Speaker 1: Line Sharry Well, good evening. I'm James Macpherson filling in
Speaker 1: for Sharry Marks And Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
Speaker 1: was asked about prices at a sausage sizzle in Sydney.
Speaker 1: Triple M radio host Mick malloy told the PM that
Speaker 1: Vivid Festival was charging Australian's eight dollars fifty for a
Speaker 1: sausage in bread, and he wondered what Albanese he thought.
Speaker 2: The PM replied immediately that it was and I quote
Speaker 2: rubbish and UnAustralian. Absolutely have listened.
Speaker 3: Eight dollars fifty for a sausage sizzle at Vivid.
Speaker 4: Can you do something about that?
Speaker 5: No, that's just rubbish, isn't it.
Speaker 4: It's un Australian.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you it is Australian absolutely, So there you go.
Speaker 1: The PM can take a stand when he wants to.
Speaker 1: It's just a pity that he reserves his strongest condemnation
Speaker 1: for the price of a snag in bread. If only
Speaker 1: the Chinese premiere was a sausage. Whilst standing firm on
Speaker 1: the rights of Australians to access affordable sausage sizzles, the
Speaker 1: PM was rather less firm on the rights of Australian
Speaker 1: journalists to not be physically intimidated, harassed or blocked on
Speaker 1: home soil by foreign agents. When asked today what he
Speaker 1: thought about the way in which Chinese officials had treated
Speaker 1: Australian journalists Chang Lay during a press conference in Canbury yesterday,
Speaker 1: the PM had only this to say, we.
Speaker 5: Have different values in different political systems, and we saw
Speaker 5: some of that yesterday. I've got to say with the
Speaker 5: attempt that was pretty ham fisted to block Cheng Lay,
Speaker 5: the Australian journalists who were able to get brought home
Speaker 5: at the press conference, and there was a clumsy attempt
Speaker 5: really to just stand in between where the cameras were
Speaker 5: and Chang Lay.
Speaker 1: Ham fisted and clumsy. It's an interesting choice of words
Speaker 1: to describe an attempt by Chinese officials to bully an
Speaker 1: Australian journalist. You might have expected our national leader to
Speaker 1: describe the behavior as unacceptable or wrong.
Speaker 2: But you don't need to.
Speaker 1: Ask the PM about a sausage sizzle to elicit that
Speaker 1: kind of moral clarity, or rather, you would need to
Speaker 1: ask him about a sausage sizzle to describe the treatment
Speaker 1: dished out to Chang lay as clumsy is to imply
Speaker 1: there wasn't anything inherently wrong with what the Chinese did.
Speaker 1: It was just the way in which the Chinese did it,
Speaker 1: those clumsy authoritarians. If only they exercised their totalitarian instincts
Speaker 1: on our people in a more graceful and skillful way.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister dismissed the incident as an example of
Speaker 1: and they quote different values and different political systems, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Chinese premiere comes from a different political system. It's
Speaker 1: an authoritarian dictatorship in which political opponents are harassed, harangued,
Speaker 1: and in some cases jailed for long periods without trial.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's exactly what happened to Chang Li, who
Speaker 1: has released less than a year ago after spending more
Speaker 1: than three years in a dank prison cell on trumped
Speaker 1: up chargers. For Chinese officials to treat any Australian journalists
Speaker 1: the way they did yesterday is unacceptable.
Speaker 2: But to do it to a woman who'd been.
Speaker 1: A pawn in Beijing's hostage diplomacy as recently as last
Speaker 1: October is not clumsy or ham fisted.
Speaker 2: It's outrageous. Later in the day, the Prime Minister told
Speaker 2: ABC Radio.
Speaker 5: Our officials have followed up with the Chinese embassy to
Speaker 5: express our concern.
Speaker 1: Great so our people have told their people that their
Speaker 1: people ought to be less clumsy when harassing our people.
Speaker 1: Oh and we hope this doesn't mean we won't be
Speaker 1: getting our pandas. Describing the treatment of chang Lay as
Speaker 1: clumsy reminds me of Albanesi describing the treatment of our
Speaker 1: servicemen as unprofessional after a Chinese jet led off flares
Speaker 1: in front of one of our.
Speaker 2: Helicopters last month.
Speaker 1: What is unprofessional in those circumstances, even mean it was
Speaker 1: an amateurish attempt.
Speaker 2: At endangering our forces.
Speaker 1: Chinese are going to down one of our helicopters over
Speaker 1: the Yelloca, they should do it properly, you know, in
Speaker 1: a professional manner. Last November, when a Chinese warship used
Speaker 1: sonar to injure Australian Navy divers in International wars off
Speaker 1: the coast of Japan, Albanzi described the incident as regrettable,
Speaker 1: which begs the question regrettable for whom? For the Chinese,
Speaker 1: hardly for the Australian Navy diver who was injured, undoubtedly
Speaker 1: for Anthony Albanesi well most certainly he seemed then as
Speaker 1: he does now to highly regret being put in a
Speaker 1: position where he has to defend Australians and Australian interests
Speaker 1: from the Chinese Commonist Party. Little wonder Beijing dubbed him
Speaker 1: their handsome boy. It's not the Chinese who are clumsy
Speaker 1: or unprofessional, and it's certainly not the Chinese who have regret.
Speaker 1: They continue to push our buttons while boasting about how
Speaker 1: mature and respectful the relationship is. What's regrettable is that
Speaker 1: the Albanese government seems so intent on normalizing relations with China,
Speaker 1: prepared to normalize abuse from China. As my grandfather would
Speaker 1: say if he was still alive, Albanezi is one silly sausage.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Coming up on the program tonight, the government's early learning
Speaker 1: framework that's turning out toddlers into activists. I'll ask whether
Speaker 1: parents even know what's going on at their child's daycare.
Speaker 1: Interest rates are on whole, but inflation is here to stay.
Speaker 1: Plus the new South Wales budget continues a trend of
Speaker 1: rising state debt. I'll have the latest analysis from leading
Speaker 1: economist Warren Hogan and from the rise of Nigel Faraja's
Speaker 1: Reform Party to the death of the Tories and the
Speaker 1: prospect of a man's summer calling slippery and unprincipled becoming PM.
Speaker 1: The UK election is shaking up. Will cross live to
Speaker 1: London for the latest, but first let's go to my
Speaker 1: panel former Speaker of the House Bromwin Bishop and National's.
Speaker 2: MP Keith Pitt.
Speaker 1: Welcome to you both, Thanks for joining me. I want
Speaker 1: to start with you, Bronwan. What's your reaction to Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Anthony Albernese's response to the way that Changli was
Speaker 1: treated Changli rather was treated yesterday.
