It appears the NSW legislature has so much time on its hands that pansy-ass Green senators are busy gettin’ righteous:
The NSW Parliament has passed a motion describing US presidential candidate Donald Trump as a “revolting slug and completely unfit for public office.”
The NSW Upper House agreed to a motion moved by Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham which condemned “misogynistic, hateful comments” by Mr Trump about women and minorities.
Given the US election polls, this is probably a harmless waste of tax-payers money. But consider what it would mean if Donald Trump wins? Australia has just passed into law that the next President of the United States is a “revolting slug”. This is our Great and Powerful friend, most important strategic ally and, generally speaking, imperial better.
Anyone who reads this blog will know that it is no fan of Donald Trump. Nor is it a one-eyed supporter of our often wayward regional hegemon. Nor do I think that groping women is acceptable. Of course it bloody isn’t. Yet these poncing Greens prefer tip-toeing around in wowserish slippers – walking out on Pauline Hanson and passing ludicrous motions smearing ANZUS – to actually addressing the stuff that matters. If you can pass a motion that Donald Trump is a “slug” then why can’t you pass a motion to lower the immigration intake to ensure that Australia’s built and natural environments are not completely spoiled?
While post modern, social engineering Greens are busy grandstanding against the latest chardonnay affront vis foreigners and imagined xenophobia, their mass immigration program is in the process of handing the nation to China, where environmental degradation is straight out of Blade Runner and communists still happily grope folks on their way to the gulag.
Social engineering Greens need a bloody good rogering, to wake up and govern for their people.
Meanwhile, from Martin Wolf at the FT:
… in her speech to the Conservative party conference, Mrs May argues that “when one among us falters, our most basic human instinct is to put our own self-interest aside, to reach out our hand and help them over the line. That’s why the central tenet of my belief is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest. We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. We have a responsibility to one another. And I firmly believe that government has a responsibility, too.”
This is evidently a direct riposte to Thatcher’s notable remark: “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it … They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”
The financial crisis, and the stagnant living standards it bequeathed, has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the free-market approach. That is why Mrs May’s interventionism, not the libertarian Brexiters’ dreams of the UK as a “free-trading, deregulated, competitive” entrepôt, now dominates. For many, that is what “taking back control” meant. It may also presage a long-lasting shift in UK politics. If one looks at other political parties, the probability of this looks quite high. Labour, in particular, has shifted leftward. This leaves the ground Mrs May wants to occupy, with her bold claims that “we are the party of workers” and that workers’ rights will be “protected and enhanced by a Conservative government”.
…The workability of the new interventionism depends on its detail. It is a matter of fact that UK prosperity depends heavily on the skills and knowledge of foreigners, as both workers and investors. Given that the UK is far from the economic powerhouse some imagine, this dependence will continue. It is vital, therefore, that the new approach does not lead to policies on immigration, tax, corporate governance and control over inward investment that curtail UK access to such valuable global resources.
…The new activist approach must, instead, focus on the UK’s weaknesses. The most important of these are the quality of infrastructure and education and the supply of housing. It is also vital to promote competition and enhance the scientific and technological base. If the government were to focus on these challenges, while stressing the UK’s openness to foreign skills, foreign investment and global trade, it might deliver the economic dynamism the UK needs.
As we know, the US is desperately trying to rid itself of Reaganism as well. And despite appearances, it’s going to step down that path regardless of who wins. “Slug” Trump may lose but his anti-globalisation is not much more persuasive than that of Hillary Clinton. Trump blames free trade and immigration but it is unclear what he would actually do to reign in Wall St and the rabid FIRE sector at the heart of Western economic class war. He is a billionaire after all. Hillary won’t do much directly, either, but she will bring some good old fashioned social democracy aimed at rebuilding the US middle classes through taxing the rich, raising infrastructure investment, boosting minimum wages and pushing back trade agreements.
All of this is also coming Downunder. It’s obvious in the rise of One Nation and in the unsustainable disenfranchisement of Australian youth. You can shit on them for a while (quite a while in self-despising Australia) but eventually the anger opens a political space for a new kind of ideology and politician. If the sitting pollies don’t shift then soon enough they will be shifted by someone who does.
Martin Wolf’s prescription for the UK is pretty close to my own for Australianism which will allow someone to govern for a decade if they embace it. Global engagement can no longer be seen as a good in itself. It must be fashioned to benefit the existing population not just the elite. That means:
- targeted not wholesale immigration to augment growth not drive it;
- resolving the housing problem, at minimum by policing foreign buyers properly;
- banning all forms of political donations;
- investing in infrastructure ahead of population growth not long after it;
- tax reform to push competitiveness and equity.
Of the major parties, Do-nothing Malcolm’s real estate Coalition ain’t going to do it so its polls will continue to sink. That opens the way for a revitalised Tony Abbott and his loon ponders (in tacit alliance with One Nation) though I fear they’ll be much more like Donald Trump than they are Teresa May or Hillary Clinton, with a focus on racism not reform and an attempt to protect rent-seekers while ramping up the War on Youth.
Labor is in the best position to set its spinnaker before this building political gale but its high immigration obsession also risks social rupture. It needs to dump it for a far more sensible targeted program.
One wonders why the Greens don’t already have this platform. As things stand, their soft, social focus is the hypocritical flotsam of a bygone era. That’s why they have so far failed to lift their vote amid the greatest collapse in major party support in modern history. Perhaps it is this ideological claptrap:
Find some spine, guys, or you’ll go the way of the Democrats.
