Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray live boy. Hello,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Do you want to show we
Speaker 1: have for you tonight? Seriously some great stuff, great debate.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that as always You've always send me
Speaker 1: in my Paul. It's Gonews dot com dot you. But
Speaker 1: a bunch of stuff that you may will not have
Speaker 1: heard to this point in time. I think we're going
Speaker 1: it breaks in new ground for you today. Now. One
Speaker 1: of the great lines that Peter Dutton has been able
Speaker 1: to use against this Prime Minister is that he's weak
Speaker 1: and rattled. Now almost each every day there's an example
Speaker 1: of the week and every couple of days as an
Speaker 1: example of a bloke who is panicking that he's going
Speaker 1: to lose his majority in the parliament. Now he is
Speaker 1: confident that at the next election the teals will mean
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a change of government. But
Speaker 1: believe you me, if they're not a majority government, there
Speaker 1: is going to be problems for Anthony Abernezi. Him and
Speaker 1: his ministers are a little overly confident at times, a
Speaker 1: little of the belief that they're there forever, but of
Speaker 1: course nothing is forever. And one of the examples about
Speaker 1: the weak and rattled nature of Anthony Abernezi is he
Speaker 1: hasn't actually learnt the lesson that the last election was
Speaker 1: just the last election, it's not the forever election. And
Speaker 1: yes there's a moment where all the planets line up
Speaker 1: and you get the result that you want. But three
Speaker 1: years earlier the Labor Party didn't get the result that
Speaker 1: they wanted in the so called miracle victory of Scott
Speaker 1: Morrison that you and I saw coming. And who knows
Speaker 1: exactly where we're going to land at the election, either
Speaker 1: at the end of this year or early next year,
Speaker 1: but I can tell you the idea of a government
Speaker 1: being returned with its current majority well is pretty damn slim.
Speaker 1: There's an indicies that I have been mentioning to you
Speaker 1: for a long time now, because it has been building
Speaker 1: for a long time, and I think mirrors our worldview
Speaker 1: and certainly mine that I present to you each and
Speaker 1: every evening that the Prime Minister's politics and spin and
Speaker 1: the gallery playing the narrative and the get Dutton is
Speaker 1: not actually connecting with normal people. It's a pole which
Speaker 1: comes out every couple of weeks. The Essential poll published
Speaker 1: in the turbul Times otherwise known as the Guardian right track,
Speaker 1: wrong track. Have a look at today, because today it
Speaker 1: didn't just bust through fifty percent, it roared past half
Speaker 1: of the country saying that we're in the wrong place.
Speaker 1: Sixteen point turnaround from May of last year. The numbers
Speaker 1: at times were even lower, of course at the very
Speaker 1: start of the electoral cycle. But where we are now
Speaker 1: more than half of the country believes we are headed
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. That's why I think weak and
Speaker 1: rattled actually applies. Have a look. These are the numbers
Speaker 1: which have stretched all the way past the last election,
Speaker 1: all the way through to where we are today. The
Speaker 1: blue line is the wrong track. It has been steadily building.
Speaker 1: As I say, May of twenty twenty three is when
Speaker 1: things started to a round. They held for a while,
Speaker 1: they went up, they came ever so slightly down before
Speaker 1: going back up again to basically fifty and then a
Speaker 1: huge jump. Now, the reason this took place was because
Speaker 1: of those inflation numbers. That is the big thing that
Speaker 1: happened since the last pole. Now, if there's an ability
Speaker 1: to slightly tweak the numbers or slightly ask different people questions,
Speaker 1: that number may change by the next pole. But when
Speaker 1: there's a big change in a poll. You think, well, okay,
Speaker 1: what's happened now fifty to fifty which has become fifty
Speaker 1: one to forty nine in favor of labor. Well, of
Speaker 1: course that's the nuclear announcement. The number of undecideds has tightened.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the issue for the opposition. But
Speaker 1: what changed and went badly for the government it was
Speaker 1: that inflation that they had promised they were dealing with
Speaker 1: in actual fact had started to roar up again. Remember,
Speaker 1: the Reserve Bank will make a decision on interest rates
Speaker 1: in order to get the inflation figure between two and
Speaker 1: three percent. It's currently four percent off the monthly numbers. Also,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister is weak and rattled because a very
Speaker 1: significant number of Australians do not approve of his leadership.
Speaker 1: Now again, this was something that in June of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, a new prime minister, only eighteen percent of
Speaker 1: people were disapproving of his approach to things. And we
Speaker 1: were in that camp. I was well and truly in
Speaker 1: that camp. Remember the countdown. I knew what this government
Speaker 1: would be. I did not give it a benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt, because they use that benefit of the doubt
Speaker 1: to build an arrogance that eventually gets them to where
Speaker 1: they are today. Forty nine percent of people disapprove of
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister's leadership. That is a phenomenal change since
Speaker 1: the early parts of his Prime ministership. Now, principally it's
Speaker 1: about cost of living. Principally, it's about a bloke who
Speaker 1: does not take responsibility. Principally, it is about political solutions
Speaker 1: to real life problems. And how often have I used
Speaker 1: the term too little, too late when it comes to
Speaker 1: the tax cuts? Well, guess what that worldview has now
Speaker 1: made it all the way into the heart of the beast.
Speaker 1: This question was asked of the Prime Minister tonight on
Speaker 1: Channel two, a question that I have been placing as
Speaker 1: too little, too late since all of these numbers started
Speaker 1: getting fiddled with six seven months ago. We were right then,
Speaker 1: we are right now, and we will be right into
Speaker 1: the future. It is too little, it is too late,
Speaker 1: and even the ABC brings it up with the Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: Roll this tape.
Speaker 2: For someone earning fifty thousand dollars, the tax cut's worth
Speaker 2: just over seventeen dollars a week. Is that going to
Speaker 2: alleviate the very clear suffering of thousands of Australians and
Speaker 2: thousands more than last year who are now regularly accessing
Speaker 2: food banks.
Speaker 1: Too little, too late, because it is too little too late.
Speaker 1: Huge reaction last night to people sending me emails and
Speaker 1: also news stories around Emma who was on a current
Speaker 1: affair last night. Her and her partner work ninety hours
Speaker 1: a week. Yet they are the people who were promised
Speaker 1: by this Prime minister a better world. But no that
Speaker 1: on his watch week and rattled leader is not stepping.
Speaker 3: Up pretty much nothing at all, not just the tax
Speaker 3: cuts come in, but everything else that is armed. So
Speaker 3: it's not justifiable.
Speaker 4: So I know you're going to have this little extra
Speaker 4: in your account each week, but as.
Speaker 5: You just kind of pointed out, everything else is going
Speaker 5: up at the same time, right including childcare.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's one of the biggest things that has gone
Speaker 3: up with our budget. We got an email a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago saying that our daily rate is increasing
Speaker 3: by seventeen dollars a day, which is quite a lot
Speaker 3: realistically when you think about everything else going up, like
Speaker 3: car insurance, food prices, fuel rent rates, all of that
Speaker 3: type of stuff.
Speaker 1: Every time we've talked about cost of living, start, middle
Speaker 1: or end of the show Emma and people like her
Speaker 1: other focus. I explained that in great detail last night.
Speaker 1: I played again for you tonight. Because fifty four percent
Speaker 1: of the country is like Emma, is like you, is
Speaker 1: like me. They think the joint is headed in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction. They think it's headed in the wrong direction
Speaker 1: for a whole bunch of different reasons. But the single
Speaker 1: biggest change that has happened since that industy was under
Speaker 1: fifty percent and is now at fifty four percent is
Speaker 1: because this government is failing on inflation. Its solution to
Speaker 1: the problems last year was to take fifteen hundred dollars
Speaker 1: away from ten million workers, ten minium workers like Emma.
Speaker 1: They now want credit for handing back crumbs off the table. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what. People won't give it to them. But they
Speaker 1: also won't change your government unless the opposition actually has
Speaker 1: a solution to their problem, not just saying what the
Speaker 1: problem is. They actually have to say what is their
Speaker 1: solution to cost a living Now at some point they're
Speaker 1: going to have to serve that up before the election.
Speaker 1: But these people are winnable because they have been lied
Speaker 1: to by the Labor Party, lied to about energy, lied
Speaker 1: to about inflation, lied to about tax cuts. These people
Speaker 1: are willing to move because they are angry and they
Speaker 1: are desperate. And the Prime Minister's spin and the canber
Speaker 1: press gallery trying to pretend that it's anything but this
Speaker 1: is the biggest issue in the country, means they are
Speaker 1: ripe for moving. We'll all find out what happens at
Speaker 1: an election whenever it comes. It's Prime Minister's decision, obviously
Speaker 1: not ours when that happens. So when it comes to energy,
Speaker 1: as you know, the opposition is where well and truly
Speaker 1: in the nuclear camp. Their belief is that the system
Speaker 1: is essentially one where the existing sites of power stations
Speaker 1: get replaced and turned into nuclear generation. It's a plug
Speaker 1: in and play system, you don't have to rewire the
Speaker 1: nation and it costs less than the renewables. Of course,
Speaker 1: when it comes to nuclear we have the scenario where
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton is all in its.
Speaker 6: Likely disruption to power, which means not just that your
Speaker 6: fridge goes off at home, but that the could rooms
Speaker 6: go off at the supermarket, that we don't have reliable
Speaker 6: energy for the manufacturing process, so jobs are lost in
Speaker 6: the Australian economy. Why would we tolerate that situation. That's
Speaker 6: why I think we need to have a proper, mature
Speaker 6: discussion about how we migrate to a new energy system
Speaker 6: where we can have renewables that are firmed up by
Speaker 6: zero mission's latest generation nuclear technology.
Speaker 1: But as you know, the Prime Minister thinks that this
Speaker 1: will save his political bacon by pretending that three eyed
Speaker 1: Koalas and all of that will move people all.
Speaker 7: The time when the rest of us are working to
Speaker 7: get power bills down. He's picked the one option guaranteed
Speaker 7: to priss power prices up.
Speaker 1: What Chris power price is up? The economics of nuclear
Speaker 1: do not stack up.
Speaker 7: That doesn't worry those opposite. They spent a decade in
Speaker 7: power without a single surface and then left Australia with
Speaker 7: a trillion dollars of debt.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because job keeper wasn't a thing. I think that
Speaker 1: the Labor Party wanted to be bigger. And remember they
Speaker 1: wanted us to buy an airline. Please they of course,
Speaker 1: we'll take it up to one point two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in debt, but don't tell anyone. And of course we
Speaker 1: know the Prime Minister is all in when it comes
Speaker 1: to renewables and the building of them, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that the CSIOO toll is at one point it was
Speaker 1: going to be more than a trillion dollars. Now it's
Speaker 1: half a trillion dollars and the cost of nuclear is
Speaker 1: way less than half a trillion dollars. But don't tell anyone.
Speaker 1: But fascinating again, more of this polling which comes out today.
Speaker 1: And I do appreciate the detail that they make publicly
Speaker 1: available to people, even though I'm sure they love that.
Speaker 1: I use this detail to make our points as regularly
Speaker 1: as we do. But I want you to think before
Speaker 1: I show you the pole. Where do you think most
Speaker 1: Australians get their information about this issue? How are they
Speaker 1: putting two and two together about whether the government is
Speaker 1: trying to race as far as it can down its pathway,
Speaker 1: or that that pathway is foolish and there is a
Speaker 1: better option. Would you think that it's scientists or government
Speaker 1: experts or political figures. According to this polling, No, Almost
Speaker 1: eighty percent of people trust their friends and family on
Speaker 1: this issue. How much do you trust the following sources
Speaker 1: of information when it comes to providing accurate information about
Speaker 1: energy transition? Now you put together the two blues, which
Speaker 1: is where you trust a little bit, or you trust
Speaker 1: a lot, and then you end up with seventy nine
Speaker 1: percent of people having a conversation at home. This is
Speaker 1: why it's so important to what shows like this to
Speaker 1: commit to channels like ours to get information because my
Speaker 1: belief is that while we have this conversation, I know
Speaker 1: there's lots of other stuff on the Tellian, there's lots
Speaker 1: of other people doing other things. But the information, the
Speaker 1: data that I try to give you here is all
Speaker 1: about arming you with the tools to have the conversations
Speaker 1: with your families. Now, this was also the major source
Speaker 1: of information when it came to people about the voice
Speaker 1: last year. All of the experts, all of the media,
Speaker 1: we all know where they were. Well, of course we
Speaker 1: all know where it ended up. Now this is really
Speaker 1: fascinating here because we have a scenario where obviously that
Speaker 1: information isn't all uniformally pro nuclear or pro renewables. But
Speaker 1: if this is the big source of information, then the
Speaker 1: people you have to convince, the people who have the
Speaker 1: power are you to have the conversation with your mates
Speaker 1: and with your family. Put it up again, because the
Speaker 1: next best community members and spokespeople. Now I'm not entirely
Speaker 1: sure what that means, but your local community groups potentially
Speaker 1: having issues with offshore wind or more solar, perhaps that's
Speaker 1: what people are turning to. And then it starts to
Speaker 1: fall away. Yes, the majority of people do trust the
Speaker 1: information that comes from government agencies, but that is still
Speaker 1: well below the number. So the CSIRO and their numbers,
Speaker 1: which are obviously thrown around a lot dwarfed to the
Speaker 1: information that people are finding out on their own researching
Speaker 1: and their own and having the discussion at home. The
Speaker 1: least trusted the federal government. That's the third from the bottom.
