With much pomp and ceremony the Governor General opened Australia's 48th Parliament, 22nd July 2025. With no opposition candidate nominated, Milton Dick (Labor) was elected once again to the role of Speaker, is this a sign of the "Noaltion" once more becoming the Coalition, as it seeks to display a more positive and cooperative attitude towards the Labor government and its agenda, lets hope so, under new Opposition leader, Sussan Ley. Hopefully the negativity displayed by Peter Dutton, in the 47th Parliament will become a thing of the past, and Labor will be able to push ahead with a progressive reform agenda in its second term.

What to expect? Well since the election was heavy on hoopla and light on policy, we'll have to wait to find out what to expect. Even Albo will have to wait.

"Anthony Albanese will convene experts, unions and business leaders in Canberra later this year to brainstorm ideas for economic growth, as his government seeks a reform agenda to capitalise on its new-found parliamentary dominance." (ABC)

So having won, they now need to work out what to do. Great way to run a country. A bit like the dog who caught the car but now doesn't know what to do with it.

Both Liberal and Labor leaders kicked off with divisions in the community and identity politics. Albanese made the stupid statement that Welcome to Country is not controversial, when Australians, via polls and surveys, have shown that it is definitely controversial, and an insult to 97% of Australians.

So the “not controversial” comment was Albanese's first lie in the new Parliament.

How many to come?

He told 56 lies during the election. Three lies a day.

Documented by Senator Susan McDonald.

Albanese knew his lies were being recorded, but it didn't stop him.

The $275 reduction in power prices was only one of the lies, told 97 times.

The 1.2 million homes lie is a real beauty, now discredited by a leak.

Cutting immigration and foreign students is a real gob smackers.

Stage 3 tax cuts.

Cheap electricity.

Hydrogen.

No new taxes on superannuation.

Lie after lie, after ….. Yet the low-information voters gave them more seats than they had during all the lying,

Who is really to blame for the rotten state of Labor?

I see the usual suspects are out in force, confusing consultation with cluelessness and mistaking culture-war tantrums for insight.

Labor engages with business, unions and experts before making big reforms, and somehow that’s a problem? Meanwhile, the last government spent a decade doing the exact opposite: policy via press conference, and consultation only with donors.

As for the screeching over Welcome to Country? If that’s your rallying cry for the 48th Parliament, maybe take a breath. No one’s forcing anyone to clap, and most Australians aren’t spiralling into identity crisis every time someone acknowledges traditional owners.

And the “Albo lied” mantra? Please. A Gish gallop of out-of-context lines, shifting circumstances, and wishful outrage doesn’t make a case - just noise.

If this is what passes for opposition now, the Coalition’s road back is going to be even longer than it already looks.

I would think one quintessential of good government would be to consult with stakeholders, experts and interested parties on a range of issues. Our resident Trumpster must prefer the Donald approach, where the lunatic in charge calls all the shots, then backflips, denies, procrastinates and all in all make a bloody fool of himself. Then there is the mad poster from extreme right field who thinks it all, lies, lies, lies, quotes nonsense and fails to understand the bigger picture.

Calm down boys. I'm not opposed to pollies interacting with other power centres like business and unions. I'd just prefer to see them do it before elections so they could tell the people what the policies are, rather than try to work out what policies they'll follow after getting voted in.

Its pretty clear Albo et al really don't know what do do about the faltering economy and are hoping to get some inspiration from people who actually outside the Canberra bubble.

"Our resident Trumpster must prefer the Donald approach,"

Yes, I do prefer the approach where a pollie says what he's going to do before the election and then actually does it after the election. I wonder if we'll ever get a pollie who promises to make Australia great again, sets out a series of policies to achieve it and them implements them despite furious opposition from those who will lose their privileged position. i don't see any such figure on either side of the aisleat the moment.

Another of Albanese’s rants, ‘Future Made In Australia’ will be shown in the future to be another lie.

Economist Judith Sloan reckons that Albanese's you-beaut ‘Future Made In Australia’ mantra has “Trumpion tones”. Pity there is no Trump to go with it. Trump could possibly pull it off; but Albanese, never. The idea is just to convince “low-information” voters that there is a plan to get Australia making things again.

Rather than investing in Australia, the private sector is moving out. And, of course, there's that little matter of very expensive and unreliable electricity; plus appalling red tape, green tape and a fat, incompetent public ‘service’ beavering away to make doing business harder.

We will be scratching to maintain the bit of manufacturing we have now (5% of total output, down from 10% thirty years ago) in the future, with Albanese & The Socialists calling the tune.

There is no way that we can restart manufacturing in competition with Albanese's mates in China, who flog stuff to us cheaper than we could ever make because they use cheap, coal-powered electricity - as we used to.

Ms. Sloan sees the FMIA as “total crock”. But that describes most things over the past 3 years: and the next 3, the future, will be worse because all those “low-information” people put Albanese back in power.

Albanese and Wong have got what they wanted: praise from Hamas in the form of Ghazi Hamad, who gratefully acknowledged their calling on Israel to cease fire. The Australian Jewish Association, on the other hand says that it means that Australia has abandoned Israel - or the Albanese government has abandoned Israel. Decent Australians have not abandoned them: even the Liberal Party is sticking with Israel.

Hamas started the war. They can finish it before they are finished by Israel and even more women and children have to die on behalf of Hamas terrorists and cowardly thugs hiding behind those women and children. If they are dying, that is; it could be another lie like the ‘thousands of babies” BS. Even when they are lying, Hamas is using children to try to make Israel stop doing its duty to protect its own citizens from these lying, murderous bastards.

Israel doesn't kill innocent civilians like Hamas does. They know what they are doing, and hopefully they will continue to do it until there is no trace of Hamas left.

Sucking up to China, Albanese wants Australia to be “a neutral Switzerland of the South Pacific”. Although, while Australia has less than 60,000 military personnel, Switzerland has more than 120,000 trained volunteers.

Just imagine getting that many people to volunteer in multicultural Australia!

And in 1939, neutral though it was, Switzerland still had 430,000 troops and more than 200,000 support personnel from a population of a little over 4 million.

“Not only is Australia greatly under-armed and planning to remain so, but people are showing a disturbing indifference to national defence”. The return of the Albanese government clearly shows how true that is.

According to the Lowy Institute, only 52% said that they would definitely defend Australia, 24% said they would not, leaving another 24% who might or might not. Remember, 30% of Australians were born overseas and still living; so we have a fair idea who we should be looking at.

Now, the truth will only come out if push turns to shove with a foreign power, but it's definitely something for someone other than the dicks who have just gone back to Parliament to worry about.

We know who has caused the problems; but we don't know who, if anyone, is able to fix them.

That is very kind of the gentleman that wants parliament to sort out the way forward while they are on holiday. Lots of thought went into that one.

Gotta give it to The Mad Katter, nutty as a fruit cake, but always good value. Bob refused to swear allegiance to King Charles III, at the opening of Parliament, instead Bob substituted "The Australian People". Strange character is Old Bob, not sure if he's a raving commo, (he did once say he might be a communist, but he wasn't sure) or some strange kind of fascist, or maybe a bit of both. The Clark Of The Parliament had to tell Bob the Member for Kennedy to "shut up" several times during the election of the Speaker, as he tried to interject. Imagine the Parliament if they elected Bob as the Speaker!

The members of Hanson's Fascists Party turned their backs during the "welcome to country" ceremony. I'm sure they were thinking; "Didn't our great grand paps get rid of that mob, a 100 years ago, now they're bloody well back!"

mhaze,

Your “dog that caught the car” line only works if Labor entered government with no plan, but the evidence says otherwise.

They've built on a first term with major policy achievements: cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, climate legislation, childcare reform, and industrial relations changes. You don’t have to like their agenda, but calling it policy-free is just lazy framing.

You then say you’re not against consultation, just that it should happen before elections. But governments aren’t static. Complex problems require ongoing engagement with business, unions, experts, and affected sectors. That’s how responsible policymaking works. Pretending a party can (or should) lock in every detail before a three-year term even begins isn’t just unrealistic - it’s performative.

Now there’s Trump - your model of a leader who “says what he’ll do and then does it.” Yet:

- He promised to protect Social Security - then floated cuts.
- He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers.
- He claimed he’d end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours” - then admitted it’d mean Ukraine surrendering land.

That’s not follow-through. That’s bluff and backpedal.

Worse, much of Trump’s “doing” has come at the cost of democratic norms and legal boundaries - from trying to overturn an election, to threatening judges, to openly encouraging constitutional violations. That’s not leadership. That’s authoritarian cosplay.

So when you long for someone who’ll “make Australia great again” by taking on “privileged elites,” what does that actually mean? Because if the model is a leader who overpromises, flip-flops, and trashes institutions when he doesn’t get his way, then no, we don’t need our own version of that.

We need grown-ups. Not grievance merchants in red hats.

ttbn,

It’s always hard to tell whether your posts are meant as commentary or just a running list of everything currently upsetting you.

