Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Delilah, Return of Liz Truss and Sam Smith

Episode Date: February 7, 2023

On this episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates the decision by Wales Rugby to ban the anthem, 'Delilah' due to it normalising violence against women. Also, Piers looks into the return of Liz Truss and how she is undermining Rishi Sunak's government. Piers delves into Sam Smith's next questionable decision, dressing up as Satan at the Grammys'. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight, Peasbork and a sense of Wales rugby bands a legendary anthem Delilah over claims it normalises violence against women. Does that mean we now cancel violent television, violent movies, operas, even Shakespeare? We'll debate that. At first, Boris Johnson went on manoeuvres. Now, Lettis Liz Truss launches the most unwanted comeback in political history. Our Britain's zombie ex-prime ministers undermining Richie Soon-Ex government. Thus, Sam Smith shocks.

Well, he's always shocking. I don't know why it's even a news story, but he's shocked again at the Grammys by dressing up as Satan. Is he, they, then, bravely pushing the boundaries of art or just the boundaries of taste? We'll debate that.

Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London. Welcome to Peers Morgan Unsensored. There are very few sights and sounds more iconic in British sport than Welsh rugby fans. Lusterly bellowing out Delilah.

It's a legendary 19. 60s ballot by the iconic Welsh crooner Tom Jones. And here's the man himself, leading a rousing chorus of it at Wembley for the England v Wales game in 1999. Well, spine-stingling stuff, like many sporting anthems, there's nothing much to do with sport. It's a stirring sing-along anthem, which every supporter knows the words too.

It gets their pulses racing. It raises the roof. It brings fans together. But does it incite violence? Well, the Welsh Rubber Union thinks so. It's just banned the song from the official choir. song list ahead of the Six Nations opening fixtures, which just occurred this weekend. And a victory for common sense, and it was their only victory this weekend, the Welsh fans

completely ignored it. Well, it didn't help their play. Wales got walloped by Ireland in that opening game on Saturday. Some suggested they should have spent more time concentrating on the rugby, a little less time on the virtue signalling. Well, the Wales winger, Louis Rezamet, tweeted all the things they need to do, and they do that first. He's got a point, hasn't he?

The Welsh Rugby Union said in a statement that the song is problematic. that wonderful new word, that scourge of our society, problematic. Everything is problematic to somebody. Trust me. Everything. But problematic and upsetting to some supporters because of its subject matter. And it's true, the lyrics to Delilah are pretty full on. They're about a jealous lover avenging his unfaithful concubine. She stood there laughing. I took my life in my hand and she laughed no more.

We can all agree that's not the way to settle the real domestic dispute, but as any real person in the 55-year history of the song ever seriously interpreted it as an instruction manual? Does anyone think it has anything to do with domestic violence? The song's just theatre. It's a thespian murder ballad, telling a fictional story about people who don't exist. If we have to ban Delilah, where does that stop?

Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, as to watch him die. That wasn't very nice. Bob Marley shot a sheriff. That was definitely problematic. and don't even dare think about Britney Spears singing Hit Me Baby One More Time. Happy Valley is the biggest show on British TV at the moment. It features a lot of violence against women, which it uses as part of its masterful and hard-hitting storytelling.

Movies are loaded with exaggerated violence against men, women and, well, pretty much everybody. Then there's opera, theatre, Shakespeare, the entire genre of rap music. Banning one Welsh anthem might seem trivial to some, but once you begin to sacrifice, art at the altar of snow flakery, as I would see it, the world starts to become a very boring place. Well, joining me now is domestic abuse survivor and the founder of stand-up to domestic abuse, Rachel Williams, and my pack. Legal journalist Ava Santina, talked if you contribute to Esther Cracker. Well, welcome to all of you. So, Rachel, first of all, you've been through a horrific thing, horrific domestic violence, ending up with

you being shot, and it had appalling consequences. Your own son took his life. after this. And for that, I'm deeply sorry to you. And genuinely, I have nothing to offer you but empathy for everything you've been through. Here's my problem with this, is I can understand why you, given what you've been through, given the choice, would say, yeah, stop singing Delilah. But for the reason that I just articulated, that once you start going down that row with fictitious art. I don't know where it ends. Most operas have similar storylines. Shakespeare's full of it. Do we literally say that's it that all that kind of stuff has to be expunged, cancelled? Well, I'm Welsh. I live Tom. I used to sing along with gusto, you know, not really knowing the

