Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news Talks it be
Speaker 1: follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of the sis, Now the
Speaker 1: Layton Smith Podcast powered by news Talks.
Speaker 2: It be Welcome to podcasts two eighty three, May seven,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Whichever way you look at it, Australia
Speaker 2: is in political turmoil after the election last Saturday May third.
Speaker 2: There are numerous and plenty of theories as to why.
Speaker 2: There's plenty of propaganda lots of it. One thing is
Speaker 2: certain and lies. One thing is certain, it's a man
Speaker 2: made problem. Question is where does it lead. Nick Cator
Speaker 2: returns in two eighty three to help analyze how a
Speaker 2: government with such a poor record in the first term
Speaker 2: could nuke its opposition so decisively and what it means
Speaker 2: to important issues, starting with free speech, taxation, defense, climate issues,
Speaker 2: energy supply, and of course the cost of living. And
Speaker 2: let's use a little common sense. The cost of living
Speaker 2: is attached to directly to much of the aforementioned, such
Speaker 2: as energy supply, and there is plenty to be said
Speaker 2: about that, but just as a teaser. Here is a
Speaker 2: letter that I received yesterday from Brian Leyland, who is
Speaker 2: a man of vast experience in power supply. He said,
Speaker 2: I've sent this letter to the editor of a newspaper.
Speaker 2: I will be very surprised if it gets published, and
Speaker 2: so far there is no sign of it. New Zealand
Speaker 2: could save billions of dollars simply by following the example
Speaker 2: of many other countries and quietly backpedal on the rash
Speaker 2: promises that we made when we signed the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2: This will have no effect on the climate because anything
Speaker 2: New Zealand does to reduce emissions will be swamped by
Speaker 2: the emissions from China, India and the United States. The
Speaker 2: carbon market costs about five hundred million dollars a year,
Speaker 2: and axes increase the cost of transport by billions. That's
Speaker 2: with a b of dollars. The previous government's ban on
Speaker 2: gas exploration has left us short of gas and forced
Speaker 2: us to import even more coal. This has cost electricity
Speaker 2: consumers billions of dollars. Likewise electric vehicles and their charging points.
Speaker 2: Then there is the multi billion dollar capital costs of
Speaker 2: unreliable wind and solar farms. Fundamentally uneconomic industries that only
Speaker 2: exist thanks to subsidies and mandates in many other countries.
Speaker 2: The rational alternative is to use our substantial resources of
Speaker 2: gas and coal in existing stations, build more hydro and geothermal,
Speaker 2: and then transition to safe and reliable nuclear power. This
Speaker 2: would provide a reliable and economic supply for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 2: And with his experience and having read lots of background
Speaker 2: on such matters, I endorse exactly what he said. We
Speaker 2: have politicians in power at the moment who are not
Speaker 2: delivering a staying close to home. There is another matter
Speaker 2: that I want to make mention of. This comes from
Speaker 2: a column by Graham Adams. Graham Adams is a freelancer
Speaker 2: who published this through ENZCPR dot com Murial Newman's website.
Speaker 2: So it's worthy of finding and reading in its entirety,
Speaker 2: because I'm not going to read it all. Auckland University
Speaker 2: students react to Treaty indoctrination. This year the University of
Speaker 2: Auckland launched this is something we knew, but this is
Speaker 2: a follow up that is a good one. This year,
Speaker 2: the University of Auckland launched a mandatory courses focused on
Speaker 2: a particular view of New Zealand History, a tyrrity and
Speaker 2: indigenous quote knowledge systems unquote, which is to say matteunger Mary.
Speaker 2: For all first year students, it doesn't matter whether you're
Speaker 2: studying engineering, accounting, science or arts. You'll have to enroll
Speaker 2: in one of the WTR papers, even if you can
Speaker 2: see no value in the topic and object to having
Speaker 2: to pay for it. Domestic students are obliged to pay
Speaker 2: fees of more than one thousand, three hundred for the
Speaker 2: single paper, but international students are ones being really screwed
Speaker 2: with five thousand, seven hundred and thirty dollars well up
Speaker 2: to Apparently it should come as no surprise, he writes
Speaker 2: to the university's Vice Chancellor, Dawn Freshwater and her management
Speaker 2: team that the courses are not universally popular. A petition
Speaker 2: titled stop the WTR one hundred series Courses ASAP has
Speaker 2: gained one four hundred and sixty seven signatures across multiple
Speaker 2: faculties since it was launched in early April. The organizers
Speaker 2: of the petition were very careful to make it clear
Speaker 2: that their objection isn't to students being taught about the
Speaker 2: treaty and the true significance of Marie history in modern
Speaker 2: at Rower per se, but rather the execution of the
Speaker 2: course material. Their rejection centered on student's assessments that the
Speaker 2: content is vague, poorly structured, and disconnected to the degrees
Speaker 2: from which they are enrolled in. It is oversimplified, politically
Speaker 2: one sided, and lacking academic depths. In other words, it's nonsense. However,
Speaker 2: students who gave their reasons for signing the petition were
Speaker 2: more forthright. One said, the course and here have to
Speaker 2: be a little careful. One said, the course has a
Speaker 2: very small amount of valuable content compared to the amount
Speaker 2: of BS content presented. I haven't learned, and then you
Speaker 2: get the second half of the BS. I haven't learned
Speaker 2: so far, and we've done almost six weeks of it.
Speaker 2: Waste of time, waste of money, waste of resources. Never
Speaker 2: should have been created in the first place. Others described
Speaker 2: it as racist, brainwashing, propaganda and the growing of our
Speaker 2: use and woke nonsense, with the content controlled by apartheid enthusiasts.
Speaker 2: One female student wrote, it's just pure, unnecessarily forced indoctrination
Speaker 2: of Marie mythicism and totally inaccurate New Zealand history, as
Speaker 2: well as the extortion of money. Ninety nine percent of
Speaker 2: students would elect to spend their course fees on a
Speaker 2: subject they're passionate about, rather than these Marxist courses designed
Speaker 2: to turn them into angry radicals. It is not yet
Speaker 2: clear how many of the signatories are first year students
Speaker 2: currently enrolled in the courses, which are tailored for different faculties,
Speaker 2: but the university estimates around seven thousand students in total
Speaker 2: will complete them this year. Descent is not limited to
Speaker 2: the petition. Criticism is common on social media. Our one
Speaker 2: Facebook friend contacted me to say, I wonder how long
Speaker 2: the WT papers will continue. My son is at Auckland
Speaker 2: Journey and he said the students are pushing back in class.
Speaker 2: The lecturers are very defensive. I don't know how the
Speaker 2: lecturers feel about it. Probably, knowing universities these days, the
Speaker 2: majority of them would be very much in favor of it.
Speaker 2: But I'll cut to the last paragraph. How long taxpayers
Speaker 2: will agree to support universities which dedicate themselves to decolonization
Speaker 2: and the overthrow of Western knowledge and boast about it
Speaker 2: as Auckland University's newsletter has done is open to question.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to survive. They might try
Speaker 2: and make it so, but I don't think it will.
Speaker 2: It isn't warranted, it's outrageously stupidly expensive, and the whole
Speaker 2: thing is purely propaganda. Now just a reminder there is
Speaker 2: some good commentary at the end of the podcast, after
Speaker 2: the mail room, but in a moment after a short
Speaker 2: break nick Cator. Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in
Speaker 2: a tablet form called bacterial licate. It'll boost your natural
Speaker 2: protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A
Speaker 2: three day course of seven Bucklan tablets will help your
Speaker 2: body build up to three months of immunity against bugs
Speaker 2: which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well,
Speaker 2: the whole family From two years of age and upwards.
Speaker 2: A course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe
Speaker 2: protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few
Speaker 2: days after you take buccolan and lasts for up to
Speaker 2: three months following the three day course. Buccolan can be
Speaker 2: taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or all year round.
Speaker 2: And remember, Buckolan is not intended as an alternative to
Speaker 2: influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
Speaker 2: vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
Speaker 2: of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Speaker 2: Only available from your pharmacist all ways, read the label
Speaker 2: and users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist.
Speaker 2: Farmer Broker Auckland Leighton Smith. So, at the point of
Speaker 2: recording this conversation, the ALP in Australia has won eighty
Speaker 2: seven seats in the Liberal National Party coalition has one
Speaker 2: thirty nine. Damning as hell, you might say, and it is,
Speaker 2: but things are changing a little bit, a little bit.
Speaker 2: They're lifting Couyong is a very interesting seat. But the
Speaker 2: real question for Nick Cata is what went wrong?
Speaker 3: You want to want a quick two sentence answer to that, Yeah,
Speaker 3: and then we shall explain that. Well, I'll try and
Speaker 3: give you one. Then what went wrong was that the
Speaker 3: Liberals forgot how to do politics and that Labor didn't
Speaker 3: know how to do politics. I think that's a simple thing.
Speaker 3: This was not about an honest debate about policy or
Speaker 3: anything like that. This was the most political election I've
Speaker 3: ever seen. It was just played ruthlessly by Labor and
Speaker 3: the Liberals just couldn't match it well.
Speaker 2: Watching Sky News last night, and it wasn't the only time,
Speaker 2: but the sound waves were filled with lies, lies, lies
Speaker 2: that were told by Labor. By ALBERANIZI, you agree with
Speaker 2: that very definitely.
Speaker 3: But that I think Labor and its friends would say
Speaker 3: it's just politics. I'd say it's a distinct erosion about
Speaker 3: civic debate and everything we hold dear. I mean, you've
Speaker 3: got to be able to think that when a prime
Speaker 3: minister opens his mouth, that he's actually speaking the truth
Speaker 3: as he knows it, or some approximation of that. You know,
Speaker 3: we know that they're going to cherry pick the figures
Speaker 3: that work for them, or they might just exaggerate just
Speaker 3: a touch in their rhetoric, well more than a touch.
Speaker 3: But when the prime minister actually says figures, puts a
Speaker 3: figure forward like the opposition's nuclear policy is going to
Speaker 3: cost six hundred billion dollars, and says it not just
Speaker 3: once but repeatedly, and has picked up many times being
Speaker 3: told well, that's not actual the figure, that's not even
Speaker 3: the figure that your own csiro are telling you. He
Speaker 3: doesn't relent, He just does not back away from that figure.
Speaker 3: So I'm troubled by it. Maybe I'm just being old fashioned.
Speaker 3: And I think that we should expect politics or politicians,
Speaker 3: but certainly the leader of the government to speak the
Speaker 3: truth and if he makes a mistake or he misssteps
Speaker 3: and he should correct himself.
Speaker 2: That hasn't happened. That hasn't happened. Now. He still didn't
Speaker 2: fall off the stage.
Speaker 3: No, well he did once. Some of your listeners may
Speaker 3: have seen that memorable shop where he tripped off the
Speaker 3: back of the stage and then afterwards said no, no,
Speaker 3: I didn't fall. I was fine, I didn't fall, And
Speaker 3: we have the video showing he fell, but he never
Speaker 3: admitted he even fell off the stage. But because the
Speaker 3: irony was on election night, the entire Liberal party fell
Speaker 3: off the stage and it's going to take them a
Speaker 3: long time to get back up again.
Speaker 2: Well, I agree with the commentary that says they won't
Speaker 2: be ready for retaking the reins of government by the
Speaker 2: next election. It'll be at the earliest opportunity the one
Speaker 2: after that. But then again, before you comment on that,
Speaker 2: then again, you never know what's going to happen on
Speaker 2: the planet at the moment that could change things. Is
Speaker 2: that a fair comment? Yeah, you just answered your own
Speaker 2: point for me. I mean it's just all we know
Speaker 2: now is that, well, the only thing we can predict
Speaker 2: with some certainty is that the next three years are
Speaker 2: going to be less predictable than we could even imagine.
Speaker 2: So that's just the way it goes, both in world
Speaker 2: affairs and in politics. I mean, all the old rules.
Speaker 3: People used to say, well, it's a second term government,
Speaker 3: so a government that's seeking a second term always suffers
Speaker 3: a swing against it. And that's true going back to
Speaker 3: World War Two, certainly probably before, but it wasn't true
Speaker 3: this time. So there's one rule that's broken. And there
Speaker 3: was always said, look, if you didn't get at least
Speaker 3: forty percent of the primary vote, you didn't have a
Speaker 3: hope of coming anywhere near to government.
Speaker 2: But that's out of the window now.
Speaker 3: So and it was said in going back a little
Speaker 3: bit further, when John Howard lost the election in two
Speaker 3: thousand and seven, lost his seat Landslide to Kevin Rudd. Oh,
Speaker 3: the Liberals won't get him back in power for at
Speaker 3: least two elections, nearly three, probably three or four. They
Speaker 3: almost got back the next election. They were very close
Speaker 3: that label was in a minority government, and then they
Speaker 3: came back the one after that, so the comeback last
Speaker 3: time was much quicker than people were predicting on election night.
Speaker 3: I mean a lot of people have been saying I
Speaker 3: think I heard Peter Credin say this last night. Politics
Speaker 3: is never as bad as you think, and it's never
Speaker 3: as good as you think. So any given moment in time,
Speaker 3: you know, things are always better than what you're imagining
Speaker 3: and not as good as you imagine in the good times.
Speaker 2: Was she do you think genuine with that comment or
Speaker 2: was she just trying to paste over it? Yes?
Speaker 3: I think she was genuine because she's lived through enough campaigns,
Speaker 3: many of them on the inside. Working as you know,
Speaker 3: was a very close advice to Tony Abbott and lived
Speaker 3: all through that campaign, both campaigns twenty ten, twenty thirteen.
Speaker 3: Her husband is a campaign director. First election was two
Speaker 3: thousand and four with John how You know, when you've
Speaker 3: been around in this game for a while, you know,
Speaker 3: you learn not to write anybody off or to think
Speaker 3: anything's a dead certainty. And that's that's probably the story
Speaker 3: of this campaign.
Speaker 2: I have to throw in, seeing you just mentioned John Howard.
Speaker 2: I was literally shocked this morning at a picture I
Speaker 2: saw in The Australian of John Howard. He's looking very old.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah he is. He is old. Are you going
Speaker 3: to ask me his age? I never like to even
Speaker 3: think about it.
Speaker 2: Ask him.
Speaker 3: He's one of those people you would dearly love to
Speaker 3: be around forever because he's just got such experienced, such wisdom.
Speaker 3: He's very well loved in the country. But he's you know,
Speaker 3: he's like all of us. He's getting older, but his
Speaker 3: mind is still as sharp as anything. I mean, he
Speaker 3: still speaks brilliantly and perceptively. And you know, I had
Speaker 3: a text exchange with him yesterday about an issue. He's
Speaker 3: very much engaged and has an office here in the
Speaker 3: center of the city center of Sydney and welcomes good
Speaker 3: people to go around and sit in the armchair and
Speaker 3: chat with him about this and that. He always wants
Speaker 3: the latest political gossip. Who doesn't. So he's so much involved.
Speaker 3: But so then the question is, well, who's the next
Speaker 3: person to step up as the next a kind of
Speaker 3: eminence careeze, you know that the sort of great wise
Speaker 3: head behind the scenes. Probably that's Tony Abbott. He's adapting
Speaker 3: to that role of elder statesman very well, although he's
Speaker 3: kind of kicking against it. I think he wants to
Speaker 3: be back in the thick of it.
Speaker 2: Is there any reason why he shouldn't be back in
Speaker 2: the thick of it?
Speaker 3: None at all, None at all, and particularly now. I
Speaker 3: mean the only reason is that it's the logistics of it.
Speaker 3: He'd have to find a seat that he could win.
Speaker 3: But I think, you know, we've a lot of He've
Speaker 3: been talking for some time, sometimes jokingly, sometimes half serious
Speaker 3: that if he found the right seat in Western Sydney,
Speaker 3: where you know, the area where he's very popular, he
Speaker 3: could win it. It wouldn't be a certainty, of course,
Speaker 3: but he could be back in the Parliament. And right now,
Speaker 3: I don't think there's anybody who would stand in his
Speaker 3: way of becoming leader again. And be a very unusual thing,
Speaker 3: certainly post war. But before that it wasn't you know,
Speaker 3: people came and got we came and went from politics,
Speaker 3: didn't they, including you know, people like Winston Churchill for instance.
Speaker 3: So it's not an impossible thing to imagine. He's certainly
Speaker 3: full of vigor and energy and very very sharp.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to set this next question up because
Speaker 2: I don't want to leave it, because I'm keen to
Speaker 2: hear what you have to say, I'm talking about Couyong.
Speaker 2: You drew our attention to Cou Young yourself a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks back. But Monique Ryan, who is a doctor
Speaker 2: of something to do with brains or things, what is it?
Speaker 3: I don't really know. I just know that her staff
Speaker 3: tell all the volunteers you must refer to as Dr Ryan.
Speaker 2: It's quite pompous. You know, that's her very much so.
Speaker 2: Having seen her behaving in an unsatisfactory way, I put
Speaker 2: it on someone's interviewing it. On Saturday night, she assumed
Speaker 2: that she'd won the seat again and partied. Now she's
Speaker 2: had to back off that and admit that it's too
Speaker 2: close to coll Well, we should we should locate this
Speaker 2: in time. So we're recording this on Tuesday, I think,
Speaker 2: and three three days after the election. Now, the processing
Speaker 2: of postal votes is the main thing that's going on now,
Speaker 2: and postal votes are moving very heavily in favor of
Speaker 2: the liberal candidate there, Amelia Hamer, by more than two
Speaker 2: to one. I've just looked at them just before we
Speaker 2: cooked up, so on that trajectory, Amelia Hamer is now
Speaker 2: in the in the front seat. Even though there's I
Speaker 2: think about nine hundred votes separating them. She can she
Speaker 2: can clear that up on postals, so it could be
Speaker 2: a narrow Liberal victory, which would be a big thing,
Speaker 2: you know, because you've got these independence came in a
Speaker 2: one term ago so called community independence. But we know
Speaker 2: that they're heavily backed by the renewable energy industry and
Speaker 2: quite sophisticated, well organized American style operation behind them. So
Speaker 2: but people have clonly seen through that in that seat,
Speaker 2: they may even have seen through in the Seed of
Speaker 2: gold Steam, which is another Melbourne seat where the former
Speaker 2: member Liberal member Tim Wilson is is only ninety one
Speaker 2: seats behind, now ninety one boats behind and postals, I
Speaker 2: think about a lot of them to count. Yet he
Speaker 2: would win if those postals continue to go his way.
Speaker 2: So that's two Teals they've knocked off. On the other
Speaker 2: side of it, well, there is another Teal candidate as
Speaker 2: we call them, looks like they're going to win the
Speaker 2: Seed of Bradfield and the north Shore of Sydney, and
Speaker 2: one teal Ish sort of e candiac. You know, they
Speaker 2: all have loose relationship with one another, but they're certainly
Speaker 2: organized and funded by the same sources. There's one in
Speaker 2: camera will fall to a Teal independent or a till
Speaker 2: style independent, and the seed of fremantle in Western Australia
Speaker 2: looks like it might go from Labor to Teal. So
Speaker 2: they may increase their numbers in the chamber up to seven.
Speaker 2: But the way that Parliament is with a thumping Labor majority,
Speaker 2: they'll just be irrelevant, you know, they'll just be sort
Speaker 2: of sitting there, biding their time and looking all perse
Speaker 2: lipped and angry and behaving the way they do. What
Speaker 2: is it about those tials that makes me think of
Speaker 2: them in very negative terms?
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's more about you, your good judgment there. Look,
Speaker 3: there's the best way I can describe it is it's
Speaker 3: like a cult like phenomena, and they actually operate with
Speaker 3: sort of cult like principles. So they'll get a band
Speaker 3: of supporters together. They'll often start by saying, you know,
Speaker 3: you would you like to seependent representing your community, then
Speaker 3: come to this meeting, and then they'll build that up
Speaker 3: and they'll say bring more followers, and they've got sort
Speaker 3: of like ritual chants where they have to say all
Speaker 3: these things and everybody gets worked up and excited. It's
Speaker 3: very much like you know, a cult of some sort
Speaker 3: of weird I don't know, Pentecostal style cult. And I
Speaker 3: think that that analogy holds true because you can see
Speaker 3: how people remain wedded to these candidates even when their
Speaker 3: flaws are exposed, even if they've done a turning government
Speaker 3: and it's quite apparent that they haven't done anything helpful,
Speaker 3: and they voted seventy percent or more of the time
Speaker 3: on the same side as the Greens. You sort to
Speaker 3: go where they claim to be just a nicer shade
Speaker 3: of liberal kind of falls away very quickly, but they're there.
Speaker 3: And the other thing I think I'd say about them
Speaker 3: is that it's a little bit of a misjudgment to
Speaker 3: say that they are liberal voters on strike, as some
Speaker 3: try and say, I mean, some try and compare them
Speaker 3: with the DLP, which, you know, the breakaway movement from
Speaker 3: the Labor Party in the fifties, which damage but most
Speaker 3: of the DLP members were former Labor members in this case,
Speaker 3: probably about twenty twenty five percent of them, the former
Speaker 3: liberal members. The rest are labor people voting tactically and
Speaker 3: Green's voters who are voting tactically, so they are to
Speaker 3: all intents and purposes are just another shade of green.
Speaker 2: So moniy Ryan, would she be a standout for what
Speaker 2: you've just described, Yeah, she's They're all that way.
Speaker 3: Really, they're you know, for so called independence, representing separate communities.
Speaker 3: They are remarkably similar in their voting pattern and views
Speaker 3: on things like say, nuclear power, to which they're staunchly opposed.
Speaker 3: They all want more action on climate change. Well, they're
Speaker 3: in the lucky position of never having to say what
Speaker 3: that more is because you know, as we're seeing in
Speaker 3: places like Splain in Portugal, you know, you get to
Speaker 3: a point where you go more, we can't do more.
Speaker 3: You know, there's no more we can do when it
Speaker 3: comes to the energy system. So yeah, they're in that
Speaker 3: privileged position. I think we might have said this last
Speaker 3: time about them, but they sort of conformed to that
Speaker 3: theory of luxury beliefs. You know, the more the more
Speaker 3: wealthy you've got, then the more you've got time to
Speaker 3: worry about things that don't worry most people, like climate
Speaker 3: change being the big one, or transgender rights. And I
Speaker 3: actually saw some polling in the Seed of Wentworth, which
Speaker 3: is held held by a TiAl candidate, that showed that
Speaker 3: if on the top three issues. Cost of living was
Speaker 3: number three. Now, anywhere else in the country apart from
Speaker 3: those wealthiest inner city seats, I guarantee you it would
Speaker 3: be number one, two, three, four, five. You know, it
Speaker 3: goes on and on. They weren't concerned about energy prices,
Speaker 3: petrol prices, anything like that, you know, the sort of
Speaker 3: things that affect people on lower incomes in other parts
Speaker 3: of the country.
Speaker 2: Well, for those who don't know, went Eth in Sydney
Speaker 2: it's along the along the harves side, specifically, it is
Speaker 2: it would equate to Remuera in Auckland without the well
Speaker 2: Remure has a southern side to it, down along the motorway.
Speaker 2: But take that away and you've got You've got Wentworth
Speaker 2: and Remuera being pretty much the same, the same level
Speaker 2: of wealth and housing. So that that that sort of
Speaker 2: frames frames the picture. Now, somebody said to me yesterday
Speaker 2: when I was having a discussion in the street, now
Speaker 2: you've got it wrong. You've got it wrong. This this
Speaker 2: result is really good. Can you guess why? It's sort
Speaker 2: of fairly obvious in the end, But look, I know
Speaker 2: it's really good.
Speaker 3: If you want to look at why it's it's not
Speaker 3: the worst that could have happened. You say, well, at
Speaker 3: least Labor was in the majority, so that means they
Speaker 3: won't have to form a coalition with the Greens.
Speaker 2: That's exactly That was exactly the point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wouldn't say it's really good. Quite far from that.
Speaker 3: They didn't get a little carried away with it, no doubt.
Speaker 3: Meant you know, some of your listeners are welcome to
Speaker 3: disagrutin me, but I don't think it's really good, and
Speaker 3: I don't think it's as good of results as Labor
Speaker 3: seems to be making out because of that primary vote.
Speaker 3: You know that they hold twice as many seats as
Speaker 3: or they will hold at least twice as many seats
Speaker 3: as the Liberal and National Coalition, so they look like
Speaker 3: they're in a commanding position. But wait for it. I mean,
Speaker 3: they only got what three hundred thousand more votes out
Speaker 3: of you know, the probably eight million votes shared between them,
Speaker 3: So the difference in the popular vote is not matched
Speaker 3: by the difference in the parliament I mean, never is completely.
Speaker 3: But it used to be much closer than that, when
Speaker 3: their primary vote used to match the number receipts in
Speaker 3: Parliament's come more closely and of course, exactly the same
Speaker 3: is happening in the UK. Maybe we should all adopt
Speaker 3: the hair Clark system. Probably not. You know, that's the
Speaker 3: problem I think for Labor because they think they've got
Speaker 3: a commanding majority in the Parliament. But when only thirty
Speaker 3: four percent of people vote for you, you've got to
Speaker 3: be really appealing to people who didn't vote for you
Speaker 3: if you want to keep in power, because they can
Speaker 3: easily flip their votes next time. It wouldn't take much
Speaker 3: for people to flip their votes and for that huge
Speaker 3: majority to disappear. But you know the dangers You get
Speaker 3: a bit hubristic and go too far, and that's what
Speaker 3: Labor I think they're in danger of doing, particularly if
Speaker 3: they get hold of the Senate, which is still a possibility.
Speaker 3: We won't know that for a while, but they may
Speaker 3: have control of both houses.
Speaker 2: Just explain for us the importance of the Senate or otherwise.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I'm more and more kind of like Paul
Speaker 3: Keating's definite explanation of it unrepresentative swill, but there's probably
Speaker 3: a little unkind. I mean, the idea of the Senate
Speaker 3: was like the House of Lords. It was a house
Speaker 3: of review, it was supposed to check over, you know,
Speaker 3: everything that came to the Lower House and just point
Speaker 3: out any flaws and throw it back to them. But
Speaker 3: eventually it would you know, the idea was it would
Speaker 3: act like the House of Lords and would just give
Speaker 3: way to the House of Commons.
Speaker 2: But would be very useful.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it is a useful process to
Speaker 3: have that legislation checked and maybe amended a bit by
Speaker 3: the more eyes that get across it, the better. And
Speaker 3: it was also state based, right, so every state has
Speaker 3: has the same number of representatives, and so even Tasmania,
Speaker 3: which has got five hundred thousand odd people, has got
Speaker 3: as many as New South Wales we've got six or
Speaker 3: seven million. So you know, it's not a one vote,
Speaker 3: one value place in that respect. But that's because it's
Speaker 3: supposed to respect states, but because become something else. It's
Speaker 3: become an alternative center of power in the minds of
Speaker 3: people there. So the acts completely without reference to the
Speaker 3: majority in the lower House, and well, you know, it
Speaker 3: doesn't sort of respect the fact that because you've got
Speaker 3: a majority in the lower House, you know, we should
Speaker 3: look at your legislation kindly and even though we don't
Speaker 3: completely like it, we recognize that you have a mandate
Speaker 3: for it. They don't do that. And now it's it's
Speaker 3: a long time really since, I think since two thousand
Speaker 3: and four was the last time one party had the
Speaker 3: majority in both houses. So it's full of a bunch
Speaker 3: of rap bags, independence and small parties, particularly the Greens,
Speaker 3: who just act negatively. I mean, if you're if you're
Speaker 3: say the Jackie Lambee party, she's from Tasmania and I
Speaker 3: think she had two Upper House members at one stage.
Speaker 3: She won't do now, but she got with Jackie Lambee.
Speaker 3: You know, how are you going to make attention? How
Speaker 3: are you going to how are you going to people
Speaker 3: voted for you because they didn't want to vote for
Speaker 3: the two major parties. You your motivation is to keep
Speaker 3: needling the major parties. You don't want to say yes
Speaker 3: to anything from either of them. And that's basically what
Speaker 3: they do. They are basically the grumps and the grumblers
Speaker 3: who who you know, pops on both your houses and
Speaker 3: because that's what their voters put them in there for,
Speaker 3: they haven't got any incentive whatsoever to be cooperative and
Speaker 3: so they're not. And that's that's the problem. We've got
Speaker 3: an Upper House, which is which thwarts the democratic mandate
Speaker 3: of the Lower House constantly and waters down good legislation
Speaker 3: just for silly ends. And you get people like former
Speaker 3: rugby league players in there who have I end up
Speaker 3: having the casting vote on say, university funding, and you
Speaker 3: sort of think, well, you were damn good at rugby league,
Speaker 3: but I'm not sure that that's what we want to
Speaker 3: take your You're going to be the deciding voice on
Speaker 3: that in the whole country.
Speaker 2: It seems a bit nuts. You know, Well, there are
Speaker 2: two states that I have worked in. I've worked in more.
Speaker 2: I've worked in four states on radio I'm talking. But
Speaker 2: Tasmania was the first and South Australia was the second
Speaker 2: that I want to refer to. I lasted six months
Speaker 2: in both states before I got out. Are you thrown
Speaker 2: out late?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 2: No, I certainly wasn't thrown out. I was. In fact,
Speaker 2: they went overboard in Adelaide to keep me. That's another story,
Speaker 2: but the point being that it doesn't surprise me about
Speaker 2: Tasmania being tode Lee labor after this election. Uh. And
Speaker 2: they're very big on green stuff down there too, uh.
Speaker 2: And and South Australia isn't isn't maybe that far behind
Speaker 2: m you.
Speaker 3: Say, the entire Yeah, well, the entire metropolitan region of
Speaker 3: South Australia is now read.
Speaker 2: You know, we lost.
Speaker 3: There was some hope we win the seed of Boothby
Speaker 3: in the in the Eastern suburbs or southeastern suburbs, and
Speaker 3: and but we we didn't. We didn't win that having
Speaker 3: a very good candidate and lost the seed to Sturt.
Speaker 3: It used to be Christopher Pine's old seat if you remember,
Speaker 3: So that's that's the last seat that they hold in
Speaker 3: in in metropolitan Adelaide Mayo up in the Hills borders
Speaker 3: with the Edge of Edgepolitan Adelaide and Adelaide Hills. That
Speaker 3: that went to a independent some time back. So yeah,
Speaker 3: that's the brutal truth that there are two coalition MPs
Speaker 3: in South Australia, but they're basically the country MPs. They're
Speaker 3: basically two country MPs in the South and North, the
Speaker 3: states divided pretty neatly so that they're out of the
Speaker 3: city and will struggle to get a toe hold back.
Speaker 3: I suspect, but I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 3: And of course they've got a labor state government and
Speaker 3: they have had pretty much for twenty years that they
Speaker 3: had one term of liberal government. Wasn't very successful in between,
Speaker 3: but they've been in power and quite a good premier
Speaker 3: incidentally down there at Peter melanowskis So it's a labor
Speaker 3: state top to bottom. One thing you could say about Adelaide.
Speaker 3: If you look at the economy, it's very low on
Speaker 3: private enterprise. It struggles, so you know, it's almost a
Speaker 3: civil service town in many respects. You know, everybody, large
Speaker 3: percentage of people either work for the government or they
Speaker 3: get their paycheck thanks to the government if they work
Speaker 3: in a hospital or doctor or something. So it's and
Speaker 3: if you're in that position, or if you're on the
Speaker 3: other end of the extreme, you're you know, sort of
Speaker 3: welfare dependent person, you've no motivation to vote for the
Speaker 3: Liberals because you know, you want the party that is
Speaker 3: a big government party and they're the ones that keep
Speaker 3: paying a paycheck. So you get to that threshold which
Speaker 3: I think South Australia passed some time back, where it's
Speaker 3: very hard for an enterprise orientated, free market party to
Speaker 3: break through.
Speaker 2: Just Center Price was on television last night and Carolyn said, well,
Speaker 2: she commented how impressive she was and wouldn't she make
Speaker 2: a good leader of the Liberals? And I wanted to
Speaker 2: agree with it, but I couldn't quite what's your thought, Well,
Speaker 2: it's a nice thought. For a lot of number of reasons,
Speaker 2: it might not happen. But she's she's just tough, street
Speaker 2: smart and common sense and well spoken. And if you
Speaker 2: read an autobiography which came out I think just for Christmas,
Speaker 2: she tells the story of her own life being brought
Speaker 2: up in a a in a in an Aboriginal town
Speaker 2: in the middle of the Tamini Desert, and she, you know,
Speaker 2: a brutal place to grow up in and she suffered violence,
Speaker 2: family violence, a lot, you know, but she remarkably managed
Speaker 2: to pull herself out of it, thanks I think largely
Speaker 2: to her mother, who was a terrific woman. So she's
Speaker 2: lived a tough life, right, So she's the sort of
Speaker 2: stuff they throw at you in politics. She just you know,
Speaker 2: it's nothing for her, you know, because she's so That's
Speaker 2: where she's really strong. Plus she's very well liked across
Speaker 2: the country. And she was the leading voice that encouraged
Speaker 2: Australians to reject the Voice to Parliament. She was dead
Speaker 2: against it. So she's a terrific woman and.
Speaker 3: She's you've been interested, you should mention her because I
Speaker 3: think one for me, one of the the turning points
Speaker 3: of the campaign when I sort of said oh, was
Speaker 3: when she stood up. She was there with Peter Dutton
Speaker 3: and she said we want to make Australia great again.
Speaker 3: And then of course all the all the all the
Speaker 3: Trump haters and Dunton haters got in and said, oh,
Speaker 3: you sound like Donald Trump. You're mimicking Donald Trump, and Dute,
Speaker 3: who was so worried about being compared to Donald Trump's
Speaker 3: at that point, of course, he'd become quite unpopular for
Speaker 3: his trade measures and his and his foreign affairs. You know,
Speaker 3: he's treated Laodamiller's Zelenski. So he backed away and everybody
Speaker 3: backed away, and I think just Enterprise was forced to
Speaker 3: make some sort of apology and say, well, of course
Speaker 3: I didn't want to reflect Donald Trump. And I thought,
Speaker 3: we've lost your nerve now, because if you took that
Speaker 3: to a referendum, you know, do you want to make
Speaker 3: Australia create again? If you could theoretically take that to
Speaker 3: a referendum, is there any chance that would be lost?
Speaker 3: It would be a thumping majority, so they didn't play
Speaker 3: into that, backed away from that, would not play into
Speaker 3: that nationalist rhetoric for fear of sand like Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: that's just what we actually need right now when you've
Speaker 3: got the Chinese gumboats off our shores and Russia threatening
Speaker 3: to put long range aircraft in Indonesia, and you know,
Speaker 3: we're feeling a bit exposed because we're not sure how
Speaker 3: committed the Americans are. We'd love people to say, come on,
Speaker 3: we're going to make Australia great. We're going to all
Speaker 3: rally round, and which is the kind of rhetoric that
Speaker 3: both candidates used in Canada. Both Polyev and Karne both
Speaker 3: used that rhetoric and the result both of them got
Speaker 3: a massive increase in their primary vote.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at a number of headlines from this morning.
Speaker 2: Liberal Party donors threatened to pull donations after coalition loss.
Speaker 2: Is that any surprise, No.
Speaker 3: I think that we'll see what the how they feel
Speaker 3: in two years time. Certainly there was a I think
Speaker 3: there is there is will be a lot of anger
Speaker 3: from donors because there was a few big donors who
Speaker 3: were giving large amounts of money because they just could
Speaker 3: see the danger that the labor government played was what
Speaker 3: was to the business community and the prosperity of the
Speaker 3: country more generally. And so they did get behind the
Speaker 3: Libs and they'll fill they didn't get value for money,
Speaker 3: no doubt about that. Whether they pull their funding on
Speaker 3: what sure, But it's threatening.
Speaker 2: Look, we haven't actually discussed Peter Dunton and I know
Speaker 2: that he's being discussed all over and there are people
Speaker 2: who are very disgusted with him. But does he does
Speaker 2: does he deserve it?
Speaker 3: Well, look, there are Peter Dutton and nobody's ever pretended otherwise.
Speaker 3: Peter Dutton has had a few difficulties to contend with
Speaker 3: from the beginning. He didn't look great. I mean he
Speaker 3: suffers from a certain condition which means had not only
Speaker 3: to lose his hair, he lost his eyebrows. So he
Speaker 3: looks very similar to Christopher Luxon in many ways actually so,
Speaker 3: but you know, he's not an attractive figure he visually,
Speaker 3: and so that is unfortunately something you have to wrestle
Speaker 3: with in politics. And also he doesn't easily show his
Speaker 3: true emotions, so he's not he's not. He doesn't easily
Speaker 3: sort of come switch from to the emotional rhetoric very well.
Speaker 3: So when you're when you've got that doesn't mean to
Speaker 3: say you're unelectable, which I just think you've got to work.
Speaker 2: You've got to do.
Speaker 3: Much much better than a nominal fifty to fifty or
Speaker 3: fifty one forty nine to get elected.
Speaker 2: You just have to have that extra buffer.
Speaker 3: So in that sense, that's that's he doesn't deserve criticism
Speaker 3: for how he looks, but.
Speaker 2: It is all that it is. But it is unfortunate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And nor does he deserve criticism. For most of
Speaker 3: the three years as opposition leader, which was remarkable, he
Speaker 3: united the party room, he got and geared up. He
Speaker 3: got them in a position to win, and they looked
Speaker 3: ahead of the Poles. They were ahead of the Poles
Speaker 3: at the start of the year. So he did that.
Speaker 3: But then the question is, of course, well how much
Speaker 3: was he responsible for the rapid decline in the party's
Speaker 3: vote from about early March onwards?
Speaker 2: And well, entirely.
Speaker 3: And I think what what happened is that he became nervous.
Speaker 3: We hadn't seen the whites of his eyes up to
Speaker 3: that point, but once he was in the lead, he thought, well,
Speaker 3: I've got to hold onto this, and then became extraordinarily
Speaker 3: cautious with policy and.
Speaker 2: And not not.
Speaker 3: Going on the attack, not not running the same negative
Speaker 3: campaign that Labor and so that caution in the end
Speaker 3: cost him, uh the chance to be Prime minister in
Speaker 3: my view, because you in opposition you can't be cautious.
Speaker 3: You just have to go out there like a whirling
Speaker 3: dervish and just just go it, go for it, you know,
Speaker 3: and which is what Tony Abbott was famously very good at.
Speaker 2: In the States. They're talking about somebody had forgotten who
Speaker 2: it was? Now was it was it musk anyway? Big balls?
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm, you're familiar with what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Big balls? They think I've read that reference? They do
Speaker 3: you care to explain it to me?
Speaker 2: Well, just just just not frightened of anything, just I
Speaker 2: got the got the guts if you like. But but
Speaker 2: that that term has been adopted now and it's being
Speaker 2: used in you know, all sorts of newspapers and what
Speaker 2: have you. Right, I just think that that dutn't lacked
Speaker 2: precisely that m Yeah, we often call it mongrel. I
Speaker 2: think you do too.
Speaker 3: Oh, Look, I think so, I think I think yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean, clearly that's right. I mean I think he
Speaker 3: just lost his nerve towards the end and was so
Speaker 3: worried of things being used against him, either by labor
Speaker 3: or the or the press, that he just went into
Speaker 3: complete defensive mode and and didn't present policies which he
Speaker 3: should have done. For instance, I mean, there was a
Speaker 3: very strong tax reform policy sitting in his draw that
Speaker 3: the Treasurer of Opposition, Treasurer Angus Taylor had drawn up,
Speaker 3: and it included scrapping, well no introducing. It included indexing
Speaker 3: of tax brackets, which is a big issue here. I
Speaker 3: don't know whether it's the same in New Zealand.
Speaker 2: But look what is now you finished, because I'll explode.
Speaker 3: So indexing of tax trackets obviously when you know whatever
Speaker 3: the threshold is, say thirty five thousand to go under
Speaker 3: the second high the second rate of tax, that never moves.
Speaker 3: So as people earn more, you know, more and more
Speaker 3: people are caught in high and tax rates. The government
Speaker 3: makes a lot of money that way by not moving
Speaker 3: the rates. But of course it's desperately unfair and people
Speaker 3: know it's unfair, so they had a plan to get
Speaker 3: rid of that. It's going to be It's not cheap,
Speaker 3: I mean, because the government's got to take a haircut
Speaker 3: with revenue. But they had a plan to do that
Speaker 3: and how they do it and where they make savings.
Speaker 2: But that was.
Speaker 3: Dutton said, Look, I didn't want that, So as I
Speaker 3: understand it, that was Dunton's call. And so Angus Taylor
Speaker 3: just had to buy his time and and and not
Speaker 3: put forward this what I think would have been a
Speaker 3: very popular measure. So that's that, I think is a
Speaker 3: sign of a leader who's lost his courage.
Speaker 2: That that brings me to Michael de Percy and a
Speaker 2: column from The Spectator yesterday. Angus and Dan can save
Speaker 2: the Liberals and the mainstream media keep banging on about
Speaker 2: how the coalition lost because they aren't left enough. That
Speaker 2: is absolute nonsense. The Liberals facilitated the fracturing of the
Speaker 2: conservative votes by being labor liked. Every conservative knows this
Speaker 2: is true. Conservatives don't want the Liberal Party to go left.
Speaker 2: They want the Liberal Party to be conservative. Well, all
Speaker 2: of that's pretty obvious, I think. But bottom line is
Speaker 2: is Angus Taylor a prospect?
Speaker 3: In my view, he's the best prospect. He is the
Speaker 3: smartest man in any room I've been in. He's rapier
Speaker 3: sharp when it comes to economic policy and policy more generally.
Speaker 3: He's a deep thinker. He's an Oxford man. He worked
Speaker 3: for he doesn't have to be in policy, which I
Speaker 3: guess is weighing on his mind at the moment because
Speaker 3: he you know, he had a very very well paid
Speaker 3: job in the private sector as a senior advisor at
Speaker 3: the companies around the world. I mean, he could go
Speaker 3: back to that job and be making ten times as
Speaker 3: much money as he can make at the moment. So
Speaker 3: one of the things I reckon would be on his
Speaker 3: mind right now would be do I really want the
Speaker 3: pain and that it's going to come with picking up
Speaker 3: this party in opposition. But it is precisely because he's
Speaker 3: he's a solid conservative, is from the country. You know,
Speaker 3: he's a farming family. He's got very solid values, in
Speaker 3: my view, about about conservative values and commitment to smaller government,
Speaker 3: or at least if more efficient government, and governments that
Speaker 3: spend within their means, you know, the sort of Thatcher
Speaker 3: and Reagan policy. He's committed to that, and that's his
Speaker 3: frustration is he can't you know, that's so hard in
Speaker 3: this in this era. So but what's happened is, of
Speaker 3: course he does have some enemies in the party who
Speaker 3: are just leaking mercilessly on him now, completely unfairly and
Speaker 3: just complete nonsense. And they're doing that because it's a
Speaker 3: deeply factionalized party, particularly in New South Wales, a very
Speaker 3: strong so called moderate faction which would like to do
Speaker 3: away with a lot of policies, probably the nuclear policy
Speaker 3: as well. So there's a lot at stake here and
Speaker 3: they will fight and quite dirtily to try and smear
Speaker 3: him with, you know, the blame for the campaign, which
Speaker 3: is absolutely unwarranted in my view, and they'll downplay his
Speaker 3: credentials and everything.
Speaker 2: But I think he's he's.
Speaker 3: You know, he's a sort of you know, he reminds
Speaker 3: me of It reminds me of a Bill English. He's
Speaker 3: that kind of guy. But he just solid very similar
Speaker 3: law and feel to Angus's Bill English.
Speaker 2: That's where I put him. Bill. Bill is a good guy.
Speaker 2: He didn't have the persona to take people with him
Speaker 2: on many occasions. I feel as as the as the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister, would you say that Angus Taylor was in
Speaker 2: that category.
Speaker 3: Yeah, probably in the same way. He'd probably got to
Speaker 3: gotta work on that side too, just as Bill English did.
Speaker 3: It's consequence I think of being, you know, a certain
Speaker 3: type of person where you think quite deeply about things
Speaker 3: and you come to a recent answer, and you you
Speaker 3: expect everybody else to come to that conclusion too, because
Speaker 3: other people are like five steps behind you, and you
Speaker 3: need to sort of bring them on with with more
Speaker 3: more retail language. If you like, yeah, so I've got
Speaker 3: like I mean, he'd be my pick. I think Dan
Speaker 3: dan Tian is. The other possibility is again you know,
Speaker 3: he's a country MP, he's from Victoria from one and
Speaker 3: and he's a very solid guy, quite a sharp intellect. Again, look,
Speaker 3: I think they both make good candidates, but I would
Speaker 3: have thought that Angus would be the one they turned
Speaker 3: to if they're simply going on the basis of talent
Speaker 3: and ability.
Speaker 2: So another headline from this morning that got my attention
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanese leads a more left dominated Labor party that
Speaker 2: will stall economic reform and the opening couple of lines,
Speaker 2: the fundamental question must be asked, in light of Labour's
Speaker 2: thumping victory, whether as a nation we have lost the
Speaker 2: war on economic dependency. It would appear to be over
Speaker 2: for the moment. The problem will be that once dependency
Speaker 2: is entrenched into the political culture, the economy will eventually
Speaker 2: bite back. The only question is when.
Speaker 3: Any thoughts Yeah, I think I don't know whether the
Speaker 3: country's move that way, but certainly the Labor Party has
Speaker 3: a so I think they've elected. I mean, I don't
Speaker 3: know the new members that are going to make a
Speaker 3: difference in the party room, except to have seen them
Speaker 3: on the television. General observation that they're all quite young
Speaker 3: and predominantly female. And what we know is that young
Speaker 3: female voters are probably more likely to vote Green than
Speaker 3: Labor actually because that's their politics, and say it will
Speaker 3: be there. We saw it in the last parliament. We
Speaker 3: saw it. It came to the four not so much
Speaker 3: of economic questions as Palestine. You know, there are a
Speaker 3: lot of people even though you know, the Labor Party
Speaker 3: basically walked away from supporting Israel, there are a lot
Speaker 3: of people that felt they hadn't done a laugh, you know,
Speaker 3: and it should be sort of calling for international courts
Speaker 3: to judge Israel and for genocide and all this quite
Speaker 3: extreme view. So yeah, they're going to face that. He
Speaker 3: will have he's on the left of the party himself,
Speaker 3: of course, but he's going to have to put a
Speaker 3: lot of effort into calming the people on the left
Speaker 3: that want him to go even further left.
Speaker 2: Why do you think it's young women who I have
Speaker 2: a theory, but why do you think it's young women
Speaker 2: who fall into this trap with regard to matters green
Speaker 2: and other matters like well, the Middle East. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm hesitant on this one because I will be
Speaker 3: called out if I make a judgment on what young
Speaker 3: women think, and because not a woman young women think
Speaker 3: the same. But it's marked. I can't give you an explanation,
Speaker 3: but it is marked. In Australian politics now the difference
Speaker 3: between men are eighteen to twenty five and twenty six
Speaker 3: to thirty four voters and women in the same categories,
Speaker 3: just like whide divide, and the women are predominantly Green.
Speaker 3: I mean I was out on a few polling boot
Speaker 3: before the election and you'd sort of see a young
Speaker 3: woman of a certain age and a certain look coming
Speaker 3: and you just put your packet a Liberal party how
Speaker 3: to vote cards away because just you knew she was
Speaker 3: going to go to the Green candidate or Labor possibly
Speaker 3: but almost certainly Green.
Speaker 2: It's just.
Speaker 3: So wed hazard a guess. I mean that they've been
Speaker 3: been to university and they've been indoctrinated since since they
Speaker 3: first went to school about some of this climate change
Speaker 3: stuff and you know, anti colonialism and we're all living
Speaker 3: on stolen land, all that sort of stuff that's deep
Speaker 3: in their heads. But that doesn't account for why the men,
Speaker 3: the young men voters vote differently, so that I think,
Speaker 3: you know less inclined to vote that way.
Speaker 2: So it's I don't know what it is. Well, well
Speaker 2: you you touched on them quite rightly. The education system
Speaker 2: has a great deal to do, and they lay the groundwork,
Speaker 2: even even into kindergarten. Uh and even even matters sexual
Speaker 2: in kindergarten. The media is I think responsible for the
Speaker 2: for the rest of it. I mean, they get taught
Speaker 2: this stuff or presented with with what what you just
Speaker 2: discussed in the education system, and then it gets verified
Speaker 2: as far as they're concerned by the media. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 2: that would be right. Yeah, yeah, that's they live.
Speaker 3: In in that that world, that paradigm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it may be it may be that the
Speaker 2: young guys are more interested in other things than looking
Speaker 2: for the meaning of life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well that's right, isn't it with fast cars,
Speaker 3: football all the rest. Yeah, okay, I get I get that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is Rob McCulloch who has a blog site.
Speaker 2: He is a professor at Auckland University. The worst finance
Speaker 2: minister ever Labour's grunt Robertson and now the new one
Speaker 2: who is competing for that title, Nikola Willis, have jointly
Speaker 2: created a fiscal crisis in New Zealand. We currently have
Speaker 2: one of the most one of the worst primary fiscal
Speaker 2: deficits in the developed world in brackets, which is government
Speaker 2: spending minus tax revenues excluding interest costs close bracket. In
Speaker 2: the face of an aging population, New Zealand's public debt
Speaker 2: will start rapidly increasing above its high host pandemic levels
Speaker 2: starting in twenty thirty, as confirmed by the IMF. He
Speaker 2: then goes on the quote a fellow blog of Michael Riddell,
Speaker 2: our current finance minister has only one plan, which isn't
Speaker 2: a plan, cross the fingers and pray for economic growth
Speaker 2: to pick up. We've we've got major issues.
Speaker 3: Also, yeah, we've got those same issues. I haven't done
Speaker 3: a cross comparison, but but yeah, I mean, this is
Speaker 3: this is the problem. We've had a government elected with
Speaker 3: a mandate to spend wealth without any mandate or even
Speaker 3: discussion about how we earn the wealth. And that's that's
Speaker 3: the problem for the two countries. They labor call it
Speaker 3: a structural deficit. You know that exactly. What's what you've
Speaker 3: just outlined in that piece, That we're spending more than
Speaker 3: we get in revenue, spending more than we can raise
Speaker 3: in taxes. It's not a structural deficit. It's a government
Speaker 3: that can't live within its means. The massive increases in
Speaker 3: in welfare spending, health spending, education spending, we haven't done
Speaker 3: that just willian nilly, without any any back up with
Speaker 3: how we're going.
