If anyone believed an “Albo” led Labor government would be more social democratic and less neoliberal than their Hawke/Keating/Rudd/Gillard predecessors, this Greg Sheridan article about Murdoch’s new favourite for PM should disabuse of them of such notions.

Political pundits were predicting a “khaki” election from the LNP, but Labor have come out swinging with their own plans to waste 1000s of billions of Public monies on bolstering the American military industrial complex and heightening tensions in our region.

I’d call Sheridan’s article a “puff piece” but that seems a little too abrasive for what’s going on here. 

Greg Sheridan is The Australian’s foreign editor. His most recent book is Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world. Sheridan’s another fan of the China threat paradigm that has been crudely grafted onto the Putin/Hitler model currently being assembled by Western propagandists. Labor’s non-performance as an opposition and their compliance with US military interests is clearly something he considers praise worthy.   “Overall, the Albanese opposition, like the Bill Shorten opposition before it, has stood with the government in support of the US alliance, and against Beijing’s increasingly aggressive posturing.” source


The Albanese doctrine: ‘Don’t play politics with security’ by Greg Sheridan (Annotated by Mick Lawless)

Also trading as

Albanese rejects Keating’s view: ‘China has changed’


Anthony Albanese sees himself as part of the “sensible” social democratic tradition in national security. Picture Glenn Hampson

By Greg Sheridan
February 25, 2022

If Australia does end up getting nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement with the US and Britain, these powerful boats will have a most unlikely hero.

The Albanese doctrine? That just amuses me coming from the Murdoch press. “Albo’s” apparently transformed from Andrew Bolt’s snarling socialist, Hamas loving, Tory-fighting greenie, into a “heroic” hawk, championing tax cuts and productivity who loves Israel while (intellectually) supporting Palestinian rights.


Scott Morrison initiated the idea and brought the process to agreement. So he’s the prime mover. US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made it happen.

The idea of Morrison being a prime mover in “anything” is just fantastical. Even Murdoch can’t save this pathetic no-hoper whose list of failures include massive corruption, economic decline, (unless you’re a billionaire) irresponsible ecocide, pandemic ineptitude and an absolute knack of letting victims of Climate Change disasters fend for themselves. This is a more extensive list, but still only a fraction of a percent of the ineptitude and fiscal and moral corruption that permeates this country.

Morrison inspects the flood damage (found on Twitter)
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has deployed two of its helicopters in Australia
to support relief efforts for
the ongoing deadly floods in the country.

That’s right, Australia a member of the all powerful AUKUS allegiance is getting aid from a country 728.6 km² in area.

Biden and Johnson aren’t exactly sharp thinking military strategists either. This tripartite of tragics depend on advisors mostly fed by vested interest lobbyists and RW think tanks sponsored by corporations and oligarchs.

AUKUS, comprises three countries ideologically linked by Murdoch, defence, trade agreements and a shared history of colonial adventurism. Australia being the minor (and much put upon) partner.

But one other individual could have stopped it and had to make the biggest political adjustment of any of them to support it.

Anthony Albanese, Labor Party leader, was uniquely positioned to destroy, or to enable, the nuclear-powered subs initiative. He led Labor to support nuclear-powered subs, a genuinely historic change.

In his most wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs and national security, Albanese, fresh from a fortnight’s scolding from the government for allegedly being soft on China, explains to Inquirer: “I don’t think it’s much understood that a precondition of American support was that there be bipartisan support for it in Australia. Without Labor’s support, it wouldn’t have happened.”

Ah yes, that famous American respect for the Australian Labor party and democratic structures.

Does”Albo” really believe positioning himself as the person who could have stopped this nuclear submarine madness – but didn’t – is a politically astute move?

Powerful lobby forces were behind the AUKUS plan both here and in the USA/UK. Australia’s role (never mind Morrison’s) would have been subservient.

The idea that “Albo” would (or even could) stand up for Australian sovereignty and risk having his turn in power taken away from him is laughable. Labor’s Right and Murdoch would have ended him in a heartbeat.

In the past the idea of nuclear-powered submarines was widely discussed in Liberal and Nationals circles. But one obstacle always was the idea that Labor would oppose it. Modern strategic threats, and Albanese’s leadership of Labor, changed that.

Present at that critical first briefing were Albanese, his deputy Richard Marles, opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong and defence shadow Brendan O’Connor.

“I was convinced by our capacity needs, that these could be filled by nuclear propulsion rather than by conventional subs. I was convinced it was necessary.

It was the right call based on our changing strategic needs,” Albanese says.

“We had a number of preconditions: that it not breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that it not lead to a domestic nuclear industry. We came to a preliminary view quickly and called a shadow cabinet meeting for very early the next morning. Then we called a full caucus meeting and by 11.30 we had gone through our processes.

To effect that historic change, Albanese moved fast but followed proper Labor Party process: “We were briefed on the Wednesday by the (security) agencies and the Defence Department. As an example of our good faith on national security issues, I didn’t speak to any journalist about it but the Prime Minister’s office briefed out the fact of our meeting.”

Labor’s nuclear submarine brain trust at work, “capacity needs”, “changing strategic needs” – impressive stuff.

Albanese is aware of the real forces behind the French submarine fiasco and the move to nuclear (The French subs were originally nuclear, modified to diesel under Australian contractual direction) but still he goes along with this bullshit transition from costly international blunder to triumphant coalition of freedom fighters, as though it was a natural and sane progression in Australia defence strategy.

Hardly a surprise though, because as an opposition leader “Albo” has essentially papered over the widespread corruption of the LNP while his party votes with them for any repressive laws and policies counter to basic Labor values the Liberals can dream up.

The Labor party is run by its Right Wing (and RW unions such as the AWU) which depend on the pro-nuclear power Minerals Council of Australia and other lobby groups for donations (and jobs after politics) who clearly have a goal of using these submarines to introduce a domestic nuclear industry.

The presence of ‘nuclear anything’ in Australia has been a highly contentious issue amongst Labor members for decades. The “proper Labor Party process” obviously didn’t involve any grassroots participation from Labor members. Much like AWU leader Daniel Walton spruiking nuclear power without consulting his members first. The replies to his piece in the AFR on Face Book are overwhelmingly unsupportive.

Associated AFR article


Safety and sovereignty dictate that we will need to develop nuclear facilities in Australia to maintain and support these submarines Malcolm Turnbull

Matt Canavan announces nuclear waste dump location in South Australia

“That was an example of our determination to look after the country, to protect our national security and to not play politics with it.”


Albanese, naturally for an opposition leader, has criticisms of the government on defence and national security policy, but not on the basic structures of that policy.

He is resentful, in a generally good-natured way, about the government claiming he’s soft on China: “This government seems to really not like it when you agree with them. It looks for distinctions when they’re not there. On national security we’ve been very consistent for a long time.

That part of the interview where you need to inject some Opposition-like tone for credibility?

“But the government impugned the motives of the entire Labor Party. That says more about the desperation of the Prime Minister and government than about our positions.”

So let’s go through national security issues one by one.

What does he think about the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Moscow’s actions, he says, show “contempt for the rule of law, for international law, for the sovereignty of Ukraine”.

A man willing to sell out his country’s sovereignty to gain power, in partnership with America the most ruthless breaker of International law on the planet says what?

America’s post 9/11 revenge toll

And the de facto alignment of Russia and China? “The tragedy is that there was great hope when communism fell that we would see the rise of democracy in Russia, and what we’ve seen is the development of an authoritarian regime which centres power on one man and his cronies.

“Mr Democracy” seems to believe that his having supreme power over whether this country goes to war or not is entirely appropriate.

Federal Labor Leader Anthony Albanese, failed to provide any response despite our multiple attempts to contact him regarding the inquiry.

The Shadow Minister for Defence Brendan O’Connor’s office told Michael West Media he did not believe parliament should be consulted before Australian troops are sent into armed conflict abroad. Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, gave the same response as Brendan O’Connor, but added that an Albanese Labor government was committed to holding an inquiry into the issue. Source

The joint statement by China and Russia, which was quite belligerent, which was done during the Olympics, that is a great concern.”

The alignment of autocracies, Albanese says, is a challenge to democracies and “that is one of the reasons that democratic countries need to stand together”.

Whereas the American alliance, NATO, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and AUKUS, shouldn’t be seen as threats by Russia and China? It’s not as though Russia and China have had a mutually respectful history with European and American powers. Then there’s the Cold war which some academics argue was over after the Berlin wall fell in 1989. Some (myself included) don’t.

It’s as though white colonial powers see everything in terms of global conquest and project this onto their rivals.

So why, in Albanese’s view, does Australia have such problems with Beijing? “China has changed under Xi Jinping. It is more forward leaning, it is more aggressive. An example of that is the quite extraordinary list of 14 policy changes they expected of Australia. For that to be forwarded was a very provocative move against a democratic state. It was quite rightly rejected by the government and the opposition.”

Albanese is referring to a list of 14 preposterous demands of the Morrison government made by the Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Lot of assuming going on here. I believe the Americans have caused Australia far more problems than China to date. An expensive and pointless war in Afghanistan is a recent example, as is the trade treachery of our great ally from the fallout when Morrison decided to attack China over Covid’s origins to please Trump.

US, allies ‘biggest beneficiaries’ of Australia’s $17b China trade row, report finds

Australia’s closest security allies, led by the United States, have been the biggest beneficiaries of Beijing’s campaign of economic coercion against Canberra, a report has found.

Institute director James Laurenceson said the data showed Australia’s pursuit of closer security ties with the US and other western democracies was not stopping its allies from capitalising on its trade predicament.

Also seem to remember China being economically empowered by these same Capitalist powers looking for some cheap labour to the detriment of their own people. Criticising Xi Jinping, leader of our biggest trading partner, when the USA win hands down for “provocative moves against (this) democratic state” is not the act of a statesman looking after Australia’s interests.

It’s the USA not China engaged in a perpetual war.

It’s the USA not China covering the globe with 800 military bases.

It’s the USA not China responsible for 6 million deaths in illegal wars.

It’s the USA not China that have cost us 1000s of billions in pointless foreign wars since WW2.


‘Weak to undermine’ Australia’s national interest: Opposition Leader

Would Albanese keep the ban on Huawei participating Australia’s 5G network? “Yes, I would. I support the decision that was made. It was the right decision.”

On a range of issues including the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and the treatment of the Uighur minority, Albanese says Labor would implement exactly the same policies as the Morrison government today. He backs the laws countering foreign interference in our politics and volunteers that a number of nations want to interfere improperly in Australian politics.

“Continuity of national security policy is very much in Australia’s national interests,” he says.

“Continuity of a national security policy” that enjoins us to American military adventurism has gone on long enough.

Diplomacy is the way forward on these issues. To say one would treat complex geopolitical issues in the same manner as the inept and corrupt Morrison government is hardly confidence inspiring. The USA and England have a long history of “improperly interfering” in Australian politics.

“What has been said by those with a long track record, like Dennis Richardson and the current director-general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, is that the only countries which benefit from creating false divisions in Australia over national security are those which seek to divide us.” Namely China.

So how does Albanese feel about the national security and intelligence agencies themselves, especially ASIO, once a hostile obsession for the far left of the Labor Party, where Albanese, all those many decades ago, began his political odyssey? “I’ve developed a very good relationship with the security agencies and have a level of trust with them. And I have a high regard for all the current heads of the national security agencies.”

This is a worrisome admission, given the incestuous nature of the AUKUS intelligence agencies.

“Keating argued the foreign policy debate in Australia was now driven by “the spooks” in the security agencies, and when it came to the major foreign policy choices the Coalition and Labor were “fundamentally not up to it”.” Source

Without actually guaranteeing anyone their job, that’s as close to a promise that there will be no night of the long knives for security agency heads if Albanese becomes prime minister. It’s also a complete repudiation of Paul Keating, and the bizarre view he pronounced before the last election that the security agency heads had “gone troppo” on China. Keating also argues that Australian policy towards Beijing is too hostile and Canberra is far too close to the US.

