Gillard to Rudd - we're seen as incompetent, out of control

Written by editor on .

Two days before she challenged Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard reminded  him in email that  the reason they had sunk down to the mid-30s in the polls  was the asylum seeker issue.  Their '' loss of control of the borders'', she admitted,  fed  into a ''narrative of a government that is incompetent and out of control''.

Unfortunately her government  was no more successful.



Read more:


They've given everything away - our politicians & their free trade religion

Written by David Flint on .

All politicians in the West espouse radical free trade policies. What a politician says and what a politician does are usually different things.

But Australian politicians have an almost religious belief in free trade as former minister Graham Richardson  revealed in a recent Sky programme with Alan Jones.

For decades Australian politicians, almost alone, have applied the free trade dogma unilaterally, especially ino agriculture. they've too often done thsi without getting concessions from other countries. It's the Canberra ''feel good'' factor where politicans and press gallery worship together. 

They must have been a laughing stock in Japanese, US and EU circles.

This limits the scope of our offering anything now in trade concessions in free trade agreements.

So foreign governments want us to give even more - let their companies even government comapnies buy our farms, grain dealing companies, all sorts of faciltities, open us up to imported low rate workers and so on.

Politicians from both sides for decades have handed everything over.

All are now enjoying a very comfortable life style courtesy of the taxpayer. Many have vastly supplemented their income as lobbyists for foreign companies.

That's why we must make politicians more accountable.

Hear 2GB's  superb young commentator Michael McLaren speak with Lynne Wilkinson, CEO of Ausbuy, about the perils of Free Trade Agreements.

Go to

Computer projections mislead; so does TV news

Written by Editor on .

[Note ; the photo is NOT of CO2 emmissions. Whatever is shown on TV news, you cannot see CO2.]


After years of denial, the IPCC has finally acknowledged that temperatures have not obeyed  computer projections. They haven't risen for over a decade notwithstanding an acceleration in manmade CO2 emissions to the highest in human history and pouring billions into renewable energy.

Graham Lloyd , The Australian's environmental editor says the IPPC gives a number of possible explanations, including natural climate variability and increased ocean heat.

He says further debate followed the release last month of the working group two report into climate change “impact and adaptation”, which estimated global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of 2C at between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income.

This he says was much lower than many had expected, given the 5 to 20 per cent estimated by Lord Stern in his advice to the British government. Today’s IPCC report shows the cost of acting to reduce carbon emissions to keep warming below 2C could be as high as 11 per cent of global consumption by the end of the century.

He concludes that the  political reality is that Australia has taken climate change off the G20 agenda, ­Europe is scrapping its subsidies for renewables and Germany is turning back to coal.

read more:

Olympic Stadium & half million bribe

Written by Editor on .


Sydney’s Olympic Stadium was completed ahead of schedule in 1999, long before the 2000 Olympics. There were no delays, no disruptions and no blowouts in the $690 million budget. The question, asks Paul Sheehan, was the charmed life of this project built on a $500,000 bribe paid to the Labor Party?

''That stadium was built ahead of schedule because every bribe had been paid,'' says a witness to ICAC. Paul Sheehan, describing how the money was laundered, says the witness - the man who paid the bribe - should be given ''the chance to have his credibility tested by the Heydon royal commission.''

The Commission he says has an  immense latent potential to finally map the dark side of Australian politics.

Read more:


Even more electoral fraud: internet voting

Written by David Flint on .

At least once  every three or four years we are called on to vote to elect our representatives to the various Australian parliaments. (Admittedly , one of them – the Commonwealth – claims it alone is the Australian Parliament.)

The point of the exercise is that, exposed to the various arguments which reach their peak just before the election, we go to the polling stations and make our decision on the same day and in the same way,  in security and in secret.

The politicians insist that we must cast a vote even if it is informal. They make it an offence not to do so. Then they collect money for every vote cast. Vast sums of money.

 Just consider that. They force you to cast a vote. But they have passed a law which rewards them for every such forced vote.

 Now that does that sound like a conflict of interest?

In any event, under our  system of representative democracy, we to all go to the polling stations on one day .

Of course there may be exceptional circumstances. People who are bedridden. Farmers caught by floods. Australians overseas. But the principle is clear. We should hear the same arguments and then go in public to a polling station and vote in security and in secret.

The politicians have whittled away at this, reducing the integrity and honesty of the system.

They did this on the laughable basis that they had to make it easier to vote. Nobody was arguing that it was difficult to vote. They did this to make it easier to defraud your vote.

Once upon a time you went to a designated polling station. Now you can vote in any polling station in your electorate, making a nonsense of the ruling off your name.

 The politicians have deliberately ensured that ruling off your name is a nonsense. They have steadfastly refused to link the polling stations so that when a name is ruled off the name is ruled off everywhere across the Commonwealth.

Now it couldn't be the cost  – how many millions are we spending on an ambassador for women in the Pacific? Or superannuation to former politicians who are not even close to retiring age?

Then there is the ridiculously ease with which any new name can be added to the roll especially in the period between the calling of election and the closing of the rolls.

On an urgent application brought nominally by two people in breach of the electoral law but in reality by the left wing ideologues at Getup! four  out of seven High Court judges rushed through a decision before the 2010 election.

They decided that the Constitution does not allow the rolls to be closed immediately the election is called even though everybody interested knew an election was due. Now  you won't find words to the effect of the Constitution . And it is difficult to see how it is implied.  But four judges decided this but took months to give their reasons just before Christmas.

The point is that postal voting and voting before election day – pre-polling – opens the system to even more fraud. And importantly, they haven't heard all of the arguments and debate in the same way that those who vote personally have heard it.

Now there's a proposal for Internet voting. They can't even link the rolls so that when your name is ruled off it is ruled off everywhere. But we're thinking about Internet voting.

There has to be public confidence in the electoral system. What has been happening in Western Australia and scandals in previous years are taking away that confidence.

Without a paper trail how can we really know that Internet voting will be secure? And in any event is on the idea in a democracy that we actually go to the polling stations and be seen to enter there, with all sorts of people outside trying to persuade us to vote in a particular way?

Is this far more democratic than doing it on a computer or mobile phone under perhaps the pressure and instruction for someone else? We've heard already in New South Wales how party electoral document have been collected and filled in on behalf of powerbrokers who are building up alliances? Back in the 80s they were talking about making voting easier. This will make it even more easy. It also make it very easy to direct people how to vote.

It takes away the democratic nature of people actually going publicly to the polling station. In this superb Quadrant piece, Matthew Heeney explains why we should not accept Internet voting.

Read more: