The Voice debacle locks in Albanese’s 'Huge Australia' and his King Charles

Soon after Anthony Albanese activated the tear ducts, the media drift was clear.

The Voice was going to fail, they conceded. Not because Albanese had got it wrong - nothing that simple. No, it must be bad Peter Dutton. Also, we must be racists.

There was "conservative" commentator Nikki Savas at Costello Nine media. A No vote would mark us as "frightened, resentful" people, not "measured, generous".

Over at Not My ABC, David Speers tried out a novel excuse – blame Hamas. "The Israel crisis has made it harder for Yes to be heard." Therefore "Australia will go backwards."

For sheer weirdness, you couldn't top the Guardian martinet, Katharine Murphy. Dastardly Dutton was an "exploding fire hydrant" pushing his party to "electoral oblivion".

Another Costello organ, the Financial Review, argued different. Like, why didn't Albanese first try legislation? Isn't that what parliaments do? Heck, ever since that 1967 referendum, they can even do it for "Aboriginal people".

A word about that Albanese. It's true the 2017 Uluru Statement demands constitutional change. It's true Noel Pearson had continued to push for this.

So what? As Albanese knew, a referendum lacking opposition support had never won.

Especially in indigenous policy, where failure is a byword, why not try for modest wins instead. Under-promise and over-deliver to first nations.

Ironically, cruelly, among all our "ethnic" groups as it were, the Indigenous and their cultures are sometimes regarded as the most "foreign". Politicians fall over themselves to appease Chinese "migrant electorates" - not indigenous.

Check the successes highlighted in the official Yes/No pamphlet – community-controlled Aboriginal Medical Services, a community-driven Arnhem school, and Indigenous Rangers.

Valuable, but smallish, programs. Rangers has taken 15-20 years of painstaking collaboration and effort to get to 2,000 places. Still just a dot, in the federal Budget.

Banking on ego not statesmanship, Albanese bet the house. If he flamed out, even by 6-zip or 7-one, the governing classes and their indulgent media would pat his head.

In accusatory post-referendum coverage, we're in the international doghouse. The local message is studiously ignored – a (woke) inner-city leader out of touch with ordinary Australians.

If you're really worried about stubborn groupthink, don't think 17 million voters in six states. Check out the privileged landlords on the Labor front bench, preaching open borders and "net zero".

A word about our "racism". Sure, it's greatly to be deplored. But, to the extent such things can be gauged at all, Australia is probably one of the better nations not the worst.

Whereas a persistent cellar-dweller in racism and sexism rankings is Modi India, with whom Albanese has gaily signed historic, open-ended, qualifications and migration pacts.

Catch 22, these dodgy pacts aren't being scrutinised for their "benefit" to Australia, because that would be "racist". On the contrary, here's a think tank expert proposing India as the example, to improve Australia's indigenous recognition.

Embedded racism can't explain why "Yes" blew a big starting lead. It was unwise, to think that lecturing that many voters, was the key to winning their votes over.

The fallout is painful. In terms of Closing the Gap,Indigenous Australians are no further ahead.

Neither are Australians generally. Instead of closing the [inequality] gap, first they face a lengthy Albanese-generated recession, in per-capita GDP terms.

Yet Australia's governing classes have given their emotions to the UN climate emergency. Lower orders can sort the escalating immigration/housing emergency for themselves. BYO tent, mate.

This arid continent of extremes has always pleaded, go easy on the human load. Privileged Australians dictate, no, that would be racist. Anyway, "net zero" emissions will fix thing.

Albanese will be keener than ever, to revert to his insider "democracy" of powerful stakeholders. The un-woke populace will never be granted its clear preference for low immigration.

Here, he would have noted the New Zealand election result.

Voters could choose a "conservative" not "labour" government. Either way, they weren't offered any real choice to dial down Jacinda Ardern's mega migration and housing unaffordability.

Albanese will leave the same legacy, of rusted-on mega migration. With its gifts that keep on giving, the housing and intergenerational divides. A starkly unequal educational system.

Indeed, such is his momentum, he'd be hard-pressed do anything else.

He's made sure the world knows us, as the softest immigration touch. Passing off the resulting tide of "student" immigrants as our global war for talent. Difficult now, to tether that balloon.

Unmoderated, his Treasurer fibs on national ABC. Me, I don't control the immigration turnstiles, mate. Pure coincidence if the deluge makes my Treasury GDP richer and ordinary punters poorer.

This same Treasurer also broadcasts, and compromised "economists" parrot, that an institutionalised 235,000 in net migration will lead us to "lower" population growth over the next 40 years. Why, we'd "only" be heading for 40 million population, nothing really.

Even by "Treasury economist" standards, it's a stupid policy prospectus. Just like the planet itself, the size (carrying capacity) of our continent isn't expanding. Extra migrants can't BYO extra rain. Already WA and other states pile on "carbon abated" desal plants.

The environment was going backwards, when we "only" had about 20 million. How would it cope at 40? Oh right, Minister Bowen's cutting-edge "net zero" will fix thing.

Exactly wrong are the silver-spoon careerist running Home Affairs, the open borders zealot helming Immigration. The first does rep theatre, supposedly fixing her "broken system". The second deploys costly armadas of extra staff, purportedly fixing his "visa backlog".

With these two hucksters helping, we'd be lucky to "reduce" net migration from its mammoth 450,000 to an elephant 235,000 any year soon. Even the latter would still be three timest he historical average, eight or nine times the 20^th century average. Upside-down policy.

Remember too that Albanese set the V-for-Voice as a decoy. To help postpone the King Charles issue, until his second term as PM.

This has given open borders zealot and self-styled "evaluation" guru Andrew Leigh plenty of leeway. To shower consumers with long-lasting medieval doubloons, flattering Charles with new hair.

Already, one constitutional buff fears Albanese's Voice pratfall has killed off Australia getting its own head of state. Others bravely disagree.

Whoever's right, I'm quietly hoping Albanese squibs the issue. Going on his Voice performance, he would only produce another own goal.

All we need is our own governor-general or head of state, preferably appointed by our Parliament not PM. Crucially, no longer reporting to the hereditary white British Palace. That's the point.

Instead of working out minimal legislative pathways, to wash this (ever so slightly racist) Palace out of our national-governance hair, Albanese would go grand again.

Aping the Australian Republic Movement, he'd essay bold "debate" about some airy "republican" model. Outside his Marrickville fishbowl, at the mention of the R-word, this would derail again.

You'd almost rather, entrust the ultimate disconnect of the unlovely Charles and his naff heirs, to some unlikely "conservative" government of the future. After all, 'twas Malcolm Turnbull that delivered on same sex marriage.