Speaker 1: I repeat, the federal government is the least trusted source
Speaker 1: of information about the energy transition. All of that feeds
Speaker 1: back into a country that believes by fifty four percent
Speaker 1: we're in the wrong direction. Action means lots of different things.
Speaker 1: I think you can conclude that when it comes to
Speaker 1: the two seventy five promise that never happened, the over
Speaker 1: commitment towards renewables, the obsession with cutting x percent of
Speaker 1: one percent of the world's global emissions, where all of
Speaker 1: course China it can be thirty times more polluting than
Speaker 1: we are and nothing gets measured until twenty thirty. It
Speaker 1: can be the handling of the immigration system, lots of
Speaker 1: different things, but people believe the joints centered in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction. That number has only grown since this government
Speaker 1: came to power and does what it does. The Prime
Speaker 1: Minister's disapproval numbers have only become more serious the longer
Speaker 1: his stays in power. Now, people who will defend a
Speaker 1: certain type of politics or certain type of politician or
Speaker 1: certain type of party will say, well, but it's just
Speaker 1: one part. Yeah, but the trend is clear. The trend
Speaker 1: is clear disapproval of the Prime Minister's leadership and fifty
Speaker 1: twy four percent of people saying we're headed in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction. And that's why when we do the documentaries
Speaker 1: that we do here, we do the editorials in our programs,
Speaker 1: we have the discussions that we do. I am so
Speaker 1: thankful that you are here each and every night. I'm
Speaker 1: so thankful that we share the information, and then you're
Speaker 1: able to share the information with friends and family who
Speaker 1: ultimately make the decisions when it comes to the polsters
Speaker 1: first and then at the polling booth. Each and every time,
Speaker 1: nothing is inevitable. We say it for a long time,
Speaker 1: and that's because off of the real world is a
Speaker 1: very different place than where most of the media and
Speaker 1: certainly the politicians would pretend they are the most important
Speaker 1: people in it. Now, a couple of little things to
Speaker 1: say about the most recent movements in and around the
Speaker 1: Senator from Western Australia is stepping slowly but surely out
Speaker 1: of the Labor Party. But I want to get to
Speaker 1: some again data which kind of is going to pour
Speaker 1: some cold water on this idea that the Muslim vote
Speaker 1: is about to run away from the Labour Party. As
Speaker 1: you know, of course, outside of the Parliament, Senator Payment
Speaker 1: is someone who as we know, was effectively not quite
Speaker 1: booted out of the Labor Party officially, but she's not
Speaker 1: really talking to any of her colleagues. She's not allowed
Speaker 1: to meet with any of her colleague She's getting the
Speaker 1: formal version of the cold shoulder after crossing the floor.
Speaker 1: But before I talk about her apparent moves towards considering
Speaker 1: some sort of weaponization of the Islamic community for political purposes,
Speaker 1: can we just deal with a little bit of each
Speaker 1: way elbow, Because there was a bit of spin. I
Speaker 1: meant to get to it last night, but there was
Speaker 1: so much other information and I did quickly mention it
Speaker 1: in the debate last night with Steve with the Sam Crosman.
Speaker 1: But have a look at the spin that the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister put on why he permanently suspended this senator for
Speaker 1: crossing the floor. It wasn't because of Palestine, it wasn't
Speaker 1: because of her vote, but it was because she was
Speaker 1: a distraction from the two little too late tax cuts. Well,
Speaker 1: unsurprisingly that didn't really float with anyone. But these were
Speaker 1: the excuses. He didn't ever want to punish her. He
Speaker 1: ended up having to punish her. Remember, he wanted to
Speaker 1: slap on the wrist, but he had to punish because
Speaker 1: the colleague said, hang on one rule for everyone. That's
Speaker 1: kind of the point of the way we do things. Well,
Speaker 1: now he's out and about and apparently saying people saying
Speaker 1: of him that he's shown strength in restraint by not
Speaker 1: expelling her further. So firstly he apparently put it on
Speaker 1: one side because she was a political distraction. But now
Speaker 1: he's amazing because he hasn't booted her out of the
Speaker 1: party because of what she did. That would be what
Speaker 1: we call each way albo, right, which is it it's
Speaker 1: about the Palestine vote, or it's not about the Palestine vote.
Speaker 1: But let's get to this concept of the Muslim vote,
Speaker 1: whether the Labour Party is about to lose it or
Speaker 1: could be punished by it, all the rest of it. Now,
Speaker 1: as you know, certain sections of the Arab community and
Speaker 1: the non Arab community of course, had been marching quite
Speaker 1: relentlessly in support of people in Palestine by proxy. Some
Speaker 1: people have been doing so because they are happy with
Speaker 1: what her Mass has done, and some are doing it
Speaker 1: specifically because of course they are not happy with what
Speaker 1: Israel has been doing. But this group also occupies an
Speaker 1: awful lot of noise in the media and online, which
Speaker 1: is why you get a senator from Western Australia crossing
Speaker 1: the floor to vote with the Greens on essentially a
Speaker 1: one state solution, not a two state solution. But you've
Speaker 1: heard all of this. Now, what is fascinating is in
Speaker 1: the past couple of days this person has been kind
Speaker 1: of winging about getting the cold shoulder from the organization
Speaker 1: of which she joined. And we all know where this
Speaker 1: is going to end up, which is that she's either
Speaker 1: going to end up as an independent. She of course
Speaker 1: has got another four years left in the Senate before
Speaker 1: she'd have to go up for reelection or should go
Speaker 1: out and join the Greens. Now I don't think you're
Speaker 1: going to go and join the Green because I'll get
Speaker 1: to that reason in a second. But you may well
Speaker 1: have also heard that potentially there have been some discussions
Speaker 1: happening behind the scenes with Glenn Duruy, the Preference Whisperer,
Speaker 1: to try to work out is there a way to
Speaker 1: crowd a new political force, one that of course at
Speaker 1: its heart and center, would have the key issues that
Speaker 1: she has been talking about that are forcing her breakup
Speaker 1: with the Labor Party. But okay, if that's the case,
Speaker 1: remember she's from Western Australia. How many people in Western
Speaker 1: Australia would have Gaza as kind of the a one
Speaker 1: issue one where they want to punish the Labor Party
Speaker 1: and they think the Greens aren't even good enough. Well,
Speaker 1: let's look at the census. Two point five percent of
Speaker 1: Western Australians listed their religion in the most recent census
Speaker 1: as being Islamic. Fourteen percent of the vote voted Green,
Speaker 1: yet it only produced one senator. Now, those existing senators
Speaker 1: are hardly going to get out of the way for
Speaker 1: her to have a new spot, and it's very unlikely
Speaker 1: that the preferences that you would need to pull together
Speaker 1: to eventually become a Senator would be able to get
Speaker 1: you there. If they're not Labor, who obviously wouldn't send
Speaker 1: her anything, Liberals who obviously wouldn't send her anything, one
Speaker 1: Nation who obviously wouldn't send her anything. You're notited Australian
Speaker 1: Party who obviously wouldn't send her anything. And the Greens
Speaker 1: only just get enough of a vote to get one person.
Speaker 1: So even if she got all of the Greens preferences
Speaker 1: and the Socialists preferences and whatever the invented parties might be,
Speaker 1: the likelihood of her being able to get into the
Speaker 1: Senate at a normal half Senate election, not the Malcolm
Speaker 1: Turnbull genius half the quota, it's pretty unlikely. But interestingly,
Speaker 1: here we keep hearing that the Muslim vote is now
Speaker 1: going to move from just protesting at the Labour Party,
Speaker 1: but apparently there's a particular focus maybe on four specific
Speaker 1: MPs to try to get rid of those Labor MPs
Speaker 1: at the next federal election. The reason the fuse that
Speaker 1: lights the fire, yes is what's happening in Gaza. But
Speaker 1: specifically they're going to try to use this senator issue
Speaker 1: to be the reason the Islamic community is apparently going
Speaker 1: to hold as Bowler's move away from the Labor Party
Speaker 1: and either towards a series of independence rather than the Greens,
Speaker 1: who already have the same position that all of those
Speaker 1: independence would end up having. How do I know because
Speaker 1: this bloke told Channel nine so.
Speaker 8: How Anthony Albernizi has treated senator payment. It is disgusting,
Speaker 8: It is deplorable, and we expected a lot better.
Speaker 9: Marmoodh Willa says he's advising a collection of Muslim organizations tonight,
Speaker 9: vowing to target for Amps in multicultural seats, including two
Speaker 9: members of cabinet, whether.
Speaker 8: She forms her unpiety, whether she becomes an independent, whether
Speaker 8: she goes to the Green. She has the Arab, Muslim
Speaker 8: and past ten and communities support.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're gonna hear a lot about this. It
Speaker 1: was a big obsession with the seven point thirty report
Speaker 1: when they were talking with Elbow. But let's actually have
Speaker 1: a look right. Apparently the seats. Now they claim that
Speaker 1: they've got a significant capacity to impact about twenty different seats,
Speaker 1: but according to that report on Channel nine, the four
Speaker 1: seats that would be of particular focus for whatever this
Speaker 1: movement may be. Well, the seats are Blackslain, Watsman where
Speaker 1: are were and Wills Blackslan Watson where we're all in Sydney,
Speaker 1: Wills is in Victoria. But have a look the Islamic
Speaker 1: population Blaxland about a third, Watson about a quarter lower
Speaker 1: in where or were lower in Wills. Now imagine those
Speaker 1: numbers one hundred percent voting the way that this new
Speaker 1: movement would want it to be. That's the only way
Speaker 1: you're going to unsee labor MPs with very big margins.
Speaker 1: But can I also say before I show you the
Speaker 1: next graph, why I don't think a bunch of labor
Speaker 1: MPs at this election are going to be swept away
Speaker 1: by this movement Because for it to work, you basically
Speaker 1: have to do a teals And the way that that
Speaker 1: works is that you want the teal to end up
Speaker 1: with the second most votes before preferences start kicking in,
Speaker 1: and then basically everyone but the liberal preference the teal.
Speaker 1: A teal gets over fifty percent, the Teal becomes the MP.
Speaker 1: But for that to be the case, the Labor Party
Speaker 1: kind of had to run dead in those seats. Now
Speaker 1: they're never a chance of winning those seats, as the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party is never a chance of winning the seats
Speaker 1: in these so called Islamic areas of places like Western
Speaker 1: Sydney and Outer Melbourne. But they're not going to run
Speaker 1: dead at the next election. They're also not going to
Speaker 1: send their preferences towards candidates who would obviously have a
Speaker 1: different worldview on what's happening right now and since October
Speaker 1: seven than their worldview. So the preference system doesn't work,
Speaker 1: which is why I should show you the Liberal vote
Speaker 1: in each of those seats. Now, remember to pull off
Speaker 1: atial to knock off a major party, you've got to
Speaker 1: get to finish second. Currently in blackslen Watson, where are
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party finished second At the last election. The
Speaker 1: Greens finished second in the seat of Wills. But do
Speaker 1: you really think the Liberal Party is going to preference
Speaker 1: the Greens over the Labor Party. If it does, it's
Speaker 1: a disgrace. So my point is this is it interesting
Speaker 1: to talk about. Sure, maybe one day demographically and statistically
Speaker 1: it becomes more of a chance. But if I was
Speaker 1: a betting person right now, would the Muslim vote move
Speaker 1: in such a fashion that the Labor Party would completely
Speaker 1: lose its capacity to get into a two way fight
Speaker 1: when it comes to preferences. I don't think so. It
Speaker 1: could be wrong, but again, the data is always our friend.
Speaker 1: Now forgive me for going back to the each way
Speaker 1: elbow thing, but there's another example of it tonight. In fact,
Speaker 1: this one has to do with a meeting of NATO. Now, NATO,
Speaker 1: of course is largely the European nations post World War two,
Speaker 1: getting together to try to have a universal Pact, where
Speaker 1: basically an attack on one is an attack on all,
Speaker 1: and it's a way of trying to prevent World War III.
Speaker 1: You will know how complicated this has been in relation
Speaker 1: to which nations pay, America ends up paying the most,
Speaker 1: and of course what's happened right now in Ukraine. But
Speaker 1: as you will have noticed, Airbus Elbow loves going to
Speaker 1: an international meeting. He has been to the last two
Speaker 1: NATO meetings. Why well, i'll let him say it.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you so much, Secretary General. It is good
Speaker 7: to be here at my second NATO summit.
Speaker 1: But he's not going to this year's NATO meeting. Why
Speaker 1: because we might be getting ready for an election. And
Speaker 1: definitely the airbus albow thing really hurts him. Hence the
Speaker 1: weak and rattled. Remember the two new planes that are
Speaker 1: coming and how they desperately tried to debunk that as
Speaker 1: any sort of a thing to attack the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: with yes ordered by the previous government, but not canceled
Speaker 1: by this government. This bloke, of course loves overseas traveler.
Speaker 1: It has been now baked into his personality about Airbus
Speaker 1: Albo and because he's afraid of the airbus elbow tag,
Speaker 1: he is not going to the third of these meetings.
Speaker 1: But what I find is that we've got to get
Speaker 1: a bit of each way elbow here. He was justifying
Speaker 1: on the seven thirty report tonight why he is not
Speaker 1: going to attend the meeting that he has already attended
Speaker 1: last year and the year before that that in part
Speaker 1: led to the each way Sorry to the airbus elbow tag.
Speaker 1: There's so many to remember.
Speaker 7: I'm not going because we're not members of NATO. Now,
Speaker 7: what I find extraordinary is that Peter Dutton who moved
Speaker 7: a motion in the Parliament last year saying that demanding
Speaker 7: that I not go to APEC where Australia is a member,
Speaker 7: where we are a founding member of APEC and needed
Speaker 7: to participate in that forum as opposed to NATO where
Speaker 7: for a lot of the NATO summit as an observer country,
Speaker 7: we're not there. We're not in the room with the
Speaker 7: NATO members when that takes place.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going because we're not a member. And
Speaker 1: even if you go, you're not really part of the
Speaker 1: real thing, kind of on the side of it. So
Speaker 1: why did you go last year? Why did you go
Speaker 1: the year before? You learned this lesson the first year,
Speaker 1: but you went back the second year. But because you
Speaker 1: know airbus albow is going to be pinned on you,
Speaker 1: you now say, oh, there's no real reason for us
Speaker 1: to go. We're not really members. Hence why we say
Speaker 1: each way albo ridiculous. Right now, a couple of things
Speaker 1: out of the States, huge massive news out of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which you may well have heard now the
Speaker 1: crazy and I'll get to that in a second. But
Speaker 1: essentially they have said that anything that a president does
Speaker 1: while they're the president that is called an official act,
Speaker 1: you cannot be held legally responsible for after you leave
Speaker 1: the presidency. Now, for the left ease, they view this
Speaker 1: exclusively through the world of Donald Trump, because of course
Speaker 1: there is the charges there are the cases, and he's
Speaker 1: the one who argued it. But think about this as
Speaker 1: a principle. Joe Biden was part of a drone strike
Speaker 1: that killed civilians. Oops, sorry, mistake. Because he's the president.
Speaker 1: Because it's an official act, there is no consequences once
Speaker 1: he leaves office. George W. Bush, he said there were
Speaker 1: weapons of mass destruction. They're clearly weren't, and how many
Speaker 1: people died, including his own soldiers. No consequences because once
Speaker 1: you leave office. That's it. Now, that is what is
Speaker 1: at heart of being debated in and around the January
Speaker 1: sixth stuff. Now we will learn collectively together because a
Speaker 1: court is now going to have to work out everything
Speaker 1: that the prosecution will allege is the proof of Trump
Speaker 1: doing the wrong thing, Whether those things are official acts
Speaker 1: just like dropping bombs, just like picking up the phone
Speaker 1: and trying to negotiate a piece of legislation, Whether those
Speaker 1: things are presidential acts. If so, nothing to see here,
Speaker 1: or their personal acts. The debate will of course be, well,
Speaker 1: if you are the president, then you are the president
Speaker 1: twenty four to seven, so all of it is an
Speaker 1: official act. I would suggest eating dinner and watching Telly.
Speaker 1: Probably not, but you get my point. But of course
Speaker 1: this is Trump soque some of the reaction from the
Speaker 1: lefties who now believe that this will result in the
Speaker 1: enemies of Donald Trump being lined up and taken out.
Speaker 10: This is a clarion call to every American. By the way,
Speaker 10: that debate is like thirty four felony counsel and.
Speaker 11: It does not matter anymore.
Speaker 10: All that matters is that you do not allow the
Speaker 10: person back into office who will use this power that
Speaker 10: he has been given by this court, this Imperial Court,
Speaker 10: to implement that agenda they wrote down and published because
Speaker 10: they know that no one will stop them except voters.
Speaker 1: Oh god again, I'm not a lawyer, don't play one
Speaker 1: on television. But this common sense here in the same way,
Speaker 1: and remember this is nonsense about oh now he's got
Speaker 1: the PA. If he wants to order Seal Team six
Speaker 1: to kill his enemies, then he'll be able to not
Speaker 1: face criminal prosecution. Well again, in the same way that
Speaker 1: the use of the military to make mistakes to kill
Speaker 1: civilians or send us off to wars that we all
Speaker 1: know we shouldn't have been part of. There's no consequences
Speaker 1: except one massive consequence, which is under the American system,
Speaker 1: you can be impeached and removed from office. So God forbid,
Speaker 1: the worst did happen where a president, any president, Trump
Speaker 1: as president did something like oil seeds, seem to seek
Speaker 1: to kill his political opponent. Even a Republican House and
Speaker 1: Senate would vote to get rid of him and bar
Speaker 1: him from office. Ever, again, it had happened almost as
Speaker 1: fast as whatever the reason for it was. And certainly
Speaker 1: if it's a divided government where it's a Democrat president,
Speaker 1: a Republican House and Senate, or the other way around,
Speaker 1: they do it like that, which brings me to old
Speaker 1: mate Joe Biden. So you often hear about opinion polls,
Speaker 1: and these opinion polls again, I want to try to
Speaker 1: explain they sort of break down in different ways. A
Speaker 1: lot of people will turn around and say, well, the
Speaker 1: national numbers between Trump and Biden, which assumes there's only
Speaker 1: two people running for president and there's one national election, Well,
Speaker 1: the most recent of those all show that Trump is
Speaker 1: up anywhere from one to four points, so all of
Speaker 1: it leaning in his favor. But as we've told you
Speaker 1: a thousand times before, it's not just two people running
Speaker 1: for president, it's five people who are on the ballot
Speaker 1: nationally so it's Trump, Biden, it's Kennedy, it's Cornell West,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of them. Well, these numbers grow where
Speaker 1: it goes from tie all the way to ten percent.
Speaker 1: And then again, it's not really about the national numbers,
Speaker 1: it's about the swing states. And the latest numbers from
Speaker 1: those swing states show that Wisconsin a tie, Michigan low margin,
Speaker 1: but then Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, at North Carolina, and Georgia
Speaker 1: all of them starting to run away. So Trump is
Speaker 1: in front. He's in front on the measure that he
Speaker 1: was never in front of in twenty twenty when it
Speaker 1: came to the two way race, and never in front
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty when it came to the swing states,
Speaker 1: which again brings us to old mate Joe and Joe
Speaker 1: ain't going to go, And despite the fact that Joe
Speaker 1: should go, Joe's family, because it's kind of the family business,
Speaker 1: are desperately going to try to hold him up no
Speaker 1: matter how bad that performance was. So, as we told
Speaker 1: you last night, one of the reasons why the family
Speaker 1: apparently think it all went wrong was because and I
Speaker 1: quote that CNN and their makeup staff had made him
Speaker 1: appear too pale, and this was three different people who
Speaker 1: said that the family believes the reason he had a
Speaker 1: terrible debate flubb was the word. By the way I
Speaker 1: was looking for just in case was because apparently, according
Speaker 1: to the footage, he was not sick and old, not
Speaker 1: dottery and losing it. He just had got the makeup
Speaker 1: that made him look too pale. Do we have that
Speaker 1: footage well for us if we can, where he apparently
Speaker 1: was again looking to pale during the debate. Well, I
Speaker 1: noticed something today in Biden's response to the court case
Speaker 1: in around presidential power. See if you notice a slight
Speaker 1: difference and perhaps a new makeup artist for the President
Speaker 1: of the United States, because he was kind of orange today.
Speaker 1: Did you not notice he went from white to orange?
Speaker 1: Is he trying to trick the voters of America that
Speaker 1: he's Donald Trump, that it's not a battle of two
Speaker 1: kind of older guys. It's a battle of two orange guys,
Speaker 1: and you should vote for that orange guy, not this
Speaker 1: orange guy. As for the actual serious news today in
Speaker 1: and around the Biden camp, the way they're going to
Speaker 1: try to stay in office is they're going to move
Speaker 1: up the meeting to maybe the middle of this month
Speaker 1: to actually formally lock him in as the Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1: So the family ain't going anywhere. The machine is going
Speaker 1: to be working out to lock him in, and apparently
Speaker 1: if he keeps adding orange makeup, you somehow will like
Speaker 1: the guy. Good luck, mister Biden. Quick break, lots to
Speaker 1: talk about, lots of debate. We'll get him to eight
Speaker 1: moment or two here on Pal Murray Life. Thanks for watching,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching. Joining us right now
Speaker 1: are two of our favorites. So I'm the wonderful James
Speaker 1: Ashby running for One Nation in the set of Keppel
Speaker 1: at the upcoming Queensland election. Back him in as hard
Speaker 1: as you possibly can. And the wonderful Linda Scott, who's
Speaker 1: in Canbra Because four hundred and twenty eight thousand mayors
Speaker 1: are currently in Canberra for the Local government conference. What
Speaker 1: was first on the list international affairs, the Trump presidency
Speaker 1: or rates roads? And what did we get to, Linda?
Speaker 1: Because a lot of people are named.
Speaker 4: Clime change, Paul Mury, but look we do have. We
Speaker 4: got twelve hundred men's and councils here in Camber this week.
Speaker 4: It's huge, and most of them are here to talk
Speaker 4: about their own financial sustainability.
Speaker 12: We've seen the cost and.
Speaker 4: Outlays of local government's flat line, while the expenditure of
Speaker 4: state and federal governments has gone up.
Speaker 12: Across the board. We're doing much more with less.
Speaker 4: We're very efficient, but we are not financially sustainable. We
Speaker 4: do need a bit more funding from the commwealth.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to the poll. Fifty four percent
Speaker 1: of people saying Australia is heading in the wrong direction
Speaker 1: Prime Minister disapproval. We can get into that, James, I'm
Speaker 1: deliberately going to make this an open question, but why
Speaker 1: do you think fifty four percent of Australians now think
Speaker 1: we're headed in the wrong direction? A major change even
Speaker 1: in the past eighteen months.
Speaker 5: Well, the simple fact is that people are seeing less
Speaker 5: bang for buck.
Speaker 11: They appear to be doing it tougher.
Speaker 5: There's less money in their accounts at the end of
Speaker 5: the week, there's no savings, there's no money left over.
Speaker 11: The kids are offering, the mums and dads.
Speaker 5: Are certainly cutting back on a raft of different measures.
Speaker 5: And if you actually click on the female contingent of
Speaker 5: those surveyed, they have a higher dislike what's going on
Speaker 5: in society right now. So it's the women. The bloke's
Speaker 5: probably a little less likely to feel the pinch because
Speaker 5: they're probably not handling the pay packets if there are.
Speaker 5: Anything like my mum, she used to take dad's paypacket
Speaker 5: at the end of the week and she managed it,
Speaker 5: so she knew the full effects of.
Speaker 11: What was happening to the household budget. So that's why.
Speaker 5: People don't have much confidence in the economy and certainly
Speaker 5: in this labor government.
Speaker 1: Lud, why do you think fifty four percent of the
Speaker 1: country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction?
Speaker 4: Look, it's a significant figure, but the reality is, of
Speaker 4: course people have not yet seen most of the omnisi's
Speaker 4: cost of living measures which kick in, of course this week.
Speaker 4: Every Australian who's working gets a pay gets a tax cut,
Speaker 4: increased superannuation in increased paper and to leave. There's so
Speaker 4: many different cost of living measures that kick in with
Speaker 4: a new financial year, which of course has only begun
Speaker 4: this year. I do want to say that it also
Speaker 4: of course matters which pole you look at.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 12: Of course, a recent.
Speaker 4: Poles from the Center of Australians Watch Out, seventy three
Speaker 4: percent of Australians think moving towards renewables is the right direction.
Speaker 4: So a huge majority of Australians when you poll across
Speaker 4: the board don't think that moving towards twelve nuclear power plants.
Speaker 12: Is the right direction.
Speaker 4: You've got to look at all these poles across time
Speaker 4: and across the issues.
Speaker 1: I think it's about I think too across the floor.
Speaker 11: Lender.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but she's not going to I think that. I
Speaker 1: truly think that it's the inflation fear. Right. When the
Speaker 1: inflation number came out last week, that the verbal bomb
Speaker 1: of that right, and it goes into it and it's
Speaker 1: one of those things. There are these moments when James,
Speaker 1: you know this right, which is as does Linda. But
Speaker 1: there are these moments where there's a certain type of
Speaker 1: news that we'll get all fired up about, the zeven
Speaker 1: type of news at the six pm news or fire back,
Speaker 1: certain type of news and papers will be into. And
Speaker 1: then there's the type of news that makes it to
Speaker 1: FM radio right or TikTok or social media. And the
Speaker 1: inflation figure last week made it to that level. It
Speaker 1: went far wide and loud because it helps inform the
Speaker 1: potential of the rate rise. Again, it's not me making
Speaker 1: it up. It's not me cheering it on. It's the
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank saying that they didn't even talk about cutting.
Speaker 1: Instead they were right on the verge of lifting. The
Speaker 1: information going back up pushes them back in that direction.
Speaker 1: I think if there is an interest rate rise, and
Speaker 1: obviously I hope not, I don't want to pay any
Speaker 1: more than anyone else does. But if it does, that's
Speaker 1: the one that the government's going to have to own,
Speaker 1: and they're going to own it hard. And I think
Speaker 1: the politics, as it did positively and negatively for Howard,
Speaker 1: as it did positively and negatively for Rudd, it's going
Speaker 1: to turn on elbow. And this meeting in August is
Speaker 1: the stakes couldn't be higher, James, the politics behind it massive.
Speaker 5: Well, you've only got to talk to businesses like I
Speaker 5: have this week. I've spoken to a couple of restaurants
Speaker 5: change their menu list to actually make cheaper menu items.
Speaker 11: You may not get as much on your.
Speaker 5: Plate, but at the end of the day, they're making
Speaker 5: it more affordable for people to go and eat out.
Speaker 5: And if you go and talk to the blake behind
Speaker 5: the counter of the butcher, he's telling you red meat
Speaker 5: cells are way down because people cannot afford the red
Speaker 5: meat at the moment because costs of livings just through
Speaker 5: the roof. More sausages, more chicken, more cheaper cuts. That's
Speaker 5: what people are going for to be able to sustain
Speaker 5: the family. It's hard now. Cole's used to run that
Speaker 5: ad feeder family for ten bucks. Good luck, you can't
Speaker 5: do it these days. And that's the pinch that people
Speaker 5: are feeling. So no matter which way you carve this up,
Speaker 5: it can be interest rates, can be inflation. Whichever way
Speaker 5: people are feeling the pinch, they just know at the
Speaker 5: end of the week they don't have as much to
Speaker 5: play with in their bank balances.
Speaker 1: Linda, let's talk about the Greens, because you know, my
Speaker 1: world view is that I think they're the most dangerous
Speaker 1: thing on the ballot. But I'm also aware that they
Speaker 1: have a stubborn number of supporters. It sits somewhere around ten,
Speaker 1: it goes up to twelve in a poll that goes
Speaker 1: up to fourteen. But there is a significant number of
Speaker 1: people who keep wanting to park their vote with the Greens. Right,
Speaker 1: you're a progressive member of the Labor Party, so you
Speaker 1: prefer them to vote for you than vote for the Greens.
Speaker 1: But how does nothing ever happen to their support when
Speaker 1: their senators come out like Jordan Steel John did and
Speaker 1: basically back in the use of graffiti on a war
Speaker 1: memorial to make a point about a war on the
Speaker 1: other side of the world, Like, how is there no
Speaker 1: line that ever seems to hurt them? Why do you
Speaker 1: think the criticism of them is seemingly so impenetrable. I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about mine, I'm just talking about the general
Speaker 1: Australian public that there are people who go, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm going to keep backing in these people who say
Speaker 1: and do stupid things all the time.
Speaker 12: Well, look, it is not new news, is it.
Speaker 4: That the Green have taken some pretty nutty public policy positions,
Speaker 4: And I do agree with you that this is one
Speaker 4: of them. Obviously, As you know, I tried to get
Speaker 4: my own counsel the City of Sydney to remove hate
Speaker 4: speech graffiti in an hour. Unfortunately Clover Wore voted that down.
Speaker 4: But you know, we do believe in removing graffiti. But
Speaker 4: I've had Greens on my own council say that we
Speaker 4: should just let graffiti run wild wherever it is, that
Speaker 4: it's just such a great feature of our cities, something
Speaker 4: that I certainly don't agree with.
Speaker 12: So look, I mean, I think.
Speaker 4: It is true though, and your right to identify that
Speaker 4: there are a group of rusted on Greens voters and
Speaker 4: that is something that's emerged in our lifetimes. They're pretty
Speaker 4: stuck on the Greens. They're not going to shift their vote.
Speaker 4: For many young Australians, it is also the case that
Speaker 4: they've been Green's voters for much of their voting life,
Speaker 4: for all of their voting life. And as we see
Speaker 4: that generational slide change through Australia, as we start to
Speaker 4: see younger voters becoming middle aged voters, what will happen.
Speaker 12: I think it's a really interesting question.
Speaker 4: The big problem, though, I want to counter to that, though, Paul,
Speaker 4: is the Liberals. The Liberals are not able to pick
Speaker 4: up these young voters. And so what we are seeing
Speaker 4: is as young voters start to vote progressive, unlike other
Speaker 4: demographics in the past, they're sticking with their progressive vote,
Speaker 4: be that Labor or Greens. And that is a real
Speaker 4: demographic problem for the conservative side of politics that they
Speaker 4: have not yet confronted.
Speaker 7: The rule.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, you know, James, obviously the raw numbers.
Speaker 1: If you put say the Liberal Party of the UAP
Speaker 1: one nation all kind of in the same world, that
Speaker 1: number is bigger than the left number in Australia. It's
Speaker 1: the preference discipline in part in and around the Greens
Speaker 1: that gets us there. I've got to go to a
Speaker 1: break in a second, but just a quick response to
Speaker 1: this here James, about why they are seemingly so impenetrable,
Speaker 1: because even you know the stories and criticism of them,
Speaker 1: and this senator today about the graffiti that was on
Speaker 1: the ABC, but it just bounces off like I now right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, But the problem is, Linda, you say vote for
Speaker 5: Labor first, but the problem is you're saying vote Greens second.
Speaker 11: That's Labour's mantra.
Speaker 5: If you know you do preference arrangements with the Greens
Speaker 5: and you let them off lightly, you let them get
Speaker 5: away with everything.
Speaker 11: And that is the problem that we face today.
Speaker 5: The other big thing I'll recognize is the Greens play
Speaker 5: a very good game when it comes to door knocking.
Speaker 5: If you have a look at seats around Brisbane, they're
Speaker 5: knocking on doors left, right and center.
Speaker 11: And I've seen young kids answer the doors.
Speaker 5: Friends of mine who've got eighteen year olds just about
Speaker 5: the vote and the eight ends year old say.
Speaker 11: I'm going to vote for them. They seem really nice
Speaker 11: people when they come to the door. Well it helps
Speaker 11: when a really good door knocking game.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it also helps win. You know, let's get the
Speaker 1: sixteen year old vote and let's legalize pot. I mean
Speaker 1: all of that as part of the issue too. Thank
Speaker 1: you mate, appreciate it right quick breakback when more less
Speaker 1: to talk about it, including amazing number came out today
Speaker 1: about how many people are relying upon inheritance when it
Speaker 1: comes to the financial future, and in my view a
Speaker 1: strange number about how many would prefer it before someone dies.
Speaker 1: Did you know that about about a third of Australians
Speaker 1: doing financial calculations that the inheritance they will receive from
Speaker 1: their parents, from their grandparents is part of their financial
Speaker 1: plan and about forty percent of people would prefer the
Speaker 1: inheritance to come as a gift before they passed on,
Speaker 1: as opposed to when they didn't need the money anymore
Speaker 1: post life. Let's talk about it with Linda Scott from
Speaker 1: the Labor Party and none other than James Ashbeet from
Speaker 1: One Nation. James, again to you on this right. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make It doesn't surprise me at all that that
Speaker 1: many people it's part of their plan. That's fine, But
Speaker 1: I am a little bit wobbly on forty percent of
Speaker 1: people saying, hey, can you give it to me before?
Speaker 11: It might be good for your kids you've got that
Speaker 11: bloody mansion in Sydney, but for.
Speaker 1: My mega, mega, incredible, my mum and dad.
Speaker 5: I've said that my folks spend it, enjoy life. I
Speaker 5: don't expect that anything out so with you. They've worked
Speaker 5: hard for everything they've got. I just want to see
Speaker 5: them enjoy life. For what they've got left. They've probably
Speaker 5: got another good twenty twenty five years left in them.
Speaker 11: I hope they spend a whole lot of it, leave
Speaker 11: us nothing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm completely the same, right like I want you
Speaker 1: to spend it on your care, take care. Look look again,
Speaker 1: I understand the memories. Yeah, I mean I get it, Linda.
Speaker 1: Where you know, if there are people who understand it,
Speaker 1: you know what the financial impact. I get all of that, right,
Speaker 1: So please don't write me letters. But the idea that
Speaker 1: forty percent of people would like it up front, I
Speaker 1: don't know that very It's a bit squaremy for me,
Speaker 1: I don't like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, look, I think it is important that across the
Speaker 4: world intergenerational wealthy inequality is growing and governments should have
Speaker 4: a think about how best to address that.
Speaker 12: Or you know this, but I should be you.
Speaker 1: Are retiring to the policies death taxes.
Speaker 12: No, that's not what I'm proposing. I should disclose.
Speaker 4: Of course, as you know, I'm the chair of an
Speaker 4: industry superannuation fund. People should go and talk to their
Speaker 4: superannuation funds about this issue and to see whether they
Speaker 4: both have enough, but also how to spend it, how
Speaker 4: to make sure that as James has rightly pointed out,
Speaker 4: people are spending in their retirement on all those beautiful
Speaker 4: things if you want to, because of the magic of
Speaker 4: compound interest, like having holidays and spending time with their families.
Speaker 4: So people should go and get some advice, talk to
Speaker 4: your superannuation fund and make a good financial plan. But
Speaker 4: so often when you talk to people about this, they're
Speaker 4: just anxious and they hold on to money and don't
Speaker 4: spend it on doing lovely things in retirement, when in
Speaker 4: fact they're really financially secure and they're able to do that.
Speaker 12: So I think getting advice is a good way forward.
Speaker 1: Well, as I used to say, who's that person on television?
Speaker 1: It didn't matter what it was. There was to say
Speaker 1: shop around. Shop around was constantly at six p shop around.
Speaker 1: Now that's the easiest job in news that person. Thank you, guys,
Speaker 1: I do appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Love you.
Speaker 1: We'll see all again very soon. Now. If you would
Speaker 1: like to get in touch at anytime, you know what
Speaker 1: to do. Paul at sky News dot com. Do au
Speaker 1: is the way you can get in touch via email
Speaker 1: if you've got story ideas, all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Things we'd like to do on the show. Well, maybe
Speaker 1: you think the investigations team or anything else will try
Speaker 1: and push you in the right direction to help you
Speaker 1: out wherever you happen to be. Well, see you again
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. Plenty to talk about on the show. The
Speaker 1: American thing is fascinating. I love that Biden. You know,
Speaker 1: firstly the orange makeup. That's hilarious. But secondly, really watch
Speaker 1: in the next twenty four hours how the Biden machine
Speaker 1: is going to kind of try and brick itself in
Speaker 1: to make sure that no one can come at them
Speaker 1: to the extent now where they're now talking about the
Speaker 1: convention which is normally where they announce and vote and
Speaker 1: make him the candidate. Do it on Zoom a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks early wait, watch and see unbelievable Here comes
Speaker 1: to late debate. We'll see you again tomorrow night for
Speaker 1: more Sky news Cot up