Author: Kev

Reader, commenter and member of the 7RAR Vietnam Veteran brotherhood 1735099 questions the stats on my post on Work Choices where I quoted Joe Hockey’s figures of 400,000 plus jobs being created since Work Choices was implemented in March 2006.The only answer I could find was this graph at the Australian Bureau of Stats Could Joe Hockey have been right and was I right to quote him? You be the judge.

# It’s very important for the ALP to deny Howard and Costello any credit for the economic boom we are enjoying at the moment but Bob Hawke takes it a step too far when he involves Whitlam in the game plan

The other factor driving economic growth – the China boom – was also partly the work of Labor, who through former prime minister Gough Whitlam had forged the relationship between the two countries. “Gough Whitlam went to China in 1971 and was told … he was a traitor … We built the relationship with China,” Mr Hawke said.

So Whitlam, he of the inept government, is really why we are enjoying the boom. Yeah….right! I give Hawke/Keating some credit but never Whitlam and whatever your political pursuasion, it is flying in the face of reality to not give the Coalition some credit for the boom. The ALP are full of “we caused the boom” but the only boom I remember from the ALP days was in interest rates and unemployment. # JOHN Howard has seized the election campaign initiative and caught Kevin Rudd flat-footed by offering a $34 billion election tax sweetener – the biggest in the nation’s history. I’ll leave the analysis of the tax sweetener to economists but I think the relevant point from this morning’s press, the Australian at least, is a total change in their approach. After months of polls indicating a Coalition annihilation it was hard even for this rusted on, died in the wool conservative voter to stay positive. I saw how shallow Rudd was but did others? Now battle has been joined the mood changes and the country will be forced to really look at whether they want to change a winning formula for a questionable alternative. # The Debate debate continues. Caroline Overington nails it with this;

FOR months on end, Kevin Rudd has been demanding the right to debate John Howard. He wanted a debate about Iraq. He wanted a debate about climate change. He wanted a debate about Work Choices. Yesterday, Howard snapped. Okay, he said, let’s do it. Let’s have a debate this Sunday, in Canberra, with questions from journalists. Rudd, on live television, looked like he’d swallowed a sock. A debate, you say? You want a debate? This Sunday? Yes, said Howard. This Sunday in the Great Hall at Parliament House. Live on pay TV. Rudd’s response? He blinked.

As I mentioned yesterday Rudd wants to control the debate debate but he can’t. Now he has to respond to Howard’s answer to his yarping on about a debate. Put your money where you mouth is Kevin and accept otherwise the voters will start to see through the Mr Sheen personae. Rudd questions having the debate in the Great Hall with half the audience ALP officials and half Liberal Part officials saying;

It’s not real in my view. Why not in front of working families?

Mmmm…it’s being televised Kev and your working families can view it in the comfort of their own homes. What you’re obviously hanging out for is an audience picked by the ALP so you can have your own cheer squad to give you courage to debate. # As part of the ALP campaign for power, the ABC programmed a 4 Corners special on the Bretheren supporting the Liberals in the last election…shock horror…the dastardly chaps

Last night, ABC program Four Corners alleged that the advertising blitz arranged by sect members in support of John Howard in October 2004 – the focus of an active Australian Federal Police investigation – was funded by elder Warwick John. Mr John denied the claim.

So?…and your point is? The hard left generally support the ALP and the hard right generally support the Coalition and there are plenty of orgainizations under scrutiny for their political donations – some unions for a start. Still, a good ALP campaign add and the ABC should be congratulated on their consistency. Myself, I’d sup with the devil to stop the ALP getting a hand on the keys to the Treasury. # Last point. MAXINE McKew’s chances of storming the citadel and defeating the Prime Minister in his own seat of Bennelong appear to be fading, with the odds on an upset Labor victory lengthening.

Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said that since Friday $20,000 in bets had been placed on the seat, $17,000 of which was backing John Howard. Yesterday, Centrebet was paying $1.45 for a Howard win in Bennelong, in from $1.55 on Sunday morning, while a bet on Ms McKew yielded $2.55, out from $2.30. Mr Evans said in the 48 hours leading up to Sunday’s election announcement, the money coming in had been three-to-one the Government’s way.

I’m banking on this one to add grist to the mill for the anguish and despair coming for the Left

Battle is joined. John Howard has called the election for 24th November giving him 6 weeks to pressure Rudd, seek out his weaknesses and home in on them. Some observations. # From a comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog;

Yes, Kevin Rudd is “new”, and he’s here to capture the Easily Distracted by Shiny Objects vote.

# Rudd in answer to a question about his 70% union bench replies saying 70% of Howard’s ministers don’t want him. Rudd definitely has a 70% union bench and Howard definitely doesn’t have 70% of his ministers against him Avoiding the question and using a lie as a diversion – he shouldn’t be able to get away with that now the battle is joined or is the media going to continue to give him a free pass. # I don’t agree with Keating as a rule but I like this quote in this mornings Cut and Paste

Paul Keating to then-foreign minister Gareth Evans in early 1992, on Kevin Rudd, who went on to lose the federal Labor seat of Griffith at the 1996 election landslide: CAN’T you find that little (expletive deleted) an embassy somewhere?

The Battle of the Debates is the opening salvos of the campaign.

#RUDD: I’m happy to debate Mr Howard whenever he wants to debate me….

But now he doesn’t…

“It is silly and just wrong for the government of the day … to set the rules, the timing and the contents of the debate as well, it’s just wrong,” Mr Rudd said on Channel 9.

So Rudd will debate anytime……anytime, that is where he gets to set the agenda, rules, timing and contents. I’m prepared to believe Rudd only wants to debate when he can depend on a written script. Otherwise what’s with the YouTube debate he is offering. Set script….controlled setting…clever backdrop…media advise and time to prepare his answers. Thinking on his feet with riposte and quick retort to counter anything Howard says in any debate will prove not to be his forte. The thought of running a campaign on YouTube smacks of poor debating skills. Rudd will love it…..quote any exaggeration and those Easily Distracted by Shiny Objects and the standard Howard Haters will believe every syllable. Work Choices. I think the only people who hate Work Choices are rusted on ALP voters anyway. All the academic studies and the ACTU Terror campaign/litany of lies will be considered by any reasonable voter as having the potential of bias and not enough to counter the ABS stats that say the system is working and more people have jobs as a result. I don’t think Rudd will handle the pressure of the campaign and I predict a Coalition win with a reduced majority.

From the Australian editorial

Employment Minister Joe Hockey said that since the Government’s workplace reforms were introduced in March 2006, 430,700 jobs have been created. Where the rise in job numbers is an objective fact, measured by the ABS, academic investigations into the impact of Work Choices on working conditions and employee security and sentiment have been highly politicised and the data is unreliable as a result.

As Health Minister Tony Abbott told a Quadrant and Institute of Public Affairs discussion this week, the problem for the social justice lobby is explaining how 10.9 per cent unemployment under a more regulated labour market is more fair than 4.3 per cent unemployment under the policies of the Howard Government. No amount of articles claiming detractors have found someone who is worse off under work choices can counter Abbott’s point. In a large system we can always find someone who considers themselves worse off but it is never someone who was previously unemployed that now has a job. Just ask the 437,000 new job holders. Denied overtime? Yes – worse off but the guy doing your overtime isn’t if he didn’t have a job before. Not getting Leave Allowance? Yes worse off but you should never have got it in the first place. Leave Allowance is totally unsupportable….money for jam…money for nothing! Have to work weekends without Penalty Rates? Yes- worse off but your penalty rates are someone else’s base salary so get over it. And as a matter of interest, double time on Sunday is based on just what exactly? Religion? If Rudd gets the keys to the Treasury, voters must keep in mind that Unions will get the key to awards and conditions and while unions had their place in the bad old days of kids in coal mines there is little use for them now. Unions seek power to extract conditions for workers in a vacuum that has no place for the employers ability to pay these conditions and that is a proven formula for less jobs. Just to make it easy for you on election day to decide how to vote I have summarized the entire Work Choices debate into two short lines. Anti Work Choice – political driven opinion Pro Work Choice – ABS indisputable facts

Vote now to end the PM’s obscene waste says Mike Steketee while every other pro ALP journalist and the ALP themselves make an issue over Howard taking his time to announce the election date. He is taking his time in the interpretation of his detractors but in fact he is doing what every PM has ever done -reserving the right to call the election at a time that suits him. The ALP and supporters want it over with before Rudd blows it and Howard wants to give Rudd every chance to blow it. That’s politics.

A LABOR government would attempt to bring Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, before the International Court of Justice to face charges of “inciting genocide” in an effort to force the rogue Middle East leader to justify his attacks on Israel. How brilliant! More brilliant in the face of the fact that no one else in the Western World has thought of such a simple plan. No one! Not the UN, Britain. the US Democrats, France, Germany nor Israel, I wonder why? Downer offers a clue, stating;

….that countries only could be taken to the ICJ. Individuals such as Mr Ahmadinejad can only be taken to the International Criminal Court. “To take an individual to the ICC the relevant country has to be a party to the statute of the ICC, but Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma are not. You can only take them to the ICC if the country is not a party and if all five members of the UN Security Council agree,” Mr Downer said.

So, it’s not going to happen but some voters will still believe that Rudd has the answers and in a way they are right. But does he have any correct answers – ones that will actually work? Haven’t seen much evidence of that yet but let’s wait for the campaign proper.