Rudd cheats twice

August 12th, 2013 at 6:59 am by David Farrar

Things are not going well for . First of all it seems he cheated in the election debate last night. The debate rules said the leaders could have a pen and paper only – and no other documentation or props. Yet Rudd had detailed notes on various topics which he referred to.

The rule may be silly, but if you agree to them you stick to them. It is cheating if one side is using notes, and the other is not.

The more significant cheating is Labor’s using taxpayer funds for their election campaign. The Government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars promoting their new boat people policy. The constitutional caretaker conventions clearly state that during an election campaign, and advertising of controversial policies must cease.

The Finance Department told the relevant Government Departments to halt the advertising campaign, but Ministers intervened and  over-ruled the Finance Department. The head of the DPMC has said he is powerless to do anything as “the Department does not have the power to enforce the observance of the conventions

Taxpayers are funding this $30 million campaign, during the election period. It is outrageous but typical of left parties who view taxpayer money as their own. We have own own experience with Labour’s pledge cards.

Meanwhile Tony Abbott took part in a 14 km road race – as a guide to a blind triathlete! I like most think it was a pretty cynical election stunt – but to be fair he has acted as a guide for blind runners before.

The real good news of the last week is that Abbott has declared he will not wear his budgie smugglers during the election campaign!

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Rudd cheats twice”

  1. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    The SMH on the debate: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/abbott-stands-firm-rudd-runs-scared-20130811-2rqkt.html#poll

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Michael (910 comments) says:

    Spending public funds to campaign always backfires…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. OneTrack (3,108 comments) says:

    It is a silly rule.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. projectman (224 comments) says:

    You say, DPF, “Meanwhile Tony Abbott took part in a 14 km road race – as a guide to a blind triathlete! I like most think it was a pretty cynical election stunt – but to be fair he has acted as a guide for blind runners before.”

    Given he is repeating something he has done before, it looks more like your cynicsm showing – another example of no matter what people in the public eye do, there will always be someone finding a way to denigrate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Taxpayers are funding this $30 million campaign, during the election period. It is outrageous but typical of left parties who view taxpayer money as their own.

    That’s funny – I didn’t realise that John Howard was from a “left” party.

    In the four months before the 2001 election, the [Liberal] government spent roughly $78 million.
    -Parliamentary Library Research note, 21 June 2004

    And faced with Labor accusations that this cash was burning up at the rate of $20 million a month, John Howard showed that, since becoming Prime Minister, he’d shifted to a more relaxed and comfortable definition of political advertising.

    Well all governments spend on advertising and some of that $20 million a month includes defence force recruiting. Now that’s not political advertising. Some of it includes tough on drugs. That’s not political advertising. I regard political advertising as advertising that says “Vote Liberal” or “The Labor party’s hopeless” or “Vote Labor, the Liberal party’s hopeless”.
    -Interview on ABC’s AM program, 19 June 2001

    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1142380.htm

    [DPF: Pretty silly spin attempt. The caretaker period does not start four months before an election.

    Did Howard ever over-rule a Govt Dept and spend money on advertising, when the Treasury had said it should cease? No]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    We have own own experience with Labour’s pledge cards.

    As well as National’s more-than $100,000 overspend on TV advertising at the same election, of course.

    [DPF: That wasn't public money, as you know]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    Cheating?

    Not in my book!

    Never heard the old saying – ‘Alls fair in Love and War – (and Politics!!)’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. sparky (235 comments) says:

    Cheats never prosper.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Australians will not vote for a cheat. His cheating with notes has become THE story of the debate. Watch him continue to decline in the polls and disappear up his own arse on September the 7th.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    DPF: Pretty silly spin attempt. The caretaker period does not start four months before an election.

    True. But your complaint was It is outrageous but typical of left parties who view taxpayer money as their own. If you read the whole linked-to article, you’ll see that Howard and the Liberals were just as happy spending hundreds-of-millions of dollars on “Government Advertising” that puffed their own policies – much of it in the year that an election was to be held.

    Sure, this didn’t take place in the 30-odd days immediately before the election. And sure, Howard didn’t break any rules doing it. But that’s because Australia basically has no rules about Government Advertising … and Howard sure wasn’t in any hurry to introduce them while he was in power! Which seems odd, given he is not a lefty who treats taxpayers money as his own.

    DPF: That wasn’t public money, as you know

    Really? How are election broadcasts paid for in NZ? Sure … the law meant that the money couldn’t actually be paid over to anyone, but National still got the advantage of 12.5% more TV advertising than it was actually entitled to.

    Now, you’ll say this was an “accident” and not an intentional law breach. True. But is there any concrete evidence that Labour’s spend on the pledge card was done in full knowledge that this was unlawful? Careless, yes. Illegal, probably. A rort on the election, maybe. Just like National’s extra TV advertising was.

    [DPF: Having read the Police file, Labour were warned three times their spending was illegal in terms of the spending cap. The Auditor-General had also explicitly warned parties about their spending.]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jcuk (688 comments) says:

    Wishful thinking I assume Adolf LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Tauhei Notts (1,715 comments) says:

    I listened to the news this morning and heard how Rudd had won the debate easily. This surprised me so I checked up what the people who back their judgment with hard earned dosh had to say.
    They said that Rudd’s odds had lengthened slightly from $5.70 to $6.00.
    The left wing media can’t get it, or are too timid to admit it; K Rudd is crud.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. V (720 comments) says:

    Given that the closing date for city to surf registration was before the election date was even known why do you denigrate?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tvb (4,425 comments) says:

    Abbott was impressive. He did the run and then was obviously well briefed for the debate. Rudd crammed all dayand was insufficiently briefed and had to cheat. The Sydney airport issue flat footed both except Rudd started his answer the he was from Queensland and said it is a matter for one of his Ministers. Abbott will woon not as big against Hillardbutit will be a comfortable one.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    But is there any concrete evidence that Labour’s spend on the pledge card was done in full knowledge that this was unlawful?

    Was there??? Was there really??? Oh, there was. Never mind then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (8,932 comments) says:

    Rudd’s cheating and deceit is nothing new. As is his arrogant contempt for the public and spending stolen taxpayer funds on his election campaign.

    The left are compulsive cheats and liars. It is in their DNA, and without this innate personality flaw, they would never get a look at government.

    All leftist power, and they have far far far too much of it, has come to them by means of cheating lying and deceit.

    Its no surprise to see AG here enthusiastically defending Rudd’s cheating. Like every other left winger, he’s forever fearful that the public might one day see through their posing as morally superior defenders of truth and justice, and wake up to how horrible the left truly are and how they are constantly shafting the voting public.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    You have to love this. Rudd supporters trying to defend the cheating by saying Abbott was doing as well –they just the dates all mixed up !!!!!

    And this is how Labor and it’s supporters are trying to defend Rudd’s cheating ways by now saying Abbott cheated, and this in a campaign Rudd says is based on “trust”:

    A PICTURE of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott purportedly using speaking notes during the leader’s debate has surfaced on social media in defence of Kevin Rudd.
    But despite claims the picture of Abbott with notes was from last night’s debate, the photo was in fact taken during the 2010 leader’s debate with former prime minister Julia Gillard.
    Upon further inspection the pictures reveal numerous discrepencies; last night Speers’ lecturn was not centre stage, in comparison to 2010. Abbott’s hair style and tie are also markedly different.

    H/t A poster on Andrew Bolt’s blog

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Today, Abbott told an audience he couldn’t be a “suppository of wisdom”. Explains why his minders are trying to keep him under wraps.

    He has also admitted you cannot believe anything he says unless it is written down. So every word he uttered during the debate is worthless.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    This says it best: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=263701393754972&set=a.252176588240786.1073741828.252175321574246&type=1&theater.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/972336_263701393754972_707616215_n.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Has any Aussie pollster investigated what would happen if it were Turnbull as Coalition leader instead of Abbott?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote