Will Tommy Robinson sink Pauline Hanson? – Back to Back Barries podcast

I'm Barry Cassidy and I'm Tony Barry.Welcome to Back to Back Barry's, a podcast from Guardian Australia.Well, we've already seen the early signs of Pauline Hanson's One Nation starting to slip in the polls.Now we're seeing the early signs of internal party disputes and tensions with Hanson's judgment of behavior and that of Senator Malcolm Roberts at the center of it all.Now, this time, the media will give it more scrutiny.In fact, the media, specifically Channel 7 and the Spotlight program, is up to its elbows in the whole controversy.

The key issue, we'll get to the others, but the key issue is Hanson's stupid decision to go on a podcast conducted by Tommy Robinson, a far -right figure in the UK, jailed five times for assault, thuggery and fraud.And now there are reports in the nine newspapers that Barnaby Joyce has told colleagues that her decision was ill -advised and showed a misunderstanding of voters' attitudes.I still prefer my descriptor, but Barnaby is his own man.Now, the party rejects the suggestion that Barnaby is unhappy with Pauline, but Tony, there's a potential for this podcast to cause Pauline Hanson more damage than the National Press Club address.

Well, some of the stuff that One Nation has been doing over the last week, including Malcolm Roberts' comments about chemtrails and obviously her podcast with Tommy Robinson is, the voters who agree with that or believe or support in that, they've already won.They're already in their column and they'll probably in their column at the last election when her vote was six to 8%.So they're not winning any more votes.There's not a swing vote out there that responds well to these sort of issues this week.What she is at risk of is losing her current vote share because of these actions, including Malcolm Roberts' comments of people who, you know, they want to support her, they see her as their wrecking ball against a political model that's no longer working for them,But they can't support her because of these announcements or these associations such as Tommy Robinson.

So we're still going to see a high floor on the One Nation vote because of all those issues we've been talking about, that really negative mood sentiment.But I think we're starting to see her vote losing altitude now.I wouldn't be surprised if it starts coming down to the mid -20s and lower soon.

So I think the big difference is that the National Press Club caused external problems.This one causes external and internal problems.And this is the party that's got a big history anyway with internal problems.But just to give you a sense of it now, they're all ducking and weaving.And this will go on because people now are focusing on them and they're asking the questions.Jane Jaspi, her guru, her chief advisor, told the Nine Papers that initially when she went to London, the idea was to meet up with Nigel Farage.

Now, we knew that at the time.But then, of course, he that fell over because he resigned.So according to Ashby, the Channel 7 spotlight, it was spotlight, it went hunting for a filler.And they paid for a hotel room because they were going to now film the podcast and they needed the extra space.So there's a bit of an argy -bargy between them and Seven about who actually lined it up.But in any case, the bottom line is that Pauline Hanson and James Ashby, agreed to the interview, right?

So it really falls to them, no matter what role Channel 7 played in it.

Yeah.I mean, internal politics is actually just as hard as external politics.What the voters see, managing internal relationships within a political party is incredibly difficult, which is why I think, you know, once they've got 150 House of Reps candidates named, and then plus another 30 -odd Senate candidates named, then it becomes even harder to manage, no matter what sort of quality of those candidates might be.And we're seeing already, you know,Barnaby and Pauline Hanson have never had a great history of playing well internally.Barnaby's always had problems in the Nats, and as well, more specifically with the Liberal Party coalition.

And of course, Pauline Hanson has had, she's lost a number of MPs over the years, at state level in particular, who left the party.They are not personalities that work well together typically, and I've always had my doubts about how enduring that relationship will be.

And also there's just the undertone of leadership about it.I mean, you read occasionally that Barnaby Joyce has some sort of understanding about the leadership, but now Pauline Hanson is saying that her daughter Lee, her daughter Lee is the obvious successor, that could create frictions as well.I mean, Barnaby has invested a lot of time in this.

Yep.And we know what Barnaby's ego is like.So I don't think he would respond well to that.And of course, this week, Pauline Hanson and her designated press secretary, Gina Reinhart, were holidaying in Sicily together, which that's another internal voice that Hanson is listening to, which makes it harder.Coming back to internal politics, everybody wants to be the last person in the room with the leader.They want to be the last person to... talk with them, where the decision is made.

