Speaker 1: From the sky in Center. This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for watching. A further extension to what
Speaker 1: we've been talking about all night, first with Andrew through Sharion,
Speaker 1: now myself about this flight which has crashed just after
Speaker 1: takeoff after leaving a city in India on its way
Speaker 1: towards Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom. Now we are
Speaker 1: going to show you what he is going to be
Speaker 1: confronting footage, but this is the context of what took
Speaker 1: place just after the India flight took to the skies.
Speaker 1: Its ultimate height was eight hundred and twenty five feet
Speaker 1: or two hundred and fifty meters. The pilot, who had
Speaker 1: apparently ten thousand hours of flying experience, did make a
Speaker 1: may day call, and as you have heard now the
Speaker 1: best part of two hundred and forty two people, as
Speaker 1: we understand, have passed away have died. One hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty nine are of Indian descent, fifty three from the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, and we understand eleven children were on board.
Speaker 1: Ian Woods is a reporter who's joining us now at
Speaker 1: Live from London. Because of course both sides of this
Speaker 1: flight is where the tragedy is going to be felt. Aan,
Speaker 1: what's the lightest that you are hearing from your side
Speaker 1: of the travel.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, absolutely tragic news, Paul. We're still waiting
Speaker 2: for information on casualties, reports of bodies having been recovered.
Speaker 2: We don't know yet if there are any survivors. We
Speaker 2: know that there were two hundred and forty two people
Speaker 2: on board this plane. One hundred and sixty nine of
Speaker 2: them were Indian nationals, fifty three were Britain's, seven Portuguese
Speaker 2: and one Canadian. Now, as you saw in those pictures
Speaker 2: a short time ago, people in the aviation business, former pilots,
Speaker 2: are already analyzing that very very brief piece of footage
Speaker 2: and coming up with what they think are possible and
Speaker 2: stairs I stress possible, because clearly the flight box data
Speaker 2: has to be recovered. They've got to do an investigation.
Speaker 2: But just looking at those pictures, the flight took off
Speaker 2: around about sort of three and a half hours ago.
Speaker 2: It was supposed to be a nine hour flight, but
Speaker 2: just a minute later it crashed. Now, when you see
Speaker 2: the pictures of the plane taking off half a minute
Speaker 2: into its flight, at this point the undercarriage should be
Speaker 2: retracted within ten to fifteen seconds of the plane leaving
Speaker 2: the ground, the flaps should be deployed on the wings
Speaker 2: to be able to give it lift to enable it
Speaker 2: to get into the sky. Those pictures show that the
Speaker 2: undercarriage the wheels were down as if it was coming
Speaker 2: in for a landing, and there's no evidence of the
Speaker 2: flaps having been deployed to give it that lift. So
Speaker 2: aviation experts are immediately asking questions about is that the
Speaker 2: cause of it. Was it a hydraulics issue which meant
Speaker 2: that the undercarriage could not come up. Was there an
Speaker 2: issue with deploying these flaps, Was it a mistake by
Speaker 2: the crew. All of these things are all in the
Speaker 2: realms of possibility at the moment, but that would appear
Speaker 2: to explain why the plane crashed having reached the height
Speaker 2: of just around two hundred and fifty meters. Now, when
Speaker 2: a plane takes off so soon after lift off, it's
Speaker 2: obviously full of aviation flu around one hundred and forty tons.
Speaker 2: That's why you see the huge ball of flames when
Speaker 2: it came down. The question is did the wings detach
Speaker 2: from the main body of the aircraft when it came down.
Speaker 2: That is why you may get survivability if the wings
Speaker 2: were still attached to the body of the plane. That
Speaker 2: makes it much more dangerous obviously for the people on board.
Speaker 2: And even though we have seen pictures of people been
Speaker 2: taken to hospitals on stretchers, we don't know whether there
Speaker 2: was are passengers on the plane or whether there are
Speaker 2: people on the ground. It came down in a residential
Speaker 2: area at a doctor's hostel, and clearly there are been
Speaker 2: casualties on the ground there as well.
Speaker 1: This is the first time that a Boeing seven eight
Speaker 1: seven Dreamliner has crashed. Again. The information that I was
Speaker 1: able to go in before coming on here was about
Speaker 1: the experience of the pilot supposedly some ten thousand hours.
Speaker 1: Are you hearing any more either from the company of
Speaker 1: Boeing obviously again the earliest of hours of what will
Speaker 1: be many many months of investigation here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean Boyne are saying nothing at the moment,
Speaker 2: obviously looking into the causes before they speak. But they
Speaker 2: have got a reputation to because the Boeing seven eight
Speaker 2: to seven Dreamliner, which was introduced fourteen years ago, has
Speaker 2: never had a crash. It has flown millions of passengers,
Speaker 2: it has flown a billion passengers and has flown sort
Speaker 2: of millions of flights during those fourteen years and it's
Speaker 2: never had an issue. So clearly this is something which
Speaker 2: is catastrophic, not just for those involved in the crash,
Speaker 2: catastrophic for the reputation of the company and of course
Speaker 2: Air India, but Air India are one of dozens of
Speaker 2: airlines who use the Boeing seven eight seven and its
Speaker 2: three different forms. There's almost twelve hundred in operation right
Speaker 2: around the world. Clearly questions will have to be asked
Speaker 2: about those airliners, whether any further safety checks need to
Speaker 2: be made as a result of what investigators will come
Speaker 2: up with as a result of looking into this crash.
Speaker 1: Of course Gatwick Airport on the edge of London, the
Speaker 1: mainland being Haythrow But inevitably there would have been people
Speaker 1: that have been waiting for people to come off that plane.
Speaker 1: Obviously in the hours since May will be heading to
Speaker 1: the airport. What reports are you getting from the paeople
Speaker 1: that are anxiously trying to find out information about what
Speaker 1: has happened.
Speaker 2: Well, it's just over midday here in London. The flight
Speaker 2: wasn't due to land at London gap week until five
Speaker 2: thirty in the late afternoon, so unlikely there would have
Speaker 2: been people waiting to pick up passengers at that point.
Speaker 2: But clearly if you have been listening to the radio,
Speaker 2: watching television, seeing what's been happening on social media, and
Speaker 2: you have got somebody on board that plane, you will
Speaker 2: be extremely concerned. Now, what the authorities will always say
Speaker 2: in this case is stay away from the airport because
Speaker 2: it will just add to the chaos and confusion. There
Speaker 2: will be emergency numbers which will be issued to try
Speaker 2: to get people to give to get information about loved ones,
Speaker 2: but clearly there is no point going to the airport
Speaker 2: as it stands at the moment. Now we've just had
Speaker 2: a statement from Prime Minister of Indian orndrum Modi. He
Speaker 2: says that the tragedy and ac Medabad has stunned and
Speaker 2: saddened us. It's heartbreaking beyond words. In this hour, my
Speaker 2: thoughts are with everyone affected by it. We're all by
Speaker 2: bucking and Palace that King Charles has been keptain formed
Speaker 2: and the British Prime Minister A Kiir Steimer has also
Speaker 2: expressed his horror at the pictures that he's been seen
Speaker 2: on television this morning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you so much. Allan no doubt we'll talk
Speaker 1: to you a little bit later in the night and
Speaker 1: obviously on scott News UK you can see it's full coverage.
Speaker 1: Thank you Allan do appreciate it. Torrible news to begin
Speaker 1: our program here with again two hundred and forty two
Speaker 1: people that look like they have died in this plane
Speaker 1: crash which is coming from India on its way to
Speaker 1: Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom. All right, to the
Speaker 1: other issues in and around today and tonight's program as
Speaker 1: normal that we will continue on with. Obviously, if we
Speaker 1: need to know more, we will talk about it. But
Speaker 1: tonight the plan is to talk about, among other things,
Speaker 1: the relationships that we have with our own neighbors. New
Speaker 1: survey shows just how little contact some generations are actually
Speaker 1: having with different age groups and different people who are
Speaker 1: living near them. Also we're talking tonight is a new
Speaker 1: face for the show, Angie Bell. She's a new shadow
Speaker 1: minister for the Liberal Party. Represents the lmpun around the
Speaker 1: Gold Coast. Now I'll mate Joe Hildebrand and obviously, while
Speaker 1: what's happened when it comes to this plane crash clearly
Speaker 1: is the tragic story of the day, many hearts broken
Speaker 1: earlier in the day upon learning of the death of
Speaker 1: the founder, the heart, the soul and the big big
Speaker 1: brain of the Beach Boys, Brian Wilson, who of course
Speaker 1: passed away today to smaller matters compared to anything to
Speaker 1: do with the events that are taking place on the
Speaker 1: other side of the world. But still time moves on,
Speaker 1: and that means that our Prime Minister is most likely
Speaker 1: on a plane himself in the next few days. He'll
Speaker 1: be going off to a thing called the G seven,
Speaker 1: the meeting of the seven most powerful nations in the world,
Speaker 1: and a few stragglers that get brought on as well.
Speaker 1: There is some expectation that there will be a meeting
Speaker 1: between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Now interestingly, of course, we know how Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is viewed in Australia. We know how it played
Speaker 1: out in terms of our own federal election, which is
Speaker 1: perhaps why we are seeing a rather antagonistic position being
Speaker 1: taken by our government towards the leader of the free world,
Speaker 1: because they disagree on so many issues. Now we've seen
Speaker 1: throughout the week that Albanese's Trump G seven meeting is
Speaker 1: apparently in limbo in part as a result of the
Speaker 1: Australian government joining many other nations in sanctioning some of
Speaker 1: the extreme members of the government in Israel. Meantime, we've
Speaker 1: heard that there's a whole bunch of non negotiables that
Speaker 1: go into the potential conversation, including trying to get that
Speaker 1: ten percent tariff removed of all Australian imports along with
Speaker 1: every other country in the world into the United States.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's even been referred to as red lines.
Speaker 1: Not the type of stuff that you start to set
Speaker 1: as an expectation of a conversation between the leader of
Speaker 1: the free world theoretically the side on which we are upon,
Speaker 1: on which so much of our domestic military and political future,
Speaker 1: of course has been entwined with over many decades and
Speaker 1: many decades into the future. And certainly we know that
Speaker 1: the relationship that the Prime Minister has put a little
Speaker 1: bit more effort into rather than the relationship with the
Speaker 1: new United States President, who of course was elected in
Speaker 1: November and very little communication between now and June. Of course,
Speaker 1: the middle of June is of the relationship between the
Speaker 1: Chinese government and Australia. Now we know that you couldn't
Speaker 1: dare disrupt the Chinese government, because of course, what will
Speaker 1: they do with Australian trade, what will they do with
Speaker 1: Australian elections, what will they do when it comes to
Speaker 1: military provocat provocation? My apologies. So you can see here
Speaker 1: that there is also two very weird views in my view,
Speaker 1: that have started to build amongst Australians about what seemed
Speaker 1: to be the two choices, the United States or China
Speaker 1: as the one that we need to have the better
Speaker 1: relationship with going into the future. I'm going to quote
Speaker 1: a collection of polls, including let's try to compare apples
Speaker 1: with apples, which of course is the situation involving the
Speaker 1: United States. And these are opinions about the United States
Speaker 1: and China that Australians have given when it comes to,
Speaker 1: among other things, the Lowy Institute pole It shows here
Speaker 1: about Australians that do you believe that it is likely
Speaker 1: or unlikely that China will become a military threat to Australia.
Speaker 1: You can see that just forty percent of people in
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine believe that, only thirty nine percent
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen, and now seventy five percent after the
Speaker 1: COVID pandemic in twenty two in twenty three and then
Speaker 1: back to seventy one percent of people having that view
Speaker 1: last year at the last pole. So Australians believe that
Speaker 1: seventy one percent of them almost three quarters believe that
Speaker 1: there is a likelihood of military threat not coming from
Speaker 1: the United States but coming from China. But how much
Speaker 1: do you trust the United States to act responsibly in
Speaker 1: the world. That number has gone from a positive of
Speaker 1: sixty eighty two or eighty three percent in twenty eleven
Speaker 1: down to now thirty six percent, with sixty four percent
Speaker 1: of Australians having not much, very little compnfidence in the
Speaker 1: United States ability to act responsibly in the world. We
Speaker 1: also see more polling, this time from the ABC in
Speaker 1: their vote Compass. Now, of course this was a self
Speaker 1: owning survey where you opt in to take it, they
Speaker 1: don't contact you. It says that forty three percent of
Speaker 1: people believe that Australia should be somewhat or much less
Speaker 1: close to the United States, nineteen percent say much less
Speaker 1: close somewhat less close twenty eight percent, with only the
Speaker 1: best part of what seventeen eighteen percent of people believing
Speaker 1: that Australia should be closer to the United States. Compare
Speaker 1: this with China. Australia should deepen its ties with China,
Speaker 1: sixteen percent say absolutely not, eighteen percent somewhat, and then
Speaker 1: those who believe we should deepen our ties with China
Speaker 1: is now the best part of twenty five percent who
Speaker 1: somewhat agree with another seven percent, So thirty three percent
Speaker 1: of people who believe we should be closer to China.
Speaker 1: So help square this circle for me. Seventy percent of
Speaker 1: Australians believe that China is the military threat to Australia,
Speaker 1: but more than thirty percent of Australians believe we should
Speaker 1: have closer ties with China. Now, I don't have to
Speaker 1: be involved in the game of diplomacy. We can just
Speaker 1: see things for what they are and very obviously the
Speaker 1: actual military threat to Australia is not the United States now.
Speaker 1: For too long, yes, Australia has relied essentially on if
Speaker 1: we do the bidding at times of the United States.
Speaker 1: If we lean on them and they lean on us
Speaker 1: for places like military bases in the middle of the
Speaker 1: country like Pine Gap for intelligence or up in Darwin
Speaker 1: as a place to afford to deploy marines, then Australia
Speaker 1: will be in a stronger and better position. But seemingly
Speaker 1: people seem to think that the great difference between what's
Speaker 1: more than seventy percent of people think is the military
Speaker 1: threat is all to do with Donald Trump. Now, I
Speaker 1: am fully fluent in MAGA and I understand all of
Speaker 1: the benefits of Donald Trump, but I also know that
Speaker 1: mine is the minority view in Australia, and this might
Speaker 1: be hard for some people to hear, who think we
Speaker 1: should just be more trumpy all the time. Here's the
Speaker 1: reality of a pole which was done globally by the
Speaker 1: Pure Research Company, and even if they're left leaning, the
Speaker 1: results are still worth talking about. Only voters in Sweden
Speaker 1: have stronger anti Trump views than Australians, who believe that
Speaker 1: the president is unable to understand complex problems, not qualified
Speaker 1: to hold his job, and unlikely to deal with major
Speaker 1: issues such as the wars in Ukraine or Gaza. Let's
Speaker 1: compare how Australia feels about Donald Trump compared to the
Speaker 1: rest of the countries that were surveyed. Ninety one percent
Speaker 1: of people in this pole from Australia describe the president
Speaker 1: as being arrogant. Eighty one percent describe him as dangerous.
Speaker 1: This compares to the national of the international average of
Speaker 1: eighty percent when it comes to arrogant and sixty five
Speaker 1: percent when it comes to dangerous. In terms of apparently
Speaker 1: Australia's view of Donald Trump when it comes to his
Speaker 1: ability to deal with issues such as the US migrant policies. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously he has a much different position than the open
Speaker 1: borders that produce ten minion illegal immigrants under Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: But apparently just thirty one percent of Australians believe that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is the right person to handle things like
Speaker 1: US immigration policies, let alone US China relations, let alone
Speaker 1: issues to do with climate change. Now, regardless of whether
Speaker 1: you like or dislike Donald Trump, whether you think his
Speaker 1: style is too much or not enough, whoever those people
Speaker 1: seem to be, the reality is is that if you
Speaker 1: are faced with two choices, there is only one obvious one,
Speaker 1: and that is the one that still practices freedom, that
Speaker 1: has elections, that actually does not have slave labor to
Speaker 1: produce the technologies that'supp of lebial unlock a renewable energy future.
Speaker 1: A million people are currently being held in slave labor
Speaker 1: camps in China. The legal systems of the United States
Speaker 1: versus China, the governance and democracy of the United States
Speaker 1: versus China, the idea that decades after fighting side by
Speaker 1: side in the Pacific with the United States and with
Speaker 1: the United States and the United Kingdom in Europe, which
Speaker 1: means we are as free as we are today because
Speaker 1: of those actions. To see now that the personality of
Speaker 1: the President of the United States seems to be a
Speaker 1: determinant factor about people knowing which side we should be
Speaker 1: on now again, Australia in many ways sold out to
Speaker 1: China a long time ago when it comes to the
Speaker 1: business leaders who were more than willing to sell their product,
Speaker 1: but of course they handed over power to the CCP
Speaker 1: to be able to strangle that product should we ever
Speaker 1: embarrassed them, and they were the ones to define embarrassment.
Speaker 1: Of course, that all happened after Australia wanted consequences after
Speaker 1: a pandemic that killed millions of people and shut down
Speaker 1: our country for the best part of two years. But
Speaker 1: because the president himself of the United States is unpopular
Speaker 1: in Australia, the Prime Minister of Australia is the one
Speaker 1: setting red lines and in some ways looking forward to
Speaker 1: some sort of a confrontation which may play out with
Speaker 1: the US President in the next couple of days. Now,
Speaker 1: I hope it is a warm and resetting conversation because
Speaker 1: all of the same concerns that Anthony Aberinezi had about
Speaker 1: the Chinese relationship, he clearly needs to start to have
Speaker 1: about the American one. If our local, state or federal
Speaker 1: elections become about the lesser of two evils, I'll take
Speaker 1: the United States one hundred and fifty times over the
Speaker 1: system of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. Now again,
Speaker 1: for those bad actors that will deliberately misinterpret any that
Speaker 1: I've just had to say, Australians know there is a
Speaker 1: difference between the government of China and its people. We
Speaker 1: know there is a difference between the system of government
Speaker 1: in China and people who have historic or family ties
Speaker 1: to China here in Australia. Anyone who suggests anything else
Speaker 1: by criticizing China is of course trying to blur the lines.
Speaker 1: And of course there are many people who just straight
Speaker 1: up hate Donald Trump because they are of the left
Speaker 1: and cannot stand what they believe he is doing negatively
Speaker 1: to their country. They are consuming like a fire hose
Speaker 1: information that is anti Trump all day every day from
Speaker 1: the news media in large parts of Australia, but certainly
Speaker 1: in the United States. Take for example, the events of
Speaker 1: this week and the rioting that has taken place in
Speaker 1: and around Los Angeles. Now, remember, people have been confronted
Speaker 1: who are trying to enforce the law. If you're a
Speaker 1: person who believe the president did the wrong thing by
Speaker 1: pardoning people in January, because in part of their confrontation
Speaker 1: with law enforcement, how does that not apply to the
Speaker 1: people who are confronting law enforcement enforcing the immigration laws
Speaker 1: of the United States. Yet there are people on so
Speaker 1: called mainstream television in the United States who are telling
Speaker 1: you that, even though you can see with your own
Speaker 1: two eyes concrete blocks being hurled from bridges into the
Speaker 1: windscreens of police cars, that if moving, would have killed
Speaker 1: the driver, there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 3: There is no vicious and violent mob in Los Angeles.
