Right Pulse

A Fairfax poll has the ALP and Coalition all level at 50 per cent on 2PP. I’m not getting too carried away but it is definitely another sign of a trend away from the ALP:

An exclusive Sun-Herald/Taverner poll shows Labor is now level-pegging with the Coalition.

On a two-party preferred basis, both sides have 50 per cent of the vote – a drop of almost 3 percentage points on Labor’s election-winning 52.7 per cent in 2007.

I might get carried away if Newspoll comes back with a similar result. Rudd is still ahead of Abbott by 13 points on preferred PM, so there is still some work to do. Imagine if the ALP loses with Rudd’s popularity. I can’t see anyone within the ALP at this point with the power to emulate Rudd’s appeal. So Rudd will be safe for a while, probably even if the ALP loses the next election.

Argentina has for the first time directly threatened Australian interests:

Argentina’s ambassador to Australia says mining group BHP Billiton will face business sanctions if it pushes ahead with oil exploration in Falklands waters.

BHP has a licence to explore off the Falkland Islands and is scheduled to start doing so in the next four months.

But Ambassador Pedro Villagra says if the company proceeds, their business in Argentina will suffer.

“If they conduct activities they will not be allowed to carry out some activities in the Argentine territory in the mainland,” he said….

BHP does not currently have any operations in Argentina but has in the past held stakes in gold and copper mining projects.

BHP will probably just thumb its nose at Argentina and start drilling. It is fairly suspect that the USA is refusing to recognise Britain’s sovereign right over the Falklands. Are they hoping to gain a commercial advantage in the region? It looks like it. Clinton will probably do a deal when she meets the Argentine President.

I feel that Garrett has become the scapegoat for Rudd’s incompetence:

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has been stripped of responsibility for the household insulation scheme and other energy efficiency programs.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he is establishing a separate, stand-alone department for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Senator Wong is the winner, but she is probably the worst Minister in the government. Her megalomania tendencies are pretty scary. Something the main stream media have yet to really grasp.

I’ve been following the new Falkland Islands crisis, mostly because of the implications it has for Australia and no one else in the media has picked up on the issue. BHP’s exploration and drilling rights near the Falklands are being coveted by the Argentine President – who typically is whipping up hysteria over the issue to distract attention away from her appalling approval rating. Argentine claims to the Falklands are pretty weak. They still regard the Falklands as a British colony, even though residents of the Falklands are British citizens and have been living on the Islands for nearly 180 years. What happened in the late 1700s – who killed who – is hardly relevant today.

Despite this, Argentina has managed to get the backing of the Latin American community to do…well what I am not really certain what. Let the UN sort it out and predictably tell the UK to bugger off? Something like that I gather, oh and lend support to Argentina’s defacto blockade of the Falkland Islands through a system of shipping permits between the two territories. Certainly there is next to nothing that Argentine military can do, other than harass. Their Air Force is still flying around in A4 Skyhawks and Mirage III jets, basically the same fighters Australia was flying in the 1970s; and the Argentine Navy is not much to write home about. No AAW capability, though they do have a couple of submarines – likely in dry dock. A squadran of RAF Eurofightersand pilots - preferably Block 5 and backed by Tornados for maritime strike- should be able to deal with the Argentine threat fairly easily.

Even more absurd than Argentina’s claim to the Islands is the response by – you guessed it – Hugo Chavez to the situation. As a sign of Latin American solidarity he had these choice words to say:

“Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I’m talking to you,” said Mr Chavez.

Charming. Hugo also made vague promises of giving Argentina military support – a long held pet issue of his – along with putting together some type of pan-Latin American air and naval armada that apparently will be thrown at the UK if the UN does not sort the issue out. That would make for interesting TV. Hugo does have some SU-30s and a couple of submarines that could cause grief. Their readiness and availability is another matter. I can’t imagine they are ready for war tomorrow, and how they would get down to the Falklands is also a question Hugo probably hasn’t thought through. Trivial details for the great people’s leader no doubt. I don’t see Chile throwing its F-16 Block 50s into the sway – secretly they really hate Argentina.  While Brazil could cause some grief, I don’t see anyone risking it. Well… anyone rational, just to please plastic face Argentina President Cristina Fernandez, as a 6th generation Falkland Islander called her in the Daily Mail.

I think it would be prudent for Australia to send 1 FFG and 2 FFHsaroundthe Falkland Islands  for training purposes and to link up with the Type 42 destroyer in the area. Also, making a good will visit to Chile to send the message that any irrational poorly thought through Latin American gusto would not be such a good idea. I think Chile is beyond that though. Argentina less so. While when it comes to stupidity Hugo is beyond redemption.

Hugo Looking For RN Ships

Not quite as absurd, but miserably predictable, the USA has essentially refused to acknowledge the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. So if the Argies manage to stirrup military trouble, what is meant to happen to Australia’s commercial interest on and near the islands along withtheBritish citizens that live on them. What ever happened to you are either with us or against us? Words uttered by GwB after 9/11. Seems that when it comes to supporting allies when it is not convinent, the US is pretty good at fence sitting. As noted by Tony Young of UK Telegraph fame:

Tony Blair sacrificed his political career and jeopardised Britain’s international standing by making common cause with America in the War on Terror. No matter how often he claims it was because he believed it was “the right thing to do”, we all know what was really going on in his head. He simply didn’t want to break ranks with the United States….

So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has madeindefence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.

Ah, so naive. I mean both Tony Blair and Barack Obama. Possibly Obama, being part of the USA is always wrong crowd, sees that the USA has a weaker future so there is no point $#@! off the neighbours. From economic historian Niall Ferguson writing about US Federal fiscal matters:

Already, the federal government’s interest payments are forecast by the CBO to rise from 8 percent of revenues in 2009 to 17 percent by 2019, even if rates stay low and growth resumes. If rates rise even slightly and the economy flatlines, we’ll get to 20 percent much sooner. And history suggests that once you are spending as much as a fifth of your revenues on debt service, you have a problem. It’s all too easy to find yourself in a vicious circle of diminishing credibility. The investors don’t believe you can afford your debts, so they charge higher interest, which makes your position even worse….

As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give—and that something is nearly always defense expenditure. According to the CBO, a significant decline in the relative share of national security in the federal budget is already baked into the cake. On the Pentagon’s present plan, defense spending is set to fall from above 4 percent now to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2015 and to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028….

This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force….

The precedents are certainly there. Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Prerevolutionary France was spending 62 percent of royal revenue on debt service by 1788. The Ottoman Empire went the same way: interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of the budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. And don’t forget the last great English-speaking empire. By the interwar years, interest payments were consuming 44 percent of the British budget, making it intensely difficult to rearm in the face of a new German threat.

Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.

Gee, can’t wait. So what does the Falklands say about Australia’s reliance on the US military? Noticeably, their nuclear deterrent and the Pacific Fleet. Those days are numbered, so we may as well get our act together and increase military spending or otherwise we may find ourselves like the Royal Navy, not enough ships, limited force projection capability and helpless. And more than a decade of a mediocre Labour government philosopy of  ‘help the poor by destroying the middle class and wealth creators’ has not helped. The Falklands has a good deal to teach Australia.

UPDATE I

If Bill Clinton’s response to the East Timor crisis in 1999 is anything to go by, then his wife as Secretary of State couldn’t care less about ‘allies’ either. She is about to meet plastic face herself, Cristina Ferndandez de Kirchner, in a big snub to the UK. Presumably they will day dream together all things socialist.

Now the USA on the face of it may have some cause for feeling pretty angry at the UK at the moment, because of the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and the release of CIA interrogation details by a UK Court on Binyam Mohammed.  However the fact of the matter is that Brown and Obama are both kindred spirits. They both love government debt and giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt. Releasing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was disgraceful, but so has been Obama’s attempts at freeing Guantanamo Bay POWs, and his intent to give them access to the civilian legal system in NYC.  Feel the empathy Obama has for NYC residents? So the USA has no grounds for being angry at the irrational ‘protect the criminal’ mentality of the British Labour Party, because it is a mentality that Obama seemingly embraces as well.

Oh, and there is the small note of counting up the number of Argentine troops that have fought with the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1,2,3…..0.

Kevin Rudd should pull in the US ambassador with a ‘please explain’ as to why the US won’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and by extension the BHP oil exploration and drilling rights that follow?

Would make the basis of a great election advertisment.

UPDATE

We are in the middle of a boom, but the Rudd debt just keeps on growing:

Reserve Bank of Australia deputy governor Ric Battellino said the nation was better placed to deal with the economic challenges than in previous resources booms, when a fixed exchange rate hampered trade flows and threatened inflation.

In a speech to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, Mr Battellino said the current boom began in 2005 and was interrupted somewhat by the global financial crisis before resuming its course and was now attracting strong investment.

So prior to 2005 the Howard government had no trouble balancing the budget. It goes to show that the GFC has been used as a scapegoat to push through Rudd’s socialist agenda.

Rudd’s duplicity knows no bounds:

THE government will unleash the full resources of its major spy agencies, including phone taps and satellite surveillance, against people-smugglers and other criminal gangs threatening Australia’s border security.

Well Rudd might want to start with himself, given that he caused the latest flood of illegal immigrants by laxing entrance and processing requirements. This is part of Rudd’s ‘look tough’ mantra, while his actual policies and legislation do the exact opposite.

Looks like the Argentine government in an attempt to bully its way into potential oil revenues from the Falklands, is going to punish any company with Argentine operations involved with Falklands oil exploration:

The Argentine government is looking into the British oil companies involved in the Falkland Islands exploratory drilling operation checking on their possible links to interests in Argentina (and if so the infringement of legislation of Argentine legislation), according to reports in the Buenos Aires press….

Falkland Oil & Gas Ltd’s associate Anglo-Australian BHP Billiton is one of the world’s leading mining companies and is also involved in copper exploratory mining in the north of Argentina….

However it is not clear yet how the Argentine government could “intimidate” major corporations or financial institutions without further deteriorating its international image in business affairs when it is trying a comeback to world money markets.

The Argentine President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, doesn’t give a damn about money markets, financial obligations or private property rights and so would probably just nationalise BHP assets. This latest move would come on top of an effective blockade of the Falklands, with Argentina basically banning shipping between the two territories, hampering the re-supply of oil exploration operations.

Kevin Rudd should pull in the Argentine ambassador with a ‘please explain’. Failing that, working up plans to send an expeditionary air and naval task force would be a prudent response to the current situation. How the task force would get to the Falklands would be another matter. It would need Chile’s co-operation and we probably wouldn’t be ready until early 2011.

I’m thinking 12 x F/A-18F with JSOW, 12 x F/A-18 HUG with JASSM, 3 x AP-3C, 2 x KC-30a, 2 x Wedgetail, 1 x C-17, 2 x C-130J, 1 x FFG UP, 2 x FFH ASMD, 1 x SSK, 1 x MHC, 1 x LPA with a detachment of S-70s, RBS-70, CDT, SAS, etc….and any ancillary nuclear bombs that may be laying around in Kevin’s basement. I know, dream on….

Rudd has delayed debate on his ETS in the Senate. Looks like he is running scared:

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said the move was a major backdown.

”Mr Rudd is running at a million miles an hour from a double dissolution election on his great big new tax on everything,” he taunted.

Instead, Rudd is moving forward with his strategy to destroy private health care. First step is to introduce a means test which eventually over time will encompass middle to low income families. Secondly, once a health threshold is introduced it can be manipulated to fund spending on important projects like, mmmm, ahhhh, ceiling insulation. But of course Rudd would never introduced a means test on Medicare:

Parliament resumes next week and the government has made its top Senate priority debate on the bill to means test the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.

The measure, worth $1.9 billion to revenue over the next three years, was blocked by the Senate in September. The opposition has vowed to block it again next week, which would make it a trigger for a double dissolution.

I can’t imagine Rudd would call an early election. Look what happened to the ALP in WA (lost) and in QLD (nearly lost and now destined to lose next election) when state leaders called early elections. It would also be a bit rich for Rudd to call an early election so he can be given the power in the Senate to break his election promises.

If Rudd wanted $950 million a year in extra tax revenue then what was he doing approving fee cuts for TV broadcasters worth $125 million a year, spending nearly $4 billion in ceiling insulation – the latest evidence indicates that 40 per cent of homes have government funded insulation that don’t satisfy Australian thermal standards, spending $42 billion on a 100 mps network when Telstra has been rolling out in Melbourne a network with similar speeds on its coaxial cables – and then there is the google network, high speed WiFi, etc…and spending billions more stimulating the government and import sectors instead of local industry as part of his ‘cash-o-rama save us from the GFC’, etc….and then there is the ETS, which if ever approved will cost Treasury billions in lost revenue from the destruction of Australia’s coal industry.

Australia’s number one megalomaniac politician, Climate Change Minister Senator Wong, is losing the climate change debate and so is resorting to fear to push her brand of socialism:

In her opening address to the National Climate Change Forum in Adelaide yesterday, Senator Wong made some alarming predictions for Australia’s coast. “Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century,” she said. “It is possible that with climate change and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, (Queensland’s) Sunshine Coast and (Victoria’s) Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today.”

It is incredible to believe that Senator Wong actually believes this nonsense. Is she also saying then that Sydney will be under water by the end of the century as well? She is talking about hundreds of metres. Where is all the water going to come from? The South Pole? Well if that’s the case it better start melting some time soon. And where is the scientific consensus that supports her outrageous claim?

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century….

Dr Carter said: “Have you noticed Bondi beach being destroyed in the past 100 years by that rise?”

He said that in some areas around the Australian coast, the sea level was actually getting lower.

“In some places, the geological substrata is sinking, which adds to sea-level rise, and in other places it’s rising, which subtracts from sea-level rise,” Dr Carter said.

“So you can’t have a sea-level policy for the whole of the Australian coast — that’s just stupid, and that’s what the states are doing.”

There is no credible science to support her claim. It is simply a brazen attempt by a captain of a sinking pirate ship attempting to salvage what golden ETS booty is left over after Lord Monckton’s devastating tour of the country, Prof. Plimer’s book, the rise of Tony Abbott, Climategate and the recent and continuing implosion of the scandal ridden IPCC.

Well not really, but there are comparisons. Interesting dispute brewing over the Falkland Islands and Argentina’s spurious claims to the island and their newly found oil reserves – potentially second only to the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia. Argentina is effectively ending shipping between it and the Falklands, oil exploration, fishing and potentially tourist ships. In effect a de facto blockade.

The Henry Jackson Society, a cross-partisan think tank, said recent Argentine actions, including curbs on Falklands-bound shipping and threats to drag Britain into an international tribunal, had resulted from perceived weakness of the British defense capability in the South Atlantic.

The Argentine actions underline “the vital importance of resisting defense budget cuts,” HJS Executive Director Alan Mendoza said in a statement.

He said Argentina’s decision to punish shippers who trade with the Falklands in effect gave the Latin American country “the power to blockade the disputed islands.”

I doubt Argentina could mount any type of credible military attack on the islands. They never reconstituted their air force or Naval aviation after the Falklands War, though they have some Naval assets that could be more annoying than a threat.

Noticed that BHP is the biggest corporate party to the Falklands oil fields.