In the space of a few comments, we’ve had Welcome to Country, Hamas, electricity prices, China, manufacturing decline, defence shortfalls, and of course, the classic fallback - those dreadful “low-information voters” who keep refusing to vote correctly.

Look, you’re entitled to your outrage medley. But the rest of us are trying to discuss Parliament, policy, and the direction of the country. You’re just narrating the apocalypse.

You call Future Made in Australia a lie, then cite Judith Sloan saying it has “Trumpian tones.” Which is strange, since Trump’s second term is all industrial policy, tariffs, and economic nationalism. So… are you for that or against it? Or is it just bad when Labor does it?

And your position on Israel is less a policy view than a loyalty test. No one here is defending Hamas, but you treat any acknowledgement of the humanitarian cost as treason. That’s the political version of slamming a beer can against your forehead and calling it strategy.

But let’s be honest: this isn’t really about policy. If it were, you’d offer one. Instead, we get cultural panic dressed up as political commentary. A lot of fire, not much light.

You shout “lies, lies, lies” like it’s a spell to make complexity disappear. But if all you’re offering is volume and venom, don’t be surprised when voters - the ones you keep insulting - tune you out.

Some of us are still trying to have a grown-up conversation. You’re welcome to join it.

Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here. The Albanese Summit is about improving the nations productivity growth which is current appalling and not showing any sign of improving.

While all the hoopla that accompanies government moves on this or that might warm the cockles of the committed hearts, the future of the nation and its well-being is far more fundamental and relies on economic policy decisions made now. And improving the nations economic performance trumps all other issues in the long term.

During the election it was clear that neither side had or has any real plans to boost economic output and maintain current standards of living. The summit is a desperate attempt to dig up some new ideas. But those ideas will inevitably be unpopular in some sector or other and therefore neither side wanted to discuss them pre-election.

We'll see if the summit comes up with anything startling and if, less, likely, the government is prepared to implement mildly unpopular policies. I'd doubt it. These days, its all about winning the next election and the nation's welfare in a decade or three is effectively immaterial.

It’s no problem at all, mhaze.

//Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here.//

You didn’t mention productivity - let alone frame the summit as a targeted response to it - so there was no way I could have known. And we both know how much you hate it when someone draws inferences from your comments, even when it makes no difference to what you actually said.

What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now.

And yes, improving productivity is vital - no disagreement there - but pretending that this summit reflects a lack of planning rather than a continuation of consultation-driven governance is disingenuous. It’s entirely possible (and necessary) to campaign on policy and keep working with stakeholders in a dynamic economy. That’s not flailing. That’s governing.

Also worth noting: you’ve conveniently avoided the core of my last reply: your praise for Trump’s “say and do” style, which I challenged with specific examples of flip-flops and norm-breaking. Ignoring that now suggests the “do” wasn’t as consistent as you claimed.

Lastly, this idea that “neither side” is serious about long-term reform is your usual strategic cynicism: flatten everything so no one has to be held accountable, especially the side you actually support. But the public’s not buying that anymore, and frankly, neither am I.

Happy to keep discussing policy, but if you're going to set the frame, you'll need to hold it up a little better.

"You didn’t mention productivity "

Yeah, I made the obviously mistaken assumption that the summit was about economic reform and boosting productivity growth.

"What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now."

No reframing. Just dumbing it down for those who obviously were ill-informed about the summit.

"especially the side you actually support. "

And which side do imagine that to be?

As to Trump, I'm not really interested in discussing it with someone who is obviously just regurgitating leftist talking points. eg "He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers." Well he never made such a promise and the tariff battle is on-going so declaring his defeat is, shall we say, premature. Especially since China has already conceded so much.

mhaze,

You didn’t make a mistaken assumption, you made a vague comment and are now retrofitting it to sound more precise than it was.

There was no mention of productivity, reform, or any specific policy focus in your original post. You painted the summit as a post-election scramble by a government with no real plan. That was the message.

So yes, I responded to exactly what you said; not this more flattering version you’re now offering.

And let’s not pretend this is some act of benevolent simplification. “Dumbing it down” isn’t how one clarifies a point, it’s how one tries to save face without owning a misfire. You weren’t misunderstood; you were simply imprecise.

There’s a difference.

As for “which side do you imagine that to be?” - come on. Your comment history isn’t exactly subtle. You reliably oppose Labor, dismiss their actions as cynical, and run interference for the Coalition even when criticising them. If you're trying to present as neutral, the camouflage is pretty thin.

And then there’s Trump…

You praised his “say and do” style - I challenged that with specific examples. You now say you’re not interested in discussing it because I’m “regurgitating leftist talking points.” That’s not a rebuttal; that’s a cop-out.

And why the double-standard when it comes to rightist talking points?

Trump absolutely did promise to crush China with tariffs - repeatedly and publicly. He also delayed or reversed key tariffs when they hurt U.S. producers. And the so-called “concessions” you mention? Vague at best, and certainly not the decisive win you're implying.

You don’t have to defend Trump, but if you're going to cite him as a model of consistency, you can’t just duck out when the record doesn’t hold up.

Happy to continue, but let’s not pretend I'm the one missing things here.

I specifically said the summit was about economic policy and "brainstorm[ing] ideas for economic growth". I really can't help it if that went over your head.

"Your comment history isn’t exactly subtle. You reliably oppose Labor, "

Well I'm afraid that, as with most things, you leap to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts. Yes, I'm critical of Labor and their policies and have been for many years. But I have been vastly more critical of the Libs and their policies for at least a decade now. I have said on OLO for over a decade that I vote Labor and will continue to do so while-ever the Libs are the monumental mess they have been since the overthrow of Abbott. I really can't help it if that went over your head.

"Trump absolutely did promise to crush China with tariffs -"
Evidence?

"and certainly not the decisive win you're implying."
Again you make these claims that about things I never said. I haven't claimed this as a decisive win since the whole tariff and trade imbalance thing is still playing out. They are currently in trade talks and things will go on like that for months. Trumps promise was to rectify the trade imbalance and repatriate US jobs. Saying he's failed when his policies have barely begun is just inane

"if you're going to cite him as a model of consistency,"

If by that you mean he is doing what he said he'd do, then yes, that's exactly true. He said he'd stop the illegal alien invasion of the US. He has. He said he'd send the illegals home. He has or is. He said he repatriate US business and jobs. That's happening. He said he'd clean up the corruption in DC. That's begun. He said he'd protect and extend the 2017 tax cuts. That's done.

The Green Pakistani in the Australian Senate has been mildly sanctioned for holding up an anti-Israel sign, but she wasn't suspended by Wong as she should have been.

The woman has no more idea than anyone else not actually in Gaza does if people are starving; if they are, then she needs to contact Hamas, and stop lying about Israel. Moreover, she should not be anywhere near the Australian Parliament. Nobody not born in Australia should be. That of course would apply to the woman who failed to do her duty, Wong.

Yeah, yeah it's not like that in piss-weak Australia, but it should be.

Not quite, mhaze.

//I specifically said the summit was about economic policy and ‘brainstorm[ing] ideas for economic growth’.//

You quoted the ABC saying that - then called the summit a desperate scramble with a dog-catching-the-car metaphor, which doesn’t exactly scream “measured commentary on productivity policy.” You didn’t frame it as a strategic reform push, you framed it as aimlessness.

That was the tone, and tone carries meaning.

And no, nothing went over my head. I simply didn’t assume your real argument was hidden between the lines while you threw out a punchline. If you wanted to talk about productivity, you could have said so directly. That’s not on me.

As for your voting habits, I’m sure they’re very nuanced in your own mind, but don’t be surprised when others infer a pattern if you:

- spend your time echoing Coalition talking points,
- run defence for Trump, and
- portray Labor policy as unserious hoopla.

Trump’s public threats to hit China with massive tariffs are a matter of record, not a “leftist talking point.” If you're now saying the battle is still playing out and it’s too early to judge, fine - but you can’t simultaneously declare his economic promises fulfilled while also insisting they’re incomplete.

That’s not consistency. That’s a contradiction.

You say he’s doing what he promised - but “draining the swamp” while surrounding himself with loyalists, cronies, and convicted allies doesn’t quite hit the mark. Nor does sending migrants “home” through legally dubious means. Strongman optics aren’t policy outcomes, even if they play well on Sky After Dark.

Happy to continue, but don’t confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. I heard you just fine.

"That was the tone, and tone carries meaning."

Ahhh. The tone of it. Dennis Denuto's vibe lives.
Might I suggest that rather than reading between the lines, you read the actual lines.

"spend your time echoing Coalition talking points,"
Example?

"run defence for Trump"
What's that got to do with allegedly supporting the Libs? FYG, its been my point since 2015 that Trump is actually the voice of the worker so supporting him and supporting Labor makes sense.

Oh and Trump doesn't need running defence for him. He's doing just fine.

"Trump’s public threats to hit China with massive tariffs are a matter of record,"

But that's not the same as saying he wants to "crush" them which was your original assertion which I note you can't even try to back up. Trump wants to stop the Chinese ripping off the US working class but doesn't need to "crush" China to do that. I suspect I've now lost you.

"you can’t simultaneously declare his economic promises fulfilled"

Oh good. Because I didn't make such a declaration. Just making stuff up is so JD. Trump is fulfilling his promises by implementing the policies he promised. The jury remains out as to how successful they'll be.

"Nor does sending migrants “home” through legally dubious means."

Legally dubious? More leftist talking points.

"even if they play well on Sky After Dark."
I don't know what that means?

mhaze,

No need for the Castle reference, tone carries meaning - and weight - even in a courtroom.

You quoted the ABC on “economic growth,” then immediately mocked the summit as a post-election scramble with a dog-and-car metaphor. That contrast isn’t between the lines, it is the line.

As for echoing Coalition talking points? “Labor had no plan.” “Just hoopla.” “Desperate scramble.” “Vote-winning at all costs.” You can vote Labor and still talk like Sky After Dark - the pattern is rhetorical, not electoral.

You now say Trump doesn’t want to “crush” China, just stop them “ripping off the US working class.”

Fine.

But threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and calling Xi a “dictator who’s killing us” sure sounded a lot like economic war talk. If “crush” offended your sensibilities, I’ll happily call it what it was: performative trade brinkmanship.

As for Trump’s promises, you previously said he is doing what he said he’d do. Now it’s “well, the jury’s still out.” That’s the contradiction. Either he’s delivered or he hasn’t. You can’t say “he’s doing fine” and “too early to tell” in the same breath and expect it not to be noticed.

And “legally dubious”? That’s not a talking point - it’s a legal reality. Mass deportations and bypassing due process don’t become lawful just because they poll well.

//I don't know what [Sky After Dark] means?//

Heh. No, of course you don't...

I was just thinking, mhaze…

If tone really is as meaningless as you suggest - just “vibes” and Castle references - then what do we make of your tone? After all, many of your comments drip with sarcasm, rhetorical framing, or strategic snark.

And that’s not me reading between the lines, it’s right there in the lines. You use tone deliberately to convey sarcasm, to mock, belittle, and undermine.

And you’re genuinely good at it!

So when I point out that your tone framed the summit as aimless - not serious policy - and you fall back on “read the actual lines”, it starts to look less like a defence and more like an attempt to dodge responsibility for how your words come across.

As I said: tone carries meaning - and weight - even in a courtroom. Yet, according to your logic:

- judges shouldn’t interpret a witness’s tone,
- journalists shouldn’t analyse political subtext, and
- voters shouldn’t read into how something is said, only what’s said.

Of course, you don’t think any of the above is actually the case. It’s just easier for you to weasel out of criticism if you can arbitrarily dictate when it’s off limits.

Convenient.

There were some laughs coming from the new Parliament, with the Labor newbies jumping up and prefacing their maiden bleats with recognition of this and that aboriginal tribe that ‘owned’ their particular electorates - described by one commentator as a “conga line of colonist contrition".

Good to see the new Labor government was quick off the mark with legislation reducing HECS debt by 20% for 3 million Aussie students. The Noalition opposed HECS debt relief during the election campaign, then supported it in the parliament, maybe ttbn and Mhaze will tags the Liberals as liars, like they so often claim Labor are liars.

Really good to see One Nation Senators turning their backs on welcome to country rubbish.

Being welcomed to our own country is a sick joke, especially when it's done by people calling themselves ‘indigenous’.

The ‘indigenous’ had 65,000 years to build a civilisation - cities, government, systems, law and order. They were unavailable to do it. They should be welcoming and showing appreciation for the British Empire and the first free settlers, whom they have been bludging off since 1788.

"Really good to see One Nation Senators turning their backs on welcome to country rubbish", and exposed their brown brains.

YES! That's about the sum total of the Hanson Fascist Parties contribution to this weeks parliament. Come to think of it, Hanson and her mob contributed nothing to the last parliament, then you only have to take one look at the leader and her "brains trust", to realize what a pack of dills they are. Hanson has admitted in the past that she's not real bright. Then there are the One Nation voters, well!

The Speaker of the House is probably seen by most of us as useless for anything but shouting ‘order ‘ and getting the same perks as a Minister.

But, the returning Speaker of our Parliament, with the unfortunate surname of Dick, apparently does more than that by way of something that is not his responsibility at all.

He is trying to promote civics and democracy in schools.

In his last term, he visited 160 schools, trying to promote civics education. This term, he intends to visit “every electorate in the country”.

The teaching of civics in this country is not up to much: preventing many from participating fully in politics; some saying that were never taught it - pretty damn obvious in disinterested Australians.

The author of the piece on the Speaker and the subject writes that, because of the lack of education, “young people” are feeling disillusioned.

Make that people of all ages!

His “Unless the benefits of democracy are embedded in every generation of school students they will be vulnerable to manipulation when it comes time to vote” is very obvious.

So, as well as keeping his childish colleagues in order, Milton Dick is probably more useful than the lot of them together.

https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/education-about-civics-and-democracy-a-matter-of-priority/

"Now it’s “well, the jury’s still out.” That’s the contradiction. Either he’s delivered or he hasn’t. "

That makes no sense. Trump is delivering the policies he promised. But whether those policies will ultimately work is as yet unknown. There are still many obstacles to be overcomes before we can be sure that the policies will be fully implemented and full successful. Bare in mind that there remains a tension between MAGA support for the working class and the elites support for non-productive class. Wall St and the globalists still have many arrows in their quiver.

The globalist project in the US has been ongoing for 30 years. Its beyond insane to expect that Trump will have reversed it in 6 months. The MAGA project and the transformation of the US economy will continue past Trump's second term. But he has instituted the policies he promised. A politician doing exactly what they promised seems to confuse some.

"And “legally dubious”? That’s not a talking point "
Actually it is. That a range of Obama and Biden appointed judges oppose the policies and declare them illegal isn't the same as them being illegal. As those decisions get appealed out of the Democrat judicial bubble, Trump's policies are found to be constitutional. It just takes time.

Just on that. You and others constantly whine that he's a dictator. But a dictator would ignore these judicial roadblocks. Yet Trump administration has been scrupulous in accepting the initial findings and appealing them to higher courts. Not the actions of a dictator. Compare that with the likes of Obama and Biden who openly bragged about ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court.

As to the Albo's economic summit, i'm not opposed. Its never wrong, always good that those who live in the Canberra bureaucratic bubble get advise and feedback from those who live in the real world.

My gripe is that it takes place after an election where the economic future of the nation barely got a hearing. From BOTH sides. The Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse in that they constantly abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters or be misrepresented by the government.

I'm extremely pessimistic about our economic future under the current regimes and see neither side offering or likely to offer workable solutions. If the electorate is so despised by both sides that they refuse to deliver bad news during the election, there is little hope.

That the government is prepared to even potentially allow some of that bad news to come out only AFTER the votes are in, is a sign that they aren't prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions.

And to answer Paul's original question... that's what we can expect form this parliament. More of the same hoping that the faecal matter wont hit the cooling device until they've moved on.

Not quite, mhaze.

You're drawing a line between policy implementation and policy success, which is fair enough in theory. But in practice, when most people say a politician “delivered,” they don’t mean announced it. They mean it was achieved.

If a policy:

- gets blocked in court,
- reversed after legal challenge,
- or tied up in constitutional appeals…

…it wasn’t delivered. It was proposed.

So when you say “he’s delivering,” but then pivot to “success takes time” the moment it’s challenged. Either the delivery is complete and can be evaluated, or it’s still pending. You can’t bounce between the two depending on the heat.

If a policy keeps getting struck down by the judiciary, claiming it’s just Obama/Biden judges and will be vindicated later doesn’t really help your case. Even Trump-appointed judges have rejected key planks.

And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, that's setting an incredibly low bar. Undermining oversight, bypassing Congress with emergency powers, and openly antagonising the courts might not be dictatorship, but they’re hardly the gold standard for democratic governance.

Your second post has a noticeably softer tone than your earlier take. Almost like someone trying to retroframe their own words once they’ve been challenged on tone.

And sure, you say “the Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse,” but look at the language you use:

- Labor: “not prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions”
- Coalition: “abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters”

The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. That’s not symmetrical.

Which is fine, if you own it.

But let’s not pretend your earlier framing of the summit as a “post-election scramble” by a party “with no plan” was ever intended as constructive critique. You’ve only now switched gears because the mockery didn’t land unchallenged.

If you want to talk about bipartisan failure, I’m all ears. But I’d suggest applying the same tone and scrutiny to both sides - not one set of adjectives for Labor and another for the Libs.

JD,

This is getting monotonous. You misunderstand what I say or put the worst possible spin on it and when I clarify your misuderstandings you then assert I'm backing down. I retract nothing of what I originally wrote. The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election. Its no way to run the country.

"The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. "

No the Libs aren't principled-at-heart. The opposite. They abandon any principles for electoral aims. That's my entire beef with the Libs post Abbott and why I stopped voting for them. Their abandonment of liberal (small 'l') principles is much worse than Labor who haven't and don't aspire to such principles.

