PM brings us international disgrace at UN

Rudd makes us all look like pig-ignorant stuck-up wankers with his ill-informed, sickeningly morally superior and basically communist speech to the UN against banking.

Rudd is lecturing the world on economics because of the global financial crisis. I wonder if they are offended, or they just dont give a shit.

Rudd's plan for banks:

putting rules in place to ensure they are adequately capitalised and developing “internal incentives within institutions to promote responsible behaviour rather than unrestrained greed”.

And just how do you propose that? I bet he can't think of one workable example of one rule that might be put in place to make this happen. He cant think in specifics . It's all "the vibe". Basically he wants bureacrats to look over the shoulders of capitalists and go "nah. i reckon that looks a bit greedy, mate. better tone it down.... or else."

One of the main aspects of Nazism and Communism is the breakdown of the rule of law. Its not enough to make sure you follow the rules. The courts cant protect you if you do. You have to please the right people. It's like living under a mafia gang.

Confusion over regulation, which is to say over-regulation with ambiguous or conflicting regulations, is the path to this unfreedom. Honestly, the Maoism in Rudd's thinking really spooks me.

This is Socialist demagoguery at it's worst - fit only for the likes of John McCain. A truly honest "economic conservative" would never dream of acting superior to capitalists.

Also an "economic conservative" would look up the economic facts before he shot of his mouth. This crisis was not caused by "greed" at all (for "greed" in Ruddese read "self-interest" in English).

Might I remind Rudd that the CREDIT CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY LEFTIES SCREWING WITH A CAPITALIST INSTITUTION SO THAT THEY COULD ACHIEVE THEIR SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH BY UNDERHAND MEANS. IF LEFTIES COULD JUST LEAVE THE MARKET AS IT IS THERE WOULD BE NO CRISIS.

See my blog. And this FOXnews clip by way of explanation.

Oblivious to the disastrous consequences, Rudd fully intends to mess up the free market here and repeat Tony Blair's failed New Labor experiment here. Health and education are the areas as i've said. Why else would the OZ be reporting studies that say our health spending is (can't find link).

They're all in it together.

Commies! Everywhere!

Honey, get my gun. I just hope we can take a few down with us.

Yeeee-haw!

(note: that's exaggeration, but not irony. Note also i am not blogging much of late because i've broken the drought on my book. I'll try to get something up every couple of days. Pls stay tuned, dear readers)

UPDATE: in the last 5 minutes the headline at the OZ has gone from "Rudd lectures world on finiancial crisis" (or similar, the word "lectures" was definitely used - implying the Rudd is a tosser) to "Rudd urges big economies to lead reforms".

Does that sound more humble, master? Thank you, master.

(Note again: Only the bit about the gun was exaggeration. As you can see they really ARE all in it together)

Current US Housing/Credit Crisis created by evil ruthless capitalistic currupt ... Democrats?!! WTF??

OMFG!

My mind is truly blown. I dont want to seem like i've had a Truther insight into the huge conspiracy behind the current crisis. But that's just what happened. I haven't researched this independently myself but it's on a few US blogs. Read it. Please read it.

Basically Republicans Bush and McCain have been trying to regulate the huge mortguage brokers in the states Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, and the Democrats in congress blocked the legislation that requires. More that this current economic Advisors to Obama were behind the creation of the ticking time bomb that has now exploded, at huge expense to the taxpayer.

The Left in the US, denied a semi-socialist taxation system, has maintained a policy of income redistribution by stealth, legally known as theft.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored banks the make home loans, often to "poor" people with poor credit, basically people who cant pay it back. The famous sub-prime mortguage is a variation on this theme. The problem of bad debts, huge in complexity and scale (trillions of dollars worth today) has been growing for some time. In 2003 Bush tried to stop it and in 2005 McCain did. The Democrats blocked the formation of a new regulatory body in congress.

The Democrats deliberately held these institutions in limbo as they kept lending money to people who could never pay it back, without as much as a house deposit in many cases. This inflated house prices, but they just kept lending more so people could buy houses they couldn't afford. The bankers pocketed huge wads in exec bonuses as the interest payments came in. And the tax-payer (that is YOU!) was left to pick up the bill when the whole thing went tits up.

Guess who are big donors to the Democratic Party? That's right. Execs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (see source)

Now these Democrats have the nerve to say it was all fault of the Republicans as part of their election campaign. I can imagine them now, "Hey. They are the ones who talk about how good capitalism is. Makes them look greedy. We'll just pin it on them. Suckers. If those Conservatives could just get over their honestly and pretend to be charitable they would be able to steal money like us."

Dont fall for it. And dont let it happen here. And dont think the Left wont try. They are already working on it. the whole New Labor ethos is to take the tools of the free-market, eg Banks, and try and make them do something against the market to make things more "fair". I've spoken about the UNFREE MARKET at length before. The areas it will be tried here are schools and health amongst others.

Whether bankers or bureaucrats it is typical of the Left to take money from the working people, give a bit to the non-working people (a bribe so they will vote for their party again), and cream of a good chuck from the top and keep if for themselves.

On top of this, when the business-sector is involved all the usual assumptions about business get fucked up. US credit crisis has corrupted the notion of credit by taking away the repayment part of the contract. Who could be surprised now that banks are loathe to lend, except at high interest rates?

So was the US experiment with home-loan redistribution fairer than the free market?

In the end the poor ended up getting it in the neck worse that anyone, as their houses were repossessed.

Dont forget, the tax payers who just paid off the bad debt.

Dont forget the builders for whom its not worth building since the collapse of prices. Fewer houses for all.

The lesson is clear. When you fuck with the free-market nobody gains, except the corrupt officials who mastermind it all.

We're onto you, Ruddyboy.

Pwned! Nelson v Nelson. Turnbull off to a flying start

Well they finally got to Nelson. He surrendered the leadership in spectacular fashion. Why insult your collegues with distrust by inviting them to a secret unscheduled meeting, then accuse them of disloyalty, then quit and re-apply for the post in spite of the highly-publicised defection of your support to the opposition, then refuse to to the usual ring-arounds before the poll?

It seems a wholehearted rejection of the process of politics. He invited defeat. A moral plea to your enemies is not going to cut it - eg terror. He didn't seem to understand he had the power for as long as he held onto it. The others can carp all they like, but until they do something he's in charge. He seems to lack Howard's thick skin. It appears he had just had enough and wanted to make one final protest before bowing out.

But still, the disloyalty would have got to me after a while too. Hard to know how you would act in that situation of being constantly undermined by collegues with the help of the media. I gotta say though that the manner of Nelson's exit has made me question his judgment. I was supporting him mainly because Turnbull bashed Howard's legacy after the election. I felt that was counter-productive, as Costello's constant complaints about Howard not stepping down. There were flashes, eg 5 cent petrol excise cut, where Nelson showed Howard's knack for reading the ordinary voter. But without a result in the opinion polls he was going to have to take alot more shit. He chose not to, and to unwisely start dishing it out himself.

I do think that is it's some nerve for Turnbull supporters to say we should get behind the leader now, when they never did. Get behind their leader is the real message. Still, that's what I intend to do because Malcolm has come out swinging straight away.

You do have to admit that Turnbull has got off to a flying start. He (and his mate in the media) must have been ready for this for some time. He had his rejection of Rudd's offer of a Republic ready. He had his message about his humble upbringing, and his the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black defense against Rudd's class-war attacks against his wealth.

The main piece of comfort I draw from Turnbull's takeover is that Henry Ergas is Turbull's main economic adviser. I respect him alot. I quoted him extensively in a piece below about bureaucrats running schools. Ergas is behind Turnbull's review of the tax system. If Turnbull's slightly Left image is only skin deep, then great. If he's got people like Ergas advising him he is true-blue free-marketeer and economic liberal.

Turnbull used the word "freedom" in his acceptance speech too. That's a good thing. It's a good slogan, if a bit American. The problem is that in the hands of the lefty media this message becomes freedom to take drugs, freedom to plot against your country, and freedom to generally be totally irresponsible - socially liberal as well as economically liberal. I hope Turnbull is not too far from the madding crowd to realise the damage that will be done if he pulls apart the Liberal's socially conservative message.

