Speaker 1: Live on Sky News. This is Sharry.
Speaker 2: Good Evening, Caleb Bond with you, Holly Hughes, goes Bang.
Speaker 2: Here's what's coming up on the program tonight. The coalition
Speaker 2: breakup is getting messier now. While this could still be
Speaker 2: the best thing for both parties, the leaders need to
Speaker 2: have the right intentions. My analysis in a moment and
Speaker 2: now that the shock is wearing off, what does the
Speaker 2: coalition break up mean for the future of the two parties. Well,
Speaker 2: I'll get the perspectives from National Deputy Leader Kevin Hogan
Speaker 2: and Liberal MP Garth Hamilton. And just how long has
Speaker 2: Biden had prostate cancer. There's just so many questions about
Speaker 2: this story that still haven't been answered. I'll attempt to
Speaker 2: answer them for you. I'll speak with both the urologist
Speaker 2: and Brendan O'Neill later in the show. Now, the differences
Speaker 2: could not have been more stark today between the federal
Speaker 2: government and what used to be the opposition.
Speaker 3: In the government corner.
Speaker 2: You had ALP National Secretary and campaign director Paul Erickson
Speaker 2: at the National Press Club effectively on his victory lap,
Speaker 2: and deservedly so, because he ran an excellent campaign.
Speaker 4: Albo was in his element connecting with everyday people and
Speaker 4: enjoying it. And while the Prime Minister was telling a
Speaker 4: positive story about who we are and where we're going,
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton was gloomy about the country, downcast about the future,
Speaker 4: and most animated when he was magnifying the problems facing Australia.
Speaker 2: And look, it is a fair criticism, as I wrote
Speaker 2: in the Advertiser during the campaign, and I said on
Speaker 2: air here, long term vision just seems to be absent
Speaker 2: from politics these days. No one is really concerned with
Speaker 2: the future. No one talked about tomorrow or what the
Speaker 2: country looked like in a decade's time. Everyone talked about yesterday,
Speaker 2: maybe today if you were lucky, I mean. In the
Speaker 2: ABC debate, Anthony Alberanisi and Dutton were both asked what
Speaker 2: they wanted their legacy to be. Dutton nominated nuclear power,
Speaker 2: which is a real vision for the future, but that
Speaker 2: was conspicuously absent from most of the campaign, and Albanez
Speaker 2: he said, cheaper childcare, I mean really hardly floating the
Speaker 2: dollar or creating the GST, and Ericson also identified one
Speaker 2: of Dutton's other big failures.
Speaker 4: The contrast was as clear as night and day. Prime
Speaker 4: Minister offered authentic, measured and firm leadership and Peter Dutton
Speaker 4: never missed an opportunity and miss an opportunity.
Speaker 3: That just about says it all.
Speaker 2: Really a bit like Garth Hamilton wrote the other day,
Speaker 2: and I've been coming back.
Speaker 3: To all week.
Speaker 2: The best and worst thing about Dutton was the piece
Speaker 2: he brought to the Liberal Party because they didn't actually
Speaker 2: have the fights and put in the work. And I'll
Speaker 2: talk to Garth more about that later in the show.
Speaker 2: And again deservedly so, Ericson is feeling a bit cocky.
Speaker 4: The fourth factor in our win was the Prime Minister's performance.
Speaker 4: From the first Monday of January through to election day.
Speaker 4: The Prime Minister was in the form of a lifetime.
Speaker 4: Originally I wrote here that the PM didn't put a
Speaker 4: foot wrong, but this would have summoned the coalition's media
Speaker 4: che has got to interview the stage from the Marning
Speaker 4: and Energy Union conference up in Newcastle as part of
Speaker 4: a feature on Labor lies.
Speaker 3: All right, fair cop.
Speaker 2: But he did lie about not falling off the stage though.
Speaker 2: But it seems clear that labor really couldn't believe it's luck.
Speaker 4: But in past campaigns a major party might have held
Speaker 4: back its centerpiece policy commitment until the final five weeks
Speaker 4: to maximize cut through.
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton's campaign.
Speaker 4: Took this two absurd extremes with less than two weeks
Speaker 4: to go on Insiders with David, Michael Sukha said the
Speaker 4: Coalition was saving up their policies so that they could
Speaker 4: quote connect with the strains when they're going to switch on.
Speaker 4: I remember watching that interview and thinking, you haven't got
Speaker 4: long now, brother.
Speaker 2: Now the point is Labor is confident. I mean they
Speaker 2: were clearly confident at that point as well. They're relaxed
Speaker 2: and they have every reason to be right now they've
Speaker 2: been vindicated basically. And the Prime Minister today, fresh from
Speaker 2: his trip to Indonesia and the Vatican, he looked calm
Speaker 2: and collected, more so, I think than at any time
Speaker 2: I saw in his first term. And you can just
Speaker 2: imagine how he and Ericson must have felt yesterday when
Speaker 2: they heard that the coalition had been blown up. No
Speaker 2: wonder they was so relaxed today, Which brings me to
Speaker 2: the opposition corner, or what used to be the opposition.
Speaker 2: Of course, now it's just the Liberal Party, Labor, cool,
Speaker 2: calm and collected, Liberals and Nationals in turmoil. Now all
Speaker 2: of yesterday's fun and games have continued.
Speaker 3: To play out.
Speaker 2: Today more guts have been spilled, and to be honest,
Speaker 2: it looks like things might get worse before they get better,
Speaker 2: because yesterday David Little Proud was very much casting it
Speaker 2: as a little break in the relationships and time apart
Speaker 2: to find each other again. We'll all be back together
Speaker 2: soon once we've settled our differences.
Speaker 3: But today he was.
Speaker 2: Quite explicit in saying they may will not get back
Speaker 2: together before the next election and instead try to wait
Speaker 2: until they're in a position where the Libs would need
Speaker 2: them to form government.
Speaker 5: If we get to a juncture after the next election
Speaker 5: where we can form a government with the Liberal Party,
Speaker 5: then obviously we're going to support the Liberal Party, but
Speaker 5: there will be conditions, and the conditions are about those
Speaker 5: things that are core to making the lives of those
Speaker 5: people that we represent better and giving them a future.
Speaker 2: That doesn't sound like getting the coalition back together for
Speaker 2: the sake of reforming a cohesive coalition for the benefit
Speaker 2: of the country. It sounds like an ultimatum. And Susan Lee,
Speaker 2: for her part, is also apparently keen to not reform
Speaker 2: the coalition before the next election so she can keep
Speaker 2: all the shadow cabinet positions for the Liberals. I mean,
Speaker 2: that is just stupid, and I get it. As I
Speaker 2: said last night, I think the Nats have a valid
Speaker 2: bone to pick with the Liberals, and I can understand
Speaker 2: why the Liberals are upset. But the language now today
Speaker 2: is a little more aggressive than it was yesterday morning.