In words of absolute clarity, and more completely than he has before, Albanese tells me he rejects the Keating view. Further, he no longer thinks Keating’s views on these issues represent a significant section of the Labor Party: “Paul Keating is someone who is well respected in the Labor Party for his achievements in opening up the economy and setting Australia up for 30 years of consecutive economic growth. That doesn’t mean his analysis of the role of China in 2022 is correct. Paul Keating retired from parliament more than 25 years ago. I know Paul and I know him well and I respect him, but most people in the shadow cabinet would not even know Paul Keating.”

Of course “Albo” the economic conservative would admire the least likeable of Keating’s accomplishments – neoliberalism. “Albo” even plans “a new accord with unions to grow the economy and lift productivity”, aping Keating’s efforts. Everyone in the shadow cabinet would be well aware of Keating.

Albanese doesn’t think the Keating worldview will be a problem for him in Government, citing Labor’s strong support for the American alliance, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and AUKUS.

“Compare that,” Albanese says, “with the very different views of some people in the Cabinet. (Employment Minister) Stewart Robert had to resign from the cabinet (in 2016) in part because of a visit he made to China.” (The Robert visit was in 2014, when he was Assistant Defence Minister, and was undertaken, Robert later said, in a private capacity, with DFAT uninformed. Robert later returned to the cabinet.)

Albanese also has a diametrically opposed view of the US from Keating’s desolate pessimism. I ask Albanese if he has confidence in the Biden administration and in the ability of the US, despite its inter­nal divisions, to continue to provide strategic leadership: “I cer­tainly have confidence in the Biden administration. I know Joe Biden, I’ve met him a number of times. I hadn’t met Secretary of State Antony Blinken until I met him recently in Melbourne. I know a num­ber of the Biden administration’s key people, including Kurt Campbell, and I have every confidence about them.”

Albanese also has faith in the US: “The thing about the US, it’s resilient. It’s such a big country, its structures are more important than any individual. I have confidence in the US going forward. Australia needs a strong US and we need a strong US in the region.”

I much prefer Keating’s “desolate pessimism” to “Albo’s” deluded optimism. Keating warned NATO’s expansion would cause problems with Russia in the future. Many critical thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum agreed with his views.

“Albo” is insignificant in such company and his criticism of Keating, founded as it is in sycophancy and submission to the USA, is an embarrassment to himself and the Labor party.

Albanese makes a reasonable argument that a Labor government would be an easier fit with a Biden administration on issues such as climate change, among others. But any US administration, Democrat or Republican, wants Canberra to do more in defence.

Albanese commits Labor to a floor of 2 per cent of gross national product: “It’s at least 2 per cent of our GNP on defence, it may well need to be more in the future. One of the absolute obligations of a government is to defend our nation. That’s front and centre before anything else. A Labor government will take that absolutely seriously.”

His big problem on defence is that spending fell so low in the last Labor government. However, he has three lines of argument: the record was actually not as bad as it looks; in the long history of Australia Labor has been strong on defence; and look at how little new defence capability the Coalition has delivered in eight years in office. Albanese mounts a longer historical defence of Labor. Defence spending as a percentage of GNP peaked under Labor prime ministers John Curtin and Ben Chifley. Of course, that is entirely because they were waging World War II.

Albanese claims the average defence budget over the life of the Howard Government was 1.78 percent, and the average over the Rudd and Gillard Governments was 1.75 percent, so the difference is just 0.03 percent. However, in Gillard’s worst year, defence spending fell to way below 1.6 percent.

