Trivial Saturday as hc's blog => degenerate diary mode

I planted a couple of prostrate Banksia this afternoon (Banksia Blechnifolia), several Kangaroo paws and the Tasmanian lomandra (by far the best looking of the lot), L. Hystrix, which I had grown from seed. I also planted some of Mrs Clarke’s supply of summer herbs - Flat-leafed parsley, Italian basil, some coriander and a couple of chilli plants.

Tomatoes have already been planted at Clarke Mansions and the pre-pubescent budding outlines of rich red squeezable tomatoes create a strange stirring sensation in my loins as I gaze off into the summer sunset and think of Nabakov. Shuffling items between garden beds and pots took a few hours longer than expected and, as I type this, I am relaxing sore muscles with a dirt cheap, though excellent, Froggie red wine sold in Australia under the label Arrogant Frog – a great drop for under $10.

This morning I took son to violin lesson on other side of Melbourne, wacked 100 golf balls at a practise range at Kingston Links in Rowville then ate the usual Saturday lunch of duck and rice.
I also thought about the prospects of political catastrophe in Australia.

Garrett now says it was all a mistake, humour a stuff-up. Whatever it was Kevin ‘wax-muncher’ Rudd has forgiven Peter Garrett for saying that Labor’s ‘me-tooism’ is a lie and that once Labor gets into power it will change its policies to ones that are different from the Coalition. Me-tooism doesn’t matter because we will change all that when we get into power. Mr Rudd has affirmed affirmatively that he means what he says – ‘it’s our covenant with the Australian people’ . And Peter admits he is a dummy – yep.

I always detested the music of Garrett’s inept rock group Midnight Oil. The lyrics of Garrett’s songs remind me of the sad facts of early leftwing mental retardation. Of course he has grown up quite a bit since those days and adolescence looms.

Earlier in the week Peter Garrett had confirmed the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Labor Party by conforming (the day after stating the contrary) that Labor would only sign an international agreement on climate change if developing countries did too. Of course this is exactly the reason – much criticised by Labor – the Coalition used for not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

It is interesting that Labor implicitly accepts the me-tooism. Rudd has essentially said that me-tooism is not a deceitful tactic – they will honour me-tooism.

There are only two minor differences between the Coalition and Labor:

• Labor opposes WorkChoices though current AWAs will be honoured for a period of 5 years – until after the next election. Not a big difference and a lot can happen in 5 years particularly if an inexperienced Labor Government drives Australia into recession.
• Labor will withdraw troops from Iraq. This is a total con since regardless of who wins the election the same number of troops will be doing the same jobs by the middle of next year.

The major difference between the parties is that the Coalition has a good track record and came up with their own policies. The comparison is between sturdy, resilient John Howard plugging on under seemingly daunting odds versus Kevin Rudd smirking in a wax-stained business suit and reeking of hypocrisy and glib cliché.

Kevin Rudd's 'Me-tooism'

Over at Troppo the normally rational James Farrell is at pains to point out why frothing at the mouth with hatred that is directed generally at the Liberals – but specifically at John Howard – makes sense. Yes, hatred is rational! It is a hypocritical post since, while James decries Coalition mudslinging, he ignores the lack of morality in Kevin Rudd’s ‘me-tooism’. Rudd is dramatically ahead in the polls and is carrying out an unofficial election campaign based on one guiding principle - ‘don’t stuff up’.

The left is consumed by an irrational hatred of John Howard – they must be because the policies of the competing parties are so similar that there can be no other sensible explanation. Indeed, this is not unexpected – the left have always needed to have something or someone to hate. But it is surprising that the disaffection with John Howard seems so widespread. While The Age/Nielsen poll indicate that nearly half the electorate believe Kevin Rudd has a better vision for Australia than Howard, it is difficult to discern, from policies so far announced, what part of Rudd's vision voters find preferable.

Support for Labor might just be viewed as a soon-to-be-regretted cognitive error based on failure to appreciate the good times we now enjoy and the need, given that economic prosperity and growth are taken as a given, to find new issues to grizzle about and new demons.

John Roskam has a piece on the near perfect policy equivalence of the two major parties and Kevin Rudd’s ‘me-tooism’ (in more dignified language, the ‘small targets strategy’). Rudd is either agreeing with the Government or simply saying nothing. The interesting question is whether he would he behave differently in Government – in which case he is currently deceiving us all – or whether the bland equivalence he espouses is something that will persist?

Roskam’s basic argument is that, other than WorkChoices, Labor is close to identical to the Liberals on many important issues. For example:

The announcement that the intake of African refugees to Australia would be limited gave Rudd the chance to take a strong stand contrary to the Government in favour of a non-discriminatory immigration policy but no, instead he made ‘me too’ noises.

On the Tasmanian pulp mill ex-rock star and ex-Greenie Peter Garrett must be wondering why he joined the Labor Party if his only task is to agree with Malcolm Turnbull. 'Me-too'.

For years the ALP has complained about the Coalition's non-government schools funding policy. Now Labor announced that if elected it would maintain the current funding formula until 2012. He now has the seal of approval of the Pope’s Australian commander-in-chief. Indeed Cardinal Pell joined in with ‘me-tooism’ observations: ``In so many ways the policies of the Labor Party are scarcely distinguishable from those of the Liberal/National Coalition”. (my bold).

Yesterday, Rudd said that no government he led would ever intervene diplomatically to save the life of a terrorist facing capital punishment. He repudiated his own foreign affairs spokesman and followed exactly the established position of the Howard Government. Even the Labor Party’s official newspaper in Melbourne, The Age, describes Rudds views on the death penalty as ‘a me-too policy mess’.

On federal intervention in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory — the ALP's stance is indistinguishable from that of the Coalition. Labor has distinctively agreed to sign the UN declaration on indigenous rights promoting collective victimhood although, as Janet Albrechtson points out, the most distinctive feature of this move is its stupidity. It has had little news coverage anyway. Other stupid symbolic moves include the impossible proposal to bring the President of Iran before the International Court of Justice to face charges of inciting genocide. Distinctive? Yes, it is but again only empty symbolism.

The Murray-Darling water takeover from the states – well yes ‘me-too’ says young Kevvie.

Labor has pledged to follow the Coalition's budget strategy to ensure continued low unemployment and low inflation. It is, of course, difficult to see how this will be assisted by abolishing AWAs.

On social policy the ALP has followed the Government's lead on everything from the federal takeover of public hospitals to performance pay for teachers. 'Me-too', 'me-too'.

Even on WorkChoices and IR legislation on issue after issue, Rudd and Julia Gillard have been backtracking from original commitments. AWAs are going to be around for a long time. The anti-trade union penalties are going to stay. The 'freedom' of contractors is going to stay and any trade union that attempts to take action against dishonest or anti-worker contracts will be told to butt out. Gillard is reported as saying that 'unions should not be able to interfere in commercial arrangements involving contractors'. Onya Kevvie, I agree.

On foreign policy, Rudd has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq, but remains strongly committed to the US alliance and fighting the war on terror. Not surprising an odour of inconsistency here given Rudd’s total hypocrisy on the issue of Iraq – he backed the intervention in 2003 and now wants to 'cut-and-run'.

Even fixing federalism is more important than removing the Queen as head of state. A republic – no, that is certainly no priority.

At this election, Rudd has portrayed himself as being as similar to Howard as possible. Rudd would take being labeled "conservative" as a compliment.

For example consider the likely next Prime Minister on economic questions. He has already announced the formation of a ‘razor gang’ saying that ‘In the first six months of us becoming government … we’ll institute a razor gang to go through commonwealth outlays’. And guess what they will be looking to cut? They include the ‘growth in the public service and slashing duplication of health and education spending by federal and state governments’. Nothing is being said about slashing the enormous handouts to private enterprise by both the Howard and former Labor governments. Which side are you on Kevvie?