And of course, at the moment, it's a very competitive race at the moment between Ashby, Barnaby, and of course, now, Jenna Reinhardt.

Yeah, now let's go to Malcolm Roberts.And there's actually been a call for him to resign from Allegra Spender, a Teal independent whose seat has the biggest Jewish population in Australia.And it centers on this mural, which is It's an infamous anti -Semitism.mural.The senator posted this With his words, this is the most powerful pick I've ever seen.Now, to this point, nobody is actually republishing the mural.

They're not even attempting to describe it, except this has been a kind of a fairly widely used description in the more credible media that it shows several anti -Semitic conspiracy -laden tropes.Now, this is trouble in bucket loads for Malcolm Roberts because Pauline Hanson has been, I think, quite anxious.to cultivate the Jewish vote in the Jewish community, and to this point has been quite supportive.

So at the moment, Pauline Hanson is the product for One Nation, and voters don't really see beyond her.They don't identify Gina Reinhart at the moment, but I think there is a risk at some point where they see that relationship as being no longer part of the anti -establishment offering that Pauline Hanson offers.But also, you know, people like Malcolm Roberts aren't readily identified as One Nation leadership.So the challenge for her opponents, the Coalition Labor, is to define the risk of One Nation.Because at the moment, voters aren't seeing a lot of risk.And they've both been, I think Labor now trying to define the risk with her positions on award rates and penalty rates and so forth.

The coalition has been pretty lukewarm on that.Angus has just started, and that's something we might talk about later.But defining the risk is critically important.And Malcolm Roberts is a central part of that story, in my opinion, where they've got to start bringing him to the front and center and saying, it's not just Pauline.It's not just this sort of person that you identify as your outsider's insider.It's all these people around her, and that will start chipping off some bones.

Not all of them, but if they can...The difference for the coalition in particular, coming second and third in any given seat, is huge.Because if they come third, they're eliminated, and their preferences will mostly go to One Nation.But if they come second, they'll be the beneficiary of One Nation preferences, which could be 15 points.

The media is starting to pay attention in the way that you suggest their opponents ought to politically as well.Malcolm Roberts has been ignored, I think, largely in the past because he's just another garden variety conspiracy theorist, right?Even when he said that the Bondi massacre could have been a false flag event, didn't get a lot of attention.It's coming back now.They're bringing it back.But so have they brought back this which was quite an outrageous observation about the Ukraine war.

And Malcolm Roberts said Putin won his respect when he invaded Ukraine.And it's all part of the fight against globalists.Now, of course, the globalists is this concept of world government to the conspirators.So he said Russia were once controlled by globalists, not anymore.They are now entrenched in Ukraine.Now, Angus Taylor has had a bit of a go at him over this as well, and he said effectively it was time for Pauline Hanson to pull him into line.

The problem with that is that Pauline Hanson herself is not a critic of Vladimir Putin by any means.I interviewed her on Insiders in 2017.It was the only time in 26 years or something, the 25 years it's been on air that she did the program.And at the time, she was starting to gain a bit of ascendancy.That was short -lived as it turned out, maybe partly as a result of interviews like this one that started to be broadcast.But I asked her specifically about Putin and this is how it went.

Are you really an admirer of Vladimir Putin?

I listened to a speech that he gave in Parliament and even the people here in Australia were saying I wish we had a leader like that here.I wish someone would actually stand up and fight for this country and that's what the people expect.Do I, you know, I think he's a strong man and I think what I was reading about 97 % of people in this country respect him as a leader for their nation.

Might be a dodgy poll that one.

So anyway, do you believe everything you read?

No, I don't, and certainly not from Russia.

But, okay, I couldn't care less about Russia.My interests are here in Australia being a representative for this country.No, but just consider what Russia did.

They were partly to blame for the MH17 crash that killed 35 Australians.Vladimir Putin is the leader of that country.

That is disgusting what's happened, alright.

Well then how can you have any admiration for somebody like that?

Do I hate the man for killing people?If he was, have you got the proof that he did it?

No, no, but they did say that the missile came from Russia and he is the leader.

Well, did he push the button?So there's a lot of things here, Barry.We say these things, all I'm saying is, my comments were, I respect the man, he is very patriotic towards his country.The people love him.He's, you know, doing so well for the country.So many Australians here want that leadership here in Australia.

They want a leader here to stand up for the people and fight for this nation.

That was quite the endorsement in a way.And maybe it's time that she was asked again about her position on Russia, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin.But maybe Angus Taylor's got it wrong.She's really not the person to go to Senator Roberts and talk him through this issue.What they need is somebody who's prepared to headbutt Putin.And he's not that far away.

They could bring him back.The first thing I want to say is that poll that had Putin at a 97 % favorability was not a Redbridge poll.

I want all listeners to understand that.We did not do that poll.It's a Russian version of Redbridge.

Yeah.But I think, you know, with Malcolm Roberts, how do you solve that problem?One of my friends was saying this week that Eritrea is the country in the world with the least communications network in terms of mobile phone coverage and communications in general.If I was James Ashby, I would send Malcolm Roberts backpacking through Eritrea for the next two and a half years.Get him away from anywhere that any journalist can call him.Because I think the more he does media, the better it is for the media.

one nation opponents.

Yeah.He's been consistent all along.It's just that nobody's really been paying attention.Yeah.Consistently crazy.And they will from now on.

Now, you mentioned Angus Taylor and that he has changed tactics in a sense by going harder on one nation.He said things like one nation would send us broke.They're basically a column of smoke.It's a one person show.They don't have a team and so on.But then with a day or two of saying that, he said, I said all that with a heavy heart.

with a heavy heart.That seems to imply that you're talking about a family member or a close mate or somebody that you've had to criticise.It doesn't.It certainly doesn't suggest that your instincts are to dislike the party and what they're doing.

I can't imagine Paul Keating or Peter Costello criticising Labor with a heavy heart.It would have been full throttle.But I think this It also exposes the problem that Angus is dealing with.He's fighting on two flanks at the moment.He's fighting on the left and the right.And it is a difficult contest for him because he doesn't want to lose those voters.

He wants to win them back.But I think he's taking the wrong strategy.You've just got to put the foot down.on the accelerator and define the risk of One Nation.And, you know, a lot of politics is about scaring voters back into your column.

See, Ray Hadley pointed out, I think, in a post that he did during the week, which was precisely one side of the argument that you put, and his message to the Liberal Party was just leave One Nation alone.What are you doing?They're really popular.Well, Ray Hadley, they're no more popular than the Labour Party.And you're not saying to the Liberal Party, leave Labour alone because they're popular.I mean, you've got to make choices about these things and just make it clear to the public whether you're with them or you're against them.

You can't leave them.The One Nation monster is eating the coalition vote.So, you know, just sort of sitting back and just sort of waiting for it to happen is just not a real world solution for them at the moment.

Yeah.Now, of course, whether all of this will impact, and it just might.The whole environment might change fairly dramatically, but there's a Victorian election, of course, in November, and it's not too late for it all to impact on that.But what's your latest polling showing there?

Yeah, we've done some polling for the Australian Financial Review officially.There's also been some leaked polling that obviously came from the client, not us.But in our official polling, one of the interesting, you know, we always, the primary vote we all know, the three parties are locked in the 20s and it's very tight and the order of exclusion on a seat -by -seat basis will be critically important.But I often look to the mood sentiments underneath those numbers because those numbers are held up by perceptions about leaders or a mood for change and so forth.And one of the numbers I track often is, are the opposition ready for government?Have they done enough to deserve an election?

And in the past,the Victorian opposition have been in the net minus 20s, which is bad.They're now down to net minus 12.So they're making ground gradually.And that is a normal trajectory for a successful opposition to get to government.So that's a good sign for the opposition there.

For Jacinta and Labor, when they're asked if they've done enough to deserve re -election, they're net minus 50.So 48 % say they definitely haven't done enough.21 % say they haven't done enough.So that's 69%, a clear two -third majority, don't think they've done enough to deserve election.I think that's fundamentally Jacinta Allen's problem, if she makes it to the finish line, is that voters just don't believe this government has done enough, and they're not worthy of a re -election at the moment.

