“Steve Kates on Malcolm Turnbull”

If you google, “Steve Kates on Malcolm Turnbull”, these are the first two items that come up:

Malcolm Turnbull for PM | Catallaxy Files
catallaxyfiles.com/2015/09/16/malcolm-turnbull-for-pm/
Malcolm Turnbull for PM. Posted on 9:36 am, September 16, 2015 by Steve Kates. Every political … 375 Responses to Malcolm Turnbull for PM. « Previous 1 2.

I would never vote for a Coalition led by Malcolm Turnbull
catallaxyfiles.com/…/i-would-never-vote-for-a-coalition-led-by-malcolm…
Posted on 9:01 am, February 27, 2015 by Steve Kates. Andrew Bolt says that Malcolm Turnbull is about to have his final go at taking over the leadership of the …

The first of these, written just as he became PM, ends like this:

The Liberal Party is filled with others like Malcolm and it is a problem. But here is where we are. There are the 44 who are still in the party room, and there are the Coalition National Party also in the government. And Labor is a disaster in the making of such massive proportion, of the Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn variety, that not voting Coalition at the next election is unthinkable. Malcolm has now got this to add to his CV, everyone in the party room knows the extent to which he is an empty vessel, but the stakes are too high even to think about Bill Shorten, never mind Tanya as PM.

The second, written a few months before, begins like this:

When I used to work in Canberra, our offices backed onto the Liberal Party headquarters, and I was asked one time, even before Malcolm entered Parliament, what I thought about him. My answer was that if I was in the constituency that would decide the fate of the next election, and my vote was the one that would put him in or out, that I would hesitate about which way to go. That was then. Today I would have no doubt.

So here’s the deal. We have the likes of Gary Johns, with so many others over at The Australian, following company orders in trying to convince the rest of us to take the switch to Malcolm as a fait accompli about which nothing can be done, so just lie back and enjoy it. But things don’t work like that. And there are two reasons for me not to sit back and take it.

First, what’s the point of blogging if you don’t say what you want about the things that interest you? I think Malcolm’s political instincts are dreadful and his personal values a disgrace. I am angry he is now PM, and I think the Coalition is less likely to win the next election than if Tony had remained. He’s barely ahead and he hasn’t done a single unpopular thing. Tony only did what was ABC-unpopular and was within easy striking distance. He was a mile ahead in Canning, which is why the coup happened when it did. Tony was odds-on to win in 2016.

The second derives from the first. If we all become pragmatists, then Malcolm and his slimy crew can get away with anything they want, since they can always say that Bill and Tanya are worse. The challenge now for Malcolm and the 54 is to keep us onside who are now offside. You know, there is this meeting in Paris, and then there is the need to keep the boats stopped, and there are lots of other things just as important to people like me. And on this I rate the economy high. I don’t think Tony did get it, but I also don’t think Malcolm gets it, and he doesn’t get it even worse than Tony didn’t get it. The NBN has been my standard test, and Malcolm is a capital-F Fail.

Tony was not perfect, but he was far more perfect than Malcolm. I could give you the list, but I am pragmatic to my back teeth. I take each of those who are leaders and accept that they come as a package deal since what else can you do? Malcolm now has his work cut out for him to convince people such as myself that he thinks our views matter. If he doesn’t end up showing he is responsive to the political wishes of conservative voters, he may find out all too soon how much it really mattered after all.

UPDATE: Alerted by CL, we have this from The Oz this morning, Ousted PM Tony Abbott speaks to Ray Hadley. From which we learn:

“If you judge things by the polls, I’ve never been very popular. All through the days of Opposition my personal ratings were poor, but it didn’t stop us,” the Prime Minister told 2GB’s Ray Hadley in his first broadcast interview since being ousted as prime minister.

“Our politics rightly or wrongly is more and more presidential. You can be not especially popular in these personal approval or disapproval ratings and at the same time lead a very effective political operation.

“We saw with David Cameron in Britain just a couple of months back the British conservative government was behind in the polls the entire time – absolutely the entire five years they were behind in the polls – and then they had really quite a convincing victory.

“I am confident that had I continued at the head of the government that’s exactly what we would have had,” he said.

My view as well.

2000

I cannot believe it! How did it happen? My 2000th post.

It was for the first 1500 just a private thing for me. Now there are others who read it which I am very pleased to see and am glad to have the company. Not many, and this still remains my place to put random thoughts, although I do make more of an effort now. But it is no longer completely private.

It is also just past the third anniversary since I started on September 23, 2012. 2000 posts at 200 words is 400,000. I could have written War and Peace instead. What was the first line: “Well, prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes!” Ah well, too late. Hooked on blogging instead and it’s lucky for us that Tolstoy wasn’t. And I am happy to say that my son is still my most certain reader – hi Joshi. What kind of world will it be when we hit number 3000. Not that far from now, but largely an open plain.

Give me a break

Let me be clear. The Australian had been out to remove Abbott since sometime around March. I, of course, have never paid a moment’s attention to Nikki Savva since I am old enough to remember her when she was writing for the Herald-Sun as the ideological twin sister of Michelle Grattan. Then Albrechtsen went over, so I stopped caring about a thing she said. And there were the usual Labor crew of Van Onsalen (you know who I mean) not to mention Graeme Richardson and Barry Cohen. I would still huddle up with Henry Ergas, Nick Cater, Maurice Newman and Greg Sheridan so it wasn’t a total waste of money. They kept the subscription alive, but mostly I only keep buying the paper because it has two sudokus every day. So for Gary Johns now to add his voice to the rest of The Australian chorus places no additional weight on the side of keeping my own counsel about Tony Abbott. He starts:

To my dear conservative friends inside and outside parliament, I know you are upset at the demise of your putative leader.

What a bad start! What does he think “putative” means? The meaning on the web is the same as mine: “generally considered or reputed to be”. Is that what Abbott is? My leader! What’s he talking about? I don’t have a leader inside Parliament or out. Calling me “friend” , misusing the word “putative” and suggesting that Abbott was somehow my leader represent three fundamental errors in less than a single sentence.

So what point was he making after that false start? It was this:

As a result of the leadership coup, Bill Shorten is less likely to win government.

This is not a reason to knock over a leader others happen to like. You know what else? I don’t believe it’s true. The spill was pursued so that it could take place before the Canning by-election. A government in the midst of its term, that is only down 49-51, is in the box seat. If these political geniuses do not know something as simple as that, they should be cleaned out and another group brought in.

Personally, I think the Coalition is now less likely to win the next election. Their “strategist” Mark Textor thinks they will pick up so many more in the middle that they will not need the likes of us. He believes that for us, and this is probably true, Labor is such an atrocious alternative that we will hold our noses and in the end vote for Turnbull. But then again, maybe we won’t.

But whatever else, he is wrong to think we will shut up. I didn’t vote for Abbott because he is a man of decency. I won’t not vote against Turnbull just because he is a smug, supercilious jerk with a low-grade intelligence, so stupid that he thinks global warming is an actual problem and public spending adds to growth.

For me, the issues that mattered were boats, carbon, public spending (not tax reform for goodness sake!!!) and labour relations.

And speaking of the economy, we have from that indiscreet backstabbing Morrison that Abbott did want to change Treasurers and did want to install him and did want to kick Hockey out. And this is the point. Abbott is nobody’s fool. He was surrounded by a pack of treacherous and devious liars and knaves, not to mention a media that was out for his blood. He did amazingly well in the circumstances.

We don’t know if Abbott is coming back as PM, but he might. The acid is now on Malcolm whom nobody loves and no one has an ounce of affection for (other than himself). But if Tony does come back, it will truly be no more Mr Nice Guy. He has learned a lot over the past two years, all of which will be very useful to someone who once won a boxing blue at Oxford.

