deep

An open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon Kevin Rudd MP.

14 March 2009

Dear Prime Minister

Re: Fair Work Bill

Last week I wrote to you asking you about your use of the word ‘shit’ on television, then there were questions about our children’s future, before that the Emissions Trading Scheme, the week before that I asked about your ‘Sorry’ speech, the previous week to that was a couple of questions about the Summit and the week before that I asked if you thought you have done a good job since taking over the role from your predecessor.  You have not done me the courtesy of replying to any of my emails, which is disappointing.

I also sent you an earlier email (on the 27th January) and I have also written to the Treasurer and the Minister for Health. They too, have not done me the courtesy of a response.

Does the government ever respond to the people they purport to represent?

With the Labor Party’s Fair Work Bill before the Senate, the warnings from employers and employer associations are becoming more strident. In general the headlines indicate a deep concern that the new legislation is a business, and therefore jobs, killer.

These are some excerpts of news reports we members of the public see with increasing regularity.

“They’ve done deals clearly with the trade union movement and this legislation goes way beyond what they were given a mandate for from the Australian people”

“Retail companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers have demanded the Rudd Government delay its overhaul of award conditions by 12 months, warning that the revamp would force up costs and cost jobs”

“No other economy in the world is introducing new labour laws in the context of the global financial crisis, and this government policy is fraught with danger to the retail sector”

“Mr Della, who employs six staff, likens the impact of the weekend and after-7pm loading pay in Ms Gillard’s fair work bill to another GST”

“People aren’t eating out as much — it’s definitely better being a worker now than it is a small-business owner”

“At Stella Pizza, Rossi Fortuna wonders whether it might be better to sell his place and work for someone else”

I would have thought that now is not the time to be destroying jobs. According to these reports though that is exactly what many employers are afraid will happen if the new bill is passed.

Mr Prime Minister;

1/ With all this media reporting of the likely outcome of the government’s Fair Work Bill why are you still proceeding with it?

2/ Do you think the reports are right or wrong?

3/ Will you guarantee that not one worker will lose his/her job or be detrimentally affected in any way by this new bill?

4/ What will you say to the Australian people if this bill passes and many more jobs are lost as a result?

5/ Do you believe the new industrial legislation will create jobs as Workchoices did in 2006?

I am a concerned Australian citizen. There are exactly 94 weeks until the end of 2010 by which time we should have had an election to determine who the Prime Minister of Australia will be for the next three years.

I plan on writing a letter each week. I look forward to seeing your responses. I trust that you will respond to my earlier emails and this one before too long.

Regards

(signed)

Owner

Political Animal Australia
www.polanimal.com

Nearly 22 years ago the Fitzgerald Inquiry was launched in Queensland to investigate allegations of police corruption.  The Inquiry ran for a record two years and along the way the terms of reference were widened to capture more than just a few cops.  Following this, in 1989,  a permanent body was set up to investigate complaints and allegations - the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC).

In 2002 the CJC and the Queensland Crime Commission (QCC) merged to form the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) to investigate allegations of  official misconduct.

Lately the CMC has been kept busy looking at the reigning Labor government.   The most recent is a probe into a sports grant which, it is alleged, had strings attached.  I posted about this on my forum.

Should the CMC also be looking closely at this bullying allegation?

This was brought to my attention by a member of my forum (here).  The behaviour exhibited by Deputy Premier Paul Lucas’s campaign manager is quite typical of the ‘born to rule’ mentality of the left and the fact that the campaign manager is still the Deputy Premier’s campaign manager may indicate possible complicity.  I make no allegations that Mr Lucas is complicit but it leaves me wondering, as it should any concerned person.

Informed sources indicate Mr Lucas absolves himself by saying he is not responsible for his campaign manager (and indeed in theory he is not) but a more scrupulous person would act with greater responsibility towards the public.

Informed sources also indicate that Deputy Premier Lucas is not particularly concerned about the allegations of bullying, because, while the business is in the electorate, the owner (I am told) does not reside in the electorate so Mr Lucas apparently adopts a devil may care attitude to people who can’t vote for him anyway.  He is motivated entirely by his own self-interest it seems.  He appears to be untroubled by what his campaign manager gets up to as it has no affect on him.  He can point at her and disavow any responsibility. And she remains firmly anchored in the politburo.

Another example of this kind of behaviour has only just come to light.

Recently an email was circulated through the Emergency Services Department. I have no idea how widely the email was distributed (knowing email spam as I do I can guess everyone in the public service has seen it by now), but it was reportedly sent in the name of the Minister Neil Roberts. From ABC:

Political email breaches caretaker convention, Springborg says

Chris O’Brien

March 12 2009

Liberal National Party (LNP) Leader Lawrence Springborg says a political email by a State Government staffer is evidence of Labor arrogance.

An Emergency Services Department executive has been forced to apologise for an email in the name of his Minister Neil Roberts, which criticises the LNP’s public service policy.

Mr Springborg says he has raised the matter with the head of the Premier’s Department.

“The director-general has responded to me and indicated to me that indeed it is a breach of caretaker convention,” he said.

“The person who sent the email has been counselled and an apology will be sent to those that received this political email.

“This is an indication of an 11-year-old Labor Government that just doesn’t know what’s right any more.”

He’s right.

We have Premier Anna Bligh being sued over comments she made about Professor Clive Palmer.  I emailed her to get her comments and have been soundly ignored.

We had the letter sent on Queensland Government letterhead implying that a vote for the opposition was a risk to the economy.

We had the Premier sending a mass mailout on the Premier’s letterhead spruiking her plan for the Children’s Hospital (which by ‘coincidence’ arrived in my mailbox the day the election was declared).

We have the CMC looking at the sports grant.

We have accusations of bullying in the Manly electorate.  

And now we have the email circulated by a public service staffer.  

What are we not aware of?

Will anyone take responsibility for themselves?  I doubt it.   A vote for the ALP is going to be a vote for more of the same.

The ALP are the biggest losers.  It’s time to go . . .

An open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon Kevin Rudd MP.

11 March 2009

Dear Prime Minister

Re: “Shit Storm”

Last week I wrote to you asking you about our children’s future, the previous week I asked you about your Emissions Trading Scheme, the week before that I asked about your ‘Sorry’ speech, the previous week to that was a couple of questions about the Summit and the week before that I asked if you thought you have done a good job since taking over the role from your predecessor.  You have not done me the courtesy of replying to any of my emails, which is disappointing.

I also sent you an earlier email (on the 27th January) and I have also written to the Treasurer and the Minister for Health.  They too, have not done me the courtesy of a response.

Does the government ever respond to the people they purport to represent?

On television on the weekend you are quoted as saying

“That means temporary borrowings. People have to understand that because there’s going to be the usual political shit storm, sorry, political storm.”

I, as an ordinary Australian, expect our politicians, particularly our Prime Minister, to use appropriate language when speaking in public.  What anyone does privately (and I am led to believe you use most intemperate language privately Mr Rudd) is their business.

Every word uttered in public by an elected representative is public business.  If spoken on national television with an audience numbered in the millions it had best be considered, temperate and prudent.  The speaker has no way of knowing who the audience is and who may be offended by the use of profanity.

The use of the word ‘shit’ to describe anything could be considered offensive by many in the community and therefore is unforgivable from someone purporting to be a leader.

The use of the word ‘shit’ to describe the way our democracy works will be considered unforgivable by most Australians.

Using expletives for no good reason (and some may ask when is there ever a good reason Mr Rudd) is generally symptomatic of a limited vocabulary, using an expletive like ‘shit’ in public indicates a lack of respect for a mixed audience (and television has a mixed audience) and using expletives without thought illustrates a lack of self control.

And for a politician to use an expletive like ‘shit’ to describe the storm of politicking which will accompany most policy announcement as part of the process of debate expected in a healthy democracy demonstrates an arrogant intolerance of such debate.

Mr Prime Minister;

1/  How do you think the public feels about the office of Prime Minister when hearing the office holder swearing on national television?

2/  How do you think a parent may feel, in a household where epithets are frowned upon, hearing the nation’s leader using profanity without consideration for others on national television?

3/  Would you be comfortable knowing that, say, the nation’s educators used such words to describe Australia’s democracy?

4/  Is your family embarrassed hearing you say ‘shit’ on national television or are they used to hearing profanity from you? 

5/  Should you consider developing your vocabulary, your self control and your tolerance so you do not utter such words without thinking of the consequences? 

I am a concerned Australian citizen.  There are exactly 95 weeks until the end of 2010 by which time we should have had an election to determine who the Prime Minister of Australia will be for the next three years. 

I plan on writing a letter each week.  I look forward to seeing your responses.  I trust that you will respond to my earlier emails and this one before too long.

Regards

(signed) 

Owner

Political Animal Australia

www.polanimal.com

It’s official.  We’re up shit creek without a paddle.

Anyone who has observed Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd knows he is probably not human, he is more likely a programmable android, he has several skins, and I wrote an article on this in January entitled ‘Two Faces’.  

He wears what he believes to be the appropriate demeanour according to the audience, the need and the mood.  He does nothing by chance delivering his lines robotically as if every utterance is scripted.  If the question he is asked does not have a scripted answer, he self-interrogates and answers his own questions.  If he is caught on camera out of the spotlight he stares blankly as if his clockwork has wound down.  He has nothing to say.

So his decision to use the word ’shit’ as in ’shitstorm’ was planned.   No doubt about it.  Take a look at his lead up, his delivery and his prepared reaction to his ’slip of the tongue’.

Let me say I have no objection to the use of the word shit, hell it comes in handy when describing shit.  

But is it appropriate for the nation’s Prime Minister to be using it on national television, or anywhere in public for that matter.  

Would any of us be happy to be sitting with our mum on the bus and hear the driver yelling about an impending traffic shitstorm?  

How about when perched on your pew in the Greenhouse Gas Church and the preacher, Al Gore, tells us all about the awful global warming shitstorm?

Or in your malodorous, swampy backyard and your plumber discovers your antique sewer pipes are creating a subterannean shitstorm?

Morality aside, what does it mean?  Isn’t your bus driver professionally equipped to deal with traffic of a shitstorm nature?  Wouldn’t we expect Al Gore to have a solid grasp of the language required to describe the science of shitstorms without using the word shitstorm? Doesn’t a plumber, by virtue of his vocation, deal with shitstorms without a murmur?   So why does the country’s leader feel the need?

It’s weakness.  It’s inadequacy.  It’s divisive, Ruddgie politics again.   And it’s the need to relate to a world he is not a part of.

Mr Rudd’s chosen vocation, like Joe the plumber’s shit,  is political shitstorming.  It’s what pollies do.

Yet he dismisses the political shitstorming as if he is not a part of it.  He is really saying he has not the strength or the capacity to deal with real debate of the shitstorming kind.

He is really saying he should be able to ride his bulldozer unchallenged without being forced into a blizzard of political shitstorming.  

He is really saying he is not well equipped to handle sudden shitstorms as he is unable to respond to ad hoc questioning without his customary reams of notes.

It is a derisory put down of anyone who insolently dares to whip up a shitstorm; it is a direct challenge to his lack of a plan.

And he feels that that is the language of his well fed audience.  That’s how he reckons workers speak and if he wants to be like them and be liked by them he has to patronise them by speaking their langauge.

Bullshit Mr Rudd.  Bullshit.

Being the first national leader to say ’shitstorm’ on national TV is not clever or funny, it does not relate to ordinary Australians, they actually expect leadership.  

It’s patronising, derisory and weak.  It displays a distinct lack of courage and leadership.  And it shows an unwillingness to fight the good fight in a goodly manner in the arena of your choice - the political arena.

It’s not a shitfight, it’s called democracy.

The oppositon have the democratic right and a national imperative to challenge any and all decisions made by the government if they feel they are not in the nation’s best interests.  

It isn’t called shitstorming, it is democracy at work.   It may be difficult to understand that Mr Rudd,  perhaps your programmer left out the code for democracy.

While not actually a political figure Laurie Irks Oakes drifts about them like a slowly deflating dirigible.

I watched his interview with Malcolm Turnbull on Channel Nine yesterday and continue to wonder why I do it to myself.  It’s pretty obvious he won’t ask any political questions, and he didn’t.  And it’s pretty obvious Laurie is having a love affair with the entire Labor Party.  I wrote about Laurie before in relation to Wayne Swan in Dude, Where’s My Notes.

But I did watch it, maybe Sunday mornings are my punishment for having a Laurie free week.  Retribution for the sin of enjoying myself six days a week, life is too good and I need to pay penance for the goodliness on Sundays.

Yesterday Laurie didn’t hold back on the big issues that confront Australians.   Knowing Australians will want to hear what the opposition have to say about the very real threat of recession, the missing $8 billion from the Building Australia Fund, or the the millions of dollars the PM is splurging on his jaunts around the globe, Laurie wandered aimlessly about the building beforehand deep in thought.  

He probably encountered Betty, the tea lady, when he went to get a cuppa to settle his nerves and clear his mind for the probing interview ahead.

“Are you talking to that nice Mr Turnbutt today Lorry”?

“Turnbull Betty”

“No thanks Laurie I had one at morning tea, but be sure to ask him about that nasty Lou Costello.  I don’t like a man who smirks Lorry”.

“Good idea, They tie me up in knots if I ask them political questions.  They never need to look at their notes and I do.  They make me look like I’m in the ALP”.

“Anything else Betty?   I’m an an empty vessel and you seem full of it”?

“Yeah get out of the way porky, you’re like an elephant in the tea room”.

LO: I’ll try to be tactful, but I will have to talk about the elephant always in the room wherever you go, its name is Peter

What’s that Laurie?  Australia is going down the toilet and you want to talk about Peter Costello?  Thank God the opposition care about the country even if Laurie and his buddys in the ALP don’t.

MT: Let me just say this to you, in all candour and very seriously. As Australians are losing their jobs, as they are becoming more anxious about their future, as they are worried about what the economy holds for them, there is nothing of less interest to Australians than gossip about personalities and political games so I’m not interested in that. I’m focussed on jobs, jobs, jobs.

But Laurie won’t let this go.  He’s tethered to it since Betty brought up that devilishly important smirk.

LO: You say you’re not interested but after Peter Costello’s big week in the media The Australian ran a story very prominently, saying that the Treasurer, saying that most Liberal MPs now believe the Treasurer is positioning himself to take the leadership from Malcolm Turnbull. Are you spooked?

Laurie, I like Malcolm Turnbull mate, and even I don’t give a shit what he thinks about Peter Costello.  I want to know what he thinks about what’s important, what’s really important.  

How will we extricate ourselves from this growing recession we did not have to have?  

How will we pay back the extraordinary amount of debt the ALP will leave us in 2010?  

How will we get the Chinese Government to give us back our country?  

What about them apples Laurie?

LO: . . .  but you seem to be focused on the elephant . . . 

Laurie?  Please mate?

LO: Let’s get rid of the elephant quickly then . . .

And it didn’t improve, next there was who said what about Therese Rein, who has the most money in their piggy bank, what is Britney’s favourite colour and which is the bestest pop group.

I am not going to watch Laurie Irks again.

Until next Sunday when I have to pay penance for a good life.

Woe is me.

I don’t recollect this from school but,  appparently, according to Seinfeld, ‘wedgies’ are when young blokes grab other young blokes undies by the back elastic and reef them up your bum crack.

 Just for the hell of it.

Apart from one’s dignity I doubt there is much permanent damage inflicted.

There is another type of wedgie and our Prime Minister plays that game.  It however does inflict damage.  Maybe not permanent, but it is, at the very least, long lasting.

First let me apologise to my regular readers for the break in transmission, normal programming has resumed.  I have had a rest in hospital for the last week, being admitted last friday (my bloody birthday) and only returning home late yesterday afternoon.  For those who know me (or care) this was not major, nor worrying, only routine observational stuff of the boring kind.  I am glad to be back at home and in my office again writing my blog, but sad to see that nothing has changed in the world of politicking.

In my article of a couple of weeks back, Forward With Unfairness, I spoke of the divisive ‘fork in the road’ politics of Prime Minister Rudd.  This has sought to re-create the notions of class in a classless Australia, sought to drive a wedge between the rich and the poor, sought to separate those who care about ‘Australia from those who care for child pornography’ (this is obscene politics in my view, though typical of the left) and a host of other divisive, anti coalescing poliices, statements and beliefs which has wrought damage on the consciousness of the nation.  Mr Rudd specialises in riding his bulldozer right through the people and re-engineering a once homogenous mass into a series of hillocks he can better chip into chunks so as to to resurface them with his own pre-mixed lack of vision.

Not so long ago too, on my website, I wrote an article about Mr Rudd’s total neglect of the aboriginal communities after delivering a hollow, monotonous ’sorry’ a year ago.   Mr Rudd’s wedgies cause real harm to people.  The Sydney Morning Herald:

Aborigines told to swap land rights for new homes

Joel Gibson 

March 6, 2009

 

ABORIGINES living in remote areas throughout Australia will not get a cent of $2 billion in new housing money unless they sign away their land rights for at least 40 years under a controversial Rudd Government plan that NSW indigenous leaders called insulting and dictatorial.

Some may argue this is no different to the intervention in the Northern Territory by the previous government.  They would be wrong.  

The NT intervention was in response to the Little Children Are Sacred report and was targetted at the protection of children, a worthy and noble cause.  

This latest wedgie (best called a Ruddgie) is simply bullying and blackmail to force through an alleged policy which is part of the Ruddgie of ‘decisive’ and ‘necessary’ action to get our children in as much debt as possible, it is to be forced on all states (not targetted at the specific lax Northern Territory government), it is a complete about face from earlier statements by this shallow government about linking land and services and it is designed to divide the communities themselves. 

I think hospital was better for my health in more ways than one.  My mental health suffers when I read just what this government is doing to people allegedly in our name.  Mr Rudd, you do not speak for me.  You have driven a wedgie between those of us who care and those of you who don’t.

I think the wedgie is best left in the school yard (whether it is real or not).  It’s a terrible shame we have an alleged grown up still doing it to people from his throne.

An open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon Kevin Rudd MP.

27 February 2009

Dear Prime Minister

Re: Australian Children’s Future

Last week I wrote to you asking you about your Emissions Trading Scheme, the week before that I asked about your ‘Sorry’ speech, the previous week to that was a couple of questions about the Summit and the week before that I asked if you thought you have done a good job since taking over the role from your predecessor.  You have not done me the courtesy of replying to any of my emails, which is disappointing.

I also sent you an earlier email (on the 27th January) and I have also written to the Treasurer and the Minister for Health.  They too, have not done me the courtesy of a response.

Does the government ever respond to the people they purport to represent?

As far as I can determine, the 2008 – 2009 budget outcome, which you and Treasurer Swan assured Australians would be in surplus, will be a massive deficit.

Mr Swan said in his budget speech on May 13 2008

 “We are budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion in 2008 - 09, 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.”

Since then your government, the government led by you who describes yourself as a ‘fiscal conservative’, has gone on an unprecedented spending spree.

 It seems to the casual observer that barely a week goes by without a few million here or a few billion there being shovelled into willing hands to ‘create jobs’ or ‘stimulate the economy’ while the media reveals, at the same frantic rate, the complete failure of these schemes to achieve anything of the sort.  Jobs are leaking from all industries regardless of the next generation’s taxes being thrown at anyone too slow to get out of the way.  And we have all seen the economy in free fall with no let up despite the promises your government is making.

 I know, though your government does not seem to be aware, that one day our children will need to make up this budgetary shortfall and repay the debts we are creating now in their name.

Mr Prime Minister;

1/  How much will the budget be in deficit at the end of the current budgetary term?

2/  How much foreign debt will Australia have incurred in your first full budgetary year as Prime Minister?

3/  Considering you have said repeatedly your government foresaw the current global financial situation how could you have got your budget calculations so wrong?

4/  Why do you feel you can incur massive debt for our children without their knowledge or approval?

5/  Do you feel a sense of responsibility for the debt you are willing to the next generation?

I am a concerned Australian citizen.  There are exactly 96 weeks until the end of 2010 by which time we should have had an election to determine who the Prime Minister of Australia will be for the next three years.

I plan on writing a letter each week.  I look forward to seeing your responses.  I trust that you will respond to my earlier emails and this one before too long.

Regards

(signed)

Owner

Political Animal Australia

www.polanimal.com

Join Political Animal Australia

A lot of things bother me about the current government.  

That will be no surprise to readers of my blog.  But I tell you what should trouble you, even if you don’t agree with everything I say, the selling off of our country to foreign (read China) interests.  Did I mention China?  

Foreign ownership of companies is not a bad thing, many (most?) of our true blue companies are not in fact Australian owned.  But that’s not a bad thing, the point is that investment, wherever it comes from, creates jobs, growth and cash to the economy and consolidated revenue.  I am all for a free global market - within reason.

See, if a foreign investment group buys, say, Coles, they may want to divest themselves of the asset at some point for a variety of reasons, under performing, a shift in investment focus, a better offer for the asset, the need to liquidate assets and so on.  Australian firms are free to get them back.

But if a foreign country buys domestic assets none of that really applies, they bought for their own domestic strategic reasons and unless the strategy changes they have no compulsion to sell at all, and probably never will.

Chinese companies, particularly companies like Chinalco, Chalco and Sinosteel, are state owned.  When they buy Australian assets, the owner is the Chinese government.

Under this government, and we know that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a Sinophile, these companies have made massive inroads into ownership of Australian mining companies and Australian mines.  Large parts of our mines, mining infrastructure and mining companies have been sold to China.

Today I want to look at one company - Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto, until 2008, was an Anglo Australian mining company.  It was a publically listed corporation owned by private individuals or investment instruments.  In 2007 Rio became the world’s largest aluminium producer when it acquired Alcan.  Rio also mines iron ore, copper, coal and diamonds.   It was formed by the merging and/or acquisition of a number of corporate entities.

In 1995 then Prime Minister Paul Keating approved the merger of RTZ and CRA to create what we know as Rio Tinto today.  That approval was subject to at least one-third of the company’s board being Australian.  Today only one fifth are, so the conditions for approval have not been adhered to.  

What power do we have to enforce that?   Over a decade later, not a lot I would think. 

The lesson from that though should be to be very careful about considering foreign acquisitions, mergers or takeovers.

With this government being so strongly pro-Chinese though Rio has a new suitor, the Chinese government in the form of Chinalco.

In February 2008 Chinalco, teaming with US firm Alcoa, picked up 9% of Rio.  From The Australian:

Rio just a snack for rising Chinalco

Matt Chambers

February 21, 2009 

 
It made its biggest splash last February when it teamed up with Alcoa to buy a 9 per cent stake in Rio for $US14 million, China’s biggest foreign investment.

In August 2008 Chinalco increased its holding with approval from the federal Treasurer Wayne Swan.  From ABC News:

Govt approves China stake in Rio Tinto

Aug 24, 2008

The Federal Government has approved the purchase of a substantial stake in the Australian mining group Rio Tinto by the Chinese company Chinalco.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has given the go ahead for Chinalco to acquire a 12 per cent stake in the company.

The nod was given on the condition Chinalco not increase its shareholding without seeking further approval and that it not seek the appointment of a director to Rio Tinto.

 

And we’ve seen how effective those conditions are already, haven’t we Wayne.  Did you consider that?

At the begining of this year Alcoa sold out of Rio so Chinalco owns its share too.

Now Chinalco is doing its best to pick up even more of Rio as this government has shown itself to be willing dupes to foreign investment pressures.  No doubt Chinalco and Rio have witnessed them flailing about indecisively and creating whaever horror futures for Australia as long as it takes the heat off them right now.  So they will take advantage of that , after all Rio just wants the cash and it doesn’t care where it comes from.  From The Australian:

Rio Tinto to Rudd Government: jobs are in danger

Matt Chambers

February 18, 2009 

 

RIO Tinto has told the Rudd Government that failure to approve the contentious $US19.5billion ($30.4 billion) Chinalco rescue package could cost 2150 jobs and 750 planned ones, almost all in Queensland.

 

The Australian understands Rio has clarified the extent and location of the potential job losses, which are a key argument in its push to have the deal passed by Treasurer Wayne Swan. 

All but 100 would be in Queensland, home state of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Mr Swan. 

<snip>

The deal comes as Rio tries to pay down the $US38.7 billion of debt after its ill-fated acquisition of Alcan last year. This involves selling $US12.3 billion of minority or half shares of Australian iron ore and aluminium assets and North and South American copper assets, along with the issue of $US7.2 billion of convertible notes to give Chinalco 18 per cent of the group.

Remember this is not just a foreign corporation, this is the Chinese government.  So not only will we soon gift our whacking great debt to our kids we will have to explain to them why the Chinese own our mines and the companies that quarry from them.

If you care, join me in speaking out at www.polanimal.com

Less than a week ago I predicted we would soon be hit with an election date.

We have been.  From the Brisbane Times:

I believe in my heart it’s right: Bligh

Daniel Hurst

February 23, 2009

 

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has dismissed suggestions she will face a public backlash over her decision to call an election six months early.

After weeks of speculation about an early poll, Ms Bligh visited Governor Penny Wensley this morning to seek the dissolution of Parliament and an election on March 21.

Welcome to election mode.  I intend to focus pretty heavily on the Queensland election as I have a feeling this will be an augury for the federal election in 2010, or earlier if Kevin Rudd loses his nerve.  Traditionally the ALP never serve a full term, unlike conservative governments who have a tendency to.  

The ALP will generally go early because they are far more opportunistic.  If the future looks bleak they scarper to the Governor to dissolve Parliament.  This gives them two possible futures, not one.

If they lose they can point the finger at the next government and say it’s all their fault, and if they get back in they claim it as a mandate to take the wrecking ball to the economy.

So why is Anna Bligh going to the elections six months ahead of time?  The answer is of course her government’s handling of the Queensland economy.  Soon it will bite them hard and they would rather have two possible futures.  The other reason of course is pretty obvious, she wants the truckloads of our grandkids yet to be earned cash to be arriving from Canberra during the campaign.

A short time ago the State ALP forecast a budget surplus, not so long ago in fact.   In the State budget in June 2008 they forecast close to a billion dollar surplus - $800 plus million.  

By December 2008 they revised that down to $54 million - a huge drop, and now we can expect a massive deficit of $1.6 billion.  In other words three months out from the budget and we have fallen behind to the tune of $2.4 billion.  Appalling financial mismanagement.

It reminds me of Wayne Swan’s hollow claim in 2007, “We can not spend more than we have”.  Well they did, as have the federal government.  

I have no doubt the news is actually worse.  And if the ALP stay seated on their thrones until September they will have to tell the masses how badly they have done over the last year when they produce an even more shocking budget in June 2009.

Well, sorry Ms Bligh, we already know.

We know the state has just had its credit rating downgraded to AA+ from AAA.    From The Courier Mail:

Queensland’s AAA credit rating loss costs millions

Darrell Giles and Kelmeny Fraser

February 21, 2009

 

QUEENSLANDERS will pay almost $3.2 billion for State Government borrowings next year, and astonishingly, that’s just the bill for the interest.

The yearly bill went up a staggering $200 million overnight after Queensland’s AAA credit rating was downgraded to AA+ as the economic crisis deepened.

And we also know that last year your government wasted something like $2.5 billion on recycled water pipelines before you decided not to proceed on pumping recycled water back into dams anyway.  We have pipes from nowhere to nowhere now.  

Today is Day one and we only have 25 days to the election.  We’re ready Ms Bligh.

I predict a mutiny amongst your supporters in the bounteous State Of Queensland.  May the best conservative government win.