I like lines like this:

"We know our job is to empower and enable the enterprise, the dreams, the ambitions of Australians - of all Australians," he said.

Australia has a bright future if we all strive for our dreams. But does does this message mean that we are allowed to be proud of our country in a cultural sense as well as ambitious in an economic sense. Are we Australians, or just individuals? I say we are both. We have individual freedoms and responsibilities to the country. We live in a challenging (not to say dangerous) international cultural environment as well as economic one. The current terror trials in Melbourne highlight the ever-present dangers of cultural division. If Turnbull's message is purely economic and not cultural, he will encourage Aussies to think of Australia as a means to get ahead, rather than a country we should love and defend.

Turnbull has pride, no doubt. I hope that means he will stand up for Australia. I wonder will he help create a climate where all of us are allowed to be proud, not just the priviledged and the PC.

The inside story of the WA Lib Victory

A WA political insider emails:

What a week in WA it was.

It started with Labor losing the election on the Saturday 5 Sept. That night Labor leader Alan Carpenter looked forlorn as he came close to admitting defeat. Liberal leader Colin Barnett was smiling as he all but claimed victory. Half way through the ABC election coverage anchorman Kerry Obrien broke the news that the National Party might support Labor. On the panel Julie Bishop Federal Liberal Deputy Opposition Leader was incredulous. They wouldn’t do that. So the count continued with the Libs and the Nats being counted together as usual.

Next morning Alan Carpenter was all smiles again. He had had a meeting with his new best mate Brendon Grylls the Nats leader and a deal was on. Carpenter was “excited” by the prospect of working with the Nationals as he should have been because Labor had just spent four years in government shafting the Nationals reducing their seat numbers. Grylls was all smiles, he was having his 15 minutes of fame, he was the kingmaker.

Barnett was not particularly phased by all of this and in the end gave the Nationals a few pages of mainly rhetoric agreeing to their “Rotalties for Regions” policy but little more. Labor however produced a glossy publication and upped the ante by offering even more money. Now that was exciting. Treasury weighed in and said it was all a bit irresponsible. The week moved slowly on.

Brendon Grylls gave advise to Labor, keep my new best mate Carpenter or else. Labor Caucus gave Carpenter a standing ovation. Here was the man who was going to turn defeat into victory. Forget the massive swing after the unnecessary early election. Forget that the Libs, who had been a rabble 4 weeks before, were going to take the white cars and the drivers. No. Alan was going to deliver the impossible. Those Nats were an OK bunch after all. The painfully slow count confirmed the Libs and Nats had won and so the next Sunday everyone was waiting for the big announcement from the Nats. Would they go with Labor?

Now to some numbers. The Nats have a lot of new members in the Upper House from their fence sitting policies (see www.brendongrylls.com before it goes off the air) and so young Brendon had the numbers. But the lower house seats are all ultra conservative, in Wilson Tuckey country no less, and the MPs were getting lots of irate phone calls and imagining how they would go dodging the eggs and rotten tomatoes as they walked down the main street of some dusty wheatbelt town after voting with their arch enemies the ALP.

By now the Feds were getting worried. Imagine the fallout: The Libs are so rotten not even the Nats will join them. That was not going to help anyone. The Nats in WA have a chardonnay sipper as their President and she was all for going with Labor, but not the rest of the cockies. They would have none of it and so Brendon was rolled and the Nationals were back in the conservative camp.

Colin Barnett was all smiles and Alan Carpenter quit with a tear in his eye. The Nats had gone with the Libs even though the deal was inferior. Carpenter had given Labor two bad weekends instead of one, the Libs got to celebrate twice, Labor’s pains were twice as bad and the Libs smiles twice as big.

It’s hard to figure out who took who for a ride: Grylls was genuine, well you know, genuine in his disingenuousness, he would have gone with Labor; Labor was genuine, they would have done it; the Libs were genuine, they weren’t going to buy their way out; the farmers were genuine, they wanted nothing to do with it. I personally think the dunce was Carpenter. He should have known better. He didn’t know a sales pitch when he saw it and he should have clarified if Grylls had the authority which he plainly didn’t. Grylls was a genuine fake.

Humorous headline of the day

The SMH can't really compete with The Sun, but a good pun never goes astray

Pissweak, Gutless, Two-faced: The Real Rudd exposed

Kelly, editor of the OZ, as written a piece that shows just how pissweak and gutless Rudd is when dealing with the entrenched power of the unions in the Labor Party. Read the whole thing, but here's my take.

It's about how, when former NSW premier Iemma asked Rudd for help in getting the ALP behind the electricity sell-off in NSW, Rudd snubbed him. Rudd refused to return calls for 3 days and when Iemma did finally get through to the evasive PM he would not touch the NSW conflict with a 10 foot pole.

At the time he was Labor PM in a country where all the power was in the hands of the Labor party (except Brisbane city council, GO QLD!) enjoying almost record-breaking approval weightings. If ever there was a person who could weigh into this debate and turn the tables, it was Rudd at that time.

STILL!!! He chickened out.

Bearing in mind Rudd's formal public position is in-principle support for electicity privatisation, Rudd's failure to stand up to the NSW party power brokers is is not only gutless, but two-faced. He was quite happy to say he supported it, but when it came to making it happen, when he actually had to take action and stand up and fight entrenched interests - Fail.

Iemma (as much as i dislike him generally) was at least putting up a fight. In the end all he wanted from Rudd was a statement to help protect his supporters from the infamous payback policy of the unions. He wanted Rudd so make a statement that NSW Labor MP's preselection should not be threatened if they supported privatisation. In reply to this very reasonable request for support for political fairness, Rudd said:

"I don't want to establish a precedent."

I think that sums Rudd up brilliantly. Translated from Ruddese to English it reads:

"I dont want to be the first to do anything. I dont want to lead. I want to follow the focus groups, keep this here PM's chair warm, boost my reputation in China and then retire to the high-life with my commie mates. If I do do anything it will only be stuff that Tony Blair has done (badly) first."

In a sense, I suppose Rudd's gutlessness and laziness is Australia's greatest hope at the moment. Everything Rudd doesn't do is another thing he cant screw up.

Victory in WA!!

I'll be writing more on this later, but for now i'd just like to say

EAT SHIT AND DIE YOU LABOR BASTARDS!!!

WA is the state where the money is made and the state that is showing the way.

This is a victory for Australia.

Breaking Rudd's false consensus at COAG is very important to protect Australia from a march to bureaucratic mismanagement of public services and the economy. There is no need for us to attempt the UK's failed New Labor model in this country. Barnett will do his best to block it.

This is also a victory for sensible politics and people power in this country.

Barnett's opening up WA to uranium mining is proof that you can come develop a respected, caring and honest profile as a political leader without following the PC trends laid down by the media. Other State Liberal leaders would do well to learn from his example.

WA is now leading the ENTIRE WORLD politically as well as economically. We are showing them all how it's done. Take head US and UK. The Aussie lesson on good governance, started by Howard, continues.

Clumsy Anti-American Irony backfires

An Australian has made a computer game called Muslim Massacre that is quite rightly causing international outrage. Muslims are spewing, as would I be, but the Idiot who made it is actually trying to dis America.

"The United States of America has declared war on Islam!" the Muslim Massacre website says.

"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons."

This game has to be the most arse-about-face attempt at irony ever to fail to get it's point across. He has tried to attack America but is so intellectually clumsy he ends up attacking and offending everyone: Muslims and fans of America alike.

This game reveals yet another anti-Americanist who uses the Muslim cause to bash America but cares nothing for Muslims. The author has shown a flagrant disregard for the way this game would be perceived by the people it's supposed to help ... i think. The butt-fucked-up irony has got me confused too.

Well done, fuckwit. (Doh! more irony)

Underneath it all there is an message here that applies to all Lefties who pray so desperately for the end of American power. Their attacks on America are really just attacks on everything and everyone. Their anti-Americanism is just a smoke-screen for their Anarchism. It is a deception they tell themselves so they can permit the bile and hate to flow. Anti-Americanism is the PC means, the hate, the destruction, the violence, the bringing down of everything mankind has achieved to date, is the end. Deep down they just want to vent anger and they dont really care who cops it.

Just like terrorists.

