Fingers crossed in place in WA

Piers Akerman is in full hand-wringing mode about the impasse over the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Aside from declaring that “Gillard IS the national disability” (nudge, wink), he asserts

WA already has a more generous scheme in place.

Gosh, how very advanced of WA. So, one wonders, how “in place” is this western wonder?

The West Australian Government says it will trial a disability insurance scheme with or without the Federal Government. ...

WA’s Disability Services Minister, Helen Morton, says she has put forward four potential locations to her federal counterpart as the state would like to host a trial.

“We’re very keen, we’ve got our fingers crossed, we hope that we’ll be able to get one of those trial sites up and running,” she said.

One has to wonder about the gulf between Akerman’s conception of “in place” and Morton’s “fingers crossed”.

Oh, and how much “more generous”?

The State Government has not said how much money it will contribute to the NDIS.

In contrast with Akerman just making shit up as it suits him, Andrew Bolt at least has stated flat-out that “I don’t know enough,” but he’s “on high alert” anyway.

And so must we all be, with jokers like these ‘informing’ the national ‘debate’.

—READ MORE—

The myth of our convict past

Piers Akerman posits a novel take on our history:

Go back far enough and all of our forebears came from somewhere else because this was perceived to be a better place to be.

I understand some of them even insisted on being shackled to the ships so they wouldn’t accidentally fall out on the way.

I wonder if I can sue my high school history teacher for teaching me a lot of our forebears were sent here as punishment.

—READ MORE—

Akernomics 101

So-called fossil fuels? Piers Akerman may be onto something here.

The market must decide the support for ethanol-blended fuel — not the government, not monopolies and not urban Laborites and Greens determined to punish users of so-called fossil fuels.

The concept of ‘fossil’ fuels is clearly only a construction of Teh Left.

It follows therefore that fuels is just fuels. Whether so-called fossil fuels, or so-called biofuels.

The spurious distinction does, however, beg the question why Piers thinks the market must determine ‘support’ for one or the other.

Offhand the only answer I can think of is that the market is frightfully good at that sort of thing, and it would be a pity to under-utilise it.

It’s simple Akernomics.

—READ MORE—