Andrew Bolt on Tony Abbott

This is Andrew Bolt’s column on Tony Abbott which you need to breach the pay wall to read in full. But it really ought to be read in full so here it is.

NOW Tony Abbott is gone I can finally tell the truth about him. Folks, you made a big mistake with this bloke.

No, no. The mistake wasn’t that you voted for him.

In fact, you got one of the finest human beings to be Prime Minister.

In many ways he seemed too moral for the job, yet he achieved more in two years than the last two Labor prime ministers achieved in six.

Compare. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard left us with record deficits after blowing billions on trash — on overpriced school halls, “free” insulation that killed people, green schemes that collapsed, “stimulus” checks to the dead.

They meanwhile opened our borders to 50,000 illegal immigrants and drowned 1200. They hyped the global warming scare and forced us to pay a job-killing carbon tax just to pretend they were saving us.

But Abbott? I won’t go through the whole list: how he stopped the boats, curbed spending, scrapped the useless carbon and mining taxes, led the world’s defiance of deadly Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and made us safer from terrorism.

He even signed three free trade deals to secure jobs for our kids — including one with China that the last three governments couldn’t clinch.

And he did all this in the face of astonishing heckling and even vilification from our media class, and despite often feral opposition in the Senate.

But your mistake was not to care about all that. Deeds didn’t count with you. Image was all.

And so you told the pollsters you didn’t like Abbott. You believed the vicious crap written about him, until his MPs finally panicked and dumped him.

Your mistake was that you couldn’t look behind the flim flam — the way Abbott looked, the way he spoke, the way he walked, the way he ate an onion — to see what he’d actually done for you and for your country.

You even laughed at some of his finest qualities and emblems of his public service. Journalists ridiculed his work as a lifesaver by mocking his costume and body hair. They dismissed his firefighting service as just a photo-op. Wrote off his patriotism as bigotry.

When he defended women, he was called insincere. When he warned that our finances were in strife or that terrorism menaced us, they called him a scaremonger.

And you believed them. You let people treat like absolute dirt a man who had a record of volunteerism no prime minister has equalled — working in Aboriginal communities, lifesaving, firefighting, helping people in natural disasters, and raising money for women’s shelters and a hospice for dying children.

And none of it was done just to puff his CV for an election pamphlet.

The only reason I know Abbott helped people secure their homes after one Sydney storm is that my wife’s uncle asked the head of the team getting the tree off his house if that really was Abbott over there, helping to cut it away.

Shush, said the captain. He doesn’t like people knowing.

Now, I must declare straight up — I call Tony Abbott a friend.

So you’ll call me biased. You’ll laugh that I can write this massive praise of him when almost everyone else is horse-laughing. And you’ll say that’s why I see more qualities in Abbott than are actually there.

But you’ll just be making another mistake.

See, I don’t think Abbott is a great man because he’s my friend. He’s my friend because he’s a great man. Greater than the people who tore him down.

He’s my friend especially because he’s not those things that so many journalists wrote — including some who must have known what they wrote were lies.

Truth is that Abbott is not a thug, bully, racist, fool, liar, woman-hater, homophobe or bigot. He’s not cruel or lacking compassion.

If he were any of those things he would not be my friend. Those are deal breakers for me. Those I love best are people of honour, warmth and kindness.

Tony Abbott is one such man, and that he has been betrayed and deposed doesn’t just break my heart. It makes me fear for this country. I can only hope that Australians will one day wake up to what they’ve tossed away.

Sorry to sound so melodramatic, but here are some glimpses of the man I know — ones that put the lie to the trash that even big-name correspondents peddled about him.

The media and the left are among the people least capable of seeing goodness in others. And it’s not as if these qualities were invisible even to those of us who were not among his friends. If you are part of the anti-Abbott collective of this country, you are part of the problem and in no way part of the kind of humane solutions Tony Abbott tried to bring to political decision making in this country. We are all the worse for his departure. There are some who do not know this because they are so shrivelled inside that they incapable of knowing this. But there are some, thankfully, who understood what a great Prime Minister we had and know exactly what we have lost.

We don’t matter

They are an arrogant and stupid lot. This is Mark Textor, the chap who does the polling for the Libs:

The loss of disgruntled conservatives will be outweighed by the appeal of a more moderate party to swinging voters. “The qualitative evidence is they don’t matter,” Mr Textor said. “The sum of a more centrist approach outweighs any alleged marginal loss of so-called base voters.”

This is actually useful knowledge since I no longer have to worry that anything we say here will make the slightest difference since they will now have half the ABC voting for the Coalition. It’s all free kicks right up to the next election.

MORE TO THINK ABOUT: I wonder if he meant us. Certainly we haven’t been told what Tim Blair was told:

A note from Mark Textor regarding yesterday’s post:

In relation to the quote from me in The Australian that “they don’t matter” and reported in your blog: that was said in relation to a far right wing website (that the author mentioned to me among others), certainly not conservative voters.

My long political and business career, and many public statements and columns, have been built on deep respect for voter opinion, including representing accurately the views and aspirations of centre right and conservative voters around the world.

I would never believe that anyone doesn’t matter in our democracy. They do.

Sinclair is in Chicago so maybe he got the email and hasn’t been able to pass it along.

A FURTHER UPDATE: He did get the email. He has therefore put up a post trying to call of the dogs, Abbott : Johns v Allen, Bolt, Kates et. al. He writes:

When you’re an economist you tend to subscribe to a view that specialisation and the division of labour is a a good thing. That people can be very good at activity x but not at y. This does not reflect upon them as human beings, it is just the way it is. I have often had discussions with people who are better at x than y, but would prefer to do y than x. This are often hard discussions. Indeed I’ve had people tells me this too. That Tony Abbott is a good human being and an awesome opposition leader does not mean that he would automatically be a good prime minister. Frankly, he wasn’t. That doesn’t deny in any way his other fine qualities.

I find myself in a difficult position here because so many people who’s opinions I generally trust are at complete loggerheads over the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister. Abstracting from Andrew Bolt and Steve Kates whom you have all read let me draw your attention to two other people who have touched on this topic. Jim Allen at the Spectator and Gary Johns at the Australian.

Well, I will reply later, but here is the point. There was this assumption that with the Australian-ABC-Age all on the same side, everything would settle down since there is obviously nowhere else for us conservative types to go. On this they are finding they were completely wrong. They are now finding they have set things on fire and do not know how to get it back under control. And this is the anger when Turnbull has not done a thing to really rile us. Just wait until he does.

[Original post from Tim Blair following many references to this quote on a previous thread.]

A Triumph for Supply-side “Austrian” Economics and Say’s Law

The almost total inability of economists of the mainstream to make sense of the macroeconomy is because they look only at final demand. To them, the rest of the economy is a black box about which they know next to nothing. And emphasising how little they even understand about what they need to know, the most important statistic for the past seventy years has been the national accounts which measures how much final output is produced. It is why there are still economists who think that our economy is 60% consumption, when that part of the economy is around 5% at best. The rest is that vast hinterland of productive efforts that move resources from the ground and the forest through various stages of processing to the distributors and then, but only then, to retail outlets for final sale. The man who has done the work of Hercules in overturning this shallow and narrow approach is Mark Skousen. Do you wish to know more about this approach and how better to understand how an economy works, this is the go-to book, now released in its third edition. The title of this blog post is also the title on his own press release, so for a change it’s not just me.

Mark Skousen, The Structure of Production. New York University Press

Third revised edition, 2015, 402 pages. $26 paperback. Available on Kindle.

From the cover:

In 2014, the U. S. government adopted a new quarterly statistic called gross output (GO), the most significance advance in national income accounting since gross domestic product (GDP) was developed in the 1940s. The announcement comes as a triumph for Mark Skousen, who advocated GO twenty-five years ago as an essential macroeconomic tool and a better way to measure the economy and the business cycle. Now it has become an official statistic issued quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U. S. Department of Commerce.

To buy the book: NYU, Amazon
Quarterly data for Gross Output can be found at the BEA site here.
For Skousen’s latest quarterly report on GO, see this.

Since the announcement, Gross Output has been the subject of editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other financial publications, and is now being adopted in leading economics textbooks, such as Roger Leroy Miller’s new 18th edition of Economics Today. Economists are now producing GO data for other countries, including the UK and Argentina.

In this third printing of Structure of Production, Skousen shows why GO is a more accurate and comprehensive measure of the economy because it includes business-to-business (B2B) transactions that move the supply chain along to final use. (GDP measures the value of finished goods and services only, and omits most B2B activity.) GO is an attempt to measure spending at all stages of production.

As Dale Jorgenson, Steve Landefeld, and William Nordhaus conclude in “A New Architecture for the U. S. National Accounts,” “Gross output [GO] is the natural measure of the production sector, while net output [GDP] is appropriate as a measure of welfare. Both are required in a complete system of accounts.”

Skousen concludes, “Gross Output fills in a big piece of the macroeconomic puzzle. It establishes the proper balance between production and consumption, between the ‘make’ and the ‘use’ economy, between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. And it is more consistent with growth and business cycle theory. Because GO attempts to measure all stages of production (known as Hayek’s triangle), it is a monumental triumph in supply-side ‘Austrian’ economics and Say’s law.”

Using GO, Skousen demonstrates that consumer spending does not account for two-thirds of the economy, as is often reported in the financial media, but is really only 30-40% of total economic activity. Business spending (B2B) is over 50% of the economy, and thus is far larger and more important than consumer spending, more consistent with economic growth theory, and a better measure of the business cycle. (See chart below.)

About the Author

MARK SKOUSEN is a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University in California. He has taught economics and finance at Columbia Business School, and is a former economic analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. He received his Ph. D. in economics at George Washington University (1977). He is the editor-in-chief of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies, and author of several books, including The Making of Modern Economics.

Reviews

“Now, it’s official. With Gross Output (GO), the U.S. government will provide official data on the supply side of the economy and its structure. How did this counter revolution come about? There have been many counter revolutionaries, but one stands out: Mark Skousen of Chapman University. Skousen’s book The Structure of Production, which was first published in 1990, backed his advocacy with heavy artillery. Indeed, it is Skousen who is, in part, responsible for the government’s move to provide a clearer, more comprehensive picture of the economy, with GO.” — Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins University (2014)

“This is a great leap forward in national accounting. Gross Output, long advocated by Mark Skousen, will have a profound and manifestly positive impact on economic policy.” –Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine (2014)

“Skousen’s Structure of Production should be a required text at our leading universities.” (referring to second edition) –John O. Whitney, Emeritus Professor in Management Practice, Columbia University

“Monumental. I’ve read it twice!” (referring to first edition, published in 1990) — Peter F. Drucker, Clermont Graduate University

“I am enormously impressed with the car and integrity which Skousen has accomplished his work.” — Israel Kirzner, New York University

Anonymity on the net

I don’t often find myself disagreeing with Mark Steyn about things, but on this one I am completely on the other side. I will let Mark present his case:

Kathy Shaidle and Gavin McInnes have been discussing online anonymity. I agree with them. You’re not in the battle unless you put your name to it – and don’t give me that Scarlet Pimpernel stuff: you’re not riding out after dark on daring missions, you’re just reTweeting some bloke’s hashtag.

Mr McInnes is withering about the cyber-warrior ethos – the butch pseudonym, the graphic-novel avatar. But, cumulatively, it’s making the Internet boring and ineffectual for everyone other than Isis. Speaking of which, notice how few of their followers have reservations about enthusiastically liking and favoriting and reTweeting their Islamic snuff videos, apparently indifferent as to whether Twitter, Facebook or the NSA know their IP numbers.

Let me say that I am sensationally grateful when people take on serious anti-PC issues and use their own names. It is crucial that someone like Andrew Bolt is identifiable and that their blogs, columns and media presentations allow those of us in more vulnerable positions to see these views presented in public. It is important for each of us to understand that we are not alone. We are not at the samizdat stage of our cultural development but we’re not that far away either. The police will not come for you in the middle of the night, and you are very unlikely to be shot down in the street by those who disagree with your views. But for all that, there are large risks for which there is no compensation to any of us in being identified as holding unpopular opinions. With the left, they will come after you to deprive you of your job and your income, and for them, there will be no holds barred. They are not debaters, they are haters. They want to shut you up and they have no qualms about it. There is no value to them in free speech and open debate. They are totalitarians who value nothing but their collective power which they ruthlessly use to do harm to others who step outside their predetermined bounds of acceptable opinion. No one on the left is permitted to be heretical on so much as even a single oissue. You are either all in or you are out.

Think about the testimony offered by Laura Rosen Cohen, who runs a blog I admire, in which she describes the kind of reality most of us are not prepared for. First she writes this:

Having written professionally for a number of years, I also blogged anonymously.

I was scared that I would be harassed at work (or worse) for having “controversial” opinions. So, I published a lot of articles in “mainstream” publications under my own name, and saved my more raucous, obnoxious, super-Jewy stuff for my anonymous blog.

Then, some evil, anonymous and cowardly twerp, sitting at a computer somewhere in the world made a comment on my blog that was mildly threatening. An ‘I know who you are’ kind of thing, kind of threatening to ‘expose’ me. It freaked me out, despite the fact that I was becoming less and less comfortable with anonymity.

Shortly after that, Andrew Breitbart died suddenly of a heart attack. I remember the exact moment when I read about his death and decided right then and there that I was not going to be scared anymore of putting my own name to everything I write. Within a week or so, I had closed the anonymous blog, and started a brand new one with my own name on the masthead, front and centre.

That was also my way of telling that anonymous troll to shove it up his (or her-who knows) ass.

As Gavin, Kathy and Mark say-if you don’t put your name on it, you have no skin in the game.

Excellent. Brave. Forthright. But after all that comes this immediately after:

I have been passed over for many opportunities because my views are not mainstream. I’ve been eased out of jobs, rejected for others, and even asked off-record questions at interviews about my ability to “get along” with ‘people of diverse backgrounds’.

So you see, free speech of unpopular opinions – meaning opinions that are unpopular on the left – is not so free after all, but comes with a huge potential cost. The anonymity of the net allows many of us to say things in public that we are very aware may have us receiving modern versions of being burned at the stake or sent to the gulag. The same people who will sniff at the Catholic Church for arresting Galileo and preventing him from repeating that the sun was at the centre of the solar system are now prepared to jail people who are sceptical about global warming. There are some people who have made a career out of expressing unpopular opinions (of which there are literally none on the left), and I say again how grateful to them I am. But the dangers remain to us folk in the trenches who do not have fame and position to protect us. Anonymity is crucial for many of us and should be protected at all costs by everyone on the net.

The stupidest generation in history that has brought down the Western world, that’s who they are

st sophia

There is an article posted at Powerline from National Review in 1967 with the title, Who are the Hippies? Having been one amongst them, I know only too well who they are. They are the same people, now all grown up, who have opened up Europe to a barbarian horde that Europeans had been able to keep out for 1500 years. They are the idiot last generation of a Europe of Europeans. Next time you go to Europe, drop by St Sophia in Constantinople Istanbul to see the future of Notre Dame.

As to the article, I was personally more New Left than Hippy but I was both. If anyone has ever repudiated an earlier incarnation of themselves, that person is me. But I have also always thought that if there had to be such a time and place, I was glad to have been part of it, for no other reason than just because. The article – and you must keep in mind that this is from the famously right-wing National Review – compared these people to a second century small Christian sect known as the “Adamites”. This really is how they were portrayed, and this is not intended to show what a dangerous and unworldly crew of dimwits they were, but to criticise them for their misunderstanding of the proper ethos of love. If you don’t believe me, read the article from which these come.

1. A sense of primal innocence, without “knowledge of good and evil.”
2. Antinomianism, rejection, in principle, if not always in practice, of all restrictive law imposed from the “outside.”
3. Hostility to all authority, as in fringing upon their paradisal freedom.
4. Pacifism, since there can be no hurt in Paradise.
5. Sexual freedom, and no sense of shame, like Adam and Eve in Paradise.
6. Community of goods.
7. Free-floating fantasy-thinking: impatience with critical thinking as the product of man’s fall.
8. Emotional self-indulgence: resentment at demands for inner restraint and emotional self-discipline.
9. A comprehensive cult of love, as appropriate to the sinless life in Paradise.

For myself, I was there because I was genuinely unsure how I should lead my life. I was not prepared to embark on a career unless I felt those early steps were in the direction I truly wished to travel. If you were there then, the one thing that was open to all was a marriage, job and family, more or less as a carbon copy of the generation that came before. I now know that there is little else to life, but it looked too easy for those of us there at the time. The result has been that every possible obstacle has been placed in the way of each of these by a society that seems to have a death wish. What looked easy in 1967 now feels difficult beyond imagination.

The ABC wing of the Liberal Party

It used to be my view that it was the Senate that was the largest obstacle to getting things done, but now I can see that the ABC-wing of the Liberal Party played its fair share as well.

How much internal infighting did Tony Abbott have to put up with? He says today that his legacy is the key to a future Coalition win at the next election, so obviously true that only someone as narcissistic as the PM could deny it. But the scale of things, large and small, that Abbott had a fight on his hands over, on issues that ought to have been obvious and uncontroversial within his own side, is shown by the story right next to the one on Abbott: Tony’s Demise Opens Door to UN Top Job for Rudd. The idea of Kevin as Secretary General of the United Nations is such an idiocy, that only because we know that the PM and Mark Scott are ideological identical twins that we have no doubts about what the policy was and how it has now been changed. No doubt there is much more we will find out in the days to come, along with much else we will never hear a word about as Tony’s legacy is undermined bit by bit as best they can.

Not the six o’clock news

The world changing right in front of us but virtually none of it will be mentioned in any heated way by our journalist class. This is from Drudge:

EU chief fears union will collapse…
Migrant stream shows no sign of slowdown…
Rape, child abuse ‘rife in German refugee camps’…
Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah
Dem mayors ask Obama for more refugees…

It is the first story that is the oddest. It begins:

THE European Union has lost control of its borders and risks total collapse if they are not sealed, a senior Brussels diplomat has warned.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, warned the EU was now facing a “critical point” and that the migrant crisis hadn’t even reached its peak.

As he chaired an emergency meeting of EU leaders in Brussels last night Mr Tusk painted a bleak picture of the EU’s future, saying the 28-member bloc was on the verge of breakdown with “recriminations and misunderstanding” pitting nations against one another.

The future of free movement was at stake, he said, as the continent had lost control of its borders as well as a “sense of order”.

He added: “The most urgent question we should ask ourselves…is how to regain control of our external borders.

“Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to even speak about common migration policy.”

He appeared to lay much of the blame with Germany, accusing Chancellor Angela Merkel of exacerbating the problem by sending the signal to desperate Syrians fleeing their war-torn homeland that Germany had no limit on the number of migrants it would accept.

It’s not “the EU” that is on the point of collapse but European civilisation. The narrowness of the perspective is what gets me, not to mention the madness of Merkel’s policy of open borders. Do they have any idea at all what they are doing?