Speaker 2: I mean, if the Liberals don't come to the table,
Speaker 2: and it sounds like the Nationals would just then sit
Speaker 2: on the back bench indefinitely, I mean, I'm not sure
Speaker 2: that's the best thing for anyone. Little Proud has also
Speaker 2: been more explicit today about where he thinks things went
Speaker 2: wrong with the election campaign, particularly nuclear energy, which was
Speaker 2: one of the four policies the Nationals said were non
Speaker 2: negotiable to keep the coalition going.
Speaker 5: Nuclear plus gas plus renewables was three hundred and thirty
Speaker 5: billion dollars two hundred and sixty three billion dollars ship.
Speaker 1: But we couldn't sell that.
Speaker 6: We didn't sell that, we weren't agile enough.
Speaker 2: He also pointed out the flip flopping on work from
Speaker 2: home and how labor was essentially able to paint its
Speaker 2: own narrative. Sorry if Peter Dutton without any pushback.
Speaker 6: If in reflection and we look at this, I think
Speaker 6: we've got to be brutally honest with ourselves about why
Speaker 6: we lost. When you look at where the polls were
Speaker 6: Christmas time and you see where they shifted. I think
Speaker 6: the Labor Party were able to make Peter data Dunton unelectable.
Speaker 6: And what they couldn't do is put a vote next
Speaker 6: to him, and they held their eyes and put a
Speaker 6: vote next to Anthony albanetis.
Speaker 3: It's hard to argue with that. Now.
Speaker 2: I think the Nats are right to ask for nuclear
Speaker 2: to stay, etc. I think they've been unreasonable in asking
Speaker 2: for an end cabinet solidarity that would never fly. And
Speaker 2: as I said last night, I think this could be
Speaker 2: the best thing to get the Liberals to wake up
Speaker 2: to themselves and settle on a policy agenda that creates
Speaker 2: a real point of difference with Labor and could win
Speaker 2: them an election. But this talk of them not getting
Speaker 2: back together at all in this term, seemingly from both
Speaker 2: sides of the former coalition, is not good. You know,
Speaker 2: I'd like to be and I'd like to think most
Speaker 2: people in both the Liberal and National parties would be
Speaker 2: optimistic about things going much better than that, because if
Speaker 2: they don't get back together, it will ostensibly be because
Speaker 2: the Libs have completely lost their way and dumped policies
Speaker 2: like nuclear energy, one of the things that he is
Speaker 2: actually a point of difference, and also because a strong coalition,
Speaker 2: as many elder statesmen including John Howard have pointed out,
Speaker 2: is better for both parties. You have more talent, more experience,
Speaker 2: more perspective. National ZMP Darren Chester, he was a former
Speaker 2: minister in the Turnbull government, said this afternoon that to
Speaker 2: not get back together would be a gift to the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister. And the longer it goes, the harder it gets.
Speaker 7: Given both the leaders have indicated they had respectful conversations
Speaker 7: that both their doors are still open to further conversations. Well,
Speaker 7: I'm suggesting let's have those conversations sooner rather than later.
Speaker 7: The longer this goes on, I think it becomes harder
Speaker 7: to reconciling differences.
Speaker 2: Indeed it does. I hope the Liberal Party can see that.
Speaker 2: And just for a bit of levity, I'll give the
Speaker 2: final word on all this to Bob Catter.
Speaker 3: It will suggest before the election that you may have.
Speaker 1: Come back into the Nationals.
Speaker 3: Just explain was that on?
Speaker 1: Was that a real thing?
Speaker 3: And where does it sit now?
Speaker 8: That is as likely to happen as it is that
Speaker 8: I get to have a night out with Nicole Kittman.
Speaker 8: Maybe there's strong a knowledgeable rephrase that one.
Speaker 1: That's just not going to happen.
Speaker 2: All right, Joining me now, Former Victorian Liberal Party president
Speaker 2: Michael Kroger and Michael Kevin Hogan admitted today that the
Speaker 2: coalition breakup was not a unanimous vote within the Nationals.
Speaker 3: Take a look.
Speaker 9: Was the decision unanimous in the party room?
Speaker 10: It wasn't unanimous, but it was quite conclusive. And again
Speaker 10: it's a good point, Kenny. This was I didn't make
Speaker 10: this decision. David Little Proud didn't make this decision. Bridget
Speaker 10: McKenzie didn't make this decision. The Nationals federal party room
Speaker 10: made this s decision.
Speaker 2: Of course, so that the party remade the decision. So
Speaker 2: even if you were against it, it doesn't matter. But
Speaker 2: clearly there were people within the Nats who thought it
Speaker 2: would be best to stick with the coalition. Did the
Speaker 2: Nationals make the wrong decision?
Speaker 11: Well, I certainly did, Caleb. This is not helpful to
Speaker 11: the National Party, it's not helpful to the Liberal Party.
Speaker 11: It certainly helps alban Easy. One of the many issues
Speaker 11: going forward. If this coalition doesn't get back together, you split,
Speaker 11: you know, you split the two parties. There's no cohesion.
Speaker 11: It's hard to go to an election with the party separate.
Speaker 11: What happens, for example, to the joint Senate tick in
Speaker 11: Victoria and Bridget Mackenzie is the number two on the
Speaker 11: Joint Senate tike het we won Liberals one, Nationals two,
Speaker 11: Liberals three. Now we won two spots last time. But
Speaker 11: at the next election Bridge and Mackenzie, what is she's
Speaker 11: going to run on her own, not part of the
Speaker 11: coalition ticket. I think that would make it very hard
Speaker 11: for it to Winia. So the consequences of running separately
Speaker 11: are potentially disastrous for both the Liberal Party and the
Speaker 11: National Party. And as John Howard says, and you know
Speaker 11: his rights always know, the sooner they get back together,
Speaker 11: the better. And it's good to see Darren Chester, the
Speaker 11: former National Party minister, saying again tonight it's better they
Speaker 11: get back together sooner or later. Sooner if possible.
Speaker 2: Graham Richardson joins us. Now Richo I mean albow. He
Speaker 2: must be so happy to see this going on. Like
Speaker 2: I said before, when I saw him today talking to
Speaker 2: the media, he seemed to be more relaxed and happy
Speaker 2: and confident than I saw him at any point during
Speaker 2: his first term.
Speaker 12: Well, I think he's got every right to be as
Speaker 12: think at the moment. I mean, he's sitting there. He
Speaker 12: doesn't have to do anything. He just watches the Liberals
Speaker 12: and Nationals destroy themselves.
Speaker 13: He doesn't have to do a thing.
Speaker 12: So I think this Elbows in a perfect position at
Speaker 12: the moment because all he has to do is be
Speaker 12: a spectator. He doesn't have to get down on the
Speaker 12: ground and fight, doesn't for say anything that's toughen and
Speaker 12: hard and all the rest of it.
Speaker 13: He just let the Liberals and Nationals do it to
Speaker 13: each other.
Speaker 2: Speaking of the breakup, this was a particularly petty part
Speaker 2: of all I think today, The new Deputy Opposition leader
Speaker 2: Ted O'Brien May emphasises on May have skipped out on
Speaker 2: a Today Show interview after he discovered it beyond with
Speaker 2: National Senator Matt Canavan and Carl Stiff and Ovic, as
Speaker 2: you can imagine, wasn't too happy.
Speaker 14: We asked Deputy liberally a Ted O'Brien on the show
Speaker 14: last night, and he agreed this morning at a courtesy
Speaker 14: we told him Matt Canavan was coming on too. All
Speaker 14: seemed okay, and then twenty minutes ago his team rang
Speaker 14: saying he won't come on with Canadan. I mean, you
Speaker 14: can't make it up. It's like maths the Canberra Edition.
Speaker 14: Matt Canavan is in the house. They made a good
Speaker 14: morning to you. Nice to see this one. How'd your
Speaker 14: sleep last night?
Speaker 9: I'm not bad, mate?
Speaker 2: God as the canber edition, how would it rate? But
Speaker 2: Ted O'Brien, for his part, denies that he canceled.
Speaker 9: I was told this morning that the session won't proceed.
Speaker 9: I think they were looking at me being on. And
Speaker 9: then it was in a station palichet. Then it was
Speaker 9: Matt Canavan. I certainly querit, saying gee, should it be
Speaker 9: Kevin Hogan given he as the deputy leader. But there
Speaker 9: was no cancelation and I haven't. I can't think of
Speaker 9: any sort of interview I've ever canceled. Matt and I
Speaker 9: spoke a few days ago right where mates. We're both
Speaker 9: from Queensland. We've always been friends.
Speaker 3: Michael.
Speaker 2: I don't know what actually happened here and the only
Speaker 2: people who actually know were those who were involved. But regardless,
Speaker 2: it wasn't a great look.
Speaker 11: Well does it really matter? I mean Ted thought it
Speaker 11: wasn't going ahead. I don't think this is an issue
Speaker 11: at all of any substance to anybody. These things happened
Speaker 11: from time to time. We all booking interviews and they
Speaker 11: get canceled the last minute on occasions. So you know,
Speaker 11: I write this as zero on the register of things
Speaker 11: that are important.
Speaker 2: Made to be honest, Well, it's probably not important in
Speaker 2: the grand scheme of things, but you know, Rich, I
Speaker 2: suppose it's just another example of where it looks like
Speaker 2: things are going wrong, because perception is reality. Even if
Speaker 2: this is not the truth, that is the message that
Speaker 2: was put across this morning that Ted O'Brien didn't want
Speaker 2: to be there, and a lot of people watching that
Speaker 2: would have had that impression.
Speaker 13: That's the only impression you can get.
Speaker 12: And I think it's lamendable that we'd be at this point.
Speaker 12: We don't need to be. I can't understand what the
Speaker 12: problem is between him in Canadan. If there is one.
Speaker 12: Canadan is one of my good friends. I think he's
Speaker 12: a terrific fellow, so tess having trouble with him, then
Speaker 12: I might intervene and so I can help get the
Speaker 12: two of them together.
Speaker 3: Well, we've talked enough about.
Speaker 2: We've talked enough about the losers. Let's talk about the
Speaker 2: winners now, shall we. The architect of Labour's historic win,
Speaker 2: which is, of course, the LP National secretary Paul Ericson.
Speaker 2: As I showed earlier, he gave a rather smug lecture
Speaker 2: to the Coalition at today's National Press Club, and fair enough,
Speaker 2: he has the runs on the board. He's earn't that right,
Speaker 2: but he lauded Labour's embrace of renewable energy as integral
Speaker 2: to their success.
Speaker 3: Have a look.
Speaker 4: The coalition needs to accept the lessons from the last
Speaker 4: two federal elections and their last two defeats if they
Speaker 4: want to be competitive again, and I think that starts
Speaker 4: with facing up to the reality of climate change and
Speaker 4: to the energy transition of the country needs to make.
Speaker 2: Michael I described Ericson before as a bit cocky. Today
Speaker 2: I think that's accurate, and I think the ALP would
Speaker 2: want to be careful about getting too cocky because if
Speaker 2: they seriously think that energy, renewable energy was one of
Speaker 2: the things that delivered them. That thumping majority got rocks
Speaker 2: in their heads.
Speaker 11: They need to have one of those true believers dinners.
Speaker 11: Remember was it after the ninety three election, Richo, that
Speaker 11: they had that true Believers dinner where Gareth Evans was
Speaker 11: dancing around and any no one paid for the dinner
Speaker 11: afterwards putting that aside, Yeah you remember it, no one,
Speaker 11: No one paid, mate, you're offered. You all thought you
Speaker 11: were going free. Look, the bottom line is this, You know,
Speaker 11: winners write their own history. Ericson was doing absolutely the
Speaker 11: right thing by trying to tell people why they won
Speaker 11: the election. Half of what he said was nonsense, half
Speaker 11: was probably true. I mean, if what he was saying
Speaker 11: was true on that issue, then how does explain that
Speaker 11: for a year and a half up to February this year,
Speaker 11: Peter Dutton was fifty two forty eight in front of
Speaker 11: the polls fifty one to forty one. For eighteen months
Speaker 11: people thought Dutton was going to win. Know what happened
Speaker 11: was something happened in the last eight weeks and the
Speaker 11: only person that got close to it today, in a
Speaker 11: rather fawning performance by the Canbra presscal who was that?
Speaker 11: Claire Armstrong? I Thinks from the Daily Telegraph in New
Speaker 11: South Wales who asked him about their negative care campaign. Well,
Speaker 11: what happened in the eight weeks was two things. One
Speaker 11: it showed the Liberal National Parties didn't have a sufficient
Speaker 11: depth of policy offering. We acknowledge that. But secondly, Labor
Speaker 11: ran a dirty negative campaign against Peter Dutton personally, which
Speaker 11: they've been doing for years very successfully, and they ran
Speaker 11: a disgraceful campaign that Peter Dutton was going to slash
Speaker 11: and burn medi here, closed down urgent care clinics, close hospitals,
Speaker 11: and then they lied about nuclear That's what happened in
Speaker 11: the last eight weeks. So if what Erickson was saying
Speaker 11: about the grandiose moved to renewables hadn't dawned on the
Speaker 11: electric between the twenty two election in February this year, mate.
Speaker 2: And you're right, Michael Claire Armstrong did ask him about
Speaker 2: that negative campaign and specifically about MIDI scare, and Richo
Speaker 2: Paul Erickson basically said, we will do medi scare again
Speaker 2: because we know and think that it works. Well.
Speaker 13: It does. There's no question that it works. Every time
Speaker 13: we raise it.
Speaker 12: I think we win those so I have no doubt
Speaker 12: it will be used again and again and again. It's
Speaker 12: a I think John Howard has just embraced that. When
Speaker 12: when the many gaving was beginning, then I think he
Speaker 12: lives that had a lot less strife. But that was
Speaker 12: one mistake he made. And of course I am not
Speaker 12: someone who bags out. I think how It was a
Speaker 12: very good prime minister, but he got that wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know, integrity in politics? Who'd care about that?
