Katter Rudd preference deal???

Image; Courtesy, Smokers Rights Party. 

There is quite a bit of speculation around the ridges at present over the way that preferences will be allocated by the new parties of Bob Katter and Clive Palmer leading up to the election.  A couple of days ago there was the suggestion of a swap by both, which would make sense but they can’t agree over gay marriage.  Apparently Clive’s for it but Bob’s not that keen on him.

The ABC is now breathlessly talking up the possibility of a Katter’s Australian Party - Rudd preference swap.  This has caused some speculation that in return for ALP preferences going to Katter in the senate before the Greens, Katter would preference Labor in the House of Representatives: 

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has side-stepped questions about a possible preference deal between Labor and Katter's Australian Party.  Both major parties are courting Bob Katter for preferences. 

Campaigning today in the north Queensland city of Townsville, Mr Rudd has joked about Mr Katter being a good friend of his for years, saying it is odd given the two Queenslanders are from different sides of politics. 

But he would not say whether he is confident Mr Katter will direct preferences to Labor.  "On questions of preferences, they are dealt with through the parties' organisations," he said.

On the surface there is a remote possibility of some sort of deal between the two as Katter has a deep and pathological hatred of the Liberals.  On the other hand Bob has always presented himself as a conservative to his deeply conservative electorate, making it difficult for him to preference parties on the left ahead of other conservatives.

Were he to preference Labor it would be doubtful if many KAP supporters would follow the how to vote card, especially in the house election.  The knowledge that senate preferences were going to Labor in the senate might cause many Katter voters to vote below the line, or switch to the LNP.

If Katter were to do this, resulting in a Labor win, he would be in the same position that country independents, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are in today as result of their support for the Gillard government.  Both have decided to quit politics rather than be totally humiliated by standing again.

If Katter inflicts Rudd on us for another three years he will be less welcome than a dose of clap in the bush.

Labor candidate disendorsed for abuse of wheelchair bound woman

Cartoon: By Paul Zanetti 

Irony seems to be lost on Kevin Rudd.  He has demanded the resignation of the candidate for Hotham after allegations surfaced that he had verbally abused a woman in a wheelchair some years ago when he was mayor of Monash.

On the surface the demand seems reasonable: 

In a blow to the Prime Minister's campaign, Mr Lake has admitted he offered a signed apology to fellow Monash councillor Kathy Magee over a 2002 exchange. 

"I leant over to Councillor Magee and ... said, "I can't believe what you did you f------ bitch. You are a f ------ for doing that", Mr Lake confirms in papers. 

Documents lodged with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission included an admission that his conduct had been "demeaning and degrading", and offensive to women.Mr Lake said he deeply regretted his remarks. "It was 'slut' or 'bitch'. It was inappropriate," he told the Herald Sun. … 

… In a signed apology brokered by the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission in 2002, Mr Lake wrote: "I privately spoke and behaved towards Councillor Magee in a way that was demeaning and degrading and could be particularly offensive to females. 

''I acknowledge that my comments were totally inappropriate and I apologise.” Contacted by the Herald Sun, Mr Lake said: "If I had used any word other than 'slut' this would not be an issue.” 

Asked if it would have been a problem if he had called her a "f------ bitch", Mr Lake conceded it would.

Our Kevvie is probably correct to make such a call.  After all, a guy that would abuse a wheelchair bound woman could go on to abusing flight attendants who serve a meal that is not up to his epicurean tastes in taxpayer provided nosh.  Something like he did when in Rudd#1 mode: 

Mr Rudd, who had attended the Pacific Islands Forum, was told by the 23-year-old flight attendant that his request for a "special" meal - he is on a meat-free diet - could not be met.Sources said the PM reacted "strongly" and a heated exchange followed. 

The attendant burst into tears and reported the matter to the senior cabin attendant.  She later composed herself and continued with the in-flight service. "The crew were distressed but later in flight apologies were made by all," the report says.  

But when he was asked about the incident at the conclusion of the G20 summit in the British capital today, Mr Rudd said he did not "observe" any tears over the matter. "As I recall it, there was a flight, I think from Port Moresby, and I had a discussion with, I think, one of the attendants on the provision of food. It didn't last very long and if anyone was offended by that, including the attendant concerned, of course, I apologise," Mr Rudd said. 

 Mr Rudd said that as he recalled, he told a member of the crew not to worry about the language he had used.  "I said to the member of staff not to worry about it," Mr Rudd said

There is a definite probability that a 22YO who calls a disabled woman a F…ing bitch, and a similar type of slut, might go on to emulate the prime minister in the future, causing major embarrassment for the party.

Richard Dawkins hits the PC barrier

Prominent atheist, biologist, writer, and a number of other things, Richard Dawkins has run foul of the PC crowd over his comments on Twitter. 

Dawkins, who tends to be scathing about all religions, apparently made the mistake of thinking that given his across the board disbelief in all faith based thinking, it was OK to criticise the religion of peace: 

RICHARD Dawkins has sparked a backlash on Twitter after he claimed the world's Muslims have won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge, but added: "They did great things in the Middle Ages, though". 

The outspoken author went on to defend the remarks which sparked fury on the social network where he was accused of disguising his "bigotry" as atheism. 

A series of high-profile Twitter users weighed in to condemn the comments prompting Professor Dawkins to question what Muslims had achieved since the Dark Ages.
The row broke out after he observed: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.” 

He responded to the barrage of ensuing criticism by telling his followers: "A statement of simple fact is not bigotry. And science by Muslims was great in the distant past.” In a further posting he wrote: "Where would we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?” 

He sought to justify the controversial observation by adding: "Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.” 

One angry Twitter user hit out at the remarks telling the author: "You absolutely disgust me.” Writer Caitlin Moran added: "Think it's time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again", while Channel 4 News economics editor Faisal Islam questioned Prof Dawkins' "spurious use of data". 

Writer and commentator Owen Jones told Prof Dawkins: "How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment.” ...

It appears, that while it is perfectly fine to knock the Bible, dispute Judaism, criticise Buddhism, Taoism, and all but one of the rest, Islam must be given a pass, even among atheists.

There appear to be ten Muslim recipients of the Nobel Prize, although six of these have received the largely discredited, or at least, devalued Peace Prize.  Two have won the literature prize, one, Physics and another, chemistry.

Trinity College has 32.

Labor adopts desperate measures

Cartoon: By Larry Pickering 

The current election campaign is like something out of a poorly written fiction novel, or perhaps, Mad Magazine.  We have the odd scenario where both leaders of the big two major parties are campaigning as opposition leaders.

Kevin Rudd#2 (the kinder gentler one) is doing a great job of giving the impression that he is going to change all of the things that went wrong before under the governments of the last six years.  This sounds like a good tactic except that the last six years were led by Rudd#1/Gillard/Rudd#2 himself.  

Effectively Rudd#2 (the kinder gentler one) is campaigning against both Abbott and Rudd#1 (the nasty dysfunctional one)/Gillard.

Any mention of the record of Rudd#1 by the Liberals, especially using quotes by his former colleagues is considered as slipping into negativity.  But still, there are signs of desperation.

The first one is that Rudd#2 has announced that he is open to the same sort of deal with the Greens and whatever independents are left after the election, which led to the disfunctionality of the Gillard government, in order to form a minority government: 

The Prime Minister said Labor was trying to secure a majority government and attacked the Liberal Party for preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor in the inner-western Sydney seat of Grayndler held by deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. But Mr Rudd did not rule out a deal with minor parties in the event of another hung parliament. 

The latest Newspoll has the Coalition holding a 52-48 two-party-preferred lead but many recent polls have put two-party-preferred support at 50-50. Former prime minister Julia Gillard cited her deal with the Greens as a reason for her decision to impose a fixed price on carbon for three years. As one of his first acts as Prime Minister, Mr Rudd decided to move to a floating carbon price a year earlier as he moved to defuse anger over the policy. 

Mr Abbott, who ruled out leading a minority government on Sunday, hardened his language yesterday, declaring he would allow Labor to govern with minor parties rather than negotiate with the Greens and independents.

The second is his invitation to Julia Gillard to join him on the campaign trail: 

The Prime Minister said the former prime minister would be welcome to campaign with him whenever she liked to help him win on September 7. "Julia would be welcome to participate in the campaign in any way she chose fit," Mr Rudd told ABC's 7.30 program. 

"And as you know, when I've been asked about Julia in recent days, I've been very direct and very frank about the positive role she's played in our party and the contributions she's made to disability care policy, education policy and the measurement of academic standards of schools - great achievements.”

We’re not making this up folks; after white-anting her for three years in one of the most vindictive paybacks ever recorded in Australian political history, Kevvy is prepared to let her help to save him.  The degree of hubris involved should make an interesting case study for psychologists for years to come.

And finally, he has parachuted former premier Peter Beattie into the campaign for the seat of Forde in Queensland: 

Mr Beattie revealed that the Prime Minister rang him in the United States several days ago and asked him to run. After consulting his wife Heather, who once said she would murder him if he ran for Canberra, he agreed. 

Mr Beattie says he faces a tough fight to capture the seat, but he'd moved today into his brother's house in Forde and he'll be focusing his campaigning efforts on the electorate, held by the LNP with a margin of 1.6 per cent. 

“If elected I will buy and move to the electorate immediately,” Mr Beattie, who was premier of Queensland for nine years before retiring in 2007, said when presented by Mr Rudd today as the new, star Labor candidate. … 

… Tony Abbott today dismissed Mr Beattie's entry into the election campaign, saying the Coalition had nothing to fear from a man with a legendary ego who left Queensland's finances in disarray when he retired from politics in 2007, after winning three state elections. 

“(He's) another flim-flam man who hit people with record debt and deficit, who is just going to add to the leadership instability inside the Labor Party,” the Opposition Leader said. “You might say to me `Am I worried about Peter Beattie?', Of course not. But I bet Kevin Rudd is.”

  Beattie was to the economy of Queensland; the forerunner of what Rudd/Gillard/Rudd#2 was to the Australian economy.  From a relatively debt free state, Beattie took the reigns and ran it into the ground.  His only masterstroke, was quitting when the writing was on the wall, and handed power to probably the only person more incompetent than he, Anna Bligh.

Even an incompetent looks better if succeeded by a complete idiot.

The Liberal Democrats get their day in the sun

It is highly unusual for a minor party to get much in the way of publicity these days, especially during elections when their voices tend to be drowned out by the clamour from the majors, even if they were published in the first place.  Most of the media tend to pretend that they don’t exist, or think they are not interesting enough to warrant space.

Small parties rarely receive any electoral funding as opposed to the tens of millions awarded to Labor, the Coalition, and the Greens, therefore they have little chance of coming up with an advertising budget.

It was therefore gratifying to get some space allocated to us in an article in the Australian, slamming the incredible wastage of taxpayer money and its damage to the economy at large and the debt being handed down to future generations: 

... The government's formal intergenerational reports, undertaken by the Treasury, paint a depressing enough picture of the government's structural budget position out to 2050, but they naively assume future politicians do not impose new spending commitments. Carling shows that across the decade to 2010-11, government spending grew 4 per cent a year in real terms, three-quarters of which was a result of the addition of new spending programs, not the expansion of existing programs. 

Not many political parties have the courage to promise to cut spending or agencies before an election, although the fledgling Liberal Democratic Party is one exception. 

Its treasurer, David Leyonhjelm, who will stand for a NSW senate seat, tells The Australian his party's platform is to limit the federal government to defence, immigration, basic public services (such as passport services, regulation of hazardous materials, air and sea transport regulation), and assistance to the least well off. 

"The big parties just argue about how to spend our taxes, not whether to collect and spend them in the first place," he says. 

Certainly, too many Australians are quick to complain about big government and the regulatory burden but recoil when programs or bodies are suggested for the chop. 

Apologists for the government cite Australia's AAA credit rating and the projected return to a surplus of $4bn in 2017. Ratings agencies have been widely discredited and most European countries and the US were rated AAA before the global financial crisis, along with the mortgage-backed securities that were in reality a ticking time-bomb under the financial system. ...

It also has to be mentioned that the ratings agencies who give us a AAA rating are the same ones which gave the same rating to the mortgage backed securities at the root of the GFC.

