Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Hi,
Speaker 1: my friend. Now, yes, of course I'm going to talk
Speaker 1: about what percent of one percent of global emissions we
Speaker 1: should be dealing with before twenty thirty. Yes, of course
Speaker 1: I'll talk about the ludicrousness of the everything must go
Speaker 1: closing down sale of the Queensland budget. And yes, I'll
Speaker 1: even find a way to have a little chat about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden celebrating June teenth and proving that yeah, it's
Speaker 1: true about rhythm. Perhaps about first, may I start with
Speaker 1: something a little dangerous. It's called a laugh. Now, I've
Speaker 1: got to say that I didn't think that Trump could
Speaker 1: be funnier on the campaign trail than when he was
Speaker 1: running for reelection and he was talking about taps and toilets.
Speaker 1: Try going and buying the new faucet. You turn it on,
Speaker 1: nor water comes out.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We won't talk about toilets, but you know that's a
Speaker 1: deep But how about the shower. You go into a
Speaker 1: shower and I have this beautiful head of hair, I
Speaker 1: need a lot of water, and you go into the shower, right,
Speaker 1: you turn on the water. Drip, drip, drip. I called
Speaker 1: the games something wrong with this? No sir, it's just
Speaker 1: a restrictor.
Speaker 2: So you're in there five times longer than you're supposed
Speaker 2: to be.
Speaker 1: It goes on a lot longer. But it was funny, right,
Speaker 1: every now and then, just guess, everything is incredibly serious
Speaker 1: and the world's all very serious, but every now and
Speaker 1: then there's a bit of funny. And there was a
Speaker 1: bit of funny that came out of Trump's most recent
Speaker 1: rally in the state of Nevada. Now this is, of
Speaker 1: course the state home to Las Vegas, where currently it's
Speaker 1: bloody hot. But for the first time in a long time,
Speaker 1: a Republican Trump looks like he could win the state.
Speaker 1: If he wins the state, then he's a massive chance
Speaker 1: of being returned as the president. But I've got to say,
Speaker 1: there was one little bit inside a speech that was yes,
Speaker 1: talking about all the very serious issues, but I couldn't
Speaker 1: help but think, thanks for the loft, Donald, this is
Speaker 1: probably the next president of the United States.
Speaker 2: I went to a boat company in South Carolina the
Speaker 2: boat I said, how is it? He said, it's a problem, sir.
Speaker 2: They want us to make all electric boats. So I said,
Speaker 2: let me ask you a question, and he said, nobody
Speaker 2: ever asked this question, and it must.
Speaker 1: Because of Mit.
Speaker 2: My relationship to Mit. Very smart. He goes, I say,
Speaker 2: what would happen if the boat sank from its weight
Speaker 2: and you're in the boat and you have this tremendously
Speaker 2: powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there's
Speaker 2: a shark that's approximately ten yards over there?
Speaker 1: Went out of shark attacks lately, did not said a lot.
Speaker 2: Of shok Do I get electrocuted? If the boat is sinking?
Speaker 2: Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do
Speaker 2: I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted?
Speaker 2: Or do I jump over by the shark and not
Speaker 2: get electrocuted? Because I will tell you he didn't know.
Speaker 2: They said, you know, nobody's ever asked me that question.
Speaker 1: I said, I think it's a good question.
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of electric current coming through
Speaker 2: that water.
Speaker 1: But you know what I'd do if there was a
Speaker 1: shark or you.
Speaker 2: Get electrocuted, I'll take electrocution every single time.
Speaker 1: Who knew this was a dilemma when you woke up today?
Speaker 1: Did you think you'd have to choose between the electrified
Speaker 1: boat falling into the water versus the shark? Which would
Speaker 1: you choose again. Just something silly that said in the
Speaker 1: middle of a long election campaign that's still got months
Speaker 1: and months ago, right, And for some people it's not
Speaker 1: serious enough. I don't have a problem with it. You
Speaker 1: don't have a problem with it. It's just silly, right.
Speaker 1: But this is how it's interpreted the next day on
Speaker 1: lefty TV in the United States. This is like Karen
Speaker 1: in four k.
Speaker 3: Some would call that completely unfit to deal with the
Speaker 3: challenges as the leader the free world.
Speaker 4: Just completely unfed.
Speaker 1: M Look, as I said, the world's a tough place, war,
Speaker 1: cost of living, poverty, whatever's going on in our own lives.
Speaker 1: People getting sick, people that we love getting sick, maybe
Speaker 1: us getting sick every now and then. Can we just
Speaker 1: giggle at the shee's silliness of it? This is the
Speaker 1: most perfect, eloquent thing that a presidential candidate has ever said. No,
Speaker 1: but it's a laugh. Who cares? Does anyone really think
Speaker 1: that this is a deep psychological insight into the failures
Speaker 1: of the future leader of the third Right? Look, come on,
Speaker 1: you can hate them on all the policies, you can, yes,
Speaker 1: even roll your eyes if you want. But if you
Speaker 1: don't find the dilemma ridiculous, Then maybe you do take
Speaker 1: yourself now before again, I get to what percent of
Speaker 1: one percent of global emission should we do reduce in
Speaker 1: Australia by twenty thirty and then twenty fifty, I'll get
Speaker 1: to it, right. I know that's what the rest of
Speaker 1: everyone's on about. But there was a story that was
Speaker 1: rather noticeable today that I'm surprised wasn't a little bit louder.
Speaker 1: And it's a story about water. Now. I love my wife,
Speaker 1: but she's a bottle water kind of person, right, She's
Speaker 1: never really been a tap water kind of person. She
Speaker 1: likes this. We buy it by the box every week.
Speaker 1: That's what she likes. I good old fashioned tap water
Speaker 1: that doesn't bother me. I'll even occasionally do the Bogan
Speaker 1: thing of drinking out of the tap myself. No need
Speaker 1: for the glass. Yes, the uncouthness that comes in the
Speaker 1: form of this presenter each and every night. However, there
Speaker 1: was a interesting story today which was about potential contamination
Speaker 1: of our drinking water supply. Now, there was a report
Speaker 1: which seems to be a bit of an extrapolation of
Speaker 1: something that's happened out of America. But the suggestion is
Speaker 1: that the drinking water of like two million people Sydney
Speaker 1: Melbourne in particular may will be contaminated by atmospheric issues
Speaker 1: that end up landing in the water and if you
Speaker 1: end up consuming an awful lot of it, well it's
Speaker 1: not good for you. As the Sydney Morning Herald led today,
Speaker 1: and this was their big exclusive, which again seemed to
Speaker 1: be slight repurposing of some data out of the United
Speaker 1: States and some interpretation that's come out of activist groups. Here,
Speaker 1: the mast Head has analyzed publicly available data which indicates
Speaker 1: the chemicals that are found in drinking water of up
Speaker 1: to one point eight million Australians since twenty ten. So
Speaker 1: headline screams the water's going to give you cancer, but
Speaker 1: the actual numbers think about that, that's over fourteen year. Okay,
Speaker 1: the numbers start to slow a little here, but let's
Speaker 1: turn the machine up to eleven and scare the people
Speaker 1: that they did in the media today. What's the type
Speaker 1: of chemicals We're talking about.
