British Conservatives respond to UKIP win; take leaf out of Aussie Liberal book

Cartoon: By Bill Leak 

During the European elections, the Conservative Party was beaten into third place behind UKIP and Labour.  They have taken this very badly as can be expected, although their response is not the logical one of assessing where things went wrong for them and taking corrective action.

Instead, they have opted for the same as Australians have come to expect of the major party cartel here, with a sleazy, self-serving attack on the democratic process.  In an attempt to manipulate the system, Cameron is inviting European parties that were previously unacceptable to join the Conservative grouping to deny UKIP party status: 

… While Cameron’s move might enrage the so-called Tory moderates, Nigel Farage will be enraged, too. He already faces the prospect of another member of his group, the Italian anti-EU Lega Nord, leaving UKIP’s group to join the Front National of Marine Le Pen and the Dutch People’s Party of Geert Wilders, two right-wing, anti-EU parties with whom Farage has said UKIP will not sit. 

Despite UKIP now being the biggest British party at the parliament, unless it can form a political group with members from at least six other EU member states, it will be denied seats on the parliamentary committees that control amendments, scrutinise legislation and question officials from other EU institutions such as the European Commission and European Central Bank. 

Moreover, UKIP will be denied the millions of euros in funding which the parliament hands over to groups to allow them to hire staff, establish a secretariat, carry out research and even set up think tanks. 

For example, in the 2012 budget, UKIP and the MEPs from ten other countries in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, had an allocation of more than €2.5m, with €881,000 still in the bank carried over from the previous year’s grant. This was on top of all the expenses individual MEPs were given to run their offices, research and travel. 

By contrast, the giant pro-EU powers European People’s Party (EPP), from which Cameron removed the Conservative MEPs in 2009 as a sop to his party’s eurosceptic wing, was allocated €21m. 

If Cameron manages to strip away UKIP’s allies and leave Farage and his MEPs without a group, then Britain’s biggest party and Britain’s only eurosceptic voice in the parliament will be facing the power of the vastly rich EPP, and the almost-as-rich centre-left socialists (€14m), with no cash at all – and no committee seats from which to make political impact as these two mega-groups drive their permanent pro-EU majority through the parliament.

This action is similar to the actions of the Liberal party here, which on noticing the rise in the vote for minor parties has responded by forming a committee of the major party cartel and making recommendations which will prevent voters from electing anyone outside the ‘born to rule’ elite.  Despite around a quarter of voters preferring someone else, these dropkicks comfortably have come up with the conclusion that actually getting someone else is unrepresentative and has to be stopped.

Malcolm Mackerras reports on it here: 

It is not hard to find. Just go to the federal parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its Interim Report on the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election: Senate Voting Practices, which was delivered on the morning of Friday, May 9. 

The opening sentence of the foreword reads thus: “The 2013 federal election will long be remembered as a time when our system of Senate voting let voters down.” 

I dissent. I think what will long be remembered are the facts that I outlined a few paragraphs ago. However, there will be some in the political class who remember that election for the official reason. A bit below the above quote from the foreword we have the view that the system of voting “delivered, in some cases, outcomes that distorted the will of the voter”. 

My reaction to that is to ask for names. So I continue to read. Then on page 19 there is this: “Despite this very small percentage of first-preference votes, Senator-elect Muir was elected to the Senate for Victoria in the final vacancy.” 

In fact, there were a dozen senators elected with a smaller percentage of first-preference votes than Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party. However, their preference harvesting was within party groups (very normal and thought to be ethical) whereas Muir was harvesting the votes of other parties. So I can now give a precis of the report. It takes the form of an address to Muir from the rest of the parliament: “You should not be here. To make that quite clear we intend to enact a radical reform of the system. Your type will never again be allowed to enter the Senate.” 

On page 2 of the report we have this: “The final composition of the Senate should reflect the informed decisions of the electorate and it is clear that the Senate from 1 July 2014 will not do that, it will reflect deal-making and preference-swapping.” 

My take is to assert that 36 senators will be sworn in next month, of whom 35 clearly reflect the informed decisions of the electorate. We can agree to disagree about Muir. 