Speaker 6: Look, I think the Chinese would be very satisfied. I
Speaker 6: think the Chinese when the Prime Minister said different values
Speaker 6: and different ways, that's putting it mildly. We are a
Speaker 6: democracy there at totalitarian state. They see Australia as a
Speaker 6: vassal state to pay tribute and they would be very
Speaker 6: satisfied with the way in which Albanesi responded. That means
Speaker 6: that the Chinese Communist Party have got Albanese in his
Speaker 6: government just where they want them, and that in turn
Speaker 6: raises the question of Communist Party of China interference in
Speaker 6: our coming election, whether or not those people who turned
Speaker 6: out to welcome the Premier. Are they going to be
Speaker 6: subject to getting how to vote information in the coming election?
Speaker 6: I think it is a very very series condition that
Speaker 6: we have seen. The weakness of the Prime Minister is
Speaker 6: inability to stand up for Australia and showing that he
Speaker 6: will do anything to appeace Chinese approval. It just is
Speaker 6: a very worrying time.
Speaker 1: Keith, what do you think, how should the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: have responded to the events of yesterday. I mean it
Speaker 1: was quite extraordinary that an Australian journalist will be treated
Speaker 1: in that fashion, but even more extraordinary for the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister to not come out immediately and condemn it.
Speaker 7: Well, with apologies to the Simpsons. Here in Australia, we
Speaker 7: don't tolerate that sort of crap. That's the reality. And
Speaker 7: unfortunately we have a federal Labor government who appear very
Speaker 7: weak on this. They consider it to be reckless, awkward, uncomfortable.
Speaker 7: But here in Australia we support freedom of the press,
Speaker 7: freedom of expression, we support a democracy, a separation of
Speaker 7: powers and that is something that's been defended in this
Speaker 7: nation for decades and willing to the future. I think
Speaker 7: it's an incredibly important thing that we must maintain.
Speaker 2: One little slip, one little.
Speaker 7: Opening, one little opportunity for communism, socialism to take an
Speaker 7: even greater hold in this country I think will be
Speaker 7: detrimental to.
Speaker 2: All of us into the future.
Speaker 7: And it starts with this sort of nonsense. And the
Speaker 7: Federal Labor government shouldn't have allowed it. Their response should
Speaker 7: have been stronger, and they've still got the opportunity to
Speaker 7: fix it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the reaction, which has been poor, to
Speaker 1: say the least, only in Bolden's China to continue to
Speaker 1: treat us in that fashion because they know there will
Speaker 1: be no consequences.
Speaker 2: Let's move on.
Speaker 1: In somewhat non shocking news, a Labour senator called for
Speaker 1: the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state. A Fatima Payman,
Speaker 1: well known for her history of anti Israel sentiment, wrote
Speaker 1: an opinion piece published in El Jazeera. She said quote
Speaker 1: by recognizing a Palestinian state, Australia would be affirming its
Speaker 1: commitment to this universal principle that's of peace and frustrate
Speaker 1: Israel's bid to crush such aspirations of the Palestinians. This
Speaker 1: same Labor senator used the phrase from the River to
Speaker 1: the Sea, which Anthony Alberzi then had to come out
Speaker 1: and say was unacceptable to use that phrase.
Speaker 2: It was a call for violence.
Speaker 1: She pretty much ignored the Prime Minister and now she's
Speaker 1: continuing ignoring labor policy, calling for immediate recognition of Palestine.
Speaker 1: What should Anthony ALBERESI do about.
Speaker 6: This senator, Well, they have to consider her position obviously
Speaker 6: next time she's up for reelection, that's for sure. But
Speaker 6: I think he has to take a much more positive
Speaker 6: stance that says you are there to represent the interests
Speaker 6: of Australia and to serve the people you are elected
Speaker 6: for your state that you come from, not to pursue
Speaker 6: this absolute falsehood of genocide being perpetrated by the Israelis.
Speaker 6: Genocide means this. In nineteen thirty nine, there were sixteen
Speaker 6: million Jews in the world in nineteen In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 6: there are still sixteen million Jews in the world because
Speaker 6: six million were murdered. That is genocide, not a war
Speaker 6: where Gaza invader or Haas invaded Israel and slaughtered twelve
Speaker 6: hundred people and took hostages. I've not heard a word
Speaker 6: from this woman about hostages or about the mutilation of women.
Speaker 6: She comes from a country where she should really appreciate
Speaker 6: the freedom that she has in this country. And when
Speaker 6: she calls for from the River to the Sea, that
Speaker 6: is calling for more genocide and the murder of Jews.
Speaker 6: There's no two ways about it. That's exactly what it means.
Speaker 6: And she has to be reprimanded by the Prime Minister,
Speaker 6: but of course he'll just show weakness again.
Speaker 2: Well, Keith.
Speaker 1: Both the Coalition and the Labor Government slammed the Greens
Speaker 1: the other week for stirring up hatred and creating social division.
Speaker 1: But here the Labor Party have got one of their
Speaker 1: own senators. I mean, in this article for El Jazeira,
Speaker 1: she praised the student activists who have set up encampments
Speaker 1: in universities across the country to the point where Jewish
Speaker 1: students have been afraid to go to class. So it's
Speaker 1: a bit rich for the Labor Party to criticize the
Speaker 1: Greens while they've got their own senator effectively doing the
Speaker 1: same kinds of things.
Speaker 7: Well, that's exactly right. I'm on a jointstanding committee with Fatimur.
Speaker 7: I got to tell you much. She's smart and articulate,
Speaker 7: and on this issue, I disagree with her.
Speaker 2: Completely and wholeheartedly.
Speaker 7: But in the Labor Party they don't reward disobedience.
Speaker 8: Brody knows where I'm going here.
Speaker 7: They will crack down on this like a ton of
Speaker 7: bricks have hit the poor senator from Western Australia because
Speaker 7: her comments today, she's effectively said that the Prime Minister
Speaker 7: is spineless, has not held and not continuing to hold
Speaker 7: a long held position that he had before he became
Speaker 7: Prime Minister, before Labor came into government. I mean, that's
Speaker 7: quite an extraordinary statement from a sitting senator in WA
Speaker 7: in the Labor Party, and I don't think the unions
Speaker 7: will let this continue. So I feel a bit sorry
Speaker 7: for Fatima. Her comments are wrong. I disagree with them completely,
Speaker 7: but in terms of the politics, I know what's coming
Speaker 7: for and the Union basket will take her out.
Speaker 2: I think that's the most likely outcome. Yeah, well, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure there'll be too for it at all. I
Speaker 2: thought you might say.
Speaker 6: I think she needs to be where she needs to
Speaker 6: face the reckoning because what she's doing is just so wrong.
