Unravelling Menugate to find the FailQuail

Sinclair Davidson, proprietor of the fantastic Catallaxy Files, expertly unravels the Menugate scandal by travelling back through time via the amazing wonder that is the internet to poke around to see what is what.

What he finds is brilliantly outlined in his extremely informative post – Menugate – a story in tweets. Sinclair’s post is illustrative of how far investigative journalism has fallen in this age of instant updates and tweets blasted from our oh-so-smartphones.

Just a pity that David Carter, the intrepid twitter activist who leaked the image to the media, turns out to be a fairly squalid excuse for a human.  Someone who has an axe to grind with not only the restaurant owner (apparently he was unceremoniously sacked several months before the dinner in question) but also a pathological hatred for Tony Abbott and the Liberals, as his early tweets to both Gillard and Rudd clearly illustrate.

A quick scan of this nut jobs Twitter profile or Facebook would have sent off warning bells in any sensible journo’s mind, but alas as I mentioned in my previous post – Garçon! A serving of FailQuail please! – that did not fit the narrative that those left leaning compassionistas at the ABC and Fairfax desperately wanted to trumpet to the masses.

What message is that I wonder? That Tony Abbott and the Liberals are misogynistic wearers of blue ties intent on the oppression of free women, not only here in Australia but the world! Mwah hahaha!

So off they went, half cocked and half witted.

Tim Blair sums it all up brilliantly..

…news organisations and reporters have established a conclusion ahead of all possible evidence.

Without timely corrections, inaccuracy becomes reality.

George Orwell would be proud.

Garçon! A serving of FailQuail please!

We’ve spent three days talking about this? What a beat up, especially now that it has come to light that it was all BS. Imagine that.

Confected outrage from a whole heap of people just wishing it was true because it fits their narrative. I really want to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy but saying they exist does not prove that they do.

Oh and Twitter is not a reputable news source. It is an echo chamber populated by wannabe heroes, try hard comedians and narcissistic idiots grappling for 15 minutes of fame.

And these people on the ABC and Fairfax Media who broke this “story” call themselves journalists? Next time stop and ask just one of the three W’s. You know something like..

• Who is behind things?
• What is their agenda?
• Why is someone saying this?

I cannot believe this rot. Let us not worry about dead boat people, dysfunctional border policy, businesses closing or warnings that we could be heading for a recession.

Let us instead focus on the hurt feelings of a person whose hide is as thick as a rhino’s.

Seriously. Give. Me. A. Break.

Bill Leak – The Australian (again)

Diversity and inclusion

From tinypic

Take your time

Bill Leak – The Australian

Rumblings about Gillard being deposed

This just in from Andrew Bolt and The Australian.

Following discussion this morning on The Insiders, there are fresh rumours that Julia Gillard may be about to be deposed in favour of Kevin Rudd.

PM replaced before election?

Key backers, rumoured to include Bill “I support whatever the Prime Minister says even though I dont know what she said” Shorten, are said to be “wobbling” in their support, especially given the rock star reception afforded Kevni when he visited Geelong on Friday.

Could Labor possibly be prepared to swap back to the man they described as a raging, psychopathic egomaniac?

Would the voting public be so stupid to vote back in a man said to be so dysfunctional that no one wanted to work with him?

Personally, I would like nothing better than to see the back of Julia Gillard, but I desperately would like the voting public afforded the chance to send her on her way themselves, not another coup by Labor’s Faceless Men.

Watching Gillard deliver her speech conceding the election to Abbott would be priceless and worth every second of the 98 days that we would have to endure until that delicious moment could eventuate.

What does Feeney the Faceless Man know?

With Martin Ferguson’s recent retirement a bunfight has erupted for his old seat of Batman.

Batman is recognised as Labor’s safest seat in Australia, with Labor holding the seat at the last election with a margin of 25%.

In today’s political environment, this is tantamount to rolled gold for the preferred Labor candidate.

Whoever gets the nod is almost guaranteed a seat in the new parliament after the September election.  They might even get to be the driver of the Labor Tarago post September.

So who is shaping up to get the golden nod?

The front runner at the moment is Senator David Feeney. Feeney is already a Senator but he is likely to lose his Senate seat as he is currently listed as the third candidate on Labor’s Senate ticket.

As a result, Feeney has put  up his hand for the Lower House seat and has been backed in by non-other than the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

This is where things start to get a bit weird.

You see, Gillard Cabinet ministers Jenny Macklin, Penny Wong and junior minister Catherine King have publicly backed the need for Labor to select a woman for Batman, which really puts them at odds with Gillard.

Macklin was quoted recently saying that the ALP was failing to meet its rules that required 40 per cent of candidates in winnable seats to be women.

…I am very concerned that if a woman is not preselected for Batman, the ALP in Victoria will have only 27 per cent of candidates in held seats who are women.

This is well short of the 40 per cent required by the national rules.

It does not reflect the depth of talented women in Australian society today – women who should be encouraged and supported to take up the opportunity to represent their community.

Where does this 40% quota come from?  It comes from Labor’s contentious 40/40/20 rule, which is a direct policy platform of EMILY’s List, the progressive feminist group that has provided Australia with the cream of female politicians over the past 20 years.

Politicians of calibre such as Kate Lundy, Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin, Lara Giddings and Julia Gillard are all products of EMILY’s List, as were failed Labor Premiers Carmen Lawrence, Anna Bligh, and Kristina Kennelley.

EMILY is an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast, as it makes the dough rise and apparently this is directly translatable to women in politics. Get in early and watch them rise to the top.

EMILY’s List Australia was started in 1996 by the infamous and lamentable Victorian Premier, Joan Kirner, who reportedly was apoplectic when Julia Gillard had failed to win pre-selection twice in the early 1990’s.

In order to secure Gillard her treasured spot in our illustrious Parliament, Kirner created EMILY’s List Australia and for the first nine years of EMILY’s List Australia’s operation, Joan Kirner was CEO.

Soon after the establishment of EMILY’s List, Gillard finally gained preselection in the Labor safe seat of Lalor and as they say in the movies, the rest is history.  Except it is history a great deal of people know very little about.

While Julia Gillard is EMILY’s List’s most famous product, it is extremely strange that she is not backing a woman, especially one of the Sisterhood™ for the safe seat of Batman and even more so considering Labor’s Left faction openly canvassing that they may possibly pursue a complaint with the party about the failure to meet the target.

If that complaint were to be upheld the party rules say there must be a spill of every seat’s preselection in the state, including the Prime Minister’s.

So why exactly is Gillard backing Feeney if it goes against Labor policy, flies in the face of her beloved EMILY’s List core beliefs and puts her hold on her own seat at risk?

Apparently Gillard considers Senator Feeney a strong and loyal ally who has performed well.

Particularly since he was one of the faceless factional leaders involved in overthrowing former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2010, helping Julia Gillard rise to the prime ministership.  So it would seem that because of this Feeney has Gillard’s backing and remains firm favourite for the seat.

However, Michael Smith, the 2UE broadcaster who lost his job because of his pursuit of truth in the AWU scandal, thinks it is not just Feeney’s support of Gillard in the Night of the Long Knives that holds the key to this Machiavellian style pre-selection mystery.

Let’s see what Michael has to say in his recent post – David Feeney, Julia Gillard, Emily and her list. It’s not who you know, it’s what you know about them – because it makes for very interesting reading indeed.

Victoria Police is investigating who got what from the AWU WRA slush fund.

Very serious charges await people who knowingly enjoyed the financial and taxation benefits from that well structured slush fund, which was created using the best legal advice money can’t buy.

A reasonable person would think it quite likely too that an incoming Coalition Government will commission an enquiry knto the AWU Scandal with powers to compel people to give evidence.  That enquiry will have powers the police don’t.   It is always good to know that there are people on the same page as you if the Sheriff comes a-summonsing.

David Feeney has no affirmative action equal opportunity disadvantaged feminine LGBTI or skin shading issues to give him the nod for pre-selection for the safest of safe seats, to rebalance Martin Ferguson’s nonPC white maleness.   David’s  just a normal pudgy former union official white man who knows where the bodies files are.

The Emily’s Listers will be a bit list-off to see that their gel, the first gel PM, has annointed a mere male to take over from the previous holder who was also merely male.

After Wayne HEM put $5,000 forgettable into Ms Gillard’s bank account, and after Bruce Wilson had “just decided while I was away that I should have my home renovated so he just id it” and after Kon Spyridis had made such a racket at the office looking for money – well, along came the Knight in Shining Armour David Feeney to help to record the correct version of history.

David Feeney is named 6 times by Ms Gillard in the Record of Interview with MD Peter Gordon on 11 September, 1995.   David Feeney was a central figure in Ms Gillard’s claims that she paid for all her own renovations.

Here are the 6 Feeney “grabs” from the record of interview, then I’ll publish the whole of the section for context.   The speaker is Ms Gillard, 11 September, 1995.

• David Feeney, who is an official of the Transport Workers’ Union, had raised it with Andrew with the specific intent of Andrew raising it with me and David was happy for me to talk to him about it.

• I have spoken to David Feeney. I spoke to him on Friday afternoon.

• Obviously, it accords with what David Feeney has told me that he was sent away by the AWU and without explanation an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that’s the first account that I’ve had from him.

• I’m making arrangements to get the $1780 together to pay the rest of it. I have suggested to David Feeney that I think the way forward in relation to this is for me to simply meet with Bob Smith at FIME and say someone came here looking for payment of an account.

• The information from David Feeney is that Bob Smith doesn’t believe that I am at fault in relation to this. He has got no agenda about damaging me in relation to this or using it against me, that he will be quite happy to see the issue go away, and that he thinks that Bob will respond well to a direct discussion like that.

• I’ve left that matter on the basis that David Feeney will sound Bob out and, provided there isn’t any unforeseen problem, I will meet with Bob as soon as possible for the purpose of clarifying that matter. Now I believe that that must be the source of the rumour about, that must be the factual construct behind what has become the rumour about, about the association or Bruce or the union or whoever paying for work on my house and I don’t obviously given I’ve been fairly surprised by events to date in relation to this matter, I can’t categorically rule out that something at my house didn’t get paid for by the association or something at my house didn’t get paid for by the union or whatever, I just, I don’t feel confident saying I can categorically rule it out

Sorry Emily, when it comes to historic appointments, you can’t compete with David’s grip on a little piece of Australian historic gold.  

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know about them.

Well, as Michael outlines in the rest of his post and indeed nearly his whole blog, Gillard’s motives are not what they seem and are somewhat murkier than most would imagine possible for someone holding the highest office in the land.

A union slush fund, a corrupt union conman and a shonky Labor lawyer, nearly $1 million dollars fraudulently obtained with the help from a dodgy Power of Attorney, supposedly witnessed by one J.E.Gillard, past and current Slater & Gordon MD’s and a couple of dodgy Union officials in Feeney and Shorten running interference to stop things coming to light, then and now.

All of this fleshes out a story that continues to this day, despite the best efforts of Labor power brokers with too much to lose and many in the Left leaning mainstream media all trying to just make it all go away.

They said of Nixon and the Watergate scandal that brought his Presidency to it’s knees that it wasn’t the crime, but the coverup that eventually brought him unstuck.

Gillard’s cries of “I have done nothing wrong” sound eerily similar to the disgraced Nixon’s cries of “I am not a criminal“.

With the factional vultures with an axe to grind circling and the Victorian Police investigating, this story might just well be coming to an end.

From little things big things grow. Much like yeast in bread dough.

None too soon either.

Labor’s lasting legacy… Debt.

Debt is the word on the tip of everyone’s tongue at the moment.

Everyone has some degree of private debt, such as mortgages, personal loans or credit cards, but do we really understand what debt is?

A debt is created when a creditor agrees to lend a sum of assets to a debtor.

Debt is usually granted with expected repayment; in modern society, in most cases, this includes repayment of the original sum, plus interest.

So, as most people would understand, debt must be paid back to creditors eventually.

We also have a maximum amount that creditors are willing to lend us.  Normally this debt ceiling is tied to our income and our propensity to pay back our debts.

So debt could be summed up as follows:

Whatever is borrowed must be paid back, with interest, and there is a limit to what we can borrow.

But what about government debt?  Surely that has to follow the same rules?

Well, that is only partially true. Governments do have to repay the debts that they rack up and they also have a debt ceiling.

The difference between people and governments is that governments can vote to increase their debt ceiling which, in a world of spiralling debt that is getting close to being out of control, is a little scary.

While most Australians would be well aware of our increasing level of national debt that Labor has saddled us with, what few would realise is that under this Labor government Australia’s debt ceiling has been raised three times in the last four years and the future is anything but rosy.

Australia’s rising debt ceiling

March 2009

• Debt ceiling raised from $75 billion to $200 billion
• Reason given – To allow for huge deficits stemming from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)

May 2001

• Debt ceiling raised from $200 billion to $250 billion
• Reason given – Actual deficits exceed initial forecasts

May 2012

• Debt ceiling raised from $250 billion to $300 billion
• Reason given – Wider structural changes included in Budget, mainly to allow Labor to project budget surplus in 2012/13

December 2014

• Debt ceiling will need to be raised again as Government Bonds on issue to fund repeated Budget blowouts finally exceed the current debt ceiling
• Reason given – “Sledgehammer blow” to expected revenues due to dampened commodity prices for resources

Originally, Labor told us that the deficits were temporary and that increases to our debt ceiling would merely provide us with a buffer against the GFC.

In fact, it was Wayne Swan who boldly declared back in 2010:

Well, we’re getting back into surplus in three years. Come hell or high water.

Renowned speaker of truth, Prime Minister Julia Gillard also reassured a nervous electorate in 2010 that her team of economic wunderkinds were all over this surplus thing:

The Budget is coming back to surplus, no ifs no buts, it will happen.

However, the reality is that Australia’s deficits and resultant debt has been anything but temporary, and the oft promised surplus of 2012/13 is now just a distant and faint memory blip in the torrent of soundbites that we are bombarded with from a constant 24/7 media cycle.

While most respected commentators realised that the promises of the magical surplus from Gillard and Swan were hollow platitudes, most of Australian’s took them at face value. How could you not after they trumpeted them far and wide to all that would listen for 3 years?

Estimates abound that between them all Labor politicians promised the surplus over 300 times since 2010.  Catallaxy Files has a great synopsis of the surplus promise timeline which makes for entertaining, yet infinitely depressing reading.

It was Julia Gillard who yet again reinforced Labor’s commitment to balancing the budget at Rooty Hill prior to the last election

Failure is not an option.

Unfortunately for us, failure is the ONLY option when it comes to the Australian Labor Party and money.

There will be no budget surplus in 2012/13 and as Wayne Swan confirmed in his budget speech there will be no surplus for the next four years, and when it does eventually arrive in 2017 it will be so wafer thin that it will have minimal impact on our economy.

By that time the Australian economy will very well have passed the tipping point of no return.

So what has Labor projected for the foreseeable future of our economy?  Deficits, more deficits and even more deficits to come.

Labor’s decade of deficits

• 2012 / 13 – $19.4 billion deficit
• 2013 / 14 – $18.0 billion deficit
• 2014 / 15 – $10.9 billion deficit
• 2015 / 16 – Budget in balance
• 2016 / 17 – Budget in surplus

This is on top of the accumulated deficits that they have already racked up since 2007 (see image at right).

Excuse me if I call “Shenanigans”

The last time a Labor Treasurer delivered a surplus was way back in 1989 so it’s hardly surprising that this year’s Labor surplus promises in 2013 are no more believable than the 300 odd promises they have given us since 2010.

By the time that these clowns manage to eventually get the budget back to surplus our national debt will have balloned to more than $400 billion dollars, all but blowing our current debt ceiling out of the water.

That is FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT.

Let’s ask the world’s greatest treasurer if we will once again have to raise our debt ceiling due to his gross ineptitude:

When asked if whoever won the election would need to raise the ceiling, Mr Swan said:

“Well, that will be a matter for them.”

Um, no Wayne me old mate.  It is not just going to be a matter for the Liberals.

It is going to be something for ALL OF US Wayne. You know us, the REST OF AUSTRALIA?

If there was ever a clear cut example of the complete lack of care about this dire situation by the Labor Party, then surely Swan’s disgraceful comment must be it.

Don’t worry about the NDIS or Gonski reforms being Gillard and Swan’s legacy.

Labor’s legacy is a mountain of debt.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Are you out of control?

Fantastic take on the current funding predicament that the government finds itself in by Bill Leaks, who has recently returned to The Australian full time.

I have changed my mind

So we have all woken up to the earth shattering news… that Julia Gillard’s word is not worth a pinch of salt.

Ben Packham in The Australian reports that Julia Gillard will go to the next election promising a 0.5 per cent income tax hike to help fund her national disability insurance scheme. 

The Prime Minister said her plan to lift the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2 per cent would cost average Australians $1 more a day from July 1, 2014.

Last year when the NDIS juggernaut rolled over Australia’s collective horizon most were unaware there was a problem with disability in Australia but what we did know was that Labor had previously rejected the concept of a levy to fund the NDIS, which the Productivity Commission said should be a last resort.

But Ms Gillard said today:

I have thought about this deeply and I have changed my mind.

Well, I’ll be…

How convenient for you, Ms Gillard.

Many people have changed their minds since foolishly voting for the most wastrel government this country has had the misfortune to experience, but unfortunately for us (but fortunately for her) we have to wait until September 14th to do it officially.

Not only has Gillard once again changed her mind in changed circumstances, much like her now infamous 180 degree turnaround on implementing a Carbon Tax,  she isn’t really being all that up front about the impact of this proposal.

Well, maybe she is… but in a weaselly, laywerish manner, where the detail is hidden just under the surface.

What detail you ask?

The detail that this tax increase is just the tip of the iceberg.  This is NOT a once off increase in taxes because moving forward the NDIS will require many more increases of the Medicare levy to cover its cost.  The detail is there, just obscured from view.

The 0.5% increase in the Medicare levy will raise an estimated $3.3 billion which would be placed into a special account that would be used only to fund the NDIS.

However the NDIS is budgeted to cost more than TWICE that much to run when it is in full swing, in fact the NDIS tips the scales at a whopping $8 billion a year when fully operational.

OK two things.

The 0.5% increase will only raise $3.3 billion and it is only for trials.

The budgeted cost of the full monty version is $8 billion.

See that? That’s another $4 billion that we need to find PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR to fund this policy.

So where exactly will this additional money come from do you think?

Well, the ever truthful Ms Gillard told us yesterday that..

..further budget savings would be needed in the future to meet the full cost of the scheme..

So Labor, the party that firmly believes in Tax and Spend, is in fact highlighting that this is not the only time we will be hit with another tax to pay for their fancy policy ideas.

My tax rate already went up to pay for the additional 3% Super Guarantee, having gone from 30% to 32.5% and now I will have to pay an additional 0.5% on top of that to fund LESS THAN HALF of the yearly bill for the NDIS.

To be able to pay for  the NDIS fully, we could expect another 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy next year and as we know with taxes, they only go one way and as that great 1990’s band Yazz once told us, that is up.

Here’s an idea.

If the NDIS is so important, then let us as a nation prioritise it against the other spending that is going on, because there is a lot of spending going on, however much of this spending is being wasted on programs that are not working, or not on initiatives that are not needed.

Student favourite

Jon Kudelka from The Australian today sums it up well I think. The reception could be quite hostile for the PM and her co-funding proposal that underpins Labor’s Gonksi education policy proposal.