Nonetheless, Albanese argues, it is external circumstances that substantially determine a Government’s defence response. The average defence spend over the Turnbull/Morrison years is 1.9 per cent, he says (defence is 2.1 per cent now). Under Whitlam, defence averaged 2.4 per cent of GNP and in the Hawke/Keating years it was 2.3 per cent. Neither side of politics, it is fair to say, has shone in delivering defence capability since 2007. The only way that Labor’s six years of no subs does not look absolutely terrible is to compare it with the coalition’s eight years of no subs, notwithstanding the very long term ambitions under AUKUS.

Nonetheless, Albanese mounts a vigorous historical defence of Labor. In a time of great national peril, Australia turned to Curtin for leadership in World War II. When there was a crisis in the ANZUS Treaty, when New Zealand banned visits by US nuclear-propelled or armed navy ships, Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley drew the Australian alliance with the US even closer. Julia Gillard concluded the agreement with Barack Obama that saw US marines rotating through Darwin. This decision, which Albanese strongly supported as a cabinet minister at the time, has laid the groundwork for steadily expanding US military involvement in northern Australia, which Albanese supports. Then, he says, there was Kevin Rudd’s work in convincing the Americans to elevate the status of the G20.

Betraying New Zealand to please America and basing US marines in the NT is something Labor is proud of now?

The “defending our nation” rhetoric never seems to be applicable to Covid and Climate Change. We spend billions on anti-“terrorism” to protect our citizens while encouraging them to live with Covid deaths and Long Covid.

Climate Change is never discussed by our major parties as the cause of drought, fires and floods, instead we are told, “Now is not the time” when attempts are made to broach the subject. 

Albanese sees himself as part of the “sensible” social democratic tradition in national security. And it’s perhaps worth noting that historically the people the communists hated most were social democrats because they convinced the working class that reform was better than revolution.

Probably lucky for you mate.

The “Albo’s not a communist” reassurance for The Australian’s readers is a nice touch. Be assured gentle readers “Albo’s” a full-fledged capitalist, a property investor.

His final line is a critique of the Morrison government’s performance in delivering defence capability, which is one of three substantial criticisms of Morrison government foreign policy Albanese makes.

The government wasted billions of dollars and many years on submarines it did not pursue, he says. “We had the Japanese submarine arrangements, then the French submarine arrangements. What we actually need is to deliver some defence capability, not just talk about it. No one ever successfully defended a country with press releases. This government’s rhetoric needs to be matched against its delivery.”

Sure, LNP Defence procurement is a series of incredibly expensive disasters. So why on Earth would Albanese sign up to their latest and greatest debacle?  One that will achieve nothing, apart from heightening tensions with China and serving the USA’s hegemonic interests. As already suggested, Labor’s Right (most of Labor) are very keen on nuclear power.

“The former Australian prime minister Paul Keating has denounced the US and UK backed plan for nuclear-powered submarines as “like throwing a handful of toothpicks at the mountain”, declaring Australia should avoid being drawn into a war with China.” “Britain is like an old theme park sliding into the Atlantic compared to modern China,” said Keating, who was Australia’s prime minister from 1991 to 1996.” Source

Albanese also criticises the government for cuts to foreign aid. Other countries are more than willing to fill the gap, he says, in thinly veiled reference to China. He also believes Canberra’s position on climate change alienates it from South Pacific governments.

“Albo” is having one those memory lapses often suffered by politicians. As well as ignoring the plight of Pacific Islanders, his party is essentially owned by Fossil Fuels corporations that donate to Labor and give their politicians highly compensated sinecures after politics.

Let’s finish with an anecdote, and a sense of Albanese’s journey. He did start political life as an activist on the radical left within the Labor Party, although he has said his mother raised him in three great faiths: the Catholic Church, South Sydney and the Labor Party. As early as 1990, however, he took a trip with the US State Department and spent six weeks falling in love with the US.

I first met Albanese in about 1989 or 90, at the old Labor building in Sussex St, Sydney. I was there to see Michael Easson, then secretary of the Labor Council, an intellectual giant of the Labor Right, a deeply thoughtful anti-communist. We ran into Albanese in the lift and Easson jokingly introduced him as the “leader of the Erich Honecker faction of the Labor Party”. Honecker was the East German communist boss and a dull and dusty Stalinist bureaucrat. “No, mate, I’m in favour of reform,” the young Albanese shot back.

Even then, Easson was essentially joking about Albanese’s already banished undergraduate past. Last July Easson, now an eminent businessman, in a scholarly piece for the Pearls and Irritations website, strongly praised Albanese’s sensible approach to the Middle East, as evident in his rejection of the label “apartheid state” for Israel and his many other positions of friendship with Israel, even as he is also a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a two-state solution.

Mr Easson’s wife Mary has a consultancy firm that works with an Israeli arms company.

Ms Easson is one of five members of the NSW branch of the Australia Israel Labor Dialogue. At the same time, she is a lobbyist for Elbit, according to her latest listing on the federal registrar. The fact that Ms Easson’s company, Probity International Pty Ltd, is lobbying for Elbit is ­almost certain to lead to anger within the ALP from those who have taken trips organised by the AILD.

Ms Easson has been locked in a brutal fight inside the Labor Party with former foreign minister Bob Carr over policy towards Israel. Ms Easson wants the ALP to retain its bipartisan support for Israel while Mr Carr wants a deadline for Israel to cease its expansion of settlements in the West Bank and to return to negotiations with the Palestinians. Elbit is one of Israel’s largest manufacturers of bombs, mortars, cyber warfare systems and drones and much of its ordnance was used in the 2014 war with Gaza. On its website, Elbit says one of its products — the Soltam Spear — has “unprecedented lethality” – Source

He’s come a long way, Albo. (Pats “Albo’s” head)



Essentially given a probable Labor electoral victory, we are faced with another neoliberal government kowtowing to Murdoch, Big religion, Fossil Fuels, Weapon’s manufacturers, the USA and other foreign interests.

Albanese’s economic conservatism and general lack of vision seems his hallmark. His first moves in gaining the Labor leadership were to get rid of negative gearing and franking credits policies and to make approaches to “people of faith.”

Need tax cuts for the mega-Rich? Free money for media Oligarchs? How about free money for profitable companies? Labor are there for the Rich!

It’s as though Albanese is totally out-of-touch with how unfair and divisive his supporting the already wealthy is to people in genuine need.

This child care plan is classic…

Daily Mail article

I guess a politician on $390,820 per annum with an Electorate Allowance of $32,000 and $86 a day meal allowances, who claims $17,269 to live in his own Canberra flat for 59 days and who considers chauffeured cars and a host of other perks his due, finds it difficult to identify with average wage earners.

As for carers and the unemployed on less than $20,000 a year? Albanese isn’t even on the same planet.

Most of Labor’s politicians (if not all) are professional politicians. Millionaires that lead lives of luxury and security compared to us plebeians. They have more in common culturally with the entitled prats in the LNP. 

Obviously any sane person would prefer a Labor victory to more of the Morrison government, but for the myriad reasons already stated, can we ensure it is in partnership with the Greens, New Liberals and other progressive parties and independents to stem Australia’s (and Labor’s) march to the Right?

How can genuine Labor supporters with Labor values, vote this ersatz Labor party ahead of Progressives who refuse donations from planet-killing corporations and refuse to give up our sovereignty to appease a dangerous US military industrial complex engaged in an eternal war?

Sure, put the Liberals and associated RW trash last, but send Labor a message and give what remains of Labor’s Progressive Left some traction by voting Progressives 1st.


More love from Murdoch for Labor


Australian Defence Force: Procurement blunders exposed as ‘unreliable’ Taipans dumped
















Reds Under Bed: Barnaby and Keith’s plot for Australia to subsidise China


On the ‘Religious Discrimination Bill’ and the Labor Party – by Matthew Sinapi





Anthony Albanese on war powers reform





What drove the United States to AUKUS?

Scare-mongering on China is a threat to our democracy and responsible media must guard against it




Humpty Dumpty, Michael Easson and Israeli Apartheid.


Israel and Apartheid: Language matters


Australian Labor and Palestine in 2021