Speaker 15: Now?
Speaker 2: Elon Musk told a business for him in Qatar that
Speaker 2: he's taking a step back from political donations.
Speaker 3: In terms of political spending, I'm going to do.
Speaker 13: A lot less in the future.
Speaker 9: And why is that?
Speaker 13: I think I've done enough?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 9: Is it because of blowback? Well, if I see a
Speaker 9: reason to do political spending in the future, I will
Speaker 9: do it.
Speaker 1: And in an currently the reason.
Speaker 2: It's a rapid change in approach from one of the
Speaker 2: founding members, of course, of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency
Speaker 2: Doge and Michael A. Do we need Elon Musk or
Speaker 2: people like Elon Musk in politics? But b as he
Speaker 2: just simply had enough. I mean, he's seen what's happened
Speaker 2: to his businesses.
Speaker 11: You certainly need people like him who have got courage
Speaker 11: and who are fearless. But the problem is that prominent
Speaker 11: business people being involved in politics doesn't work because there's
Speaker 11: too many easy ways to damage their businesses through boycotts.
Speaker 11: And we've seen what's happened in America with these Tesla
Speaker 11: dealerships being ransacked and firebombed and cars being set alight.
Speaker 11: So he's got commercial interests to look after, and he
Speaker 11: should go back and look after those. You know, he's
Speaker 11: done some excellent work on dog. I mean, all that
Speaker 11: federal government spending in America are out of control. But
Speaker 11: you know it's part of the age, old adage. Business
Speaker 11: and politics don't mix, and politicians for politicians, politics politicians,
Speaker 11: and you know, businesses for business people because they're entirely
Speaker 11: different professions and they don't mix well together. Mate.
Speaker 3: Are you sad to see him shut up? Richard?
Speaker 13: Am I sad? Dude? So I missed that?
Speaker 2: Are you sad to see him shut up not talk anymore?
Speaker 2: Leave politics? No?
Speaker 13: I think I can probably live with it. I think.
Speaker 12: He's a fascinating character. And I love having fascinating characters
Speaker 12: and politics because it gives us all something to talk about,
Speaker 12: write about, et cetera. And the guy absolutely fascinates me.
Speaker 12: I'd love to meet him. But as far as I'm concerned, mate,
Speaker 12: whether he gets gets up and does more or does
Speaker 12: less will matter little to any of us.
Speaker 2: Michael, we've only got a minute, but quickly before we
Speaker 2: go that the UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy has been
Speaker 2: scathing of Israel's actions around Gaza. Sending aid in or
Speaker 2: not sending aid in is which is what he would say.
Speaker 2: He has said, we must call this what it is.
Speaker 2: It is extremism, It is dangerous, it is repellent, it
Speaker 2: is monstrous, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Speaker 2: Is the reality not though that if you send the
Speaker 2: aid in as he wants to a muscle, just take
Speaker 2: it anyway.
Speaker 3: What's the point.
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's so easy to play to your constituency. There
Speaker 11: are Muslim voters in Britain than there are Jews. That's
Speaker 11: true throughout the world. Politicians are not immune to domestic pressure.
Speaker 11: The easiest thing, the most morally proper thing for him
Speaker 11: to do, would we just say, hang on, if her
Speaker 11: mus had laid down their weapons straight after October seven,
Speaker 11: there'd be you know, thousands of Palestinians alive. If Hermas
Speaker 11: hadn't used innocent Palestinians as human shield, they'd be alive.
Speaker 11: So the condemnation should be of Hamas and their supporters
Speaker 11: and Iran. Israel's an easy target. But what does he
Speaker 11: think Israel should do? What does he think they should do?
Speaker 11: How does he think they should deal with terrorists on
Speaker 11: Israel's doorstep? Nothing, He's got nothing to say about that.
Speaker 11: Israel is always an easy target and a poor performance
Speaker 11: by their foreigners, to be quite frank made.
Speaker 2: And an interesting way to talk to an ally too,
Speaker 2: mister Kroger, mister Richardson, Yeah, to have you both asas.
Speaker 11: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Now let's return to the coalition breakup. As I said earlier,
Speaker 2: the divisions have seemingly grown today to the point where
Speaker 2: they might not come back together before the election. I
Speaker 2: just think that's extraordinary. I don't think it's good for anyone.
Speaker 2: But I caught up with National's deputy leader Kevin Hogan
Speaker 2: a short time ago.
Speaker 3: Kevin, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2: Of course, we spoke last week on Thursday about the
Speaker 2: possibility of the coalition breaking up, and that is, of course,
Speaker 2: now what has happened. So it's the morning after the
Speaker 2: night before, as it were, Are there any regrets?
Speaker 10: Well, look, the feeling yesterday for me, Caylor was one
Speaker 10: of melancholy and I still feel like that. This certainly
Speaker 10: wasn't a joyous occasion yesterday. It wasn't something that we
Speaker 10: wanted to do and wasn't something that we set out
Speaker 10: to do, but it was something we unfortunately felt we
Speaker 10: had to do. But having said that as well, we
Speaker 10: have some issues that we would like to resolve. Were
Speaker 10: the four issues that we've been very public on that
Speaker 10: we need as part of a deal, and I hope
Speaker 10: that happened sooner rather than later and the band's back
Speaker 10: together again.
Speaker 2: Well, from what David little Proud has been saying today,
Speaker 2: your leader, of course you may will sit on the
Speaker 2: backbench until after the next election unless on those four
Speaker 2: policy points the Liberal Party accedes to you.
Speaker 3: Is that a.
Speaker 2: Situation you would like to end up in? I mean,
Speaker 2: are you prepared to say, Look, if we don't get
Speaker 2: those policies, we are not rejoining with the Liberal Party
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 10: Well, Caleb, my desire is to be sitting in a
Speaker 10: coalition with the Liberal Party tomorrow. That would be my goal. Now,
Speaker 10: why isn't that happening, and to reprosecute those four things.
Speaker 10: Let's take one of them, Caleb. One of them is
Speaker 10: the Regional Australia Future Fund. We have been arguing and
Speaker 10: trying to get that to be coalition policy for a decade.
Speaker 10: We've got to agree to us coalition policy in the
Speaker 10: last twelve months of the last parliament. We can't see
Speaker 10: that because what is that that's about more money in
Speaker 10: the re agents for childcare, for health care and for infrastructure.
Speaker 10: I couldn't look my community in the eye and said, oh,
Speaker 10: you know that twenty billion dollar fund that we promised,
Speaker 10: and there'd be a b and dollarly dividend every year
Speaker 10: going into the regions. We forego that as far as
Speaker 10: sign a coalition agreement. That's unacceptable for us as a community.
Speaker 10: So I am hoping that the Liberal Party can get
Speaker 10: to the place where they see the value in those
Speaker 10: four policies and we are in a coalition agreement by
Speaker 10: the end of the week.
Speaker 2: Well, you talk about how you sell your values to
Speaker 2: the community, the rank and file members of the National Party,
Speaker 2: how have they responded to you about this?
