Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray Life. Hello,
Speaker 1: have you Tuesday? Lots to get to Let's not muck around,
Speaker 1: looking forward to a very big show. Now you're not
Speaker 1: going to believe the numbers I have for you tonight.
Speaker 1: I know you haven't seen them anywhere else. And it
Speaker 1: is about just how much tax we all collectively pay,
Speaker 1: so not one, but all three levels of government. This
Speaker 1: one is wild. It gets bigger by the quarter, or
Speaker 1: get to that in a second. Now, you and I
Speaker 1: of course know that youth crime is a crisis no
Speaker 1: matter where you happen to live, City regional areas particular.
Speaker 1: Focus on Queensland at the moment because there's an election
Speaker 1: where you might be able to do something about it.
Speaker 1: But over in Lefty Land, nothing to see here, an
Speaker 1: extraordinary bit of tape I'll have for you in a moment.
Speaker 1: The Great Nigel Farage joins us from the UK. Yes
Speaker 1: we'll talk Trump, but we'll also talk about the UK
Speaker 1: cracking down on smoking. And he doesn't want them to
Speaker 1: do it because he says they could end up like Australia.
Speaker 1: Not good when we're the bad example of the way
Speaker 1: things are working. But first, yet again, more bad weather
Speaker 1: and yet again incredible efforts from people who are volunteering
Speaker 1: to help others and those that are paid to do so.
Speaker 1: For the past well twenty four hours or so. About
Speaker 1: nineteen hours of those there was a yacht off New
Speaker 1: South Wales that was considered to be drifting afloat and
Speaker 1: virtually lost at sea. Thankfully, the mayde call ended up
Speaker 1: getting heard and police ended up making their way towards it.
Speaker 1: But the nineteen hours were extraordinary. Now, I am not
Speaker 1: the best person when it comes to sea legs. Even
Speaker 1: the ferry from Frio to Rottenest Island was a little
Speaker 1: too much for me, so I can't imagine what this
Speaker 1: experience was like for them. But thankfully these people have
Speaker 1: been saved. It's two people, and police confirmed tonight that
Speaker 1: the skill of those who go towards people on their
Speaker 1: worst day, it doesn't matter if it's on land or
Speaker 1: at sea, the cops will turn up. And that's why
Speaker 1: we love them on this show.
Speaker 2: It's a matter of just basically timing it, as you
Speaker 2: saw probably some of that video and that they got
Speaker 2: in and next day bounce off, like getting people the
Speaker 2: person to jump as they're coming in, getting a jump
Speaker 2: and catch.
Speaker 1: I'm doing one at a time now. I said it
Speaker 1: last night, I'll say it again. It wasn't just blowing
Speaker 1: a gale in Melbourne today, but it was going hard
Speaker 1: enough to blow a dog off chain. And again, huge
Speaker 1: reaction there when it comes to the police and emergency services.
Speaker 1: But I want to focus in on Tazzy now because
Speaker 1: their weather has been just as terrible as other parts
Speaker 1: of the country in the past few days. But believe
Speaker 1: it or not, a couple of people decided to go
Speaker 1: hiking in all of this stuff. They decided to go
Speaker 1: up Mount Wellington. Now Mount Wellington is one of the
Speaker 1: great natural beauties of our country. But the idea that,
Speaker 1: in whether like has been building in Tazzy for the
Speaker 1: past couple of days, that you go hiking is absolute madness.
Speaker 1: Well police were able to locate these people in the
Speaker 1: past day. Extraordinary again that they put their own lives
Speaker 1: at risk to go and save other people who needlessly
Speaker 1: put their lives and their rescuers at risk. And I've
Speaker 1: got to say, someone agree with the Premier who absolutely
Speaker 1: has given it to the people who decided to go
Speaker 1: marching around in pretty awful weather in Tazzy. Here is
Speaker 1: the premiere today.
Speaker 3: We had fourteen bushwalkers rescued just so night, as I
Speaker 3: understand it, and.
Speaker 1: The look that is simply ridiculous.
Speaker 3: We cannot afford to have any resources diverted simply because
Speaker 3: of people's stupidity.
Speaker 1: I'm not eating those warnings hundred percent correct. Little remembered
Speaker 1: fact about the bush fires of twenty nineteen into twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: the Black Saturday stuff, a couple of fires ended up
Speaker 1: merging because in the very small window that they had
Speaker 1: to fight those fires, they had to go looking for
Speaker 1: people who had gone down to what I remember to
Speaker 1: be a nude beach at the time. So if you
Speaker 1: put yourself above the natural environment, the natural environment's always
Speaker 1: going to get you. But if you put yourself above
Speaker 1: the people who were dealing with other natural disasters, well,
Speaker 1: while we don't want anyone to get hurt, the idea
Speaker 1: that the resources get diverted, they become very frustrating. But
Speaker 1: well done to all the volunteers, all the pros that
Speaker 1: are out there and helping everyone around the country at
Speaker 1: this annoying time when it comes to the weather ahead
Speaker 1: of a very long summer, where as always something will
Speaker 1: go wrong. Now today we've got a bit of an
Speaker 1: insight into just how much money all levels of Australian
Speaker 1: government have now. Taxation has never been higher. There have
Speaker 1: been nerver, more people, more people paying their taxes. And
Speaker 1: of course the single biggest source of revenues that go
Speaker 1: to the federal government in particular, is not company tax.
Speaker 1: It's not the GST, it's not the amount of money
Speaker 1: that they get off for coal or gas. It's off
Speaker 1: people who work and the payers you go system. We
Speaker 1: know that plenty of people do their best to try
Speaker 1: to get the healthiest tax return they possibly can, because,
Speaker 1: as Kerry Packer said, why would you end up paying
Speaker 1: more to people who often waste it? Perfect example Jim
Speaker 1: Charmers and the way that he has been not managing
Speaker 1: our economy. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
Speaker 1: political slogans, not actual solutions to anything, but political slogans.
Speaker 1: Twenty five dollars a month credit for power bills on
Speaker 1: everything from mansions to one bedroom units in the bush.
Speaker 1: That's just so they can say they're helping two little
Speaker 1: too late tax cuts which result in just fourteen dollars
Speaker 1: a week for people who truly need it. At the moment.
