Why Albanese is worse than Morrison

Morrison and Albanese both represent feeding the rich and flogging the environment. But UN Albanese is woke, with the worse fibs, and record immigration to undermine local workers.

UnsuitableScott Morrison was pitchforked into Parliament on the nod of the biggest Australian influencer this century - John Howard.

Engineered into the leadership by other MPs carrying crosses and aided by soulless officials, he nurtured crude and cruel Robodebt.

He continued the standard issue neoliberal program of the 1980s - onwards Australia- which suggests feed the rich and flog the environment (FRIFE).

Morrison lied about stopping the boats , muddled through COVID, but pushed China back. From the start, he backed Big Australia and supported United Nations Net Zero emissions, half-heartedly.

Towards the end reality thrashed satire. He flattened that kid and confessed he was a bit of a bulldozer.

Compared with Everywhere Howard, what lasting influences does he leave? His Religious Persecution? Sorry, the Discrimination Bill, was always jinxed.

Albanese perpetuates Howard's settlement with the "Organised Religion" Party,with big concessions and freebies, massive church-school funding and no need to run for office.

The Rudd-Gillard-Albanese progression

Superficially, Albanese replacing Morrison resembles Julia Gillard usurping bad Kevin Rudd, but Albanese's more like Rudd, his American Ambassador.

Sure, Rudd was de trop. He loved China and Big Australia , but harangued factional bosses and abused pampered officials.

Eventually, Rudd tried to tax Australia's third world natural resources giveaways. The mining and petroleum multinationals had to replace him with Gillard, who let them write their own tax arrangements, as she facilitated the gas cartel.

Gillard soothed hurting officials, and she lied about Big Australia. In Labor folklore she wasa reformer.

Julia Gillard commissioned the Gonski report. Y'all know the story. School funding would be 'needs based and sector blind', meaning the opposite - another generation of educational apartheid and underperformance. The Left claims it's Tony Abbott's fault.

Y'all know this fable too. Bad Greens defeated Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), and Abbott knocked over Gillard's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It was set to push our total emissions down, down.

Nonsense. Like the 40% coverage European Union ETS , our CPRS/ETS might have shaved emissions among regulated industries and firms, assuming they didn't corrupt the government, sabotage the targets, disguise their emissions, or maximise fake offsets.

Meantime, Global and Australian emissions keep climbing. Earth doesn't follow carbon markets and it isn't going to Net Zero.

Like Morrison, Albanese reinforces inequality.

Like Gillard, bro Albanese might leave a reform story for academics. For punters from Penrith to Pinjarra, blessings will be slim. Compared with Morrison, Albanese might enforce inequality more ethically . Hurrah.

FRIFE? - he does it on his ear. Check the first and second Jim Chalmers' Budgets. Their humungous immigration tide purportedly lifts all boats.

Fibbing on national ABC , Treasurer says 715,000 net migration over 2022-24 is not something he controls. Inequality? Falling real wages? Failing environment? These are things not discussed in his Budgets. He fudges them in a woke wellbeing framework.

His endless growth Intergenerational Report (IGR) offers UN platitudes of 'net zero transformation' and becoming a 'renewable energy superpower'. These are exciting opportunities in the bedpan, sorry, care economy , rather than practical industry and worker oriented policies.

Rebooting Big Australia, Morrison craved our usual immigration economy. Ignoring voters, Albanese took the fibs to the next-level. Would you believe, migration is just catching up after COVID? Population is trending smaller and older? Me neither.

You dare to criticise that 715,000? A powerful minority will flash you the Race Card. Even our cartoonists and satirists run a mile from the immigration issue.

You don't like 1.9% population growth? Look over there at 1.5% economic growth. Australia generates yet another per-capita recession.

Discount Labor's Climate Action spin. Their absurdity is of fixing the migration system under massive immigration. The Labor-Greens mockery is to fix rental/housing affordability under relentless population growth.

It doesn't matter how often the Guardian and ABC correspondents sandpaper the ball, IGR's institutionalised mass migration cruels housing affordability for Australians. It's nearly four times higher than the average annual migration in 20^thcentury Australia.

In the October 2022 Budget, the Treasurer targeted net migration of 235,000 each year from 2022-23 to 2025-26. By May 2023, that was suddenly 400,000, 315,000, 260,000, and 260,000. Gosh, his August IGR is back at 235,000, which is the same as the Morrison IGR of 2021.

He's just making it up as he goes. His IGR targets 40 million by 2062, yet this is touted as a slow growing population.

Launching IGR he smirked, "more people will be renting for life", it's the "end of complacency" - the end of equality, more likely.

Like Rudd, Albanese's first loyalty is globalism.

Why would Albanese go to population extremes? He's not just servicing powerful donors, he's a globalist. The breadcrumbs lead back to the UN.

Both Rudd and Albanese affect Net Zero blazers in international climate clubs, which distract attention from the eight billion humans. There are 26 million Australians.

Population generates emissions/consumption/GDP. That's not quantum mechanics or string theory. In Australia, population is way easier to manage than emissions.

Albanese's Open Borders Australia is an endless growth of a democracy of stakeholders, which is more destructive of cohesion and equality than Morrison's sexism and pugnacity.

Australian Liam Young has already written and filmed the ultimate globalist fantasy. Ten billion living in one joyous planet city, as the rest of earth 're-wilds'

UN narratives drive Albanese's policies.

How did the UN ducks line up for Albanese?

While corporates neutered the 1960s-1990s environmental push, UN stitched up the population side. As early as 1994 they betrayed family planning in the global south.

Individual nations still reduce population growth, no thanks to UN. Camouflaging global population trends, hyping a distant Net Zero, UN policies suit Australian corporates.

Australia's 1990s were the peak of government and science on the driest continent's carrying capacity. Biogeographically, Tim Flannery wrote for Australian Academy of Science (AAS), our desirable maximum population was "20-30 million".

Greens soon dropped the racist population issue, and Flannery and AAS pivoted to climate advocacy. That trickle is now a stampede.

In the last five years our scientific herd has swarmed the Net Zero gangplank. Add Climate Change to that Grant Application and it looks better already.

Instead of invigilating Albanese's dodgy Safeguard Mechanism, 43% emissions reduction, and Net Zero Authority, scientists condone his propaganda.

Other stakeholders would rarely challenge his essentially UN derivativepopulation and environment policies. When Senator Kristina Keneally wobbled, she was shamed and excluded. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton faces similar risks.

One CEO, Matt Barrie, did bucket Open Borders. Mega-billion CEOs Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes prefer Albanese's pose- that is, be a fake Net Zero hero.

UN Albanese is worse than Morrison.

Behold, Albanese's cautious pragmatism, steady tiller and cabinet governance, is saving us from Morrison's Trump type menace.

It could look that way, especially among the rich who are getting richer. But Albanese's UN-themed corporatism will leave workers worse off and the environment in worse shape.

Logically, why expect anything different?

Read French Professor Thomas Piketty among others. Left parties now represent education and Right parties still represent money. As fellow French Professor Julia Cagé Kvetches suggests, with limited electoral funding and lax private donations, nobody much represents workers. These European (also American) findings hold for Australia.

CagéKvetchesrecommends reserved seats for worker candidates. You could equally say voters need their own Canberra lobby to protect them from overpopulation, and indeed the gas cartel.

Donors and stakeholders will keep pointing at Morrison/Dutton while sugar-coating UN Albanese, because in our uncompetitive markets they'll still be making out like bandits.

On the one hand consider the local realities Albanese ought to be remediating.

As regards the economy, (see above) unnecessary per capita recessions, dismal productivity growth, woke industry policy, job growth is mostly going to migrants and local unemployment will rise. Real wages are depressed and real household income has tanked.

As regards environment, the systematic overpopulation, Potemkin-façade, climate policy, fossil fuels forever, urban-sprawl until the last koala, keen logging and land clearing, native-species crashes, wild-west irrigation and water markets, crazy urban water policy, all continue.

As regards inequality, the top 10% get tax cuts and hogs benefits of growth, sharply unequal schooling and universities, bulk-processing migrants and gouging locals, perennially catch-up infrastructure and services, institutionalised rental/housing unaffordability continue.

On the other hand, consider the globalist dreams - the Albanese dreams. These are Open Borders, Net Zero and identity politics. He was always going to continue Morrison's AUKUS, but has also accelerated our immigration/trade exposure to China and India.

Which hand is pushing down harder on the tiller? What reforms does he want to be remembered for? It's not even close.

Why would Airbus Albo bother about living standards or ecological overshoot when he can crush-load our population, yet be lauded internationally for "pursuing" Net Zero?