An Oil Tanker at Kwinana, Western Australia. Photo by Calistemon.
By Jo Nova
Like the US and UK — the political tides have shifted in Australia and our Prime Minister’s petty scorn of the rising right wing party will bite him
Dear PM, One Nation wouldn’t need to go begging to Asia for spare diesel because we’d be drilling for it ourselves…
Even the Labor Party is now worried about the meteoric rise of One Nation in the polls. So Anthony Albanese, the PM, tried to attack Pauline Hanson by arguing that she couldn’t go crawling to Asia for emergency fuel supplies (like he did), because Asia will remember what she has said. (Which is roughly that she wants to stop mass immigration from Asia (and everywhere else) and end the multicultural experiment.)
One Nation just need to point out the obvious — that a smart political party wouldn’t need to run off and beg for fuel in the first place, because they’d be self sufficient instead. It was his incompetence that meant Australia had only a 30 day supply of fuel, barely two refineries, and no merchant fleet (not one ship!) and had made it impossibly hard for explorers to drill. He’s knows this is true. After the crisis, his government has already bought at least one cargo ship, is talking about building refineries, and has promised to build up our strategic fuel reserve.
Labor and Anthony Albanese on the slide in three states, Newspoll finds
By Geoff Chambers, The Australian
The surge in One Nation’s primary vote in Newspoll over the past three months, hitting a record 31 per cent last month before edging back to 29 per cent in the most recent poll, has dented core backing for the major parties across most key demographics and states.
The Prime Minister on Friday took aim at One Nation leader Pauline Hanson for pushing for Australia to dump multiculturalism and embrace a monoculture. Mr Albanese, who is increasingly being forced to turn his political attacks onto One Nation given its poll surge, said Senator Hanson’s approach would have made her unable to secure fuel from Asian trading partners at the height of the oil supply crunch. “I reckon they (Asian leaders) probably remember what she has said about them,” Mr Albanese said.
And in the interim, while Australia restores its own oil and gas industry and builds back the refineries that the Uniparty have destroyed, a One Nation prime minister could easily ask the culturally aligned USA for oil and gas.
In any case, the Japanese Prime Minister would probably be pretty sympathetic to an Australian leader who was concerned about the rise of China, and one who understood why Japan chooses not to allow mass immigration, and wanted to have a similar policy.
The Labor Party have no idea what’s coming, and sadly, nor do the Liberals.
One Nation are now the Party of the long forgotten workers:
The news poll looked at nearly 5,000 voters in polls spread across the last 3 months. Just as many women as men supported One Nation, and there is a strong move in young voters towards One Nation.
One Nation dominates the non-university educated voter cohorts, with the quarterly analysis showing the party holding a commanding lead over the major parties in both the no tertiary (33 per cent) and TAFE or technical qualifications (36 per cent) categories.
University-educated voters are sticking with Labor (38 per cent), ahead of the Coalition (20 per cent) and One Nation (17 per cent). Support for One Nation among university-educated Australians has more than doubled since the end of December.
Among those with a household income over $100,000, Labor was the most popular choice, with 30 per cent of the vote.
And so it is, that the Labor Party have become the party of the academics and the wealthy, and the workers of Australia are realizing that they’ve been sold out.
Socialist parties nearly always represented the interests of wealthy and powerful Elites and faux “intellectuals”, it’s just that the allegedly “downtrodden workers” never realised it until the MAGA movement and the propagation of those basic ideas around the world.
10
Sadly, the LNP had the chance to become the ‘workers’ party … but then they installed Turnbull and Morrison and all that momentum was lost.
10
Milton Friedman would like argue as follows:
Friedman repeatedly highlighted the “iron law” of bureaucracy and concentrated interests.
Socialist policies involve heavy regulation, nationalisation, redistribution and price controls which create winners among politicians, bureaucrats, “intellectuals” and favoured industries who gain power, jobs and rents.
Workers and consumers bear the costs through inefficiency, shortages, inflation and lost opportunity.
“Intellectuals” which Friedman and Hayek would call “second-hand dealers in ideas” tend to be drawn to socialism because it flatters them with a communist-style central planning role and social-engineeeing role and self-identified moral superiority.
In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman noted how academics and media Elites promote interventions that expand their influence while ignoring unintended consequences.
Soviet-style systems created a privileged new class of party officials. Even “democratic” socialism leads to regulatory capture where big business and government collude. E.g Friedman criticised corporate welfare and licensing that protects incumbents.
Friedman accepted that early trade unions delivered genuine gains via voluntary cooperation and market pressures but he emphasised that once government becomes the main tool of economic decision making, concentrated interests (Elites like powerful unions and industry interests like wind and solar subsidy harvesters who lobby effectively) dominate small ones (ordinary workers/taxpayers).
Friedman knew workers would respond to incentives so when socialism promises “equality” and delivers stagnation, they eventually notice (e.g. Eastern Europe after 1989). That’s what happened in recent years with the MAGA movement beyond this early recognition in Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR in 1989.
Friedman stressed that economic freedom correlated with prosperity for the masses.
Capitalism, despite inequalities (not necessarily a bad thing, people are entitled to a greater reward for greater effort), raises living standards for workers far more than occurred in socialist experiments (e.g. Hong Kong vs. Maoist China or U.S. vs. Soviet Union).
Friedman might view MAGA-style populism as an understandable backlash against Elite overreach such as globalisation, excessive regulation and cultural imposition by social engineering “experts”.
However, unlike MAGA he was against protectionism or centralised industrial policy which just represents a centralisation of power which repeats the errors of socialism. (To be fair, MAGA-style protectionism is a response to unfair anti-free-market policies of others.)
00