This report is a scholarly work and I encourage people to read it. However, do not be misled by its unanimity. First, three parties only were represented, Labor, Liberal and Greens. Had there been a Nationals member or had John Madigan or Clive Palmer been a member there would have been a dissenting report. 

Second, the three parties represent declining voter support. I have already given the Labor and Liberal figures, so let me give the Greens.   They received 13.1 per cent in 2010 and had six senators elected. Then they received 8.6 per cent in 2013 and had four senators elected. 

Since there is now a unity ticket of three big parties to implement reform, we can safely say there will be changes along the lines unanimously recommended. So let me say something about the present system and the next one. 

I call the present system “the fifth Senate electoral system and the second Single Transferable Vote system”. I call the next system “the sixth Senate electoral system and the third STV system”. 

History will record that the present system operated for 30 years, from 1984 to 2014 inclusive, over 12 elections.  It was a remarkably successful system, not only being popular but also being noted for the consistent fairness of the results it produced. ....

It is odd to hear the Australian government criticizing the coup in Thailand as undemocratic, while at the same time is manipulating the democratic process in order to exclude anyone outside the major party triumvirate that currently rules.

The Climate See-saw.

Cartoon: by Michael Ramirez
By Viv Forbes, Chairmam,
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Anyone who looks carefully at radiation science and the thermodynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will come to the conclusion that carbon dioxide alone cannot cause a global warming crisis. Even sensible warmists know this. There is a warming effect, but it is tiny and getting smaller as carbon dioxide increases.



So warmists invoke “positive feedbacks” or multipliers, which they say will tip earth into runaway global warming.

Their theory is that an initial small warming will increase evaporation of water from the oceans and methane from the tundra. These two “greenhouse gases” will then cause more atmospheric warming, progressively expelling more carbon dioxide from the warming oceans. “Oceans will boil” claimed warmist leader James Hansen. They also claim that after a postulated “tipping point”, Earth will never recover its balmy equilibrium.



However, they ignore substantial negative feedbacks that act to moderate any tendency to excessive global warming. For example, evaporation cools water bodies and carries surface heat into the upper atmosphere where it dissipates to space. Extra evaporation also produces more clouds that reflect heat and cool the surface. Also methane oxidises and extra plant growth absorbs more solar energy, water vapour and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.



Moreover, the long history of the Earth reveals periods when temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher than today but life flourished and Earth always returned to cooler times – sometimes an ice age. Earth’s climate oscillates like a see-saw, with periodic changes in cycles in the sun and the solar system keeping the see-saw slowly oscillating.



There is no evidence supporting the theory of a global warming tipping point.



Today we live in a comfortably warm climate cycle but in the grand climate cycles, the barren hungry ice is always waiting its turn. Global cooling is a far greater danger to life on Earth than global warming.



Every human alive today is descended from a long line of smart and adaptable ancestors. Those who stay smart and adaptable will survive future see-saws of the climate.



For those who would like to read more: 

James Hansen claims oceans will boil: 


Here’s some alarming forecasts, bravely also specifying dates



But a well-known Australian global warmist rejects the tipping point scares:



Climate Forcings and Feedbacks. It is a well buffered and balanced system:


Quiet sun, and increasing ice:


Even the BBC feels the chill:

Finally, modern man (and woman) practicing how to cope with the ice:

Indonesian clerics rort our abattoirs

A powerful body of Indonesian clerics is essentially holding Australian abattoirs to ransom over the certification of meat as Halal and suitable for export to that country: 

QUEENSLAND abattoirs are being slugged thousands of dollars a month through a religious levy on meat exports so powerful Muslim clerics in Jakarta can raise money for Islamic schools and mosques.   The Halal certification fees can cost some meat processors up to $27,000 a month.

The Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the top Islamic body which orders fatwa religious rulings, has even banned a Brisbane business from operating - because it was not charging Queensland abattoirs enough to give the religious tick-off to export meat. 

The scandal has stopped most of Queensland's Halal meat exports to Indonesia, as angry abattoir operators boycott the more expensive Halal certifiers endorsed by the MUI.Australian companies that certify meat as Halal, or legal under Islamic law, must be accredited with Indonesia's MUI - which approves just one certifier per state or territory. 

The MUI has suspended Brisbane based Australian Halal Food Services (AHFS) for engaging in "unfair competition'' that could "weaken (the) Halal certification movement". Certifiers must donate a share of their revenue to mosques and Islamic schools. 

AHFS - which refused to comment on Saturday - sponsors the As-Salaam Institute of Islamic Studies, based in Eight Mile Plains. It has also spent funds repairing and maintaining mosques in Rochedale and Rockhampton. … 

… But MUI chairman Amidhan Shaberah said AHFS had been suspended for trying to work interstate, as well as Queensland. He said setting minimum fees and restricting one certifier to work in each state was "part of our control''. "We have to standardise the charge to avoid any unfair competition between certifiers,'' he told The Sunday Mail during an interview in Jakarta.

This has nothing to do with the backlash from the live export ban, an ill conceived and misbegotten act of the Labor government in a knee-jerk reaction to a TV show.  While this act destroyed Australia’s reputation as a reliable supplier and crippled the northern cattle industry, damaging the rest in the process, this is the separate issue of processed meat exports.

Such high fees leave abattoirs with only three options:

• First, to stay out of that particular market, as they appear to be doing;
• Second, Charge more to all consumers including those with no religious fetishes, or charging the Halal market for the entire additional cost which could make the product too expensive and leave the company open to claims of religious discrimination under the Human Rights Act which was written and enacted by people with little or no commercial experience; and
• Third (which is most likely), pay less to struggling producers for their livestock.

Where a product has to be produced under special requirements and is not visually different to the normal one, a certification system is necessary.  Such systems though, can be abused. 

The usual form of abuse is for an industry to use it to make it impossible for new competitors to enter. In cases where government runs the certification, industry lobbyists push hard for conditions to ‘protect consumers’ which have the same effect while leaving those already established to hog the lot.

In this case it is being used to extort money from meat processors by monopolizing the certification with the stated aim of preventing competition.  

EU wants auditors to go easy on them

 Everybody’s favorite Eurocrat, the ever amiable, Herman Van Rompuy (Left) has called on the EU’s editors to tone down their criticism of the body’s wasteful and mismanaged spending, fraud, and financial irregularities.  He claims that such criticism can result in ‘negative press’, which fails to promote the image of that body, or at least the image he would like.

The European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off on the books of the body for eighteen years now and last year’s report pointed to £89 billion of European spending that was subject to what it called, “material error.” 

The average authoritarian tends to believe that the waste, mismanagement, and fraud are not the thing that alarms the public.  The real problems start when irresponsible whistleblowers, overzealous auditors or investigators fail to understand the need to keep the news of it out of the public domain: 

Ever since it started producing annual reports into European finances in 1994, the Court of Auditors has failed to sign off the EU’s accounts because of widespread irregularities, including fraud. 

Last year, the auditors’ annual report prompted the Government to warn that the findings “seriously undermines the credibility of the EU’s financial management” after the audit found that £89 billion of European spending was “affected by material error”. 

Mr Van Rompuy acknowledged that the auditors must make “results known” but insisted that they had “another responsibility: that of being as didactic as we possibly can” in order to help instruct the public about the benefits of EU membership. 

“In the end we are all responsible for Europe and its image,” he said. “In times of crisis, it is more vital than ever to foster confidence. We should also be teaching, to convince Europeans and demonstrate clearly that Europe is not the source of problems, but the solution.” … 

… Nigel Farage MEP, the leader of Ukip [R], described the speech as an “incredible” attempt to muzzle the EU’s auditors. 

“The Court of Auditors which has not signed off the EU accounts for 18 years, is asked to go easy and provide good PR only for the EU,” he said. In which other banana republic in the world would the president publicly call for less exposure of waste of taxpayers’ money?.” 

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, said: “Van Rompuy invokes euro idealism to try to get us to turn a blind eye to dodgy account keeping by his own Eurocrats. In doing so he discredits the very system he seeks to defend.” 

Mr Van Rompuy and the EU civil service is concerned that it is going to be difficult to keep track of new funding projects, worth hundreds of billions in spending between 2014 to 2020.

Van Rompuy’s comments are not only an attempt to muzzle those whose responsibility it is, to root out financial irregularities in the organization, but a ‘Ministry of Truth’ style effort to hoodwink the public into believing that all is clear and above board.