Replace the Carbon Tax with . . . NOTHING

By Viv Forbes, Chairman, 

The Carbon Sense Coalition 

Killing Australia’s carbon tax is a good idea but it should happen immediately, not later. 

But replacing it with an ETS is a very bad idea and should never happen.

The carbon tax is a known amount, simple in principle, needs no bankers or brokers, and all receipts end up in Australian hands. And it is easy to abolish at any time. 

The ETS is a variable and unpredictable carbon tax. It creates business uncertainty, is complex in operation, encourages brokers, lawyers and speculators and it will drain our money to middlemen and into the European carbon credit casino. And it will create a growing army of vested interests who will forever oppose its abolition. 

Neither the fixed tax nor the vacillating tax will have any beneficial effect on climate. 

The carbon tax should be axed, but replaced with . . . NOTHING.

Consumers will be Creamed in the Corrupt Carbon Credit Casino


Some people think an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is superior to a Carbon Tax. 

It’s time to expose the corrupt carbon credit casino. 

In this casino, producers are forced to pay for emitting the same harmless, colourless, non-polluting, natural gas of life that every human produces in his lungs with every breath.

At the same time, other smarties are paid to promise they will not emit the gas they intended to emit tomorrow. 

The size of this carbon tax paid by Australian business will reflect speculations in the ETS of old Europe, where the carbon scam started. Foreigners will collect much of it. 

In the middle of the ETS casino, empires of bankers, brokers, speculators, lawyers, auditors and regulators will wax rich by clipping every transaction, and an army of bureaucrats and academics will feed on the government windfall. 

And at the end of this feed chain, innocent consumers get creamed. 

All of this confirms that we live in a political madhouse.

Budget black hole; Rudd taxes us to save us from smoking

My brother's a street-corner preacher:

He saves gorgeous women who sin:

He'll save you a blonde for a guinea:

My God, how the money rolls in! – Old ditty

Kevin Rudd has a little problem.  The projected deficit budget is already failing to live up to revenue projections to the tune of billions, the announcement of more new expenditure on the PNG solution, dropping the carbon tax and a revenue shortfall of up to $30 billion has created a budget black hole.  It is therefore time for the government to make what the echo chamber that passes for journalism these days, calls savings.

Now; those of you who are not Australian and lack the political sophistication that goes with it, probably think of savings in terms of cutting back on expenditures in order to get them to a point where they are less than your income, and putting something away for a rainy day.  That is the old-fashioned logic based thinking that went out with the Ark here in Australian politics.

What you all fail to understand is that the economy, all of it, every bit, belongs to the government.  As such, making savings is a far simpler matter.  All you have to do is to take back some of the earnings that your benevolence has allowed the common herd to keep for those simple pleasures that the government has yet to provide.

The trick is coming up with a reason to increase taxation, without having to use excuses such as, “We’re broke.”

The health of the nation though, is another matter, dear to the hearts of bureaucrats, nanny state politicians, and wowsers alike.  With much to pay for, and little revenue to do it with, Kev has suddenly noticed that smoking has been credited with a number of health debits.  As such, he has become desperately concerned about the welfare of the people, even those who live north of the Pine River in Queensland, who he claims, all play banjos.  A higher excise duty on tobacco is just the thing to go for: 

Touring the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital's under-construction cancer centre in Sydney today, the Prime Minister singled out smoking as a top health priority for his government."We need to get serious on this major driver of cancer in Australia and around the world. The legitimate question is 'well what are you doing about it?'. 

"That's the nature of the challenge; 125,000 Australians being affected by cancer each year, 30 per cent of them afflicted through smoking-related cancers,' Mr Rudd said. 

"And on top of that you have the extraordinary cost to our public hospital system. The cost to the economy by the way is estimated to be $31.5 billion a year.

With an election coming up and the need to cover the cost of numerous grandiose schemes designed to draw votes, you can expect Rudd to develop serious concerns about alcohol consumption, gambling, fatty foods, soft drink, and the use of carbon; all of which can be cured with a tax that narrow minded bigoted lobby groups can cheer.

Just as long as no inconsiderate bastard actually gives up his sinning, the tax on them should keep Kev in front of the game.