Race baiting crowd won't be happy to confront reality

Here's the current results of the poll at The Australian. It won't please those who think they'll be able to make a quid suing the rest of us for being racist:

It's a pity that conservative values, especially that of race-blindness, are not more widely held in the community. Perhaps they are but you wouldn't know it from listening to the media. Ironically, those that think these laws are necessary to rein in the racism of (mainly) white men don't understand that those white men inhabit the same political orbit as the race baiters.

Labor's Carbon Tax is really a redistribution of income scam

Julia Gillard's freakish political contortion, the likes of which have probably never before been seen in Australian politics, of breaking an election promise to not introduce a carbon tax, bowing to the radical Greens and then introducing a carbon tax can have no other outcome than increase the size of the Australian deficit and reduce employment.

Let's assume that the amount raised from power companies by the carbon tax each year is $10 billion.

There are a number of groups that will be especially hurt by an increase in power prices - those at the low end of the income spectrum, trade exposed industries whose position against overseas competition will be damaged and small business, which seems to be a forgotten factor in the conversation so far.

It's clear that the government can't compensate all groups affected so let's assume that they distribute the money to low income earners. Note that they are on record as saying that the money will not simply go into Treasury coffers so let's also assume that it joins the short list of promises kept by this government since being elected in 2007.

The tax is introduced in 2011 and low income workers rejoice as they see the effects in their bank balances. They then feel the pain when they get their utilities bills but, being conscientious with their money and in no way tempted to buy more grog or smokes or stick it in the pokies or back something to beat Black Caviar*, they pay what they owe. So there's no impact on them.

Power companies now have an incentive to reduce the amount of CO2 they produce, which is the whole point of the exercise and so they invest in clean technologies that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions to zero thus fulfilling the government's ambition.

Can you see the problem?

At this point the government will raise no money at all from taxing so-called 'carbon pollution', the cost of power will not be reduced due the investment made by power companies that needs to be paid for meaning that low income households will still need financial support to meet their utilities bills.

So the government now has a $10 billion hole in its budget. Is it going to fill the void by raising taxes or by increasing the deficit? Either way, the impact on employment is negative.

And while all that has been going on our trade exposed industries have been shedding jobs at a terrific rate to countries that are not bound by the onanistic impulses of the climate brigade.

So let's give all of the money to trade exposed industries instead of low income workers.

The government gets stuck in the same cycle. When the power companies clean up their act the government will need to maintain support for trade exposed industries otherwise there'll be a massive loss of jobs in a short time frame to overseas competitors. Not a palatable outcome for any politician.

And all the while small business is getting hammered and is shedding jobs.

So here's Labor's dirty, little secret. I'm going to shout it at you so that you can take it in.

Labor's carbon tax CAN ONLY WORK IF POWER COMPANIES NEVER REDUCE THEIR CO2 OUTPUT.

The government knows this, of course, which is why it's just a great, big, redistributionist scam but it also knows that its allies in the mainstream media won't point it out to the voting public any time soon.

The result will be that the tax will be in place before an emissions trading scheme is introduced, which the government expects will continue to provide the revenue it needs.

And bad luck to the people who lose their jobs because of it.

* I don't live in this world, either, but the good folk who create government budgets surely must.

(Nothing Follows)

Fear of religion actually means fear of Islam

Australia's Human Rights Commission, an unneeded organisation if ever there was one, has released a report saying that there's a general fear of religion in the community.

By way of example they use only Islam to make their point, as outlined below in this piece from The Australian:

THERE'S a pressing need to use education to reduce ignorance and fear about religions in Australia, a new report says

It said there is a current anti-Muslim discourse that suggests entrenched hostility which is often related to overseas events.

The report, entitled Freedom of Religion in the 21st Century, was prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The researchers said some Christians fear the introduction of sharia law in Australia and believe that governments appease Muslim communities by giving Islam preferential treatment.

Some people told the researchers that evangelical Christians demonise Muslims partly because of "high levels of ignorance by churches about Islam".

It also said some Muslim children see themselves as outsiders because they see their religion vilified at every turn.

"They see how they are viewed as Muslims, which in turn affects how they view themselves," the report said.

The report's conclusion said the commission needs to "foster a discussion about the place of religious rights along side other rights".

It said the commission must allow "for the view to be heard that religious rights are absolute, and then to allow that view to be tempered by other views".

It urges religious leaders to play a key role in overcoming ignorance about religion in the community.

There are currently only three groups who have issues with religion:

1. Anyone with half a brain who understands that more than 90% of the world's terrorist attacks (excluding in Iraq and Afghanistan) are carried out in the name of one religion - Islam - in order to promote Sharia and create a new Ummah and is wary of all of those who say that it's a small minority that carry out the attacks and they don't represent the religion.

2. Secular fanatics who worship at the feet of Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' post modern atheism that disguise their contempt for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values under the umbrella of rejecting religion completely.