Speaker 1: Well, on the ground locally, they understand.
Speaker 10: I mean the feedback that my office has been getting
Speaker 10: and things that we've been putting out has been one
Speaker 10: of very much of positivity. Remember, Caleb, this is this
Speaker 10: is a position of principle. I not that I'm complaining.
Speaker 10: We have all foregone shadow cabinet positions which things come
Speaker 10: with that.
Speaker 1: We have forgotne that.
Speaker 10: Because these four policy positions are too important us. The
Speaker 10: vestiture been another one. We've been arguing and trying to
Speaker 10: get the vestiture as coalition policy for up to ten
Speaker 10: years as well. We got that as coalition policy in
Speaker 10: the last parliament, and we just these are too important
Speaker 10: to our farmers, too important to our local communities when
Speaker 10: we're talking about the infrastructure and the healthcare and the
Speaker 10: Region Australian Future Fund to give up. They're really signature
Speaker 10: policies for us.
Speaker 2: Clearly, not everyone in the party room back the decision.
Speaker 2: You said earlier today that the decision was not unanimous.
Speaker 3: Exactly how much descent was there.
Speaker 10: We look, I don't want to go and it's not
Speaker 10: for me too, and I don't want to break party
Speaker 10: room confidence. I mean, the party room is a sacred
Speaker 10: place in the sense of what happens in the party
Speaker 10: room does and should stay in the party room. It
Speaker 10: wasn't unanimous, but having said that, it was quite conclusive
Speaker 10: the result.
Speaker 3: Did you vote for it?
Speaker 1: I did?
Speaker 10: I did, And again this shouldn't have been a surprise either,
Speaker 10: with all due respect to our partners or our partners
Speaker 10: in the coalition, the Liberal Party. I think David has
Speaker 10: said that on the Friday last Friday, we went back
Speaker 10: to the Liberal leadership and said these four are signature policies.
Speaker 10: They're too important for us to forego and we need
Speaker 10: a commitment to them. So wasn't something we threw at
Speaker 10: the last minute. It was something that we did very
Speaker 10: early on in the negotiation, so we were disappointed when
Speaker 10: there wasn't enough movement on them.
Speaker 2: The argument, of course from the Liberals would be, you know,
Speaker 2: as Susan Lee has said, we're going to go back
Speaker 2: to the table and discuss every policy here, so we
Speaker 2: may well come back with what you have requested of us,
Speaker 2: but we're just not in a position to do that yet.
Speaker 2: Why did you and the party feel it was incumbered
Speaker 2: upon you to make the decision now to break the coalition,
Speaker 2: as opposed to waiting for the Liberals to come back
Speaker 2: with their point of view and making it decision, then.
Speaker 1: Well what is we thought?
Speaker 10: And we're hoping that the Liberal Party would agree to it,
Speaker 10: but when they didn't, we feel that if there is opposition,
Speaker 10: and respectfully I understand that, and they're allowed.
Speaker 1: To there is.
Speaker 10: Quite some opposition to some of these policies within the
Speaker 10: Liberal Party room and I respect that and I understand that.
Speaker 10: So we felt if we didn't have a part of
Speaker 10: the agreement straight away as we move forward and start
Speaker 10: to attack the Labor government to form govern the next
Speaker 10: three years, that we might never see them again.
Speaker 1: And as I said earlier.
Speaker 10: These four signature policies are too important for our regional communities.
Speaker 10: Who can't get childcare, who can't get the health services
Speaker 10: as you get in the cities, who don't have the
Speaker 10: infrastructure that you have in the cities, is one example
Speaker 10: of those four things.
Speaker 1: Is too important for us, too important for our room.
Speaker 2: What demands will you have of the Liberal Party to
Speaker 2: get back together again? Do you want a resumption of
Speaker 2: how things were in terms of sharing positions in shadow cabinet?
Speaker 3: Do you want more? No?
Speaker 10: Look, the shadow cabinet, for example, is a ratio, so
Speaker 10: it's literally done on how many members they have, how
Speaker 10: many members, we have you calculate it, you do it
Speaker 10: on a pro rata system, so we weren't asking for it.
Speaker 1: Well, we never really.
Speaker 10: Got to that level of the discussion within the coalition
Speaker 10: agreement because these four things were the starting point, but
Speaker 10: we wouldn't have been asking for any more than.
Speaker 1: We were due.
Speaker 10: And part of that there would have been other little
Speaker 10: nuances we were asking for about things in the Chamber,
Speaker 10: et cetera, in question time and MPIs, but that's just
Speaker 10: per functionary stuff. The starting point was these four policies,
Speaker 10: three of them which we've been fighting for for a
Speaker 10: long time, were great wins for our room in the
Speaker 10: last Parliament to get approved by the coalition.
Speaker 1: Because of the importance of them.
Speaker 10: Couldn't let them go and potentially never see them again
Speaker 10: become coalition policy. Our wish, our hope, was that the
Speaker 10: Liberal Party would see the importance of those to our
Speaker 10: room and say, yep, we get these, we get how
Speaker 10: important this is to the National's party room. We think
Speaker 10: it's important for a coalition degrement happy to make the
Speaker 10: exception of our review for these important positions of the
Speaker 10: Nationals and know how long you've been arguing for them,
Speaker 10: and the rest will be up for review as we
Speaker 10: march on.
Speaker 1: That's what we were hoping the scenario was going to be.
Speaker 3: Kevin Hogan, thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thanks Calum Again, I say, I hope they can fix
Speaker 2: it sooner rather than later, because the longer it goes on,
Speaker 2: the worse it will get still to come. I'll get
Speaker 2: the perspective of the coalition breakup from the other partner,
Speaker 2: the Liberals, when the lnp's Garth Hamilton joins me a
Speaker 2: little later. But first the latest details on those record
Speaker 2: breaking floods that have swept across New South Wales and
Speaker 2: what the next few days have in store. Meteorologist Rob
Speaker 2: Sharp will join me next.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Record breaking floods have again in undated parts of New
Speaker 2: South Wales. It just feels like a hamster wheel, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: This time the Manning River has peaked at six point
Speaker 2: four meters at Tare, and of course the SEES has
Speaker 2: been working in overdrive to resk hundreds of trapped residents,
Speaker 2: many of whom have been cut off from roads and
Speaker 2: have been living on their rooftops since last and since
Speaker 2: last night, I should say, much like the Hallerin family here,
Speaker 2: goodness me you feel so sorry for them and what
Speaker 2: an experience that would be with me now. Sky News
Speaker 2: meteorologist Rob Sharp Rob Tari had record breaking flooding today.
Speaker 2: Could floods rise to new heights in other communities, That.
Speaker 1: Is a possibility.
Speaker 15: That is the fear that I have that this flood
Speaker 15: event will continue and the focus will shift just that
Speaker 15: a little bit further north. So many can communities along
Speaker 15: the Manning River have been flooded out completely, homes engulfed
Speaker 15: by water, and that kind of thing is starting to
Speaker 15: happen in a few other areas as well, and we've
Speaker 15: seen that today. This is a shot from Kempsey from
Speaker 15: the middle of the day. Since then, the river has
Speaker 15: risen an extra half a meter a in Port mcquarie.