But as it stands now, you would have the Liberal National Party winning more seats than Labor, but One Nation winning how many?

Look, again, the order of exclusion has got to be critically important.If One Nation comes third in a lot of seats, their preferences will flow to either Labor and the Coalition, mostly to the Coalition, so they'll probably get Coalition elected.And also, perversely, if Labor comes third in some of these contests, particularly in the regions, if it's a One Nation versus Coalition contest and Labor comes third at, say, 20%, then their votes will be distributed.Around 15 points of that 20, around, will likely go to the coalition.So Labor's vote will probably get the coalition elected in some of those seats.But the key takeaway is if Labor's statewide primary vote is 26%, which is where it's tracking at the moment, they can't win.

They just cannot win.

They cannot win, if that was to remain the case, of course.But what's interesting to me iswhat sort of a win would the LNP get?You see, if Labour was to get a higher primary vote, or even more seats than the LNP, but only just, and then the LNP governs with the support of One Nation, it's a win, but it wouldn't be a great victory, would it?And it might be a very messy government.

Yeah, I think there's a strong chance Labour's vote will collapse even more.from the mid -twenties.You've got to remember at the moment, voters aren't really tuned in at state level yet.The campaign hasn't started, it's months away from starting.When the paid media campaigns of not just the coalition, but presumably One Nation as well, so, you know, TVCs on television, radio ads, social and digital media and so forth, attacking Labor and their record, but also the Premier, and she is net minus 42.And as I keep on pointing out, Dutton was net minus 20.

in the last week of the campaign.So net minus 42 is a bad place to be starting a campaign before the net negative ads start running.So I can really see a scenario, unless the coalition implode from here, where Labor's vote crashes to low 20s, in which case, I mean, we're talking about the MPs who survive will be able to fit into a canoe.

But there wouldn't be, is there still the prospect then of a majority LNP government in your mind, or they will have to rely on one nation?The prospect is still there in your mind?

So without sounding like I'm having a betty four ways, a Labor majority is still a possibility.It is absolutely a possibility.A Labor minority, more likely.A coalition minority, more likely.and a coalition majority.All four are alive events right now.

And it's just with One Nation in the field and polling at that level, it's just so hard to figure it all out anyway.Now the Liberal Party in the meantime are now thinking about modernising.to that extent gender quotas are in the mix.I just want to put it to you this way, the Australian Financial Review said they're considering this, that is gender quotas and modernising, to stave off extinction.The Auss said to avoid electoral wipeout.Now, you'd think with that kind of presentation, putting it in those terms, then they'd be right up for it.

But no.No.Now we hear that, of course, sources, quoting sources, but the gender quota is as good as dead.And why?Because Angus Taylor opposes it, Andrew Hastie opposes it, and the author, the senator himself, James McGrath, opposes it.So my question is, why would they put themselves through this exercise?

if they knew this was going to be the recommendation and now they have to walk away from it.

Yeah, I think Trish Jha, who's a researcher at the Centre of Independent Studies, did a very funny tweet that morning, which was, you know, given that the three Liberal Party people who came out opposing it, their first names were Andrew, James and Angus.Maybe they hadn't thought through the optics very well, which was both amusing and insightful.The real failure of the Liberal Party, though, is not to sort of necessarily agree on quotas.It's the fact that they haven't come up with a viable solution for nearly 20 years now.They keep on talking about targets, but these targets are never met.And mentoring programs and all these things are laudable, but the problems remain.

and their vote does struggle, particularly with younger professional women, and a lot of these seats which they need to win, particularly those teal seats, there is a very high population of young professional women and their partners and husbands.

The report contains a couple of things.One that we've mentioned before, that the average member of the Liberal Party membership is a seven -year -old male and the average Australian is a seven -year -old male.-year -old woman who has either been born overseas or has one or two parents who were.That's one issue I'd have to face.The other was on climate change, which struck me that it remains a top -tier issue for under -35s.So any resistance to that won't go over well with that group.

