So far, Labour has been taking it in its stride even for the most evasive signing of the former Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) now Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) that is now in the bag. But I think the real test for Labour is about to ignite though not triggered by the elected opposition but by the liberal regime.

I have referred to this entity (liberal regime) as a coordinated network between corporate entities among capitalists and feminists. Feminism's role is the disestablishment of social institutions specifically among culture and religion to pave the way for the advancement of material developments. The other party to the cause of material capitalism is the business and private sector that is represented by National.

Ok, a 'populist group' is organised by material desires; followers follow a leader with the hope of fulfilling their selfish ambitions. A collective consensus on the other hand is formed by one's awareness of a shared struggle that leads to the realisation of his/her own position.

Labour is not the 'populist party' in here. Populism is referred to followers of popular opinions, only that those popular opinions are promoted and imposed by the corporate media in favour of the liberal regime. It is an invalid unelected and subjective entity.

Knowing the nature of media promotions, followers are not informed and are tricked into false belief. They are gullible consumers who follow their desires and for the sake of isolation opt to follow the crowd rather than making an objective stand. This group has the number to influence statistical outcomes. But outcomes influenced by predetermined motives are simple science designed for political expedience.

However, Labour is facing direct oppositions from an unelected opposition. That's nothing new as political decisions are usually promoted by corporate media for its liberal masters however their external influence may interfere with the cause of democracy.

Let me clear this; the populist army of consumers was behind Labour's victory. But now they realised that Labour is more humane decide to change its master. It would soon become apparent that the media as usual serves the interest of the business and private sector. And thus the populist followers will do what they believe is good and popular for them. They are led by their noses.

That is the army of the Liberal Regime; it is not a movement or revolution when it is a backward force. It is anti-social external force of interference with democratic and social organisation.

Labour's first attack has already fired from the housing market. Despite Labour's attempt to ease the housing market; strong opposition is fronted by landlords by raising the rent not only beyond the commercial value of the area but also beyond the threshold of lower socio-economic income.

How can a lower socio-economic area sustain record rents is enduring a static force. The need to house the family and desperation of high rent means some poor families are getting themselves into debts. For one income earner families in a three bedroom flat is simply unaffordable. And once more, this is the sector mostly disadvantaged by financial policies. But this financial deficit is escalated into social consequences right down to rest upon the youngest members of the family. It is the famous position highlighted by the economy so far that has sustained record statistics on top of the world.

The recent economic recession of 2008 is responsible for bad mortgage loans that were based on income beyond the threshold of reality. This time, not too many ordinary folks can afford to buy, however the demand remains steady. I can think of corporate developments and ownership that are now landlords maintaining this housing inflated trend. It is where the cycle of housing inflation has raised the income for the corporation on the top 10 per cent of wealth.

And there on top of the world, rather than approaching the cause of social issues, the external populist regime queue up in protest on the street to impose guilt upon families and their communities.

Rather than highlighting the symptoms to impose guilt trips, why not make a valid stand against the cause and do something about greedy landlords who are ripping the ordinary folks and their children left right and centre!

I have also discussed a rental case and alleged that landlords may be protected by the Tribunal when the Tribunal is more or less a feminist playground. I have brought up derivatives as accessories to the agents income taking advantage of the tenant's bond. Easy money! Agents will refer to the landlord as a female even for corporate ones, but that is certain to raise ears and eyebrows of the adjudicator who is usually a female. And the case for the ordinary tenant is history. Mine was oblivious among the heap.

That is why social issues at large derived from Liberalism. And once more, it is offset by an external interference to democracy. Rightly if anyone should be guilty of the social impact upon our children are corporate entities including feminism. Instead they hide behind the stigma propaganda of social issues while branding the ordinary folks.

So the government can afford to be complacent about some issues it fronts in favour of the people, but at the same time shy away from stigma propaganda of the same people. It is understandable because no one not even the elected government can place direct blame on an implicit influence especially of an external nature the cause of abnormal social consequences.

While some community agencies are affiliated with feminist protocol, the struggle is endured with no morals bar outside the ring of formal democratic participation. And this is quantified by rebellious and anarchic behaviour especially among the male population. But since law enforcement is on target with weapons, passive protest is the alternative. It is demonstrated by alcohol and drug addiction.

Despite stark opposition however, I think this government has what it takes to promote the health and welfare of the people.