The Brexit rupture coming Downunder

Yesterday we saw two pieces of news that tell you where our politics are headed. The first was the UK slashing its immigration intake:

“There can be no question that recent levels of immigration motivated a large part of the [Brexit] vote,” [Home Secretary Amber Rudd] said.

She vowed to reduce net migration, which was 300,000 in 2016 and well over the government’s target of 100,000, to the “tens of thousands”…

“We have to look at all sources of immigration if we mean business,” she said.

Australian skilled workers and university students are potentially in the firing line with the government to examine whether it should “tighten the test” for companies who recruit from abroad.

“It’s become a tick box exercise, allowing some firms to get away with not training local people. We won’t win in the world if we don’t do more to upskill our own workforce,” she said.

She described as “generous” current rules allowing the families of international students working rights and bemoaned that foreign students studying English language degrees “don’t even have to be proficient in speaking English”.

Second, we saw this from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott:

Tony Abbott has told right-wing allies in Britain that he believes he has a reasonable chance of becoming prime minister again, Fairfax Media has learned.

The revelation confirms the former leader is hoping to emulate Kevin Rudd’s 2013 success in returning to the Lodge after being booted out by his own party in 2010 despite his public assurances that his leadership is “dead, buried and cremated” and that “the Abbott era is over”.

A senior Liberal source close to Mr Abbott said the former prime minister maintained a “good chance” of returning to the job because he is popular with the party membership compared to Malcolm Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull is widely perceived within the party to have failed to live up to expectations, scraped through the election with just a one-seat majority and continues to perform poorly in the polls.

The source said the outcome of the upcoming NSW State Council of the Liberal Party on October 22 was an important opportunity for Mr Abbott to showcase to the Parliamentary Party his strength with the wider membership.

There, his Federal Electorate Conference (FEC) will propose a motion for democratic reform of the party. It is likely to be opposed by the left wing of the party, but has a greater chance of succeeding than ever before.

The change would enable the party membership, which is predominantly right-wing, to have a greater say in pre-selecting candidates.

Other Liberals did not rule out the possibility of an Abbott comeback, saying his prospects had improved as Mr Turnbull had failed to improve. They also said it would be difficult to sell a change to a new leader to the base, meaning if a change were to happen it could only feasibly be a reinstatement of the former prime minister.

There is absolutely no doubt what kind of platform Tony Abbott would lead. His visions of Anglophone purity have proven horribly prescient and to reboot the party’s chances at the next election he would have to differentiate himself from Malcolm Turnbull’s globalism. That point of difference will be the new brand of economics sweeping the Western world: lower immigration, higher protections and a swing back to the US alliance. He will use his recently rekindled relationship with Pauline Hanson as a political outrider.

Moreover, with Labor having recently committed itself to Big Australia for all eternity, the Abbott immigration wedge will be epic, cleaving the Labor caucus in two. What’s more, the low immigration platform will neutralise Labor’s joker in the pack – negative gearing reform proposals – by promising to take pressure off housing demand and to police foreign buying properly. And it does so while protecting the tax lurks of Abbott’s local specufestor base.

It also holds out the prospect that Abbott can take the high ground on the environment, including carbon output, by giving Australia a sustainable population. He could even be endorsed by the Australian Conservation Foundation!

I’ve got to tell you that this prospect should not be taken lightly. It’s internally consistent, comes with precisely the right sloganeering and authentically anti-immigration leader, sets a spinnaker before the building anti-globalisation gale sweeping Western politics and vacuums up the population ponzi resistance at home that anyone with a political compass can feel building.

If I were Turnbull or Labor, I would get ahead of this by backing right away from Big Australia. The storm is coming.

David Llewellyn-Smith

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. Wtf? I’m no Abbot fan, but with the lack of leadership now it’s not hard to imagine maybe? But some of this might settle after USA elections are done. Get that shenanigans over with & I reckon the state of World politics might settle down. (Maybe??)

    • Not sure how this will shake out, but my initial reaction is that if the solution is Abbott, I would rather have the problem persist!

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        It is all as I predicted when Turnbull ascended to be PM.
        Abbott will return , WITHOUT having to face the people at an election.
        Mrs. Bolstrood will lose her $10 bet that he won’t come back. This is really exciting, I rarely (never) win bets with Mrs. B.

        THe title of this article should read “Brexit Rapture coming down under.”

    • If Trump wins (who I prefer to Hitlery), it could very well pave the way for a Abbott return.
      The Australian population that was already established here pre-GFC is getting increasingly frustrated and angry with the results and effects of the Australian population ponzi and the selling out by our political class to business and foreign interests.

      • if Trump wins and Abbott returns then we have a higher likelihood of going to war with both Russia and China.

  2. Turnbull cannot go anti-global, his boss won’t let him as he is the bankers bought boy.
    That leaves labour to wet their pants. All pain with a union stain.

      • Never happened. Btw he used to criticise Labor for trying to reduce immigration by cracking down on 457s. So you can bet he is full of it.

      • This. LNP are deluded with their “what is good for business is good for Australia” mantra. They will do anything to keep the ponzi scheme going.

      • Good point.
        Though Tony will Stop the Boats … giving the misleading impression that he is doing something about immigration.

    • Jumping jack flash

      Indeed!

      I think it is so exciting to hear what ex-prime-ministers have to say after the ringing in their ears from the incessant banging on their doors and windows from lobby groups stops, after they crawl out from under the mountain of special interest groups and bleeding-hearts, and after they move away from the control of the powermongers in their own party they are meant to lead, but we all know differently now after 2 or 3 (or is it 4?) recent leadership coups.

      Tony can talk it up big, unfettered, just like Shorten could and did on the campaign trail. But once they’re in office then reality hits and they quickly find out who their bosses actually are.

    • He actually upped the ante on front door immigration last time he had power. It was called Workchoices Mk2. There’s no way he’s stopping the planes.

      • He realises there are votes in it, he will say it if he hasn’t already. Yesterday an Essential poll found most people think our rates of immigration in the last decade have been too high. Also I am not sure if this is a clue but neo-con bag carrier Paul Murray on Sky News has started ranting against a Big Australia and excessive population growth recently. Paul loves to name drop and call a lot of neo-cons like Lleyonhjelm personal friends. Another friendship of his that he loves to broadcast, as if it makes him an important person, is that with Tony Abbott. Paul and his wife unfortunately lost a baby a few years ago and Abbott was one of the people who supported him through that. When Abbott was deposed, Murray of course was volcanic and Murray was one of the first if not the first to whom Abbott granted an interview once the dust had settled. And has done a few since. Its only a hunch but I wonder if Murray’s recent thoughts on a Big Australia reflect conversations with his mate Abbott behind the scenes? Given that Murray appears rarely capable of original thought, I would not rule that out.

      • I think H&H is suggesting Abbott is likely to get on board white the anti globalisation trend wince will include lower immigration. I think it will be an easy switch for him as it takes us back to an era he seems to have found memories of, provided he can point to closer toes with our old allies, ie. the Poms, Yanks & some select commonwealth nations a switch to low immigration would be easy for him I think.

        I have to admit when I saw him on the news the other day talking about closer ties and more open boarders etc with the UK I found myself liking it a lot. I thought wtf! Gave myself a quick slap, but no I was still liking it!

      • Besides, not the first time Abbott told bold faced lie to get elected. You really have to look at the loon pond’s ideology and not listen to what they say. They carry out neo-con craziness every single time without fail, what they say is irrelevant.

  3. talking about clownshoes…….when did he become a citizen?

    edit: apologies – renounce UK citizenship.

  4. Any immigration (except specialists who are not already here) is too much immigration.

    Zero population growth is ideal for our economy and environmental well being.

    Home and other real estate prices will fall and become affordable over time with zero immigration.

    We can then get on with creating a socially fulfilling and affordable lifestyle that is admired by the world.

  5. I am not optimistic:

    PM Cameron promised to cut immigration too – and he could have certainly stopped non-EU citizens from coming over. But he did not.

    PM Gillard said on TV “I do not want a big AUS” and then I voted for her but she proceeded to print 457 visas like crazy!

    Can we really believe that Abbott would cut immigration? His cigar-smoking government specifically said “sack your Aussie staff and replace them with foreigners on $2/hour”

    • Lol. Relying on a journalist’s unnamed “senior Liberal source” is shaky ground to start from!

      Not too sure what Abbott’s Anglophone Purity is and negative gearing was never the joker in the pack for Labor – probably didn’t garner them one vote!