Speaker 1: And then of course there's the premiers, and the premiere
Speaker 1: is well, they are spending like drunken salors to the
Speaker 1: extent right now that they are one of the big
Speaker 1: driving forces the amount of projects that they have on
Speaker 1: offer that are currently pushing up inflation and making inflation
Speaker 1: so difficult to get on top of. But let's have
Speaker 1: a look at the money that all of these people
Speaker 1: are getting, that the political class gets and peddles up
Speaker 1: against the wall every single day, while at the same
Speaker 1: time more people are suffering than ever before. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense, does it. Well again, the far right wing
Speaker 1: thing tank known as the Bureau of Statistics are the
Speaker 1: ones who can give us an idea here, because have
Speaker 1: a look at this. This is how much tax has
Speaker 1: been taken by all three levels of government. Two hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty six thousand million dollars otherwise known as two
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty six b four billion dollars. Not two
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty six million dollars, but two hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty six thousand million dollars. Extraordinary, right, that's up seventeen
Speaker 1: percent the total revenue in terms of government when you
Speaker 1: put everything together, ends up being about two hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy million dollars, sorry, billion dollars, that is the revenue
Speaker 1: that is coming in. The numbers are that big. It
Speaker 1: is extraordinary the amounts of money that are coming through
Speaker 1: to the federal and state budgets. But jeez, I know
Speaker 1: how to spend it as well. If you've got in
Speaker 1: a year two hundred and seventy billion dollars going out
Speaker 1: the door coming in the door, then can somebody explain
Speaker 1: how you've got the best part of two hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty five billion that is going out the door. That's
Speaker 1: what I talk about with the structural deficit, that if
Speaker 1: the government doesn't increase the amount of money that it
Speaker 1: gets in revenue, the amount that it is committed to
Speaker 1: in spending becomes what we call a structural deficit. Now,
Speaker 1: the document here it was about in millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and fifty five thousand million dollars is two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty five billion dollars, thirty thousand million is
Speaker 1: thirty billion dollars. All of it up up, up, But
Speaker 1: whose life actually changes, Whose life is actually the better
Speaker 1: off for all of this money going around, Apart from
Speaker 1: the politicians who, of course, are the ones who make
Speaker 1: it seem like it's their money that they're handing out. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're so grateful to you twenty five dollars a month
Speaker 1: on power bills that were supposed to go down by
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy five dollars. Remember, Oh, but that
Speaker 1: was that was just a promise to get into an election.
Speaker 1: Who cares? Now? Interestingly, there was a fact that was
Speaker 1: around in I believe a Redbridge pole. The way that
Speaker 1: I saw it was in an analysis which was obviously
Speaker 1: strangely pro government, or at the very least anti opposition,
Speaker 1: written by old Auntie p k over there at the ABC.
Speaker 1: But we get to this point. If you think about
Speaker 1: the fact that this government spans hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: fifty seven percent of people, when asked by Redbridge, had
Speaker 1: the following answer of no. To this question, can you
Speaker 1: name something the federal government, led by Anthony Obenezy has
Speaker 1: done since being elected to make your life better in
Speaker 1: any way? Fifty seven percent of the country says no. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously we start getting into the mid sixties if you
Speaker 1: break the unsure number in half, but most of the
Speaker 1: unsure we'll end up at no roughly sixty percent of
Speaker 1: Australians so they cannot name a single thing the government
Speaker 1: has done since being elected, not the little too late
Speaker 1: tax cuts, not twenty five dollars when it comes to power,
Speaker 1: no changes for this, that and the other fifty seven percent,
Speaker 1: And that's with the media, that of course gives the
Speaker 1: biggest possible version of all of the numbers. Remember how
Speaker 1: we talked about that in the run up to the
Speaker 1: two little too late tax cuts, where of course rather
Speaker 1: than having a look at what they are per week
Speaker 1: or fortnite or per month, which is how people get paid.
Speaker 1: Of course, the spin doctors in and around the camera
Speaker 1: media are doing their bit for the government that they prefer. Well,
Speaker 1: they were giving the biggest, the annual number, the biggest
Speaker 1: possible numbers. Again, despite their efforts, fifty seven percent of
Speaker 1: people telling a pholster they can't name one thing that's
Speaker 1: made their lives better. Another example too, about how life
Speaker 1: is going to get a little tougher at the shops
Speaker 1: in the next little while. Now I won't bore you
Speaker 1: with this, but essentially we got some numbers today about
Speaker 1: the difference about the amount of money that we spend
Speaker 1: on importing things into the country versus the amount of
Speaker 1: money that we made exporting things to the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. Now, most of what we buy in the
Speaker 1: shops we know is made somewhere else, which meant that
Speaker 1: it has to be imported into the country. And yes,
Speaker 1: there are many industries that do their best to try
Speaker 1: to make things here to get them exported to the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. But surprise, surprise, guess what has
Speaker 1: happened under the watch of Anthony Albernezi and Grimjim. We
Speaker 1: have gone from more money being made out of what
Speaker 1: we send to the world to now spending more money
Speaker 1: on what comes in from the world. Put simply, this
Speaker 1: is a surplus which used to be that we made.
Speaker 1: We exported twelve point one billion dollars more than we
Speaker 1: imported before this government came to power, and now we
Speaker 1: import ten point seven billion dollars more than we export,
Speaker 1: a turn around of twenty to zero point six b
Speaker 1: four billion dollars. We import more from the world when
Speaker 1: we used to export more to the world. Another thing
Speaker 1: that has changed on this government's watched, but nobody will
Speaker 1: talk about it because generally speaking, people only look at
Speaker 1: the US dollar through the eyes of somebody who may
Speaker 1: will be traveling overseas. But of course the difference between
Speaker 1: a higher or lower Australian dollar affects how much the
Speaker 1: stuff is that we have to buy in US dollars
Speaker 1: from overseas to come into the country versus of course
Speaker 1: what we export. And when we are currently importing financially
Speaker 1: way more than we are exporting, the bill goes up
Speaker 1: because the value of the Australian dollar continues to go down.
Speaker 1: In March, before these people became the government, it was
Speaker 1: seventy five US cents, now sixty seven US cents. Now again,
Speaker 1: anyone who's traveling knows the difference between seventy five and
Speaker 1: sixty seven. Now, imagine if you're importing and you're buying
Speaker 1: one thousand somethings from somewhere else, or you're trying to
Speaker 1: export one thousand somethings from here to somewhere else. Now again,
Speaker 1: these are the daily data that we get, rather than
Speaker 1: the spin and the bs that comes from Jim Charmers,
Speaker 1: not a doctor in economics, but a doctor in the
Speaker 1: politics of how Paul Keating talked about economics. Well, Jim Charmers,
Speaker 1: as you know, is trying to pretend that it's all
Speaker 1: the Reserve Bank's fault, not his own government's fault. Who remember,
Speaker 1: along with state and local government, is getting more money
Speaker 1: than they have ever gotten the history of Australian governments.
