Today’s media is choked with Virtue Signals. Western world leaders, academics, reporters and commentators are falling over themselves to make a Virtue Signal in support of Ukraine. Mrs Biden, wife of the US President and co-conspirator in monumental crooked deals with Joe and his corrupt son Hunter, flies secretly to Kiev to meet Ukraine’s “first lady” on Mothers’ Day; British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hated throughout the UK and whose party has just been massacred in local council elections, arrives unexpectedly in Ukraine for a media-covered walkabout (another piece of Virtue Signalling).

So, you get the picture: Virtue Signals are empty pieces of anti-Russian, anti-Putin and pro-Ukraine propaganda. The aim of Virtue Signals is to convince people that “something is being done” about Ukraine when the truth is otherwise. Ukraine music is played by the media, and Ukraine flags are flown outside shops and houses.

People who participate in these pro-Ukraine activities are NOT to be criticised or condemned. They are following the climate of fear and loathing created by their leaders. They are expressing a moral and ethical outrage which has gripped the world. Their response is entirely understandable, but does that make it right?

Britain’s Labour leader unmasked

In London, the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers has disowned the current British Labour Party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, because he is “demonstrably not a socialist”. Who thought he was a socialist? Who thought Tony Blair, co-founder of New Labour, was a socialist? And whoever thought that Baron (Neil) Kinnock or Lord (Jim) Callaghan were socialists?

It’s pity there isn’t a Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers in Australia so they could expel Anthony Albanese because he isn’t a socialist either. “Albo” runs a two-faced race: he makes a warm, leftish speech one day for one audience – but the very next day he delivers a pro-business speech to suck up to the coupon-clippers in the boardrooms.

At its AGM on 8 February 2021, the Haldane Society passed a motion that “Sir Keir Starmer QC MP does not qualify for membership of the Haldane Society because he is demonstrably not a socialist”.

The fact that the society’s founder, Lord Haldane, was once a Liberal who later became Lord Chancellor in Britain’s first Labour Government in 1924 is interesting but not consequential.

The recent black-balling of Starmer is related to “his appalling policy positions” and he will “not be permitted to rejoin the society unless and until his re-admittance is agreed by a future general meeting”, i.e. perhaps never.

The Society’s criticism of Starmer is mild when compared with the pasting he has received in another esteemed journal, Mid-East Eye, on 5 April 2021. “After a year in office, the British Labour leader is giving the Tories an easy ride while investing his energy in an all-out war on the party’s Left. At a time when Labour ought to be landing regular punches on the ruling Tory Party over its gross incompetence in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, and cronyism in its awarding of multi-million-pound coronavirus-related contracts, Starmer has preferred to avoid confrontation. Critics have accused him of being ‘too cautious’ and showing a ‘lack of direction’. But British voters’ aversion to Starmer is not that he is ‘too cautious’ or lacklustre. Rather, they suspect he is politically dishonest.”

There is a direct echo of these remarks in Australia, and they are being said by ALP members and women protesters about Anthony Albanese. Former Labor leader Bill Shorten is one vocal critic of his successor and when women protesters are off-camera and talking among themselves, they often say: “What did Albanese say today? Nothing! He’s useless.” Then they may add cautiously: “But we can’t afford to get him off-side at the moment. He’s all we’ve got.”

Albo has the same disease

Like Starmer in Britain, Anthony Albanese is labelled as “too cautious” and yet he uses furious energy tearing the ALP apart to tame the Left. His supporters argue that once his message “cuts through”, voters will start to like him. Really?

Once again, the British example is relevant. In February an internal review found that the public viewed Starmer’s party as “deliberate and cynical” in its evasiveness on policy questions. In other words, UK voters’ aversion to Starmer is not that he is “too cautious” and lack lustre, but rather that his team are “not being forthright and honest”.

Voters are left bewildered: either Starmer is covering up the fact that Labour under his leadership is an ideological empty vessel, or his party has clear policies but conceals them because it believes they would be unpopular.

Starmer appears to be “re-inventing” Labour with a new image. It is a Tory-lite party which is based on patriotism, the flag, veterans and dressing smartly. Hidden from Starmer’s master plan are core values which are anti-refugee, anti-Moslem and anti-union.

One newspaper correspondent captured the essence of Starmer’s new party when he wrote: “Starmerism has not defined itself in any sense beyond sitting on the fence.”

Another wrote: “If there is one consistent thread in Starmer’s first year, it has been a determined purging from the party of any trace of the left-wing politics of his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, as well as a concerted effort to drive out many tens of thousands of new members who joined because of Corbynism.”

Worldwide anti-left trend

A cursory study of post-Shorten politics in Australia, and post-Bernie Sanders politics in the US, shows that a similar process is under way. Albanese is shredding the campaign policies of Bill Shorten, Joe Biden is handing control of the Democratic Party back to the Bill & Hillary Clinton machine, and Starmer has embraced Tony Blair’s worship of the City of London, NATO, Washington, the Pentagon and Wall Street.

Under Starmer, his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn has become an “Unperson”. To mention his name or his policies is to invite suspension or expulsion from the party. At the same time, special interest groups from the private sector are being welcomed to the party and its inner sanctum. Religious zealots, mostly people who are hostile to Labour values, now vet Labour members to decide whether they should be allowed to remain members, or be expelled. These are the kind of authoritarian policies that 20^th century dictators used to silence their critics. At the General Election, Corbyn asked voters to “Rise like lions” and argued that “We are the many, they are the few”.

When that particular tidal wave breaks, Sir Keir and Lady Starmer would be smart to choose an overseas hideaway which does not have an extradition treaty with the UK.

The psychology of Scott Morrison

Everyone has some kind of priority in their lives. For some it is their partner and their family. For others, it is their job, a place where they receive optimal satisfaction.

I know others for whom family pets are the priority and they give them more loving care than their children. There are some people for whom their footy team – AFL, NRL or ARU, it doesn’t matter which code – is what they live for. You can recognise them by the beanies and war paint that they wear at weekends.

I prefer people who like books and cruising through bookshops. They are a minority but they represent a bastion against philistinism and anti-intellectualism, and that’s why we need them.

Ask a few simple questions and anyone’s inner-most priorities are laid bare.

1. What is more important to Scott Morrison – the Liberal Party of Australia or the Pentacostal church? The answer is obvious: his Hillsong faith.
2. Who is more important to Scott Morrison – his partner Jen or the victims of rape in Parliament House? The answer again is obvious: Jen.
3. Does Scott Morrison care more about the Cronulla Sharks NRL team in his Sydney electorate of Cook, the Raiders or Brumbies in Canberra, or his own team of Cabinet ministers? Once again, the answer is obvious: footy comes first.
4. Has Scott Morrison run out of ambition – or does his Hillsong faith tell him to aim higher and head for Washington DC as Australian ambassador or to New York as Australian delegate to the United Nations? The answer to this question is not clear yet.
5. Morrison is insanely jealous of Senator Mathias Cormann’s plum job as secretary-general of the OECD in Paris and wants something similar. Washington DC or the Big Apple?