Australian politics live: Scott Morrison tells US that Australia's ability to resist Chinese influence is ‘in jeopardy'
Date: 2025-07-23T20:21:52.000Z
Title: Welcome
Content: Good morning and welcome to our live politics blog, for another day of the first week of parliament's new term. I'm Martin Farrer with the top overnight stories and then it will be Krishani Dhanji with the main action.
Scott Morrison has warned that the ability of the Australian political system to resist pressure from China is 'somewhat in jeopardy'. Giving evidence at a hearing of the US House of Representatives committee on China in Washington overnight, the former prime minister said the objective of the Chinese state was to undermine democracies and that the west had to be 'clear-eyed' about the threat.
Barnaby Joyce says he has no intention of challenging David Littleproud's leadership of the Nationals, despite taking the spotlight vowing to introduce a private member's bill to ditch net zero. Speaking to ABC's 7.30, he denied his political career has evolved into his 'being an agent of chaos'. More coming up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
A sinister Left-wing cabal is turning Britain into a dystopia
Who would have thought that a generation after the collapse of communism, freedom of speech would become controversial? Surely we had definitively settled this question of whether governments should prohibit or limit the expression of opinions. The Free World, as it was then known, had won the argument without even having to take up arms. Those peoples who had been subjected to the official suppression of ideas and information had repudiated that tyranny of their own accord. In East Germany, they simply walked out from under it. In Soviet Russia, Gorbachev's attempt at a more open, liberalised regime ended in ignominious collapse because a little bit of freedom just increased the longing for more. So surely there can be no doubt: liberty of thought and expression is what modern peoples demand. Yet here we are. A democratically elected government in a nation which gave the world Magna Carta has apparently installed a dedicated bureau to monitor all opinions put forward in public discourse. Further, it proposes legislation which would compel any forum that gave a platform to opinions considered to be unacceptable, to remove them. This is, prima facie, outrageous: a betrayal not only of the historic principles of open democracy but of the victories of freedom over totalitarianism that marked the last century. So how on earth could anyone – any political party or governing class – in the Western world possibly think that such a move was necessary or desirable? It would be easy (indeed it is easy) simply to condemn it as the arrogant imposition of what a smug elite considers the limits of morally acceptable opinion. Any statement or assertion that appears to be encouraging or condoning racism, or even prejudice against an approved social minority, must be policed out of existence. It is scarcely necessary to warn where this policy could lead – or what it implies about the attitude of the current Government to its own population. But perhaps this is a more complex and confusing situation than it appears and paradoxically, some of the factors that contribute to it may be the result of precisely the ideological successes of which the West is most proud. What is it exactly that has produced this panic over unlimited public expression? It is the unbridled, unchecked and irresponsible dissemination of supposed 'information', or opinions based on deliberately deceptive information, on publicly accessible platforms often augmented by fake videos, AI doctored photographs and false 'evidence'. This is a new thing for which traditional democratic societies have no previous experience. We have become aware quite suddenly of the possible consequences in terms of civil disorder and mortal risk that the dissemination of such material can produce – and that it now spreads remarkably, and terrifyingly, quickly. Suspicion, distrust and their anarchic effects can be ignited and propelled at a speed that those responsible for keeping order in the streets have not previously encountered. So yes, as you will have gathered, I do believe that the rise of social media – which has no enforced codes of practice or legal liability – is presenting civil authority with an unprecedented set of problems. That observation, of course, is not original. It is, in fact, the official justification used by the government for its repressive measures. The added element in this toxic mix which has received less attention is the use that these media serve in the infiltration by professional activists of any convenient social cause. As a youthful Trotskyite, I was tutored in the techniques of exploiting any social discontent as a force for undermining trust in capitalism and what was considered to be the sham of democratic freedom. At the end of every meeting of what was then called International Socialism (IS), now known as the Socialist Workers Party, a list was recited of the latest venues at which we were expected to appear, brandishing pre-printed posters and demonstrating solidarity with whatever protest group was currently disrupting the functions of an industry, government department or public agency. When I see all those disparate agitator groups now, whether they are demonstrating on behalf of the environment or against racism – carrying identical placards (generally with the words 'Socialist Workers Party' emblazoned at the top), I can guess what instructions they have been given. Make as much noise and monopolise as much of the television news coverage as you possibly can. Try to make the story about you and your message, even if you have been bussed in to compete with a genuine spontaneous protest over a local issue. I thought of this again when the police got into big trouble for