Speaker 5: Two pre fas contaminants p FOSS and PFI And what
Speaker 5: they found is that there is likely linked to a
Speaker 5: number of cancer endpoints, so tarticular and breast cancer, Kinney
Speaker 5: cancer and other health effects.
Speaker 1: As well just one second, probably not if that's the
Speaker 1: case right. But interestingly, questions that followed up around all
Speaker 1: of this today was okay, so how much do you
Speaker 1: need to drink and how much exposure before any of
Speaker 1: those things actually kick off in your body? The answer,
Speaker 1: even from the people that were trying to freak us
Speaker 1: out today was we don't know. So it Does it
Speaker 1: mean it's not a story? No, not quite. Does it
Speaker 1: mean that we're all going to die because of the
Speaker 1: drinking water that we have in our country? No? Now,
Speaker 1: I know that our opinions of the chief Health officers
Speaker 1: is a little dodgy at the moment in Australia after
Speaker 1: they got it so right during COVID, But everyone who's
Speaker 1: in charge of the machine and in charge of the
Speaker 1: system says nothing to see here would actually encourage people
Speaker 1: to drink water.
Speaker 6: We are very blessed with very safe water, so I
Speaker 6: have no concerns about the safety and quality.
Speaker 1: Laterst data should be very reassuring.
Speaker 4: In fact, I'd be very comfortable to drink water from
Speaker 4: anywhere in Australia at the current level.
Speaker 1: Okay, doctor Kerry Chand I don't quite trust her do
Speaker 1: trust Nick Codsworth, because of course he was one of
Speaker 1: the same people who came out drink COVID going okay,
Speaker 1: kids can still go to school, and the stuff that
Speaker 1: Daniel Andrews and Martin McGowan got a gold medal for.
Speaker 1: So this was a weird story. Today the headlines would
Speaker 1: have you believe that all tap order is terrible and
Speaker 1: you must get a filter because if you're exposed to
Speaker 1: too much of it, you'll end up getting cancer. But
Speaker 1: then if the public health officials are being very direct
Speaker 1: and telling us no, that's not the case, well, then
Speaker 1: who's the one being irresponsible here? I can't tend because
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not the scientist. Obviously, is it
Speaker 1: the people that are exposing the problem or is it
Speaker 1: the public health officials that aren't taking it seriously enough?
Speaker 1: But interestingly, you would have thought that someone trying to
Speaker 1: get stories around today that claim the evidence is that
Speaker 1: there might be a problem with the drinking water supply
Speaker 1: for a certain period of people over a certain period
Speaker 1: of time would be bigger news. Or did other people
Speaker 1: just realize maybe this isn't what it seems. Either way,
Speaker 1: there's either a huge story. No one's talking about here,
Speaker 1: or a story we shouldn't be talking about because it
Speaker 1: isn't a story at all. On second thoughts, just drink up.
Speaker 1: It's all going to make us sick, isn't it eventually,
Speaker 1: I assume? But take health advice from me, the morbidly
Speaker 1: a B smoker. Anyway. Now, the thing that they were
Speaker 1: all obsessed about today in Canberra had plenty of questions
Speaker 1: and fingers ready to poke towards a person in power,
Speaker 1: was what percent of one percent of global emissions should
Speaker 1: Australia be committing to in twenty thirty. Now this is
Speaker 1: a helpful graph. I made sure that we updated it
Speaker 1: from the other one that we've shown you, which shows
Speaker 1: from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It shows that of
Speaker 1: all of the countries that are producing CO two and problems,
Speaker 1: China would be thirty three percent, India would be the
Speaker 1: best part of ten percent, the United States fourteen percent,
Speaker 1: Russia five point eight percent, Indonesia, Little Old Indonesia, Well,
Speaker 1: little old Indonesia's two hundred and fifty million people, isn't
Speaker 1: it five and a bit percent? The twenty seven countries
Speaker 1: in the EU four point nine percent, then South Korea
Speaker 1: and then others is thirteen. Now I had to break
Speaker 1: it to you, but Australia is lumped in with others.
Speaker 1: Why because, as I've said, where one percent of the
Speaker 1: world's problem. Now, does that mean we should do nothing?
Speaker 1: Because who cares nine to nine problems and the atmosphere
Speaker 1: ain't one. No, of course we should be doing something.
Speaker 1: But the question is should we be doing things that
Speaker 1: end up costing too much money, hurting our economy, making
Speaker 1: things too difficult for people, or, in the case of
Speaker 1: the rapid expansion of renewable energy, should be literally destroying
Speaker 1: the earth in order to save the atmosphere. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: those that demand absolute urgent climate action suggest that the
Speaker 1: figures I have just presented to you are myth leading
Speaker 1: myth information, because on per capita amounts, Australia is one
Speaker 1: of the biggest polluters in the world. The problem is
Speaker 1: you don't actually measure it that way. If the problem
Speaker 1: is how much CO two has been put into the
Speaker 1: atmosphere by humans, the result is just how much is
Speaker 1: up and about, and the direct correlation is how much
Speaker 1: each country is throwing up, not how many people are
Speaker 1: throwing it up. Again, can we go back to the
Speaker 1: map thirty three percent of the problem thirty three times
Speaker 1: worse than anything Australia could do right now is China,
Speaker 1: Yet under the Paris Agreement thirty one percent. I apologize.
Speaker 1: Under the Paris Agreement, of course, we have this nonsense
Speaker 1: where the western country is chiefly places like Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
Speaker 1: the United States, Well, they all have to measure their crap.
Speaker 1: They're thrown into the atmosphere from two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: But China, which is currently thirty times more than countries
Speaker 1: like Australia, they can continue to do whatever they want
Speaker 1: until twenty thirty. That's why I think the Paris Agreement
Speaker 1: is not quite worth the paper that it's written on.
Speaker 1: Not because we shouldn't do anything about climate change. It's
Speaker 1: just isn't the issue that the person who's actually got
Speaker 1: thirty bonfires in their backyard versus your one bonfire in
Speaker 1: your backyard probably should put out a few of their
Speaker 1: bonfires before we have to completely snuff out our bonfire
Speaker 1: from which we get our heat and are able to
Speaker 1: cook our food. Well, today the Prime Minister thinks that
Speaker 1: he has found a way to change his slump in
Speaker 1: the Poles, which was not saved by saving Andrew Giles,
Speaker 1: the hopeless Immigration Minister, from a few weeks of failures
Speaker 1: in the Parliament. It was not to be saved by
Speaker 1: too little, too late in the budget. Instead, he thinks,
Speaker 1: let's go back and let's pretend the Liberals are all
Speaker 1: auger booger on climate change and China means nothing. Here's
Speaker 1: what he said today.
Speaker 7: No twenty thirty target means walking out of the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 7: Now they have a number of policies over recent days,
Speaker 7: but it's very clear that they can't be taken seriously
Speaker 7: on an issue that is important to Australians today.
Speaker 1: And here is what Peter Dunton actually had to say,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is not there will be no
Speaker 1: target for twenty thirty. It's just you know what, you're
Speaker 1: forty three percent, which we didn't agree to at the
Speaker 1: last election, we won't agree to at the next election.
Speaker 1: I know Shakhara breaking news roll the tape of the
Speaker 1: alternative Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: We know that with the energy policy which is a
Speaker 3: complete train wreck. The renewable is only energy policy of
Speaker 3: the government. It's driving prices up. At the next election
Speaker 3: it will be about who do you trust to bring
Speaker 3: your electricity prices down. It will be about who do
Speaker 3: you trust to manage the economy and to deal with
Speaker 3: the cost of living crisis.
Speaker 1: That Labour's created.
Speaker 3: It will be about who do you trust to deal
Speaker 3: with the housing crisis that labor has created in our country.
Speaker 1: So the election is soon next year, but either way
Speaker 1: it feels like we get into that stage where we're
Speaker 1: having the proxy election. And because it's up to the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister whether it happens in August, which is the
Speaker 1: earliest opportunity, or all the way through main Dune of
Speaker 1: next year, which is the longest opportunity, we're going to
Speaker 1: be in this cycle for some time. But how did
Speaker 1: the media interpret all of this today? Did they lay
Speaker 1: it out the same way that I have for the
Speaker 1: past few days that they're not really pulling out of
Speaker 1: the Paris Agreement, they're just not agreeing with what they
Speaker 1: didn't vote for in the Parliament, which is forty three percent. Well,
Speaker 1: of course, here's the man who called Tony Abbott the
Speaker 1: most divisive political leader of his generation.
Speaker 8: On Channel nine, Peter Dutton says he remains committed to
Speaker 8: net zero emissions by twenty fifty, but today he effectively
Speaker 8: abandoned Astraita's legislated short term target electorally risky, especially in
Speaker 8: inner city electorates.
Speaker 1: Yes, the opposition that didn't support the forty three percent
Speaker 1: emissions cut when they were the government, and as the
Speaker 1: opposition that did not vote for that target are promising
Speaker 1: not to follow what they have opposed should they become elected.
Speaker 1: Mind blown. Right, they never agreed with the policy of
Speaker 1: forty three they never voted for it, and they won't
Speaker 1: abide by it should they become the government. But of
Speaker 1: course the sky is falling and this will just be
Speaker 1: such a problem, and all those teal seats and they'll
Speaker 1: never get to seventy seventy six seats, you know, all
Speaker 1: of that. Right again, all of this, in honesty is
Speaker 1: the Labor Party trying to change the subject. Because in politics,
Speaker 1: when you're on the defense, I eat, the story is
Speaker 1: always about you, and you have to defend yourself for
Speaker 1: whatever reason. Then generally speaking, you are losing the day.
Speaker 1: The government has been on the backfoot since how long
Speaker 1: in the last year on cost of living, and then
Speaker 1: it was the tax cuts, and then it was the
Speaker 1: immigration stuff. They've been on the back foot for months
Speaker 1: and now it's fifty to fifty in the polls. So
Speaker 1: as I showed you in chapter and verse in great
Speaker 1: detail on Sunday night, Monday night, and again tonight, Petty
Speaker 1: Dutton did not say we're yanking ourselves out of the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement. Instead, their position is we'll have a target
Speaker 1: if we have to for twenty thirty, but it's going
Speaker 1: to be lower than the one that you currently have,
Speaker 1: the one that currently is forcing people to make certain
Speaker 1: choices about cars and making the ones you want to
Speaker 1: buy more expensive than the ones you don't want to buy.
Speaker 1: Changing from an electricity grid that has worked to one
Speaker 1: that hopefully fingers crossed that. A couple of years ago
Speaker 1: the CSIO toldas was going to be a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: worth of transition, but now magically it's only five hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars worth of transition. But nuclear is unacceptable because
Speaker 1: it will cost billions of dollars for transition. You are
Speaker 1: forgiven if you are a little dumb struck at times
Speaker 1: by how this debate works. Well, guess what actually happened today.
Speaker 1: There was an opinion poll, which we would think would
Speaker 1: inform some of the media coverage about whether people had
Speaker 1: changed their attitudes from where they were. Yes, just back
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, what is the likelihood that the
Speaker 1: Urbanese government will meet its aggressive emissions target of forty
Speaker 1: three percent by twenty thirty Sixty nine percent of people
Speaker 1: say unlikely or very likely. And then here's the question,
Speaker 1: should Australia elevate energy reliability and affordability above sustainability. That's
Speaker 1: now clicked in at fifty one to forty three with
Speaker 1: six percent of people still making their mind up. It
Speaker 1: was true in two thousand and seven, ten, thirteen, sixteen,
Speaker 1: nineteen and twenty two that Australians are always in favor
Speaker 1: of action on climate change, but I don't want to
Speaker 1: pay for it. When the government is not doing enough
Speaker 1: on climate change, the poles say, we demand the government
Speaker 1: does more. When the government decides to do more, but
Speaker 1: it ends up costing you more through things like power bills,
Speaker 1: the Australian population always flips back to say, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: this is costing me too much money. And that's not
Speaker 1: because they don't understand the problem of climate change. It's
Speaker 1: not because they don't want to do something about climate change.
Speaker 1: It's because I think in all of our little heart
Speaker 1: of hearts. We know that Australia is one percent of
Speaker 1: the world's problem, China is thirty percent, India is ten percent.
Speaker 1: Russia is six times more than us. So yes, should
Speaker 1: we do something. But if we did everything, which would
Speaker 1: shut everything down, change everything in our lives, everyone getting
Speaker 1: around on penny farthings like the Greens would like it
Speaker 1: to be, we won't actually change the climate. Misinformation from
Speaker 1: Scarni is the primetime. No, that's the reality. If everyone
Speaker 1: was moving at the same place as Australia, then yeah,
Speaker 1: probably could probably break the problems back. But until China,
Speaker 1: who was producing the most, starts having to play by
Speaker 1: the same rules as everyone else, then nothing is really
Speaker 1: going to happen. Because I hate to break it to people,
Speaker 1: and while I am not a scientist, I think I
Speaker 1: can work this out. The pollution that is produced by
Speaker 1: one country goes on to affair other countries. For US,
Speaker 1: yep one percent of the problem, but China thirty percent.
Speaker 1: So even if the Green's got their way, we'd still
Speaker 1: have bushfires, We'll still have flooding events, and will still
Speaker 1: have cyclones. None of that means we do nothing. It's
Speaker 1: just about the pace in which we do it. That's
Speaker 1: the debate. But for the people who have replaced the
Speaker 1: religion with a God and holy texts, the thing they
Speaker 1: believe in with the same fervor as those who believe
Speaker 1: in the burning bush, is that climate change is the
Speaker 1: existential problem. If we don't do every and anything about it,
Speaker 1: then we're all going to die. We're all going to
Speaker 1: be sent to hell metaphorically. Well, I can tell you
Speaker 1: a form of hell exists right now. And it's an
Speaker 1: inconvenient truth to people on the extreme left who demand
Speaker 1: greater action on climate change because they can afford to
Speaker 1: pay it. There are people amongst us who can't afford
Speaker 1: the cost of the transit. These will be the same
Speaker 1: people who will always be unable to afford the cost
Speaker 1: of transition. But what's really happening. They're getting the same
Speaker 1: financial relief from this government as the people who live
Speaker 1: in mansions inteel electorates of twenty five dollars a month.
Speaker 1: This is a specific example out of New South Wales.
Speaker 1: Figures provided the Sunday Telegraph show the number of applications
Speaker 1: for assistance emergency assistance when it comes to power bills
Speaker 1: is two hundred and fifty a day back during the
Speaker 1: in bits of the pandemic to now three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty a day in the past six months. Last year,
Speaker 1: the combined number of government and charity issued vouchers for
Speaker 1: power was just over seventy thousand one state, which is
Speaker 1: just over sixty thousand and sixty two thousand in the
Speaker 1: COVID lockdown years. Yet, because the people who are on
Speaker 1: the left of politics want to make the decisions about
Speaker 1: changing our power grid by moving to exclusively or renewables
Speaker 1: at least what eighty something percent in the next few
Speaker 1: years and eventually one hundred percent. Now, this will make
Speaker 1: them all feel good when they go to climate conferences,
Speaker 1: and after you've paid it off from being built. Maybe
Speaker 1: there is a financial change, but the cost of transition,
Speaker 1: the same cost of transition that I've talked about for
Speaker 1: ten years, can't be ignored. The question is whether the
Speaker 1: politics is going to be with Peter Dutton that okay,
Speaker 1: the transition that he prefers the money to be spent
Speaker 1: on his nuclear versus the money being spent currently on renewables. Now, remember,
Speaker 1: for people who live in densely populated parts of Australia,
Speaker 1: they're probably pro renewables because it's never been built in
Speaker 1: their backyards. See what would happen if someone suggested a
Speaker 1: wind farm go into one of the doggy parks of
Speaker 1: a Teal electorate. You reckon they'd back it in. I
Speaker 1: don't think so either. Meantime, another issue about the real
Speaker 1: world that is worth reminding people about right now, which
Speaker 1: is of course the economy with relentless focus. We talk
Speaker 1: about it because there are too many people that are
Speaker 1: being not just forgotten, but I think deliberately ignored. It's
Speaker 1: not acceptable in a country where I'm more than happy
Speaker 1: that I am lucky enough to be able to be
Speaker 1: in a position where there's an awful lot of tax
Speaker 1: which goes back, but that tax goes back with the
Speaker 1: expectation of Medicare and welfare and taking care of people
Speaker 1: who are in the world of trouble. I don't mind
Speaker 1: that about our system. It's when it's peed up against
Speaker 1: the wall on things like government advertising or the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister gets new planes that I have my issues. Now,
Speaker 1: the Treasurer will tell you everything's fine with the economy.
Speaker 9: These national accounts so we got the budget settings right.
Speaker 9: They justify our approach to fighting inflation. And repairing the
Speaker 9: budget without smashing the economy.
Speaker 1: So that guy is getting excited and trying to tell
Speaker 1: everyone I deserve a gold star because there was that
Speaker 1: much growth in the Australian economy zero point one percent
Speaker 1: in three months. Everything is awesome, Everything is great per capita.
Speaker 1: We're in a recession. The real world is in a
Speaker 1: recession and one of the things that is hurting people
Speaker 1: in terms of their ability to pay basic bills is
Speaker 1: things like paying off their houses. For millions of Australians,
Speaker 1: it's the biggest investment they'll ever make. And regardless of
Speaker 1: whether you bought it at the height of the pandemic
Speaker 1: or you did it five years ago or ten years ago,
Speaker 1: interest rates matter. And the latest expectation from the A
Speaker 1: and Z Bank is the Reserve Bank will not even
Speaker 1: touch them until next year. So if there's an election
Speaker 1: this year, good luck to Albo. And even in February
Speaker 1: of next year, good luck to Albo. Remember since he
Speaker 1: came to power, they've gone up twelve times thirteen in
Speaker 1: all since May of twenty twenty two. Adam Boyton, who
Speaker 1: is one of the economists at the A and zib
Speaker 1: says that he does not expect inflation to start to
Speaker 1: deal with anything by November. He says that it's not
Speaker 1: monetary policy that isn't working, it is it's the economy
Speaker 1: that's clearly slow, particularly across private final demand. For this reason,
Speaker 1: we need a rate hike. Sorry, we think that ay
Speaker 1: rate hike remains unlikely. So reality for Australians right now,
Speaker 1: pick your loan anywhere between five hundred thousand dollars or
Speaker 1: over a million bucks. You've had to find an extra
Speaker 1: fourteen twenty one or twenty nine thousand dollars are year
Speaker 1: on top of everything else you have to pay for
Speaker 1: that's got more under this government now. Of course, the
Speaker 1: people that are truly struggling, they continue to struggle. The
Speaker 1: people that are struggling, of course, are not these people.
Speaker 1: These people, of course got their highest pay rise in
Speaker 1: a decade. It's not this bloke because he also got
Speaker 1: the pay rise. But he's also getting not one but
Speaker 1: two new private planes. Oh sorry, media watch. Yes, technically
Speaker 1: they were ordered by the Morrison government, but they've been
Speaker 1: in power for two years and didn't cancel it. So yeah,
Speaker 1: Elbow's ordering the planes. But the reality of our economy
Speaker 1: and the people that are getting squeezed by it. Normal people.
Speaker 1: Even the Channel nine newspapers they talk about this about
Speaker 1: how the inflation dragon. People writing to them say that
Speaker 1: it's the people who need the most that are getting
Speaker 1: hurt the most. And then there's this story which goes
Speaker 1: back to a subject that we've talked about a lot
Speaker 1: on the show because I really fit in, can care
Speaker 1: about it, that middle class Victorians make up the face
Speaker 1: of hunger amid the cost of living crisis. Well, the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister is playing the games that he plays. Here's
Speaker 1: a reality. You know, food Bank, that great charity I
Speaker 1: talk about all the time. Well, they put out some
Speaker 1: new details which should shame the federal government who supposedly
Speaker 1: care because they're more compassionate than evil Augebuger Liberal Party
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton, Australia's Trump. Food Bank Australia Who's latest snapshot
Speaker 1: of need shows three point seven million households struggle to
Speaker 1: put food on the table last year. They now say
Speaker 1: that many households with mums and dads working at least
Speaker 1: one job are now in food stress. Is this okay Australia.
Speaker 1: The alarming trend comes as new research shows a quarter
Speaker 1: of Australians are anxious about putting enough food on the table.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they are thankful to a government
Speaker 1: that's giving them twenty five bucks a month on power,
Speaker 1: the same amount they're giving to millionaires. This bloke who's
Speaker 1: the CEO of Food Bank in Victoria, David McNamara, he
Speaker 1: says that sixty five thousand meals are being distributed by
Speaker 1: them every day. The middle class, what we all aspire
Speaker 1: to be, are the ones that are feeling this impact.
Speaker 1: We've got mums and dads working two jobs to put
Speaker 1: families first and to put food on the table, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately they're putting themselves to bed without food. They're sending
Speaker 1: to their kids to bed without food, and that's not
Speaker 1: our society. This is an uncomfortable conversation to have, but
Speaker 1: there are too many of us going hungry. That's not
Speaker 1: the country. We're supposed to be a hungry country. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to be the lucky country. So forgive me if
Speaker 1: I am not singing from the same song sheet as
Speaker 1: the rest of the people who talk about politics all
Speaker 1: day every day, who think that the single most important
Speaker 1: thing in our nation right now is what percent of
Speaker 1: one percent of global emissions we should be cutting by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty.
Speaker 3: I care.
Speaker 1: About sixty thousand people in one state alone a day
Speaker 1: that are getting some sort of a meal. Sixty thousand
Speaker 1: meals a day coming from food meating that people who
Speaker 1: are not homeless and destitute and maybe not even applying
Speaker 1: for centlink are the focus of this. No, No, it's
Speaker 1: people who've got jobs. It's people who send their kids
Speaker 1: to bed hungry or send themselves to bed hungry. So
Speaker 1: if the Prime Minister or the opposition leader would like
Speaker 1: to make a very strong statement about what people actually
Speaker 1: care about at the moment, can we find some more
Speaker 1: money for the charities that are actually helping the people
Speaker 1: out now while the political conversation in Cambury is so
Speaker 1: often not about these people now, sometimes it can be
Speaker 1: repetitive for you to watch at times, and no doubt
Speaker 1: at times even a little boring. There he goes again
Speaker 1: with the food being thing. But we're lucky, We're okay.
Speaker 1: You pay your tax, you work hard, you have worked hard,
Speaker 1: and you have paide attacks. But a government that wants
Speaker 1: to tell you that you should kiss their boots because
Speaker 1: they're managing the economy when the rate in the growth
Speaker 1: in the past three months is zero point one percent.
Speaker 1: It's all just fantasyland rubbish. Where's their announcement about more
Speaker 1: money for charities. That's when I know they truly care
Speaker 1: about the little people. So I hope that the little
Speaker 1: people remember that the people in charge the Labor Party,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister from Housing Commission, with the dog and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it, couldn't care less about you
Speaker 1: and your food on the table tonight. Who could not
Speaker 1: care less about a footy stadium of people who have
Speaker 1: to apply for help to keep the freaking lights on.
Speaker 1: So don't reward him with your vote because you always
Speaker 1: have because he doesn't care. He just assumes you'll vote
Speaker 1: for him. He assumes he will forever be the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister because as long as the teals are in place
Speaker 1: and they care about climate chain more than anything else,
Speaker 1: that the Liberal Party will never get to seventy sixties.
Speaker 1: So I'll just rule forever. But what sort of a
Speaker 1: country is it when they take more tax than ever before,
Speaker 1: yet more people than ever before are lining up for
Speaker 1: free food from a charity. All about this and a
Speaker 1: whole lot more in a moment's time here on Paul
Speaker 1: Murray Life lots to get to Holly Hughes Sam Crosby
Speaker 1: in the man Cave. I had a lot of other stuff,
Speaker 1: but I think I made my point. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for watching in the man Cave. Let's lock it down.
Speaker 1: This will be fun. It's pen and no pen at
Speaker 1: one pace. It's got so wonderful Holly Hughes, the equally
Speaker 1: lovely Sam Crosby left and right. You get him here,
Speaker 1: So charity point well made. Sam, of course does a
Speaker 1: lot of work within his no doubt agree and Holly,
Speaker 1: we've talked about it before, so I recognize what we've
Speaker 1: said to this point in the show. But let's talk
Speaker 1: about the important issue, which is what percent of one
Speaker 1: percent of global emissions we must set the target out
Speaker 1: for six years from now now. When I first saw
Speaker 1: on Saturday Lives planning to pull out of Paris Agreement,
Speaker 1: the political nerd in me goes, really, what seat are
Speaker 1: they going to win in the like this is bad?
Speaker 1: And then actually read the interview and they didn't say it.
Speaker 1: It had just been sort of whipped up and turned out, yeah, like,
Speaker 1: let's change the subject, right, But we've now got to
Speaker 1: the place Peter Dutton says, well, surprise, surprise. The policy
Speaker 1: we took to the last election, which is we don't
Speaker 1: agree with forty three percent, will be our position after
Speaker 1: the next election. Yet the Prime Minister, desperate to change
Speaker 1: the subject from many months of failure, is trying to
Speaker 1: pretend that the climate nasties are back inside the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: Isn't the reality that Australias on this discussion right, which
Speaker 1: the left is called climate wars, which god bankers. But
Speaker 1: it's always fifty to fifty, right, when if whatever one
Speaker 1: you choose, eventually the public turns around and says you
Speaker 1: should have chosen the other path. Right, More action equals
Speaker 1: higher cost, lower cost equals less action. Well, surprise, surprise,
Speaker 1: and cost of living. I know which one they're going to.
Speaker 6: Picklo cost absolutely, And the reality is, and this is
Speaker 6: where Peter Dutton's leadership is so strong in this area,
Speaker 6: and he's continuing to really show himself as the alternate
Speaker 6: Prime Minister because he's being honest with the Australian people.
Speaker 6: And I know, I know this might seem outrageous to
Speaker 6: some people, but the reality is is we are under
Speaker 6: getting nowhere near the targets, and we are chasing an
Speaker 6: ideology under Bowen and Albanezi. Not only are the renewable
Speaker 6: projects not on target, and again these are all going
Speaker 6: into rural and regional areas. They're not going into the
Speaker 6: Teal seat. In fact, the Teal seats when they had
Speaker 6: the opportunity to put a battery in Waverley and North City,
Speaker 6: let me guess they rejected it. They rejected a battery
Speaker 6: side of a storage you know, shipping container. But they
Speaker 6: want rule and regional Australians to wear solar farms over
Speaker 6: arable farming land as well as having new transmission lines
Speaker 6: bulldoze through their communities. But so the transmission lines are
Speaker 6: way behind schedule, the renewable projects and way behind schedule.
Speaker 6: And to say no coal, no gas, no nuclear, there's
Speaker 6: no way we're keeping the lights on. And what you
Speaker 6: know Peter Darton is saying is we need an honest approach,
Speaker 6: We need a real discussion and we are not going
Speaker 6: to do anything to our economy that removes productivity and
Speaker 6: any advantage that we have. And to make sure that
Speaker 6: families can pay their power bill.
Speaker 1: I mean that's a novel idea, correct. But the issue,
Speaker 1: of course, Sam is that there are certain people who,
Speaker 1: as I said, in this religious light thing. There is
Speaker 1: a number that must be achieved, and the numbers should
Speaker 1: be bigger than any number we've previously had in the past,
Speaker 1: because if Australia doesn't do our bid, then we're client
Speaker 1: or all of that right, But equally the pushback surely
Speaker 1: to what Holly's just said is okay, cool, But none
Speaker 1: of the kofire power stations just magically regrow. They've all
Speaker 1: been blown up. Right, We've made a choice, We've gone
Speaker 1: on a path. The Dunton position is well cool. We
Speaker 1: can pull back and there's another path over here, but
Speaker 1: either of these parts are going to be very expensive.
Speaker 1: That said, we've got the Prime Minister pretending that he's
Speaker 1: still running against Scott Morrison, that he's running against the
Speaker 1: guy who hasn't signed zero twenty fifty, that isn't going
Speaker 1: to Glasgow. All of this scrap And I just wish
Speaker 1: Albow would work out that he's got an opportunity to
Speaker 1: lead a conversation. But if he wants to just keep
Speaker 1: fighting the twenty twenty two election, he's going to get
Speaker 1: a kick in the bum at some time.
Speaker 4: Sure, But what's Peter Dutton's policy, what's the number Okay,
Speaker 4: so we're.
Speaker 1: Poured thirty four was there one of the last federal elections.
Speaker 1: He hasn't said that, But he hasn't said that matter.
Speaker 6: Honestly, what does that matter?
Speaker 1: If you agree on the destination, what's the point of
Speaker 1: the journey.
Speaker 6: What does it matter what the number is. Let's be
Speaker 6: honest with the Australian people. Eighty two percent renewables by
Speaker 6: twenty thirty ever going to happen, and the costs are
Speaker 6: continuing to increase. What the number is is you know
Speaker 6: we're still committed to net zero in twenty five.
Speaker 4: It matters because of what you said at the very
Speaker 4: start of this, which was Peter Dutton's honest Peter Dutton
Speaker 4: wants to have a credible conversation. Now that may well
Speaker 4: be the case, but honesty to me says he's got
Speaker 4: to go to the Australian people and say, is my
Speaker 4: planry it's behind I'm sorry. It's a policy setting that
Speaker 4: then informs a whole range of different investment decisions all
Speaker 4: the way down the line.
Speaker 6: And so if you're for a whole lot of investment opportunity.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, but let's talk about let's talk about nuclear
Speaker 4: Why won't he say here's the policy, here's where it's
Speaker 4: going to go, here's how much is going to cost.
Speaker 4: If he were to say, yes, he's twenty billion dollars
Speaker 4: and we've allocated that in the forward estimates, and it's
Speaker 4: going to go in these.
Speaker 6: Two electors of politics, you don't come out you know
Speaker 6: it's all moder election, yet you don't come out with
Speaker 6: your suite of policies way through a term.
Speaker 1: Or you are not voting.
Speaker 4: It is not going to come out this side of
Speaker 4: the election.
Speaker 1: And say that, and you will. That's what looks this
Speaker 1: in gaming game. Slowly you will.
Speaker 6: I don't think he's hiding that he's interested in you
Speaker 6: let me.
Speaker 1: Let me in. In answered part of the question in
Speaker 1: his budget and reply speech, he already signaled the locations
Speaker 1: which was existing. Its right existing. So therefore, if you've
Speaker 1: had a call fire POWERstation, the plan under the lefties
Speaker 1: is that the power station is replaced with a battery.
Speaker 1: Under the liberals, it would be that that would be
Speaker 1: one of the nuclear power stations. They ain't coming to
Speaker 1: suburban streets anytime under that plan, right, So that that's
Speaker 1: the first one. So I feel like we can build
Speaker 1: up what the location is, whatever the cost. I would
Speaker 1: put the same pressure on Peter Dutton that I put
Speaker 1: on elbow about the cost. But albou was allowed to
Speaker 1: lie about five hundred thousand jobs and two hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy five dollars off. But that was the modeling based
Speaker 1: off three years ago, and now we don't have to
Speaker 1: apply to what. Sorry sir.
Speaker 4: It's one thing to give modeling and for that modeling
Speaker 4: to become wrong, right, and to get that number wrong
Speaker 4: in a couple of years.
Speaker 1: So he can make up whatever modeling he wants to
Speaker 1: the next give.
Speaker 4: Us the modeling and then give the government the chance
Speaker 4: to pull it apart, in the same way that Albanzi
Speaker 4: when he was Opposition leader gave Peter Dutton. But so
Speaker 4: gave Scott Morrison the chance to do that.
Speaker 1: But I won't look. I don't have the forensic mind
Speaker 1: to know exactly when that announcement came out. But that
Speaker 1: announcement did not come out too far out from them.
Speaker 1: I remember it was pretty late in the cycle. At
Speaker 1: the National Pressure Club. If somebody can go and find
Speaker 1: it and work out done at it.
Speaker 6: We heard over one hundred short times two hundred and
Speaker 6: seventy five dollars.
Speaker 4: But by the same point Albanize wasn't proposing to build
Speaker 4: nuclear power. He was so much a colle dollart complain
Speaker 4: around the station is an enormous investment. It's a huge
Speaker 4: turn of if you're going to if you're going to
Speaker 4: propose that, then it is incumbent on you to say
Speaker 4: how you are.
Speaker 3: Don't you?
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with you. But what I'm saying is
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is that I think that there is
Speaker 1: a political class conversation which is about which is about
Speaker 1: targets and international importance and all the rest of it. Right,
Speaker 1: does that is completely irrelevant conversation of which you should
Speaker 1: never answer the questions none. But the question that I
Speaker 1: think is playing out for Australians is the one that
Speaker 1: existed in polling in twenty twenty two and many years prior, right,
Speaker 1: which was the choice between action versus cost. All right,
Speaker 1: at this cycle, cost is all well and good if
Speaker 1: your interest rates are close to zero, But when your
Speaker 1: interest rates are gone up twelve times, cost becomes a
Speaker 1: different issue. So either the Labor government turns around says well, okay,
Speaker 1: we're just going to slow down, try and hold off
Speaker 1: the cost, which they won't do. Instead, he thinks he
Speaker 1: can win the next election by finding an even higher number,
Speaker 1: and there might be some backfight on that. But we've
Speaker 1: got a couple of lines out of both both of
Speaker 1: them today which pretty much seemed to be the preview
Speaker 1: of what they think is the attack going into the
Speaker 1: next election. Dutton said that Albow was weak and rattled
Speaker 1: and Albo said divisive. Now, whichever one of those ends
Speaker 1: up getting into your perceptions. If it's weak and rattled,
Speaker 1: what it means is that every time the government makes
Speaker 1: an announcement it looks like they're making it out of desperation,
Speaker 1: like Queensland or Divisive is well by opposing everything that
Speaker 1: we do, then they don't have any plan for the future.
Speaker 1: Obviously you can both argue your corners on that. But
Speaker 1: we're starting to see these hits that are sort of
Speaker 1: election level hits at a point in time when we're
Speaker 1: being told election is next year, but it could be
Speaker 1: as early as August. What does it say to you
Speaker 1: that they've honed the hits now so that when people
Speaker 1: argue at the barbecue, they can say we can rattle,
Speaker 1: and then somebody says divisive, we can rattle divisive and
Speaker 1: then somebody says, come, we all just get along and
Speaker 1: have a better politics. They are the tales tell them
Speaker 1: to go, oh god, yeah done as political animals. What
Speaker 1: does it say to you?
Speaker 6: I think, look, I think we're probably headed to an
Speaker 6: election at the end of this year. Is looking increasingly
Speaker 6: more likely. I think that's for a whole raft of reasons,
Speaker 6: including it doesn't look like we're going to get into
Speaker 6: a straight cut this year and we may not get
Speaker 6: one to the middle of next year, so they're very
Speaker 6: unlikely to get one before going to the election, and
Speaker 6: so why not go early. I don't think they'll go
Speaker 6: August because I think they're going to let Queensland get
Speaker 6: their cricket bats out for the state government before they
Speaker 6: go federal because they don't want to bear the brunt
Speaker 6: of So.
Speaker 1: That's late October.
Speaker 6: That means November, November, get first of December. So I look,
Speaker 6: you know, but it's all speculation with we just go
Speaker 6: to the new South Wales redistribution to come out on Friday.
Speaker 6: So there's still lots and lots of moving pieces.
Speaker 4: Here and those numbers need the reagibusion needs to be
Speaker 4: finalized before the elections called for fear that.
Speaker 1: They take on the old boundary.
Speaker 4: Well, they take the two seats that are most under quota,
Speaker 4: which is Warringa and Wentworth, and they smash them together.
Speaker 1: Yes, and which to work across the harbor.
Speaker 4: Well, that's right, because they technically have a border, which
Speaker 4: is the definition the aec uses.
Speaker 1: But of course there's a lot of water in between,
Speaker 1: a lot of out there Sydney. But ye okay, so
Speaker 1: this is interesting anyway, It's just it's worth watching again
Speaker 1: one of the joints of the show.
Speaker 6: Jets, keys or something across the harbor from one sided
Speaker 6: the election.
Speaker 1: Correct, Perhaps they could just use you know, I won't
Speaker 1: say that.
Speaker 6: Can you imagine just sorry, two deals having their seats
Speaker 6: smashed together, the allegro.
Speaker 1: Twals that want a job share in Melbourne. Maybe they
Speaker 1: could job.
Speaker 4: Share their seed got abolished, I was deacon, sorry Higgins?
Speaker 1: Yes, correct, So they can still keep going it all right,
Speaker 1: quick breakpack the more pleasy to talk about high low,
Speaker 1: lots of fights and all the rest in between, lots
Speaker 1: of talk about here and Pulmurray life. I like these
Speaker 1: longer chats. It feels like the old school show, you know,
Speaker 1: went on for six hours, of course, but still we
Speaker 1: were able to have these very long chats and unpleased
Speaker 1: that were able to do so as well as had
Speaker 1: the big opinion at the start of the show, of
Speaker 1: course he was Sam Crosby and with Holly Hughes always
Speaker 1: welcome in the man cave. Send me an email, Paulitscardews
Speaker 1: dot com dot Au, play that back and if you
Speaker 1: play it back at minus the speed, I'll have a
Speaker 1: normal voice rather than a race call of speed. I apologies,
Speaker 1: I apologize. So Queensland today looked like and a few
Speaker 1: people have had this hot take, which is that it
Speaker 1: looks like the closing down everything must go person drug
Speaker 1: sale approach to a budget which is one thousand for
Speaker 1: this and fifty for that all the rest of it, right,
Speaker 1: which is very obvious about the Queensland election seeming like
Speaker 1: the queens and Labor Party is where the Poles say,
Speaker 1: headed for complete smashings, right, not going to be close. However,
Speaker 1: is there a chance it could work? I just want
Speaker 1: to always ask the impossible question, because nothing is inevitable.
