Wilkinson's sex and interest group' bias

Comments on Cassandra Wilkinson "If Rudd is Pepsi, can we have a Coke?", 18/02/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/if-rudd-is-pepsi-can-we-have-a-coke/comments-e6frgd0x-1226579832152

Cassandra, with due respect, your view and analysis is nonsense, inconsistent, contradictory and sex discrimination. It is a shame even more given that you are the same side of the sex claiming victims.

It would have had a little appeal if this piece was coming from the opposite side.

You said Rudd Prime Ministership is a case that "it's already been tried, tested and rejected." But what about Gillard's? Relatively speaking, whose is worse or better?

Your illogical reasoning and analysis reflects how poor your analytical skills and how poor your judgement is.

Yes, we all watched on TV that Rudd didn't treat nicely the NSW previous premier who's female and your boss since you worked as an advisor to her.

But one should get over that given that changed politics since.

Rudd the unpredictable in the coming election

Comments on Michelle Gratten “Rudd's adrenaline charge will pressure Gillard”, 16/02/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Kevin-Rudd-Julia-Gillard-Labor-MRRT-PM-pd20130215-4X6T6?OpenDocument&emcontent_spectators&src=rot

Clearly the Rudd factor is the most explosive and unpredictable in the coming election, not just for the ALP, but arguably also for the coalition, because if the ALP switches to Rudd, then the coalition may also switch to another person as opposed to continue with Abbott as the leader. The difference in voter appeal between Rudd and Abbott would make it too hard for the coalition to bear and for the fear of losing another unloseable election.

I think what Rudd and indeed his supporters should do is to devise a strategy of approaching the ALP heavy weights and assure them that the goal is to win the next election and to win as many seats for them as possible and there will be no retribution but complete reconciliation and the reliance on merits and talents.

Clearly, Shorten is a key figure among heavy weights. However, some more neutral heavy weights could also play a pivot role, given that the prospect of winning the next election is getting more and more impossible day by day and the interests of the whole party should be paramount in any consideration.

Gillard has been given enough opportunities and time to demonstrate her Prime Ministerial leadership skills, but her performance over the past couple of years has been mush less than satisfactory and boarded on the more disappointing to say the least.

Swan is another uncertain factor in the sense that should he realise that Gillard's fortune may certainly improve should he stand down as early as possible and leave at the next election. But Swan is unlikely to do that.

Should the Rudd supporters try to hand out more olive branches to the neutral and those within the Gillard strong supporters, the situation may change very quickly. It needs some real change from Rudd and the sooner he realise that the better his political fortune will become.

Rudd is smart enough to learn what is needed and required and take the necessary steps.

Past lessons are rich enough.

It's time for Gillard to face the inevitable and be graceful

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Even Victorian faithful think Labor is on the nose”, 27/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/even-victorian-faithful-think-labor-is-on-the-nose/story-e6frgd0x-1226147314109

The problem for Labor is that the longer Gillard hangs on the more unpopular it gets and the bigger its electoral loss in the next election.

Gillard should swallow her personal ego and be wise enough to accept and acknowledge her problem is unsolvable and pass the leadership to another person, presumably the one who has the best chance to win the next election. She would serve the ALP and herself a big favour if she did just that, the sooner the better.

An voluntary and orderly change in the ALP leadership would be the best for ALP, certainly much better than another leadership change forced by its parliamentary caucus.

Now it appears that that person may be Rudd or Smith. Neither of them may guarantee an election victory, but either of them is infinitely more electable than the current one, if the polls are a rough guide.

Is Rudd good enough?

Comments on Niki Savva “Kevin Rudd a golden opportunity for Labor”, 27/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/rudd-a-golden-opportunity-for-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226147266953

There are two potential problems for Rudd should he be returned to the Prime Ministership.

Firstly, whether he has changed enough to get the ALP federal caucus on his side and united in governing. He may have learnt his lessons from his lost of that leadership, but it is unclear whether his own character has afforded him enough self reflection.

Secondly, the three problems Gillard said would be hers priority to fix, namely mining tax, border protection/boat arrivals and climate change, are likely to continue to hunt Rudd, even though he may choose new strategies by saying that he would seek mandate on them from an election.

Yes, the gambling/poker machine issue may not be a serious one for him.

However, when an election is on, voters may get serious on Rudd and change attitude from a honey moon period one towards Rudd. The question is whether the sympathy toward him for his treatment by the ALP federal caucus would be enough to warrant them to vote him back into prime minister.

That would be an interesting question to be seen.

Rudd may do a better job this time

Comments on Paul Kelly “It's not just the leaders, it's the party”, 7/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/its-not-just-the-leaders-its-the-party/story-e6frgd0x-1226130893027

While the core point Paul Kelly has made that the ALP needs to reflect and change is obviously correct, his argument that a change in leadership does not do the job may not be so correct.

A change in leadership, say back to Rudd, can work if the new leader is determined to change and can bring about that change. Otherwise, a mere change in leadership will not work, as Paul has put it elegantly.

Rudd, if he has learnt the lessons why and how he lost the leadership, is the best person to do just that. He has the quality to bring the public with him and be popular with the voters, although what he would really also need to do is to add real substance to policy and achieve hard results.

With that quality, he would be in a position to push changes of the ALP culture. Of course he would need to work collegiately with the caucus colleagues to achieve it.

ALP's antiquatity and Loosley's illogicality

Comments on Stephen Loosley “Key issue is not gay marriage but selling yellowcake”, 5/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/key-issue-is-not-gay-marriage-but-selling-yellowcake/story-e6frgd0x-1226129282316

While Loosley's argument may apparently have some logic based on his own reasoning of logic, his logic is illogical overwhelmingly.
Some commentators already commented on some of his illogicality, one important point deserves more analysis - that is, why shouldn't Australia build its own nuclear power stations, given the need to deal with climate change and reduce carbon emissions, as well as the facts that Australia has large production and reserves of uranium and that Australia is geologically very stable and much more stable in most countries that already have nuclear power generations?

Loosley completely ignored this much more important issues related to Australia's uranium and instead focused on a secondary issue instead shows his distorted logic, not too different from the ALP antiquated nuclear policy re export of uranium to India he labelled and argued against.

Loosley could do ALP and the nation a positive service should he approach the nuclear issue rationally and logically, the same s his call for the ALP to be logical and catching up with time.

A struggling government unlikely to survive

Comments on Ben Packham and James Massola “Julia Gillard links carbon price to a 'bright future' for manufacturing”, 23/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/steel-push-to-secure-local-jobs-as-julia-gillard-resists-protectionism/comments-fn59niix-1226120243132

What Gillard said might work in the very long run, but she and her government have not demonstrated how to make up for short to medium runs of their strategy to work.

The problem is that the short to medium runs are crucial for the nation and for a government, particularly so when it has been struggling enormously already.

Inevitably Gillard and her government are going to fail in designing a workable strategy and a set of policies to survive long enough of the short to medium runs.

Her alliance with the Greens means it is impossible for her to be flexible enough on the carbon tax to make it work effectively and to the best of our national interests.

Gillard has also swung the IR system too much into the area of inflexibility.

The political need for her government to show it is able to produce a budget surplus means there will not enough investment in productivity and critical infrastructure, especially in the context of the huge investment used for the NBN.

Low productivity growth will make impossible to deal with the adverse impact of the mining boom on most other sectors effectively.

Unfortunately for her, Australians on longer have any patience with Gillard and her government. And that will be fatal for her government.

It is political impossibility. What she is saying is likely to be perceived as stubbornness and silly political rhetoric of a person out of touch and with ignorance.

The carbon tax and governance

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Credibility joins carbon crusade”, 17/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/credibility-joins-carbon-crusade/story-e6frgd0x-1226116270286

The government would sound more credible if it hasn't used the carbon tax as a way for wealth/income redistribution as it has proposed in its carbon tax package, and it got a border carbon adjustment to not distort and reduce Australians' comparative advantage in trade of goods and services with other nations.

These fatal shortcomings of the government's carbon tax bill are related to ALP Robin Hood ideology and its cowardice to confront other powerful nations in terms of equal treatment.

Of course, the compensations for businesses should not be as generous to recognise that businesses can pass the higher costs due to carbon tax either fully or at least partially as they are proposed in the bill, and more compensations should be for households on an equal per capita basis to remove the income distribution effects.

Further, it is hard to understand why it will be necessary to move from a carbon tax system to an ETS, given that the former is more efficient and involves fewer transaction costs. Of course, some financial market participants would like to have an ETS for the addition financial opportunities created by that to benefit from it. Further, bureaucrats would like it to create more government jobs and powers for them.

Taken together, it shows the government is incompetent, out of date and out of touch. This is another reason that it would be better for the government to seek a mandate for its carbon tax and ETS at an election. I should say I am not politically biased and is not pro or against any of the major political parties and I just would like to see fairness in politics and in governance.

Scared they've been on the run

Comments on Dennis Shanahan "erils for PM in hanging on to surplus", 12/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/perils-for-pm-in-hanging-on-to-surplus/story-e6frgd0x-1226113362948
Gillard and Swan and their government has been particularly stubbon in promoting the budget surplus line of argument, so much so that they have greatly damaged their images and lost touch with the public. the flood levy, for example, was completely unnecessary, especially in the context that they had also pledged a carbon tax to come and the public were uncertain and concerned about the impact of the carbon tax in the coming years. Consumer confidence as well as business confidence have further eroded by the persistence of the surplus pledge at the expense of prudent economic and budget management.
Of course, Gillard and her coleagues have been aware of their broken promises, particularly the one on carbon tax, and the potential damage of further broken promises. But one has to weigh the benefits and costs of each policy and the totality of all policies and make the best choices and choose the lesser evils.
Unfortunately, Gillard and her colleagues have been scared and have not been able to show they are able to do the best and right things. they have tended to make policy on the run and rush to announcements without fully consider ttheir effects, for the nation and for themselves.

What all these show that Gillard and her colleagues in government have been unable to show true leadership. And that is not good particuarly for Gillard.

PS: see also: Alan Kohler "A surplus of political stupidity", 12/08/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-budget-Julia-Gillard-economic-crisis-ma-pd20110812-KMSTR?OpenDocument&src=rot.

Gillard in a fantasy world

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Gillard's energy cost arguments don't add up”, 3/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillards-energy-cost-arguments-dont-add-up/story-e6frg6zo-1225964756523


Gillard appears to be mostly consistent to position herself not to contradict the views of the Greens on most issues.

Gay carbon price, marriage, nuclear, you name it.

She is particularly strategic in mind about the Greens balance of power.

That may be good to her government in the short term, but can be detrimental to the government and the ALP in the longer term.

The Victoria election is an example to the ALP nationally, if it continues its reliance on the Greens – it will not only lose votes to the Greens, but also to the coalition if the coalition takes a principled approach to preferences.

That is the devil she is playing.

On the nuclear power issue, the ALP and Gillard is out of steps with the reality.

As with the NBN, they just live in their own fantasy world.

The problem is that their own intellectual deficiencies are at the expenses of the taxpayers in Australia!

The longer as time passes by, the stupid the NBN policy!

Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “Industry's better broadband plan”, 1/09/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/nbn-telstra-optus-alliance-of-affordable-broadband-pd20100901-8V3Y2?OpenDocument&src=sph
It appears increasingly that the NBN has failed business test and become a stupid idea.

The government should simply create an environment for the private sector to build what they think the best is, using targeted incentives to deal with any market failures.

But the government has chosen the $43 billion NBN instead.

PS: extracts from the article:
There is an underlying commonsense to the themes of the Alliance for Affordable Broadband’s arguments for version three of the national broadband network.

The Alliance, a group of senior telco executives that includes AAPT CEO Paul Broad and Pipe Networks’ founder Bevan Slattery, issued an open letter this week arguing the case for a largely wireless-based NBN with high-speed fibre deployed to deliver speeds of up to 1G to schools, hospitals and businesses.
The alliance advocates a mix of broadband technologies and public and private funding rather than the government mandated and taxpayer-funded $43 billion monopoly wholesale network envisaged by the federal government.
In that sense it is closer to the Coalition’s NBN policy than Labor’s, although it revolves around a next-generation 4G national wireless wholesale network that it says could deliver speeds of up to 100 Mbps to 98 per cent of Australians. It says the network could be built for around $3 billion.

ALP and the Greens - the worst combination for Australia

Comments on Matthew Franklin and Patricia Karvelas “Julia Gillard's Green path forward”, 24/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-green-path-forward/story-fn59niix-1225909144872
The most immediate and important question is:

Is that combination and stability good for the nation?

I have to say it is highly doubtful!

The Greens are too far to the left.

That combination would magnify the ALP's wastes by many times.

That would be costly to the taxpayers.

Gillard would be better off not to rely on that argument.

Having used that argument, she is continuing to show poor judgement!

Hope the independents can see the danger of that combination and prevent that from happening.

Does Labor deserve a second chance?

Comments on Ross Gittins Labor deserves some credit, not death at the ballot box”, 18/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-deserves-some-credit-not-death-at-the-ballot-box-20100817-128at.html
To start with, Stiglitz's poor understanding of the Australian case showed he's out of touch with reality and his self interest as a “special interest group" in some strange Keynesian intellectuals.

A Nobel prize winner in economics does not mean whatever that person will always be right and correct when he or she talks about every aspect in economics, economic policy and goernment actual economic policies.

Anyone who uses his remarks on Australia’s GFC case without rigorous analysis their soundness is either ideological driven, no economics and purely intellectually corrupt.

If purely in terms of economic and budgetary management by the current Labor government, it does not deserve to have a second chance to continue governing, although an election is not just on economic issues.

It is the most irresponsible government in federal government in many decades.

Big failures are so abundant. More importantly, more will come if it continues to be in government and the NBN will be one of them to be of no uncertainty.

Nulear nod too risky and carbon price better

Comments on Glenn Milne “PM could signify change with a nuclear nod”, 12/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-could-signify-change-with-a-nuclear-nod/story-e6frg6zo-1225890474484
It will be too difficult for the ALP to embrace the nuclear option just so close to the election that will be like another policy on the run without consultation and could rapture the ALP internally. It will also further alienate anti-nuclear and pro Greens voters.

So it is extremely high risk strategy and I would heavily discount the nuclear option for the ALP for climate.

It appears that the best option is to announce an intention to introduce a carbon price and put it as an election issue to have a mandate to do it after the election.

But in order to have the majority of the voters on side, Gillard needs to neutralise the tax issue as a potential target for the opposition.

The best strategy to do that is to distribute the revenue to all residents, so it is virtually not seen as a tax, but a price signal for the consumers to make a choice to switch to lower emission energies.

By announcing such a policy intent and leaves the details including consultation to be worked out after the election would be a cleaver policy and election strategy.

It will not be long before Gillard as the Prime Ministership

Comments on Peter van Onselen “Julia needs to act to save the party”, 22/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/julia-needs-to-act-to-save-the-party/story-e6frg6zo-1225882500751
While the best thing for ALP is for Gillard to be the leader as early as possible, the best thing for Gillard is for Rudd to step aside voluntarily.

However, Rudd is probably very unlikely to do that just yet.

So it is up for the ALP national machinery and other senior ministers to do some necessary background work to persuade Rudd to take that step. Rudd is very intelligent and may decide to do that when he is convinced that he will not be able to win the next election.

It will hurt personally for Rudd, but he may realise that is the least bad outcome under the current circumstances. It will pave way for a better prospect for his future career.

It is likely that a change in the ALP leadership if the bad pooling continues. Once the leadership changes, the election will follow soon assuming the voters will give Gillard a honeymoon period and enough goodwill for her to win the next election.

Deeds needed from Labour

Comments on Lindsay Tanner “Trust at the core of Labor project”, 11/12/2209, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/trust-at-the-core-of-labor-project/story-e6frg6zo-1225809216831

Tanner argues the importance of trust and building trust for the survival of Labour. He says:
"I think there is a central theme around which modern Labour can build its program.
It's a theme that is central to the tribulations of the global financial crisis.
And it's a theme that reflects the policy agenda of the Rudd government.
This theme can be expressed in a single word: trust
A great deal of present thinking about modern human society is pointing us in this direction.
Trust is the underpinning of our existence."

However, in reality trust has been hard to find from Labour and the Rudd government 2 year since it came to government in November 2007.

What has happened to Labour's promise of fixing the nation's public hospital system and taking over by the middle of 2009 if things had not improved?
It has been deferred, delayed, again and again.

What has happened to Rudd's education revolution by now?
A laptop for every high school student? How does that contribute to or can bring a revolution?
A Gillard school hall or library irrespective whether there is a need or not, or whether that is the most needed for a school or not? Or it is just one student? Or even for schools that will be closed soon?

What has happened to the Indigenous housing projects? A few week's ago, it had been reported that after such a time and with hundreds of millions planned or some spent, there was no one single house had been built?

What about economic conservatism or responsibility? Think about the NBN. With $43 billion announced for the project, with no business case study? With no cost and benefit analysis and study? Is that economic conservatism? Is that an economically responsible government?

What about climate change? When there is low cost and safe alternative like nuclear power generation that has been used in so many industrialised and developing countries including the US, but Rudd government is steadfast refusing to consider it, instead, it introduced a deeply flawed ETS (as compared to a carbon tax and equal distribution of that tax among people).

Is that a responsible government? More Australians are prepared to accept nuclear power solution, but Labour is not. Is that trust?

The public need real deeds from Labour, not empty promises! There have been so many and that is more than enough, surely!

ALP's bizarre energy policy

Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Our energy through Chinese eyes”, 14/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au//bs.nsf/Article/Climate-Change-Beijing-Penny-Wong-Carbon-Conferenc-pd20091014-WSRGZ?OpenDocument

It is so interesting to see that the ALP's stubbornness and ignorance on nuclear power.

It shows that the ALP is not really interested how to successfully managing the Australian economy and enhance the nation’s welfare.

Unfortunately for Rudd, it also shows his lack of leadership and narrowness in his thinking and mind.

They put ideology above rationality to such an extreme!

Does anyone believe them to be rational?

Whatever they say in terms of economic conservatism, it is hypocrisy.