Speaker 6: I mean, if anyone who analyzes the history of what
Speaker 6: has happened in the Middle East in this area will
Speaker 6: remember that in nineteen forty one, the Grand Mufti of
Speaker 6: Jerusalem went to Hitler and said, please come and help
Speaker 6: us kill the Jews in Israel, and Hitler said he
Speaker 6: would do that food finished killing them in Europe because
Speaker 6: the Grand Rouffi of Jerusalem wanted to be the leader
Speaker 6: of a new Palestinian state.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you do what Fatima is calling for,
Speaker 1: if you recognize Palestine immediately effectively, you're recognizing a terrorist
Speaker 1: state because of course it's still run by Hamas. Let's
Speaker 1: move on to more local politics. Simonhomes of Courts Climate
Speaker 1: two hundred, group that bankrolled the Teal independent wave at
Speaker 1: the last election, now has set its sites on unseating
Speaker 1: more Coalition MPs. The group has identified at least nine
Speaker 1: seats it will target at the next election, all of
Speaker 1: which were won by the Coalition in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: Bromwin the Liberal Party may be vulnerable, but of course
Speaker 1: last time the Teals won seats Scott Morrison was in office.
Speaker 1: This time with a labor government and the cost of
Speaker 1: living pressures etc. Will the Teals have quite the same
Speaker 1: appeal with their luxury beliefs.
Speaker 6: Well, I think there are two points to make. First
Speaker 6: of all, I don't think the same amount of money
Speaker 6: is going to be available in the seat of mckella.
Speaker 6: The Teal spent one point two million dollars. There is
Speaker 6: already one of their biggest donors who gave half a
Speaker 6: million dollars last time won't be giving it this time.
Speaker 6: So I think it's a different ballgame. The second thing
Speaker 6: is they stood on a platform of integrity and climate
Speaker 6: change integrity. We've seen none on the climate change issue.
Speaker 6: Where are the Teals campaigning about these monstrous proposals to
Speaker 6: put these huge windmills out into the sea and interrupt
Speaker 6: the whales transgression movements and so on.
Speaker 2: Where is their integritcy?
Speaker 1: You've got to destroy the environment to save it, don't
Speaker 1: you know that?
Speaker 8: Well?
Speaker 6: There, of course was the same argument with the Vietnam War.
Speaker 6: Wasn't that as destroy the village to save it?
Speaker 2: So you don't think the Teals will be as successful
Speaker 2: next time?
Speaker 1: I don't all right, Keith the Nationals leader David Little Proud,
Speaker 1: he's just gathing attack against voters in Teal seats, accusing
Speaker 1: them of being out of touch with the struggles of
Speaker 1: regional Australians have listened to what he.
Speaker 9: Said, I just say to those viewers that are from
Speaker 9: till seats, just take a little visit out west and
Speaker 9: understand the burden you're asking us to bear. For you
Speaker 9: to put your head on a pillow at night and
Speaker 9: think that you've saved the world, you've actually destroyed much
Speaker 9: of the environment where I live.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about the frustration that's being held being
Speaker 1: felt by people in regional areas. Obviously, David Little Proud,
Speaker 1: he seemed quite emotional actually speaking out about that today.
Speaker 1: Just how annoying is it for people in regional areas
Speaker 1: to I guess they feel carry the burden of the
Speaker 1: renewable project.
Speaker 7: Well, every day Australians can't afford more teals. That's the
Speaker 7: reality that they can't afford to pay more for electricity,
Speaker 7: they can't afford to pay more for the car they
Speaker 7: kind of paid Ford to pay more for food and
Speaker 7: rent and housing. And this is the reality of Labour's
Speaker 7: policies which the Teals are supporting and.
Speaker 2: Out in regional areas.
Speaker 7: I mean, this is the practical, this is the front line,
Speaker 7: this is the common sense, and what labor is doing
Speaker 7: is millions of hectares of solar panels, for example, which
Speaker 7: need to be replaced every twenty years. Tens of thousands
Speaker 7: of wind turbines in regional areas, they don't want them.
Speaker 7: Just look at the blow up you've got now for
Speaker 7: or shore that's proposed for the south coast. Well, how
Speaker 7: about we put them in the harbor. I mean Sydney
Speaker 7: Harbor's a great spot. It's pretty windy there. I'm sure
Speaker 7: bron would like to look out the window and see
Speaker 7: a whopping, great big wind turbine that's higher than the
Speaker 7: Harbor bridge. It'll attract tourisms for sure. I mean, I'm
Speaker 7: sure that the Japanese and the Chinese will fly from
Speaker 7: all over the world to come and see a harbor
Speaker 7: full of wind turbines.
Speaker 1: Well either, Keith, I know you've been sarcastic, but I
Speaker 1: remember Anastasia Palage seriously proposing that a wind farm in
Speaker 1: Queensland would become a major tourist attraction. People get on
Speaker 1: buses and drive out to look at these turbines.
Speaker 2: I remember seriously saying that, well they.
Speaker 7: Might come and look at them when they're on fire.
Speaker 7: That would be something to see, which potentially can happen.
Speaker 7: But for the regions the numbers are just extraordinary, and
Speaker 7: I think there's a lot of there's challenges for us
Speaker 7: to try and get across to people just how big
Speaker 7: an area this is. I mean, we've seen reports for
Speaker 7: Gladston hydrogen, for example, needing two and a half thousand
Speaker 7: square kilometers of solar panels just for Gladston hydrogen. It's
Speaker 7: really we're going to level two and a half thousand
Speaker 7: square kilometers and you really think you'll get an environmental
Speaker 7: approval for that, and you'll get it through an indigenous
Speaker 7: land use agreement and you'll pay royalties through native title
Speaker 7: and that'll be all tickety boo. I don't think so.
Speaker 7: So if we accept that this stuff's just not going
Speaker 7: to happen, well you need another solution, and nuclear is
Speaker 7: that baseload net zero solution. It's got no emissions, it
Speaker 7: works one hundred percent of the time, and we just
Speaker 7: need people to actually have a conversation about it so
Speaker 7: that we can get some information to them that's factual
Speaker 7: and it's not just based on feelings, because the proposal
Speaker 7: from Labor is all about a feeling.
Speaker 2: Keith, we're going to go to a break in a moment.
Speaker 1: First want to ask you tomorrow morning there's a Coalition
Speaker 1: party room meeting to talk about the plans for nuclear
Speaker 1: What sort of announcement will we get from the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister tomorrow? Will we find out the locations of proposed
Speaker 1: reactors tomorrow?
Speaker 2: Is that the plan?
Speaker 7: Oh, I'd love to give you an insight, but A
Speaker 7: I don't know, and be if I did, I wouldn't
Speaker 7: tell you. Unfortunately, you're right out of luck. But I'd
Speaker 7: imagine that'll be plenty to say. There's lots going on
Speaker 7: tonight that I'm aware of, and you know you've obviously
Speaker 7: been informed a better potential meeting tomorrow. I would assume
Speaker 7: that would be the discussion. But we've got two weeks
Speaker 7: of parliamentary sittings coming up as well, and I'm sure
Speaker 7: colleagues will have plenty to say. It'll be a good discussion.
Speaker 6: Well, the important thing is that there's a plan out
Speaker 6: there which is an alternate, and I think people will
Speaker 6: see it. As I said, the two spent an enormous
Speaker 6: amount of money, reportedly in mcallo one point two million.
Speaker 6: But the point is this, there is now a real
Speaker 6: argument going on which was absent in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6: There was a real alternative to encompass all Astra content.
Speaker 1: Well, indeed, there'll definitely be a contest at the next election, Keith,
Speaker 1: That's for sure, Bronwin, Bishop Keith Pitt.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much to both of you.
Speaker 1: We'll stick around because coming up we'll talk more about
Speaker 1: why the PM must stand up to China's bully boy tactics.
Speaker 2: Plus rates on hold.
Speaker 1: But the RBA isn't happy about big spending federal and
Speaker 1: state governments.
Speaker 2: All of that in a moment.
Speaker 1: Well I spoke at the top of the program about
Speaker 1: the disgraceful stunt pulled by Chinese officials at Parliament House yesterday,
Speaker 1: a stunt aimed at one of my Sky News colleagues,
Speaker 1: Chang Lai. Now, of course, after being questioned about it yesterday,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister finally condemned the move today, saying Australia
Speaker 1: had lodged a complaint with the Chinese embassy over the incident.
Speaker 1: Just to remind you, here's the PM.
Speaker 5: We have different values in different political systems and we
Speaker 5: saw some of that yesterday. I've got to say with
Speaker 5: the attempt that was pretty ham fisted to block Chang Lai.
Speaker 5: The Australian journalists who were able to get brought home
Speaker 5: at the press conference, and there was a clumsy attempt
Speaker 5: really to just stand in between where the cameras were
Speaker 5: and Chang Lai and the Australian officials did the right
Speaker 5: thing and intervened.
Speaker 1: Opposition Lyder Peter Dutton says the PM's response is not
Speaker 1: good enough.
Speaker 10: I do want to point out that the Prime Minister
Speaker 10: clearly misled the Australian people yesterday when he got up
Speaker 10: and did a press conference and said that he heard
Speaker 10: nothing of it. He didn't understand what the question was
Speaker 10: or didn't know anything about it. It's completely inconceivable and
Speaker 10: the Prime Minister needs to stand up today to explain
Speaker 10: the discrepancy, explain why he didn't tell the truth yesterday,
Speaker 10: and please grow a backbone, stand up for our country.
Speaker 1: Strategic Analysis Australia Director Peter Jennings joins me. Now, Peter,
Speaker 1: thanks for your time. It's a pretty not just delayed,
Speaker 1: but weak response from the PM.
Speaker 11: Yes it is, James, and good evening. Once again we
Speaker 11: get from Prime Minister Albanezier sort of a description of
Speaker 11: the event like he's a spectator at the scene. I
Speaker 11: don't think it's appropriate to call this a cultural difference.
Speaker 4: What China.
Speaker 11: Chinese officials were deliberately trying to do was to hide
Speaker 11: from the cameras a person who they had illegally jailed
Speaker 11: on fake spying charges for three years until she was
Speaker 11: finally released and brought to Australia. And so this is
Speaker 11: the behavior of the thugish Chinese Communist Party, not a
Speaker 11: cultural practice which was tolerated in the Parliament of Australia.
Speaker 11: And then the Prime Minister said that he knew nothing
Speaker 11: about it, and then the following day he talks about
Speaker 11: a complaint being made. So it's nothing to do with him.
Speaker 11: You know, why didn't he take the opportunity James to.
Speaker 4: Take it up with Premier Lee.
Speaker 11: I thought it was a typically poor quality performance, a
Speaker 11: failure of leadership, and it creates this impression that he's
Speaker 11: all too willing to please the Chinese, whereas I think
Speaker 11: what most Australians want mister Albenezi to do is actually
Speaker 11: stand up for Australia's interests.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember Anthony Alberanzi once saying I love fighting tories,
Speaker 1: but he really doesn't like speaking out against the Chinese.
Speaker 1: In fact, in that radio clip that we played just
Speaker 1: a moment ago. Anthony Albanese actually does a half laugh
Speaker 1: as he talks about this incident.
Speaker 2: But as you say, it reaffirms the.
Speaker 1: Complete incompatibility between Australia's political system and political culture and
Speaker 1: that of the Chinese. And it's no small difference. These
Speaker 1: are major ideological differences. So a failure to stand up
Speaker 1: for Chang Lay is really a failure to stand up
Speaker 1: for liberal democracy and for the freedoms that we all
Speaker 1: take for granted, is it not?
Speaker 6: It is?
Speaker 11: And you know, I think it's a pattern of behavior
Speaker 11: that we're seeing from this government too, that the emphasis
Speaker 11: on panda diplomacy being pro panda, all of these horribly
Speaker 11: poor quality jokes, the failure on several occasions now too
Speaker 11: publicly speak out in defense of Australian defense fools personnel
Speaker 11: coming under attack in a helicopter on board ship by
Speaker 11: the Chinese People's Liberation Army. You know, I think from
Speaker 11: this visit, the Chinese Communist Party can conclude justly that
Speaker 11: they have Australia where they want us to be, which
Speaker 11: is quite in subservient doing their business, laughing at their jokes.
Speaker 11: I just think the Prime Minister has misread this situation
Speaker 11: and how Australians will react to it, and part of
Speaker 11: that is driven by sort of a very tribal view
Speaker 11: inside the government that or they've shown that they're better
Speaker 11: than the previous coalition government at managing China relations. And
Speaker 11: I just don't think that's the case, James. They happen to, frankly,
Speaker 11: get lucky after COVID, when China decided that it's aggressive
Speaker 11: wolf warrior diplomacy wasn't helping it anywhere or in Europe
Speaker 11: or elsewhere, and so they quietened down, and that's what
Speaker 11: has enabled the resumption of contact.
Speaker 4: But it's contact without substance.
Speaker 11: If our Prime minister can never raise difficult issues, then
Speaker 11: all we have is photo opportunities to suit the interests
Speaker 11: of the Communist Party and nothing which really suits the
Speaker 11: interests of Australia.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, it's pretty easy to manage a relationship if you
Speaker 1: give the other party everything they want. The Prime Ministers
Speaker 1: said that he and the Chinese premier have agreed to
Speaker 1: establish a military communications line to avoid further what should
Speaker 1: we call them, regrettable incidents at sea and in the air,
Speaker 1: such as you described earlier. How believable is this idea
Speaker 1: of military communications between the two nations as a way
Speaker 1: of avoiding further mishaps.
Speaker 11: Well, you know, tactically, communications happen all the time, and
Speaker 11: I've heard recordings of aircraft to aircraft discus Ushians or
Speaker 11: ship to ship discussions where our navy is telling the
Speaker 11: Chinese navy that they're sailing in international waters and the
Speaker 11: Chinese Navy replies, no, you're in Chinese sovereign territory.
Speaker 4: Move away.
Speaker 11: Those communications happen all the time. I don't know what
Speaker 11: it is that the Prime Minister claims to have heard
Speaker 11: from Premier Lee other than some sort of throwaway comment.
Speaker 11: Because here's the key point, James. Since twenty twenty one,
Speaker 11: there have been over two hundred of these incidents at
Speaker 11: sea involving US, the Americans, of Filipinos and other navies.
Speaker 11: This is not a failure on the part of China
Speaker 11: to communicate. It is them unrolling a strategy of intimidation.
Speaker 11: That's what China is doing. They're trying to intimidate other
Speaker 11: navies and air forces to stay away from what they
Speaker 11: call sovereign territory. And so no amount of Australian discussion
Speaker 11: about better communications is going to change this issue the China.
Speaker 11: His military is doing exactly what it wants to do,
Speaker 11: and our PM shouldn't be so silly as to be
Speaker 11: sort of fobbed off by a passing comment from Premier Lee,
Speaker 11: who is not in the Chinese military chain of command
Speaker 11: and has no authority over them. These discussions about communications
Speaker 11: will go nowhere.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, Peter Jennings, I appreciate your insights tonight. Well,
Speaker 1: there was a reprieve of sorts for mortgage holders today. Well,
Speaker 1: rates didn't come down, at least, the RBA hasn't raised
Speaker 1: them yet. The cash rate has been left at four
Speaker 1: point three five percent, but don't hold your breath waiting
Speaker 1: for a reduction. Well, interest rates are on hold for now.
Speaker 1: Economists say the door has still been left open for
Speaker 1: an increase later in the year if inflation remains stubbornly high.
Speaker 1: Judo Banks chief economic advisor Warren Hogan joins me. Now, Warren,
Speaker 1: thanks for your time. Is this the calm before the storm?
Speaker 1: Rates on hold?
Speaker 2: But do you think they could go up in the
Speaker 2: near future?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Hi, James, thanks for having me on the show.
Speaker 3: I think that's what the governor was sort of intimating,
Speaker 3: is that this inflation risk.
Speaker 4: They're on high alert.
Speaker 3: I don't know how you can read it any other
Speaker 3: way than that, you know, there's a real chance they
Speaker 3: might have to raise rates. They're showing extreme patients. They've
Speaker 3: got a very different strategy to what would traditionally be followed.
Speaker 3: That is, you really lean into inflation. And of course
Speaker 3: this is what other central banks have got. The RBA's
Speaker 3: cash rate at four point three five, as you just showed,
Speaker 3: compared to to New Zealand at five and a half
Speaker 3: in the US and five and a half, we're actually
Speaker 3: taking a very different path and the course, if it
Speaker 3: doesn't work, and we're getting evidence this year that the
Speaker 3: economy is proving resilient and inflation is proving sticky, then
Speaker 3: the question is what's next. And of course I think
Speaker 3: with a message today was that we may see another
Speaker 3: rate hu.
Speaker 1: You know, the governor was quite careful to say, you know,
Speaker 1: it could go this way, it could go that way.
Speaker 1: But of course everybody is listening for the the hidden messages.
Speaker 1: What's between the lines you say that could well go up.
Speaker 1: What were the things she said specifically that gave that
Speaker 1: impression and do you think she was deliberately trying to
Speaker 1: prepare people for a possible rate rise in the future.
Speaker 3: I think she was trying to send that message without
Speaker 3: saying it, and it is quite perplexing. And of course
Speaker 3: we're learning about this governor. She's only been doing the
Speaker 3: job for a while. And of course we've got this
Speaker 3: sort of big overhaul happening at the RBA. Even though
Speaker 3: the legislation hasn't passed, she's actually getting on with sort of,
Speaker 3: you know, changing the way the place operates.
Speaker 4: So we're still learning what she's sort of doing.
Speaker 3: And today was a little bit confusing, I must I
Speaker 3: must admit I was sort of trying to really get
Speaker 3: to the bottom of it. Central bankers are always a
Speaker 3: little bit opaque. They don't want to say too much,
Speaker 3: and I think that's the key part of her strategy.
Speaker 4: Is not to get put into a corner.
Speaker 3: The biggest mistake they've made lately is that twenty twenty
Speaker 3: four guidance from the Pandemic with Phil Low. But I
Speaker 3: think the message coming through is we see what's happening
Speaker 3: in the economy, which is strong employment growth, inflation showing
Speaker 3: signs of stabilizing at four percent, way too much higher
Speaker 3: than their target, and they can't walk away from this
Speaker 3: because of course their credibility will be damaged if they're
Speaker 3: not seen to be on top of what's happening in
Speaker 3: the economy. So look, we'll learn more about how she
Speaker 3: wants to play this, but they've made it quite clear
Speaker 3: that next quarterly inflation number, which comes out in late July,
Speaker 3: is absolutely critical. And if that comes in like it
Speaker 3: did in Q one, the number we got in late
Speaker 3: April as around one percent, I just don't think they
Speaker 3: can walk away from that, and I think they'll probably
Speaker 3: have to high rates. And the issue actually is with
Speaker 3: all this sort of government spending, which they noted in
Speaker 3: their statement, is actually whether they're going to have to
Speaker 3: do multiple rate hikes because the economy actually is proving
Speaker 3: resilient and it's about to get a big injection of
Speaker 3: money from state and federal governments from one July.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to ask you about the fact
Speaker 1: that she did reference big spending in the federal budget,
Speaker 1: and of course we've just had a Queensland budget. I
Speaker 1: think they've handed out some like eleven billion dollars in
Speaker 1: incentives for people to vote for Steven Miles to win office.
Speaker 1: So it was interesting that the RBA governor did mention
Speaker 1: that as being a factor that may mean interest rates
Speaker 1: stay high. Speaking of budgets, Labour's second budget was announced
Speaker 1: today in New South Wales and it certainly continues a
Speaker 1: trend of rising state debt. This is the New South
Speaker 1: Wales Labour's second deficit budget and they predict operating deficits
Speaker 1: for the next four years of the forward estimates, so
Speaker 1: that would make six deficits in a row. I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you have state governments lost the ability to
Speaker 1: constrain debt and run surpluses. It seems like no one's
Speaker 1: able to do it anymore.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there certainly isn't a lot of budget surpluces going around,
Speaker 3: and I think the thing that I'm worried about with
Speaker 3: the government sector is it's just getting very large. We
Speaker 3: can see from the National Accounts. The GDP figures that
Speaker 3: government consumption across all levels of government, and when they
Speaker 3: call it consumption that means they're operating spending is at
Speaker 3: a record proportion of the economy at around twenty two percent.