Yeah.Again, another issue that the Liberal Party has struggled to deal with internally.In its favour right now, climate change is coming off the boil a bit, pardon the pun, because cost of living and housing is just so high.It's just so entrenched right now with voters.But it's still there.And when you sort of ask voters in focus groups, you know, where you didn't mention climate change, they sort of say, oh, well, I'm sort of dealing with the more immediate week to week mortgage or rent and so forth.

But it still remains a symbol to voters of whether the party is modern and listening to their concerns.And so that's the real danger for the Liberal Party right now.They won't lose votes per se.on their position on the issue.But it's one of those classic examples where the issue isn't the issue.

When you're modernizing, though, and the author said of the task ahead of them, they've got to ask themselves, what would Menzies do?If you're modernizing, do you go back and ask yourself, what would somebody do who'd left the party 60 years ago?Is that the way to modernize?

Well, I think Menzies' picture course was for the forgotten people, families, suburbs.This is an issue that resonates in those areas.But I would look at what Matthias Korman did more recently.He's a guy who was involved in two leadership changes over climate change.And then, of course, when he pitched for the job at OECD, he became the greatest advocate for action on climate change, urgent action on climate change.He's adaptable.

Yeah.And I think a lot of liberals should be asking themselves, if Matias can do it, I can do it.

Probably good advice.Look, just before we go to a break, an email from Peter on Count Binface.He said he's surprised when last week we talked about Nigel Farage in the by -election, that we didn't mention Count Binface as a head in the polls.And in the absence of the major parties, and he's getting significant online presence, Could this just be, are they just kind of allowing the luxury of opinion polls, or are they not fooling around?I mean, Count Binface, of course, is a comedian who wears a bin on his face, and what do you say to that?

Yeah, I was kicking myself for not mentioning, I did make a note of it last week too.to tell listeners and viewers they should go and download and watch it because it was hilarious.But that is going to be a fascinating by -election to the point where Kemi Bidnok in her question time with the Prime Minister did make a joke about it, which got a great laugh from Keir Starmer as well about a debate that the United Kingdom needed this debate between Count Binface and Nigel Farage.So anyone who hasn't yet seen it, I would highly recommend it.

I'm not ruling it out.I'm not in the current situation.All right, we'll take a break.All right, we're back now.I just want to mention a poll this week on housing affordability, and it showed that 61 % of people supported a drop in house prices, 61%.Only nine were actually opposed to the concept, 9 % with 29 % undecided or neutral.

And that covered every age and income and political persuasion.And that support grew for cheaper houses, 7 % since the budget.I think that'd be kind of welcome news to the government who had to deal with, of course,the allegation of lies because they promised that this wouldn't happen, that initially they had to deal with that, and then they had to deal with the impact after the budget, which didn't go over very well at all.But they're extraordinary figures, aren't they?61 % supports it.

Yeah.At the end of the day, though, I think the lived experience and what actually happens in the longer term, and by that I mean at the next election, voters will make assessments, no doubt, on that policy setting based on their own experience.Some market analysts say real estate is softening right now, but then it'll pick up again.We don't know.But those with a lot of equity If they lose, say, 5%, 10%, 15%, I don't think they're going to be terribly exercised about that if they've got a huge amount of equity.Those with negligible equity or negative equity, especially those who bought in it with the 5 % deposit that the government offered recently, would be Or really anybody who bought in in the last four or five years.

Yep.Yep.Anyone who's got negligible equity, I think will be sort of probably quite upset by a property decline, a property market decline in the longer term.And of course, those who are trying to get into the market, they've got some cash already and are on the verge of buying.They'll obviously be quite pleased, the market is softening.And then those who really don't have any savings and no prospect of getting that sort of $150 ,000 deposit or $100 ,000 deposit will sort of feel like they're not being catered for anyway, because it's all fine and well for the market to be softer, but they've got no way of getting in.

So where that ends up over the next two years, I think will be instructive.But what I do know in politics is that you know, losers grumble louder than those winners applaud.And, you know, if you might have picked up a slightly cheaper property getting into the market for the first time, how happy will you be versus those with, you know, say $50 ,000 equity in a property who then feels that they've lost that advantage?

What really struck me though, of all of the houses in Australia, like 66 % are either people who own the house outright or are paying off a mortgage.Far more people either own a house or paying it off than are renters, right, in this country.And yet you still get that result.And even those who already own a house, only 14 % were against the concept of house prices falling.So I think it could have an impact on the debate.

Yeah.And look, one of the problems is people make They rely too much on demographics.And they sort of say, well, you know, this will appeal to Gen Z and millennials.And that's certainly true.you know, their parents as well and grandparents, it's also important to them that their children can get into the market.So a softer property market will also sort of, you know, resonate really well with those people.

We have grandparents all the time saying, you know, my children and grandchildren are going to have to move 30, 40 kilometres away.And that's a big day trip for us to visit our grandchildren.And so, you know, it's an issue that is cross -generational.which makes it so hard to predict where people are gonna land on election day.But the government's got a lot riding on it.It could be great for them electorally, but it could be catastrophic as well.

Now, just back to Count Binface on this policy too.I mean, politicians who promise more than they can deliver, you know, it doesn't work, not Count Binface.One of his policies is to deliver one affordable house.You know, with that kind of approach, he might do better than we do.thought.Now, just finally on the AI announcements by the government to minimise water and fund their own power supply, a key to it.

But he also, Anthony Albanese has set up an office within the Prime Minister's Cabinet, within his own office, I suppose.to try and embrace the opportunities that come with AI, but at the same time, keep an eye on the social dislocation and so on.Now, I was a bit surprised to see Angus Taylor come out against this.This is a topic that I think a lot of people are worried about.They might not fully understand it, but they get that there'll be opportunities, but they also get that there could be a very nasty downside.Don't you really need somebody kind of keeping an eye on it and scrutinizing it?

If it's inside the prime minister's office, then it's going to happen.

Yeah, I think Angus is probably right on a policy point of view.I think it's like trying to regulate gravity.I just don't know how you regulate the internet, particularly AI.But from a political point of view, I think Albanese's got it right.Voters in all of our research are incredibly anxious about AI.They see nothing good at it.

They're worried about their own job security, their economic security.They think it's terrible for mental health.It's all downside.And the only positivity that they can see is medical diagnosis and treatment.they think it might help there.But every other dimension of it, they see downside.

And I think Albanese is signalling to them, I hear your concerns, I'm going to try and help as much as possible.Now, whether materially they can do anything about it, I'm highly sceptical, but it's a good signal to send.

When you say they can't regulate, they have regulated with the under -16s and what they can see on the social media.They've had a recordat the copyright issues, and most of the media has benefited from that.So that's sort of a precursor in a way, isn't it?It shows that it's worth a crack.

Yeah, but the social media thing is, again, something that, in practicality, you can't properly regulate.But again, in all our research, Gen X parents who are quite tech savvy, they know that there's millions of ways to get around the social media ban on under -16s.But they keep on saying, I know that, but it helps.I need help because I don't know what my kid is accessing.I worry about it endlessly.Are they being bullied online or are they being exposed to things they shouldn't be exposed to?

And this will help.It's not going to fix it.But it will help, and I need help.So again, smart politics, even if the policy is flawed.

Yeah.And you just want your governments, anyway, making sure that these companies pay their way, for a start, especially when it comes to water and energy, and that they don't provide the books and the music that the creative people in this country are providing now.And that's the real danger.

And data centers is something where the social license is almost non -existent.Initially, in our research, when they're talking about the Victorian government is banking a lot on this in terms of their economic growth, investment in data centres, and initially people, when they didn't have much definition around it, was like, oh, sounds reasonable, sounds fair enough.But now that they're starting to see some of these projects being built, whether it be on the TV news or pictures or social media or from friends, family, loved ones.And there's one in Footscray West, which is huge.It's bigger than the Footscray Hospital.So now that people have got some definition around it and realise the scale of the

these things, social licence is just falling off a cliff at the moment.

New York was the first to say they don't want them.Yeah.We'll see how far that goes in the United States and here.Well, that's it for this week.This podcast was made on the sovereign lands of the Wurundjeri people.It was produced by Daniel Simo and Bert Nguyen.

The executive producer is Hannah Parks.

I'm Barry Cassidy.

And I'm Tony Barry.And this is Back to Back Barries, a Guardian Australia podcast.