As to Trump, your original claim was that he hadn't implemented the policies he promised. My point is that he has indeed implemented the policies but whether they will be successful is yet to be determined. Current trends are good but not conclusive.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand since you're so desperate to defend the ALP. They promised to implement policies to build 1.2 million homes this decade. But they haven't yet built those homes. Under you criteria that you've applied to Trump, that must mean they haven't yet implemented policies to meet their promise. I'm sure you'd dispute that.

"And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, "

No. I'm showing that that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator

Noted, mhaze.

Forgive me, though, if I don’t take “I retract nothing” as proof that nothing has shifted. The tone did change - not in content necessarily, but in delivery.

Delivery matters.

You don’t get to wield sarcasm, mockery, and scorn in one post, then swap to sober reflection the next and insist it’s all been consistent.

//The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election.//

Right, but that’s not how you opened. You framed it with a “dog caught the car” punchline, which makes it sound reactive and clueless, not strategic or reluctant. That framing matters.

//...your original claim was that [Trump] hadn’t implemented the policies he promised.//

Not quite.

My point was that he’s claimed delivery, but the outcomes are being blocked, reversed, or declared unlawful. Announcing a policy isn’t delivering it. That’s why your defence, that he’s “doing what he promised,” doesn’t fully hold up. If the courts halt it, or it fails in execution, then the promise hasn’t been fulfilled.

//Let me put it in terms you’ll understand...//

You mean condescend? Sure, let’s play.

Labor’s 1.2 million homes target is a long-term policy goal. They’ve funded enabling mechanisms and signed agreements. It’s rolling out. If courts struck down the funding mechanism, then you’d have a point. But they haven’t.

Your comparison doesn’t hold.

//...that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator.//

Again, low bar.

That he hasn’t torn up court rulings doesn’t mean he hasn’t undermined institutional norms, pressured judges, bypassed Congress via “emergency” powers, or defied oversight. “He files appeals” isn’t the ringing endorsement you think it is.

This is getting monotonous because you keep shifting your definitions to suit the moment under the guise of patient explanations for someone too dim to follow.

If you want to argue Trump’s following through on policy, make sure they're still standing. If you want to critique both parties, don’t load one side with venom and the other with tragic regret.

Or, keep doing what you’re doing - just don’t act surprised when someone calls it out.

Oh so Labor's housing policy is long term and we need to wait. But Trump's economic policies need to change everything overnight or they don't exist.

Now you're trying to pivot to say Trump hasn't delivered because some of his policies are being challenged in the lower courts. But that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the US system and a fundamental misunderstanding of what's actually happening.

The OBBB has passed. They courts might chip away at the edges for a short period, but its passed and implemented. Ditto with tariffs for which the policy is now set and the details being resolved. Ditto, illegal aliens being removed. There's the odd delay but there are vast numbers now being sent home and even more self-deporting. Vance thinks there'll be a net negative migration this year. USAID is no more. MAHA is being progressively implemented. NATO has now acceded to Trump's demands to take up more of the burden of Europe's defence.

Victories wherever you look. That the minnows slow things for a short period at the edges is immaterial. That their delaying tactics get lauded in press you adhere to isn't the same as them being material.

Even, hilariously, Australia succumbs, having now miraculously decided that biosecurity measures designed to ban US beef form being imported are now longer needed. Mere coincidence they laughingly proclaim.

The Trump revolution is happening, as he promised and his supporters both recognise and appreciate it. His detractors want to avert their gaze to his successes, but that's becoming increasingly difficult.

No, mhaze, I never said “overnight,” and you know that.

//Oh so Labor's housing policy is long term and we need to wait. But Trump's economic policies need to change everything overnight or they don't exist.//

The point was about what counts as “delivered.” If a policy is blocked in court, reversed, or still unresolved, then calling it “delivered” is, at best, premature.

Again, if courts struck down the funding mechanism, then you’d have a point. But they haven’t.

//Now you're trying to pivot to say Trump hasn't delivered because some of his policies are being challenged in the lower courts.//

That's not a pivot. I've been saying that the whole time.

//The OBBB has passed...Ditto with tariffs…Ditto, illegal aliens being removed…//

OBBB passed, yes, but with major concessions and legal pushback. Tariffs? Several had to be scaled back after they triggered inflation, supply chain disruptions, and economic fallout. As for immigration, removals are happening - but so are mass legal challenges and reversals.

Your “ditto”s are doing a lot of heavy lifting.

