Pathetic Little Man

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/03/2533784.htm

On a recent flight from Port Moresby, Prime Minister Rudd didn’t get the meail that he wanted, so he abused the flight attendant, who was reduced to tears.

Here’s his pathetic apology:

“I had a discussion with I think one of the attendants about the provision of food,” he said.

“It didn’t last very long and if anyone is offended by that, including the attendant concerned, ofcourse I apologise.”

How…. small, Mr Rudd. Are you over compensating for something?

You can tell a lot about someone by the way they treat the people that aren’t important to them.

We can tell a lot about our self-important Napoleonic PM from this.

Kevin Rudd & Gough Whitlam. Doing the Deficit Two-Step.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/04/2481623.htm

It seems to happen with regular monotony – a Labor government gets elected, and we end up with Debt, Deficits, Unemployment and Big-Government.

No one disputes the need for governments to invest in infrastructure – especially in times of financial turmoil.

But Rudd and Swan are prooposing to put the country $100 billion in debt over 3 years. The sort of debt it took the Coalition a decade to pay off.

It’s a matter of spending what you actually have rather than charging up a huge burden of foreign debt on the national credit card.

The major lesson of the financial crisis is that debt can be toxic. If you borrow too much when times are tough, you’ll lose your shirt – and that is true for householders as much as governments.

Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello slammed the competence of the Rudd Government on Lateline last night.

He pointed our the hypocricy of Julia Gillard praising the strength of Australia’s financial framework at the Economic Forum in Davos at the same time that Rudd was talking it down and saying that “Capitalism needed to be saved from itself”. As if there was one message that we needed to tell the world, but another message we needed to feed to the poor voters at home.

He underlined the poor quality of the $10 billion pre-christmas cash hand out, which did little more than boost the profits of Westfield, without creating any real jobs.

But most of all, he pointed out the stark contrast between the time when he was treasurer, and now, under our current incompetent, Wayne Swan. Under Costello we had budget surpluses in excess of 2% of GDP. Swan is giving us the opposite – budget deficits in excess of 2% of GDP.

As the old song goes… “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”.

A Man of Steel after all

Credit where credit is due.

I’ve been critical of PM Kevin Rudd before, but I admire his courageous stance in Beijing today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/09/2212108.htm

It took guts to go to China, and in his first speech there, to say loud and clear that Australia is concerned about Human rights violations in Tibet.

Hopefully Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will recognize the value of International Friends who are unafraid to speak the truth, rather than “friends” who never say what they really think.

Dubya’s Man in Australia

Dubya's Man in Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208065.htm

Our little mouseketeer of PM shows that he’s well and truly behind big kahuna, George W Bush.

Holt may have been “All the way with LBJ”, but Kevvie is definatley “At the decree of GWB”.

Definately not the sort of behaviour you’d expect from a supposed “Man of Steel”.

Change of Government

While I’m disappointed with the outcome of the Federal Election, I sincerely hope the new Labor Government has success in improving the quality of life for Australians over the next three years.

I’m so glad to live in Australia! There are not many places in the world where you can have a change of goverment and not have blood in the streets.

Liz and I took the kids into the polling booth and let them see democracy in action.

What a fantastic sight to see everyone voting, and having a say in what happens in the country.

At last look, our local member, Peter Dutton, was almost 200 votes ahead. It’s a bit close for him, but it looks like he’ll make it. Good on you, Peter, you’re a great local member, and deserved to win!

Pearson on: Rudd: "Understand the heartless snake here"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2099795.htm

Noel Pearson tells it like it is. He’s a fearless advocate for his people.

I totally agree with his assessment of Kevin Dudd’s duplicity.

Says Pearson: “This has obviously been a complete charade, and for those people who think that ‘well, let’s give Labor the move to perhaps run with this agenda in some later term’, then I just say well we’ll have a re-run of Bob Hawke here”

Dudd is a chameleon.

Like Pearson, I too dread the prospect of Dudd becoming Prime Minister.

Beware the Chameleon

FakeKevin07

Say it once, and you could be excused for thinking it was just a gaffe by an inexperienced wannabe.

Say it twice, and you remove all doubt.

Now Charles Wooley has heard Garrett saying the same thing:
“Peter Garrett agreed, he intimated that ‘What we say in Opposition might not be what happens in Government.”’

Read the article for yourself here.

Rudd and his shadow ministry are fakes. They are telling you what you want to hear because they want your vote. In areas where they’re clueless (such as the economy) their photocopiers have been working overtime on their “Echo-nomic”, Me-Too policies.

But when you really put them under the miroscope, Garrett’s comments say it all: “We’re just pulling your leg now. It will all change once we get elected”.

It’s par for the course, isn’t it? Check out what Garrett used to say on American military bases in Australia, or on the Tasmanian Pulp Mill. Now check out what he’s saying now. He (like most of the Labor front bench) has more positions on this stuff than the Kama Sutra.

Their lips are moving, but I can’t hear anything meaningful coming out of their mouths.

You may not agree with everything he says, but at least when John Howard say’s he’s going to do something, he does it. He’s the real deal.

Rudd is just a fake.

Me Too!

KopyKatKevin07


Kevin Rudd and the “me-too” conga-line that is the ALP haven’t got a clue about economic management.

That’s why when it comes to the hard stuff, like tax policy, economic management, and national develoopment, they’re trying to play it safe by copying the Coalition.

Chameleons might be exciting to look at, but they do not make good leaders.

Ruddonomics

By Sinclair Davidson And Alex Robson

Wall Street Journal Asia – 23 October 2007

It looks like Australia may have lost its nerve for economic liberalism. In Sunday’s nationally televised debate, Prime Minister John Howard touted his vision: a “new society” based on entrepreneurialism and individualism. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd a self-proclaimed Christian socialist, backed bigger government and expanded social spending. Yet immediately following the debate, Mr Rudd. was declared the winner by most of the popular media.

Next month’s national election result could have significant implications for Australia, the world’s 15th-largest economy and a key U.S. ally in Asia. Over the past two decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have ripped down trade barriers, privatized industries, floated the Australian dollar and opened the country to international capital flows. The economy is in its 16th year of uninterrupted economic growth, free of public debt, and enjoying low inflation and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years.

Mr Rudd, a 50-year-old former bureaucrat, has cleverly mimicked the government’s record, even labeling himself an “economic conservative.” That tack has apparently won him support among Australia’s middle classes, who have benefited most strongly from the economic boom and don’t want to see a change in economic strategy. He’s now leading Mr. Howard by about 10 percentage points in most national polls. But a closer look at Mr Rudd’s. record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative. Call it “Ruddonomics.”

Take his parliamentary record, for a start. Since coming into the Parliament in 1998, Mr.Rudd has toed the party line and opposed most efforts to further reform the economy. The Australian Labor Party opposed the privatization of Australia’s government-owned telecommunications provider, Telstra; strongly protested industrial relations reform, including Mr. Howard’s recent efforts to reduce union power and abolish unfair dismissal laws; and, most importantly, opposed all significant tax reform over Mr. Howard’s tenure, including cuts in income taxes. Mr. Rudd’s economic philosophy isn’t a secret. In a speech to the free market Center for Independent Studies in Sydney last year, he openly attacked the free market ideas of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, branding him a “market fundamentalist.” In Mr Rudd’s. mind, it’s okay to accept “the economic logic of markets but . . . these must be properly regulated and that the social havoc they cause must be addressed by state intervention.” He also argued that public policy should deliver long-term market-friendly reform tempered by “social responsibility.”

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by “picking winners”—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.

Given the Howard government’s record of economic success, Mr Rudd’s dominant lead this far into the electoral cycle is a remarkable achievement. But it’s also not without precedent. Australia has been through this kind of economic soul-searching before, with an eerily similar Labor campaign pitch—and a disastrous outcome.

In 1972, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam led Labor out of a 23-year-long electoral hiatus by running the most comprehensive negative campaign in Australia’s history. His “It’s Time” platform emphasized the Liberal Party’s long stint in power without laying out a coherent alternate economic vision. He then embarked on a disastrous three-year premiership, during which time he socialized Australia’s health and education systems and unapologetically increased the size of government. Inflation soared, as did the levels of national debt. Today,
Australia is still living with many of Mr. Whitlam’s mistakes.

Mr Rudd’s 2007 campaign strikes a similar tone. His slogan—”New Leadership”—is aimed squarely at Mr. Howard’s political longevity, rather than any apparent policy differences. Indeed, an integral part of Mr.Rudd’s strategy is to mimic everything his opponent says on monetary and fiscal policy, including keeping a budget surplus and an independent central bank. Even Mr. Rudd’s Labor Party colleagues—many of whom are closely affiliated with left-wing labor unions—now cloak themselves in the jargon of economic conservatism, while touting big government platforms such as a federal government takeover of the nation’s hospital system.

At the same time, Mr. Rudd has judiciously employed the “It’s Time” strategy, carefully pointing out that his opponent has been around for an awfully long time, and is “old,” “stale” and “out of ideas.” To top it all off, he often cautions voters about the evils of negative campaigning, and reprimands Mr. Howard for directing any criticism at him, no matter how minor.

We’ll soon know if Australian voters will repeat their 1972 mistake, and go with a candidate who promises bigger government. When asked whom they want to run the economy, voters overwhelmingly favor Mr. Howard. Yet betting markets, which have a good track record of predicting voting outcomes, show that Mr. Howard only has a 40% chance of holding on to power. That most voters do not seem to know or care about any of this speaks volumes about Mr. Rudd’s campaign strategy and Mr. Howard’s inability to cut through the spin. For the most part, Australians do not seem to recognize that good economic policy does not require “new leadership” or “new ideas.” The current economic boom has lasted so long that most citizens— including Mr Rudd, it seems— have forgotten the three main ingredients of policy success: minimal intervention, transparent regulation and broad economic liberalization.

Mr Rudd has done well to convince voters he represents new leadership, as the results of Sunday’s debate show. Yet it isn’t clear which aspect of his election platform is new. If Ruddonomics wins the day, Australia could find itself back in a 1970s mindset, with bigger government and a less competitive economy. In a modern, rapidly globalizing world, that’s not a vision for the future— that’s a vision for the past.

Mr. Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne. Mr. Robson is a lecturer in the department of economics at the Australian National University in Canberra.