Could Costello have saved the Coalition?

New light

shed


Interesting revelations today about how internal ALP polling indicated that in the Howard Government's final term, many swinging voters rated Peter Costello quite highly, believing that the then Treasurer was more "in touch" and "reasonable" than John Howard.

Researcher Tony Mitchelmore, hired by Labor, wrote the following comments in his analysis of voter perceptions of Costello:

on the surface there are real personality issues... (but) below the surface there are acknowledged strengths

Such strengths included his reputation for strong economic management. But what the ALP really feared was Costello quickly gaining ground on Kevin Rudd if given the chance to demonstrate his abilities in the role of Prime Minister, as author Christine Jackman summarised:

With free rein to establish his profile as leader, rather than as merely an adjunct to Howard, Costello could make ground quickly, and even enjoy 'an enhanced honeymoon' if voters began to see him as a leader who offered the economic stability of the Howard years, without some of the Prime Minister's perceived 1950s stuffiness

This new information confirms that the Coalition would have had a far better chance if Costello had been allowed to take the reins in 2006 or 2007, particularly since it would have blunted Labor's message of generational change.

Unfortunately for John Howard, this means the consensus on his legacy will be that he should have stepped down in 2006 in favour of Mr Costello.

But more urgently, it boosts Mr Costello's credentials for the role of Opposition leader.

Porn queen says priests should get relief

Unexpected tip

It's not too often a porn queen offers the Catholic Church advice. But according to Belladonna today, the church could benefit from letting its priests watch porn:

The Pope has indicated he might apologise to victims of sexual abuse and that is a positive thing to do.
But unless he follows up with some practical advice that addresses the sexual needs and desires of clergy, the problem will simply continue.
Church clergy are at a crisis because they get no real street-level sex education but are expected to ply the streets to deliver their spiritual message.

She has also offered some of her time and films to the good cause of helping the Church.

Another scientist breaks warming consensus

Alarmism attacked


Dr David Evans makes four important observations on global warming:


There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.



The entire notion of a scientific consensus on climate change would have to be one of the biggest misconceptions of our time.

Rudd Government's hypocrisy on trade

Practice what you preach

Simon Crean has a pro-trade article in today's The Australian:

The message is clear: if we want to secure our economic future, we've got to engage trade and open it up further.
Trade matters because trade means jobs: jobs in agriculture, jobs in manufacturing and jobs in Australia's vast services industry. And the research shows that export-focused companies provide our community with higher paying jobs, they invest more heavily in the skills and education of their workforce, and they provide better working conditions.
Trade is critical to our standard of living. Through expanded international trade, Australian consumers benefit from access to a wider range of higher quality products and from the downward pressure on prices that comes with international competition.

Whilst I agree with what he says, I am somewhat surprised that this is the rhetoric the federal government is adopting, in spite of its actions, which have so far been protectionist in nature. It might also be worth pointing out that as Shadow Treasurer in the late 1990's, Crean was one of the biggest advocates of increasing tariffs and job subsidisation. That's not a very pro-trade position at all.

They can't have it both ways. It's about time this government decided what it stood for rather than continually contradicting itself.

Canadian court meddles in child discipline

Wrong rights

James Allan tells the tale of how a Bill of Rights in Canada results in more intrusions by the judiciary, including into the home:

EACH year when I return from our family's short mid-year trip to our native Canada, I come stocked with over-the-top examples of what the unelected judiciary can do with a bill of rights.

This year's is the most amazing one of all. You might even wonder if the judge was sane, or had overdosed on a steady diet of Boston Legal television viewing. Here are the essential facts. A divorced father had custody of his 12-year-old daughter. The daughter accesses sites on the internet that the dad thought were inappropriate. So he tells her those sites are forbidden and, in particular, that she is not to post photos of herself on an online dating website.

The daughter ignores her dad so he punishes her. He doesn't smack her or ground her for a year. He forbids her attending the upcoming school year-end camping trip (which in Australian terms, is a fun end-of-year weekend trip run by the school).

What does the daughter do? She calls a lawyer. The lawyer goes to a judge and, relying on the bill of rights, challenges the girl's punishment in court. Most readers, I'm pretty sure, will be thinking that if a child going on to inappropriate websites is not a solid ground for punishing the child, then it's hard to see what is. But the judge - and a superior court judge at that - ruled that the father's punishment was too harsh. It infringed the girl's fundamental rights.

The sad, presumably unintended consequence of this piece of judicial lunacy in Canada is that the father is rethinking his custodianship. Who wants to have to go to court to find out how much time one's children can be asked to put into their studies, or what punishment shoplifting or rudeness to others warrants. Heck, it's not as if top lawyers and judges beat the societal average when it comes to how well they raise their own kids.

My point isn't just that this judge, or rather one with a brain in his or her head, should have laughed this thing out of court, though of course I do think that. The point is that once you hand over society's moral and political line-drawing decisions to a coterie of unelected ex-lawyers, which is precisely and unavoidably what a bill of rights does, then you have no idea where things will go in future. All you know for sure is that it will be the judges' personal values - not those of the majority of citizens - that will prevail.

When Kevin Rudd entertained the ideas of the leftist intelligentsia at the 2020 Summit earlier this year, I sincerely hope that this was one idea he was never going to seriously consider.

A 'Bill of Rights' is the biggest threat to fundamental rights in Western society.

Tolerant of everything except conservative dissent

Right-wing 'bad faith'

Kim from Larvatus Prodeo reveals why she considers the views of conservative dissenters on her blog worthy only of censure and censorship:

Much as treating RWDBs like human beings with a serious point might be theoretically desirable, they should first reflect on the “Golden Rule”. In short, almost nothing they have to say is in good faith, and any response should take that into account.

Brian, also an LP blogger, is in furious agreement:

Kim, no doubt you are right. In fact my experience confirms the first part of your last sentence.

With beliefs such as these, you can understand why censorship can be justified by leftists, even in the name of human rights.

UPDATE: LP reader Pappinbarra Fox asks:

What does RWDB stand for?
I am achronymistically challenged.

In case there was any doubt that the anachornism isn't a kind one, Redundancy Lad promptly replies:

Right Wing Death Beast.

Charming.

Zimbabwe regime losing race against economic reality

Atlas Shrugging

Zimbabwe has run out of paper to print the notes needed to pay the police, armed forces and intelligence agents.

This means the country now faces economic paralysis and/or collapse.

Being the brutes that they are, the mugs behind the current regime will probably now appropriate all the means of production for themselves. Given how incapable they are, from running economies to fixing elections, even they will probably also fall on very hard times.

Obama bombs on Iraq

All are equal but...

So Senator Obama has adopted the Rudd position on Iraq and Afghanistan, where democracy is deemed to be more important in the latter than the former, even though we are on the verge of victory in Iraq.

The Australian Greens, of course, have an even less intelligible policy.


UPDATE: Andrew Bolt points out another ALP inconsistency, with Kevin Rudd opposed to the surge in Iraq, but his government now supporting one in Afghanistan.

NSW Government to be sued by sacked teacher

Bureaucratic bungling




Lynne Tziolas , a teacher sacked earlier this year for appearing nude with her partner in Cleo, a magazine, is set to sue the State Government, an indication that the resolution of her dispute with the Education Department is far from over.

Although on the teaching roster and on full pay, the difficulties have been with finding her suitable employment within NSW Schools. For reasons which are unknown, the Department has not decided to put her back in Narraweena Public School, the school she taught at before she was sacked.

As a result, the ground for suing appear to be for a denial of procedural fairness, as hinted by Ms Tziolas, when she told the Manly Daily that "My solicitor is reviewing the facts of the case and there does seem to be a denial of natural justice".

These latest developments mean that the NSW Education department has continued to mishandle a matter it should never have started in the first place. Employers have no right to sack of discipline employees for conduct which falls outside of work, unless it relates to their work.

As a parent myself, I wouldn't care if a teacher of my child had poised nude in the sealed section of a magazine. If anything, I would be relieved that Ms Tziolas seems to have a normal, healthy and satisfying relationship with her partner, because it means the chances of her behaving inappropriately with my child are extremely low.


Of course, this case is just another example which, contrary to the views of most leftists, demonstrates that the public sector is no more benign than the private sector.

Rare praise for lefty barrister

A good post

It's not too often we admire Jeremy Sear's work, but he really has written a good post here.