The govt is looking at including Aus in the US's proposed missile defense shield. This all looks good. Anything that strengthens our strategic ties with the US and entrenches our cooperation in expertize and intelligence is great. This is going some way towards allaying my fears that Rudd wants to make Aus a Red carpet for his mates in China BUT I am caution on two points.
Firstly, What about Japan? Are they in this too? Maybe there are too close (geographically) to China and Russia and a deployment there would be too provocative. Nobody wants to piss them off on purpose but we have to recognise that Japan is a democracy and China isn't. Japan is STILL our biggest trading partner BTW.
Secondly, I lived in Britain under Blair and i always supported his assertive foreign policy to the hilt but at the same time he lead his country to domestic ruin. OK not ruin but definitely decay. Rudd is flexing his strategic muscles to buy off some conservatives, and it's working with me, but we can't give him a free hand to implement his socialist bureacracy - a top-down tyranny of performance targets that sucks the life and the independence out of this most unsupervised of countries.
PS I can't help it. I have to mention Howard. Rudd's embracing of US cooperation at Pine Gap would be just another win for the Howard legacy and another nail in the coffin of the (non-economic) Left in this country. Let us not forget how Rudd won, by being Howard minus WorkChoices. The rest must stay! Howard changed this country forever for the better. He is still working his benevolent magic and benefiting us, now and for years to come.
What a top bloke.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Rudd's Australia: Poor but warm
Rudd is about to get mugged by realpolitik in the wake of the his bureacratic buddy's climate change report. You all knew the details by now. 90% reductions in carbon emissions etc.
This places a huge price on use of fuel. I forsee an MAD MAX post-apocolytic scenario where aussie are willing to kill for a tank of 'guzzelene'. Maybe that would be more exiting than Rudd's immasculated holiday island view of the our future. I'd prefer cross-bows and sharpened boomerangs and people who's names are adjectives like Humungous.
But I digress. The fact is that nobody likes the sound of this report. It even suggests socialist redistribution from the evil carbon-farting middle-classes so help pay for it all. Give a bureacrat power to shape the future - what do you expect, realism?
Rudd is culpable in encouraging these flights of fancy. He has revealed the ridiculousness of his concensus driven pen-pusher approach to politics.
Politics is about what is possible.
Howard had a tougher line with developing countries than Rudd. His strong stance was achieving more than Rudd to create international political solutions to climate change. He was telling China what to do at APEC, it is quite the opposite with Rudd.
Why do people simultaneously view China as a poor developing country with it comes to climate change, and an economic super-power when it comes to buying our resources. This kind of double-think is the stock-in-trade of the left.
Howard could see the amount of power we had and he used it for good. Rudd with his mystical belief in the attraction of concensus and his pandering to the narrow interests at home and abroad.
Rudd wants to lead by concensus. More double-think. Rudd's 'leadership' is the kind of pointless mania that leads all less-democratic countries into the abyss. The rest of the world will not follow. The do not want to emulate us, no matter how much Rudd thinks the sun shines out of his arse. We need to get into the rough and tumble of real political solutions. We need to stand up for ourselves.
Howard's scepticism about climate change was a further sign of his realism. He always did what he could behind the scenes (we actually met out Kyoto targets unlike just about every country that signed up) but did not jump to hasty conclusions. When he really took on the climate change issue he was able to secure great results for this country and the world because his grounding in reality made him a superior politician. The non-signing of Kyoto added to our strength in negotiations with China. If we were still holding out on signing that we might be able to convince China and the US to at least have non-binding targets.
There really is no compelling arguement for us to endure the hardship Garnaut delights in when the effect of it will only be a drop in the ocean compared to the big emitters. It's a double whammy. We get the economic pain of the carbon-cuts AND the global warming because we will not have stopped it.
We should be willing to do it, but only to a level that wont put us at an economic disadvantage, and then only if China et al accept that burden too. This would have been possible under Howard.
Let me be clear on this: Howard combatted climate change better than Rudd. Rudd will force us to make cuts that will make no difference but his lack of political backbone means the big polluters will not be under pressure to do the same. The world will be warmer under Rudd.
The Libs are wise to stick to a realistic path on responses to climate change and not get caught up in the lefty lunacy. This path is popular and Rudd knows it. I'm please to hear that Nelson (and Abbott) are cooling on the bi-partisan approach to the intervention. I hope it's not too late for us to distance ourselves from Rudd's other-worldy approach on other issues aswell.
Rudd has got himself into a mess here. How will he contain the fallout of his having to reject his own expert's recommendations? He'll end up contructing a solution that is almost identical to Howard's. I guess the polls are so great noone will notice the hypocrisy. Whatever.
If all I do is point this out and defend Howard's legacy I will consider my job done. The truth of the conservative poltical view and the affectiveness of this approach will be vindicated. If the nation gets conservative policies i'm happy, even if they do come from the ALP. Of course the Libs would do it a damn sight better. The public mood will eventually recognise this.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
My Apology
If you have not read Nelson's response to Rudd's apology do yourself a favour and check it out. It's a bit of genius.
I read it as follows...
It's always gonna hurt when a kid is separated from their parents.
We are sorry for the pain, but we are not sorry for doing it because it was done in most cases (in all cases that are historically invesitgated) with the best of intentions. The intention was not to destroy a culture, it was to save kids.
Ok sometimes things go wrong even with the best of intentions, we are the first to admit that and we are sorry for any damage that was done. We think that there was not that much damage done apart form the unavoidable pain you felt, in fact in most cases (all cases) the kids was better off in the long run.
But other policies pursued by the left since Whitlam, also with the best of intentions, DID do alot of harm. Sit-down money has produced an aimlessless in indigenous life that has dragged it to 4th-world levels of degradation which would never have occurred under the old tribal ways. The degradation is our fault, not yours. Well actually it's the ALP's fault but heck, we are sorry for the ALP.
The best of intentions they had was to believe that treating people as victims would enable them to be victors. That money-for-nothing would make you want to do something. Hey, what can we say except sorry some white people are so molly-coddled and middle-class that they believe shit like that. Stoopid eh? I tell ya if we had tribal law there's a few c*nts i'd spear is a second but that's beside the point.
Sorry that your culture got short end of the stick, mate. But you gotta admit that the young-uns in your communities see modern culture and covet it as much as our kids do, for better or worse. I guess the best intentions of the Left were to try to isolate you from that. They failed to see it was already to late. That was their mistake. Time waits for no man, black or white.
I personally think it would be patronising to hold you back. Why shouldn't you guys want the benefits of modern culture. After all, modern culture wasn't invented solely by British setters for British settlers and their decendants. It's not white culture. It's kindof a mixture of all new shit all over the world at any one time. Boomerangs, Tribalpainting and the Dreamtime are as much a part of it as anything else. We covet it not. The whole idea is to adapt it your purpose. We should help you to do that. Our ancestors brought it to these shores so the least we can do is help you adapt. We can see now since Whitlam and Keating that if we dangle the image of it in front of you, but encourage you to isolate yourselves from it, then all that anyone gets is misery.
Sorry, there can be no more sit-down money. I think we can aggree that the way forward is for all of us to embrace the realities of the modern world. That reality is jobs in the modern economy. Believe me there are some mornings where i'd rather be spear-fishing in Cape York than running for the tram, but there are great benefits like modern medicine and stuff that dont pay for themselves. We all need jobs, real jobs. Unfortunately the luxury of spear-fishing is mostly reserved for the weekends in the modern day. I'm Sorry for both of us there.
Unless ... If you were a tour guide on the Cape you could fish to your heart's content. Say why dont we set up a little tour company and do just that. I'll rustle up the cash and some pale-faced customers who'd kill for the chance. You teach 'em the ancient ways and they'll love ya for it. And heck, maybe we can make some dosh and put the kids through college. Some people would say that debased your culture. I'd say you can have your cake and eat it too, what'dya say?
Y'know, i had a feeling you blokes were all right.