Speaker 2: To pay for them.
Speaker 3: And as a result, the one we really should be
Speaker 3: putting more money into now defense. You know, there's limited
Speaker 3: funds available and limited enthusiasm to spend them. So we
Speaker 3: are in a we are in a bind fiscally, and
Speaker 3: that's was hardly debated in the election. That's that's the trouble.
Speaker 3: We've were talking about everything except the important things at
Speaker 3: this stage, and of the two critical issues, which is
Speaker 3: national security and the economy.
Speaker 2: Just in conclusion, unless you want to add anything more,
Speaker 2: the one thing we haven't mentioned is the influence supposed
Speaker 2: influence of Donald Trump. And they're pointing to where there's
Speaker 2: been a reaction Canada being one, Australia being another, and
Speaker 2: saying that Trump's ruining the ruining the world, when in
Speaker 2: fact that's far from the truth. Even this morning, there
Speaker 2: is the story on the Romanian prime minister to resign
Speaker 2: after conservative candidate crushes coalition in do over election. It
Speaker 2: doesn't matter that we don't know exactly what the detail is,
Speaker 2: but the point is that the prime minister resigning has
Speaker 2: every thing to do with the fact that there's a
Speaker 2: conservative running who is a follower of Trump. That was one,
Speaker 2: and there's another one that I can't think of hand
Speaker 2: oh farage of course.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, Well when you talk about, you know, doesn't
Speaker 3: lacking the mongrel then then yeah, I mean, particularly around
Speaker 3: January time of the inauguration, there were a lot of
Speaker 3: people on the conservative side, So you've got to be
Speaker 3: more like Trump, You've got to be more like Trump.
Speaker 3: They stopped saying that once Trump's problematic side started to
Speaker 3: emerge in terms of tariffs and so forth. But I
Speaker 3: never thought that was right. I mean, Trump is fantastic
Speaker 3: for the American context perfect for their current political malaise
Speaker 3: and managed to break through the system as they have
Speaker 3: it there. But because our system is not like that,
Speaker 3: neither is yours. You know, Prime Minister can't just come
Speaker 3: in and do things by decree. You know, he actually
Speaker 3: has to negotiate with Parliament and negotiate with his own
Speaker 3: party first and then Parliament. That's our system, and I
Speaker 3: think I happened to think it's a better system, so
Speaker 3: we didn't need that. But yeah, I mean, because Trump
Speaker 3: is so demonized on the left and by the left
Speaker 3: of course that includes most of the media that you know,
Speaker 3: you Dunne was just away from the start that he
Speaker 3: had to be distance himself from this idea or you're
Speaker 3: going to be the next Donald Trump and America and
Speaker 3: you're going to Americanize Australia, You're going to americanize our
Speaker 3: health service, You're going to know, et.
Speaker 2: Cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That's what the Labor was saying overtly time and time again.
Speaker 3: It was a big part of the negative campaign. So yes,
Speaker 3: it gave labor the ammunition I think is what happened,
Speaker 3: and that's not Trump's full I don't think you can
Speaker 3: blame Trump for it. I mean, presumably he's acting in
Speaker 3: America's best interest. We can argue about, you know, whether
Speaker 3: his trade policy is in America's best interest, but that's
Speaker 3: what he's doing and he's got a mandate to do it.
Speaker 3: He's not here to represent New Zealand's best interests or
Speaker 3: Australia's best interests. So there's just a thing.
Speaker 2: All right. And finally, finally, and you've given me the
Speaker 2: lead for this. Living standards down something like eight percent
Speaker 2: over the first term of the Albanesi government. You mentioned
Speaker 2: the defense spending. They got humiliated with the voice. Would
Speaker 2: you agree that they're eddie free speech labor.
Speaker 3: Well, they've shown those tendencies. So they try to pass
Speaker 3: this misinformation bill, which is where you'd have basically a
Speaker 3: government official would decide if you had misinformation on your
Speaker 3: media website or on your podcast or whatever, and could
Speaker 3: sanction you for that.
Speaker 2: Now, that's very dangerous.
Speaker 3: I think we'd all agree, because it's who decides what's
Speaker 3: misinformation what's not, you know, so we can't That was
Speaker 3: just genuine movie down the road to censorship. I think
Speaker 3: like all on the left, you know they are, they
Speaker 3: would do whatever they could to shut up their critics,
Speaker 3: to silence them, and will do it. So I expect
Speaker 3: them to move on free speech. Yeah, the restricts free speech,
Speaker 3: just definitely, they will and go the voice again. Well,
Speaker 3: because they can do elements of the voice without taking
Speaker 3: it to a referendum. There will be a lot of
Speaker 3: pressure on them to do that from inside the party,
Speaker 3: from the left of the party, and I think they
Speaker 3: will do something of that nature. They will, they'll legislate
Speaker 3: something which will be, you know, in total contempt of
Speaker 3: the sixty to forty vote that we had in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three. So yeah, of course they're going to come out.
Speaker 3: But I do sense actually that albanezis learned its less
Speaker 3: to some extent and realizes that he's got to avoid
Speaker 3: doing that Woki stuff if he wants to hold the
Speaker 3: middle ground, which he has to do, and he knows
Speaker 3: he's got to.
Speaker 2: Do that, right. Yeah, So I said, finally, finally, But
Speaker 2: I'd forgotten something that I think is very important. You
Speaker 2: are a student, have been a student of Robert Menzies.
Speaker 2: You know him better than I do, even and I
Speaker 2: adored him as a teenager. Robert Menzies was the founder
Speaker 2: of the Liberal Party. Suggestions are now being made that
Speaker 2: it's time to abandon the Liberal Party and start something new.
Speaker 2: Another suggestion was, and I can't think who it was,
Speaker 2: was that what the Liberals and especially whoever the leaders are,
Speaker 2: need to get in and read his speeches. All of
Speaker 2: which is good advice, of course. But if Robert Menzies
Speaker 2: was here today and he was involved in this, how
Speaker 2: would he handle it?
Speaker 3: Well, he's instinct. What Rob Menzies did famously in nineteen
Speaker 3: forties and nineteen forty four was to recognize that the
Speaker 3: sender right was just into them, you know, twenty six
Speaker 3: twenty seven different parties, and was not going to succeed
Speaker 3: unless it came together as one organized force. That's what
Speaker 3: the Liberal Party was put on earth to do, and
Speaker 3: it's been remarkably successful up to now. But so I
Speaker 3: think his instinct would be, Look, I'm worried that we're
Speaker 3: going that way again. You know, we've got the same
Speaker 3: sort of fracturing of the Liberal Party or the center
Speaker 3: right vote happening, and he'd want to bring them together,
Speaker 3: but he'd also he wouldn't want to do that at
Speaker 3: any cost. You know, it would have to be sure
Speaker 3: that whoever was that they shared common values, so it
Speaker 3: would be to define I think what he'd be looking
Speaker 3: to do is to define those common values. And it's simple
Speaker 3: things like we want individuals who generally we much prefer
Speaker 3: individuals to make decisions about their own lives, and the
Speaker 3: government we much prefer to give responsibility to individuals, and
Speaker 3: the government to give people opportunity, to make sure every
Speaker 3: he's got equal opportunity. I think one of the things
Speaker 3: he'd be concerned about his housing, you want, because he
Speaker 3: thought that central the Royal Mensis philsophy as everyody should
Speaker 3: be able to buy their own home. So that's obviously
Speaker 3: a problem now, so he yeah, I think he would
Speaker 3: those central principles and they're not hard you know, it's
Speaker 3: not it's not sort of hardline conservative, I think. But
Speaker 3: if he looked at the modern Liberal party, I think
Speaker 3: he would be he would be disappointed that it's lost
Speaker 3: half of its mission. So it's like center right parties
Speaker 3: around the world have become since that and Reagan, they've
Speaker 3: come to think they're only there to keep the economy
Speaker 3: in decent shape and and you know, clear up Labour's mess.
Speaker 3: But but because that's only there's only a means to
Speaker 3: an end, and the end is a better life for people.
Speaker 3: It's a richer life, it's a more fulfilling life, and
Speaker 3: it's having that sort of more rounded vision of how
Speaker 3: we improve the lives of people that the party struggles
Speaker 3: with that and I think that's where it has to
Speaker 3: look to give that vision because that counters, you know,
Speaker 3: all labour stuff that we're going to bring equality in fairness,
Speaker 3: because it never does.
Speaker 2: I had I bought a copy of his autobiography Afternoon Late,
Speaker 2: I might have said this to you on release and
Speaker 2: I just wish I had a copy of it today.
Speaker 2: Now this is this, This really is the end, so
Speaker 2: as an exit Reality bites by Nick Kava Substack.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, this is a substack. I'm sure lots of
Speaker 3: people are familiar with that. It's a very good platform
Speaker 3: for independent writers like me to to have this say
Speaker 3: and it's it's it's desperately democratic in that in that
Speaker 3: anybody can go on there. You know, anybody can start
Speaker 3: writing on there, but people will go to people. You know,
Speaker 3: you can only build an audience of people actually like
Speaker 3: what you're right, and you can actually also you can
Speaker 3: ask people to subscribe, so people can be a financial
Speaker 3: subscriber as well, you know, which is always helpful.
Speaker 2: And that's that's.
Speaker 3: Very you know, it's a very good, sobering judgment for
Speaker 3: ride like me on how good my stuff really is.
Speaker 3: You know, the people really prepare to read it?
Speaker 2: Number one?
Speaker 3: And are they actually prepared to put the hands in
Speaker 3: the pocket and put in a bit of support for
Speaker 3: my work as an independent journalist. And surprisingly some people
Speaker 3: are and I'm very grateful to that. But it's where
Speaker 3: I can pull together all my work. But you had
Speaker 3: to come up with a title, and I thought reality
Speaker 3: Bites is it, you know, and that's it. I want
Speaker 3: to write about the point a bit where reality and.
Speaker 2: The dreams and utopian dreams.
Speaker 3: Come and come collide and when you have to face
Speaker 3: up to real world facts because that that, I think
Speaker 3: is where we're at on the debate on the economy
Speaker 3: and well so many of the issues we've discussed today.
Speaker 2: You indicated to me privately that you wanted to spend
Speaker 2: a bit more time in your zealment.
Speaker 3: Yes, well it's I'd love the country. I love the
Speaker 3: people and the scenery and and get to know the
Speaker 3: politics or to know where you're up to. Really, I
Speaker 3: was there or I don't know, just over a year ago.
Speaker 3: But the christ the government was new then and there
Speaker 3: was lots of hope for it, and I gather things
Speaker 3: aren't going quite so well. So yeah, yeah, it's the differences.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: It's very similar course to Australia in some broad senses,
Speaker 3: but quite different in many others. And I love just
Speaker 3: finding locating those differences and asking.
Speaker 2: Why it's only three hours away.
Speaker 3: Yes, indeed, indeed, I don't know. This sort of stage
Speaker 3: in the year, as we go from autumn to winter
Speaker 3: is really my favorite time. I'm not a skier, but
Speaker 3: maybe when the weather picks up.
Speaker 2: Indeed, all right, again, you've been You've been very generous.
Speaker 2: Thank you appreciate it. Reality bites by in the CATA.
Speaker 2: It's very easy to find, and I suggest to you, well,
Speaker 2: I don't. I'm telling you it's worth reading. How many
Speaker 2: are you putting out? A couple of week A couple
Speaker 2: of weeks, that's what I try and do.
Speaker 3: It's not altogether, some of them that can't be quite
Speaker 3: as regular as I'd like to be, but a couple
Speaker 3: of week at least is generally what I put out.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, please go on, you can subscribe for free,
Speaker 3: or you can you can subscribe as a special page
Speaker 3: subscriber and get extra content.
Speaker 2: Beautiful Nick, thank you once again, Thank you always good
Speaker 2: to talk to you lately. This is a producer podcast
Speaker 2: number two hundred and eighty three. And here we are
Speaker 2: in the mail room, and I'm going to invite you
Speaker 2: to go first, and then I've got an announcement tomorrow.
Speaker 4: All right, late, And this is from Howard not once
Speaker 4: but twice in podcast to eight too, you quoted a
Speaker 4: chorus and who proclaimed that Winston Peters had been the
Speaker 4: man for common sense for all his political life. I
Speaker 4: do not understand why mister Peters is constantly given a
Speaker 4: free pass for the complete and utter lack of common
Speaker 4: sense he displayed in twenty seventeen when he appointed jasindera
Speaker 4: durn Prime Minister and in doing so led this great
Speaker 4: country down the gurglar. His action was, in my opinion,
Speaker 4: completely selfish behavior, with only one thing in mind, the
Speaker 4: rise of his own star to the detriment of New Zealand.
Speaker 4: Conservative and right wing commentators at the time were highly
Speaker 4: critical of Peter's but now salute him and laud his
Speaker 4: conservative principles and common sense I may be accused of
Speaker 4: bearing a grudge and I have been told to let
Speaker 4: it go.
Speaker 2: That will never happen. I do understand that sentiment, and listen,
Speaker 2: I understand it also, and I felt that way for
Speaker 2: quite a long time. But things change, time passes, and
Speaker 2: some people wrecked fire their pasts. You can say he
Speaker 2: hasn't that he could never do it. I say, live
Speaker 2: for the present. In the future, you have to hope
Speaker 2: you do now from Paul, And this is very coincidental,
Speaker 2: is as Layton just now listening to your conversation with
Speaker 2: Nick Cata. In describing the teal elites that live on
Speaker 2: the shores of Sydney Harbor, one can make a comparison
Speaker 2: to the governing elites on the shores of Auckland Harbor,
Speaker 2: Simon Wat's being a classic example. Most of them are idiots. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't entirely disagree with what you say, especially the
Speaker 2: most bit. But how did he hear that? And I'm
Speaker 2: now reading his email because this has only just been recorded.
Speaker 2: The answer is, of course that this was done after
Speaker 2: the previous discussion I had with Nick Cata on April sixteenth,
Speaker 2: and I hadn't picked it up, and here it is
Speaker 2: today now. My phone went buzz just a few moments ago,
Speaker 2: just before we started the bailroom, and I mean literally
Speaker 2: seconds before we started the mailroom, and the headline was
Speaker 2: Liberal Wilson reclaims Goldstein. Tim Wilson is set to reclaim
Speaker 2: Goldstein from Teal incumbent Zoe Daniel. This was from the
Speaker 2: Australians rolling coverage of news from Canberra and around the country.
Speaker 4: Leyden Steve says it was humbling to hear read out
Speaker 4: so much of my RC twelve submission at the end
Speaker 4: of two eighty two. I'm very grateful and I can
Speaker 4: but hope that it may help open some eyes that
Speaker 4: hitherto have been forced shut by the all pervading official narrative.
Speaker 4: As you suggested at the end, in an ideal world,
Speaker 4: all young people should have access to such a font
Speaker 4: of wisdom as Ramesh. I hope the Australians appreciate how
Speaker 4: fortunate they are to have him. He mentioned how the
Speaker 4: establishment left is now in serious defense mode and its
Speaker 4: efforts to counter the populist right surge across most of
Speaker 4: the West. That's no surprise when I think of the
Speaker 4: words of Melanie Phillips some ten to fifteen years ago,
Speaker 4: when she explained that the Left had an unshakable faith
Speaker 4: in its intellectual, moral, and ethical superiority. The left regards
Speaker 4: it as an absolute responsibility to defeat any opposing views
Speaker 4: on the basis that those views are not just wrong,
Speaker 4: that evil. And Steve says, of course, it's the perfect
Speaker 4: diversionary tactic. Of course, accuse your opposition of doing what
Speaker 4: you're actually doing and late.
Speaker 2: It's from Steve. Steve, appreciate it. Thank you. This is
Speaker 2: from Alan ellen Trotter, who was one of the three
Speaker 2: authors of the two books that were published that we
Speaker 2: did a couple of interviews on and I mentioned them
Speaker 2: on numerous occasions on climate change. Climate Actually, Eddie writes,
Speaker 2: and this comes to you from Johannesburg, where we currently
Speaker 2: recover from concluding a road trip with Australian friends for
Speaker 2: the past five weeks, including a week in Kruger National
Speaker 2: Park and citing the Big Five of game animals almost daily,
Speaker 2: following a seventeen night cruise on Cund's Queen Anne from
Speaker 2: Singapore to Cape Town. I like knowing what people doing.
Speaker 2: It sounds like a fantastic trip, doesn't that During that
Speaker 2: time we have listened to a couple of times to
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio to keep abreast of New Zealand news and happenings.
Speaker 2: It seems that the Paris Accord is destined for the
Speaker 2: scrap heap, thank the Lord in the foreseeable future, especially
Speaker 2: with China in the Russia and the USA approximately sixty
Speaker 2: percent of global emissions being responsible for that not being
Speaker 2: party there too. New Zealand could well be brave enough
Speaker 2: to act sensibly and join that scrap heap of forlorn
Speaker 2: commitment and terminate its ridiculous commitment to that nonsense. Let's
Speaker 2: hope so as that alone would provide much of the capital.
Speaker 2: This is the important part. Much of the capital required
Speaker 2: for infrastructure expenditure needed to be applied to so urgently
Speaker 2: and thereby reduce substantially the borrowings that need to be
Speaker 2: made because of gross errors made by labor during the
Speaker 2: COVID period. Paris exit right now, What a great start
Speaker 2: for our capital shortfall, that is, by exiting the Paris
Speaker 2: Accord quick smart anyway, ell, I'm glad you're having a
Speaker 2: great holiday, and I take.
Speaker 4: Your point, Leighton Lorna says. She says her subject is
Speaker 4: net zero is actually and her start of her email says,
Speaker 4: it's actually not zero. Why why doesn't our useless government
Speaker 4: pull out of the Paris Agreement?
Speaker 2: Why?
Speaker 4: She says, no one has any guts or brain anymore.
Speaker 2: And that's pretty much. That's pretty much the way that
Speaker 2: it is. From Vincent, Hey, Australia, what have you done?
Speaker 2: I'm plumoxed. Don't need to say much more than that now.
Speaker 2: From jin A Ramesh, the Kur is a genius. He
Speaker 2: gave a perfect summary regarding the state of some Western
Speaker 2: countries today, saying you've got the soft states in the
Speaker 2: West which are engaged in an orgy of national self
Speaker 2: abasement at all the evils of the world that are
Speaker 2: laid at our own doors at Australia's Labor Party proved
Speaker 2: his point by pushing the Voice and Welcome to Country
Speaker 2: campaigns of national victimhooden penance. Yet they voted Elbow and
Speaker 2: his lot back into power. Sky News Australia reports that
Speaker 2: the Labor Green's control of the Senate sets up the
Speaker 2: most progressive parliament ever. I don't get why Australians refused
Speaker 2: to learn from us Kiwi's We had six years of
Speaker 2: Labour Green's government from Hell under Jacinda Adern, I've got
Speaker 2: a hand it to the progressives. They always clearly stood
Speaker 2: for communist ideology, even the Pope. As I reflected what
Speaker 2: Pope Francis stood for after his death, all I could
Speaker 2: think of was his anti Trump, anti capitalism, pro LGBT,
Speaker 2: and pro climate change stances. For all intents and purposes,
Speaker 2: Pope Francis lived more like a modern day politician than
Speaker 2: the head of the Roman Catholic Church. He was more
Speaker 2: comfortable being in Davos than being in God's House. In fact,
Speaker 2: Heather Duplicy Allen remarked that he was obviously the Pope. Thankfully,
Speaker 2: Ramesh the Khur reminds us that there are others in
Speaker 2: the West who still want to preserve their national identity,
Speaker 2: take pride in their history and their contributions to human
Speaker 2: welfare and progress, through their enlightenment, through their industrial revolution
Speaker 2: led by fossil fuels, which have raised living standards around
Speaker 2: the world, which have made education and better health possible,
Speaker 2: which have made life better for all of us. The
Speaker 2: conservative West needs to unashamedly and clearly stand for the
Speaker 2: preservation of faith, family, community, and country, without which we
Speaker 2: would not have the first world countries we live in today.
Speaker 2: It's very very well stated. Jin Thank you, missus, producer,
Speaker 2: thank you, Thank you later and see you next week
Speaker 2: now if you'd like to write to us, of course,
Speaker 2: latent at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz or Carolyn
Speaker 2: Caroline with the Wide News Talks AB dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2: Do we love getting their male.
Speaker 4: We love getting your mail guys exactly.
Speaker 2: Now, let me go back to the comment I made
Speaker 2: to Nick when we were talking about how girls and
Speaker 2: blokes are different. If you like an attitude to what's important,
Speaker 2: especially when you're younger, and I may mention of education
Speaker 2: and media, and I have a very good example of it.
Speaker 2: I didn't have it until after the interview was done,
Speaker 2: when I just came across it. But I'm saving it
Speaker 2: because it's it's worthy of more attention that I have
Speaker 2: time to give it now. But there is there is
Speaker 2: a little trial I want to follow. Bear with me.
Speaker 2: Why did we need a This is where I want
Speaker 2: to start. Why did we need a court of Lord
Speaker 2: to tell us what a woman is? It's written by
Speaker 2: Brendan O'Neil from the UK and it was published in
Speaker 2: an Australian news in the Australian newspaper. Actually, why did
Speaker 2: we need a court of lord to tell us what
Speaker 2: a woman is? There was a time when every babbling
Speaker 2: toddler knew there were men and women and that they
Speaker 2: were different. Even our Neanderthal forebears understood sex difference. They
Speaker 2: didn't know much, but they knew half the tribe was
Speaker 2: made up of grunting blokes who were good with spears,
Speaker 2: and the other half of females who might get pregnant.
Speaker 2: It skewed by putting it, and yet in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five were apparently need five judges to explain what a
Speaker 2: woman is. Ours is an age of dazzling tech that
Speaker 2: you can ask an app on your phone to explain
Speaker 2: the War of the Roses and traverse entire continents in
Speaker 2: mere ours. And yet when it comes to that simplest
Speaker 2: of queries, what is a woman? People erm and r
Speaker 2: and say I don't know. Shall we defer to the courts?
Speaker 2: That's been my overriding emotion following the UK Supreme Court
Speaker 2: ruling this week that essentially it was on mid April
Speaker 2: actually essentially says trans women are not women. I'm glad
Speaker 2: that ruling has been made, but I'm be amused and
Speaker 2: kind of scared that we needed it and that's all
Speaker 2: we need from it, because it's my lead into some
Speaker 2: other things. It's the same sort of thinking, if not
Speaker 2: the same sort of a group of people who will
Speaker 2: argue with you that women can be men and men
Speaker 2: can be women and get pregnant, etc. And who, on
Speaker 2: the other hand, will push the climate change bs and
Speaker 2: try and enforce it on all of us. So with
Speaker 2: that in mind, the Spanish power outage provides a very
Speaker 2: good example. Daniel Le carl who is who is an
Speaker 2: economist I think from memory, and who writes extremely well.
Speaker 2: It is. On April twenty third, I participated in a
Speaker 2: conference at the European Parliament on the future of nuclear
Speaker 2: energy with experts from all over Europe, where I warned
Speaker 2: that with the current energy policies, blackouts will be the norm,
Speaker 2: not a coincidence. The shortsighted and sectarian policy of the
Speaker 2: activists who populate the government has led us to the
Speaker 2: worst blackout in history of Spain. We have been without
Speaker 2: communication or electricity for nearly eleven hours. This blackout, with
Speaker 2: the immediate collapse of fifteen gigawatts of power in the system,
Speaker 2: is the consequence of a policy that penalizes base energy,
Speaker 2: key to providing key to providing stability to the system,
Speaker 2: and plunders the energy sector. Governments have been dedicated to
Speaker 2: closing nuclear power plants, making them unviable with the abusive
Speaker 2: and confiscatory taxation, penalizing investment in distribution with absurd regulations,
Speaker 2: imposing a volatile and intermittent energy mix, and burning energy
Speaker 2: with elevated taxes and administrative delays. Of what could go wrong?
Speaker 2: He asks everything, and it happened. Renewable energies, while essential
Speaker 2: in a balanced energy mix, cannot provide cannot provide safety
Speaker 2: and stability due to their volatility and intermittent nature. That's
Speaker 2: why it is essential to have a balance system with
Speaker 2: baseload energy that operates all the time, such as hydropower,
Speaker 2: nuclear and natural gas back up. Destroying access to nuclear
Speaker 2: energy with unnecessary closures and confiscatory taxation has been part
Speaker 2: of the fundamental causes of the disaster and the blackout.
Speaker 2: Then to the mesas wire Juaqim book The Spanish Blackout
Speaker 2: shows why the green dream is unsustainable. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of articles like this, I've just chosen the best
Speaker 2: couple I've come across. When the Spanish electricity grid collapsed
Speaker 2: one ordinary Monday in late April, the dreams of renewable
Speaker 2: energy and the green transition team died with it. On
Speaker 2: these pages, Ryan McCann was quick to point out that
Speaker 2: under European Green Deal type political convictions, affordability and reliability
Speaker 2: are wait. Affordability and reliability are not important virtue of
Speaker 2: the European electricity grid. Shoving too much odious excrement onto
Speaker 2: a single electricity grid is bound to break. While the
Speaker 2: story is still unfolding, and the Spanish officials have denied
Speaker 2: that renewables were the cause of the loss in frequency
Speaker 2: that shut down all our electricity for some sixty million
Speaker 2: people in Spain and Portugal, several commentators and the experts
Speaker 2: have now publicly come out and confess that the overwhelming
Speaker 2: reliance on SOLA at the time of the blackout was
Speaker 2: to blame. The literal gas lighting by the increasingly irrelevant
Speaker 2: mainstream corporate media was mostly sad. Amusingly, the author of
Speaker 2: the propaganda piece in Reuters tried to diffuse blame away
Speaker 2: from the green deities by saying that it wasn't the
Speaker 2: renewable energy's fault, but the renewables in the modern grid.
Speaker 2: Then he writes, spelling it the way it sounds. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's back up. Have you heard anything about ESG, environmental,
Speaker 2: social and governance recently? Me neither. There was a remarkable
Speaker 2: turnaround in the corporate use of ESG in just a
Speaker 2: few short years, from being all encompassing, uttered by every
Speaker 2: CEO and shoved down the throats of every employee by
Speaker 2: every HR department, the curse of the Earth at every
Speaker 2: sufficiently large enough company, it's all just vanished almost overnight.
Speaker 2: Nobody cared anymore. One recent survey suggested that only seven
Speaker 2: percent of those who were hired a couple of years
Speaker 2: ago to work on corporate ESG are still employed to
Speaker 2: do that today. At it all happened quietly. Matt Levine
Speaker 2: of Bloomberg Money Stuff Fame has repeatedly hypothesized that ESG,
Speaker 2: like so much else, was a low interest straight phenomenon.
Speaker 2: Once rates and inflation started biting, people were quick to
Speaker 2: abandon virtue signaling environments, social justice efforts. Here's a prediction,
Speaker 2: in light of the Spanish disaster, the green wave or
Speaker 2: the ominous energy transition that shoves solar panels on every
Speaker 2: roof and blankets. The landscape with wind turbines will suffer
Speaker 2: a similar fate. Now that's only a little way into it.
Speaker 2: Mesis Institute is where you'll find it. But that now
Speaker 2: leads to the ultimate. This is a trail we're following it.
Speaker 2: After referring to the Beatles song he Comes the Sun,
Speaker 2: Thaddeus Marcatta writes, standing with both hands extended for a
Speaker 2: fifty million pounds squeeze of the public teat United Kingdom.
Speaker 2: Scientists claim the sun you celebrate in song contributes to
Speaker 2: runaway climate change, and these white robed high priests of
Speaker 2: Perfidious Albion's climate cult have a novel idea to control
Speaker 2: the weather and forestall the impending apocalypse dimming the sun. Apparently,
Speaker 2: for these climate cult dimwits, sunshine on their shoulders makes
Speaker 2: them anything but happy. Per Simon Kent's article in Writbart News,
Speaker 2: this is not the only hair brain scheme. These liberal
Speaker 2: dimwits at ARIA promise for someone else's money. ARIA the
Speaker 2: Advanced Research and Invention Agency. According to the Daily Telegraph,
Speaker 2: a host of possible options for climate control are being
Speaker 2: considered by scientists with government approval. Alongside fifty million pounds
Speaker 2: in taxpayer funds. Scientists are considering outdoor field trials, which
Speaker 2: could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or brightening clouds
Speaker 2: to reflect sunshine as a way to prevent runaway climate change.
Speaker 2: Clearly the old school itinerant cloud seeders preying upon the
Speaker 2: angst of drought riddled farmers and their small towns have
Speaker 2: nothing on Aria at its siren song of salvation, for
Speaker 2: they have the entire UK government on board to foot
Speaker 2: the bill for what should be should have been named
Speaker 2: Operation Data Less. I'm not sure I pronounced that correctly,
Speaker 2: but I know who he is, father at Icarus, and
Speaker 2: that is basically where I'm going to. If you're interested,
Speaker 2: you will go to Am Greatness and find it under
Speaker 2: the name of Stadius Marcotta, and at that point we'll
Speaker 2: say that throws us out of the studio. For podcasts
Speaker 2: two hundred and eighty three, it's been very enjoyable. And
Speaker 2: if you do go and look up some of those articles,
Speaker 2: let me know your thoughts. I think it's fairly obvious
Speaker 2: what they will be. Why is it? Do you think?
Speaker 2: This is a question I leave you with, Why is it?
Speaker 2: Do you think that people like mister Watts, people like
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister, stick their fingers in their ears and
Speaker 2: will not listen to a bar of any alternative. But
Speaker 2: they're corrupted pathway, so latent at Newstalks ATB dot co
Speaker 2: dot Nz, Caroline at Newstalks ATB dot co dot Nz.
Speaker 2: We shall be backwards two eighty four very shortly, So
Speaker 2: thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks at B Listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online, and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio