"Reform is Screwed"- Dan Hodges

this episode is brought to you by nordstrom for 125 years nordstrom has been part of your story the stylist who found the perfect outfit for your big interview the first pair of walking shoes for your one-year-old the tomato soup you shared with your sister at the cafe these are the moments that make nordstrom nordstrom big or small we're here for all of it celebrating 125 years with new moments still add discover it all in nordstrom stores and at nordstrom.com hey ryan reynolds here from mint mobile now i don't know if you've heard but mint's premium wireless is 15 a month but i'd like to offer one other perk we have no stores that means no small talk crazy weather we're having no it's not it's just weather it is an introvert's dream give it a try at mintmobile.com switch upfront payment of 45 for three month plan 15 per month equivalent required new customer offer first three months only then full price plan options available taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com what is your assessment of reform they're screwed the polls are overestimating reformed support there is absolutely no way in my view it can get from where it is now to actually being potentially a party of government there is now a clear perception within reform that nigel farage is coming to the end of his leadership so you think he will leave soon i do yes the sanctions on israeli settlement his defense of welfare is part of a broader strategy of shoring up his legacy and he's going to be a part of a broader strategy of shoring up his legacy and and that with the split on the right that will be enough to win him a majority i am pretty certain that what andy burnham is currently doing is preparing for a snap general election at some point next year the british government wants to force youtube to downrank independent content like ours and replace it with approved messaging from the mainstream media the only way you can fight back and continue to enjoy our content is to make sure that you're not the only one who's you're subscribed like this video and comment below to have your say on what the government is doing dan hodges welcome to trigonometry thank you uh before we get into the conversation tell us a little bit about your background and your story and how you come to be sitting here today with us yeah well i used to uh i used to work for the labor party i mean i used to to be honest used to work for my mother and she was a labor mp so worked in the work for her for five years in the right to the 97 election um then i went off did the sort of the sort of the pr consultancy circuit for a bit and then somehow i'm not entirely sure how stumbled into journalism and and political commentary which is how i ended up here yeah and you're one of the people i see uh in the media being very upbeat and positive about andy burnham which is why it'd be interesting for us to chat with you is that you're frowning a bit is that an unfair yeah no no i mean i think it's being upbeat i mean i think i mean i think last time we spoke i think was before he became prime minister wasn't he i think he started announcing he was very clear that he was about to be clear and we had you on with julie we had the discussion and obviously i at the time there were already predictions of imminent sort of doom and gloom and disaster for andy burnham and i just sort of posed a little bit of a corrective saying i wasn't entirely sure that in the short term his premiership was going to collapse quite as precipitously as maybe julia julia thought at the time and that's basically that's basically sort of my my analysis i i mean i was saying before i i one of the things in relation to andy burnham he's the first prime minister who i know who i kind of knew him properly before he became prime minister which as i said make and we used to work together um at the house of commons and as i said that has the benefit of making me feel sort of very old and also a great underachiever so there is a you know i i've been completely honest about it as a result of that i quite like him i hope he does well um so what's he like then he's broadly what you see actually there's not a you know there's no sort of great sort of hidden side to and to andy um i mean a lot of people i know is sort of talking about oh you know the the sort of the northern i'm i'm i'm from up north so shtick is he's starting to great it's not shtick it's who he is and he's sort of talking about oh he it's who he actually who he actually is um he really is a northern who bangs on about being he is that that is the time he is a really is he really is from up north and that very much shapes his uh shapes his political his political outlook he's he he's amiable he's someone you can have a chat with but also and i think this is one of the misconceptions there's been a been about him there's and i think we touched on that at the time there was this whole narrative oh wait till he comes into westminster he's going to find out um being prime minister he's going to find out he's going to be very different from being mayor of manchester but the point was as i said you know we worked together for the best part of five years he's been in politics basically all his life and he's a very very political creature so this idea is some sort of babe in the woods who'd come into westminster and go oh my god what's going on here i that wasn't i never expected that to be to to be the outcome and at the moment it's not in my view turning out to be the reality although as i think i also said before the reality is whatever you think of andy burnham his skills or whatever the political fundamentals are no different to him than they were for kia starmer um and that's going to be the problem well this is the interesting bit because um you talk to people i know france and i were talking about this over lunch right that's like you talk to people you go oh you quite like it you quite like burnham yeah yeah why do you like him uh because it seems like a nice guy it seems like a nice guy to me genuinely it seems like a perfectly nice guy he seems to me like a bit of a people pleaser to be honest it seems like he's keen to promise everything to everyone uh there's a headline today i think you were showing me what was it uh him saying national defense can't take precedence over no national security can't take precedence over social security which is fundamentally trade-off denialism as i call it which is you pretend everything is possible all at once which it isn't um but the interesting thing is you talk about his agenda what is his agenda what is his vision what is what is what does andy burnham believe about the direction the country should go in well i think there are i think there are two things i mean just picking up on what you said about the sort of the denialism it's a slightly more sophisticated position than that because and and i've got to be honest i'm in a very much in a minority view at the moment i am pretty certain that what what andy burnham is currently doing is preparing for a snap general election at some point some point next year and so everything that he's basically starting to align with that and maximize his opportunity to successfully call call that election of which although i you know and i you know the the terminology that he used in prime minister's questions yes he was a very bad blunder and obviously gave kemi badenot the opportunity to immediately pounce on him and and and his other political critics to pounce on him there is a strategy behind what he was saying which was and and we saw it also when he was saying with the with the statements that was made earlier in the week about the the sanctions on israeli settlements it's part of a broader strategy that his defense of welfare is part of a broader strategy of shoring up his left flank as we approach the election because his calculation the calculation within downing street is if he can shore up his left flank if he can he can pull enough votes away from the greens if he can pull enough votes away from the greens if he can pull enough votes away from the greens if he can pull enough votes away from what i would call away from the greens if he can pull enough votes away from what i would call the sort of radical islamist splinter the sort of radical islamist splinter the sort of radical islamist splinter parties parties parties if he can pour if he can pull away some if he can pour if he can pull away some if he can pour if he can pull away some soft lib dems soft lib dems soft lib dems if he can mobilize the anti-reform if he can mobilize the anti-reform if he can mobilize the anti-reform coalition which is forming in the country coalition which is forming in the country coalition which is forming in the country then he could probably get to around about then he could probably get to around about thirty one thirty two percent in the thirty one thirty two percent in the thirty one thirty two percent in the opinion polls opinion polls opinion polls and that with the split on the right and that with the split on the right and that with the split on the right that will be enough to win him uh a that will be enough to win him uh a that will be enough to win him uh a majority that will last him for a for a majority that will last him for a for a majority that will last him for a for a subsequent five years and give him a subsequent five years and give him a subsequent five years and give him a mandate to start to address mandate to start to address mandate to start to address some of the broader issues that that some of the broader issues that that some of the broader issues that that he he's identified so what he's doing he he's identified so what he's doing needs to be seen within that context in needs to be seen within that context in needs to be seen within that context in terms of terms of terms of him setting out i mean he's kind of sort him setting out i mean he's kind of sort him setting out i mean he's kind of sort of setting out his stall a little bit so of setting out his stall a little bit so of setting out his stall a little bit so obviously we had a statement about obviously we had a statement about obviously we had a statement about ending you know eradicating rough ending you know eradicating rough ending you know eradicating rough sleeping which will obviously not be sleeping which will obviously not be sleeping which will obviously not be done you know with it over the short done you know with it over the short done you know with it over the short term if at all term if at all term if at all he's identified the issue obviously of he's identified the issue obviously of he's identified the issue obviously of social care which is very much a priority social care which is very much a priority social care which is very much a priority for him and as i said obviously for him and as i said obviously for him and as i said obviously he keeps identifying more broadly a he keeps identifying more broadly a he keeps identifying more broadly a broader sort of broader sort of broader sort of distribution of wealth to put it distribution of wealth to put it distribution of wealth to put it simplistically from the south to the simplistically from the south to the simplistically from the south to the north and north and north and to the regions but those sort of if you to the regions but those sort of if you to the regions but those sort of if you like big ticket items like big ticket items like big ticket items are going to be if you like the second are going to be if you like the second are going to be if you like the second stage as he sees it in the burn and stage as he sees it in the burn and stage as he sees it in the burn and premiership and what we're seeing at the premiership and what we're seeing at the premiership and what we're seeing at the moment moment moment is him basically preparing the groundwork is him basically preparing the groundwork is him basically preparing the groundwork to to to uh as i say calling an election next uh as i say calling an election next uh as i say calling an election next year and securing year and securing year and securing a personal mandate and a workable a personal mandate and a workable a personal mandate and a workable majority so just so that i'm hearing you correctly you correctly you correctly what you think we're seeing is the what you think we're seeing is the what you think we're seeing is the reason he's not you know giving you the reason he's not you know giving you the reason he's not you know giving you the full manifesto and all the details and full manifesto and all the details and full manifesto and all the details and everything he's going to do is he's everything he's going to do is he's everything he's going to do is he's actually that's not the job right now actually that's not the job right now actually that's not the job right now the job right now is to um the job right now is to um the job right now is to um like you say see off the greens like you say see off the greens like you say see off the greens basically and the far left uh get them basically and the far left uh get them basically and the far left uh get them into the fold call an election with into the fold call an election with into the fold call an election with announce a few popular policy you know announce a few popular policy you know announce a few popular policy you know the the capped bus fares and all this the capped bus fares and all this the capped bus fares and all this stuff that's sort of the low throw a few stuff that's sort of the low throw a few stuff that's sort of the low throw a few sweets to the to the masses call in the election win and at that point you start to actually implement yeah i mean the other thing is i mean i i've been i'm being slightly over over generous in interpretation the other thing is he hasn't got strategy worked out yet i mean that's now that's a product of a number of things product of the fact that in the run-up to his um him sort of succeeding keir starmer a lot of his effort and obviously his focus was on and of those around him was on the mechanics that enabled him to enter downing street you know get rid of keir starmer at the downing street in the first place and if you remember the prevailing narrative sort of at the start of this year um was kind of andy i mean i remember you know debating this and people saying this you know andy burn doesn't have a path you know andy doesn't really have a path to downing street keir starmer's going to be here for for the next for the next couple of years so that was a big focus of what he's uh of his attention second thing was just the practicalities of the transition timetable he and his team thought they would have up until just the beginning of labour party conference at which point keir starmer would step down and they would have the the preceding months to sort of put a strategy in place obviously they didn't have that opportunity so they're kind of making stuff up on the hoof which is again why they're sort of going for the lower lower hanging fruit through in terms of in terms of policy development but the other thing is as i say he is facing the same strategic political dilemmas that his predecessor and other prime ministers have faced which is how do you actually solve the intractable problems how do you solve the problem of the small boats how do you deal with the with the fact that britain is basically a country that is that is broke how do you deal with the threat of putin how do you deal with the big strategic issues and the reality is andy burnham is no closer to answering those questions than than anyone else and the really worrying thing for me dan is this is you spoke about being broke i think it's genuinely worse than that i think we're on a financial precipice i don't think either political party has done anything really to address it i mean just look at the facts 2.9 trillion in debt 100 gd debt to gdp ratio a currency that's lost around about 40 percent in value since 2020 we have doubled the debt that we had in 2008 double the debt after the financial crisis wages haven't gone up in real time and you go and i'm looking him i'm going where's how are you going to change how are you going to turn this around and then he goes oh he hasn't ruled out tax crisis and then there's me thinking well we're even more screwed than we were before yeah apart from that everything's fine but uh yeah no i mean that you know that's exactly right and i think you know anybody who thinks andy burnham is just suddenly going to go you know click his fingers and then magically solve all of these problems is deluding themselves i mean i think you know i talked about the big strategic problems that he's facing the country's facing the reality is these are our seat at the moment seemingly intractable problems for a reason because nobody's actually come up with a come up with a you know of any political persuasion has managed to come up with a with a with a solution to them i mean the one thing i would say as well though you know andy burnham is is operating with the same constraints that his predecessors operated with within which is he has to try and find a solution to these political problems but also doing a way that is politically viable in other words he has to find a way of reducing the deficit whilst protecting public services whilst reducing the tax burden whilst stimulating growth whilst reassuring the bond markets now if any of us has got a you know answers on the postcard please if you've got an if there's an easy solution to doing that you can't do that no and also i mean but also it's slightly sort of more serious point and also and this is the other thing against the backdrop of a a sort of a political problem and i think that's a very political um a political debate in which obviously populism and the idea that there were really really simple easy easy solutions if only our politicians have had the courage or wherewithal to just do the very you know pull the very obvious levers against a backdrop in which that that sort of political philosophy has gained for the reasons we all we're all aware of has gained significant sort of political traction and and and and and a degree of currency so you put all those things together and as i said you'll say i'm you know being positive and optimistic about andy burnham on a sort of narrow level yes but as i say at the moment you know i i'm not entirely sure how any politician hasn't can find an easy solution to those issues well that well this is a problem and i think the answer to the question lies in the words easy solution which is it's there's no easy solution and unfortunately in life there are a lot of solutions which aren't easy for instance if you've got cancer the solution is chemotherapy i don't think there is anybody on this planet who would think that chemo is an easy is an easy medicine to take and i think this country is at a position where it needs some kind of intervention because the way i see it and the people that i talk to friends of friends of ours who are in economics or in finance they have made it pretty clear that we are heading towards a financial precipice yeah i i i don't disagree with that the thing i would maybe slightly character sort of slightly change the characterization is you're talking about you know there need to be hard choices and i don't disagree with that but for a politician be andy burnham and any other politician it's not simply a case of saying right there is a very hard choice you have to take take it because the reality is and again this is against the the backdrop of of of of the the growth of populism but will be the case even without that as a politician you can't take a hard choice unless you get the endorsement of the electorate to take that choice so let's take it let's take an issue such as for example the triple lot you speak to a senior politician of any political party privately they will tell you triple lock is unsustainable but they will equally tell you just explain for people that triple lock well it's it you just you tell me i mean what where where my understanding of the triple like it basically pensions are always going up yeah basically simply simplistically it's a it's a commitment that the the pensions will be guaranteed i think it's uh it's a hangover from i think it was george osborne wasn't it was it george osborne or first introduced it was it gordon brown i can't and i can't remember it's been around so so long but you speak to any of them and they say it's not sustainable it's not financially sustainable but they equally say if i stand up and say that i'm not going to get elected so what do you want me to do and they're in they're in lies they're in lies the dilemma what do you do i mean so many problems that we that are laid at the door of modern politicians they haven't had the courage to deal with it or whatever it's not that they haven't got the courage that don't identify the problem in terms of or they don't want to do them is they don't think they'll get a political a political mandate to do it and if you're not going to get a political mandate to do it if you're not going to get the approval of the electorate by adopting a policy you may be brave but you know your political opponents are immediately going to jump up and say ah well we're not doing that and the people we don't worry we'll protect you know pensioners will protect your triple lock and we know how prevention pensioners vote as a proportion of the overall electorate what do you do i mean look at the look at the i mean as i said andy burnham has has identified and put the whole issue of social care back back on the political agenda because it is something he he cares about i remember where are we now when was it so it's the 2017 election so almost a decade ago there was a common there was again there was a settled political consensus that social care and the social care crisis finally had to be dealt and if it wasn't dealt with we were we were facing catastrophe theresa may went into that election an election where it was it was widely perceived she would win she would wipe jeremy corbyn out she took the decision right i may lose a few seats on the back of this policy but i think i need to grasp the nettle i need to be brave i need to say right we're going to introduce um i'm going to get to grips with the issue of social care labour turnaround accuser of introducing a death tax her support collapses with the result we all we all know so you know when we're talking about there's a difference between a hard decision and what is a politically impossible position that's the that's the that's the problem facing andy burnham and all other politicians at the moment a few weeks ago we pointed you toward hillsdale's free course on the odyssey the course has been so popular that when they told us they'd built a follow-up course on homer's iliad we wanted you to hear about it first hillsdale college's new free online course is taught by professor stephen smith it's not a highlight reel and it's not homer for beginners it's a proper walk through the text honor courage leadership friendship sacrifice and what it means to live a noble life you come away understanding why achilles real fight isn't with the trojans is with himself this is one of more than 40 free courses Hillsdale offers on the Constitution, the Roman Republic, the American founding, Genesis, the Second World War, and more. All billed the same way, taught properly, and not dumbed down. I couldn't recommend Hillsdale courses more highly. Go to hillsdale.edu slash trigger to enroll for free. That's hillsdale.edu slash trigger. If you only read one side of the news, you're not informed. You're being curated. That's why I use Ground News. Every day, they gather thousands of stories from across the political spectrum, compare how different outlets are covering the same story side by side, and contextualize it, including specific differences in how each side is reporting it. That's how you see what whole audiences are not being told. My favorite feature is their blind spot feed. Every day, it flags upwards of 20 stories that are being ignored by either the left or the right. Let's look at some examples. Follow along at ground.news slash trigonometry. Take this story. A Pew Research survey found that 56% of Americans now support banning social media for anyone under 16, with a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats behind it. Genuine bipartisan agreement is rare enough to be newsworthy on its own. And yet, coverage came almost entirely from the right. The left barely touched on it. On the other hand, look at this. An AP poll found that 66% of Americans now say democracy is central to what it means to be American, down from 80% from the left. That is a serious story about how the country sees itself, especially on its 250th anniversary. And it got three times more coverage from the left than it did from the right. Ground.news puts all of this in one place. Headline comparisons, bias breakdowns, ownership insights, and context so you can actually understand what's going on, not just react to what you're told. Go to ground.news slash trigonometry, or click the link in the description of this episode. Get 40% off their Vantage plan, the same one that we use, and stop being managed by the media. And look, it's a great point, but eventually, Dan, you either get treatment or you die, to go back to the cancer metaphor. And at this point, financially, I don't think people in this country understand where we are. Because we're about to go broke. And when that happens, it's going to make these interventions look like the proverbial walk in the park. Yeah. But I mean, I think whatever, whatever intervention, I mean, look, I was having this conversation the other day. I mean, we can all have an argument about, you know, how we go into this space. But one of the things I find incredible is the issue of COVID and lockdown seems to have been erased by some, erased from the national consciousness. It's like, I don't know if you've seen the film Men in Black, where it goes at the end like that. That's almost been done in relation to COVID. So I remember at the time having discussions, we had a situation where, the British economy was essentially nationalised for 12 to 18 months, just everything. We had a package of financial intervention that mirrored the sort of financial intervention that, you know, took the country through the Second World War and defeated Hitler. And it was, but it was very clear that amount of money, you know, that the vast amounts that were being spent on supporting the economy in the country at the time, would have to be paid back. And that's true. But no one's talking about that. So in terms of what you're saying, the reality is, you don't actually need to convince any senior politician in this country about what you're saying. Andy Burnham, John Healy, they know the state of the public finances. So does Kemi Badenoch and her team. So actually does Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick. The point is, are the British people currently prepared to vote for a political party that says, I am going to take the radical surgery you're talking about? Yeah, you do need surgery. And at some point, you will have to get surgery. But if your strategy is to run up to the, to use your analogy, run up to the sort of the cancer specialist who's performing that surgery, punch them in the face half a dozen times and say, "Treat me, treat me," is that going to work? That's the situation that the politicians are looking at the moment. They're looking at saying, you know, Andy Burnham sitting there thinking, "Well, okay, what if I do say I'm going to cut welfare by 20 billion and spend on it for, spend on it, you know, building drones to send to Ukraine?" Is that really going to get the support of the people I need to vote for me at the next election? He's not even doing that, Dan. He's talking, he hasn't ruled out tax increases. And we've already got millionaires leaving this country. Don't point at me, man. I am neither a millionaire nor leaving this country, but, yeah. But that is objectively a disaster. We've got, we've already got a gaping hole in the public finances, and you're not even, not you're, but he's not even prepared to do even the most simple. But again, we're talking about, I mean, I think this is a classic example, you're talking about, you know, people leaving, you know, wealthy people leaving the country. I think we've got a bigger, we've got a bigger problem than wealthy people leaving the country. We've got a really big problem at the moment trying to get wealthy people into the country. Right. Yeah. Well, it's the same problem. Well, it's not really. I mean, the, the, the, the reality, I mean, people may be leaving for a variety of reasons of which you would argue, sort of tax rates and- Tax, crime, tax, crime, productivity, employment laws. Variety of, variety of, variety of issues, but equally, there are a lot of, there are still a lot of wealthy people who want to get into the country, but can't get into the country because of the, because of where the, where the immigration debate is at the moment. So there's that issue. The other issue in relation to tax, we, you know, Andy Burnham is in a situation where, yeah, and John Healy are in a situation where they obviously need to deal with the, the, the, the, the, the financial crisis. The financial, the deficit, the huge debt mountain, but also have to stimulate the economy. Now, as we know, before then, there was a prime minister who thought she had a very simple solution to this, which was to simultaneously cut taxes and stimulate the economy, and it ended up in a disaster. Similarly, it comes back to the issue I'm talking about, which is you need, whatever policy agenda you pursue, you need, you need public, public consent. You are not simply going to get public consent for absolutely slashing Britain's public services, because at the moment, a significant amount of the public discontent, you will both hear this all the time. I hear it is things don't work. You know, you, you call the police, the police don't come. You call for an ambulance, an ambulance doesn't come. You get on a train, it doesn't work. It, it, it breaks down. So this, you know, and I keep hearing, you know, from people on the right, you know, the state's too big, the state's too big. We've got to shrink the state. The British public don't want the state shrunk in that way. They don't want fewer police officers. They don't want fewer ambulances, doctors, nurses, teachers. Similarly, I hear from people on the right, you know, we need to, you know, we need to stimulate the market. Go out and speak to people about what they think about whether or not, whether or not the water companies should be in public or private ownership. Ask them about what, what they think about whether the own energy companies should be in public, private ownership. So, again, what you regard as the solutions and what I may regard as some of the solutions are not necessarily what, not just a majority of the British people think, but sufficient number of the British people think to enable any political party to actually get into government to implement those solutions in the first place. Well, right. And this is, you've made the point that I, whenever Francis and I are arguing back and forth about this, people like to blame politicians. I'm sorry. I blame the people. We get the politicians. The politicians that we elect. And if you believe that the solution to a massive debt problem is to, to have a bigger state and for the state to do more, that costs money. By the way, I'm not someone who like wants to slash everything and have zero government. I don't think that's true at all. You actually need a lot of state capacity in certain things to do anything. And government borrowing to invest in productive things at certain points can stimulate the economy and is important. But when you're already at the debt levels that we're at, that's going to be a challenge. And I mean, your point is also right. I mean, look at Starmer. Starmer tried to cut welfare. He tried. And it was Labour backbenchers that stopped him. It wasn't anyone else. So I completely agree with you. I mean, I think the public. Can I just say one? Let me just finish this point about the metaphor, because I think the cancer metaphor that Francis started with is exactly right. I think the patient is in denial. And that's why we are where we are. The patient thinks he has no cancer. The patient thinks we're, you know, we're ticking along. OK, yeah, I've got a bit of a pain back here. And, you know, every morning I get up and I don't quite have the energy, but I haven't got cancer. I'm just, you know, I'm aging. What's a little blood in the urine between friends? Yeah, no, that's what's going on. But also to extend the analogy, you may be absolutely right. But if the patient doesn't give them consent for the surgery, there's nothing the surgeon can do about it. What I was going to say is I wouldn't necessarily characterise it as, you know, blame the electric because this is part of the problem. I can entirely understand where the electric is coming from. I mean, we had we had a degree of relative prosperity throughout the bulk of the, 1990s but for the quarter of a century that's followed things have got progressively harder and harder in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons for a lot of people in particular a a group of a group of the electorate that i would simply call working people who have been at best ignored by uh best ignored and patronized by uh politicians of all persuasions or treated with outright contempt and at every stage throughout that we had we had a a a global economic downturn i think one of the gulf wars we had a we had a global crash then we had a banking crisis we obviously then had covid and we're trying to recover from that the various crisis crises that have occurred are myriad but what there is one consistent thing which is at the end of these crises the people who have been asked to pay the most and bear the worst the highest burden in my view have then have been the people who have been least able to afford it i would take issue with you about the issue of you know oh my god it's it's it's outrageous that labor talking about about raising taxes if we are going to have a situation which i think we both agree on that the country is going to again to use a simplistic analogy tighten its belt i think it's absolutely imperative that some of the richest people in society are asked to pay a little bit more in the same way that throughout the core of essential i was talking about working people in this country have been asked to pay a little bit more you know we saw this during the period of austerity broadly speaking the wealthiest would were broadly insulated from that austerity and working people working people were well the wealthy insulated because they have wealth but exactly but yeah but but they're not insulated by the government they insulated by the fact that they have money well no they were insulated right let me give you an example let me give you an example at precisely the point when the country was being told we had to experience austerity the government of the day george osborne david cameron decided to cut the top rate of tax from 50 percent before we find percent well what's that not doing that's not insulating in insulating the the the wealthiest at the same time as working people were in various other forms of taxation and the erosion of their public services were being worth shouldering a very significant yeah i mean look the the 20 the day we were going back into ancient history for many people but the the lib dems one of the benefits of having the lib dems in the coalition is they're they they forced the raising of the tax-free threshold and so people uh at the bottom from and i i was one of those people at the bottom at the time so i remember well got a big leg up but the broader point i was going to make is i mean the the top 10 percent of people in this country pay i think something like 60 percent of all income and capital gains tax so the the this narrative about how wealthy people or people it's not even wealthy people if people who are earning more than others are protected or insulated no they they pay a hell of a lot no but but yeah i see this argument used a lot and i i get the point but the reality is firstly you you have to in my view look at what people are paying in in proportionate terms not just in relation to their actual income but the the actual experience of their lives so if somebody who uh say somebody in a in in in a a working-class community let's use an example their child because of the various things their child can't afford to get a house of their own or whatever means their child has to move in they have to support their continue to support their child et cetera et cetera that has a direct and significant impact on on on their lives if a wealthy person has to sell one of their private jets so they only now have come on three private jets you're just being silly obviously well no i'm not i mean that is that no but that but but but this is the thing so you want to bring in a private jet taxes no no i'm not i'm not because that's not what we're arguing i'm not making it i'm not making a specific policy point i'm making a broader point i'm contesting the argument oh everybody across the board we're talking has been facing a during the the years of austerity everyone across the board has been has been facing the same burden and even the argument you put forward which is wealthy people what wealthy people pay as an overall proportion of the tax tax take from the stay it's not about that it's about the direct impact of a period of austerity of economic hardship of of social hardship and the reality is the wealthiest as you conceded you said because they're wealthy have been insulated from that by by their own financial success sometimes because of their own financial sex success into other times because of wealth that they've been able to inherit yeah for some people sure but regard regard but the point is regardless of how or or why we can have a debate about whether every wealthy person in this country is wealthy because of their their great entrepreneurship and and innovation uh there are many examples of that there are other examples of people who are wealthy because they're basically dodgy dodgy whatever and or whatever yeah absolutely so but but but in going taking it back to the broader argument it doesn't really matter what we can have the debate about how they created their wealth the reality is if you turn around now you were talking about hard choices if you turn around now and say to the electorate as the politicians have to do we're going to make hard choices now some really hard choices we're going to have to cut back on public spending and we're going to make some really hard choices we're going to have to cut back on public spending and we're going to have to make some really hard choices we're going to have to cut back on public spending and we're going to have to make some really hard choices we're going to have to cut back on public spending and we're going to have to make some really hard choices have to cut back on public spending you are going to you are really going to have to tighten your belts oh but by the way i'm really sorry you know that guy who's a billionaire we'd love to try and tighten it get him to tighten his belt but we can't because if he does he's going to go and live in montenegro so sorry folks i'm sorry the british people aren't going to put up with that anymore that's the political reality okay well then the british people should know that what they're going to get as a consequence of that as a fiscal crisis that what they're going to get as a fiscal crisis when external lenders who are giving us the money we're currently spending go and tell them we're currently spending go and tell them we're currently spending go and tell them go and go and tell i'm doing it right now go and go and tell i'm doing it right now go and go and tell i'm doing it right now i'm doing it but i don't know how many of i'm doing it but i don't know how many of i'm doing it but i don't know how many of them are listening these are people who them are listening these are people who them are listening these are people who have heard this every time for the last have heard this every time for the last have heard this every time for the last and they don't care and that's why they're they're going to get the fiscal crisis they didn't it's not that they didn't care they did care they understood and they said fine okay let's give it a go and they did they did tighten their belts they did tighten their belts and what happened that that well austerity cut spending by like one percent it didn't do anything to reduce our debt or even our deficit which has kept growing my point is but if you can i just say on that point again if you go out and you say to the but you know you say to the british people over the last quarter of a century everything everything's been fine you have no cost no let me tell you what i would but let me make the different argument because you you're doing this caricature thing of people with private jets when you talk no i'm not it's not no sorry i know because i i get that's literally what you said no no no word for word private jets no i someone has to sell their second private jet no it's not but you were talking about the top rate of tax that's people earning like 60 grand a year no it's not a caricature i'm using that as an example of the reality got it and you accept you know yourself it's a reality you know you accept yourself it's a reality i completely reject this this is crazy no no no no you said that you said they are insulated you said they are insulated by their own success yes and exotic they're more but that's what money is for that's why we all want to make as much money as we can because it gives us the ability to protect ourselves and our families from the vicissitudes of life that's why we all want what a wealthy yes but what a wealthy person would regret as one of the hardships of life is very very different of course from what that's why we all want to make more money because it protects us against yeah but lots of lots of very hard working people can't make that money for reasons other i'm not criticizing people for making more or less money what i'm saying is you're using the example of private jets but what we're actually talking about when you take talk about the top rate of tax is people earning 60 grand a year there's a plumber my plumber i talked to uh merns about he was complaining to me about the top rate of tax right working people as you put it are often the hard-working ones who start a small business or whatever are the ones that are paying this and they are the ones that are being told they need to pay their fair share when they already are as we talked about they already pay 40 to 45 percent of their income in tax whereas someone further down the economic ladder is paying 10 or 15 or zero right yeah so why is that yeah but we can well look we're getting into a slightly narrow debate but we can have a debate about what the tax what the top rate of tax should be at what point it would come in what a someone who is generally generally rich would be but the fundament firstly the fundamental principle to go back to my point is working people have been asked to pay more to the extent it directly impacts their livelihoods their day-to-day lives in a way that you've conceded wealthy people have been insulated from and what i'm saying is if we are going to have a solution to this issue if we are going to have this dramatic surgery if we are going to have to take the tough choices then with all the implications of that then some of the people who are going to need to be impacted by those tough choices we've got to chase out the rich people i'm going to need to be i'm going to need not just because i'm and i'm not just saying that because i'm some crazy mad socialist i get it but not it's not just but because coming back to the argument you have to build to do any of this the practical reality is in democracy you have to build a public consensus i get it and if you say the british people again you're going to have to have to pay the guy with the two or three private jets it's not me saying it none of us plan our lives around insurance we plan around whatever life actually throws at us we had our second child you this year which quickly reorders your priorities let me tell you nobody sent a warning that's exactly the type of situation where you'd want to use policy genius they're not an insurance company they're a marketplace policy genius is a free service that compares life insurance quotes from america's top insurers side by side their licensed team handles the paperwork no guesswork just clarity on coverage price and terms backed by thousands of five-star reviews on google and trustpilot with policy genius you can find 20-year life insurance policies starting at just $176 a year for one million dollars in coverage head to policygenius.com/trigg to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save that's policygenius.com/trigg it's not me saying it uh i want as much look we just had the dimitar chalak of i think his surname is he's a politic former policeman in the met talking about the impact of the cuts and that really had its impact including on crime in london today which we're all dealing with so uh i don't want public services to be cut what i'm saying is the reality what francis is saying is the reality of where we are is we can't afford the lifestyle that we have at the moment doesn't mean it's fair that we can't afford it it doesn't mean that it's right or moral or whatever it just is what it is this is the kind of just say i mean i think you know this is perfectly illustrate the point the reality is we are both right you are saying we can't carry on yeah we are going to have to cut you are absolutely right no no i'm not saying hold on i'm not saying we're going to have to cut this is my the different argument that i want to make which is the only way out of this actually is to get growth in the economy actually ultimately in the long run we're going to have to get the economy actually growing it hasn't been growing yeah but we are also going to have to reduce public spending uh there are there are certainly there's an i mean even i admit we're going to choose public spending so i'm sure you would be what i'm saying is um a lot of people like to present us cutting lots of stuff as the solution it's not the solution it's a necessary long-term solution absolutely i would agree with that but what we have to do is get the economy growing so when i talk about tax on business for example or tax on business and entrepreneurs and wealth creators and job creators right you can say you know we've got a we've got to make sure that people with the private jets don't have as many private jets but if they leave like the founder or if they leave like this guy has just left or other people if they're not here to create the jobs it doesn't matter what's morally right or wrong we're not going to have the jobs we're not going to have the growth if you tax business we know this running a small business for trigonometry right we would employ more people than we employ today if the rules were not what they are i don't disagree with that but but the broader point i'm making is i think you're absolutely right about that but the reality is you were talking before about the need for radical surgery in what now policy solution that is i think you're absolutely right about that but i'm equally right when i say it doesn't matter what form of surgery you want you will not be able to have that surgery without the consent of the patient i agree and to do that that is very difficult against a backdrop of an electorate that has quarter of a century of of of of proper real meaningful but that's what people mean by courage from politicians though isn't it what they mean is that's the point yeah but that's that that's that's the easy thing it's very easy to say we need courage from politicians but i was about to explain what what what what the it's for somebody to stand up and have this discussion that we're having but in the political space and say we are going broke we're going broke and if we don't do this now three years from now or two years from now or six months from now or five years from now we don't know but we are going to have a situation where the government that you elected us is no longer be the going to be the people in charge it's going to be the people who lend us the money and they're going to come in and they're going to force us to cut public services by 30 if you don't want that we have to do this now that's what people mean by courage isn't it yeah absolutely no absolutely and obviously i think we would you know the easiest model the model people would would point to would be um would obviously be margaret thatcher and and the way she transformed the the political consensus but i mean she had the advantage which maybe is an advantage that andy bernard might have which she obviously had a completely fractured and divided opposition that and obviously also the what turned out to be the get out of jail free card of the of the popular boost that she got from from the falklands war that gave her the political space and if it hadn't been for the falklands war you know british history but it would have been very different and our perception to margaret thatcher would have been would have been very would have been very very different but to again take the conversation right back to the beginning that's kind of what i'm saying in relation to andy burnham that's kind of what andy burnham's strategy is to get out of jail andy burnham knows he can't turn around tomorrow as someone who's come in without a mandate and say i'm going to introduce this radical surgery i'm going to do all these things none of which you actually voted for when you when you voted labor i'm going to do all these the these things i know it's hard but but tough and i'm showing you i'm gonna be very brave and by the way i've got you know two and a half a spot just under three years to introduce it his strategy is as i said going back to the original point i think exactly the strategy is to get out of jail free card of the society's pursuing okay do this do not the easy stuff but the slightly more popular staff deal with the politics win a majority give myself five years give myself a working majority and then i'll start to take the tough decisions now that's the thinking and i think in terms of our analysis of andy burnham and his government it's only when he gets that personal mandate that we will and or majority he may not get one at all you know events could conspire against him but the reality is he's got a mandate and he's got a majority and he's got a majority and he's got a in terms of knowing what andy burnham is and what he would be like as a prime minister i think that's that's the only point we'll get it we'll get a sort of a proper and genuine assessment it's a fair point i mean the other issue that people consistently talking about and are very very frustrated about and understandably so is levels of immigration into this country which is one issue and illegal immigration on the other and it really upsets people and quite rightly so because they look at people coming into this country and they're not going to be able to get out of jail and they're not going to be able to get out of prison and they're not going to be able to get out of prison illegally and they think to themselves well this has been happening now for years why has nothing been done to stop it and by the way it's not a labor problem the conservatives did it as well and people feel that they are in a country which is becoming ever more lawless and i have sympathy with that point of view yeah but now obviously we we're moving into you know this is a this is a good example of the nature of the debate i mean firstly you're not going to be able to get out of prison you're absolutely right politicians of all persuasions um have failed to get to grips with the issue now i i would put this in i i would divide this into two two stages there was a there was a significant period during the during the 90s i'd say broadly during the 90s turn of the new millennium where there was a there was an arrogant it goes back to what i was saying about the the view of politicians to what i broadly call working people there was an arrogant presumption that there was a consensus that immigration was none of the good i mean literally you've been one of the you know you've both been uh sort of pioneering if you like in terms of your your analysis of this problem and i you know i've held my hand up and said that i was one of those people now i would say in the defense of people like me it's because we i grew up in the 70s and 80s where there was very very significant racism and a very still prevailing backlash against against my communities that was that was toxic and we were trying to push back on that but it is quite clear that in our desire to do that you know the the the road to healthy appropriate good intentions we completely lost lost contact with where the british people were and as i say working people were in in in relation to that so that's the that's the reality but i think more recently and because again it comes back to this idea of easy solutions the the simple political reality is rishi sunak knew just how toxic the immigration issue issue was uh people like uh um a pretty patel not somebody i think who you would call you know you know a sort of particularly liberal shrinking violence issues all also knew people across the political spectrum knew but they were faced with in their eyes with a trade-off which was yeah we can curtail immigration but that will have a direct economic impact and you know this idea again this lazy oh well they're all just cowards and traitors and whatever it wasn't that they made a they made a they made a political calculation and i think obviously you know it's quite clear certainly political terms they made the wrong calculation but i think there is another issue and it's i think it's interesting that we've gone from the broader you know the broader discussion about sort of politics in general to the immigration issue which again comes back to what you were talking about there are going to be a lot of hard decisions can be that need to be taken and one of the problems we've got with the current debate is immigration is seen as the magic bullet so if you speak to anybody in the right you know how are you going to pay for this how are you going to pay for that so if you look at and you know we might come on to reform specifically but you look at any policy announcement from reform for example every single policy announcement every single policy area is is is run through the prism of of of immigration this is how we would this is how we we'd find the money for defense we wouldn't be we wouldn't be spending it on the migrants this is how we we'd find the money to properly fund welfare and give it to needy people we won't be we won't be giving any of it to the migrants and aside from the other issues the the nature of the immigration debate and a certain toxicity around the debate i think this is one of the most dangerous elements it is like i said it's it is now seen as the new get out of jail free card deal with immigration all of our problems are solved and that's just not that's just not the way it's going to be and i think that's the way it's going to be it's not the reality and again you know you know i'm playing back to you you what what you were playing to me yeah you're absolutely right again there is a lot of discontent about immigration and a significant part of it is the reality of people's people's lives but also a significant part of it is they are constantly being told this is the magic wand you deal with immigration all your problems are solved and that's it we all know that's not the reality this episode is brought to you by nordstrom for 125 years nordstrom has been part of your story the stylist who found the perfect outfit for your big interview the first pair of walking shoes for your one-year-old the tomato soup you shared with your sister at the cafe these are the moments that make nordstrom nordstrom big or small we're here for all of it celebrating 125 years with new moments still add discover it all in nordstrom stores and at nordstrom.com well look there are certainly people saying that particularly online where it seems to be that you know we'll get we'll get rid of everybody who's got a melanin level over this amount and we're going to be living in an enid blight and wonderland which is palpably false and we all know that but you have to have a lot of empathy for the electorate who's effectively since about the last 15 maybe even more years have voted time and time and time again that they wanted immigration lowered what was the brexit vote if not about immigration and consistently they were gaslit let's be honest dan they were gaslit they were told that immigration was going to come down it not only did it not come down it was raised no but i would say it was worse than that i mean you said they were gaslit i mean there was a point before that before they were gaslit that was at a second stage in the process when they were being told don't worry we're going to get immigration down before that they were being told if you raise the issue you're a bigger yeah you know and like i said that all those of us who you know at the time i was on the liberal left have to hold our hands up for that and you know we were we were all uh you know we were all part of that but the point is you're absolutely right about you know that that is not where we are with the debate now i don't know a senior politician in this country who if you sit down and speak privately would not say we've got a real problem with immigration it's a it's a real problem with immigration it's a real problem with immigration it's a real problem with immigration people are obviously we appreciate people are very concerned about it and they're right to be very concerned about it now maybe some of the gree you know a couple of maybe zach polanski might say that maybe ed davy may argue a little bit but i'm not sure he would but but i don't know of any senior politician the issue in terms of immigration is it's like everything else there is not an easy solution to this problem what about illegal immigration because i was going to come onto that to come onto that there is a there is a solution to to mass migration but then there is a cost and as i said you know we see it there is a problem with getting rich people into the country but let's just look at the issue of of of uh of illegal immigration the tories obviously were aware the tories party that traditionally has been very very hard line on immigration forget labor from this country their identification of the problem aligned themselves with their base and their natural support and they particularly understood there was a major problem with small boats if they didn't solve it they would be kicked out of office so in all of the areas both historical philosophical narrow political interest the previous Tory government understood they had to do something to get to the small boats and they failed now the prevailing narrative from their political opponents labor did this in in opposition obviously continue to do that was they were they were either completely completely bumbling incompetence or be they were traitorous cowards who secretly wanted to undermine Britain's way of life both of those are are frankly just not not true you know I spoke regularly to senior people within the rishi sunak government and the government's proceeded they spent every waking hour of trying to cobble together some sort of solution eventually obviously they came up with the Rwanda plan which I mean I was criticized for at the time which I actually defended and supported and some iteration of the Rwanda plan I think is probably that what it what is required but the reality is again for reasons we all know the Rwanda plan the Rwanda plan didn't didn't work so but again when you've got people like I say I think Priti Patel was the one who sort of helped negotiate the plan when you've got people like that even Suella I mean you know Suella bravman's blames everyone else even when you got people like Suella bravman who was home secretary you couldn't engineer through government she again now goes for the they're all traitors sort of line when you've got people like that who can't find a solution and I I know these people and these people who who would who were desperate to find it and who are not all bumbling idiots but are actually quite intelligent serious sensible people that says to me this is not the simple this is not an easily solved soluble problem and again it comes back to it but again as I was saying at the moment do the British people want to hear that at the moment do the British people want to hear that or are they attracted to you know I don't know what's the I don't know what the latest proposal is you know let's send in the Navy and dump them on and invade France and dump them back on the back on the beaches the British show have generally done more thinking about how governments operate the most but there's a difference between understanding the problem and having actually built insulation against it that's the world Mikel Thorpe operates in he's been living as an expat for over 25 years visiting more than 110 countries and calling nine of them home he founded expat money nearly a decade ago to help others do the same when he helped someone build an international plan B the knowledge he brings is entirely first hand every recommendation comes from something he has already done himself expat money works specifically with freedom-minded families and investors who want to reduce their exposure on any one government or any one system second residency second Citizenships offshore banking International real estate legal structures that spread your life across borders Mikel has put together a free report called plan B Residencies and instant Citizenships it covers five routes to a second passport including one that almost never gets discussed how a foreign residency functions as genuine political insurance which countries actually make sense depending on what you're trying to protect and what it realistically costs go to expatmoney.com trigger or click the link in the description of this episode to download the report there's no charge no catch that's expatmoney.com trigger why can't we do what we did which is the effectively turn the boat around make sure it has enough fuel to get back to to the because that was because the reality is if you look at it there was an attempt at a turn back policy but that was limited in success what actually worked for the Australians was taking the taking the asylum seekers and basically dumping on a desert island off the coast of right off off the coast of Australia that was what actually had the maximum deterrent effect so why can't we do that because we can't firstly we haven't gotten we haven't got a handy island you could put them in middle but that's what that's what we're doing at the moment by all means that's what we're doing at the moment yeah I mean oh come on man there's enough like we we can find some way to put asylum circuits well no we can't and that's the problem come on okay where Rwanda for a start right that's the thing we got we got a Rwanda the government negotiated the Rwanda scheme the scheme just like it wasn't the government wasn't able to make it operational and the sort of number how many people got returned by the Rwanda scheme yeah but that's that's because everyone was screaming about how it's, you know, it's against their human rights and all this other nonsense, right? But I think if I was an ordinary person watching this conversation, I would be tearing my hair out because it's sort of like there's literally, there's nothing we can do about anything because it's just so complicated or whatever. In the meantime, you look over the United States, they've deported 3 million people in the last two years, I think, or under the Trump presidency. They've closed the border effectively. I know it's a different situation because it's a land border, but you can get things done if you have the political will to do it. And what is Donald Trump's current approval rating and how are the Republicans. That's not why. His current approval rating is low, but it's because of their run war. It's not low, it's subterranean. It's because of their run war. And his political. It's because of their run war and the rising gas prices. No, no, no. There are a wide variety of reasons why Donald Trump is unpopular. But one of the key reasons why Donald Trump is unpopular is he has embraced a populist there-are-easy-solutions form of governance. And he has said, he has basically said, don't worry, I've got a simple solution to all this, which was superficially popular. And now what he's finding out is that model of governance doesn't work because the American people are withdrawing consent for his model of governance. You're talking about. I mean, there is also the other technical point, which is, you know, in the United States, they share a land border with their main route of migration, so it's much easier to police. That's the practical reality. But, I mean, are you contesting. I mean, are you putting forward the argument that there is actually an easy solution, just politicians have been too stupid or too woke to pursue it? No. Even though it would have been in their direct, you know, narrow political interests, so to do. No, I think that there is probably a kind of ideological consensus which puts the actually simple. I didn't say easy, but simple. There's a big difference between simple and easy, which puts the simple solutions beyond their sort of ideological reach. I mean, when we had Soella on to talk about this, the thing she said, I was like, well, why can't we leave the ECHR? And I was like, well, the consensus among my colleagues was that would put us in the same boat as Belarus. And so we would just become this nasty country. That's also actually why we've not been able to take action soon enough on legal migration. I didn't have collective agreement. I didn't have the support of the prime minister. I apologise if I'm asking stupid questions, but what is the rationale for your cabinet colleagues to not want to do this? I don't understand. Well, their argument is that it's far too radical. It would put us in the same category as Russia and Belarus, who have left the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and it would be damaging to our international reputation. We could replace the ECHR with our own Bill of Rights, democratically reflective of British people's views. I actually don't disagree with that. And I've said that. I think the idea that it is beyond the wit of us to introduce our own, you know, our own constitutional protections. But whatever way you look at it, whatever constitutional protections you put in place, and I think, you know, in a separate context, you know, in a separate context, people are running around at the moment worrying about, you know, civil liberties, what these, you know, everyone's been locked up for whatever they tweet. So if you want to strip away all the sort of broader sort of super-governmental protections and just simply say, I'll just leave it up to the politicians, we can trust them. I'm not prepared to do that with any politician. So the idea is that the idea, oh, we just strip away all the human rights. Now, I. And replace with a British. And we can. And we could do. But if you want to do that, one thing's for certain. If you're talking about putting in place and going back on however many centuries of British history and putting in place. Less than one, yeah. Putting in place a sort of formally codified constitution, that is not something you're going to be able to do in a week. No, no, no, of course. You are looking at probably, you know, a decades-long process there. Yeah, I wasn't talking about full constitution, but if you had a British Bill of Rights that was specifically addressing the border situation. Yeah, but if you're looking at. You're looking at drafting a Bill of Rights, which obviously is, you know, to all intents and purposes, a codified constitution, that would be one of the most fundamental changes in British society and British history. That will take. That will have to be a serious exercise that will have to be done over a period of time. But this is like Nick Clegg saying 15 years ago, we can't build nuclear power stations because it takes 15 years and now we're here 15 years later. No, it's much, much easier to build a nuclear power station than it is to put in place a constitution that replaces, as I say, you know, hundreds, if not thousands of years of British history and ensures that we all have the appropriate protection to citizens that we require. Don't you think, Dan, let's just be honest here. I'm being completely honest throughout the whole thing. No, no, no, no, no, no, but there's something else, right? You put forward this idea of politicians, you know, not wanting to do it because they're too woke or whatever, and I can't remember the other option. Isn't the reality. Too stupid. Too stupid. Isn't. There's a third option here, which is we don't have politicians with the required backbone to actually get these things done. And I'll tell you why, because the moment there is the slightest pushback, they capitulate. And isn't good leadership actually taking the decisions, facing down the party and going, look, this needs to happen, this needs to get done, and otherwise the consequences are simply too awful to contemplate, which is where we are as a country. No. I mean, if you genuinely want to be honest, no. And to be honest, what you've done is you've just articulated what is a very, very crowd-pleasing trope, which is frequently peddled. The only solution is the politicians don't have backbone, and that's. I mean, if you want to say that, that's not true. I mean, our senior politicians, all of them, have considerable backbone, which is why they are senior politicians. They put themselves forward in the public eye. They put themselves up for election. As we know, in the current environment, they do so at significant personal cost and, indeed, genuine physical risk. So this sort of, oh, they're all just a bunch of cowards, you know, no. I mean, you said you want to be honest. Let's be honest about it. No, that's not. Well, why isn't it that I don't see any of them then going up and tackling the French about their. their part to play in illegal immigration? Well, what do you want them to do to the French? Well, that's. We can't broadcast that, but let's keep it within the realms of the socially acceptable. Well, saying to them that this situation is unsustainable and we can't do this and if you are not going to play your part, then there are. there are going to be consequences to pay. If you were a French politician and a British politician came to you and said, look, this is. Look, old chap, this is a little bit off. You know, this is. this is not a sustainable position for us. You need to keep all those. all those nasty illegal immigrants that we. that we don't want. These illegal immigrants that we think are coming over here taking our jobs and raping our women. You. You've got to stop. You've got to deploy huge resources amongst your domestic security services up the entire French coast to prevent them leaving your country and coming to us. If the situation was reversed, what would our answer be? Would our answer be. Who is the politician who would say, here is my. here is my policy. here is my policy agenda. My policy agenda is to keep all these nasty illegal immigrants in the UK and stopping them from leaving. Now, we had this situation, I know, where Reform said they've got this deal with. Who is it? Bardella. Yeah, Bardella. And we already see this. I mean, I did think at the time. Hang on a second. If you're running on a populist programme, I'm not entirely sure. Wait, so you're saying the French are doing this to us deliberately? Of course they're doing it deliberately. Well, that is, to me, if that is. You don't think they are? Of course I think they are. But I've never heard someone admit it publicly. So if we know they're doing this deliberately, that would necessitate a reaction from our government. And what do you think their reaction should be? I don't know. Nuclear weapons, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to nuke Paris. Not Paris, Calais. I don't think that. I don't want to nuke Calais. I don't think. As I say. I'm kidding. I don't think. I don't know, but. But what. Let's just. Let's. Look, we talk about these things. This is why this country is so fucked, because we say all these outrageous things as if they're normal. You're saying that France is deliberately sending tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into our country or letting them in. I'm letting them in, yeah. Allowing them to pass through France and come into our country, facilitating what some people might call an invasion. Now, that's a very controversial word. I'm not saying it's an invasion. Some people might call it that. Whatever. In any other time in human history, if the country that was on your border was sending tens of thousands of men into your country without your consent, that would be Casus Belli and the cause for war. Fine. So, as I say, what is your practical solution? I don't know. Do you think we should go to war with France? Well, as a matter of general principle, yes. But I don't know. I'm not an expert in the different levers we have to influence France, but I imagine if we really work - If we weren't prepared to take this issue seriously, there would be things that we could do. But this is the point, you know, we, as again, a separate argument, we took a decision as a country to sort of walk away from some of those levers and to sort of, you know, proudly isolate ourselves from our former European partners when we decided to opt for Brexit. So a lot of the levers we had at our disposal have been removed. But as I said, the reality is, I've, you know, genuinely, I've said to you what, you know, again, I completely understand, you've used very emotive language there, but I said, fine, but what is your practical solution to this issue? And again, neither of you have actually given me a practical solution. Well, that's because I don't have the expertise. And I'm not saying, but no, but no. What I'm saying is lots of people who do have a great deal of expertise have looked at this. Have they threatened them with bans on important certain French goods, for example? And then the French would introduce reciprocal bans. That's absolutely fine. Well, yeah, but it's not for the, it's not for the, it's not for the workers, it's not for the workers that work in those industries. Have we threatened to turn the boats around and dump them on the French beaches back? Well, that's currently what reforming. But has our government threatened that? No, because. Well, that's what I would do. Yeah, well, you might. And I would escalate to the point where they started to take this seriously. No, but as, but as. As the various sort of naval experts said at the time, when reform proposed this policy, that is not a practical, that is not a practical solution because we don't have the practical means to sort of pick them up and then deposit them. Well, but what do you mean we don't have boats? Well, no. That can tow their boats. I mean, firstly, no, we don't have boats as we saw in the, we saw in the, in the situation with the war with Iran. We could, it took, how long did it take us? It took us, best part of. Of a month to set a single vessel at a time when we were being attacked. Yeah, but you're talking about a warship. I'm talking about small boats that can tow another small boat back to the French waterline. But you, but, but you're, as I said, you're then talking about invading French territory and assuming that the French won't react. Well. Wait, so they're going to send tens of thousands of people into our country. And if we, if we tow a boat back to them, they're going to start shooting at us. That's what you're saying. And it's not an invasion. I, well, it's not an invasion. If. People leave. If they send tens of thousands of people here, you can't say it's an invasion. If we drop one of these people back in France, that's an invasion. Well, if, if, well, if, if you, if you evoke what is, what is being called, if you, if you're talking about mobilizing, if you're talking about the government, the, the, the, the, you know, the French Navy are not landing on the boat, on the shores of Dover. If what you're talking about is the Royal Navy landing, you know, actually on the. No, no, no. No, we're not. We tow the boat back to the, to the. Who tows the boat back? The Royal Navy to the line from which the boat is effectively directed to go back to France. Right. And then the boat turns around. And then we tow it back. Yeah. And we just keep towing them back. And. Over and over until they stop coming. But why will they stop coming? Because we keep towing them back and we're not allowing them into Britain. We're not giving them hotels to live in. We're not giving them camps to live in. We're not giving them phones, dental services, food, et cetera. But how do you, I'm sorry, how do you physically turn the boat back? Exactly the way the Australians did. And how did they do it? I think when we had Tony Abba on, I don't remember all the details, but what he explained. My understanding. You give them unscuttable, what's the word? Basically, you give them rafts that they can't scuttle. So the people smugglers can't sink them. My understanding was that the Australian system, which, as I said, wasn't seen as being essentially practical, was that they actually built big sort of lifeboats. Dumped them in and sent them back. But as I said, they did do that and they tried that. But what they found was that wasn't actually having a significant impact on the traffic, because obviously that was an expensive and complex operation to build, you know, weird lifeboat systems and send them back. So what the, as I said, what the Australians eventually did was they found an offshoring solution. If you want a practical solution to this, then the practical solution is an off, is, is, in my humble view, is an offshoring solution rather than the invasion of France or these rather sort of complex naval operations, given we don't really have a navy at the moment. The problem is, Dan, and I'm telling you as the average person who's going to be listening to this. The sound you're hearing. The sound you're hearing is their urine boiling, because they will look at problems within our country which have eminently pretty obvious solutions and they're not being done. They're not being done. Sorry, sorry. So you've just, you've just made the great job. I was agreeing with you. You've just done exactly what I said. You just said, oh, yeah, there are very obvious solutions. It's called enforcing. It's enforcing a border. We started off this conversation with it, with it, with a degree of consensus. That one of the problems we had was that there, there are, there are lots of very, very difficult problems that are going to require very, very hard and difficult solutions. You've now, because we've got onto the subject of immigration, switched back into the, with respect, very lazy, oh, there are simple solutions to this and that's why people are boiling. You're right, people are boiling. People are boiling because they, they, they have identified a problem. They've asked their politicians to solve that problem. And their politicians have failed. They've failed to do so. That's why they're boiling. They are not going to be de-boiled with respect by people going around falsely telling them there are easy solutions out there. There are simply not simple solutions that are out there that are simply not being implemented because their politicians don't have backbone. Because I think that the massive, the illegal immigration thing, to me, that is eminently solvable. I know you keep saying, you keep repeating that. Yeah. Because, I think Dan's point is, how, how are they solvable? And look, I'll give you an example about, I'll give you an example. So, they did not want to address this for a long time. Oh, which I completely agree with, yeah. They did not want to address this. Yeah. So the fact that they did not want to address it, for me, shows a complete lack of backbone. That they pretended this problem didn't exist and invariably in life, when you pretend a problem doesn't exist, the problem will only get worse. Yeah, and as I, and you know, I think I was completely open about, as I said, there are various stages in this debate, and at the beginning, not, again, it wasn't that the problem wasn't addressed because of a lack of backbone, the problem wasn't addressed because the various politicians didn't want to get into a situation where they were being seen to be bigoted towards migrants in this country. But that is, I'm sorry, Dan, that is a lack of backbone. If you're concerned, when you get into politics, it's people. Not wanting to be bigoted is a lack of backbone. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. False, not wanting, not caving to people's perception that is false, instead of doing the right thing for your country, is a lack of backbone. No, no, no, but the point is, but the point is, as I said, in my view, the attempt not to, not to help fuel bigotry is not something I would characterize as a lack of backbone. I think where you, and I've acknowledged this, but it is quite clear that there was a. At the moment, you can talk around about Brexit, maybe even before Brexit, where politicians recognized, actually, firstly, there were genuine, you know, really genuine concerns by large numbers of people who couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, be characterized as bigoted, even though some people on the liberal left still attempted to do so. And there was a recognition that this was a genuine problem that had to be addressed. So we can have a debate. If what you're saying is, look, if you're. If you're changing your argument and you're saying, look, the lack of backbone was amongst politicians who failed to initially identify the problem. No, not that they failed to identify, they failed to be honest. That's the lack of backbone. Or, fine, or failed to be honest about the problem. I wouldn't characterize it as that. But, fine, that's a fair point. But that's very, very different from the other, the argument you're putting forward now is, given, as I say, there's a context now that we all understand that people. All the politicians. All the politicians do recognize there's a problem. The difference between that and saying, oh, yeah, there's a very simple, in your words, there's a very simple solution, and they're not pushing this button marked simple solution to the small boat crisis because they haven't got a backbone. If it was a simple solution, it would not require any backbone. They'd just press the button and they would reap the plaudits from a grateful electorate and ride off to their 200 strong majority. Let me try it a different way. We obviously have seen in the last few days, in the last couple of weeks, actually, this group in Portsmouth, I think, a group of men, I don't really know much, I don't think anyone really knows much about them. We know a bit about them, but yeah. Well, maybe you can tell us about them in a second. But a group of men who are protesting against allowing illegal migrants who've just arrived from being driven into the country from the coast. And it's a few hundred, a few hundred people there. If over the course of the next week or so. went from a few hundred people to a thousand people to ten thousand people to a hundred thousand people to a million people do you think the politicians might move closer towards a solution no because it doesn't it doesn't solve any of the solve any of the fundamentals but the the process you described won't happen because the va because the vast majority of the british people whilst they have the concerns that we've been talking about i think we've been talking about you know boiling anger over this issue you have to separate them and you have to separate their legitimate concerns from the actions and activities and individuals that we've seen parading around in their sort of their sort of yeah it's not it's not a site that anyone particularly wants to see i was it was a hypothetical from me making the point that i think uh i don't agree with you i think if you had a million people expressing outright solidarity with people who are preventing illegal migrants from being allowed into the country you will see from government that they find the solution pretty quickly what you're saying do you genuinely believe that senior politicians such as andy berman andy burnham such as shabana mahmoud such as kemi badnock chris phil do you genuinely think they do not understand the level of public concern there is about this uh no i don't i don't think they don't understand the level of public concern but i think politicians and we've seen this very clearly work on a very short uh time window of prioritization and they care about what's in the news this evening well let me finish the point you've asked the question let me finish the point so if they are pressured into ranking this issue higher than it already is on the daily basis i don't think for andy burnham the small boats are the number one priority right now and you said yourself his number one priority is the number one priority the number one priority is the number one priority is to get himself to a position where he can call an early election and get a working majority with fundamentally caesar which but but small but no you said he has to shore up his left flank which is not people who care about the small boats let's be objective in fact many of those people are actually you know they think anyone who's concerned about small boats is a massive racist um so it's not on their priority list at the very top they have other priorities they have uh the cost of living which is a massive issue in this country that is also the public priority right well of course yeah yeah i agree so they have that they have their own electoral concerns etc my point about the hypothetical of a million people being out there preventing illegals illegal immigrants from being allowed into the country is that would immediately push it further up the priority list there's no question about that and he would push it to number one and i suspect at that point many of the reasonably sounding and you know sensible and mature objections you've been making would evaporate immediately because once something becomes a priority people get it we've seen this in our own lives and this is obviously a uh not a like-for-like comparison remotely but there's so many times when we've sat around the table with our team and gone we really need to do this x y whatever thing and we can't do it we just can't do it but then when we get to the point where we're like it has to be done everybody gets together and we find a solution okay i mean there's two things firstly again you you're going to have a fundamental thesis which is there is a solution you didn't say it was simple but there is a solution and all that is preventing the solution being found is a lack of political will but on the specific point you made you're also wrong what first on two two two levels firstly you're not going to see a large number of people yeah it was a hypothetical i'm not saying it's going to happen no but there is an important point here because i just want to make a broader point because it's an issue i've been discussing a lot in the last 24 48 hours and you can see it you can see on the right at the moment particularly within reform there is a a fracture over how to deal with this protest how to deal with these guys specifically and reform started off with a very in my view correct position and but it was a very clear position marge farage said they were disgusting robert jenrich said the police should do their worst on them that was the line with the police that was the line with the police that was the line with the police that was the line with the police i did say this would happen within 24 hours it changed because restore came out and very clearly backed the guys in balaclavas and black and at that point restore reform panicked and began to change their position but for people on the right debating this and people who do seek to reflect and align themselves with public uh public concern about this issue to to go back to the right and to go back to the left and to go back to the right and to go back to the right and to go back to the left and to go back to the right and to go back to the right and to go back to the left if the if the right does align themselves with guys who are going out in the streets with balaclavas with uh you know black girl parading around militaristically attacking police officers vandalizing property causing major disruption boxing lifeboat workers fine that will have the opposite effect to the one that you were you were talking about that will not increase pressure on mainstream politicians to deal with this issue what that will do is enable mainstream politicians to take these guys the the leader of this group is a man who was jailed for two years for attempting to kidnap someone at knife point in a row over 10 000 pound of drugs it will enable them to to to to take them take this group and basically say see this is what these guys are really like this is what people who align themselves with this debate i really like and start to roll the debate back and as i said you know i i you know i wasn't you know i generally meant it it is very very i agree with a lot of what you've been saying on this and a big part of what i try to do certainly when i'm writing in social media is to try and get people on the left to understand look this is a very serious issue people have legitimate concerns you have to address it you have to take the lead in addressing it you can't lead it leave it to you know people on the right and you certainly can't leave it to people in in in balaclavas the practical political reality that is though if the right tries to align themselves with these guys and doesn't very very clearly distance itself from these guys then people on the left are going to be rubbing their hands that's the practical political reality this episode is brought to you by nordstrom for 125 years nordstrom has been part of your story the stylist who found the perfect outfit for your big interview the first pair of walking shoes for your one-year-old the tomato soup you shared with your sister at the cafe these are the moments that make nordstrom nordstrom big or small we're here for all of it celebrating 125 years with new moments still ad discover it all in nordstrom stores and at nordstrom.com and at nordstrom.com and the fact that you have these guys in portsmouth and the fact that there seems to be gaining some traction and some sympathy from the general public is worrying because what's happening is the fact that we're in a very precarious position in this country we're in a very precarious position economically but it's in a very precarious position culturally and societally and the fact that you have these guys in portsmouth and the fact that there seems to be gaining some traction and some sympathy it seems where's the evidence they're getting sympathy from those guys specifically are getting sympathy from the i was on the train come this is anecdotal of course i was on the train coming into london this morning uh young guy came and sat opposite me very respectable works in the city you know girlfriend all that and uh he you know he was asking me what i think about i said look it's not a pretty side it's not something i'm in favor of happening but it shows you the failure of the entire political system to deal with this issue and he was like yeah i totally understand where they're coming from and there's plenty of people again it's anecdotal that i've spoken to as well who will come up and have a conversation about it my point is this this that is a very bad symptom societally because what that is saying is we do not have trust in the powers that be yeah but i think that the reality is i don't think we needed guys in balaclava is wandering around over the told take us that i mean you guys have been literally banging on about this for years and you've been absolutely right you've been proven to be absolutely right the fractures within british society around the issues relating to immigration are very very real but the question is and i think this is again something that people on the on the right need to start to reflect on is is our aspiration to try and deal with and to directly deal with and address those fractures or is it to attempt to widen them the reality is there is no solution to any of the problems that we have in society that are solved by mass vigilantes roaming our streets and let me just say another thing if we were having this conversation in a different context and you and we have all had conversations in this in this context in relation to the activities of environmental protesters anti-capitalist protesters pro-palestinian protesters you and i and the rest of us would not be sitting here saying yeah okay it's you know i'm not agreeing with it don't get me wrong i'm not agreeing with it but you know what it is a product of the fact that they're not being listened to and it's a product of public concern about these issues we wouldn't we would condemn them unequivocally and that needs to be done with these guys these are not patriots they're not heroes they're not actually really you know doing it because you know they're in they're enraged by the nature of immigration although i'm sure they're all to a manner you know anti-immigration to varying relatively extreme degrees these guys are putting on balaclavas and dressing up in black and marching around pretending to be soldiers because they get off on it they enjoy it they enjoy it they enjoy being macho they enjoy the whole thing they enjoy a bit of the publicity that goes around it these are not in any way representative of mainstream opinion on this issue i agree but my point is something else dan my point is when public perception feels that government and these institutions are not taking a problem seriously what that does is it creates a vacuum and when that vacuum when there is a vacuum of it will naturally be filled it's for instance the same with the grooming gangs we didn't want to talk about the grooming gangs anybody who spoke about it openly and honestly was immediately described as an islamophobe a racist a white supremacist okay and then and we shut it down and then what happened then other people came in to talk about it and people who a lot of people felt were nefarious and had bad intentions but that is the inevitable consequence of not dealing with an issue that's fine i i you know i completely agree with you on the grooming gang let me give you an example let me give you another example let's take the pro-palestinian demonstrations right which which have intimidated obviously significant sections of the jewish community and actually intimidate me and i'm i'm not a member of the jewish community they've acted illegally they've broken the law etc but they are articulating whether we like it or not a position that is now shared by an increasing majority of the people so there was a poll out this morning in relation to andy burnham's decision to introduce imposed sanctions on the settlements 60 percent of the british people supported it i think 14 opposed right there is and i say this as someone who has been long-standing support of israel public support for israel and the activity of israel post the appalling terror terror attacks has collapsed and there is now an increasing clamor amongst mainstream public opinion for the government to act now do you think that justifies the activity of the pro-palestinian protesters who are intimidating members of the jewish community no well it depends what you mean right no but that's the point no no no let me just let me but but but i you didn't say but there's two of us here francis said no but hang on we do need to think about well let me say when suella called for the marches to be banned i disagree with that people have a right to protest what they don't have a right is to break the law and when they break the law they should be treated that's fine but that's an entirely principal position but you've got a different position but you brought up the the climate change protesters right i've been i've went and documented extinction rebellion protests myself i support their right to participate in those protests i don't support their right uh to block ambulances from getting to the hospital i don't support that so when this is the same with these guys if they're breaking the law they should which they are then those of them that are breaking the law should be taken away by the police and prosecuted for the laws that they're breaking if they're protesting non-violently if they are obeying the law they have every right to do so and they should be allowed to do so do i like the look of hundreds of men and black clad marching up and down in balaclavas i do not but if they're not breaking the law they're entitled to do that don't you think no absolutely but no one's no one's disputing their right to peacefully protest and frankly in my view they can they can wear what they like but the point is what i'm looking at what i'm pointing out is the difference in terms of how the argument is the argument but i'm entirely consistent in my argument yeah but with respect you've got a you you're you adopted you're adopting a different point of view which a lot of people is which is you're not automatically saying you're you you say that you're not you're an instinctive reaction is to support the people's right to protest yeah of course in all cases do you support those but do you support the marches that we've seen like you you support the marches that we've seen i don't support them but you don't you haven't called for the you haven't said i don't believe they should be banned no i don't believe but i never said that they should be banned dan and what you said is in when you said intimidating what you what i thought you meant was that you were holding up placards supporting hamas which is which is obviously a disorganization and that's illegal activity for now that's it yeah that's illegal activity yeah yeah but that's what i meant by intimidating that's fine but the guys in balaclavas were also acting illegally they were causing disruption they were blocking no but i'm just saying it is you know literally when i asked you about an example from the left you said no and you were unequivocal because you're talking about intimidating behavior i don't support these guys doing intimidating behavior but they are doing you would you certainly would argue that they're not that you certainly wouldn't argue that what they're doing even if you'd argue and they were breaking the law you certainly wouldn't argue that guys wandering around the streets dressed in balaclavas and black and standing in the middle of roads isn't intimidating if they're standing in the middle of roads blocking traffic they should be arrested standing on the pavement dressed in balaclavas and balaclavas and black gear i would personally find that intimidating why well if i know that they're there to prevent illegal immigrants from being allowed into the country i'll be honest with you there's a part of me that's relieved at least someone's doing it if you were a member of britain's one of britain's legally resident in the uk ethnic minorities and you i am you certainly will say that yeah but well yes i am you you are right and you saw them would you feel if i knew what they're protesting about i would go over and say what i just said which is i'm relieved someone is at least protesting about this issue but but i should act legally okay but they should act legally well i think there are significant numbers of other members of britain's ethnic minorities who would see those guys and be intimidated by do you dispute that no i don't no no i don't but but people might be intimidated by and and just to i would be very look hold on if if a three if 300 blue haired uh pierced to the to to whatever degree people marched up and down outside my house what is your anti-blue hair prejudice well i have found there's a strong discrimination between having blue hair and lots of piercing and not liking constantine kissing and trigonometry my point being is if you saw 300 people who you suspect don't like you personally marching up and down i see people you'd be intimidated like you personally every day i wouldn't leave the house if that was what i'm saying is but you you get my point people would be intimidated because they ascribe certain views to these people that there may or may not be correct right we don't know the exact views of those people all i can see is if they're protesting they should do so lawfully right yes but they're not and so that would just like people at palestine marches i thought were treated very very leniently by the police because a lot of them were breaking the law and they were not arrested yeah right so we want equality of treatment for all people and we don't tend to see it a protest in my opinion right but beyond that what i'm saying to you is yeah you say you know a lot of people will be turned off i i agree i think um i mean that's a practical that will be a practical i completely agree i think i think that's you And it gives a lot of people who don't want to talk about the small boats issue a thing to point their finger at and say everyone who cares about the small boats is a balaclava wearing thug. Exactly. I can't even remember how we got onto this issue, but I feel like we've covered the small boats sufficiently. The other thing that it's probably worth talking with you about is it's fair to say you're not reform's biggest fan. You've made that very clear. I would actually slightly characterize that. It's not that I'm a, I'm not a, you know, this isn't a football match. I'm not a cheerleader. I'm not a supporter or an opponent. I'm just genuinely assessing where I think reform are. Your genuine assessment is you don't like reform. No, my general assessment, my general assessment, I like lots of people in reform. I wouldn't say I'm a supporter of their party, although I'm not actually a supporter of any political party at the moment. But what it is important to say. I. I have written what would widely be regarded as a number of positive pieces about reform. Okay, let me just start again. What is your assessment of reform? They're screwed, is my assessment of reform. Why? I think for a number of reasons. I think, let's start with just the events of the last, the last few days. Actually, let's go back a little bit. I think just before we started broadcasting, you know, we were just chatting and I said, how have you been doing? And I said, this has been a surprisingly busy summer politically, which Andy Burnham and obviously Keir Starmer was a part. But the other reason, certainly through the heart of the summer was, it's actually been a summer dominated by reform and debate about reform. Precipitated primarily by Nigel Farage's decision to call that, you know, bizarre by-election in Clapton. And if you remember the, the, the, the, the narrative surrounding the by-election, the by-election was this had been called primarily as an act of desperation by Nigel Farage. And it was his, I think it was described by some people, as his last throw of the dice to achieve two primary objectives. One was to draw a line under the financial scandal's dogging reform, to basically convince the media to stop talking about them, and I would simply put it to get the press to back off. The second thing was to use what he believed would be a strong mandate from his supporters in the constituency to transform the broader narrative around reform, to arrest their decline in the polls, and arrest the decline in his personal ratings. It is quite clear that he has failed in his objective. Obviously the questions about reforms, financing, and his role in that, are intensifying and that and intensifying to an extent that they are they are cutting through there was polling i think yesterday or the day before which showed the extent to which now the party is associated with sleaze he's associated with sleaze this issue is cutting through to cutting through to the electorate and as we all know from experience once a once a political party becomes tainted with the the the sort of the brand of sleaze it is very difficult to remove and it can only be removed with a sort of a great overhaul within and sort of rebranding of the organization the second thing is that this compounds a fundamental problem that nigel farage has which is if you look at the data he's incredibly popular with around about 20 percent of the electorate and massively popular you know they he walks down the street people pour out pubs they see him his people who are members and activists within reform will walk over broken glass for the guy but he is also massively unpopular with 60 of the electorate and these are people the people who dislike nigel farage now really dislike him and they will simultaneously vote for basically anyone to prevent him and reform securing securing and reform securing uh high office and and entering downing uh high office and and entering downing uh high office and and entering downing street street street and those numbers are just simply too toxic and those numbers are just simply too toxic and those numbers are just simply too toxic and there is a narrative and you know myself and my and there is a narrative and you know myself and my westminster colleagues westminster colleagues westminster colleagues you know feed into this about nigel farage you know feed into this about nigel farage you know feed into this about nigel farage being this great sort of being this great sort of being this great sort of this great showman this man who constantly this great showman this man who constantly this great showman this man who constantly reinvents himself normal rules of politics reinvents himself normal rules of politics reinvents himself normal rules of politics don't apply to him don't apply to him don't apply to him that was the case for nigel farage maybe that was the case for nigel farage maybe that was the case for nigel farage maybe 12 12 12 sort of 18 months ago that's not the sort of 18 months ago that's not the sort of 18 months ago that's not the case now nigel farage is now broadly in case now nigel farage is now broadly in case now nigel farage is now broadly in the situation where boris was somebody the situation where boris was somebody the situation where boris was somebody who had a similar you know degree of a who had a similar you know degree of a who had a similar you know degree of a broader public popularity broader public popularity broader public popularity when he was in the midst of the sort of when he was in the midst of the sort of the whole covid crisis the whole covid crisis the whole covid crisis and i do not see any way and i do not see any way and i do not see any way that he transforms that he transforms that he transforms his political fortunes as a result his political fortunes as a result his political fortunes as a result but crucially it doesn't really matter but crucially it doesn't really matter but crucially it doesn't really matter whether i think he does whether i think he does whether i think he does he can or can't one thing that we're he can or can't one thing that we're he can or can't one thing that we're now seeing inside reform speak to people now seeing inside reform speak to people now seeing inside reform speak to people inside reform inside reform inside reform it is quite clear that with inside reform it is quite clear that with inside reform that is the perception there is now a that is the perception there is now a that is the perception there is now a clear perception within reform that clear perception within reform that clear perception within reform that nigel farage is coming to the end of his nigel farage is coming to the end of his nigel farage is coming to the end of his leadership leadership leadership and that is starting to create and and that is starting to create and and that is starting to create and stimulate stimulate stimulate what is effectively becoming a what is effectively becoming a what is effectively becoming a the sort of the leadership election and the sort of the leadership election and the sort of the leadership election and the race to succeed nigel farage is all the race to succeed nigel farage is all the race to succeed nigel farage is all actually underway now you can see it in actually underway now you can see it in terms of what zia yusuf is doing terms of what zia yusuf is doing terms of what zia yusuf is doing he is basically setting out his he is basically setting out his he is basically setting out his leadership store we had his sort of leadership store we had his sort of leadership store we had his sort of virtual leadership campaign video which virtual leadership campaign video which virtual leadership campaign video which he launched at party conference he launched at party conference he launched at party conference his interventions which are you know his interventions which are you know his interventions which are you know increasingly at odds with what nigel increasingly at odds with what nigel increasingly at odds with what nigel farage is saying completely at odds with farage is saying completely at odds with farage is saying completely at odds with his colleagues his colleagues as a result of that the other leadership contenders robert robert generic in particular we'll see it with richard tice they're starting to maneuver as well so you put that whole thing together and that would be very very difficult for a major political party a major established political party to sustain for a party like reform a new party a young party a party with still a relatively low political base there is absolutely no way in my view it can get from where it is now to actually being potentially a party of government as i said i suspect there'll be a general election next year in in by a general election next year and certainly not with uh with nigel farage remaining as the leader so you think he will leave soon i do yes now the question is whether or not andy byrne calls an election before he basically departs but as i said whether i think it or not is irrelevant one thing i know for certain is people inside reform think he's going to really leave relatively soon which is why the sort of leadership job he needs is starting but that i mean but surely isn't reform just a party based around the personality of reform no i i hear this a lot and i i don't i i generally don't agree with that i mean firstly for the reasons we've all discussed you you would you know we were talking about these people who are watching this program and i think that's what's going to happen in the future i think that's what's going to happen in the future i think that's what's going to happen in the future i think that's what's going to happen in the future the future i think that's what's going to happen in the future you promise people something and then don't do it you've betrayed them fine i'll concede your your your characterization of that but but but it doesn't change a point i just thought it's important yeah but no but the but the reality you were saying there's still a base of people who view the world the way reform yes and that reform will be a politic will have political influence moving forward but particularly in an environment where to secure a majority of 170 you only need to secure 34 of the votes kia starmer did we're not in a situation where you need to get 45 to win an election so in that context they will they will remain also you know say this consistently there are some some what i would regard as serious other alternative serious political players within reform i think robert generic is whatever you think about his inability to sort of mask his very naked political ambition he's a serious political operator i think richard tice has thought you know deeply about the professionalization of reform and and you know i i've spoken to richard about he was on tv yesterday saying who the hell's dan hodges but um richard and i have actually had some really interesting dis really interesting discussions about how you uh how you sort of his his strategy for mainstreaming the reform brand etc and and and you know and and he gets it and you know also uh you know somebody like lee anderson who is obviously very much a pet noir of the left can articulate uh i think in a very very effective way that the the genuine hopes and dreams of of those people that we were talking about who as you say have been betrayed so the idea it's just the nigel farage show i i i think is just i think is just i think is is wrong and in any case it can't just be the nigel farage show for the reasons that that i that i say the reality is his numbers just forget it forget nigel farage if you had a politic you put in front of me a politician with those levels of approval because the key thing is if you look at other politicians senior politicians there will be a section of the electorate that like them there'll be a section of the electorate that dislike them but that section of the electorate dislike them as opposed to either not really knowing who they are or being agnostic about them is much much lower that's the problem with nigel farage everybody says nigel farage is necessary to drive reformers base the problem for nigel is he does drive reformer's base but crucially he drives his opponent's base as well and when you get into that situation politically you're basically done but do you not think whoever replaces him would immediately find themselves if they were lucky to be known by the entire country which they're not right compared to nigel farage nobody knows jazir yusuf nobody knows robert jenrik nobody knows even lee anderson and richard tice right but the moment you become leader of reform 60 of the country will say you're fascist and evil and will not vote for you and will vote for anyone who opposes you it depends it depends the str it depends what the strategy depends what the strategy is i mean i think the part of the problem for reform is you know a year ago they were on 31 of the vote so you know and obviously there were people running around saying oh you're fascists you're racists you're all that sort of stuff and that stuff was just bouncing off the problem is the reality is they played into their opponent's hands and so what's happened is as i said you know i was speaking to people at the time who were talking me through that the next stage of reform strategy was to broaden and mainstream their message what happened was there was obviously then the split with with rupert lowe and the establishment of restore and you know i i used exactly we literally saw it this weekend we literally saw it nigel farage came out with a very very clear position on the demonstrators disgusting it's et cetera, Rupert Lowe said, he goes, no, actually, I'm putting my arm around them. Suddenly, Nigel Farage shifts his position and reforms shift their position. And what they're doing now is, rather than pursue that strategy of reaching out and mainstreaming their messages, which I think could potentially have been successful and could potentially be successful in the future, they're basically chasing after a stall. No, they're shoring up the right, like Burnham is trying to shore up the left, by doing the settlement. Yeah, that's kind of what they're trying to do, but they're doing it from a much lower base. Because the point is, the reality is, Labour's vote sharing in the polls is probably slightly underestimating where Labour are at the moment, because there are people who are saying they'll vote Green and the Dems or whatever, who won't, who'll come back. But equally, the polls are overestimating reforms, support, because obviously, whenever you have a party of protest who position themselves with the anti-establishment people, obviously, when people are asked by a pollster who you're going to vote for, it's very easy to say reform, and then when it comes to a general election, when you're actually voting for a government, as we've seen with all parties, of all persuasions, who are minority parties, their support then gets squeezed and shrinks. Well, just let me push back on that a little bit, because what about, we all know the shy Tory phenomenon, where, you know, obviously people don't want to admit that they vote Conservative, because there's a stigma to it, shall we say. I mean, that's got to be 10x with reform, hasn't it? No, because I think the. The whole point about reform's brand, and also, you know, we're in a different space now in the era of populism. You know, my experience of reform supporters is that, you know, people who support reform aren't in any way ashamed or nervous about it, they want everyone to know it, and they want people to know it, because that is, in a sense, part of the deal, that you are standing up, and you are basically defining yourself as someone who is, you know, is taking a stand, against the traditional establishment. And the other problem is, yeah, there was in the past a shy Tory thing, but if there is a shy reform phenomenon, that is because of the increasing toxicity of the party and the party's brand. And, again, I can't remember what the poll was, there was a poll yesterday which shows reform now significantly ahead of Labour, in a poll when you're questioned, which of the parties do you like least, and which of the parties will you go out and make a point of voting against? And this is the problem reform have. Because of their attempt to chase restore, they are toxifying their brand to the extent that people are now actively going out and saying, "Look, I'm gonna vote for basically anyone, "if it means reform won't work." - Yeah, it does seem like they, you know, from an outside perspective, they overreacted to the creation of restore. - Yeah, yeah. Well, I don't understand why. Do you understand why? - Yeah, I do. - I don't know whether it's personality conflicts. - Well, no, I think it's the nature of the online world. I mean, early in the history of Trigonometry, we had this episode, we only had about 90,000 subscribers, when suddenly we started, you know, we're basically people who thought of us as being in the center. We have a lot of criticisms of the kind of woke thing, but that's kind of where we were. And then we started getting like loads of like naughty comments on our videos, which we were horrified by. So we publicly said like, you know, basically get out of here, this is not for you. And then it turned out that there was some kind of behind the scenes orchestration between these Nazis who were brigading our videos. - Right. - In order to create this perception that there were loads of them, it was like three people in a basement somewhere. - Yeah. - But when that happens, well, particularly in our case, when you're a small channel, you're like, what the fuck is going on? Like, this is not who we are, it's not what we created for these people. And it took us a little while to just go, oh, this will pass. Because for Reform, I imagine it would have felt like, oh, you know, this guy's left our party, and you know, I think it is fair to say Rupert was treated badly by Reform. I don't know exactly what happened. But suddenly they're picking up X percent of the vote. You're seeing them come up with policies. And you know, being a fringe party of opposition has its benefits, which you can say things bluntly in a way that you can't if you're seeking that mainstream credibility. And so when, if you're on that part of the right and you're seeing Rupert Lowe talking, talking about certain issues that you care about, and he's given it, you know, 10 out of 10 on powerful rhetoric and presentation and whatever, you're kind of going, that's a good point. You know, you said that well, et cetera. So I understand why they maybe panicked a little bit and started. But I mean, I don't think the majority of the electorate is in that position. And it does. Yeah, I agree with that. I think they definitely seem to over index that wing. I mean, there is. Just one more thing as well, Dan, just a point. I think, look, size plays a part as well. Let's look at the way that the Labour have dealt with the Greens. The Greens have posed just as much, if not more of a threat to Labour than Restore did to Reform. But Labour never panicked. Labour never, I didn't see them behaving, show any of the same behaviours or trying to attack the Greens or do anything like that, even when the Greens won in Gorton and Denton. Because I think. It's about the size of the Labour Party, and it's about the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party has been in existence for over, what is it, 100 years. There are people there with experience who've won elections who've gone, look, this happened and whenever it was, just chill out, it will be fine, we'll weather the storm. I'm not sure there are those people within Reform. And Reform is a very, very new party. And when you're very new, when you're much smaller as a political party, you are always, ultimately going to be less secure. Yeah, you're fragile. Yeah. I mean, also, I mean, you know, I was speaking to, speaking to somebody at Reform conference who was basically saying, look, what you need to understand now is we know we're not going to win the next election, right? That is not our objective to the extent it ever realistically was their objective. Their objective now is to either is to kind of like overtake the Tories and basically supplant the Tories as the, as, as the opposition. They get, even if you want to go like a 10 year strategy, get a significant number of seats at the next election, that the next stage they're in a position to, to supplant the Tories. And so to do that, they're, they're now adopting a sort of a course vote strategy to have, you know, what we've got will hold. But I think there are two problems for them with that. One is that the thing, as I said, 20%, in my view, is significantly overestimating Reform's current support. Just if you look historically at work. You know, what happens to protest parties, but the other thing is because they are starting to toxify their brand so much, that will start to have a, I think, an increasing impact. And we start, we're already seeing it on the soft levels of softer levels of Reform support. And crucially something that's happened, which is a small thing, but a very significant thing is. The size of Restore, an increasing number of pollsters are starting to prompt for Restore. So in the opinion polls, we'll start to see Restore's vote going up. And I think we saw it in, was it the More in Common poll, I think it was the More in Common poll, started prompting for, to Restore immediately. Restore got, I think, four or 5%, and the Tories jumped, jumped ahead of them. Now the problem for Reform is they are clinging on by their fingernails because they are just about, at the moment, clinging on. They're clinging on to a lead over the Tories. Once they drop below the Tories into third place in the polls, at that point, I think it really is game over. I think at that point, what you would see is a very fast cratering in support because at that point, it's quite clear, look, you may like some of, you may like Nigel, you may like some of the stuff Nigel says, but if you want to stop Andy Burnham, you want to stop his big grandson. Non-socialist agenda, you're going to have to stick with the Tories. And I think that's the danger for them of even having the, trying to cling on to, you know, the base that they, they, they've already got, or they perceive it. I don't know. I think, look, I think it's important to remember the context of all of this, which is for Reform to win a hundred seats at the next election would be insanely amazing, historically speaking. We shouldn't forget this, right? So of course they were riding high in the polls, uh, and people were talking, they were talking about, you know, the hundred days of government and that may still happen, may not. But given that they have five MPs for them to get a hundred MPs or even 80 MPs at the next election would be a massive result. Well, look, if they got it, to be perfectly honest from, from where they are now, if they got 40 MPs at the next election, I think that would be quite a considerable achievement. And that would, and that would, and that would sort of, as I say, that would anchor them at that point in British politics, but also, you know, I mean, the other thing is if they to be a serious political party, and they do want want to form a government at some point in the future this episode is brought to you by nordstrom for 125 years nordstrom has been part of your story the stylist who found the perfect outfit for your big interview the first pair of walking shoes for your one-year-old the tomato soup you shared with your sister at the cafe these are the moments that make nordstrom nordstrom big or small we're here for all of it celebrating 125 years with new moments still had discover it all in nordstrom stores and at nordstrom.com you know they are going to have to let go of nanny's sort of apron spring at some point you know nigel farage is not whatever you think about nigel farage you know he's not immortal and i think anybody who looked at his you know his interviews he gave at the end of reform conference got a bit of an insight into what he was doing and i think that's a great way to start into in into what he's thinking about is how how long he wants to be in be in this for what did he say about that well he was talking about very much he and he he introduced the narrative he was talking very much about how his his family had asked him to get out of politics and he contemplated it etc and some people were saying this is a kind of like launching a soft resignation but the reality is you know i think this is across the board reform we're just going to have to grow up they're going to have to grow up as a as a party you know this you know and this constant narrative how everyone's out to get us and the establishment and all that sort of stuff when they keep making this succession of ludicrous and goals i mean that was a was a by-election taking place which was supposed to draw draw a line under the funding crisis and there are nigel farage's senior aides going around tight tatting for dodgy donations you know these are not at the moment this is not at the moment whatever you think of them a serious alternative party of government at the moment and they you know can i just ask you one question on that point i mean the the point they're a small party so why head of policy is soliciting donations or why uh pr person is doesn't make any sense to me i don't understand why that was going on but uh i think the point the point that some people have made which is if you subject any party to this level of scrutiny where you've got activist groups doing year-long entrapment things to try and catch people out i mean i was reading michael crick's biography of nigel farage which is by no means a complimentary book if i don't know if you've read it or not but one of the things crick talks about is the extent to which the tories cheated in their elections against farage's party which i think would have been ukip or brexit party at the time so i mean don't all political parties get up to the sort of stuff yeah all political parties do but all political parties receive the scrutiny no they wing infiltration of labor trying to expose donations it's not happening right whereas this latest channel 4 thing it wasn't a channel 4 thing at all you had a bunch of foreign funded far left activists who did this then handed it over to channel my memory i mean my memory may be tripping me up but i certainly remember um i i think there was some sort of undercut there might have been some sort of undercover operation around the sort of the old cash for honors yeah but you're going back into what is ancient history for much people not with the early days no but i mean well no it was the latter i think it was the latter days of the blair government middle middle days so the point was tony blair you know tony blair was interviewed under caution when he was in he was in dentistry we saw labor politicians around but that's 20 years ago i'm talking about now who's investigating andy burnham's donations nobody where's the activist far right group that's but the reality is you're not going to get and but this is comes back to what we were talking about about being serious you're not going to get andy burnham or anyone around andy burnham yeah sitting down with anyone saying look give us give us some dodgy donations you know that's the they have other people further away that's the reality you know there are different people who who deal with the donation side of this andy burnham wouldn't go anywhere near it whereas you've got nigel farage in the middle of a by-election sitting there saying well i'm boys isn't this great you know i mean and then saying oh god it's all you know they're out to get us dan thanks for coming on mate it's good to chat appreciate your perspective thank you for having me uh what's the one thing we're not talking about a society that we should be oh my god the one thing we're not talking about in society don't say andy burnham no i what i find interesting is the way it's it's it's not one thing the way we jump from a subtle consensus of what the most significant issue of the great intractable issue that we need to solve at the moment is so obviously at the moment we're talking about immigration like i said i was told you know social care was the was was the biggest issue i think before that i remember being told you know we had an education crisis that if it wasn't solved that the country was going to fall apart um lack of productivity was another another great one i i think the thing it i i don't think the problem is the thing that there's one thing that we're not talking about i think the problem is that we we only have the capacity politically to focus on one thing at a time and you know we spend all our time i'm currently talking about immigration and this is that this is the big issue in 10 or 15 years pete may not be us may well be us we'll be sitting around this table and there'll be another major political issue and we'll all go why the hell didn't we see that coming you know that's it i mean maybe it's maybe it's but then again maybe not because we might be all be dead because ai yeah exactly so you know yeah uh dan hodges thanks so much for coming on head on over to triggerpod.co don't you care where dan's going to answer your questions as a former labor researcher this current government must be particularly disheartening for you do you believe there's any hope of labor actually coming up with a working policy on defense welfare education the nhs net zero or anything else hey ryan reynolds here from mint mobile now i don't know if you've heard but mint's premium wireless is fifteen dollars a month but i'd like to offer one other perk we have no stores that means no small talk crazy weather we're having no it's not it's just weather it is an introvert's dream give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch upfront payment of forty five dollars for three month plan fifteen dollars per month equivalent required new customer offer first three months only then full price plan options available taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com