Speaker 3: The National Guard troops are doing absolutely nothing, the Marines
Speaker 3: are invisible and obviously doing absolutely nothing, and peaceful protesters
Speaker 3: have been peacefully submitting to arrests in small numbers to
Speaker 3: make their point of protest against what Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: trying to do in their city.
Speaker 1: Remember last night I showed you one of the protesters
Speaker 1: who was explaining why the Mexican flags were being flown.
Speaker 1: Protesters allegedly protesting against the immigration policies of the American president,
Speaker 1: And of course all of that was because they believed
Speaker 1: that historically Mexico was still including territories such as California. Well, again,
Speaker 1: the same guy who says nothing to see here about
Speaker 1: what you can see with your own eyes is basically
Speaker 1: repeating the central talking point as to why flags of
Speaker 1: Mexico are being flown, that all of it really isn't
Speaker 1: American territory at all.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump repeatedly today referred to quote rioters bearing foreign flags.
Speaker 3: There were no rioters today, none, but there were Mexican
Speaker 3: flags in a place that was Mexico long before it
Speaker 3: became part of the United States as a result of
Speaker 3: a war the United States chose to wage on Mexico
Speaker 3: in order to obtain that territory.
Speaker 1: Now, with lots of news that has happened, including breaking
Speaker 1: news in and around the program, there's been a few
Speaker 1: things that have been in the inbox this week that
Speaker 1: I want to take some time to clear out because
Speaker 1: they are interesting little nuggets of information that can all
Speaker 1: give us a bit of a better understanding about the
Speaker 1: world in which we live, including the question in and
Speaker 1: around devices and screen time and what that means for
Speaker 1: our kids, what it means for our grandkids, what it
Speaker 1: means for our mates kids or grandkids. Now, the reality
Speaker 1: is that technology is a tool, but also it is
Speaker 1: increasingly like a digital casino full of dopamine, no natural light,
Speaker 1: and the whole aim of the game is to keep
Speaker 1: you there for as long as possible. Now, that's one
Speaker 1: thing if an adult knows that they are in a casino,
Speaker 1: But if they're a kid and they don't know the
Speaker 1: way out, that's when it can become dangerous. The Australian
Speaker 1: Catholic University put some excellent work in this week into
Speaker 1: this talking about children's screen use and the emotional problems
Speaker 1: that fuel each other over time. This was reported by
Speaker 1: The Herald Sun as screen time warning, the bad habit
Speaker 1: driving increasing rates of childhood anxiety and aggression. Let me
Speaker 1: read from the story here and the analysis of the
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventeen studies that were covering two hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety two thousand children across the world between the
Speaker 1: ages of birth and age ten, revealed excessive screen time
Speaker 1: was increasing children's chances of developing social and emotional problems,
Speaker 1: with video games the main culprit. Now I would suggest
Speaker 1: social media is going to be more in there, but
Speaker 1: we'll get to that in a second. The research found
Speaker 1: that girls were more susceptible to developing socio emotional problems
Speaker 1: with greater screen years, while boys were more likely to
Speaker 1: resort to screens as a way of coping with socio
Speaker 1: emotional challenges. University of Queensland Associate Professor Michael noah Tel,
Speaker 1: who supervised the research, said excusive use of screens and
Speaker 1: any kind could lead to behavioral challenges as it took
Speaker 1: time away from sleep, exercise and social interactions. Now, as
Speaker 1: you know, I've got a ten year old, I've got
Speaker 1: a seven year old, and they love their It's not
Speaker 1: going to pretend that they, when given the choice, wouldn't
Speaker 1: love to play a game or muck around with a nap.
Speaker 1: Now again, I'm fine with my kids having their childhood,
Speaker 1: not me trying to pretend that these children have to
Speaker 1: have my childhood. And the reality was my version of
Speaker 1: screen time was the television of which I spent way
Speaker 1: too much time in front of But just how long
Speaker 1: is the right amount of time? Now? I know that
Speaker 1: if you're a parent or a grandparent, sometimes this stuff
Speaker 1: can be a little bit daunting and a little bit
Speaker 1: like remember every few days they'd come up with those surveys.
Speaker 1: One glass of wine a day will save your life,
Speaker 1: one glass of wine a day will kill it. Sometimes
Speaker 1: this stuff can be a little cross purposes. But this
Speaker 1: wide study by the Australian Catholic University gives us some
Speaker 1: insight that you can start to do some sums on
Speaker 1: the kids in your life. Currently, the Australian Institute of
Speaker 1: Family Studies guidelines recommended no screen time for children younger
Speaker 1: than two, no more than an hour of the day
Speaker 1: between two and five. This was increased to know more
Speaker 1: than two hours of sedentary recreational screen time per day
Speaker 1: for children and young people aged five to seventeen years,
Speaker 1: not including their schoolwork. Now, the perfect example here is that,
Speaker 1: of course, there is a period of time where you,
Speaker 1: the parent, are firstly in charge of whether the kids
Speaker 1: have a device at all, and then once the demands
Speaker 1: become that they want to use a device, you, the
Speaker 1: parent or the grandparent are in charge of how much
Speaker 1: they can watch. And yes, if there is a bunch
Speaker 1: of screaming and yelling and carrying on as the device
Speaker 1: has removed, then guess what, don't put it back in
Speaker 1: their hand for another couple of days. There is all
Speaker 1: sorts of technology that exists now that means you can
Speaker 1: set up your Wi Fi network to literally give you
Speaker 1: access to the Internet for your phone while you're watching
Speaker 1: too many things before you fall asleep in bed, but
Speaker 1: you can turn off the access to data to other devices.
Speaker 1: So literally, in our house, if my daughter is using
Speaker 1: an iPad and we've told them one hundred it's time
Speaker 1: to finish and they don't listen that, we just remove
Speaker 1: the Internet and the device essentially is killed off for
Speaker 1: the rest of the night. You are in charge of
Speaker 1: these things. Now, I want to take a moment to
Speaker 1: pause to remember the life of Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson,
Speaker 1: of course, is a musical genius, a man who changed
Speaker 1: the world with what he was able to do musically
Speaker 1: via that incredible band, the Beach Boys. Now I could
Speaker 1: sit here all night and for the rest of the
Speaker 1: hour play the songs that I love, and I hope
Speaker 1: that this weekend you spend some time listening to not
Speaker 1: just the hits, but the deep cuts. You spend some
Speaker 1: time watching the interviews, and I'll tell you there's a
Speaker 1: specific documentary I think you should go and have a
Speaker 1: look at. But the Beach Boys, of course, perfected surf
Speaker 1: rock in the nineteen sixties, and their incredible work in
Speaker 1: and around pet Sounds spurred the Beetles onto Sergeant Peppers
Speaker 1: and the bands that have all been influenced as a
Speaker 1: result of thinking about music in a completely different way.
Speaker 1: His incredible yet tortured mind is ponsible for incredible songs
Speaker 1: like God only knows, Oh my Gosh, I Get around
Speaker 1: and my personal favorite, which is only about two and
Speaker 1: a half minutes, depending on which cut you can hear,
Speaker 1: maybe you can pull it out to about three depending
Speaker 1: on the mix. A fantastic and incredible song that I
Speaker 1: was listening to over and over and over again today,
Speaker 1: thanking the genius that we were able to experience when
Speaker 1: I came to Brian Wilson, and that's the incredible and
Speaker 1: amazing song Do it.
Speaker 4: Again, everybody Ways, show Californian Girls and beautiful.
Speaker 1: They told me I could only play fifteen seconds at
Speaker 1: a time. You know I want to play these things
Speaker 1: in full. The layers and layers of music that were there,
Speaker 1: the essential sort of orchestration around what became pop songs,
Speaker 1: the ability to listen to ten different details at once
Speaker 1: in a really simple song about a car or surfing.
Speaker 1: By the way, he couldn't surf, yet of course he
Speaker 1: could understand the experience of surfboards, beautiful cars, and for
Speaker 1: his interests, beautiful women. Along with his two brothers, with
Speaker 1: their cousin, and many others that have come and gone,
Speaker 1: the Beach Boys are a legendary band of the United States.
Speaker 1: His genius behind the scenes, as I say, was complicated
Speaker 1: and tortured. If you ever get the opportunity, go and
Speaker 1: find a documentary that he was part of just a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago on the American PBS network, which
Speaker 1: is the American Masters series, where even as he was
Speaker 1: on the verge of his eightieth birthday, explain the simplicity
Speaker 1: of what very complicated sounds begin as what's.
Speaker 3: Your process like Russia?
Speaker 2: Yeah, start with the background track, They do the background balls,
Speaker 2: they do the leads.
Speaker 1: There is also an excellent documentary which if you have
Speaker 1: a Disney plus you'll be able to see which is
Speaker 1: about the Beach Boys. It's one that talks not just
Speaker 1: about the ups and downs of his personal life, the
Speaker 1: family dynamics, but again the celebration of his genius through music.
Speaker 5: Round Get it around, I Get it around.
Speaker 6: Three brothers, Brian Dennison, carl a cousin, Mike Love and
Speaker 6: our good friend Al Jardine.
Speaker 1: That's a family to me. He's been going toother for
Speaker 1: a really long time.
Speaker 4: Can There really is a great deal of fellowship in
Speaker 4: the group and we've been turn off a.
Speaker 1: Laughing And if you want to share his musical genius,
Speaker 1: then why not choose his favorite song to do it
Speaker 1: with family this weekend?
Speaker 4: Do you have an all time favorite Brian Wilsons California Girls.
Speaker 1: I always tell people that California Girls in my favorite.
Speaker 1: Why because it's just got that beat shuffle bit.
Speaker 3: I like him.
Speaker 4: Well, these girls are hit by really those styles. Beware
Speaker 4: Ryan Wilson and the Beach Boys songs he wrote about
Speaker 4: gorgeous girls and suntan surfers and cool cars made the
Speaker 4: whole world fall in love with California.
Speaker 1: Thank you and goodbye to Brian Wilson. What a phenomenal talent.
Speaker 1: Enjoy his music forevermore or in a secure on Poe
Speaker 1: before we get to that conversation including Whom's winner and
Speaker 1: loser of the week. The latestur when it comes to
Speaker 1: this plane crash which has happened in the past couple
Speaker 1: of hours in India. We have got a statement from
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom because of course
Speaker 1: this was a flight coming from India to the UK.
Speaker 1: There are at least three flights a week that are
Speaker 1: direct between the airport where this flight has taken off.
Speaker 1: Only got two hundred and fifty meters into the air
Speaker 1: before crashing. Two hundred and forty two people on board,
Speaker 1: the assumption being that we don't know whether anyone has survived.
Speaker 1: One hundred and sixty nine people are Indian citizens, fifty
Speaker 1: three are from the UK and eleven children are on board.
Speaker 1: Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, says the scenes emerging
Speaker 1: of a London Band plane carrying many British nationals crashing
Speaker 1: in the Indian city of Amenabad are devastating. I've been
Speaker 1: kept updated as the situation develops, and my thoughts are
Speaker 1: with the passengers and their families at this deeply distressing time.
Speaker 1: So obviously we will hear more, including when he gets
Speaker 1: in front of a microphone or camera, and more information
Speaker 1: from the UK as that takes place. But again, strength
Speaker 1: and love to all of the families involved, no matter
Speaker 1: where they are on either side of the flight or
Speaker 1: obviously all the way around the world. Now let's talk
Speaker 1: about the smaller issues of the world, which are often
Speaker 1: Australian politics and a whole lot more. We're two very
Speaker 1: big brain and beautiful people, none of them wonderful. Joe
Speaker 1: Hildebrand here in the man cake. Good evening, sir, how
Speaker 1: I am ill, I'm lovely to see you. And Andrew Bella
Speaker 1: is a member of the Shadow Ministry in the Federal
Speaker 1: opposition and she lives in and around God's Country otherwise
Speaker 1: known as the Gold Coast. How Angie, Nice to see.
Speaker 5: It, mate, fantastic, Paul, Thanks for having me so.
Speaker 1: I want to not get into the will heel won't
Speaker 1: They meeting in and around Donald Trump and Anthony Albernezi again, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm no fan of ALBO. I want the best possible
Speaker 1: relationship between the United States and Australia. I hope there
Speaker 1: is an opportunity for a meeting. I hope that everyone
Speaker 1: can charm the pants off each other and things start
Speaker 1: to move in the right direction. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about where I was at the
Speaker 1: start of the show, which is how the hell did
Speaker 1: we get here when seventy percent of the country believed
Speaker 1: that the military threat to Australia would be China, but
Speaker 1: thirty percent of Australians say we should have closer ties
Speaker 1: with China, while a very significant number of people say
Speaker 1: we need to pull back from the United States, principally
Speaker 1: because of the personality of their president. I say, for
Speaker 1: the four hundredth time, I am talking about the CCP,
Speaker 1: not the Chinese people. I'm talking about the government in Beijing,
Speaker 1: not the diaspora that might be in Australia. But Joe,
Speaker 1: it's not a choice of a less of two evils.
Speaker 1: And I understand the diplomacy the Prime Minister needs to play,
Speaker 1: but about these pole results, we've got to be on
Speaker 1: the side of the American absolutely.
Speaker 3: We do.
Speaker 7: Look, America is our oldest ally, America is the reason
Speaker 7: why Japan didn't invade. I don't want to get into
Speaker 7: debates about the Brisbane line.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, don't talk about the queens anyway,
Speaker 1: don't talk to the queen's landline. But point B, we
Speaker 1: need America.
Speaker 7: Without the USA, we basically don't exist in the Asia Pacific.
Speaker 7: We need to be so intertwined with them that effectively
Speaker 7: any attack on us is an attack on them. That
Speaker 7: is why we have their troops stationed in Darwin. That
Speaker 7: is why we let them monitor the solar system in
Speaker 7: Pine Gap. And that's why we went to war with
Speaker 7: them in Vietnam when Britain didn't go to war with
Speaker 7: them in Vietnam. That's why we went to war with
Speaker 7: them in Iraq when France, their oldest ally, didn't go
Speaker 7: to war with them in Iraqs. So I think it's
Speaker 7: pretty poor form for the Americans to now try to
Speaker 7: use that alliance as a political football. And I don't
Speaker 7: like what Donald Trump is doing at all. However, Orcus
Speaker 7: is going to last for decades. Donald Trump is going
Speaker 7: to last for three and a bit years. We need
Speaker 7: to think much much more long term and strategically than
Speaker 7: about people saying, oh, I don't really like Donald Trump,
Speaker 7: so maybe we should just hang out with China Jijiping.
Speaker 7: I promise he was going to be around for a
Speaker 7: lot longer than Donald Trump, and even when he does go,
Speaker 7: he'll probably be replaced with someone just as bad.
Speaker 1: Angie, you know the trip wire that has now been
Speaker 1: created around in part some of this conversation politically. But
Speaker 1: let's just deal with the reality here that we always
Speaker 1: keep being told that regardless of whether we like a
Speaker 1: prime minister in this country or dislike a president in
Speaker 1: the United States, the relationship must be more important than
Speaker 1: the people involved in it. That said, it does feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, there's political advantage to both of them to
Speaker 1: kind of treat each other poorly at the moment, and
Speaker 1: I think that is to the collective dissatisfaction of the
Speaker 1: Western world and our little pocket of it. We need
Speaker 1: a close relationship, not red lines and demands between these
Speaker 1: two leaders.
Speaker 6: Well, I think we all agree on these points, Paul
Speaker 6: and Joe. Great to be on the show with you.
Speaker 6: It's so important our strategic partnership with the United States.
Speaker 6: And what this story in the newspaper did outline is
Speaker 6: that the majority of Australians do believe that our relationship
Speaker 6: with the United States is way more important than one
Speaker 6: prime minister and one president in history, and our relationship
Speaker 6: does go way back. We have gone to war with
Speaker 6: the United States of America.
Speaker 5: We have had each other's backs for.
Speaker 6: A long time and now we do have the Orchest
Speaker 6: Agreement in place that the United States is looking at
Speaker 6: now reviewing. I would say that this is never more
Speaker 6: important than ever in our history that the Prime Minister
Speaker 6: does secure a meeting with the President at the G seven.
Speaker 6: This is a matter of utmost importance for our relationship
Speaker 6: to continue. But most importantly we do have that close
Speaker 6: relationship with the United States, and Australians understand and Americans
Speaker 6: understand that it's bigger than two men or maybe one
Speaker 6: day women in the White House and here in.
Speaker 1: Canberra fingers crossed, Fingers crossed. Now let's talk about a
Speaker 1: situation involving Queensland and what is called Jack's Law. And
Speaker 1: this is greater abilities for the police to be able
Speaker 1: to search people for knives, to do it without warrant,
Speaker 1: to do it in a street, to be able to
Speaker 1: do it perhaps even in a family home. Now here
Speaker 1: in part is the explanation for it from Queensland.
Speaker 8: We have a scourge in Queensland, right across Queensland and
Speaker 8: a culture of young people carrying knives and we're sending
Speaker 8: a clear message today that if you carry a knife
Speaker 8: unlawfully that the police now have the power to catch
Speaker 8: you and put you before the court.
Speaker 1: Dan's a good man and a good minister. To me,
Speaker 1: it seems like a no brainer. I remember our experience
Speaker 1: when we're in to Woomba and you doing a show,
Speaker 1: is that you were asked by police if they could
Speaker 1: if they could perform the wand test on you. The
Speaker 1: laws now change that to make it essentially one where
Speaker 1: it can be demanded of you. I think this is
Speaker 1: pretty simple. If you've never carried a knife, then in
Speaker 1: the same way when you get pulled over for driving tests,
Speaker 1: you know you're not going to fail. So what's the
Speaker 1: problem here, Well, Paul.
Speaker 6: I know the bees Le's, I've met them quite a
Speaker 6: few times and it's their advocacy really that has got
Speaker 6: the Chrystophually government to where it is with these knife laws.
Speaker 6: I think they are right and they are proper and
Speaker 6: I congratulate Dave Chrystopauley and the LMP here in Queensland
Speaker 6: for implementing them. It's time that victims' rights were put
Speaker 6: ahead of perpetrators' rights, and these are good laws and
Speaker 6: their necessary laws and it's a big problem across Queensland
Speaker 6: and I'm sure other states as well. I know New
Speaker 6: South Wales has also put their laws in place. So
Speaker 6: this is about time. It's right and well done to
Speaker 6: Queensland government.
Speaker 1: Yeah of these things and you know, look the libertarian
Speaker 1: in me always you know these little moments where reality
Speaker 1: clashes against what seems to be a good idea to
Speaker 1: say out a barbecue. But you know how you often
Speaker 1: will hear sort of say the Greens turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: sniffer dogs at the drug parties are terrible because they
Speaker 1: might find people with drugs and that makes people anxious
Speaker 1: who are taking drugs. Well, i'm sorry if you've got
Speaker 1: a knife. And there is this, and there is increasingly
Speaker 1: this being used as the weapon of choice. We know
Speaker 1: the machitty situation in Victoria. If this helps the police
Speaker 1: stop a single person being heard, then I can't see
Speaker 1: where it's going to be used to claim. Is it's
Speaker 1: just going to be used to annoy people that they
Speaker 1: want to annoy.
Speaker 7: Well, I remember when people who broke the law were tough.
Speaker 7: They didn't fall back up their civil limites and.
Speaker 1: Say you're going to be a drug dealer.
Speaker 2: At least, you know, I rock up to that music.
Speaker 1: Festival and own it. Roll the dice, Roll the dice. Son. Look,
Speaker 1: I think this sends your complaints to somewhere. Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 7: But I think he's a no brain and his hath
Speaker 7: Wales's police, I think have asked it already, I believe
Speaker 7: received or certainly being reviewed similar laws. It's in stark contrast,
Speaker 7: I think to the Victorian government's approach, where they actually
Speaker 7: blame the implement itself rather than the person who's carrying
Speaker 7: It's like, does a sign to arrest the machetes at
Speaker 7: the source, stop the machete before it attacks again.
Speaker 1: There are whereas you've got queens.
Speaker 7: People said, well, no, if someone's actually carrying a blade
Speaker 7: on a street, and of course these knives would still
Speaker 7: be easily accessible in Victoria or elsewhere. If we're suspicious
Speaker 7: of someone, of course you have to be able to
Speaker 7: There is nothing progressive, there is nothing left wing, and
Speaker 7: it always blows my mind that some lefties seem to
Speaker 7: think so about allowing crime and criminals to run rampant
Speaker 7: on the street. They always affect the most vulnerable and
Speaker 7: most disadvantaged communities. It is always the most vulnerable and
Speaker 7: disadvantaged people. The people who left should be defending who
Speaker 7: are the most likely to be victims of this kind
Speaker 7: of violent crime. So, for the love of God, defend
Speaker 7: them and protect them instead of the perpetrator.
Speaker 1: In the next thing, we're gonna have a chat about
Speaker 1: the future Liberal Party, particularly out to younger voters. But Angie,
Speaker 1: we see today that at a schools summit, which I
Speaker 1: think was being held by the Age the Catholic schools
Speaker 1: have come forward to say they want to go back
Speaker 1: to basics, to reintroduce discipline into the classroom. The OECD
Speaker 1: has already shown we have some of the most disruptive
Speaker 1: classrooms in the Western world. But we also know we've
Speaker 1: spent hundreds of billions of dollars supposedly trying to improve
Speaker 1: our education system, but the results keep going backwards, to
Speaker 1: the extent where a third of primary school kids, a
Speaker 1: third of high school kids the basics they're not meeting
Speaker 1: when it comes to those napland tests. We just went
Speaker 1: through a federal election where no one was talking about this,
Speaker 1: that the future of the country and a third of
Speaker 1: it that is currently in school is not meeting the basics.
Speaker 1: Why can't. We have a multiple week long results focused
Speaker 1: debate around education in this country and it just sort
Speaker 1: of pops up. We all agree that something should change,
Speaker 1: and then nothing does.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 6: I think a return to explicit instruction is really important.
Speaker 6: And as part of the answer, as you say, we've
Speaker 6: been pouring billions and billions of dollars into education, and
Speaker 6: that plan results are going down the toilet.
Speaker 5: So I think it is important remember back, Paul.
Speaker 6: I'm not sure exactly of your age, but I remember
Speaker 6: when I was in high school.
Speaker 5: It's certainly all about learning.
Speaker 1: By rote you you will never.
Speaker 5: You know, we know what our twelve times tables are.
Speaker 1: You will never offered me by guessie. Yeah, the answer
Speaker 1: is I went to school at the age is un
Speaker 1: forty six, so we're banging around the same time. And
Speaker 1: it was it was wrote learning, it was timestables, it
Speaker 1: was foundation writing was about as fancy as it got. Yep.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and you remember those times tables most of the time,
Speaker 6: even as you get older. So I think explicit instruction
Speaker 6: really is important. It's a way that students can remember
Speaker 6: what they've learned, rather than this sort of learning by
Speaker 6: experimenting with an idea and then perhaps coming up with
Speaker 6: what the solution is, or perhaps not so.
Speaker 5: I think going back to explicit.
Speaker 6: Instruction in maths, in arithmetic, in writing, in those areas
Speaker 6: reading as well. It's so very important that we just
Speaker 6: get back to basics. Say the other thing that you mentioned,
Speaker 6: I was.
Speaker 7: Going to say, and the good news is that's actually happening.
Speaker 7: And the Education Minister, Jason Claire is all in on this,
Speaker 7: all in.
Speaker 1: On direct So when do we see something takes a
Speaker 1: long time. He's been around for three years. All the
Speaker 1: states are labor. Yeah, yeah, but you.
Speaker 7: Have but to change the way you teach that you
Speaker 7: actually have to change the way you teach teachers.
Speaker 1: So you have to put.
Speaker 7: All that in the curriculum, not of the classroom, but
Speaker 7: of the actual teaching degree, so that teachers are graduating
Speaker 7: learning how to use these new which are actually old.
Speaker 1: When do we see something in the end five teen
Speaker 1: two years?
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, look, I wait for a whole twelve. It
Speaker 7: will take a few years, but it is already happening.
Speaker 7: And also teachers in the classroom already in the best,
Speaker 7: the highest performing schools, public schools included, they are already
Speaker 7: doing exactly this sort of stuff. And that's why they're performing.
Speaker 1: Well representing the Prime Minister, the Minister, especially in the
Speaker 1: great public Book. Ye K, there we go, all right,
Speaker 1: quick break back, more preay to talk about, including wins
Speaker 1: and losers of the week. One a second here on
Speaker 1: Pulmurray Lit. Thanks for watching, Thank you so much. In
Speaker 1: conversation with the wonderful Joe Hildebrand and Angie Bell, who's
Speaker 1: shadow minister in Susin Lai's shadow Cabinet. Now, Angie, we've
Speaker 1: spoken on the show before, and I really am looking
Speaker 1: forward to more conversations with your good self and a
Speaker 1: few other newer faces as part of the frontline of
Speaker 1: what the coalition's trying to do, because the reality is
Speaker 1: if they keep doing the same things, they're going to
Speaker 1: get the same results. And we know that we had
Speaker 1: the conversation with Nick Kta earlier in the week about
Speaker 1: jen Z and about how they're disquiet is not something
Speaker 1: to eye roll at. It's to actually try to come
Speaker 1: up with policy solutions for and for those of us
Speaker 1: that are sitting at around our age in gen X.
Speaker 1: It's the opportunity for us to not just assume that
Speaker 1: all knowledge is known of previous generations and previous ways
Speaker 1: of doing it. So what's your thought about how the
Speaker 1: other side of politics can get back into it the
Speaker 1: very least a choice for younger votes.
Speaker 6: Well, I think you're right, it is important that we
Speaker 6: connect with younger voters. Over the last a couple of weeks,
Speaker 6: I've had at least four round tables with young people.
Speaker 6: I am the Shadow Minister for Youth and was also
Speaker 6: in the last parliament, and I've delivered three Gold Coast
Speaker 6: Youth Impact summits actually, and the third one was just
Speaker 6: last Friday, And so I feel like I'm very much
Speaker 6: in touch with young people on the Gold Coast and.
Speaker 5: Listening to their concerns.
Speaker 6: Just today I had a round table with Miami High
Speaker 6: School here on the Gold Coast where young people outline
Speaker 6: that they're concerned about housing and asked about solutions around
Speaker 6: housing and moving forward. So I think that we do
Speaker 6: need to interpret our values to young people, or they
Speaker 6: need to interpret our values in a new way, in
Speaker 6: a contemporary way, and we need to be relevant to
Speaker 6: their needs. So we need to listen very closely to
Speaker 6: young people. They have a lot to give, they have
Speaker 6: a lot to contribute to our society, and there are
Speaker 6: some fantastic young people around the country that I've come
Speaker 6: into contact with over the last few years.
Speaker 5: In the portfolio.
Speaker 6: I think the other thing, Paul that's really important the
Speaker 6: highlight is that Susan Lee has elevated youth into Cabinet
Speaker 6: along with the Environment Portfolio with myself and so young
Speaker 6: people will have a loud voice in the shadow Cabinet
Speaker 6: and I think that's really important moving forward.
Speaker 5: I think also my colleagues agree with that.
Speaker 6: That we need to reconnect with young people and we
Speaker 6: need to outline what our values are. We also need
Speaker 6: to explain to them in easy speak how bad some
Speaker 6: of Labour's policies are and some of the Greens policies
Speaker 6: are as well, but particularly Labour's super tax and how
Speaker 6: that will impact young people because a twenty year old
Speaker 6: today who was on an average wage, by the time
Speaker 6: they're sixty, they will be impacted by this terrible super
Speaker 6: tax that Labor has come up with that will impact
Speaker 6: all young people across the country. Because it's up to
Speaker 6: us to really explain that to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because Joe, again, part of what Angie's talking about,
Speaker 1: part of what Nick was writing about, which is yeah,
Speaker 1: there is great generational difference between our parents, grandparents, the
Speaker 1: Howard years, where we sit now and where the future
Speaker 1: may be, and philosophically like, I don't want a country
Speaker 1: that is dependent on government, right, I don't want that
Speaker 1: triangle of dependency where either your work for government, handout
Speaker 1: from government, or the biggest client is government and we're
Speaker 1: slowly managing the client. Now, obviously it's not just about
Speaker 1: you know, how you present yourself. It's about the ideas.
Speaker 1: It's about actually engaging and I think you know at
Speaker 1: the moment, yes, youth is often to the left, but
Speaker 1: in the same way that the right doesn't own strength,
Speaker 1: the left doesn't own compassion, and the assumption that only
Speaker 1: the left can communicate with people under the age of
Speaker 1: forty not true.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's absolutely right. I would firstly like to award
Speaker 7: Angie the Sir Humphrey Apple Be Medal for courage for
Speaker 7: trying to get young people excited about superannuation, because I
Speaker 7: cannot even get myself excited about I'm almost old enough
Speaker 7: to receive it. So but yeah, look, it is a
Speaker 7: really difficult one. I think of two people when I
Speaker 7: think about this issue. I think of John Howard and
Speaker 7: I think of Donald Trump, John Howard. I'm old enough
Speaker 7: to remember people were talking about this incredible shift of
Speaker 7: young voters to the Coalition in the sort of heyday
Speaker 7: of John Howard's government. And it wasn't because they thought
Speaker 7: he was cool or because they thought he was edgy
Speaker 7: or funky whatever. They just thought he was kind of
Speaker 7: like a nice, kindly granddad who might be a bit
Speaker 7: old fashioned about things but ultimately would take care of
Speaker 7: them and maybe with a bit of tough love, you know.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 7: But again, that wasn't seeing the Coalition get a majority
Speaker 7: of young voters by a long shot. That was young
Speaker 7: voters voting, you know, instead of ninety ten for labor
Speaker 7: in the Greens, maybe eighty twenty or seven.
Speaker 1: And by shaving it up a little bit, that's exactly
Speaker 1: what Trump did. That's exactly right.
Speaker 7: And the Trump you actually have something else, interestingly, where
Speaker 7: the Democrats look so just not nauseating in every possible way,
Speaker 7: but so out of touch, so elitist, so kind of
Speaker 7: forbidding and tut tutting in their kind, their language and
Speaker 7: their attitudes and trying to regulate language, and all the
Speaker 7: ridiculous woke staff in the obsession with identity politics, that.
Speaker 1: Trump actually did look cool.
Speaker 7: He did look like the cool guy, especially for younger
Speaker 7: and working classmen. He got half of Hispanic men, and
Speaker 7: he got a third of black men. And we all
Speaker 7: know that white working classmen just ran to him and
Speaker 7: drives and that was driven by young people.
Speaker 1: So which again doesn't mean me, any of any of
Speaker 1: us say, be more trumpy or it's just about the
Speaker 1: concept of well, different place.
Speaker 7: That's right, and don't chase young votes at the expense
Speaker 7: of alienating your base. Young people grow up, so come
Speaker 7: see sense.
Speaker 1: Well, Angie, thank you so much. We'll see you again
Speaker 1: next week, along with a wonderful Joe as well. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you guys to appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Quick break back with more here a final thought before
Speaker 1: off to the late debate.