I read it as follows...
It's always gonna hurt when a kid is separated from their parents.
We are sorry for the pain, but we are not sorry for doing it because it was done in most cases (in all cases that are historically invesitgated) with the best of intentions. The intention was not to destroy a culture, it was to save kids.
Ok sometimes things go wrong even with the best of intentions, we are the first to admit that and we are sorry for any damage that was done. We think that there was not that much damage done apart form the unavoidable pain you felt, in fact in most cases (all cases) the kids was better off in the long run.
But other policies pursued by the left since Whitlam, also with the best of intentions, DID do alot of harm. Sit-down money has produced an aimlessless in indigenous life that has dragged it to 4th-world levels of degradation which would never have occurred under the old tribal ways. The degradation is our fault, not yours. Well actually it's the ALP's fault but heck, we are sorry for the ALP.
The best of intentions they had was to believe that treating people as victims would enable them to be victors. That money-for-nothing would make you want to do something. Hey, what can we say except sorry some white people are so molly-coddled and middle-class that they believe shit like that. Stoopid eh? I tell ya if we had tribal law there's a few c*nts i'd spear is a second but that's beside the point.
Sorry that your culture got short end of the stick, mate. But you gotta admit that the young-uns in your communities see modern culture and covet it as much as our kids do, for better or worse. I guess the best intentions of the Left were to try to isolate you from that. They failed to see it was already to late. That was their mistake. Time waits for no man, black or white.
I personally think it would be patronising to hold you back. Why shouldn't you guys want the benefits of modern culture. After all, modern culture wasn't invented solely by British setters for British settlers and their decendants. It's not white culture. It's kindof a mixture of all new shit all over the world at any one time. Boomerangs, Tribalpainting and the Dreamtime are as much a part of it as anything else. We covet it not. The whole idea is to adapt it your purpose. We should help you to do that. Our ancestors brought it to these shores so the least we can do is help you adapt. We can see now since Whitlam and Keating that if we dangle the image of it in front of you, but encourage you to isolate yourselves from it, then all that anyone gets is misery.
Sorry, there can be no more sit-down money. I think we can aggree that the way forward is for all of us to embrace the realities of the modern world. That reality is jobs in the modern economy. Believe me there are some mornings where i'd rather be spear-fishing in Cape York than running for the tram, but there are great benefits like modern medicine and stuff that dont pay for themselves. We all need jobs, real jobs. Unfortunately the luxury of spear-fishing is mostly reserved for the weekends in the modern day. I'm Sorry for both of us there.
Unless ... If you were a tour guide on the Cape you could fish to your heart's content. Say why dont we set up a little tour company and do just that. I'll rustle up the cash and some pale-faced customers who'd kill for the chance. You teach 'em the ancient ways and they'll love ya for it. And heck, maybe we can make some dosh and put the kids through college. Some people would say that debased your culture. I'd say you can have your cake and eat it too, what'dya say?
Y'know, i had a feeling you blokes were all right.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Red Alert: Is Rudd Corrupt?
Labor has new foreign investment guidelines anounced on Monday by Swan. The new guidelines show in an open and transparent fashion to aussie and oversees investors why a takover bid for an australian company would be accepted or rejected by the treasurer. They seem all fine and dandy to the non-commie focussed eyeball, but why do we need to clarify this now? Why is this on top of the agenda above Labor's beloved IR rollback? Why is it being slipped into the news under a pile putrid praise for Rudd after the apology? Why was the OZ co-opted to coat it with so much blatantly obvious sugary spin?
Because it stinks of curruption that's why! I have warned on this blog how Rudd will sell us out to China, but I did not think it would be done so soon or so literally.
The central fulcrum on which these guidlines pivot, and that whereby the Chinese GOVERNMENT's business in Australia will be leveraged to new heights, is the requirement that any foriegn-government-owned business must show the Treasurer that they operate with a clear commercial function at arms length from the government of their country.
Basically this means that all Chinese-govt owned investment funds have to do is write in an email to Swan in 50 words or less some bollocks about how they are true capitalists not at all enslaved by the communist dictatorship they work for, are owned by, and cannot speak out against for fear of not only their careers but their lives aswell.
In other words if foreign powers want to buy australian businesses they just have to prove they are as full of shit as the ALP.
Why precisely was it in the national interest to clarify the guidelines now, and insist on a transparent approvals procedure? Apparently Rudd did not want it to become a diplomatic incident between China and Aus if he turned down a Chinese govt owned company's attempted buyout of Aus mining concerns.
WTF? Rudd has been causing diplomatic incidents with Japan with the whaling for the entire time he's been in office! He either does not care about causing this incidents or he is openly playing favourites between pacific powers, either way it's not very diplomatic.
So what is the real motivation here? The motivation is exactly the opposite of what is stated. It is to allow a sell-out of Australian interests to the Chinese government, and avoid a diplomatic incident with the Australian people! Read it and weep. Rudd has put the Chinese national interest before our own. Here's how.
If you have clear and open guidelines and procedures you have to stick to them. You have to stick to them every time. That is the whole point. Openness takes away the descretion of the decision maker. He/she must make decisions that are seen to follow the guidlines by the public, or look like a liar. Alot of times it is in the public interest to tie an officials hands in this way. It normally stops curruption. Not in Rudd's case I fear.
The problem is if that public goes beyond the people to whom the officials are responsible. In this case the public includes the people who read newspapers in China, ie the chinese communist party. The Australian treasurer now cannot hide things from the Chinese government EVER! Rudd wants you to think this is in Australia's interests. It is not.
Costello was able to veto a foreign deal at the drop of a hat if he thought for any reason at all, not just the ones mentioned in advance, that the deal was not in the interests of the Aus public. Swan cannot. He is a powerless puppet of Chairman Rudd, Beijing's ambassador to Australia.
Rudd is not governing in this nation's interest. He is Governing in China's interest. He has done so strategically with by-lateral talks and by eroding our alliance with Japan and any potential of one with India. Now he is doing so financially. Can anyone remember him suggesting to the WA miners that they diversify into managing south american real-estate for the Chinese? I laughed then. I'm shitting myself now. I dont want to be lorded-over by commies, be they Chinese or the home grown ones in the ALP.
Why the fuck is Rudd doing this? His symbiosis with Beijing cant be just based on sympathy for other socialists, can it? Any business dealings or plans he may have from his years as a diplomat talking with China's buraucrat/businessmen must be scrutinised. He can easily clear this up with more transparency on his part.
Rudd is in the media this week because of the Burke dealings again. I think this is a Labor leak because the aoplogy overshadows any bad news about Rudd. I fear Rudd is willing to do dodgy deals within the ALP and without to get power and ultimately money.
A question must be asked in parliament. Rudd must answer to his true masters, the ACTU, i mean the Aussie public. Where are you Turnbull? You're the bloody shadow treasurer! Say something for Christ's sake! Compete with Nelson you bryll-cremed Bondi boy! Kick Rudd in the nuts! What are you waiting for?
Lib pollies are afraid that attacks on the invincible Rudd will backfire. Well Howard was invincible for 11 years and the ALP and the ABC mercilessly attacked him the whole time. If they can have the courage of their false convictions then those who are actually smart enough to understand the truth should surely be able to fight the good fight.
We are the good guys: the patriots, the tough decision-makers, the impartial adjudicators, the aiders of every Aussie that wants to make it on the world stage. The ALP are small-hearted and grubby back-room dealers, holiday-makers at the expense of the Aussie economy. The whole mirage that the ALP and the unions are seperate is a huge corrupt conjob pulled on the Australian public. A small sectional interest is bleeding the rest.
We in the Liberal party need to start digging
But we must wash our hands after touching this scum
I fear we will learn that the left-wing demagogues
Of the ALP are as corrupt as they come
Do you like my little poem? Fight 19th century ideas with 19th century pentametre I say.
Because it stinks of curruption that's why! I have warned on this blog how Rudd will sell us out to China, but I did not think it would be done so soon or so literally.
The central fulcrum on which these guidlines pivot, and that whereby the Chinese GOVERNMENT's business in Australia will be leveraged to new heights, is the requirement that any foriegn-government-owned business must show the Treasurer that they operate with a clear commercial function at arms length from the government of their country.
Basically this means that all Chinese-govt owned investment funds have to do is write in an email to Swan in 50 words or less some bollocks about how they are true capitalists not at all enslaved by the communist dictatorship they work for, are owned by, and cannot speak out against for fear of not only their careers but their lives aswell.
In other words if foreign powers want to buy australian businesses they just have to prove they are as full of shit as the ALP.
Why precisely was it in the national interest to clarify the guidelines now, and insist on a transparent approvals procedure? Apparently Rudd did not want it to become a diplomatic incident between China and Aus if he turned down a Chinese govt owned company's attempted buyout of Aus mining concerns.
WTF? Rudd has been causing diplomatic incidents with Japan with the whaling for the entire time he's been in office! He either does not care about causing this incidents or he is openly playing favourites between pacific powers, either way it's not very diplomatic.
So what is the real motivation here? The motivation is exactly the opposite of what is stated. It is to allow a sell-out of Australian interests to the Chinese government, and avoid a diplomatic incident with the Australian people! Read it and weep. Rudd has put the Chinese national interest before our own. Here's how.
If you have clear and open guidelines and procedures you have to stick to them. You have to stick to them every time. That is the whole point. Openness takes away the descretion of the decision maker. He/she must make decisions that are seen to follow the guidlines by the public, or look like a liar. Alot of times it is in the public interest to tie an officials hands in this way. It normally stops curruption. Not in Rudd's case I fear.
The problem is if that public goes beyond the people to whom the officials are responsible. In this case the public includes the people who read newspapers in China, ie the chinese communist party. The Australian treasurer now cannot hide things from the Chinese government EVER! Rudd wants you to think this is in Australia's interests. It is not.
Costello was able to veto a foreign deal at the drop of a hat if he thought for any reason at all, not just the ones mentioned in advance, that the deal was not in the interests of the Aus public. Swan cannot. He is a powerless puppet of Chairman Rudd, Beijing's ambassador to Australia.
Rudd is not governing in this nation's interest. He is Governing in China's interest. He has done so strategically with by-lateral talks and by eroding our alliance with Japan and any potential of one with India. Now he is doing so financially. Can anyone remember him suggesting to the WA miners that they diversify into managing south american real-estate for the Chinese? I laughed then. I'm shitting myself now. I dont want to be lorded-over by commies, be they Chinese or the home grown ones in the ALP.
Why the fuck is Rudd doing this? His symbiosis with Beijing cant be just based on sympathy for other socialists, can it? Any business dealings or plans he may have from his years as a diplomat talking with China's buraucrat/businessmen must be scrutinised. He can easily clear this up with more transparency on his part.
Rudd is in the media this week because of the Burke dealings again. I think this is a Labor leak because the aoplogy overshadows any bad news about Rudd. I fear Rudd is willing to do dodgy deals within the ALP and without to get power and ultimately money.
A question must be asked in parliament. Rudd must answer to his true masters, the ACTU, i mean the Aussie public. Where are you Turnbull? You're the bloody shadow treasurer! Say something for Christ's sake! Compete with Nelson you bryll-cremed Bondi boy! Kick Rudd in the nuts! What are you waiting for?
Lib pollies are afraid that attacks on the invincible Rudd will backfire. Well Howard was invincible for 11 years and the ALP and the ABC mercilessly attacked him the whole time. If they can have the courage of their false convictions then those who are actually smart enough to understand the truth should surely be able to fight the good fight.
We are the good guys: the patriots, the tough decision-makers, the impartial adjudicators, the aiders of every Aussie that wants to make it on the world stage. The ALP are small-hearted and grubby back-room dealers, holiday-makers at the expense of the Aussie economy. The whole mirage that the ALP and the unions are seperate is a huge corrupt conjob pulled on the Australian public. A small sectional interest is bleeding the rest.
We in the Liberal party need to start digging
But we must wash our hands after touching this scum
I fear we will learn that the left-wing demagogues
Of the ALP are as corrupt as they come
Do you like my little poem? Fight 19th century ideas with 19th century pentametre I say.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Noel Pearson right again
Another amazing bit of writing, very personal, poltical and poinant by Cape York Indigenous Leader Noel Pearson in yesterday's OZ. It wrung tears of sympathy from my eyes, and at the same time echoed my very ambivalent feelings about an official apology to the 'stolen generations'.
His main point for me was that every time Indegenous Aus wins a 'moral' victory over White Aus, their victimhood identity is entrenched. This way of thinking holds indegenous people back because the World does not, cannot and should not run on sympathy.
Brenden Nelson's response was, from what i've read, admirable, especially in such a high-pressure political scenario. I doubt Turnbull could have iterated the complex position of conservative Aus as well as that. The speech was about the facts as well as symbolism, and how reconciliation will take more than words from both sides. For all his efforts at meeting people half way he still had to endure the same 'shameing' that Howard went through. Then again Rudd turns his back in Parliament all the time. Guess the Libs are used to it.
A political lesson for the novice Rudd: when you give in to the demands of a political group they get politically stronger, not weaker. The lobby for compensation for the stolen generations are now better positioned than ever to achieve their aims. You have not bought them off with your words. They do not like you as much as you think they do. Before the year is out they will expose you as weak and a liar. In spite of what you say and yours effort, and hidden advice, they WILL get the compo they seek.
There was no 'mandate' for that.
His main point for me was that every time Indegenous Aus wins a 'moral' victory over White Aus, their victimhood identity is entrenched. This way of thinking holds indegenous people back because the World does not, cannot and should not run on sympathy.
Brenden Nelson's response was, from what i've read, admirable, especially in such a high-pressure political scenario. I doubt Turnbull could have iterated the complex position of conservative Aus as well as that. The speech was about the facts as well as symbolism, and how reconciliation will take more than words from both sides. For all his efforts at meeting people half way he still had to endure the same 'shameing' that Howard went through. Then again Rudd turns his back in Parliament all the time. Guess the Libs are used to it.
A political lesson for the novice Rudd: when you give in to the demands of a political group they get politically stronger, not weaker. The lobby for compensation for the stolen generations are now better positioned than ever to achieve their aims. You have not bought them off with your words. They do not like you as much as you think they do. Before the year is out they will expose you as weak and a liar. In spite of what you say and yours effort, and hidden advice, they WILL get the compo they seek.
There was no 'mandate' for that.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Al-Qaeda in Iraq in dismay?
You wont read this in any of the Aussie press, so here's the Times of London.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Good Fight is back on
Whilst the events of Super Tuesday and have broken the hearts of many conservative Republicans in the states, today was a good day for Aussie conservatives.
Two of our 'best and brightest' came out fighting and knew exactly where to hit the ALP, right in the private parts - their private dealings with the union movement that is.
The ALP is selling out the Australian public and ruining the Aussie economy by stealth. It is handing special treatment to their paymasters in the union movement at the expense of everyone else (85% of the workforce).
The two people who came out fighting were Turnbull, writing in the OZ , and Bishop.
Turnbull's piece did not pull any punches. It accused Labor of not only lying through their back teeth in trying to spin the current inflationary pressures as Howard's fault, but in doing so for the benefit of the unions. We all know it's thanks to Howard's IR deregulation that inflation is as low as it is, and we all know what Rudd and Swan plan to do with IR. Quoting...
There is no question that an increase in labour market regulation and union influence will, in a tight labour market, add to inflationary pressures. Is Rudd's and Swan's misrepresentation of our economic history a ham-fisted attempt to convince the Australian people that higher interest rates caused by a Labor-induced wages breakout are in fact due to the previous government?
