Right Pulse

10. Jeff Kennett 458/640

Kennett would be the number one conservative if it weren’t for his social views. The former Victorian Premier – noted for sacking thousands of public servants to solve the state’s budget problems and restore Victoria’s credit rating – is still passionately hated by unions and the left generally. Kennett is one of the strongest fiscal conservatives on the list, with a strong dislike for middle class welfare and ‘bonus’ payments to the non-tax paying public. His success in turning Victoria around means he scores well on ‘impact’. As a former Army officer, Kennett naturally scores well on the Defence criteria. While let down on social issues, Kennett has been made to look more conservative with the current ALP Victorian Government legalising late-term abortions and forms of infanticide.

9. Nick Minchin 468/640

Howard’s main supporter while in government, Minchin is one of the strongest conservatives in Federal Parliament today. Not as well known in the public eye, but an influential and powerful hand in the Liberal Party with no hint of retirement anytime soon. Strong conservative credentials across all criteria, including being a climate change skeptic and strong supporter of labour market deregulation.

8. Geoffrey Blainey 473/640

Australia’s most respected historian, Blainey was driven out of Melbourne University in the 1980s for his conservative views on the impact of immigration on society and the study of Aboriginal issues. Blainey coined the term ‘black armband view’ of Australian history to describe the history written by political activists/leftist historians. A critic of the Aboriginal and welfare victimology club.

7. Peter Costello 477/640

Despite being a Republican, Costello makes the top ten because of his fiscal work and conservative social views. His impact on fiscal policy is clear - though he is guilty by association for the rise of middle-class welfare. If he had his way, I think welfare entitlements would have been curtailed under Howard’s government. Strong commitment to tax-cuts and fiscal responsibility looks unchanged despite the economic downturn.

6. Philip Ruddock 485/640

Next to Howard, probably the most hated political figure by the left due to the boat people saga, illegal immigrant detention, the Tampa issue and also being Attorney-General during the Iraq War. Can easily overwhealm the hyper-active left with well reasoned and supported arguments. A recent article indicates the principled manner in which he executed his portfolio compared to a more leftist colleague:

THE Australian Federal Police has launched a fresh investigation into cash-for-visa allegations involving the Liberal Party and alleged Mafia figures…fresh information about donations to the Liberals by supporters of Francesco Madafferi, who is facing a drug trafficking charge resulting from the world’s biggest ecstasy bust last year….Madafferi received a visa after the then immigration minister, Amanda Vanstone, intervened. Her predecessor, Philip Ruddock, had decided to deport Madafferi to Italy because he was an illegal immigrant with an outstanding warrant in his home country, where he faced four years’ jail…Ms Vanstone overturned the deportation order on “humanitarian” and mental health grounds.

So thinks Rudd when it comes to capping executive pay. Bolt has good coverage of the latest socialist ploy to control business in the name of the global financial crisis.

Government control of executive pay could just the beginning of government regulation across a range of pay scales – that’s what industrial based bargaining is all about, as reflected by the Government’s new industrial relations regime.

If the pay-cap policy goes ahead it will make business, both small and large, think twice about voting for the ALP again. Let’s face it, if you work for a corporation where the boss takes home a miserly pay packet thanks to the Government, that puts a cap on what you can earn because the boss won’t have anyone earn more than him or her. It’s called socialist trickle down economics.

All those doctor’s wives, trendy inner-city high flying yuppies, wealthy types that have sympathies for indigenous and climate change policy and every other left-wing fad, are going to think twice about voting for the ALP in 2011. Turnbull’s electorate of Wentworth just became a safe Liberal seat again.

From “Staff Writers” – in other words no one is willing to put their name to this rubbish, except for scientist whose livelihood depends upon stocking unfounded hysteria:

A report in 2007 by the conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a rise of between 2C and 6.4C this century.

Climate experts told New Scientist they were optimistic that humans would survive but would have to adapt.

“Humans are in a pretty difficult position and I don’t think they are clever enough to handle what’s ahead. I think they’ll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge,” NASA scientist James Lovelock said.

“The number remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.”

15. John Anderson 428/640

Former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Party, Anderson was one of the strongest conservative members of Howard’s Coalition government. Widely liked by both sides of politics, his influence has naturally waned since leaving office due to a prostate condition. Rates well across all criteria.

14. Brendan Nelson 430/640

Former Defence and Education Minister and local member for the most conservative Federal urban electorate in the country. Nelson rates well in this survey because of the high weightings given to national defence. As Minister, Nelson argued successfully in the Security Cabinet for C-17 and F/A-18F aircraft and additional logistical support – all of which were outside Defence’s budgeted expenditure. Nelson is also a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and has voiced public opposition to abortion.

13. George Pell 431/640

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Pell is a probably the most prominent defender of social conservatism in Australia. He is also critical of climate change hysteria, the violence of Islam and also the push in Australia for a bill of rights:

Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell has responded to a proposed bill of rights by arguing that such rights are best protected by a democratically elected parliament instead of courts of law, the West Australian reports.  The cardinal also expressed concern that if such a proposal is enacted, it could spark a “culture war” in Australia similar to the cultural, moral, and legal conflicts in the United States.

12. Alan Jones 434/640

Former Wallabies coach and current 2GB radio broadcaster, Jones is a strong advocate for fiscal conservatism. Given his prominence as a media personality, Jones rates well on the ‘impact’ criteria. Jones has over the years been personally targeted and attacked by ABC journalists, an indication of his conservative credentials.

11. Piers Akerman 438/640

Daily Telegraph columnist and blogger, Akerman is a consistent critic of Rudd’s Government and one of the media’s main defenders of John Howard and his legacy. Strong across all criteria and not afraid to voice – for the media – rare unequivocal opposition to the latest left-wing fad, including climate change hysteria. Akerman’s blog has gained greater prominence over the past two years, straddling in and out of the main stream media. Can occasionally be seen going behind enemy lines on the ABC’s Insider programme.

See my introduction to the survey.

20. Kerry Jones: 356/640

The public face of the No Republic campaign during the 1999 referendum. Kerry scores high on law and history and ‘impact’, while missing on fiscal, social and defence issues. Her lead role in maintaining the current Constitution and system of parliamentary democracy means she makes the list ahead of a competitive field vying for 20th place.

19. Tony Abbott: 401/640

Former Minister and current shadow Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Abbott scores high on social issues but is let down in the ‘impact’ stakes by having held social services based portfolios, e.g. public health care is a lost cause – he probably already knows. Abbott is also a prominent No Republic campaigner. His personal views maybe overly constrained by party discipline.

18. Peter Jensen: 411/640

Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Jensen has avoided the seemingly trendy pull amongst Christian leaders to embrace left-wing pet causes. Jensen scores maximum marks for social conservatism, let down in other areas.

17. Barnaby Joyce: 417/640

Likable Senator from Queensland, Joyce has become the lead spokesman in the Senate against climate change hysteria. Strong marks also on the fiscal and especially the social conservatism front. Let down on ‘impact’ – needs to improve media skills.

16. Gerard Henderson: 418/640

A consistently conservative commentator for the SMH across a range of issues, especially on terrorism. Probably should be higher up the list, but I am uncertain as to Henderson’s ‘impact’ credentials. Particularly good at making the left look silly with facts:

What is missing from Get Up!’s advocacy of Hicks’s cause is any acknowledgment of what he did before being sent by US authorities to Guantanamo Bay. We know from Hicks’s correspondence, released by his family, that he (i) joined the Taliban, (ii) praised Islamist beheadings for non-believers, (iii) attempted to kill individuals on the Indian side of the Kashmir line-of-control while firing from the Pakistan side, (iv) advocated the overthrow of what he termed “Western Jewish domination” and (v) voluntarily crossed into Afghanistan after its (then) Taliban regime had waged war on the US on September 11, 2001.

I was surprised to read this article in the SMH, seems Philip Ruddock is going on but he will be challenged for his seat:

Liberal sources have told the Heraldthat a challenge is likely to be mounted with the backing of the right-wing state MP and shadow attorney-general Greg Smith, whose seat of Epping is in Mr Ruddock’s north-west federal electorate of Berowra.

The former president of the Young Liberals, Noel McCoy, who hails from the area and was Mr Smith’s campaign manager, is being touted as the challenger. Liberal Party number crunchers said Mr Ruddock would probably beat Mr McCoy, but not easily.

Just because Ruddock wears an Amnesty International badge dose not make him a hippie of the left. He is a hated figure amongst the left for Iraq, border control,  illegal immigration issues and counter-terrorism laws. Besides, the Coalition should think twice before it tosses out all its old hands from Parliament. Experience and success counts.

When I started compiling a list of the top 20 Australian conservatives I thought I’d struggle to find enough names to get to 20. It soon became readily apparent that I would struggle to keep the list to just 20. A reassuring outcome. The Telegraph has compiled similar lists for the UK and US conservatives and this is where the idea for my list comes from.

Conservatism in Australia has never been well defined. I suppose it didn’t need to be specifically defined, it was called being Australian. The assault on the status quo really began in the 1970s with the election of Whitlam, while Fraser seemed unable or unwilling to undo many of the left-wing reforms put in place by Whitlam. Today, part of the problem is that the Liberal Party is no longer exclusively defined by conservatism. The National Party is the only political party of prominence that could be defined almost entirely by conservatism, albeit of an agrarian kind.

To overcome this problem, I have used Ronald Reagan’s description of conservatism: the three legged stool. This includes fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and national security hawks. I add to these criteria an historical and legal component. i.e the degree to which a person holds a non-black armed view of Australian history and support Australia’s existing constitutional arrangements. That does mean a Republican could not make the list. Not all persons satisfy all criteria equally. In order to do well on the rankings one must perform well across all criteria.

Persons are ranked using a grid analysis methodology, with scores weighted by each criteria. The three legs are each given a weighting of 10, history and law are each given a weighting of 7, while an ‘impact’ factor is given a weighting of 20. This final factor is important, because a person’s ability to influence public opinion or initiate change towards conservatism is more important than a passive observer with more strident conservative views.

This will tend to favour politicians, who are more likely to state a position across a range of issues. If for any reason I am unable to tract down the position of the person on a criteria, they are given a default score of 1 for that criteria. Individual unweighted scores are given out of 10, with a maximum weighted score across all criteria equalling 640 marks.

I’ll post persons ranked 20 to 16 later on today.

Another article has been written in opposition to the Rio Tinto – Chinalco deal, this time from Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

Chinalco is owned by the Chinese Government and it is an agent of the Chinese Government. As such, it needs to be considered in a completely different light from potential investments by private companies, or even by companies owned or influenced by much smaller governments or by governments with fundamentally different political systems. Chinalco first got interested in Rio to block the bid by BHP Billiton. It acquired its stake in Rio in an aggressive fashion and for strategic purposes, to stop BHP.

China is clearly trying to push and test Rudd on this issue.

As a vitally interested party, BHP believes that it will be strategically damaged by the Chinalco-Rio deal. Many of its assets sit next to Rio’s assets and have similar price structures. Not to put too fine a point on it, cost and pricing information in due course would pass through Chinalco to the Chinese Government to the detriment of BHP’s negotiating position.

The Australian government would end up having less information about some of Australia’s strategic resources than the Chinese government.

One very bad outcome would be for Rudd to approve the Chinalco deal but attach various conditions. This would be bad for three reasons: the conditions would be ineffective, the precedent would be set that Beijing negotiates commercial details with the Government, not with Australian companies, and the lesson of Rudd giving in to the Chinese would be obvious. There is a much better alternative: just say no.

A number of rational arguments have been presented against the deal, mostly in The Australian newspaper and in the international financial press. This goes to why I first started covering the issue. Left-wing commentator George Megalogenis’ claim on ABC’s Insiders that there are no rational economic reasons for rejecting the deal and that:

You just can’t say no because you don’t like the colour of the government.

When the colour of the government is red with a dash of yellow hammer and sickle, Wayne Swan should say no.

The Opposition took it to the Defence Minister yesterday over his bungling of SAS allowances. MT was in fine form with a censure motion against the Minister (p.51):

(a) failure to honour his guarantee to this House four months ago that these salary problems would be fixed;

(b) failure to ensure the families of serving SAS soldiers did not suffer hardship;

(c) failure to obtain full information about the nature and extent of the problem;

(d) failure to intervene to prevent retrospective action that has resulted in soldiers being hit with debts of tens of thousands of dollars and large salary cuts; and

(e) actions in undermining the authority of the leadership of Australia’s armed forces.

Like I wrote previously, if these people were teachers, CFMEU members or wharfies, etc…this issue would have been fixed four months ago when the Minister first promised to do so in Senate estimates. But the SAS is an organisation that has produced conservative stalwarts like Jim Wallace and Michael Jeffery, so the SAS is not exactly high on the ALP’s list of priorities. MT again:

It is an outrageous dereliction, an abandonment of duty by a minister of the Crown. This minister, if he were honourable, would resign today and not trouble the Prime Minister. And if he will not do the right thing, if he will not accept responsibility for his incompetence, if he will not be prepared to say that he got it wrong—that he has failed and that he is too incompetent and slovenly to have this job then the Prime Minister must act and sack him.

Come on MT, as the motto goes: who dares wins. Get the knife out and go to work on this clown of a Defence Minister:

The Minister told Parliament last October he would fix the problem, but more soldiers have since come forward to complain.

Liberal backbencher Peter Lindsay says the delay is a national disgrace and has called for Mr Fitzgibbon to be sacked.

“The way the Government has treated our SAS soldiers is a national disgrace. For four months the Government’s known about what the problem is but soldiers are still receiving pay packets of next to nothing,” he said.

“These people have given dangerous service in Afghanistan and they come back to Australia and they’re treated like this.

“The Prime Minister should be looking at the future of the Defence Minister because clearly he has not supported our troops and the whole of the Defence Force can see that the Labor Party doesn’t seem to care.

I’m surprised this article showed up on the ABC news website. I am also a little concerned that a backbencher is having to raise the issue in the media and where is the shadow Defence Minister and MT himself?

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull said the Government had undermined the moral of the SAS and the Australia Defence Force.

Gee, that’s it? We have Minister that has failed or refused to act on an issue of critical importance to Australia’s front-line troops. When Menzies visited the troops in North Africa during WWII, one of the first things he asked was if people were being paid. The Minister has had plenty of time to get it right. If these people were teachers or wharfies that had suffered a pay error at the hands of a Liberal government one could imagine the response from the ALP.