Rejoice & Be Consistent

The Labor Party still wants to push for an ETS after the debacle of their own doing in introducing a carbon tax.  After being smashed in the polls largely due to this issue.

They still refer to "the science" being right despite "scientists" telling us opposite things.  So who knows whats true anymore?  Genuine debate has been thrown out, allowing emotive types to bleat about doing whats good for our children.

One thing is for sure, if you want an ETS to punish big polluters then you ought to rejoice when they go out of business.  Instead Labor has a culture of bailing out industries such as manufacturing.  This is an attempt to keep people in work.  This is despite their lack of competitiveness in the marketplace.  Labor governments have continually propped up failing enterprises that are big polluters.

The loss of jobs should pale into insignificance if your goal is to punish big polluters.  Punish them out of business.  That's success!  Loss of jobs is merely collateral damage in this "principled" venture. 

Tokenism

Apparently Tony Abbott ought to have appointed more women to the front bench of his cabinet.

No surprise that the now opposition has jumped on this in order to perpetuate the myth that Abbott has a problem with women.  Disappointingly it was lead story on most media outlets.

If Abbott bowed to pressure he would be giving women a position based on gender and not on merit.  He appointed the best people available at this time.

People forget that when the coalition lost the election in 2007 they lost a lot of talented politicians.  Women replaced a lot vacant positions.  This means that many of the women in the now government are still very fresh.

Plenty of women are raved about for their ability in politics.  But promoting them to the front bench at this stage would be setting them up for failure.  This isn’t good for women in politics.  Some now call for quotas of women in ministry positions.  They ought to think about the negative ramifications of their ideals.

That this makes news is ridiculous, but not surprising. Perhaps I’m now perpetuating it as newsworthy.  Perhaps it’s the only thing the opposition can find to insult against an otherwise strong cabinet.

Green Jealousy

Christine Milne was on Insiders last Sunday morning the 14^th July.  Her prime objective was to outline her party’s policy position for the upcoming election. 

Basically, for the Greens if you earn money you will be punished.  If you don’t earn money you will be rewarded. 

The Greens plan to slug banks, miners and the wealthy.  All this to fund an overly generous welfare package.  

The Greens hate people who earn money.  They are jealous of them it seems.  How dare people aspire to create wealth when there’s people who can’t or won’t earn money.  It is their intellectual elitist method of wealth distribution.

But they don’t think this through.  By punishing the wealthy they deter aspiration from low-income earners.  And by punishing wealth creation they might decrease the gap between rich and poor but the poor become poorer as job opportunities decline.  They purport to support les poverty, but through their policy the opposite will be the case.

Mere Formality

Now women can ‘formally’ request part time work from their employer under an addition to law by the Gillard govt.  Not sure what was holding women back from doing this prior to the amendment.  The employer can still say no, which is their prerogative.

The Greens want “more teeth” to such a proposal.  “More teeth” would mean forcing employers to allow part time employment upon application.  Even though this may not suit their business and may increase operating cost.  This would result in less people employed, part time and full time.

Forcing businesses to do anything they don’t wish to do is very risky.  The Greens need to back off for their desire for more teeth and think through the ramifications for their emotion driven actions.

Businesses left to make their own decisions will best able to make arrangement for women trying to juggle family with work.  Businesses want to hold on to good staff, so they don’t need to be told by government how best to handle them.

A Vibe

In politics it seems if someone is against a certain method then it’s assumed that they are also against the desired outcome.

Example 1

I am all for technological advancement.  BUT I am against the government’s wasteful and negligent spending on the NBN.  They bypassed a cost benefit analysis and were reluctant to deal with the private sector.

Example 2

I am all for increased funding of schools.  BUT I’m against it being regarded as a silver bullet.  Funding is part of the solution while other areas like increasing teacher quality and principal autonomy are ignored largely due to union pressure.

Example 3

I am all for a humanitarian program for asylum seekers.  BUT I’m against a criminal making thousands of dollars off each passenger to board leaky vessels and overwhelm our immigration system.  It slows down the process for genuinely persecuted people seeking asylum.

Care Factor

The NSW govt has to cut spending from its budget.  This is largely because it inherited a basket-case courtesy of the previous Labor govt.

So when people from charitable organisations get word that their revenue from the govt is being cut  they immediately go for the heart strings, accusing the govt of not caring.

This was in evidence on the channel 10 news (27/10/12).  A Cystic Fibrosis supporter accused the govt, "they just don't care".

This was music to opposition leader John Robertson's ears.  He in turn amplified the language by calling the govt "maliciously callous".

Some perspective people, please.  They are broke!  Broke because John Robertson's colleagues had spent money recklessly over many years.

John Robertson ought to acknowledge the mess his political party created.  Then it would be nice if he would explain to the people of NSW what he would cut instead.

Of course he doesn't have to do this as he is in opposition.  This is convenient for him.  While he knows cuts must be made he won't admit to anything.

Not Disgraced

Liberal Senator, Cory Bernadi, asked a valid question, “There are even some creepy people out there who say that it’s ok to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals.  Will that be a future step?”

Labor Senator, Helen Polley, made a valid comment, “[Same sex marriage could] create a stolen generation by putting adult desires above the needs of children.”

Both were discussing the legislation before them regarding amending the Marriage Act.

But because they didn’t conform with the vocal minority these people are now “disgraced” according to the Sun Herald (23^rd September).

Bernadi has since had to resign, as parliamentary secretary for no good reason other than it was politically easier to do so rather than defend him.  Haven’t heard anything about discipline for Polley.  Surely if she’s “disgraced” as well then there ought to be similar ramifications.

They don’t deserve their label, and those dishing it out don’t have the right to spew it out.  Having an opinion that is not shared by the noisemakers doesn’t mean the label fits.

Blowing False Trumpet

Greens member of the NSW Legislative Council, David Shoebridge, vented his feelings about the competitive unionism in a recent mass email.  He feels he has saved NSW from a savage beast.  I feel he may have a tendency to exaggerate.

Barry O’Farrell introduced legislation for competitive unionism.  In essence it gives the workers the ability to choose their own union representation.  Shoebridge has labelled this an “attack on working people”.  It’s actually giving workers a freedom they have never had.  Shoebridge feels such legislation will “undermine union solidarity”.  Yet it’s unions that are undermining themselves with their corruption, grooming of Labor MP’s, selfishness, self-righteousness and arrogance.

According to Shoebridge, enterprise bargaining agreements will be a “free for all” as unions go “head to head” against employers.  But if unions actually had the best interests of their members at heart then surely they would be able to work together.  So much member dissatisfaction has stemmed from unions forgetting their actual job and purpose for existing.  Instead of positioning for Labor pre selection they should have been looking after their members’ interests.  If they had done that all along I doubt whether this legislation would have been introduced to parliament.

Shoebridge attacks O’Farrell for reducing the coverage for workers compensation.  What he neglects to mention is that the coverage for workers compensation was far too broad and included much that was unnecessary.  Shoebridge would make out that all of what used to be included was an entitlement when it is nothing but a privilege.  One the state govt can no longer afford due to left wing reckless spending.

According to Shoebridge free market thinkers are blind, dictatorial and divisive.  This is despite much evidence existing that suggests the free market is a very efficient way of improving people’s circumstances.  But Shoebridge doesn’t want you to think for yourself.  He’s more intelligent than you, according to him.  He doesn’t want you choosing your own union.  According to him we don’t know what is best for us. We are apparently lucky to have Greens parliamentarians at various levels of government to tell us what is best for us.

Where do they get off claiming the moral high ground when all they want to do is control our lives and tell us how we ought to be living it.  If anyone is blind it is the left, as they don’t ever see the ramifications of their plans.  They are too idealistic that reality need not enter their thinking.

David Shoebridge, on behalf of the Greens, is claiming to have been part of a successful campaign to amend O’Farrell’s bill to only apply to Paramedics and junior doctors.  Reality is that he has affected a potentially very productive bill.

Shoebridge talks ad nauseum about ‘rights’ of workers, yet he is robbing workers of a very important freedom.  He needs to get out of workers lives, as only we know what is best for us.  David Shoebridge has no idea.

Union Propaganda

Workchoices is a dirty word.  What started as a reform policy that had its good points became fodder for unions to slam any further workplace reform.  Therefore unions are quick to label any new policy as workchoices all over again.

Pauls Howes did, in his recent opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph (15/7/12).

“Workchoices” was mentioned a total of nine times.  Quite a lot considering the relatively small article.  Perhaps it’s out of desperation.  Unions have become less relevant in the workplace and membership is on the decline.  Perhaps he’s feeling threatened that his power base might be taken away.  So it’s time to bring out the slander.

When it comes to slander Howes goes further than just mentioning ‘workchoices’ ad nauseum.  Howes proclaims the coalition as the enemy of the worker, “there’s nothing they like better than slashing wages and conditions, it’s almost pathological”.  Really Paul?  Really?  I suspect he knows it’s not true but it’s in his best interests to mislead.

Howes wants Abbott to outline his policies instead of giving “coded messages”.  Even though an election hasn’t been called.  Howes definitely wouldn’t advocate an early election, as he can see the writing on the wall.  An opposition leader doesn’t have to outline anything until there is an election. 

Howes talks about “rights” and “entitlements”.  No such thing Paul.  There is no right to employment.  We are privileged to be employed.  Privileged to be earning an income.  Privileged to live in a prosperous, democratic nation.  Describing privileges as rights and entitlements takes away what makes them special.

‘Scare campaign’ is an interesting term.  One thing that is for sure is that Labor and the unions are masters of the scare campaign.  They are good at it. ‘Workchoices’ was a prime example.  So when they claim that the coalition are scare mongering they are in fact doing so themselves but in the name of the opposition.  They are so devilishly clever.

Look into their motives for making such claims against Abbott and see the vested interests they have in keeping things the way they are.  It makes for interesting viewing.

Keep Telling Yourself That

Sometimes people lie so much that it becomes reality to them.  Greg Combet seems like one such example in a recent opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph.

In it Combet follows the typical Labor mantra of berating Abbott for doing exactly what they are doing themselves.  That is, pulling stunts in an attempt to score political points.  Ironically, Abbott’s stunts are puny compared to attempts by Labor past and present to score political points.

Combet has the ultimate straw man argument.  He intimates that because the world didn’t end on July 1, when the carbon tax was implemented, that their actions were justified.  Except no one said that the world was going to end on July 1.  The only people who are saying that are doing so to put words in the mouths of their opponents in an effort to make them look stupid.

Meanwhile, Combet will continue to sell the lie now that he believes it not to be a lie even though it is still a lie implemented based on a lie to the Australian people.  No amount of overinflating the carbon tax’s success will change that fact.

Purposeless

The Carbon Tax was originally sold as a method of targeting ‘climate change’.  Now it seems it is driven purely by wealth redistribution.  Temperature has become irrelevant, although it’s doubtful that it ever was relevant in the minds of politicians.

Assistance will now go to where it is needed most they say.  But where is that.  Such a subjective statement.

All that will happen is that more people will be trapped in welfare.  Reliant on the government.  So that when someone dares to mention the scrapping of the flawed policy there will be uproar in the streets because a source of easy income will be shut down.

They don’t realise that they have become slaves to the govt.  Meanwhile the reason for the tax will have been forgotten.

The Stink

The Health Services Union (HSU) has been suspended by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). They say they have a ‘zero tolerance’ on corruption and had to make this tough call on the HSU.

In response to this issue Gillard spins through by pointing at workchoices as something much worse than anything you could imagine the unions performing.

Yet it was the HSU that negotiated away certain wage entitlements in the last collective bargaining agreement for those in my profession. It was worse than anything workchoices could have done. It infuriated many.

The HSU is on the nose to say the least. That is why the ACTU is distancing itself from the stink. It’s what most would do. Yet Gillard remains close to the stink by defending Craig Thompson, the former HSU secretary at the heart of the problem.

Eventually Gillard will begin to stink as well. That is if she doesn’t stinketh already.

UPDATE:  Here's what Messrs Bolt and Ackerman have to say on the subject

She Needs To Be Tough

Julia Gillard is a tough person. How many times have you heard that recently? It’s repeatedly proclaimed from her colleagues. Many would agree that she is tough but it’s said as if we ought to like her because she is tough.

She has had to be tough. Her toughness has been displayed after enduring continual and much deserved criticism that has come due to the excessive incompetence displayed by her and her colleagues.

So she is tough, who cares? It doesn’t make her a good PM. It doesn’t make on competent.

Consistency Please

So a carbon tax is about decreasing carbon pollution. Yet its subsidies will keep big polluting industries afloat.

But if you want a carbon tax, and truly believe that it will affect global pollution and change the climate, then you shouldn’t be disappointed to see big polluting industries such as manufacturing disappear. You should be unfazed at the potential of massive job losses. After all, your claim is that so many ‘green’ jobs will be created.

So why is the Australian govt so keen to bolster already declining industries? Especially when subsidies don’t work in the long term if at all. They are a crutch and don’t promote productivity. All they do is create a reliance on further govt subsidies.

Once again the govt’s policy defeats the purpose for which it is intended. Do they think anything through??

Sustainable Rubbish

A recent episode of the ‘7pm Project’ featured Greens MP, Adam Bandt, as a guest host. A logger was being interviewed and Bandt asked him whether it would be better to have an area of Tasmania used by a sustainable industry, such as ecotourism, instead of logging.

The logger’s response, “We’ve been here for 150 years, we’re very sustainable”.  Zing!!

What was Bandt thinking? That the forestry industry doesn’t know or care about wood so much that they would log themselves out of existence??

How stupid is his ideology? To him eco tourism is sustainable because it doesn’t cut down trees. What if no one wants to have an eco holiday? Not a very sustainable business.

Is he forgetting that wood is one of the best materials for building houses? Where would we be without wood? Yet Bandt would gladly get rid of the industry wholus bolus!!

People, don’t be fooled by any of the Greens’ crackpot schemes. They are generally ideologically flawed.

Loggers care more than anyone about their product and the sustainability of their industry. Whereas Bandt thinks they are stupid and need to be told what to do like little children. Leave them alone Adam, they know what they are doing.

Something to Inquire

Bob Brown wants an inquiry into the Australian media after recent events in the UK press. If one thinks he has concern about corruption and phone hacking in this country they will be sorely mistaken.

Brown doesn’t like certain aspects of the media because they look at his policies and listen to what he says. They critically analyse and come up with comments not favouring the Brown position.

This is purely about quelling dissention. Bob Brown doesn’t like it. No one does of course. But no one else is calling for sanctioning the press so that only friendly opinions are aired.

There is a massive double standard with Bob Brown. He was nowhere to be seen when conservative governments were getting heavily criticised by the unions, the ABC and his own party. Now the sandel is on the other foot and the Greens are finding it uncomfortable.

The Greens are at the peak of their powers so they ought to get used to the criticism. They have stuck their head out of the political parapet. People are wising up to their radical intentions.

Bob Brown will likely be a one term prime minister. Much like his predecessors, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Yes To What?

Have you seen the new ad on television asking you to say yes to the carbon tax? It’s interesting that at the time of its premiere there was not carbon tax policy in the public domain to say yes to.

It is a good ad as it sends a positive vibe. Political parties should perhaps take note.

The effects on the economy are predicted to be either fruitful or dire. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Jobs will be created, but this gives no respite to those likely to lose their jobs if polluting industries are downsized.

There will be some form of compensation to ordinary Australians, but will it be enough once the costs of the carbon tax are passed on to consumers. Will it ever be enough for a public forever reliant on the government? Surely the necessity of compensation should make people feel that this is a bad policy.

Cate Blanchett has copped some criticism for appearing on the ad. For this I largely agree with Wayne Swan when he said, “I admire someone who stands up for something that they believe in”.

Her line in the ad is to say that saying yes to the carbon tax is saying yes to “doing something about climate change”. Surveys have been presented suggesting our desire for “action on climate change”. Even if you believe in human induced climate change surely this can’t be the first course of action. Surely there are many actions available that will act on the environment more effectively.

The vast majority of us would be in favour of good environmental policy. Unfortunately a lot of policies seem to miss the point of being good stewards of the environment. Instead the policy agenda gets hijacked by those preferring to instil a radical ideology. So polluters must pay, regardless of the direct costs to them, and the indirect costs to the ‘ordinary Australians’.

Needless to say it will be implemented, as Gillard is too proud to take it off the agenda. She’s fully committed now. Plus her mere existence relies on it going ahead. The Greens have her in their pocket.

If she hadn’t lied about it in the first place perhaps she would have more credibility. All this might not have happened. Although if she had told the truth she might not have become PM in the first place. An interesting thought.

Blank Cheque Theory

The idea from NSW Labor and the unions to claw your vote back to themselves was to claim that a vote for the Liberals was in essence giving them a “blank cheque” to do whatever they please. It was a last ditch effort in futility, yet it was a buzz phrase repeated by some in my presence at a recent social event.

What Labor is really saying is, “don’t give them a blank cheque, give it to us instead”. If anyone had a blank cheque is was NSW Labor and they did a great job of flushing it down the toilet.

In reality a vote for the Liberals in NSW wasn’t a vote for a blank cheque. Rather it was a vote for a mop and bucket in order to clean up the mess made by the previous administration. Now the NSW Premier has to go through projects and prioritise as he and his team sort out the ram shackled finances of this state. It will take much of the first term to achieve.

They can’t do whatever they want and they never could. Labor just wanted you to think that.

Devilishly Clever

Appears that the Labor Party and the Unions are up to their old tricks in an effort to fool the general public into voting for them, again.

Just check out the ads, websites and the paraphernalia plonked in your letterboxes.

Where has the Labor logo gone? It is nowhere to be seen on signs, pamphlets and TV ads. They know they are on the nose so much that they are distancing themselves from their own brand. Instead they are attempting instil some community spirit by putting their candidate out there as a “local for us” who has “stood by us”. Don’t be fooled, it’s another act of desperation from a party that will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

You may have also seen ads on TV for a campaign to make NSW a ‘better state’. The punch line states, “Before I vote, I want some answers”. This is nothing more than an attempt by Unions NSW to pull cotton wool over the eyes of the electorate. On its website you can punch in your postcode and see where your local candidates stand on important issues. Low and behold it shows only the candidates that agree with the Unions NSW ‘5 point plan’ and their method for achieving them. Nothing but local, I mean Labor, and Greens candidates. No mention of where any other candidates stand on important issues. It is a very one-sided display that one has come to expect from unions.

Discernment is required, otherwise it will be more of the same.

The $1 Justification

Many thanks to our Prime Minister for making out that the average Australian is a heartless tightwad.

She reasoned that her new flood levy was fine and should go through parliament because it would only cost the individual an estimated $1 per week.

A few thoughts:

• If it’s bad policy it doesn’t matter how much or little it will cost the tax payer, it’s just plain bad policy
• This government has found it has a handy knack of underestimating costs of projects so the reasoning of $1 a week should be taken with some scepticism.
• The general public has been very generous and digging deep to help our friends north of the border, much more generous than this government ever will be
• If it's so easy for the general public to give a dollar then surely it's at least just as easy for the govt to save the same amount or more.
  
• Also a big reason for an injection of funds in Queensland can be attributed to the lack of insurance on infrastructure. Every other state government has these provisions in place, but not Queensland.

Remove the cotton wool and have a look at the issues at hand.