His claim that auditors have a responsibility to be didactic and ‘instruct the public about the benefits of EU membership’ is patronizing and just plain wrong.  The idea that Europe and its image is somehow the responsibility of auditors is a crock.  An improvement in the perception of Europe can only be achieved by better and less governance, not the writing of reports through rose colored glasses.

Mark Stein, Krugman, and the trillion-dollar coin

Mark Stein has an amusing take on the news on arriving back from a trip out of the country.  This includes the media falling for a story about a football player’s imaginary dead girlfriend, 23 executive orders designed by kids, and the rather ludicrous call for the minting of a one trillion dollar coin.

Back in the Reagan era, a Doonesbury strip was published in which Duke has arrived back from one of his mysterious trips away and was being brought up to speed on the Iran Contra affair.  After hearing of illegal arms sales to Iran with the proceeds diverted illegally to fund the Contra militants in Honduras, he rings his PA and asks her to check what medication he is on.

Stein reads it like this: 

While I was abroad, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, a Harvard professor of constitutional law, a prominent congressman, and various other American eminencies apparently had a sober and serious discussion on whether the United States Treasury could circumvent the debt constraints by minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin. Although Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider called the trillion-dollar coin “the most important fiscal policy debate you’ll ever see in your life,” most Democrat pundits appeared to favor the idea for the more straightforward joy it affords in sticking it to the House Republicans. … 

The trillion-dollar-groat fever rang a vague bell with me. Way back in 1893, Mark Twain wrote a short story called “The Million Pound Bank Note,” which in the Fifties Ronald Neame made into a rather droll film. A penniless American down and out in London (Gregory Peck) is presented by two eccentric Englishmen (Ronald Squire and Wilfrid Hyde-White) with a million-pound note which they have persuaded the Bank of England to print in order to settle a wager. One of the English chaps believes that simple possession of the note will allow the destitute Yank to live the high life without ever having to spend a shilling. And so it proves. … I always liked the line Mark Twain’s protagonist uses on a duke’s niece he’s sweet on: He tells her “I hadn’t a cent in the world but just the million pound note.” 

That’s Paul Krugman’s solution for America as it prepares to bust through another laughably named “debt limit”: We’d be a nation that hasn’t a cent in the world but just a trillion-dollar coin — and what more do we need? As with Gregory Peck in the movie, the mere fact of the coin’s existence would ensure we could go on living large. Indeed, aside from inflating a million quid to a trillion bucks, Professor Krugman’s proposal economically prunes the sprawling cast of the film down to an off-Broadway one-man show with Uncle Sam playing every part: A penniless Yank (Uncle Sam) runs into a wealthy benefactor (Uncle Sam) who has persuaded the banking authorities (Uncle Sam) to mint a trillion-dollar coin that will allow Uncle Sam (played by Uncle Sam) to extend an unending line of credit to Uncle Sam (also played by Uncle Sam). 

This seems likely to work. As for the love interest, in the final scene, Paul Krugman takes his fake dead girlfriend (played by Barack Obama’s composite girlfriend) to a swank restaurant and buys her the world’s most expensive bottle of champagne (played by Lance Armstrong’s urine sample). …

In fairness to Krugman, he is a witty satirical writer for the New York Times, who’s rather quirky and off the planet ideas are sometimes taken seriously by political pundits, possibly due to his Nobel Prize in economics.  He is great for filling the gap when The Onion or The People’s Cube don’t post. 

His endorsement of the trillion dollar coin should not be taken too seriously, given the terms he uses to argue for it: 

“It’s easy to make sententious remarks to the effect that we shouldn’t look for gimmicks, we should sit down like serious people and deal with our problems realistically. That may sound reasonable — if you’ve been living in a cave for the past four years.Given the realities of our political situation, and in particular the mixture of ruthlessness and craziness that now characterizes House Republicans, it’s just ridiculous — far more ridiculous than the notion of the coin.”

In other words, he is claiming that the very idea of Republicans opposing the will of President Obama (All heil the great leader) is absolutely ridiculous, and it is therefore sensible to do something ridiculous in response to this.

Gillard’s question; so which one do we trust?

Cartoon: By Bill Leak 

Ralph Blewitt, who was Julia Gillard’s boyfriend’s sidekick in the establishment of an illegal slush fund has arrived back in Australia and been interviewed by police in relation to the matter.  At issue is the formation of the dodgy, AWU Workplace Reform Association, through which her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson scammed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Gillard’s part in it.  Both Cabinet minister Bill Shorten and the former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty have described the association as “inappropriate.”

Her response was far from edifying.  She called a press conference, answered questions in the normal manner she uses, “this has been dealt with before” then went on to Question Time in parliament and insisted that she had answered all questions in the press conference.

For a person who claims an abhorrence of smearing opponents, she did a particularly good job of just that on Blewitt, claiming: 

… “Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud.  “Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from prosecution. Mr Blewitt is a man who has fled Indonesia to avoid a police interview in relation to land fraud, although he denies wrongdoing in the case. 

“Mr Blewitt says he owes money on another Asian land deal. Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments and accompanying photographs on his Facebook page. 

“Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar and his sister has said he's a crook, and rotten to the core.”

Upping the ante, she stated, “His word against mine; make your mind up.”

OK, lets look at Blewitt.  The fraud he has admitted to is the one in which Gillard may be implicated, and the immunity refers to the statements he is making to police.  There is a question mark on an Asian land deal.  He ‘owes money’ on another, - not a crime.

He has used prostitutes and published lewd and degrading comments and photos on his FB page, - Who knew the PM was such a prude?  Other than that, there seem to be a number of persons prepared to make derogatory remarks about him.  He has never claimed to be an angel; his claims are that Gillard and Wilson aren’t either.

Gillard on the other hand was involved in setting up an association which was claimed to be for workers safety, but which by her own admission, was a ‘slush fund’.  This was done for a guy she was in a relationship with, in the name of a union that was a major client of the law firm she worked for, which appears to be a clear conflict of interest.

While she states that she left the relationship after ‘discovering’ the scam, she did not report it despite her knowledge that a major fraud had been committed against one of her firm’s clients.

So, who are you going to trust?  Probably neither, but Blewitt seems to be making some effort to make amends while Gillard is using every semantic device to avoid coming clean.

It would probably be inadvisable in the event of having to choose one or the other, to select the one who claimed, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”

Public service; one on one counselling now ‘bullying’

Bullying is a subject that has been covered here before, as it seems to be the current buzzword of the century here in Oz.  There’s schoolyard, workplace, twitter, Facebook, and a multitude of other forms of bullying, but the Administrative Appeals Tribunal takes the cake with its ruling that one on one counseling now constitutes bullying.

It would be difficult to think of a more discreet method of addressing an underperforming employee than one on one counseling, but it appears that the tribunal decided that the mere fact that other employees were aware of the occurrence was unduly embarrassing for the employee.

Ironically the complaint was launched against the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR): 

… The Administrative Appeals Tribunal says that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) was "insensitive" to the worker's issues and "humiliated" her by holding one-on-one meetings to talk about her poor performance. 

Despite the department offering leave and counselling to Maria Martinez to help her improve her work, the Tribunal found that the "unreasonable" approach taken by DEEWR contributed to the employee's "adjustment disorder". 

The tribunal was told of an atmosphere of gossip and backstabbing at the employment section of the National Indigenous Cadet Project Program where Maria Martinez worked until August 2010. 

Ms Martinez's claim for worker's compensation, alleging "patronisation, bullying, being made to feel stupid, work colleagues speaking ill", had twice been rejected by Comcare because the insurer believed the public servant's bosses had been reasonable in their attempts to improve her performance. 

But after hearing two days of evidence in September, the tribunal ordered Comcare to review its decision, taking into account the "bullying" Ms Martinez had sustained from her supervisor Deborah Ward. 

One witness said that Ms Martinez was disruptive, made "silly mistakes," had been promoted beyond her abilities and brought her personal problems into work.  Another said the APS 5-level employee had been an adequate worker but acknowledged she had trouble coping with her personal problems. 

Tribunal senior member Professor Robyn Creyke and his colleague Bernard Hughson found Ms Ward had been reasonable in taking Ms Martinez's personal problems into account, offering her counselling, time off and support to improve her work.  But the tribunal members decided the supervisor bullied Ms Martinez by holding the private meetings, which attracted "notoriety" among her workmates, and that Ms Ward should have found another way to approach her subordinate's problems. …

It must be great for the tribunal members to be in that happy position to make a ruling that the counseling should have been done in a different manner to that used without having to make any suggestions as to what that method should be.

Gillard should get a gold medal for evasiveness

Whenever an attempt is made to get Julia Gillard to answer for any of her actions, she prevaricates, generally claiming that the issue has been dealt with, or that the question has been answered before.

 This applies to everything from “There will be no carbon tax …” to matters related to her involvement in setting up fraudulent accounts that were used by her then boyfriend to rip off the AWU for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Here is a classic example of a Four Corners interviewer repeatedly attempting to pin her down over the leadership acceptance speech. It adds a new dimension to the term, “Flogging a dead horse.”
 
 She spins like a Westinghouse.

Swan’s mini budget ‘savings' mainly tax increases

… we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” – Thomas Paine

Cartoon: By Nicholson 

‘World’s best Treasurer', Wayne Swan’s original budget for this year was initially treated with skepticism over his contention that Chinese growth would continue virtually unabated despite evidence to the contrary.  Since then, revenue has declined dramatically, resulting in a shortfall that has been obvious for nearly as long as the budget has been out there.

As result WBT Swan has announced a ‘revision’ in which he has found what he calls ‘savings’ of $16.4 billion.  The trouble with this is that apart from a reduction of the ‘baby bonus’ for second and subsequent children, all of the others are tax increases of reductions in areas like the Medicare Rebate, which will probably take people out of private insurance into the public sector.

Probably, the worst of these measures is forcing big companies to pay their corporate tax monthly, which will raise the take by $8.3 Billion over four years.  In doing so the amount of investment capital of these companies is reduced along with a substantial increase in compliance costs.

Referring to increased taxes as savings is not just an Australian phenomenon, but is used as a sugar coated poison pill worldwide.  To the man in the street, it may, and is dishonest and deliberately deceitful; however, when the attitude of the state is factored in it may not be strictly the case.

In the main governments do not see any limit on their powers of taxation, other than in some cases Constitutional requirements that can usually be bypassed with clever wording and legal phraseology.  Indeed, former French Finance Minister Jean Baptiste Colbert described the art of taxation as, “So plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”

In the eyes of Wayne Swan, he is entitled to take whatever he wants from whomever he wants, whenever he wants.  Given this view, it is reasonable to assume that he sees that portion of what the taxpayer gets to keep above what he feels he can take is actually wasted.  To him, a tax increase is actually a preventative measure designed to reduce funds that the taxpayer might otherwise splurge on himself.  It therefore constitutes a saving in his eyes.

This is not the most innovative excuse for a tax rise.  Those old enough to remember the election of the Hawke Keating government will recall that one of their earliest acts, was a tax hike which it was claimed was to ‘reduce the excessive liquidity’ out there in the community.  Apparently, we had so much money sloshing about in our pockets it was causing inflation.

Romney tape ‘incomplete’

Cartoon: By Ramirez

The Romney 47% statement that seems to have caused outrage across America has come into the spotlight again. There is now evidence that the tape misses some of what was said between two segments, which makes it somewhat suspect, at least from the contextual viewpoint. There is no reason to suspect that his words were other than what is reported, but it is now clear that those were not the only words said.

 Breitbart reports: 

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment. 

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remark.  

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted. …  

 … There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released. That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson). … 

 The 47% figure mentioned is no surprise; it’s been around for some time and widely reported except in the liberal media. What is disappointing though is Romney’s assumption that none of that 47% want to rise into an income bracket that will allow them to advance, and would rather remain on welfare and vote for Obama. Given the President’s class warfare agenda and scare campaign though, he is determined to ensure that this group remain as his major constituency.

 Owing to the unknown time that is ‘missing’ or edited out, it is not known whether it contained something to mitigate this perception. Journalism relies on integrity, or at least a perception of it in order to maintain an aura of credibility, something that has been missing for a long time.

 This especially seems to be the case with political reporting, where ‘credibility’ seems to rely on telling the chosen audience something it wants to believe.

But, do Google promotions use Yahoo mail accounts?

Allow me to begin by expressing my pleasure at the efficacy of the Google spam filter, something this site’s official spammer, Anonymous will attest to just as soon as the dickwit wakes up that he isn’t getting past it. He has just made the twentieth attempt today pushing some money making site, presumably one that pays idiots to place unwelcome commercial spam on websites.

While I exult in first amendment rights, free speech and all that goes with it, attempts to advertise on this site without paying for it violates my property rights and any company hiring these people to do so have no respect for the rights of others and should be treated with distrust. If they have no respect for others, they are probably unreliable to trade with.

I have been pretty lucky lately, what with African princesses wanting to have a relationship with me and share the millions left to them that has to get out of the country (I’ll bet they all look like Halle Berry), bankers wanting to launder money through my account, and of course the ubiquitous person of the same surname as me who died intestate after depositing millions in bank accounts in Europe.

Then there was the London Lottery, which I won without even having a ticket in the first place. To give them their full dues, they tried for months to get me to reply and claim my two and a half million pounds, but I guess I’m a bit of a procrastinator.

The Philadelphia Lottery were so concerned about my failure to supply the details they required to pay me the $23.2 million I won that they had an ‘FBI special agent’ contact me to let me know he would be investigating why if I failed to comply with their request. I figured though, that an FBI special agent would probably enjoy the challenge of finding all of that information himself.

It might require him to check me out on Google or friend me on Facebook, but hey, what’s a little inconvenience to those guys? I just hope he doesn’t think that if I have nothing to hide, then …

The curious one today was from Google Promotions, oddly in Buckingham Palace Rd, London, which reads:

We wish to congratulate you once again on this note, for being part of our winners selected this year. This promotion was set-up to encourage the active users of the Google search engine and the Google ancillary services. Hence we do believe with your winning prize, you will continue to be active and patronage to the Google search engine. Google is now the biggest search engine Worldwide and in an effort to make sure that it remains the most widely used search engine, we ran an online e-mail beta test which your email address won Ј950,000.00 GBP {Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Great British Pounds Sterling}. …

After asking for my personal details, it asks me to reply to a Mrs Patience Wheatcroft youngchang@yahoo.cn, which I gather is in China. I understand Google is an international company but it seems surprising to have their promotions staff using Yahoo accounts.

By the way Google, if this is a genuine offer I am quite open to receiving the money. In the meantime I will wait with baited breath to see whether Anonymous posts his spam on this post so I can find out whether he reads them.

Dirt files OK if taxpayer funded; Labor.

Cartoon: By Pickering.

Towards the end of last year, the media were full of outrage over what was called the LNP’s dirt files on Labor politicians. Labor was livid enough to almost convince unenlightened observers that it didn’t have its own set on the opposition. Fairfax’s ‘Brisbane Times’ led the media charge:

A Liberal National Party dirt sheet detailing a minister’s epilepsy and childhood adoption reflect the attitudes of the 1950s and have no place in political campaigns, Premier Anna Bligh says.

The government today stepped up its calls for the LNP to sack the party officials who commissioned research on Labor MPs by former ALP staffer Robert Hough, whose work reportedly included claims about some politicians’ sexuality, sex lives, drinking habits and health matters. …

However, The Courier-Mail today published extracts from the documents, which it said it had edited to remove salacious or defamatory content. The LNP said it was not the source of the leak to the media. Most of the edited documents appear to generally contain simple factual background on the history of MPs or opinions about their strengths and weaknesses. …

The LNP files were compiled by a former Labor staffer acting as a consultant and paid for by the LNP out of its own funds. Now it has been revealed that PM Julia Gillard has her own dirt-digging unit under the direction of a senior staffer working out of her own office. This one though is taxpayer funded:

JULIA Gillard has defended taxpayer-funded information-gathering on Labor's political opponents amid reports one of her senior staffers was running a dirt unit from her office. The Prime Minister said she had not seen a document, allegedly distributed by her director of strategy Nick Reece, instructing ministerial staffers to gather sensitive political information on shadow ministers.

