When you think there isn’t much to write about in politics, the system spews out an avalanche of year-ending scandals, policy decisions, election results and reports.

The year is approaching its final sunset before a new year reinvigorates us with good intentions. Some will reach fruition, and others will perish on the vine. “Sorry” will remain a challenging word.

1 For those who have followed the political career of former Prime Mister Scott Morrison, the knowledge that he was a first-class pathological liar, bible-thumping hypocrite, a devious long-winded speaker who gave the impression he knew everything about anything, and it would be clear to you. If it wasn’t, he would be happy to tell you.

He failed to achieve anything during his combative, disreputable, pathetic tenure as the worst, most destructive, totally corrupt and callously inhumane PM in living memory. People debate the purpose of his tenure, but we can be assured there wasn’t one.

Importantly, in addition to those characterisations, you would be aware of his incapacity to apologise for any error he made, regardless of its significance.

Such was the case when former high court justice Virginia Bell, whose detailed report was released last Friday said:

“We now have three new adjectives for the saga of Scott Morrison’s secret, multiple ministries: ‘unnecessary’, ‘exorbitant’, and ‘bizarre,’ she said in describing his break-glass-in-case-of-emergency powers.”

You can read Scott Morrison’s complete response to Bell’s report here but let me tell you that the word “sorry” doesn’t appear anywhere. Why? Because having the ability to admit that you are wrong is an absolute prerequisite to having the respect of your colleagues, and it’s a little late now. He would therefore be well advised to leave the parliament ASAP.

2 In Victoria, Labor had a 6 per cent swing against it with a surge in support for the Greens and independents for a comfortable parliamentary majority. And on my reckoning, they will need to win 22 seats to gain government in four years’ time.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has announced he will resign as leader of the Victorian Liberals after successive massive defeats.

Daniel Andrews is the most dominant political figure of his time. Does anyone think I’m wrong?

Congratulations @DanielAndrewsMP on another historic win. Victorians have just stared-down the Murdoch monopoly after years of sustained disinformation. They have chosen first class infrastructure, schools and hospitals under a re-elected @VictorianLabor government. pic.twitter.com/ha0ZSzrUWf

— Office of Kevin Rudd, 26th PM of Australia (@MrKRudd) November 26, 2022

3 On Facebook, Michael Brooke commented on my post for The AIMN; A view of Trump from Down Under:

“It’s never the man. It’s always who and what the man represents. Trump is an ulcer on the USA’s backside. John Lord, he’s absolutely as awful as you describe him, a festering sore, a pustule that is uniquely American – he is a symptom of a nation in decline, a failing empire, a once-democracy that has become a mere money-market. Demonising Trump is too easy: picking at America’s democratic scab is more to the point; one discovers, horrified, that the nation is a plutocracy; a nation ruled exclusively by the wealthy, either directly or indirectly, by subterfuge, only the wealthy rule.”

It’s hard to argue with that.

4 Stuart Robert’s in trouble, yet again. This time the:

“Nine newspapers have published leaked emails that suggest Mr Robert, a Queensland Liberal MP, secretly advised Synergy 360 in 2017 and 2018 and helped the company meet senior political figures.

Cabinet Minister Bill Shorten has ordered an urgent investigation into government contracts secured by a lobbying firm that allegedly has close links to former Coalition minister Stuart Robert, while using parliamentary privilege to warn against corruption.”

5 Ricky Pann posted on Facebook:

“Every time I hear delusional Greens say ‘Labor adopted our policies’ it reminds me of what a disappointing unrepresentative, arrogant rabble they are. The greens are a product of middle-class privilege & hollow rhetorical nonsense. It is why they will always stay on the fringe of governance as, like the Nationals, they are a brand that misrepresents their proper position.”

6 And I should keep Andrew Bolt on my list.

“I’ve never in history seen a Facebook post with purely laughs. No likes, no loves, just 500 laughs. Someone notify Andrew Bolt.” (David Fowles, Facebook).

My only thought on this nonsense is that Murdoch’s mainstream media will only ever print or say whatever is in its best interests. Then it might say something interesting and truthful.

7 It’s been going on for four years, so you must admire Guardian Australia; they don’t give up easily. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water had taken legal action to block it from accessing documents about an investigation into illegal land-clearing by Jam Land Pty Ltd. The shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, and his brother Richard have an interest in the company.

Last month the Australian information commissioner ordered the release of 11 documents. Then a week ago:

“… the department took the unusual step of appealing against the commissioner’s lengthy ruling in the administrative appeals tribunal. The case is likely to be heard next year.”

It concerns:

“… the department’s site visits to the Monaro plains in late 2016 and early 2017 to inspect the damage to endangered native grasslands, which were sprayed with herbicide in late 2016.

The case has been controversial because Taylor sought meetings in 2017 with senior environment officials and the office of the then environment minister Josh Frydenberg about the laws that protected the grasslands while the investigation was under way.”

8 The 27th United Nations climate conference, COP27 drew to a close with fears it would end in total disaster:

“There appeared to be no momentum towards consensus.

Some countries were pushing to drop the ambition to keep global warming below 1.5 Celsius. Others said they would rather reach no agreement than accept such an outcome.

Before the meeting began, commentators had noted that because of the various crises distracting nations – wars, natural disasters, energy shortages – a “win” for COP27 might’ve been as simple as not backsliding from the ambitions set previously.”

On the subject of climate change. Think about this: If we fail to act and disaster results, then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.

9 A transference of votes started in the May 2022 federal election, and will continue. Anyone who follows political polling would know that the constituency of the conservative parties has always been older people. Every poll I have ever looked at proves it. It was always apparent to me that, at some time, these folks would pass on. At the same time, the left’s constituency has always been the 18-year-olds upwards. I’m surprised the LNP doesn’t realise that.

We must have the courage to ask our young that they should go beyond desire and aspiration and accomplish not the trivial but greatness. They should not allow the morality they inherited from good folk to be corrupted by the immorality and lies of evil minds.

What’s a promise or, more specifically, an election promise? Is it a guilt-edged set-in concrete commitment made during an election campaign? What if the circumstances change after the campaign making it impossible to fulfil? Is a promise a legal commitment? Is it nothing more than just a proposal?

