We haven’t yet seen much indication yet of the policy line the Abbott government will take. On the one hand, their election commitments suggest that, with a handful of exceptions such as climate policy, Abbott will carry on the policies of the Labor government, including DisabilityCare, the Gonski reforms, and the NBN (in a cut-down version). On the other hand, historical precedent, recently reaffirmed at the state level by Campbell Newman, and the urgings of people like Bob Officer, who ran the Howard-Costello government’s Audit Commission, suggests the government will discover a spurious budget crisis, dump its promises and introduce big cuts to health and education. Even if they do this, it’s clear that they have no real ideas beyond scraping the barrel of the 1980s microeconomic reform agenda. The worthwhile parts of this agenda were pushed through long ago, and the failures in areas like financial deregulation, Workchoices, Public Private Partnerships and so on are now obvious. The only positive initiative associated with Abbott’s win, the Paid Parental Leave scheme, is directly opposed to the microeconomic reform agenda, and hated by Abbott’s big business agenda. So, beyond it’s three word slogans, I doubt that the government has much more idea about its plans for office, than I do.
We didn’t have to wait long, however, to see how the government would work in process terms. Julie Bishop’s sacking of Steve Bracks as consul-general in New York (rumored replacement, Nick Minchin) is the most notable example of a vindictive tribalism that is evident throughout the right. We’re already hearing talk of cuts aimed at right wing betes noires like the arts, and there is bound to be more of this. The contrast with the last change of government, when Rudd left LNP appointees in place, and even gave jobs to retired opponents, as well as playing down the culture wars, is striking. For the LNP, long accustomed to see itself as our natural rulers, it’s all about getting into office, and sharing out the spoils.
John Quiggin 
John, as being an economist is your day job, I’m disappointed that you did not dissect the economic parts of Malcolm Turnbull’s NBN FTTN plan before the election. The detail holes and huge downside risks inherent in his alternative would have been easy meat for you. NBNCo’s current FTTP plan looked likely to exceed its 7% roi and replay its investment. Turnbull’s plan is unlikely to ever repay its costs. Surely this is worth you unpicking before the disaster unfolds and be in front of the game.
Rudd is now backgrounding that he wants a third go at the leadership. Saints preserve us. Look what you have wrought, Ruddmentum acolytes.
Labor should kick him out of the party at this point.
@m0nty
And your source for this is?
The lack of any economic reforms are evident from the appearances of George Brandis and Michael Kroger on telly the other night. They were asked this question directly and apart from removing two taxes there is nothing. Brandis squirmed and tried to fob off a few spending cuts as a reform but Jones quite correctly picked him up on that.
I expect that some IR reform is on the agenda but not politically palatable to mention it this early. Unlike Howard, Abbot seems like he would be cautious here and move slowly. Wait and see.
@m0nty
As advised pre-election, no more Rudd/Gillard discussion, please. Take it somewhere else.
David, along with WordPress, my DayDoubler software broke down, so I’m limited to 24hrs now. Something had to give, and NBN was part of that.
Well it’d be nice if we can get through a liberal era without too much change. Sad about cuts to foreign aid though
One of the downsides of airing only daft ideas like the (gun)boat option or no ideas at all is that it prevented reality checking during the less vulnerable period means their policy development will be both alien and clumsy and mistake prone to a degree even the Daily Telegraph will have trouble glossing over.
As part of this forthcoming fiasco hopefully their non-climate management policy will be shown for the lies it is. This could be useful as it may allow Labor to reevaluate its own policies and assess whether economic instruments are still good or rather too much a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Personally I’m not totally disappointed with the demise of Labor’s climate policy, not because I don’t believe in a ‘carbon tax’ (society wide collection of revenue directed into fossil fuel replacement and green infrastructure more generally). I do. Rather its this questionable dogma that the most efficient means to save the natural world is to use ‘market mechanisms’ and combine the tax with trading to the great benefit of what Don Watson terms the Plague Rats (consultants) like the financial speculation industry.
What I see as philosophical flaws in Labor’s ‘Green Capitalism’ appear to be the subject of a forthcoming book by Canadian bette noire of stupid people Naomi Kline. In the meantime this article provides a nice tease.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/10/naomi-klein-green-groups-climate-deniers
Worrying though the other hand the coalition could do a lot of direct damage to the natural environment in the short term especially if they cosy up too much to this new bunch of very odd senators – how should we refer to them?? I greatly dislike the term ‘Bogan’ and in any case it doesn’t describe this bag of largely anti environmental roosters.