This wage breakout it yet to come so the ALP is talking up inflation now, whilst it is still low, so that when inflation does go through the roof we either wont notice, or we'll think it all started with Howard. They are trying the same inflation bogey man trick in order to prepare us for tax increases they said would not happen, as i've mentioned before.
This is the first time i've heard any Liberal polly since the election really stick it to the labor party and accuse them openly of misleading the public for the benefit of the unions. My only problem is that the attack is mainly aimed at Swan, not Rudd. I guess he had to tone it down to get it published in the lick-spittle Rudd rag that the OZ has become.
In tandem with this piece Julie Bishop has announced that although WorkChoices may be dead according to Nelson, its reforming spirit lives on. I can't find the article but I read it this morning. Julie has used the ALP's own mandate rhetoric against them. It seems AWA's and other forms of non-union individual employment agreements were in place prior to the 2004 election and are therefore mandated by the electorate. Bishop says the Liberals will support the repeal of legislation that will bring us back to a pre-workchoices position, but will not condone the huge step back to the time of the union dinosaurs that the ALP has planned. For Labor to claim that was mandated is just more opportunistic spin.
As Howard said unions have a legit place in Aussie IR, but union control of the whole economy is not to the benefit of the whole country. Exposing the ALP as the union movement's PR devision must be part of the way forward LIbs. The ALP needs to level with the Australian public and they should start by admitting this.
Votes obtained by smoke, mirrors and spin do not constitute a mandate. The ALP should do right by the people that voted for them, not by their back-scratching mates.
We in the Liberal party need to position ourselves more firmly as anti-corruption crusaders like Big Ted Baileau is doing in Vic. That means we need to take on dodgy deals by business people and union bosses alike.
Firm but fair.
We're the good guys and dont you forget it.
Two of our 'best and brightest' came out fighting and knew exactly where to hit the ALP, right in the private parts - their private dealings with the union movement that is.
The ALP is selling out the Australian public and ruining the Aussie economy by stealth. It is handing special treatment to their paymasters in the union movement at the expense of everyone else (85% of the workforce).
The two people who came out fighting were Turnbull, writing in the OZ , and Bishop.
Turnbull's piece did not pull any punches. It accused Labor of not only lying through their back teeth in trying to spin the current inflationary pressures as Howard's fault, but in doing so for the benefit of the unions. We all know it's thanks to Howard's IR deregulation that inflation is as low as it is, and we all know what Rudd and Swan plan to do with IR. Quoting...
There is no question that an increase in labour market regulation and union influence will, in a tight labour market, add to inflationary pressures. Is Rudd's and Swan's misrepresentation of our economic history a ham-fisted attempt to convince the Australian people that higher interest rates caused by a Labor-induced wages breakout are in fact due to the previous government?
This wage breakout it yet to come so the ALP is talking up inflation now, whilst it is still low, so that when inflation does go through the roof we either wont notice, or we'll think it all started with Howard. They are trying the same inflation bogey man trick in order to prepare us for tax increases they said would not happen, as i've mentioned before.
This is the first time i've heard any Liberal polly since the election really stick it to the labor party and accuse them openly of misleading the public for the benefit of the unions. My only problem is that the attack is mainly aimed at Swan, not Rudd. I guess he had to tone it down to get it published in the lick-spittle Rudd rag that the OZ has become.
In tandem with this piece Julie Bishop has announced that although WorkChoices may be dead according to Nelson, its reforming spirit lives on. I can't find the article but I read it this morning. Julie has used the ALP's own mandate rhetoric against them. It seems AWA's and other forms of non-union individual employment agreements were in place prior to the 2004 election and are therefore mandated by the electorate. Bishop says the Liberals will support the repeal of legislation that will bring us back to a pre-workchoices position, but will not condone the huge step back to the time of the union dinosaurs that the ALP has planned. For Labor to claim that was mandated is just more opportunistic spin.
As Howard said unions have a legit place in Aussie IR, but union control of the whole economy is not to the benefit of the whole country. Exposing the ALP as the union movement's PR devision must be part of the way forward LIbs. The ALP needs to level with the Australian public and they should start by admitting this.
Votes obtained by smoke, mirrors and spin do not constitute a mandate. The ALP should do right by the people that voted for them, not by their back-scratching mates.
We in the Liberal party need to position ourselves more firmly as anti-corruption crusaders like Big Ted Baileau is doing in Vic. That means we need to take on dodgy deals by business people and union bosses alike.
Firm but fair.
We're the good guys and dont you forget it.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Top of the Chairman Rudd's agenda: pro-China military ties
and we all know what pro-China means: anti-Japan, anti-US, anti-India and anti-Democracy.
If a person's priorities can be inferred from the order in which they deal with events, then China tops the lot for Ruddy.
The first business of the parliament will be apologism, but before that comes strengthening strategic ties with China. Who needs parliament for that eh?
I warned you didn't I. This is what Rudd is about. He's made strong contacts in China as a diplomat. He admires their government-controlled economy. He's even talked about implementing Beijing style internet censorship here. He is going to bolster ties with currupt dictators just like out last Labor PM did with Suharto in Indo. Keating sold his piggery to the Indonesians for a huge sum. One wonders what Rudd has personally to gain from pushing the Chinese agenda.
When Rudd appeared on Rove he was asked 'Who would you turn gay for?', but Rove is not the sharpest tool in the shed and his Grammar was lacking. He meant to ask 'Would you turn gay for Hu?' as in Hu Jintao the Chinese president. I think we all know what the answer to that one is.
If a person's priorities can be inferred from the order in which they deal with events, then China tops the lot for Ruddy.
The first business of the parliament will be apologism, but before that comes strengthening strategic ties with China. Who needs parliament for that eh?
I warned you didn't I. This is what Rudd is about. He's made strong contacts in China as a diplomat. He admires their government-controlled economy. He's even talked about implementing Beijing style internet censorship here. He is going to bolster ties with currupt dictators just like out last Labor PM did with Suharto in Indo. Keating sold his piggery to the Indonesians for a huge sum. One wonders what Rudd has personally to gain from pushing the Chinese agenda.
When Rudd appeared on Rove he was asked 'Who would you turn gay for?', but Rove is not the sharpest tool in the shed and his Grammar was lacking. He meant to ask 'Would you turn gay for Hu?' as in Hu Jintao the Chinese president. I think we all know what the answer to that one is.
Rudd's meeting of the meddlers
When you call a meeting of the 'best and brightest' you can expect those that dont get invited to feel like the dumbest and worst.
It's not very Australian, and until now not very ALP to say that some people are better than others. An Aussie might say that people are better at something, but never simply better in terms of human worth. That's something I would do. Difference is that I know it's insulting and Kev doesn't. Kev clearly sees himself as the best and brightest of them all. He is pissing on the people who voted for him from a great height, and he hasn't even noticed.
This meeting is just another commitee. What few new ideas it will produce will be suffocated by the atmosphere of timid herd concensus. Having said that I would not mind going, just to bark some conservative truisms at all the other sheep. Do you think Rudd would regard a heavy metal vocalist and unpublished writer with a lack-lustre background in IT as one of the 'best and brightest'?
Rudd is wasting time, treading water, riding the status quo for as long as it will carry him. Thank god, eh? The less Rudd does the better.
It's not very Australian, and until now not very ALP to say that some people are better than others. An Aussie might say that people are better at something, but never simply better in terms of human worth. That's something I would do. Difference is that I know it's insulting and Kev doesn't. Kev clearly sees himself as the best and brightest of them all. He is pissing on the people who voted for him from a great height, and he hasn't even noticed.
This meeting is just another commitee. What few new ideas it will produce will be suffocated by the atmosphere of timid herd concensus. Having said that I would not mind going, just to bark some conservative truisms at all the other sheep. Do you think Rudd would regard a heavy metal vocalist and unpublished writer with a lack-lustre background in IT as one of the 'best and brightest'?
Rudd is wasting time, treading water, riding the status quo for as long as it will carry him. Thank god, eh? The less Rudd does the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)