      Immediately prior to last election David Speers (Sky) chaired a group uncommitted voters from Western Sydney – was the best election coverage by far. These voters were asked a range of questions on economics, politicians etc. They thought MT was smart aloof but didn’t know what he stood for; BS was whiny, negative, untrustworthy; couldn’t identify a picture of DiNatale and thought the Greens were mostly nutters.

      These uncommitted voters liked the company tax cuts, happy enough with negative gearing, cautiously approving of immigration (several were immigrants), not concerned with AGW – but the one and only thing that spooked them was Mediscare. The Only Thing.

      And every single one of them said they liked Abbott. Were disappointed he was deposed. They felt he was genuine, had their interests and the nation’s to heart, was a man of conviction and would have voted for him in the election.

      Had Abbott led Libs to the last election he’d have batted Shorten’s BS for six and my guess is Libs would have a solid majority right now.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Had Abbott led Libs to the last election he’d have batted Shorten’s BS for six and my guess is Libs would have a solid majority right now.”

        The polls said no, the same ones that got the result pretty much bang on.

      • One man’s night soil, another man’s fertiliser.

        FFS. FWIW I predicted via Twitter the result immediately post the Uncomitted Voters forum. Abbott would’ve won convincingly because he would not have allowed BS’s BS to gain a foothold. Recall that Labor received ~1.3% swing – not exactly groundbreaking!! Uncommitteds would’ve gone Abbott in the main.

        Turnbull was next to useless as a campaigner, unprepared to challenge BS, stuck in a bizarre corpratist groove. His best performance by was his passionate election night meltdown 😉

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        I’d be really careful about using this Uncomitted Voters forum for much more than entertainment for a couple of reasons. a) It was put on by Sky and the electoral gene pool for something like that is limited. b) Many so called undecided voters that attend these events aren’t undecided at all.

        People have short memories when it comes to the performance and public perception of ex leaders.

        “His best performance by was his passionate election night meltdown ?”

        Yes, that was incredible.

      • Hahahaha…Lol.
        Watching too much of Bolt and Fox can make you believe this; I’ve seen other specimens too that fervently espouse similar sentiments! Pointless trying to explain to such imbeciles that had the Abbott been in charge, the Liberal Party would never have been returned to power.

        You are probably of the second variety that rather than believing the spin is seeking new and wondrous sources of said spin to promulgate. In that case you should take up Reusa’a offer and seek a job with the property lobby who are always looking for eager new spin-doctors.

      • Clearly, neither of you have any clue as to SkyNewsAustralia. Its political coverage is second to none. In a short space of time it has ensured the ABC redundant in this sphere. ABC is too busy pushing an agenda and is disinclined to let facts enter the debate if said facts differ from ABCs chosen framing. Dudes, don’t waste your time.

        As for the David Speers Uncommitted Voters special – it was the highlight of the election coverage from any source. Unlike a Q+A audience which is carefully and lovingly ‘curated’, this Speers’ audience was randomly selected via a well regarded polling group and Speers himself had no idea in which direction the discussion would go. He asked open questions, did not steer the group, nor deride their views, nor their occasional lack of political junkie style knowledge – he let them speak, and they did.

        The single issue that swung their vote was fears generated by Mediscare. In near every other respect, Libs had it in the bag – including, extraordinarily, company tax cuts! A monumental failure by the Libs not to have fought BS’s BS hard, fast, down and dirty.

        Abbott (and Credlin) would have.

      • ABC caveat: Antony Green, he is a legend, but he deals in facts.

        SkyNewsAustralia caveat: has some of the crappiest annoying ads on television – they should scrap them.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        I’m not questioning the integrity of Sky News like you try to do with the ABC – the culture wars don’t interest me. There are problems with any televised gauge of public opinion. These people aren’t selected at random and transported to the event; they’re asked if they would like to attend, and it is a certain type that agrees to attend a televised event to speak and ask questions. There is a selection bias inherent in the medium.

        Like I said earlier, we have short political memories and there was nothing to suggest Abbott could turn around what looked terminal. If anything Abbott was an even better target for Mediscare (it’s not like they just cooked that up at the last minute) given his previous attempts at health “reform”.

        How would he have shut it down given his standing with the electorate and list of broken promises? He would have been even less credible than Turnbull (who was spot on when he said that Mediscare worked because the LNP had left fertile ground for it).

        It’s time to start questioning if Turnbull is doing so poorly because of his character or because he’s doing almost exactly what Abbott did; two people pursuing the same agenda with remarkable similar poll results.

      • Culture wars are real.

        If you’d seen the Speers programme you would understand my conviction: it was Mediscare that spooked swing voters, these voters liked Abbott, trusted him. Abbott would have fought a much tougher campaign from the outset. If he’d put hand on heart and told voters Medicare would be preserved, swing voters would acted in good faith – for all the reasons they liked Abbott.

      • “If he’d put hand on heart and told voters Medicare would be preserved, swing voters would acted in good faith – for all the reasons they liked Abbott.”

        This parallel universe where Abbott is popular and trustworthy intrigues me

      • Your on drugs XO. Smoke another one.
        Most of us on here have a few brains unlike some rigged up Sky Channel debate.

        Oh that’s right Sky Channel is on Rupert’s watch.

        Who would a …..

      • Critiques of SkyNewAust based on some spurious Murdoch blah blah by those who are unfortunate enough not to subscribe will be ingnored.

        To clarify: the randomly selected panel were uncommitted voters, not aligned with Lib/Lab and certainly not Green – all except one could not identify a picture of DiNatale! A shock to many here who genuflect at mere mention of his name.

        They had jobs, lived in Western Sydney, cared about policy that impacted their daily lives (hence approval of company tax cuts, cogniscent companies employed people and they wanted continued employment. They didn’t really care at all for most issues media obsesses over.

        They really liked Abbott. Thought he was shafted. Some said “yeah sometimes he says stuff off the cuff that doesn’t come out right” “but we like him, he’s genuine” – and that is the key point – they instinctively felt neither MT nor BS to be “genuine”.

        Mediscare scared them. Many struggled with private health insurance, all had family or friends that were reliant on Medicare, some felt they couldn’t guarantee their ability to continue with private insurance and needed the fallback of Medicare.

        Mediscare was THE swing factor.

  6. Two questions come to mind. Firstly, does he have the ability to pursue this? There would be Liberal party donors that don’t want anything like the above changes. Secondly, if he does take the thorny crown from Turnbull, what power will he actually have? The Coalition doesn’t have a clear majority in the Senate and seems to be a shambles in the House of Representatives.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      Yes, there would be some push back from the business lobby groups but the public support is almost there already.

      “50% think that the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high, 28% think it has been about right and 12% think it has been too low.

      Those most likely to think it has been too high were Liberal/National voters (58%), other party voters (68%) and people aged 55+ (64%).”

      http://www.essentialvision.com.au/immigration-level

      • Looking again at this poll the enigma that is The Greens party is exposed. Although 50 per cent of people said immigration levels were too high, only 20 per cent of Greens thought it was too high. This confirms my suspicions expressed earlier this week that the Greens have no interest in the environmental damage that excess population growth causes. Other issues are more important.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        @astrolin

        I suspect there is a touch of the Bradley effect influencing many that identify as Green voters. It would affect the results from all parties a little, but the Greens would be the worst hit, given the parties strong support for Asylum seekers – that’s going to make answering a simple about the level of immigration a lot more problematic for them.

        It would be interesting to see the Green voters that considered immigration too low, given a different set of questions that separates the various forms of immigrant. Actually, that would be interesting across the board.

      • Looking again at this poll the enigma that is The Greens party is exposed. Although 50 per cent of people said immigration levels were too high, only 20 per cent of Greens thought it was too high. This confirms my suspicions expressed earlier this week that the Greens have no interest in the environmental damage that excess population growth causes.

        Decades of co-ordinated propaganda have successfully and practically inseperably welded together “immigration” and “refugees” in most of the population’s minds.

        Additional clarifying questions need to be asked about supporting specific types of immigration (skilled, humanitarian, family reunion, etc).

      • @drsmithy, I think Howard performed an extremely successful bait & switch on the immigration question. By cracking down on refugees he sold the lie to the public that he had a tight control of the numbers entering the country, but after 10 years most Australians are starting to catch on that it’s actually the legal migrants that are flooding in and making our roads congested etc. Labor are really missing an opportunity here to win back their working class constituency by not taking up a reduced immigration policy.

  7. Maybe it was just me but I felt that Labor’s proposal to cut negative gearing was largely a non issue at the last election. Just didn’t seem to get that much air time, particularly as the election wore on. I was pretty disappointed.

  8. Abbott is a pretty delusional guy.

    If he had been PM at the last election, the Coalition would have lost in a landslide.

    • That can’t be right Bob, Xo postulated that Abbott would have won handsomely.
      Abbott would have been spanked and would have been hard pressed to even save the furniture…. actually he destroyed that too with his table-top dancing!

  9. I think Abbott fancies himself as an Australian version of Churchill.
    And in a lot of ways I think he is a lot like Churchil: a buffoon who made a career or sucking on the taxpayer teat by blustering and picking fights he could not win. He would have statutes war with Russia if the Army chief hadn’t talked some sense into him. But he isn’t done. He must have his Gallipoli.

  10. Can Abbott really distance himself from the policies of the IPA and pursue an independent path? Surely there was no more faithful servant of the IPA in power?
    Can he really go against his lord and master – Murdoch – and push an anti-globalisation platform?

  11. This Abbott/ Liberal problem will only sort it’s self out once the baby boomers die out of existence.

    • LOL! What planet are you living on? Most in the Feral Cabinet are Gen X, and the loudest of the loud of the Loon pond ( Bernardi and Christensen) are gen X.

    • Did you see who the guys arrested in Malaysia for stripping out were? All kids of the elite, born to rule and to face no consequences.
      It’s not a generational problem, it’s a class problem.

  12. Wonder if Hanson is having deja vu?

    Last time someone knocked off all her ideas and had her thrown in the clink, Tony was the henchman behind it all.

    • Yes, Hanson is just a useful tool for the LNP. Once the LNP is convinced that there is enough mood for a change in the air, they can oust Hanson by labelling her as a racist and take the place as a legitimate mainstream party that upholds a tight immigration policy.

      Surely it couldn’t be too difficult to find a scandal or two that will do the job?

      • adelaide_economist

        Sure, but don’t forget her ‘adviser’ is James Ashby. I’d take a guess he knows more than a few things that would make life for the Coalition – and at least some of its very senior members – very difficult indeed.

  13. The one thing that Rudd had at the end – and it’s literally the only thing that was going in his favour in his last go round – was that for better or worse, he was popular with the punters. Abbott doesn’t even have that, so if MT’s poll numbers dive and the Libs get antsy, it’s not really like switching to Abbott would improve things for them. He’s got a long way to go to rehabilitate his image with the people, and I would think that’d be a huge barrier to him coming back.

  14. I think you are underestimating Abbott’s ability to f### up everything he touches.

    Remember that time he knighted Prince Phillip on Australia Day?

  15. In the UK there was a big generational divide between those voting for/against Brexit, no doubt we’d see the same with any Abbott resurgency.

    ..Or would we? Gen Y/Z would have to feel pretty conflicted about voting for Abbott from a moral/ethical standpoint. But we all know housing is the only thing that really matters, so who knows?

    About the only positive aspect of this that I can see is that private citizens appear to have fantastic job security compared to any given Aussie PM.

    • It’s funny how so many of us read ‘rapture’ instead of ‘rupture’, myself included. And after many years in godless China you’d think I’d be free of religious influence…

  16. sydboy007MEMBER

    labor needs to wake up and dump the big australia policy. the people don’t like it, don’t want it, and will support anyone who will protect them from it.

    it wouldn’t be hard to reduce the immigration intake for a few years, under the guise of getting the infrastructure up to scratch. throw a sop to those who feel we should let all and sundry in by increasing the true refugee intake.

    sydney is turning into a congested shithole. moe money spent on increasingly congested transport options. it doesn’t really matter if you’re spending the highest level ever on infrastructure if you keep population growth at 3rd world rates.

    • It’s almost as if the first party to advocate this wins. But they are both too scared/asleep/conflicted/confused/slow to move.

  17. so I’m confused… MT got in on the premises change, and now that he has not changed anything, Abbott is going to come back because everyone has forgotten they wanted change before MT?? So will MT launch a comeback on a “change change” platform (once AUS recalls Abbott wasn’t for them the first time (good opposition leader though…)).

  18. This is absurd. The reason Abbott is no longer PM is he was loathed and detested in the electorate (unlike Rudd, who was never unpopular). If Turnbull goes down the tubes the Liberal Party will find someone else to replace him.

  19. Abbott can never be an anti-establishment candidate…the only possible answer is The Honorable Shane Warne.

  20. Maybe reiterating what others have said but:

    Firstly let’s see if the UK immigration cuts really come to pass or of business whinges loudly enough and they are quietly rescinded. To be fair at this point May seems to be going in farly hard.

    Let’s also see who wins the US election. If Clinton wins then there may be slight pullback on global protectionism (though it’s very hard to fight “they took our jobs”)

    Who knows, maybe if Clownshoes came back he’d enact the right policy for the wrong reasons. (which is pretty much what I think of Brexit). But he’s never strayed that far from Howard and remember immigration/457 is a tool used by the Libs to whack the unions. So I suspect Abbott will go back to Stop The Boats, and maybe try and encourage migration from the UK (bet you we get know preferential deals in return though) but, like Gillard in a way, he might campaign on lower immigration but he won’t do anything about it.

    • I think you’re exactly right. Abbott (and the rest of the loon pond) aren’t against immigration at all. They really just want a return to the golden years of white Australia. If there was a war in Britain and millions of displaced, English speaking, white refugees were arriving on boats you can guarantee we’d be welcoming them with open arms.

  21. It sounds like a great idea HnH, but Abbott is such a stupid and narcissistic cnut that even if he went down this path i guarantee that he would find some bizarre and inexplicable way to fuck it up. Proposing the re-establishment of the British Empire, or something like that.

    Anyway, it’s very evident to all us peasants that massive immigration is screwing things for everybody, and is the source of most of our problems. The first party to recognise and exploit this sentiment in the community will benefit greatly at the polls. Look at One Nation’s success at the last election as a great example of this trend. Pauline is such a dim bulb that she should be unelectable, but even a personally unattractive candidate can be successful if they espouse ideas that people will vote for.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      But, but, but…. population growth is all that is keeping the IP prices up… our holed economy relies on mass immigration.

  22. adelaide_economist

    I think I can see this happening. It’s easy to forget that the Coalition party room is operating (and has been for some time) in an alternate universe where Tony is in fact competent, popular and has great policy ideas. No, really. Remember how many times – just before the election no less – we were treated to copious media reporting on how inner members wanted Tony to get a front bench spot and wasn’t being respected adequately? Delusional.

    So sure, the electorate support for Tony – based on final polls – is somewhere in the 25 to 35% range. Suicidal. But in the party room it’s still close to 50-50 on any given day and his competition is a paralysed Turnbull who when he does say something he believes in, it’s always a pro-globalist line that just isn’t playing with the electorate anymore. The Howard playbook can only be recycled on a few fronts. “Jobs and growth” isn’t one of them but they seem slow to learn – or more likely their donors won’t let them ‘learn’.

    • Can’t see it happening either, but with the growing anti-globalisation forces at the grass roots level and the mainstream Liberal and Labor both championing the population ponzi while seemingly “flogging the country off to China” I can see an opportunistic Abbott changing his spots on core issues and cozying up to One Nation as he tries to build enough support in the community to make a comeback.

      The result will be unsuccessful, but Abbott could well cause enough Liberal division to destabilise the already wafer thin Tunbull agenda, leading to an ALP win at the next election.

      We need to remember Abbott is a wrecker.

      Against a divided ALP he was a devastating opposition leader because he wrecked his opponents ability to create a narrative for meaningful reform. As PM he then wrecked any good will he had with the voters after the 2013 election win and on the backbench he’s gradually wrecking Turnbull’s leadership..

  23. Terror Australis

    “He could be endorsed by the Australian Conservation Foundation”.

    A bit early in the day for alcohol consumption isn’t it Mr H&H?
    First the Trump pseudo-endorsement. Now this.
    You are rapidly burning through your credibility capital.

  24. Even former die hard Libs are getting in on the cut immigration act.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/tom-elliott/tom-elliott-stop-immigration-to-end-melbournes-crush/news-story/9322c6f9c8c2d3c31b33e40374bcbfb5

    ‘ONCE liveable Melbourne has become hideously overcrowded. Schools are full to bursting, the traffic a nightmare, family homes beyond the reach of average income earners and our hospitals overcrowded.

    There are two ways to fix this chaos: either we spend tens of billions on new infrastructure in a futile attempt to meet rapidly rising demand or we reduce population growth. And the best way to do this is slash overseas immigration.’