You are invited to a sedate late One Nation breakfast with two Dames and a Geoff, with spicy hot climate science denialism served in a tureen ...

 

What a relief.

The pond's big smoke escapade didn't result in any significant losses, as the One Nation rage machine, aka the lizard Oz, was quite sedate yesterday.

And there's not much action today.

Instead it was left to the Press Council to take up the Zionist cause with this mindless adjudication about a Wilcox cartoon .

The gormless Nine rags couldn't even dare to show the thing, instead resorting to a contorted description ... when it's clear enough...

The original fuss about the cartoon came way back in January, with the MEAA then defending Wilcox...

So it's taken the Press Council some five months to arrive at its wretched condemnation.

Never underestimate the contempt which the pond holds for that appallingly incompetent body.

Meanwhile, the greater Israel project continues apace, and some governments decided to lash out with a wet lettuce leaf in the form of sanctions against the Israeli finance minister and others.

As if that in any way will halt the ethnic cleansing currently going down in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

Speaking of the lizard Oz turning into the One Nation paper of choice, Dame Slap was at it again today, urging on Hansonism, as you'd expect of a MAGA cap wearer...

The header: Memo, Mr Albanese: serious money talks – and listens – to Hanson; Could it be that the groundswell of support for One Nation from people across different demographics signals not just grievance, but a love of country too?

The caption for the snap that made a mockery of the headline: Angus Aitken and Gina Rinehart are proud Pauline Hanson supporters. Pictures: News Corp

Gotta love the filthy rich the way a reptile does, as Dame Slap spent a bigly five minutes pumping up the volume for the Hansonite cause.

Before getting down with it, the pond should note you won't find Dame Slap going deep. Nor giving much of a toss about policies, as you can find elsewhere ...

One Nation defence plan could blow out budget by $400b and require conscription (*intermittent archive link)

We'll have none of that sort of talk in the lizard Oz, especially that suggestion in that last line that Pauline's meekly following her mistress's echo. Ginah, Ginahhh ...

Instead, admire how Dame Slap ignores such grovelling and joins the bandwagon ...

Critics who claim Pauline Hanson is in the pockets of big business are tone deaf. And they can’t count either.
Voters would once participate in democracy by joining one of the big political movements of the 20th century. More than a hip pocket-fuelled tick of the ballot paper, membership likely signalled a belief that the party they joined is not just good for them, but good for the country.
For years now, membership of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party has tanked. By contrast, One Nation’s membership is booming, attracting between 60,000 and 70,000 members, well ahead of the two major parties. Pursing one’s lips offers no insight into the continuing rise of One Nation. Listening to why Hanson is attracting support and money is the starting point to taking Australian voters – and her – seriously.
Could it be that the groundswell of support for Hanson from people across different demographics signals not just grievance, but a love of country too?
Later this week, a group of big business leaders will meet the firebrand One Nation leader at a dinner hosted by Gina Rinehart in Perth. This is not a one-off. On the east coast, too, Hanson’s One Nation party is attracting support – and money – from scions of business who have had enough of the two major parties.

Just to remind the pond of the dickheads who've joined the cause, the reptiles slipped in a snap, Angus Aitken.

Dame Slap was mightily impressed, what with her being tone deaf about being in the pockets of big business ...

Well-known Sydney stockbroker and businessman Angus Aitken, founder of Aitken Mount Capital Partners, makes no bones about why he switched to One Nation. The former lifelong Liberal supporter says: “Albo is the worst prime minister in my memory and it’s hard to believe anyone could be worse than Malcolm Turnbull as PM, but he is. He has absolutely ruined Australia to the point where flying an Australian flag is in some way bad.”
Aitken and his wife Sarah have donated $1m to One Nation. Given this week’s poll, showing One Nation’s primary vote ahead of the two major parties, Aitken believes a minor change is not enough. He told this column this week: “The country needs a massive reset. It’s cultural and it’s economic.”
A businessman who attended a recent private dinner with Hanson at Aitken’s Sydney home says there was close to $90bn of wealth around the table. They were some of the largest employers in the land. Serious people taking Hanson seriously. What brought them there, says the businessman, was a shared frustration with the constantly changing policies of the two major parties and a growing belief that Hanson is a street-smart realist with a real focus on fixing Australia.
Aitken is known for calling a spade a “f..king” shovel. His grievances with the state of Australian politics are likely shared by millions of other Australians. “The bureaucrats are setting the agenda, and most of them have never worked in the real world,” he says. “When all of those pro-Palestine rallies were happening you could feel people going, ‘what the **##!! has Australia turned into?’. Then you have the Bondi terror attack, and letting in ISIS brides, the shocking treatment of veterans – and you add a budget that will hurt every hardworking Australian.”
The businessman says Albanese has changed the Australian spirit of self-sufficiency to a narrative of welfare and lack of productivity. “If you are a self-starter running a small business, you’re penalised. That is a massive problem where hardworking people see themselves subsidising people who never want to work hard,” he says.

Want further confirmation of the big business syndrome that so appeals to Dame Slap?

Cue another snap, Billionaire Gina Rinehart has gifted One Nation leader Pauline Hanson a plane. Picture: Facebook

Is there anything more nauseating than seeing a politician deep into the grift, while pretending to be for the people?

Is there anything more nauseating than the sight of rich folk pretending that they're dinkum and down wit it?

Yes, it's the nauseating sight of Dame Slap pumping up the volume ...

Aitken says the most common question he is asked is whether the party will cannibalise the conservative vote. He predicts a huge swing to One Nation in traditional Labor seats, “from people who just want to work hard, a tradie, a miner or whatever, people who want to get ahead from their own steam, without relying on government handouts”.
“Labor is not the party their mum and dad voted for,” Aitken says. “This is the party of green inner-city woke losers who love wind farms, just not in their backyards.” Aitken is happy to be quoted but other businessmen, who would prefer to remain nameless for fear of retribution, are equally scathing. They come back to the budget as a sign of Labor’s cluelessness and arrogance. They say a big parliamentary majority has infected Albo and the ALP with hubris, which could well cause them to lose government.
But they agree that the conservative side of politics needs to work together, and recognise that the political enemies are Labor, the Greens and the teals. Not One Nation. In the same vein, many readers of this column have expressed what one reader, David, wrote on the weekend: “I’m no fan of Hanson and ON. But I will support them if it makes the Liberal Party liberal again.”

After all this hagiography, Dame Slap finally decided to slip in a truly feeble billy goat butt ...

Notwithstanding the shift to One Nation, two big question marks hang over the party’s ability to turn today’s impressive popular momentum into power: the quality of its people, and the quality of its policies.

But, if the pond can do a butt of its own, before Dame Slap could actually consider any policies, the reptiles inserted an AV distraction ...

One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson fires back at Andrew Hastie, arguing the Coalition's collapsing poll numbers show voters are rejecting its approach. “I thought he meant make Australia great again,” Ms Hanson told Sky News host Caleb Bond. “Of course I do want to make Australia great again; I’m not going to back away from that. “Clearly his party’s not been accepted by the Australian people, which keeps going down in the polls, so he still hasn’t got it right.”

You go Caleb, but still no rebrand?

The pond anxiously waited with baited breath (Yates brand) for Dame Slap to get on with that in depth policy analysis ... and instead copped this final gobbet:

On one view, battlers such as Hanson and bombasts such as Barnaby Joyce are quintessential Australian characters. And attractive to voters, it would seem. But the turnover in Hanson’s party over the years prompts questions about how cohesive and dedicated her team is, and will be in the future. Hanson’s big personality may explain some of that instability. But the party’s poor infrastructure and less professional style don’t help either.
The nagging question is whether One Nation can attract, and keep, first-rate people. Being a Rhodes Scholar is definitely a mixed blessing – indeed in some cases it can be a clear contraindication of political skill, and the last qualification Hanson would want in her people. While One Nation probably doesn’t need to worry about Rhodes Scholars joining her party, and may not want them to, the question remains: Can it attract serious candidates?
Questions linger too over the quality of One Nation policies. What it is against is tolerably obvious, but what is its core underpinning philosophy? And translating that into day-to-day policies requires a level of economic, legal and policy skill that One Nation may not yet possess. If the heat of an election exposes economic black holes or policy absurdities, the wheels just may come off mid-campaign.
Hanson’s attraction to some of Australia’s leading business leaders signals that One Nation may be listening to people who understand the economy. The question is whether the media and political elites are listening to why Australia’s most enduring political leader has reportedly attracted 60,000 members to the party and is out-polling both major parties.

It's a nagging question, but there's nothing for the old nag to actually nag about?

Sorry, we might be waiting until the end of time (a long, long time) for Dame Slap to get around to doing some serious policy analysis. 

She seems to prefer to grovel at the feet of the filthy rich, count mug punters and polls, and pump up the volume.

There's more depth of analysis in your immortal Rowe cartoon ...

And so to the catch up, and it so happens that Dame Groan was also obsessed with One Nation in her outing yesterday ...

The header: One Nation, two parties, big problem: A slow build has become a sudden, undeniable force; One Nation’s rapid ascent, marked by parliamentary gains in South Australia, transcends local factors to mirror a global fragmentation of the centre-right.

The caption: One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, with party MPs Barnaby Joyce and David Farley. Their growing presence reflects a global political realignment. Picture: Getty

No one could possibly expect Dame Groan to match the astonishing understanding of the Ughmann that Pauline Hanson and Martin Luther are two peas in the same deep pod ... which perhaps explains why the Old Groaner turned to a man who stuck a shotgun in his mouth for her theme ...

“Gradually and then suddenly.” That’s Hemingway’s unforgettable description about going broke. It applies no less to the rise of One Nation as an electoral force.
At last year’s federal election, ON received 6.4 per cent of the vote, a swing of 1.5 per cent from the previous election. It was a creditable performance without being spectacular.
From July, there were four ON senators. With the defection of Barnaby Joyce and the victory in Farrer, there are now six ON federal parliamentarians.
Fast-forward to now, ON is polling about 30 per cent of the total vote, above Labor and well above the Coalition. The two major parties – perhaps they should be called legacy parties – command less than half of the total vote according to the latest Newspoll. This is an extraordinary outcome.
Of course, polls and election outcomes are not the same. But the recent election in South Australia indicates that the rising popularity of ON can translate into parliamentary representation.

At this point, Dame Groan's narrative broke down, as the lizard Oz thrust in a welter of snaps designed to promote their newly adopted One Nation brand.

Bear with the pond and the hapless old biddy as we wade through this torrent ...

Celebrating at The Bended Elbow Pub in Albury, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson with newly elected One Nation member for Farrer David Farley. Picture: Richard Dobson

The pond was kept busy sorting out the captions from Dame Groan's one liners ...

After SA’s recent election, there are now seven ON members of parliament, four in the lower house. Bear in mind that ON did not have a strong presence in the state before the election this year.

One Nation SA Leader Cory Bernardi with MPs David Paton (Ngadjuri), Jason Virgo (MacKillop), Chantelle Thomas (Narungga), Robert Roylance (Hammond), and MLCs Rebecca Hewett and Carlos Quaremba. Picture: News Corp

This fragmentation of the political centre-right has strong parallels overseas. We see it in the UK with the rapid rise in the popularity of Reform under Nigel Farage. We see it in the rise of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany. We see it in the rise of the National Rally party in France.
The point is that the reasons for the surging popularity of ON cannot just be explained by local factors. It is part of a major realignment happening in other parts of the world. The reaction of the legacy parties has been to denigrate the “interlopers” and to gang up against them where possible. Arguably, this simply serves to bolster support for the new competitors.

One Nation Senators Pauline Hanson, Sean Bell, Malcolm Roberts, and Tyron Whitten in the House of Representatives chamber at Parliament House, Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Fundamental to this shift is the collapse in trust in the traditional parties to deliver sound policies and to reflect the values of ordinary folk. The system looks to be rigged, with the emphasis on identity politics clearly enraging some voters. Close to open-borders immigration has left many voters wondering where they fit in terms of the government’s pecking order.

Nigel Farage and Reform candidates reflect a global trend: the fragmentation of the centre-right, mirroring similar shifts seen in Australia’s political landscape. Picture: Getty

The pond began to understand what was the real intent of the lizard Oz editorial team. 

Flood the zone with images of barking mad far right loons, and see how the hive mind salivated, such that it didn't much matter what Dame Groan said.

After all that, there was just a little clear water for Dame Groan to make a stand, but in conformity with the new reptile tone, instead she found the bashing of pesky furriners pleasing to her ears...

One issue thrown up by the clear snowballing of the ON vote is the implication for the quality of public policy in this country.
The leaders of the legacy party will wail about the lack of policy detail provided by ON, even though their own policies and policy positions are proving to be defective. Moreover, their policy promises made during election campaigns are often ignored or broken – see the recent budget changes as a significant case in point.
The accusation that ON is not a party of government assumes that people believe Labor and the Coalition are effective parties of government. It’s clear that many don’t sign up to this distinction. It’s one of the reasons the “uniparty” meme has gained traction: they are as bad as each other.
In fact, the ON policy cupboard is not as bare as many assume. The party has even been prepared to put numbers to its policy of reducing the number of new migrants. The figure cited is 140,000 visas to be granted each year.
Asking for more detail suggests Labor and the Coalition have everything worked out when it comes to immigration. This is simply not the case.
Labor has sat on its hands, hoping the excessive number of net migrants would self-correct even when this won’t be the case. Some tweaks have been made with visa numbers but the distinct impression for voters is that Labor favours high migrant intakes and saying anything negative about migrants is an abomination.
The Coalition has placed much store about removing some government benefits and income support from permanent residents, albeit on a grandfathered basis. Putting numbers on a lower migrant intake is seen as a bridge too far at this stage.

Then came yet another AV distraction, and from the dismal illustration, it can be assumed that "He" is actually referring to Barners, Tamworth's eternal shame ... He issued an on-air backflip over plans to evict migrants from their homes in a Sky News interview, prompting host Andrew Bolt to say One Nation is "making up policy as it goes"

If the Bolter can manage to suggest that that One Nation simply makes stuff up, might the old biddy attempt some sort of serious policy analysis, with that field having been left blank by Dame Slap?

Sorry, all she does is forgive errors and omissions, and note good points ...

ON is supporting family income splitting when it comes to the collection of income tax. Instead of income tax being calculated solely at an individual level, couples will be given the choice of filing jointly and thus lowering the amount of tax payable in most cases.
In fact, many advanced countries have income splitting – the US, for instance. It is seen as relatively uncontroversial. And because many more women now work, and work on a full-time basis, the fiscal cost of shifting to an income splitting arrangement is not as punitive as it once was. The shift would also create an opportunity to rethink the role of Family Tax Benefits A and B, and whether it would be better to replace them.
Perhaps more controversially is ON’s policy on the gas industry and the need to replace the petroleum resource rent tax with different imposts collected earlier and at different points along the production chain. In theory, the left should be embracing ON’s policy – or the discussion of alternative ways of taxing the industry, at the very least – because one aim is to bring in a great deal of revenue sooner than the PRRT.
As for the accusation that ON is not a professional outfit because it has not submitted policy proposals to the Parliamentary Budget Office, this is real insider stuff. Do you really think ON voters, both actual and potential, are fretting about this oversight? Let’s face it, most of them would never have heard of the PBO.
And ON leader Pauline Hanson makes a good point when she highlights the massive costing errors the PBO had made about certain policy initiatives – think tobacco excise tax, home batteries, fringe benefit tax exemption for electric vehicles.
Up to this point, Labor has shown a certain indifference to the rise of ON, apart from making occasional abusive remarks. With compulsory preferential voting, the Coalition probably has more to lose from the fragmentation of centre-right.
But it’s also clear that ON is on the march in certain Labor strongholds where voters don’t have post-secondary education and work in blue-collar or low-level service jobs. The election result in the seat of Elizabeth in Adelaide – a Labor-held working-class electorate – was telling of what could happen in the future.
ON has been around for 30 years, so the “gradual” bit has been lengthy. But it’s clear we are now in the “suddenly” part, and it’s probably not going away. The Victorian election at the end of the year will be one to watch.

So even Dame Groan is onboard, with the transformation of the lizard Oz into the One Nation paper of choice suddenly everywhere. She too is at one with the rage machine ...

All that aside, the pond should note that there were a few outliers brooding about foreign affairs. 

The pond didn't bother with them, but these intermittent archive links might appeal ...

Why a rogue North Korea could be Xi’s weakest link
The more aggressive and militarily capable North Korea becomes, the more likely Japan, South Korea and the US threaten China.
By John Lee

Why was it left to this Lee to carry on the war with China? Where's the bromancer?

...The nightmare scenario for Xi is that the US, Japan and South Korea form an integrated military network of sensors, weapons and command systems against North Korea, which can also be used against China in the event of a Taiwan contingency.
The more aggressive and militarily capable North Korea becomes, the more likely this integrated allied military network will emerge.
An even worse scenario for China – which maintains a mutual defence treaty with North Korea – is that Kim’s aggression inadvertently drags Xi into an Asian war that would be as disastrous for China as for every other participant.
There is also the matter of loss of Chinese leverage and therefore control over North Korean activities. In return for sending troops and weapons to help Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine, it is likely that Moscow has shared military technology with Pyongyang. This might well include Russian missile and nuclear secrets. This will not only intensify military co-operation between Asian allies but also reduces North Korea’s dependency on China as the latter appeared to be caught unawares by the Pyongyang-Moscow arrangement.
What does this mean for Australia as we slowly progress AUKUS? Geography provides only temporary relief. As the saying goes: We might not be interested in the geopolitics of Asia, but the latter is, and will be, increasingly interested in us.

John Lee is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Quick, bring on that war by Xmas!

And the lesser member of the Kelly gang was full of gloom ...

Iran war could trigger Middle East nuclear arms race
Donald Trump is facing warnings that his Iran war has weakened US deterrence, hardened Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and increased the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
By Joe Kelly
Washington correspondent

Relax, Joe, Israel can nuke 'em all, as Joe turned to the plea deal warrior for a final word ...

...In his Wall Street Journal piece, Bolton said the best way to forestall a Middle East nuclear-arms race was to re-establish confidence in Washington’s resolve and reliability.
But this means tough choices for Trump – decisive action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the use of military force to protect commerce.
“Tehran is counting on Mr Trump’s reluctance to resume military activity, which is exactly what worries Israel and many Gulf Arabs,” Bolton said. “If Iran is left able to dominate the strait, the Gulf Arabs’ economic future is endangered, along with regional peace and security.”

Sorry, if it ain't the bromancer, it must be reptile lite ...

For some reason, the pond was also determined to catch up with Geoff, who chambered another round yesterday...

The header: Angus Taylor needs to start showing up if the Liberals are to survive Pauline Hanson; Angus Taylor’s claim the existential crisis confronting the Liberals is because of an unpopular Labor budget is illogical and desperate. Meanwhile, it’s Tony Abbott out rallying the troops.

There was no caption, or credit for the collage, but perhaps just think Martin Luther, as the Ughmann does.

Geoff was in a state of panic, apparently unaware that the fix was already in at the lizard Oz, and it was time for all reptiles to go full One Nation ...

Angus Taylor blaming Anthony Albanese’s budget for the Coalition’s diabolic polling performance is akin to a dog ate my homework excuse.
Taylor’s claim that the existential crisis confronting the Liberals and Nationals is because of an unpopular Labor budget is illogical and desperate.

Well yes, but he's a beefy boofhead from down Goulburn way, you can't expect logic or sense ... all you can do is just hate windmills, and blow into the wind.

It is the Opposition Leader’s job to show up every day, and make their case.
If the budget is as bad as Taylor says it is, why can’t he lay a blow? Why can’t he cut through? Why can’t he can’t lift the Coalition vote?
Labor’s big taxing budget was a gift for Taylor. Oppositions should do well out of “bad budgets” and governments struggling to keep their heads above water, with leaders whose popularity has taken a hit.
Taylor and his senior team, who have led the Coalition’s primary vote back to the 18 per cent nadir in February that triggered the leadership challenge against Sussan Ley, need to stop chasing shadows and searching for excuses. Taylor says voters are “swinging the bat” but they should be swinging the bat at Labor not the Coalition.
The final remnants of the Liberal Party’s base is close to joining the masses in abandoning the party of Robert Menzies and John Howard for One Nation.
In ousting Ley from the leadership, Taylor declared: “It’s on us to regain that trust and earn it but the choice is simple for the Liberal Party … change or die, and I choose change”.
Taylor needs to follow the example of Tony Abbott, his former prime minister and new Liberal Party federal president, who was relentless and unforgiving as opposition leader.
Any sign of blame-shifting or weakness from Taylor and Coalition MPs will be ruthlessly dispatched by Albanese and Pauline Hanson.

The reptiles decided to compound the misery by slipping in a snap of the beefy boofhead alongside that ancient monument to endless follies, the onion muncher ... Angus Taylor and recently elected Liberal Party president Tony Abbott. Picture: Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

It'll get worse according to Grattan, View from The Hill: Tony Abbott to tour the country, trying to energise Liberals.

So the beefy boofhead is now just a sock puppet for the new regent, who's going to embark on his usual narcissistic grandstanding tour? 

How pleased Hungary must be to be rid of him, and no wonder Geoff was in a state of despair at the new drivel emanating from the mad monk ...

Abbott on Tuesday e-mailed Liberal Party members to rally the troops.
The former PM said: “Like you, I can read the polls. While the majority of Australians now would like a change of government, there’s an unprecedented split on what’s the best alternative. And while many of you have noticed Angus Taylor’s determination to stop the toxic taxes, end mass migration, abolish Net Zero, and put Australia first, some are sceptical about the extent of the party’s change of heart or its willingness to do much about it in government.”
“While it’s the parliamentary party’s job to set and to implement policy, and to provide strong political leadership, you can be confident that the new federal executive will support Angus and his team to continue to be bold and resolute. We certainly won’t win the next election as slaves to focus groups and being a little bit less ‘woke’ than Labor.”
“For my part, I’m keen to arrange a series of meetings around the country to give Liberal members and supporters the chance to gather, to learn from each other, and to recommit to giving our country the better government a great people deserve. I hope you might consider coming to one of these and perhaps bringing along any friends and family members equally keen to see Australia develop its full potential.”
It is true the Coalition breached faith with voters and is viewed by many voters as part of a uniparty system with Labor.
Families struggling to pay the bills in a worsening cost-of-living crisis are sick of politicians.
Taylor’s budget-in-reply speech was one of the most ambitious delivered by an Opposition Leader.
But you’ve got to be able to sell your key measures and explain the Coalition’s plan to reform bracket creep and lower income tax cuts.
Taylor, Abbott and new Liberal federal director Lincoln Folo, who is understood not to have been the first choice to replace Andrew Hirst, will have to rebuild the party from the ground up. But time is running out.
Some Coalition and Labor strategists still believe support for Hanson and One Nation will fizzle out. They believe Australians are protesting and parking with One Nation.
With 23-months to go until the next election, it’s a massive gamble to assume that One Nation will fade into the background.

It's even a bigger gamble to assume that the onion muncher is the cure, rather than the disease ...

But relax Geoff, the lizard Oz editor is busy outlining more policies for One Nation...

Sure The Conversation might carry yarns of the climate change kind ...

Climate change has already made Australians in one state much poorer, and more’s to come

But this is the real One Nation deal ...

Sorted. It's all a hoax, renewables are a joke (forget that solar rebate), and remember to vote Pauline for a sunny future. Expect extreme temperatures and general mayhem.

And with that it's time for the infallible Pope to toss in his own kind of distraction this day...

You are invited to enjoy "Ned" as a leftover Tuesday placeholder, as engaging as reheated pizza ...

 

Unfortunately the pond must return to the big smoke this day, and very early in the morning at that, in a way that precludes the pond catching up with Dame Groan for the first time in weeks.

The pond realises this will disappoint her many fans, but maybe she can be held over until tomorrow.

Meantime, having just returned to the fray and herpetology studies, the pond doesn't want to leave an empty space so soon ...

So the pond reverted to the weekend and the current fuss about AUKUS and to "Ned's" natter, which should ensure anyone turning up will be able to sink back into a satisfying slumber ...

Before proceeding with "Ned", the pond would like to draw attention to Albert Palazzo writing on the UNSW site: Australia has been the victim of an AUKUS ‘bait and switch’

Call it a preliminary reconnoitre of a remarkable waste of money, the sort of thing only a clap happy Xian fundamentalist without the first clue about defence could devise. 

The change in the submarine delivery plan should come as no surprise – this deal has been unequal from the start.
At a security conference in Singapore over the weekend, the three AUKUS partners – the United States, United Kingdom and Australia – announced a tweak to their partnership that has generated quite a lot of attention in Canberra.
Australia will now receive three second-hand Virginia-class, nuclear-powered submarines in the coming years, instead of the original deal of two used vessels and one brand new sub.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles spun this as a welcome streamlining of the fleet that would simplify its supply chain, as well as the management and sustainment of these complex warships.
What Marles seems not to have noticed is that not all Virginia-class submarines are the same.
The new boat the US had promised would have been from Block 6, the most recent design. Instead, all of Australia’s submarines will now likely come from Block 4, which carry a much smaller weapon payload. Firepower is a measure of a fighting ship’s utility. Having the largest weapon capacity is a key ingredient for battle success.
It seems Australia has been a willing – not to say eager – victim of what is essentially a “bait and switch”.
The unilateral change of plans should not have come as a surprise to anyone in the Australian government.
AUKUS has always been a one-sided deal in which the US reaps the benefits while Australia accepts the risks. The agreement Australia entered into provides the US with numerous opportunities to cancel or modify the deal. Washington simply acted on what was permitted.
In addition, the AUKUS agreement allows the US president to cancel the submarine transfer at his or her whim, while Australia has no right to challenge or lobby against the decision. The current president, Donald Trump, is not known for loyalty to his allies. The fact the AUKUS deal was signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden, is likely to further reduce Trump’s level of commitment.
To make the US decision more of an affront, Australia has already contributed at least US$2 billion (A$2.8 billion) to the American submarine manufacturing pipeline.
The US is not building enough submarines to meet its own requirements, let alone the additional boats it has promised to Australia. The Australian cash contribution was meant to improve the US rate of production so Canberra would be able to get one or two of the latest boats. Australia’s investment has turned out to be a very poor one, and there are no refunds.
The Australian government has also misinterpreted what the US hopes to get out of the deal.
For the Americans, selling Australia any subs at all makes little sense in the contest with China for supremacy in the Western Pacific. It just reduces America’s own military capability.
The key element in AUKUS for the US has always been the submarine base that Australia is building at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. This is where the US Navy plans to operate its submarines. The US has already announced the establishment of the support elements that will administer and sustain these warships.
As we can see now, Australia has virtually no leverage to make the submarine deal more equitable.
The Americans know that Australian strategic policy since before the Vietnam War has been to demonstrate relevance to the US. Australia has not hesitated to rush into US-led wars – even those of dubious legality – in order to show loyalty. If this was a poker game, the Australians would be playing with most of their cards face-up...

Palazzo provided a link to a press release which unleashed this particular kraken...

Put it another way ...

Now on with "Ned" trying to make sense and justify this epic boondoggle ...

The header: Inside the futile push to sink the AUKUS pact; Our most vital strategic defence program will succeed only if Labor proves it is committed to delivering it by seeing off the doubters. But the division is deep.

There was no caption nor credit for the gif marvel at the head of the piece. 

The pond can only provide a pale imitation, showing the snap without the subs and then the subs after they've stormed into the image ...

Bloody marvellous, a true visual wonder, though some might think that no one has bothered to improve the lizard Oz graphics department while the pond was on its break.

As for "Ned" it was a full ten minutes of tedium, familiar to those who value existential ennui...

The political discontent is now rising over the nation’s unprecedented venture – the high-cost, extended timetable AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine and industrial project, the message being that the Albanese government from the Prime Minister down needs to fight for this venture and its purpose.
The rumblings against AUKUS are getting louder despite their absence of logic or persuasion. Yet the project holds a strange place in our political firmament – the biggest defence and industrial endeavour in Australia’s history with a PM who shuns making the strategic case for this venture.
The revelation that the US will sell Australia three “in service” ­Virginia-class submarines, instead of the third boat being new off the production line, has been exploited this week by AUKUS critics to demand, variously, a sinking, a revision, a review or an inquiry into AUKUS. Take your pick.
The reality, however, is that the US decision, welcomed by Australia, in no way threatens or undermines AUKUS. This was merely a hook for an anti-AUKUS campaign weak on energy yet reflecting a suppressed sentiment in the Labor Party.
The most significant criticism came from former minister Ed Husic, now alienated from Anthony Albanese and deputy PM Richard Marles, who asked Albanese in caucus if the party’s previous resolution of support for AUKUS still stood, given the change on the Virginia-class submarines. This was an important event – the first direct assault on the authority of Albanese and Marles over AUKUS.
Husic told the media: “The reality is this deal has changed. It’s not the deal that we agreed to way back when.” He resurrected virtually every negative about AUKUS: because of the US production delays there were doubts about whether the subs would ever arrive, and even if they did, there would be a “sovereignty question” about Australia’s control. Lurking in the background is Labor’s loathing of US President Donald Trump and its distrust of getting far closer to Trump’s America.

Only "Ned" could really believe that AUKUS offered a solution to Australia's defence needs, or that war would be conducted in the way that the U-boats attempted (and failed) to win the second world war.

It's a bit like the magical 1950s thinking behind mad King Donald's reversion to the grand days of the Bismarck and the Tirpitz, and that too is producing another issue ... cue the ABC...

Trump's 'Golden Fleet' battleships could delay submarines needed for AUKUS, committee says
By Brad Ryan in Washington DC

Donald Trump's planned "Golden Fleet" of battleships will put more strain on the US Navy's shipbuilding program and could further delay the submarines needed for AUKUS, according to a committee of Congress.
The House Armed Services Committee wants the US Navy to provide reassurances that building the "Trump-class" battleships will not delay other nuclear-powered boats.
The US's submarine-building program is already plagued by construction delays, which pose a threat to Australia's hopes of buying at least three Virginia-class submarines under the AUKUS pact.
Committee members fear the Navy's new plan to build at least 15 Trump-class battleships — also known as BBG(X) — will cause further delays in America's shipyards.
"The committee is concerned about the possibility of strain on US nuclear shipyards and maritime industrial base posed by the aggressive schedule proposed for producing a nuclear powered BBG(X) platform," an amendment to a defence budget bill, passed by the committee this week, says.

"Ned" seems to have retained faith in mad King Donald and Pete Kegsbreath's ability to deliver, which is perhaps why the reptiles flung in an audio distraction to help bolster his presentation:

The Front
Nobody hates like the Labor Party – and their brawling could sink our submarines

It's the Labor party that could sink the subs? Have the reptiles no faith in King Donald and Pete Kegsbreath?

Carry on Nedding ...

While Albanese repudiated Husic, it was Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy who demolished Husic’s core claim. “AUKUS is full steam ahead,” Conroy said. “It’s been confirmed by the caucus in 2021, it’s been confirmed by the shadow cabinet in ’21, the actual cabinet in ’23.”
Conroy pointed out the initial Labor support in opposition was over the principle of nuclear-powered, conventionally-armed subs, not the specifics of the Virginia class. That Virginia-class decision only came much later. Pretending the initial caucus vote was about the Virginia-class and that now constituted a broken deal was an obviously false assertion.
Labor did not initiate AUKUS; that came from Scott Morrison’s remarkable diplomacy. But Labor now has full political ownership and responsibility for AUKUS in its nominated $368bn cost, its strategic purpose, and its nuclear power character.

And then came a snap which reminded the pond of Godard's Les Carabineers, in which a couple of soldiers return home from a war with a suitcase full of postcards which serve in lieu of real war booty.

So here's your equivalent, here's your AUKUS subs for the next decade or so ...A rendering of the SSN-AUKUS submarine. Picture: BAE Systems

Treasure that rendering, it might be all we get for the billions ...

"Ned" is as devoted to the notion of the subs as those carabineers...

AUKUS is a multi-decade three-nation venture which means Australia is always hostage to events in the US and UK and altered working arrangements will be an inevitable feature. Everything depends on the trust of the partners. Australia cannot afford a sustained Labor Party brawl over AUKUS if that undermines trust in the US and UK.
There are serious challenges for AUKUS but they are rarely identified by the critics who focus on ­Virginia-class delivery when the main doubts are elsewhere – they arise within the shipbuilding ­capacity of the UK and whether it can proceed successfully with the heart of the concept, the UK-Australia submarine SSN-AUKUS to be built in Britain and Adelaide.
The UK needs to revamp its shipbuilding capacity, with a recent House of Commons report warning that the political resolution for the project had “faded.”
In his recent visit to the UK, this paper’s international correspondent, Cameron Stewart, interviewed the UK government’s special representative, Sir Stephen Lovegrove – a strong AUKUS advocate – who said: “There’s no point in pretending that standing up a nuclear endeavour of this type is not really difficult, a colossal task. I mean, there have certainly been teething troubles on the way, but we are working very well … at the moment.”
For Australia, the paradox at the heart of AUKUS goes to Labor conviction. Does the caucus and the rank and file have faith in AUKUS? Let’s be frank: you can’t see this venture through without belief.
Not for turning
Richard Marles has that belief in spades and, have no doubt, Albanese and Marles remain in control of the internal Labor politics around AUKUS. The government isn’t for turning. It is too far down the track.
Yet the reservations cannot be overlooked. They are fuelled in part by the originating mythology, notably that Morrison before the 2022 election conned Albanese and the Labor leadership into endorsing the project by confronting them with a short timetable for decision.
Albanese and Marles repudiate accusations they were conned. The reality, however, is that Labor had to take a firm position and support what was the only viable electoral option.
The upshot is that the ongoing AUKUS faith of the Albanese government sits uneasily with a party periodically worried by the litany of problems: Is the cost justified? Is such strategic intimacy with the US a wise option? Will the submarines ever be delivered and be built? Are nuclear-powered boats the right procurement for Australia?
Under pressure this week, Marles launched his most sustained, passionate and revealing defence of AUKUS at a “Defending Australia” dinner sponsored by this newspaper. He said of AUKUS: “This is the biggest single leap in our military capability, I think, since the foundation of the navy. It’s also the biggest single industrial project that our country’s ever engaged in.”
Marles is proud of this Labor achievement: “That we were able to negotiate with the United States to have them transfer Virginia-class submarines to us is extraordinary. I mean, there is no precedent for that ever before, in terms of how America has handled this technology. There were challenges with the industrial base as I said. It’s why we did the extraordinary step of actually contributing money, financially, significantly billions, to the American industrial base to increase their rate of production. On this day, there are 200 Australian tradespeople in Pearl Harbor helping to get Virginia-class submarines out to sea for the US navy.”

As well as confronting the madness of King Donald and the former Faux Noise presenter Hogsbreath, there's a question about the ability of the local pollies to wrangle the USA as it sinks into a sea of incompetence...Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles speaking at the Defending Australia summit at the Australian War Memorial this week Picture: Jane Dempster/The Australian.

"Ned" knows how to do the natter, but pardon the pond for doubting what the verbiage is proposing:

Referring to Rotation Force-West – the rotation of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027 – Marles described this as the opportunity to get closer to the US navy and its sustainment schedule.
“We are a three-ocean nation,” he said. “A cursory glance of the map makes it unthinkable that we would not have a cutting-edge long-range submarine capability. There is only one choice here and that is that we stick and that’s what we are going to do.”
Marles points to history as proof that Labor cannot be deflected. He said when the Coalition was in office, the first submarine play was Japan; that was Plan A. The Attack-class submarines with France were Plan B. Next came AUKUS – Plan C. But the government would not divert to any Plan D.
“That’s just deciding you’re not doing to do it,” Marles said of the critics. “If you keep chopping and changing what is a multi-decade project every three or four years, then by definition you’re not doing it.”

Thank the long absent lord at least one pollie decided to talk truth to power. Again cue Tom Lowery in the ABC ...

Vocal Labor backbencher calls for AUKUS renegotiation

Labor MP Ed Husic says Australia needs to look at renegotiating the AUKUS pact with the United States and the United Kingdom and start contemplating alternative options following the changes.
The remarks followed a Labor MP questioning the prime minister during Labor's caucus meeting earlier today, arguing the changed deal should prompt a reconsideration of the party's commitment to AUKUS.
While not confirming he was the MP who raised the issue, Mr Husic said there was clearly a need to question whether AUKUS could be delivered as promised.
"This deal has changed, and as a result, we need to recognise — is there anything that is going to improve this outcome or alter it? I don't think so,"  he said.
"There's obviously been — this is a great understatement — but you've seen within the broader [Labor] movement a general disquiet about the nature of the deal itself.
"But putting all that aside, there's an issue about reality, and that is confronting us about whether or not we will even get the new deal that has been put to us based on what's happening in the US."
Mr Husic has pointed to challenges in American shipyards struggling to lift their rate of production of Virginia-class submarines as one clear issue in the deal, and says it is what likely provoked the change announced over the weekend.
The United States is trying to double its production rate from just over one submarine a year to more than two a year, aiming to sell submarines to Australia without setting back the growth of its own fleet.
He said the AUKUS deal needed to be renegotiated and alternative options explored.
"I think the reality on the ground will force a renegotiation. It won't be a renegotiation, it's a reality about the production rates and whether or not we'll get them," Mr Husic said.

Well yes, but that sent "Ned" into a remarkable defence of what's going down now ...and "Ned" was joined by that barking mad clap happy ...

Howling down Husic
He dismissed Husic’s claim that a new caucus resolution was required because of the Virginia-class readjustment. This was not a “huge” change; it didn’t affect the basis of AUKUS. Marles said Australia welcomed the decision and, indeed, its preference had actually been to have the Virginias in service anyway – that made crewing and maintenance easier and was less costly. With a touch of contempt, Albanese and Marles kicked Husic’s demand out of the park.
It probably won’t help Labor politically that Morrison went public this week supporting Marles and telling Inquirer: “I don’t have a problem with the Virginia-class decision. Frankly, it helps not to have two different types of Virginias.”
Morrison offered wise advice on how AUKUS will evolve: “AUKUS is a dynamic process. We started this as an arrangement based on trust with the UK and US. It is an endless process, it’s all about constantly working out the best way to achieve the objectives, and that’s about trust. What we’re seeing at the moment is what we’ve known for a long time – the Labor left don’t like it.”

The remnants of the lizard Oz graphics department decided that we needed to be reminded of the clap happy who got us into this folly ... Scott Morrison says he can “see the logic” behind the new plan for Australia to get three in-service Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s, rather than a mix of old and new. Picture: Supplied.

He can see the logic, perhaps through his third eye?

About as logical as believing in a pending rapture (it seems August is the revised date for gravity to be suspended for a moment or seven).

"Ned" seized on SloMo like a seagull sniffing a chip at a fish market ...

Morrison repeats his frequent warning to Albanese: the government’s responsibility is to explain the strategic foundation of AUKUS to the Australian people – that means contributing to deterrence in the region and working with allies at a time when China is expanding both its military capacity and regional assertion: “AUKUS is not just about jobs. It is about strategic deterrence, and if this is not explained and to the public then the selling task gets harder.”
Herein lies a pivotal point: while Marles is open and forthright about the purpose of AUKUS, Albanese seems permanently resistant to explaining why his government is spending $368bn on an unprecedented industrial project that is the most transforming event in the navy’s history. What is the purpose? Some Labor figures say the reason Albanese won’t explain it is because elevating deterrence against China only creates more trouble than its worth.
Yet this plays into the hands of the critics. There are many lines of attack, and this week saw a breakout from the opponents. In a blast from the past, Labor luminaries Peter Garrett (of anti-nuclear fame) and Carmen Lawrence united with former defence force chief Chris Barrie to initiate a national inquiry into AUKUS, while sections of Labor’s left warned the issue would be raised at the coming ALP National Conference.

And then "Ned" had a nervous nellie, chicken ducking falling clouds moment ...

Uncertainty abounds
Sensing an opportunity, the teal-dominated crossbench came together with demands for transparency, highlighting the changed circumstances, the risks, the costs and the over-reliance on AUKUS in defence spending.
While the results of the public inquiry into AUKUS will be predictable, the Albanese government would be unwise to ignore the criticism. The nature of AUKUS, as a three-nation venture, is loaded with uncertainty, not just from the US and UK sides.
There are concerns that Australia lacks the expertise for a project it has never remotely entertained – building and servicing nuclear-powered submarines as a nation that has no civil nuclear power industry and upholds laws against domestic nuclear power.
Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson warned that AUKUS was at risk because of Labor politics: “We now have a full-on Labor revolt when it comes to Australia’s signature defence policy. It’s Ed Husic, it’s Josh Wilson, it’s prominent former Labor figures like former cabinet ministers Peter Garrett, Carmen Lawrence, it is former Labor prime ministers like Paul Keating, it’s key Labor unions, it’s Labor branches.
“It’s very clear that the Labor grassroots is questioning this government’s ability to deliver AUKUS and even going as far as to question whether or not we should proceed with AUKUS at all.
“How will that be interpreted in foreign capitals, in Washington DC, in London, in Beijing? We do not need any questions at all about the government’s commitment to the delivery of AUKUS. Frankly, maybe they should allow a vote in caucus so they can demonstrate how much support it actually has.”

Jimbo was then given a snap ... Senator James Paterson says AUKUS is at rick (sic, so and thus) because of Labor politics, Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman.

It's a delicate line that must be trodden by the current crop of Liberal pollies... criticising the Labor government and wringing hands, while trying to avoid taking any responsibility for the the dire situation that arose because of their original folly ...

At the same time, Paterson asked about contingencies arising from capability gaps in submarine delivery timetables. Warning that Australia could be exposed, he said: “We need to look at supplementary capabilities that could help fill that gap.” The point being: uncertainties abound.
In his defence of AUKUS, Marles recognised the inherent political nature of the beast, saying: “I get that people are going to be consistently asking me questions: Is AUKUS going to happen? Are our other partners, our countries, still supportive? Are they meeting insurmountable challenges? Do you have division in your own ranks? We’ll get all of those questions. That’s fine. I totally expect those questions to be asked of me for as long as I’m doing this job. But just also remember every milestone that we have needed to meet, we’re meeting.”
AUKUS was the brainchild of Scott Morrison who persuaded both British PM Boris Johnson and US president Joe Biden to sign up – but the project now looms as one of the decisive tests of Labor’s strategic belief, its organisational ability, its defence budget management, and its national vision in the party’s history. Unless Albanese has a conviction agenda for AUKUS, its future is problematic.

Some might be wondering at what point the pond thought "Ned" truly jumped the shark and nuked the fridge instead of the sub, and it came when he turned to Lord Downer for a comment ...

If you have any doubt about the complexities of this scheme, just listen to former Liberal foreign minister Alexander Downer, a native South Australian. Downer told Inquirer this week he champions AUKUS but believes the joint UK-Australian submarine will never be built.
“I am very much in favour of AUKUS,” Downer said. “First, it is right to invite British and American submarines to move through Australia. Second, they are right to buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines. I think they should be buying more, five or six Virginia-class. It doesn’t matter if they’re second hand.
“But the idea of building nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide is heroic. There will be huge cost blowouts, enormous problems, since we have never built submarines like this before, and shortages of skilled labour. It will become a nightmare for us. This is a mirage. It’s just not going to happen.
“The Labor and Liberal parties think if they move away from the Adelaide build and just bought the next generation of nuclear submarines, that would be unpopular. But I’m not sure as a South Australian that this is an unsaleable political proposition. I think people would understand that $368bn – just the bill at the moment – means we won’t be able to afford it. The sooner we face up to the fact that it won’t happen, the better.
“We need to focus on getting nuclear-powered submarines with the British and the Americans – buying the AUKUS-class sub.

Indeed, indeed ...

A further note:

 

Yet another note:

Can one optimal pathway have two lanes? When it comes to AUKUS submarines, apparently yes
By acting defence and national security correspondent Tom Lowrey

...Settling the AUKUS caucus

When AUKUS was first announced in 2021 by the Coalition, Australia's first nuclear-powered submarine wasn't expected for more than a decade and a half.
The changes made in 2023 under the current government to acquire the Virginia class submarines means the first Australian-flagged nuclear-powered sub is now a little over five years away.
It's getting more real. It's costing much more money, up to $96 billion between now and 2036, shipyards are being built, and sailors are being trained.
AUKUS is also going to attract much more scrutiny.
AUKUS partners unveil plan to develop underwater drones
Three men in suits stand for a press conference in front of the US, Australian and British flags 
The US, Australia and United Kingdom have unveiled a new "signature" project to develop cutting edge weapons systems and sensors for underwater drones.
Labor MP Ed Husic's intervention this week when questioning if Labor should take the chance to reconsider AUKUS wasn't totally shocking, given he's recently been much more inclined to rock the boat.
But the messaging was at least partly targeted at a very real group of Labor supporters with a lot of questions about the government tying itself ever closer to a more unpredictable US administration.
Ministers often point out that AUKUS is the largest industrial project Australia has ever attempted, and the nuclear-powered submarines will be the most potent military asset Australia has ever acquired.
It's not just challenging here. Billions of dollars, a lot of them Australian, are being poured into US shipyards to try and get them producing submarines faster.
And the UK is grappling with its own shipbuilding challenges as it works to have its first AUKUS-class submarine in the water by the late 2030s.
The overriding message this week has been that this change was about making things as simple as possible.
If the government wants to keep Australians on side through a decades-long journey, that lesson applies to the messaging too.

Go Ed ...

And on the principle that one reptile is never good enough for a solid meal full of nutritious silliness, come on down the Lynch mob, who also made an appearance in the weekend edition ...

The header: No whitewashing Henry Nowak’s death: DEI is deadly; From Southampton to Sydney, controversies over race and identity politics rarely weaken progressives. More often, they divide their opponents.

There was no caption for the image, so that the hive mind could plunge into a particularly unsavoury and unpleasant read, a full eight minutes intended to defame even more the reputation of the University of Melbourne.

The pond would usually avoid this sort of carry on, down there with transphobia and other reptile fugly moments, but needs must, as the Lynch mob went there, despite the request of the family ...

...On Tuesday (2 June), Nigel Farage made what he called an “emergency address” to the nation. It was no such thing. It was a cynical act that used the death of a young man to sow division. The police, he said, were more concerned about being accused of racism than of helping a dying man. “An accusation of a racial slur was treated more seriously than an act of murder.”
The Reform leader argued that Nowak’s words – “I can’t breathe” – had echoes of the murder of George Floyd in the US in May 2020. Back then, “Keir Starmer was taking the knee. Black Lives Matter exploded all over the country,” Farage hissed. This time, there was “silence” from politicians and “much of the media”. Proof of a “two-tier culture… where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities”.
This is nonsense. Every broadcaster, newspaper and radio station in the country is leading on the story. Politicians of all stripes have commented on the awful footage. There is unanimity in the belief that something has gone horrendously wrong. It is utterly irresponsible to whip up hatred and encourage people to respond with “pure cold rage”.
Not to be outdone by his former colleague, Rupert Lowe – who now leads Restore Britain – went further. In an incoherent, baseless rage, he asked in a post on X, “How many more young British men and women are going to die?” God willing, none. It is simply not true, as Lowe claimed, that “it’s happening right now, in every city across the country.” Yet, within 11 hours of his post, Lowe’s words had been viewed by 16.5 million people. Many may well believe that “children have been sacrificed to death in order to appease foreign cultures.”
This vile rhetoric has consequences. The Sikh community fears reprisals. Death threats have been issued against police. One misidentified officer has been forced to relocate to protect himself and his family. “Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse,” the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has said.
This is not what Henry’s family wanted. “We do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension,” Mark Nowak told reporters outside court. “We want his story to make our streets safer for everyone.” (New Statesman)

Time now for the Lynch mob to join the rage machine ...

Did police DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) training kill the British teenager Henry Nowak? The legal answer is, of course, no. His convicted killer was Vickrum Digwa. The British Sikh got a life sentence for stabbing the student.
The increasingly politicised answer is yes. Hampshire Police officers have spent so much time in racial literacy classes that, when confronted with the chaotic scenes in a dark Southampton street, they prioritised antiracism over first aid. They handcuffed a dying white man accused of racism and sympathised with his killer of colour who made the false accusation.
So-called “antiracism” has been oversold as a cure for racism in Australian public institutions. Universities are big fans. This American campus approach to race has been thoroughly imbibed on ours. Training in antiracism is becoming ubiquitous in our private corporations, too. Its compulsory enforcement causes more discontent, across all races than it does racial reconciliation.

The Lynch mob compounded matters by dragging MLK into his proceedings...Martin Luther King became the most visible spokesperson and leader in the Civil Rights Movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968.

Martin Luther King longed for the “day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands … at the table of brotherhood”. He would be bemused by his contemporary DEI interpreters. Most reject his approach as a form of “colour-blind racism”. Many prefer the latent violence of a Malcolm X or a Frantz Fanon – but deploy little of their fiery rhetoric.
Take, for example, this academic gobbledygook. In a classroom, it would probably, as it intends, browbeat young white men into a surly silence. It might even be enough to spin out the entire career of their lecturer – where the stakes are low. But how would a pressured beat cop factor it into his decision-making? It is the advice from an antiracist HR consultant, commissioned by the London Metropolitan Police:

Naturally there were images proffered that were designed to shock the hive mind ... A police officer takes a knee in front of protesters near Downing Street during a "Black Lives Matter" protest following the death of George Floyd in the US. Picture: Reuters

Shocking, at least to the Lynch mob.

And before proceeding to the next Lynch mob gobbet, consider this in the Graudian ...

... Within hours of the bodycam footage being released, Reform’s leader, Nigel Farage, said the incident demonstrated a “two-tier Britain … where the rights of white people matter less than ethnic minorities”. What should the response be from those concerned? “Pure cold rage,” Farage said.
Rage did indeed come, in the form of riots in Southampton, complete with Nazi salutes and neo-fascists present. This is all despite the explicit wishes of Nowak’s family that “we do not want [Henry’s] death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension. We want his story to make our streets safer for everyone.” But, weakened by scandals, outflanked on the right by Restore Britain and anxious about its chances in the upcoming Makerfield byelection, Reform is clearly desperate for any kind of culture-war flashpoint to stir up anger in service of its populist project. Do these men know no shame?
It feels perverse that such a tragedy being recast in racial terms makes it necessary to restate the facts of policing in this country. And yet this is necessary because the right has been allowed to seize the narrative around Nowak’s death to construct an inverted reality.
Inequality in policing plainly does exist, and it has been borne out over decades by collected data. Black people in Britain are seven times more likely than white people to die after police restraint. Black children in England and Wales are almost eight times more likely to be strip-searched and are also overrepresented in the use of force through tasers and handcuffs. The disparity in these issues has been campaigned against for decades. And yet, as in the case of UFFC and other campaigns, campaigners have always recognised how bad policing makes all of us unsafe. Nowak’s case could be pulled into this long history of policing failures; instead it has been spun as a nativist tale that represents the threat that immigrant and minority communities present to white British people.

Now marvel at the way that the Lynch mob manages to do a Nigel, and rage on ...

“Neutrality is often presented as a position of fairness, balance, or objectivity. But in practice, especially in institutions like the Met, neutrality is not neutral. It reflects dominant norms, particularly whiteness, in how risk, credibility, professionalism, and even ‘evidence’ are defined. To claim neutrality is to claim distance from bias. But that distance is not real. It is structurally coded. It hides power while appearing impartial.”
Unlike professors and their students, when police officers are subject to DEI admonitions, when they are trained to view every encounter through a racial justice lens, the consequences can be catastrophic. So, I’m sympathetic to the claim that an overly left-wing police culture provided an enabling context for Nowak’s mistreatment. I’ll address this first.
My larger question, flowing from it, is why obvious failures of DEI, antiracism and identity politics, like this, don’t damage their political champions. Why does the right fracture in the wake of these failures and the left’s political ­dominion endure?
‘Two-tier’ approach
Was a DEI regime in the Hampshire police complicit in this sad episode? The UK media is awash with answers to this question. The country has experienced racially charged murders before. This one feels different; it highlights a cure that made the disease worse. In 1993, a black teenager was murdered at a London bus stop by a gang of white racists. The inadequate police investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s killing was the spur for significant reform, possibly an overcorrection.
An infrastructure that assumed “institutional racism” and the prosecution of “non-crime hate incidents” (of remarks overheard in a post office, for example, or posted online) got a priority in British ­policing in the decades after Lawrence’s murder. The killing of ­George Floyd in 2020, 6400km away, catalysed this “two-tier” approach, that policing was contingent on the race and ethnicity of the alleged victim and perpetrator.
According to Alison Heydari, the former head of the UK policing’s national diversity plan, “We are looking at reversing racism that exists not just in policing but around society”. Educators will be familiar with this assertion: that their institutions exist not to expose students to “the best that has been thought and said in the world” (the point of education according to Matthew Arnold in 1869), but to make their young charges the agents of progressive social justice, to be warriors for historical reconciliation.

As if to provide a feeble counter-balance, the reptiles slipped in a couple of snaps showing other matters ... George Floyd repeatedly said he could not breathe as he was pinned to the ground by an officer with his knee on Floyd's neck. He died on the street. Picture: via AFP; London teen Stephen Lawrence who was the victim of racist attack by white youths who stabbed him to death at a bus stop in southeast London in 1993.

 

And while we're at it, what about that story in the Graudian?

Thousands march for French schoolgirl murdered after police failed to question suspect
Local man had been accused of rape in months before murder but series of delays meant police had failed to summon him for questioning

Sorry, doesn't conform to the lizard Oz, Lynch mob rage machine model, as the Lynch mob rampaged on ...

In 2022, Olivia Pinkney, Hampshire’s chief constable, proudly stated: “Being anti-racist, ethical and inclusive is top of our agenda”. Note, not fighting crime and criminals. It is hard not to conclude that when her officers catered to the interests of Vickrum Digwa over those of his victim, that night in December 2025, they were following her orders.
The Nowak killing represents the clearest sign of a reversal in that cultural turn. In the wake of George Floyd’s gruesome murder, the left attempted to renew their experiment in racial engineering. But the populist right are making similar hay post-Nowak. Progressives have been naive to assume that their exploitation of identity politics would not be mimicked by the right.
What killed Nowak was less a Sikh ceremonial knife (a kirpan) than his white identity. Or, put differently, a DEI policing culture made his whiteness suspect and denied him (possibly) lifesaving treatment. The equivalent claim is made about George Floyd. A bad cop did not kill Floyd; the legacy of slavery did. Ipso facto, America (but also every other white majority nation) must dedicate its public policy to the eradication of that legacy.

The reptiles flung in an audio distraction ...

The Front
Pure, cold rage: are politicians exploiting white teen's murder?

A more interesting question would have been whether the lizard Oz and the Lynch mob were exploiting the murder, but never mind ...

What goes around comes around. As with Floyd, Nowak’s death has been speedily politicised. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform, said the student was “killed by DEI”. He condemned “a two-tier culture where some groups receive greater protection than others”. There is not a fag paper’s worth of difference between this populist framing of the Southampton murder and the progressive framing of the one in Minneapolis.
If we add an Australian case study, the commonalities become even starker. Kumanjayi Walker was a 19-year-old Warlpiri man from a remote Northern Territory community. On November 9, 2019, NT police officers attempted to arrest him. During the ensuing struggle, Walker stabbed Constable Zachary Rolfe with (non-ceremonial) scissors. Rolfe then fired three shots, fatally wounding Walker.
The pattern of interpretation and outrage that we see in Floyd and Nowak was set in the Walker case. “Institutional racism,” claimed the left; “A bad dude,” claimed the right. Left: “White Australia must atone for its racist crimes across history.” Right: “Indigenous communities must work with police to remove criminals.”

And here we come to the usual tediousness ...

Woke versus broke
Lawrence-Walker-Floyd-Nowak: their deaths have a large structural cause depending on the political interests of those making that claim. Justice is in the eye of the beholding politician. This invites the question: Who prospers? Which side of politics extracts the greatest advantage from how it exploits these policing scandals? I think, with one important caveat, the ­answer is the progressive left.
The re-election of Donald Trump, on an explicitly anti-woke, DEI-repeal agenda, is some evidence that the cultural hegemony of progressives is not an inevitable electoral asset to them. I’m not so sure. America and Trump may be the exception here. In Australia and the UK, the political and populist right consistently fails to turn outrage at purported woke excess into electoral gains. The right-wing fracture over Henry Novak is increasingly clear. Farage insisted that “white lives matter”. Kemi Bedenoch, the Conservative leader, was quick to dismiss him: “I don’t want to hear about black lives matter. I don’t want to hear about white lives matter. We all matter. Enough of this nonsense.”

At this point, the pond was reminded that way back, being "woke" was something that even fundamentalist Xians had no problem with.

In the 1950s, the Jehovah's Witnesses published a magazine with the title Awake!, citing Romans 13:11 as the source of inspiration for the title, "Now it is high time to awake".

The January 1957 issue began by asking "Are you really awake?"

"Some people look at the title of this magazine and indignantly reply 'I'm awake; why offer it to me?' But are they really awake? Are you? Many people are awake to the latest neighborhood gossip or to the newspapers' latest scandals, but are you awake to the urgency of our times and to the fulfillment of vital prophecies."

Yes, wake from your slumber, get fully woke (Now there's a bit of woke arcana).

Suffice to say that the Lynch mob is fully awake to the power of demented rage machines of the Nige kind... Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was quick to lay the blame for Nowak’s death squarely at the feet of DEI. Picture: Getty Images

On and on the rage machine raged ...

From the Labour government? Beyond condemning knife crime – crickets. Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, observed with satisfaction how his opponents across the aisle were rupturing over a tragic situation made possible by his progressive politics. He is threatened by his “allies” on the left, less his ­enemies on the right.
Anthony Albanese failed a fundamental test of leadership over the Bondi attack on Jewish Australians in December. But what political price has he paid? The fracturing of his opponents on the right. The competition between Liberals, Nationals and One Nation to articulate the problems of multiculturalism and mass migration has been a positive boon to his government, which never quite has to deal with the social consequences of either Labor nostrum.
In these Anglophone parliamentary systems, DEI has produced a fracturing of the right resulting in large progressive majorities. DEI Labor has led to a possible Liberal electoral extinction and no real chance of a Pauline Hanson ministry. DEI Labour has led to Tory collapse and the prospect of Reform and Restore parties filling the vacuum.
DEI Canada, a “woke dystopia”, according to podcaster Steven Crowder, re-elected the government that had led this progressive transformation under Justin Trudeau. He passed the keys to Rideau Cottage not to a Conservative alternative, but to the progressive technocrat, Mark Carney.
Why did the DEI Democrats in the United States not prosper as did their ideological brethren in Australia, Britain and Canada? Joe Biden did, of course, win his election in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder. The Covid crisis compounded Trump’s woes in 2020. But the ensuing progressive agenda and woke overreach that accompanied much of Biden’s term seems only to have helped Donald Trump’s revival.
American exception
His success, given the cultural dominion of his left-wing opponents, shows how a presidential system, where popular anger gets channelled through a president can be electorally effective. None of the centre-right parties in the English-speaking parliamentary democracies has turned the left’s DEI agenda into an electoral asset.
The British Tories have for years been abetting it. A decade and a half of Conservative government (2010-25) left the nation more subject to identity politics. The police, the civil service, the universities all became bastions of woke under a nominally right-of-centre government.

Just to remind the hive mind of the urgent need to politicise and demonise exceptionally bad policing of the kind that makes up the content of many YouTube channels, the reptiles flung in a snap of the victim, Henry Nowak death has brought DEI into brutally sharp focus. Picture: Supplied

It's brought DEI into brutally sharp focus? How about it's brought right wing sharks and the lizard Oz rage machine into brutally sharp focus?

That final image confirmed and completed the exploitation circle, and so to the last gobbet from this Lynch mob version of the rage machine ...

The Liberal National Coalition enjoyed power for almost as long (2013-22). Australian public life, like Britain’s, became more progressive not less. The belated return of Tony Abbott to national politics is a reminder that his party gave up on fighting a culture war when it replaced him with Malcolm Turnbull.
Abbott’s enforced absence played some part in the neutering of any LNP response to the Labor-Green cultural hegemony. Losing his own seat to a teal in 2019 did not help either. Pauline Hanson filled that vacuum. Angus Taylor’s necessary rebirth as a culture warrior reveals the fractured right-side of our politics. Albo must be laughing at his good fortune.
Indeed, the greater the centre-right outrage over some failure of progressive multiculturalism, from Kumanjayi Walker and Little Baby to the Bondi massacre and Henry Novak, the more dissonant the centre-right becomes. We are left not with a conspiracy. Rather, we have a progressive political class and cultural elite, across the English-speaking parliamentary democracies of the West, who have an inadvertent interest in the failure of their DEI project. Why? Because the angry reaction to these failures divides their opponents.
In America, with its presidential system, and an incumbent effective at the channelling of popular discontent through it, progressive weakness faces exposure and the right prospers. In Australia’s multiparty system that effect is reversed. A blustering and fracturing right looks set to guarantee a large Labor majority well into the 2030s. The same could well be true of the United Kingdom.
Diversity, equity and inclusion, it turns out, works for its political champions even when its excesses are at their most grotesque – as on that dark Southampton driveway.

And now to the credit, because the pond must ensure that the defamation of the University of Melbourne is made known as far and as wide as possible:

— Timothy J. Lynch is professor of American politics at the University of Melbourne.

Next week the Lynch mob raging at the ethnic cleansing of Gaza?

Don't hold your breath ...likely it's too DEI ...

What a dismal bit of exploitative, bilious thinking that was.

How much more joyous to contemplate the AUKUS debacle ...

And remember that infallible Pope, wasted yesterday, and now in its right and proper place ...