Bullshit Jobs!

In "Utopia for Realists", Rutger Bregman reminds us about the New York…

Day to Day Politics: Whoops, their hypocrisy is…

Sunday 30 April 2017 1 Remember the phrase ''spending like a drunken sailor''…

Good and Bad Debt from Dumb and Dumber

Finally something of interest came forth from the mouths of our good…

Make up your bloody mind

For an organisation to run successfully, they must identify goals, prioritise them,…

Series: What is propaganda in 2017 and how…

Recently I wrote about Cambridge Analytica (CA), I’ve discovered since then that…

Attack On The ANZACs Must Be Condemned!

Hot on the heels of Yassmin Abdel-Magied and her refusal to adopt…

Drug-Safe campaigner invites local communities to get involved.

By Craig Hingston Residents in Sydney’s West are being asked to assist in…

Day to Day Politics: The Trump Report No.…

And so it has come to pass that Trump, as those with…


Category Archives: Rossleigh

How Company Tax Cuts Will Save Australia And Why Penalty Rates Need To Abolished!

Hallelujah, the company tax cuts have gone through and Australia’s tax rate is competitive again!

Now, I know this confuses some of you because it’s only companies with a turnover of less than $50 million and one of the big arguments that the Coalition put forward was that a higher rate of tax discouraged overseas investment which stifled jobs and growth. Huh, some of you are saying, it’s hard to see billions pouring into Australia to invest in those piddly little companies with a turnover of a paltry thirty million or so. But you’re overlooking the fact that companies can be broken up into lots of little companies each of which has a turnover of less than fifty million. In the event of the company inadvertently increasing its turnover above the magic figure, well, it can easily declare bankruptcy after distributing its assets to its Cayman Island subsidiary.

Which, of course, raises the very important point: How on earth are we meant to compete for the investment dollar when there are places that require no tax at all?

The answer is, of course, we can’t. If we want to be internationally competitive we need to lower our company tax rate so that there’s nowhere better in the world for people investing their money. And to do that, I’m proposing that we have a zero tax rate. That would encourage more investment which should, of course, lead to jobs and growth and when you have that everybody benefits. Even the unemployed who haven’t got off their backsides and borrowed a few million from the banks to start their own company, but in spite of this, they’ll benefit because there’ll be more jobs for all of us.

Of course, this presupposes that the companies can actually make a profit in this country, which is hard because of all the red tape and high wages. I mean, some of the biggest companies in the world struggle to make any money here! With workers here demand safe working conditions, we have lots and lots of regulation which is totally unnecessary because when was the last time you heard about a company director being injured at work?

And then there’s wages. People complained about losing their penalty rates and the government was ridiculed for pointing out that many of those on the minimum wage were in high income houses. That’s right! We have high income houses in Australia. It’s outrageous. How can companies make a profit when they have to pay their workers so much. During the Depression people were happy to work in exchange for food, but now they want a roof over their head as well. The government quite rightly points out that if wages were less then more employers would put people on.

Speaking personally, I’d be happy to hire dozens of workers were it not for the fact that they’d expect me to pay them.

No, the answer is simple. If we want this to be a prosperous country, we need to understand the logic of the Turnbull government and pursue it to its natural end point. Once companies pay no tax and once workers get no pay, then it’ll all be ok and jobs and growth will ensure that we have plenty of economic activity and there’ll be no unemployment and the budget crisis will go away…

Oh wait, I keep forgetting. It’s already gone away because nobody ever talks about getting back to surplus any more.

Don Trixote – Tales of A President Errant (With Apologies To Cervantes)

The story so far:
One day, Don Trixote decided that the world needed a noble businessman to rid the world of all its ills and so he left his Tower and set up seeking adventures as POTUS. Along the way, he attracted a helper, Sancho Penca, who was his loyal deputy. In this chapter, Trixote mistakes windmills for giants attacking the land and attempts to thwart them.

At this point they came in sight of thirty forty windmills that there are on plain, and as soon as Don Trixote saw them he said to his squire, “Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, VP Penca, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God’s good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth.”

“What giants?” said Penca.

“Those thou seest there,” answered his master, “with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long.”

“Look, your worship,” said Sancho; “what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the blades turned by the wind that make the electricity.”

“It is easy to see,” replied Don Trixote, “that thou art not used to this business of the deal; if I sayest that those are giants, then those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat.”

A slight breeze at this moment sprang up, and the great blades began to move, so the Don drew out his phone and began to Tweet apace. “These evil giants are bad and nobody is better at ridding this country of the scourge of wind than me, so I shall charge into battle and slay them.”

He continued: “We shall not rest until these monsters have been vanquished and I have replaced them with coal mines where we can send canaries”

“Don’t listen to the FAKE NEWS! All my staff love me and we are getting rid of O’care”

“In fact it’s gone, along with the giants.”

And after all that hearty tweeting, Don Trixote decided that his noble work was done for the week and he would charge them another day. Now, ’twas time to break for the weekend and catch up on a little golf at his resort in Florida.

Minimum Wage And My Submission To The Senate!

Ok, I suppose most of you have heard about the Federal Government’s submission to the minimum wage case. Apparently, heaps of these low-paid workers “are often found in high-income households”. (By that I presume that the government meant that they were members of the household and not just the cleaning lady or a burglar or someone who’d wandered in off the street!) Of course, when I say, “heaps” that’s because, like Senator Cash, I don’t want to put a number on it. The reason for that is very simple! I’ve no idea what the number is. But that doesn’t stop me – or Senator Cash – telling everyone that putting up the minimum wage would just be transferring wealth from those hard-up employers to high income families because let’s be real, it’s probably just uni students. And we all know that uni students live with their wealthy parents, right? I mean, poor people can’t afford to go to university any more, so it’d be outrageous to give a boost to the minimum wage because it’s just students earning pocket-money so that they can go clubbing on the weekend.

Of course, it’s not just uni students. In some cases, it’s the partner of some high income earner. You know, someone like Malcolm Turnbull earns millions at his job, but someone like Lucy goes out cleaning houses during the week so that she can use her own money to purchase her Prada clothing.

Yes, I like this principle that we should consider what the overall income of the household might be when we consider the implications of our decisions.

With that in mind, I’ve prepared this humble little submission for the Senate in their deliberations this week.

“Dear Senators,
When considering whether or not to pass the proposed company tax cuts, I would like you to consider the fact that many of the people benefitting from these are often found in high-income households. I don’t have the figure, ok, but it’s not as simple as that. And I don’t know why the income of anyone else in the house has any relevance when making a decision like this, but I reckon if it’s good enough for one submission then it’s good enough for another.


A Very Limited Understanding Of Economics!

Once upon a time there was a village where everybody worked… Well, almost everybody. Women would get married and then they’d stay at home and do housework which as any economist will tell you isn’t really work at all because it has no value. Of course, while economists may tell you this, they never say this to their wives because it could lead to them going to work with a crumpled shirt because the little woman has refused to do the ironing as it isn’t work…

Ok, I know that it isn’t politically correct to presume that all economists are men who are married to housewives but I thought that a little bit of sexism may encourage any neo-con reading this remember the good old days when men were men and women were a special type of being who only occasionally appeared and certainly never became Prime Minister or Deputy Leader and it may encourage them to read further in the hope that I’m going to justify all that stuff about the invisible hand of the market. And, of course I will. I just love the concept that an imaginary hand is guiding our decisions… Well, not so much imaginary as non-existent, but as any economic rationalist will tell you it’s far more competent to make decisions than a government even if they themselves are the elected party.

And, of course, it wasn’t just women who didn’t work. Occasionally, somebody would be between jobs. But generally there was plenty of work to go around.

The main store was owned by a man named Mr King, as was the hotel and the widget factory and many of the houses that people lived in. He was a very wealthy man and he was responsible for the employment of many, many people in the village. In fact, the only other person who owned anything was Mr Gold who owned the bank. In fact, apart from Mr King and Mr Gold, the only way you could be earn money was to make and sell things. Many of these things were sold in Mr King’s store.

All this worked well enough, but one day Mr Gold’s son, Rollo, came back from the big school in the city and he needed a job, so Mr Gold saw Mr King, and arranged for him to work as a manager for Mr King. Mr Gold convinced Mr King that Rollo would have a lot of good ideas about how they could improve things and make them more efficient.

And sure enough, young Rollo did. One of his first acts was to point out that the could replace Sol, the man at the drink counter of the store with a self-service machine which saved them most of Sol’s wages. Unfortunately for Sol, this meant that he could no longer afford the rent on his home, and so he had to move out. Luckily for Sol, the town council ran a shed for people who had no income where they could go, and in return for a few hours’ work each day, they’d be fed and could spend the night out of the cold.

Rollo, flushed with his success, had an even better idea. By installing the latest machines in the widget factory, they could reduce their workforce by a third. Mr King was most impressed. When he and Mr Gold had their weekly dinner at his hotel, he expressed the belief that things were better than they’d ever been. Mr Gold agreed. Everything was just fine, apart from the town council charging so much in taxes and rates.

“Once we needed them to build roads and the like,” said Mr Gold, “but now all the roads are built, they only waste money on those layabouts who hang around that homeless shed!”

Mr King agreed and they decided that they would set about trying to have their charges reduced. “After all,” said Mr King, “we provide all the jobs in this village and if it wasn’t for us everybody would be poor!”

So imagine their outrage when they discovered that the town council was intending to increase charges. One of the town council tried to justify it by arguing that they needed to increase the size of the homeless shed now that so many more people were homeless, but Mr King was having none of it.

“These people no longer pay rent and I have all these empty houses which nobody will buy because they’re all too lazy to work hard and earn money, and you expect me to help provide them with shelter and food!” he screamed. He needed to find ways to save money.

Many of the people who made things in their own home sold these to Mr King’s store. So when Rollo was asked if he had a way to save more money, he suggested that the people in the across the lake sold what they made much more cheaply, so if they stopped buying locally then it would be much cheaper and they could make bigger profits.

And they needed to make much bigger profits because the hotel was serving fewer customers. Nobody was eating meals there, and fewer people were having a drink. Rollo responded and sacked half the staff, but still he was making a loss.

After a year, nobody was working. Nobody had a home. The widget factory had moved to another town. The hotel was closed. The makers had no buyers for their goods.

But thankfully the town council knew what to do. They closed the homeless shed and used the money saved to give Mr King and Mr Gold a reduction in their taxes because they knew that’s what would stimulate the economy…

We Need The Freedom To Offend So This Ridiculous Law Must Go!

Freedom of speech, I have heard recently, is a near-sacred concept and it includes the freedom to offend, insult and humiliate. While 18C has been fixed up and “made stronger” by changing those terms to “harass”, there remains a law on the statute books which greatly inhibits freedom of speech.


Offensive language
4A Offensive language

(1) A person must not use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or a school

Why is this ridiculous law allowed to remain on our books? I mean we all need the freedom to offend, right? Why should some bastard arbitrarily decide that my language is offensive? I mean, that’s f*cked, right?

As has been observed:

“The cornerstone of public order legislation is usually a provision that permits police to act where behaviour in a public place is regarded as offensive, insulting, abusive or indecent. Such provisions are inevitably vague and open-ended, with the characterisation of the behaviour left to the discretion of the police in the first instance, and subsequently to the discretion of magistrates.”
David Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales

So where is the outcry? All right, nobody charged Andrew Bolt. And ok, it’s usually only indigenous people who ever get charged with offensive language. But still, this greatly infringes on my right to go to the football and scream abuse at the umpires. How do can tradesmen go to work when they know that an expletive uttered when they drop a tool or hurt themselves may see them hauled before a magistrate and, just like Andrew Bolt, be told to say sorry and not to do it again? (Ok, I know that some of you are going to mention that the defence offered under Section 2 of the Act which states: “2. It is a sufficient defence to a prosecution for an offence under this section if the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for conducting himself or herself in the manner alleged in the information for the offence”, but that’s like saying that 18D offered protection to Bill Leak when his cartoon drew criticism and we all know that people don’t like to be criticised so where’s the protection there?)

Why shouldn’t I be allowed to roam the streets with a megaphone pointing out what a pack of arseholes politicians are? Why shouldn’t I be able to stand outside a school waiting for any teacher that gave my child poor grades and express my views in language that makes it clear what my thoughts are? Why shouldn’t I be able, when pulled over for speeding, turn to the officer and say, “What’s the trouble, f*ck-face?”

This offensive language act is outrageous and, even though it is may help in the locking up of aboriginal people, surely in this day and age, we can find a more sophisticated reason to incarcerate them. Something like, say, banning the words, “invasion day”! No, the act must go in the name of freedom of speech.

I urge you all to write to your Federal MP and ask them to put time and energy into the repeal of this act. And don’t let them put you off by suggestions that there is an energy problem at this time. When they try to tell you that it’s a state law and outside their jurisdiction, point out that’s never stopped them interfering when it suits them. Surely they could use the Corporations Act or something.

No, go online and start some petition. Organise. Or get Andrew Bolt onside… That should do it!

18C And Malcolm’s Return To The Left!

Early this week, we had Peter Dutton making his run for the leader’s job with his very effective slap-down of those business leaders who dared to express an opinion on marriage equality. Go for it, Peter, I say. I mean, what right to business leaders have to giving the government advice on something like same sex marriage. We should only listen to business leaders on things like whether climate change exists and only if they tell us that it’s a load of claptrap and scientists are far too insular to know which way the wind is blowing and hence they can’t advise us on climate, let alone whether. I mean, weather, or rather, whether or not we should be trying to increase our use of renewables.

No, no, no, business leaders should just quit their business and become a politician if they want to express an opinion. Or start a religion. If you’re a religious leader or head of the ACL it’s ok to have an opinion on marriage equality. But not if you’re a business man like Alan Joyce. I mean, what business is it of an openly gay business leader whether or not we have marriage equality. No, best leave that to white, heterosexual men who go to church. Like Peter. No, best that men like Mr Joyce do as our future PM suggested and stick to their knitting. Which shouldn’t offend Mr Joyce because clearly it wasn’t meant in a homophobic way and Mr Dutton was clearly referring to all business leaders and the Qantas leader shouldn’t feel singled out just because he was the one mentioned by name!

But just when I thought it was safe to go back to the Liberal Party, what do we have? That lefty, socialist Malcolm Turnbull ruining things again?

We’ve already seen how he takes good Australian money and stops the millionaires here getting their fair share, by sending it to the Cayman Islands. And we’ve seen how, like all left-wing socialists, Malcolm is trying to redistribute wealth via tax cuts to the wealthy.Yeah, we all know how that’s going to end, don’t we?

Thanks to the trickle down effect, those tax cuts’ll end up in the hands of the unemployed and homeless because the businesses will start paying their workers more and the extra taxes will lead to an increase in the money going on welfare because that’s what people like Malcolm do – don’t you remember that picture of him putting five bucks in some homeless guy’s cup – and next thing you know, we’ll be some sort of Maoist state like China… well, maybe not China, it’s looking even more capitalist than Rupert Murdoch these days. Cuba?

Whatever, it wasn’t Comrade Turnbull’s position on wealth distribution that made me see red tonight. No, I don’t mean that I’m angry. I meant in the sense that I can see his left-wing, commo’ views are being forced upon us, whether we’re in favour or not!

For years, we’ve been concerned about how 18C has stopped me putting those races back in their place (and you’ll notice that just because of that 18C thing I didn’t call them “inferior” or “subhuman” or “unionists”) just because it “offends” or “humiliates” them when I place a cross on their front lawn. God, it’s got so we god-fearing Christians can’t even put up a cross in someone else’s front yard. Last night I was stopped before we’d even set it alight… Bloody police state!

And brave culture warriors like Andrew Bolt (who isn’t a business leader and therefore has a right to an opinion) and Cory Bernardi have long complained about how 18C is preventing them from saying those things which they’d like to say, but when they do, not only do they have the Left telling them that if they don’t like our values why don’t they go back where they came from, they also risk joining all the other people who’ve been jailed or fined after violating 18C. I’d give you some examples but none spring to mind…

But Turnbull has bowed to the left and after refusing for so long to amend 18C because it’s too restrictive has decided to strengthen it!

Well, that’s what he said:


“We are strengthening the race hate laws. These are stronger laws, more effective laws, because they are clearer laws!”


See, he’s just shown how much of a lefty he really is. He’s strengthening it by replacing “insult”, “offend” and “humiliate” with “harass”.

Whereas once you used to have to insult, offend or humiliate, now it’s enough to simply harass. And one of the definitions of “harass” is to “make repeated small-scale attacks on”. So now you don’t even have to offend them, it’s enough to make attacks, and small-scale ones at that.

Bring on the challenge, Peter! Quick, before that socialist, Scott Morrison, brings down his Robin Hood Budget where he uses populist measures like tax cuts to low-income earners between $100-200k! This may be you’re only chance before those communists running our companies try to impose gay marriage on us all.

Oh, please don’t think that I meant the Chinese there when I said “communists running our companies”. I don’t want anybody to call me racist!

Je Suis Andrew Bolt – How Andrew Was Subjected To Terrible Treatment Over 18C!

Remember the headlines about the death of free speech. Remember the editorials? The Herald-Sun saw it thus:

“But should there be a law to protect people from being offended? Gagging people from fairly and legitimately held opinions is censorship. It is a basic denial of freedom of speech, which was pointed out by Attorney-General George Brandis in front of a hostile panel and audience on Q&A on ABC television on Monday night.

“The discussion on the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act turned into an attack on Bolt. An opinion as to some people using their ethnicity to their advantage might have been offensive to some, but should that have prevented Bolt from saying as much? The Herald Sun says the answer to this is an emphatic “no’’…

“But calling on the Government to adjudicate in a debate is to diminish people’s right to voice their opinions, blunt as they might be.

