Artwork for podcast The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
Episode 416 - Chinese Spy Pidgeon
5th February 2024 • The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove • The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
00:00:00 01:07:11

Share Episode

Shownotes

Topics:

(00:43) Intro

(05:09) Dutton Wedged

(08:22) Poor Conservative Electorates

(11:33) Median Wage

(21:34) Essential Poll

(28:55) Hecs Vs Mining Tax

(34:11) Boys School Turns CoEd

(39:23) Iran Iraq

(43:56) Chinese Spy Pidgeon

(48:11) Imran Khan

(56:31) Saul Eslake

(01:04:19) UK Version of Robo Debt

Chapters, images & show notes powered by vizzy.fm.

To financially support the Podcast you can make:

We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.

We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au



Transcripts

Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over time,

Speaker:

evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

Speaker:

But today, we observe a small tribe, akin to a group of meerkats, that

Speaker:

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

Speaker:

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Speaker:

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Speaker:

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

It just occurred to me that I don't know the collective

Speaker:

noun for a group of meerkats.

Speaker:

Is it a pack, a tribe, a herd?

Speaker:

Joe, help me out here, because I was just about to declare that, you know,

Speaker:

we've got the full complement here.

Speaker:

Scott the Velvet Glove, who was ill last week.

Speaker:

Apparently it's a mob.

Speaker:

A mob, okay.

Speaker:

We have a full mob of meerkats for you on this podcast, dear listener.

Speaker:

Streaming live to you from Brisbane, 8pm on Mondays.

Speaker:

And, yeah, a podcast where we talk about news and politics, sex and religion.

Speaker:

Like a small mob of meerkats, we're on our little hill, looking out on the

Speaker:

world, trying to figure out what's going on, and trying to explain it to each

Speaker:

other and to you, the dear listener.

Speaker:

I'm Trevor, aka The Iron Fist.

Speaker:

Returning from an illness is Scott the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

Tell everybody how you are, Scott.

Speaker:

I'm very well thanks, Trevor.

Speaker:

I'm, uh, back over it and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

I was, it nearly knocked me on my arse for two days.

Speaker:

I didn't feel all that good on Sunday night, but I went to bed early and woke

Speaker:

up feeling really shitty on Tuesday.

Speaker:

So, aside from that, I was over it on Wednesday, so I, um, on Monday

Speaker:

actually, so on Tuesday I tested myself again, was still showing

Speaker:

a faint line of being positive.

Speaker:

So I tested myself again on Friday.

Speaker:

And it was almost gone, so I tested myself on Saturday

Speaker:

morning, it was completely clear.

Speaker:

Very good.

Speaker:

Of course, COVID is what Scott had, everybody, so, and uh, with

Speaker:

five vaccinations under his belt, he was able to deal with it.

Speaker:

That's probably why I was able to get over it so quickly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And Joe, you've had your own medical episodes, but we won't go into the

Speaker:

details of those because they're quite messy, really, and we don't, we don't

Speaker:

want to ruin anybody's dinner with that, so we'll just leave that as it is.

Speaker:

Yeah, so if you're in the chat room, say hello.

Speaker:

Nobody there yet, but people normally turn up.

Speaker:

What's on the agenda?

Speaker:

Well, you know, it's a podcast about news and politics, sex and religion

Speaker:

in Australia and around the world.

Speaker:

We're going to start with Australia with the tax changes, stage three.

Speaker:

And the fact that Dutton is now getting wedged by this.

Speaker:

There's an essential poll came out guys, I didn't give this to you in

Speaker:

the notes, but we'll run through Australians and their views on,

Speaker:

uh, Stage 3, Gaza and the Republic.

Speaker:

Um, we'll talk about, uh, a bit of statistics, because we were

Speaker:

mentioning average wage the other day.

Speaker:

And I came across another article talking about how do we talk about average wage,

Speaker:

median wage in Australia, and, uh, a school tragedy that has parents crying,

Speaker:

a spy pigeon, a Chinese spy pigeon.

Speaker:

Scott, do you, one of my favourite animal stories that we did

Speaker:

was, uh, Dexter the Peacock.

Speaker:

Do you remember Dexter the Peacock?

Speaker:

That was the, um Uh, the Travelling Companion Bird, wasn't it?

Speaker:

The support animal.

Speaker:

Support animal, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, it was quite an impressive peacock.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Full sized peacock.

Speaker:

And the person arrived at the airport and, um, expected to be able to

Speaker:

board the plane with their support animal, which was text to the peacock.

Speaker:

That's going back a long way.

Speaker:

That was in the first handful of episodes, I reckon that one's got.

Speaker:

It's probably pretty early.

Speaker:

Yeah, going back about eight years or so.

Speaker:

Dexter the Peacock.

Speaker:

Wonder whatever happened to Dexter.

Speaker:

And, um, might get on to Imran Khan.

Speaker:

I think we'll get on to Imran Khan and Pakistan and what's happened there.

Speaker:

No surprise, but it's going to involve some foreign policy meddling

Speaker:

by the United States of America.

Speaker:

And, um, Saul Eslake described the worst policy decision by

Speaker:

an Australian government ever.

Speaker:

Uh, Scott Morrison's hands are all over it, so we'll mic in onto that.

Speaker:

So that's on the agenda.

Speaker:

There's chapters for this podcast.

Speaker:

If your app is smart enough, you should be able to see some chapters.

Speaker:

You can scoot around the topics, skip some, listen to some twice.

Speaker:

It's up to you.

Speaker:

But, uh, okay, let's get going.

Speaker:

Saw an article that said, um, Opposition leader Peter Dutton's seat of Dixon,

Speaker:

which is your electorate, Joe.

Speaker:

Yep, never voted for it.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Can't blame you.

Speaker:

In the analysis found 85 percent of taxpayers would be better off under

Speaker:

Labor's plan, um, than the original format for the Stage 3 tax cuts.

Speaker:

He hasn't declared what the I don't know what the Liberal Party is going

Speaker:

to do when the revamped tax cuts come before Parliament, but, um,

Speaker:

he's got no choice, has he, Scott?

Speaker:

No, he's got absolutely no choice to back them.

Speaker:

I mean, it was, it was bloody criminal stupidity that the

Speaker:

Labor government actually backed the original Stage 3 tax cuts.

Speaker:

Now, I said right from word go that all he had to do was actually during

Speaker:

the election campaign, he said, look, we're committed to Stage 3, but

Speaker:

we're not committed to the way that Stage 3 has been originally written.

Speaker:

So, assuming we win, we will have a look at them and we will rejig

Speaker:

them and that would have been fine.

Speaker:

And they were worried about being wedged.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

And look, lo and behold, they're now wedged in Dutton.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Because it just makes sense.

Speaker:

The original policy was so bad.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

If you can't take a bad policy And explain it, offer an alternative and

Speaker:

wedge your opponent on that, then you just shouldn't be in the game.

Speaker:

So, uh.

Speaker:

But you do realise that Dixon will still vote Dutton back in?

Speaker:

Of course.

Speaker:

God alone knows why.

Speaker:

Yes, of course.

Speaker:

Yeah, because I gather that Dixon isn't one of the wealthiest

Speaker:

suburbs of Brisbane, is it?

Speaker:

No, well, it's the outer suburb.

Speaker:

Yeah, no, so it wouldn't be, you wouldn't have many millionaires

Speaker:

out there, so, God knows.

Speaker:

I mean, it's not like, even, um, the, the guy that's, um, Max,

Speaker:

whatever his name is, the, um, Green.

Speaker:

You know, he represents Bulimba and Hawthorne and all that sort

Speaker:

of things, which are really the premier suburbs in Brisbane.

Speaker:

And, you know, I, I just think to myself that Dutton is really You know, I cannot

Speaker:

believe that he was actually going to try and make out that this was a terrible,

Speaker:

ghastly thing that the Prime Minister did by breaking an election promise.

Speaker:

You know, it's one of those things, like I remember at the time you

Speaker:

were saying that either the shovel or something else was saying, oh,

Speaker:

but we didn't think he was serious.

Speaker:

Sue Albanese, you know, which is just, it's one of those things.

Speaker:

It was so blatantly obvious that it was wrong that anyone that actually tried

Speaker:

to defend it need their heads read.

Speaker:

Yeah, because the vote is here.

Speaker:

We'll be looking at Facebook adverts from Dutton, which will

Speaker:

no doubt spin it in his light.

Speaker:

Well, I've joined the Liberal tribe and as part of their loyalty to

Speaker:

the tribe, they will vote for them.

Speaker:

Even if the policies are against their best interest.

Speaker:

Their personal interest, yeah.

Speaker:

Because Labor raises taxes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And they're gonna be worse off under a Labor government.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And because Liberals are much better economic managers, just all those things.

Speaker:

But there's really an interesting class thing happening here because

Speaker:

traditionally, you know, the Liberals and the Nationals were

Speaker:

the conservatives who were seen as, as the party for the well to do.

Speaker:

And if you look though, at their actual electorates that they're

Speaker:

representing, because they've been pushed out into these.

Speaker:

Regional suburbs, regional areas have actually been pushed out

Speaker:

where their remaining base is the lower socio economic group.

Speaker:

So, I saw this tweet from Koz Samaras, um, saying that, uh, did you know that

Speaker:

the National Party with the LNP and to a lesser extent the Liberal Party

Speaker:

hold well over half of the top 20 poorest federal seats in the country.

Speaker:

Um, they now hold none.

Speaker:

Of the top income electorates.

Speaker:

So they really need to work out, um, which class they want to represent.

Speaker:

And it's because all those electorates fell to the Teals.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

You know, it's just.

Speaker:

Yeah, or to the Greens.

Speaker:

Or to the Greens.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, so they still think of themselves as a party for the upper class Mmm,

Speaker:

sort of financially, but they've pitched themselves Through sort of culture war

Speaker:

issues, I guess To a policy platform.

Speaker:

The lower middle class.

Speaker:

That that is It's really only finding favour in the regions where people are

Speaker:

poorer, so this party of the upper class is now representing, effectively, the

Speaker:

lower class at the electorate level.

Speaker:

They're the party of theocracy, and a lot of the poorer, certainly the

Speaker:

western Sydney suburbs are the more religious, it's the hills, uh, I think

Speaker:

it's much more the party of family values rather than the party of Um, The Rich.

Speaker:

I mean, yeah, economically it definitely is the party of the rich, but socially

Speaker:

it's the party of family values.

Speaker:

Yeah, so they've just reached this point where their policy talk on

Speaker:

things like tax and, and the, well, what did, uh, Nationals leader, uh,

Speaker:

what's his name, uh, David Littleproud?

Speaker:

Littleproud, yeah.

Speaker:

By the way, my wife taught him when he was in primary school in Chinchilla.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Yeah, they're fun fact for you.

Speaker:

She obviously didn't hit him hard enough.

Speaker:

Now, now Joe.

Speaker:

Yeah, I think his father was some sort of state member.

Speaker:

at the time.

Speaker:

I think it was, I think he did, he did have that sort of lineage

Speaker:

that his father or something like that was some kind of other.

Speaker:

He was obviously a National Party man and he was probably in the State

Speaker:

Parliament because back then anyone could get in if you, if you just held

Speaker:

your flag up and said I'm a National Party man you'll get a job there.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, um, so that was Chinchilla.

Speaker:

Chinchilla, by the way, was, um, considered just east of

Speaker:

Too Far West because it was a three and a half hour drive.

Speaker:

So, if you really had something on in the weekend, you could

Speaker:

make it back to Brisbane.

Speaker:

So, anyway, I've digressed.

Speaker:

But, um, what did he say?

Speaker:

He said that, um, um, the tax cuts in their original format were

Speaker:

about giving everyone a fair go.

Speaker:

And that, um, 190, 000 a year is not a lot, is what Lizzie Price is saying.

Speaker:

I suppose it's not when your starting salary is 210, 000 a year, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah, I think maybe I'll skip forward to, um, what is a lot, or what is the average?

Speaker:

We're going to say 190, 000 is a lot.

Speaker:

So, um, guys it was a bit further down in the notes, but

Speaker:

let's just skip through to it.

Speaker:

Um, because the Prime Minister noted that under the revision to the tax

Speaker:

scales, an average wage earner on 73, 000 per year would be 1, 500 better off.

Speaker:

So, Albanese was saying that the average wage earner is on, uh,

Speaker:

comes out at 73, 000 per year.

Speaker:

If he's correct, then when Little Proud says 190 is not a lot,

Speaker:

I think Little Proud's wrong.

Speaker:

But, um, yeah.

Speaker:

So Two and a half times as large, isn't it?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, so when they were selling the package, because remember,

Speaker:

this is a goddamn policy.

Speaker:

It's nearly six years old, like stage one, stage two, stage three.

Speaker:

The craziness of this is policy written six years ago that has

Speaker:

finally sort of come to the point where it was due to be implemented.

Speaker:

Um, so back in 2018 when the Morrison government was Morrison, it was one

Speaker:

of the conservative governments, was selling the idea and um, at that time,

Speaker:

um, of the budget, they were saying the annual wage was 84, 000 per year and the

Speaker:

treasury forecasting a rise to 103, 000.

Speaker:

So um, if, if the budget was talking about the average as being 84,

Speaker:

000 back then, how can Albanese be saying it's 73, 000 now and what

Speaker:

exactly is the average income?

Speaker:

And, as this writer in an article says, and you get the article in the

Speaker:

show notes, dear listener, it's Harry, uh, Chamai, writing in, I'm pretty

Speaker:

sure it was the John Menendee blog.

Speaker:

Um, he says, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

Speaker:

We found that during the COVID, um, yeah, time.

Speaker:

Boy, did we torture some data, or did some people torture some data?

Speaker:

Oh yeah.

Speaker:

We won't go there.

Speaker:

Um, so what he says, on closer inspection, the PM's reference to 73, 000 is a

Speaker:

reference to the average current taxable income across all full time workers.

Speaker:

Um, and, um, back in 82, oh, sorry, and back in 2018, um, it was the

Speaker:

annualised average weekly earnings of a full time adult at the time,

Speaker:

rather than all full time workers.

Speaker:

And, um, what we've got, of course, is, dear listener, the incomes at

Speaker:

the top end are extremely high, which skew the average to a higher point.

Speaker:

Then if you had lined every Australian up and walked along the line and

Speaker:

stopped at the halfway point, thereby getting the median wage.

Speaker:

So that to me Would seem like the best measure of the average Australian.

Speaker:

Scott, would you agree that if you just lined everybody up, poorest

Speaker:

to, well, lowest income to highest income and stopped halfway, that's

Speaker:

a better assessment average?

Speaker:

Well, I would have thought so, but um, I'm a fairly simplistic bloke.

Speaker:

I just like to add it up and divide by the numbers, that's all.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Joe, what's your preference for talking about an average Aussie income?

Speaker:

Well, see.

Speaker:

There are three averages, isn't there?

Speaker:

There's the mean, median and mode.

Speaker:

And the mode is, is actually the most numerous of all incomes.

Speaker:

So you, you take, you break people into bands or whatever, and then you

Speaker:

take the most popular of those bands.

Speaker:

And that probably is the better outcome.

Speaker:

But the median is considerably better than the mean.

Speaker:

That's a myth.

Speaker:

The mean is, the mean is simple, but it gets skewed by outliers.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I know, which it does.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Alright.

Speaker:

So that's, you know, I understand what you're saying.

Speaker:

You're criticising my choice of mean, so.

Speaker:

Yeah, I'm surprised by your preference for it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, you know, I'll take anything.

Speaker:

You know, I'm not going to sit there and actually calculate it myself, so

Speaker:

I'll just take the mean, the medium.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Let me scoot forward to get to, um, um, uh, he says in this article,

Speaker:

the suggestion that 200, 000 might be a middling income, uh, must

Speaker:

surely push the bounds of credulity.

Speaker:

And um, uh, he says the median is not 200, 000.

Speaker:

Um, basically, ah, what does he say here?

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

uh, data indicates that the average full time adult worker Yeah,

Speaker:

earning 85,000 in 2018, um, is earning around 99,000 in May 23.

Speaker:

So average full-time adult worker.

Speaker:

The median full-time earnings, um, uh, back in 2018 was

Speaker:

76,000, and now it's 88,000.

Speaker:

So if you're looking at full-time job.

Speaker:

Um, then the median full time job, uh, salary in Australia

Speaker:

is currently around 88, 000.

Speaker:

I think that's a sort of a fair, seems about right to me.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

A long way short of 190, 000.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

So, let's go back to, um, Essential Report.

Speaker:

And let me just find this, um, So they've been polling people about their

Speaker:

reactions to the, um, to the Stage 3 tax cuts and what's been going on.

Speaker:

And basically, overall, um, only, now it depends on the poll that you look at.

Speaker:

The essential poll says Only 22 percent of people want the Stage

Speaker:

3 tax cuts to remain unchanged.

Speaker:

So that's a huge proportion of the population agreeing with Labor at

Speaker:

least that it needs to be changed.

Speaker:

And that's the wedge that Dutton is facing.

Speaker:

That if he was to insist on no changes, only 22 percent of

Speaker:

people would agree with him.

Speaker:

Um, uh.

Speaker:

Actually, maybe I can share this screen.

Speaker:

Let me try and do that.

Speaker:

I suppose that, um, you know, how big a threat are the

Speaker:

Greens and that sort of stuff?

Speaker:

Could they actually cross the floor and vote to actually No, they wouldn't

Speaker:

actually keep them, would they?

Speaker:

If they did, they'd look very bloody stupid, wouldn't they?

Speaker:

Oh, the Greens will try and push for, um Yeah, I know they're going to push

Speaker:

to have more of it heading down the lower end, but I just think to myself

Speaker:

that they've got a choice in the end.

Speaker:

They either take what Labor has offered them, or they actually, um, vote to

Speaker:

maintain the current package, which would make them look very bloody stupid.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, top chart there is basically overall.

Speaker:

Because they ask people a year, um, sort of In November 23, what they thought,

Speaker:

then they asked them again in January 24, nothing changed much, but essentially 22

Speaker:

percent of people say leave it as it is.

Speaker:

The rest, to some degree, want things changed.

Speaker:

And, uh, males, 27 percent want to leave the tax cuts as they

Speaker:

were designed by Scott Morrison.

Speaker:

Females, 17 percent want to leave them, so Uh, women more likely

Speaker:

to want the tax cuts changed.

Speaker:

And age wise, this one's interesting, 18 to 34, um, 17

Speaker:

percent want them to continue.

Speaker:

Um, middle aged Australians, um, also want them to continue, 26%.

Speaker:

It actually decreased a bit for the boomers.

Speaker:

So the boomers aren't as bad as they normally are when it

Speaker:

comes to that age demographic.

Speaker:

They're not earning income.

Speaker:

Yes, that's it at that point.

Speaker:

You're right, Joe.

Speaker:

They're asset rich and income poor.

Speaker:

Of course.

Speaker:

Ask them what they think of franking credits and you'll get a different story.

Speaker:

Oh, absolutely.

Speaker:

We'll get on to franking credits.

Speaker:

And Coalition, according to Essential Poll, 33 percent of coalition

Speaker:

voters wanted to leave the tax cuts as they were originally designed.

Speaker:

Uh, everybody else is around the 16%.

Speaker:

So, that was, um, that was on the, uh, sort of Australian view on the tax cuts.

Speaker:

Um, just while we're here on the Essential Poll, uh, next one coming up is Attitudes

Speaker:

to the Israel Palestine conflict, and the third one on the chart is the one that

Speaker:

gets me here, guys, is to what extent do you agree with the following statement?

Speaker:

And the statement is, the Israeli response is proportionate, and 12

Speaker:

percent of Australians agree with that, and 20 percent somewhat agree, and 45

Speaker:

percent neither agree nor disagree.

Speaker:

So, to some extent, 32 percent of Australians think that the

Speaker:

Israeli response is proportionate, and 45 percent just don't know.

Speaker:

That leaves only 22 percent of Australians who think that the

Speaker:

Israeli response is disproportionate.

Speaker:

Does that seem, um, strange to you?

Speaker:

Well, I think 45 percent of people just don't care.

Speaker:

Yes, you did right.

Speaker:

45 percent just don't care.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Gender wise on that one, let's see what the, um, break up is.

Speaker:

Uh, and the Israeli response is proportionate.

Speaker:

39 percent of males agree, only 25 percent of females agree.

Speaker:

And voting intention.

Speaker:

Ah, the Israeli response is proportionate, uh, 45%, 44 percent of coalition voters

Speaker:

agree, 15 percent of Greens voters.

Speaker:

It's just interesting that something that's, you know, a conflict in the

Speaker:

Middle East between two countries splits opinion here so much along

Speaker:

party lines, party political lines.

Speaker:

It's like Our political parties don't have strongly stated foreign

Speaker:

policy views going into an election.

Speaker:

Nobody really looks at foreign policy and it's just amazing that it breaks down on

Speaker:

party lines so much what people think.

Speaker:

Yeah, but Dutton did make a big song and dance about it and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, he accused the Labor Party of being anti Zionist or

Speaker:

something like that, didn't he?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

He used to be very anti Semitism.

Speaker:

But Palestine has long been a, a thing of the left.

Speaker:

And therefore it doesn't surprise me that, um, the greeds voters, 'cause I

Speaker:

really don't consider labor left anymore.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Possibly centrist.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Um, and, uh, you know, LMP voters are again, theocrats

Speaker:

who want the end of the world.

Speaker:

And the sooner that the Arabs and the Israelis keep killing themselves,

Speaker:

the sooner Jesus comes back.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

In Australia?

Speaker:

Have we reached that point in Australia, Joe?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

I don't believe it's that large a proportion, but No.

Speaker:

But there is certainly part of it.

Speaker:

Part of it is that thinking.

Speaker:

You know, there is some within the Liberal Party that would actually hold

Speaker:

that view because their mates over in the Yanks in America believe that.

Speaker:

They also polled people about Australia Day and asked people, um, will you

Speaker:

be doing something to celebrate Australia Day or will you just be

Speaker:

treating it as a public holiday?

Speaker:

And, um, basically, people have tended towards treating it as a public holiday

Speaker:

and not necessarily doing something, um To celebrate the Australian ness of it.

Speaker:

But if you look at the age breakdown, the older you are, the more likely

Speaker:

to you are to celebrate Australia Day as Australia Day, rather than

Speaker:

just enjoying the public holiday.

Speaker:

And just finally, they also asked people about support for

Speaker:

Australia becoming a republic.

Speaker:

And Scott, strongly support.

Speaker:

Young people recorded the lowest.

Speaker:

So, um, only 12 percent of the young people, 18 to 34,

Speaker:

strongly supported a republic.

Speaker:

Whereas the, um, the older age groups, that was either 22 or 23 percent.

Speaker:

So you're a, you're still a card carrying member of the, um,

Speaker:

Yeah, of the Republican movement.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, that doesn't surprise me.

Speaker:

Um, I think that, um, probably the Republican movement's biggest

Speaker:

problem is that we're facing a generation of they don't care.

Speaker:

So as a result, uh, you, it really doesn't surprise me that people

Speaker:

don't care and that type of thing.

Speaker:

So that's where you've got those sorts of numbers coming up.

Speaker:

It's one of those things that, um, I did see something with it.

Speaker:

They reckon that the crown has had probably a bigger impact on the Republican

Speaker:

movement than anything else has.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That series on Netflix.

Speaker:

Yeah, it did.

Speaker:

It did actually paint.

Speaker:

The old girl is a complex figure, you know.

Speaker:

Complex, yes.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

A complete bitch at times, and you know, at other times.

Speaker:

A complete bitch at times, but at other times quite a human being.

Speaker:

One of those things, apparently she has watched it and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

And she actually admitted that, um, she does feel somewhat bad for

Speaker:

the way she treated her sister.

Speaker:

This is Queen Elizabeth.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Was it, was it produced before she died?

Speaker:

Yes, it was produced before she died.

Speaker:

Oh, right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

I only just saw her.

Speaker:

Been out for a while.

Speaker:

I only just saw her.

Speaker:

Been out for a long time.

Speaker:

Six months ago.

Speaker:

Something there, that's how far behind the times I am.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah, it's, it's apparently that, um, she admitted to someone that she feels

Speaker:

Badly for the way she treated her sister.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Over her marriage to Peter Townsend.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

So, you're right.

Speaker:

The younger group have a bit more ambivalent about it all

Speaker:

and don't have any strong views.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, that was Essential Pole.

Speaker:

Get rid of that from the screen.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

And Alison's in the chat room and says she saw a report that said two

Speaker:

thirds of people earning over 200, 000 or above support the changes.

Speaker:

I saw a similar thing.

Speaker:

I think that was from the Australia Institute.

Speaker:

That was it, yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And, oh, look, just briefly, one more chart to show you because I've

Speaker:

got it here, which was just a chart showing how much is carved off from

Speaker:

helping the top end and And then comes in to assisting the bottom end.

Speaker:

So that was a good chart, if it shows up correctly on there.

Speaker:

But, uh, does it?

Speaker:

Hang on.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's showing up.

Speaker:

Yeah, good.

Speaker:

So that was that one.

Speaker:

I think that, honestly, they've got to be very comfortable with

Speaker:

it because they're getting four and a half grand out of it all.

Speaker:

Which, on a weekly basis, turns out to be 86 bucks a week, which is fine.

Speaker:

You know, you compare that to the 9, 000 they're originally going to

Speaker:

get, then that is just too high.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, um, so there's a guy, Richard Dennis, from the Australia Institute.

Speaker:

He, um, used to have a podcast that I listened to whenever it came out.

Speaker:

It was the, um, can't think what it was called, but he was a, he's an economist.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And he does actually, he turns up sometimes on 7 a.

Speaker:

m.

Speaker:

too.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Talker.

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

He's got some things to say about mining tax and hex.

Speaker:

Here we go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I listened to it.

Speaker:

Listen to this.

Speaker:

Consider the fact that in Norway, they tax the fossil fuel

Speaker:

industry and they give university education to their kids for free.

Speaker:

In Australia, we subsidise the fossil fuel industry and we charge

Speaker:

our kids a fortune to go to uni.

Speaker:

Choices matter.

Speaker:

And the Australian government collects more money from HECS than it does

Speaker:

from the petroleum resource rent tax.

Speaker:

Thank you, children.

Speaker:

You're the backbone of our economy, not the gas industry.

Speaker:

That's an interesting statistic.

Speaker:

It's really fucking wrong, isn't it?

Speaker:

If you could just reach people and tell them that, you wouldn't have to argue

Speaker:

too long to say this is clearly wrong.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Look what these other guys are doing, maybe we should be doing the same.

Speaker:

How about we do it?

Speaker:

If you don't like it, don't vote for us, but if you do like it, vote for us.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, I just think that, I just think to myself that,

Speaker:

um If we actually did follow Norway's example, do they honestly believe that

Speaker:

the coal miners and the gas frackers and everything else that are over

Speaker:

here in this country, do we honestly believe that they would actually

Speaker:

pull up stumps and move elsewhere?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

They wouldn't.

Speaker:

They come here and they invest here because our ground is full of shit that

Speaker:

they can dig out and sell overseas.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Just criminal.

Speaker:

Future generations are going to be so angry with our generation.

Speaker:

And even if they did have sticks, the stuff's still in the ground.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Wait for someone else to come along who's willing to play the game and

Speaker:

say, Okay, here's a deal for you.

Speaker:

You're still making lots of money.

Speaker:

Just obscene amounts of money.

Speaker:

It's criminal.

Speaker:

Future generations are going to look back on Australia in the last 50 years.

Speaker:

And just go, what a chompy bunch you are.

Speaker:

And they're going to be very rightfully very angry about it, you know?

Speaker:

Well, I mean, the whole, um, wasn't it Sussan Ley?

Speaker:

Who was held originally to be responsible for future generations, the state of

Speaker:

the climate for future generations?

Speaker:

I know it was overturned on appeal, um, but is that not precedent for

Speaker:

suing governments for inaction?

Speaker:

Just over the amount of money that's being wasted.

Speaker:

On behalf of a future generation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I don't know what the current legal position is on that.

Speaker:

I do remember there were those cases.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So they won in the lower court and I think it was overturned

Speaker:

in one of the higher courts.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

But it might have been on a technicality.

Speaker:

Possibly.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There really should be a Minister for Future Generations who

Speaker:

gets to say, Hang on a minute.

Speaker:

This is just, um, lining the pocket of the current generation at the

Speaker:

expense of the future generation.

Speaker:

Well, I think that's really bloody crooked that, you know, the HECS

Speaker:

is higher than the mining resource rent tax, for Christ's sake.

Speaker:

Mmm.

Speaker:

Yeah, there we go.

Speaker:

But even when things are obvious like that, can a government actually sell it?

Speaker:

And, of course, we had Shorten could not make it into, um, being the Prime

Speaker:

Minister on the basis, probably, of the franking credits and how, um,

Speaker:

that panned out and, uh, there we go.

Speaker:

There's a chart showing that the richest 10 percent received 70 percent

Speaker:

of the franking credits in 2020, 2021.

Speaker:

But they need them.

Speaker:

It's one of those things that I find incredibly frustrating.

Speaker:

Oh, man.

Speaker:

I was very much in support of it and I just said to him, I

Speaker:

said to him once, I said, why?

Speaker:

You know, it was designed not to be a, it was designed not to pay you back the tax.

Speaker:

It was simply designed to stop you being double taxed.

Speaker:

And it was just something that Peter Costello invented because he was

Speaker:

embarrassed by the amount of money that was flowing to the government.

Speaker:

So they had no choice but to actually give it back to people.

Speaker:

Governments in good times are really dangerous.

Speaker:

Oh God.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

They're Costello Government was dangerous.

Speaker:

They could do all sorts of things.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And lock us into systems and become really hard to turn around.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

. Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, oh, here's another clip for you.

Speaker:

Um, like, you know, I unfortunately in high school went to an.

Speaker:

All Boys School, and it's one of the, I don't know if you can say regrets of

Speaker:

life, but, because I didn't have any say in it, but boy I wished I'd gone to a

Speaker:

co ed state school, and um, it took me years to overcome what had been done to

Speaker:

me there, and um, and so I was really determined that my kids would go to a co

Speaker:

ed school and have a normal childhood, which they did, thankfully, but um, Let

Speaker:

me just get a clip here, because one of the schools in Melbourne, I think it

Speaker:

is, has I believe it's Sydney, isn't it?

Speaker:

Sydney, was it?

Speaker:

No, I think it's Sydney.

Speaker:

Um, previously a boys school has, a principal has decided to make it a co

Speaker:

ed school, and here is the reaction.

Speaker:

I'm an old boy at the school, and my son is also an old boy, and the intention

Speaker:

was always that I'd have a grandson.

Speaker:

But I won't bring him to a co ed school.

Speaker:

It's all part of this sort of woke, toxic masculinity type palaver.

Speaker:

I'm sorry, but I'm not a, uh, a co ed person.

Speaker:

It's a boys school, it's always been a boys school, and, uh, uh, there's

Speaker:

no, um, justification, no explanation, no evidence to support this move.

Speaker:

I know my grandson was rejected from going to, uh, to year three in a

Speaker:

couple of years time because they had, uh, Thoughts of young ladies.

Speaker:

We are protesting against the school's decision to, uh, Uh, not

Speaker:

notify the parents and gag the parents and the students from having

Speaker:

a free voice to be heard about the school and the headmaster's

Speaker:

decision to make the school co ed.

Speaker:

It wasn't as strong as I would have liked to have seen today.

Speaker:

Well, I just think it's, uh, ridiculous that after 160 years of thinking

Speaker:

it's a good idea to have a boys, you know, a boys only school for the

Speaker:

development of boys through, you know, a very developmental part of their

Speaker:

lives without being influenced by.

Speaker:

Considerations of what, you know, they should look like or how they

Speaker:

should act in front of girls.

Speaker:

Why is that wrong after 160 years?

Speaker:

We have another meeting tonight that we're going to try and

Speaker:

look at more at the legal side.

Speaker:

Yeah, 160 years.

Speaker:

I mean, it's, it's not like we've ever seen evidence of, of private

Speaker:

school boys behaving badly.

Speaker:

Traditionally, it's just peer pressure from dead people.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It's one of those things.

Speaker:

I mean, you know, it's one of those things when I was at my old boys school

Speaker:

and that sort of stuff, I remember thinking at the time that I would be

Speaker:

better off in a co ed school because guys behave differently in front of

Speaker:

girls than what they do on their own, because they behave like utter wankers

Speaker:

when they're on their own, you know?

Speaker:

The bullying and everything else would evaporate overnight

Speaker:

if you put girls in there.

Speaker:

Oh, I'm not so sure about that, but Well, it would help.

Speaker:

Educationally, I think boys do better off in co ed and girls do worse off.

Speaker:

Absolutely, they do.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

Which is one of the things that I thought to myself that, um, because they say that

Speaker:

girls do better in single sex schools, but boys do better in co ed schools.

Speaker:

So My kids went to, you know, just a state high school, co ed, obviously,

Speaker:

and they reckon at university You could pick the kids who had gone to a single

Speaker:

sex school, like, their disbehaviour was really obvious, I reckon, so, um, yeah.

Speaker:

Alison, are you still there in the chat room?

Speaker:

Did you go to an all girls school, Alison?

Speaker:

Um, did you find at university a difference between, uh, kids Boys who

Speaker:

went to an all boys school, for example, where they I wouldn't be surprised

Speaker:

that, um, anybody that'd go to a co ed school and that sort of stuff would

Speaker:

probably say that boys were just a little less mature and that sort of

Speaker:

stuff by the time we got to university.

Speaker:

But the girls as well!

Speaker:

I know that, um, my daughter's daughter said that, uh, girls.

Speaker:

Mackaya State High School is where Alison went to high school.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But Alison, when you went to uni, did you notice any difference between those, you

Speaker:

know, who had your fellow students who had been to single sex schools or not?

Speaker:

Just curious as to whether you noticed anything.

Speaker:

So, yeah, there we go.

Speaker:

So that's private school.

Speaker:

First world problem there.

Speaker:

I can't believe that guy was crying.

Speaker:

Yes, you know, it's it's one of those things like I was gonna have a

Speaker:

grandchild, but I can't have one now.

Speaker:

Yes I thought it was weird that all private school boys

Speaker:

all wore the same clothes.

Speaker:

There you go So I had a certain type of dress style.

Speaker:

That's what Alison is saying.

Speaker:

I think at university Hmm.

Speaker:

Okay That was that Let's look around the world now Get away

Speaker:

from Australia, uh, Iran, Iraq.

Speaker:

So now we've got, um, there was an attack on a U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

Army base, um, in Jordan.

Speaker:

Killed three U.

Speaker:

S., three U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

soldiers.

Speaker:

Um, the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is blaming, um, Iranian backed militants.

Speaker:

Uh, some sort of drone, I think, came into the camp.

Speaker:

Um, and they've then launched attacks on what they say are

Speaker:

Iranian facilities that are in other neighbouring countries and places.

Speaker:

So they're saying it's Iran's fault and they've bombed a few

Speaker:

Iranian place, Iranian backed places in non Iranian territory.

Speaker:

Because, hey, they're the US and if you're not bombing some brown people in

Speaker:

the sandy desert somewhere, then just, you know, you're not doing your job.

Speaker:

And uh, of course, Iraqi resistance is claiming responsibility.

Speaker:

Um, uh, and the base is actually mostly in Syria and is used by the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

to steal Syrian oil and the Iraqi government wants the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

to leave as well.

Speaker:

So there's still enormous numbers of U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

personnel and U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

bases in these countries.

Speaker:

Despite the new government's wanting them to just piss off and go home,

Speaker:

but they insist on staying there.

