Gillard most productive PM?

Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it 
got out of its way. – Henry David Thoreau

The fact that the article in the Guardian, “Was Julia Gillard the most productive prime minister in Australia's history?” was written at all is something of an indictment of the attitudes of the press, or at least some of it.  Productivity and government are mutually exclusive, as those nations that have adopted state control of their enterprises have found out to their dismay.

The Guardian not only argues that there is such a thing as a ‘productive government, but doubles down on a stupid idea by suggesting that it can be measured by the amount of legislative acts passed per day in office.  Given that such acts tend to be regressive to productive enterprises, or increase the cost of doing business, the conclusions reached are the complete opposite of what is desirable: 

How do we measure the effectiveness of a government? There are polls, both of opinion and at the ballot box, but these don't really offer us any measure of effectiveness. You can look at the economy and measure the health of the populace - and these are both good indicators - but are not wholly under the influence of the government of the day. 

One way might be to look at the ability of a government to pass legislation. Admittedly this is a quantity over quality approach, but it does offer us a quantitative measure of a government, political party or prime minister. Someone that gets a lot of legislation passed might be considered to be good at getting things done. 

I took all of the Commonwealth of Australia Numbered Acts and assigned them to a prime minister, political party, and parliament based on the date of assent of the act. This isn't entirely exact, as some legislation may be introduced under one PM and passed under another, though I believe it is a good proxy. 

From this dataset, I counted the total acts for each PM, party, and parliament. Then, I determined the number of days in office for each PM, and the number of days each parliament and party governed. Using these figures you can calculate a rate of acts per day, which accounts for different lengths of prime ministers' or governments' terms. 

The results? 

Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491: ...

This is fairly indicative of the overly cozy relationship between the media and big government and the way in which the former has become the cheerleaders for the latter. 

These creatures of the state not only fail to understand the stifling effect of massive regulation on the economy, business, and the liberty of the people at large but actually mistake legislative over-reach for productivity, except when done by governments whose politics they disagree with.

Bring back George Reid and give him a hung parliament to make legislation more difficult than that which allowed him to pass a bill every 40th day. 

Gillard, Swan, and Conroy gone

Cartoon by Paul Zanetti 

Now former PM Julia Gillard was defeated in a leadership ballot by previous former PM, Kevin Rudd by a margin of 57 – 45.  As result, she will quit her seat at the next election in line with the agreement by both candidates.

The ABC is claiming that this will bring about stability in national politics.  For the uninitiated, stability is regarded by the left wing media as a really good thing in the same way that they see the prospect of a new tax coming to fruition as ‘certainty’, which removes all of that destabilising doubt about not having it.

The real benefit to Australians though Is that in the wholesale bloodbath following the ballot, the world’s worst treasurer outside Zimbabwe, Wayne Swan, and the censorious Communication Minister, Steve ‘Red Underpants’ Conroy have quit their jobs.

In addition to this, Trade minister Craig Emerson, Education Minister Peter Garrett, and Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig have resigned.  The Liberal Party will sorely miss Garrett, as his unswerving line of screw-ups has been fertile ground for them.

The Climate Change Minister, (fair dincum, it’s a real position) Greg Combet has also quit, but as the minister responsible for diverting lashings of taxpayer dollars into pointless green schemes, the only sadness there is that he will be replaced with someone else to do the same thing.

Rudd will gain a little momentum for Labor for a time as many have forgotten just how bad he was at the time of his ousting and the reason why all of those polls were so bad at the end of his tenure as PM.  Gillard has been so much worse than him that some voters are positively nostalgic for him.

The important news of the night though was that In an exciting contest, Queensland won the State of Origin match by 26 – 6.

Gillard calls leadership spill on State of Origin night

Cartoon: By Bill Leak

In her typical ham fisted and inconsiderate manner the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has called for a ballot on the Labor leadership on State of Origin night when everyone but deadshit politicians have better things to do than watch the death those of the government.

Essentially she is hoping to short circuit the Rudd challenge before he is ready, or at least try to deny further waverers the time to abandon ship: 

The Prime Minister has called a leadership spill for 7pm in an attempt to finish off Kevin Rudd's political career once and for all. 

Mr Rudd said he had been convinced to stand by colleagues and at the urging of tens of thousands of Australians who were afraid of what an Abbott government would do, including reviving Work Choices under another name. … 

… The Prime Minister has demanded the loser of the ballot must resign from parliament to resolve Labor's leadership crisis once and for all. ''I believe anybody who enters the ballot tonight should do it on the following condition,'' she told Sky News. 

''If you win you are Labor leader. If you lose, you retire from politics.”

The writing has been on the wall for Gillard for a long time, becoming bold with the failure of her last attempt at recreating her gender war.  It adopted a larger font on Monday with a disastrous showing in opinion polls, then went all caps after the ludicrous kangaroo knitting farce yesterday.

This ‘photo op’ has been such an embarrassment that both the woman’s Weekly and the Gillard camp are blaming each other for coming up with the idea. 

Both Rudd and Gillard are currently on television claiming that each has to do this because of Tony Abbott.

It will be a great disappointment if Gillard loses as we have all been waiting to toss her out ourselves in September.  Tossing Rudd out will be something of a consolation but not as satisfying as ridding ourselves of our tormentor.

Michael Hastings investigation

The untimely death of journalist, Michael Hastings has created some controversy, not to mention getting conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.  It appears that he had concerns that he was under investigation by the FBI to do with his current investigative reports.

Hastings crashed his car at high speed into a tree after losing control of it shortly after talking to a lawyer from WikiLeaks about his suspicions: 

THE FBI has denied it was investigating Michael Hastings, the journalist who brought down America's top general in Afghanistan and who told friends hours before he died in a Los Angeles car crash that he feared he was under surveillance. 

Hastings, 33, was killed at 4.25am on Tuesday when his Mercedes-Benz C 250 spun out of control, crashed into a palm tree and was engulfed in flames. The car engine was found 30m away and it took three days to identify him through fingerprints. 

A writer for BuzzFeed and Rolling Stone, Hastings was best known for his 2010 profile of General Stanley McChrystal in which the staff of the then Nato commander in Afghanistan disparaged President Barack Obama. McChrystal had to resign. 

In his last article, entitled Why Democrats Love to Spy on Americans, Hastings wrote critically of the recently revealed National Security Agency data-gathering program. …… Hours before his death, Hastings contacted Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer with WikiLeaks, the anti-establishment group, and told her he believed the FBI was investigating him. 

Friends said Hastings was on edge. Cenk Uygur, who was close to Hastings, said on his cable television show that the US government "goes after journalists who reveal their secrets", adding: "Michael Hastings certainly went and exposed some secrets the government did not want you to know.” 

The FBI said that at "no time was journalist Michael Hastings ever under investigation". Police said Hastings was speeding before the crash and it was possible he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Given the massive surveillance of the US population by US security agencies combined with the seizure of records of dissident journalists, it would be a surprise if Hastings was not under some sort of surveillance by authorities, that is unfortunately a no brainer. 

It is possible that the FBI has been the agency to issue a denial because it may be one of those that is violating the rights of other Americans, while different agencies deal with Hastings.  He would be under some sort of investigation unless someone in the Administration has screwed up badly.

It is possible though that a smear job is underway on him, given the statement by police over it being “possible he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”  It is quite possible that toxicology reports, when they arrive some time in the future may indicate that he was over the legal limit and may have had other substances in his bloodstream at the time, it is also possible that it was not the case.

Until that is proven, it is a disgrace ti=o the man’s memory to speculate on it.

Conroy wont serve on a Kevin Rudd front bench

Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and 25,286 free speech advocates like this

Amid sober judgement, speculation, counter speculation, educated guesses, rumour, innuendo, through to incoherent yammerings over the future of Julia Gillard’s leadership a consensus has been reached.  She will not last the week out, but probably will. And, that’s just within the Labor party. 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has bitten the bullet, several journalists, and a number of colleagues and declared that he will not serve in a Rudd front bench: 

The warning from Senator Conroy undercuts any hope that Labor could unify around a return by Mr Rudd to the top job, with the former Prime Minister hoping to avoid the prospect of leading a divided party should he be reinstalled. 

Senator Conroy joins his front bench colleague Education Minister Peter Garrett, who last week confirmed he would also step down from the front bench if Mr Rudd was returned to the leadership. "I support Julia Gillard. I don't believe there will be change," Senator Conroy told Sky News' Australian Agenda. "But I don't believe I would be in a position to be on a front bench.” 

Senator Conroy challenged Mr Rudd to trigger a spill and formally take the fight to the Prime Minister, declaring that Ms Gillard would not step down and had stared down leadership speculation for the last three years.

Gut feeling – Gillard will stay. She will not accept a spill and Rudd is probably smart enough to understand that were he to challenge, if successful, (something that is not as likely as some suggest) he would be held responsible for Labor’s loss after the election and be dumped.

As for Conroy and Garrett, they are simply trying to save face in the event of a Rudd comeback by making it appear to be their decision not to be in a Rudd cabinet. Rudd has probably already decided the same thing himself.

Abbott could win the Senate, but not till July 2014

Labor is expected to go down to one of its worst election defeats in September, possibly only getting 30 – 35 seats in the 150 seat House of Representatives.  Kevin Rudd, even if he can roll Gillard before then will have little impact on that as his own knifing was caused by his poor poll ratings.  Voters will soon remember his tenure in the top job and the Liberals have plenty of television footage of his own party’s opinions of him.

With the merely terrible polling of the past few months, the Senate appeared to be a bridge too far for Abbott owing to the healthy margin of the Labor/Green coalition.  Given the disastrous polling at present, that may not be the case: 

TONY Abbott stands to gain control of the Senate on September 14, relegating Labor to its worst election result since 1901, according to a new state-by-state polling analysis. 

New fears have spread through senior Labor ranks that the number two Labor Senate positions in a number of states could now be at risk with Labor's primary vote at or below 30 per cent in most states. And the union movement is becoming increasingly worried that unless Labor can maintain some influence in the Senate with the Greens, it will be powerless to stop the Coalition trying to crush the union movement. 

An analysis of the latest polls, showing a primary vote of 29 per cent, suggests Labor could end up with only 25 to 26 Senate positions out of 76. 

With the primary vote in the Senate traditionally three to five points lower for Labor than what it receives in the lower house, Labor stands to elect potentially just a single Senator from Western Australia and Queensland and just two in most other states. With the Greens likely to end up with 10 to 11, Labor would not be able to exert any influence in the Senate.

Should this pan out on election day it will be a cause of celebration everywhere other than within Labor, Fairfax Media and the ABC, however it will not mean that the LNP will be able to implement their policies immediately. The Senate unlike the house, has fixed terms and the newly elected Senators will not take their seats until July next year. 

Abbott and his party will go into government immediately, but will have to wait eight and a half months for the Senate to come into line.  Until then it will still be controlled by a substantial number of Senators who are effectively the walking dead.

Anything the new government passes will be voted down by people voted out of office until July next year.  Former PM, Paul Keating famously described the Senate as unrepresentative swill.  He will definitely correct during that period.

We need to go to fixed parliamentary terms immediately. 

Muslim incensed at Australian stamp

Image: the offending stamp. (This appears to be the action at Tel el Saba, a Kiwi action.) Courtesy News .com.au 

The latest in Australian stamps that has been distributed jointly with Israel has incensed a Palestinian activist who is having conniptions over it being a ‘disgraceful insult’ to whoever.  The problem she is frantic about is that they feature the Battle of Beersheba.

The charge of the Light Horse at Beersheba is one of the iconic battles in Australian history.  The 4^th Light Horse was ordered to take the town by dark after the British XX Corps had attached the town for most of the day, making little headway against stiff resistance. 

The 4^th and 12^th Regiments were ordered to attack the Turkish trenches in a cavalry charge rather than the traditional tactic of dismounting and attacking on foot.  The town was secured within the hour. 

There only seems to be one complaint so far, but it has apparently been a slow news day: 

Australia Post's noble envelope-carrying mission is embroiled in controversy today - with the company accused of making a "disgraceful" insult to the Palestinian people in a range of 60c and $2.60 postage stamps. 

"Just the other day I needed a postage stamp," Australian Palestinian activist Sonja Karkar wrote on her blog, "I duly handed over my 60 cents at an Australia Post outlet and received far more than I bargained for - nothing less, would you believe, than a dollop of Israeli propaganda." 

The issue? The stamps feature World War I near the town of Beersheba where Australian soldiers fought the Turkish.  But Ms Karkar says the stamp is tied to Israel when Beersheba was a Palestinian town in 1917. Israel did not exist until 1948. … 

… An Australia Post spokeswoman said it received its information from sources including the Australian War Memorial. And the stamps were fact-checked by war historian Peter Stanley.

It is difficult to understand why this has been given publicity, given that the ‘outrage’ described consists of one blog post by a Palestinian radical who wishes to censor the history of this nation.  We can though, now expect plenty of bleating and bitching to follow from the usual sources.

Giving these idiots oxygen is only likely to result in more demands in the name of political correctness and the avoidance of offense to Muslims.  There is already far too much appeasement of these people who seem to find nearly everything ‘offensive’.

Probably one of the most ludicrous examples was a report by Veterans Affairs fretting over whether ANZAC day was likely to upset their delicate sensibilities: 

The Government squandered $370,000 so that Veteran’s Affairs Bureaucrats could finance a number of ‘Focus Groups’ to develop still more political correctness and tell us that ANZAC Day commemorations were “unpopular with younger people” and offend recent Islamic immigrants.   Someone forgot to tell the focus groups about the increasing numbers of young people that are attending dawn services and other ANZAC Day commemorations around Australia, at Gallipoli and other memorial sites on the battlefields of WWI and recent immigrants are offended by everything Australian. 

The Government then spent another $105,000 to measure the impact of ANZAC Day on recently arrived Islamic migrants and to tone down the commemorations by not mentioning the current and recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as Muslims may be offended.  What consideration was give to the offence that will cause the survivors and/or families of those Australian servicemen killed or maimed in those conflicts? …

About the only offensive thing about this stamp is the cost of posting a letter.

San Bernardino gun control rally draws crowd of three

Venue -            Check

Permit -            Check

PA system -     Check

Signage -         Check

Flyers -            Check

Audience -       D'OH!!!! 

Lewis said he supported HR 1565, a bill that would require background checks for sales at gun shows and online, "close the gun show and other loopholes," and create a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States. 

The protest drew three members of Organizing for Action, a nonprofit group that supports President Barack Obama's agenda, to the National Orange Show Events Center. 

"It's three people today, but it will be 23 next time, and we'll see the time after that," Lewis said.

Yep; - Tomorrow, the world

The Global Warming Gas, or The Bread and Butter of Life?

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition 


We are told, incessantly, that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming – it is not. 

The primary source of surface heat is radiant energy from the sun. Minor heat comes from geothermal energy from volcanoes and hot rocks. Trivial quantities of local heat are brought to Earth’s surface by humans using stoves, cars, boilers, engines and factories powered by mined fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium. Even using “green” energy such as ethanol, wind or wood has a tiny temperature effect by transferring solar energy from farms and forests, to be released eventually as waste heat in cities. 

Solar energy is more concentrated in equatorial areas and is moved pole-wards by the circulation of air (99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and by water and water vapour via evaporation, condensation and ocean currents. These processes are all driven by conduction, convection, latent heat and Earth’s rotation, not carbon dioxide. They are the major forces creating weather. Variations in solar cycles and cloud cover control longer term climate change. 

Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in any of these dominant weather processes. Moreover, it does not burn, nor is it radioactive – it cannot produce heat. 

The so called greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide) have the ability to absorb radiant energy and transmit it to their surroundings. These gases tend to retain some surface heat but also assist the Earth to shed heat from the upper troposphere by radiating energy to space. Without this ability to shed heat to space, the upper atmosphere would be considerably hotter. 

However, carbon dioxide occurs in tiny trace amounts in the atmosphere, and any surface heating it could do is already being done by water vapour, which is more abundant and affects far more energy wavelengths. Also, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is almost exhausted after the first hundred parts per million – adding more has very little effect on Earth’s surface temperature. 

The net atmospheric effect of additional carbon dioxide is thus very minor and difficult to quantify.  It probably makes the nights slightly warmer, especially in higher latitudes during winter; and it probably has little effect on daytime temperatures. 

But additional carbon dioxide in the biosphere gives a major boost to all plants which feed all animals. It is not a pollutant, anywhere. 

Carbon dioxide is not the gas of global warming – it is the bread and butter of life.

More reading for those interested:

 Carbon dioxide greens the deserts:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/arid-regions-of-the-world-are-11-greener-thanks-to-co2/

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml
http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.html

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway?lite

Rudd’s hubris

In a stunning display of hubris, former PM Kevin Rudd has listed his conditions for a return to the leadership of the party.  While his backers are claiming they now have the numbers to depose Gillard, Rudd appears to be demanding that her supporters such as power broker, Bill Shorten commit to him and essentially kiss his behind: 

KEVIN Rudd has privately warned colleagues that unless Bill Shorten and other key ministers were prepared to publicly put their name to a putsch against Julia Gillard, he would resist any calls for a comeback. 

Senior Labor sources close to Mr Rudd have confirmed he has put conditions on any potential return to the leadership, including the demand that Mr Shorten played a role. … 

… A source close to Mr Rudd revealed yesterday he would now not be part of a move to replace Ms Gillard unless key ministers, including some of Ms Gillard's supporters, declared their hand and "owned the decision". Several key ministers previously loyal to Ms Gillard have privately said they now supported the need for change but were reluctant to be involved in a spill. 

"If they want this to happen, then they have to have the guts to put their name to it," one of Mr Rudd's confidantes said. "And if they don't, they can go and fall off the cliff.  "No one is getting a free ride.” 

Those that Mr Rudd would want to put their hand up include other ministers such as Penny Wong, Greg Combet and Jenny Macklin.

Rudd has claimed to be a softer, gentler, more consultative guy of late, ‘who accepts that he made mistakes’ but this action indicates that he has learned nothing.  He still has the old authoritarian approach to the party and seems to think that accepting the leadership is a favour rather than a responsibility.

The folly of consumer policy

Daniel Hannan raises the philosophical argument against government intervention in the market here:

  

A recent example comes from Britain with a report by the Commons international development committee, urging people to eat less meat as the surging demand was unsustainable: 

Families should stop eating meat on a daily basis, MPs warn today. 

Pork, lamb and beef should be 'occasional' indulgences rather than dinner-table staples.They said the global surge in meat and cheese consumption was unsustainable, with the UK 'never more than a few days from a significant food shortage'. 

The Commons international development committee said farmers should rear more animals on grass because livestock is land and energy intensive and grain should be saved for humans.

The self-righteous hubris of these idiots is highlighted by their bleating over the use of grain to raise livestock yet failing to mention poultry in their list of items people should cut down on.  They actually assume that non members of parliament are so dumb that they will have to be told to do what the free market would sort out all by itself.

Unless there is an increase in production consistent with the increasing demand, the prices of grain and hence meat products will increase.  This will cause most people to cut down on the higher priced items in favor of products that give more bang for the buck, or in this case pound.

If MPs spent less time worrying about the contents of suburban pantries, perhaps they might have the time to reduce the demand on grain by repealing the ridiculous rules mandating large quantities of it being diverted to fuel tanks.    

Australia to deport criminal refugees; Abbott

Most Australians have developed a growing sense of disillusionment over criminal activity of refugees to this country.  We have had to put up with Islamic rape gangs, violence on the streets, rioters carrying signs urging the beheading of those who insult Islam, not to mention arson in detention centres.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott has now claimed that an LNP government will deport those illegal immigrants who commit crimes: 

TONY Abbott will automatically deport asylum seekers and other non-citizens convicted of criminal offences and sentenced to one year or more in jail if elected Prime Minister. 

Foreign-born criminals could be banned from re-entering Australia for 20 years under the proposed laws after their visas are cancelled, a doubling of the current penalties. 

The Liberal leader has vowed to close a loophole that has allowed foreign-born criminals convicted of violent crimes and the ringleaders of riots in Australia's detention centers to remain in the country for years while legal appeals are heard. 

"Australians have always welcomed people who want to contribute to our country and abide by our laws but they also have a right to be protected from those who don't," he told the Sunday Telegraph. 

"To maintain people's faith in the integrity of our immigration system, it's our duty to ensure that those who commit serious crimes are swiftly deported and sent home.  "If any visitor to our country flouts our laws or puts the safety of Australians and communities at risk, then they have forfeited their right to our hospitality.”

Predictably, some bleating has already started from the left about sending people back into danger.  If we are to offer them sanctuary from the depredations of their own governments, they have an obligation to abide by our laws. Nobody wants to see these people put up against the wall and shot, but if they are not willing to respect our laws and customs, they just have to take their chances.

Australians are warned by Foreign Affairs that when they visit other countries, they are subject to the law of the land, some of which are very different to those here.  It is not unreasonable to expect refugees to give us the same courtesy.

It is the responsibility of the Australian government to protect the Australian public from violence.  Those seeking refuge here are also entitled to such protection, but they have no entitlement to defy our laws and place law-abiding people in danger.

Editorial note: A late friend of mine, Peter Filla joined the Czechoslovakian resistance at the age of fifteen and fought the Nazis for the duration of the Second World War. He didn’t wimp out, or seek refuge in another country, he stayed on and went head to head with the oppressors.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if the oppressed actually stayed on and kicked a bit of tyrannical arse.

Palin slaps down NSA

The head of the National Security Agency (NSA Gen. Keith Alexander has claimed that the need for wholesale violations of Fourth Amendment rights was done in the wake of 9/11 owing to an absence of information on terrorists involved.  He has claimed a need to be able to track back on contacts of suspects which means treating everybody as a suspect. 

Sarah Palin, who we have not featured for some time has slapped down any contention that this action is keeping Americans safe, claiming that the NSA couldn’t stop two ‘pot smoking deadbeats with terrorist ties’: 

“Our government spied on every single one of your phone calls but couldn’t find two pot-smoking deadbeat Bostonians with a hotline to terrorist central in Chechnya. Really?… And it’s built an apparatus to sneak into all of the good guys’ communications but…whoopsi-daisy… It missed the Fort Hood murderer of our own troops despite this Islamic terrorist declaring his ideology in numerous army counselling sessions and on his own business cards. But, whoops, no red flags there. Really?"

The Boston bombing could have been prevented had the authorities followed up on Russian requests for information on possible terrorist links of one of the perpetrators. 

9/11 was in part allowed to occur by the same people failing to address suspicions of flying schools over gentlemen of Middle Eastern appearance who wanted to fly airliners but had no interest in takeoffs or landings.

It is highly unlikely that those who missed such simple clues are competent to get useful intelligence out of such a complex operation.  If they do, they will probably screw it up again.

US to back al Qaeda in war against Hezbollah

It seems like the urging of Bill Clinton has done the trick in getting President Obama to commit to aiding the rebels in Syria.  We should not forget the campaigning for intervention by John McCain who just loves to see the troops deployed, and Lindsey Graham who can think of a dozen good reasons to invade most countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe and in a pinch, even Hutt River Province. 

Reports indicating that up to 100 – 150 rebels may have suffered injuries from chemical weapons have helped him make this decision as well.

Several months ago there were clear indications that the rebels also possessed chemical weapons, which seems to have been forgotten. With the relatively small number of injuries by these weapons, it is not inconceivable that they were caused by weapon strikes on their own stocks, unless it is assumed that Assad is not very good at targeting.

Owing to the fact that the Syrian government is backed by Hezbollah, and the rebels are backed by al Qaeda, it makes no sense at all to be involved.  Putting advanced weapons into the hands of radical Islamists is a recipe for having them used against you in the future and regardless of who wins they will be opposed to the West.