“Senator Brandis said in his option Bolt is “no racist’’ and brought some sense to the Q&A tirade by pointing out that, in his opinion, a failure to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form is to say “political censorship is OK”. No, it’s not, and the Racial Discrimination Act, Section 18C, is an Act too far.”

And remember how terribly Mr Bolt suffered after he lost the case. Ok, he didn’t do jail time and he wasn’t fined, but the judge found that many of the claims he made were factually inaccurate, and if a journalist like Andrew is restricted to making accurate statements, it’d only be a matter of time before he lost his job. Luckily 18C only applies to certain areas so Mr Bolt has been able to happily continue to write the world has been cooling for the past seventeen years in spite of record temperatures.

No, the terrible treatment he suffered was that he was found to have breached the law. I imagine it must be very hard for him trying to speak to members of the Coalition. “We can’t work with that man,” they must be saying. I know, I know, it’s an “unjust law”. We all should be able to say whatever we like without the need to stick the facts… I mean, if it’s good enough for the President of the United States, then surely…

Anyway, the Coalition must surely be shunning Bolt as the man was found to have broken the law. I’ve been trying to find the condemnation, but it must have been removed from the internet because they were all inaccurately calling him South African or something, and therefore it offended him and breached 18C Not that being called “South African” is insulting per se, it’s just that as he was born in Australia to a Dutch parent and therefore still has the trace of some strange accent… And by strange I wouldn’t want to insult or offend anybody, whether Dutch, South African or Boltish… or even Baltic…

Whatever, I’m sure that the right wing must have really got stuck into Andrew, given their condemnation of Sally McManus for merely suggesting that where laws are unjust – such as illegal walk-offs when safety is breached – then she’d support unions who took action . “We can’t work with her,” said Turnbull. (I guess they won’t be able to work with Adani now either.) Christopher Pyne said that there’d be chaos if Australians failed to follow the law. Michaelia Cash said that it was an “extraordinary admission” that McManus thought that unions could pick and choose when they broke the law and when they didn’t. (Actually, I suspect that everybody “picks and chooses” when they break the law, then it’s up to the police to “choose” to find us and arrest or fine us!) And George Brandis, the chief law officer of the land, said nothing… probably because he’s too busy preparing the diary that the court ordered him to release it six months ago.

So if that’s how the Coalition reacted to someone who merely said that she’d support unions who broke unjust laws, imagine how they must have treated poor Andrew Bolt who actually breached a law! He must be a complete person non grata in Liberal-land.

Or is it a case of all laws are equal but we didn’t write all of them, so some laws are more unjust than others?

The Outrageous ACTU And The Courageous Malcolm Turnbull!

I was all set to write about Malcolm’s recent announcement about the Snow-job River Hydro Improvement scheme…

Earlier tonight I heard Malcolm tell us that there used to be some plan to extend the Snowy River thingy and all it lacked was leadership and money and that the current government had plenty of both.

Well, I thought, they’ve certainly got half a dozen or so who intend to flash their leadership credentials, but it was a surprise to discover that they had money. Budget emergency solved! Wow!

I was all set to praise Malcolm. And then I was going to condemn the ABC for allowing those protesters to say nasty things about the recently deceased Bill Leak. Yes, of course it was the ABC’s fault because you should always shut down anyone who wants to say anything negative about someone who said negative things about people when he was alive, once that champion of free speech is dead. I was going to say something about how we can say whatever we like about Hitler because he didn’t support free speech but once someone who supports free speech dies we should all just say how awesome he was and if anyone has a different point of view then they should be shut down immediately.

But enough about what I wasn’t going to write about. There are too many negatives in this world as it is, and if I mention Hitler someone’s bound to invoke Godwin’s Law… which, by the way, isn’t a law because I never voted for it and isn’t that how laws are passed?


It was the outrageous Sally McManus… I think that’s her name. Not that it matters because all those unionists are the same and they all support the Labor Party and that’s enough reason to dismiss them… Just as it’s a good enough reason to dismiss the Labor Party because of their union links…

Where was I? Oh yes, apparently this union hack told someone that she had no problem telling people not to support “unjust laws”…

How terrible. I mean, where would Germany be now if it weren’t for people prepared to support laws without ever questioning whether they were unjust or not? I mean they’d have never even been able to… Perhaps, we should pause for a commercial while I think about this!

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Godwin’s law…

We should always support the law no matter how unjust. We should never disobey. Or protest. If Donald says press the button, he’s President after all and nobody should stop to consider if there might be consequences. Never question or break the law, I say… Unless it’s something to do with taxation. Then we should find some way to get around the law, and, if we can’t, then we should just donate to some party or other who’ll pass laws that give us access to all that money that goes to waste in the public service.

Nobody should ever support breaking the law. Unless it’s to do with speeding tickets… We all know that’s just a revenue raiser and a speeding car never killed anyone and even if it did, surely that’s not as bad as a government trying to raise revenue.

Um, I’m almost confused enough now to be leader of the National Party…

Pauline Hanson And Other Stunning Successes In The WA Election

The Western Australian Election was a stunning success for One Nation. I mean, the political party, not Australia… Or any other nation, for that matter. No, they did really, really well. Fantastically well! Just ask Pauline. She said it was a great success.

Or ask Malcolm Roberts who seemed to think that they’d be winning three upper house seats.

Ok, some of you pedants may point out that going from one to three is a three hundred percent increase while going from zero to three is impossible to calculate because there’s nothing on the bottom line, but Malcolm Roberts is good at Maths because well, he is, and he has empirical evidence for that, because he does and it’s not made up like NASA graphs! Of course, others may simple wish to point out that it doesn’t actually look like they’ll get three seats, so I guess that could be considered a 33.33% decrease!

Yes, it was disappointing that they didn’t get the twenty percent of votes that one poll forecast, or even the ten percent that many others predicted, but that’s ok, because, well, as Pauline said, it was a fantastic result because if it hadn’t been for that “scare” campaign about their preferences going to Liberals then many people would have voted for them. Well, that’s what she told us. But Labor ran a dishonest campaign and pointed out that her party was preferencing the Liberals, and this somehow led people to think that One Nation was supporting them. “Let’s be clear,” she told us. “Colin Barnett was like sour milk and just because we were telling you to vote to keep it in the fridge, that doesn’t mean that we didn’t think that it smelled bad and should be thrown out, but somehow Labor twisted the fact that our how-to-vote cards were helping the Liberals, and tried to suggest that I was just a Liberal Party stooge who supports their policies on penalty rates and screwing those bludgers on welfare, whereas I actually think that the Liberals haven’t gone far enough on penalty rates because I know what it’s like to be a small business owner and when the milk in your fridge goes off, it’s really hard to sell it! And this had the effect of putting many of our potential voters off, because let’s face it, they’re pretty gullible and believe what they’re told.”

She also told us that the media is “not letting you know the results we have got.” No, it’s all “fake news” and One Nation actually won the election and Pauline is now Premier but you won’t read that anywhere because of that conspiracy between Rupert Murdoch, NASA, The Greens, pharmaceutical companies, Labor, Rod Culleton and voters in WA to stop the truth from being told.

While some are wondering exactly how accurate those poll figures were, I can say with certainty that the polls were completely accurate reflection of the people who were polled. The fact that they were so different to the actual votes on the day doesn’t mean that opinion polls have no validity when it comes to minor parties like One Nation. No, it simply means that either something like two-thirds of the people changed their minds about voting for PHON at the last moment or by a remarkable coincidence, all the polling companies just happened to get a disproportionate number of Pauline supporters owing to the fact that they did their polling outside One Nation party meetings.

Meanwhile the Liberals have decided that the idea of swapping preferences is really good and that it was only the fact that Pauline’s party got so few votes that caused Mathias Cormann to make it clear that just because he helped set up the deal, doesn’t mean he was the only one who should take the blame. In fact, he hardly had anything to do with it. Probably it was someone involved in the Essendon scandal who came up with the original idea. Or Kevin Rudd. But swapping preferences is a good idea and next time we hope that not only do One Nation get more votes, but we also hope that fifty percent of their preferences don’t leak back to Labor. Maybe next time, they’ll try to swap with Labor. They got plenty of votes!

Yes, a “fantastic” result according to Senator Hanson. Of course, it’s unclear whether Pauline meant the word in the sense of “extraordinarily good or attractive” or whether she meant its other meaning: “imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality”!

Why The WA Result Has Absolutely No Implications For Turnbull

While Pauline has decided to emulate her hero, Donald Trump, and ban a certain news organisation from her post-election party because she can, I hear from other outlets that she thought that One Nation had a great result in the WA election. Yes, one poll told us that they were likely to get twenty percent, and most polls suggested a vote as high as ten, Pauline isn’t greedy and was happy with almost five. After all, they really weren’t ready and they weren’t very organised and they had to rush everything, so all things considered, it was a very good result and if it wasn’t for the media stoking controversy by reporting what she actually said, then it would have been a great result. Yes, she did talk about Putin and vaccinations but these things weren’t the things that mattered and people were drawn to her because she spoke about Important Issues that Mattered to People. And yes, the preference deal was a mistake, but they wouldn’t rule out doing it again. Similarly, the Liberals weren’t ready to concede that it was a mistake, even though they were acknowledging that maybe it hadn’t worked as well as they’d hoped.

Basically they sounded like a couple who’d hooked up online, had a quickie before they’d finished their first drink together, felt a sense of embarrassment when telling their respective friends, but neither was prepared to rule out a repeat, because they both suspected that they’d soon be desperate enough to do it again.

It seems that both parties overlooked the simple fact that the exchange of presences doesn’t work that well, unless the other party is actually getting votes. To be fair, they did both get votes. Just not enough to actually help each other actually win any seats. Although as one brave Liberal suggested, there were still a couple of lower house seats where One Nation preferences might get them over the line. If that happens that should give the Liberals bragging rights over the Nationals. “See, we still won twice as many seats as you did!” Sort of makes the deal worth it!

Predictably, there were no Federal Implications in this election. As Matt-Finish Cormann told us, this election was fought on State Issues, and when asked about Shorten’s comments that penalty rates had been a factor, the Terminated told us that Bill Shorten was irrelevant and he only came over to bask in the glory of Labor’s win. Now, I know that some Labor supporters will want to point out that Shorten went over several times to campaign, while Turnbull only went once, told WA not to expect anything to be done about the GST carve-up until after the next Federal election but he did feel their pain and he intended to do something about someday and jobs and growth, innovation, innovation, Labor bad, jobs and growth, aren’t I handsome, vote for whatsisname and yeah, Pauline isn’t a bad sort is she, jobs and growth, thank you linesman, thank you ball-boys, let’s get out of here before I have to take some of the blame, and who are those villagers circling with torches and pitchforks, before disappearing back to Canberra as fast as his little jet would take him.

So, all things considered, it seems exactly as I wrote yesterday, that Malcolm will be completely safe and that nobody will see this as something that could reflect on the current Canberra mob in any way. I’m also expecting that Tony Abbott will appear sometime today and express his belief that now is not the time to change leaders, Andrew Bolt will write a column on what a great job Turnbull is doing, Malcolm will talk about his great working relationship with Scott Morrison and Cory Bernardi will ask to rejoin the Party. because, well, this was all about State Issues!

Three Reasons Why Malcolm Will Definitely Still Be PM Next Week!

“Oh, hell—prophecy’s a thankless business, and history has a way of showing us what, in retrospect, are very logical solutions to awful messes.”

Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano.

Well, I was going to write a piece about the way we’re being set up to allow fracking. Just as the Liberals have managed to demonise the reliability of renewables because South Australia had blackouts, while ignoring blackouts in states with very little reliance on renewables as being just one of those inevitable things, then we’ll soon have a campaign that suggests that those gas “shortages” will be solved by allowing lots and lots of gas companies to do lots and lots of onshore exploration. That should bring the price down! Of course, the argument is a bit like saying if we let companies drill for gold because there’s probably some under your house, then we don’t need to compensate you because you’ll benefit when the extra gold brings the price down for your next jewellery purchase. If companies do manage to get more access to gas through fracking, it won’t solve the “shortage” because the shortage is being caused by the fact that it’s being flogged off overseas, not because Australia doesn’t produce enough. I suspect that all the “extra” gas will still be flogged off to other countries for higher prices than we’ve traditionally paid.

But, as Kurt Vonnegut wrote in his rather prescient 50s novel, Player Piano, prophecy is a thankless business. If I’m right, people will say how obvious, but if I’m wrong, it’s something to hold over my head. However, in spite of the dangers, I’m prepared to give three reasons why Malcolm Turnbull will still be PM next week.

1. The first is that neither Scott Morrison nor Peter Dutton have the numbers to be sure that they’d win. True, they”d both have more votes than Turnbull if the spill happened, but each is trying to shore up just a little more support to ensure that they’re the one to emerge victor. Look at the shadow plays. Dutton tries to empire build with the proposed Department of Homeland Security. Morrison, on the other hand, starts talking about helping with housing affordability. Turnbull announces that he’ll have more to do with the Budget. So, it’s quite possible that there’d be a bit of argy-bargy before either of the terrible two was confident enough to challenge the Wet One.
2. Because of the general expectation that Labor will win in WA today, then the fallout from the loss may not be as bad for Turnbull as it could be. Should the Liberals just lose, we may even have Malcolm suggesting that it was a shame he was too busy to get over there in the last week, because his appearance may have just got them over the line. Ok, that may be delusional, and it’s probably more accurate to say that if Colin Barnett had been too busy to campaign that may have actually helped the Liberals, but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. Anyway, Labor need an enormous swing to actually form the government, and while it certainly looks likely, there’s a strong chance that the swing may not be as big as expected. When the Puppets of Pauline fail to get the twenty percent or so that some polls suggest, Malcolm may try to spin a small loss as an enormous victory for the sensible centre, in spite of the fact that in the past few months he’s said nothing either “sensible” or “centre”. Mind you, it also wouldn’t surprise me, if the Liberals are decimated in WA, which would create a lot of twitchy backbenchers in Canberra.
3. But my main reason for suggesting that I’m supremely confident that Malcolm will be PM next week is that Monday is the start of the week and there’s no way they’ll remove him before Tuesday at the earliest.

Why Turnbull Has A Gas Problem And Why Vaccinations Are Not Safe!

Mm, it gets hard…

I’ve spent several days trying to reconcile the idea that certain people can both admire a leader like Vlad Putin suggesting that Australia needs a leader like him, while arguing that any attempts to persuade people to vaccinate their children is an attempt to impose a dictatorship and we all should have freedom of choice.

After giving the matter considerable thought, I’ve decided that either people believe that what we need is a strong leader who’ll impose all the things that I agree with and jail all those who dare to try to argue with me… Or else, many people can’t put two ideas together because they suffer from ADOITS (Attention Defic…Oh Isn’t That Shiny?)

Whatever, I do acknowledge that from time to time, the mainstream media, science, the political class has got it wrong. That’s why we need to research and seek out differing opinions. I like to hear arguments from people who think differently. I like to discuss differences and learn so that I may grow. And as a general rule of thumb, I’ve found that I’m most likely to grow from the exchange when someone begins the exchange with some like:

“Yes, but have you considered…?”

To which, I am likely to reply, either: “Yes, but that still doesn’t…” or “No, just let me think about that for a while!”

However, I’ve generally found that when the exchange begins: “You’re just an idiot who believes everything that they’re told and if you stopped listening to the mainstream media you’d understand that the following people are working together and it’s only thanks to someone like Donald Trump/a blogger who lives in treehouse and can only blog in short bursts because he generates all the electricity for his computer by peddling/Fox News/the aliens who visit me every Shrove Tuesday to explain why their predictions for the previous year were thwarted by gnomes/Cory Bernardi that we know what’s really going on and that vaccinations aren’t safe!”

Now, I’m sure that sometimes there have been some side effects from some vaccinations for some people. To me, it’s a bit like going to work. Sometimes people may drop dead of a heart attack from stress at work, but I suspect that in the overall scheme of the world, more people have died through not working and starving to death! (Ok, we could have a discussion about a universal income at this point, but I’m trying not to get…Oooh Shiny!)

I’m also old enough to remember that there are side effects from things like polio. Which according to someone on social media never really existed and it’s just a made up thing because nobody they know has ever had polio so why do we need the vaccine?

Now, vaccinations are one things, but I’ve found the recent debate on energy even more confusing. Apparently – a few years ago – some of the states privatised the electricity supply and/or delivery to make it more efficient. This has led to a whole range of different suppliers and distributors and, even though, it’s all more efficient now, prices keep going up exorbitantly. Of course, part of this was the carbon tax which wasn’t a tax according to Peta Credlin. And that would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that it’s continued to rise even faster after the tax that wasn’t a tax was removed.

Ok, I sort of get that it’s all because of renewables, because apparently it’s cheaper to get coal and gas out of the ground than it is to get sunshine out of the sky or wind out of the air. Renewables cost a lot to set up. And they’re apparently inefficient. That could make sense if it weren’t for the fact that two of the states with the biggest price rises were ones where they had almost no reliance on renewables.

Then just lately we’ve been hearing that the big problems with renewables is their unreliability. As Tony Abbott told us a couple of weeks ago, sometimes the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow anywhere but Canberra and the tide is turned back by King Canute. We need fossil fuels! And not just because they contribute to so many Liberal Party lunches, but because they’re reliable and they’re always there.

Imagine my confusion then when I hear that we may have blackouts because of a gas shortage. No, not the one in California last year, but right here in Australia. We may not have enough gas because we don’t pay enough apparently and suppliers are selling it to people overseas for more than we’re prepared to pay unless we increase our energy prices. Which sort of makes it harder to argue that renewables are too expensive when gas is too expensive too.

Of course, someone with much more understanding of gas – like Malcolm Turnbull – will probably be able to explain that increasing investment in renewables won’t help. No, what we’ll need to do is stop our silly obsession with things like clean water and allow companies to start fracking and the like. After all, what’s the point of a country if you – or overseas companies – can’t exploit its natural resources.

When it’s all said and done, what’s the point of your population if they can’t be exploited, and with the growth of robots we don’t really need people any more. Except to consume things. When they invent a robot who can do that, there’s no longer any need for anyone who doesn’t contribute to the Liberal Party…

Pauline Puts Putin On Pedestal; Turnbull Tears Down Tyrant!

Some of you may have noticed a strange train of thought from Pauline Hanson. She praises Putin, telling us that we need a strong leader like Putin, but before the interview is over, Australia’s answer to The T-rump is telling us that she opposes the government attempting to coerce parents into vaccinating their children because it’s like “a dictatorship”. What’s one meant to take away from that? (Admittedly, take-aways haven’t been Pauline’s strong point since the fish and chip shop days!) Apparently, we need a strong leader who can impose his or her will, but not when it comes to giving kids needles. Or even imposing action on climate change. We need a leader who can impose Hanson’s will on the people. The sort of leader who’d name a party after themselves and expel those who she didn’t agree with. In a totally democratic way, of course.

Turnbull was, of course, quick to contradict the No Notion leader in this particular instance. While the Liberals have traditionally said that they disagree with One Nation before adding, but isn’t it great that people can make xenophobic statements and generally talk the sort of nonsense about science that makes Barnaby# seem intelligent, in this particular case Turnbull was anxious to disagree. No, he told us, we don’t want a strong leader like Putin – there’s a strong case for having a jellyfish who just goes along with whatever they’re told.

Strangely, Turnbull was given praise by some sections of the media for his decision to criticise Pauline’s comments. Have we become so used to seeing Turnbull as the obedient lap-dog of every right wing nutter that we somehow think merely saying that he disagrees is the sort of performance that where we’d start refering to him as the Australian Vladimir? He’s set the bar so low that he attracts praise when he does such courageous things as telling Trump that he expects a deal to be honoured or attacks Bill Shorten for hobnobbing with the elite. On the latter, surely Turnbull wasn’t suggesting that Shorten was being a class traitor because, as any member of his government will tell you, it’s only Labor who indulge in class warfare…

Whatever, the coming Western Australian election will throw up an interesting predicament for the Federal Liberals. It’s highly unlikely that the Liberals will produce a strong result, and possibly the worst case scenario for them is winning government with One Nation holding the balance of power in the upper house (or even, less likely, the lower house!) While Labor can condemn the preference deal that put them there, it’s a lot harder when you’re the ones who made it. However, a loss would surely have the knives being sharpened in Canberra. Actually, the knives must be pretty sharp by now.

As someone said to Caesar, beware the ides of March!

#By the way, did you catch his performance on “The Project” last week?

Energy In Australia And Why The Federal Government Lacks Any!

On Facebook this morning, a “promoted” site popped up asking me to sign a petition to stop the closure of the Hazelwood power station. Now, being a helpful sort of a chap, I thought I’d like to point out to the creators of the site that Hazelwood is being closed by its French operators, not the Labor State Government. Private operators don’t tend to take much notice of petitions about how badly this will affect workers; they’re more concerned with their bottom line.

However, on visiting the site energyinaustralia.org, I couldn’t find any “Contact Us”. In fact, I couldn’t even find who was behind it. No names, no organisations, nothing. Just a site telling me all about how dangerous and insignificant renewables are. So I decided to search to see where it’s Domain Name was registered. Strangely, Energy In Australia had something which said: “IP Location France France Roubaix Ovh Sas”.

Ok, well there’s nothing wrong with that. I mean, I don’t know how these things work. Maybe it was just cheaper to register the site in France for some reason. And who really cares who’s behind a site, eh? If a group of Frenchies want to educate us on the dangers of renewables, then we shouldn’t be xenophobic about it. Not when the site consists of such wonderful stories and information. Yes, when we ask them to please explain they can tell us that we have the “14th Highest Power Bills in the World”.

Which means, of course, that there are thirteen countries where power bills are higher, and given that some of the countries who have lower power bills would be third world countries where people don’t have very high power bills because they don’t have power supplies in the first place, 14th is hardly something that we should be shrieking about. Surely we should be saying thank heavens that we’re not in one of those unlucky thirteen. I can’t tell you who they are because there were no links or information about where they were getting their figures from. With a bit of googling, I found this, but this has Australia a lot lower the fourteenth.

It also had a few nice little stories on energy under the title of “Recent News”. These weren’t attributed to anyone, so one assumes that they were written by the creators of website. Recent News included the following:

Storm Clouds Gather Over SA Businesses
February 15, 2017
Oh, Canada… Learning From A Nation’s Mistakes
January 31, 2017
Hazelwood Closes, Electricity Prices Rise
January 31, 2017
3 Reasons Adani’s New Mine Matters
January 24, 2017
Renewables Push To Hit Poorest Customers Hardest

I particularly liked the 3 Reasons Adani’s New Mine Matters. The three reasons were 1. North Queensland Needs It, 2. 10,000 jobs on offer and 3. More Much Needed Schools & Hospitals. Each reason was accompanied by a paragraph which – like the assertion that our power prices are the 14th highest in the world – had very little evidence to back it up. But not just a paragraph. Each also had a little video, though I can’t for the life of me see what the final one had to do with anything. To save you the trouble of looking it up, here it is:


The Hazelwood Closes story conveniently ignored the fact that it wasn’t a government decision to shut it down, but rather a commercial decision based on the fact that it was reaching the end of its lifespan and would cost too much to upgrade the plant.

Anyway, I had two minds about drawing attention to these anonymous people who don’t even have any comments on their website yet, but I thought it’s only a matter of time before someone in the current Coalition quotes them in justifying their decision to subsidise a new coal-fired power plant. For those of you who haven’t been following lately, the Federal Government position goes something like this: “Labor spent a lot of money and got us into debt and we all need to live within our means and now we’ve taken over, we’re going to try really hard to make things better by clawing as much money out of those who can least afford it, which is only reasonable because if they had a job they would be contributing and not forcing those pour workers on 457 visas to support them, and when it comes to energy prices we’re not going to tell people that if they’re energy prices are too high, then maybe they should cut back on something else and live within their means because that’d cause a backlash, so instead we’re going to suggest that it’s all because of renewables, even though NSW has some of the highest bills in the world and they’re not even part of those Labor states with unrealistic targets. No, renewables are ideologically wrong and they cost too much and need to be subsidised, and we can’t afford to subsidise them because we’re too busy trying to find ways to subsidise the fossil fuel industry to make energy cheaper because that the way the free market works!”

Of course, anybody who’s paying attention may notice one or two little inconsistencies in their whole approach: Like the fact that Prime Minister seems to believe that he’ll lose more votes by failing to keep Pauline Hanson happy than by actually pointing out that most of her candidates think that the jury is still out on the flat earth, and have so much certainty about things they know nothing about that it’d be more appropriate if they named themselves the Dunning Kruger party. (One day in the future, I expect to see Dunning Kruger change its name to “Donald Trump syndrome”!) Or the fact that if the Liberals had managed to get their spending cuts through then we would have had two quarters of negative growth and been in the first recession since Paul Keating gave us the one “we had to have”.

Anyway, the Liberals are expected to lose in WA next week in spite of their decision to screw the Nationals and preference One Nation ahead of them. I guess the question is whether someone is waiting till after that to challenge Malcolm on the grounds that they don’t want to be blamed for the loss. The risk, of course, is if the Liberals limp back then Trumbull may be safe.

Interesting times, if you like that sort of leadership musical chairs. Otherwise, you’re probably just wondering why the Federal Government shows less movement than a constipated sloth!

Ninety Percent Of Turnbull’s Front Bench Have Poor Numeracy Skills, But The Other Half Are OK!

Turnbull must be thanking his lucky stars that Trump was elected! No sooner does one of his front bench suggest an answer to the question how inconsistent can you be and still not have the people rise up and say that this whole democracy thing is rather dangerous, than the Trump Show manages to make it all somehow look sane by comparison.

By the way, I understand that Trump is now dismissing any protests on the grounds that they’re being organised by people who don’t support him… but that’s a whole other issue.

No, I’m trying to work out how a government who for years has avoided scrutiny on some outrageous things by saying that they won’t comment due to “privacy concerns” can suddenly turn around and release the details of Andie Fox, in order to set the record straight and show how it was Centrelink that was being unfairly criticised. Interestingly, it was given to a journalist at that bastion of Marxist ideology, the Fairfax group! I say, interestingly because I’m starting to find politics rather boring.

I mean, when Kevin was undermining Julia, we had all sorts of people being quoted “off the record”, but these days the Liberals just keep telling us what’s going in public so there’s no fun in speculating whether it was an actual leak or whether the journalist had a deadline and just made it all up. These days, when Tony Abbott throws the toys out of the cot, Peta Credlin goes on SkyNews and says what can one expect because nobody’s fed him and his nappy needs changing. And Turnbull says that Tony strategically planned his complaints to coincide with an opinion poll and – seeing as how we all hung on every word that Tony says – that led to a massive difference in the result. Personally, had I been asked, I would have tried to find the way to express my support for everything that Turnbull is doing and I would have complained that there was no section that allowed me to say that Turnbull was the greatest leader since Alexander the Great, but then I heard Tony say that we needed to become more conservative and I thought, no, that Alexander the Great was a bit of a lefty and failed to stop illegal immigrants sacking that library which had all the books. Or something like that.

I could look it up but we don’t have highspeed internet yet and I wouldn’t be able to press publish until I’d waited for the NBN to be installed sometime in 2016 like the Liberals promised… And there’s a lot of fake news suggesting that it’s already 2017, but I trust Tony.

And then I thought, it’s true, what that Tony guy said. We need to bring energy prices down.

Of course, stopping companies from selling our gas overseas would be one way to do it, but that’d be terrible because it’d stop jobs somehow.

And then, I realised that jobs and growth are very, very important. Jobs… They come from growth… And don’t jobs create growth? So if we can just one then the other will follow like… Well, love and marriage… they go together like a horse and ah, um… that thing behind a horse. I mean, you can’t have one without the other and that’s why we need a tax cut for people already making a profit…

Let’s see, how does it go? Company profits have grown and wages have gone backwards so if we can just give companies those tax cuts, they’ll decide that they have enough money now and start sharing it with their employees.

And speaking of jobs, wasn’t the reduction in penalty rates going to lead to more jobs? So why is Turnbull suggesting that it should be brought in slowly? Surely it would be better to speed it up as it’s going to lead to some sort of turbo charged economy! Wouldn’t it?

No wonder I find politics boring; it’s just too confusing. Maybe the next PM will be better at explaining things! Maybe when Scott Morrison takes over next week, he’ll be able to explain.

Of course, I could be wrong about Scott Morrison taking over next week… It might be Peter Dutton. Apparently he’s hoping not to be remembered as the worst Health Minister in history, and he thinks that by becoming the worst PM in history, we might forget…

Whatever, in the stakes that began when the US elected Ronald Reagan and we saw their Ronald and raised them John Howard. George W. OOOh, we said…. you win. But then, we decided to try and win by sneaking in Tony Abbott. We’ll see your Abbott, they said and raised us Donald Trump. Ha ha, we said, we changed to Malcolm Trumble while you weren’t paying attention. Really, they said, we can’t tell the difference.

So, in the game of “Who Can Pick The Most Ridiculous Leader And Still Not Have A Revolution?”, Peter Dutton is the obvious choice…

But maybe we should just stop playing and, instead of voting, randomly select the PM from everyone on the electoral roll and then pick someone else at the end of each month… Ok, it’s not much different to now, but at least we could all breathe easier knowing that nobody was silly enough to actually vote for the current leader of our country!