre-Brexit diplomacy.  Perhaps it will still be so.

Any C@W readers who can offer some good perspectives?

ND

Australia shows the way

Obligatory Sporting Vague Link

It is hard to fathom really how the UK is still even thinking about going ahead with Hinkley Nuclear Power station. The facts have simply changed beyond all doubt since its inception, before we even get to the pathetic deal that was negotiated.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have made noises about how unhappy they will be if we pull out. This is really code for if you don't buy French, then buy Chinese direct. I think they are onto a loser with that line of thinking.

In a nice twist, the Aussies have today decided to stop China buying their power grid. Nice as the Chinese are they do have this rather well earned name for massive cyber attacks and economic cyber crime. I would agree that selling them the kit that runs a country is not such a good idea.

Sadly in the UK we have long since sold all key industrial backbone abroad, albeit we retain National Grid (it is a listed company though, so vulnerable). I am less worried by the French and Germans though as state entities.

So with the Aussies bravely clearing the way, perhaps Mrs May can do the decent thing and put Hinkley out of its misery and get on with fracking/gas alternative which won't be as cheap or as quick as we need, but is a lot better than the current impasse.