Lawless Filth: Unions, Greens, ALP Show True Colours

A CALL by ACTU secretary Sally McManus for unions and workers to break laws they find “unjust” is a clarion call to thugs and militants who think they run Australia; downplayed by ALP “leader” Bill Shorten and lauded by the Leftist filth of Communists Greens, McManus has confirmed what most people always knew: unions are lawless. If ever there was a pretext to smash union power — rather than cloak it in fatuously soaring rhetoric — this is it.

There are a couple of issues I want to try to cover off on today, so I will keep it fairly straight to the point; yet again, my week has once again panned out in rather time-consuming ways, and with a Newspoll probably due out tonight or tomorrow — it skipped the usual fortnightly cycle this week in the aftermath of the WA state election — we need to come up to date.

But the midweek outburst from incoming ACTU secretary Sally McManus — an explicit sanction by Trades Hall for unions and workers to break industrial laws they think are “unjust” — was rightly and correctly slammed by federal Liberal minister Christopher Pyne as “anarcho-Marxist claptrap.”

The comments were made in the context of a campaign to wind back restrictions on the right to strike; some additional coverage from The Australian may be accessed here and here.

Bill Shorten — always happy to play both sides of the fence when it comes to appeasing his Trades Hall chums — claimed he didn’t agree with McManus’ prescription for breaking laws she didn’t agree with, but left the open-ended assertion that “if you think the law is unjust or unfair, you change the government and you change the law” hanging as a clear wink-and-nod to both the position McManus outlined, and to expected lawless union tactics in the lead-up to the next federal election.

As is always the case, Shorten has tried to have his cake and eat it too: he deserves to choke on the crumbs.

And predictably, almost unqualified support for this new ACTU campaign of thuggery and thumbing its nose at authority was quickly forthcoming from that despicable hotbed of left wing extremism, the Greens, with leader Richard di Natale congratulating McManus and claiming she had said “what many Australians know and understand.”

Anyone who takes any notice of di Natale and/or his party needs their heads examined, frankly.

McManus pointed to “international labour standards” that she claimed enshrined the right of any person to “withdraw labour” as a justification for the secondary boycotts and other outlawed industrial behaviour that has led to the notorious CFMEU being repeatedly slapped with fines running into the tens of millions of dollars; I simply say that nobody should care less about these “international standards:” this is Australia, and Australia is governed from Canberra — not through some convenient assortment of international accords struck by unelected partisans, which too often provide excuses for the anti-Australian behaviour of the Left.

And that applies to a whole lot of other areas than just the whims of the bloody unions.

It is a disturbing new development to find Australian unionists (and leadership figures within their movement at that) dispensing with claims that their organisations always act lawfully, and instead now advocating wilful and knowing illegal behaviour.

It strongly suggests that Trades Hall is growing immune to the threat of prosecutions of its minions, and this — along with the quickly growing threat of a return of the ALP to government federally within the next couple of years — ought to alarm decent, law-abiding Australians who simply want to go about their business.

What makes it worse is the fact that unions now count just 9% of private sector workers among their membership: the union movement is now nothing more than a fringe movement. Comments such as those made by McManus during the week merely show (once again) that this minuscule and largely irrelevant little junta genuinely thinks it runs this country. It most certainly does not.

During the coal miners’ strike in the UK in the mid-1980s — an attempt by the Trade Union Council (the British equivalent of the ACTU) to bring down the Thatcher government — Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously characterised the TUC campaign as “an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law and that it must not succeed;” Thatcher won that battle, which is more than anyone can say about the present government and its adherents when it comes to curbing the excesses of union power.

Bleating about the Senate simply doesn’t cut it when the unions and the ALP raise money for high-profile national mass communication campaigns that cut through and win votes, when the Coalition and its business friends, quite plainly, do not.

Thanks to a Productivity Commission ruling that mandates modest reductions in penalty rates on Sundays for some workers — which currently see the absurd situation of restaurant workers being paid $60 and $80 per hour to make coffee, and clean tables, and wash dishes — the Turnbull government is being skewered by an ALP/union campaign against which it seems incapable of mounting a persuasive defence, and has been all but abandoned by its alleged allies in the business sector.

This would be the same business sector that begged the Howard government, in 2005, to use its Senate majority to enact labour market deregulation; WorkChoices was in fact a reasonably moderate platform, especially once the “no disadvantage” test was restored after an oversight. But to listen to the unions at the time, ordinary workers would end up being paid just a few cents per hour unless the laws were repealed. On that occasion, as on this, the business community and its various lobby groups and industry bodies sat on their hands, kept the coffers closed, and allowed the Howard government to be sacrificed to a $13 million union campaign that was mostly comprised of lies and fairy stories.

Unions claim their “role,” especially in the construction sector, is predicated on “safety:” on a recent flight back to Melbourne, I sat next to the wife of a very senior union figure, from whom the admission was eventually extracted that industrial injuries and deaths occur on union-controlled sites just as they do on non-unionised sites. There goes that theory.

Rather, the privileged position unions have ensconced themselves in is more aimed at riding roughshod over the companies that employ their workers, freezing out people who don’t want to join a union (which is in itself illegal), and driving up construction sector costs, which — using the international comparisons so beloved of the Left in this country — are the highest in real terms in the developed world.

Is it any wonder the unemployment rate in Australia is rising?

In other sectors — such as Education — unions work almost exclusively to entrench mediocrity, and to make it impossible to pay the very best teachers more than the no-hopers at the bottom of the pack who give the profession a bad name.

And I say “almost exclusively” because when they aren’t working to entrench the institutionalised socialist instrument of uniform pay scales irrespective of ability or results, teacher unions have in recent years evolved into a willing instrument for the propagation of contemptible left-wing doctrinal misadventures. The insidious “Safe Schools” program, with its agenda of destroying traditional values masquerading as an anti-bullying package, is a case in point.

In the wake of McManus’ remarks, take a look around social media: there is no shortage of hardcore union and socialist activists posting quotes from people like Martin Luther King to ennoble and promote the law-breaking spirit McManus has sought to foster. Such diatribes dishonour the likes of Dr King, and further cheapen the message from a union movement that starts from a position of very little value in today’s Australia anyway.

In truth, all McManus’ words are good for is to justify a determined assault on the malodorous presence of the union movement in Australia that far transcends its actual support or a proportionate degree of influence, when judged against that pathetic 9% take-up rate outside the ranks of the teachers and the public servants.

They should encourage and embolden, not deter, a renewed focus by law enforcement agencies and the likes of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to penalise transgressions of industrial laws even more heavily, for penalties are no deterrent if they fail to discourage recidivist actions.

And they should motivate the Coalition, and its followers in the business community, to get serious about tightening curbs on secondary boycotts, industrial thuggery and other militant (and often violent) union behaviour even further: it is not right, for example, that unions should bring whole cities to a standstill over relatively isolated incidents (such as the dispute with Carlton and United Breweries in Melbourne a couple of years ago), and especially when the marauding union pack is mostly comprised of workers with no direct connection to the companies, the industries, or even the actual unions involved in those incidents.

I’m known for my dislike of unions, and especially the more militant and thuggish ones; I’ve never shied away from that perception, although I have always maintained that people have a right to join a union if they want to: it is the way those unions behave that I take issue with.

But when one of the leaders of the peak industry body in this country openly advocates lawless, anarchic, gratuitously unlawful behaviour until or unless Trades Hall gets what it wants — to the exclusion of being held to account, facing penalty, or acting in a way that most people would regard as acceptable — then its time for the whole citadel to be smashed, and for incitements to union members to ignore the law at will to be heavily punished indeed.

If anyone wonders why I’m such an enthusiastic proponent of smashing unions and breaking the ill-gotten influence they enjoy in this country, McManus’ remarks go very close to the mark; and if anyone questions why I think unions are out of place in today’s Australia, or why I think they add nothing whatsoever to constructive economic and social outcomes, McManus couldn’t have served up a more fitting answer if she had tried.


If Donald Trump “Wipes Out” The Left, So Be It

IF THERE’S anything about Donald Trump that merits unequivocal approval, it is the immediate, uncompromising assault he has launched against parasitic left-wing groups leaching money from the public purse, and against the cultural agenda of the Left itself; it’s time the pious, finger-shaking bullshit of the Left — in all its forms — was forced to eke out its own subsistence, or eradicated. This anti-Left crusade is well worth emulating in Australia.

Just when it looked like Donald Trump’s first weeks in office might be remembered for the own goal one of his advisers kicked, along comes something nobody with any common sense could possibly quibble about.

The slithering creep of socialism — cloaked in the finger-shaking tut-tutting of the Chardonnay drunks of the cultural Left — is an evil this column has railed against at various times throughout the six years I have been publishing it; in some respects it is hard to say what is worse: the malevolent advance of this noxious creed, or the fact that nobody in the mainstream conservative polity in this country seems able and/or remotely inclined to puncture it.

John Howard tried, valiantly: his efforts, whilst admirable, were a classic case of the metaphorical finger in the dyke.

But Donald Trump — who took office on Friday, determined to remake America, and determined to erase the pall cast over it by eight years of socialism that have left the US better resembling a stagnant European basket case than a world superpower —  has torn into a range of expenditure targets that seem, even by the debased standards of the Australian Left, grotesque.

I was reading a piece last week from London tome The Times, which provides an insight into just how far-reaching the new Trump broom will be; some of the hysteria extracted from the Left over some of the items it talks about has been debunked in other forums as misleading sensationalism — for example, the pages taken off the White House website are included in sections that are archived automatically at the conclusion of each President’s tenure — but when it comes to those organisations whose agenda can only be described as cultural terrorism, and the more civic-minded measures being wheeled out to replace them, what Trump appears to be doing is a sweeping rationalisation of where the government spends its money to delete expenditure on things that should be forced to rattle the tin themselves.

It is the kind of thing the Abbott government should have done immediately after the 2013 election, but didn’t.

(For clarity, I am not referring to the perennial football of blocking US aid to foreign organisations that perform abortions — a measure that has routinely been restored by every incoming Republican President since Ronald Reagan introduced it in 1984, and repealed by both incoming Democratic Presidents in the same time: and any comment today that accuses me of cheering that on will be deleted as soon as I see it).

Feel-good, Kum-Ba-Ya chanting outfits like the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which is a noble-sounding euphemism for appeasing the perpetrators of crime, would find their funding grants withdrawn; other organisations — like The National Endowment for the Arts — would be abolished altogether.

In the case of the latter, the article from The Times (republished yesterday in The Australian) notes the NEA doles out millions of dollars in grants each year to the arts community, funding such indulgences as plays “about assassinating Christopher Columbus, gun-control activist lesbians, ‘Doggie Hamlet,’ and climate change poetry.”

This is the problem with some sections of the arts community: their idea of “art” is not art at all. The types of works cited here are absolute, total, complete and utter crap. Yet they are emblematic of what eats up large chunks of taxpayers’ money: as it is in the USA, so too it is here.

Whole industries — overseen, populated and mobilised by the Left — spring up around this drivel, all paid for out of the taxpayer’s pocket. These people get their own minister, their own (sizeable) budget, they employ lobbyists for more money, and the whole commercially unviable (and to people in the real world, distasteful) behemoth gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

Like a turd attracts flies, these cottage industries draw hangers-on: the Chardonnay set. The do-gooder set. The bleeding heart bullshit artists, who think they are taking up with just and noble causes that advance humanity, when all this stuff amounts to is doggerel.

And then of course — just like Hollywood, with its jumped-up and overpaid screen legends, coddled in their bubble and fortified by the hundreds of millions of dollars they make from jumping around in front of a camera, whose deluded views get reported by a Left-leaning press pack as “fact” — these people think they have real clout to wield, and they wield it.

And then, the cycle perpetuates itself.

The Times piece correctly observes that the progressive agenda of the Left centres on “changing the world and human nature to accord with a preferred model of existence.” That model is unnatural, synthesised, and relies on engineering human behaviour to conform with a heavily doctrinaire and rigidly prescriptive set of values that are smothering in nature and totalitarian in application.

Just look at what happens on Twitter if anyone dares to say they don’t believe in man-made climate change: the ridicule and abuse is instant, incessant, and for a couple of hours hundreds of seemingly innocuous accounts appear out of thin air to ensure the “bad name” of the “denier” ricochets across the world. You will probably end up on a blacklist somewhere. Try the same thing over gay marriage, gender fluidity (whatever the fuck that is) or any of the other pet fancies of the Left, and the force of the abuse within the social media echo chamber will be akin to being hit by a truckload of bricks.

The point is that for all the “tolerance” these people preach, they have neither tolerance nor patience with dissenting views; for all the stock they place in “diversity,” they refuse to either countenance nor accept any diversity of opinion aside from their own.

These problems and phenomena are, if anything, even more entrenched in Australian society than they are in the USA, thanks to teacher unions run by socialist activists hijacking education curriculums in a concerted endeavour to ensure Australian schools turn out armies of compliant little socialists. They are fuelled by education budgets that throw far more money at “Education” than is actually required (if value for money and educational outcomes are the yardsticks), which means there is always cash for expensive social and “citizenship” education projects which rarely teach basic capitalist principles or entrepreneurship or personal responsibility, but never miss on teaching kids about their rights and entitlements.

(Just making that point is enough to attract charges from the Left of ignorance, sexism, misogyny, and probably of being Adolf Hitler. And that’s just for starters).

There are those in the Australian polity and embedded in the media firmament who scratch their heads and wonder why, with all the Left does for them, people could be inclined to elect someone like Donald Trump to the US presidency; they wonder, without irony, why there are signs of a “Trump effect” taking shape here in Australia.

The simple truth is that a significant majority of people are fed up with being told how to think, and speak, and behave; stripped of the ability to go out creating problems to solve would leave most on the Left with very little to say at all. Yes, there are problems in society, and bad people who give form to them, but the totalitarian and virtually fascist attempts to impose a rigid ideological straitjacket on the world are not the way to solve them.

If they were, the USSR would be flourishing today, and free nations would be clamouring to join. It isn’t, and they aren’t.

And this brings me back to Donald Trump’s America, and the early signs that the Left is not going to have a lot to celebrate in it.

I am literally in two minds about Trump — he may prove to be brilliant, or he may prove diabolical — and I suspect that whilst it will take a little time to ascertain which of those descriptions apply to him, we won’t be left wondering for very long.

If you are a socialist (or, quaintly, a “social justice warrior” — a term that is inherently oxymoronic in this context) then it’s a safe bet you still haven’t recovered from the grief and trauma of Hillary Clinton losing an election: if that synopsis applies to you, then the nicest thing I can say is that whilst I may be ambivalent about Trump, the defeat of Hillary Clinton is the best thing that has happened to both the USA and the rest of the free world in a very, very long time.

When official government communications portals promote actual Police rather than thought police, and when government leaders call out external military threats (Russia, China, Islamic State) for what they are, and promote staples such as reliable, affordable energy supplies and the rule of law instead of a fictitious ideological construct designed to cower and break their citizens, it is difficult to take issue with the changes already becoming evident in the United States at all.

The risk to the established parties in Australia (and to the Liberal Party in particular, which is the traditional home for those disinclined to leftist claptrap) is that not only is the silent majority in this country fed up with the prescriptions of the Left being forcibly imposed upon them, but a growing number of voters are now actively casting around for someone who listens to them and someone who will stop the socialist monster in its tracks.

This is why red herrings like Pauline Hanson are on the march: nobody in the respectable political firmament appears prepared to champion the majority over the snivelling diatribes of the Left, which in any case hates Western society and seeks, through incremental but unrelenting change, to destroy it.

The “Safe Schools” program — an anti-bullying scheme used as a Trojan horse to indoctrinate young children with the gender drivel of the hard Left — is but one piece of proof of this. There have been many others.

None of the pet causes and projects of the Left would survive if forced to rattle the tin and drum up money in the marketplace — in this case, from the citizens expected to capitulate to them — and the argument that people who don’t know what is good for them must be involuntarily forced to comply is in no way a suitable argument to justify a cent of public monies being allocated to fund them.

If Donald Trump’s activities “wipe out” the Left, then so be it: apart from the finger shakers and other parasitic filth dependent on such rubbish for their livelihoods, nobody will miss it when it is gone.

But failure by mainstream politicians in Australia to emulate the attack against the Left that is being unpacked in America will have dire consequences. The best way to ward off the rise of the far Right is to deal with these issues from the mainstream, which means listening to ordinary people rather than the alleged “elites” of the Left: and if Australia’s politicians refuse to do so, then when One Nation and other organisations pandering to the lunar fringe achieve a critical mass, the traditional parties will have nobody to blame for the fallout but themselves.

Qld ALP Can Root My Boot Over One Nation Preferences

AS QUEENSLANDERS head to the polls in 2017, the ALP — and attack kitten Jackie Trad in particular — is moving to rig the looming election in a brazen one-fingered salute to democracy; not content with fiddling the electoral system to boost its chances, it wants the LNP to shun One Nation preferences on “principle” despite itself relying on the preferences of the scum of the Earth. Labor can go root my boot. As for Trad, it is time she kept quiet.

Aside from One Nation voters themselves, I don’t think too many people are under any misapprehensions that Pauline Hanson’s reborn political vehicle could be categorised as anything other than “far Right;” obsessed with vilifying Muslims, homosexuals, and signalling a green light to flood the country with guns, their agenda (to the extent it is perceptible) is not the agenda of government, but of protest: like all extremes, this one has little to recommend itself to fair-minded mainstream folk aside from its allure as a means of protest.

However, those who vote for One Nation are free to do so.

Conversely, aside from Communist Party Greens voters (and even most of them are oblivious to the true nature of their beast of choice), too few are even aware of what that party stands for: a force of the extreme hard Left, rooted in socialism and communism — with actual communists sprinkled throughout, and at least one openly Communist MP in Lee Rhiannon — the Greens are anti-family, anti-business, anti-mining, anti-industry, anti-car, anti-military, anti-national defence, anti-Western values, and anti-democratic. And that is just for starters. Like all extremes, this one has little to recommend it to anyone at all. It isn’t even a genuinely environment-focused party. It is, in fact, the scum of the Earth: absolute filth.

However, those who vote for the Greens are free to do so.

I begin thus because with a state election almost certain to be held in Queensland this year (and probably sooner rather than later), the local ALP’s chief attack kitten — deputy Premier Jackie Trad — has been belting the can a bit too loudly of late over the issue of One Nation preferences, trying publicly to “shame” the LNP into eschewing preference deals with Pauline Hanson, this time on the convenient (and rather opportunistic) pretext of One Nation candidates posting anti-gay remarks in social media forums.

For the record, I don’t think it is appropriate for the so-called LGBTIQ community to be singled out for vilification on account of their way of life — particularly for political gain — but I do think it’s important to get some context here: after all, if One Nation stands condemned for allegedly doing so, then the Greens must stand condemned for targeting the living standards and way of live of virtually everyone.

Under their policies, electricity and gas would become so prohibitively expensive that millions would be unable to afford them; the car would become a thing of the past, and people would find out just how unfit for purpose public transport really is as a unilateral transport solution; jobs would disappear, as ridiculous taxes and other measures designed to destroy incentive and enterprise deter those businesses that don’t close from hiring anyone; and when the borders are thrown open (once Australia’s defences have been systematically dismantled in favour of “non-violent combat techniques” and other bullshit in the Greens’ manifesto), those characteristics that make our way of life quintessentially Australian will be destroyed forever.

Is the targeting and victimisation of the many — which is the logical conclusion of the Greens’ platform — really any different or better than the targeting and victimisation of the few?

Of course it isn’t.

I feel for my friend, Queensland LNP leader Tim Nicholls, who must surely be wondering what in hell he did to deserve the odious spectre of a regurgitated One Nation dumped in his lap approaching a state election his party should be favoured to romp home at. After all, One Nation arguably destroyed the then-Coalition state government in 1998, and was in large part the reason for the Coalition’s obliteration in 2001.

Nicholls would make a very good Queensland Premier, if given the opportunity — especially after three years of a government whose only agenda seems to have been to erase the impact of Campbell Newman from the state.

But rather than vacillating and agonising over what to do about preference allocations — a ready trap the Coalition fell headlong into in both 1998 and 2001 — Nicholls and his team should be taking a very different approach this time around.

And that — very simply — is to turn the blowtorch right back on Labor and its grimy, decades-long electoral relationship with the Greens.

Every government that has either shared power with, or been propped up by, the Greens has ended up being annihilated; it has happened to ALP state governments in Tasmania in 1992 and 2014, a Liberal government in Tasmania in 1998, and federally in 2013: in each case, the hard-left lunacy of the Greens infected the government it supported, and a solid majority of voters hurled it from office as a consequence.

Just as Labor bellows about the evils of One Nation, to date there has not been a sustained, concerted and/or effective campaign to destroy the Greens by the Liberal Party anywhere in Australia: the one remotely possible exception was in Victoria in 2010, when then-opposition leader Ted Baillieu preferenced against the Greens statewide, and won a surprise victory.

But there are so many insidious aspects of the Greens that provide ready ammunition for a conservative party half-serious about winning (as opposed to behaving like a crony club) that it beggars belief the Liberal Party has never seen fit to oxygenate them to an electorate mostly sold on the fairy story of tree-hugging hippies chaining themselves to fences to stop bulldozers.

Even if the Greens were that way once, they sure as hell aren’t today.

Queensland, which for 20-odd years has voted at state elections under Optional Preferential Voting (OPV), has seen “exhaust” rates (i.e. the number of votes excluded from counting because they express no continuing preference) as high as 70% in some seats…whilst in the case of the votes of Greens candidates eliminated, the exhaust rate is far lower, and those votes that are distributed invariably split 80% Labor’s way.

In other words — and contrary to the mythology it has allowed to spring up around its unlikely victory in 2015 after a single term in opposition — Queensland Labor was able to form government because of OPV, not in spite of it, as votes that haemorrhaged from the 2012 LNP pile toward right-wing minor parties and independents did not return to the LNP on preferences. Most of those votes that did express a preference went to the ALP, in addition to the usual bedrock of additional support it invariably harvests from the Greens anyway.

Yet just to double down — in an unbelievably outrageous electoral rort — the ALP summarily abolished the OPV system last year without warning, consultation or debate; in its stead comes the restoration of compulsory preferential voting: just to make sure Greens voters are forced into allocating preferences, and in the safe knowledge better than 80% of them will do so in Labor’s favour.

It is no more a point of “principle” to accept or reject One Nation preferences than it is to accept or reject those of the Greens, and this fraught issue that rent the Queensland conservatives asunder in 1998 and 2001 could be neutralised by an all-out attack on the Greens.

It is not acceptable that Labor should harvest preferences from such an odious, noxious and downright dangerous source as the Greens, only to attempt to dictate to the LNP that the preferences of a bunch of rednecks should be off-limits.

I think the LNP is mad if it doesn’t at least place One Nation ahead of both Labor and the Greens, with or without a formal pact with Pauline Hanson’s outfit, on the “reasonable expectation” the gesture will be returned.

After all, Hanson herself explicitly stated last year that “the ALP is One Nation’s enemy,” and given the smoking ruin her preference strategies made of Coalition governments in Queensland in 1998, Western Australia and the Northern Territory in 2001, as well as Coalition oppositions in New South Wales and Queensland in 1999 and 2001 respectively, it would be wiser to allow Labor to fill the role of “One Nation’s enemy” wherever possible.

And besides, whilst reputable polling in Queensland shows One Nation on course for about 15% of the vote (and I remain to be convinced), that vote is also more evenly spread than it was when it won 11 seats off 23% of the vote in 1998. Yes, there are a few seats where support appears to be spiking, and these may fall to One Nation at a state election. But if Nicholls’ LNP can extract two-thirds of One Nation preferences statewide, the LNP is likely to win the election comfortably, and the nightmarish prospect of a One Nation balance of power (possible only in a very close result) will have been averted.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Greens are complete filth — the absolute scum of the Earth — and the only reason people continue to vote for them, unbelievably, is that there has never been a mass campaign to expose them.

That’s where Tim Nicholls’ election win — and neutralising the threat of One Nation — can be built, not through being backed into a corner of inaction over the alleged evil of whether to place One Nation ahead of or behind the LNP’s real political enemies.

As for Trad, her utter hypocrisy on this issue is exposed by the simple fact she admits her party wouldn’t direct unions (or anyone else) to place One Nation behind the Coalition on how-to-vote cards or other election material.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, Jackie. Queensland Labor can go root my boot if it thinks the LNP should be expected to forego up to half a million additional preference votes from One Nation when it continues to jump into bed with a far worse and much more sinister whore in the shape of the Greens.

Trad should keep quiet. Very quiet.


Ban Lawless, Anti-Australia “Left Renewal” Greens From Parliament

HOW A COMMUNIST with links to the USSR could be eligible to sit in Australian Parliaments despite the national security risk defies belief; news NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon — with fellow traveller NSW MP David Shoebridge — anchors a hard Left Greens faction that recognises neither the rule of law nor the Australian state is a worry. This insidious subversive filth, and anyone else who signs on with it, must be barred from public office.

Those readers — especially those who come here intermittently just to be contrary — who profess disapproval of my wholesale characterisation of the Greens as Communists should perhaps take a little more notice today, as a Christmas present from Australia’s far Left that nobody in their right mind would want lobs onto the national political landscape.

(That’s right, a Christmas present — unwanted as it is — not some monument to “happy holidays” or similar bullshit).

Lee Rhiannon may very well have told the Fairfax press that she is not involved with Left Renewal — and we will get to that outfit shortly — and that none of her “current” staff are, but people will form their own conclusions and Rhiannon, as nobody has attempted to ever deny, is an active, ardent communist who once worked as a USSR propagandist: even if she has no formal, verifiable involvement with Left Renewal, her entire history suggests she would at the very minimum be amenable to its objectives.

Speaking of the press, readers can make their usual choice between Fairfax and Murdoch accounts of this issue.

For once, there isn’t a great deal to say.

The emergence of an ultra-left faction within the Communist Party Greens — claiming it does not acknowledge the rule of law, the Australian state, the authority of the Police, and seeks to “bring about the end of capitalism” — is hardly a surprise; after all, the party’s platform (which most voters are ignorant of) advocates pretty much the same thing.

But Left Renewal, this hardcore new Greens faction that explicitly aims to realise it, is a new development and a turning point in the long march of the Greens from their masquerade as a harmless place to park protest votes to an unveiling of their true form — an insidious, obsequious bastion of the most brutal aspects of socialism — that ought to be met with proportionate repercussions by the very state it claims to disregard the legitimacy of.

The reports available in the media all use the formulation that Left Renewal has “formed around” Rhiannon and her apparent fellow traveller — NSW upper house MP David Shoebridge — and on the presumption that this is how the reporting journalists have been briefed, Rhiannon and Shoebridge can hardly be surprised that some will draw the conclusion their fingerprints are all over it even if the paper trail doesn’t directly implicate them.

It does not recognise the rule of law.

It does not recognise the legitimacy of the Australian state.

It portrays Police as a “violent apparatus” of that state: needless to say, it doesn’t recognise their authority either.

And it is pledged to “bring about the end of capitalism” — something leader Richard Di Natale has tried to dismiss as a “ridiculous notion,” but if the shoe fits, the Greens must wear it: after all, it is an old story indeed that the Greens are “anti” just about everything that constitutes a modern, advanced, liberal democratic society: and that, by definition, includes free markets and financial systems within a capitalist economy.

But to really appreciate the truly repulsive — and subversive — nature of Left Renewal, it is necessary to republish a contemporaneous quote from The Age, from which the Left Renewal manifesto states that

“Capitalism depends upon violent and authoritarian divisions within the working class, such as elitism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious sectarianism, and ableism (among others). It is only with the abolition of these authoritarian relations that we will be able to create a thriving movement capable of transforming society and so must challenge these wherever we encounter it (sic).”

Australia itself, Left Renewal claims, is “based upon an act of genocide which exists within a broader framework of global imperialism.”

What a pile of horse shit.

Still, Left Renewal makes its objectives very clear: to systematically overthrow and dismantle Australian society, with a flagrant disregard — defiance even — of any officially sanctioned authority that might stop it.

It makes a rather ironic start in this sense, given it establishes a faction within a party in which factionalism is supposedly verboten: and to continue the theme, any Left Renewal member will be bound to support and pursue decisions resolved by the faction’s members by majority ballot.

And in a vivid illustration of just how dangerous this ultra-left wing contingent at the Greens really is — both to its own party, and to Australian society more broadly — the fact calls by party elder Bob Brown for Rhiannon to get out of Parliament in the interests of “renewal,” and attempts by Di Natale to head the emergence of the faction off altogether, merely show the complete impotence of any proper leadership at the Greens, and the malignancy with which the parasitic hard socialist Left now seeks to advance its truck.

Margaret Thatcher used to say, of liberty and democracy, that you cannot have freedom unless you have order — and that you cannot have order unless you obey the law.”

It is clear that Left Renewal has little interest in obeying the law at all — let alone even acknowledging its fundamental role underpinning Australian society — and in that sense, it is debatable whether it has any interest in preserving order either.

I think a determination needs to be made on national security grounds that subversive elements like this should be barred from holding office: there is, after all, no point rattling on about democracy when it comes to those pledged to destroy the liberal democratic system in its entirety.

And whether she “is a member” of Left Renewal or not, that applies to the Communist Lee Rhiannon irrespective of this insidious new bloc inside the Greens: as an operative for a foreign (and hostile) power in the form of the USSR she should never have been allowed to stand for Parliament in the first place, let alone serve in the upper houses of both NSW and the Commonwealth.

She, and anyone else who throws in their lot with Left Renewal, should be summarily disqualified from standing for elective office. Their agenda may yield little electoral support, but — just like the Greens proper — precedent has already shown it takes relatively few people to be brainwashed through disinformation and propaganda to inflict disproportionate consequent damage on Australia’s instruments of governance.

With an agenda such as that now offered by Left Renewal, that damage — if milked for enough votes — could be cataclysmic.


Taking The Piss: Greens’ “Reshuffle” Defies Sanity

IMMUNE TO REALITY, the Greens’ belated post-election reshuffle would be risible were it not monument to the obsequious agenda of the far Left; the ongoing presence of Sarah Hanson-Young — at all — is indecent, and any party according “healthy oceans” ministerial status is perverse. But by making Lee Rhiannon responsible for “democracy,” it is clear that when it comes to the intelligence of the electorate, the Greens are taking the piss.

With the exception of actual video media directly relevant to our discussions in this column, it has been a long time indeed since I last gave readers something to listen to as an accompaniment to an article; today I renew that occasional practice, with a brilliant Australian song from the 1980s (and its official music video, replete with a distinct and appropriately keystone flavour) the perfect choice to go with what I want to cover this morning.

Enjoy this as you read…

…for by now, I think most people will be aware of the reshuffle the Communist Party Greens deigned to execute late last week, ostensibly on the peculiar pretext of “aligning MPs’ responsibilities with their particular states,” and whatever fatuous spin might be offered by leader Richard Di Natale to justify it, the Greens have become even more dangerous to the national interest as a result.

If, of course, such a consequence is even possible.

At first blush, the removal of the contemptible Sarah Hanson-Young from the Immigration portfolio is a triumph for anyone who values the sanctity of human life; her “accidents happen” dismissal of the deaths of 1,300 asylum seekers at sea as the direct result of a policy the Greens championed and which was initiated during her tenure in that post is a cause for great shame, and should have led to Hanson-Young’s defeat at the 2013 election.

The fact it did not underwrites a very big clue as to why the Greens are so trenchantly supportive of proportional representation in Parliaments across the land; even with that easy ticket to undeserved parliamentary leather in hand, Hanson only just squeaked home on that occasion, and this year — with the quotas almost halved — only just managed to survive that too.

Clearly her papers are marked; but before her career can finally be terminated, this reshuffle has only widened her scope to wreak havoc.

The failed bank teller will now be the Greens’ official spokesperson on Finance and Trade matters; this quisling, whose life experience of the commercial world barely registers above zero, is now the voice of the key crossbench bloc deciding pivotal matters affecting Australia’s $1.5tn economy, the half-trillion dollar debt Labor and the Greens saddled it with when they last held office, and the $450bn in annual government spending which — contrary to the Greens’ world view — must be drastically slashed (especially where lefty-trendy social programs are concerned) if Australia is ever to pay its way again among the nations of the developed world.

It gets worse, however, when the Senator is also now to be the spokesperson on “Lifelong Learning” — every aspect of the educative process from day care to universities — and Youth, and the idea of this scion of the hard socialist Left, utterly divorced from common sense and sanity in the orthodox sense, being even remotely able to influence the development of young Australians is enough to send a shudder down the spine of any fair-minded individual. “Education” and “brainwashing” are not the same thing, although with Hanson-Young’s propensity to refuse to interact in any way with those who dare to question her position on things, that distinction is likely to become impossible to spot when the Greens’ policy prescriptions in these fields are revealed.

Senator Hanson-Young is also the Greens’ shadow minister for the Arts, and it is to be hoped the Arts community — usually a friend to the Left — recognises the imbecilic new ally it has been shackled to, and takes aim accordingly.

What any of these things uniquely shares with South Australia is difficult to ascertain.

Queenslander Larissa Waters has been given responsibility for Women, Gambling and Tourism (and of course, we don’t have any of those things south of the Tweed), as well as Mining and Resources — an industry her utterances over the years suggest she would be happy to shut down altogether.

In keeping with the Greens’ tradition of putting parliamentary neophytes in charge of Immigration, new Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim takes over this role from Hanson-Young; it’s an interesting choice, based on Di Natale’s criteria, for Tasmania typically receives the fewest migrants (both in raw terms and per head of capita) of any Australian state.

McKim will prove no match for Attorney-General George Brandis — and his claim to shadow the country’s First Law Officer is as opaque as the rest of the Greens’ claims to adequacy — and it remains to be seen what input he might have in Small Business other than collaborating on taxation and workplace relations laws with the ALP that might help drive enterprises in the sector to the wall once and for all.

It’s a similar story with McKim’s fellow Tasmanian, Peter Whish-Wilson, who apparently seeks to emulate titans of Australian politics such as Paul Keating and Peter Costello as treasury spokesman; the likelier event is that he makes Wayne Swan on a terrible day look comparatively brilliant, for the one thing nobody is ever going to accuse the Greens of is economic competence.

Putting him in charge of Consumer Affairs, or “Waste and Recycling,” seems standard enough fare for the Greens, even if some of his party’s members need a dictionary to spell the terms correctly.

Making him shadow minister for “Healthy Oceans” is patently ridiculous, and betrays the rank amateurism and puerile, university-style politics that still underpin the Greens’ efforts despite its solemn declaration a few years ago that it was finally a mature political party. It wasn’t, and it isn’t, and it shows.

And aren’t there oceans around the rest of Australia too?

To kill two birds with one stone — promoting wimmin into key posts and prosecuting the Greens’ own peculiar brand of social misadventurism — Rachel Siewert and Janet Rice cover “portfolios” ranging from “LGBTIQ” to Ageing, and from “Forests” to Disability Services: the latter, of course, so dear to the hard Left as a means by which to simultaneously entrench welfare dependency whilst locking in votes from the underprivileged. At $24bn per annum once the NDIS is fully operational, expect the Greens to nevertheless advocate loudly for increases in expenditure in this area, and steep tax rises on the rest of us to pay for them.

Scott Ludlam takes responsibility for just about everything no thinking Australian would ever want a Greens politician to have any influence over: Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans’ Affairs, International Aid, Communications, Sustainable Cities, and “Nuclear.” The scope for permanently ruptured international relationships, combined with a “reach out” to despotic regimes in third-world countries is obvious, as is the abandonment of the defence community altogether and a move to compost-powered houses. I am not directing these remarks at Ludlam personally, but the idea that any Greens’ edict on any of these matters would be anything other than stone-aged is preposterous.

It’s clear where the Greens think their “brains” trust lies: Adam Bandt is assigned Climate Change, Energy, Industrial Relations, and Science. On one level, Bandt (a Melburnian) is clever enough to handle such a workload; on another, he is just as affected and addled with the disease of hard socialism that nobody ought to take much notice of what he has to say about any of it. Climate Change and the Greens? If you want impartiality on such a hotly contested issue, the last person who should be consulted is the most partisan combatant in the group.

And again, how is any of this particularly aligned to Bandt being domiciled in Victoria? It just shows what a nincompoop Di Natale is if this is representative of his idea of leadership.

And this brings us to the pièce de résistance of the entire reshuffle: actual Communist Lee Rhiannon, who as a former fellow traveller with the USSR and propagandist for Moscow during the Cold War shouldn’t be entitled to sit in an Australian Parliament at all.

Rhiannon is charged with “Industry:” something the Greens desperately want to shut down.

Rhiannon is simultaneously charged with responsibility for “Animal Welfare” and “Gun Control:” draw your own conclusions there.

Rhiannon is to be responsible for “Housing,” which we take to mean the compost-powered variety containing bare-footed residents who munch broccoli and lentils by candlelight and ride bicycles all over the place.

But most obscenely, Rhiannon is to be the Greens’ spearhead on “democracy,” and the idea this antediluvian, vituperative battleaxe, with her roots deep in hard Communism and her well-known hatred for anything even marginally to the Right of Marx, will in any way constitute a champion for anything remotely democratic is as fanciful as money growing on trees.

Then again, with the Greens’ notorious ignorance of economic reality and their insistence that “government money” is a bottomless pit from which to fund endless adventures in social engineering and statist interference, who would know?

The bottom line (excuse the pun) is that whichever way you cut it, the output from the Greens is unlikely to change; this isn’t a party of consultation, much less one of accountability, whatever its MPs claim to the contrary. They might or might not be answerable to their rank-and-file, as they regularly protest whenever their “credentials” as democrats are questioned, but none of them are accountable to the Australian public.

To the extent they are, anyone can replace a beaten Greens MP: all they need is the wherewithal and the commitment to “the cause.” The storyline stays the same even if the storytellers change once in a while.

One constant that remains unaffected by this reshuffle is the propensity for the Greens to regard the intelligence of the average voter with utter scorn; safe in the knowledge too many unthinking voters still believe their party is a benign assortment of tree-hugging, fairy-loving hippies with whom it is safe to park a protest vote, the Greens simply get on with spreading the insidious cancers of socialism and social subjugation that are beginning to tear at the social fabric.

