The answer was: “Obama and Merkel” – what then was the question and who was it to?

That was Bill Shorten’s reply when asked: which politicians do you admire the most? If that was his answer, what do you think his answer would be to the question, what do you think about open borders?

Even though this would probably be the same answer given by Malcolm, with Bill he is backed by a party who agree with their leader, while with Malcolm, most of the rest think he is he biggest fool of a leader they have ever had to deal with.

We remain a parliamentary system and so the leader remains no more than first among equals. You have seen it with the “Safe Schools” Project and with other things as well. The leader’s views are not the last word. Putting Labor last remains the only answer if we want to ensure that the fact that our land is girt by sea will still count for something. Let me take you to this which is in no sense an argument against legal migration and from anywhere in the world:

When politicians want to import tens of millions of new immigrants it can look like Washington is trying to remake the electorate. This isn’t pure fantasy. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s White House instructed the Immigration and Naturalization Service “to streamline the naturalization process and greatly increase naturalizations during 1996.” Sure enough, Hispanics more than doubled as a portion of the electorate for Clinton’s 1996 reelection, according to exit polls.

The more dependent on public services voters are, the more the electorate will vote for the party of handouts. As in: Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule.

The controversial Prime Minister cynically dismantled UK border controls so that two million migrants could settle in the country – and vote for him in future elections.

He then gagged Labour officials and his most senior ministers, telling them not to discuss immigration in public under any circumstances for fear of a backlash.

And how well that worked out. From The Daily Mail: How Blair silenced debate over migrant influx and refused to acknowledge public’s doubts about open borders. It begins:

Jack Straw, Tony Blair’s first Home Secretary, was worried. ‘Isn’t immigration the sort of issue which can blow up in our face?’ he asked the Prime Minister.
‘Immigration won’t be an issue,’ replied Blair. ‘Immigration is good for Britain.’

All through his three terms of office, the PM never changed his mind. By the time he stepped down, over two million more migrants than the government expected had settled in Britain — but he dismissed any concerns by claiming they were good for the economy.

Anyone against free-flowing immigration was assumed to be a racist Tory, a view underpinned by the BBC’s reluctance to debate the issue and endorsed by Labour’s promotion of multiculturalism.

Read both articles and then think about the politics of the UK, Europe and California in the context of the political views of our alternative Prime Minister.

Mr Morrison’s golden rule

It’s not exactly good news as in things will only get better from here on in, but it is pleasing to see the Treasurer finally figuring out what has to be done to make things work. The headline says it all: Morrison to cut company taxes; income taxes to wait years. I wonder how hard he had to fight our good news Prime Minister to get this policy up.

Salary earners will have to wait some years for an income tax cut after Treasurer Scott Morrison confirmed on Thursday that company tax cuts will be his priority in the federal budget.

After indicating on Tuesday that the government had ditched plans for the income tax cuts it has been pledging for several months, Mr Morrison told Parliament the best way to fund income tax cuts was through economic growth. And the best way to drive economic growth was by reducing the 30 per cent company tax rate.

“We understand the burdens faced by people who are paying higher and higher rates of income tax. We understand that and we understand the best way to deal with that … [is to] grow the economy so you can grow revenues to support those changes,” he said.

“That’s the way you do it and that’s what this government is seeking to do. We’ll focus our changes on things that will drive investment, as we’ve considered many tax measures over the course of the past six months.”

Mr Morrison said the “golden rule” was to choose tax changes that would drive jobs and growth. “These are the benchmarks we set against the tax measures of this government,” he said.

This has always been the political answer to the years of Labor waste and mismanagement. If the country really wants all that free stuff, they will have to pay for it. And if the Budget is used to underscore the lesson of first the effort and then reward, we will be all the better for it. Let Labor become the party of the magic pudding and free lunch. Let the Libs finally turn themselves back into the party that reminds everyone there is no such thing.

The ability to persuade is the most important part of the politician’s trade

I never know until the election whether I am in Melbourne Ports or Goldstein since I live on the cusp and, like the German border with Poland, it keeps moving back and forth. But what I do know is that one of the advantages Labor has over the Coalition is that the selection stream for getting to the top largely travels through the union movement. And among the many things that are learned by being a union official is how to address a crowd. There is always in every workplace someone who is a natural born agitator, but only some of these have political sense and even after that, only some of these have an ability to speak persuasively in public. It is these who rise to the top of the ALP. The policy packages they offer may be maximally damaging to the country, but they certainly can sell. Think Bob Hawke as the archetype.

On the Coalition side, there are few places for a candidate to hone their thoughts or learn the ability to speak in the face of opposition before they make it into Parliament. There are fewer opportunities to be tested in a real showdown, with ideological knives out and values on the line. It has always been a disadvantage to the right side of politics, and not just in Australia, that it does not develop the kinds of speakers that are so common on the left. Which is all preamble to the post by Andrew Bolt the other day on The Liberals need warriors, not worriers, where he begins his post with words I understand only too well:

The Liberals lack MPs who not only understand Liberal values but have the guts and skill to argue for them publicly. It needs MPs who can hold their own against the ABC and the largely Leftist media, and rally the public to their cause. How many MPs do you know like that?

The final three seeking the Liberal nomination in Goldstein are down to three.

The weekend preselection for Andrew Robb’s electorate of Goldstein is set to go down to the wire, with international relations expert and local favourite Denis Dragovic running neck-and-neck with high-profile former human rights commissioner Tim Wilson. Liberal insiders tip the preferences of a third candidate, party blue-blood and lawyer Georgina Downer, as crucial in the race.

You should read the post to see who stands for what and who might be ready for the ideological confrontations that will take place over issues that are not even on the horizon. Here I will only emphasise that among the high-level pre-requisites ought to be an ability to take up these various issues in a way that will get the message across. Tim Wilson and Georgina Downer are proven in this very tough field. To quote Andrew again:

The Liberals need public champions. It’s no good being a lion in the preselection room but a mouse in the ABC studio. And that is why I’m so puzzled. I mean no disrespect to Dragovic, but in all my years of public debate I have never come across his name before. He is unknown to me as a champion of Liberal values. And when I now go through his few articles in the media – almost exclusively on Islam, terrorism and the Middle East – I can understand why he has made so little impression.

Making an impression in the wider world by being a tough in-fighter in the hand-to-hand battles of Parliament and the media are what is needed. Without that, you are a mere foot soldier Parliamentary spectator, where others must take up the battles on your behalf. We will see by Monday who my neighbours here in the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Goldstein have chosen.

No, not an effects test

Who needed more proof that Malcolm is to the left of the Greens without the slightest evidence he has idea how an economy works or ought to work? Here is something that I spent a good deal of time fighting off when I was working for business, and this was on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce where 90% of it members were small business. This is from Andrew Bolt.

Malcolm Turnbull yesterday triggered a rift with the nation’s peak business group by announcing the introduction of an “effects test” to competition law, allowing small operators to sue larger companies for behaviour that diminishes competition, even if their conduct was not intended to have that effect.

How is that for utter stupidity! You have a supposedly pro-business provision that is universally opposed by business who, you may be sure, know what is good and bad for themselves. I’m sure some small business know-nothing somewhere can be trotted out to say that having a larger competitor charging lower prices is harming their profitability, and no doubt it is. But if we are going to make it illegal to charge a lower price than someone else, the ACCC will never run out of work, as the forces of competition are dulled by one of the most stupid anti-market pieces of legislation you are ever likely to see. Seriously, what evidence is there that Malcolm understands a single thing of importance to Australia’s future? You should go to Andrew’s post to see the comments by Terry McCrann and Stephen Bartholomeusz.

What happens when the smartest man who has ever lived becomes president

The first of the Trump anti-Hillary ads and it’s on foreign policy where a very large part of the battle for the presidency will be fought. After the last seven years and by then it will be eight, it will undoubtedly be time for a change, and Obama’s former Secretary of State, the woman who oversaw the disaster in Libya and much else, will definitely not bring that change.

It’s hard to imagine how bad Obama’s foreign policy has been. Here in this article by Niall Ferguson we get some of it but hardly even here the full horror of its incompetence and arrogant stupidity. It’s from The Atlantic and titled, Barack Obama’s Revolution in Foreign Policy. The first para sets the scene:

It is a criticism I have heard from more than one person who has worked with President Obama: that he regards himself as the smartest person in the room—any room. Jeffrey Goldberg’s fascinating article reveals that this is a considerable understatement. The president seems to think he is the smartest person in the world, perhaps ever.

And after traipsing through Obama’s deep thoughts on foreign policy, this is where we end.

If you think you are smarter than every foreign-policy expert in the room, any room, then it is tempting to make up your own grand strategy. That is what Obama has done, to an extent that even his critics underestimate. There is no “Obama doctrine”; rather, we see here a full-blown revolution in American foreign policy. And this revolution can be summed up as follows: The foes shall become friends, and the friends foes. . . .

If the arc of history is in fact bending toward Islamic extremism, sectarian conflict, networks of terrorism, and regional nuclear-arms races, then the 44th president will turn out to have been rather less smart than the foreign-policy establishment he so loftily disdains.

A lot of people will die as these forces work themselves out. Some new balance will eventually be established, but the likelihood that it will be anything like what the rest of us would like is very unlikely indeed.

A history of the minimum wage in Australia

1969 - Equal Pay rally at the Trades Hall, Carlton, Victoria.

1969 – Equal Pay rally at the Trades Hall, Carlton, Victoria.

There are many unique features about Australia but amongst them stands out our system of wage fixation. There is now a quite fascinating exhibition at Fair Work Australia in Melbourne on The History of the Minimum Wage which now has a history going back more than a century. Few economists have ever understood what every industrial officer in the middle of a strike has understood, that if you want the work done, you have to get the workers to do it. And you will only make the wages system work if it is seen as fair. To tell someone that fairness is shown by the equality of supply and demand has never convinced anyone yet. So we have the system we have and it has been with us since 1907.

The exhibition has been put together by my old comrade in fighting these wage increases, Reg Hamilton, now Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission. You can see the exhibit on the 7th floor of the Fair Work Commission in the Sir Richard Kirby Library at 11 Exhibition Street in Melbourne. If you get the chance, you should have a look.

Raking over old coals

Is this a former Prime Minister raking over old coals to tell us not be be raking over old coals. Why yes it is.

John Howard says he told former prime minister Tony Abbott to remove his chief of staff Peta Credlin, as he warned Coalition MPs to “stop raking over old coals” and focus on the re-election of a Turnbull government.

Just days after political commentator Niki Savva’s new book The Road to Ruin revealed NSW Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells personally warned Mr Abbott of the perception he was having an affair with Ms Credlin and needed to move her on, Mr Howard confirmed he had urged the former prime minister to dump his chief of staff.

Whatever Peta Credlin did or did not do, that is not why Malcolm continually did all he could to “pull the rug from underneath Tony Abbott”. Malcolm is now the author of his own mess because it turns out he is nowhere near as good as he thinks he is. He had better not lose this election, that’s all there is to say. And if anyone has been stoking the flames of division of late, it’s been that confessed teller of untruths and Malcolm Turnbull shill, Nikka Savva and no one else.

Pulling the rug from underneath

This is a quote from Alan Jones via Andrew Bolt. The “he” here is Malcolm Turnbull:

I might add he asked me to talk to Tony about it and I did. Malcolm was always ringing around on anything that might pull the rug from underneath Tony Abbott. The point is Malcolm Turnbull’s now Prime Minister and he’s doing exactly what he criticised Tony Abbott for doing…. Malcolm Turnbull seems in government to have been struck with rigamortis. But as I said, when Tony Abbott announced a plebiscite, Malcolm Turnbull’s opposed to [this] and rang me to express that opposition.

It is just said so nonchalantly, hardly worth mentioning, really. What else would anyone do, except that no one else did. That Malcolm asks anyone for loyalty demonstrates how lacking in insight he really is.

Disgusting and repulsive

This is from Bar Bar in the comments on Nikki Savva and journalistic ethics:

I’d like to remind the Liberal-supporting Abbott/Credlin-haters that Turnbull and most of his senior cabinet go back with Credlin in senior staff positions at least 6 years and some of them 9/10. And yet they say nothing.

I witnessed the Labor party imploding via Rudd’s background briefings, but none of them were salacious. Far from it. The silence of Turnbull and his senior ministers including Bishop, Cash, Payne, Ley and O’Dwyer signifies consent to the sliming of Credlin and Abbott in the service of their own personal political ambitions.

I can’t see the Liberal Party base staying inert at this daily shame being wreaked on the party.

As disgusting as what Savva wrote is, more disgusting is that there has been no one at the top of the Liberal Party saying a word on behalf of Abbott or Credlin and criticising Savva for wallowing in the gutter. Their value systems are sick and distorted. Abbott is the single most decent person to rise to high office in this country. It is shameful that even those on his own side of Parliament won’t say a word in his defence because they believe there is some minuscule political advantage in keeping silent.

Nikki Savva and journalistic ethics

I still recall my amazement when Peter Costello chose Nikki Savva as his media advisor. She was the ideological twin sister of Michelle Grattan, Michelle at The Age, and Nikki at the Herald Sun. Media advisor was, I suppose, different from actual policy but nonetheless, she was every inch a know-nothing leftist. It is why I have never paid attention to a single thing she writes and am always surprised to see her as a supposed spokesperson for the right side of the political divide. Everything she has written about Abbott might as well have been written by the ALP media team. And now she has written a book about Abbott’s years as PM and the role that Peta Credlin played, without bothering to talk to either! This is how Credlin has replied to Nikki this morning: Niki Savva’s Road to Ruin: politics is now unsourced gossip.

I always thought a dignified ­silence was the best way to deal with Niki Savva’s attacks. They were personal, invariably founded on unsourced gossip and rarely made any attempt at balance.

I have always just got on with the job. I felt my 16 years of service to four Howard cabinet ministers and time in opposition, including as deputy chief of staff to Malcolm Turnbull, said more about my ­record than any bile from Savva but she was never interested in the facts.

Then, like now, she hasn’t ever wanted to speak with me — including in preparation for her book. Her colleagues in the Canberra press gallery would often ask me what I had done to warrant her attacks. People were often taken aback when I responded that I barely knew her.

It is one of the golden rules of journalistic ethics to provide a right of reply to anyone you’re going to criticise. In the end, journalists are supposed to weigh up the contributions and seek their own truth, but to not want to hear the other side of the story is extraordinary.

It is extraordinary. It also makes her book worthless as an objective account of what went on.

FROM THE COMMENTS: This is a direct quote from Nikki Savva picked up by Aaron:

“As a journalist I lied often, usually about my sources, but about other things, too.”

Not even occasionally but “often“. How weird it is to confess to this in print. The story is by Laurie Oakes as well, definitely not someone out to get her.