Any suggestions for a suitably descriptive collective acronym?
The coalition haven’t even sworn in a Treasurer or a Minister for Climate Change and they’re changing parts of “Direct Action”. The Latrobe Valley has lost its $20M Clean Energy Employment Hub already. Nice to be a safe Coalition seat!
@Newtownian
“The Delusionals” ? The gun-happy one seems to know nothing about the gun crime stats, yet guns is his pet subject. It’s going to be an excruciating few years of reality inversion. Without political funding reform,and with News Ltd’s stifling presence, we may never recover a reasonable and informed public discourse.
@Graham
Foreign aid is the nastiest and most consequential example of vindictive tribalism from this lot. It’s notable that even though nearly all of our defence effort is, in effect, foreign aid, they treat it totally differently
Anything further along these lines will lead to a ban. I’m sure you can find other venues to air this issue – JQ
@John Quiggin
Ah, but John, intervention by the military is Direct Action! That’s OK ..
One of the problems of only talking to your own tribal inner-circle of believers is that you don’t even learn what experienced fair-minded Labor MPs could tell you. Eg. there is no vindictiveness needed to explain Steve Bracks not going to New York even if you have never been to New York and experienced what the Australian representative does there. It is hard to see any Coalition person feeling even remotely pleased with the idea of being beastly to the agreeable Steve either because it is him or because it sends some message (what would that be BTW – something pretty idiotic and unnecessary?) to the ALP which hardly needs messages. It is totally explicable on the grounds that, although Bracks is a decent, competent person which doesn’t distinguish him from plenty of other candidates for such appointments, he has no special qualifications for representing Australian interests in New York and, probably biggest consideration, he will not, under a Coalition government, give the automatic assurance to Americans that he can speak for the Coalition government or can be sure of getting their messages through to it. Obviously choosing Nick Minchin, former senior minister in the Howard government, indeed Finance Minister, would give them that assurance.
Then there is the timing. Was Bracks completely free from involvement with partisan politics from the time of his nomination in May? I don’t think so. But, more important, the promptness of the decision was what was required in fairness and courtesy to Bracks. It would therefore be wrong to give any special weight to the decision as reflection priorities or feelings or “messages”. It is noticeable because Abbott is obviously determined to mark a contrast between his deliberate pace and Rudd’s frenetic ways (and nothing at all like those days of action when Whitlam and Barnard were the only ministers of the Crown sworn it).
How is the decision to cut foreign aid “tribalism”. Is it the same kind of tribalism you mention in connection with the non-appointment of Bracks (as to which I bet they will find something else for him to do, or at least to offer to him without it being such a dead-end post that he wouldn’t except, and you can be sure that Kim Beazley will remain Ambassador in DC e.g.)
In so far as the foreign aid decision reflects “nastiness” is it not a populist recognition of a broad-based feeling in the community that foreign aid is not often money well spent?
As it happens Australians who feel they can afford it have been increasing their charitable contributions to foreign purpose charities greatly in the last 12 years or so. But those more hard-pressed (OK by over investment in their housing….. if you like) surely have a case when they see a lot of tertiary educated people of no obvious genius, energy or talent, doing interesting things overseas on quite decent salaries (and expenses) often untaxed, and then reflect on how well the money is spent after 50 years or so of money being funneled to the Third World, too often to kleptocrats, many studies casting doubt on the efficacy of aid, and so on…. Rationalisation for selfishness you say? Maybe, but there is a lot of sense and truth in that line of thinking.
The outgoing government led the way with the PNG solution being financed in large measure by transfer of moneys from the aid budget. But it is hard to deny the logic of treating the vast amounts spent on refugees, asylum seekers, etc. as equivalent to foreign aid depending of course on your (unstated) criteria. If, which is rational, you want to “do well by doing good” (but not by dope-peddling) then continuation of aid for Indonesian schools (especially for girls) would appear to have a big claim on top priority. Emergency relief in case of tsunamis and the like is also high priority, but also likely to remain so.
If you meant “to the victor, the spoils” it should be “victori spolia”. But bravo for using Latin at all – the internet seems to be the one place where it can flourish.
@invictus
I Googled it to get it right, then spoilt it with a typo – fixed now thanks
@Angus Cameron
You don’t really need to defend the government’s brutality at such length. As you say, widespread nastiness is a sufficient, if depressing, explanation.
The correct thing to do now is appoint sometime apolitical to the US Consul job and to quickly show some constructive alternative to carbon tax and green loans. Somehow I suspect neither will happen. They’ve broken the old rule that revenge is best served cold.
@Newtownian
A new way. 1. 2. 3. What was this about 3 word slogan
@ Hermit
Why appoint someone non-political to New York if one of the chief criteria for appointment by any government is that the person in the Big Apple (which is very very big and thinks of Australia as a very far-away place where it is an adventure to go once in a lifetime – and thinks of Australia otherwise only about once every five years) must, because of who he is, be seen as well connected to the Australian government?
If you knew Steve Bracks and knew some senior Liberals you would know that the Bracks decision having anything to do with revenge was absurd.
And why, and by what criteria, do you put “some constructive alternative to carbon tax and green loans” as any kind of priority for this or any other government? My own comment would be that it should be a low priority matter to do anything at all which is not done on hard-nosed economic grounds since nothing that Australia does or says is going to have the slightest effect on whatever changes to our climate or shorelines will have imposed on them by the actual policies and programs of China, India and the US over the next 20-30 years and beyond. The world doesn’t even listen to us as Rudd learned in Copenhagen in 2009 when the Chinese wouldn’t even allow him in the same room as them and the US representatives.
Your reference to green loans makes you sound like one of those whose distaste for business like calculation doesn’t even recognise that all those self-interested pleaders for support for solar energy about 10 years ago – often complaining that we had great potential businesses being allowed to go to China – were effectually pleading for taxpayers’ money to be put into supporting businesses which would now be broke – like a lot of the Chinese businesses. I say that as a great fan of solar energy but one who also notes that it was China that brought down the price of photo-voltaic cells by about 80 per cent in a little over 5 years. That couldn’t have happened in Australia to anyone’s profit.
@invictus
In relation to Indi, will you accept mirabile dictu?
One thing that makes me vaguely hopeful on carbon policy is that, from the brief media appearances that I have seen, a couple of the Senators elect (the Tasmanian woman, and the 4WDer from Victoria) do not appear to have a rock solid position against carbon pricing. (Perhaps the sports party guy is the same?)
Also, we will soon have an IPCC report that is expected to bring the seriousness of the issue to the attention of the public again.
It would seem that it might be possible that, with appropriate briefing by the right people, these “micro party” Senators may be persuaded before they hit the Senate that the Abbott plan really is inadequate and worth resisting. (Also, if business confidence and the lower dollar do their thing and the economy appears to be doing a bit better by mid next year, wouldn’t that help persuade them that the carbon price isn’t killing the economy?)
So, it I were running a group interested in preserving carbon pricing, I would be contacting these people and offering free briefings on the issue by some persuasive people.
@Angus Cameron
So, are you saying that previous appointees like Amanda Vanstone (Ambassador to Italy) and Brendon Nelson (Ambassador to the EU,etc) were ineffective due to their inability to speak for the government? Were they unable to push Australia’s interests because they came from a different political party to their paymasters?
I see Bracks removal as being first shot in a war by the self appointed ruling class to remove all evidence of a viable opposition. First Independents then Greens then ALP. Or maybe in another order.
Not to matter about the order, the policy is to restore control of the state.
Fortunately they appear to lack the intellectual resources to pull off such a stunt.
@Angus Cameron
1) If they give Minchin or another time server the US job it will look bad.
2) Are you saying we shouldn’t have had the Snowy Mountains scheme?
The new government will sway the motoring party to veto the carbon tax if it is resisted by the Greens and the ALP. They will simply promise legislation to allow 4WDs in our national parks and then blame the Greens for backing them into a corner.
Why would neoliberals send a Consul-General to New York at all? Doesn’t this amount to proof that they don’t believe in free markets at all? If their professed belief in free markets was genuine then they would see no need for a government man or woman to be spruiking for Australia. But then, we knew all along that the LNP don’t really believe in free markets. They believe in rigged, corporate capitalist markets and oligopolistic power; something very different indeed.
I should say that I have no huge problem with the Bracks decision. As a matter of general principle, governments are entitled to have whatever top public servants they like, and in any event, as I understand it, Bracks continued to fundraise and advocate for the ALP after he’d been appointed, which was IMO, rather unwise. He must have assumed this would jeopardise the appointment, even if the Libs hadn’t wanted to send a signal to other top public servants.
Really, not the least of Rudd’s failings was that in his craven quest for popularity, he failed to remake the public service with more politically reliable people — especially in #theirABC and in the Future Fund — both of whose heads turned out to be far right climate deniers.
Abbott lacks a senate majority so his ability to spring surprises is limited.
One (of the 2) major policies ‘ stop the boats’ looks to have sprung a major leak just 4 days in.
Hard to beieive that such scrupulously thought out and designed 3 word policies could run aground so quickly.
@Fran Barlow
Mark Scott is a climate denier?
@Sam
I believe Fran is referring to former chairman Maurice Newman and his infamous “groupthink” on climate change comments.
What does Rudd believe about climate? “Greatest moral challenge” was soooooo long ago and Rudd has proved since then he could beat the White Queen – believing six impossible things before breakfast: nothing!
And who of all the worthy who say the know what “the science” says and what Australia should do in consequence has any qualification to give them firm opinions? As someone has pointed out even our very distinguished medical scientists who have said far more than they are qualified to say in support of other great and good opining about “climate science” lack the simple logic to understand that they needed to explain why Australia why Australia should waste money whatever the state of science.
@ Jamie
Point taken. I am not sure that I would have wanted to appoint either of them whatever government was in power. But the messages which Rudd and co were seeking to send, misguidedly or otherwise, would not have been commercially important messages to the hardheads of New York. “Messages” or “signals” noted by Fran Barlow does bring up a nuance I hadn’t thought of. Yes, maybe the Bracks dis-appointment was intended to show other public servants that raising money for opposed political parties or the equivalent in partisan activity would be regarded as beyond the pale.
I note that Amanda Vanstone had been Minister for Immigration which might possibly have been regarded as a good qualification for Italy. Brendan Nelson’s flexibility was no doubt right for representing Australia at the EU if someone could work out what was. Anyway, if I were to defend the Rudd government’s decisions I would point to the fact that they had been senior ministers in a government which had been in power for 11 years and might therefore give some assurance of continuity to the hosts.
@ Hermit
You disqualify yourself from consideration by referring to Nick Minchin as a time-server. It would be like referring to Senator Peter Walsh, Hawke’s Finance Minister, or Gary Grey, or, another Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner as “time server”.
As for the Snowy Mountains scheme I’m not “saying” anything about it by implication or otherwise. I haven’t read the considerable amount of work that has, I believe, been done on it and would want to do a great deal of work on it before saying that it was a bad idea either in prospect or in retrospect. What is pretty clear is that we benefited enormously from post-war immigration, apart from any good we were doing to others, and it was appropriate to engage in major infrasctructure schemes. Whether, in retrospect there could have been better investments than what went into the Snowy River Scheme I don’t know.
It seems reasonably clear that the Ord River scheme is hard to justify unless you believe every government must be allowed to play with some big lumps of money and they might have done worse.
If the analogy you make with the Snowy River scheme which produces hydro-electricity is with power production from solar energy I don’t know what your point is. We had and have limited resources of potential hydro power which well known technology could exploit and there were several reasons, no doubt, for developing some of it, including lessons from the coal miners’ strikes under the Chifley government in the late 40s. We have apparently unlimited solar potential but it was, until the Chinese brought down the price, quite uneconomic – and possibly still is for most purposes, at least in a country which could produce power very cheaply from coal burning and is, anyway, exporting more than half the coal it mines for others to burn.
I’ll be watching the Labor leadership contest with interest. I’m guessing the new rule about how the leader is choosen will be sidelined by ensuring there is only one candidate.
The leadership doesn’t matter that much. Anyone who really wants it won’t run anyway unless there are really compelling reasons. The leaders who have taken over after a defeat have a poor record of eventually getting the top gig. That goes for both sides.
Spoke too soon. Albanese is running now.
I prefer Albanese over Shorten. However it’s going to be an interesting couple of months watching them campaign against each other under the new rules. Should do wonders for unity.
Scratch that. Albanese now says he will make his decision known after he talks to caucus.
I think Shorten has too much baggage. Albanese being from the left faction may not be viewed so well.
Who cares what Labor does? They are just Clayton’s Liberals anyway. Labor have a complete lack of talent. The Liberals have a complete lack of talent too. Tony Abbott! What a joke! It is instructive though to have watched the Murdoch propaganda machine push Abbott as a man of ability and substance. It just shows you can push any rubbish if you propagandise and advertise hard enough. Our society is now swayed and indeed governed through the mass media. Pretty scarey.
@Ikonoclast Australian expats care. They would probably prefer to be a laughing stock for no more than the 3 years they have just been sentenced to. Labor’s their only chance.
@Fran Barlow
Exactly.
Why on Earth did Rudd appoint Alexander Downer to his role, for example? Of the people available, Downer was always going to rubbish the ALP and the Greens every chance he got, and he had plenty of chances to do that via his regular opinion piece in The Advertiser. While I don’t believe in being an absolute bastard with these appointments, there is such a thing as going too far in the other direction and effectively trying to suck up to the opposition—which is how Rudd’s eclectic appointments seemed to me at the time. At least pick people who have the capacity to look at an issue without always subjecting it to the political blinkers first. Fair-minded people, not dyed-in-the-wool one-eyed tribalists. I certainly hope the ALP learned the lesson of this failed experiment.
For a laugh, someone ought to keep a score card on (the few) political promises that the Libs break in government, as they break them, for whatever reason. For example, Indonesia’s knock-back of the Libs’ policy to buy up fishing vessels to prevent their use by people smugglers, and the knock-back of providing local intel on people smuggling activities to the AFP: this is a fairly definitive blocking of Liberal stop-the-boats promised policy. Chalk up one failure already.
A stray thought — remember the fuss made during thr 2010 election oveer the Murrya Darling Draft Plan– people burning copiesin Deliliquin, the head of the MDBA rolled by the minister… why wouldn’t the ALP release the fianl plan before the election because it was allso damned important?
How important is it now, according to those same press organs? I might have missed it, but I can’t recall the subject being mentioned at all. Certainly, it wasn’t in the debates or any of the chatter.
Apparently, now, it’s not so important. Where have all those angry bushies gone? Is waterr for irrigators now in abundance?
Apparently we’ve also had four more boats. The Indonesians have rejected the Abbott plans. The Australian doesn’tthink the Lib policy in in “CHAOS!” or the government is in meltdown. How unsurprisement …
Sorry the majority of the people don’t understand anything about Tony “RU486?” Abbortt I am afraid because it seems to be incomprehensible for the “normal”, educated Australians for a politician to be driven by the 16th century ideas in the 21th century. But it is NOT the economics, stupid!
This guy is on a mission. Whether he succeeds its another issue. I hope he will fail miserably because there is zero tolerance for this kind of inspiration among the people who pull the strings (and finance) the Liberal enterprise. Let’s hope the so-called “free market forces” prevail when it comes to implementing for example the “middle class expedited breeding” (aka paid parental leave) program. “We can’t afford because we have to pay back the Government debt or our grandchildren will be bankrupt”.
This is what in my opinion drives Tony:
“Santamaria had no formal political role and never ran for office, but he kept Labor out of power for 17 years. He was also huge in the life of Abbott, who said after his death that Santamaria “saw politics as a way of giving glory to God”. Historical amnesia about Santamaria also raises the question about how well we know Tony Abbott, the man who would be Prime Minister.”
see http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/afrmagazine/tony_abbott_higher_calling_aNGk1uJKD26R4KQ6TWkbJJ
Tony also wants to “keep Labor out of power for 17 years” this is why he was hired. But the neoliberal ideology (“greed is good”) is fundamentally incompatible with “but I think we need idealism, mate” (see the article). Who gives? Once the carbon tax is abolished and workplace regulations relaxed, Tony will be shown the door and there will be business as usual.
@Adam (ak)
From the linked article:
“Abbott has been an MP for 18?years, a minister for nine; member of cabinet for six years and, since upending his party leader, Malcolm Turnbull, by one vote after suddenly switching sides on the issue of an emissions trading scheme, Opposition Leader for almost 30 months.”
Sooo, if he were a member of the ALP they would be smearing him for “never having a real job”.
@ Will
What you say doesn’t stack up on its internal logic. Even if you had chosen the quote about im working for John Hewson that would be true, though that would have been a bit nearer the mark. After all he was about 36 when elected to Parliament and had earned his keep mostly as a journalist (though some reference is made to business management I hadn’t heard about). But your worst failure of reasoning is in not recognising that no such inept and unapt charge is made against serious players’ who have been long serving ministers; e.g. Kim Beazley.
The problem, a real one, IMHO, is the pure careerist from student politics to staff of party or politician to MP. Unfortunately that has been creeping in on the Liberal side too. Some union careerists could be criticised for similar reasons but most of them have had some pretty serious life experience of managing people and responding to unpredictable (or just unpredicted) contingencies of varied kinds so the criticism isn’t particularly telling. Compare someone having spent 10 years building up a pharmacy or newsagency and a couple of years of the head of their business association/lobby group.
As it happens the evidence of past political leaders is that an early start is one of the best indications that the capacity to lead the party into government will be there. Fraser, Holt, Keating, Kennett are just a few that come to mind that started their lives in Parliament between 25 and 28. Then there are those like Hawke and Howard who had a de facto political life from their 20s. Brains are handy but Turnbull was one who fell down from lack of the political data-base and instincts stacked over time in his mind. Abbott started fairly young and certainly has enough years up his sleeve to make him primarily a creature of politics rather than any other vocation or profession or habitual occupation.
@ Ikonoclast
The Greek touch draws attention to the unfortunate connotations of cynicism. Terse cynicism isn’t a serious improvement on the fully reasoned. It conveys a sense of probably unwarranted feelings of superiority.
The idea that the Liberals have a “complete lack of talent” (or Labor before the disasters, for that matter, given that Chris Bowen, Bob Carr, Craig Emerson, Mark Dreyfus and Terry Burke, inter alios, have to be counted) is at best a sign that you know little about the requirements of politics as practised since about 1700 anyway (cf F.S. Oliver’s “The Endless Adventure” 3 vols published about 1930 and starting with the clever politics of Sir Robert Walpole. I assume you have never actually had personal experience of any value for educating you about practical politics). Abbott, Turnbull, Hunt, Hockey, Jensen, Bishop (not Bronwyn), Frydenberg, O’Dwyer, Brough (despite his military background, or because of it, he instituted the intervention policies which Labor continued) and not a few others have both talent and credentials from experience.
Talent, BTW, is not the word that comes to mind when one is looking for a leader. Many years on the job taking politics seriously is what people like Fraser, Kennett, Holt, Keating – and indeed Menzies and Howard and even Hawke (though not in Parliament) show is more important than being e.g. the smarter of the Rhodes Scholars Abbott and Turnbull. Hawke, come to think of it, mightn’t have been much good as a Leader of the Opposition if he had lost the 1983 election. Opposition is harder than government by a country mile. Also, as a Labor leader said to me once after bemoaning the stupidity of a colleague who had been given responsibility beyond his brains and word power “It’s in Opposition that you need brains. In government you can hire them”. So, even if it were true that Abbott only had a few competent ministers he might get by with hired help as long as the ministers didn’t say too many stupid things.
@ Adam (ak)
Thanks for the link to the interesting AFR piece on Abbott last year.
But I wonder why, since you only give assertions dragged up from your innards, you say that Abbott is a man on a mission, one which is to treat the country to Catholic rule as if by Sharia Law in a Muslim state judging by what you seem to fear.
Anyone who knows long serving politicians well, at least those who rise to the top and lead a pretty united team, knows that the idea that Abbott is going to do anything as stupid as you suggest which might risk losing the next election is absurd. Playing the political game well becomes part of people like that. I say this as one who is very glad we no longer have the extraordinary Catholic-Protestant divide (where were the Jews? Bewildered bystanders!) since (a) Catholics provided as big a proportion of the professional and educated bourgeois classes and (b) were officially somewhat liberated by Vatican ll. And I say it as one who cannot fathom how so many highly intelligent people, including professionally and materially successful people, believe in an Abrahamic God (or any other). While that is beyond me, it doesn’t stop me recognising the abilities of such people and their capacity to use them in a pluralistic society which e.g. simply won’t accept criminalisation of abortions which are not now criminal, ever again.