It’s why those in the mainstream need to find effective voices to slap down the leftist PC rubbish — and the sinister, deeply destructive agenda it cloaks — before the damage it does to this country becomes irreversible.

But in announcing such a defective line-up — one so apparently well thought through, and carefully contrived — it is clear the Greens are taking the piss, not posturing as a serious force to be entrusted with the duties of high office.

Sarah Hanson-Young on Finance and Education. Lee Rhiannon on “Democracy.” And a slew of spear-throwers all allocated parts of the overall Greens project to destroy Western values and to change Australia into something it isn’t, and which most people (rightly) don’t want.

It’s a mistake, all right. The Greens have had an easy time in Parliament ever since they took the balance of power in the Senate in 2008. For the present Parliament to be viewed favourably by history, it’s about time something was done to change that.


50/50 Newspoll Cold Comfort For Turnbull, Coalition

THE LATEST NEWSPOLL — published in The Australian today — offers no succour to Malcolm Turnbull and his government despite recording a tied result, which almost certainly masks an overall position that at best for the Coalition has stagnated; Turnbull continues to pay the price for a flat-footed and visionless campaign, and the surge in support for minor party candidates complicates the difficult task of prevailing on 2 July even further.

The timing of the latest Newspoll — coming one day after an extensive discussion of some of the issues that are driving momentum for Bill Shorten, and the apparently complete disinclination and/or inability to effectively puncture them in the Coalition bunker — is exquisite, and the result not entirely unexpected; the finding that Newspoll’s respondents are split evenly on the two-party measure is within the margin of error, heavily dependent on rounding and estimates of preference flows, and is in all likelihood a facade for the fact that the past four 51-49 results in Labor’s favour are unlikely to have changed all that much in the past fortnight — if at all.

First things first: readers can check out the coverage of Newspoll in The Australian today here and here, and the obvious point I would make is that its Canberra bureau chief, Phillip Hudson, is dead wrong when he says that not only can Labor not win an election with a primary vote of 35%, but that it needs to increase to at least (his italics) 39% to be in with a chance: the ALP under Gillard forced a hung Parliament (and formed government) in 2010 from a primary vote of 37.2%, and with the ongoing trend to a fracturing of the major parties’ primary votes, a vote gained through preference distribution is as good as one gained outright — even if it takes up to a fortnight longer to achieve the same effect.

I think if Labor scores 35% or 36% of the primary vote, in an ambivalent and disaffected public atmosphere where politics is concerned these days, it will probably win the election: the only variable will be whether it’s outright or in minority. But more on that a bit later.

This poll comes as almost all of the other reputable polls in the market are carrying leads of 51-49 or 52-48 in the ALP’s favour, and in that sense the aggregate across the lot of them probably sits bang on the 51-49 mark as best I can guesstimate; as I said yesterday, there are signs that Labor is consolidating its early leads — e’er slightly as may be — and I don’t see anything in this latest batch of Newspoll figures to contradict that.

With its respondents marking both parties down a point each on the primary vote, Newspoll finds the Coalition and Labor now sitting on 40% and 35% respectively; even though the Communist Party Greens also drop a point in this survey, to 10%, and despite a few seat-by-seat deals in Victoria that may or may not be struck by Victorian Liberal president Michael Kroger, it is likely that 75% of these Greens votes will still flow to the ALP during preference distributions (and I’m marking that down from 80% last time) and if they do, that effectively puts the parties on 42.5% each.

Another five percentage points — 3% for Nick Xenophon’s NXT group, and 1% each for Clive Palmer’s dying rabble and for One Nation — are tied up in entities that are no friends of the Coalition: Xenophon, whilst credible, leans well left of the Coalition (even under Malcolm Turnbull); the Palmer Party’s vote went a tick better than 60% to Labor last time, and what’s left of it will probably do so again; and by declaring that Pauline Hanson is “not welcome in federal politics,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has probably guaranteed that Hanson will do what she did when she helped kill off a series of Liberal state governments in the early 2000s (or helped bury the NSW and Queensland opposition Coalition parties in 1999 and 2001 respectively), and put the Liberals last.

Just to be a bit generous to Malcolm, let’s call this a 60-40 split of these votes to Labor: and this brings the votes up to 44.5% for the Coalition, and 45.5% for the ALP.

But when it is remembered that the “Others” vote (which in this case includes 3% for Family First) generally splits 50/50 between the major parties, this back-of-envelope preference distribution results in a 50.5% share of the two-party measure for the ALP; and given Family First made no secret of its disgusted fury at the Senate voting changes legislated earlier in the year by Turnbull — going so far as to launch a ridiculous High Court challenge that was always doomed to fail on open-and-shut constitutional grounds — Labor’s 51% results over the past two months might even be unchanged.

To some degree, the standings of the two leaders is becoming less relevant in my view (if it ever really was) and to the extent it remains so, the more important set of numbers belongs to Turnbull, whose approval falls again this time around to 37% (-1%) and his disapproval rises by the same amount to 51%, making him almost as unpopular as he was when his colleagues tossed him out of the Liberal Party leadership six and a half years ago.

Yes, Bill Shorten’s numbers are worse — approval dropping four points to 33%, and disapproval rising three points to 52% — but he remains far less on the nose than he was six months ago, when his pathetic numbers almost triggered the Labor leadership coup we alerted readers to last November, and which to that point had been stayed only by Mal Brough’s explosion as a source of poor publicity for the government.

And as disliked as I’m sure Shorten is among a wide cross-section of the electorate, the recent precedent of Tony Abbott winning an election with worse personal ratings means that anyone who believes Shorten is the Besser brick that will pull the ALP below the surface of the water on 2 July is kidding themselves.

He should be. He deserves to be. But if Labor loses, it will arguably have little to do with Shorten.

On the “preferred Prime Minister” measure, Turnbull and Shorten both drop a point, to 45% and 30% respectively: hardly a vote of confidence in either of them, with the lead enjoyed by Turnbull remaining no more than the clear but not overwhelming advantage any incumbent PM might be entitled to expect at this point in the cycle.

Cutting through the bullshit and sifting through the odd good news day for the Coalition, the (rare) lapses of discipline and focus by Labor, and the sheer lifelessness of Turnbull’s campaign, my gut instincts tell me that at the halfway point of the campaign proper, it’s the Coalition that is in the fight of its life.

To watch it and listen to it, however, you could be forgiven for thinking the election was six months ago. Apart from Turnbull’s increasingly shrill exhortations for a “decisive result” to avoid a hung Parliament, the government’s campaign exudes all the excitement of an overdose of Mogadon.

The trend picked up by Newspoll of a spike in voting intention for minor parties and Independents isn’t a new phenomenon, and it isn’t all that unusual any more; three of the past six federal elections have seen the major parties fail to collectively record more than 80% of the primary vote, and if it happens again this time, I’d be suggesting this pattern was becoming the norm rather than getting excited about it and suggesting this was some shock new departure in Australian politics.

Yet having said that, the kind of vacuously populist, economically irresponsible, deliberately misleading and downright dishonest campaigns waged by the ALP these days are one very big contributor to the fragmentation of the major party vote; the turgid, insipid, visionless and timid offerings lately turned in by the Liberal Party are another.

The old adage that voters are not stupid, and are articulate and intelligent enough to process serious and detailed policy and reform packages, is only partly correct: some people who vote in Australian elections are very stupid indeed, and I’m not talking about the partisan preferences of those whose views are of the Left. But the fact dumb, gullible voters amplify and assist in getting brainless scare campaigns to resonate more widely is no excuse for treating the rest of the electorate like incoherent dolts as well by telling them nothing of consequence.

And with both parties straying across the dividing line between each other’s traditional philosophical positions, it can be no surprise that minor parties are springing up all over the place. Readers know that I disagree violently with the notion of candidates or parties being elected with a sliver of the vote, and in this sense the Senate is an undemocratic and unrepresentative outrage in my view. But that outrage wouldn’t exist to criticise if the major parties were representative of the values they are meant to embody: and right now, jointly and severally, they are nothing of the kind.

Against this backdrop, it is generally the challenger who can expect to be favoured, rather than the proverbial “devil you know.”

This is why — with nothing concrete emanating from the Liberal Party that suggests it is capable of knocking the insidious and vapid “policy” offerings of the ALP over, with four weeks to go — I am increasingly certain Labor may indeed form a government whenever the counting of votes is finalised during the week after next month’s election.

(Despite my trenchant historical critiques of Turnbull as a leader, it is an outcome that would disgust me: the damage such a government would wreak is incalculable beyond the near-certainty that it would be economically and socially cataclysmic. But that’s another story).

The polls have now been consistent — and surprisingly uniform — for months now; the only movement that has been a constant, detected in all of them (albeit to varying degrees), has been the unfaltering downward drift of Turnbull’s personal approval numbers. It was entirely foreseeable to anyone who paid the slightest notice to Turnbull’s performance as leader in 2008-09 and to the horrific personal ratings it deservedly generated. If the government loses the coming election, moderate Liberals will have much to answer for.

A quick look around the electorates held (and likely to be retained) by Greens and Independents offers no comfort to the Coalition; Andrew Wilkie, Adam Bandt and any breakthrough Xenophon candidate in the lower house can all be expected to back Shorten in the event of any hung Parliament.

If Cathy McGowan holds on in Indi, I wouldn’t be relying on her if I were Turnbull either; if Barnaby Joyce is beaten in New England by the imbecilic Tony Windsor, the problem grows even worse for the Coalition.

The only hung Parliament I can see Turnbull prevailing in is one where the Coalition wins 75 seats and is propped up by Bob Katter — unless, of course, the National Party has already won his seat as part of that 75-seat haul. If that happens, then God knows what the outcome might be.

And if the Greens knock a couple of sitting ALP MPs out, the equation remains unchanged; Richard di Natale and Adam Bandt would not support a Coalition government if hell froze and charcoal sprouted, or even if a flock of pigs took flight in a sunrise in western skies. The only difference is that the Left’s bloc in the House might have a couple more Greens MPs and a couple less from Labor. It might make the horse trading between the two interesting, but it won’t change a thing.

As it stands, and as The Australian notes, a 50/50 result, if applied uniformly at an election, would see Labor win 14 seats from the Coalition: that reduces the government to 76 seats, and the barest of majorities. If my sense the 50/50 Newspoll result is a bit overcooked for the Coalition is correct, or if patchy voting trends rob the Coalition of another seat or two over and above those 14, the outcome is pretty obvious.

My sense is that if Labor can get to 71-72 seats on its own, the assortment of Greens and other crossbenchers will be enough to put it into government. Whether it wins in its own right or achieves the lesser milestone of forcing a hung Parliament, Bill Shorten becomes Prime Minister either way. The only way Turnbull can be re-elected is by snaring 76 of the 150 lower house seats outright for the Coalition — a task all polls suggest is becoming an increasingly difficult objective.

You really have to wonder just what the point of paying Coalition staffers is if this is the best situation they can engineer against a party that should be at least another couple of terms away from contemplating a return to office after the debacle of the Rudd-Gillard years, and against an opponent in Shorten who has been so thoroughly discredited, repeatedly, that it’s almost offensive to see him still standing politically. It’s as bad as that.

But as I have been saying for some time now, unless the message from the Coalition changes drastically — and its delivery is reworked altogether — then 2 July looms as a bad day for the Coalition, and an even worse day for the country.

If Turnbull wants to be Prime Minister as badly as the effort to seize the office in the first place might have suggested, it’s time to get the skates on.


Greens Preferences: Making Broccoli-Munching Gnomes Useful

ACRIMONY has greeted moves by Victorian Liberal president Michael Kroger to seek preference deals with the Greens; it is not credible to oppose the idea by saying Labor is the lesser evil: it is an economic vandal, addicted to fuelling recurrent spending with high debt and taxes, and obsessed with chasing the hard Left vote. Easily as bad as each other, anything Kroger can do to play the Greens off against Labor to advantage the Coalition is laudable.

For long-term readers of this column, I offer the assurance that I haven’t taken leave of my senses, and nor am I softening in my trenchant distaste for the party I routinely characterise either as Communists — which is what they are — or as socialist filth, in a reflection of my contempt for them.

And for the benefit of those who are newer to this forum, in the runup to the 2013 federal election this column exhorted voters to preference the Greens out of existence in the national interest; this closely followed a piece recommending that people should vote Liberal or Labor per their preference, but to avoid the Greens at all costs; more recently, the possibilities of tactical preferencing have grown more appealing, and with Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger copping undeserved flak over his plan to recommend preferencing the Greens above Labor in some of their target seats in return for open tickets in a selection of Liberal targets, I wanted to publish on this subject once again.

The trigger for my remarks today has been an article appearing in the Weekend Australian, which details the apparent move by Liberal Party advisers to circumvent the members’ elected president in Victoria and overturn his preference plan, to which I can only stress that Kroger is the servant of the members — and that the advisers are largely unaccountable employees with no right to do anything of the kind.

But before we progress further, let’s spend some time assessing exactly how the ALP and the Greens are constituted these days.

The stereotype of average Greens voters — broccoli-munching vegan gnomes singing kum-ba-ya, cycling barefoot through their compost-powered homes and proudly boasting their hearts bleed for asylum seekers arriving by boat who are trying to illegitimately jump the queue — sits at odds with the platform of the party itself, which (and this is an old story) is anti-family, anti-industry, anti-agriculture, anti-mining, anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-car, high tax, open border, anti-democracy, anti-Australia, anti-America, anti-Israel, pro-CND, militarily pacifist, illiberal, statist, doctrinally socialist, and resolutely committed to the de-industrialisation of Western society and to the destruction of the values that built and sustained it in the first place.

In other words, the Greens have developed into the public menace they represent through the exploitation of compassion-babbling Chardonnay drunks who are stupid enough to believe they are working to build some kind of socialist utopia on Earth through their support: and in my view, a useful idiot is a more valuable commodity than one who is simply an idiot and no more, and this underpins the change in my assessment of the Greens’ fitness for purpose — but not of the party, or the insidious agenda it represents.

These bleeding-hearted, compassion-babbling bullshit artists and so-called SJWs — now steeled by what they think is a ticket to Nirvana on a vessel with more in common with the USSR than the land of Oz — used to be called something else: the left wing of the Labor Party.

Over the past quarter of a century (and especially in the past 15 years), Labor has haemorrhaged more and more of what was once the support on its left flank to the point it is no longer capable of winning elections on its own without torrential flows of Greens preferences or even — as has now happened once federally and twice in Tasmania — formal power-sharing and Coalition agreements with the so-called environmentalist party of the certifiably lunatic hard Left.

Yet in response, the ALP has — like a spurned adolescent youth chasing haplessly and hopelessly after the first girl he ever went to bed with — given chase after the former constituency spirited away by the Greens by repositioning itself further and further to the Left, as if by eschewing its mainstream base and masquerading as hardened pinkos, the lunatic Left might re-embrace its sometime flame and live together happily ever after once more.

Carbon taxes: not one now, but two, as if such a ridiculous act of economy-killing overreach might impress the socialist maiden who spurned it.

Unreasoning and unreasonable renewable energy targets of 50% — certain to cripple Australia’s economy — that put even the nutty aspirations of the Greens themselves into the shade.

An aspiration to abolish the private health insurance rebate: long hidden from view, of course, but an early initiative of the present ALP “leadership” designed to tip the balance away from the private sector and toward the state.

Everyone knows the ALP doesn’t really believe in the Coalition’s tough border policies — irrespective of Labor’s “commitment” to them — and everyone knows that that “commitment” is bitterly opposed by more than a handful of Labor MPs, and by perhaps an overwhelming majority of the ALP rank and file.

The outbreak of defiance and dissent over the issue that hit Labor’s campaign this week is proof of it.

On asylum seekers and border protection, the Labor head knows that an untrammelled influx of asylum seekers, replete with hundreds of deaths at sea, is electoral cyanide; the Labor heart, however, beats very closely with that of the Greens, which is ruled by the conviction that Australian taxpayers should fund whatever expense is incurred by throwing open the country’s borders.

These are but a few of the crossovers between the Greens and the ALP; there are plenty of others.

But as time has passed in recent years, the Labor copybook has grown increasingly blotted with other stains that mark the party out as equally unfit to ever hold office as the Greens.

These stains also round out the process of qualifying the ALP to jointly share equal billing in terms of just who the Coalition’s ultimate political adversary is: it’s no longer an automatic case of just putting Labor last.

It was Labor which was responsible for the moral and social abomination that is the so-called Safe Schools program, which those inside the tent freely admit has nothing to do with stopping bullying but everything to do with destroying traditional social values, with its emphasis on indoctrinating primary school children about alternative forms of sexual contact, “gender fluidity,” and the merits of leading deviant sexual lifestyles.

It was Labor that made a naked and unapologetic attempt at media regulation and censorship in its last period in office, seeking to legislate to enable the neutering of those organs of the press that opposed it: a measure cheered by the usual suspects at Fairfax and the ABC, but advocating only for the contraction of the diversity it champions whenever convenient to it, and happy to wipe out a large component of the traditional position of scrutiny the press sector performs.

It was Labor — in slashing military spending to divert money to foreign aid and other social schemes so beloved of the politically correct Left — which allowed Australia’s defences to run down to the point this country would be virtually defenceless in any medium-level conflict it found itself engaged in, the prospect of US assistance notwithstanding.

It was Labor which, in the last term of the Keating government, left $100bn in debt behind as it shovelled out largesse to the arts community, to ATSIC, to a plethora of social minorities to purchase and seal their allegiance, and to any other rent seeker offering votes in return; it followed this up with a record of economic vandalism that would make Jim Cairns blush, leaving behind $300bn in debt and the legislated but unfunded recurrent expenditure of hundreds of billions more; and it now seeks office with a slate of big-spending social programs, backed by a regime of tax rises totalling a purported $102bn, which leading economists have already indicated will fall far short of its expected yield.

And it was Labor — in cahoots with the Greens and the odious Clive Palmer — which spent three years marshalling the numbers in the Senate to attempt to destroy an elected government by making the Parliament unworkable to the Coalition.

Fellow conservatives, in all seriousness — can you really say Labor is the lesser of the two evils? The ALP and the Greens are now every bit as bad as each other.

When Kroger first outlined his plan last year to deal with the Greens on preferences — exchanging preference recommendations on Liberal how-to-vote cards in selected seats in return for the Greens issuing open tickets in others — I was ambivalent; the Greens really are evil, with their hardened socialism masquerading sickeningly as tree-hugging harmlessness. But possessed of a strategic bent and having considered the notion at length, I think it’s high time the Liberals started playing the preference game just as its opponents have always done.

The ABC’s election analyst Antony Green — publishing on his blog yesterday on this subject — makes the point that allocating preferences to the Greens on a seat-by-seat basis requires the Liberal Party to make preference recommendations based on strategy rather than ideology: something he points out (and which I acknowledge) some in the party are extremely resistant to doing.

Yet the ALP has always preferenced based on self-interest: one of the reasons for the lengthy analysis of the Greens and the ALP in this article is to illustrate that even on ideological grounds, Labor today is no better — and should be regarded as such in Liberal eyes — than the Greens.

Labor has spent years fuelling friction at three-cornered contests for vacant Coalition seats by generally allocating preferences to whichever of the Liberal and National Parties is not incumbent: hardly the basis for kind treatment of the ALP in return, as the growing siege it faces in some of its seats from the Greens gathers pace.

It was complicit in Tony Windsor’s election to the seat of New England in 2001, complicit in keeping him there for 12 years, and is now readying to help him reclaim it at the expense of deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce with a solid bloc of preference votes.

It was not only complicit in the election of Clive Palmer — at tremendous cost to both his own community and to the national interest — to the safe Liberal seat of Fairfax, but delivered the decisive bloc of preferences to take the seat from the Coalition.

There are other examples I could cite, of course, but the point is that in all of these cases the only principle involved was to weaken the Coalition as far as possible: and in drawing preference strategies at this election, the equivalent Coalition principle must be to weaken the Left commensurately.

If we take five electorates — Melbourne, Batman, Wills, Grayndler and Sydney — at present, all five are held by the Left in a 4-1 split in Labor’s favour.

If the Liberal Party recommends the Greens be preferenced ahead of the ALP in all five, it would guarantee the re-election of Adam Bandt in Melbourne, but potentially transfer at least some of those Labor seats across to the Greens.

Has the Left been strengthened in this process? Absolutely not.

Can the Greens be satisfied with such an outcome? Absolutely.

And were the Greens to issue open tickets in five marginal seats either currently held by the Liberals or targeted by them — we’ll call them Corangamite, Deakin, Chisholm, Melbourne Ports and Bruce — the likely reduction in preference flows to Labor from their usual 80-20 split to a level in the order of 60-40 could well make the difference in the Liberals holding Corangamite and Deakin, and picking up some or all of the other three.

Has the Liberal Party gained something? Absolutely.

And where this plays out is when down the track — perhaps even on 2 July — the ALP and the Greens collectively win 76 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.

From a strategic perspective, what would be better for the Coalition — a 75-1 split in Labor’s favour, giving it the whip hand, or something in the order of 72-4 and shackling it to the insanity and ambit demands of lunar fringe socialists?

Remember, ideologically, Labor is no better than the Greens nowadays: it wasn’t always so, of course, but today it’s a fact.

And as Kroger himself noted recently at a meeting I attended with him, anything that might trigger a fight among the Liberal Party’s enemies is no bad thing.

The Liberal advisers — who continue to do things the way they have always done them, and who as a group have consequently engineered the relative decline of the party across Australia from its Howard-era heyday — would do well to heed the insight and strategic bent of the Victorian chief.

Those in the party’s branches who genuinely continue to believe the ALP is the lesser of two evils should reacquaint themselves with the modern Left and take note of its contemporary methods and “principles:” and this means accepting that Labor is no better now than the Greens ever were.

Those members who say they can’t support preference deals with the Greens on “principle” must reflect that if the principle that moderate conservative governance is infinitely better than anything dished up by the hard Left is valid, then there’s no conflict of principle for them to even reconcile themselves to.

If the Liberal Party is to progress as a truly professional and effective political outfit, the evolution of it personnel, its methods and its strategic bent (such as it is these days) must evolve to recognise that when it comes to the raw politics of elections, the party has been comprehensively outclassed now, on balance, for many years.

And this brings me back to the broccoli-munching gnomes who probably mean well, but who are mostly the unwitting instruments of the slow march of the Left into illiberalism, hard socialism, and the eventual dismantling of the liberal democratic institutions we are so lucky to enjoy in free Australia: freedom that can easily be undone in even short bursts of governance by the Left, as the Gillard government neatly proved.

A seat-by-seat appraisal of all 150 lower house seats by the Liberal Party — identifying which of the Greens and Labor is likelier to unsettle the cohesion of the Left if victorious, and directing Liberal preferences to that party — is now a no-brainer, when even a few years ago it would and should have been avoided like the plague.

If there are to be idiots voting for the Greens at all, they may as well be useful idiots: and if the recommendation that broccoli munchers and Chardonnay drunks put the Coalition ahead of Labor weakens the balance of the Left and/or gains the Liberal Party even a single seat, the exercise will have been well worth it.

All power to your arm, Mr Kroger.