In which the bromancer and "Ned" promise, neigh conspire, to waste twenty minutes of your weekend ...

 

Greetings from Richmond, land of sensitive brutalist stylings, with lately a deal always to be done in the streets ...

Speaking of deals, the reptiles continued in high agitation this weekend ...

"Ned" offered a whole ten minutes of agitation, while over on the extreme far right, the bromancer was top of the reptile digital world ma with another ten minutes ...

That left the pond with just a few headlines to note ... in an autumn of deep discontent ...

The Ughmann was inconsolable ...

What hope in world of plunging trust
The big parties are exhausted. Their membership has collapsed. But the worst of it is they have lost the trust of a large part of the population and that will be hard to recover.
By Chris Uhlmann

The dog botherer, now blessed with a grand title, emitted a clarion call ...

Clarion call for Dutton to rally a nation in peril
If we’ve learned anything, it’s bad governments do not improve with a second chance.
Chris Kenny
Associate Editor (National Affairs)

A second chance? Tell that to MAGA ...

And snappy Tom was on had with a movie title ...

Dumb and dumber policy auction imperils nation’s prosperity
Australians are yearning for leadership, vision and courage but this spendathon of a campaign is turning voters off politics.
Tom Dusevic
Policy Editor

There was nothing in any of that to trouble the pond's Saturday mission - attend to the bromancer and "Ned" in their deep despair.

The bro was first off the blocks with a truly hideous graphic that featured a door closing on America as it descended into darkness ...

For those not into small print, there was the header, Is Trump killing the America we’ve always loved? The US administration’s tariff chaos has roiled markets, distressed allies and will embolden America’s enemies. It’s too high a price to pay for Trump’s confused and contradictory ambitions, and the caption, Donald Trump has taken the most aggressive actions against China of any US president since Harry Truman was urged by General Douglas MacArthur to use nuclear weapons on China in the Korean war, and on credit for the monstrously bad illustration, which must be blamed on AI

Then it was on, a ten minute wail ...

Trump has imposed 145 per cent tariffs on all exports from China to the US. Estimates are that this could slow China’s GDP growth by 2.5 per cent. Beijing has responded with tariffs of 125 per cent against the US.
Tariffs aren’t bombs but they are weapons.
Trump is determined to remake global trade, to remake America’s alliances, to transform America’s standing in the world, to change America in its domestic character, to “make America great again”.
Historian Niall Ferguson argues instead that Trump has brought about the end of the American empire, with potentially devastating consequences. There’s a deeper question: has Trump deprived the world of the America that has been the sole principle of order since 1942? No question could be more important than this for Australia.

Oh if Niall has spoken, he deserves a snap, Historian Niall Ferguson.

The pond wasn't discouraged, the empire of the 'toons was still flourishing ...

Splendid stuff, but the bromancer was determined to be unhappy ...

Trump’s past fortnight has been chaotic and destructive. His administration has been at war with itself. Trump’s new best friend, Tesla boss Elon Musk, whom Trump entrusted to remake government, called trade adviser Peter Navarro “a moron”. Navarro, author of the tariffs, claimed Musk was just a car manufacturer.
On “Liberation Day”, April 2, Trump announced tariffs on almost every nation and territory in the world. The list was so slapdash, put together in such an amateur and cack-handed fashion, it included territories with no inhabitants, apparently because at some point a shipment of some goods to the US was wrongly attributed to them.
It was probably compiled using artificial intelligence, with tariff formulas mechanically constructed from the size of any relevant US trade deficit. A 10 per cent general tariff applied everywhere.
No country got an exception. Australia’s ambassador, Kevin Rudd, had convinced Trump’s economic advisers to exempt Australia, given the large trade surplus the US enjoys with us and our status as a close ally, plus the potential for US access to Australian rare earths. Trump administration hard-liners nixed the deal. China has stopped supplying rare earths to the US.

Ah, fond memories, US President Donald Trump holds a chart as he delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs on April 2. Picture: AFP

Isn't he just emulating the bromancer's favourite British strategy?

A 'toon for a snap, it's the only way to get through this sort of ten minute wail ...

The stockmarket reaction to Trump’s tariffs was overwhelming. US stocks lost more than $US5 trillion ($8 trillion) in value. Millions of Americans lost a big chunk of their retirement savings, typically invested in stocks. Australians’ super funds are also heavily exposed to US stocks.
Until Liberation Day, America had a strong reputation as a safe place to invest.
There was talk Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened, or at least hinted at, resignation if Trump didn’t reverse course. Trump himself declared on social media platform his policies “WILL NEVER CHANGE”.
The force that beat Trump, persuading him to suspend punitive tariffs for 90 days, was more powerful than Bessent or Beijing. It was the bond markets. They ganged up on Trump as they once ganged up on the short-lived British prime ministership of Liz Truss.
The US 10-year Treasury bond has been the safest investment of all. But the bond rates climbed dramatically. People were reluctant to lend even to the US government. The US has a budget deficit of nearly $US2 trillion and government debt of some $US36 trillion. The US Senate had amended a House of Representatives budget resolution effectively to abolish house-authored budget savings, while extending tax cuts and new spending. At week’s end the house accepted the Senate amendments. Fiscal discipline took another pass.
The budget mess, in combination with the tariff chaos, made the bond markets skittish, threatening a full-blown financial crisis.
So Trump suspended the individual country tariffs while keeping the 10 per cent general tariff. Beijing had already retaliated against Trump’s 34 per cent tariff on China. So Trump retaliated against the retaliation. China did the same. We ended up with today’s stand-off.
Trump continually invites his counterpart, Xi Jinping, whom he describes as “very intelligent” and someone he knows well, to make a deal.

Oh yes ... China's President Xi Jinping. Picture: AFP

... and the art of the deal ...

The bromancer eventually managed to find strength in the madness ...

It may be that Trump has blundered into a potentially sustainable situation. The White House reports that 75 nations have approached it to make trade deals. Trump immensely enjoys being the centre of world attention and the object of supplication from lesser national leaders.
With his characteristic grace and presidential dignity, Trump remarked that leaders were “kissing my ass”.
Although Trump remains unpredictable, it’s unlikely that after 90 days he’ll reinstate global tariff madness. He was genuinely scared of what he’d unleashed. Otherwise he wouldn’t have reversed himself. This willingness to instantly abandon a strongly held position is, peculiarly, a strength of Trump’s.

Cue a snap of the strongman ... U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday (April 10) that he would love to get a deal with China to end an escalating trade war.

The pond has to concede that King Donald has done wonders for the American image ...

On the bromancer prattled, aimless and forlorn ... his war on China in disarray ...

Now we await the Washington-Beijing battle of wills. Some kind of short-term deal must be likely, though neither side wants to look weak. But a short-term deal is not a grand bargain.
The US and China are locked in a grave, epic struggle to dominate the world in the years ahead. Matt Pottinger, deputy national security adviser in Trump’s first administration, argued this week: “China’s economic model is designed as a means to political, not just economic, dominance around the globe.”
In an important new piece in Foreign Affairs, former deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell (the most hawkish figure on China in Joe Biden’s administration) argues that Americans, having once overestimated Beijing, are now seriously underestimating it.
China is the top trading partner for 120 countries. It has the biggest navy in the world. In some areas of hi-tech, and even military tech, it’s ahead of the US.
Trump occasionally talks about the big beautiful oceans that separate America from the world’s worst conflict zones. Campbell: “By retreating to a sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere, the US would cede the rest of the world to a globally engaged China.”
The US has never faced a strategic competitor as formidable as China. Its key advantage over the US, Campbell argues, is mass, even as it remains a smaller economy than the US.
There is a ready-made way, but only one way, the US can acquire the mass to more than match China. That’s through a much greater military, industrial and technological integration with its allies. Beijing itself has long recognised the US alliance system as one of America’s greatest strengths.
Beijing at last has been able to build its own formidable quasi alliance system with Russia, Iran and North Korea.
This is one reason Trump’s tariff moves have been so disastrous. Until the 90-day suspension they made not the slightest distinction between America’s closes allies and longstanding adversaries.
Allies were aghast at the instability Trump caused. No global business could plan rationally for the future.

The reptiles interrupted the bro with the bro on Sky Noise down under speaking to petulant Peta ... The Australian’s Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan discusses the US decision for a 90-day pause on tariffs and its effect on Australian politics. “The 90-day pause will reduce the salience of Trump in Australian politics,” Mr Sheridan told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “I think Albanese and Dutton both have been pretty sensible in the way they’ve responded to the Trump stuff, pretty lowkey, disagreeing with the tariffs but not personally criticising Trump.”

The pond couldn't understand why the bromancer was so sad.  ... doors might close, but when they do, other doors open ...

At last it was time to look on the bright side ...

Mike Green, head of the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and author of the definitive history of US policy in Asia, thinks Trump has done the greatest harm to America’s reputation, especially among allies, since the Iraq invasion and perhaps since the failure of the Vietnam war.
Green remains, nonetheless, a long-term optimist. He doesn’t think Trumpism will be powerful once Trump is gone. He says the US default position in Asia is not isolationism but engagement, to protect its interests and prevent dominance by a regional hegemon. He also thinks, apart from Trump, the US is a natural sell in Asia because the alternative is the Chinese Communist Party.
The US is also, historically, dynamic in its comebacks. Says Green: “The US has a history of diplomatic self-harm, and relatively rapid recovery.”
Economist Chris Richardson outlines the straightforward imbalance between the world’s two biggest economies: “The US spends more than it earns, while China earns more than it spends.”
The single best thing the US could do to fix its $US1 trillion global trade deficit would be to eliminate its budget deficit.
Every year the US pumps huge extra demand into its economy through its huge budget deficit of nearly $US2 trillion. But US politics, as the recent budget resolution shows, can’t bring itself to balance its budget.
China, which has moved to a quasi war economy, and put more emphasis than ever on making as many things as possible domestically, is unwilling to move towards a consumption economy, with a higher standard of living.
Trump is right in arguing that many aspects of the international trade system are unfair to the US. Both the EU and some Asian nations make it harder for the US to sell products into their markets than vice-versa. But Trump conflates this with every other real and imagined grievance he thinks America suffers. He’s right to castigate allies for free-riding on American security. No nation is more guilty of this than Australia.
But Trump wildly exaggerates the disadvantages he believes America endures.
It has the highest per capita income in the world, at $US83,000. It still accounts, on International Monetary Fund figures, for a staggering 27 per cent of the global economy. It enjoys effective full employment. If Britain, France and Germany joined the US they would be, per capita, the poorest states in the union.
Trump’s complaints about China are much more substantial. Pottinger points to Beijing’s theft of intellectual property, forced technology transfers from Western companies operating in China, market access barriers and massive industrial subsidies as reasons for its huge trade surplus. Campbell argues that Beijing subsidises its companies to sell at a loss to establish market dominance, especially in strategic industries.

The reptiles slipped in a final AV distraction, China’s top leaders rushed into emergency talks after Donald Trump’s shock decision to impose a 125 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, deepening the rupture between the world’s two biggest economies. As Beijing scrambles to shore up its economy and markets, Xi Jinping shows no sign of backing down, setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous trade war.

Frankly the bromancer was wrong about King Donald wildly exaggerating the disadvantages America endures. 

Why just think of the showerheads and all the associated suffering ....

And then it took a while for the bromancer to get there, but in the end he had to admit he was flummoxed, baffled, bewildered, mystified, nonplused, disorientated, confused and confounded by the master snake oil salesman ...

If the US-China trade war continues, China will dump cheap excess product in many other countries. Australia should be aware of this. If China is selling stuff cheap we don’t make, we could take advantage of the low prices. But if it threatens any Australian industry, we should stop such sales.
Trump made a trade deal with China in his first term as president, but Beijing didn’t honour the deal. Trump boasted China would buy hundreds of billions of dollars more US exports than ever before. It didn’t happen.
China massively subsidises credit for selected companies in strategic fields. This is every bit as protectionist as high tariffs but insidious because it’s less visible.
On top of that, Trump has never forgiven China for Covid, which Trump believes cost him re-election. There’s a deep bipartisan consensus in the US that China is its chief strategic competitor and that Washington must win the competition. But does Trump even think in those long-run geostrategic terms?
His administration so far is deeply divided and extremely sloppy, from holding sensitive security dialogues on the Signal app to announcing tariffs on uninhabited islands. When asked what factors made him change his mind and suspend his earlier global tariffs, Trump replied “instinct”, and that the decisions he would make on tariffs in the future would be “mostly instinctive”. That’s madness. It’s as near to the divine right of kings as any modern democratic ruler has ever claimed.
Trump’s objectives also appear hopelessly confused. Sometimes he talks of tariffs as a temporary means to get a level playing field for America. At other times he markets them as an ongoing and fundamental source of revenue.
Some analysts think Trump wants to keep the 10 per cent base tariff as a permanent revenue stream while negotiating the other stuff away. The 10 per cent tariff might furnish $US300bn or even $US400bn a year. Often, Trump markets tariffs as helping to re-industrialise America. But to have that effect they would need to be substantial and permanent.
But can anyone believe any deal with Trump is permanent? In his first term Trump negotiated a trade deal with Canada and Mexico that he described in glowing terms. Within weeks of coming to office this time he levied punishing tariffs on his two close neighbours. Where can Trump point to anything stable he has established?
The stakes for Australia are enormous. The US provides four essential goods to the world, all of which we need. One is security guarantees, especially extended nuclear deterrence, so that nations such as Australia don’t have nuclear weapons of our own but other nuclear powers are deterred by our nuclear ally, the US. Trump has called these commitments into the deepest question by constantly trash-talking NATO and saying there are numerous NATO members he wouldn’t defend.
The second great public good the US provides is access to its vast domestic market. The US used to provide this access strategically, and somewhat selectively, to help allies in the developing world become stable democracies. The whole east Asian economic and social miracle was based on this. But in Trump’s tariff mania some of the poorest countries, with the least capacity to buy American exports, were to be hit the hardest.
The third good is stability. The US provides political stability. Trump doesn’t do stability.
And finally, America provided moral leadership. Much more than the UN secretary-general, the US president was traditionally the secular pope, the leader of the free world. His words had great power.
Recall John F. Kennedy: “The United States will bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival of liberty.” Recall Ronald Reagan in the divided city of Berlin: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” When the devastating tsunami hit Indonesia in 2004, the US and Australian navies were there to provide critical help before anyone else. Trump doesn’t do moral leadership.
Modern Australia began as a British colony in 1788 and defined itself, quite naturally, as British, effectively independent, but British, for 154 years, until 1942. For the 83 years since 1942, our orientation has been American. First the British, then the Americans, provided our security (and much cultural inspiration), though we also fought heroically in our own interests and in wider alliance interests.
Trump is certainly a mixed grill. The question is: under Trump, do we lose forever the America we’ve always loved and relied on, been inspired by? Does Trump’s America play the security, economic and moral leadership roles we so badly need from America? Or does Trump embody only the principle of chaos?
I don’t know the answer to those questions.

He doesn't know the answer to the questions?! 

What good is he, prating on endlessly, and not providing answers?

He should take a good look in the mirror ... and then he might find at least a few answers ...

"Ned" sounded equally stupefied, not helped by an animation which merely shifted a few figures around and was singularly inept ... and again without a credit ...

Time for the hard to read print, Albanese, Dutton: Time to tell the truth about Trump, Australia is now caught in a retail politics contest while the world is being transformed, and the mystical injunction, This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

"Ned" was disconsolate, what with King Donald having wrecked the reptiles election campaign ...

Donald Trump blinked, big time. The economic crisis has changed – but it’s still here. The tariffs on Australia remain and the US-China economic confrontation has deepened. The reality is that Australia is still trapped, locked in an election that belongs to a world that is now passing.
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have got three weeks to respond to a crisis that mocks the largely irrelevant Australian election campaign – the message is that future success is owned by nations that are fast, flexible and bold. Australia rates badly on each count.

Say what? We must match King Donald at being fast, flexible and bold? Probably not, probably "Ned" was just in mourning at the way that the Duttonator had gone off the rails ... as recorded by the venerable Meade in the Weekly Beast ...

At least Sky had more control over the non-editorial panel than it did over the results of the first leaders’ debate on Tuesday evening, which the network promoted as potentially the “turning point in the campaign ahead of the May 3 federal election”.
As the Yes Minister character Sir Humphrey Appleby quipped, one should never set up an inquiry unless one knows in advance what its findings will be.
The winner of the debate was decided by an audience of 100 undecided voters, but when they declared that Anthony Albanese had won the first debate “with Labor’s plan to build Australia’s future”, many of the News Corp top brass did not agree.
“I was starting to wonder about the composition of the undecided voters,” the Daily Telegraph editor, Ben English, said, adding that “there might be a few inquiries” made.
Broadcaster Ray Hadley, who is writing for the Tele during the election, said he was “baffled” by the verdict.
In the Australian, Dennis Shanahan, Simon Benson, Greg Sheridan, Chris Kenny and Claire Harvey all declared Peter Dutton was the clear winner in their minds and hearts.
“The Liberal leader was assertive, relaxed and came across as a more convincing interlocutor,” Benson wrote.
“It’s a narrow judgment, but I think Dutton had a narrow win,” Sheridan said.
Kenny: “Dutton won the night on substance and facts and will hope it gives his campaign a boost. Albanese, however, skated through without major damage, so will be pleased.”

Done down by an inhouse failure to fix! 

And so to a snap of the folly, Anthony Albanese, left, and Peter Dutton shake hands before Tuesday night’s people’s forum in western Sydney. Picture: Jason Edwards / NewsWire

Poor "Ned" was forced to relive the nightmare ...

Australia is now caught in a retail politics election while the world is being transformed. The Sky News leaders’ debate this week revealed the problem – a debate focused on the public’s justified alarm about cost-of-living pressures – with an almost total absence of the real issues responsible for our underperformance.
This debate was about spend, spend, spend – on health, schools, housing, transport and more fuel excise relief. The fiscal folly of the Albanese government has been its excessive spending, yet this is still the public’s demand. The Opposition Leader and his Treasury spokesman, Angus Taylor, promise less spending and a more responsible budget, but they are deliberately vague on how to get there – for good reason.
In the treasurers’ debate, Jim Chalmers called on Taylor to “come clean” on his cuts. Exploiting the Trump factor, Chalmers cast the Coalition as Trump-lite, a party of “DOGE-y sycophants who have hitched their wagon to American style slogans and policies”. He pressed Taylor about repeating the Tony Abbott 2013 campaign spending pledge of “no cuts” and Taylor’s answer was no cuts to “essential services” – leaving the Coalition room to revise fiscal policy.

How bizarre did it get? The reptiles even revived an infamous snap of an infamous duo, Former treasurer Joe Hockey and the finance minister Mathias Cormann smoke cigars before delivering the first Abbott budget on May 9, 2014.

All "Ned" could do in response was weep a little more ...

It illuminates our plight. Australia today suffers from projected budget deficits for 10 years, record spending, unsustainable levels of personal income tax, poor productivity feeding into weak living standards, an unfolding demographic time bomb and a grossly inadequate defence budget.
Yet none of these issues is discussed. They are strictly off the agenda – too hard, too dangerous. In this campaign we witness the collapse of the election process as a method to address the national interest challenges facing Australia.
In March, economist Chris Richardson told Inquirer: “We, as an electorate, have asked our politicians to avoid challenging us. In this election the two sides seem to be agreeing on mediocrity. We have stopped fighting harder for our future.” The campaign, to this stage, confirms that judgment.
Labor has outsmarted the Coalition in responding to our changed culture. Voters are disenchanted, distrusting of the major parties, angry about their situation yet suspicious of change, focused on their personal plight, unwilling to make sacrifices for the common good, aware that things have gone wrong but uncertain about the way forward.
Invoking the 2014 budget highlights a turning point for the nation. At that time Abbott and his treasurer, Joe Hockey, seeking to address deficits and debt, unveiled tough measures in the national interest – only to be repudiated by the public. It was a threshold event; its shadow is still with us. Ever since, there has been no constituency in this country for deficit and spending reduction.

The pond had suspected the reptiles would find a way to work the Ughmann into Ned's piece, and sure enough he was the star of an AV distraction, Sky News Political Contributor Chris Uhlmann discusses the “deeper issue” behind the Coalition backing away from its work-from-home policy. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton on Monday abandoned his push to force public servants back into the office following public backlash. “How could you get that so catastrophically wrong? … That has cost them time and cost them skin,” Mr Uhlmann said.

More anxiety attacks about the sky falling followed ...

The election reveals the Coalition’s unresolved dilemma – its traditional policy tools are in retreat, it’s hard to sell fiscal accountability, industrial relations reform, tax reform, greater public sector efficiency, cuts to red and green tape, more restraint in the phase-out of fossil fuels and more defence spending if that eclipses social outlays.
The campaign, to this stage, reveals a Coalition unready, short of the hard policy work, with confusion about the policies it has released – it lost a worthwhile position on working from home; its energy and gas policies are brave but riddled with problems; its proposal for two new future funds seems bizarre and works contrary to its professed aim of cutting debt.
The Sky debate narrative is under pressure from another narrative: which side can best handle another global crisis? In this sense expectations about election 2025 have properly risen. Albanese and Dutton, backed by Chalmers and Taylor, must manage two stories: the cost-of-living test and the global economic test imposed by Trump. This constitutes a complex blend of retail politics and trust at crisis management.

The reptiles introduced a chemical anxiety with an image of surpassing banality, for which the reptiles must have forked over a little cash,  Donald Trump's formidable tariff wall doesn't target pharmaceuticals – but that could soon change. Picture: Getty Images

Sheesh ... they would have been better off with that staple, the desert island joke ...

"Ned" sounded like he was having a hard time coping and just like the Ughmann, was troubled by a lack of trust ...

In a previous world every prime minister from Malcolm Fraser to Kevin Rudd would have released in a stage-managed campaign event a statement of the principles that would guide Australia’s response to the Trump crisis. This is not to deny that both sides are right, so far, in rejecting tariff retaliation against the US and talking up trade diversification. That’s just policy 101. But a measure of higher leadership is required.
Trump has left Australia worse off in comparative terms. His 90-day pause applies to higher alleged reciprocal tariffs but the 10 per cent baseline tariff remains in place – the rate applying to Australia with Trump threatening further action on pharmaceuticals.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: “We can probably reach a deal with our allies.” Sounds good. Maybe. But what sort of deal?

What sort of deal? Why snake oil at half price, just ask the good sellers at Faux Noise for a deal ... or make do with this AV distraction, US President Donald Trump’s global tariff plan could cause concern over the future of the AUKUS agreement. Around a third of the steel and aluminium required to build US ships and submarines is sourced from overseas from countries now targeted by Donald Trump’s tariffs. US Senator Tim Kaine believes an increase in raw materials will affect production progress for the Virginia Class subs. Donald Trump has tasked billionaire Elon Musk’s team with improving the “efficiency and effectiveness” of the shipbuilding process.

The pond couldn't see a problem with Uncle Leon in charge ... worst case, a little bleach could fix it ...

"Ned" was sounding befuddled and bewildered about what might be done ...

Here’s the rub – that Trump may want his allies (think Australia) to align with his coercive trade campaign against China. Albanese won’t do that. Nor will Australia’s business and trade community. Presumably neither would the Coalition. That would be a stake in the heart of Australia’s national economic interest with any rejection creating potential huge tensions with Trump.
Might that affect AUKUS or is that too fanciful?
China’s insufferable hypocrisy was on display this week with its ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, saying the two nations should “join hands” to defend global trade. That’s just a few years after China tried to break Australia’s will in a campaign of trade coercion and intimidation against us.

The reptiles flung in an AV distraction, to provide a reminder of the perfidious Chinese, China is offering to work with Australia in response to its growing trade war with the United States. Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has told The Sydney Morning Herald: “China stands ready to join hands with Australia and the international community to jointly respond to the changes of the world.” He also claimed he wants the two nations to maintain an “open and cooperative” relationship. Beijing is accusing US President Donald Trump of inflicting “sabotage” on international rules.

The reptiles must have decided that interrupting "Ned" constantly was the only way the punters could make it to the end ,...

Obviously, Labor has declined the “invitation”. But this reveals events are now moving very fast.
There are three epic messages this week, pivotal to Australia’s future. The rout by global markets – in shares and bonds – brands Trump as an unreliable partner, the gravest threat to the global economy but capable of demanding things from Australia as an ally that conflict with our national interest; the retaliation from China’s Xi Jinping reveals that China will resist Trump’s economic coercion, possibly at serious cost to its economy, with Australia sure to suffer from any China growth slowdown; and the sharp deterioration in US-China relations, verging on a de facto economic warfare, threatens the global economy along with unpredictable geo-strategic consequences, certain to affect Australia.
Albanese and Dutton can’t deliver a detailed response now. That’s obvious. But this is a time for major party leadership. Are we seriously saying that Australia’s response to the current global trauma is going to be a minority government with people flocking to Greens, teals and independents as our political salvation? Are Australians actually going to do this?

Oh dear, the hysteria, not helped by the next illustration, Markets continue to navigate difficult waters despite Trump's 90-day tariffs pause. Picture: Getty Images

To think that the reptiles forked over money for that visual phlegm, albeit at one with "Ned' ...

Albanese and Dutton need to think about this situation. The Trump crisis is a time for leadership. The obligation on them is to alert the Australian public to the realities of the changed world – economic, trade and strategic – that demand an Australia that is more competitive, productive, flexible and more defence self-reliant. The political advisers would recoil in horror at such an idea.
Their advice will be: stay cool, reassure the public, don’t make demands, don’t rock the boat, the last thing you want is a political leader addressing the challenges of a transformed world or talking truth to the people.
But if Albanese and Dutton don’t stand up, then maybe we deserve a minority government.
Nobody should misinterpret Trump’s retreat this week. The world has been put on notice. This was a spectacular win for the markets over Trump and perhaps for a few economic realists in his camp, notably Bessent.
Trump said he reversed because people were getting “a little bit afraid, they were getting yippie”. Sure, it was only one of the most dangerous market meltdowns in history. The truth is Trump buckled at the consequences of his blunder – the massive loss of wealth, income and investment his tariff eruptions posed for America. The risk was the trade crisis was turning into a financial crisis. It was when the markets began to sell off US government debt – revealing a loss of confidence in Treasury securities – that alarm went to a deeper level.
Faced with an unresolvable conflict between his loves – high tariffs and a high sharemarket – Trump chose the latter but kept alive the de facto trade war between the US and China. The worst blunder is to think Trump has learnt his lesson; he is merely doubling down against China.

The reptiles followed with a snap of the man as dumb as a Cybertruck load of house bricks, President Donald Trump flanked by adviser Peter Navarro. Picture: AFP

But they had a simple proposition ...

The interruptions started to come more quickly ...

The White House now confirms total tariffs imposed on China are 145 per cent, an untenable figure. The Wall Street Journal reports that a portion of the $US582bn ($931.5bn) in goods trading between the countries is already grinding to a halt. Such tariffs, if prolonged, would constitute the deepest US-China decoupling since China became a major trading economy.
Analysing the outlook, The Wall Street Journal wrote: “China accounted for around 13 per cent of all US goods imports in 2024. It is a source of a wide variety of goods, including smartphones, toys and industrial parts. Entire businesses have been built around assumptions of that access, with design, marketing and distribution in the US coupled with production in China.”

That led to an AV distraction ... the very same one that had closed out the bromancer's piece...

... with exactly the same caption ...

China’s top leaders rushed into emergency talks after Donald Trump’s shock decision to impose a 125 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, deepening the rupture between the world’s two biggest economies. As Beijing scrambles to shore up its economy and markets, Xi Jinping shows no sign of backing down, setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous trade war.

... because nothing illustrates more perfectly the reptiles' befuddled bewilderment ...

Does Trump have any coherent strategy with China? It seems unlikely beyond retaliation, trying to punish Beijing and seize an advantage for the US, none of which is likely to eventuate from these actions that are guaranteed to damage both nations.
Bessent, however, talks about isolating China – and that’s a dangerous omen for Australia if the US seeks to involve Australia in this tactic. This raises another question: what does Trump want from his allies? He punishes them but also wants their co-operation. The truth is Trump can’t settle; stability is beyond his nature. He is a danger to America and the world.

Cue another AV distraction ... Foreign Minister Penny Wong argues the Labor government were “prepared” for US President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. “What President Trump has demonstrated through a range of decisions is his determination to carve a very different role for America in the world. It’s something we have anticipated, and we have been prepared for,” Mr Wong said. “We do not believe the tariffs are justified nor warranted; we disagree with them … They are going to result in volatility in global markets. “What we need to do as a country is focus on resilience.”

"Ned" plunged into a deep funk of despair ...

The iron has entered Labor’s soul at Trump. Just listen to Penny Wong’s remarks and tone. Australia and America are now fundamentally divided over trade, tariff and global economic policy. The longer Trump runs his “unfriendly” tariffs against Australia – to quote Albanese – the more the public and Australia’s policy community will be alienated from him. Both sides of politics say in any negotiations they will not compromise on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, biosecurity protection in agricultural and our big tech reforms.
Trump’s tariff pause won’t fool any governments in Asia. He will merely encourage them into deeper economic ties with China. The loss of US influence and prestige in Asia will complicate Australia’s effort to manage ties with both Beijing and Washington.

Another AV distraction followed immediately, President Trump rolled back a major portion of his tariff plan just hours after it went into effect, following a week of turbulence in the stock and bond markets. WSJ’s Gavin Bade explains how it unfolded and what happens next.

The war between Uncle Leon and "Ron Vara", aka Peter Retarrdo, completed "Ned's" decline ...

The Wall Street Journal said: “If decoupling from China is Mr Trump’s goal, one way to mitigate the damage is by expanding trade with allies. But Mr Trump’s tariffs slam friend and foe alike. Who knows what Mr Trump really intends, and it isn’t clear he even knows. His 90-day pause means the tariffs could come back with a vengeance if he doesn’t like the concessions countries offer.”
What might Xi Jinping do? China initially retaliated against Trump’s first round of tariffs and it has escalated from that point. But China’s “fight to the end” strategy leaves Beijing with tariffs at an untenable level, knocking out much of its US trade.
Trump no doubt thinks he will drive Xi into doing a deal. But perhaps Xi will be as stubborn as Trump in this contest. The episode betrays the fractures inside the Trump administration and fundamental for Australia is whether the reversal weakens the influence of Trump’s senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, an anti-Australian advocate who has Trump’s ear.
The rift between Elon Musk and Navarro won global media attention with Musk, who backs zero tariffs, calling Navarro “a moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks”. That seems an appropriate comment on Navarro’s views on trade deficits.

The reptiles slipped in a snap to emphasise the feud, Elon Musk and Peter Navarro are involved in a stoush over tariffs.

But what of other visions of the future?

On such matters, "Ned" and the bromancer were ominously silent, what with them being domestic matters, and with "Ned" having to get out the whip to help the Duttonator to the finish line ...

In response to the crisis, Chalmers says he wants to project confidence without complacency. He says Australia won’t finish in recession, defends his fiscal record and insists Australia faces the global uncertainty from strength. He happily points out the expectations in financial markets of four interest rate cuts this year in response to a global downturn.
Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock struck a different tone. She said the current crisis was not as severe as the global financial crisis in 2008 when the bank cut the cash rate 3.75 per cent, played down any rush to urgent action and said it would take time to see how the crisis plays out.
Meanwhile, the business lobbies are activated, coming together in the wake of the tariff crisis calling for reforms to reduce business costs, cut red tape, restore balance to the IR system, deliver a competitive tax system and create a better project approvals system. Their agenda is justified and overdue but has yet to penetrate in Australia’s current politics.
The task for Dutton is to turn the global crisis into his opportunity. Dutton’s performance was sharper this week when he edged out Albanese in the leaders’ debate. Dutton and Taylor are drawing the nexus: Labor failed on cost of living and it will fail on the bigger economic challenge. But Dutton needs to reinvigorate the Coalition economic policy agenda. Dutton says the Coalition “will always manage” the economy better than Labor, yet he needs to persuade on that claim.

And so to the final AV distraction, Australian Energy Producers CEO Samantha McCulloch discusses the Coalition's gas plan for Australia if elected. Ms McCulloch told Sky News Australia that there are “practical issues” within the Coalitions plan, which may cause problems for implementation. Household gas bills are estimated to fall by 7 per cent while electricity prices will drop around 3 per cent under the Coalition's gas policy, according to modelling conducted by Frontier Economics. In partnership with Australian Energy Producers, Minerals Council of Australia, and Clean Energy Council.

As for all the warning signs? As for all the Faux Noise celebrations, lies, distortions and misrepresentations? At last a realisation that King Donald might have gone too far?

He's gone way too far, a greenie apocalypse, a greenie armageddon beckons, and "Ned" was in the throes of a greenie nightmare ...

Polls suggest voters are disillusioned with Labor but they aren’t necessarily persuaded to vote Liberal. Dutton’s task is to knock down that wall of resistance. Labor’s second term looms as more of the same, hardly a plus. Much of the Coalition’s campaign tactic reflects the view that tough economic decisions cannot be marketed from opposition. That’s understandable. But if they can’t be marketed from opposition, and an incoming government has only a limited mandate, how can they be implemented from office?
This week Greens leader Adam Bandt cast a shadow over Albanese’s campaign. Bandt insisted that Albanese, short of a majority, must co-operate with the Greens in forming a minority government. Albanese, unsurprisingly, rules out any deal with the Greens. But the links between Labor and Greens are likely to get more prominence in the rest of the campaign.
That’s inevitable given polls pointing to a likely minority Labor government, which means parliamentary confidence delivered in part by the Greens. It gifts Dutton a campaign saying the alternative to the Coalition is a form of Labor-Greens partnership. Is this what Australia needs at present?

Of course not ... what we want is a country with a government installed with the help of a foreign owned corporation that is currently doing much for the greens of America, as noted in closing by the immortal Rowe ...