On the Murdoch family’s latest legal drama
Chris McLenaghan writes: It is easy to dismiss this latest chapter in the real-life Succession as akin to the TV series based upon the Murdoch family.
However, it is worse than that. In his dotage, all Rupert Murdoch and son Lachlan care about is their perception that continuing to imperil all Western democracies (not just the US) matters more than what the likes of Elisabeth and James Murdoch, in particular, want to do to end the damage caused by the continued support of Trump and co.
You only have to see what the diminished power of Murdoch in the UK has resulted in. With only a tiny TV presence via Talk TV and plummeting newspaper sales, UK politics has corrected, big time, to the centre. Starmer may have won anyway, but Murdoch provided the Tories with no cover to keep the furniture, as it were.
A more sensible yet still significant conservative voice in America would see a similar correction in the longer term. The US election is line ball. Without Fox’s neo-nationalist bleating, the numbers would be far stronger for Kamala Harris.
Denise Marcos writes: What reward for creating a successful business empire? Money, assets, comforts, power? But not, in this case, satisfaction. Murdoch Sr may be pondering what the ultimate payoff is after decades of deals and dedication to expanding his corporation. Impressive on paper but what personal benefits has it delivered? Once upon a time he cannily manipulated prime ministers and potential presidents, but, in the final chapter, he cannot call the shots with his own offspring.
Irrevocable trusts are useful for minimising taxes, but this may prove to be an example of a business mogul being so sharp he’s eventually cut himself. Decades of framing political clout, of being the ultimate puppeteer, of the privileged lifestyle, all culminating in a Nevada courtroom having alienated three heirs.
Gary Radley writes: It is about time Rupert Murdoch is treated as a foreign agent and prosecuted under Australian foreign interference laws, as he has clearly demonstrated that his actions have been “designed to sow discord, manipulate public discourse, discredit the electoral system”.
On AUKUS
Ron Connors writes: It is 17,000km from Canberra to London, and 16,000 km from Canberra to Washington DC — in the opposite direction. So why are we in a hugely expensive alliance with these friends from our old White Australia policy days when potential friends in our immediate north are abundant?
Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand share our concerns about China, and they’re between them and us, with a lot of self-interest in the matter. How about we spend billions reinforcing alliances with such mates that matter, and really care?
Perhaps if we were less keen to rattle our swords in unison with the US, making non-enemies with China might just be feasible as well. Beijing is only 9,000km from Canberra. But here we are investing billions in an alliance to gain submarines that can travel to China. Why? To shoot missiles at them? I don’t think so.
We may get to build some stuff, and we’ve even been told there will be 20,000 Australian jobs generated, at only $20 million per job!
But most importantly, what protection will we earn for all this bonhomie with redundant old mates thousands of kilometres away? Well, look at the support for Ukraine. We can be assured of lots of financial aid and weaponry, but we won’t be allowed to attack China if they attack us. You see it might start a nuclear war, and we can’t have that. Quite right too. China will be deterred by that threat, won’t they?
Expensive jobs, useless attack capability, and no assurance of protection. What a deal.
Steve Brennan writes: AUKUS is an unmitigated disaster from start to finish. Malcolm Turnbull is totally correct in what he’s saying. We have no agency and signed a terrible deal that will deliver no military capability for decades and decades, if the past is anything to go on. The Americans will not give us Virginia subs, not ones that are much good anyway — they’ll be clapped out and on their last legs.
AUKUS is also a defence and national security liability because so much money has already been allocated to this program; we cannot spend money on more effective assets that will help protect Australia in the near term.
If Albanese had any spine he’d abandon AUKUS immediately, recognising that all the benefits will be going to lobbyists and hangers-on who are rubbing their hands together.
Ray Armstrong writes: The subs will be out of date before we get them. With upgrades, waste disposal, currency variations, training, developing a nuclear service facility in Australia, you will be looking at $500 billion-plus — and that is a conservative estimate.
One more thing. If you think the Yanks are going to hand over their most secretive technology for the Chinese to copy if they capture one of our subs, you are barking mad. If we do eventually get them, they will not have all of the fancy gear the US ones have.