Tony Abbott said this about promises before the 2013 election:

“It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their Government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.”

That is an unambiguous promise that one couldn’t take any other way than how it is written or spoken.

Yet:

“The day before the 2013 election, Tony Abbott said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to the pension, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS,”

 

And it is recorded in Hansard:

“…because his Government gave the false story the day before the election when the now Prime Minister of Australia said to the Australian people, ‘There will be no cuts to the ABC’.”

So, it is noted that Tony Abbott knowingly lied to the people on the eve of the 2013 election.

Paul Keating legislated tax cuts before the 1993 election but scrapped them soon afterwards when he recognised the budget was in great difficulties. The circumstances had changed.

Many believed he lied, but others thought it was an appropriate course of action.

Now we have another income tax promise. We have already legislated tax cuts for high-income earners. (Voted into law by both major parties.)

I believe the Prime Minister will abandon tax cuts for high-income earners once he has exhausted proof of the Government’s trust. Logic must prevail over emotion.

Then he can say:

“… we have reconsidered this tax break in the light of current knowledge and however obligated we find ourselves; the giving could never match the benefits of not doing so.”

Whatever criticism the Government gets, and there would be an avalanche of it, it is, however, the right thing to do. Transparency and honesty would be crucial. Broken promises are a hard sell and require exceptional circumstances. Therefore, words of explanation are essential.

They are not due for a couple of years, and by then, the Prime Minister should have built up a trust profile that will enable him to put a fair case for them to withdraw the legislation.

But let’s take a “so far” look at Albanese’s promises in the six months he has been in power. There is now but one week remaining of the parliamentary year, and some other promises remain on Labor’s list for 2022.

Although not as vast as the reforms of Gough Whitlam (now 50 years ago), one could draw similar parallels.

On the agenda are the Anti-corruption bill, or national ICAC, and the Government’s industrial relations reforms which the opposition describes as “extreme.”

The National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation will pass through the House of Representatives containing the “exceptional circumstances” clause for public hearings. It will be up to the Senate to change the clause that the major parties want but the average voter doesn’t.

You can almost hear them shouting, “we wanted a commission with teeth” now, we will not listen to or see any evidence.

Politicians will want to avoid any visible scrutiny of themselves. Especially if the “exceptional circumstances” clause is retained. But this will still be good legislation. It will have had a few teeth extracted and replaced with a reputational denture that protects the standing of witnesses and the accused fitted. One the Labor Caucus and the Coalition wholeheartedly supported anyway.

Australians voted in tune with the temper of the nation on May 21. The two major parties suffered diminishing support that separated the boys from the men or, should I say, girls. This result ended with a three-way split reflecting the voting public’s mood for change. Teals and a scattering of independents were the third part of this three-way split, and all were progressives.

The progress made by Anthony Albanese and his Hawke-like team has been exceptional. From righting international relations, setting in train a decent Climate Change and energy policy, and last week, lowering the price of electric vehicles.

At the recent International Trade Union Conference held in Melbourne, Albanese told those in attendance that:

“… there are always those who say that any improvement in workers’ pay, any improvement in the status quo will see the sky fall in.

They say it every time and they are wrong every time.

And we will push ahead like we do every time.”

Philip Lowe, The Governor of the reserve bank, disagrees, saying that any wage improvement will only add to inflation.

With the Greens onside, it should be able to get the legislation passed before Christmas. David Pocock, the Australian Capital Territory independent senator, supports multi-employer bargaining, and the Government is willing to give him the amendments he’s pushing for. Although it’s hard to get anything out of him other than “I need more time.”

The promise, the commitment for our first nations people to have a voice in the Parliament, requires a referendum. History tells us they are challenging to win, significantly if the opposition is offside.

It is known that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has a bitterly divided party room on the subject, and the only way out will be a free vote.

Indeed, we will, in this referendum debate, get a glimpse of whether Dutton has achieved his desire to become a more empathetic leader. Or will the long-standing, deep-seated conservative overtones of racism have their way?

There won’t be any funding for the yes and no cases. Why? Because you wouldn’t fund racist dogma on the no side.

By the time Christmas rolls around, the Government will have delivered on all the promises with some urgency behind them, including territory rights on voluntary assisted dying. The last of the big ones before Australia takes its annual sojourn will be the Government’s answer to spiraling energy costs.

Conclusion: By any test, this Government has done more in six months than the previous one achieved in a decade.

The news that former President Trump would be standing for the position again in 2024 has greeted the world with a mixture of dismay and weighty indignation.

That the American Constitution would allow such a thing suggests a lack of foresight in the founding fathers’ thinking. I’m not suggesting that former presidents shouldn’t be able to run for office again but that persons of such apparent mental derangement should not.

I am in my tenth year of writing for The AIMN, and goodness knows how many articles I have written in that time. As dreadful as it may sound, none have given me more pleasure than those describing the unfitness of Donald Trump for the position of POTUS.

It would be tempting to state the truth and describe President Trump as I did in 2016. And there have been many addons since that time, like stealing top-secret documents, inciting violence to take over Congress, and denouncing – not accepting his opponent’s victory and being impeached twice. Where to start and where to finish.

Well, why not. His performance as President left the world aghast at how inadequate the man was for the job. Ironically, around 40% of the population agree with his self-assessment that he is a genius.

Anyway, without apology, this is how I felt about the moron in 2016:

“From Down Under, we see a sick deluded man of no redeeming features, a sexual predator full of racial hatred, a narcissist in every sense of the word. A deluded, pathetic liar who was unsuitable for the highest office in the land, if not the world. He sees complex problems and impregnates them with populism and implausible black-and-white solutions.

He is a person of limited intellect and understanding, only capable of seeing the world through the prism of his wealth. The far edges of knowledge seem to have passed him by. Matters requiring deep philosophical consideration seem beyond him.

His opinions on subjects of internal and international importance are so shallow that one would think he spent the entirety of his youth in the wading pool at the local swimming pool or six years in grade 1 and never academically advanced.

He is a crash-through politician with a ubiquitous mouth. Trump remains an incoherent mess who bounces back after each disaster thinking he has been impressive while those around him are laughing their heads off. Entertaining in a uniquely American way, he might be to the hillbillies, but leadership requires worldly character.”

According to the latest reports, Trump officially intends to run again in 2024. And at a time when the US needs a steady hand, not a character reminiscent of a headless crook.

For the next two years, he will command the attention of the international press for all the wrong reasons. When the world needs rational-thinking leaders to overcome problems of immense complexity, this moronic, mentally challenged individual stands in the way, like another Putin, to world peace.

Trump is a greatly diminished figure who suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of President Biden. However, he still commands the interest of a mainly sick media who crave personalities over reality. We can only hope he doesn’t get beyond the primaries or is jailed before they take place.

Why is Donald Trump announcing he’s running when he’s currently president? pic.twitter.com/bqxq4Jehh4

— Jason Selvig (@jasonselvig) November 16, 2022

People like Donald Trump believe in this thing they call “American exceptionalism.” It is a myth, of course, but they consider themselves superior to all others. Conversely, Australians might say they think their shit doesn’t stink.

In his book titled “A Brief History of American Exceptionalism,” Burton Mack (deceased) explains the truth of the phrase.

“In truth, “American exceptionalism,” a term currently making the rounds among journalists, denotes those features of American self-understanding that distinguish it from other modern societies, especially European nation-states. Most of the features of note are characteristics familiar to most Americans with some sense of our history and the history of Europe since the Industrial Revolution. Chief among these is the notion of democracy born of a revolution against monarchy, not driven by an alternative vision of society (as was the case in the European revolutions). The purpose of the American Revolution was to give the people and their colonies freedom for their pursuits without any control by the king in England and only minimal control by the other colonies in America. It was this kind of freedom that marked America as the “land of the free.”

That Prime Minister Albanese had just 30 minutes following a 3-hour meeting between the USA and China to talk with the Chinese leader President Xi Jinping, was it worth the effort? Indeed, it was.

In diplomatic terms, even just talking with the President was Prime Minister Albanese’s most significant achievement since winning the May 21 election.

Following a decade of Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison’s belligerent style of decadent diplomacy, Albanese is showing Australians that relationships with those who differ politically and culturally and who you disagree with can exist so long as differences are respected.

We have not respected China’s rise from poverty to a global superpower in the last 40 years. An astonishing accomplishment, however one looks at it. That China now has all characteristics of a Fascist state doesn’t make the task any more manageable, but we must try to understand their objectives culturally and geopolitically.

China now has:

“… the world’s second-largest economy, trailing only the United States (International Monetary Fund 2020). Within a few years, it will be number one. It was the world’s leading exporter and second-largest importer in 2018, the last year for which data were available (World Bank 2020a). Its foreign aid provision and outward foreign direct investment (FDI) have also increased exponentially over the last decade.”

“Accompanying China’s economic rise has been an escalating assertiveness.” America has been exporting its culture as a democracy to the world for as long as I recall, and China now chooses to exhibit itself to the world. That’s right, guys.

Whatever was in the minds of Abbott, Dutton, and Morrison in using language calculated to offend China but impress a domestic audience is anyone’s guess. One can only conclude that it was dumb diplomacy. China and the Australian electorate were equally unimpressed.

That they continued to use such belligerent language after losing billions in trade speaks volumes for their inability to talk the talk of international diplomacy.

Deliberately picking fights with a superpower is as stupid as saying, “I am responsible for what I say, but I’m not responsible for what you understand.” (Anonymous)

Albanese may not be our most articulate politician, but his knowledge, maturity and experience tell him when to ruffle feathers and when to push the diplomatic button.

After reading and listening to the many media reports, it is evident that he was, in the time available consistent in saying what was relevant to Australia’s interests.

Our Prime Minister, having employed the basics of international diplomacy, has taken giant steps toward restoring our relationship with China after years of open hatred. All it took were words that made the point intended without offence.

All of this doesn’t hide the obvious. Stan Grant, in an article for the ABC, made these points.

“That Xi Jinping is the same Xi Jinping today as he was yesterday. The leader who has overseen what has been called a genocide against the Uyghur Muslim minority.

The same Xi Jinping who threatens war with Taiwan.

The same Xi Jinping who crushes dissent. Who has strengthened his iron grip on Hong Kong, tearing up the commitment to one country, two systems?

He is the same XiJinping whom Joe Biden called a thug.

The same Xi Jinping who calls Vladimir Putin his best friend and inked a no-limits pact with the Russian leader on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

All of this, of course, is true, and Grant adds the following to the world’s most perplexing problem.

“Democracy is in retreat globally. The US appears as a nation exhausted.

The midterm elections may have given some pause to Trumpism. But Donald Trump was always a symptom of a deeper malaise, which has not gone away.

America’s social contract is broken. It is crippled by inequality. It is lacerated by race.

Joe Biden is a pause from Trump’s excess and disruption. Even if he runs and wins a second term, he is not the future of the US.

More broadly, the West cannot expect that the liberal democracy that triumphed in the 20th century will meet the challenges of the 21st century.

It is tested at home and abroad.

Market-first neoliberalism ran aground in the 2008 global financial crisis. Globalisation has produced as many, if not more, losers than winners.

Those left behind have fallen for the siren song of political populists. From Hungary to Poland, Italy, India, Turkey, and the US, race-based nationalists, far-right white supremacists, and identitarians have triumphed.”

And where in this conundrum does the nation of Australia stand?

Despite the economic and social concerns that still exist, we have a mature leader who, in a short time, has proven himself to be a leader willing to get things done for the common good. He has already demonstrated the art of diplomacy and delegation – a leader for the times.

He has this thing we call character. Loosely it is described as a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life, governing moral choices and infusing personal and professional conduct. It’s an elusive thing, easily cloaked or submerged by the theatrics of politics. But unexpected moments can sometimes reveal the fibres from which it is woven.

The political writer’s life was much easier when the previous government was in power – almost a scandal or some form of corruption every day. We didn’t have to think much about what to write. Now with a more sensible government in power, we have to think more deeply about what keys our ever-sensitive fingers hit.

But that is not to say there isn’t anything to write about; here are a few examples.

Brazil Election

News that Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the leftist Worker’s Party has defeated incumbent Jair Bolsonaro will come as good news for those concerned with saving the Amazon. The election was fought on two fronts. One, Brazil had one of the world’s deadliest outbreak of COVID-19, and the government mishandled it. And two, the widespread deforestation in the Amazon basin.

As at the time of writing, Bolsonaro still hadn’t conceded.

Israeli Election

Exit polls in the Israeli elections suggest that the former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “may have scraped a razor-thin election win with the help of new far-right allies.”

Talking about Covid

A new strain of Covid-19 has hit Australia, but experts aren’t yet too worried about its impact based on early evidence. (More to come on this, I’m sure.)

The latest Newspoll

The post-budget Newspoll courtesy of the Poll Bludger finds that:

“Labor’s two-party lead at 55-45, in from 57-43 at the previous poll eight weeks ago. Both major parties are up on the primary vote, Labor by one to 38% and the Coalition by four to 35%.

Anthony Albanese’s lead on preferred prime minister has slipped from 61-22 to 54-27, and he is down two on approval to 59% and up four on disapproval to 33%. Peter Dutton is up on both approval and disapproval, respectively by four points to 39% and three points to 46%.”

False accusations by an insipid Opposition.

It certainly is a Clayton’s opposition. Consider this:

“Michelle Landry, the member for Capricornia accused Anthony Albanese of ‘bullying’, saying she left the chamber distressed and ‘humiliated’ after the prime minister answered her question.”

I witnessed the episode in parliament, and I saw Albo tearing strips off Dutton. And as for Landry, it couldn’t have been too bad because what I saw was her giggling throughout the whole event.

And they wanted Albo to apologize.

Essential Poll and power prices

Last Tuesday’s Essential Poll revealed what Australians thought about intervention in the energy market as power prices soar. Two-thirds back it. To quote Treasurer Jim Chalmers:

“We are contemplating the kinds of steps that governments wouldn’t have contemplated a year or two ago.”

Robodebt Royal Commission is underway

From Luke Henriques-Gomes from The Guardian brings us the latest:

“Royal commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC says the inquiry’s focus will be on those who had or should have had oversight over the automated debt recovery scheme.”

Officials from key government departments embroiled in the robot debt scandal and two private debt collection agencies are expected to be grilled.

I recently read that even after the scheme was found to be unlawful, Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted it go ahead. That’s pure speculation on my part, of course. Despite searching, I cannot find any reference to it. Let’s hope the commission will identify those responsible for this cowardly act of taking money from people without reason.

Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Marise Payne, Alan Tudge and Sturt Robert are sure to be star witnesses when they give evidence.

Kids Matter

It always touches the heart when a child dies. Mainly when one hears words that testify to the kindness of their character. Such a boy was 15-year-old, Cassius Turvey. Cassius was killed on October 23, 10 days after being allegedly bashed while walking home from school with a group of friends in Middle Swan, in Perth’s northeast.

Sarah Ferguson a hit on 7.30

Peter Dutton was interviewed by a professional journalist last week and found the going tough. Sarah Ferguson gave him a going-over, and he didn’t much like it.

An alphabet full of Donald Trump

In the absence of much political news, this from Craig Coulter might amuse you:

He lives in Castle Rock, Colorado and asks this question of Quora Email Digest:

Is Donald Trump mentally challenged, or is something else wrong with him?

a) Trump has an IQ of about 65 at best. Yes, this means mentally challenged; let’s review why…

b) Trump had to ask if ingesting disinfectants to treat covid was a good idea.

c) He apologized for his wife not being there while she stood next to him on September 14, 2017, at a conference for hurricane Irma.

d) He redrew the hurricane path with sharpy.

e) He thought he could nuke hurricanes to stop them.

f) Asked if China had a hurricane gun, they were using against us.

g) “This is one of the wettest hurricanes we’ve seen from the standpoint of water.”

h) Told us about visiting the president of Puerto Rico. Did anyone tell him he is the president of Puerto Rico?

i) Made a call to the president of the Virginia islands.

k) Raked leaves in the forest to prevent forest fires.

l) Windmills cause cancer (he was referring to wind turbines, but he is too dumb to know this.)

m) Frederick Douglas is getting more recognized today (he died in 1895.)

n) F 35 jet is literally invisible.

o) Couldn’t figure out a unity handshake at g7 Summit (also so unfit he was the only one who took the golf cart.)

p) Coloured American flag wrong colours.

q) Took over airports in 1776.

r) Starred right at the sun during an eclipse. Twice

s) Falling trees in the forest explode.

t) People are dying who have never died before.

u) Though he could buy Greenland on 7-25-2021.

v) The green new deal will prohibit windows, cows, and people.

w) In the spring of 2022, when asked about the invasion of Ukraine, Trump went off on a tirade about wind turbines; he could not even stay on topic long enough between the time the question was asked and whatever nonsense came out of his mouth.

x) Wanted to build a wall between Colorado and Mexico.

y) Moon is part of Mars.

z) If you support or voted for this guy, you should read the following two paragraphs very slowly and carefully. [See link above].

Some worthy quotes to finish off with:

“…as English actor and comedian John Cleese once said: “If you’re very, very stupid, how can you possibly realize that you’re very, very stupid? You’d have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are.” https://t.co/yOQ6GN2q8R

— Adam Campbell (@campbelladam79) December 31, 2020

When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.

— Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) October 30, 2013

Before Anthony Albanese and his party came to power more than six months ago, the Australian people didn’t know much about the fresh-faced, good-looking young man who has represented the seat of Rankin in the House of Representatives since 2013.

The lead-up to last Tuesday’s Budget had been extraordinary. Dr Jim Chalmers made it almost his daily duty to explain its importance to the nation’s future.

The Treasurer’s mother is a nurse, and his father is a courier driver who left the marriage when Chalmers was 13. He has two older sisters but spent his adolescent nights at home alone because his mother worked the night shift. He says he could quickly have gone off the tracks but for a high school teacher who found a way to reach him.

Before Jim’s election to Parliament, he was the Executive Director of the Chifley Research Centre and Chief of Staff to the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer.

He has a PhD in political science and international relations from the Australian National University and a first-class honours degree in public policy from Griffith University. He is a qualified company director and has written two books.

Last Tuesday, Chalmers, to use his term, had his chance to “walk further and forward” when he delivered his and the Government’s first Budget. His nerves early on were understandable, having been Treasurer for only five months. However, he has overseen close to 16 Budgets as a staffer and advisor. One might call him the youngest-ever father of the Budget lockups.

He has known the secretary of the Treasury, Steven Kennedy, for 15 years. Together with his Chief of Staff, Claudia Crawford, they were both at Wayne Swan’s side during the GFC. The Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher, is a friend and colleague. It has been said that being involved in Budget preparation with her is like being “hit in the arse with a rainbow.”

The Treasurer and Finance Minister said before delivering his first ever Budget:

“This budget will be solid, sensible and suited to the times we are in…

This budget is the government’s first opportunity to deliver on our commitments to the Australian community and to begin to clean up the mess left behind by the former Coalition government.” (Jim Chalmers).

“The former government used taxpayers’ money to cynically buy votes before elections by politicising grants funds and used the budget to land political deals with the Nationals in the Coalition party room – that approach to spending ends in Labor’s first budget.” (Katy Gallagher).

Off the top of my head, I listed the following that wanted or needed an increase in their share of the cake: Income support, job seeker allowance, climate change, increase in rental support, disaster mitigation assistance, child poverty, housing, Health, Dental care, education, aged care, aged health dementia, free child care, parental leave scheme, cost of living, charitable institutions, domestic violence, wages, government departments like FIO, mental health, NDIS, suicide, The ABC, defence, The environment, Bureau of metrology. And on top of all that, there is the funding of Labor’s election commitments.

In my memory, it would be the first Budget delivered in a honeymoon period. On top of that, it would be a budget delivered against a backdrop of a possible world recession, global inflation, and environmental disasters. You can add poor leadership around the world to that.

Flood waters running down our east coast continue to rise, inundating crops and property, demoralising communities and adding inflationary pressures.

There is no doubt that the global economy is volatile. We have a budget that is in structural deficit, meaning that we have an imbalance between what we earn and what we spend. We must address this problem in the short term for the good of the long.

In the words of Jim Chalmers:

“I think about it almost every day. How do I take the complexity of the economy and the Budget and not dumb it down but explain it and level with people about what we are grappling with; try and give them the sense that there’s a lot of 50-50 calls in managing the economy. That’s the sense I want to give.”

We are now in the post Budget period, and how the Treasurer has performed with the crucial task of getting the economy back on track is being reviewed. Anyway, if my analysis doesn’t suit you, here are five experts who can help:

David Crowe:

“The devastating line that worked so well for Labor only months ago is now rebounding on Jim Chalmers in a budget that cannot guarantee the most important election promise of all.

“Everything is going up except your wages,” voters were told in a relentless Labor message before the election. “Only Labor has a plan to get wages moving.”

Ross Gittens:

“This Budget is careful with taxpayer funds without embarking on major changes that put Labor’s political capital at risk.

The tough decisions are being put off until May.”

Shane Wright:

“There are no longer four horsemen of the Apocalypse. There are five stubborn donkeys of debt and deficit, and their names are interest, aged care, health, defence and the NDIS.

The 2022-23 redo budget from Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher reveals clearly just how the new crew are wreaking havoc through the nation’s finances. Since taking office, they have referenced the five spending donkeys and the long-term financial risk they pose. The Budget confirms the damage.”

Jessica Irvine:

“Australian households hoping for significant cost-of-living “relief” in this Budget will be sorely disappointed.

Chalmers has offered a “five-point plan” to provide “responsible cost-of-living relief”, comprising cheaper childcare, expanded parental leave, cheaper medicines, more affordable housing and getting wages moving again. But households need to prepare for much more short-term pain before this benefit kicks in.”

More from Ross Gittens:

“This “solid and sensible” Budget is not so much good or bad as incomplete. It hints at “hard decisions” to be made but doesn’t make them. Chalmers says it’s “a beginning of the long task of budget repair, not the final destination”.

In the end, all will be revealed. But right now, we’ve been shown little.”

Peter Hartcher:

“Dr Jim Chalmers has observed the doctor’s sacred obligation under the Hippocratic oath – do no harm. His mini-budget doesn’t aggravate any of the problems in the economy or the Budget. But it doesn’t do much by way of healing, either.”

It was as I predicted. A clear-the-air budget that sets up the next one and the one after so that continuity is achieved. It will reveal the hard decisions that still need to be made.

We were entitled to an honest appraisal of the actual state of the economy, and that’s what we got. It was open and responsible and revealed the incompetence of the conservative parties.

It told us that we were in a financial mess, but we have good honest people trying to fix the problems.

This is a responsible Budget that is right for the times and readies us for the future. It delivers on the priorities of the Australian people, and it repays their faith in a new government.

— Jim Chalmers MP (@JEChalmers) October 25, 2022

I suppose one could argue the point of the matter, but I find it difficult to see any reason to call the opposition leader the leader of the Liberal Party. Indeed, it fascinates me why journalists refer to this conservative party as liberal. On the contrary, a Liberal Party no longer exists in Australia.

One of the tenets of liberalism expressed on the so-called party’s internet page notes the following:

“In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.”

This is a condescending way of saying that if enough people become rich, the poor who make them so will be looked after by the leftovers of their wealth.

I would dispute that every claim on the page is owned by liberalism. On the contrary, claims of ideological ownership often transcend parties simply because logic would dictate it so.

The LNP accepts Medicare, the NDIS and other social welfare policies based on necessity, not ideology. Conservatives would have none of it if they stuck to their philosophy. In other words, they are flexible when it suits them.

In his essay “Has Menzies’ Liberal Party Run its Course?” Greg Melleuish says that:

“Malcolm Fraser was the last Liberal prime minister in the style of Menzies. He is sometimes derided for not taking advantage of his control of the Senate between 1975 and 1980 to push through an economically liberal agenda. That only makes sense if one assumes that the Liberal Party was addicted to an abstract theory of Liberalism…

Howard’s genius was to redefine the Liberal Party as a ‘broad church’ and to argue that it had always been the ‘principal custodian of mainstream conservative values in Australia’, even if this had not been the case.”

Midway through his essay he quotes John Howard:

“There is nothing, either in the statements of Menzies when the party was formed, or in his subsequent conduct as leader, to suggest that he did not see the Liberal Party as inter alia the principal custodian of mainstream conservative values in Australia.”

While concluding with the question:

“Has the Liberal Party of Menzies indeed run its course?”

If one is conversant with the actions, deeds and leadership since and during Howard’s time, one could only conclude that the decline of liberalism started with Howard and ended with Morrison. During that period, the party became infiltrated with right-wing nutters who espoused a conservative worldview similar to Donald Trump.

So my point is that in the past, the Liberal Party accommodated both liberal and conservative values, and now in its makeup, it is entirely a conservative party.

Howard’s characterisation of the Liberal Party as a broad church had two dimensions. The first was the metaphor of the general Christian church, and the second was to take conservatism and its more extreme right-wing views under its wing.

The party’s current leader Peter Dutton insists that he isn’t of a conservative disposition, but his political record would suggest otherwise.

In the aftermath of their election loss he was off the blocks asserting his place as the next Liberal leader. He claimed Labor would be a “bad government“.

Dutton acknowledged that his reputation as a former copper and hardman came about because of his roles in home affairs and defence minister.

Did he forget immigration? Then he said he wanted to show Australians “the rest of my character, the side my family, friends and colleagues see.”

To say that you have to portray a specific personality for these portfolios is tantamount to admitting you’re a bastard. But then, he didn’t earn his dastardly reputation by being honest and trustworthy.

His wife Kirilly told us of his softer side; he was an “amazing ­father” with “a great sense of humour … an incredible compassion.” I note that before the 2019 election, she claimed that he wasn’t the monster people claimed him to be.

When he won the leadership of the Liberal Party after the May election he reassured his loyal base that:

“We aren’t the Moderate Party. We aren’t the Conservative Party. We are Liberals. We are the Liberal Party. We believe in families – whatever their composition …

Small and micro businesses. For aspirational, hard-working ‘forgotten people’ across cities, suburbs, regions and in the bush.

Things are going to be tough under Labor: higher interest rates, cost of living, inflation and electricity prices. Labor talked a big game on the economy. They now have to deliver, and we will hold them to account.”

Later he told Radio 2GB he believed the Coalition could win the next election.

“There’s a lot of work between now and then, and the Liberal party has to get back to being the Liberal party and being the broad church and making sure that we represent all Australians.”

Liberal moderates, including Simon Birmingham, Dave Sharma and Matt Kean had already been quoted saying that the party had gone too far to the right.

In response, Dutton said he wasn’t going to be radically shifting the Coalition but wasn’t “some extreme right-wing person… We’re a centre-right party.”

Did I hear a voice in the wilderness say; “Sit down, boofhead.”?

Can this party that was so institutionally and politically weakened by Labor, the Greens, the teals and independents structurally reform itself to become something other than what they have been in the past?

Labor now takes the space small “L” Liberals occupied for so many years, and if they decide to continue down the path of conservatism, they have no choice but to be more radical and extreme.

Former federal finance minister Nick Minchin was recently booed at a conference of self-styled conservatives for not being right-wing enough. He made the mistake of telling his audience that the Liberal Party didn’t need much change.

The booing went on for some time, I am told.

The event was CPAC, a globalised conference that caters for the brain dead. One of those occasions you would most definitely ignore if you could. When asked about CPAC’s view that the Liberals had lost their way, Dutton noted there were:

“… a lot of people who offer free advice at the moment” – people who had never formed government and never sat in the big boy’s chairs. People might have “all sorts of theories” about how to regroup after a flogging, but he intended to approach the leadership of his Party as a descendant of Robert Menzies and John Howard. The Liberals would win by articulating core values and “calling out Labor’s hypocrisy.”

If Dutton seriously believes that the Liberals would win by articulating their core values whilst carrying the luggage of his past, he isn’t a leader’s bootlace.

Articulating the difference between your and the other party’s ideology is obligatory if you want to win.

If you cannot do that, you will become just another lonely long-term Opposition Leader.

Sometime during Howard’s reign of nothingness, our democracy began to slip away from us. Entitlement insinuated its way into our politics as rivers of gold in the form of a mining boom flooded the country. We put nothing from it into a future fund that might have been a godsend in today’s economic environment.

Howard gave us a gun buyback, a war in Iraq that was none of our business, and under the pretext of a lie, a GST that benefited the wealthy and substantial welfare payouts at the time of each election. It was called ‘buying elections’, and it worked rather well.

The wealthiest of society became more so and avoided paying taxes. Treasurer Costello commented that at least the poor was no worse off.

Indeed, before the Luddite period started, Labor had its epoch when good intent was interrupted by the ambition of revolving-door leadership, where exceptional minds indulged in mediocre political practice for personal power.

On November 24 2007, Kevin Rudd, the owner of enormous intellect, defeated John Howard after 11 years of a wasted windfall in the economic inflow from mining profits. Rivers of gold squandered.

The Rudd government came to an end in June 2010 when:

“… under pressure from an impending leadership caucus ballot, stepped down from the leadership of the ALP and was succeeded by his deputy, Julia Gillard. [However] Rudd was re-elected leader of the Labor Party in 2013 and served a second term as prime minister.”

It was also in 2013 that l began to write for The Australian Independent Media Network, otherwise known as The AIMN. Since then, almost ten frantic political years have passed.

I call them the ‘Luddite years’ (oft-repeated) because it was a period of dreadful governance by leaders seeking not the power of an intent to govern well for the common good. Tony Abbott was considered the best Opposition Leader we have seen by being the most negative: a dubious criterion for such judgement. He never would make the leap from Prime Minister to international statesman.

Julia Gillard led a Government that passed legislation for a tax on carbon that would have resolved the most significant issue of our time. Abbott rescinded it, and we witnessed the most incredible public policy debacle in our history.

Abbott’s “carbon tax” scare-mongering was, it seems, a plan to hide his own party’s corruption, lies and incompetence behind self-embellishment, deceit and more lies on top of lies.

Rudd fell because of a perception of self-importance. Turnbull’s own ego ambushed him while Morrison displayed what many believe was arrogance… behind his perpetual smirk. A bastard in any form of the word. And Morrison never stopped telling us lies or how good he was.

Behind every conservative leadership takeover is a person desirous of power. All the corruption, the policies, the lies, the rules, the placement of important people of the same ilk on essential committees, and the support of a biased media was a plan to make the rich richer.

Capitalism is the rudimentary monetary system in the normalcy of democratic conservative politics. Supposedly it makes the rich more prosperous, and the others keep in touch via a magical drip-down effect.

When Abbott became Prime Minister, he set the ball of corruption rolling, and it has been bouncing along ever since.

So corrupt is this economic system that our political choice is no longer democrat or conservative, left or right, liberal or conservative. It is a democracy or authoritarian fascism.

When on May 21 2022, Australia elected a progressive left-wing government, they got with it a Labor politician of some distinction. Without the charisma of Whitlam, the flare of Hawke or the urgency of Rudd, Albanese, with great patience, took his place in the queue for leadership.

Now but a few months into his first term, he has made considerable progress. Most importantly, he has taken the edge off the Luddite way of doing politics. It is far less belligerent and argumentative. Respect has poked its nose in the window.

Tony Abbott became Prime Minister wanting to take politics from the front page. Lying bastard that he was. He abused Gilliard after she had politely asked the press to stop writing crap. Pandemonium could well have been his middle name. He only lasted two years.

Malcolm, the velvet fog Turnbull, came to power intending to restore the Parliament with the adult decorum and collegiate government that had flown the nest years ago. With so many extremists in his middle order, it couldn’t last.

Scott Morrison stood for nothing, knew everything, and refused to shut up when talking about himself but became Prime Minister. Eventually, he had to step in and move Turnbull aside. God only knows how.

So, what has changed? Well, not so much what, but who. Image is a powerful thing. All the men of the Luddite age, except Turnbull, were loud, aggressive, in-your-face politicians who knew only one way to lead: they led presidentially. They could never be wrong.

Albanese believes in the Bob Hawke style, where Ministers carry their portfolios on their sleeves and take responsibility for them. They appear calm, and whilst they are all of the digital age, calmness prevails within the chaos.

This calmness in appearance whilst addressing significant problems is a tribute to the Prime Minister’s style of governance. So different to that of his predecessors that it’s almost scary. Round, one of climate policy, has been addressed, and round two is being drafted.

The architecture for a National Anti-Corruption Commission is being debated in the Parliament, and procedures to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are underway.

Penny Wong and others have circumnavigated the region relentlessly to win favour in the Indo-Pacific.

We are on the eve of Labor’s first budget, with another in May next year. All this while, Ministers are analysing their portfolios for defects or future action. Albo knows what needs to be done to win back the people’s trust and doesn’t want to do it in complete disorder.

If you want to rate this government’s performance against something, use Kevin Rudd as your yardstick.

Rudd was the first prime minister of Australia’s digital age. He attacked the period with a pace commensurate with his belief in its possibilities. Chaos prevailed.

Now bring your mind back to Albanese. He makes as many television appearances as his predecessors, but it’s as if he doesn’t. He brings a sense of resolving matters with a degree of calm and composure that the others never tried. He doesn’t impose himself on people as others have done. He doesn’t lie, and he doesn’t forcefully subject people to lessons. His colleagues are as observable as he is.

What more do you want?

For the last decade, we have been used to, and it’s no exaggeration, awakening to a daily crisis from the Coalition. Some were more excruciating than others, but, more often than not, severe.

As a writer of politics and social justice, one could not complain as the avalanche of wrongdoing or corruption cascaded over the walls of our democracy. I had plenty with which to exercise my fingers.

This list found its way into my misdemeanours’ file, and astonishing as it is, it bears witness to what I have called the Luddite period of Government. It was a period when the leadership and governance of our country were so appalling that the word ‘crisis’ became synonymous with conservatism.

Now a few short weeks down the track, I’m complaining to the editor that there isn’t much to write about. This one, however, elicits some pleasure because it’s about leadership. Sarah Martin, writing for The Guardian, reported that; “Australians’ confidence in government integrity has increased since election, study finds.”

It isn’t just political leadership I’m talking about here; it’s leadership for social and economic change being thrust upon us by a world sick to deaf of the capitalistic system after the failure of drip-down economics.

With leadership and integrity, governance has somewhat recovered since the election. The new Albanese government is registering a considerable bounce in general support.

Swinburne University conducts ongoing research into the public perception of many public institutions. It’s called the Australian Leadership Index: Its latest data shows that:

“… after hitting a low of 52 points out of 100 in the March quarter, public confidence in the country’s leadership has rebounded to 61 points in the September quarter. The data also shows growth in the measure of integrity.”

It doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister and his Ministers have regained trust in Government but that it is starting to regain some.

According to the data:

“… the Morrison government scored between 50 and 52 points out of 100 for integrity from October 2021 to the May election, and the Albanese government scored 60 points out of 100 in its first full quarter.”

The University’s integrity index:

“… measures qualities such as transparency, genuineness, reliability, honesty and care for the community, among other traits.”

The change in public support since the election reveals the Albanese government is sitting at 62 points for competence against a low of 53 under Morrison.

I am surprised, given the Coalition government’s performance during its tenure, that it could ever have reached 53%

The Government’s “contribution” data:

“… tracks metrics such as employment, knowledge and education outcomes – with support increasing from 55 points before the election to 61.”

All in all, it is a healthy report card leading into the first Jim Chalmers’ Budget on Tuesday, 25 October. Budgets always have winners and losers, but at least people will see what is being done with the common good in mind.

The public cannot deny that Chalmers isn’t making them aware of the difficulties that lay ahead. Daily the Treasurer reminds us. We are a wealthy country, but the demands on our prosperity are great. We are better off than most; however, we need sacrifice as we move toward a common good in society.

The demands on the upcoming Budget are so pressing that it will be impossible to meet them in part or whole.

If you watch political programs as I do, the thing that stands out the most is those being interviewed or in the discussion taking place; you will have observed that it is always about the money or the lack thereof. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher must be pulling her hair out.

Think about it. Education, Health, ADIS, disaster relief, post pandemic recovery, small business, equal pay, lifting wages, overseas aid, Health care, defence, cost of living, clean energy, child care, science, jobs and skills, infrastructure, public housing, mental health, aged care, innovation, interest on our debt, manufacturing and many others including general cost increases.

All have a loud voice in determining their priority, but there is always that other voice shouting that there isn’t enough for all our needs. Do you just patch up the various problems or fix a few in full at the expense of others?

Do you spend a lot on things that will bear fruit in the future, knowing they might not win you the next election?

There will, of course, be journalists and others who know all these difficulties but, in their dissection, won’t mention them or the lack of money. Just negativity from a worn-out capitalistic press.

Will this Budget turn out to be another of the same old patchwork quilt type?

Will it be one that will redistribute our wealth with more equity? A nation-building budget.

Will it signal a change in how we collect taxes and redistribute our wealth? Will there be new taxes?

Will it be reformist? If we continue to look back, we will lose sight of going forward.

Above all, will it demonstrate to Australians that money essentially belongs to the people and won’t be squandered to support friends of the incumbents?

Back to good Government…

Dr Vlad Demsar, an Australian Leadership Index researcher, told The Guardian that:

“… the figures showed that public faith in the Government was heading in the right direction after the low figures detected ahead of the election under the former prime minister, Scott Morrison.”

Might l dare suggest that Albanese is intent on proving that good honest governance is possible with real people in leadership. That the tax cuts for high-income earners will be abandoned once he has exhausted proof of the Government’s trust.

Then he can say:

“We have reconsidered this tax break in the light of current knowledge and however obligated we found ourselves, the giving could never match the benefits of not doing so.”

I was immediately taken aback when I read that the Opposition was negotiating “in good faith” with the Government for their support in introducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Good faith sounds more like bargaining for an exemption from the obvious.

At first, I thought I was mistaken.

Negotiating in good faith with an Opposition so full of corruption that it was at the top of the list for reasons to vote against it.

Just what are they negotiating; a tit-for-tat clause by clause? We won’t remind the Commission of this if you don’t insert that. Or if you do, then remember when.

If that’s what it means, we will likely end up with a “watered-down” version of what was promised.

The Prime Minister must remember that any variation from what was promised to what is legislated will be taken as a broken promise and will carry over into the next election.

An excuse like losing time with the Queen’s death is no excuse. Let me remind Albo that he pledged to introduce a federal integrity body this year.

Before and during the election, both Albanese and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, committed to the integrity body.

Question time today. Goldstein voted for integrity, and today I asked @MarkDreyfusKCMP if the NACC would include a provision for third parties to be investigated. Here's what happened next. #auspol pic.twitter.com/Oft093m3aF

— Zoe Daniel MP (she/her) (@zdaniel) September 26, 2022

They had various ideas and said they were in discussion with all interested parties. Still, now we find them negotiating with the very party that originated the corruption alleged to have taken place.

One sticking point with the independents is that the new body can investigate third parties.

Independent David Pocock has noted that:

“We know that a lot of corruption starts with people potentially getting in touch with politicians, whether they’re business people, unions, developers … This body needs to be able to actually investigate them and bring them before the integrity commission.”

The sticking point seems to be just how much power the Commission should have. Well, given the record of the Coalition over the past decade, I would suggest a lot, but at the same time, I concede there may be a danger if its power is too far-reaching. But it must have teeth.

Other points of contention are protection for whistle-blowers and the size of the Commission’s budget, but they can be overcome.

Labor pledged an Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) that would:

“… serve the public by uncovering corruption and ensuring that members of a government, including politicians, are held to account if they engage in corrupt conduct.”

In both Labor’s election policy and media releases, a NACC was promised by the end of 2022. Anything less will be considered a backflip. We believed in good faith.

The NACC would:

• Have broad jurisdiction to investigate Commonwealth ministers, public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, and personal staff of politicians;
• Carry out its functions independently of Government, with discretion to commence inquiries into serious and systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistle-blowers and complaints from the public. To ensure the Commission’s independence, the Commissioner and any Deputy Commissioner would serve for a single fixed term and have security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge;
• Be overseen by a statutory bipartisan Joint Standing Committee of the Parliament, empowered to require the Commission to provide information about its work. To ensure bipartisan support for the Commission’s work, that Committee would be responsible for confirming the Commissioners nominated by the Government;
• Have the power to investigate allegations of serious and systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment;
• Have the power to hold public hearings where the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so;
• Be empowered to make findings of fact, including a finding of corrupt conduct, but not to make determinations of criminal liability. Findings that could constitute criminal conduct would be referred to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for further consideration; and
• Operate with procedural fairness, and its findings would be subject to judicial review.

It’s all nakedly laid out on the Labor Party website, so you cannot misunderstand its legislation or intent.

The passing of Queen Elizabeth II has set back this session of Parliament, and the resumption of Parliament this week will serve as a reminder of how things can quickly change in politics, but there doesn’t appear to be a question the Opposition can ask of the Government that in some way won’t rebound on them most negatively.

Big week ahead, delivering on our promises. pic.twitter.com/4GVDYabxbB

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) September 25, 2022

Official grieving passes quickly, but politicians cannot avoid it. Until it occurred, Albanese was enjoying popularity only surpassed by Bob Hawke, but it may well be stalled if he cannot get his legislation through the Parliament.

Including the National Anti-Corruption Commission and other important legislation, Albanese will be expected to offload it all before Christmas to make way for a clear run into the New Year.

In politics, a clear run into a new year is essential, especially for a reformist party intent on making changes to improve the common good.

Jim Chalmers will present a new budget in October, and it will surely get a good going over. I, for one, expect something exceptional, given the time spent on it. What might happen to the billions in subsidies given to mining?

In the face of a crisis for democratic governments around the globe, the Albanese government is preparing to table legislation to create a federal integrity commission.

If there is a need for a NACC, then it needs to be demonstrated why this is so. If the Opposition believes it needs to be boiled down so much as to be ineffective, then Dutton needs to spell out why.

If the object of the exercise is to restore trust in the political system, then let me remind you that:

“Findings in this week’s Guardian Essential report show about half of the respondents see Scott Morrison as a diminished figure who should resign from parliament.”

Wouldn’t that be a fitting end?