Speaker:

So Guys, you reckon they might, you know, we did predictions at the beginning of

Speaker:

the year and I don't know that anybody predicted a sort of a hot war in the

Speaker:

Middle East Like getting quite sizable, but I don't think it's going that way.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

They're really keen to blame Iran for stuff They talk about the Iranian

Speaker:

backed Houthis And they're clearly trying to pin Iran for this, and Iran's

Speaker:

one of the bigger militaries able to Yeah, they've wanted to pick a fight

Speaker:

with Iran for a long time, but Yes.

Speaker:

I think they've always been scared off because it is one

Speaker:

of the bigger militaries.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That's why they've backed Saddam for so long.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, if it does actually come to fisticuffs and all

Speaker:

that sort of stuff, I've no doubt that the US will eventually succeed.

Speaker:

But, they're going to have to withdraw their support from Ukraine and

Speaker:

everything else, put everything into the Middle East, and they will succeed.

Speaker:

It's going to take them a very long time.

Speaker:

But they will do it.

Speaker:

Succeed as well as they did in Afghanistan?

Speaker:

No, it's one of those things, they're just gonna, they're just gonna leave behind

Speaker:

a wrecked country and all that sort of stuff that wasn't perfect but was stable.

Speaker:

And they're gonna fuck it up completely and then they'll withdraw.

Speaker:

Yeah, they'll succeed.

Speaker:

They'll succeed in transferring funds from the hands of taxpayers into

Speaker:

the pockets of big corporations.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

The military industrial complex and the makers of weapons and Yes.

Speaker:

Mills Steel complex, but but also the, the private security industry that

Speaker:

follows along, behind and builds all the infrastructure rebuilds the country.

Speaker:

Mm, yeah.

Speaker:

That was Dick Chinese company, wasn't it?

Speaker:

Holywell or something like that?

Speaker:

Or Holywell was one of the companies.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, it was also sort like that Black something.

Speaker:

Black rock.

Speaker:

Black Rock.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

I can't remember what it was.

Speaker:

I thought it was Black Rock, anyway.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, anyway, they're spoiling for a fight over there, and You know, if

Speaker:

they want to fight and that sort of stuff, they're going to get a fight.

Speaker:

But then their only, their only, their only support in the region is going to be

Speaker:

Israel, which will make it all that sort of a hell of a lot of a mess for them.

Speaker:

And, you know, it's, you know The 67 war, the Israelis won.

Speaker:

I'm not convinced that it would actually win another concerted effort

Speaker:

of Arab countries if they, if all, if all three of the Arab countries

Speaker:

actually took on Israel again this time.

Speaker:

But they do have nukes.

Speaker:

I know they've got nukes now, and I honestly believe that Israel would

Speaker:

actually be prepared to use them.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yeah, I think they would.

Speaker:

Blackwater, according to Don.

Speaker:

Thanks, Don.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, they're spoiling for a fight over there.

Speaker:

See what happens.

Speaker:

Um, that's, um, the Iranians, and I like this one about the spy pigeon.

Speaker:

So Yeah, I was reading them, I thought to myself, Jesus Christ,

Speaker:

how the hell did that happen?

Speaker:

Anyway.

Speaker:

A pigeon has been released in India after being held in detention for eight months

Speaker:

on suspicion of being a Chinese spy.

Speaker:

The pigeon's ordeal began in May last year when it was captured near a port in Mumbai

Speaker:

with two rings tied to its legs carrying words that appeared to be Chinese.

Speaker:

Yeah, they could've got used.

Speaker:

They could've got them They used in the past.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But they could've got them translated, couldn't they could have actually got

Speaker:

the, they could have actually got the words and that sort of stuff translated

Speaker:

into Hindi and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

And then there was, oh yeah.

Speaker:

It's not a spy pigeon, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So , uh.

Speaker:

But, um, Don in the chat room says you do know that the birds aren't real,

Speaker:

they're all surveillance drones, yeah?

Speaker:

Because you've heard about that person starting that movement, Birds Aren't Real?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So you've actually got dickheads out in the US actually dragging around

Speaker:

signs saying birds aren't real.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So the guy who started it did it as a joke.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

It seemed like there were enough people who were prepared to sign up

Speaker:

to the belief that it became a thing.

Speaker:

But, uh, yeah, anyway.

Speaker:

The animal turned out to be a racing bird from Taiwan, which had

Speaker:

escaped and travelled to India.

Speaker:

So it was in Chinese.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Joe, when you said they've done it before, Like, they've used

Speaker:

carrier pigeons to pass messages.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, so there's an April Fool's, so on the internet, there's a bunch of standards

Speaker:

that are called RFCs, and quite often there's an April 1st RFC, and one of

Speaker:

them is IP over Avian Carrier, which was literally sticking a thumb drive

Speaker:

onto a carrier pigeon to send messages.

Speaker:

And it has been done in real life.

Speaker:

Somebody decided to print out a message, a computer message, onto

Speaker:

paper, stick it on the leg of a carrier pigeon, er, a racing pigeon, send

Speaker:

it across town and then decode it.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

See, some people have just too much time on their hands.

Speaker:

Obviously.

Speaker:

Anyway, with typical Indian efficiency, it took them eight months to figure out that

Speaker:

it was just a harmless, um, racing pigeon.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Apparently, it's not the first time a bird has come under police suspicion in India.

Speaker:

In 2020, police in Indian controlled Kashmir released a pigeon belonging to a

Speaker:

Pakistani fisherman after a probe found that the bird which had flown across the

Speaker:

heavily militarised border between the nuclear armed nations, was not a spy.

Speaker:

And, um, yeah, so it's not the first time, and I thought, blowing it, blowing it.

Speaker:

What are they going to do with a bird?

Speaker:

What are they going to do, put a gun to its head and say you've

Speaker:

got to confess or we'll shoot you?

Speaker:

Well, you know, it's just one of those things, you just Well, I don't know.

Speaker:

They could just shoot it, and it would be dead.

Speaker:

It's a very, it's a very effective method of transferring messages.

Speaker:

We used to do it.

Speaker:

Yeah, it is.

Speaker:

Back up until the end of the First World War.

Speaker:

Exactly, but you know, you could find out what that message actually said.

Speaker:

They just actually have to take the paper off it, get it translated

Speaker:

into Hindi, and they say, oh fuck, it's got nothing to do with it.

Speaker:

But it's in code.

Speaker:

Yeah, and you know Indians got lots of important stuff that China would

Speaker:

just want to find out about, so.

Speaker:

I don't know about China, there's only Pakistan.

Speaker:

I know that China would like to know what India's up to, but it's just,

Speaker:

you know, they have come to blows over their Indian Chinese border, but you

Speaker:

know, it's just one of those things.

Speaker:

I just I don't believe that they kept a bird in custody for eight months.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, um, it was in ABC News, reported by the Associated Press, so one

Speaker:

assumes that the incident is correct.

Speaker:

So, had you guys been following Imran Khan at all?

Speaker:

And Yeah, I Had you had any understanding of what's going on there?

Speaker:

It's one of those things I didn't re I know that he had actually

Speaker:

spoken out against the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

and all that sort of stuff before I actually read the

Speaker:

whole thing that you sent us.

Speaker:

And it's one of those things, uh, was he too cooperative with Vladimir Putin

Speaker:

and Chinese President Xi Jinping?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

It's just one of those things.

Speaker:

He's probably too close to the Russians.

Speaker:

But anyway, he's also, he's the Prime Minister of an independent country.

Speaker:

He's entitled to have any sort of relationship he wishes

Speaker:

to have around the globe.

Speaker:

Uh, I honestly do not believe that what he was actually crucified for was that bad.

Speaker:

All he said was, you've got to actually solve this, you've

Speaker:

got to solve this, um, fight diplomatically, not on the battlefield.

Speaker:

Which is a perfectly valid thing for a country to say.

Speaker:

Aggressively neutral, I think it was described as.

Speaker:

They might call it aggressively neutral, maybe, eh?

Speaker:

Why are you being so aggressively neutral on this issue?

Speaker:

I just think to myself that Imran Khan, you know, he was probably the

Speaker:

best that Pakistan had to offer and all that type of thing, so I'd Joe,

Speaker:

were you going to say something?

Speaker:

Sorry.

Speaker:

Yeah, I thought that, um, he was scarily religious in some things.

Speaker:

Yeah, but he wasn't as religious as some of the others.

Speaker:

His wife is very, um, wears the full burqa, I think, or a fairly full covering.

Speaker:

A niqab, doesn't she?

Speaker:

Maybe not the burqa, but the next level.

Speaker:

Yeah, a niqab, doesn't she?

Speaker:

Yeah, I think she might be quite, uh, religious, but Yeah, I thought there

Speaker:

was something about blasphemy that, um He'd made comments on, or he'd brought

Speaker:

in some blasphemy law that was, maybe he wasn't such a As much of my, as I'm pro

Speaker:

secular, whatever he did in that line isn't enough to justify the US coming

Speaker:

in and organising regime change and having him thrown in jail for 10 years.

Speaker:

So, um, which is what's happened.

Speaker:

So, there's an article from Jeffrey Sachs.

Speaker:

You guys probably don't like Jeffrey Sachs because Uh, he was kind of taking

Speaker:

my, well I was taking his line on Ukraine and stuff, so, um, um, anyway.

Speaker:

So, in this article by Jeffrey Sachs, he says there's strong

Speaker:

reasons to suspect the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is behind, uh, the overthrow of Imran Khan, and, um, he says of

Speaker:

course, regime change by the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is routine, and there's a link to a report that counts 64

Speaker:

covert regime change operations.

Speaker:

The U.

Speaker:

By the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

between 1947 and 1989, that's a lot, and he says that Imran Khan's sin was to be

Speaker:

too cooperative with Putin and Xi Jinping, and while seeking to just have normal

Speaker:

relations with the United States, and Khan from the start said the conflict should

Speaker:

be settled at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield, like, guys, stop

Speaker:

killing each other, and start negotiating.

Speaker:

Um, he probably sealed his fate though when he held a large rally and he berated

Speaker:

the West and particularly EU ambassadors for pressuring him to condemn Russia.

Speaker:

And he also, uh, complained about NATO's war against terror in

Speaker:

Afghanistan as having, um, It's been very devastating for Pakistan.

Speaker:

And he told the cheering crowd about, uh, the US ambassadors wrote a letter

Speaker:

to us, meaning Khan and Pakistan, asking us to condemn and vote against Russia.

Speaker:

What do you think of us?

Speaker:

Are we your slaves?

Speaker:

That whatever you say, we will do?

Speaker:

He said, we are friends with Russia.

Speaker:

We are also friends with America.

Speaker:

We are friends with China and with Europe.

Speaker:

We're not in any camp.

Speaker:

Pakistan will remain neutral and work with Um, those trying to end the war.

Speaker:

So, one day after that rally, there is an Assistant Secretary

Speaker:

of State for the Bureau of South Central Asian Affairs, a Donald Lu.

Speaker:

So he's the American, um, he meets with Pakistan's ambassador,

Speaker:

um, an Asad Majid Khan.

Speaker:

And basically, um, a cable is then sent from Khan back to So, from the Pakistani

Speaker:

ambassador back to Pakistan and um, the cable quotes the American guy as saying

Speaker:

to the Pakistani ambassador, um, the people here in Europe are quite concerned

Speaker:

about why Pakistan has taken such an aggressively neutral position and then

Speaker:

said, quote, uh, I think if the, if the no confidence vote against the Prime

Speaker:

Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven.

Speaker:

Um, so basically telling the ambassador that the US will forgive Pakistan

Speaker:

if there's a no confidence motion against Imran Khan and otherwise

Speaker:

it's going to be tough going ahead.

Speaker:

So five weeks later after that threat, the Pakistan's military, um, controls or

Speaker:

has a hold over the Pakistani parliament.

Speaker:

and ousted Imran Khan in a no confidence vote.

Speaker:

And then they, according to Jeffrey Sachs, um, brazenly manufactured

Speaker:

charges of corruption against Imran Khan, put him under arrest.

Speaker:

And when Khan made known the existence of that diplomatic cable and the threat

Speaker:

made by America, the new government charged Imran Khan with espionage.

Speaker:

And that's what he's been convicted of for 10 years.

Speaker:

So the Americans threatened Pakistan, basically saying, life's

Speaker:

not going to be good for you.

Speaker:

Unless you do a no confidence motion against Imran Khan.

Speaker:

And when Imran Khan revealed that message, he was in charge with espionage

Speaker:

against Pakistan and given 10 years.

Speaker:

Ah.

Speaker:

When asked about Khan's conviction, the State Department had the

Speaker:

following to say, quote, it's a matter for the Pakistani courts.

Speaker:

And there we have it.

Speaker:

A man in another country thrown into jail for 10 years.

Speaker:

For being aggressively neutral.

Speaker:

It's quite a story, isn't it?

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Joe, any thoughts on that one?

Speaker:

Any hesitation?

Speaker:

Any sort of sounds about right?

Speaker:

Or you're like, yeah, it's a bit of a beat up?

Speaker:

Or you just don't know?

Speaker:

It's Pakistan.

Speaker:

I can't say I'm surprised.

Speaker:

Um, there's a lot of corruption in there, as far as I know.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There is, but as, as to whether or not Kahan was actually knee deep in

Speaker:

it, like they allege is another story.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

, you know, it's, and fine.

Speaker:

Sorry, go on.

Speaker:

It's one of those things I, I don't think we're ever gonna

Speaker:

know exactly what the truth is.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But if he, if he wasn't, and his opponents were, it's a good thing

Speaker:

to smear him with, isn't it?

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Apparently that, that um, that message is in the public domain

Speaker:

now, it's been leaked and it seems it's legitimate, so, there we go.

Speaker:

A successful regime change.

Speaker:

Chalk up another one for the United States.

Speaker:

And finally, in the show notes that the patrons get, will be

Speaker:

an article from Saul Eslake.

Speaker:

Um, he says, so, you guys um, ever heard Saul Eslake speak?

Speaker:

Never heard him speak.

Speaker:

I've read a lot of what he's written.

Speaker:

Never heard him speak.

Speaker:

Very, very smart guy.

Speaker:

Oh, he's a very intelligent bloke, for sure.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I was at some talk about financial planning stuff and, uh, he just spoke for

Speaker:

an hour and just had everybody captivated.

Speaker:

Like, intimate knowledge of all sorts of statistics.

Speaker:

Really quite a bright guy.

Speaker:

Anyway, he says, I regard the changes made to the carve up of

Speaker:

GST revenues among the states and territories by the Morrison government.

Speaker:

in 2019, um, as possibly the worst Australian public policy decision

Speaker:

of the 21st century thus far.

Speaker:

Big statement.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Could it be worse than AUKUS, I ask you?

Speaker:

I don't know that it is, but it's probably a close run thing.

Speaker:

And essentially, the story is this, that when the GST was created, and it's the

Speaker:

federal government collecting money, which is then distributed to the states,

Speaker:

and There was a principle of Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation, which was if some

Speaker:

states are financially better off than other states, then they'll get less of

Speaker:

the GST pie, a very sort of socialist approach to carving up the GST money.

Speaker:

And for most of our history, uh, Victoria and New South Wales Um, would have been

Speaker:

the most prosperous states, which would sort of lead to them getting less and

Speaker:

the other states getting more per capita.

Speaker:

But of course, we've had a massive mining boom in Western Australia, huge boom.

Speaker:

And um, similar, as he says here, from 2004 onwards, Western Australia

Speaker:

Got, um, as Paul Keating would say, kissed on the arse by a rainbow.

Speaker:

Where the iron ore price rose to over 100 per tonne.

Speaker:

So, for example, Western Australia's iron ore production, um, in 1999 was 3.

Speaker:

7 billion, and Um, in the last six years, it's averaged 111 billion.

Speaker:

So in, in 14 years, uh, it went from 3.7 to 111 billion per annum.

Speaker:

So, um, massive, um, production and similar stories in

Speaker:

relation to gold and um.

Speaker:

LNG, um, as well, like Big Boom, obviously, in Western Australia,

Speaker:

and, of course, Western Australia will get royalties from all of that.

Speaker:

Which means that Western Australia is doing very, very well and is

Speaker:

outpacing the other states because of that, more than any state has

Speaker:

ever outpaced the other states.

Speaker:

And, um, what Morrison did was changed, well, called for a Productivity Commission

Speaker:

report, but basically stitched things up so that the report was not done properly.

Speaker:

Um, Saul Estlake says people who worked on it were not happy with the way it was

Speaker:

done and some people resigned afterwards.

Speaker:

And the result was that they, um, changed the GST carve up.

Speaker:

So that, um, Western Australia would never get less than 70 percent per

Speaker:

capita of what it would have got had there been none of this equalisation.

Speaker:

So essentially, the previous system of, of less money to the wealthy

Speaker:

states was, changed by that system.

Speaker:

And why would the other states agree to it?

Speaker:

Well, Morrison put in a deal that no other state will be worse off

Speaker:

for the next like, uh, let me see.

Speaker:

For like 15 years or something like that.

Speaker:

So it was a thing that a government could, one of the other states

Speaker:

could just um, kick down the road.

Speaker:

Not, not going to be their problem, not going to be around in 20 years time.

Speaker:

So, so basically Morrison did a deal that was extremely favourable

Speaker:

to Western Australia, where it gets to keep a much bigger share of the

Speaker:

GST carve up than it would have.

Speaker:

And why did it allow that to happen?

Speaker:

Because They were about to throw their toys out the pram.

Speaker:

Because they had a number of Western Australian representatives.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

So, a relatively large contingent of, um, So, since the 2013 election,

Speaker:

the Liberal National Party Coalition held all but three of Western

Speaker:

Australia's seats in the House of Reps.

Speaker:

And after the narrow victory in 2016, they knew that if they were to have

Speaker:

any chance of retaining government in 2019, they needed to keep as many

Speaker:

Western Australian seats as possible.

Speaker:

So that's why the LNP, Liberal National Party Coalition, agreed, well, did this.

Speaker:

Why did the Labor Party agree to it and vote for it?

Speaker:

Because they wanted to pick up Labor.

Speaker:

They thought that they would then, if they didn't do that, they were

Speaker:

no chance of picking up seats for Labor in Western Australia.

Speaker:

So, Labor agreed to it, and um, so conversely the Labor opposition knew

Speaker:

that if it were to have any prospect of winning government at the 2019 election,

Speaker:

they had to win at least some of those seats from the Liberals, um, yeah.

Speaker:

And the title of the bill is, wait for it, uh, Treasury Laws Amendment.

Speaker:

Making sure every state and territory gets their fair share of GST, Bill

Speaker:

2018, harshed both houses of federal parliament with overwhelming majorities,

Speaker:

even though it was a crummy deal for everybody outside of Western Australia.

Speaker:

Problem with this podcast, it gets quite depressing.

Speaker:

So many bad stories.

Speaker:

So many bad stories.

Speaker:

Let's just add that to it.

Speaker:

Were you guys aware of that one at all?

Speaker:

Yeah, I was aware of it.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah, I never knew the details like that.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

I knew that, um, I knew that Western Australia had some kind of sweetheart

Speaker:

deal on it, but I couldn't, I couldn't tell you what the numbers were.

Speaker:

Yeah, so there we go.

Speaker:

Good job I saw S Lake explaining that in quite some detail,

Speaker:

which I've just paraphrased.

Speaker:

So, there we go.

Speaker:

Well Guys, we've finished on a sour note, I reckon.

Speaker:

Imran Khan and the Western Australian GST carve up.

Speaker:

Have you guys heard of the UK Post Office scandal?

Speaker:

Yeah, that is bloody crook what's going on over there.

Speaker:

Tell me about it, Joe.

Speaker:

It's their equivalent to Robodat.

Speaker:

Um, so, the UK Post Office, which basically is the government

Speaker:

department in small villages.

Speaker:

Uh, it was all outsourced, and they rolled out a new computer system,

Speaker:

which was overpriced and late, what a surprise, and suddenly said

Speaker:

that all of these postmasters had been, um, siphoning off money.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And, uh Accusing them of fraud.

Speaker:

Accusing them of fraud.

Speaker:

So, a whole bunch of them got sacked, and the government demanded money from them.

Speaker:

A number of them were actually charged with criminal offences, and it turns out

Speaker:

that the computer program was at fault.

Speaker:

And that the government, this, this happened well over ten years

Speaker:

ago, uh, and that the government is only just admitting to it.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

So, you know, there are literally thousands of people whose lives

Speaker:

have been turned upside down by a computer system that the government

Speaker:

maintained was perfectly accurate.

Speaker:

Like I said, Shadows of Robo Death, all over again.

Speaker:

Yeah, very much a Robo Death thing.

Speaker:

Anybody got a happy story?

Speaker:

No, I don't have a happy story.

Speaker:

It's, one of those things, I find it really bloody crooked that a, something

Speaker:

like that could go that you've got to the point where people were imprisoned.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And they had to prove that they were innocent, more so than the other

Speaker:

side proving that they were guilty.

Speaker:

Had the proof, had the, had the onus of proof not actually being

Speaker:

reversed, had the proof been on the prosecution, then someone would

Speaker:

have found out that the computer system was fucked a long time ago.

Speaker:

You know?

Speaker:

I imagine they probably had suicides and just a bunch of marriage breakups.

Speaker:

They did have suicides and marriage breakups and God knows what else.

Speaker:

Ugh.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

Come on guys, something positive.

Speaker:

I'll work on it for next week.

Speaker:

Sorry dear listener, but there you go.

Speaker:

That's the state of the world at the moment.

Speaker:

Um, I guess we'll be back next week with more news and

Speaker:

politics and sex and religion.

Speaker:

We'll talk to you then.

Speaker:

Bye for now.

Speaker:

And it's a good night from me.

Speaker:

And it's a good night from him.

Speaker:

Good night.

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube