Ben Fordham, “The Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard is under investigation by police, this is fact.   They are real police, this is a real investigation and yes, the Prime Minister really is under investigation.”

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/8646

…Michael Smith discusses all the implications of this Police investigation into Comrade Gillard. Concludes with this:

[...] NB -Just for the record,  I’ve republished the 26 November piece once before.  That was on 23 January this year. Here’s the link http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/11/note-to-editorsjournalists-julia-gillard-is-currently-facing-very-serious-allegations-and-victoria-p.html

Those men who died for our country, what would they think of today? The population of Australia has (almost) boomed out of control, plenty of their enemies now work here (and even in high paying jobs…and perhaps some jobs they shouldn’t be in), Governments and communities oppressing our say?

a good example is in New Zealand, gay marriage was officially passed and homosexual couple are now able to be united. In Australia however….we’re still fighting it, and it’s currently a lost cause. Both sides of our government are against gay marriage because “It’s not normal”, despite 67% of the country supports it. However, naturally we don’t actually get a say. If our Prime Minister and Opposition leader say no, then who else can contest to it?

Personally I think our ancestors would roll over in their graves, to see their children denied the happiness they fought so hard to give us, to see that our freedom and belief, means nothing to this country anymore. It’s probably why I’d rather move to the US or UK.

The point is, we don’t live in the damn dark ages anymore. And it seems the morons that may be (yes, you Gillard and Abbott) are the same. Old farts in high chairs, who think THEY know what’s best for this country and its people.

So while I sit here, playing Minecraft and sipping on a coffee (and wait for a boyfriend to actually come along), I bow my head for a moment of silence. In hopes one day, as a great-grandchild of a war veteran, I’m given my rights as a HUMAN that I can be who I’m genuinely happy with one day.

Lest We Forget.

2GB’s Ben Fordham claims police are investigating Julia Gillard

ONE of Queensland’s former union powerbrokers has quit the Labor party after 36 years, warning it has “lost the plot” and is being ruined by factional power struggles.

Breaking the censorship of the Media Class

Andrew Bolt April 23 2013 (8:13am)

Media Watch last night was alarmed that politicians can speak directly to people via the Internet, without being filtered by the media:

Charles Feldman: in a world where there are now fewer checks and balances and I’m talking about journalistic checks and balances, the danger is that the politician’s voice is then not examined and cross-examined as it ought to be by journalists… what they should do is govern, stick to the job of governing, and leave journalism to people who do journalism.

A few problems here. First, there is not an either/or here: my strong suspicion is that people who read politicians on-line also read the take of journalists. This is normally praised as going directly to the source before trusting the spin. Second, journalists can’t often be trusted to tell you straight what politicians are saying [...]

Read it all

They have failed miserably to inform the public of the AWU scandal where Comrade Gillard, Prime Shyster, enabled the laundering of cheques. Thankfully, the alternative media shows the way.

Complex case, goes back years, dodgy mortgage, dodgy signatures, million dollars losses – lawyer held to account

It took time – but they got there, mostly.

Swan’s swansong! The leading cliché until the election.

Money gone, leaving us defenceless

[...]In fact as we know, in reality, they’ve all been deficits, including the one to come. Six budgets, six deficits. And counting, into the distant future.

Those six deficits by themselves will add to around $210 billion…[...]

Land of the long white cloud shows how it’s done:

New Zealand on track for budget surplus

Some very interesting news from across the Tasman:

The government is still forecasting it will get its books back into surplus in the year to June 30, 2015, and will confirm the track to that outcome in the May 16 Budget, Finance Minister Bill English said today.
…
“I can confirm that it will show the government remains on track to surplus in 2014-15.”

The target has looked in doubt and is still subject to the proviso that the government would not pursue a Budget surplus for its own sake if there were another shock to the global financial system which required accommodative domestic policies.

The world’s greatest Treasurer has some explaining to do. New Zealand actually went into recession during the GFC; yet has been able to return to budget surplus before Australia without the benefit of a mining boom

I have already given my two cents on the education reforms that the Gillard government has proposed. You can read that here. It basically involves cutting some university funding to fund some reforms in schools. It’s something that Australia wasn’t expecting and there are three groups of people with different responses to the planned reform – those who love it, those who hate it and those who are on the fence.

That was in preliminary discussions this week at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Other than that, there was very little news on what else they talked about. If all they talked about was education funding it must have been one boring day. Mind you, the runner-up for Faux Pas of the Week was a journalist, who decided to ask for a show of hands as to who was planning to sign up to the education funding reforms. What nerve! For god’s sake, they only talked about it a little bit! It’s not like they all signed up two days after it was announced. It’s completely reasonable to let them have time to see if they want to sign up. I think they should, but that’s just me.

Quotes of the Week

“Then what I intend to do is come back to the Commonwealth with an offer to sign up” – Campbell Newman (QLD Premier) on what he is planning to do about his state’s role in school funding. At least he’s considering it…

“It’s not too much to ask premiers and chief ministers to show the same kind of leadership as they manage their own budgets.” - Julia Gillard on the funding of the reforms.

Faux Pas of the Week

Tony Abbott, at a meeting with people from his electorate on Sydney’s Northern Beaches, said that he would talk to his party after the election on their stance on same-sex marriage. He’s annoyed a few people there…

Tweet of the Week

Once again, the Liberals are trying to scare people… All hail Peter Garrett for clearing it all up

Only Chris Pyne could claim $14.5b more for schools is a cut. He's lying. Only ones planning to cut school funding are the Libs – by $5.4b—
Peter Garrett AM MP (@PGarrettMP) April 18, 2013

It sounds alarming on its own, but the Federal Government’s $2.3bn proposed cuts to funding for tertiary education is not the be-all and end-all to signing off David Gonski’s school funding deal. And while less spending money is never a good thing, opponents of the funding cuts are sounding the alarmist gong too soon.

This week Labor announced its $14.5bn National Plan for School Improvement, referred to simply as the “Gonski deal”. The Labor Government plans to pay for $9.4bn, of which $2.3bn will be taken out of tertiary funding.

The proposed three-part cuts:

• An efficiency dividend for university funding, of 2 per cent in 2014 and 1.25 per cent in 2015;
• Removal of the 10 per cent discount on paying university fees upfront and the 5 per cent bonus received for voluntary repayment of HELP debts; and
• Conversion of student start-up scholarships into a loan, repayable along with students’ university fees after students are earning a specified level of income. [2]

Three potentially problematic consequences have been raised in the media, but not all are warranted.

Firstly, that changes to the start-up scholarship will deter disadvantaged students from enrolling, including those with low socio-economic status (SES) and from regional areas.

Here is why I think this is unlikely.

The scholarship grants, in the sense of financial help, would not disappear for those currently eligible under Youth Allowance, Austudy or ABSTUDY (as of April 2013). They would instead be given equivalent Income Contingent Loans totalling up to $2050 per year [3] on a need-basis, which is the same amount that all eligible students currently receive [4]. 

The grants would however be deferred to loans which would have to be paid back after graduation, but only after a certain income threshold is reached. If the point of a university education is to equalise future incomes for students of different socio-economic backgrounds, then I have difficulty seeing how these changes will hugely disadvantage low-SES students (assuming that most graduates pay off their HECS debts in later years without input from family). Small cuts here and there can save a trifling few hundred million – the Government is after all, in the business of trimming and snipping where it can.

But now to real threats two and three – the increased risk of defaulting on student loans combined with the decreased provision of university services and quality tuition.

This danger is already looming, but not only as a result of these cuts.

Since changing to a demand driven model for higher education in 2012, enrolments for bachelor degrees have been uncapped, with the addition of 146,000 extra Commonwealth-supported places from 2007 to 2013 [2] (no data available for the relevant period 2012-2013).

More students in universities means higher costs of education provision for host universities as well. An estimated extra $400 million in university funding from $6.5bn in 2012 to $6.9bn in 2013 [5] would be necessary to offset this increased outlay, but the Government is planning to commit only $41.6 million from 2012-16 [6] after an average saving of $300 million from the efficiency dividend per year. Unless the Government is prepared to let the quality of higher education suffer, the difference will have to come from students and families (some disadvantaged, as we know) in the form of higher tuition fees. If anything, this is the prospect we should be worried about.

By uncapping places the government has allowed increased access of disadvantaged students to university. These means more start-up scholarships being utilised, and so from an economic point of view it makes sense to start reining in the costs of these scholarships before it completely explodes. Yet because the scholarships are for ‘textbooks and specialised equipment’ it’s about time they are placed on HECS-HELP instead of made in the form of welfare payments. The shift of education towards HECS-HELP and away from welfare is completely reasonable.

What cannot be digested within media circles, political and academic communities is this notion of transferring funding from one education sector to the other. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”, independent Andrew Wilkie [1] calls it. But we should hardly be surprised by these downward policy changes.

Yes, this is the sign of desperate cost cutting. Yes, this is a restructuring of the education sector. Economics is the allocation of scarce resources, and as economist Judith Sloan put it, “the reality is that Australian universities have recently enjoyed a stretch of salad days … governments need to make decisions about the allocation of scarce taxpayer funds to achieve the highest net social benefit.” [1]

We are only seeing the start of budget savings plans – if the Gillard Government can convince us that Gonski is worth it, then tertiary funding won’t be the only head on the chopping block. And given the controversy over just $2.3bn of the $14.5bn funding scheme, I’ll be waiting to see how they plan to get the rest of the money from.

Gillard has until June 30 to remodel the Gonski plan after it failed to pass through the Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) on April 19.

Sources:

[1] “The government is losing the battle on cuts”, Matchett, S, April 2013, The Australian

[2] Statement on Higher Education Minister for Tertiary Education The Hon Craig Emerson MP, April 2013

[3] Income Contingent Loans from 2014, Higher Education Savings Announcement Q&A, Australian Government

[4] Changes to Student Start-up Scholarship, Student Income Support Reforms 2012 Q&A, Australian Government

[5] Higher Education Budget Review 2012-2013, Parliament of Australia

[6]Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS), Budget Paper 2012-2013, Australian Government

Originally published on the Economics Students Society of Australia (ESSA) website, April 21 2013.

My job involves tutoring school children, and that has made me very aware of how important funding for education is. I’m also a university student, so I also know how important tertiary education funding is – at least to me. Julia Gillard’s plan to take money from universities to fund schools is one that is giving me one of those funny feelings.

Education funding is important, I thinks it’s an investment for the future. It’s good that they’re increasing the money for primary and secondary education is good, taking it from universities is making it hard for me to accept it as a good thing.

Here in Australia, if you are an Australian citizen (and fill other eligibility criteria), you can go to university on a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP), which means that you pay between $3,000 and $9,000 dollars depending on the degree, and the government loans you the other umpteen thousand dollars, which you pay back when you have a full-time job and a stable salary. If you don’t fit those criteria or are an international student, you have to pay full fees, which cost about the same as private school education for a high school student. Other students get full or partial scholarships to university.

It is thought that universities will have to get rid of the 10% discount given to people who pay the money for university upfront, which is not a major problem – but it means I am paying more. Other thoughts are that some scholarships will turn into loans that will have to be repaid, which may turn students off applying for them and may lead to current scholarship students having to do the same. A lot of these scholarships, might I add, are for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, whose families do not have the money to send them to uni otherwise. They’re usually incredibly smart people, and more often than not, the first member of their family to go to university.

I’m a little bit annoyed at this idea, in my opinion rightfully so, given I’m a uni student and this will affect me. Not as badly as others, but still, it makes uni more expensive and less accessible to those who really deserve it. But then you think about where the money is going – to school students, where it will be put to good use.

It frustrates me that I can’t find a position on this, it really does.

During this last fortnight, there has been a flurry of polls – not necessarily coming up with compatible results, or with results that seem to reflect the actual political news as it has unfolded – some of these polls have been counter-intuitive, shall we say.

There are several proven ways you can go about using opinion polls to mislead the public, and to some extent, to lead even the pollies by the nose.

• Conduct and publish your own polls.  Newspoll is one of these.
• Pay someone to conduct polls for your exclusive use.  Galaxy is one of these for the Murdoch Press, while Nielsen has a similar relationship with Fairfax.
• Pay close attention to the methodology.
• If you still don’t get what you want, spin the results.
• If the poll has been conducted by a source over which you have no particular control: spin, ignore, or cast doubt on the methodology and/or the honesty of the results.  (This will distract attention from your own methodology, and give you a perfect alibi in case you want to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you’re actually doing yourself  You might, for instance, want to trash Gary Morgan – but I’m getting ahead of myself.)

So let’s take a closer look at the polls, with particular attention to Newspoll and the art and logic of Methodology.

Results of Newspoll’s regular ‘voter intentions’ appear exclusively in Mr Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, The Australian.  Their self-assessment goes like this:

(Although, as one wag on Twitter remarked – if NewsPoll is so accurate, how did they get it so wrong in the US?  What happened to President Mitt Romney? – my ‘bold’ and my paraphrase.)

Let’s go back a bit.

On Nov 9, 2009,  Gary Morgan and Michele Levine from Roy Morgan Research cast serious doubt on Newspoll, under the headline: News Ltd’s rogue Newspoll changed Australia’s political agenda; and further inflamed the ‘boat people’ debate.

Responding to a poll by Newspoll on Nov 3, 2009, Morgan and Levne raised the question: What does it mean when a poll result is ‘surprising? (My paraphrase.)

The evidence was clear.  Yet the publication of News Ltd’s  poll (Newspoll) in the first place had already had a major impact.  The evidence showing the ‘error’ of Newspoll was literally ignored by media discussion (e.g. the Insiders on ABC TV and the impact of the ‘rogue’ poll was allowed to run unabated).

Mission accomplished!  The voters, and even ABC’s Insiders had been misled, swayed, and told downright lies, which most of us believed.

The public and the media had been ‘played’ like an orchestra by the maestro conductor.

But wait, there was more.  If you own the poll, you can just withhold whichever results you don’t like.  As Morgan and Levine, clearly disgusted, went on:

Methodology.

There are two extremes when it comes to methodology – you can run your polls in such a way as to produce the results you want, or you can run them so as to discover the facts.

If, for instance, you own a polling company, as in the case of Murdoch and Newspoll, or if you have an ‘exclusive’ relationship with an ‘independent’ poller, as the Murdoch papers have with Galaxy, methodology is easy- you just use the one most likely to yield the result you’re looking for.

You would, for instance, prefer telephone polling, because that would automatically give you an older, wealthier, more LNP-leaning demographic.

So you would be likely to ask something like, ‘If an election for the House of Representatives were held today — which party would receive your first preference?  If you are unsure, which would be your preference, however slight?’

You would be less likely to ask, ‘If an election for the House of Representatives were held today — which party would receive your first preference?’

And so on.

So let’s see how this worked out in the last couple of weeks.

Timeline

The week beginning April 5 …

• Wayne Swan and Bill Shorten unveil Labor’s Super policy.
• PM, Julia Gillard leaves for China.
• Mr Abbott begins a series of really silly statements, including ‘Shades of Cyprus’, and reveals his devilishly clever master-plan to rob the poor in order to leave the ‘rich perks’ alone.  We’re expected to swallow this, but most of us are not silly, so we don’t swallow it. But nobody rings us up to ask us for our opinion.
• Newspoll (April 8) shows a ‘surprisingly’ small but definite swing towards Labor.  As Crikey saw it:

• Ms Gillard’s week in China is a huge success.  Just one example from the press should suffice:

• Malcolm Turnbull reveals the Coalition’s cheap and nasty ‘two-lane Sydney Harbour Bridge’-style answer to Labor’s Broadband, to howls of derision.  (Click for Crikey)
• Simon Crean has some more really silly and/or very naughty remarks to make.

April 14

The Galaxy Poll turned up in the Murdoch paper, The Sunday Telegraph, under the headline: ‘Galaxy poll shows Tony Abbott ahead as leader voters trust on superannuation.’ 

Assuming a flow of preferences similar to the last election, this would deliver a two-party-preferred outcome of 54% for the Coalition and 46% for Labor.

A ‘surprising’ result, surely.

April 14

Then there was ReachTel, 7 News Melbourne

This was a State-based Poll, without any 2-party preferred outcome, but the interesting thing is the wording of the question -  ‘If you are undecided to which do you even have a slight leaning’

April 15

The Fairfax/ Neilsen Poll was conducted 12-14 April, two days after the launch of the LNP’s alternative to the NBN.

It had been a brilliant couple of weeks for the Government, and yet Labor showed a slump in both the Galaxy and the Nielsen Poll.

In spite of the absurdity of Abbott’s insistence that he would oppose the government’s plan to tax Super earnings over $100,000 p. a. at 15% while robbing the poorest 3.6 million earners of their modest Super tax breaks; despite Ms Gillard’s triumph in China; despite the widespread thumbs-down to the LNP’s answer to the NBN - Labor’s primary vote, according to the Fairfax/Nielsen poll fell 2 points to less than 29%, while the Coalition rose 2 percentage points to 49%.  Even the Murdoch-owned Newspoll just a few days earlier, had Labor doing better.

Allowing for the relentless misinformation campaign in the media, and for the impact of Simon Crean’s atrocious behaviour, at this stage, we can only say that this result was ‘surprising’, and if Gary Morgan and Michele Levine are any guide, we ought to be suspicious. Particularly as, also on April 15, …

April 15

The Essential Poll turned up.

April 15

The Morgan Poll also turned up, not in the Mainstream Media, but on the Independent Australia site, with a linkback to the Morgan website, and the headline: Morgan poll shows Government support up for second straight week

This was a multi-mode poll held from April 11-14 with a sample of 3,835. (Roy Morgan Research has been experimenting with ‘modes’ lately – mixing face to face with web-based polling on March 5, and more recently conducting an SMS-based poll.  Gary Morgan says that their polls from March onwards up until the election will combine face-to-face with web-based and SMS polling. So, it seems that Morgan is dragging the polling game kicking and screaming into the brave new world of mobile phones and the internet.)

People were asked:

Here is Morgan’s graph showing the two-party preferred vote since the end of 2009.  Not quite the unmitigated disaster for Labor that some would have us believe, and plenty of evidence of bounce, with even-pegging occurring several times during the period – most recently just 4 months ago.

(Thanks to Roy Morgan and Independent Australia for the graph.)

So, to begin with, let’s apply our magnifying glasses to that little patch in December last year – not so long ago in the scheme of things, when the two sides were neck and neck.

On Dec 17, Bob Ellis made some interesting remarks under the headline, Labor To Win: The Fairfax Poll, Decrypted

He adds another percentage point for the younger Labor voters away from the home phone in summer.  He was guessing, of course, about the specific weighting to be given to those younger voters, but some allowance was more than reasonable.

But by Feb 26, Ellis was fairly boiling.  Under the headline, The Usual Murdoch Dirty Tricks (79): Today’s Newspoll, he went to town on the fact that the poll had been weighted by Newspoll “’to reflect the population distribution’”’ but also excludes the key electoral areas affected by the floods, and, of course all those mobile phones not being rung.

Ellis’s analysis on this occasion was quite compelling (even if his emotions were not so reliable), and well worth a look at in its entirety, as is a similar, passionate but reasoned article as recently as March 30.

April 15

Also appearing on the 15th was  the Essential Report, which  had the Coalition at 55% – Labor, 45%, on a two party preferred basis.  The interesting thing to notice here, is the way the question is put – ‘If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to?’

Where the Morgan polls include the ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t knows’, Essential  follows those pollsters who ‘disappear’ them into the two-party preferred.  It’s a shame, really, that Essential, whose credentials as stated, are otherwise ‘worthy’ (until/unless proven otherwise) should stoop in this direction.

Well, that’s methodology for you!

So, of those we have looked at here, which pollster would you be more likely to trust?

1. A.  Newspoll
2. B.  Galaxy
3. C.  Nielsen
4. D.  Essential
5. E.   ReachTel
6. F.   Other

Anyway, let’s give the last word to Truth Seeker:

‘So the question remains, if you don’t have a barge pole with which to shove Abbott over the line, will an opinion poll do the job?’  His article, Abbott? when there’s no barge pole, an opinion poll will do! (posted on 12/3/13) is a doozie.  I couldn’t really find a ‘best bit’ to quote here, because all the ‘bits’ were ‘best’, so here it is:

Truth Seekers Musings tt? when there’s no barge pole, an opinion poll will do!

Posted on 12/03/2013 by Truth Seeker

Abbott? when there’s no barge pole, an opinion poll will do!

So, what’s happening with these bloody polls?

The previous two poll cycles showed a massive boost to Abbott after months of trending up for Gillard and the ALP, to almost level pegging TPP.

Now the week before the first of the poll jumps, for Abbott, he made his first major speech for the year, announcing that the LNP would remove the carbon “tax” (which is working, and the threat of removal just adds uncertainty to the business sector), wind back pensions, take away the school kids bonus and take the tax free threshold from $18,200 back down to $6,000.

Most would assume that these announcements would be less popular than a fart in an elevator among pensioners, families and in fact most tax payers… but NO!    Rather his personal popularity jumped by (from memory), around 9%.

So the question is WHY!

Vlad the impaler 9 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been living in the electorate of Fisher, a safe LNP stronghold, held for many years by Peter Slipper.

Many times I have made the point that, here in Fisher, they would elect Vlad the Impaler if he was endorsed by the LNP, as they are so rusted on.

The reason that I am relating this is because since moving here around 15 years ago, I have been polled twice in national polling and two to three times in QLD polling.   Now maybe that’s just coincidence, but I have heard many in safe Labor seats complain that they have never been polled?

So what is there that can affect the outcome of polls?

For starters, we know that these polls are taken on landlines, excluding a large percentage of the younger demographic.  Most of the younger generations that we know only use mobiles.

When you consider news papers like The Australian, or in fact any of the tabloid papers that have turned lies, spin and misrepresentation into an art form, it’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that they could manipulate the polls, by the questions that they ask and the postcodes that they target. There has been much discussion about the questions asked, so lets look at the other option.

Now for instance, five minutes research on google tells me that the the electorate of Benelong, has phone numbers with the Sydney prefixes   9871    9847   9638   9427, so if you wanted to get a poll that had a strong LNP bias all you would have to do is to provide a list of prefixes that you want them to ring.

For someone like Murdoch, or that other paragon of virtue Rinehart, how hard would it be?

And just this week we see a jump of 6% in the PM’s personal ratings after two weeks of speculation about K Rudd’s comeback, even though he has denied it strenuously. And lets face it, if the preferred ALP leader, as endorsed by the rabid right, is K Rudd, and we can safely assume that they don’t have the best interests of the ALP at heart, then why are we even discussing it?

Now maybe this was simply payback for the PM taking away months of speculation about the election date and the resulting plethora of front pages that they have lost as a result?  Or maybe these last couple were rogue polls, and the latest is the inevitable correction?   Or maybe there is something more sinister going on, like an attempt at destabilisation of government through manipulation of the people via the MSM, and the polls?

Many right whingers will tell you that the influence of the polls is overrated, and only time will tell how accurate and influential these polls are.  But you only have to look at the effect on the news cycle of these polls and the ensuing speculation to realise that, whether media beat up, or genuine speculation, the destabilising effect certainly plays right into the hands of the rabid right.

So the question remains, if you don’t have a barge pole with which to shove Abbott over the line, will an opinion poll do the job?

Rupert Murdoch, practicing puppet master! (Photo credit:

This article by Des Moore in the Australian Financial review I think presents an issue in Australia that hasn’t been covered properly. Gillard, in identifying the three key issues in Australian national security and not including terrorism certainly says a lot about sensationalism in the Australian media. 12 years after the attacks of September 11, we in Australia still live in a state of terror. Perhaps not as blatantly so but we still jump on all attacks as potential terror attacks. Both the Australian and American media were quick to class the Boston marathon explosions as “terror” despite knowing little at the time.

Interestingly, in cases of “real” national security (issues that I find troubling, but may not necessarily be in the future) like the potential threat of North Korea are given fairly blasé treatment.

From a plain news-writing perspective, this article, while raising a few interesting issues doesn’t really fit the bill as a news piece. The lead is given in passive voice,

“In January, Prime Minister Julia Gillard identified three key risks in Australia’s national security strategy but did not include terrorism among them.”

and the rest of the piece rolls out in a quietly opinionated form that does pose some problems. I think the issues raised by this article are weakened by the inflammatory concluding paragraphs of,

“But neither he nor other commentators have referred to the large numbers of people here and elsewhere who endorse terrorist action by extreme Islamists.

The counter to this serious problem cannot rely simply on intelligence gathering but must include a political response that defends western culture and rejects such extremism.”

hahahaa

I’m Proud To Be Aussie

It looks like there’s going to be a showdown on Friday at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is currently engaged in a stand-off with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard over who will legislate for the Succession to the Crown. Gillard and the other Australian states are firmly behind invoking a clause in the Australian Constitution whereby the states pass laws enabling the federal parliament to legislate on an issue, while Newman wants to support the traditional relationship between states and Crown by writing their own law.

Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus asserts that Queensland’s bill is inconsistent with the aims of the Commonwealth governments; State Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie disagrees. Personally, I don’t understand what the big fuss is about; if the law is consistent with Commonwealth attempts then I see no issue with each state passing their own law. If it isn’t, let’s hear the evidence.

The federal government disagrees, and now the Gillard government is threatening to ‘override’ Queensland’s bill in the next parliamentary sitting in May unless the Queensland bill is dropped before the next COAG meeting this Friday. I assume this would require a constitutional amendment, which itself would require a nationwide referendum unless someone can see something in section 51 which would let the federal government legislate for it (I can’t find anything). EDIT: Confirmed.

Things are, at least, getting interesting in Australia!

UPDATE 21/04/13: Looks like a compromise has been reached: after a proposal from Queensland Premier Newman, COAG agreed that states can pass their own laws regarding the succession, but also all will request that the federal government pass legislation under section 53(38) of the Australian constitution. Any state laws on succession must be consistent with their request to the Commonwealth parliament. This means there will be two identical laws on the statute books for Queensland and the Commonwealth.

United Kingdom

Lord Cormack has put down an amendment at third reading for the Succession to the Crown Bill to explicitly state that Catholics cannot accede to the Throne. If this is the only amendment at third reading, it probably won’t take longer than half an hour in third reading. Further amendments may be forthcoming, but none on the most interesting question (for me anyway) of whether the monarch must be Anglican and the Establishment of the Church of England more generally. Given the Conservative backbench interest and Labour’s support for a committee of parliament to set up an inquiry it’s possible the Lords’ Constitution committee, the Commons’ Political and Constitutional Reform committee, or some new ad-hoc committee could begin an inquiry in the new Parliamentary session after May into this.

Given the force of opinion in the Clergy against disestablishment, the most pragmatic solution would be the regency model proposed by Jacob Rees-Mogg where in the event the monarch wasn’t Anglican, an Anglican regent would be appointed as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It’s a compromise, but it would deal with the likelihood of an atheist monarch in the future. Of course, it would require another process just like this one which might put politicians off…

YOU have to feel sorry for the poor dears at Fairfax. There they are, adrift on their sinking ships, yet content enough in their own simple way at the thought that they have driven off all those nasty conservatives who used to buy their papers. At The Age, where not even one conservative columnist is allowed to sully the newly shrunk pages, the big effort appears to be invested in making sure bad news appears less so …. before being made to vanish altogether.

Take this morning’s poll showing that Gillard’s dills now enjoy the support of only 29% of the voting population. Fairfax paid for the poll, so you might imagine it would wish to give it much prominence. And so it did, for a while.

What follows is a frame-by-frame record of the incredible shrinking poll story:

At 9am we saw this on the Age homepage:  

Go over to the billabong and read the rest, see what happens after 9 am.

A child’s plight PHOTO: Hdptcar SOURCE: FlickR

It is hard to believe that eleven years ago, John Howard uttered the words that “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Since then, this statement has enshrined and emboldened Australia’s policy towards asylum seekers and refugees under predecessor governments.

The conflict between Australia’s western roots, and its regional location, continues to mar Australia’s federal policy towards asylum seekers. Australia’s closest neighbours remain unsigned to human rights conventions forcing Australia to lead the way. Yet, as Labor quakes in the face of losing electoral votes, the highly controversial Malaysian Solution seems to be Labor’s pawn to show decisive action.

Within the Asia Pacific Region, Australia acts as a super power, founded in western values and a signatory to the 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, Australia’s asylum seeker and border protection policies are under fire as our nation imposes harsher and more severe conditions upon individuals who arrive by boat.

Monash University Lecturer and author of Frontier Justice: The Global Refugee Crisis and What To Do About It, Dr Andy Lamey, believes that Australia needs to see itself as part of an international framework to protect the human rights of asylum seekers.

“We now live in what’s called the ‘No Entry Age’ in that a lot of countries, including Australia, are putting in policies that make it extremely difficult for anyone, even a genuine refugee to file a successful asylum claim,” he said.

Under the international Refugee Convention, Australia is obliged to ensure the human rights of those who seek refuge and asylum in Australia.

According to the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) Communications Officer Professor Susan Kneebone, refugees are different to asylum seekers.

“An asylum seeker is a person who is in flight, who is seeking refugee status but whose refugee status has not yet been confirmed,” she said.

Dr Lamey argues that Australia continues to blatantly refuse its duty of care for refugees and actively contributes to the ‘Race to the Bottom.’

“Australia has introduced some of the most severe policies in the western world. [It]… has emboldened some of the worst anti-migrant voices in other countries due to the cruel and callous nature of some of the policies that are historically implemented,” he said.

Professor Kneebone agrees that Australia’s Migration Policy disregards human rights.

“It’s effectively penalising people on the way they travel to Australia and the way in which they arrive in Australian territory. It’s discriminating against them, it’s breaching many of the provisions in the Refugee Convention and not giving them the rights they are entitled,” she said.

The Refugee Council of Australia Communications Manager Mr Andrew Williams argues that a closed border policy has become part of governmental framework.

“Australia has for the past 20 years detained asylum seekers for arriving in Australia by boat,” he said.

“Australia sets a bad example by not living up to its own obligations under the Convention.”

In 2010, Australia contributed $45.1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to support their plight.

Amnesty International Monash University Spokesman Mr Mustafa Nuristani believes we have a duty of care to ensure the rights of these people.

“We must take in any person who is running away from persecution, death or violence. It is our international duty to make sure these people are… looked after,” he said.

The Department of Immigration Statistics show that there are currently 6,809 people in immigration detention facilities with numbers rising.

Knox Deanery Youth Ministry Member Ms Caitlyn Petrie agrees that asylum seekers are one of Australia’s greatest priorities.

“It is… one of the most significant contemporary challenges to our human rights practices. Upholding human rights means recognising the humanity of the people who, due to war, crime and other atrocities, seek asylum, and essentially survival,” she said.

The Gillard Government is under scrutiny as the implementation of the Malaysian Solution appears as a resurrection of Howard’s highly controversial offshore processing policy, the Pacific Solution.

Australia has embarked on the highly divisive Malaysian Solution despite the High Court deeming it ‘illegal.’ In June this year, the House of Representatives overturned the ruling to allow the offshore processing policy.

Professor Kneebone believes this ‘Solution’ is a form of political puppetry rather than an honourable act.

“It’s probably the lowest point in the whole time I have been looking at refugee issues that we’ve reached. As it is being done for such blatantly political motives and politicising an issue that should not be a political issue,” she said

“They are… trying to win votes by appealing to peoples perceived needs that see a government that is strong on these issues.”

As Labor’s primary vote rises, the Malaysian Solution remains a highly controversial policy that questions Australia’s commitment to ensuring human rights.

The Victorian Refugee Action Collective Spokesman Mr Ben Solah criticises the Houston Expert Report Panel, slamming it as political leverage.

“The Australian government blatantly ignores international law and human rights obligations,” he said.

“The Houston Expert Report has been really detrimental to refugee rights. It basically opens the doors for… the government to punish people for not committing a crime.”

Dr Lamey said that Malaysia’s human rights record remains concerning as it is not a signatory to any human rights conventions and no reference is made to the category of refugees in its laws.

“Malaysia does not take the plight of refugees very seriously,” he said.

“Between 2003 and 2008, according to the Human Rights Commission in Malaysia approximately 1,300 people died in immigration detention in Malaysia, primarily due to lack of health care. That speaks volumes about what kind of place Malaysia is…”

Professor Kneebone agrees that the Malaysian Solution is merely a political instrument that the Gillard government has enacted to quickly solve the issue.

“There is an incredible high haste and so much that hasn’t been thought through because they were expecting the UNHCR and IOM to assist. They are just overwhelmed by a problem now,” she said.

“Fundamentally, it could be called ‘cruel, degrading and inhumane’ treatment to send people to places where they are basically cut off, isolated and effectively detained.”

According to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration to Detention Network, the annual average cost in 2011 of a detainee was $137, 317.

Mr Ben Solah believes that the government needs to uphold its duties to ensure the rights of refugees.

“Australia is one of the richer countries in the region and has an obligation to be the ones to look after peoples human rights instead of off-loading those responsibilities,” he said.

The longest recorded time spent in detention is 1,152 days approximately over 3 years, waiting for an answer to their asylum claim.

Mr Williams believes that sending refugees to Malaysia is not the answer and should never have been considered.

“Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia… have no legal protections, limited access to health care, few opportunities to properly educate their children and face the constant threat of arrest, deportation, exploitation, abuse and violence,” Mr Williams said.

Yet, Dr Lamey says that the ‘Malaysian Solution’ hasn’t all been bad.

“There is one good thing about the Malaysian arrangement and it is that the government said it would take people from Malaysia to Australia. I agree that the government should transfer people from the hell of refugee life in Malaysia and bring them to Australia,” he said.

While Australia struggles to esteem itself in a volatile region, it seemingly needs to take a firmer stance towards the protection of refugees and asylum seekers.

Ms Petrie believes that our own ‘comfortable living’ makes it challenging to understand the plight of refugees.

“…These asylum seekers and refugees are fellow human beings, and it saddens and angers me to think we find excuses not to extend love, respect and refuge to innocent people and families,” she said.

Mr Nuristani agrees that through education and compassion, Australia will continue to open its borders to those seeking asylum.

“Once people understand, that these people are living in fear of death, every single second of their life, they will be more appreciate of their circumstances and not say they are coming the illegal way,” he said.

“Seeking asylum is not illegal and people who are seeking asylum are just ordinary people.

Now I get it, Comrade Gillard went here to study Law.

Some more of the irrational behaviour here

which, unlike Melbourne University academics, here for all to see … with a couple of sensible comments in rebuttal, well said Denise:

2 April 2013 11:58

Please people get this out…this clown has to be stopped

• Jeanné Browne and 2 others like this.
• 

  Björn Ingelstam love that guy!

  2 hours ago · Like · 1
• 

  Mick Evans Abbott=dickhead nuff said..!

  2 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Elena Morton Yes, yes he does!

  about an hour ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Denise Carrol sorry…Keating was the foulest mouthed bully Australian public life has ever witnessed..Why do some adore him whilst abhoring Abbott? – could it be a latent anti Catholicism attitude passed down from bigotted parents to this generation.?.don’t use RU4T as a reason..many Laborites don’t like the ‘morning after’ pill as a solution to irresponsible sexual behaviour either.

  about an hour ago · Like
• 

  Kevin Smith Nothing so complicated, Denise – Abbott is clearly an unprincipled, morally bankrupt, ethically empty, policy-lacking, self-confessed liar. What’s to like?

  56 minutes ago · Like · 2
• 

  Joe Galea Well said Denise, god help Australia if Julia gets back in.

  55 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Lyal ‘Sparra’ Thomas A Liberal Godhead said Abbott lies, changes policies at the change of the wind.

  50 minutes ago · Like · 1
• 

  Tom Harley name callers are bullies and projectionists. Keating was a master at it …

  32 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Barry Ponchard Denise your comments about the pill, Catholicism and Keating are truely out of place. Our dear former Prime Minister is of the limp wristed mob. He likes boys! And give the bugger credit where credit is due he could certainly put people in their place …See More

  22 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Kevin Smith … as are Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, Tom.

  20 minutes ago · Like · 1
• 

  Tom Harley they back statements with facts kev, just like you should do

  A few seconds ago · Like

  Gordon Edwards‘s photo.

  

  Howard & Abbott

  

  ---

This week, we heard the Opposition’s broadband plan and Julia Gillard, along with some of her Cabinet ministers, visited China.

The Opposition’s broadband plan is essentially to use what fibre-optic cable has been laid by the NBN, before using copper wire for the rest of it. I don’t like this idea. Not at all. It will be slower than the NBN and that is why it’s cheaper. This is one of those cases where applying the theory that ‘what is more expensive is of better quality’ applies. Yes, the Labor’s NBN plan is expensive and will be rolled out slower, but it will be of better quality, using fibre-optic cabling as opposed to the copper phone wire. Not only that, but from what I understand, the Liberals just expect Telstra to hand over the copper wiring – with little to no compensation upfront, which I find ridiculous.

Elsewhere, Julia Gillard visited China with some of her cabinet ministers and struck a deal with the Chinese to have yearly talks and to organise direct conversion between the Australian dollar and the Renminbi (RMB). This is excellent. Australia is becoming more linked with china. As China develops more rapidly, it needs economic and trade ties like this to stay afloat. It also shows that Australia is benefitting from Chinese investment. I my (slightly biased) opinion, this is a good thing.

On another note, this week Margaret Thatcher died this week. Despite the division of the British public on whether or not she was any good, I think she was a truly inspirational woman. I may not have agreed with many of her policies (I wasn’t born then, but I have read enough BBC On This Day to know the gist of it), but she was definitely a defining woman of politics in Britain and the world.

Quotes of the Week

“‘You give us your copper and then we will … as the NBN’s fibre nodes are connected to that copper, those premises will be connected to the NBN and you will be paid the contracted amount.” – Malcolm Turnbull on how he expects a deal with Telstra to work.

“It just gets worse and worse all the time and I think effectively the Government has kind of surrendered, and the problem with surrendering on boat people is that in the end it discredits the whole of our immigration program.” – Tony Abbott, being critical of the Government, after a boat arrival in Western Australia.

Faux Pas of the Week

Oops. Someone missed a boat of asylum seekers. FYI, it is not illegal to be an asylum seeker, it’s just thought that arriving on a boat is a bit of a problem. ABC Video of a witness talking about the boat here.

Tweet of the Week

Someone’s excited that The Drum (ABC News24 @ 6:30pm) talked about them…

Why our NBN plan makes more sense – from The Drum no less! abc.net.au/unleashed/4625…—
Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) April 12, 2013

The story so far:

On Friday, April 5, Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, and Bill Shorten, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for lots of things, including Superannuation, made a public announcement about the changes the Labor-led Government proposed to make to Superannuation in the up-coming Budget.

Well, you could have heard a pin drop – not for long, but at least until after the lunchtime news and current affairs programmes had found enough time to report the facts, and in some cases, the ‘facts’.

So, the off-stage prompting by various media outlets towards some really silly speculation, was at an end, or ought to have been – and nothing left to be done by the other team

Except

• Continue to speculate anyway.
• A little bit of getting it all mixed-up.
• Some really stupid and desperate insisting.
• Some photo ops with elderly Aussies who might not have all their marbles left.
• Some slimy, misleading headlines in the media, often looking, upon inspection, quite bizarre, especially when even The Australian had to give at least (some of) the basic facts (well down towards the end of the article, mind you, on several occasions) – A cornucopia of examples to choose from.
• Some even sillier claims, and Mr Abbott getting more and more locked into a ridiculous position – sliding polls. Even Mr Murdoch’s very own NewsPoll had to try to explain away a swing back to the government. And every time you get a voter wondering …

So, just so that we’re all navigating by the same set of stars, let’s bite some of these bullet points, and some others while we’re at it.

After the lunchtime news and current affairs programmes.

Waste not want not. A good lie is always a good lie, and a twisted headline will fool some of the people all of the time, and most ot the people some of the time.

Quite a few examples to choose from – this one in the Brisbane Courier Mail, used lots of times in related (Murdoch) newspapers, was one of my personal favourites:
‘Raid on nest eggs to hit more Aussies.
HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in tax concessions promised to ordinary families have been dumped, under a near $1 billion government raid on superannuation. (My italics) Gemma Jones, April 5.’

 - ‘Ordinary families’? No – Very, very well-off, ‘fabulously’ rich families.

Gemma Jones has been a serial offender, but on this occasion, she had no option but to actually report at least some of the proposed changes. It must have been perfectly obvious by now, even in the Murdoch camp, that the big message was crystal clear – any income from superannuation in excess of $100,000 per annum would be taxed, not at 45%, not at 30%, but at 15%. A mere 16,000 wealthy Australians would be affected.

At this point, Tony Abbott, who had previously, quite sensibly (perhaps) refused to say whether he would support such a ‘slug’ on the wealthiest contributers to Super, now made his big mistake.

No, he wouldn’t support it! But he re-iterated his ‘promise’ that he would get rid of the tax breaks affecting the poorest 30% – a massive 3.6 million Australians. And he reiterated this ‘promise’ several times, whilst rattling on about Ms Gillard’s ‘broken promises’ – Carbon tax again.

(So, does this mean we can expect Mr Abbott to keep his ‘promises’?  – God help us all if he does.)

Let’s just expand this a little bit – once it had been revealed that the Government was intending to ‘slug’ only the top 0.4 percent, as opposed to the top 1 – 2%, as had been speculated, Abbott had no further doubt – Oppose! These are the most fabulously wealthy of the ‘fabulously wealthy’.  Oppose any attempt to tax their Super earnings. – No brainer!

So let’s be perfectly clear about this.

Well, you wouldn’t have wanted to be in Tony Abbott’s shoes trying to push that barrow, would you? And you wouldn’t want to be in Rupert Murdoch’s, either, trying to convince ordinary Australians that his boy, Tony, was right, and quite intelligent and ‘moral’, with it –  while Gillard, Swan and Shorten were wrong, and stupid and ‘immoral’.

But it took Mr Abbott an age to ‘get it’.

He kicked off his ‘offensive’ with this gob-smacking remark to a bunch of retirees:
‘Every time a government raids people’s funds there are shades of Cyprus about it.’

If, for no other reason, Tony Abbott will go down in history for this particular utterance.
Meanwhile, Julia Gillard, newly arrived in China, just couldn’t resist!

‘This is a crazy statement that no person of reason could make. Anyone who is a person of reason. Anyone who understands the circumstances in the global economy, anybody who cares about Australian jobs and our economic future could not make such a ridiculous statement …’ She referred to Abbott as ‘an economic simpleton’.

And she might have added, ‘political simpleton’, as Abbott’s position continued to look more and more ridiculous. And at least some of those 3.6 million voters began to take it all in –  There’s only so far that you can spin a thing.

Nothing daunted, though, Abbott came back with this little gem:
‘The prime minister shouldn’t use an overseas trip to make domestic political comments.’

Eh? Why not? Should she have abandoned her China trip, flown home, made her remark, and then flown back to China? Or should she have abandoned her China trip, flown home, made her remark, and to hell with China? Or should she have just let him get away with it?

Let’s watch his lips. Is he saying that he ought to be able to say whatever he likes while the PM is out of the country? With impunity? Is the concept of ‘barley’ still the honour system of our playgrounds?

Also, ‘The extreme language of the prime minister is unworthy of that great office.‘ Er, whose extreme language? ‘Shades of Cyprus‘?

Meanwhile, this headline from The Australian:
‘Man-hating Julia back again but, if you ask Insiders, it’s Tony who’s guilty of hyperbowl.’ 8 April

‘’Man-hating’?- actionable, surely.

‘Hyperbowl’? I’ll let that little piece of hyperbole go through to the keeper.

So, eventually, Tony Abbott had to try another tack. He explored a few things, including hitting Ms Gillard with the education stick.

Six of the best –  Mr Abbott stated that the bonus of $10,000 for well-performing teachers is ‘another broken promise’. He omitted to mention that the money had not yet been passed on by the states. ‘Not a single teacher has been given a single dollar in bonus payments as a result of this commitment,’ he said.

When Peter Garrett called him on it, yes, you guessed it – ‘Mr Abbott said this proved that the ‘blame game’ between state and federal governments had ‘never been worse than it is now’. (Several sources for this, but I found first on ninemsn.)

A spokeswoman for Peter Garrett said, ‘The majority of states have already agreed to take part in the scheme, and have already received some funding… There is no reason why they shouldn’t honour their commitment to teachers.’

Anyway, let’s see what the States and the Commonwealth are going to agree/disagree upon on Friday of this week – on this and many other matters.

Meanwhile, back to Page One of the Election Song Sheet, from which, we are all trying, with or without talent, to sing.

Rupert Murdoch must have been wondering by now. His poet laure-ette, Gina Rhinehart had exposed herself as the world’s richest female dill. She inherited her wealth, of course – so a certain amount of dilly-business is to be understood, and expected, and will take her a long way. But not far enough.

She’s got the dollars, obviously, But the headlines? Not the ones she’d like to have with her so-called ‘poem’, anyway.

Even Rupert’s own The Telegraph ran with the headline: ‘Gina Rinehart Pens ‘Universe’s Worst Poem”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Newspoll published their latest Murdoch-owned poll, April 8 – results gathered over the previous weekend, just Day One and Day Two after the announcement by Wayne Swan and Bill Shorten re Superannuation, and well before Tony Abbott‘s ridiculous position had time to set itself in stone, and thereby become apparent.

Crikey didn’t publish their response until they’d had a beat or two to consider.

Murdoch’s people spun the hell out of it, of course, but the facts remained – a swing against the Opposition in favour of the Labor-led minority Government, and a personaL swing against Tony Abbott. – not much of a one, but a swing, nonetheless, towards Ms Gillard, and still swinging.

But it could reasonably be hoped that Days Three, Four, etc., would bring some whoopsas from Ms Gillard and/or her people. Well, they did, actually – from Simon Crean, eventually – who had already begun to look a bit like he might not be ‘terribly well’ when he spear-headed the Spill that Didn’t Spill.  A word or two in the Creanie ear from Messieurs Hawke and/or Keating at this stage might help.  Otherwise, perhaps a change.org petition.

PS Monday morning.

• Well, I was dead wrong about the polls – Galaxy assured us yesterday that Mr Abbott’s idiocy and Ms Gillard’s triumph in China have sent Labor further down the Swannee.

Mind you, Galaxy, like Newspoll, is Murdoch’s baby – not owned by him, but payed for by him, ‘exclusively’ for his newspapers.

•  And this morning, The Age Nielsen Poll has Labor in even hotter water.

So, can we blame it all on media bias?

When you consider that Ms Gillard had an excellent week, and Mr Abbott had a terrible one, what went wrong? Simon Crean.

Thanks to Tinfoilhatter andcornlegend for the pics.

This looks like a last desperate attempt to bribe the votes from big population centres. It’s far too late, too much money has already been ****ed against the school halls. The election at the most is 5 months away and a new Government will not recognize anything this government does at this time. An exercise in futility.

Michael Smith is puzzled: How is Ms Gillard still there?

The AFR’s Edmund Tadros and Dorothy Woodgate really bring the statistics to life with this graphic – you can read more at the AFR.

Go there and read all the other news that counts. Catallaxy hits Labor hard too: Cutting government spending on universities

This cartoon by Matt Golding in The Age encapsulates the general consensus about yesterday’s policy announcement. Last night I was having two Facebook debates – one with a group of my left-wing friends and another with a group of my right-wing friends. The lefties were were unhappy about the so-called efficiency dividend while the right-wingers were happy that an implicit subsidy to HECS* was being wound back.[...]

Read it all

click top result in google search to evade the paywall

Well we have had months of blather form both the federal Labor  party and the Education union extorting us to “give a Gonski” and now I realise that all of this so called “extra money” from Canberra for education has a very big string attached to it, nay its not a string its a bloody big mooring rope and one that makes it almost impossible for the Liberal State governments to agree. Gillard wants the state governments to chip in a dollar for every two that that she is offering under “Gonski”. Now knowing how all state governments are struggling under the burdens of debt that  previous and current Labor administrations have created how on earth does Gillard expect that any state government could agree to sign up for this scheme?

Of course its obvious to me that she never really wanted them to anyway she needs there to be a stoush over this at the next CHOGM  so that she can make a big fuss about how she cares about the future of the nation’s children whereas the evil state premiers  “don’t give a Gonski” its just more of Labor’s usual trickery  and spin doctor shuffle. The simple fact is that if Labor really  cared about the education of our children then the so called reforms would not have such a string attached to it at all.

Not that it matters because the polling is saying so very loudly that Labor is going to be defeated with such soundness that they musty be hoping that they only suffer a Queensland style thrashing rather than being blown completely off the political landscape. Even in Victoria where labor’s vote has held up the best under Gillard’s poisoned patronage their vote has collapsed and dare I suggest that the one safe seat that is likely to be retained is Gillard’s own and guess what, when Labor Looses  its newly re-elected member will be rushing to resign her seat to save herself the humiliation of sitting in the house after leading Labor to its most crushing defeat in the history of federation. Hopefully  the true believers of her electorate will do the right thing for the future of the party and either vote against Labor or if they can’t  bring themselves to do that then they will vote informally in droves to ensure that they won’t have to have the further humiliation of a by-election so soon after the September 14 thrashing.

Cheer Comrades

Labor’s fate under Gillard

]]> http://oigal.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/gillard-scapes-china-dishes/ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 01:25:23 +0000 oigal http://oigal.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/gillard-scapes-china-dishes/

Gillard yesterday today tomorrow (Photo credit: Leonard John Matthews)

There is little doubt that the Prime Bogan Julia Gillard will go down as the worst Prime Minister in Australia’s history.  Jules has the dubious honour of being reviled both by the Public and her own party in equal measures.  It is something special in a profession renown as the breeding ground of the dishonest, morally bankrupt and habitual liars, her one (and only) achievement is being universally hailed as the  Queen of Untruth.

Frankly, I am not sure if she lies anymore than others but I do find her complete and utter inability to think beyond her own personal desires a vile reflection on modern politics.  In the interests of her own survival, we have seen her blast what was left of the intellectual part of her party into oblivion at the same time promote intellectual pygmies whose inept policies will hurt Australia for decades.  Does she care…not one bit.

Related articles

• Ousted Crean blasts Gillard’s ‘tin ear’ (smh.com.au)

Gillard once again displayed her ability to sell out Australians with her repugant fawning at the feet of Chinese leadership this week. Let’s be very clear here, China is not a nice part of the international community.   China remains a brutal and undemocratic dictatorship with the the rule of law being a pipe dream for 99% of the population.  An world environmental vandal, China remains the main market for the decimation of the remaining populations of endangered animals.  A bully and tyrant, China is now pressing other nations throughout  SE Asian in what could only be considered state sanction piracy.

Julia Gillard Prime Minister of Australia. (Photo credit: thinboyfatter)

Despite all the above Gillard acts as a fawning toady to the repugnant modern day Mings of China and parrots the scraps they threw her (a currency deal and a promise of a yearly morning tea invite) is some sort of diplomatic triumph.  It is difficult to grasp that this silly woman cannot even grasp the Mings used her for propaganda value as they press their nonsense territorial  calms through out the region.  Worse, you can bet this Troll PM never even mentioned the Australian Businessmen gaoled without fair or even application of justice. You remember those people don’t you Julia? Australian Citizens the ones you are supposed to represent.

This was re-tweeted by the PM’s Press Office Twitter account.   As far as I can ascertain it’s an official government twitter account, used by the PM’s Press Office.

This was sent out yesterday afternoon.   Strong language warning.

and just to confirm that it’s a genuine Australian Government official twitter account of the Prime Minister, here’s an exchange between John McTernan and journalists about the twitter account.

Smith again, [...] “It’s a dreadful reflection on how juvenile, peurile, profane and horribly personal Gillard’s department has become that an official communication such as the one we saw this morning could come from that office.  Perhaps the Public Service Commission will have a view on the appropriateness of it all – I’ll let you know.”

But wait, there,s more: It’s Laurie Ferguson …

Labor’s latest shameful dog-whistle

Last month saw a colossal political bloodbath in which it became clear that Kevin Rudd doesn’t have the numbers for another leadership challenge. However, the real question remains: How will all this play out in the arena of endless media speculation?

Many journalists have been exercising their standard-issue speculation glands, positing that the Rudd camp is only ironically supporting Gillard. The suspicion is that Rudd’s supporters hope that the Prime Minister will cop all the blame when Labor is eventually crushed in a landslide electoral drubbing this September.

However, the more experienced journalists are busy tapping into their much treasured strategic reserves of supposition. They postulate that Rudd supporters are not just feigning support for Gillard, but are actively working to damage her government as much as possible.

But the Elite Journalistic Guard are unmoved by these theories. Their hypothesis – carefully constructed in a frictionless, fact-free chamber – suggests that the Rudd supporters are, in truth, well-trained triple-agents playing a supremely long game. “They’re only pretending to pretend to support Rudd,” explained one seasoned reporter. None of the reporter’s colleagues were available for comment, as they were busy furiously stroking each other’s atrophied genitals, wiping the emissions on their notepads before stuffing the consequently sodden paper into the fax machine and pressing SEND.

Sources inside the press gallery are now reporting that weapons-grade meta-speculation has been synthesised in purpose-built centrifuges constructed entirely out of wasted time and irrelevance. Speaking on condition of strict notoriety from their castles of conjecture, paranoiac veterans of coup after imagined coup gave us the real inside scoop. “What we’re really holding out for,” said one such veteran, “is a last minute reveal in which Anthony Albanese pulls off his own face to reveal the true reptilian form underneath.”

All things considered, the future looks bright for the continued production of inane, unedifying, unnamed-source he-said-she-said tea-leaf-reading personality-horse-race bullshit in the place of anything that could possibly result in the electorate being better informed about the policies and ideologies of those who want to govern them.

It’s a long bow, but this latest round of speculation might just prove once and for all that Australian political journalism has jumped the shark.