As Micheal Caine's butler character says to Batman, in The Dark Knight: "Some people just wanna watch the world burn"

Or was that "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!" Same thing.

Maybe I should write a game myself (I was once a programmer, you know) called Lefty Massacre where the main character is an Aussie that looks like Paul Hogan and goes around machine-gunning hippies with tie-tied trousers, Che Guevara T-shirts and rose-tinted glasses.

That sounds like a blast. And no irony required.

Shit, Grylls, or get off the Potty

The WA Nationals leader Brendon Grylls is taking his sweet time about deciding which party to join with to form government in WA. Each passing day is an insult to the people of WA and to the conservative cause nationally. Taking the WA Nationals into a coalition with the ALP will be a betrayal of conservative voters, one they will punish him for at the first opportunity.

This election result was above all else a vote against failed state Labor government.

In spite of Labor Premier Alan Carpenter trying every cynical trick in the book to hang on to power - a snap election ,using the Olympics to block the oppositions message etc - the people of WA decided last Saturday that they did not want Alan Carpenter as their Premier.

Despite the count proceeding at Zimbabwean pace (is Carpenter behind that I wonder?) every morning we read about the Liberals picking up new seats from the ALP. The ALP has lost their majority. In every election i have ever witnessed to date, this means that The government has been kicked out.

So now, very reasonably, the people of WA expect Labor out. Why are the people being denied?

In short, because it's business as usual in dodgy WA politics, and Brendon Grylls, for all his show of freshness and change, is playing it just like one of the boys.

WA is the state that gave us Brian Burke and Noel Chrighton-Browne (no I cant spell the has-been's name and i dont ever care to learn). These people have been kicked out of their various parties over a long and painful process of reform that does credit to both sides of politics. The clean-up of WA Inc has involved the hard work of anti-corruption commissioners and the vigilance and determination of all those involved in WA politics and public service. These gears have ground slowly but inevitably towards bringing WA's political reputation on a par with it's economic one - a shining example to the rest of Australia and indeed the world.

But it's not there yet, and the patience of the people of WA has run out.

Last weekend the people of WA voted for honesty. Liberal Leader Colin Barnett's whole platform was honesty and the voters responded well to it (in the brief time they got to hear it, thanks Carps). The people of WA are looking to the future. They want to get away from they frontier-style wheeling and dealing between vested interests they've had to put up with for years.

But what do they get? More of the same. This time from the Nationals.

Grylls has now admitted to speaking to Labor before the election about doing a deal to form government. Now he is calling for Carpenter to stay on as Premier. WTF???

The post of leader of the Labor party has got nothing to do with Grylls, because he is in the National party (duh). He should not be making demands like this, especially since they run so contrary to the obvious wishes of the WA people as expressed in a democratic election.

Why is this man so intent on sending the messages to WA people that their votes don't count? It begs the question, just how close is Grylls to Carpenter?

Grylls said before the election that he would not form a coalition with the Libs. But that's very different from having a plan to form a de-facto coalition with Labor. Had the people of WA known a vote for the National Party was a vote for the Labor Party they would have voted Liberal in larger numbers just to make sure they got rid of Carpenter.

I do not question the desirability of Gryll's "Royalties for Regions" proposal, nor his playing hardball to get what he wants for regions, just the way in which he is slyly using Conservative votes to shore up a Labor government.

The National party base is Conservative. They are hard-working law-abiding hippie-hatin' country-types. The thought of having in-effect voted for a latte-sipping Labor government would make them very angry indeed. Conservative voters want to vote for a conservative party. If Grylls has been more forthcoming with his intentions conservative voters would have voted for the other conservative party, the Liberals.

Grylls owes his voters. He owes them Conservative government.

Ok, sure. Grylls has been saying that that the Nationals will be a more centrist party under his leadership, but what does that even mean? Either you are centre-right or centre-left. When Kevin Rudd says stuff like this we all know he means the Labor federally will be more centre-left, rather than far-left as it was under Latham. He can say the words "economic conserative" all he wants. We all know he is centre-left.

When a National Party leader says he wants to be more centrist. We are entitled to assume he means centre-right. Because the Nationals ever since their conception have been Conservatives. For Grylls to be taking his Party into coalition with Labor is actually taking his party to the centre-LEFT as no centre-right person would dream of working with the professional whingers and rent-seekers of the Left.

Had Grylls been perfectly honest he would have said say he is taking his party to the left of centre, not the centre, because we are entitled to assume that means centre-right. Instead he was economical with this truth, and, it appears, about his closeness to Labor personalities like Carpenter.

So, WA Inc's shadow looms large. Carpenter has been voted out, yet he still clings to power. Today the Labor ministry announced their support for him. Nice one, Al. Maybe you should have put a bit more effort into getting the electorate's support, by say, not being a shit Premier.

But Carpenter is not the issue here. He's gone. It's time for Grylls to realize this (just let it go, man) and make his decision about who he will side with in the WA parliament. The longer he delays the more he tarnishes his name with the smear of old-school arrogant WA Inc-style backroom dealing. The longer he insults the people of WA by making them wait outside that backroom door for a decision from the big boys, the more they will punish him.

Latte-sippers lack of respect

Excellent article in the FT on London about the problem with the democratic party. (Of course i dont have to tell you that a "liberal" in America is means the opposite of "Liberal" here. It means someone who would never vote for the Liberal Party of Australia.)

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

The article gives many lesson there for the latte-sippers who claim to be so concerned for the working people of this country. So concerned that they support a government that is putting people out of work.

The Yanks have their rednecks and we have our bogans.

And i'm proud to call myself one of them.

It's all about the Bogan Vote. Howard knew it. Nelson is the king of the bogans with his stratocaster and motorbike.

The BV is something Turnbull will never tap into.

Union Control = Fewer Jobs

Sharp drop in number of jobs advertised since Rudd and the unions threatened to take power.

I guess it's simply not worth the hassle employing people if you cant get rid of them when they are shit and, shit or not, you have to pay them what the unions wants or risk strikes and thuggery.

Newspaper job ads are now 25.8 per cent lower than in August, 2007.

A drop should not have suprised anyone. But a drop of a quarter! Holy Socialism! I guess it just goes to re-enforce the message:

Union Control = Fewer Jobs

Just to repeat for the rusted-on labor-voting, management-hating tribal leftards out there.

Union.Control.Fewer.Jobs

Got it? I dont believe you. It will take at least two more years for the message to sink in. Probably longer.

So who did they cremate?

As he was watching morning TV after working the night shift, this guy spotted his father on a show about missing persons. The dad had gone missing years earlier, and had been thought dead after a body turned up, which was then cremated at a funeral service for the father. Weirdness.

Defense spending now at lucky 13th in the world

It's a start thanks to years of cash injections from Howard. But we are still behind Italy! That sucks. Those guys knocked us out of the last Soccer World Cup by faking a fall and getting a dodgy penalty. Plus did you see the amount of hair gel they used? We simply can't let them look tougher than us on defense. Oh, the indignity!

The dangers of bureaucrats running schools

This is the best article i've read for ages from Henry Ergas head of Concept Economics and pretty regular commentator with the OZ.

It recounts the British experience with bureaucratic central planning, performance targets and league-tables in education and health provision. This is really relevant to what Rudd and Gillard are proposing right now is OZ. Rudd is refusing to learn from the Brit's bad example. We are about to go through the same New Labor experiment here and we we are about to learn the same lesson: It doesn't work.

The British experience with performance indicators shows how serious these problems can be. Under the Blair government, schools were set targets defined by performance on tests. Predictably, that is what they focused on, especially as the intention was to penalise low-performing schools. As even the chief inspector of schools recognised, teaching became concentrated on those skills most important in the tests, with less attention being paid to all the other aspects of student development. But even that was only part of the problem, as the emphasis on testing created incentives for schools to select pupils, including by trying to get rid of those who were likely to be the worst performers. The result was to distort the allocation of students across schools and the education students received.

While causing those distortions, the system did little to improve performance, even on the tests. The best evidence available suggests that outcomes improved more rapidly in the final years of the Conservative government, when no targets were set, than they did in the Blair years. The failure to improve performance was compounded by deficiencies in performance evaluation, with numbers fudged and assessments massaged so as to avoid political embarrassment.

But seriously read the whole thing at the link above. It explains brilliantly why "even the best crafted performance indicators will be very partial."

The problem is that you can't synthesize a free-market. Rudd and Gillard say they want competition between schools, but they dont want to actually expose them to market forces by giving parents the choice of their child's school. Empowered consumers make a real market.

In contrast (to performance measures), consumers of the service, in most instances, can weigh up the different elements that comprise performance and can evaluate, on the basis of their experience, the quality of the schools their children attend...

New Labor think they understand economics and laud the value of a free-market, but they never quite have the courage to go there. They want to limit the free market and make it more fair somehow. So they create a hybrid mutant beast: the UNFREE MARKET.

They take away the consumers freedom and instead they make up rules and regulations that they think model a free market and THEN THEY GIVE BUREAUCRATS THE UNFETTERED POWER OF A FREE MARKET.

All of a sudden a school could close at the scratch of a bureaucrat's pencil. This is the only significant difference between the old system and the new, apart from the extra-paper work burdening teachers. These bureaucrats will be only to happy to use their power so they can prove they are helping, not sitting on their arses. They will close schools based on dodgy performance indicators. Where will the kids go?

Labor fundamentally misunderstand the free-market because they cannot cope with the idea of winners and losers. This is one of the underlying principles of a free market. If you're not free to fail you can't be free to succeed. New Labor thinks they've got it, and try to use the free-market to boost up the losers. This is the opposite of what a free market does. It is no surprise to me that the whole thing goes pair shaped in the end.

The cognitive dissonance brought on by this doublethink (winners are best, and losers are also best) causes New Labor to declare statistical war on the underprivileged. They try to write them out of existence, but they never go away, and most of the time they are worse off.

A free-market is the only way to get the "rising tide that lifts all boats." We have to realise that unfortunately not all boats will rise the same amount. The market is not perfectly fair, but it's the closest we can ever get. Labor's attempts to create an artificial market that is more fair just stuffs things up.

For instance, In a free market, money will move away from an under-performing school as parents choose to take their kids somewhere else. If they spot it early, the school can react to this small but significant market signal by lifting it's game. But Labor can't take money away like this. That would just make the underprivileged more underprivileged in their minds. Labor wants to give them more money so they get better. But Labor still wants to apply market principles and punish them somehow for underachieving. Small signals, like fines, are not possible. They are therefore forced into severe measures that cannot be measured in dollars, like sacking the teachers, principles or closing or merging the school with another.

This is utterly perverse. Sacking teachers in underperforming schools is punishing the very people who are helping the most. Teachers are by and large an altruistic breed to who do it mainly for the love, cause it sure ain't for the money. Teachers choose to work in these underprivaged schools knowing that the results are not going to be good, because they want them to be a little better. This dedication cannot be measured on a bureaucrat's chart.

Some schools will be better than others. It will always be thus. You cannot punish them by sacking the principles and or drive the into non-existence by closing them and merging them with other schools. You can leave the teachers to do their jobs properly, rather than burden them with paperwork.

I sounds like i'm in the pay of the teachers unions here, whereas i actually consider them public enemy number one for creating a culture in schools that teaches kids that competition is evil (see below). Some conservatives are happy with the way Rudd is taking on the teachers unions. I of all people would love to see those Lefties humbled, but introducing these performance measures will merely move power from one public sector union to another, that of the bureaucrats. Labor is in the pocket of both of them, and any reform they introduce will be implemented by these unions and end up strengthening them and entrenching their power.

So do i like teachers or hate them? I like teachers, but hate their union. It's complicated. Let me give you some background. I used to think performance pay for teachers was a good idea because I thought it would reverse the Lefty influence of the teacher's union and encourage a culture of competition in schools between teachers, which would flow on to the students. But I went off it once i did some research that led me to the same conclusion as Ergas: It's an unproductive waste of time, at least in the way we currently think about it. The only way to monitor teacher and school performance in my view is to measure the intangibles with school inspectors that visit the school. Their gut instinct would substitute for alot of statistics. I know these people are bureaucrats, but they are bureaucrats that once worked as teachers and know what it's like on the ground. Plus they monitor things up close, not from a distance.