3. The left and its rank anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to Israel.

When the Australian Human Rights Commission says there's a fear of religion then do they include Buddhists? Sikhs? Hindus?

Why would we be afraid of the Mormons? Are they going to be sickeningly nice to us until we're dead?

What about the Rastafarians? Afraid of reggae music and a little weed?

And why didn't they include being a Green as a religion? They're hardly any different to animists, if you ask me.

The reason that people in Australia are afraid, though 'concerned' is probably a better description, of Islam is two-fold:

1. Most terror attacks in the world are carried out in its name (as outlined above) and every, single person indicted for planning terrorist attacks in Australia has been Muslim; and

2. People understand that Sharia is a barbaric, restrictive, misogynistic, homophobic relic that controls people's lives and has no place in a modern, progressive society.

Why am I not surprised that the folk at the Australian Human Rights Commission think that genuine and legitimate concern about the practices of one group of people, Muslims, is the same as a blanket fear of religion?

(Nothing Follows)

Spot the inconsistency

Can you spot the inconsistency between the two short descriptions below?



I'll give you some time before posting the answer.

UPDATE: Only one is described as "unelected".

(Nothing Follows)

Labor "moving forward" to victory

If there's been a more banal political slogan in Australian history than Labor's "moving forward" then please let me know.

The first poll published after the calling of the August 21 election comes from Galaxy and shows that the government holds on to its 52-48 lead.

I commented recently that before the last election, which Labor won with a 53-47 margin, their Betfair odds were $1.31.

The current odds are as follows:



The odds support the 52-48 poll so, unless one side or the other puts their foot in it big time, then we've got another three years of Labor government to look forward to. How much more debt will they be able to pile onto our kids? It's remarkable that the modern, "progressive" left has no care for the financial health of the economies of which they're supposed to be custodians.

(Nothing Follows)

The A-Z of the Labor government's incompetence

This one is doing the rounds of the Internet and highlights the absolute disaster that our Labor government has inflicted upon the poor, old taxpayer for the next umpteen years.

Rarely has a government promised so much, spent so much, said so much, and launched so many nationwide programs, and delivered so little value for money and expectation. Two years of Kevin Rudd has produced 20 years of debt, and most of it cannot be blamed on the global financial crisis. This alphabet soup is self-inflicted.

Asylum seekers. Unless the government can show otherwise, it appears that about 98 per cent of asylum-seekers are getting Australian residency. In contrast, the latest figures from the United Nations refugee agency show most asylum applications worldwide are rejected. The bulging Christmas Island detention centre has become a grossly expensive sham and a mockery of a core election promise.

Beijing. Supposedly Rudd's strong point, the relationship with China deteriorated badly last year after a series of serious missteps with Beijing.

Computers in schools. A million computers promised to schools, one for every student. This turned out to be much harder than it sounded.

Debt and deficit. The Rudd government inherited a massive $90 billion financial firewall when it came to office, via a federal budget surplus, the Future Fund and two infrastructure funds. In two years the budget has gone from $20 billion in surplus to $58 billion in deficit. Net federal debt has gone from zero to a projection of between $130 billion and $180 billion. It took the previous government 10 years to dismantle the $96 billion debt mountain that it inherited. It took Rudd one year to build it back up again.

ETS. The Copenhagen climate conference was a disaster. Rudd's emissions trading scheme is abstract, complex, expensive and polls show about 80 per cent of Australians do not understand or trust it. A T-shirt produced by Newcastle steelworkers distils the political problem: "Rudd's ETS: Higher Prices. Lost Jobs. 0.001 degrees cooler."

Fuelwatch. Big promise, empty outcome.

Grocerywatch. Ditto.

Hospitals. Ditto.

India disaster. Last year Australia degraded relations with the two emerging Asian superpowers.

Juvenile justice. The plight of young Aborigines is worse than ever, with ideology trumping pragmatism. Children are shipped off to violent foster families while government exhibits a mesmerised inertia in the face of pockets of endemic violence.

Kaiser. The aptly named Mike Kaiser, former ALP Queensland state secretary and state MP, became the umpteenth poster boy for the Labor patronage machine this month by landing a $450,000-a-year lobbying job with the national broadband network. The job was not advertised.

League tables. The government's one-size-fits-all league tables for schools, plagued by glitches and misleading data, is another centralised scheme that serves as a substitute for tackling the union-imposed rigidities on teacher performance.

Migration. Permanent migration to Australia surged 550,000 during the first two years of the Rudd government, the highest two-year increase in history. This is at odds with the government's rhetoric on reducing Australia's carbon footprint. It was also never mentioned before the election.

National broadband network. Last year the Rudd government spent $17 million looking for a private partner to co-build the network. The process yielded nothing. The government will now build and operate the network itself at a cost of $43 billion. A money sink.

Opposition theft. The Rudd government inherited the strongest budget position and banking sector of any major Western economy, which protected Australia from the global financial crisis. The government pretends this was all its own work.

Power. The national solar power rebate is a political debacle. The GreenPower scheme has failed. The renewable energy trading certificates scheme is in disarray.

Question time. Question time has blown out by 50 per cent over its traditional running time because of long ministerial answers and incessant points of order, while the time devoted to answering real questions, rather than Dorothy Dixers, has shrunk to less than 30 per cent of question time; a blatant corruption of the process.

Roof insulation. Send in the fraud squad. A good idea gone bad. Rampant false billing and over-charging. Cowboys everywhere. People dead. Houses unsafe. Systemic overspending. A hapless bureaucracy detached from the realities of the building industry.

School spending. The $16 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme is bloated with systemic overspending and over-charging. The problems were encapsulated by a builder who told me: "My company is involved in the BER work and it involves mismanagement, overcharging, schools being railroaded into decisions not in their interests, all hidden behind a smokescreen. It is the country's most expensive political stunt ever." Another money sink.

Tax increases. The federal budget in May will begin to reveal the consequences of panic, hubris, overspending and waste as the government seeks to offset its profligacy with higher fees and taxes. Superannuation was just the start.

Union power. The unions, having bankrolled Labor's election campaign in 2007, have received their payback, with an increase in union rights and powers. Union muscle-flexing is back, from the mining sector to small business. Endemic corruption, blackmail and violence in the building industry was finally curbed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Julia Gillard is shutting it down.

Vanity. See B, K, O, Q and U.
Whitlamesque. Spendthrift programs. Empty rhetoric. Self-congratulation. Deficit spending. Debt blowout. Two years of the Rudd government produces 20 years of debt and poses the question: worse than Whitlam?

X Y Z Generations X, Y and Z They will be stuck with the bill.

What amazes me is that Labor voters can read through this list and still manage to find positive things to say about the government such as the "Sorry" to the (non existent) Stolen Generations and, supposedly, keeping us out of recession.

All they've done is to ensure that we will have a weaker economy over the next couple of decades than we otherwise would have. They have guaranteed higher interest rates and higher unemployment, though the effects of those are still to hit.

China's growth is said to be slowing. How much debt is this government going to have? $100B? $200B is probably closer.

It took 10 years to pay off Labor's previous $100B debt. How long will it take to pay it off this time around?

The implementation of left wing policies can only lead to unwelcome, bordering on immoral, outcomes.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor will win the next election handily

Anyone on the conservative side of politics that thinks we're a chance of winning the next Federal election is, pretty much, dreaming.

And the election will be held soonish.

Here's the Betfair market on the election date:



Now, there's only $700 in the pool and the reason is that nobody wants to put any money into betting against an election date that has already been decided by the government. Sportingbet has a market on the exact date of the election. August 28 is at $2.50, which is pretty short.

Supporting the government's decision to go early is internal polling that shows they've got a strong, election winning lead.

That's reflected in the Betfair market:



Prior to the last election Labor had a healthy lead in the opinion polls and the price available was only a little bit shorter than what it's currently at, which seems to suggest similar polling numbers.

Therefore, my prediction is that the election will be on August 28 and the government will be returned with a 52-48 result.

Friday 2/7/10 UPDATE:

All of the money on the betting markets has been for an August 14 election. Sportingbet has that data at $2.10 and August 28 at $2.75 so I predict that the election will be called this weekend for one of those two dates.

(Nothing Follows)

Expunging Brand Kevin

During the 2007 election a large number of ALP supporters chose to wear Kevin07 paraphernalia.

They looked like donkeys.

Now, Brand Kevin is being expunged from the ALP corporate memory. I just got on the ALP website and searched the site for "Kevin07".

Here's the response:


(click to embiggen)

Just four?

There used to be pooloads of Kevin07 information.

By comparison, I searched for "minimum wage" and got 12 responses. "Tony Abbott" returns pages and pages and pages of responses. To be fair there are still many responses to "Rudd".

There really are no more vicious politics than when the left executes one of its own.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor finally jettisons the worst PM ever

The worst prime minister in Australia's history has been jettisoned by the Australian Labor Party allowing our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, to take the reins.

Congratulations to Julia Gillard.



Will she be a good PM? Who knows? As I write every time there's a change of leadership, either in government or opposition, we will have to wait some time to see how a person grows into the role. I suspect that she will be up to the task.

There does seem to be some schizophrenia in the market regarding Labor's electoral chances. Last week ninemsn ran a poll asking whether people would vote for Julia Gillard if she became leader. The vote was 60-40 against her.

ninemsn has repeated the poll after the vote this morning:



Even with only 7000 votes there's still a big no vote against her.

However, the betting market is the one to follow:



The price before the leadership spill was pretty much the same as it is now so the government is still a strong favourite to win the next election.

One poll goes one way while the other goes the other:

UPDATE: From the ninemsn website:

ninemsn readers have cast doubt on Julia Gillard's future as prime minister, with almost two-thirds declaring they will not vote for her in the looming election.

At 3pm today our homepage poll showed that more than 50,000 readers would not vote for Ms Gillard in the coming federal election, compared to about 23,000 who said they would.

The ninemsn homepage is visited by more than ten million people each month — 70 percent of Australians online.

In addition to the vote, more than a thousand readers have posted comments — revealing a vast mix of reactions — since Ms Gillard was chosen to replace Kevin Rudd in the top job earlier today.

Many readers who said they might have voted for Mr Rudd have hit out at the Labor caucus vote that put his former deputy in power.

"We the Australian people voted in Kevin Rudd as our Prime Minister … who is the group, a handful, of faceless people who can just come in and change our democratically elected Prime Minister???" wrote Holcars from Cranbourne.

"The people elected Kevin07 for PM not Julia-010," agreed Tony G, from Maroubra.

"No one has heard of these Labor factional powerbrokers and the people certainly did not vote for them."

(Nothing Follows)

How will history view Rudd?

People are starting to wake up to the empty nothingness that is Kevin Rudd's prime ministership.

Regular readers will know that I've been banging on about his clear incompetence and lack of vision for nearly two years.

The question that we can now start pondering is this; how will history view Kevin Rudd?

Here's my prediction:

1) Worst prime minister in history

Rudd has one thing going against him that his Labor predecessors do not and that is that he is reviled within the Labor Party as the vicious, petty, non-substance tyrant that he really is. Therefore, those people who write history - the left significantly outnumbers the right in this area - will be happy to smash Rudd in order to rehabilitate the reputation of one of their heroes, Gough Whitlam, hitherto Australia's worst ever prime minister.

2) Lost opportunities

Left wing, revisionist historians such as Henry Reynolds and Robert Manne etc regularly attack the right for the so-called 'lost opportunities' of their governments. These lost opportunities are almost exclusively made up of large infrastructure projects that the left deems necessary. The Howard government chose to give back surpluses by way of tax reductions, as they should. This is anathema to the left, which believes that government spending is by definition good, as it stimulates the economy. Keynes really does have a lot to answer for. However, Rudd has been the master of left wing 'lost opportunities' and most recently when he chose to abandon the current Holy Grail of left wing government control of the economy - the emissions trading scheme. Historians will not forgive him for not doing a deal with the Greens.

3) Cast out and outcast

In the same way that former Labor leader Mark Latham is now an outcast from the party, Kevin Rudd will first be cast out by his senior front benchers and almost immediately become a Labor outcast. There are already rumblings in that regard. Ministers who have had to take the fall for Rudd's policy incompetence are now leaking information to the media that it's the PM to blame and not, for example, Peter Garrett for the insulation fiasco. Or Gillard for the rorting of the school building fund. The list goes on. Once the next election is over the knives will come out and I predict Rudd will last less than a year as leader. Once defeated, he will resign from parliament in a fit of pique and force a by-election.

4) Failure on the economy

The list of fiscal fiascos is becoming a national embarrassment. In less than two years the Rudd government has managed to munch through the massive surplus left to it and increase Australia's debt from nil to the nearly $100 billion that the Howard government cleared away during its terms in office. Not only that but it has also announced an increased tax on profits from mining companies, which will be used to fund an increase in superannuation. Can you imagine Hawke or Keating coming up with such a negative, economy killing policy? Rudd and his advisers are completely nuts to
increase structural costs by taxing a variable revenue stream. That can only lead to deficits once the Great China Boom becomes an inevitable Bust. Did they learn nothing from the global financial crisis? Other than spending like drunken sailors, obviously not.

I'm sure there are other negative legacies that historians and political commentators will write about. Feel free to add your thoughts in comments.

(Nothing Follows)

Reviewing Rudd

There have been so many backflips by the Australian Labor government lately that I can't tell whether I'm watching politics or Cirque du Soleil.

Prior to Kevin Rudd's election in late 2007 the talking heads in the media were singing his praises as an economic conservative and having the right policies on climate change, labour laws, education and immigration etc. Now that the media is questioning the ETS abandonment, Andrew Bolt is quite rightly calling them out on it.

So who was wise enough to write the following on 22 October 2007:

I have likened his (Rudd's) understanding of economics to that other disastrous Labor leader of the past, Gough Whitlam, and nothing I have seen subsequent to making that judgement has changed my mind.

And this on 7 November 2007:

The Australian's Paul Kelly is hardly someone that could be called alarmist. His balanced, thoughtful commentary on the ABC's Insiders is the highlight of the program.

In this opinion piece he describes how Kevin Rudd intends to increase his power as Prime Minister should Labor be elected on November 24. This should come as no surprise. Rudd is fundamentally a policy wonk meaning he must have processes that involve him. He has no idea about what makes the economy tick or what drives the average citizen so he intends to have more of a micro-management role in Australia's affairs than any government since the disastrous Whitlam.

That's right, it was your erstwhile correspondent who saw through Kevin Rudd prior to his election in a way that the mainstream media couldn't - or wouldn't.

In less than 6 months in government Rudd's much vaunted FuelWatch program was thrown under the bus in what was to pretty much define this government's modus operandi and on 30 May 2008 I wrote:

There are two types of control freak: in-control and under-control.

An in-control freak has to be involved in every decision being made. An under-control freak has to be sure that his management team is on top of things and executing policy effectively.

Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is an in-control freak and the latest example is the mess that he has created with the government's FuelWatch policy.

...Which leads me to articulate for the first time my view of the man. As I've posted previously, leadership changes people. Sometimes they surprise people, step up to the mark and become real leaders in the way that Howard did. Sometimes they crash and burn, as Mark Latham did, though that was much more predictable. Therefore, it's always wise to let some time pass before making a judgement.

Six months into his term I think I've seen enough to have a clear view of Kevin Rudd.

Leadership: As a leader, Rudd is more Custer than Patton; more Whitlam than Hawke or Keating. He is a manager, not a leader. Australia is in a terrific position economically, small inflation worries notwithstanding, and so it's possible that a competent manager can be successful. The job of prime minister at the moment and for the next few years can be done effectively in management mode so Rudd's lack of leadership ability may not work against him - as long as things don't go pear-shaped in the world economy and we don't otherwise face a major crisis.

Competence: Here's a big statement that I think people will come to reflect on the wisdom of in years to come - Kevin Rudd is profoundly incompetent to be prime minister. Profoundly. In fact, I'd go so far to say that when his time has come and gone Rudd will be seen as one of our worst ever PMs. He has Gough Whitlam's understanding of economics and Paul Keating's understanding of the ordinary bloke. I think he will be seen to have squandered a huge opportunity to move Australia forward at a time when international competitiveness is growing ever tougher.

Vision: It is now clear that Rudd has no vision for Australia. His policy of symbolism and populism over outcomes and substance is proof. From the economic disaster of ratifying Kyoto to the Stolen Generations' Apology to a plethora of inquiries into all sorts of issues and to FuelWatch itself Rudd has been focused more on his personal popularity than achieving positive outcomes for Australians. Can you imagine this man taking the tough, unpopular decisions on illegal immigration, workplace relations and even the Iraq war as Howard? Even his most ardent supporters must wonder what he stands for.

Personality: Rudd has no charm and no charisma, traits that are important to hold a leadership team together, especially when times get tough. It can be quite justifiably said that Howard lacked charm and charisma. He turned out to be one of this country's best ever leaders so why can't Rudd follow suit? The fact is that Howard slept the sleep of a leader. Rudd sleeps the sleep of a manager.

Not bad, eh, given it's a nearly two year old assessment. The world economy did indeed go pear shaped and Rudd's incompetence was on immediate display with huge, do nothing spending plans rolled out in too short a time and with minimal effect, other than adding to the national debt and, unfortunately, leading to the deaths of a number of home insulation installers.

In July 2008 I was joined by a few others who were starting to doubt Rudd's abilities:

Australia's go it alone attitude to addressing the non-issue of climate change is a prime example of how far out of touch with community attitudes Rudd is, let alone reality. It seems that he prefers to pander to European and United Nations institutions than do what is right for Australia.

In Kevin Rudd we do not have that strength of leadership. Unfortunately, he does not understand how limited his ability is and that will be to the detriment of all of us.

By January 2009 I passed the baton as Australia's most incompetent prime minister from Gough Whitlam to Kevin Rudd:

I tell you who is sleeping more soundly tonight and that's former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

Why?

Well, Whitlam's government was a shambles that wrought chaos upon Australia's economy that took many years to overcome.

Whitlam himself has long been viewed as the worst PM we've ever had and for good reason.

But with the current Labor PM Kevin Rudd's 8,000+ word socialist screed published in the leftist The Monthly this week Whitlam can let out as big a sigh of relief as his 92 year old body will allow now that the mantle of Australia's worst ever PM has been lifted from him by Rudd's unbelievable incompetence.

And, just for a change, on 4 February 2009 I continued:

I wonder how long it will be before your average Australian voter wakes up to the fact that Kevin Rudd is the new Gough Whitlam?

Of course, there are millions of voters who either weren't born yet or politically aware during Whiltam's reign of chaos and who still think that Rudd is doing a good job by throwing tens of billions of dollars at the economy in order to stimulate it and get past the Global Financial Crisis.

..and on I banged until the end of the year.

With an election looming, which the government is an overwhelming favourite to win, it's worth looking back to see what this government's achievements are.

Are there any?

In fact, in many ways we've gone backwards.

Certainly, our fiscal position has been weakened by Rudd's insane spending spree.

Our foreign relations have been damaged by Rudd's remarkable incompetence in an area touted as his greatest strength.

He signed Kyoto, amid much fanfare by the symbolism-as-policy left, and has now punted the associated economy killing emissions trading scheme down the road to at least 2013. In the meantime, power stations can't raise capital due to the uncertainty over policy. Nice work, Kev.

Again, what have we got to show for having elected Kevin Rudd?

And how much better off would we have been under a Coalition government?

Plenty.

(Nothing Follows)

Do Labor understand the danger Tony Abbott poses?

I wonder whether the government understands the danger posed to them by Tony Abbott's ascension to the Liberal Party leadership?

In his first speech as leader he attacked the ETS as just another great, big, Labor tax and quite rightly compared the government's reckless spending to that of Whitlam.

Opinion polls are published regularly showing that people are 'concerned' about climate change (in the same way that the Secretary-General du jour of the UN is 'concerned' about Iran building a nuclear weapon or genocide in Darfur) and that they want something done about it.

The left uses these polls as evidence that Australians want something done and they want it done now.

What are not published are any of the polls showing that climate change doesn't rate in the top half dozen things that voters are concerned about, which show that the economy and jobs are, unsurprisingly, at the top.

Tony Abbott can't win the next election, but he can make big inroads into the government's majority by focusing on jobs.

If I was him I'd be banging on at every opportunity that "The Liberal Party is the party of jobs and we are not going to sacrifice even one Australian job to implement a great, Green tax that will achieve nothing without the world's major emitters acting first."

Focus on jobs. Focus on the cost to families.

If he calls the ETS a "great, Green tax that will achieve nothing" then he might even take out a few Greenies along the way, which would be the greatest public service of all.

Labor, and its media acolytes, think that Tony Abbott is easy meat, that he can be made fun of for his Christian beliefs and history as a political strongman.

I think that they will be given a rude wake up call over the next few months as the Coalition finally gets its act together and forms a coherent policy narrative that the Australian people can support.

Andrew Bolt highlights a line from the Sydney Morning Herald as summing up the policy line that will be run:

TONY Abbott will steer the Liberal Party back to its conservative roots with a 2010 election campaign portraying Kevin Rudd as a Whitlamesque big spender whose climate change policies will smash Australian jobs.

Can you imagine Malcolm Turnbull coming up with such a simple strategy?

People can both understand it and relate to it.

I might send Tony Abbott a copy of Frank Luntz's Words That Work:It's not what you say it's what they hear to help him keep on message.

(Nothing Follows)

If the Liberal Party votes for an ETS then they lose my vote forever

The following is the Liberal Party of Australia platform:

What does the Liberal Party stand for?

We are the party of initiative and enterprise;

We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.

We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.

We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.

Surely, anyone who believes in the scientific fabrication called climate change or global warming or whatever the heck it's called these days and supports an economy deadening tax cannot be a Liberal?

So what is Malcolm Turnbull thinking?

And how can he be a member of the Liberal Party let alone it's leader?

If the Liberal Party votes with the government and passes an emissions trading scheme then they will lose my vote forever.

The problem for the Liberals are that there are a lot of people like me.

(Nothing Follows)

Well, this should be interesting...

On such important issues to their agenda the organised left tends to overwhelm online polls, as I've demonstrated previously.

Let's see how this one goes:

9:29AM



10.47AM



11.37AM



Yes:No ratios so far are 1.62, 1.68 and 1.68. I'd expect the final result to be close to that.

4:38PM



UPDATE:

Someone has posted what appears to be a heap of emails and other documents from the Hadley Climate Reseach Unit that would be, if true, should be the end of climate science as we know it.

I predict the following:

• most of the information will be shown to be true;
• the mainstream media will give this almost no coverage;
• there will be small, inconsequential discrepencies found that will be used to discredit the entire document set; and
• it will have no impact on the climate debate, which, ironically, has very little to do with the actual climate.

(Nothing Follows)

This passes for research...??

Why is The Australia Institute described as an 'independent' think tank when all it does is spew out far left garbage?

Its founder and former head, Clive Hamilton, retired from the organisation recently and is standing as the Greens candidate for Higgins in Melbourne. Methinks that the Greens are too far to the right for old Clive who has suggested democracy needs to be suspended in order to respond to the threat of climate change...

Here is the latest example of what passes for research at this esteemed institution:

Australians work more than two billion hours of unpaid overtime a year, a $72 billion gift to their employers, a new study by an independent think tank shows.

The Australian Institute research shows a typical full-time employee is working 70 minutes of unpaid overtime a day, which equates to 33 eight-hour days per year, or six-and-a-half standard working weeks.

Now, there is no greater example of the fact that The Australia Institute doesn't know anything about Australia's workplaces than this blatantly ridiculous figure. Anyone who has been an employer, and I used to pay the salary of over 30 people before selling my business and moving into the corporate world, knows that the 'typical full-time employee' turns up on time, takes a lunch break and leaves on time. In the public service (in which I worked part time during my university years) there was much more turning up late, taking a long lunch and leaving early than there was working long hours (typically by the most senior executive level).

Across the workforce, the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime represented six per cent free labour for the economy depends.

"While Australians might have a reputation for taking 'sickies' and 'smokos', the evidence suggests otherwise," the institute's executive director Richard Denniss said when releasing the research on Wednesday.

During the past decade Australia had simply accepted the "dubious honour" of working the longest hours in the western world, when other developed countries had sought to reduce working hours.

Australia does not work the longest hours in the western world. The US does. How we could work longer hours than the US when we get 4 weeks of holiday and they get 2...?

"The amount of unpaid overtime worked in Australia is the equivalent of 1.16 million full-time jobs," Dr Denniss said.

"In an economy where unemployment is rising, overwork is an obvious area for government to address."

So how's that going to work? Businesses lay off staff in order to reduce costs and survive the downturn. By definition, the productivity of the remaining staff increases. If there are people working significant extra hours, and I'm sure there are but not even one-tenth of what TAI is claiming, then any government legislation in this area can only harm the recovery by imposing costs on business that they can't afford.

The survey found 45 per cent of workers, and more than half of all full-time employees, work more hours than they are paid for on a typical workday.

45 per cent? I call BS. How did they get their data?

The online survey of 1,000 respondents, commissioned by the institute, found that 44 per cent of people who work unpaid overtime said it is "compulsory" or "expected".

Slightly fewer (43 per cent) said overtime was "not expected" but also "not discouraged".

Ooooooooh...an 'online survey'...how remarkably scientific. I never saw it. How did they choose people to send it to?

Australians also work three times more hours or unpaid overtime than they volunteer to community organisations.

More BS, I reckon.

In response to its findings, the institute has nominated November 25 as national Go Home On Time Day.

"Ultimately, managers and business owners have a responsibility to create an environment in which employees can work reasonable hours without risking their career, their health or their relationships," co-author Josh Fear said.

Fear. What a terrific name for someone pushing such rubbish.

The institute is encouraging workers to postpone all last minute tasks and register for a "leave pass" at www.gohomeontimeday.org.au

I downloaded the research paper from their website to look at their methodology.

Under 'Survey of workers' they have:

The Australia Institute commissioned an online survey of 1000 people in July 2009. The survey sample, sourced from a reputable independent online panel provider, was
representative of the adult Australian population by age, gender and state/territory. Of the total sample, 626 respondents were in paid work. These people were asked questions about unpaid overtime and how it affects them.

The reputable independent online panel provider was Valued Opinions Panel, the Australian arm of Research Now. How can you survey 1000 people who are representative of the Australian population and come up with only 626 being in paid work? It's not credible.

There's also an issue they haven't addressed. What is the impact of people taking smoke breaks on having to work 'overtime' in order to get their jobs done.

Yet again The Australia Institute demonstrates that it's more interested in pushing its far left agenda than deal with truth.

(Nothing Follows)

Proof that there are at least 20,368 morons in Australia

Ninemsn's latest poll question is - Do you think Australia is a corrupt country?

Here's the current count:



Do the 20,368 people who voted yes actually understand what a proper corrupt country looks like and how far from it we are?

How would they cope with what goes on in Africa?

Or in almost any Asian nation?

Or in South America?

These people are nitwits.

I blame their teachers.

(Nothing Follows)

Lying pieces of crap scientists tell more climate lies

These people really piss me off.

Who?

The scientists who keep making predictions of doom and gloom about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef unless Australia unilaterally slashes its economic wrists.

Why do they have any credibility at all when every, single one of their previous predictions about the reef have been hopelessly wrong?

THE Great Barrier Reef has only a 50 per cent chance of survival if global CO2 emissions are not reduced at least 25 per cent by 2020, a coalition of Australia's top reef and climate scientists said today.

The 13 scientists said even deeper cuts of up to 90 per cent by 2050 would necessary if the reef was to survive future coral bleaching and coral death caused by rising ocean temperatures.

90 percent. How would they know? It's impossible for them to know that. Impossible.

"We've seen the evidence with our own eyes. Climate change is already impacting the Great Barrier Reef," Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said in a briefing to MPs.

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that the Great Barrier Reef is being impacted by anything remotely resembling the negative affects of climate change - affects, it should be noted, that won't actually be noticeable for 40-50 years and that's ONLY if the predictions of the hitherto useless IPCC climate models are correct.

Australia is one of the world's biggest CO2 emitters per capita, but has only pledged to cut its emissions by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. The Government said it would go further with a 25 per cent cut, if a tough international climate agreement is reached at UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, but this is looking increasingly unlikely with legally binding targets now off the agenda.

Why bring out the per capita statement when it's immaterial to the argument? China ADDS Australia's output every 3-4 months. We can cut our emissions by 100% and have zero effect.

"This is our Great Barrier Reef. If Australia doesn't show leadership by reducing emissions to save the reef, who will?" asked scientist Ken Baldwin.

Why would any country - and I assume they mean India, China, Brazil and Russia etc - take any notice of Australia 'showing leadership' when Europe has had a carbon trading scheme for a number of years, thus 'showing leadership', that NO COUNTRY HAS TAKEN ANY NOTICE OF??? These people are truly zealots.

But the Government is struggling to have a hostile Senate pass its planned emissions trading scheme. A final vote is expected next week.

The World Heritage-protected Great Barrier Reef sprawls for more than 345,000 square km off Australia's east coast and can be seen from space. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the Great Barrier Reef could be "functionally extinct" within decades, with deadly coral bleaching likely to be an annual occurrence by 2030.

Bleaching occurs when the tiny plant-like coral organisms die, often because of higher temperatures, and leave behind only a white limestone reef skeleton.

Predictions of bleaching have the same record as climate models - nil, nada, zero, zilch, none.

The Australian scientists said more than 100 nations had endorsed a goal of limiting average global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, but even that rise would endanger coral reefs.

They said global warming was already threatening the economic value of the Great Barrier Reef which contributes $5.4 billion to the economy each year from fishing, recreation and tourism.

Are they saying that if we pass an ETS that it will protect the $5.4 billion? Making travel, accommodation, food and everything else will somehow protect this income? Have they done a projection on what the revenue will fall to if an ETS is implemented? If not then why not? It should be easy for them given they calculated that we need to cut emissions by 90% by 2050.

These people are seriously the pits and an embarrassment to real scientists.

(Nothing Follows)

Australia's worst ever PM sells us down the river

Australia's worst ever prime minister, Kevin Rudd, seems determined to sell Australia's future generations down the financial river in order to feed the here and now of his megalomaniacal ego.

I cannot for the life of me understand why he is trying so hard to implement an economy-wrecking emissions trading scheme in advance of the Copenhagen Convention.

Does it give us any leverage at Copenhagen? Can't see how, myself.

Is such an expensive political wedge worth it in the long run?

When Anthony Watts first posted the link to the text of the treaty to be negotiated I took the time to read through it and became more and more concerned with what is in there.

While nobody has been looking, Australia's climate negotiators have been working on a treaty that will cost Australian working families over $7 BILLION per year.

Where will the money go?

To the United Nations so that they can give it to third-world and developing nations as payment of the West's so-called 'climate debt'.

Who in their right mind would think that the bulk of the money would not end up in the hands of UN middlemen and tinpot dictators?

Why would the West want to continue to donate to Africa, for example, when the more than $2 TRILLION of aid already given to that benighted continent has been so appallingly wasted?

I wonder whether the Average Joe Labor supporter is concerned with his side's abandonment of fiscal responsibility in the name of 'saving the planet' or dealing with the 'global financial crisis'?

Anyhoo, here are a couple of logos that are more appropriate given the times we live in:






(h/t Andrew Bolt for some links)

(Nothing Follows)

More to drive the cultural left nuts

I think that ninemsn is doing its best to try and put up a poll question that gets a favourable response for asylum seekers but the Australian public refuses to co-operate.

The other day I posted their poll question "Should the army get asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking?" which went 3:1 in favour of using the army.

Today's question is "Should we adopt a softer approach to asylum seekers?". So they've turned the question from being hard - use of the army - to soft.

The previous 3:1 has blown out to 7:1 against the asylum seekers.



This is also at a time when it is being reported that 20 people may have lost their lives when a boat traveling to Australia capsized northwest of the Cocos Islands.

Australians are generous to a fault but we really get riled up when people take the mickey out of us, which these so-called asylum seekers clearly are.

Andrew Bolt has more on their non-real asylum seeker status and how the despicable Greens tell lies in order to further their agenda.

(Nothing Follows)

This will drive the cultural left crazy

So there's a bunch of Sri Lankan economic refugees and assorted ex-Tamil Tiger terrorists living on the Oceanic Viking somewhere off of Indonesia in a political tug-of-war between crap knows who but mainly involving Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, trying to look compassionate, tough and statesmanlike all at the same time; a stance that he has failed spectacularly to achieve, which comes as no surprise to those of us who think he has little diplomatic skill and a decidedly nasty streak about him.

So here's the boat. There's 78 Sri Lankans camping on it.



Now, here's the bit that will drive the cultural left crazy.

Outspoken Liberal MP, Wilson Tuckey, suggested that the government may need to call in the army in order to remove the Sri Lankans from the boat and place them in detention in Indonesia.

Cue the usual whinging and carry on from Australia's left.

Here's the current status of ninemsn's poll on the issue - Should the army get the asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking?


(click to embiggen)

Queue-jumping asylum seekers have very little support from the Australian people. We have a strong sense of fairness and these people are well past what we consider acceptable.

Now, would the cultural left accept the result of the poll?

Surely they would twist it into an example not of Australia's fairness but of its inherent racism?

No doubt there'll be much chatter among the chattering class over the injustice of it all.

(Nothing Follows)