There is a fascinating force at work in Australian politics. Have you noticed how Fairfax, the ALP-Green axis, the ABC and virtually every miserable handwringer keeps attacking Tony Abbott? They are besotted with destroying him and I have wondered why this is so, given that he is no longer in office. I think I have found the answer and it is because they are afraid of him. So they want to discredit him utterly before he comes back to lead the coalition parties. The universal Left in all its manifestations attacks virtually no-one else in the government and certainly attacks no-one with the venom and enthusiasm they direct at Abbott. And who can blame them for ignoring the others? They are simply no threat. The critics are afraid of virtually none of the allegedly major figures in the government, including the PM because they pose no threat and generate no fear. After the Queensland election, the internal ructions, leaks, bad polls and alienation of the base, Mr Turnbull is a dead man walking at the head of a zombie army staggering to an inevitable fate that they brought on themselves. The Liberal party cannot go on like this or it will be destroyed. It needs someone who can strike fear into its opponents, cut through the mush and mirrors that surround every issue, actually believes in some basic principles and gives the followers a reasonable hope of winning. That person is clearly Abbott. Now, the big argument against this is that Abbott was suited to opposition but not to government. What those critics overlook is that the coalition parties are now in de facto opposition. What they need is someone who can demolish Shorten and his crazy socialism and strike fear into the Left. They and the media will froth at the mouth with rage and fury at the return of Abbott and that is the point. The choice is clear. To continue the zombie march to oblivion or generate enthusiasm behind a leader who fills the other side with terror.

Those interested in the real forces at work behind political decisions and motivations would also have noted the strange reaction to the good news that Myanmar and Bangladesh have agreed, in writing, to repatriate 620,000 desperate and starving Rohingya refugees back to their own homes. You would think such an agreement would be greeted with universal glee, as we have all been calling for it. But no, the UN, Western media and the gaggle of do-gooder refugee organisations, after months of demanding action, have been decidedly lukewarm about the deal. First out of the block, of course, was the UNHCR which claims it has a better scheme – but for 50,000 refugees! And under ‘dignified and sustainable’ rules and ‘international standards’, gobbledegook meaning that the UN must control it. Amnesty International, can you believe, actually opposes the ‘unthinkable’ repatriation; they would rather the Rohingya continued to wallow in the mud and open sewers of their camps than go home. Human Rights Watch says the deal is a ‘public relations stunt’. This is therefore the classic case of the so-called international community and its hangers-on who do not want problems solved; they want crises to stay as crises; how else can they keep extracting money from the gullible public and governments to finance their vast administrative costs and, more importantly, how could they continue to break down sovereign rights and national borders, which is what they really want, without an endless supply of refugee fodder to keep their campaigns going? It is the same with refugee camps in Palestine and Jordan; some countries and pressure groups clearly want refugees to remain there as a permanent advertisement of misery. Our local refugee advocates are also a major cause of perpetuating the desperate plight of their clientèle, up to and including death, by encouraging them to hold out and cause trouble in the camps and by tempting others to join them. Yes, if your power, axe-grinding and influence depend on a crisis, the only thing you have to fear is that the crisis might be solved!

Entries for the 2017 Gillian Awards have been rolling in and, although I do not want to discourage additional contributions, I should warn you that some entries already received will be hard to beat. The Gillians, you will recall, are awarded for the most significant and brutal restrictions on freedom of speech in the current year. To give you a taste of entries received and how difficult it will be to surpass them, here are two favourites. The first is the decision of the Boloxi School Board in Alabama banning To Kill a Mockingbird. With its false pretentions of opposing racism and segregation, the banning of this offensive work was well overdue, as was the earlier banning of Huckleberry Finn from school libraries in Virginia. Moreover, I agree entirely with the reason for the Biloxi ban, that the book ‘makes people feel uncomfortable’. it is not the role of books to make people feel uncomfortable. The ban deserves a Gillian, but in a crowded field it is likely to be pipped at the post by an entry from Melbourne Ports, the next electorate that will fall to the Greens. The City of Port Phillip benefits immensely from the left-green composition of its council and so sensitive are these civic fathers that they have just decided to ban all books from the Middle Park Library. To ban one book, like To Kill a Mockingbird, is a small step towards restricting our freedoms; but to ban all books is a giant leap forward for total repression. The Mayor’s defence of this mass eradication of all books from the civic library was truly inspirational; it would, she said, ‘free up more space in the library’.