As Ergas says, for as long as state schools exist their performance does have to be measured and bureaucrats must have some power. It's a question of how much power and how effective it is in getting the results PARENTS actually want. Like me, Ergas does not outright oppose bureaucratic control but he says that unless there is also real competition between schools, that is parents/consumers can choose their kids school, AND THE MONEY THE SCHOOL MAKES IS TIED TO THAT CHOICE then school standards will not improve. Indeed they may well get worse as the bureaucrats' power increases.

Rudd, the incurable bureaucrat and Hayek-denier, will never admit to any of the flaws in his scheme and will take us down the failed British New Labor path in this country if he is not confronted. I caution other conservatives in their support of him on this issue.


ASIDE: I gotta ask aswell why there is so much emphasis on the needs of the under-performers in education? I think the real problem is that the real high-performers have nowhere to go. They are not encouraged to think of themselves as leaders, and they flounder and develop drug addictions from the sheer boredom. If these bright kids were truly rewarded for their achievement by encouraging them to lead then the other kids would have someone to look up to, to emulate - heroes, mentors whatever you wanna call it. Some people's stomachs turn at the idea of anyone looking up to or emulating anyone else, but we all do it and if we dont put the bright kids up the top the the other kids will just emulate the drug-dealers and no-goodniks. Who can blame them? At least those characters have balls.

Putting most of the attention/praise on the well-behaved child is a well understood concept in parenting. If you spend all your time trying to correct the problem child, and ignore the well behaved one, you inadvertently encourage bad behaviour. Why has this concept never escaped the family and gone out into the wider world? Still more proof that parents should be in charge of education.

Outback Australia sold to provide water for city's lattes

Rudd and Wong's buyback of land in order to claim water rights disturbs me greatly. Every farm they buy is a farm taken out of production.

This story in the OZ tells of how a town thinks they might as well buy the whole town, because if the farms dont operate there is no economic basis for the community. And they are serious!! Offering themselves up lock stock and barrel for $3 or so billion. Where will the people go?

For the left human beings are something of an inconvenience. We use up the sacred water of mother earth. Farms in outback Australia have to close, producing less food for us to eat, so that water can be channeled back into the river. All the while the city dwellers can sip as many latte's as they like.

I take the Murray river's ecology seriously, but I dont think we need to take Australia backwards to fix it. Efficiency, not downsizing is the key. Also the media seems to be whitewashing the fact that the Murray lakes were originally salt-water and were made freshwater my people for irrigation purposes. The current ecosystem is man-made! Flooding those lakes with salt-water is not a crime against nature, but a restoration of nature as it was.

But Labor are too terrified of upsetting the urban romantics to talk about this. Rudd's invested too much in farming their over-ripe guilty consciences, and their fast-growing resentment of the success of ordinary Aussies under Howard. (gotta love fruitful agricultural metaphors)

This creepy land buyback policy highlights how Rudd thinks that Australia needs to do less, to be less, because we deserve less. Our economic prosperity and national pride under Howard was against the natural order. We were confident, we were happy. That was wrong. We need to be humbled.

To Rudd and Wong (androgynous Asian version of Rudd in dress sense, haircut, speech, mannerisms and Maoist tendencies) Australia is a weak small and self-indulgent nation that really needs to keep it's head down or the mighty China will lop it off. This is the vibe I get. How can i not get it after what they have said and done?

Australian farms are being destroyed. Australia's economy has been deliberately brought low by negative rhetoric (and the RBA's hasty rising of interest rates before the election). Those of us who are Anglo-celtic in origin have to hang our heads in shame and say sorry our ancestors ever came to this continent and created the unified, developed country in the first place. Australian risk-takers and go-getters in business have to be taxed by an ETS, and tied down by 19th century IR values, so they can have shit kicked out of them by union thugs, all because they dared to pay people the market value of their labor.

"How dare you have ambition. How dare you put your ideas in motion. How dare you hold you head up high. How dare you go to war for democracy. How dare you love your country. You are Australian. You are scum" So says Rudd.

Australia must be put back in it's place, by it's own Prime Minister. Labor PMs have a history of hating this country. Rudd is doing his best to keep up this legacy.

He's never even here!