Speaker 4: Sam, of course, it's yeah, of course that can win
Speaker 4: in every election. Anyone that goes into it saying no, no, no,
Speaker 4: this side can never win it. You know, I think
Speaker 4: Anastasia and Campbell Newman think Trump. I think whatever, of
Speaker 4: course it can happen, So the two horse races, of
Speaker 4: course it can happen. I am a little bit empathetic
Speaker 4: to the poor old Queenslanders. I mean, either it's a
Speaker 4: cost of living budget or they're out of touch.
Speaker 1: You know, if my help or not enough, right, welcome
Speaker 1: to the gods.
Speaker 4: Pom respond to it, then they're going to be out
Speaker 4: of touch. And if they did, then they're going to
Speaker 4: be accused of trying to god loss issue there is,
Speaker 4: what's it to do?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, But again I mean for their part,
Speaker 1: the Ell and Pece turnerunds and I will agree with
Speaker 1: all of this stuff well, which I think is just
Speaker 1: intellectually a little wobbly, right, because again I understand small
Speaker 1: target strategy, and I understand that this is a party
Speaker 1: that has been like really psychologically smacked about by a
Speaker 1: labor party that you know, as a government didn't deserve
Speaker 1: the last term, but COVID gave them another term. They're
Speaker 1: used to the dematic and ads that come out, or
Speaker 1: they're used to the the you know, people up at
Speaker 1: a Mount Couther and all those TV stations eventually on
Speaker 1: a promise of working for them, so they're used to
Speaker 1: their mistakes becoming cataclysmic. But I don't think they have
Speaker 1: to agree to everything all the time because I think
Speaker 1: people want to get rid of them, which means some
Speaker 1: of their ideas are crap and we don't want to
Speaker 1: back them in.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So look, I actually made a few phone calls today
Speaker 6: to Queensland MPs senators and a candidate up there and
Speaker 6: to get bit of a sense of what you know
Speaker 6: and what Chris Folly was talking about when he said,
Speaker 6: you know, he talked about agreeing with certain things, and
Speaker 6: what he was basically saying was if there are commitments
Speaker 6: to infrastructure, if there's funding given to a community group,
Speaker 6: where there is funding given somewhere that you know.
Speaker 1: A thousand dollars six months, you know we're not We're.
Speaker 6: Not going to stand in the way of that. To
Speaker 6: Sam's point, you know, can they win it? I think
Speaker 6: what's interesting is the Labor Party cannot get candidates to
Speaker 6: run in some seats that should be in play. That's
Speaker 6: how on the nose they are. But I think what
Speaker 6: no one has raised and what was announced today was
Speaker 6: the Labor Party has announced in this budget that they
Speaker 6: are giving every single MP an extra electorate staff really
Speaker 6: and so what that smells like to me is they're
Speaker 6: padding their own nest in expectation for a loss. So
Speaker 6: they've got a few more staffers on board to help
Speaker 6: them along, and that seems to have slipped through to
Speaker 6: the keeper. So I think those sorts of things are
Speaker 6: indicative that they know they're in trouble. They know that
Speaker 6: this is the slide four months to the election. And
Speaker 6: you know, Sam, you're right, there's too much cost of living,
Speaker 6: not enough cost of living. But the debt in a
Speaker 6: state that is so mining heavy yet is got a
Speaker 6: massive deficet. What are they doing with the mining royalties,
Speaker 6: what are they doing with the resources, with their resources
Speaker 6: and mental.
Speaker 1: One hospitals, youth crime, all of those issues that again,
Speaker 1: good times have been there plenty of times, and the
Speaker 1: structural advantage of having so much mining in their in
Speaker 1: their state means yeah again, but we'll a wait and see,
Speaker 1: all right, a couple before we go, Joe Biden, so
Speaker 1: let us polls. Another one comes out today, This was
Speaker 1: CBSU gov. It shows that yes, headline, it's like fifty
Speaker 1: forty nine swing states. It's allegedly in Biden's favor. But
Speaker 1: then let's start to get into the issues. Once you
Speaker 1: actually get into the issues, something like eighty percent of
Speaker 1: Americans say they expect their financial circumstances under a re
Speaker 1: elected Biden government to be the same or worse, which
Speaker 1: means depleted or worse. James Carvill, who we all know
Speaker 1: have an affection for the great Democrat strategist, has said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't want him to run, but he's running,
Speaker 1: and that's the way it is. Who knows whether something
Speaker 1: magical happens in the ether and there is a different
Speaker 1: change to you. But let's imagine it was would a
Speaker 1: different Democrat be able to beat Trump because it would
Speaker 1: just be a ruler line under it move on to
Speaker 1: the next generation thing or structurally it's bad and they
Speaker 1: want the guy who it wasn't as bad under.
Speaker 4: I would have said, yes, a couple of months ago,
Speaker 4: you're just getting the runways getting shorter and shorter and shorter.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: You know the problem with all of those polls is
Speaker 4: that it's essentially asking a proxy for name recognition, and
Speaker 4: any governor, senator, you're never going to compare to President. Right,
Speaker 4: everyone knows the president. No one knows their governor or
Speaker 4: their senator or their congressman or whatever.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: I think there there governors like Gretchen Whitmer who could
Speaker 4: absolutely have taken the fight to Trump and I think
Speaker 4: won it. But there's no runway for it. So even
Speaker 4: if you know the last minute change in Biden, how does.
Speaker 6: That it almost looks like now because you're right, the
Speaker 6: runway has got so short that the only way they
Speaker 6: could do a switch is if Biden stepped down and
Speaker 6: Kamala Harris stepshart.
Speaker 1: Is why he has.
Speaker 6: Trump is going to wipe the floor, which is why
Speaker 6: he's running.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, and I mean that's why.
Speaker 6: The footage today of him dancing standing like a weird
Speaker 6: cryogenic statue.
Speaker 1: I mean, how is that the.
Speaker 6: Leader of the free world.
Speaker 1: It is becoming beyond a Joe correct. Well, but that
Speaker 1: look that said again fifty to fifty races issues have
Speaker 1: said before abortional. We'll see what happens, but at the moment,
Speaker 1: the numbers are all heading in one direction and the
Speaker 1: poles probably not going to be that wrong. Thank you
Speaker 1: guys to appreciate it. The late debate is next. CENMA