So here we are, bracing ourselves for the possible outcomes of Copenhagen and the possible financial impositions this may cause, only to find that our leader is planning an entourage of not less than 100, including a 'personal hairdresser' and his very own 'pastry chef'.

You're kidding Mr Rudd. You expect us to respect your requests and cut our emissions and pay dearly for it, while you continue to treat your job as an excuse to live the high life wherever you go.

What ever happened to the old saying, ‘lead by example’!

Dear Rehctub,

You ask, "Whatever happened to lead by example?"

Well, might you ask...
The precedent has already been set by former PM's.

For example, According to Freedom of Information
obtained by the Sunday Herald Sun - the former
PM - john Howard is costing the taxpayer more
in retirement than he did running the country.

Howard received a salary of $330,000 as PM.

In retirement, during a year he cost the taxpayer
$1.04 million.

He spent $416,952 - fitting out the office in Martin
Place, including $2510 on furniture.

Taxpayers paid for $1180 TV & video system.
$3622 worth of office equipment and $6082 for newspapers
and periodicals.

$7739 for mobile phone bills.
$1432 for calls from a home phone.
$1834 on office calls.
$4300 on office security.

Australia's five living former PM's submitted expenses
totalling $3 million a year.

Mr Howard was by far the biggest spender.

A hairdresser and pastry chef and an entourage of 100
in Copenhagen as you claim (actually its only 42),
is peanuts for a working PM in comparison to what
one particular one is spending in retirement.

You can't put a saddle on a pig and call it a horse!

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the information.

Even though one realizes that these ex-polies have their snouts firmly entrenched in the public trough, it is always galling to see it itemised - although enlightening at the same time.

How illuminating to see George Dubya's "little buddy" perpetuating his odium even though he's out of office.

Rechtub you bring a grin to me so very often.
Some times I am not truly sure if I am laughing with you or at you.
The latter seems more likely.
How very strange, the thought our leaders hair or taste in food undermines his views on Global warming.
Or indeed that any leaders habits and travel are in any way different.
How truly laughable! that in trying to be little Rudd, trying to avoid the polls, the publics view of him, you publicly put your name to such an uninformed post.
Revel rechtub in your new leader, new right directions, new hope, but know without doubt it is in truth new hopelessness.
A new deeper hole for conservatives to battle in, to find a way to bury the dead beast that is half the conservatives views on climate change.
Not a good time to throw stones glass houses and all that.
Thanks however for the belly laughter.

Yes well, my info came from a news article, but, why do we always have to refer to the past rather than the present.

At no time did I say Rudd is spending more than the previous leaders, however, he is the one leading the charge for us to cut emissions.

By the way, JH did lead by example in such that I recall he froze wages, including MP's for a time while we recovered from the recession we had to have.

Also, considering the mess JH inherited from Paul Keating and, considering the shape he left us in with money in the bank and record employment, if anyone deserves to be rewarded, regardless of which side they are on, it is he.

BTW, Bob was also a favourite PM of mine. Sides don't matter to me, or at least not until labor killed small business with IR.

And belly. The real frightening issue with Krudd is that the only way he will loose the next election is if he performs so badly that the voters dump him. Now that's grounds for us to worry hey!

You all have that 'backed into a corner' response about you, don't you. But then, I expected nothing less.

rehctub: "The real frightening issue with Krudd is that the only way he will loose the next election is if he performs so badly that the voters dump him."

I don't think Rudd is the sort of guy who makes big mistakes, so he won't loose an election that way. Anyway, I find Rudd tolerable. But then I found Howard tolerable for most of his tenure too. The reason in both cases is the senate knocks off the worst of the excesses. My worry is the Mad Monk will give Rudd control of the senate.

You are always better off when there is a strong opposition.