apparently offering protection to, or even escorting, 'Stand Up to Racism' counter protestors at the site of a migrant hotel demonstration. Their presence appeared to be endorsed by the police who seemed to be shielding them from the anger of unworthy locals. But what should be done if, say, an anti-racist group's planned arrival makes it necessary for the police to prevent any potential violent confrontation and breakdown of public order? That would be, in my experience, a classic professional activists' technique. They would exploit the fact that it is the first responsibility of the police to maintain order in the streets whatever the issue. The ultimate irony may be that this phenomenon has been given extra propulsion by the collapse of communism. Back in the dark days of the Cold War, infiltration by the Left was a serious business run by serious people. The Communist party loathed what they considered to be juvenile, undisciplined Trotskyist messing around. My friends and I were regularly warned that our indiscriminate, ill-thought out negativism was going to discredit the sacred Marxist cause. While IS (now the SWP) handed out copies of the Socialist Worker newspaper on street corners, the Communist Party members maintained their terrifying diligence, their 'cover' identities and their dedicated take over of trade unions and nuclear disarmament campaigns. That's all gone now. Anti-capitalism in its most inchoate, incoherent and irresponsible form is running the show and it is making use of all the opportunities modern technology offers to spread dangerous lies and inflammatory messages. There is no easy answer to this.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Nigel Farage: They claim I'm ill — the truth is they're running scared
The rumours began to spread through Westminster a few weeks ago, on both sides of the political divide. Labour and Tory MPs began to gossip openly about Nigel Farage's health, suggesting that the 61-year-old's relentless schedule was taking its toll. The Reform UK leader is happy to set the record straight: the rumours are untrue. 'I think the fact they are spreading these rumours — which they are — is because it's the last card they've got,' he said. 'They can't question us on immigration. They can't question us on crime. They have nothing to go on.' Farage's carefully cultivated public image of the smoking, pint-swilling raconteur is rooted in reality. He still enjoys a drink and the occasional lunch that can drift on for hours into the afternoon. But he is changing with age. The long days — rising at 4.50am, going to bed at 11pm — are exhausting and the Reform UK leader says he has moderated his lifestyle to suit. 'I don't think I've ever worked under more intensity than I have for the last year,' he said. 'It's an enormous task, building a new political party and movement. I'm trying to moderate with age. 'I wouldn't say the BMA would hold me up as a pin-up boy, but I'm feeling good. A bit of exercise, I walk the dogs. Yesterday I had lunch with a very interesting chap. We got through lunch with just one bottle. I'm not too bad at all really. I look at people I was at school with and think I'm doing well.' Not sweating the small stuff Farage says the biggest change to his lifestyle is that he is now more zen. 'I just don't let little things worry me. I don't let online criticism worry me. Nothing really gets to me at all any more.' Farage is more serious than he has ever been. With Reform UK riding high in the polls — they have held their lead since April and their support shows no signs of ebbing — he believes that he has a genuine shot at becoming prime minister. 'This is it,' he said. 'It's the last shot for me. I actually think in the view of an increasing number of people it's the last shot for the country.' That Farage's health has become a source of discussion in Westminster is perhaps unsurprising. With Farage at the helm, Reform UK is a genuine threat to the established political order. Without him, his critics believe, his nascent party would collapse. He is, they say, a one-man band. Farage appears to be acutely aware that he is potentially a single point of failure. He is trying to promote those around him, particularly Zia Yusuf, who has emerged as one of the party's main spokesmen. His aim is to ensure that Reform UK is not synonymous with his personal brand but recognised in its own right. 'I'm very keen to promote others,' he said. 'I don't want the crime campaign just to be me. It's about the brand Reform itself, standing on its own two feet. We are getting there. People say to me in the street now, 'I think I'm a Reformer'.' The real opposition His rivals begrudgingly praise his communication skills. His campaigning on Brexit and his insatiable appetite for public appearances have made him a household name. He is a friend of President Trump, and when JD Vance comes to the Cotswolds this month for a family holiday Farage will be one of the few British politicians he sees. His profile easily eclipses that of Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader. A YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent of voters had a clear idea of what he stands for, compared with 30 per cent for Badenoch and 26 per cent for Sir Keir Starmer. On the question of who was providing the more effective opposition, Reform or the Tories, the response was overwhelming: 42 per cent said it is Farage's party, compared with 9 per cent who said the Conservatives. Nearly half of those who voted Tory at the last election said Farage was doing a better job at opposing Starmer. The polling is so clear that Starmer has decided that he had no choice but to treat Farage as the real leader of the opposition. This may be in part political opportunism — Reform UK's rise damages the Tories more than Labour — but senior figures in Labour are increasingly concerned about the strategy and that by calling Farage out at every turn Starmer risks alienating his base and creating a monster that will ultimately consume him. Farage's new work ethic borders on Stakhanovite. He is planning to take four days off over the summer — he wants to go fishing with his son — but spends most of his time hammering home his new message on law and order. Britain, he argues at his now weekly press conferences, is broken. There is a steady drumbeat of announcements — sending violent offenders to El Salvador, halving crime within five years, building nightingale prisons on army bases, scrapping the online safety act — along with a string of public endorsements. Farage's aim is to at once broaden Reform UK's message while also drawing a direct link between migration and crime. He is said to be building up to an announcement on deporting illegal immigrants. Those involved say it is a substantive piece of work; there is talk of a 100-page policy document detailing how Reform UK would take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). A draft bill is being drawn up with emergency powers to allow the detention and deportation of people arriving in Britain on small boats. Although Farage insists that the Tories are irrelevant, the approach appears to be aimed in part at outflanking them. Badenoch is expected to use her conference speech to confirm plans to leave the ECHR to tackle small boat crossings. Farage intends to get there first by going faster and harder. Preparing for power The expected strapline for Reform's conference will be Next Steps as Farage seeks to embed in the minds of voters the idea that it is preparing for power. The party has sought to professionalise its operation, using an influx of money from new members to move to a bigger office in Millbank tower. The office comes equipped with a live studio space, which Farage can use to film ad hoc videos to respond to fast-moving events. The intention is to make Reform UK more agile and responsive. Reform saw Trump's visit to Scotland this week as proof of the tectonic shift in British politics. The highlight from Trump's extraordinary 70-minute press conference with a largely silent Starmer was when the president was asked what his advice to Farage and Starmer would be before the election. 'You know, politics is pretty simple,' Trump said. 'I assume there's a thing going on between you and Nigel, and it's OK. It's two parties. But generally speaking, the one who cuts taxes the most, the one who gives you the lowest energy prices, the best kind of energy, the one that keeps you out of wars … a few basics.' The headlines were, inevitably, about the fact that the president had offered Starmer unsolicited advice that he needed to cut taxes and stop the boats. But of arguably far greater significance was Trump's acceptance of the premise of the question: that the next election would be a battle between Starmer and Farage. Badenoch and the Tories were not even part of the conversation. The Tory leader did not have a meeting with Trump at his Turnberry golf course but is expected to meet him during his state visit. But the challenge for Badenoch is that Labour and Reform are both intent on squeezing the Tories out of the picture. Sticking to the script Labour is drawing up plans for its conference, and Reform is likely to feature heavily. Starmer will reprise his message on the need for growth at all costs — necessarily so, given the anaemic state of the economy and the scale of tax rises expected in the autumn budget. But Farage and Reform are likely to be a constant theme as Labour hones its attacks. Those attacks are still largely based on three fronts: accusing Farage of trying to sell out the NHS, being a Putin stooge and promulgating fantasy economics with unfunded pledges. Senior figures in government admit there is little evidence that the attacks are working, but argue that this is not the point. Labour believes that the messages it is embedding in the minds of voters now will come to the fore when the general election comes into view — when the prospect of Farage entering No 10 becomes a reality. But what if they don't? After all, Rishi Sunak repeatedly said that voters would change their minds about him and the Conservatives during the white heat of the election campaign. The election result was even worse for him than had been expected. The murmurings of discontent are growing louder. One senior Labour source said that 'you can't out-Reform Reform' by going tough on issues such as immigration — it doesn't wash with voters. The other fear is that giving Farage a platform and painting the idea that he could become prime minister risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy — that he might just do it.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The US is complicit in genocide. Let's stop pretending otherwise
Can we finally stop pretending that what we have been witnessing in Gaza over the past 22 months is a 'war,' a 'conflict,' or even a 'humanitarian crisis'? Many of the world's leading human rights and humanitarian groups – including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders – agreed months ago that what is being livestreamed to our phones on a daily basis is indeed a genocide. This week, Israel's own leading human rights group announced that it had reached 'the unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated action to intentionally destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip'. In other words, said B'Tselem, 'Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip'. The debate over whether or not Gaza is a genocide is, effectively, over. So can we now also stop pretending that we are mere bystanders to this genocide? That our sin is one only of omission rather than commission? Because the inconvenient truth is that the US has not just looked the other way, as tens of thousands of Palestinians have been besieged and bombed, starved and slaughtered, but helped Israel pull the trigger. We have been complicit in this genocide, which is itself a crime under article III of the Genocide convention. As retired Israeli Maj Gen Yitzhak Brick acknowledged in November 2023: 'All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it's all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can't keep fighting. You have no capability … Everyone understands that we can't fight this war without the United States. Period.' In fact, given Brick's assessment, I would argue that what we have witnessed in Gaza from the US government is worse than complicity. It is active participation in an ongoing genocide. Donald Trump has given Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and his far-right government not only the green light to 'clean out' Gaza and 'finish the job', but also the arms, intel and funds to do so. When Netanyahu launched his blockade of all food and aid going into Gaza in March, he emphasized it was done 'in full coordination with President Trump and his people'. 'Over the past six months,' Axios reported in late July, 'Trump has given Netanyahu an almost free hand to do whatever he wants in Gaza.' An Israeli official told the site: 'In most calls and meetings Trump told Bibi: 'Do what you have to do in Gaza.'' Trump's Republican allies in the House and Senate are even more gung-ho. Forget complicity; Congress is filled with GOP cheerleaders for genocide, from Senators Tom 'bounce the rubble in Gaza' Cotton to Lindsey 'level the place' Graham. The newest member of the House, Randy Fine, a Republican representative of Florida, has called for the nuking of Gaza and said just days ago that Palestinians in Gaza should 'starve away' until the Israeli hostages are all released. (A reminder that incitement to genocide is also a crime under Article III of the Genocide convention.) But we cannot let Democrats off the hook either. The first 16 months of this mass slaughter unfolded on a Democratic president's watch. From the get-go, Joe Biden gave Netanyahu and his cabinet of génocidaires everything they needed – 2,000-lb bombs to drop on refugee camps filled with Palestinian children? Check. UN security council vetoes to prevent the passage of resolutions calling for a permanent ceasefire? Check. The burial of internal US government reports warning of war crimes and famine in Gaza? Check. It wasn't just Biden. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress spent much of 2024 casting vote after vote to keep arming, funding and whitewashing the mass killing of Palestinian civilians. Even now, in the summer of 2025, seven high-profile Democratic senators were happy to take a smiling photo with Netanyahu, including the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who claims talk of genocide is antisemitic and says his job 'is to keep the left pro-Israel'. Then there is the US media's complicity in this genocide. It isn't just the Radio Rwanda wannabes over at Fox, where the morning host Brian Kilmeade has said it was hard 'to separate the Palestinians from Hamas' and the primetime host Jesse Watters has said 'no one wants' Palestinian refugees and 'demographically [Palestinians] are a threat'. There are also genocide enablers in the liberal media. Those who repeatedly insist Israelis have a right to defend themselves while never asking whether Palestinians do. Those who parrot Israeli government talking points while sanitizing the violence inflicted on Gaza. Palestinians, remember, are not killed by Israeli bombs or bullets; they just 'die.' US newsrooms have bent over backwards to present 'both sides,' even when one side has been deemed genocidal by some of the world's leading scholars on genocide. The New York Times, per an internal memo obtained by the Intercept, instructed journalists covering Gaza to limit the use of the terms 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing' and to 'avoid' using the phrase 'occupied territory' when referring to the West Bank and Gaza. One study of media coverage, also published by the Intercept, found that 'highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like 'slaughter', 'massacre', and 'horrific' were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around'. Another study, published in the Nation, found that 'with one exception the Sunday shows covered and debated [Gaza] for 12 months without speaking to a single Palestinian or Palestinian American'. Go beyond the media. Elite US institutions are also disgracefully complicit in the annihilation of Gaza, from the Ivy League universities that punished anti-genocide protesters on campus; to the white-shoe law firms that disqualified anti-genocide applicants for jobs; to the big tech companies accused by a UN special rapporteur of profiting from the genocide. Most Americans, of course, don't want to believe that our country is helping commit one of the 21st century's worst atrocities. But, again, we must stop pretending. Our complicity and collusion are clear. As my Zeteo colleague Spencer Ackerman has written: 'This is an American genocide as much as it is an Israeli one.' The US supplied and then resupplied the bombs and bullets used to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians; the US facilitated the destruction of homes and hospitals; the US signed off on the starvation of children. These are the undeniable facts. And so to the Biden and Trump administrations, to Democrats and Republicans in Congress, to the US media, I say this: history will judge you. For the bombs you sent, the votes you cast, the lies you told. This will be your shameful legacy when the dust finally settles in Gaza, when all of the bodies have been pulled from the rubble. Not defending your ally or fighting terrorism, but non-stop complicity in a genocide; aiding and abetting the crime of crimes. Mehdi Hasan is the founder, CEO and editor-in-chief of the media company Zeteo.