But she said scrutinising opposition MPs, including on their financial dealings, was a legitimate part of the political process. …

The ABC's AM program said the alleged Reece document was a "to do" list for gathering information on Coalition frontbenchers, including on their "younger days", their pecuniary interests and "potential issues" such as litigation. It was reportedly accompanied by a spreadsheet on where to get the publicly available information. …

There can be no argument as to the reasonability of scrutinizing MPs on both sides of the aisle and the cross benches; to use Don Chipp’s “let’s keep the Bastards honest.” (Don never explained how to ‘get the bastards honest’ in the first place and may have been a bit optimistic with his goal.)

Taxpayers though, should be demanding greater accountability from their various governments as to the division between that which is public interest spending, and that which is party political interest and as result should be paid for out of party funds. The channeling of taxpayer funds into spending done for the benefit of the ruling party is gross misappropriation, no matter which party is doing it.

The LNP dirt files were compiled ethically using their own resources. Gillard’s dirt files are the result of an unprincipled looting of treasury funds acquired for the purposes of public administration and their diversion to Labor Party use. Labor should repay this money to Treasury, along with the $36 million being used to sell the carbon tax.

The fact that all parties tend to do it when in power does not make it right.

Finally, the home insulation stimulus ends.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

When the Rudd government was confronted with the global finance crisis, it went into panic mode and raced into its stimulus effort. This consisted of spending as much money as possible as quickly as possible, something it still gives the perception of doing.

Essentially what was done was to follow the lead of the US, only more ineptly. Bank deposits were guaranteed, which lead to a massive move of investment out of the non-bank finance system, throwing it into crisis. Then there was the cash splash with $900 cheques sent out to nearly everybody to get them spending again. This lead to a few good parties, but most was put away for a rainy day.

Along with ‘cash for clunkers’, the ‘Building the Education Revolution’ scheme, which constructed school buildings at two to three times the normal price, came the home insulation scheme. The idea of this was primarily to spend heaps of money and to give the appearance of saving the planet in the process. This disaster was canned over two years ago and most of the damage has been fixed to the point where the government is bringing it to its ignominious end:

The $2.45 billion Rudd government scheme, which offered rebates for the installation of insulation in homes, was shelved in April 2010 after it was linked to four deaths, 224 house fires and up to 1000 electrified roofs.

The Gillard government committed to inspecting a minimum of 150,000 homes with batt insulation and all homes installed with foil insulation, and announced today it had exceeded that commitment.

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus said the final tranche of the plan to clean up the program would conclude on June 30 after close to 250,000 home safety inspections. “The latest results show 247,837 inspections in total have been requested and completed,” Mr Dreyfus said. …

In April 2010, cabinet opted to dump the home insulation program, which was rolled out as part of the economic stimulus program, and spend taxpayers' money ensuring the safety of installations already carried out.

A $15 million industry assistance program was also set up to help businesses affected by the abrupt end of the scheme. A total of 1.1 million homes received subsidised insulation under the scheme, which was plagued by fraud and safety problems. Installers were paid rebates of between $1000 and $1600.

An Auditor-General's report released in 2010 found the federal government program put stimulus ahead of safety. The report found the Environment Department was overwhelmed and unprepared to successfully roll out the scheme. …

No final cost to this debacle has been announced.

Labor thrills to poll rise, in July the backslapping stops.

Cartoon: By Pickering.

By all reports Treasurer Wayne Swan has hit the microphones this morning in the wake of a new poll in which Labor has made some moderate gains. In the first one released since his ‘cheques in the mail’ budget, Labor’s primary vote has risen by three points to 30%, and on a Two Party Preferred basis, they only trail the coalition by 10%, - 45% to 55%.

This is hardly good news for the party, and especially not for the PM whose satisfaction rating has dropped a point to 27% in spite of the massive cash splash being sent out to lower income families across the nation as an attempt to buy votes. Some minor improvement may occur over the next couple of polls as the cheques start arriving but after that it is down hill all the way.

In July, the massive $23 per ton and rising carbon tax hits the hip pockets, something the government is keeping quiet about for the moment in its advertising blitz. In fact, in a $36 million taxpayer funded campaign to inform us of how good we should think the government is to offer us compensation for taking our money away from us and increasing prices across the board, they fail to mention the tax itself: