Brownie was the point man this day inn the lizard Oz, taking over from simplistic Simon to downplay the renewal of the marital vows... and give the beefy prime Angus boofhead from down Goulburn way yet another break ...though the only point of real interest was the unerring ability of the graphics department to produce a wretched collage ...
For those who care, the intermittent archive is to hand ...
Newspoll: Ley’s historic low gives Taylor a challenge trigger
The Coalition’s primary vote plunges to 18 per cent as One Nation’s core support skyrockets to 27 per cent, with Sussan Ley now the most unpopular major party leader in 23 years.
By Greg Brown
The Coalition’s primary vote plunges to 18 per cent as One Nation’s core support skyrockets to 27 per cent, with Sussan Ley now the most unpopular major party leader in 23 years.
By Greg Brown
COMMENTARY by Greg Brown
Ley’s in real danger this week, but the Coalition has bigger problems
Sussan Ley could face a challenge later this week, while the newly reformed Coalition is at risk of losing its status as Australia’s dominant conservative force.
Ley’s in real danger this week, but the Coalition has bigger problems
Sussan Ley could face a challenge later this week, while the newly reformed Coalition is at risk of losing its status as Australia’s dominant conservative force.
A bigger problem than having an actual leader?
Yes, you see it was little to be proud of man that really attracted Brownie's ire ...
...While it is Ley’s leadership that is under threat, the most damaging Coalition figure in recent weeks has been David Littleproud. Worryingly, Littleproud showed no contrition or regret on Sunday for publicly blowing up the Coalition in a move that has seen One Nation increase its primary vote by 5 per cent in just three weeks.
Instead, Littleproud was full of self-praise and pathetically blamed the tactics of the Albanese government for the circumstances that led to the split.
His behaviour over the past three weeks, according to him, showed “maturity”, “courage”, “leadership”, “strength”, “character” and “principles”.
Littleproud was on the verge of tears in a press conference on Sunday as he described how brave he had been to take a stand on an issue of conscience, given the Nationals partyroom was fundamentally opposed to the crackdown on hate groups.
This argument ignores the reality that the stoush did not have to play out so publicly.
When Ley accepted the resignations of three Nationals senators who crossed the floor over the hate speech legislation, Littleproud could have absolutely voiced his dismay and declared he was revisiting the Coalition agreement. And those negotiations could have played out while the parties were still together.
Instead, he announced at an informal doorstop on the national day of mourning to victims of the Bondi terror attack that his party was exiting the historic political union.
Seventeen days of chaos and enmity ensued, and the winners were Albanese and Hanson.
Instead, Littleproud was full of self-praise and pathetically blamed the tactics of the Albanese government for the circumstances that led to the split.
His behaviour over the past three weeks, according to him, showed “maturity”, “courage”, “leadership”, “strength”, “character” and “principles”.
Littleproud was on the verge of tears in a press conference on Sunday as he described how brave he had been to take a stand on an issue of conscience, given the Nationals partyroom was fundamentally opposed to the crackdown on hate groups.
This argument ignores the reality that the stoush did not have to play out so publicly.
When Ley accepted the resignations of three Nationals senators who crossed the floor over the hate speech legislation, Littleproud could have absolutely voiced his dismay and declared he was revisiting the Coalition agreement. And those negotiations could have played out while the parties were still together.
Instead, he announced at an informal doorstop on the national day of mourning to victims of the Bondi terror attack that his party was exiting the historic political union.
Seventeen days of chaos and enmity ensued, and the winners were Albanese and Hanson.
The lettuce is so over it. There's only one question: does the beefy prize Angus boofhead have the ticker or not?
Over the weekend garrulous Gemma was also sounding impatient ... and the pond thought it was wrong not to do a catch-up:
Libs need to hurry, or they will lose our votes forever
The sisterhood is fed up with being patronised and insulted by the conservative side of politics. The failure to connect shows Liberals just don’t get women voters, and risk losing their votes forever.
Gemma Tognini
The sisterhood is fed up with being patronised and insulted by the conservative side of politics. The failure to connect shows Liberals just don’t get women voters, and risk losing their votes forever.
Gemma Tognini
Gemma grated away as she came to this conclusion ...
...I know some of you are waiting to hear me talk about Opposition Leader Sussan Ley. Surely, a woman at the helm of the parliamentary party means there’s no issue. I take a different view.
Firstly, everyone knows whoever is tapped to lead after electoral dismemberment the likes of which happened last time, is just a glorified nightwatchman. They’re Dizzy Gillespie. They’re Nathan Lyon. Sure, they might occasionally score a ton, but everyone knows they’re just marking time.
Ley leadership on life support
I wanted Ms Ley to be a good leader, to succeed, and said as much. She is not, and has not. In corporate life, any CEO presiding over such a disastrous, chaotic, mess would be done. Keeping Ms Ley on life support is just as insulting to women because it’s tokenism. Move her on and find someone else (I don’t say that ironically). Give us a competent leader, with or without a uterus. It just feels like the party is in denial; like a person who keeps their pet alive long after it’s time for them to head to the big farm in the sky.
One friend offered a response to my question this week which I told her I would happily co-opt and share because it speaks to the heart of the thing. It’s not so much conservative or liberal ideology. Rather, it’s the disingenuous actions of the Coalition over the past 15 or so years, attempting to speak for and support women. It felt forced. And it has allowed the untruthful narrative (conservatives hate women) to spread. Historically, conservative policies across a range of areas have overwhelmingly benefited women but this is lost in the mire.
Like me, my friend is a lifelong conservative voter. A relationship counsellor once told me that women typically will give warning after warning. When things are unravelling, they might hint at first, but they’ll soon be explicit. Eventually, if nothing changes, one day you’ll just find they’re gone.
Firstly, everyone knows whoever is tapped to lead after electoral dismemberment the likes of which happened last time, is just a glorified nightwatchman. They’re Dizzy Gillespie. They’re Nathan Lyon. Sure, they might occasionally score a ton, but everyone knows they’re just marking time.
Ley leadership on life support
I wanted Ms Ley to be a good leader, to succeed, and said as much. She is not, and has not. In corporate life, any CEO presiding over such a disastrous, chaotic, mess would be done. Keeping Ms Ley on life support is just as insulting to women because it’s tokenism. Move her on and find someone else (I don’t say that ironically). Give us a competent leader, with or without a uterus. It just feels like the party is in denial; like a person who keeps their pet alive long after it’s time for them to head to the big farm in the sky.
One friend offered a response to my question this week which I told her I would happily co-opt and share because it speaks to the heart of the thing. It’s not so much conservative or liberal ideology. Rather, it’s the disingenuous actions of the Coalition over the past 15 or so years, attempting to speak for and support women. It felt forced. And it has allowed the untruthful narrative (conservatives hate women) to spread. Historically, conservative policies across a range of areas have overwhelmingly benefited women but this is lost in the mire.
Like me, my friend is a lifelong conservative voter. A relationship counsellor once told me that women typically will give warning after warning. When things are unravelling, they might hint at first, but they’ll soon be explicit. Eventually, if nothing changes, one day you’ll just find they’re gone.
Indeed, indeed...surely there's a song lyric to hand that'll suit...
Someday I'll have a Lib leader
A leader isn't easy to come by
By the time the beefy boofhead's come by I'll be gone
I'll sing my song and I'll be gone
A leader isn't easy to come by
By the time the beefy boofhead's come by I'll be gone
I'll sing my song and I'll be gone
What else?
Well the Australian Daily Jewish News was in expected form ...
Respect? That's a tad hard to come by ...
The pond will probably repeat some of these images for the duration of the visit, but not to worry, assorted reptiles rallied to the ADJNews cause ...
COMMENTARY by Cameron Stewart
Hypocrisy of protesters creates a more divided, uglier Australia
Those who protest Isaac Herzog’s visit should ask themselves what they really hope to achieve.
Hypocrisy of protesters creates a more divided, uglier Australia
Those who protest Isaac Herzog’s visit should ask themselves what they really hope to achieve.
A rogue member of the Kelly gang didn't think a little bomb signing was an issue ...
Genocide’ attacks on Herzog only expose the hypocrisy of his accusers
The rank hypocrisy of those calling for the cancellation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia is breathtaking.
By Mike Kelly
The rank hypocrisy of those calling for the cancellation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia is breathtaking.
By Mike Kelly
Marvellous really, how the reptiles love themselves a good old-fashioned ethnic cleansing...
And to be fair, if you want to tear up the rules and indulge in a little genocide or territorial warfare or perhaps bomb Ukraine into freezing oblivions, you just need to invite anarchist Lord Downer to the feast ...
The header: Let’s be honest, the rules-based order never really existed; At the heart of the rules-based international system is the UN. The dewy-eyed multi-lateralists have great faith in the UN, but if you were US president and you looked at the modern world, you’d wonder what the UN was doing to solve those problems.
The caption for the hapless Canuck about to feel Lord Downer's wrath: Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney makes an announcement while visiting an auto-parts plant in Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada.
Lord Downer this day was feeling pretty MAGA ... elbows up, Canada, there's nothing like an Adelaide ponce to show fists of steel and a devotion to the survival of the fittest ...
Mark Carney’s speech to the Davos World Economic Forum a couple of weeks ago was greeted with rapturous applause. The Canadian Prime Minister argued that the rules-based international order had broken down and been replaced by great-power bullying. In response to this, Carney contended that middle powers should band together to rebalance great powers.
This was, of course, a barely disguised attack on Donald Trump. But there are two things wrong with the Carney speech. First, if he wanted to attack President Trump, he should have had the guts to call him out directly; hiding behind anonymous wording only demonstrates weakness.
What’s more, he implied that America was the moral equivalent of Russia and China. Frankly, that’s absurd.
But second, his thesis is based on a false premise. The world has not, as he suggested, operated smoothly and without conflict under an inspiring rules-based international system. Yes, most Western democracies have abided by international law but the trouble is their adversaries have not. China’s claim to contested reefs in the South China Sea and its occupation of those reefs is contrary to international law. An international tribunal concluded that China’s claims have no legal basis under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The tribunal also found that many of the areas China occupied violated The Philippines’ rights in its own exclusive economic zone. China rejected the tribunal’s ruling and ignored it.
This was, of course, a barely disguised attack on Donald Trump. But there are two things wrong with the Carney speech. First, if he wanted to attack President Trump, he should have had the guts to call him out directly; hiding behind anonymous wording only demonstrates weakness.
What’s more, he implied that America was the moral equivalent of Russia and China. Frankly, that’s absurd.
But second, his thesis is based on a false premise. The world has not, as he suggested, operated smoothly and without conflict under an inspiring rules-based international system. Yes, most Western democracies have abided by international law but the trouble is their adversaries have not. China’s claim to contested reefs in the South China Sea and its occupation of those reefs is contrary to international law. An international tribunal concluded that China’s claims have no legal basis under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The tribunal also found that many of the areas China occupied violated The Philippines’ rights in its own exclusive economic zone. China rejected the tribunal’s ruling and ignored it.
Absurd? He certainly shares similarities with mad Mullahs ...
At this point the reptiles dropped in a snap of Lord Downer's hero, President Donald Trump is photographed by a gaggle of journalists at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
That sent Lord Downer into a frenzy of piety:
Then there was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s hard to imagine what basis in international law that had. As for Iran, it has totally ignored international law by funding and arming proxy organisations to destroy the sovereign state of Israel. What’s more, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Building nuclear weapons, which it has been trying to do for some time now, is a breach of that treaty.
This is the central problem: autocracies don’t care about the rule of law, including the rule of international law, and they have successfully exploited the West’s adherence to it.
For years the West has done very little about these violations. China hasn’t been punished for illegally militarising reefs in the South China Sea. When Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and sent tanks into Crimea in 2014, almost no action was taken by the international community at all.
Yet when the West has taken military actions, such as in Libya in 2011 and Iraq and Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, these were conducted in accordance with international law. It’s true some people contested whether the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan was legal but the relevant governments all asserted it was.
At the heart of the rules-based international system is the UN. The dewy-eyed multi-lateralists have great faith in the UN, but if you were the president of the US and you looked at the modern world, you’d wonder what the UN was doing to solve those problems.
The Ukraine war has been raging since 2014. What has Antonio Guterres done to try to bring that war to an end? The turmoil in the Middle East, driven by Iran and its proxies, has elicited lectures to the Israelis from the UN secretary-general for defending their country. But nothing else.
This is the central problem: autocracies don’t care about the rule of law, including the rule of international law, and they have successfully exploited the West’s adherence to it.
For years the West has done very little about these violations. China hasn’t been punished for illegally militarising reefs in the South China Sea. When Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and sent tanks into Crimea in 2014, almost no action was taken by the international community at all.
Yet when the West has taken military actions, such as in Libya in 2011 and Iraq and Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, these were conducted in accordance with international law. It’s true some people contested whether the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan was legal but the relevant governments all asserted it was.
At the heart of the rules-based international system is the UN. The dewy-eyed multi-lateralists have great faith in the UN, but if you were the president of the US and you looked at the modern world, you’d wonder what the UN was doing to solve those problems.
The Ukraine war has been raging since 2014. What has Antonio Guterres done to try to bring that war to an end? The turmoil in the Middle East, driven by Iran and its proxies, has elicited lectures to the Israelis from the UN secretary-general for defending their country. But nothing else.
It goes without saying that Lord Downer, as well as blaming the bespectacled UN ... United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights Situation in the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese leaves a press conference during a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
... was completely on board with the Australian Daily Zionist News ...
Indeed, some people working for UNRWA, the UN agency in Gaza, were complicit in the October 7 massacre of Israelis. Between 2015 and 2024, there were 154 resolutions in the UN General Assembly, largely condemning Israel, and only 71 resolutions passed on other countries. It’s hard to believe the UN is playing a constructive role. It is simply being provocative.
The UN special envoy on human rights in the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, is rabidly anti-Israel and, as many Jews would see it, antisemitic. So hostile is the UN secretary-general and his agencies to Israel that the organisation can play no real role in solving that problem.
When it comes to the South China Sea, even AI can’t find any reference to the secretary-general’s admonition of China’s rulers.
Guterres is particularly weak. He is more a secretary than a general. A former socialist prime minister of Portugal, he tries to avoid alienating the Chinese and Russian leadership. From time to time, he does admonish Trump. But, of course, that would be fashionable within the UN Secretariat.
Now consider trade. Suddenly the Chinese and the Europeans are proclaiming their love for free trade. But hang on: it’s almost impossible to sell agricultural products of any kind into the European Union. It is highly protectionist. And as for China, it’s a remarkable thing that a country with such a history of protectionism has become a verbal advocate of free trade but doesn’t practise it.
The international rules-based trade system has allowed many parts of the world to maintain high tariff barriers and quotas, restricting international trade.
The UN special envoy on human rights in the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, is rabidly anti-Israel and, as many Jews would see it, antisemitic. So hostile is the UN secretary-general and his agencies to Israel that the organisation can play no real role in solving that problem.
When it comes to the South China Sea, even AI can’t find any reference to the secretary-general’s admonition of China’s rulers.
Guterres is particularly weak. He is more a secretary than a general. A former socialist prime minister of Portugal, he tries to avoid alienating the Chinese and Russian leadership. From time to time, he does admonish Trump. But, of course, that would be fashionable within the UN Secretariat.
Now consider trade. Suddenly the Chinese and the Europeans are proclaiming their love for free trade. But hang on: it’s almost impossible to sell agricultural products of any kind into the European Union. It is highly protectionist. And as for China, it’s a remarkable thing that a country with such a history of protectionism has become a verbal advocate of free trade but doesn’t practise it.
The international rules-based trade system has allowed many parts of the world to maintain high tariff barriers and quotas, restricting international trade.
The reptiles flung in another snap to irritate His Lordship ... UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres hold a joint press conference with the European Council President during the European Union Summit.
Lord Downer eventually got around to an extremely mild billy goat butt, of the "I do not always agree with Trump's measures" kind ... but you know when a Downer goat does a butt, it's only so that the butt can be butted away ...
Looked at from Trump’s point of view, the rules-based international system led by the UN – which he is urged by Davos attendees to praise – has been remarkably unsuccessful. True, Trump has disrupted the status quo so loved by the Davos bien pensants, such as Carney, but he has intervened where the UN has failed. That is, to attempt to end the Ukraine war, to neutralise the impact of Iran on the Middle East, and to confront international protectionism, albeit using the retaliatory power of tariffs.
I do not always agree with Trump’s measures, and I certainly don’t think tariffs pass the test of economic rationality. But it is entirely understandable why, in the end, the Americans have just got fed up with the posturing of other Western countries, who have done nothing effective to solve these problems.
The President’s proposed board of peace probably won’t be a long-term answer to the failure of the UN, which continues to talk itself into irrelevance, but something will gradually emerge. In the meantime, let’s face facts: the so-called dreamy, rules-based international system, so beloved by Carney and his like, never really existed. Yes, it might be a great ideal, but too many countries and too many autocrats just won’t sign up to it.
I do not always agree with Trump’s measures, and I certainly don’t think tariffs pass the test of economic rationality. But it is entirely understandable why, in the end, the Americans have just got fed up with the posturing of other Western countries, who have done nothing effective to solve these problems.
The President’s proposed board of peace probably won’t be a long-term answer to the failure of the UN, which continues to talk itself into irrelevance, but something will gradually emerge. In the meantime, let’s face facts: the so-called dreamy, rules-based international system, so beloved by Carney and his like, never really existed. Yes, it might be a great ideal, but too many countries and too many autocrats just won’t sign up to it.
Most of all King Donald, speaking as Lord Downer was of autocrats?
The pond hadn't tagged His Lordship as a devotee of Nietzsche but his "will to power", der Wille zur Macht if you will, is remarkable ...
What a dreamer, what a vision...
And so to the careening Caterist for the day, and up against wacky, zany Lord Downer, he looked and sounded almost staid, with a pro forma column that attempted a Groaning ...
The header: In Chalmers-speak, ‘reform’ and ‘inequity’ are code for tax grab; Envy used to sit at number four, sandwiched between lust and gluttony, on the list of the seven deadliest sins. The Albanese government wants to turn it into a virtue by rebranding it as intergenerational equity, the catchcry of the new class war.
The caption for the source of the Caterist rage: Treasurer Jim Chalmers during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
The reptiles thought so little of this four minute rant that they only interrupted with one AV distraction, as the Caterist did his best to imitate Dame Groan ...
When Jim Chalmers flags tax reform as the theme of his forthcoming budget, which part of the government’s grasping revenue machine does he intend to improve?
We’ve heard nothing to suggest he wants to make it simpler. There’s no hint that he intends to remove the anomalies and disincentives that prevent individuals and businesses from thriving.
Indeed, there’s precious little evidence to suggest he intends to reform anything in the literal sense of the word. Instead, his chief and probably only intention is to raise more money to buy goodies to hand out to others in the hope of being re-elected – the one thing the government is genuinely passionate about.
Hence, there is no need for detailed economic modelling or extensive consultations. The only calculations the government is likely to make before removing the 27-year-old concessions on capital gains tax will be political. The noble art of reform as practised by substantial governments is invoked as a rhetorical cover for a sordid tax grab.
Labor has revived the politics of envy to persuade us the capital returns from years of sacrificial investment are windfall gains that must be balanced against the windfall losses of others.
It wants us to believe 2.3 million taxpayers, who have gone to the expense of buying and letting investment property, are greedy and unscrupulous landlords stockpiling homes that could be purchased by others. The countless hours spent finding a plumber to fix a broken sink or a tradie to fix a leaking roof without being ripped off are unworthy of reward in this zero-sum game. The secondary effects of this kneejerk policy are ignored. Homes relinquished by investors could conceivably lower property prices at the margins, but it will reduce the stock or rental property leading to a corresponding increase in rents.
Envy used to sit at number four sandwiched between lust and gluttony on the list of the seven deadliest sins. The Albanese government wants to turn it into a virtue by rebranding it as intergenerational equity, the catchcry of the new class war.
Like the old class war, intergenerational equity is a false war, pitching contrived categories of people against one another in a contest for a fixed quantity of resources. From this standpoint, baby boomers are the 21st-century bourgeoisie, merchants and property owners who have gained illicit control of the cultural, social and financial capital.
The new peasantry – gen Z and millennials – have been condemned to work solely for their own subsistence, according to this fatalistic narrative. They have been impoverished by exorbitant rents extorted by the landlord class, with no earthly chance of rising above their status without the government’s benign intervention.
Nominating beneficiaries of social justice measures by class rather than by individual circumstances is fraught with complications that inevitably result in new injustices. Consider the Albanese government’s attempt to address intergenerational injustice by paying off debts willingly incurred by students in pursuit of the presumed advantages of higher education. It meant that taxes paid by a 65-year-old bricklayer living in rented accommodation, with nothing more to look forward to than a state pension, could end up bailing out young lawyers or merchant bankers who, unlike the brickie, may well have had access to the bank of mum and dad.
We’ve heard nothing to suggest he wants to make it simpler. There’s no hint that he intends to remove the anomalies and disincentives that prevent individuals and businesses from thriving.
Indeed, there’s precious little evidence to suggest he intends to reform anything in the literal sense of the word. Instead, his chief and probably only intention is to raise more money to buy goodies to hand out to others in the hope of being re-elected – the one thing the government is genuinely passionate about.
Hence, there is no need for detailed economic modelling or extensive consultations. The only calculations the government is likely to make before removing the 27-year-old concessions on capital gains tax will be political. The noble art of reform as practised by substantial governments is invoked as a rhetorical cover for a sordid tax grab.
Labor has revived the politics of envy to persuade us the capital returns from years of sacrificial investment are windfall gains that must be balanced against the windfall losses of others.
It wants us to believe 2.3 million taxpayers, who have gone to the expense of buying and letting investment property, are greedy and unscrupulous landlords stockpiling homes that could be purchased by others. The countless hours spent finding a plumber to fix a broken sink or a tradie to fix a leaking roof without being ripped off are unworthy of reward in this zero-sum game. The secondary effects of this kneejerk policy are ignored. Homes relinquished by investors could conceivably lower property prices at the margins, but it will reduce the stock or rental property leading to a corresponding increase in rents.
Envy used to sit at number four sandwiched between lust and gluttony on the list of the seven deadliest sins. The Albanese government wants to turn it into a virtue by rebranding it as intergenerational equity, the catchcry of the new class war.
Like the old class war, intergenerational equity is a false war, pitching contrived categories of people against one another in a contest for a fixed quantity of resources. From this standpoint, baby boomers are the 21st-century bourgeoisie, merchants and property owners who have gained illicit control of the cultural, social and financial capital.
The new peasantry – gen Z and millennials – have been condemned to work solely for their own subsistence, according to this fatalistic narrative. They have been impoverished by exorbitant rents extorted by the landlord class, with no earthly chance of rising above their status without the government’s benign intervention.
Nominating beneficiaries of social justice measures by class rather than by individual circumstances is fraught with complications that inevitably result in new injustices. Consider the Albanese government’s attempt to address intergenerational injustice by paying off debts willingly incurred by students in pursuit of the presumed advantages of higher education. It meant that taxes paid by a 65-year-old bricklayer living in rented accommodation, with nothing more to look forward to than a state pension, could end up bailing out young lawyers or merchant bankers who, unlike the brickie, may well have had access to the bank of mum and dad.
After that outburst, the reptiles doubled down with a burst of actual AV Caterism, fresh from the quarry of life, Menzies Research Centre Senior Fellow Nick Cater says Australians are seeing political figures as taking the public for “granted”. “These revelations about Anika Wells and others in the party,” Mr Cater said. “They think the political class are taking them for granted.”
What a relief they avoided showing the Caterist. Even an array of heads from the back makes for more pleasant viewing...
As for Wells, best get her coming and not going ...
Sheesh, what a missed opportunity to give her a hard time about going on a junket ... as the Caterist resumed his rant ...
Yet we are deterred from dwelling on these regressive anomalies by the moral force of the social justice argument. To reject the framing of intergenerational equity is to favour inequity, which in today’s unthinking climate is a sin.
To recognise how unserious our government has become, we need only cast our minds back a little over a quarter of a century to the lasting reforms that introduced CGT concessions in the first place. The change emerged from the Ralph Review of Business Taxation in 1999, part of a broader attempt by the Howard government to widen the tax base to make it fair, efficient and less distortionary. Nine taxes were abolished and one, the GST, was introduced. Company and income taxes were lowered.
Many strong economic minds devoted much time to ensuring the reforms were right, and they achieved the higher aims of making Australia internationally competitive, friendly to investors and encouraging to would-be savers. The details were vigorously debated in serious newspapers, including the Australian Financial Review, which supported the measures, urging Treasurer Peter Costello to reform faster and harder.
The Howard-Costello encouragement to mums and dads to invest in shares and property as a means of accumulating a nest egg for retirement was spectacularly successful. Together with compulsory superannuation savings, they have given many who once would have fallen back on the state pension the dignity of paying their own way in retirement.
The reforms created a culture of aspiration, encouraging people of meagre means to save in the hope of being better off tomorrow. Their frugality contributed to the investment that stimulated growth and prosperity. The trillions of dollars sitting in superannuation, pension accounts or tied up in property represent wealth that was created, not plundered.
Twenty years ago, the Fin would have got that. Today it has simply fallen for the spin, parroting the government’s line that the 50 per cent tax discount would “cost” the government $247bn in forgone revenue, as if all our private funds belonged to the government except those it charitably allows us to keep. It recently editorialised about the “unequal distribution of the tax burden” that made “the status quo unsustainable”. Scaling back the CGT discount was “worthy of serious consideration”, it argued.
So this is what it has come to in the post-serious age. Un-serious journalists, poorly educated in economics or the delicate art of policy-making, urging an insubstantial government to continue on its merry way, scavenging the last rotting fruit from the reforms of the late 20th century to invest in its splendid vision of a just society.
Meanwhile, a much-diminished conservative opposition, frightened of its own shadow, stages vaudeville entertainment during sitting weeks, thus ensuring no serious analysis of this shoddy government will ever be published or broadcast. For anyone given to conspiracy theories, it would be easy to believe they’re all in on this – the executive, the opposition and the fourth estate – working together to eliminate the last traces of aspiration from this country.
If the Liberal Party is to survive, it must resist the siren song of the government’s contrived narrative and advocate tax reform that encourages enterprise and engenders hope. The message from the dismal poll numbers is clear: Australians want a reforming alternative to Labor’s economic strategy of managed decline.
To recognise how unserious our government has become, we need only cast our minds back a little over a quarter of a century to the lasting reforms that introduced CGT concessions in the first place. The change emerged from the Ralph Review of Business Taxation in 1999, part of a broader attempt by the Howard government to widen the tax base to make it fair, efficient and less distortionary. Nine taxes were abolished and one, the GST, was introduced. Company and income taxes were lowered.
Many strong economic minds devoted much time to ensuring the reforms were right, and they achieved the higher aims of making Australia internationally competitive, friendly to investors and encouraging to would-be savers. The details were vigorously debated in serious newspapers, including the Australian Financial Review, which supported the measures, urging Treasurer Peter Costello to reform faster and harder.
The Howard-Costello encouragement to mums and dads to invest in shares and property as a means of accumulating a nest egg for retirement was spectacularly successful. Together with compulsory superannuation savings, they have given many who once would have fallen back on the state pension the dignity of paying their own way in retirement.
The reforms created a culture of aspiration, encouraging people of meagre means to save in the hope of being better off tomorrow. Their frugality contributed to the investment that stimulated growth and prosperity. The trillions of dollars sitting in superannuation, pension accounts or tied up in property represent wealth that was created, not plundered.
Twenty years ago, the Fin would have got that. Today it has simply fallen for the spin, parroting the government’s line that the 50 per cent tax discount would “cost” the government $247bn in forgone revenue, as if all our private funds belonged to the government except those it charitably allows us to keep. It recently editorialised about the “unequal distribution of the tax burden” that made “the status quo unsustainable”. Scaling back the CGT discount was “worthy of serious consideration”, it argued.
So this is what it has come to in the post-serious age. Un-serious journalists, poorly educated in economics or the delicate art of policy-making, urging an insubstantial government to continue on its merry way, scavenging the last rotting fruit from the reforms of the late 20th century to invest in its splendid vision of a just society.
Meanwhile, a much-diminished conservative opposition, frightened of its own shadow, stages vaudeville entertainment during sitting weeks, thus ensuring no serious analysis of this shoddy government will ever be published or broadcast. For anyone given to conspiracy theories, it would be easy to believe they’re all in on this – the executive, the opposition and the fourth estate – working together to eliminate the last traces of aspiration from this country.
If the Liberal Party is to survive, it must resist the siren song of the government’s contrived narrative and advocate tax reform that encourages enterprise and engenders hope. The message from the dismal poll numbers is clear: Australians want a reforming alternative to Labor’s economic strategy of managed decline.
Sublimely clueless, but the pond did its duty, even if it would have preferred some other topic...
And so, it being a Monday, on with the Major ...
The header for the Major's despair: Why One Nation’s rise to fill the fractured conservative void could deliver Labor victory; Disunity is poison and the Coalition’s fracture has catapulted Pauline Hanson’s One Nation ahead of the Coalition in polling, threatening to reshape federal politics.
The caption for the new lovebirds: One Nation recruit Barnaby Joyce addresses media alongside Pauline Hanson. Picture: Getty Images
The Major took a full five minutes to celebrate Pauline...
While the Albanese government has forgotten the economic reform lessons of Labor’s glory days under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in the 1980s and 1990s, it is at least smart enough to remember the one critical takeout from the horror Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years of 2007-2013.
It’s a lesson the Liberal and National parties did not learn from their own horror show under prime ministers Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison from 2013 to 2022. It’s the oldest lesson in politics: disunity is death.
Most voters – conservative, Labor or Greens – want politicians to focus on their needs, especially as rising inflation and interest rates exacerbate post-Covid cost-of-living pressures on working families.
Yet, since the November 2007 election loss by four-term Coalition prime minister John Howard, the electorate has been dealt a series of prime ministers and opposition leaders more interested in their own advancement than the nation’s progress.
This is the key to underwhelming Albanese, the first leader of either side to win two elections consecutively since Howard.
And it’s the key to a polling surge by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
It’s a lesson the Liberal and National parties did not learn from their own horror show under prime ministers Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison from 2013 to 2022. It’s the oldest lesson in politics: disunity is death.
Most voters – conservative, Labor or Greens – want politicians to focus on their needs, especially as rising inflation and interest rates exacerbate post-Covid cost-of-living pressures on working families.
Yet, since the November 2007 election loss by four-term Coalition prime minister John Howard, the electorate has been dealt a series of prime ministers and opposition leaders more interested in their own advancement than the nation’s progress.
This is the key to underwhelming Albanese, the first leader of either side to win two elections consecutively since Howard.
And it’s the key to a polling surge by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
How the reptiles love to splash snaps of the redhead, Pauline Hanson at her Ipswich, Queensland fish-and-chips shop in 1996.
That sighting set the Major to brooding...
Voters have had 30 years to see what Hanson stands for, as an independent in the federal seat of Oxley or in the Queensland parliament where her party in 1998 won 11 of 89 seats – six from Labor and five from the Nationals.
Even after being jailed for electoral fraud in August 2003 – before her conviction was quashed in November that year – Hanson was able to win a Queensland federal Senate seat in 2016 and again in 2022.
One Nation has four federal senators today and has won upper house seats in state legislatures in Western Australia, Victoria and NSW and a lower house seat in Queensland in 2017.
Voters know what Hanson has always stood for:
Even after being jailed for electoral fraud in August 2003 – before her conviction was quashed in November that year – Hanson was able to win a Queensland federal Senate seat in 2016 and again in 2022.
One Nation has four federal senators today and has won upper house seats in state legislatures in Western Australia, Victoria and NSW and a lower house seat in Queensland in 2017.
Voters know what Hanson has always stood for:
Racism, bigotry, fear and loathing, mindless stupidity?
Of course not ...perfectly sensible policies in line with the Major's vision and all that the lizard Oz reptiles aspire to ...
...lower immigration; opposition to minority rights based on race; criticism of Labor’s renewables policy; and protection for Australian agriculture and manufacturing.
Now a Newspoll here on January 18 and a Redbridge poll in The Australian Financial Review on February 2 show One Nation leading the combined support of the Liberals and Nationals.
Newspoll had One Nation at 22 to the Coalition’s 21 while Redbridge had One Nation on 26 and the Coalition on 19.
Newspoll had Labor down on primary from 36 to 32 after the Bondi Beach terror attack of December 14, but Labor still enjoyed a strong two-party preferred lead of 55-45, although it was down from 58-42 in November.
Now a Newspoll here on January 18 and a Redbridge poll in The Australian Financial Review on February 2 show One Nation leading the combined support of the Liberals and Nationals.
Newspoll had One Nation at 22 to the Coalition’s 21 while Redbridge had One Nation on 26 and the Coalition on 19.
Newspoll had Labor down on primary from 36 to 32 after the Bondi Beach terror attack of December 14, but Labor still enjoyed a strong two-party preferred lead of 55-45, although it was down from 58-42 in November.
The Major flung "disaster" around freely, but with selective vision, as apparently the notion that the onion muncher and the liar from the Shire (not to mention Malware's ruining of the NBN) might have been a disaster never crossed his mind, The Gillard-Rudd-Gillard years for Labor were a disaster for Labor.
That's the Major for you, always ready to reach for a chaff bag ... as at last he turned all truthy ...
This brings us to the truth about One Nation.
We have known since the 1998 Queensland (June 13) and federal (October 3) elections that a strong vote for One Nation helps Labor because One Nation preference flows are not disciplined in the way Greens preferences to Labor are.
So, could One Nation win seats at the next federal election on present trends? You bet. But most would be from the Liberals and Nationals, while any gains in Labor regional seats could be offset by a backlash over preference exchanges in Coalition city seats.
Three-party-preferred votes could easily give a One Nation candidate who polled in the mid to high 20s enough preferences from Liberals and Nationals, plus some drift from Labor, to achieve a 50-plus 2PP vote. As Chris Kenny on Sky News suggested while interviewing Hanson on Wednesday night, a preference deal between the Libs, Nats and One Nation could boost Hanson’s chances.
Former ABC election guru Antony Green on his blog on February 2 named 25 seats in which Hanson would have a good chance if its polling held up, including 12 Nationals seats, seven Liberal and six Labor.
These were just examples and “if come the next election, One Nation polls 25 per cent it will be sweeping up seats all over rural and regional Australia”, Green wrote.
We have known since the 1998 Queensland (June 13) and federal (October 3) elections that a strong vote for One Nation helps Labor because One Nation preference flows are not disciplined in the way Greens preferences to Labor are.
So, could One Nation win seats at the next federal election on present trends? You bet. But most would be from the Liberals and Nationals, while any gains in Labor regional seats could be offset by a backlash over preference exchanges in Coalition city seats.
Three-party-preferred votes could easily give a One Nation candidate who polled in the mid to high 20s enough preferences from Liberals and Nationals, plus some drift from Labor, to achieve a 50-plus 2PP vote. As Chris Kenny on Sky News suggested while interviewing Hanson on Wednesday night, a preference deal between the Libs, Nats and One Nation could boost Hanson’s chances.
Former ABC election guru Antony Green on his blog on February 2 named 25 seats in which Hanson would have a good chance if its polling held up, including 12 Nationals seats, seven Liberal and six Labor.
These were just examples and “if come the next election, One Nation polls 25 per cent it will be sweeping up seats all over rural and regional Australia”, Green wrote.
If the dog botherer says so, it must be true, as the reptiles dragged in a reminder of jailbird days, Pauline Hanson leaving prison in 2003 with her son Tony and stepson Steve Zagorski.
The Major decided to wander back to his glory days, back to the time when he could spot an historian wearing an Order of Lenin medal from a hundred yards away ...
The public can only marvel that Liberals Andrew Hastie and Angus Taylor picked the post-Bondi Albanese slump when the PM’s approval rating fell five points to 42 and his disapproval rating rose six points to 53 to begin undermining the Liberals’ first ever female leader, Sussan Ley.
But Ley fumbled the post-Bondi politics by appearing too keen to politicise the issue. After demanding an early return of parliament to discuss new gun and hate speech laws, three Coalition frontbenchers crossed the floor unable to support what the Coalition was formally backing.
The three correctly quit the frontbench and Nationals’ leader David Littleproud, in an act of childish self-harm, pulled the Nats out of the Coalition.
He has blown up the Coalition twice since its worst ever defeat: it lost 15 seats in May securing only 43 seats in the 150 seat House. This was after losing 19 to 58 under Scott Morrison in 2022.
Littleproud had already fumbled by refusing to give the popular Barnaby Joyce a frontbench spot. Joyce defected to One Nation on December 7.
Voters unhappy with a very ordinary government deserve a coherent alternative. They are considering One Nation.
History signals danger. As Paul Kelly wrote here last week, One Nation voters have inadvertently helped Labor via preferences.
This column watched first hand as editor-in-chief of Queensland Newspapers and The Courier-Mail. In 1996, I published a page one story about a letter written by Hanson, then a federal Liberal candidate, and published in the The Queensland Times in Ipswich. The letter criticised benefits Hanson believed flowed to Aboriginal people.
Howard disendorsed Hanson the next day – and she went on to win the safe Labor seat of Oxley, formerly held by Bill Hayden.
In my 2016 book Making Headlines I detail how hostile media treatment ahead of the 1998 Queensland election, especially national interviews by Ray Martin and Maxine McKew, drove voters to Hanson. This was confirmed by nightly ALP poll tracking leaked to the paper.
Yet Hanson’s wins allowed then opposition leader Peter Beattie’s Labor Party to form a minority government. Several One Nation members later defected and at the next state election in 2001 the party won only three seats.
But Ley fumbled the post-Bondi politics by appearing too keen to politicise the issue. After demanding an early return of parliament to discuss new gun and hate speech laws, three Coalition frontbenchers crossed the floor unable to support what the Coalition was formally backing.
The three correctly quit the frontbench and Nationals’ leader David Littleproud, in an act of childish self-harm, pulled the Nats out of the Coalition.
He has blown up the Coalition twice since its worst ever defeat: it lost 15 seats in May securing only 43 seats in the 150 seat House. This was after losing 19 to 58 under Scott Morrison in 2022.
Littleproud had already fumbled by refusing to give the popular Barnaby Joyce a frontbench spot. Joyce defected to One Nation on December 7.
Voters unhappy with a very ordinary government deserve a coherent alternative. They are considering One Nation.
History signals danger. As Paul Kelly wrote here last week, One Nation voters have inadvertently helped Labor via preferences.
This column watched first hand as editor-in-chief of Queensland Newspapers and The Courier-Mail. In 1996, I published a page one story about a letter written by Hanson, then a federal Liberal candidate, and published in the The Queensland Times in Ipswich. The letter criticised benefits Hanson believed flowed to Aboriginal people.
Howard disendorsed Hanson the next day – and she went on to win the safe Labor seat of Oxley, formerly held by Bill Hayden.
In my 2016 book Making Headlines I detail how hostile media treatment ahead of the 1998 Queensland election, especially national interviews by Ray Martin and Maxine McKew, drove voters to Hanson. This was confirmed by nightly ALP poll tracking leaked to the paper.
Yet Hanson’s wins allowed then opposition leader Peter Beattie’s Labor Party to form a minority government. Several One Nation members later defected and at the next state election in 2001 the party won only three seats.
The Major's gloom was summed up in the caption ... can't ignore that woman, can't talk to her without giving her a boost ... Hostile media interviews with Pauline Hanson have historically boosted support for her party. Picture: AAP
Then it was on to the final gobbet of despair ...
Beattie secured a landslide 66 seats while the Liberals were reduced to a Brisbane rump of three seats after losing nine. The Nationals lost 11 seats to hold only 12.
Kelly’s Wednesday column triggered a backlash from Sky News commentators Peta Credlin and Andrew Bolt, who have advocated stronger anti-immigration and anti-net zero positions by the Coalition.
Howard on Wednesday night urged Ley to reform the Coalition. Nikki Savva, Nine papers’ regular Coalition critic and former adviser to Liberal treasurer Peter Costello, on Thursday morning suggested it might be good for the Libs to go it alone.
Kelly’s Wednesday column triggered a backlash from Sky News commentators Peta Credlin and Andrew Bolt, who have advocated stronger anti-immigration and anti-net zero positions by the Coalition.
Howard on Wednesday night urged Ley to reform the Coalition. Nikki Savva, Nine papers’ regular Coalition critic and former adviser to Liberal treasurer Peter Costello, on Thursday morning suggested it might be good for the Libs to go it alone.
The savvy Savva?
The pond hasn't mentioned her for ages, ever since she defected from the lizard Oz to go to that other place ... and yet there she was ...Ley is toast and the Coalition isn’t just on a break. This bust-up is serious (that's an intermittent archive link).
The savvy Savva was savage, and in strong book plugging form ...
...leadership changes loom. Senior Nationals say David Littleproud is safe for now. Senior Liberals – except Sussan Ley’s numbers man, Alex Hawke – agree she is toast.
If Angus Taylor has the numbers next week, likely boosted by another devastating poll, he will use them. If not, he aims to strike before the budget in May. Like many others, Taylor is in no rush to reform the Coalition. He wants freedom to zero in on the economy – the one issue that can unify the party – without worrying what the Nationals might do.
The right, and certain moderates, hope Taylor can do better than Ley. They stop short of predicting he will succeed. One senior conservative put it this way:“Taylor will be our next opposition leader, but Hastie could be our next prime minister.”
Andrew Hastie has withdrawn from the leadership race and despite requests is unlikely to run as deputy. He needs experience in an economic portfolio – which both Ley and Peter Dutton denied him – and to be ready to run if Taylor crashes and burns.
Ley’s gender and branding as a moderate have little do with her dire predicament. She failed to stand up on policies like net zero and quotas, then mishandled the response to the Bondi massacre. Left and right were exasperated by her passive posture on climate change. One MP described her as no more than a notetaker during party room discussions.
Many of her colleagues see her as an opportunist, driven by concerns for her leadership rather than core beliefs. As revealed in my book Earthquake, many do not trust her. They believed she and/or her office leaked to the media and canvassed votes for the leadership before and during the election campaign.
Ley treated Bondi as her path to resurrection. According to both moderates and conservatives who heard them say it, Ley and her office were convinced it would have the same impact on Albanese as the loss of the Voice referendum. Colleagues were unimpressed by the overtly political nature of her approach.
Albanese’s colleagues say he was poleaxed by the immediate, unwarranted and unedifying blame heaped on him for the killings on December 14.
If Angus Taylor has the numbers next week, likely boosted by another devastating poll, he will use them. If not, he aims to strike before the budget in May. Like many others, Taylor is in no rush to reform the Coalition. He wants freedom to zero in on the economy – the one issue that can unify the party – without worrying what the Nationals might do.
The right, and certain moderates, hope Taylor can do better than Ley. They stop short of predicting he will succeed. One senior conservative put it this way:“Taylor will be our next opposition leader, but Hastie could be our next prime minister.”
Andrew Hastie has withdrawn from the leadership race and despite requests is unlikely to run as deputy. He needs experience in an economic portfolio – which both Ley and Peter Dutton denied him – and to be ready to run if Taylor crashes and burns.
Ley’s gender and branding as a moderate have little do with her dire predicament. She failed to stand up on policies like net zero and quotas, then mishandled the response to the Bondi massacre. Left and right were exasperated by her passive posture on climate change. One MP described her as no more than a notetaker during party room discussions.
Many of her colleagues see her as an opportunist, driven by concerns for her leadership rather than core beliefs. As revealed in my book Earthquake, many do not trust her. They believed she and/or her office leaked to the media and canvassed votes for the leadership before and during the election campaign.
Ley treated Bondi as her path to resurrection. According to both moderates and conservatives who heard them say it, Ley and her office were convinced it would have the same impact on Albanese as the loss of the Voice referendum. Colleagues were unimpressed by the overtly political nature of her approach.
Albanese’s colleagues say he was poleaxed by the immediate, unwarranted and unedifying blame heaped on him for the killings on December 14.
And so on, and suffice to note that the looming changes are still looming, and the February lettuce is already starting to wilt, as the Major tried to snatch some laughs and good cheer from the karnival of circus klowns ...
There are no good options. The Libs hold only eight lower house metropolitan seats out of a possible 89. The Nationals could be destroyed by One Nation and probably need to move further right on issues that could damage city Liberals.
Yet as Kenny showed in his Hanson interview, One Nation is vulnerable to tough policy questions and does not have the resources to develop detailed policies across all portfolios. Angry criticism won’t cut it as coherent policy in a heated election campaign.
Offering a sensible alternative government looks like a project that could take two terms or more.
Yet the Liberals showed in May that an articulate candidate who can talk about the economy can defeat a sitting teal: former MP Tim Wilson reclaimed the seat of Goldstein from Zoe Daniel, leaving eight federal teals.
Yet as Kenny showed in his Hanson interview, One Nation is vulnerable to tough policy questions and does not have the resources to develop detailed policies across all portfolios. Angry criticism won’t cut it as coherent policy in a heated election campaign.
Offering a sensible alternative government looks like a project that could take two terms or more.
Yet the Liberals showed in May that an articulate candidate who can talk about the economy can defeat a sitting teal: former MP Tim Wilson reclaimed the seat of Goldstein from Zoe Daniel, leaving eight federal teals.
Two terms or more of the reptiles raging on the sidelines, howling at the moon, and baying at shadows in the dark?
The pond isn't sure it can take it.
Nor is the pond sure it will survive the next four days ... what with the welcome mat laid over any talk of a future for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank...
It's always in the details ...
Sheesh, just remember, there are no international rules, and the strong can do what they like to the weak, and it's all good ... and what an Adelaide ponce says must be true ... so come on down Chairman Xi, the pond is sure that Adelaideans will roll out the welcome mat ...