Speaker 1: But they're also spending more even than the record money
Speaker 1: that is coming in. Well, thankfully people are with me
Speaker 1: and pushing back on the garbage of this bloke trying
Speaker 1: to yet again shift blame from his own economic responsibilities.
Speaker 1: Great article in the Financial Review Today opinion section. Here's
Speaker 1: Steve Hamilton, who was in aus says if only focused
Speaker 1: a little less on managing political expectations and a little
Speaker 1: more on managing inflation expectations, we might have avoided this
Speaker 1: mess in the first place. Charmers is the worst treasurer
Speaker 1: since Jim Cans. Jim Can's was goth Whitlam's treasurer, and
Speaker 1: this labor government is the most economically incompetent in half
Speaker 1: a century. Now again, I am not, in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form somebody would even profess to have any
Speaker 1: level of expertise beyond the most obvious basic working knowledge
Speaker 1: of economics. But night after night after night, information that
Speaker 1: does not come from right wing blogs or think tanks,
Speaker 1: but comes from the Bureau of Statistics tells us the
Speaker 1: reality of Australia's economy. It also via that polling reminds
Speaker 1: us that despite the noise that comes out of Canberra,
Speaker 1: if fifty seven percent of Australians cannot tell us a
Speaker 1: single thing that this has done to make their life better,
Speaker 1: then this election that is coming up sooner rather than
Speaker 1: later is going to be fascinating. Now again, I know
Speaker 1: the path to seventy six for the opposition is tight,
Speaker 1: is difficult and almost impossible because of the Teals, But
Speaker 1: at fifty to fifty with a Labor vote now below
Speaker 1: where it was last time, with the Greens expected to
Speaker 1: take multiple seats, if Labor is to be returned, it
Speaker 1: will be with a minority government. A minority government that
Speaker 1: will not just be a minority of one or two,
Speaker 1: but many more, meaning that it is going to be
Speaker 1: propped up by the true crazies of Australian politics, some
Speaker 1: who claim to be independence despite the fact that they
Speaker 1: all look the same, talk the same, campaign the same
Speaker 1: and fund their campaigns the same, or those who don't
Speaker 1: know the difference between profit and turnover. We're in for
Speaker 1: a wild ride. But right now we haven't even bottomed
Speaker 1: out in Australia, and that's with majority government. Tomorrow, we
Speaker 1: expect to see growth figures that will be barely better
Speaker 1: than the quarter. Of course, to go into a recession
Speaker 1: you have to have an economy that is shrinking for
Speaker 1: two consecutive quarters or six months in total. To give
Speaker 1: you an idea of the Australian economy and how tight
Speaker 1: it is. In the past three months we were growing
Speaker 1: by zero point one percent. The expectation of the numbers
Speaker 1: to come out tomorrow is that we may will be
Speaker 1: growing by a grand total of zero point two percent.
Speaker 1: If you are relying on an economy to have public holidays,
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift or more immigration to be the only difference
Speaker 1: between a recession and microscopic growth, then you are a
Speaker 1: country in trouble, a country in trouble with people in
Speaker 1: charge of the economy who either know what they're doing
Speaker 1: and they are deliberately making the wrong choices, or people
Speaker 1: who don't know what they're doing. But amazingly, fifty seven
Speaker 1: percent of Australians cannot name a single thing that this
Speaker 1: government has done to make their life better. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: apparently it was the Prime Minister's media unit. That was
Speaker 1: the problem. The boss of that has now gone because
Speaker 1: it's not at all elbow that's the problem, is it now? Today?
Speaker 1: In an interview we heard today that Peter Dutton believes
Speaker 1: that the Liberal Party is closer than many people imagine too.
Speaker 1: Look again, I'm not going to say victory because until
Speaker 1: I see some numbers of the tolls that the Teals
Speaker 1: are blowing away again, the Opposition is going to be
Speaker 1: in an incredibly competitive spot compared to where they were
Speaker 1: when they were, of course flushed from office less than
Speaker 1: three years ago.
Speaker 4: You poll's turty, you can win, yes, yes, So in Victoria,
Speaker 4: good swings and seats to us here and seats on
Speaker 4: the radar that we hadn't expected to be on the
Speaker 4: radar at this point in the cycle. And in Wa
Speaker 4: I think is coming back to us off a pretty
Speaker 4: low bar at the last election. So you're reasonably confident
Speaker 4: you'll be prime minister after the next tilection. I'm confident
Speaker 4: that we can win this election and I think the
Speaker 4: momentum is with us. I think the Prime Minister is
Speaker 4: showing those signs of improving with time in the saddle.
Speaker 1: Now, of course, all things being equal, this would be
Speaker 1: quite the contest and the next election. But of course
Speaker 1: the teals, as I say, they end up being this
Speaker 1: sort of retaining wall for the left, one that may
Speaker 1: well fall down at this election or one into the future.
Speaker 1: But clearly what needs to happen is that the Liberal
Speaker 1: Party has to have the tightest and smartest and well
Speaker 1: funded machine possible behind the political efforts of what their
Speaker 1: parliamentary leader Peter Dutton is doing to make the most
Speaker 1: of the failures of this government, to have the right
Speaker 1: candidates and the right seats, the right message, the right advertising,
Speaker 1: the advertising that will be both nationalized state and right
Speaker 1: down to the local level via social media. And for
Speaker 1: that largely it is the state Liberal parties that player
Speaker 1: role in that as well as yes, a federal campaign.
Speaker 1: But still states play their part. They have the knowledge,
Speaker 1: they have the members, they are part of the machine. Well.
Speaker 1: Of course, the New South Wales Liberal Party is a joke.
Speaker 1: It has been for a long time. The madness and
Speaker 1: in fighting and factional nonsense means that you would prefer
Speaker 1: to care about what's happening inside your party than the
Speaker 1: actual enemy of your party. But as you have heard today,
Speaker 1: the federal branch of the Liberal Party will take the
Speaker 1: New South Wales Party over after the disgrace of failing
Speaker 1: to be able to get enough people and fill out
Speaker 1: the paperwork for people to run a local council. I
Speaker 1: cannot wait for Holly Hughes, who knows the machine but
Speaker 1: is certainly not afraid of the machine, to talk about
Speaker 1: that and a whole lot more. As the evening rolls on,
Speaker 1: she'll join us with Joe Hildebrand. Youth crime and crime
Speaker 1: in general major issue around the country, because God forbid,
Speaker 1: we will want to live in a safe and undisturbed Australia,
Speaker 1: because that's the way it has been in the past.
Speaker 1: It's the way it should be. Now it's way it's
Speaker 1: should be into the future. But as we know, there
Speaker 1: are too many people in the judiciary who give people
Speaker 1: there's seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth chance, and even when ultimately
Speaker 1: they get some sort of very serious punishment, it is
Speaker 1: nowhere near what the victims of crime understandably want or
Speaker 1: we believe they deserve. And this again is starting to
Speaker 1: turn up in the polls. Earlier this year we saw
Speaker 1: that a crime backlash was going to potentially play into
Speaker 1: problems for the Labor Party at the federal election. Now
Speaker 1: does the Prime minister have a direct correlation to policing, know,
Speaker 1: But that was the same when it comes to fighting fires.
Speaker 1: But people didn't care then and people shouldn't care now either.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's the prime minister. It's the government that
Speaker 1: sets the tone, that has the money and has the
Speaker 1: position to be able to say what is acceptable and
Speaker 1: not acceptable in a community. Well, last night on Channel
Speaker 1: two on their Question and Answer program, there was a
Speaker 1: question which was delivered by a woman in a suburban
Speaker 1: part of Melbourne. Now they seem to be doing this
Speaker 1: as their current trick at the moment, which used to
Speaker 1: find Boomer de jour to ask a question of which
Speaker 1: everyone else rolls their eyes at and basically says, oh, please, please, please,
Speaker 1: You've just been watching too much of Sky News in
Speaker 1: prime time as opposed to all of the reality of
Speaker 1: the stories of crime that not only we mentioned, but
Speaker 1: you know in your real life. Here is the question.
Speaker 5: Communities are having to deal with the increase in youth crime,
Speaker 5: which includes housebreakings, car theft, NiFe attacks and general unacceptable behavior.
Speaker 5: When are governments and authorities going to stop the excuse
Speaker 5: making for law breakers and start imposing serious consequences for
Speaker 5: actions I fear for the future piece of our communities.
Speaker 1: Do you like the smirks in some of the people
Speaker 1: in the background are ohh, silly old lady talking about
Speaker 1: things like that. A few snarls because how dare you
Speaker 1: there's some sort of coded racism in this. Well, the panel,
Speaker 1: some famous some not famous faces, of course, found every
Speaker 1: excuse rather than answer her question directly, which is zero
Speaker 1: crime is what we should be going for in the
Speaker 1: same way that we talk about we should have zero
Speaker 1: domestic violence, we should have zero assault, we should have
Speaker 1: zero drink driving, we should have zero murder. But watch
Speaker 1: them all dance around what should be the goal, which
Speaker 1: is no crime.
Speaker 6: Now the statistics, though, don't actually bear out the perception.
Speaker 6: Some levels of crime are up, some are down. You
Speaker 6: can't just fight it by trying to arrest everyone. We're
Speaker 6: thinking about the responsibilities that we should ways of tuckling this.
Speaker 1: One of it is just smart reporting about this things.
Speaker 7: But some categories things are up ten to seventeen year olds,
Speaker 7: but in eight en to twenty four year olds things
Speaker 7: are significantly down over the last four years. First response
Speaker 7: shouldn't be for a first defender to put them in
Speaker 7: jail because we brea better criminal.
Speaker 1: Do you like that little slide of hand. Well, look,
Speaker 1: if you actually have a look at certain the statistics,
Speaker 1: some of it's up and some of it's down. Now
Speaker 1: I've shown you in great detail about how this little
Speaker 1: trick works. Where yes, when you have say thirty different
Speaker 1: categories of anything, there will be variations of up or down.
Speaker 1: But then there is this other way that, particularly in
Speaker 1: New South Wales, the statistics are reported on, and that
Speaker 1: is when you have tens of thousands of people who
Speaker 1: are the victims of sexual assault or domestic violence or
Speaker 1: common assault. As long as it's not up or down
Speaker 1: by a couple of thousand, it's just called stable. We
Speaker 1: saw the nonsense of people saying about crime in places
Speaker 1: like Paris. Well it comes with being a big city,
Speaker 1: of course, in the same way that advocates every day
Speaker 1: speak with absolute and care passion that the goal should
Speaker 1: be zero domestic violence, it should be zero for knife crime,
Speaker 1: zero for robbery, zero for stalking. In you see the
Speaker 1: difference between your your feelings and what you read in
Speaker 1: the media. No, no, no, you can't convince people that
Speaker 1: what is the reality of their life is not the
Speaker 1: reality of their life. If people know someone who is
Speaker 1: a victim of crime, and they do by the tens
Speaker 1: of thousands every year, then they know that crime is
Speaker 1: coming closer to them. If you want to turn around
Speaker 1: and say, well, you know ten to seventeen is a
Speaker 1: little bit up, but you know eighteen to twenty four
Speaker 1: is a little bit down, well, what crimes are being
Speaker 1: committed by ten to seventeen. Zero should be everyone's goal.
Speaker 1: The reality is you can't get to zero because human
Speaker 1: beings are involved, and human beings make stupid decisions. But
Speaker 1: the idea that you don't just turn around and say
Speaker 1: to that lady, you know what, you're right, I agree
Speaker 1: with you. Let's stamp it out, because if the same
Speaker 1: question was about a specific type of crime, that would
Speaker 1: be all of their responses. No one will turn around
Speaker 1: and say to that lady, well, actually, if you have
Speaker 1: a look at the statistics, it's ever so slightly this
Speaker 1: and more people die in accidental falls than the category
Speaker 1: of crime you're talking about, and that would be unacceptable,
Speaker 1: as I believe it is unacceptable the way they answer
Speaker 1: that question last night. But of course, next question, please
Speaker 1: or do they still say I'll take that as a comment.
Speaker 1: Stephen Miles is in a world of trouble. You know that.
Speaker 1: I know that, and it's all well deserved. He leads
Speaker 1: a government that should no longer be in power. Should
Speaker 1: have gone at the last election. It should have been
Speaker 1: Palachet who was copying it, but she was rolled. He's
Speaker 1: the one, and he's the one who is going to
Speaker 1: get absolutely pummeled as the leader of a labor party
Speaker 1: at the upcoming election. Crossed. Now, you would think that
Speaker 1: this bloke would be at least smart enough not to
Speaker 1: do stupid things with publicly funded planes, because remember earlier
Speaker 1: in the year, freshly after he became premier named a
Speaker 1: brand new police commissioner, they took not one but two
Speaker 1: planes to go around the central and northern parts of
Speaker 1: Coeensland to talk about how they were going to crack
Speaker 1: down on crime. The nonsense of two planes when one
Speaker 1: would have done cost one hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So you think that he would have smartened up now
Speaker 1: about what he's doing with the private jet weld under
Speaker 1: Chris Jones and the team of the career mar because
Speaker 1: have a look at this premier Stephen Miles had an
Speaker 1: eleven minute taxpayer funded flight so he could hand out
Speaker 1: a birthday cake to one of his colleagues and announce
Speaker 1: a brand new school fence. Premier Stephen Miles used the
Speaker 1: government jet to make an eleven minute flight from Harvey
Speaker 1: Bay to Bundenberg, where he celebrated his his birthday and
Speaker 1: announced a new school fence. In making the short flight
Speaker 1: short flight, mister Miles and the Health Minister Shannon Fenterman
Speaker 1: avoided driving on the notoriously dangerous single lane stretch of
Speaker 1: the Bruce Highway during a week where the quality of
Speaker 1: the road has been in the spotlight. Don't you just
Speaker 1: love these people other people's money, and even when they're
Speaker 1: caught doing the wrong thing on planes, they turn around
Speaker 1: and do it again because they either know their toast
Speaker 1: or they don't care what you think. I think it's
Speaker 1: probably both, but it's definitely the latter. Two months, two
Speaker 1: days until the United States election. The things that we
Speaker 1: know that happen between now and election day is, in
Speaker 1: about a week's time, there will be the debate. A
Speaker 1: few days after that, early voting will start in many
Speaker 1: of the states. Then Donald Trump will be sentenced potentially
Speaker 1: to jail to go immediately in the New York case.
Speaker 1: And then of course there is the run up to
Speaker 1: the election. Will be in the United States for the
Speaker 1: election and many days beforehand, but our main focus will
Speaker 1: be Queensland election first, then into the American election. So
Speaker 1: who's winning right now? They've just had labor Day, the
Speaker 1: end of summer, and this is often when you take
Speaker 1: the polls to work out who's up who's down, because
Speaker 1: generally speaking, it doesn't change very much between now and
Speaker 1: the end, unless, of course, there is a debate, and
Speaker 1: we all know the media has already decided Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: has won that debate, regardless of what actually happens or
Speaker 1: what word salace she brings to it. Now, on the polls,
Speaker 1: I can show you poles at say Trump's way up.
Speaker 1: I can show you polls that say Harris's way up.
Speaker 1: But let's try to pick one metric and go all
Speaker 1: the way through betting markets. Why because that's just an
Speaker 1: interesting way of looking and clearly unlike people just prognosticating,
Speaker 1: people have real money that they're willing to win or lose.
Speaker 1: Gear Currently Trump fifty one percent chance of winning the presidency.
Speaker 1: Ala Harris forty seven percent. Now, how did that happen?
Speaker 1: Because you may all have noticed these seven swing states,
Speaker 1: there's only two left that are considered to be genuine
Speaker 1: toss ups right now, the all important Pennsylvania and statistically
Speaker 1: important but depending on what happens in other parts of
Speaker 1: the country Nevada on the west coast. So let's have
Speaker 1: a look here at why Trump is up fifty one percent.
Speaker 1: According to the bookies, he's an eighty percent chance of
Speaker 1: winning the Sorry, that's a sixty percent chance of winning.
Speaker 1: In North Carolina, he is a fifty eight percent chance
Speaker 1: of winning. In Georgia, So again according to bookies, I
Speaker 1: can show your polls in either direction. In Arizona, he
Speaker 1: again is a fifty nine percent chance of winning there.
Speaker 1: In Nevada sixty sorry, fifty one percent chance. So that's tight.
Speaker 1: That's really tight. Sorry, I do have my glasses. I
Speaker 1: can't even read my own graphics here, I apologize. And
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania he is currently leading fifty two percent to
Speaker 1: forty eight. There's also an interesting little stat that I
Speaker 1: can tell you, and I won't get too detailed about
Speaker 1: this on television, and it's an example of the sort
Speaker 1: of stuff that I'm looking at off the air to
Speaker 1: try to get that sense of which way that it
Speaker 1: is going, which is that in Pennsylvania. Of course, in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, mailing voting was one of the main ways
Speaker 1: people were voting. Now Joe Biden only won the state
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania by from memory, about forty to forty thousand votes. Well,
Speaker 1: for both Republicans and Democrats, the number of people asking
Speaker 1: for a mailing ballot is down by a couple of
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand, either meaning there's a certain series of
Speaker 1: people who don't want to vote or a bunch of
Speaker 1: people who will assume and vote in person. Now, the
Speaker 1: assumption is that Democrats vote early, Republicans vote on time.
Speaker 1: So make of that of what you will. But to
Speaker 1: betting markets tonight, do not play this tape in three
Speaker 1: years time, third of September East Coast time of Australia
Speaker 1: and nine to twenty nine at night Trump apparently just
Speaker 1: in front. We'll talk about that in a whole lot
Speaker 1: more than Nigel Ferras a little bit later in the show,
Speaker 1: but looking forward to Holly Hughes about the news of
Speaker 1: oles Libs and Joe Hildebrand about how Albo saves himself
Speaker 1: from Albo. Fifty seven percent of people have no idea
Speaker 1: and okaynot name one thing the government's done to make
Speaker 1: their life better. Joe will have a list, but we'll
Speaker 1: deal with that in a second. Oh, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for watching Holly Hughes and Joe Hillebrand in the
Speaker 1: man Cave standing by looking forward to Niger fras from
Speaker 1: London nine or two times. So let's jump straight to
Speaker 1: it here. Joe, why do you think Albo is in trouble?
Speaker 1: Because Resolve Pole, Essential Pole News poll all say more
Speaker 1: than half of the country is either dissatisfied, poor, very poor.
Speaker 1: All of that about his performance right now and the
Speaker 1: Red Ridge Pole that I just showed that fifty seven
Speaker 1: percent of people can't name a thing, a single thing
Speaker 1: the government's done. Why is he in trouble Because it's
Speaker 1: not like he's got a critical media on him.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's a couple of reason.
Speaker 9: One is, I think everyone's doing it tough, and when
Speaker 9: you're doing it tough, it's the government's fault and that's that,
Speaker 9: and I think that's totally fair enough. I think the
Speaker 9: other thing is that the government has sought to the
Speaker 9: newspaper was particularly interesting because the parties were exactly fifty
Speaker 9: to fifty for the second month in a row on
Speaker 9: two Ppe, but also Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese's approval
Speaker 9: rating was exactly the same at minus thirteen. So Peter
Speaker 9: Dutton is preferred as doing a good job as oppositional
Speaker 9: lead and the Aberdez you're doing a good job as
Speaker 9: prime minister. The public is equally dissatisfied both them. I mean,
Speaker 9: talk about your double haters and.
Speaker 10: Talk about clutching and find clearly right there for album.
Speaker 9: I think clearly the strategy I held on to that
Speaker 9: straw for about six months.
Speaker 1: Clearly give me the tip. It doesn't last.
Speaker 9: But clearly Labour's strategy is and it's not one unnecessarily approval,
Speaker 9: but clearly they're they're.
Speaker 8: Listening to me.
Speaker 9: But clearly labor strategy is we know that we're on
Speaker 9: the but we're just going to make Peter Dunnon even
Speaker 9: more on the nose. So we know that people aren't
Speaker 9: too fast about us, but we're just gonna we're just
Speaker 9: going to make him look even worse. And to be honest,
Speaker 9: it seems to be working. It's very reductive. I'm not
Speaker 9: sure yeah, I mean, not as bad as a good.
Speaker 1: But what is interesting though, when it's obvious why he's
Speaker 1: in trouble because what he promised is not what's been
Speaker 1: delivered on multiplicity of fronts, and we talk about it
Speaker 1: in great.
Speaker 10: Omites, better cost.
Speaker 1: Of living, transparency, no jobs for the boys, you know,
Speaker 1: like you take your pick, right, there's lots of little things.
Speaker 1: We've also seen a couple of We've also seen parts
Speaker 1: of the left start to say, on a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of issues, I'm out right now. Obviously that's part of
Speaker 1: the coalition for Labor. They'll go to the Greens, they
Speaker 1: hand their preferences back. But if enough of that happens
Speaker 1: in enough seats, we're talking about Greens MPs propping up
Speaker 1: a minority Labor party as opposed to a couple of
Speaker 1: independents from you know, Rebecca Sha or anything.
Speaker 10: I don't think, you know, to give Rebecca credit. I
Speaker 10: don't think she'd ever back a labor government.
Speaker 1: Well no, but obvi, mathematically right, So why do you
Speaker 1: think I mean again, this idea that as long as
Speaker 1: we all got buger, Peter Dutton will be okay. If
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton is actually articulating the things that people are
Speaker 1: annoyed about about the government. I'm not entirely sure that works.
Speaker 1: It's when you're a Bill Shorten and you're trying to
Speaker 1: overtly change the tax system, or you're running around like
Speaker 1: a t rex where people will turn around and have
Speaker 1: their view of you.
Speaker 8: Look.
Speaker 10: I find it really interesting that labor always goes on
Speaker 10: this personal attack. And if you look back over Liberal
Speaker 10: leaders and very successful Liberal prime ministers, when was John
Speaker 10: Howard particularly popular pretty much not till he left Tony
Speaker 10: Abbott probably the greatest opposition later this country has ever
Speaker 10: seen one a huge majority. When it came to the
Speaker 10: twenty thirteen election, Australians actually don't necessarily want to elect
Speaker 10: someone they like well they want to go and have
Speaker 10: a beer with. They want to elect someone that they
Speaker 10: think is competent. They want to elect someone who they
Speaker 10: think will put national security first, who will be looking
Speaker 10: after their interests, will be making sure that the immigration
Speaker 10: levels are at a sustainable enough level that they can
Speaker 10: afford housing, that kids can get a job, that the
Speaker 10: economy is working. They don't necessarily elect someone who they
Speaker 10: want to go and have a beer with, particularly when
Speaker 10: things are going badly and I think we can all
Speaker 10: agree things are going badly across the board in the
Speaker 10: economy particularly, so I just think it's a stupid attack line,
Speaker 10: but it's one in Labour's DNA.
Speaker 1: Now also worth talking about here, right and again, I
Speaker 1: get back to this fifty seven percent of people, so
Speaker 1: they can't say a single thing. The government's don't to
Speaker 1: change their lives right now, we're told that all of
Speaker 1: the things they've done when it comes to cost of living,
Speaker 1: they will touch someone at someon point in time. Will
Speaker 1: If sixty percent of people basically are saying not me, well,
Speaker 1: then this stuff has been on the margins. But that's it.
Speaker 1: A fundamental problem that faces Team Red and Team Blue
Speaker 1: going into this election is that you will have to
Speaker 1: the left of the Labor Party. The Green's promising everything,
Speaker 1: literally the Homer Simpson running for city sanitation, We're just.
Speaker 8: Going to sign into law that everyone gets a house.
Speaker 1: Correct. We will see inevitably tougher and harder options coming
Speaker 1: from one nation, potentially UAP as well.
Speaker 9: Here.
Speaker 1: The great difference, of course is preference discipline from the
Speaker 1: Greens puts Labor in the game. If sixty percent of
Speaker 1: people who vote one nation you're not at Australia Party,
Speaker 1: lib DEM's all of that Libertarian Well, then they get
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party a lot closer. What's your message to
Speaker 1: the people who may be watching us tonight who are
Speaker 1: probably not going to put Liberal first, but they're going
Speaker 1: to go somewhere else to the right first, about what
Speaker 1: they do with number two and why number two matters.
Speaker 10: Number two matters if you're a center right voter, going
Speaker 10: to the Liberals over to the rather than to the
Speaker 10: Labor Party and making sure that you do filter it
Speaker 10: through the end of the day with a lot of
Speaker 10: those votes as long as you put Liberal above Labor,
Speaker 10: even if you put them both five and six, if
Speaker 10: there's six people.
Speaker 1: Running, Green's lost.
Speaker 10: Greens absolutely last in every seat, every seat people, but
Speaker 10: you're absolutely conservative. Voters need to understand that whilst they
Speaker 10: might not love some parts of the Liberal Party and
Speaker 10: you know what pretty much with them, I understand that,
Speaker 10: I understand that, you know, I know where a broad
Speaker 10: church a broad tent. Some would like to say, in
Speaker 10: my view, we're not a tent with the sides rolled
Speaker 10: up and the sides spilling out. But I think on
Speaker 10: the left we might have gone a little bit too
Speaker 10: far in that direction. But the majority, particularly of the
Speaker 10: Federal Parliamentary Parliamentary team, is conservative. It will always be
Speaker 10: more conservative than a labor government, especially a Labor Greens government,
Speaker 10: which I unfortunately think could be where we're headed. You know,
Speaker 10: it is really important that those that do want to
Speaker 10: vote for one nation, that want to vote for the
Speaker 10: UAP or Libertarian party. There are more libertarians, there are
Speaker 10: more conservatives, there are more people. I mean, you've only
Speaker 10: got to look. You know, Babbitt put up emotion the
Speaker 10: other day around babies that survived failed abortions. There was
Speaker 10: not one Labor or one Green that supported that motion.
Speaker 10: That was the right place for the motion to get.
Speaker 10: There were four liberals that didn't support it. And you
Speaker 10: know it will forever confound me on that and I
Speaker 10: was one of the liberals.
Speaker 1: That did support it.
Speaker 10: But you will always get that support from the majority
Speaker 10: of liberals.
Speaker 8: The record, none from a neighbor. There will be no
Speaker 8: Labor Green Joe, you are living in no way.
Speaker 9: They will not, they will not, they will signed no documentary,
Speaker 9: but they won't reject their human If the Greens want
Speaker 9: to line up and support everything labor does in a
Speaker 9: minority government. They will let them, but there will be
Speaker 9: absolutely no signed document as there.
Speaker 10: Was there wasn't there one hiller and and there will.
Speaker 8: Be no deal very much.
Speaker 9: They will not be a weekly means they are absolutely
Speaker 9: there is no way they will.
Speaker 8: Take what happens in the Senate hate them.
Speaker 10: I won't say that.
Speaker 9: Listen to what even Albo was saying about the Greens,
Speaker 9: let alone the right of the party who have been
Speaker 9: burned by these But.
Speaker 1: Then, rather than what's happening now, the Libs should not
Speaker 1: be sending preferences to the Greens to punish the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: The Labour Party shouldn't be sending them the deals to
Speaker 1: punish the Liberal Party. That's absolutely, But that's what's happening
Speaker 1: right now. They're they're both bleeding out while the other
Speaker 1: person has got the band.
Speaker 8: You talk about second preference votes.
Speaker 9: I wrote a column in the last election urging Labor
Speaker 9: voters in Teel seats to preference the.
Speaker 8: Liberals and they should do it again. That's that's I'll
Speaker 8: tell you what.
Speaker 10: Flavourship preference Liberals over to your.
Speaker 1: Preference, Labor over Greens.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, federal campaign called is going thankshold doing our preference
Speaker 10: still but.
Speaker 9: Gets seventy two seats, which is what seven six more
Speaker 9: than it has now it can doesn't even have to
Speaker 9: talk to the Teals.
Speaker 8: So that's reccor sharky Andrew Rebecca is not a not
Speaker 8: a till.
Speaker 1: Give me.
Speaker 8: They've got four votes that puts them into I don't think.
Speaker 10: I don't think or Beg would go for labor government.
Speaker 9: I think that I think independents are always more likely
Speaker 9: to go with the statusy gas.
Speaker 1: I think what's going to be fascinating here is that
Speaker 1: there is going to be seats that will be lost
Speaker 1: to the coalition and there are going to be going
Speaker 1: to be lost to the Greens. So what that mats
Speaker 1: is going to look like. I still believe again that
Speaker 1: until there's a movement in the Teels, that it is
Speaker 1: going to end up with label with more seats, meaning
Speaker 1: they're off and into the negotiation and they're willing to
Speaker 1: give up whatever. We saw that in twenty ten, so
Speaker 1: all wait, watch and see a couple of other quick
Speaker 1: things here New So was the Liberal Party takeover again?
Speaker 1: A lot of people national show that don't particularly care
Speaker 1: about the granular stuff, but I think it's great that
Speaker 1: the Federal Party has stepped over the state party because
Speaker 1: the state party is so beyond dysfunction. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Is this the right thing that's happened?
Speaker 10: It started out well, hasn't it start out really well?
Speaker 10: They've announced a three person committee, one of whom was
Speaker 10: never asked and can't participate.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you should be one of the three.
Speaker 1: And you know how it all works.
Speaker 10: Spare I don't have spare time at the moment, but
Speaker 10: I will come June to thirty thanks New South Wales
Speaker 10: little party.
Speaker 8: Exactly I have this time is personal.
Speaker 10: Maybe be in there for that, even though you know
Speaker 10: I'm probably of one of the worst experienced women in
Speaker 10: the in the organizational wing, state and federal executive, et cetera,
Speaker 10: et cetera. So I know how it works, and I've
Speaker 10: got to say it is confounding me how the behavior
Speaker 10: is going on. I did send a message to Chris
Speaker 10: Stone tonight, God love him, because I saw he's been
Speaker 10: apparently wrote back in a state director. Gosh, that poor
Speaker 10: darling just can't escape. I did text him and say
Speaker 10: I wonder if you were asked in the same way
Speaker 10: Rob Stokes was, and he hasn't replied as yet, so
Speaker 10: perhaps Chris hasn't been officially asked either, that just thought
Speaker 10: by putting it in the media, he'll feel inclined to agree.
Speaker 10: But you know, you made the point not getting in
Speaker 10: the weeds. Fewer viewers that are concerned about getting a
Speaker 10: change of government. New South Wales is the biggest state
Speaker 10: and you need to win the seats there, so it
Speaker 10: might seem like you're getting in the weeds. We might
Speaker 10: say we're making light of it and whatever, but the
Speaker 10: reality is New South Wales is a state that they
Speaker 10: need to win the most seats in. I was in
Speaker 10: Wa next week and I know why Albo's been there
Speaker 10: this week and everyone else because.
Speaker 1: It ain't looking yeah.
Speaker 10: There, but they need New South Wales to pick up
Speaker 10: the slack. It's absolutely unbelievable. I hope whoever Dunton had
Speaker 10: in New South Wales that was apparently you know, may
Speaker 10: have been responsible for getting a New South Wales representative
Speaker 10: on Perhaps dont looks for someone else since they did
Speaker 10: so well with Rob Stokes.
Speaker 9: But we'll see it has to be from the center, right,
Speaker 9: don't It has to be someone because.
Speaker 10: We're telling I'm from the center right and they made
Speaker 10: sure they got rid of me.
Speaker 8: That's what I was saying, that that's the whole problem.
Speaker 1: You're just standing up this sort of the hard.
Speaker 8: Left, the hard right. They don't like the middle exactly,
Speaker 8: and the middle is where it's all that. Baby, thank
Speaker 8: you always, thank you.
Speaker 1: I was like, when you use your cute names on television, baby,
Speaker 1: what a lovely way to finish. Thank you, Joe Baby,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, Ally baby, Nigel Baby, next morning
Speaker 1: a second here on Paul Murray Live. I can't wait
Speaker 1: for the Internet to misconstrue that. Nigel Frust joins us
Speaker 1: from the UK both broadcast are now member of Parliament.
Speaker 1: Great man, love you to see you, and I've got
Speaker 1: us well done for standing up for smokers. Now, let's
Speaker 1: be very clear, those of you who have a dart,
Speaker 1: those of us that have a cigar, stupid, killing ourselves slowly,
Speaker 1: not good for kids. Give up. We get all of
Speaker 1: that right, but it does remain a legal product. Now,
Speaker 1: if it is a legal product, where should you be
Speaker 1: able to consume it now? This, Nigel, is an interesting
Speaker 1: point because in the UK any people love a drink
Speaker 1: and they love a dart with the drink, and it's
Speaker 1: pretty liberal to do so. Outside but this new mob
Speaker 1: look like they're going to get rid of that.
Speaker 11: Yeah, we've got this new labor government who are showing
Speaker 11: their sort of Puritan streak that they must control every
Speaker 11: aspect of our lives.
Speaker 1: Look. Liberty, as you know.
Speaker 11: Defined by John Stuart Mill back in the nineteenth century,
Speaker 11: is the freedom to pursue your own activities, provided they're
Speaker 11: not to a detriment of others. All right, So if
Speaker 11: you go outside into a beer garden to have a smoke,
Speaker 11: you don't have to affect anybody else unless they choose
Speaker 11: to come in your area. And that's why these laws
Speaker 11: are frankly unworkable. And you know, Australia is the example,
Speaker 11: isn't it. I mean, look at what's happened in Melbourne,
Speaker 11: where you've taxed cigarettes to a crazy level. You've made
Speaker 11: it very difficult to smoke anywhere in the state of Victoria.
Speaker 11: And now guess what's happened. The tobacco trade is in
Speaker 11: the hands of the criminals and you've had ninety seven
Speaker 11: firebombings in the last two years. So I've been warning
Speaker 11: the government here don't do what they've done in Melbourne.
Speaker 11: Don't take a legal activity and effectively criminalize it well.
Speaker 1: And also you've got this very obvious double standard, right,
Speaker 1: which is the consumption of the legal product that is tobacco,
Speaker 1: and then the people who would like to change the
Speaker 1: law to legalize things like cannabis. Certain states in this
Speaker 1: country have changed things when it comes to drug position.
Speaker 1: So which is is it the puritan society where everyone
Speaker 1: is not allowed to do anything, or is it the
Speaker 1: place where you do you as long as you don't
Speaker 1: harm the people That there's midways in between. But I
Speaker 1: always find just from a public policy perspective, it is
Speaker 1: almost impossible to talk about some of the logic in
Speaker 1: all of this because any level of discussion is considered advocacy,
Speaker 1: and advocacy for smokers equals you, sir, are worse than Hitler,
Speaker 1: as was the joke in the Simpsons.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean, I've been to the state of Colorado,
Speaker 11: where smoking a joint's great, but light a cigarette, oh
Speaker 11: my goodness, gratious me you think you've done something terrible.
Speaker 11: So you're right, there is a big contradiction here. But look,
Speaker 11: the general direction of travel is to control our lives.
Speaker 11: The World Health Organization have now said there is no
Speaker 11: safe legal limit for alcohol so they'll becoming for that
Speaker 11: next And would you believe in the last four days
Speaker 11: in this country a report out suggests that having just
Speaker 11: one croissant every morning significantly affects your chances of having
Speaker 11: a heart attack. So either either we just all give
Speaker 11: up live on bread and water, or perhaps that won't
Speaker 11: even work, or you reach your point where, frankly, you
Speaker 11: disrespect this.
Speaker 1: So much you just tell them all to go to hell. Dent.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine anyone running on a platform of shut
Speaker 1: the beer gardens and get rid of the prints. I
Speaker 1: don't think they'd be able to get over the line.
Speaker 1: There's your little bakeries on almost every corner. Good luck,
Speaker 1: Let's go to America. So Biden was brought out today
Speaker 1: by Harris Labor Day, celebration of unions, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: But fascinatingly, we were all supposed to get this massive
Speaker 1: convention bounce because Oprah was there and Michelle, Obama and Walt.
Speaker 1: Statistically that hasn't turned up. And even the bedding markets,
Speaker 1: which yes, at one point had her in front, now
Speaker 1: have got Trump in front. Now I know there's a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of stats I can show that go this
Speaker 1: way or that way. But by this point in time
Speaker 1: he was supposed to be a dead duck according to
Speaker 1: all of the media, and guess what he ain't.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 11: I think that the Kennedy pulling out and supporting Trump
Speaker 11: in the Key States, I think that was a bigger
Speaker 11: moment than people realized, you know. I mean, here was
Speaker 11: somebody right from the very heart of the post war
Speaker 11: Democratic Party saying, look, they don't represent the values of
Speaker 11: my father and my uncle. I think that was a
Speaker 11: big moment. I think that Tomsy Gabbard moment again, a
Speaker 11: Democrat who'd come to Trump's side. So I do actually
Speaker 11: think quietly the Trump campaign has been getting better. I
Speaker 11: just hope he never mentions Joe Biden ever. Again, he
Speaker 11: got himself a bit stuck with this idea that he
Speaker 11: wanted to fight Biden and Biden had gone because there
Speaker 11: was a coup. Well, forget that, You're up against this woman,
Speaker 11: and it's much harder in politics to criticize and attack
Speaker 11: all female politician than it is a male politician. So
Speaker 11: he just needs to get that balance right. I know
Speaker 11: this myself from my time in the European Parliament attacking
Speaker 11: you European commissioners but look, no, the Trump campaign is
Speaker 11: getting itself back into a better place. And look, I
Speaker 11: promise you on November the fifth, he is going to win.
Speaker 1: I'm hard up against it. I got thirty seconds. What
Speaker 1: do you think of the Harris interview on scene?
Speaker 11: Ye, I didn't know there was one. I thought it
Speaker 11: was a love and a little sort of chet chat
Speaker 11: between mates.
Speaker 1: Very good point.
Speaker 8: That's abound.
Speaker 1: Who knows how to time out? Thank you, Nigil. We
Speaker 1: will see you on your show of course on gb News,
Speaker 1: and we'll see you here again next week. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: our show for tonight again. The expectation is that debate
Speaker 1: and then we're getting into sentencing, then it's early voting.
Speaker 1: There's so much to go. We get into all the detail,
Speaker 1: you know. I'm obsessed with every little bit of it.
Speaker 1: What I bring to you, those the stuff that I
Speaker 1: think you should know in order to be able to
Speaker 1: have the data to have the debate at home. He's
Speaker 1: the late debate and I'll see tomorrow with Meghan Kelly