Labor’s policies are ‘small targets’ politics with a vengeance. Perhaps those on the left are so conditioned to Labor Party deception that they see this ‘me-tooism’ simply as a way of gaining power. It then becomes a legitimate strategy of deception to achieve power which, once achieved, can be abandoned with years of ‘real labour’ policies. But if Labor becomes the next government the selective, and rather moderate, criticism of Rudd’s policies now starting to filter out of left wing circles will become a crescendo. The single redeeming feature of a Labor Party win.

It will be interesting to see how Rudd deals with the maladjusted ideologues that dominate his union dominated party once the imperative of winning an election fades and the maddies on the left tire of his bland imitative style.

More debates good for the Coalition

Kevin Rudd demanded repeatedly than John Howard debate him but then threatened not to turn up when a debate was to be held because he demanded multiple debates. Rudd insisted on determining the agenda. But yes, he will turn up to debate Howard this Sunday. Who could be surprised?

I wonder whether Howard should have met Rudd halfway on the debate proposal. The Coalition, despite recent welcome improvement in the polls, still faces the prospect of defeat. Why not agree to some debates but broaden it a bit? Have a debate on economics between Wayne Swan and Peter Costello, between Joe Hockey and Julia Gillard, between Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull etc. This option may still be open.

From the Coalition’s viewpoint such debates would play to its strength and gives it the chance to do something dramatic to reverse its fortunes. I wonder how the Australian public would take to the prospect of Wayne Swan as Treasurer if they had seen him debating Peter Costello. My guess is that the prospect of change would become frightening real.

Rudd as Laurie Oakes wrote in this week's Bulletin (subscription required) is a windbag full of cliches - putting him on the spot with respect to policy substance is a sound tactic too.

My post yesterday on the Coalition’s improving prospects is valid – there is a real chance Howard can retieve this situation and win – but it requires an active attack on Labor not any passive reliance on past form.

The initial tax policy announcement by the Coalition was fine – it got the campaign off to a flying start – by some of this impulse was offset by the ‘second-mover advantage’ made possible by ‘me-tooism’. Labor simply replicated the policy and made a minor switch by persecuting wealthy taxpayers and giving the proceeds to school-kids. Dump populist policy since these types of redistributions would be better effected by direct grants to poor schools but undoubtedly an effective ploy among the naive and ignorant. The difficulty, as Peter Costello stated yesterday, is that if Labor is elected they won’t have a paid team of Liberal Party advisers on hand to work out their policies. They will have to rely largely on their front bench of populist trade unionists and party hacks to design policy.

In open debates ‘me-tooism’ won’t be as effective for the opposition. The Coalition therefore has little to lose by pursuing a series of more open debates in terms of improving its electoral prospects. They are better-qualified ministers than their shadow opponents.

Garnaut & Labor politics

During the Federal election campaign last year I criticised the Labor Party as a collection of me-tooers who would say anything to get into power and would then do what they like. Peter Garrett explicitly said that the me-tooism didn’t matter since once they got into power they would, in fact, do what they liked. It is for this reason that Garrett has been reduced to the role of making cups of tea – the Labor bosses know he spoke the truth but think he was a bit of a fool, anyway, and a specific twit for not engaging in more strategic deceptions.

Nothing left me less impressed in the Labor Party’s policy than their platform on climate change. Given the current irrelevance of Kyoto their policy was indistinguishable from that of the Coalition.

Greenhouse gas cuts would only be made in Australia if developing countries agreed to make cuts, no interim targets were specified and no details on a carbon trading scheme provided – recall this was the policy that John Howard espoused and which was subject to so much criticism from the Green left.

The Labor Party did agree to 60% cuts by 2050 but, let us be honest, undertakings to deliver outcomes in more than 40 years time count for nothing in Australian politics. They are vacuous.

Ratifying Kyoto was a largely symbolic event since the force of this agreement runs out in 2012. The post-Kyoto environment is what matters. Paul Kelly was one of the few to sense the gap between Labor Party rhetoric and practical policy-making at the time of the Kyoto ratification.

When the Labor Party declined to spell out interim targets for 2020 and were criticised the standard response of their supporter running dogs was to say – ‘the Labor Party is entitled to wait for the results of the Garnaut Review’. ‘Give them time!’.

I never bought this response – how can you firmly adhere to 2050 targets without having intermediate targets at 2020? It makes no sense. What could Garnaut offer that was not already well known?

Well now Garnaut has made his interim report, called for 2020 targets and for steeper 2050 targets. It is an excellent report. He rubbished the Labor Party’s renewable target but, most of all, suggested the need to get real on climate change.

It seems however that the Labor Party is already distancing itself from his views. They have the right to do this because Garnaut is not an elected official but one hopes this is not just a sign of further inaction.

I quote from The Age:

‘The federal government has tried to play down its chief climate change adviser's call for even deeper cuts to dangerous greenhouse gases.

Economist Ross Garnaut in his interim report on climate change policy says the government should set a 2020 greenhouse target this year and consider setting a tougher 2050 target.

"Australia should be ready to go beyond its stated 60% reduction target by 2050 in an effective global agreement that includes developing nations," Prof Garnaut said in a statement.

The report says such an approach would see the nation play a positive role in global talks for a post-Kyoto regime.

"Australia should formulate a position on the contribution that it would be prepared to make to an effective global agreement, and offer to implement that stronger position if an appropriately structured international agreement were reached," it says.

It calls on the government to set an interim 2020 target later this year similar to those accepted by other developed nations.....

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said Prof Garnaut's report would be an "important input" to government policy.

"We welcome Professor Garnaut's input ... of course we will also be looking at other inputs, such as modelling from the Australian Treasury," she told reporters.....

Senator Wong called the interim report - the final document is due in September - "early thinking" on the policy response to climate change.

The Australian Greens say the federal government is back-pedalling fast on its climate change promises. Greens leader Bob Brown claims the government is trying to minimise the importance of Prof Garnaut because he has followed the science.

"Penny Wong has reduced Ross Garnaut to input," Senator Brown told reporters in Canberra.

"That sounds to me like the Rudd government is subject to coal capture.....

....The Australian Coal Association welcomed Prof Garnaut's acceptance of clean coal.’ (my bold).

I think the Liberal Party policy on climate change was excessively cautious and believe Labor Party policy as yet offers no substantive improvement. It is easy to promise decisive action on climate change but, when making these promises, it is necessary to consider the costs of actually implementing policy. John Howard understood this and moved with (excessive) caution. The Labor Party deceived voters because of the apparent political difficulties.

It easy to promise but tough to deliver in a world where powerful economic interests play a role. I prefer excessive caution to being fed lies.

Repeated me-tooism (climate change, education) & Labor deceit

As I have argued repeatedly Labor politicians are deceitful clowns.

A few weeks ago Peter Garrett announced that me-too-ism didn’t matter since Labor would tear up its promises once it got into office. He subsequently apologized and agreed he had been a dill.

Now Mike Kelly has announced that Labor will tear up its current education policies once it gets into office and reinstate Latham-style class-based warfare in education – the existing system of funding private schools was ‘a ridiculous approach to looking at the needs of schools, and we'll move away from that and get down eventually to a proper needs-based approach’. He subsequently apologized and agreed he had been a dill.

I think both Garrett and Kelly are being deceitful and that their original statements indicate their true intent.

So too does Andrew Bolt in a sprightly Herald-Sun article today. It is well worth reading and spot on.

‘….the day Rudd wins the election is the day I expect Labor's Left, in particular, to drop its who-me? smiles and start eating its leader alive'.

A great read.

I have already voted

There is a fair chance the riff-raff will seize Government in Australia tomorrow.

As most commentators have noted it is a somewhat strange position that a political party which has presided over the longest running economic expansion in our history should now face electoral defeat. Kevin Rudd is a strong and effective leader of a rabble-based party based on a fading trade union movement and leftist loose thinking-cum-social-romanticism. Rudd’s strength derives from the hope he gives Labor that it will gain power. In terms of policies he has almost nothing to offer. Perhaps he gives some hope and he certainly is clever with the verbiage but Rudd has simply me-tooed the government on most issues. He has set qualifications to the reforms on WorkChoices that mean little will happen during the next cycle of Federal Government, has climate change policies that are effectively identical to the Coalition and has glib education policies that ignore skill issues and simply offer a laptop to every kid. It is low-level politics from a bureaucrat master of cliché and cant.

So is there a case for an alternative management team with a new language to be installed to implement the current Government’s policies? The answer should be no but I don’t think it will be. The lack of experience, the zealous me-tooism and the dominant role of trade union hacks on Labor’s front bench provides a basis for policy imitation but not creative government.

A vote for Rudd puts too much at risk but, in an environment where things are operating so well, this has proven to be a difficult message to sell.

Cheerful Friday thought - Coalition on the mend

Howard closes in on the riff-raff.

The Age poll shows Labor down 2 points to 54% of the preferred vote and the Coalition up 2 points to 46%. The Gallaxy poll puts Labor’s position at 53% versus the Coalition’s 47%. John Howard has improved his approval rating to the closest it has been behind Rudd since the latter was elected and went on his honeymoon.

It is a long way to go but – I’ll buy a bottle of Bollinger in anticipation – the Federal election remains a contest. The revival of Coalition prospects was partly due to its announced tax package but also simply the inevitable narrowing in the polls following the election announcement. Australians are fearful of jeopardising their future with union-dominated, hack politicians. My guess is that Rudd’s ‘me-tooism’ and ‘small targets strategy’ (something the left criticised when Kim Beazley tried the strategy) will fail as it should. Why give up on a tried and proven team when the challenger offers nothing substantively new?

The nodding ALP dills need to respond with something more than some clichés about skills and irrelevancies concerning the IMF. The tax cuts were promised to be phased in over 5 years thereby defusing inflationary impacts. Wayne Swan is so unimpressive – unimaginative, hack politician.

Yippee! I enjoyed my golf yesterday and the prospects of retaining civilised, decent, experienced government in Australia invigorates me today. Let us hope Rudd accepts loser Kennett's advice and rejects the tax cuts! Where is that Bollinger?

Update: The betting markets further bolster my optimism: Labor on $1-60 this morning and the Coalition on $2-20. This is the shortest the Coalition price has been in weeks.

Update: The Coalition's tax plan has been endorsed by Labor who have replicated it. There is slight differentiation with some low impact 'soaking the rich' restrictions on the tax cuts and a minor boost to reducing education costs - dumb cause they could have just given the money to needy schools at lower cost. But overall good policy choice by Labor but what a pathetic alternative government. Alternative? Peter Martin outlines the plan.

Update: Rudd's wax policy - No, Kevin! NO, KEVIN! NOOOOOO! (From, Tim Blair).

Coalition & Labor tax reforms

Andrew Leigh has provided us with an empirical picture of the effects of the alternative income tax reform packages by 2010/11. We can all thank Andrew for this.

As expected there is not a great deal of difference. Except at high incomes there is almost no difference in effects on income with or without the education. The Labor Party's policy is 'me-tooism' with a bit of temporary 'hit-the-rich' populism - a useful way of discouraging high income talent from working in Australia.

Labor's tax scales are flatter than those proposed by the Coalition which is interesting in itself. Labor also offers the prospect for even more favourable treatment of the very rich but only after 2013.

A principled policy stance for both parties would be to agree to legislate to index all tax scales for the effects of inflation. An earned income tax credit at lower incomes would have encouraged more work among the low paid.

In addition, there should be a serious targeting of the compliance costs associated with paying personal income tax, payroll tax, company tax and the GST.

The Tax Act in Australia has grown from 3000 pages in 1996 to more than 10000 pages today.

Labor policy clowning on climate change

The Coalition has been subject to repeated, venomous attacks from Labor because it refused to sign the Kyoto agreement unless developing countries also came to the party and also made commitments to cut emissions. Developing countries are not required to cut their emissions under the Kyoto agreement until after 2012.

But now Labor has stated that it too will not sign a global climate change agreement after 2012 unless developing countries agree to cut their emissions. Labor has adopted the climate change stance of the Coalition.

Watch for the denials and for the qualifications from the rabid left but this theft of Coalition climate change policy is precisely what has happened.

This development caps off a completely hopeless 24 hours for Labor on climate change issues. After Labor’s ex rock star-cum-environmental spokesman Peter Garrett said that developing countries not signing would not be a ‘deal breaker’ yesterday Labor’s policy was revised to say exactly the opposite today.

Previously the Labor Party criticised the Coalition for not setting firm greenhouse gas cutback targets. Labor went ahead and formulated firm targets – 60% cuts by 2050 – and then selected pro-Labor economics Professor Ross Garnaut to conduct an investigation which would show how large the cutbacks should be. This inversion of commonsense is a bizarre and inept policy move, perhaps designed to derive advantage from the current political situation, but certainly to the disadvantage of Australia. The Coalition are going slower and, sensibly, advocate setting targets once they know the implied adjustment costs.

Labor went on today to set fixed targets for renewable energy production to be 20% of the total by 2020. But where is the analysis and where are the cost estimates? Why not 5% of 15% or indeed 50%. I think the Coalition policy on this one (15% target by 2020) is silly but Labor’s policy is 5% sillier without information on costs and benefits.

Labor policies on climate change are in the hands of populist clowns who don’t have the capacity to think beyond election day.

I have argued that electing the Labor Party will place Australia’s continued economic prosperity at risk. Because Australia has enjoyed 17 years of strong economic performance and currently enjoy high growth, record low unemployment and low inflation some people have come to forget the costs of inept economic management and are pursuing other social objectives. But the Labor buffoons won’t realise these either because they have such transparently inept policy development skills.

There is more to policy than mouthing comfortable clichés about ‘working families’ and there is more to government than just copying the successful rational policies of other parties. Indeed Mr Rudd’s ‘me-tooism’ is a clear endorsement of the value of not voting Labor. The Coalition would not work as policy advisers for a Federal Labor Government so who would design Labor policy?

Hard Labor

Labor liars reveal all:

‘Once we get in we'll just change it all’, Mr Peter Garrett said to high-profile radio announcer Steve Price.

To Labor 'me-tooism' doesn’t matter because once they get in they'll change it all anyway. Copy the experienced, winning side then change it all once the Labor lies secure its power.

Mr Rudd has not commented. Oh, dear. Mr Magoo - he did a 'deep thorkus' on this one - up to his elbows in ear wax, he was.

Tim Blair describes Peter Garrett as ‘seven feet of pure liability’. The shadow minister for health, in my opinion, is a worse disaster.

It really is a bit much when a political party, like the ALP (that harbours child molesters, rapists, criminals and crooks as well as ear wax munchers) gets annoyed when Tony Abbot simply says ‘bullshit’ to ex-legal eagle, union hack Nicola Roxoff because she nagged him unrelentingly and without justification for being late for a TV show. Indeed this cow deserved a pointed remark directed at her (I'll provide suggestions Tony) rather than her nagging.

Don’t apologise to her, Tony and give her a well-deserved kick in the arse if you get a chance.