Speaker 15: That's significant water in many of the streets as well,
Speaker 15: as water levels continue to rise in that region too.
Speaker 15: So over the last couple of days, this is the
Speaker 15: rain we have seen. Areas in the peak have had
Speaker 15: more than two hundred millimeters widespread and totals have reached
Speaker 15: as high as five hundred millimeters up.
Speaker 3: To nine o'clock this morning.
Speaker 15: But since then the rain has continued to fall.
Speaker 3: We have major.
Speaker 15: Flooding in all of these river systems labeled here, but
Speaker 15: my fears are greatest for the Nambucker, Maclay and Hastings
Speaker 15: River from now on because those three are rising quite
Speaker 15: quickly and we're continuing to see the rain in that
Speaker 15: region as well, so you could see it's a bit
Speaker 15: more further north than what we were seeing in previous days,
Speaker 15: with the target being the mid North Coast and even
Speaker 15: into southern parts of the Northern Rivers where we have
Speaker 15: seen another ninety six in Yamber Bellinger one hundred and
Speaker 15: fifty six, and there's even been a small location picking
Speaker 15: up as much as one hundred and ninety milimeters just
Speaker 15: since nine o'clock this morning.
Speaker 3: Goodness, goodness me.
Speaker 2: How will the rest of this weather event play out? Well?
Speaker 15: Unfortunately, through tomorrow it's going to continue to target much
Speaker 15: the same area. There's a severe weather warnings that stands
Speaker 15: heavy to locally intense rainfall the potential for life threatening
Speaker 15: flash flooding. But it's the accumulation of rain that I'm
Speaker 15: most concerned about because it's targeting these same areas again
Speaker 15: through tonight and into tomorrow with the low pressure trough. Unfortunately,
Speaker 15: on top of that small low pressure system circulation is
Speaker 15: likely to form, and that will aid the winds to
Speaker 15: strengthen as well. So that may mean that those helicopters
Speaker 15: may not be able to land on rooftops later tomorrow
Speaker 15: if water levels rise to the heights that we fear
Speaker 15: that they may, So that could be the real problem.
Speaker 15: That evacuations might get significantly trickier as the wind picks
Speaker 15: up again. But you can see this rain spreads to
Speaker 15: many regions. Twenty five to fifty millimeters is likely in
Speaker 15: these lime green shedded areas, even Canberra, who is likely
Speaker 15: to see thirty to ninety millimeters. In Sydney Thursday and Friday,
Speaker 15: fifty to one hundred and twenty millimeters is likely. But
Speaker 15: it's that north coast where in the pink sheding we're
Speaker 15: still expecting another two hundred millimeters on top of the
Speaker 15: three hundred to five hundred that has already fallen.
Speaker 2: Caleb, rob I'm getting fan mail about your work here,
Speaker 2: so thank you so much for keeping us across it.
Speaker 2: It's been the most popular part of the show so far.
Speaker 2: Rob Sharp, thank you for your time. Now, Donald Trump
Speaker 2: said what a lot of people have been thinking when
Speaker 2: it comes to Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 16: I think it's very sad. Actually, I'm surprised that it
Speaker 16: wasn't you know, THEBLIC wasn't notified a long time ago,
Speaker 16: because to get to stage nine, that's a long time.
Speaker 16: I just add my physical saw that you saw the
Speaker 16: results of that particular test. I think that testa's standard
Speaker 16: to pretty much anybody getting a physical good physical.
Speaker 2: And of course I wish President Biden, well you wouldn't
Speaker 2: wish cancer on anyone.
Speaker 3: But it's a good question. I mean, surely Biden.
Speaker 2: Had access to the best possible medical treatment any US
Speaker 2: citizen could have, but his prostate cancer was only discovered
Speaker 2: when it had metastasized into the bone. Biden's office responded
Speaker 2: today saying he hadn't had a screening for prostate cancer
Speaker 2: since twenty fourteen. And I know screening isn't always recommended
Speaker 2: for men over seventy, but I just don't know how
Speaker 2: that makes anything better. I mean, it's a blood test
Speaker 2: so easy, and you're the president of the United States.
Speaker 2: You know you'd think you'd bother to get tested. Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: does I mean, did Biden say that he didn't want
Speaker 2: the test, or did his doctor decide not to do
Speaker 2: it without discussing it with him.
Speaker 3: It's all very odd.
Speaker 2: The doctor Kevin O'Connor, Biden's doctor, hasn't answered any questions,
Speaker 2: by the way, and the question I want to answered,
Speaker 2: and I haven't really seen anyone give an answer this week,
Speaker 2: is how long do you need to have prostate cancer
Speaker 2: before it becomes a stage four cancer moving into the bone.
Speaker 2: How long might have Joe Biden had this? Well for
Speaker 2: an expert medical opinion, I'm joined now by urologist and
Speaker 2: clinical director with the Australian Prostate Center, doctor Phil Dundee.
Speaker 2: Doctor Dundee, the most pressing point here is that Biden
Speaker 2: was out of the White House for four months. He
Speaker 2: was given a clean bill of health in his time
Speaker 2: as president. Now he has stage four prostate cancer. Now
Speaker 2: you're a doctor, you're not a political commentator, So I'm
Speaker 2: not going to get into the politics of it with you.
Speaker 3: I can do that myself later.
Speaker 2: But strictly medically speaking, is this something that could have
Speaker 2: conceivably happened in just four months?
Speaker 17: Well, I think it depends on whether you're talking about
Speaker 17: the diagnosis been made or whether the disease has been
Speaker 17: present for four months. So it's almost certain that this
Speaker 17: process has been going on for at least ten years,
Speaker 17: but it is possible that he has been unaware of
Speaker 17: the diagnosis until he had the requisite testing. So I
Speaker 17: think you mentioned about the guidelines of testing, and I
Speaker 17: think that's where really the failure has been. I understand
Speaker 17: that he last had a test in twenty fourteen, and
Speaker 17: he would have been seventy one or seventy two at
Speaker 17: that stage. Unfortunately, the US as well as Australia, recommend
Speaker 17: against screening for prostate cancer for men in their seventies,
Speaker 17: and that's why this situation has been able to occur.
Speaker 17: So had he had ongoing testing through his seventies seventies,
Speaker 17: almost certainly this would have been picked up at a
Speaker 17: much earlier stage, and possibly at a curable stage, and
Speaker 17: he wouldn't be facing this situation now. So I think
Speaker 17: this is really quite a disaster.
Speaker 2: Well, how early I have picked something up? And if
Speaker 2: you're saying this is a process that can take up
Speaker 2: to ten years to get to, I mean potentially this
Speaker 2: would have been picked up before he'd even run for president.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 17: And ideally we like to pick up prostate cancer before
Speaker 17: it becomes symptomatic. Almost universally, once prostate cancer becomes symptomatic.
Speaker 17: And I understand the prostate President Biden had some urinary
Speaker 17: symptoms and that is a sign of late stage prostate cancer. Now,
Speaker 17: I want to reassure any men, any of your viewers
Speaker 17: out there, who have urinary symptoms. They are very common.
Speaker 17: They are almost never related to prostate cancer. But it
Speaker 17: does pose a good opportunity for men to see their
Speaker 17: primary care provider and be tested for prostate cancer. But
Speaker 17: if he has urinary symptoms that are because of prostate cancer,
Speaker 17: he already has late stage disease. And that's why we
Speaker 17: recommend staging. So staging is a simple blood test. We
Speaker 17: can pick up prostate cancer when it's confined to the prostate,
Speaker 17: and in almost all cases we can cure men before
Speaker 17: it escapes as long as we are able to detect
Speaker 17: it early, and we can only do that with the
Speaker 17: blood test just quickly.
Speaker 2: Why would you not test after seventy I know that
Speaker 2: seems to be the recommendation, I mean, the President of
Speaker 2: the United States, it's there. I don't know why you
Speaker 2: wouldn't take it, But why would you not test after seventy.
Speaker 17: I would strongly disagree with those recommendations, and we look
Speaker 17: at the what's called lead time in prostaate cancer, where
Speaker 17: when we detect the prostate cancer on a screening test,
Speaker 17: we pick it up typically around about ten years before
Speaker 17: it becomes symptomatic. And so the recommendations have been that
Speaker 17: men in their seventies don't require prostate cancer screening because
Speaker 17: they are likely to die of other causes before they
Speaker 17: develop symptomatic prostaate cancer.
Speaker 1: And that is just not true.
Speaker 17: Of many men in their seventies. If you look at
Speaker 17: the statistics for men in their seventies in Australia, life
Speaker 17: expectancy does not drop below ten years until men reach
Speaker 17: the age of seventy nine. So not only should they
Speaker 17: be screened in their seventies, they should be screened right
Speaker 17: through their seventies and even into their in some cases,
Speaker 17: because we have an expanding life expectancy, many men living
Speaker 17: into their late eighties, early nineties, and even to one hundred.
Speaker 17: And this is the kind of situation that we're faced
Speaker 17: with when men don't have screening. So this is a
Speaker 17: preventable problem and it absolutely should have been prevented.
Speaker 3: You've been a great help, doctor Phil Dundee. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I mean, there you go ten years that could have
Speaker 2: taken and either they didn't test or they didn't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, it just seems insane.
Speaker 2: Coming up after the break Keir Starmer says he's reset
Speaker 2: the UK's relationship with Europe, but he's torn apart his
Speaker 2: relationship with his own voters.
Speaker 3: Brint and O'Neill in a moment, and.
Speaker 2: We've spent a lot of time wondering about the future
Speaker 2: of the Nationals after the coalition break up. But what's
Speaker 2: going to happen now in the ideological battle for the
Speaker 2: future of the Liberal Party?
Speaker 3: Garth Hamilton joins me.
Speaker 2: Next, let's return to the coalition split. You heard from
Speaker 2: Kevin Hogan a little earlier about things from the National's perspective.
Speaker 2: But of course what all of this hangs on whether
Speaker 2: the Coalition gets back together is the policy decisions of
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party. Do they come to the table or
Speaker 2: do they decide they want to go it alone. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't know why they'd want to, but you read
Speaker 2: today that Susan lay Lee sorry, is prepared to do so.
Speaker 2: So I don't know what she knows that I don't know,
Speaker 2: but someone who I think has given the most clear
Speaker 2: art analysis of where the campaign went wrong and part
Speaker 2: of what needs to happen in the future is the
Speaker 2: lnp's Garth Hamilton. I've been praising his column in The
Speaker 2: Australian on Monday all week and he joins me. Now, Garth,
Speaker 2: thank you for joining me. I mean, what was your
Speaker 2: initial reaction to the news that the coalition was breaking
Speaker 2: up for the first time in nearly forty years.
Speaker 18: Look, I won't pretend I wasn't frustrated and a little
Speaker 18: bit sad. And we've got a great story to tell
Speaker 18: them the coalition. Over the last hundred years, Australian people
Speaker 18: have turned to a center right coalition for sixty five
Speaker 18: of those years. We are the choice that Australia regularly
Speaker 18: makes when we're going through hard times. We should be
Speaker 18: really proud of that. And look, I guess what really
Speaker 18: hurts the most is that right now we've got a
Speaker 18: Labor government that went into the election raising the prospect
Speaker 18: of a recession coming, that just released a budget that
Speaker 18: had ten years of deficits banked in, and yet they
Speaker 18: took almost no mandate to the last election. And we're
Speaker 18: letting those guys get away. Every day we're talking about
Speaker 18: the coalition agreement. We're letting these guys get away without
Speaker 18: being held to account, which is our job as opposition.
Speaker 18: So we need to get back to doing our job
Speaker 18: really quickly. The best way to do that is in
Speaker 18: a coalition.
Speaker 2: Well, the N's policy demands nuclear energy, force, editive divestiture
Speaker 2: of supermarkets, the Regional Future Fund, the service obligations for
Speaker 2: mobile phone coverage in the regions. Is there any reason
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party could not have just set up front
Speaker 2: look will do it to keep the coalition together. I
Speaker 2: know Lee has said that everything is up for grabs,
Speaker 2: but could you not have just hit that one on
Speaker 2: the head.
Speaker 18: Look, I think this is a bit of kobuki theater
Speaker 18: from the NATS. They know very well we would have
Speaker 18: been open to a discussion on all of those issues.
Speaker 18: They have no reason to think that we wouldn't. Kevin
Speaker 18: Hogan's a very good man. But look, I think there's
Speaker 18: a decision that the NAT's made long ago. They weren't
Speaker 18: looking for peaceful resolution of that. That's my belief. I
Speaker 18: think they need to stand to account for that. I
Speaker 18: think they need to have a good hard look at
Speaker 18: themselves and really commit to coming back to being part
Speaker 18: of this coalition. It's important to Australia that we do.
Speaker 18: This isn't about parties. This is about the Australian people
Speaker 18: and how we serve them as their representatives in Parliament.
Speaker 2: So you now need to have this fight over policies
Speaker 2: and that will decide whether or not the Nats want
Speaker 2: to come back to you. And of course you wrote
Speaker 2: on Monday about part of the direction you think the
Speaker 2: party should take. You particularly said that you've lost confidence
Speaker 2: in net zero and you've lost confidence in blank checkbook
Speaker 2: politics essentially, which is what net zero has been. Are
Speaker 2: you confident that the Party will change its tune on
Speaker 2: this matter.
Speaker 18: Well, what I want the Party to do is to
Speaker 18: focus on making this a question of the economy. I
Speaker 18: think we've allowed questions like net zero to become moral
Speaker 18: questions and to feel that either you're all in or
Speaker 18: you're all out. You're good, you're bad, and that's a
Speaker 18: terrible way for us to be addressing policy, particularly when
Speaker 18: we're the people who are the strong economic managers who
Speaker 18: look after Australia in those hard times. Netzero should be
Speaker 18: an economic question. We'll be setting a price tag on it,
Speaker 18: making assessment from that point of view. That's where we
Speaker 18: offer something to the Australian people. And I think if
Speaker 18: we have the view once again of going back to
Speaker 18: the economy, of having a smaller government, of low attacks,
Speaker 18: of putting family at the heart of the state, this
Speaker 18: is where our our heartbeat is. This is what's important
Speaker 18: to us. This is why people have chosen a center
Speaker 18: right coalition in the past, which have to head in
Speaker 18: that direction again and that's where we'll find home.
Speaker 2: I wholeheartedly agree, Garth Hamilton, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2: Coming up after the break, a Conservative councilor's wife has
Speaker 2: lost a repeal after being sentenced to thirty one months
Speaker 2: in prison for a post on social media.
Speaker 3: Brendan O'Neal joins me next.
Speaker 12: Well.
Speaker 2: UK Prime Minister Sirquias Stamer has signed Britain up to
Speaker 2: a series of new agreements with the EU that, in
Speaker 2: his words, resets the relationship after Brexit.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: These agreements covered defense, trade and allowing EU fishing.
Speaker 3: Vessels into UK waters.
Speaker 19: Here he was announcing it, leadies and gentlemen, Britain is
Speaker 19: back on the world stage, working with our partners, doing
Speaker 19: deals that will grow our economy and putting more money
Speaker 19: in the pockets of working.
Speaker 3: People joining me. Now.
Speaker 2: Brendan O'Neil, the chief political reporter for Spiked Online, and
Speaker 2: something tells me you're not as excited by this as
Speaker 2: Sirquias Stamer, and I suspect a lot of Brixiteers out either.
Speaker 20: No, we absolutely are not. You know, we have to
Speaker 20: remember that seventeen point four million people voted for Brexit
Speaker 20: in twenty sixteen. I was one of those people, very
Speaker 20: proud to have been one of those people, and that
Speaker 20: was a vote to leave the European Union, to completely
Speaker 20: cut ties with the European Union, which is an institution
Speaker 20: we don't like. And yet this new deal that Kiirs
Speaker 20: Starmer is trumpeting there, this takes us back into the EU. Essentially,
Speaker 20: it brings us back under certain rules and regulations drafted
Speaker 20: in Brussels and institutions we voted to reject. So it
Speaker 20: kind of brings us back in by the back door.
Speaker 20: And I think what Kirs Starmer is doing he always
Speaker 20: hated Brexit, and what he's doing now is he's killing
Speaker 20: it by a thousand technocratic blows, and this is part
Speaker 20: of that process.
Speaker 2: I just don't understand why, though, I mean, we saw
Speaker 2: how he backled so fast on immigration last week, and
Speaker 2: we know that he's under pressure, internal pressure from colleagues
Speaker 2: with the surge in support for Reform UK. They're really
Speaker 2: worried about the next election. So how does a deal
Speaker 2: like this do anything to convince a potential Reform voter
Speaker 2: that they should vote for labor.
Speaker 20: It really doesn't. And in fact I think he is
Speaker 20: the death warrant of the Labor Party, the death warrant
Speaker 20: of the Labor government with this deal. It really is
Speaker 20: that bad. And as you say, you know, Reform is
Speaker 20: nipping at the heels of Labor Reform, which is Nigel
Speaker 20: Farage's party. It's a pro Brexit party, it's wary about
Speaker 20: mass immigration, it's against wokeness, you know, it's a party
Speaker 20: that appeals to millions of working class voters here that
Speaker 20: is now appealing to voters who would traditionally go for labor.
Speaker 20: And yet still kir Starmer is pushing through this crazy deal,
Speaker 20: this deal which makes us beholden to the European Court
Speaker 20: of Justice. There are certain food and trade regulations that
Speaker 20: we will have to follow, which means that if a
Speaker 20: judgment is made in the ECJ that affects those rules,
Speaker 20: we will have to abide by it. I'm sorry, but
Speaker 20: a nation that has to abide by the judgments of
Speaker 20: a foreign court is not an independent nation. And that's
Speaker 20: what a lot of voters are waking up to, the
Speaker 20: fact that kir Starmer is willing to sell off our
Speaker 20: sovereignty in order to appease the European Union.
Speaker 3: Well, let's at about the courts in the UK.
Speaker 2: The wife of a Conservative counselor has lost to have
Speaker 2: bid to appeal against a prison sentence. Lucy Connelly. She
Speaker 2: was jailed for thirty one months in October after she
Speaker 2: called for quote unquote mess deportation now and she urged
Speaker 2: people to sit fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. Now,
Speaker 2: you know, you don't go around doing that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: It is absolutely incitement to violence. But thirty one months
Speaker 2: does seem a little extreme.
Speaker 20: It's incredibly extreme. You know, everyone agrees, well, most decent
Speaker 20: people agree that what she tweeted was awful. When during
Speaker 20: those Southport riots she said burn down the hotels, by
Speaker 20: which she meant hotels that were housing immigrants, she said,
Speaker 20: I don't care, get rid of them all. That's an
Speaker 20: obnoxious and potentially criminal thing to tweet. People shouldn't say
Speaker 20: things like that. But thirty one months, two and a
Speaker 20: half years in the slammer for something she wrote, something
Speaker 20: she regretted writing, and something she swiftly deleted. That is extreme.
Speaker 20: That is authority and taken to a new level. You know,
Speaker 20: we have a two tier justice system in Britain because
Speaker 20: there was an imam here, an Islamic preacher who a
Speaker 20: few days after the Hamasis seventh of October attack on Israel,
Speaker 20: he gave a sermon in which he said, cursed the Jews,
Speaker 20: ruined their houses, destroy their homes, cursed the children of Israel.
Speaker 20: He went on and on. No charges were brought against him,
Speaker 20: he was not found guilty of having committed a crime.
Speaker 20: He's still now preaching as he usually, as he always was,
Speaker 20: and yet this woman finds herself in jail for saying
Speaker 20: burn down the hotels. That is two tier justice and
Speaker 20: it's another element of Keir Starmer's Britain that people are
Speaker 20: sick of.
Speaker 2: Just very quickly, before we go, Brindon, I want to
Speaker 2: ask you about Joe Biden and the prostate cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 2: Do we really believe that no one knew about this?
Speaker 20: You know, how could they not. That's the question I
Speaker 20: keep asking myself. You know, presidents famously get checked up
Speaker 20: all the time to make sure that they're physically and
Speaker 20: mentally healthy. Someone must have known, and we know that
Speaker 20: there is a long record of people covering up Joe
Speaker 20: Biden's full of mental frailty.
Speaker 2: It just it seems so odd. I'm sorry, Brendan, we've
Speaker 2: run out of time. Brendan O'Neill, thank you as always.
Speaker 2: That's all We've got time for statue now. Paul Murray Live,