"They Never Wanted To Stop The Boats" Suella Braverman

People escape. They've lost faith in the government. They have no confidence in the authorities. They're beginning to organize themselves, mobilize themselves, and take the law into their own hands. I was bound by Prime Minister who didn't really want to stop the votes. He takes a very liberal view on migration, which is why he didn't want to cut immigration. He was ambivalent about stopping the votes. I mean, he once privately said to me that "Why so many people upset about the votes? These people come here and work. That's good for the economy." Rishishunank said this too. Of course, yeah, he said that to me when he was Chancellor. When Rishishunank was Chancellor, he said, "I don't understand why people are upset about the votes. These people come here and work." Yes. Wow. This episode is sponsored by our friends at Hillsdale College. Right after this episode, go check out their incredible online courses which are absolutely free at Hillsdale.edu/trigger. So hello, Brahma, and welcome back to Trigonometry. Hello. Good to be back. It's great to have you back. Last time, of course, you came on the show shortly after no longer being, let's say, a Rishishunank Islam Secretary. Yes. And a lot has happened since. Not least, you've written a book, which is why we're happy and keen to have you on. But let's talk -- you talk about your family history first in the book and, you know, the where are you from, questions, which we'll touch on perhaps later. But interesting for us, of course, and for our audience, we'll be having left the conservative government at the time. You were still a member of the Conservative Party, and I remember asking you one or two slightly more pointed questions. And you're being very diplomatic about your answers. You've since, of course, left the Conservative Party, join a reform. So what can you tell us about why the Conservative government failed this country, which I think universally is recognised, including within the Conservative Party now, that you couldn't say at the time? Yes. Well, that's a very good introduction, because I actually wrote this book for all of those people, including myself, who are bluntly furious with the last Conservative government. And the last Labour government, but most recently last Conservative government, for the damage that they did to this country. And now I'm no longer in the Conservative Party. I am liberated to speak honestly against what I see as institutional cowardice and deceit, frankly. I said it internally, time and time again, when I was home secretary, when I was holding a great officer's state, the most senior woman in the government, trying to get the Conservative government to do the right thing on small boats, on visas, on Islamism, on anti-Semitism, on our streets. And it refused, time and time again. What is it? The Conservative Party, last Conservative Prime Minister, Conservative Cabinet members. And by that I mean, Rishusunak, I mean Jeremy Hunt, I mean Kemi-Badenak, I mean Tom Tugunhak, many of those people who are still running the Conservative Party today. And so what I said out in my book actually is, you know, from David Cameron through to Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Rishusunak, Kemi-Badenak, it's different faces, but it's the same tactics, it's the same deceit, it's the same modus operand, the same family, you know, promise big, go big on the rhetoric, but deliver very small and actually fail people. We had journalist Dan Hodges on the show recently, and I actually thought it was a great discussion, he made some interesting points, but the one aspect of it that Francis and I both found quite frustrating is when it came to the issue of small boats. And let's be honest, that issue is now becoming the number one issue other than the economy, which is obviously huge as well, for a lot of people in this country, not just sort of the fringes of the right, it's gone mainstream, fair to say. And there was no matter what we said, it was always, oh, it's too difficult, it's too complicated, you can't do this, are you saying we should invade front, you know, it's all of that. You as home secretary were attempting to do something, you know, no offense to you and saying this, but you failed like everybody else. I failed, I'm honest about that, yeah, it's undeniable. Why is it such a difficult issue? Because, so, this may be a very simplistic, I'm just a normal person, maybe very simplistic way of phrasing it, but I just think about it like this. At any other time in history, if tens of thousands of men, which is what this is, were coming into your country, some people would say invading your country, you know, we can argue about that. Tens of thousands of people were coming on boat into your island nation. The king of the country would organize a group of armed men to go down there and stop it. At any time in history, that would have been recognized as the rational response. I'm not saying we should do that today, but I'm just saying throughout history protecting your borders would have been, would have been seen as possibly at some points, the only responsibility of the state. And certainly it's primary responsibility. How are we now in a position where even people like you who, who at least want to do it, can't do it? It's because of lack of political will. And so, I was basically the only home secretary who genuinely wanted to stop the boats and meant it. And what I came up against and the reason why I failed was that I was bound by Prime Minister who didn't really want to stop the boats, a chance for the extracurrer who didn't really want to stop the boats, a concerted cabinet who lacked the political will. And what becomes very clear and what I blow the whistle on really was it was all a performance. So it was all about talking tough, you know, parroting and trumpeting the tough rhetoric performing, but actually behind the scenes once the doors were closed, wholly lacking the requisite will to do the right thing legally, politically and diplomatically. So what is the answer to this? Yeah, well, tell us because Dan Hodg just says there's no way to solve this. He's wrong. Okay, so how do you solve this entirely away to solve this? And you can see by what other countries have achieved, it has been stopped in other countries. So what needs to happen? And this is what I was banging my head against the brick wall on with with Rishu Soonak and members like Kamibade and Alken, everybody in the concert party pretty much, we first of all need to lead the European Convention on Human Rights. I mean, I sound like a broken record on this, but I will keep saying it until it is done because I saw not just as a home secretary, but even before that as attorney general and even before that as a lawyer working in the immigration courts before I was an MP, how our human rights laws have been weaponized against the British people and in particular against the British state. Every time a home secretary wants to detain an illegal migrant or deport them, she is met with infinite number of legal claims, many of which are fabricated, but largely based on human rights grounds, namely article three of the European Convention of Human Rights. The prohibition against torture in humane and degrading treatment. So a migrant will arrive with nefarious intentions for the UK, maybe from Afghanistan on a boat, we try and deport him. He says article three, if you send me back, even to France or let alone Afghanistan, you're violating my human right against torture because I'm just going to get tortured in Afghanistan. And he can make up some political party that he's in, he can make up some kind of oppressor or grievance that there might exist in Afghanistan, but in Iran, if they're from Iraq, if they're from Eritrea, Eritrea is the country of choice at the moment. If you come and claim that you're from Eritrea, you've got a slam dunk appeal in through the courts. So article three is often used as a way to stay into the UK and subvert the state's ability to deport article eight is the other mischief in the European Convention of Human Rights, that's the right to a private life. So you, someone might be here, they might be, you know, a foreign criminal, someone who's come here and raped or murdered or dealt drugs and we arrest them and we convict them for breaking our laws, we put them in prison. But we say, hey, this person's from Jamaica, we want to deport them back to Jamaica. And they say, article eight, you can't deport me because I've got a baby. I had a baby six months ago in the UK. And so if you send me back to Jamaica, you're violating my human right to a family life and generally that will be a winning argument in the courts. And so this convention on human rights, which started out with noble aspirations and contains words with which no one would disagree the right to life, I don't disagree with the right to life, I don't agree, I don't disagree with the right, the prohibition against torture. I agree with the right for a fair trial has been distorted, stretched and expanded over the years so that it has actually become a charter for legal migrants rather than a document, a document protecting common sense fairness and human dignity. So explain this to me, so because last time we talked about this and since in your commentary and today you say there was a lack of political will, Rishi Sunak, other members of the Conservative Party. And the central argument in the book as I understand it and do correct me is that a lot of the rules that we have. The reason that our governments and Whitehall civil service, etc., refuse to deal with immigration is they see it as a way of rigging the economic status, basically, right? But that is not true of illegal immigration, and this is the bit that I've never understood in this argument. What is the rationale for a Rishi Sunak or a Boris Johnson or whoever not to take this path that you want it to take? Because this can't be about the economy, right? This is something else. So what's going on? On the ECHR issue, what I was the first conservative minister to say publicly, as Attorney General in 2022, that if we wanted to stop the boats, we needed to leave the ECHR. Now you might think, based on the premise of your question, that if that was a solution, and I said that as a serving Attorney General and a former barrister defending the home office in immigration cases, that would carry some way, and people like Rishi Sunak and Kenny Baker not would say, "Yeah, maybe we should do that." Why did they refuse? Violently. They really, the opposition to it within the Conservative Party was very, very strong. I was a fringe view in 2022, 23, even 24, to say we needed to leave the ECHR. Why? It's a rerun of the Brexit debate. It's the same kind of argument as well. That would be diplomatically damaging for the UK's reputation abroad to withdraw from this international convention. You'd be putting us in the same group as Russia, which was kicked out of the Council of Europe. We don't want to be in the same group as Russia. You're destroying civil liberties. How dare you say that we could leave the ECHR, where a respectable country that prides itself on civil liberties protections? So those are the kinds of red herring arguments, all eminently rebuttable, but which are routinely trotted out by the remainder wets, the establishment liberals, which make up the large part of the Conservative Party to oppose leaving the ECHR. They won that argument. I lost the argument within the Conservative Party. That's why I left the Conservative Party because they ultimately don't agree with that policy. They say, superficially, that they've changed their mind. Three years later, they caught up with me and Kenny Seno actually, maybe Suella had a point. We should copy this policy because it seems to be quite popular and reforms said it. Nigel's been saying it for years, so let's just copy it and hope no one notices that we don't really mean it. But the truth is that the vast majority of Tory MPs are implacably opposed to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights because of those reasons that I set out. It is another big fat Tory lie. Do you know, I am old for people having different opinions about different issues and being opposed to policies and matters of rationality and principle and workability, but those are some terrible arguments, aren't they? Correct. I agree. But they are, they work compelling and they still are compelling amongst the liberal elites within the Conservative Party. Why is that? You're allowing, we have up to potentially a million illegal immigrants in this country at this point and the number keeps going up. Those are not good reasons for that to be happening. They're just not. They would all say, so I have this argument countless times with my Conservative colleagues, with people like Kenny Baker, not with Rishi Sunak. And I recount my exchanges with Rishi Sunak. I would say, listen, Rishi, we're trailing in the polls. You might call an election next year or the year after. We've got this boat's crisis. It's the number one issue that people are furious about. You've got to go big on it. And he's like, yeah, I know I've got to, I've got to make it priority. That's why I'm making it. I'm coming up with slogan, whatever it takes, stop the boats. I'm having press conferences. I've got this snazzy podiums and all these kind of events and I keep getting the headlines for it. And I said, well, you've got to go. And if you fix this, it will be, you might win the next election because this is a make or break issue. But what you've got to do to fix it is you do have to do necessary and some some more difficult things. You've got to leave the East H.R. You've got to re-empower the British state to actually detain at the border and deport. If you leave the East H.R., the Rwandan scheme will work. The whole reason why we couldn't get those flights off. The first time, man, was because of the East H.R. It was because of judges in the European Court of Human Rights sat in Strasbourg, who at 11 o'clock on the night of those planes on the tarmac waiting to take off, issued an injunction and said, no, stop those flights. Stop the Rwandan scheme. And then that was the fatal blow to the Rwandan scheme. If we weren't a member of that court, those flights could have taken off. And we would have started the whole Rwandan scheme with the accommodation ready and with the Rwandans ready to cooperate with us. I went over there to see the buildings that were being constructed to house these illegal migrants, all of our very humane UN-recognized scheme. All of that was fatally flawed because we are scuppard by human rights laws applied in UK courts and the Strasbourg court. And I said to him, we've got to do this. And he said, well, that would be, we don't want to upset international law, it would be too radical, it's too dangerous. And what he meant by that is there's too many Tories in the party, including himself, who just didn't want to upset the Apple Carp. Jim, we're having this conversation, Sweller, and we're using the words radical, we're saying dangerous. But I'm telling you right now, there is a lot of people out in the real world who are radicalized now, and the situation is very dangerous because they have consistently demanded not only the immigration be lowered, but illegal immigration be clamped down upon. It's not happening. So, and we can see this with other aspects where people take in the law into their own hands. And what concerns me is, there's a lot of people going, yeah, I agree with them mate. And that really, I'm sorry, but that's on the government, that's on the conservative government, and that's on the Labour government. People are at the end of their tether, and they are on the brink, and I really fear for public order because you're right, for instance, people are beginning, they've lost faith in their governments to solve this crisis. They see what's happening day after day, and it is spreading in my constituents, who are Farron Waterlooville, illegal migrants who've arrived in Portsmouth just on the edge, we can see the water from my constituency. A two weeks ago, it was Portsmouth last week, it was Gospalt. This is no longer contained to Kent and Dover. This is everywhere. And people are seeing the impact in their communities with asylum hotels, women and girls getting attacked by illegal migrants, the real, I visited Piddington a few weeks ago, and I met the women of Piddington who were having sleepless nights literally because of the prospect of over a thousand fighting age illegal migrant men being housed on the outskirts of this very small rural village in Oxfordshire. And so people are scared, they've lost faith in the government, they have no confidence in the authorities, and you're right, they're beginning to organise themselves, mobilise themselves, and take the law into their own hands. And that is, you know, when we get to that point, I really fear for public safety and I fear for, yeah, as I said, public order. I can't remember what day it was last week, but I think it was around about over 700 illegal migrants came into this country. And then I'm one day, and then I'm seeing both online, but also people that I know the temperature really starting to rise. And my question is when are the government going to wake up? Because this situation, let's be frank, it's only going to escalate. It is, it is only escalating. It's because the numbers are still, you know, the government says, oh well, there are fewer arrivals compared to last year. As you say, the dinghies are getting bigger, the numbers per day are still incredibly high, and the threat is getting closer to home. And so I think that, and people are getting more and more furious about it. They're getting scared, they're scared, and they're angry. And I'm scared, and I'm angry, actually, and having, you know, I served as home secretary, and I have no confidence in the government. I have no confidence in the conservative way, all this Labour government to have the will or ability to fix it. And that, you know, I understand why people are scared and why they're angry. Most workwear is a cotton blend sewn into the shape of trousers, and they call it functional. It works fine until you actually need to move in it, or it rains, or you reach for a pocket that isn't quite where you needed it to be. True work makes workwear that is actually built around those conditions. The T2 WorkPant has full way straight, so you can bend, kneel and climb without the fabric fighting you. A water resistant finish, so a shower doesn't immediately ruin your morning. And nine pockets positioned where trade professionals said they actually needed them, not where someone guessed. It will not surprise you to learn that I am not exactly a man who works with his hands. The closest I get is watching someone else fix my boiler, very satisfactory. So I'll let the reviewers handle this. Matthew Hobbes says he has never been able to find such comfortable durables. and great fitting workpants until now. CJR wrote, they fit right the minute I tried them on. And Dan C simply says, well fitting, hard-wearing, great pocket layout. Truework workwear has been tested over 10 years by people working in real conditions out on the tools. The work doesn't stop just because of where the changes. Upgrade to the T2 workpan and stay comfortable no matter what the day brings. Get 15% off your first order at truework.com with CodeTrig. That's T-R-U-E-W-E-R-K. com CodeTrig truework. Build like it matters because it does. - But also, when is the point suede when with this, where we're actually going to tackle this? Because this can't go on. At some point, the metaphorical rubber is gonna hit the road. And that's when it's gonna get really wearing. - Yeah, well, this is why, I mean, that's why I joined reform. I mean, I lost all faith in the concerted party. I couldn't believe a word any of them said ever. And so the only party which has the credibility, which has been consistent on this issue amongst others, is reform. And Nigel himself has been talking about leaving the East HR, far, far earlier than I was. He's the one who's pointed out the mass migration disaster 10 years ago during the Brexit referendum. He stood in front of that poster and said that we're at breaking point because of the influx of legal migrants. For all of that, for that courage, he's been called all sorts of bad things. He's been attacked physically. He's been ostracised, demonised by the mainstream media and the establishment. But he has never withdrawn from that fight to tell the truth for the British people. And so I finally have, thank goodness for reform. I finally have a political home that I can have faith in on this issue. - And the final question I want to ask on this issue is they're coming from France. Why are we not talking with the French government? Why are we not going? Look, we need to come to some kind of solution. Why is it that they're just streaming over and the French just seem to be perfectly happy if not, can't tacitly encouraging it? - You're right. As well as legal change and leaving the East HR and giving our immigration officers greater powers, which is only possible if we leave the East HR, we actually also need a diplomatic solution. And that is co-operation, genuine cooperation with the French. And again, I talk about it in the book how I would, you know, talk and implore the, my French opposite number at the time is a Gerard Daminner, Interior Minister for France. You know, and I used to tell him, this is a win-win, okay, for you and me. If you intercepted the boats, if you genuinely took border security seriously on your northern French coast, intercepted, detained and managed the illegal migrants. You, this would not only be a win for us on the UK side of the channel, but it would also be a victory for you because these migrants are heading in their thousands to the Calais and the Pada Calais region because they want to get to Dover. And it's ruined that region of northern France. The municipal authorities are furious with the French government because not enough is being done. There's crime. There are large camps, the sangat camps basically still exists. There's, you know, there's, it's really damaged the air. It's harm tourism, agriculture, safety. If that route was blocked off, those people would stop coming to the northern French region and they would try, you know, they basically, you would kill that route. And so that would be success for you. This is a win-win. Unfortunately, and I think this is a hangover from the Brexit Wars, the French government were not, and they're still not serious about dealing with their illegal migration problem in the north of their country. They would tell me that actually, honestly for them, it's not their priority politically. Their priority, when it comes to illegal migration, is on their southern coast, their southern border with Italy. And they are more concerned and exercised by the influx of illegal migrants from Italy into southern France. And for them, at the end of the day, if they're leaving France, that's kind of quite convenient for them. Well, this is what I was going to ask you. If you can't close the entry, maybe you open the exit. That's what's happening in France at the moment. They're sending these people to us because they can't keep them from coming in. Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, that we pay them, we continue to fork out hundreds of millions of pounds to the French, we strike new deals every month. It seems saying there's going to be more drones on the channel and we're going to share more intelligence and this is going to stop the boats. None of it makes a difference because the French don't really want to stop this problem because Macron has a grudge against the British after Brexit. And he definitely had a grudge against Boris Johnson and any Conservative government because he saw the Conservatives responsible for Brexit. But that's why again, I don't know if you saw it. An agreement was reached between Nigel Foward and Jordan Bardela. Jordan Bardela is very likely to be part of the next French government. And the Bardela and his party actually do recognize the deleterious impact of illegal migration in France. And they see that there is a real necessity for genuine Franco-Bretanique collaboration on the channel to stop this. And I think there's a real commitment that we've got there, albeit political or not legal, between Bardela and Farage. So I want to touch on something that you've been commenting on. Actually, I've sort of, I've made some comments on the podcast with Fraser Nelson and about Rishi Sunak, not being English. And you go, "Oh, got very messy." And it became a big public debate. But I think these two things are connected because the level of mass migration we've had has forced, it's, well, it's that. And then it's the identitarian politics we've had for the last two decades, where everyone's been encouraged to think of themselves as their community. You're a British Asian, and I'm a British Eastern European. And now, Francis, obviously, Venezuelan is ever known. So we're all members of a community, instead of all being British. And so now you've had waves of mass immigration, the demographic proportion of the original British population has gone down significantly, particularly in the big cities. So they feel slightly more, slightly less secure. You might say, I mean, significantly less secure. You've got identitarianism being encouraged. And so now we're having to have debates of what it means to be English, what it means to be British. And I said Rishi Sunak is not English because he's a British Asian, which he is. He's British and Asian. And you kind of came to my defense, I think, is fair to say, and you talk about it in the book as well. Can you just lay this out for people? Because the polls apparently are against us. Apparently most people, if you look at the polling, say that anyone can be English as long as they were born here, which maybe true, maybe not, I don't know. Well, it just seems that some people don't know who we are, literally, and I think you're right. It is a consequence of the mass immigration experiment. And the sense of cohesion, a sense of unifying identity has become harder to define. And there's Britishness on one hand, which is actually a really serious debate, which is not quite what we're talking about here, but how we treat Britishness in this country as a scandal. Anyone can basically be British. That's become a mere administrative box-taking exercise. You come here as a low-school migrant, part of the Boris wave. You're working on the black market, potentially, here for a couple of few years. You can become-- you can apply to become a British citizen. Pretty quickly. And there'll be very few barriers to becoming a British citizen. No inquiries to whether you actually love this country, whether you've contributed to it, whether you are culturally consistent with Britain. Compare that to other countries, where they take a much more deferential view of their citizenship, Japan, Singapore, to become a Singaporean. You've got to be a very high net worth individual who has made a considerable contribution to the Singaporean economy. And only then, maybe, if you're lucky, will you be granted their very special status as Singaporean, similarly with other countries. But here, it's a free-for-all. Then we've got this issue of Englishness. And I agree with you. And I quite you in the book, because the debate that you sparked was quite amusing for me. I'd never really thought about it. I'd never really questioned it. I've grown up with my parents, my family. And we've never described ourselves as English. And my parents and our social circle would never have described themselves as English. And I never described myself as English. It feels very unnatural. It feels bizarre and strange and wrong for me to say, I'm English. Very happy to say I'm British. And I'm obviously of Asian Indian ethnicity. That seems to be, that's definitely the box on the Census form that's available for me to tick. And I've never questioned it until you made the point. And, you know, it triggered a wave of liberal hysteria. And I think it's, one thing I would say is, when was she disagrees with you? It's generally a sign that you're on the right track. He seems like a nice guy, is he a nice guy? He has a very nice guy, but I can have a cup of tea with. But hopeless prime minister. Well, it's interesting, isn't it? And I think he's tried to me as someone who's the sort of repository of all these well-meaning ideas. But I don't think he really understands the debate that's happening here. I agree. And I think the debate that's happening here is, you know, a lot of white English people will, no one wants to say any of this publicly, but they will privately say that they really feel like if anyone can be part, it's like they're the only people that are not allowed their own identity. Absolutely. And I don't understand why you would keep pressing on that. It seems to me a very unwise thing to do. Well, he sonnifies the liberal streak, the cosmopolitan elites that make up the bulk of the Conservative Party. And I'm not surprised he says this. He was ambivalent about stopping the boats. I mean, he once privately said to me that why are so many people upset about the boats? That's good for the economy. Well, Rishisunak said this too. Of course. Yeah, he said that to me when he was Chancellor. When Rishisunak was Chancellor, he said, I don't understand why people are upset about the boats. Wow. That's quite an extraordinary thing to say. That's Rishi. Well, it's not just Rishi. Your argument is it's most of the Conservative Party. It is most of the Conservative Party, absolutely. So they take a liberal view on immigration. And that extends because they see it in economic terms. They think more people coming into the country is good for the economy. That liberalism extends to their view of citizenship, culture and identity. So they take a free-for-all. Anything goes less a fair attitude to who can call themselves English and British. And as long as you're here for a while, born here, maybe, you can. Everyone's welcome. Everyone in. And that's not coming from a bad place. I think that's coming from a. Let's everyone join in together and be part of this Kumbaya joint project. The reality, however, is it wholly denies that there are differences, ethnic and cultural, ancestral in our country. And it also denies someone like me, my Asian heritage. Why should I be forced to co-opt English, Englishness as an ethnicity or an identity when it's not in my blood? I don't have English blood. I have, as the book sets out, and I've worked with a historian on my ancestry to fill out the details in the beginning of this book. I have my roots in India, in Mauritius, in Kenya via Mozambique. There's a bit of Portuguese in there. There's a Hodgepodge, but there's no English. And the thread is British. The thread is a British Empire. My ancestors were subjects of the British Empire. They fought alongside the British. They worked with the British. They built with the British. They were educated by the British. They were granted refuge by the British. They were given women in my family, were given the right to vote. They were emancipated by the British. There is a very strong British connection. And so that's why I feel proudly British. But to say I'm English would be to, as you say, deny a whole cohort of this country and erase a very important ancestral and ethnic identity, which is linked to England. Homer wrote two of the most important books in Western literature. The Odyssey is the one that's had all the attention recently for obvious reasons. And the Iliad, the one about pride, rage and leadership, which is just as essential, now has a free course from Hillsdale 2. Hillsdale College's new free online courses taught by Professor Steven Smith. It's not a highlight reel and it's not Homer for beginners. It's a proper walk through the text on a courage, leadership, friendship, sacrifice, and what it means to live a noble life. You come away understanding why Achilles' real fight isn't just with the Trojans, it's with himself. This is one of more than 43 courses Hillsdale offers. On the constitution, the Roman Republic, the American founding genesis, the Second World War and more, all build the same way, taught properly, not dumbed down. I couldn't recommend Hillsdale courses more highly. Go to Hillsdale.edu/trigger to enroll for free. That's Hillsdale.edu/trigger. One of the things that you think you're uniquely placed to do is to talk about Britain in a comprehensive way. I think among the sort of chattering classes, the idea that Britain is evil is now a sort of consensus position. It's sort of the April or the beginning of the conversation, which I think if historians write about this period, if Britain in fact survives this period, if they write about this period, they will say that people have gone mad. What do you see about Britain that they don't? Well, that's another reason I wrote this book. I wrote this book for those people who were fed up with being smeared as far right racist thugs, simply for saying that Britain did a few good things for civilization in the past. The British Empire was actually forced for good for millions, not billions of people, for celebrating our heritage, our culture, our Christian faith, who were fed up with being smeared as bigoted, simply for flying our national flag. And this book is a challenge to that consensus view, which says Britain and everything about British history and the British people and British culture is racist and evil. So what is it that is great about that? We need to stand up and challenge it. And what is great about Britain? Well, from our historical perspective, as I said on the book, the British Empire, yes, of course there were mistakes which were made and there were indefensible wrongs, but there were also immeasurable good. There was also a measurable good that was done by British investment, British risk, British contribution, British service, not least ending and abolishing slavery. Industrializing and developing whole parts of the country, Mauritius is a great example. It was effectively a jungle outpost before the British came. The French were there and they laid some important foundations and they started the development and generation of Mauritius. But the British put it on rocket boosters and it became one of the biggest sugar producing countries or islands in the world by the middle of the 20th century. Thanks to British innovation, industry and ingenuity. And that's just one example, Kenya's another example, infrastructure, schools, legal systems, democratic systems, all instituted by the British. And these are small examples of the role that Britain played in global history, something schools don't pay enough attention to in the classroom and that young people are coming out wholly unaware of. And I just think that from a historical, but also from a cultural perspective, I talk about my education and it was in my classroom where I really fell in love with Britain. It was through my teachers showing me the beauty of the great, great English literature and great beautiful British hymns learning about our war heroes and the bravery of during the Second World War primarily that my heart was stopped in admiration and gratitude for what Britain has done for the world and continues to do to set the standard to stand for quality for fairness, for decency, for all of the great values that we cherish. And so, but if you were to say this, you're seen as some jingoistic pub ball who weighs his union flag and is, you know, is a far right fag. That is not reflective of what I believe the majority, the silent majority in our country. You know, it's interesting. My four-year-old and I went on the train to London and for some reason, this is, I promise you, this is not my indoctrination. He went into one of the tourist shop in London on a previous trip and demanded that I buy him the biggest British flag that was in there. So there's this four-year-old walking around. I have had nothing to do with this. This is in a fascist and I can't believe how exactly he's far right. But we were on the train and literally everybody that walked past and looked at him had a really happy smile, but they, I was just clocking it. People were really happy to see a little boy with a British flag. I think the vast majority of people just don't see the world in this way. And it's extraordinary to me that the media and elite discourse is so perverted in relation to that. to the general ordering member of the public. And I call for in this book a muscular reassertion of our cultural confidence in Britain, because I think there's been a quiet complacency amongst most people about the virtue of Britain and Britishness and British history and culture. But I think that's been abused now by immigration, by people coming to this country who don't want the best for our country and by an elite, an establishment elite, the luxury beliefs class to quote Rob Henderson, who are of the left, generally, and therefore take a predisposed view that looks at Britain, Britishness, in a very negative way and says what other cultures are somehow superior to the British way of life and that we've got to bend over backwards and we mustn't come across as racist and we mustn't protect or preserve what's ours. And a fortress Britain is a very bad state of affairs and we've got to roll out the red carpet to other cultures. We've got to bend the knee to others, even if they are doing us harm. And we've got to appease our enemies, frankly. And that's an elite, I think, and fringe view, which is percolating into our institutions through the kind of woke, left-wing ideology and I think it's harming. It's actually killing people. It's actually killing people because from that, you get things like race action plans in the police force and the BLM movement, which says that we shouldn't stop and search people because we're institutionally racist and we've got to prefer black people over white people and the appalling way Henry Novak was treated. The way those police officers behave on the ground has its origins in all of this cultural distortion that you're talking about. So moving on now, Suella, we've got Euro currently with reform and reform has been going through a challenging time, hasn't it? There have been the scandals, the financial scandals the Sunday Times expose. What have you made of it being an insider in the party? Well, thank goodness for reform is all I can say. I was feeling a high level of despair and political dislocation and homelessness really after 2023 when I came to talk to you. I had, as I said, no faith in the Conservative Party and I'm someone who is a patriot and is grateful to all those patriots and wants to feel confidence in a political party that is not scared to be patriotic to put it simply. That's not scared to do the necessary work to secure our borders, for goodness sake, that it's not going to appease Islamists that is going to arrest grooming gangs, not turn a blind eye to them because they might look racist, which is actually going to ban the IRGC, not let them come into the country and rip out country apart. So I feel very grateful that reform exists and I will take any challenge. I'll take 10 challenging days in reform and all of these scandals that they throw at us over one day at the Conservative Party any time because the form party is defined by credibility. That's what it's got, Nigel Farage and everybody who's in reform is not in it for status, titles, optics, they're in it to do the right thing and that's what really gives me hope. These are people who are. And I've met a lot of people in the last nine months that I've been in the party. People who've put themselves forward for candidacy at the local elections, I'm really struck by one thing. They're not career politicians. The People's Army, with the largest political party in the country now, the people joining reform are those who have not been politically active before. Many people have not voted before. They've assumed that it doesn't make a difference. There's no point. But something stirred in them, something is happening that you talk about and a lot of these people instead of taking to the streets in anger, they're joining reform because they see this as the last chance to save Britain. And it is. I never thought I'd be the man to change your mind about underwear. And yet, here I am on a politics podcast about to do exactly that. I'm talking about sheath, SH-E-A-T-H, sheath.com. It's underwear built around a dual pouch system. What that means in plain English, everything stays where it should be. No sticking, no chafing, no shifting around mid-sentence while trying to maintain an era of gravitas. The fabric breeds the design separates. There is apparently a technical term for what this creates. And that term is zen-like separation, which sounds ridiculous and is also completely accurate. It was developed by a veteran on his second tour, which means it was designed under conditions where comfort was not a luxury. Over 10,000 five-star reviews from people who were not messing about. And I'll be honest, the difference to my day-to-day comfort is bigger than I'm comfortable telling you about on a politics podcast. If you know, you know, go to sheath.com. That's SH-E-A-T-H.com. Use code trigonometry at checkout for 20% off. First pair comes with a full money back guarantee, so there's no reason not to try them. Sheath.com. Once you sheath, you won't go back. Sheath.com. Look, the issue is, there was a UGOV poll released last week, which had, at the same time a year ago, 27% of the electorate were going to vote reform. That's now down to 22%. And I think the financial scandals have played a part in this. People have looked at it and said, are they just another political party? Are they just another sleaze and scandal party? No, is the answer to that. I think Nigel himself, he was sitting here, would be the first to admit we're a new party. So we are developing and we're in the process of expanding and professionalizing. And will some things go wrong sometimes? Yes, of course they will. You will see the progress so far. We're autumn 2026, just in the space of two years. Since 2024, the progress has been exponential. And you could say, well, reform got it wrong with their candidate selection in 2024 because our processes weren't immature. That whole piece of work has been done. And that's all been fixed now. And we have very, very good caliber candidates coming through a very rigorous process. And I'm very excited about the cohort of people who will be putting themselves forward to stand for us at the next general election. Brilliant people, talented, who have expertise outside politics. So funding, we were never a new party. And yet we've, in the space of two years, have secured the record, the largest ever donations in political history. That's phenomenal. So I think that that is a big vote of confidence. But it also, we are developing. And so, and we're up against a very hostile media as well. Because just as you talk about those establishment elites, those left-wing bourgeois kind of mainstream that is intent on, which believes in open borders and the Britain is evil, it's also the same group of people that believes that reform is bad news. And they will do anything to try and stop reform. They've tried to call us racists for years. They've seen that that's not quite working. But now they're trying to say that we're corrupt. That won't work. They're trying to wrinkle rules. They're trying to change the rules on donations. They want to make up, they're making us. Sorry to interrupt, but I think it's an important point. You say it won't work. But I think Frances Point is that it has worked. Well, we haven't had an election. Let's see what happens at the next set of elections. Sure, and by the way, reform getting a hundred seats at the next election will be an amazing result. Historically speaking, kind of unprecedented reform, and getting 40 seats from five would be amazing. But the problem is, if you say it's the last chance to save the country, that's not going to get you into government and you're not currently on course to form the next government. Well, I actually think that those polls don't actually reflect what I see. You know, and again, the polling companies. I have to say, some of the polling companies don't necessarily behave in the best way either. I think they suppress reform support. I think they amplify other kind of support. Definitely some of the parts of the mainstream media do that. So I think I'm not persuaded by what one set of polls says. There's equally other sets of polls, which say different things. So the polls are varying all the time. It's also prediction markets as well, so I would show that there's an increase in support for the Conservative Party. There's a burn and bounce now. Let's see how long that lasts. But also we have to look at the impact of restore as well. I mean, that can't be denied. Well, I mean, I think again, this is what I say to people on the right. The next election will be probably, almost definitely, the most consequential general election of my lifetime. And the choice will be very, very clear. We will either have the choice of more socialism, some combination of left-wing parties. And that means more poverty, more taxes, more immigration, more weakness and it may well be a retrieval situation after five years of socialism or we can begin the renewal and the fight back and only reform can beat labour. And so to everyone on the right, to those conservatives who might like Kemi and think, oh, I'm staying on the conservative boat even when it goes down, you are basically voting for socialism. If you want to stop labour, if you want to stop the socialism, the socialist destruction of our party, there's no time for nostalgia. There's no time for sentimentality about the conservative party. There's no time to be emotional about the conservative party. It's reform that is the only party that's viable as a prospect to beat labour. If you're thinking, well, you like Rupert Lowe, you like the cut of his gibbon, you think he's real McCoy, you're not living in the real world. They can't win. And so however idealistic you may be, the only vehicle that constructs this disaster is to vote reform. And so there needs to be a coalescence around reform. The conservatives cannot win in Wales. They are just not a viable prospect. They're on 120 seats. They need to more than double that if they have to have any chance. How are they going to do that? They're dead in Wales. They've got a handful of seats in Scotland. The northern Midlands sway of the Red Wall Blue Wall that got Boris into number 10 has gone. That is not voting conservative. They are reduced to regaining some of the posh parts of London and the home counties. That is not a formula. That is not a route to number 10. And so anyone who, if your objective is to beat socialism and save the country, it's got to be reformed. Some people might say if your objective is to beat socialism, then the right needs to unite. And I would say, that's basically what I've said. I think to all of those voters on the right who are, you know, interested in restore. You know what I meant, though. Emotionally bound to the conservatives. I get it. I mean, I was a conservative for 30 years. It took me a long time to break the ties. And a lot of it was because of relationships. I'd definitely fallen out of love with the national party. That was clear for me. But it was the individual relationships of people that I'd had for decades. They're like a family. It was people in my local area. It was my mum and dad for goodness sake. My mum was a Tory counsellor. She stood as an MP. You know, it's in my family. It was breaking and severing of those ties that helped me back. And I think that's the same for a lot of people who are still with the Conservative Party. They can't contemplate upsetting their friends or, you know, moving to a different team, basically. And I think that's all respectable and understandable. But it's the country's future at stake. It's the future for our children at stake. And if you want to save the country, you've got to put realism ahead of emotion. And that's why they have to unite behind reform. But don't you, when you say you say you need to have realism. Look, the simple truth is, and I've personally, I've always gone very well with Nigel. I like Nigel. The issue is that Nigel is a marmite flavour. There are people who have voted Conservative all their lives, who consider Nigel too much for them. That's just how it is, and there's a significant amount of people. There's also people, and there's a growing amount, which have been radicalised by the small boats crisis, who go actually reform a too wishy washy, we need a harder edge. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. So the question, I think, we're really posing to you, Cewella, is are you going to be able to work together because I look at the left and I think to myself, they're going to work together. And if you're not, we're in dire straits. I don't, I, I mean, listen, I mean, you know what I'm making good points. Listen, I genuinely feel that I. If you read that book, you will see that the Conservative party just cannot be trusted. It's a different face, but it's the same family, and it's the same way of promising and lying. And it's all about the optics, and all about what looks good, and the polling and the lobby groups. But it's all insincere, and it's all performance. They're very good at the speeches. They're very good at the press conferences. They're very good at the show of politics. But behind it, it's all a charade. And this is why I am so grateful for a form. And Nigel, they're not in it for the show. Nigel's been saying, talking about the immigration crisis for decades, before it was a mainstream view, before the Times columnists agreed with him. And for that, he's been called a racist, and he's been called all sorts of things, but he's kept going. He was the first mover on saying the European Union was destroying our democracy. For that, the establishment tried to shut him down, and he's not given up. And I think that takes a special kind of courage and resilience, which is unique in British politics right now. All of these politicians are so plastic, and they're so superficial, and they just are following the latest fad, and they want to get on the latest bandwagon to get a little high in the polls, or a headline on the papers, or a puff piece. But it's not real. And I saw that up close. I saw that with Rishia. I saw that with Kenny, with Boris, with Cameron. It's all about the show. And I think that the way I put it, you know, the concert party is like a cheating partner. You know, he keeps breaking your heart with other women, and he keeps coming back with a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates. And he says, "Honey, I'm really sorry, I'm a change man, I won't do it again." And you forgive him, and then he goes and does it again. And you keep yourself for forgiving him. And that's the concert party he's doing. I'm changed. I won't do it again. I promise. But they do it again. The reform parties like that guy who's kind of walked through fire for you is a bit bruised and battered, but it's the real deal, because he'll go through the swamp for you. And he'll do what's necessary. He'll say what's necessary. He means it with his heart and soul. And he's been right. And that's why reform exists. It's the faithful heart of the country. And I, they haven't, you know, Nigel's not, not Renate, he's not Flip Flopped, he's not followed the fads. That's what reform attracts. It attracts those people who have that sincerity of spirit and who are not in it for titles and status and power. It's the real deal. And yeah, are there a few growing pains and do some things that need to be fixed? Of course. Of course, and that's what we're doing. It's professionalising in a rapid speed. But the fundamentals are all there. And the British people can see it. Well, you know, in terms of Nigel, this is actually something people ask me. I go, like, whatever you think about him, the one thing you can't accuse him of is being in it for money or whatever. Because he was doing very well in the city. And then he basically went and stood and lost, I think he lost his deposit. And, you know, just pursue the very unpopular cause because he believed in it. So now part of it, I get. But, so you're, you're bright woman. You know what we're asking. I mean, if you talk, if you want to talk about being realistic, there is a very realistic prospect that come the next election, despite the beautiful story about the cheating boyfriend and all the rest of it that you tell us, a lot of people will remain with the conservative party. It may be small. It may be 40 seats or 50 seats or 100 seats. And you need those seats to form a government. And so the question is, will reform, if that happens or even in advance of that, be open to some kind of electoral pact or after the fact come together in the interest of the country and say, okay, you know, this guy, not very reliable, but we're in charge. They're the minor partner in this coalition. We can deliver on our agenda because, as you say yourself, the alternative is socialism. No deal. No deal. Do you prefer socialism to a deal with the congress? No, how can I go back to and work with a fundamentally dishonest partner? How can you do that? That's like, oh, well, I'm just going to overlook all your previous misdemeanors, your history of chronic deceit. And trust you. Am I touching you now? No, absolutely not. But I feel guilty just by you, the way you present this case. Don't worry, it's your lawyer, I advise you. You don't have to address any of these claims. I believe this. Yeah, how could we do that? They don't have clean hands. How can they be-- But then you're occurring in the socialism, you are poor so much. Well, that's what I say to people. I think the choice, as I said, will be clear. We'll be clearer for people at the time of an election. Right now, it's more opaque because, you know, you know, people are looking at all of the options and they don't need to decide yet. But I think when minds are focused at the ballot stations, I think people will, the choice will be very, very good. All right, fine. We've pressed you on this a fair bit. There's one thing. that I always ask people from your party whenever we have you on. And I think actually this is a really important question. I don't hear it talked about a huge amount. I see Robert Generick, your economics person talking about it a little bit more, but it seems to me like there's a big challenge for a form in that I think the leadership of your party, including yourself, are probably when it comes to the economy are in favor, you know, I would imagine, correct me if I'm wrong. You think taxes are too high. You think businesses constrained by regulation, etc. You think that the economy is suppressed and needs to be unleashed. There's too much government, too much interference, too much of all of that, too much welfare, etc. Yes, of course. But at the same time, a lot of the people who are coming to your party are left wing on economics. They want redistribution. They want the big safety net. They want the NHS. They want all the things that bridge people have become used to. And that seems like quite a tough circle to square, square to circle, because the British public are left winging on economics, and you guys are not. The people who watch this 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 a world Michael Thorough 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 helps 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 residencies, second citizenships, offshore banking, international real estate, legal structures that spread your life across borders. Michele 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. Our foreign residency functions as genuine political insurance, which countries actually make sense depending on what you're trying to protect. And would it realistically cost? 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. The British public are left-winging in economics and you guys are not. I would challenge that to the degree that most of the people coming to us are left-wing on economics. Yes, we're winning in many of those formerly Labour heartlands, which went conservative at the last election. And we're winning in, we're doing very well in places like Wales and Essex and Norfolk and Suffolk and industrial heartlands. But I would dispute the fact that those people are left-wing. I would say that they might have historically been Labour voters possibly. But they want lower taxes. They are people who are working class people who want to take home more of what they're earning. They are people who see an out-of-control welfare bill, billions of pounds spent on illegal migrants, wages being suppressed because of an influx of foreign workers. And they are fed up with that. I meet a lot of these people in my own constituency, actually. Just a few weeks ago I met a man. He's mid-30s probably. He was a painter decorator. I caught him just as he was coming home. And he said to me, so I'm actually fed up and angry. My wife's just, we've got one child and she stays at home to look after the baby. I work pretty much six, seven days a week. We haven't had a holiday in two, three years. We want to have another baby. But there's no way we can afford another baby. And I'm so angry and I'm being worn down and broken by this government. And the tax rate is crippling me. The costs of my raw materials and labour have never been higher. And how am I supposed to support a young child and a wife? And I'm here doing the right thing. I'm here busting a gut and not going to welfare. And it feels like the British state is doing everything to, you know, kick me in the shins. And I think millions of people feel like that. And they may well have been historically labour voters. So that all comes back down to cutting taxes. The tax burden is far too high. And that's why we've come out with a very big policy announcement, Robert Jennings announced at the conference. We would raise the personal allowance threshold to £15,000 for those for the lower earners. And that would result in more money that people keep from their earnings. But the tax thresholds are a really good example of how the last concert of government, supposedly the party of low tax, utterly failed. You know, those tax thresholds have been frozen since the pandemic, where she promised to raise them, never got round to it, another Tory lie. But that has really distorted our personal tax system. So you've got people at the lower end who were never intended to be paying higher rates of tax, but have been dragged into it. That payment to decorate you are talking about, probably paying the top rail tax. Absolutely. Exactly. And he's a classic example of how we've got a punitive tax system. It doesn't incentivise people to work. And so a lot of people do think, well, actually, I could earn more and welfare. Why should I be working because welfare is so easy to get? So at the lower end, it's dragging more people, also teachers, nurses, never intended to pay the higher rate on our paying higher rate. At the higher end as well, you know, the marginal tax rate is punitive. There are people who won't go for the promotion, won't work higher hours, longer hours, because it's just not worth their time or money. And so how have we created a personal tax system regime, which actually puts people off work and deters them from working that, if ever there was a sign over system not working, that was it. So what would you do? So I would say those people do want lower taxes and lower taxes are not a. I just look at the popularity of things like the mansion tax and all of these sort of. I've never used the phrase politics of envy, but a lot of it is like the VAT on school fees. All it's done is it's the rich are continuing to send their kids to private school, but people who are on the brink, who were just about scraping enough to send their kids to private school, they're the ones that are having to stick their kids in state schools now, which is making state schools worse, because there's now more people per class, etc. And that's just a policy of basically saying we're all feeling a bit poorer, so let's just stick it to people who have a bit more. And those policies are becoming quite popular in the country, they are. Well, I would say that we believe, so we believe in a welfare state for the vulnerable and those who cannot work genuinely and we look after those people, but we've got a system where which is not defined by genuine vulnerability anymore and genuine need, we've got a system which actively disincentivises work, we've got a system which is a soft touch. And so we've got far too many people claiming that their sick or incapacitated cannot work when actually they can. So what will you do about all of this? Well, massive welfare reforms have been set out by the party. We would make it much more rigorous in the actual assessments, we would cut the welfare bill by about £50 billion, that's a big saving, divert that funding to things like defence or other aspects of our economy, which really need the investment. We're the only party that set out quite a bold plan on welfare reform. You will be accused when it happens, as Ian Duncan Smith was, of hurting people, killing people, perhaps. And such as the unwielding nature of these massive government systems, unfortunately, if you ever reduce welfare for people who have been diagnosed with ADHD or anxiety or whatever, it will turn out that some of them were really in a bad way and didn't need to help. How are you going to navigate all that? And that's again, there's a lot of lessons that can be learned from the conservative experience. They tried, welfare reform, you know, they didn't go far enough because welfare ballooned on their watch. The Labour Party is a very good case in point. Every Labour Prime Minister, it seems, is trying to cut welfare, but there are a hundred or so Labour-backed benches who are adamantly against it and will not let it go through. And so I doubt Andy Burnham will make any headway in cutting the welfare bill. So I think that needs, this is again, why I'm very glad that reform is, you know, there is a political coherence amongst people. Again, this is one of the reason I'm very happy to be in reform. You talk about invasion. I said it was an invasion when I was home secretary. I think in 2022 or 23. Tory MPs, you know, lost their marbles and their heads wobbled and they said I was divisive and they said the tone was wrong and the rhetoric was wrong and, you know, I was, I was, you know, criticised by my own colleagues, including members of the cabinet. Everybody in the reform party calls it, thinks it's an invasion and is very comfortable with describing it as such. It's the same with things like welfare reform. You know, it will be a party already where a party and it will continue to be a party that is united on this issue. because we all see the enormity of the problem and the essential need to cut the bill, because there's nothing else as possible. Economic growth is not possible with the state of welfare spending as it is. Investing in our defence is impossible if we carry on spending so much on welfare. That's even before you get to schools and hospitals. So it is the number one economic priority if we're going to cut taxes and get economic growth going. One thing I think is interesting to your point about being divisive and saying certain things at a certain time is I'll form a guest Matthew Said who we love having on the show. He wrote an article on the Times this week talking. Matthew is great because she's wonderful at speaking to the kind of centre of British politics and people on the left will listen to him as well, but kind of saying the things that people are you were saying just five or six or ten years ago. And he wrote an article basically saying that the Angela Merkel's David Cameron's Macron's of the world, they were the extremists while they were being celebrated and it does feel increasingly like the consensus or certainly the overt and window is shifting so rapidly and now more and more people are given permission to believe things that we've argued about for a long time. Do you see in that the possibility for a form to genuinely win the next election as a result of that? I think more people are I think you're right the overt and window is shifting, but I also think that more people are getting more desperate. There's a greater sense of desperation about what to do about the various crises afflicting our country and in many ways the worse it gets under labour and it will get worse under this labour government. The budget will be a disaster, there may well be a financial crisis in the next 12 months with this country. Immigration is going to get worse, there will be more riots, there will be more protests, there will be more to-tier policing, there'll be more Islamism, grooming gangs, the victims of grooming as we'll not get justice. Every year that it slides down a notch in our country, the greater the levels of desperation, fear and anger, and I think that, again, that's why I'm very grateful to be in a party that's fearless with the solutions that it's offering, where the only party that's saying, well, we'll actually militarise our border, we'll use the one on AV, the conservatives scoff at that, but actually it's the right thing to do. I went to Greece when I was home secretary. Greece is a relative success story when it comes to combating illegal migration. At the height of the Syria and refugee problem, a million migrants were invading Greece on its maritime border. They built a war, the Greeks actually built a war on its land border with Turkey. They used drones and armoured vehicles and soldiers, and the number fell by about 90% in the space of a couple of years. You could see with America as well. A robust approach to border security was what it took to stop the problem on the southern border. I think that people, a few years ago, they would have thought that unimaginable to think about using the armed forces to secure our borders. But now, I think more people are agreeing that that is the necessary measure and reform is the only party that's saying, yeah, we agree. That's what we're proposing in our policy. Before we move on to our final question and the questions from our audience for sub-stack, there's something that I've always, this is a question I always ask politicians of every hue, which is, when do you think we'll be the next general election? Mm-hmm. I'd like to know what you think, actually. This is a kind of a, you know, a sweepscape, you should have a, we should have a bit. Well, it's a light debate on off the fence, which is a new show we've launched with Winston Marshall and Tom's later from Spike. So we've been going back and forth. Right. Where do you all stand? Right. So this is how I, if I was burning, I'd call one in the next couple of months. I think this is the best time for him. And I know we, I know Andy, you love the show. So, you know, a bit of advice from me to you. Has he been on? No, no, no. Have you invited him? Of course. We invite all the leaders of every party. Yeah. You know, he's, he's from the same part of the world as my dad is. So we've got a lot in common, Andy. Number one, I would say, if he was being smart, he would do it now. He's never going to be more popular than he currently is. He's got that bounce. He doesn't, he hasn't yet had to implement policies, which are going to annoy and irritate and alienate certain people. There feels like there's a little bit of momentum behind him. Perform have been hit by the scandals and whatever else. So they're currently down. The right haven't united. The Greens look like they've receded because he's made, he's been very skillful in what he's done with the far left of the Labour Party. This should be the moment. He would do it now. It would really annoy some members of Labour MPs because they're going to lose their seats. But if his ultimate goal is for Labour to remain in power, I think he should do it now. I personally don't think he will. I think he thinks he's got enough headwind behind him to do another two, three years. Yeah. And I would, I mean, the line about he'll never be as popular as he is now, I think, is totally true. The only question is he could call an election now and lose or have to do a former coalition with people which would make his life more difficult. And so he may just hold on. It may be like, you know, you're going to get, but also, you know, we were arguing about this one off the fence the other day. It's like, is maybe we live in a kind of left wing world country now and just statistically speaking in terms of the percentage of the people. I think Winston made the point that we go back and forth on the stuff, but like the percentages have stayed exactly the same, 47 left, 47 right. And Burnham has seemed to be very, very good at consolidating the left wing vote. So when it comes to vote time, they're like, you know what, we've got to stop reform, we've got to stop for rise and they all get together and vote for the left wing party. So it's hard to say, but he's come out recently and said himself that there won't be, he won't be calling an election. Do you think that? Do you believe him? Well, all primates to say that before they call an election. I think Richie said in the March 24, no, there won't be an election three months later. We had an election. I think Theresa May famously said, choose me as leader. I won't call an election literally a year later, she called an election. So I never believe them when they say no. And of course, they have the, you know, absolute prerogative on calling it. So only they will know. We're ready. We're on an election footing at reform and we are, you know, we are ready for the battle ahead. And if he calls it, you know, bring it on. No one voted for him. And people do feel feel it sorely that there is a lack of legitimacy. And he, it looks like he wants to announce some quite big, you know, policies which are departure from the manifesto. He is limited on tax changes by the manifesto. He's talking about social care changes. He's very passionate about that issue. You know, it's not really in the manifesto. And that would be a massive change to how we fund social care, how we deliver it. He wants to make it like the NHS, basically. That's a big departure from anything anyone was told about when Labour were elected. So he's, he might, on the one hand, be ruling out a general election in the near future. But on the other hand, he's talking in policy terms about things that would, you know, technically speaking, require an election and a personal mandate if he wanted to deliver them. So he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, which is why he's almost like he's a politician. Yeah. I'm working on the basis. There's going to be an election in the next six months. Really? Personally. Interesting. And what do you think reform will get at that election? Well, that's a good result. Because like I said, you know, if you get a hundred seats, it's amazing. It's incredible. It is, but it's not enough to have been done. Has it in British politics, a new party getting hundred seats? Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that a lot of firsts have been achieved by the reform party in recent years. So anything is possible. I mean, I am working on the basis that we have Prime Minister Farage installed in number 10 at the next general election. That is the only way that we, you know, restore some hope and confidence to the country and begin the, you know, the recovery, frankly, because the country is in deep, deep crisis. The economics are awful as we just set out. The migration problem needs fixing the, you know, our schools need fixing, which is my area. And people can't get a GP appointment. We are wholly and dangerously exposed when it comes to our armed forces. We will not be able to defend ourselves if we were attacked by a hostile state. We are crippled. Our heavy industry is decimated because of net zero madness. There is so much, and I haven't even got there to the dysfunction of whitehall and the courts and the administrative organs of the state, which just don't work. So there is so much profound rewiring, radical change, responsible radicalism that is needed, that, you know, the sooner we get on with it the better. So what is the one thing that we're not talking about that we should be? Before Suello answers the final question at the end of the interview, make sure to head over to triggapod.co.uk where you'll be able to see this. What would you do differently about the police or what would you do to the police? What's the one thing about Britain that you believe has been lost in your lifetime and can politics realistically bring it back? What is the one thing that we're not talking about that we should be? Well, I think you've talked about it a little bit so maybe this isn't the right answer, but I touch on it in my book and I'm prepared for the backlash. By the way, a book like in tip say the title for the people listening. In my book Patriot, I say Patriot, Empire, betrayal and hope, I say, and I'm prepared for the backlash from the sisterhood. I talk about my personal experience of starting a family and struggling to have a baby and actually with hindsight, making a bit of a mistake in leaving it too late. I had my first child when I was 39 and my second child when I was 40 and I almost missed the boat biologically speaking. It's something I've been really interested in for a few years, which is not just my personal story, but the fact that I'm part of a huge phenomenon in the West, which is involuntary childlessness and a collapsing birth rate. Actually, just for context, it's kind of illustrated quite nicely in the book. My grandmother was born in 1922. She was one of nine children. She got married at 18 and she had five children, three of them survived, so that's one of my mother. My mum didn't had me in 1980 and I'm an only child. If we carry that structure on with my daughter, she's not going to have any children. We're not going to produce the labour force, the citizenry, the energy, the dynamism, the people to sustain our country. There is a massive social and economic time bomb waiting to, which is already actually exploding. You see it in many parts of the world where governments are beginning to take the collapsing birth rate seriously, and it's something that we need to start talking about. Since you bring it up, so it's really interesting. You mentioned that it's another debate I've sparked with my irresponsible comments, but actually we'll have a couple of very interesting commentators coming on to do a debate on the show about it. What was it? You mentioned you're one of the lucky ones, in that you were able to jump on the boat right as it was departing. That has its own challenges by the way, because you're having kids very close after each other, which is not easy as we both know, etc. What was it that made you be in that position? What were the things that caused you to find yourself in that place? This is something I explore in the book. The largest reason was that I was raised to put academic and professional achievement first, and I was raised to be a girl boss. My parents will happily accept this and we talk about it a lot. They said to me, and this is born out of my mother's experience and my grandmother's experience, don't get married, don't get married, don't tie yourself down, don't settle, God forbid, don't have a baby too early, because that will just ruin your professional chances, it will ruin your career, and go for your career. Throughout my 20s and my 30s, that's what I did, and I did that to textbook perfection. Then I found myself in my mid to late 30s, childless, and unmarried, and actually pretty worried that I might have made a mistake and a wrong choice. I think there's a cultural question about what are we telling our young people and our young girls? I don't think we tell them that fertility is finite. I don't think we talk about family enough in positive terms. I don't think we celebrate men as dads and fathers and providers enough in our kind of cultural narrative, and of course, economically, we've made it very difficult, if not impossible for young people to settle down and think about marrying and having a baby. If you've gone to university, you are starting off with £50,000 worth of debt in your early 20s. Your average salary is £35,000. There's no way you're going to be able to afford a down payment on a house, and people are not going to be having babies in flat shares. We've made economically very difficult for younger people to start having kids. I think there's a mixture of issues which are both cultural and economic, which you've contributed to a declining birth rate. So Eilert, thank you so much for coming on the show. Great to have you. The book is Patriot, Empire Betrayal and Hope. You mentioned it only about 73 times here in the course of the interview. That's not enough. Can I get it again? Head on over to trigapod.co.uk where you'll be able to see this. If reform wins Parliament, how will they not be prevented from implementing their reforms binding trends bureaucracy deeply opposed the reform policy?