Speaker 3: It's taken a big step up from really what it
Speaker 3: was averaging around eighteen nineteen percent all through the eighties.
Speaker 4: Nineties and noughties last decade.
Speaker 3: It's been happening for about ten years, but it's the
Speaker 3: biggest step up in government spending as a proportion of
Speaker 3: the economy since the early seventies, since the Lyndon Johnson
Speaker 3: Great Society, Whitlam all that stuff. So government's getting bigger,
Speaker 3: and of course the other side of that is the
Speaker 3: tax take is getting bigger, so income taxes that we're
Speaker 3: paying back to where they were when Howard and Costello
Speaker 3: introduced the GST. So we've actually still got the GST,
Speaker 3: but income taxes back where it was when they brought
Speaker 3: it in. And of course this is a potential big
Speaker 3: shift in our economy. It's going to squeeze out the
Speaker 3: private sect, particularly around finding staff. So yeah, the government
Speaker 3: today in New South Wales, I think it was an
Speaker 3: okay budget, but there was a big shift up in
Speaker 3: spending about five billion a year and of course they
Speaker 3: are going to be deficits for as far as I
Speaker 3: can see, and of course debt's going from about one
Speaker 3: hundred billion up to about one hundred and forty.
Speaker 1: Gee, Warren, you've done nothing to encourage me at all
Speaker 1: this evening. Thanks a lot for that Warren Hogan. I
Speaker 1: really appreciate your time as always. Well, we're going to
Speaker 1: go to a break, but stick around because coming up
Speaker 1: from indigenous rights to sexuality, you don't believe some of
Speaker 1: the government programs being force fed to toddlers in childcare
Speaker 1: that's coming up shortly.
Speaker 2: Welcome back well.
Speaker 1: A new learning framework for Australia's childcare centers has been
Speaker 1: accused of turning toddlers into cultural activists. In analysis conducted
Speaker 1: by the Institute of Public Affairs, the government's Early Years
Speaker 1: Learning Framework was found to mention diversity, inclusion and equity
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty nine times, and the terms Aboriginal
Speaker 1: and Torres Strait Islanders and reconciliation ninety six times. Have
Speaker 1: I guessed how many times the terms mother or father
Speaker 1: or parent were referenced? You guessed it, not even once.
Speaker 1: The framework also states that social justice in Early Years
Speaker 1: is an exciting opportunity to explore issues around gender, sexuality,
Speaker 1: race and culture.
Speaker 2: God help us.
Speaker 1: Joining me is my panel Sky News host Caleb Bond
Speaker 1: and News Corp columnist Angela Mollard.
Speaker 2: Caleb, what does it tell you when you put.
Speaker 1: Your kids into daycare and they're taught about diversity and
Speaker 1: equity and inclusion, but mom and dad and never ever
Speaker 1: reference well.
Speaker 12: It tells you that we're happy little socialists, as bright
Speaker 12: as Brad can be. To paraphrase a good old Australian ad. Seriously,
Speaker 12: I mean, look, is anyone really surprised by this? We've
Speaker 12: known the long march through the institutions has been going
Speaker 12: on for some time. And if you really want to
Speaker 12: capture the kids and promulgate your ideology, you have to
Speaker 12: get them as young as possible. And of course we
Speaker 12: keep hearing about we need to get kids into early
Speaker 12: learning earlier and earlier and earlier. I mean, you know,
Speaker 12: I think it's what two or three years old now.
Speaker 12: They want to get them into early learning. If they
Speaker 12: find a way to do it while they're still in
Speaker 12: the womb, they'll probably do that as well. But the
Speaker 12: earlier you capture them, the earlier you can get hold
Speaker 12: of their brains. It's as simple as that, and this
Speaker 12: lays it bear Angela.
Speaker 1: The IPA said that most parents don't even realize these
Speaker 1: sorts of things are being taught in childcare. Do you
Speaker 1: agree that most parents just oblivious to this sort of thing.
Speaker 13: I think they're oblivious to them because children can't come home,
Speaker 13: they can barely tell you who they've had lunch with,
Speaker 13: let alone the fact that they've learned some social justice
Speaker 13: theory that day. Look, I don't think parents are really aware.
Speaker 13: I was shocked when I read this story. But as
Speaker 13: someone who's seen their children go through from early childhood
Speaker 13: right through now in university, the level of diversity, equality
Speaker 13: and inclusion learning and a communications degree, I'm worried my
Speaker 13: daughter is going to qualify without actually knowing anything about communications.
Speaker 13: But she knows a heck of a lot about diversity
Speaker 13: and include I've read a couple of her essays. But look,
Speaker 13: my mum always said, and she was a teacher for
Speaker 13: fifty sixty years, that childhood is preparer is not preparation
Speaker 13: for life, it is life. We are not there to
Speaker 13: turn them into woke little puppets. We're there to read
Speaker 13: them the hungry caterpillar.
Speaker 1: Well, I dare say our kids were happier and healthier
Speaker 1: and probably smarter before we started propagating all this DEI stuff.
Speaker 1: Another thing in this report, they found that it's recommended
Speaker 1: childcare start every day with an acknowledgment of country, so
Speaker 1: you can't tell me that's not deliberate in doctrination.
Speaker 2: Of course it is.
Speaker 12: The idea is just to make it as easy as possible.
Speaker 12: Once you normalize it, the kids just believe that that's
Speaker 12: part of the deal.
Speaker 1: Well, then the kids think that Mum and dad, who
Speaker 1: may say I live unnecessary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they go around. We need to sell the house.
Speaker 2: We're living in a stolen house.
Speaker 12: What are we going to do about it?
Speaker 1: Which if we want to go down that track, I mean,
Speaker 1: the point of socialism is to separate children from the
Speaker 1: appearance and create enmity.
Speaker 2: Let's move on.
Speaker 1: In the desperate pursuit of net zero, our labor government
Speaker 1: is now considering get this greenhouse gases omitted by the
Speaker 1: transport sector when deciding what roads to build. The government's
Speaker 1: Transport and Infrastructure net zero roadmap includes a section that
Speaker 1: warns I couldn't believe it when.
Speaker 2: I read this.
Speaker 1: The building of roads could increase the emissions from light
Speaker 1: and heavy vehicles by enabling this transport mode. It goes
Speaker 1: on to say this needs to be taken into consideration
Speaker 1: when deciding what roads to build. So calib if I've
Speaker 1: got this right, The Transport Department have figured out that
Speaker 1: building roads enables cars to travel.
Speaker 2: Strange, isn't it. Yeah, I didn't startling inside.
Speaker 12: I know I say this all the time, but there's
Speaker 12: yet another government contract. I think I could probably snag
Speaker 12: pretty easily because I understand roads. Can you believe it?
Speaker 12: But I think there is potentially merit to this right
Speaker 12: because of course, if we're going to have population expansion,
Speaker 12: we will need more roads. You can't just have a
Speaker 12: train in and out of the new subject. There has
Speaker 12: to be a road of some description. And one of
Speaker 12: the things that contributes to carbon emissions is cars stopping
Speaker 12: and starting all the time, which means you need a
Speaker 12: good flow of traffic, which means you don't need roundabouts
Speaker 12: and you don't need traffic lights. So if they can
Speaker 12: have no traffic lights and I can drive to work
Speaker 12: in the morning with no red lights, not only do
Speaker 12: I get places faster, it's better for the environments.
Speaker 3: But the other thing, of.
Speaker 12: Course, is that if you want a seriously environmentally friendly
Speaker 12: road in terms of emissions, it's got to go on
Speaker 12: a straight line. You can't go around.
Speaker 2: Hills and past trees.
Speaker 12: So we've just got to raise all the land because
Speaker 12: that'll be good for the environment. So we can have
Speaker 12: lower missions roads.
Speaker 1: I like a perfect sent Peter Dutton could go to
Speaker 1: the next election, save the environment, create an autobahn.
Speaker 12: I'm on board.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely amazing, Angela.
Speaker 1: Would they really decide not to build roads so that
Speaker 1: we have less cars?
Speaker 13: Oh, what are we going to do? Go back and
Speaker 13: live in caves and burn wood And that obviously has
Speaker 13: a mission anyway. But there's a problem in your thing though.
Speaker 13: You build that big autobarn and then you've got your
Speaker 13: CO two emissions.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 13: What I think we should be putting our energy into
Speaker 13: is thinking about and really working hard on that technology
Speaker 13: that looks at how we do manage to pull se
Speaker 13: COEO two out of the atmosphere, different ways of doing that.
Speaker 13: Instead of always looking at what we had before, how
Speaker 13: we can improve on the old, Let's look at the
Speaker 13: really dynamic, exciting new Let's put science in tech at
Speaker 13: the forefront of that. Let's make Australia that that we are.
Speaker 2: And Scott Morrison.
Speaker 13: Hinted at this a couple few years ago. He said,
Speaker 13: you know, let he he trusted that we would find
Speaker 13: the way to solve the emissions problem. So if we're
Speaker 13: constantly looking, yeah, look there are great ways to make
Speaker 13: better roads, better aggregates, that sort of thing. But I'm
Speaker 13: really pro tech.
Speaker 1: I'm protech as well as long as I can still
Speaker 1: drive my forward Mustang, which I don't actually have. But
Speaker 1: Caleb says, my birthday's coming up soon, and I'll get Ah.
Speaker 1: The White House has come out in defense of Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: insisting the presidence.
Speaker 2: Multiple gaffes and blunders fake news.
Speaker 14: It tells you everything that we need to know about
Speaker 14: how desperate, how desperate Republicans are here.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 14: And instead of talking about the President's performance in office,
Speaker 14: and what I mean by that is his legislative wins,
Speaker 14: what he's been able to do for the American people
Speaker 14: across the country, we're seeing these deep fakes, Uh, these
Speaker 14: manipulated videos.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose if anyone is an expert on fake news,
Speaker 1: it's the Biden White House.
Speaker 2: But if Biden's blunders are.
Speaker 1: All fake news, gee, there's been a lot of fake
Speaker 1: news recently, We'll.
Speaker 4: Never forget anyway. I just think that.
Speaker 2: Lord a Small Business Winnerward Winner. It's all just fake news.
Speaker 1: But of course they do say denial is the first
Speaker 1: stage of grief.
Speaker 2: Is that what's happening to the mainstream media in the States.
Speaker 12: Not just a river in Egypt, is it? And it's
Speaker 12: amazing to see the Biden camp now adopting the term
Speaker 12: fake news, because of course fake news was popularized by
Speaker 12: Donald Trump, and at the time, all the Democrats and
Speaker 12: all the anti Trump is like, oh, you know, when
Speaker 12: he says fake news, that really just means news he
Speaker 12: doesn't like. So why don't we just turn that back
Speaker 12: on the Democrats and say, well, if you're saying this
Speaker 12: is fake news, let's live by your standards. It must
Speaker 12: just be news you don't like, because we can all
Speaker 12: see that Biden ain't all there try and claim that's
Speaker 12: fake news.
Speaker 1: The irony is that the White House spokesperson was saying
Speaker 1: that these videos are deep fakes. Well, that's fake news
Speaker 1: because videos Angela. The Democrats surely are desperate if that's
Speaker 1: the best they've got.
Speaker 2: These videos have all been edited to.
Speaker 1: Show Biden as senile, when really he's fighting, fit and ready.
Speaker 13: To go and look in same as within Normandy. Those
Speaker 13: those images from Normandy A just I think they're really shocking. Look,
Speaker 13: I think it's really interesting that debate. The first debate
Speaker 13: is next Thursday. That's a ninety minute debate. There's no props,
Speaker 13: there's no notes. I'm really interested to see how he
Speaker 13: goes there. There's a long time obviously, between the end
Speaker 13: of June and November. I think the Democrats have made
Speaker 13: that early, so then I actually have a think about
Speaker 13: whether he is fit for presidents know what.
Speaker 12: They do have Angela what rugs?
Speaker 2: Rugs and they will find everyone.
Speaker 13: Are they mostly sedatives? I can't if it was a good.
Speaker 2: Joe, That's the last thing Joe Biden needs well. Sticking
Speaker 2: with America.
Speaker 1: After mandating masks and threatening to hunt down people if
Speaker 1: they refuse to mask up, New York City officials are
Speaker 1: now proposing to ban masks in public places or let
Speaker 1: Mayor Eric Adams explain.
Speaker 15: People have hid under the guise of wearing a mask
Speaker 15: for COVID to commit commit criminal action and bile. Actually
Speaker 15: nineteen now on the time to go back to the
Speaker 15: wear work pre COVID. You should not be able to
Speaker 15: wear a mask at protest in our subway systems and
Speaker 15: other police.
Speaker 1: So help me, Caleb. It's hard to keep up with this.
Speaker 1: First you had to wear masks. Now you mustn't wear masks.
Speaker 12: If it's not the consequences of your actions. Hey, I mean,
Speaker 12: who would have thought once upon a time if someone
Speaker 12: said that you had to wear a mask to go
Speaker 12: into a bank, you would have told them to go
Speaker 12: to the looney bin. It seemed that crazy, And then
Speaker 12: of course that's what happened. And now they've realized that.
Speaker 12: And it was when I was a court reporter during COVID.
Speaker 12: All these people would go into court and then they
Speaker 12: come out of court with a hoodie on and a
Speaker 12: mask over their face, because of course they didn't want
Speaker 12: to have their photo taken to pop up in the paper.
Speaker 12: They worked out very quickly that it was the greatest
Speaker 12: way to not be detected and get away with it
Speaker 12: because you're doing a good thing for public health. I
Speaker 12: love when these things blow up in their faces.
Speaker 2: Andrew, as Caleb said, it is to be expected.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Once you've got people wearing masks everywhere, criminal elements see
Speaker 1: it as a wonderful opportunity.
Speaker 13: I think it's fantastic opportunism actually, but I'm really worried it.
Speaker 13: Like flu season, they're not going to have their masks
Speaker 13: on in New York, and if you're on the subway
Speaker 13: in New York during winter, you actually want people to
Speaker 13: have their masks and so yeah, look but great opportunism
Speaker 13: by these guys, fantastic.
Speaker 1: It is very hard to keep up with government advice.
Speaker 1: Caleb Angela, thanks so much for joining me tonight.
Speaker 2: Well, next over in the UK.
Speaker 1: The rise of Nigel Faraga's reform UK Party is shaking
Speaker 1: up the election as the Conservative's head for an historic wipeout.
Speaker 1: I'll be catching up with Tom Slater in just a moment. Well,
Speaker 1: let's turn to the UK election. The Conservative Party is
Speaker 1: fully imploding and Labor by all accounts, is set for
Speaker 1: a landslide victory. What's not certain is the future of
Speaker 1: the opposition. With Rishi Sunek's Conservative Party set to be
Speaker 1: smashed at the polls, is Nigel Farage about to become
Speaker 1: the main opposition? Farage is promising to ax net zero,
Speaker 1: introduce mandatory life sentences for drug dealers, freeze non essential integration,
Speaker 1: pulled the UK out of global's bodies like the World
Speaker 1: Health Organization and reject the influence of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: Let's bring in Spiked Online editor Tom Slater. Tom, thanks
Speaker 1: for joining me. A fascinating time in UK politics. Just
Speaker 1: before we get to feras you've described the Tories as
Speaker 1: a pointless husk, which is a bit full on. How
Speaker 1: is it the Tories have lost so much of the
Speaker 1: British population's confidence.
Speaker 8: Well, I think that the Tories in the way of
Speaker 8: Brexit had a golden opportunity to kind of remake themselves.
Speaker 8: For a very long time, it wasn't clear what they
Speaker 8: were for who they were for. But because of Brexit
Speaker 8: in twenty nineteen and Boris Johnson, they suddenly had this
Speaker 8: new working class base that was the one chance for renewal,
Speaker 8: and then they completely blew it. They reverted to backstabbing type.
Speaker 8: They let everyone and his dog have a go at
Speaker 8: being leader of the Conservative Party, leader of the country
Speaker 8: after they got rid of Boris Johnson, and they completely
Speaker 8: forgot the voters, those working class voters in the middlelands of.
Speaker 4: The North who put them there.
Speaker 8: So I do kind of think they deserve every thing
Speaker 8: they're getting at this point. And whilst I understand the
Speaker 8: concerns about what a huge labor landslide might mean for
Speaker 8: our civil liberties for our country, I think it's fair
Speaker 8: seven stories have brought this on themselves, including the Farage insurgency,
Speaker 8: which I'm sure we're going to come on to as well.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've pointed out how bad the Conservatives are,
Speaker 1: but obviously Farage is pretty good and winning favor amongst people.
Speaker 1: Some of the policies I mentioned in the introduction there
Speaker 1: is that what is sort of making headway as are
Speaker 1: those sorts of things resonating with your average britge or
Speaker 1: is something else going on for Farage?
Speaker 8: Well, I think that the primary thing that he's tapped
Speaker 8: into is concerns about immigration, and this is something which
Speaker 8: obviously both of the two main parties, Conservatives and Labor,
Speaker 8: have terrible records on as far as votes as a concerned,
Speaker 8: and he's very much tried to frame this as the
Speaker 8: immigration election in a situation in which neither parties wanted
Speaker 8: to talk about it too much. That's been very effective.
Speaker 8: I think also he's been a better fishtory of the
Speaker 8: fact that there is a very anti politics mood at
Speaker 8: the moment. It's something that has benefited the Labor Party.
Speaker 8: But I think a lot of twenty nineteen voters in particular,
Speaker 8: who were thinking of even not voting, sitting on their hands,
Speaker 8: maybe some of them would go back into the Labor
Speaker 8: column have now got something which more aligns with what
Speaker 8: it is they want to vote for. And I think,
Speaker 8: regardless of what you think of for I think sickly
Speaker 8: for those of us whore having to cover this. Even
Speaker 8: his worst enemy would admit that he's live and things up.
Speaker 8: Up until this point we were faced with the most
Speaker 8: deathly dull kind of competition between Kiir Sarma and Rishie Sunak,
Speaker 8: who are essentially two competing flavors of Blemond. So I think,
Speaker 8: aside from anything else, it has stirred up a genuine
Speaker 8: debate about the future of the country, which would have
Speaker 8: been completely absent had he not thrown his hat into
Speaker 8: the ring so emphatically a week or two ago.
Speaker 1: When you say that voters there are faced with two
Speaker 1: pretty bland options. I was watching the debates and I
Speaker 1: had to laugh when Rishie Sunek was asked tell us
Speaker 1: something about yourself that will make people like you again,
Speaker 1: which must have been incredibly humiliating. How we've only got
Speaker 1: a little bit of time left. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: quickly ask you about Kis Starmer, who obviously will likely
Speaker 1: be the next UK Prime minister. You call him the slipperiest,
Speaker 1: most unprincipled politician the UK has seen in many years,
Speaker 1: and possibly the most slippery PM the UK will ever
Speaker 1: have had. In that thirty seconds, why do you say that?
Speaker 1: Tell us about him?
Speaker 8: He is you turned on essentially everything every issue you
Speaker 8: could imagine. You could talk about Brexit, you could talk
Speaker 8: about women's rights, you can talk about the gender issue,
Speaker 8: you talk about the environment, any of these questions. He
Speaker 8: does just point which every way the wind is blowing.
Speaker 8: And I think that's a big problem in a democracy.
Speaker 8: When you voted a politician, you've hoped to know what
Speaker 8: they stand for. Even at this point we have no
Speaker 8: clue where Kis star More is.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately well, we are all watching to see what happens.
Speaker 1: Tom Slader, appreciate your time. That's all I've got time
Speaker 1: for tonight, But don't go anywhere. Coming right up is
Speaker 1: Paul Murray Live.