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...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.”
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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)
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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?
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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 ...