//USAID is no more.//

And this is good… why?

USAID still exists, by the way. It’s been downsized, not abolished.

//MAHA is being progressively implemented. NATO has now acceded to Trump's demands…//

NATO member spending began rising in 2014. Years before Trump’s pressure campaign. He may have accelerated the trend, but he didn’t start it.

//That the minnows slow things for a short period at the edges is immaterial.//

But that’s not immaterial, it’s the point.

If policies are consistently being slowed, challenged, or struck down, that’s not just “minnows at the edges.” It’s the kind of resistance that only kicks in when there are serious legal, constitutional, or practical flaws.

You talk as though the obstacles exist in a vacuum, with no connection to the policies themselves. But, the pushback is often a direct consequence of what those policies are designed to do or how it's proposed they'll be implemented.

Brushing it off as minor interference just avoids engaging with why it’s happening in the first place.

Just semantics now JD.

Trump said he'd reverse the illegal alien invasion. Border crossing are now basically finished. Tens of thousands have already been sent back and even more have self deported. Yet because a handful are held up by lower courts, you want to pretend that means Trump hasn't delivered.

Mere semantics.

The same with tariffs. Trump never delineated what the level of the tariff would be so just because he allowed some to be negotiated down doesn't mean he failed. His promise was that he'd reverse the massive trade deficits that other nations had with the US, not that the tariffs would be at a particular level. And those trade deficits are being addressed. A policy promised and implemented.

As to NATO spending, now you're just making stuff up. Trump said he wanted them to spend at 5% of GSP. They've opposed that for years. Now they've conceded and are complying.

"If policies are consistently being slowed, challenged, or struck down"

What policy has been struck down. Challenged yes. Of coarse those who lose under Trump's policies are challenging them. But none have been struck down. Again just fantasising about a world that exists only in your mind.

"USAID still exists, by the way. It’s been downsized, not abolished."

False. USAID is finished. A few of its more minor functions have been absorbed into the State Dept but all of its wanton distribution of funds to favoured groups is over..

"Several had to be scaled back after they triggered inflation, "
Rubbish. Indeed economists are now trying to work out why inflation hasn't been triggered.

Just on the Australian beef ban. I found this old post while teaching Paul about how he got it wrong...

"ME: "And I'd be willing to bet that the Australian quarantine control authorities are currently re-examining the trade barriers against US beef."
JD: "Where is the proof."

That my boy, is how you do predictions.

mhaze,

When someone gets caught overselling, it always becomes "just semantics." But words matter, especially when you're claiming delivery of contested, delayed, or reversed policies.

//Trump said he'd reverse the illegal alien invasion. Border crossings are now basically finished.//

False.

Border crossings remain high, with hundreds of thousands monthly as of mid-2025. Even conservative sources acknowledge the “invasion” isn’t over, it’s evolving.

//Yet because a handful are held up by lower courts, you want to pretend that means Trump hasn't delivered.//

It’s not a handful. Key policies like expedited removals, asylum bans, and TPS revocations have all been delayed or blocked. That’s not incidental. That’s structural pushback.

//The same with tariffs... just because he allowed some to be negotiated down doesn't mean he failed.//

The failure wasn’t just about rates. It was about the fallout. Tariffs triggered inflation, disrupted supply chains, and required backpedalling. That’s not precise delivery. That’s messy improvisation.

//His promise was to reverse trade deficits... and those are being addressed.//

Except they aren’t. The US trade deficit in goods hit record highs in 2022 and remained historically elevated into 2025. “Addressed” doesn’t mean “reversed.”

//Trump said 5% NATO spending. They've opposed it for years. Now they’ve conceded and are complying.//

No, they haven’t. NATO reaffirmed the 2 percent target agreed to in 2014, well before Trump. There is zero evidence of 5 percent compliance.

//What policy has been struck down?//

Plenty.

- DACA rescission: struck down
- Birthright citizenship EO: blocked
- Asylum bans: rejected
- Family separation: halted

You’re pretending judicial rebukes don’t count unless they come from the Supreme Court. But many rulings stand without appeal.

//USAID is finished.//

USAID.gov is still active, with updated programs and missions as of July 2025. It’s been restructured, not abolished.

//Inflation hasn’t been triggered.//

Tariff-driven inflation did happen, especially in consumer goods, construction, and agriculture. Economists aren't denying it. They’re parsing why it lasted longer.

//That my boy, is how you do predictions.//

Actually, it’s how you cherry-pick one outcome and pretend it validates an entire worldview. The beef reversal doesn’t retroactively vindicate everything you’ve claimed.

Try again.