Trump saves Albo from diplomatic disaster, but Rudd must go

Kevin Rudd's position is position is untenable in a Trump Administration. He must go. Now.

Throwing Rudd under the bus, or at least signalling his expendability, would have been a small price for Albo to pay for smoother relations. Yet, thanks to Trump’s grace, Albo might dodge that bullet too, at least for now.

But here’s my take. Kevin Rudd must be dismissed as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States. His position is untenable in a Trump Administration, and clinging to him risks further alienating our most crucial ally.

Australia deserves better than relying on luck and the goodwill of others, and we don’t need Rudd as a dead weight in Washington.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Trump saves Albo from diplomatic disaster, but Rudd must go.

Albo the ‘Man of Lead’ while Chalmers has no clue

Lead folds any way you want and it is malleable to the point of weakness.

According to a close mate in Gunning, Albo should henceforth be known as the ‘Man of Lead’. Here’s why the metallurgical metaphor is so apt.

In the annals of Australian political leadership, metallurgical metaphors have often captured the essence of a prime minister’s mettle.

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaAlbo the ‘Man of Lead’ while Chalmers has no clue.

Australians all let us regret, for we were weak and blind

Senator James Paterson delivering the Tom Hughes Oration on Tuesday 14 October 2025.

James Paterson’s speech is a good start, but the Liberals need contemporary solutions, not old habits.

With Labor abusing power through slashed opposition resources and opaque governance, the Liberals have a moral duty to oppose effectively, lest Australia succumb to a ‘Victorianisation’ of entrenched left-wing dominance.

The culture wars, consisting of battles over identity politics, rewriting history, and developing idiotic societal norms, are no sideshow. The culture wars are central to the fray.

In the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall wrote:

Michael de Percy weighs in on James Paterson’s rousing speech. ‘Paterson’s speech urged the Liberal Party to end its ‘apology tour’, resolve internal divisions, and recommit to its core values.’ But then Michael cautions, ‘We can pretend all we like that we can use ideas from the 1990s to fix 2020s problems, but such naïve thinking defies all sense of history.’

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Senior Liberal James Paterson – the federal parliamentary Liberals’ best and most consistent performer by a long chalk (not that I’ll get a Christmas card from him for saying so) has laid out a decent prescription for the beleaguered party to get its proverbial together. Michael de Percy, however, rejects the Paterson plan outright. He views Paterson’s prescription as anachronistic and unfit for purpose for the uncertain times of the 2020s, as the Liberal party itself remains anchored the mindsets of the 1980s to early 2000s. John Howard’s broad church is dead, says de Percy, whereas Paterson still assumes it is alive. I’d like to have a lively discussion on this with Michael over a few beers, for I think Paterson generally is right. What do you think?

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaAustralians all let us regret, for we were weak and blind.

© 2025 Dr Michael de Percy
made with by templateszoo