words. And this is what I found in the last couple of weeks. People are singing it, not knowing the words. And I think if it was put up on a big screen in the match, would people really want to be seeing that, the glorifying of a murder. You know, we know we lose two women a week at the hands of a partner or ex-partner. Is banning Delilah going to stop a perpetrator? Of course it's not. And anybody that thinks that is absolutely

insane. So why bother? Well, I think, you know, we talk about Happy Valley. You know, that was great because it showed domestic abuse, showed coercion, showed the murder, showed the violence. But then it's a good cop bad cop. He got done for his actions, basically. this is actually glorifying a song of a murder.

And I think unless you've been touched by domestic abuse and violence directly or indirectly, it's or somebody else's business. But if you took the argument, this is not, I get it. I get it completely get why you feel the way you do. But if you take the argument that if you've personally experienced something, which is, you know, for you a serious thing and it upsets you and it's traumatising, that no art can ever go down that road because it might upset somebody who's been through it themselves for real, I just think in the end, I'll bring in the pack here,

but I just think in the end, Esther, once you go down that road, it's a very slippery slope to really rampant censorship. Because somebody somewhere will have a story not as bad as yours, I would hope, because it's horrific. But somebody will have a story about almost everything, which they could say, look, this is traumatising me,

this Shakespeare play, this performance of it, this opera. I mean, the operas in particular, I'm thinking of. This poem, I mean, there's all sorts of. of stuff where you might recite poetry, you might recite a, you know, I might have a school play of Shakespeare. I was a Shakespeare performer myself at prep school. When I look back on it, Romeo and Juliet, you know, these things are, they're all pretty violent. Yeah, I mean, it's a free speech issue, right? You know, everything at some point can and will offend someone else. But at the point

where you're infringing on someone's free speech to actually sing the song because you think they're not cognizant of the content of the lyrics or whether they should be singing it, that is where it's a slippery slope because then you have to be able to justify it. You have to be able to prove that that song is an instruction manual for people that want to, you know, solve domestic dispute, which is not. No one's murdered a woman because they said, I listened to that, that did the song, Delilah and followed the lyrics, right? And the bigger issue here is, you know, listen to the filth that we listen to today, 50 cents, you know, Stormsy, look at the lyrics of all the modern pop songs that we listen to. They're all full of

violence and, you know, glorifying horrible things, but we still sing them. And most people know the lyrics, they just choose to ignore them. Right. That's just the nature of the Right, I mean, that is my feeling about this. If you're going to start banning Delilah, it's a bit like when they went after the Christmas song, the, what was it, Baby, it's Cold outside. And they said it, you know, it was basically a license to commit assault on women.

Everybody with a brain knew that was not the case about that. It was a very innocent song, actually, a very innocent video about playful flirtation. But he got misconstrued. John Legend rewrote the lyrics because it was so outrageous. But John Legend, his best friends with a bunch of rap stars, You write and sing the most heinous stuff. So to me, there's a real double standard, too,

about what we delve into when it comes to censoring music. But that's interesting that you understand that dichotomy, and then I understand later in this program, we're going to be talking about Sam Smith and the display that they put on yesterday at the Grammys, a display that I really enjoyed. You can understand how that might be influential on children who are watching on impressionable people,

but for some reason you can't understand why chanting about murdering someone might have some sort of breakthrough. I think the difference here is not murdering someone, it's murdering a woman. So imagine if Delilah was written and sung by a woman, right? That's just a woman. Bob Marley shot the sheriff, what happens with that? Hang on, hang on, baby. Bob Marley, I shot the sheriff.

Yeah. So what happens to that song? Well, what do you mean? Are we in a situation where Bob Marley has shot a sheriff? Are we saying it only matters if a woman, is it only applicable to women being on the receiving end of violence? Well, I think that I think you are very intelligent peers and you know. that women are often on the end, the receiving out of domestic abuse. You know, a woman is killed every three days by a partner, ex-partner, or someone she knows.

It's inconsequential. No, but it dwarfs that number. The number of men that are killed by other men, dwarfs the number of women that are killed by the domestic. Well, that doesn't mean all men are bad. No, I'm sorry. It doesn't mean all men are bad. You have to say, I've got to say, Rachel, on that point,

I have made a series of crime documentaries involving extremely violent women, just for the record, a two series called Killer Women. and they were incredibly dangerous and very violent. So it's not like dangerous women don't exist. The percentage is higher, but the highest percentage of killings of the world by a country mile, as Esther said, is men on men, right? But my point is, okay, you know, Bob Marley, I shot the sheriff.

Do we ban that song? Yes or no. I understand that. Do we or not? But can I also present something like a politician? Do we ban it or not? We don't ban it. We don't ban it.

So men getting shot dead, fine. Women getting killed, not fine. Let me slightly agree with you. You see the slight problem with that? Let me slightly agree with you and say, what I didn't like about this ban was I felt that the Welsh Rugby Union had actually engaged in fem washing,

which is essentially like, you know... What is fem washing? Well, I'll tell you. That sounds like one of those things that you see and works for in America. Yeah, exactly. It's a hygienic product. But it's capitalising on domestic abuse and women's violence in a way to publicise yourself. And actually, yeah, banning this song

is not going to do anything to, you know, to combat the way that women are treated by violent husbands who come home from sports games. If they'd actually done something productive, alongside this band, I'd be more on side with it. But I think they have trivialised domestic abuse with just this quiet ban. Okay, so my other question, look,

you said you sang along with... It's been a Welsh anthem for 50 years, right? It came out of the 60s. Why now? I mean, we've all known what the lyrics have been. Everyone knows what the song is. Why now? I think, if I'm truly honest, it is in response to what's just coming out with the WIU.

You know, I've been talking about this song for the last few years, and so was Chris Bryant, the MP. And I had a Twitter debate with a gentleman on Twitter and he said, you know, oh, it's ridiculous. And then when I explained to him my reasons of why I think it should not be sung, he said he totally agreed. You know, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases in 2020 weren't, were male.

You know, we've got a problem. But here's, again, I come, listen, complete respect again for your argument. I get it. But here's the problem. To me, there are two issues, domestic violence and free speech. Right? Nobody is saying that these are real people in Delah. They're fictitious and someone is singing really happening every week though they'll be it. No, I understand that but happy valley is fictitious. Yes, but then you had the cop at the end. So if Tom Jones rewrote the lyrics and the guy who kills the woman gets

put in jail, you'll fine with it. If that's it. If that if that so be it, yeah, yeah. You'd be fine with that. So you keep the standard. So your interpretation of it is the standard. My thing is at the end of the day is good cop by a cop and at the end of the day you've got a case like with Happy Valley, where he was actually arrested, put in prison, and, you know, you've got that result. So if the story ends the way you want it, that's when it's okay free speech rights? Well, no, it's, you know, I... What if Delilah took the knife?

What if Delilah saw the man at the door and said, oh, you know what, I'm sick of you? And just went into her kitchen and got a butcher's knife. No, I think we're trivializing it. No, but that's the thing. You're happy to manipulate a story to make it more comfortable what you like. No, it's not. Because at the end of the day,

if the guy, if Delilah killed the guy, then, you know, we could still have this. same conversation. But we're doing, do we ever? We wouldn't be having a conversation. Exactly. No, because more women are killed the men in the UK years.

But as we just said, far more men are killed by men, than any other form of murder in the world. And it's promoting violence constantly. This is a sick world. That's the entirety of the rap genre. That's the entirety of the rap genre. Rugby itself promotes violence.

It's men smashing into each other. Right, it's violent. Yeah, but they choose to do that. A woman don't necessarily killed or smacked away. I also choose not to sing the song, but you don't get to make that blanket ban for everyone else. That actually says more about the person singing the song. Hold on. If you know the lyrics, if you know the lyrics and you choose to sing it, then you, that's why it's called freedom of speech. That's fun.

Would you, okay, but would you, though, go over any opera that had problematic, you know, narratives or themes? Would you go over any other songs which have violence in them? Would you ban all rap music? Because they're all pretty violent. You got sting, you know, you know, that's a homage to stalkers, you know? Every breath you take every move you make. No, I get what you. I'm going to ban every breath you take.

I would love to ban that song. Please you can. You can. That is a terribly frightening song. I cannot stand it. Every breath you take. It's awful. It's about a man watching his ex-wife forever.

It's stalking. It sounds nice. It's not very nice. It's not very nice. All right. So we're banning that as well. What else do you want to ban? I'd happily get rid of that.

You'd happily get rid of most rap music. It's interesting to hear you talk about. Yes, you would. I'm sure I've been on the show and I've spoken to you before about how rap music, you know. No, I've only ever said, I don't think any of it should be banned. I think fictitious music lyrics, like everything else fictitious,

they should be treated as fictitious. And I don't see a causal link between Delilah and people suffering domestic violence. I just don't. If there was one, if there was a spate of cases, if people say, well, actually, I listen to Tom Jones sing this at the rugby and it made me want to go and kill my partner, fine. There's ever been a recording case of that. You don't think that chanting it over and over again might normalize domestic violence.

I don't think anybody ever has ever gone away from chanting delighter and think, I must go and kill my girlfriend. Well, then it's okay for Sam Smith to dress up as Satan, isn't it? My point about Sam Smith is he's become a bit like his heroine Madonna. He's become this ridiculous attention seeker who only shocks just to create shock and attention. The reason I had an injection to this is written a column about for New York Post. There are 210 million Christians in America, 63% of the country, who are actually genuinely offended, that Sam Smith was.

And I'm a Catholic, I think it's fantastic. I was prancing around on stage at the Grammy's family show, watched by kids. He's prancing around devil worshipping and actually making a point of saying, well, they don't recognize trans people, so we view them as hellish, right? No, but then do you get to ban free speech or you get to promote free speech when it's Delilah? But then when this comes on and it might offend a certain subsector of America, then we'll have to get rid of it. I'm not saying it should be banned.

Or it's not appropriate because it might offend certain people. You could be critical. You could be critical. I just don't believe in this cancel cultural. I don't believe you keep banning things because you don't you don't feel find them appropriate but you can sing Delilah at home you can go home and sing every breath you take no one is stopping you from doing that we're just suggesting that maybe in a stadium full of people where women and children like to take part in the action it's not appropriate you're not suggesting it you're banning it that's

the difference you're not suggesting it now it's been banned I didn't ban anything that was the well yeah but that's the that's the that's actually only the choir stop the choir singing but my so if your mum was tragically killed by by her partner knife to death would you be happy singing that in a rugby match? I wouldn't have any correlation between that and Delilah, no. You wouldn't? No, none at all.

Unless it happened because of the song Delilah. My dad's a Welshman and a massive fan of Welsh rugby. If he suddenly got over-excited watching the rugby because Delilah was being sung and attacked my mother, I might have a problem with it. But I don't see any causal link between the two things. And that's where I have a problem with the censorship. If there was, I'd say, okay, I get it.

And again, I can. I don't completely understand why you feel the way you do, but I do think once you go down that road, I'm not sure where it stops, because there'll be a lot of people out there who have their own reasons, like you say, is every breath you take about stalking? I don't think so, but there'll be someone who's a stalking victim

who has the same powerful argument that you do, who's been through a horrendous experience with stalking, and says, yes, and I get that, and I get each individual case. I don't think you can really legislate free speech by saying every individual that suffer personal trauma means we have to ban this thing. And like I said, all along peers, you know, at the end of the day, perpetrators abuse because they choose.

Not because of alcohol, not because of drinks, not because of their childhood background, and not because of Delilah. But the good thing what's happening here is we're having the conversation about domestic abuse and violence and it's been brought back into the media, which is great. I agree. And I think that's an important issue. I know you've been through an awful lot and it's great to see you. So thank you very much for coming in.

Appreciate it. You're staying with me back. Next to night, the fallout to my suitz of interview with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the ghastly return of the most unwanted Prime Minister in history. The Lettis. Let's trust, all next. Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncenter, just when Rishi Sunak thought he'd sailed into slightly calm or waters, the Tory sharks circling the Prime Minister, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson,

are pushing the tax cuts ahead of the budget. Remember, the last time the government tried the Trussway, the pound tanked and mortgage rates exploded and she was gone in 44 days. In fact, she lasted less time than a lettuce, you might remember. Well, maybe you wish she said that is to take the advice that I gave him during our interview. Is it time to put the periscope up

and unleash a little torpedo to remind Boris who the actual Prime Minister is? Well, join me now as a former Conservative Party chairman, Sir Jake Berry. Ava and Esther still here. and I'm joined by Talk to Eastfield editor to Kate McCann. I'm going to start with Kate McCann down in Westminster. The Liz Trusts come back that nobody forecast and nobody seems to want. Why is this happening?

Why is she not taking a dignified period of silence of, say, 20 years as we try and forget the damage she wrought on our economy? Yeah, Piers, I think that's a question that actually lots in the Conservative Party, not least in the country, are asking themselves too. What's clear from the 4,000-word piece that Liz Trusses, wrote over the weekend and the interview that she's done this evening with Spectator TV is that she feels she's going to play a role in reshaping not just the Conservative Party but the whole of politics is approach to economics

she thinks essentially that Rishi Sunak and those in government right now have got it wrong and she seems to feel some kind of duty to try and set it right and what's fascinating about reading her interview and her reasoning for why things went the way they did is that there's a lot of blame levied on a lot of different people. The OBR comes in for some literal, not phrased enough in economics, we're not economically literate. We play a part too. She's clearly thought about the reasons why she believes things went wrong for her, but I think the mood in the Conservative Party is pretty

much not right now, thank you very much, even though there are many on those ventures who think they'd like to see. It's not not right now, it's not never, thanks. It's unbelievable. And I read this 4,000 word thing. She blamed absolutely everybody and even found a way to blame the Labour Party, which I hadn't factored into this at all, because last time I checked, she was thrown out by her own side, not by the Labour Party. But also the idea you can be Prime Minister for 44 days,

that you can be outlasted by a lettuce in a tabloid stunt, that you tank the pound to record lows, that you cause immeasurable damage to individual households with soaring mortgages and so on. The idea that you don't even include the word sorry in this 4,000 word piece, that you blame everybody else and that you very grandly say, I don't think I'll be making a comeback as Prime Minister. No one's going to ask you.

Sorry? Yeah, well, I mean, I think she evidently feels like she was unfairly turfed out, and she's gone away, thought about it, come back, and explained all the reasons why she feels it wasn't fair. I mean, I think the most telling moment for me in what we've seen from her over the last 24 hours was she still doesn't really. seem to have an answer to the question of why she sacked her own chancellor, which you would think

she had spent some time thinking about. And you're right, you know, this does have a huge impact now on the party itself. I mean, you've got Jake Berry there. I'm sure that he will tell you that Rishi Sunak will be able to carry on and the prime minister is setting his own course. But the reality is that there are those in the Tory party, which is kind of what I was about to say before, who would like to see the chancellor cut taxes in the budget. And we've had a very clear signal from number 10 that that is not going to happen. And remember, we're not that far out from a general election. And there are lots of Conservative MPs worried about whether or not they'll be able to keep their seats who would like to see more action from the Prime Minister,

who doesn't feel himself that now is the right time to rock that particular vote again. I'm just trying to wonder, I'll bring in Jake Barry here. I'm just trying to wonder how stupid you have to be as a Conservative Member of Parliament to think the best thing that Rishi Sunnet could do right now is the thing that Liz Trusted, which tanked the pound, virtually collapsed our economy, almost led to us defunding ourselves, and led to having to leave after 44 days as the record worst Prime Minister in history. What part of the brain of any Tory MP, and by the way,

if you're one of them, I include you, so this is your chance to either convict yourself or acquit, but what part of that thinking is anything other than insanity? I mean, it would be like the old Einstein thing, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. Well, Peir's, look, Rishi Sunek himself has committed to lower taxes before the next general election, looking at the basic rate of income tax. That's something I support.

I think families up and down this country realize there's a little bit too much month and not enough salary, and a great way of helping them out is to cut their taxes. But he said he'll do it in his own time when it's right for the economy. We all want to cut our taxes, right? We shouldn't be surprised that Conservative MPs believe in cutting taxes. It's a sort of mantra of the part. But the mantra of the economy. the party I keep hearing is, and this is people that I know, for example, worship Margaret

Thatcher, right? Margaret Thatcher, I don't know where this myth has developed that the first thing she did was slashed taxes. She didn't. The first thing she did with the tricky economy that she inherited was stabilised the economy, and when she was comfortable about it being stable, then she cut income tax dramatically, and it was a huge success. That's clearly what should be happening here. You stabilise the economy first. The inflation is still raging a way. at these huge levels. What you don't do is pour petrol onto the inflation bonfire at this particularly perilous moment, Dee. I mean, it's mad. Well, Margaret Thatcher did spend the first part of her premiership reforming the civil service, which I absolutely think we need to do. And one of the things

Liz has said is that the civil service has a sort of, you know, a sort of institutional bias against tax cuts and Brexit, she said recently today. You know, people will make their own mind about that. And she rolled the pitch for tax cuts that led to a system. period of austerity in the United Kingdom. Do I wish Liz Trust had taken that approach? Yes, I think she should have done. I think it would have been a much better way of dealing with it. Do as a Conservative, I believe,

actually we've got the highest taxes in this country that we've known in our peacetime history. I don't think they can go any higher. And I think if you accept that they shouldn't go higher, then you are then ultimately talking about when we cut taxes, not if we cut taxes, peers. One of the reasons, of course, eventually we want to cut taxes, but one of the reasons they're so astronomically higher right now

is to repair a lot of the damage that Liz Truss caused with her farcical 44 days. Her and Quasi Quartet pulled this country's economy to its knees. The idea she popped up so soon. I find it actually insulting to this country, to be a lecturer, to the people, the millions

of people paying through their nose now for the mortgages. I find it insulting that Liz Truss has dared to rear her face so soon and is not blaming anybody not blaming herself, but everybody else is to including the Labour Party, apparently.

It's a left-wing conspiracy that forced her to do what she did. No, it was ignorance of the markets and of the economy. Full stop, end. Well, I don't accept your premise that taxes are high now because it's repairing what happened. I said they're higher than they would be because of the damage goals. Because we are coming out of a moment of national crisis in terms of COVID. That's why taxes are.

I know. There's no point saying to the other thing. I said they've had to go back up the way they did. Not actually what we said, but it doesn't matter. It is what is it. On the issue of list of... To be clear... Jake...

Well moment. You question me. He said, just to be clear, I said the reason they've had to go so stratasperically ire again is because of the damage that she caused and we've had to repair it. Jeremy Hunt's had no option,

Nor's Rishie Zoonak. The reason taxes are high is because we're coming out of the COVID pandemic. But on the issue of timing, I think... Look, it doesn't matter where you think blame lies. I think the British people wanted to hear...

Why did she say sorry? From Liz. I think they wanted to hear sorry. I think it was a mistake not to say that. And frankly, whoever is in, you know, wherever the blame lies, the British people look at this and go, my mortgage went up.

You know, there was a problem with the economy, the bond yields went up. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. They blame the government. They blame the government. They blame the government. Because this trust and quasi-quarting played Russian roulette with the country's finances.

But that's why it's so important now that we deliver on this pledge made by Ritchie to half- Inflation. Well, let's play a clip from my interview. is the biggest challenge facing every family. Interest rates went up again last week. This trust wasn't in power. It's because of inflation, and that's why we've got to talk about.

I understand. Let's spend another clip from my interview with Rishi Sunaq about this very subject. It's pretty much the worst imaginable hospital pass any incoming Prime Minister could ever wish to receive, which begs the question, what on earth did you want to do this for? Even though it was going to be a nightmare job for all the reasons that you outlined, I felt that I could make a difference and I was the best person to make a difference at that moment, especially given the challenges that people were facing

and what they were seeing with their mortgages. And that's ultimately why I put myself forward to do it. And knowing that it would be difficult and challenging, but ultimately doing what I thought was my duty in that situation because I believed deeply in service and thought I could make a difference of the country. Now, that got well received that interview. I think people appreciated seeing a bit more of him

than normally doing an interview. show a serious side and also personal side. But I was quite impressed by the way he said to me, right, I've got these pledges, come back and interview me at the end of the year and give me the verdict then on whether I've met them or not. I like that. That gives me a genuine, all of us, a target. Right, okay, he's laid down his marker.

But the very last thing Rishi-Soonat needs right now are the two buffoons who came before him, rearing themselves up. Like, we've been so hard done by, going on maneuvers and trying to damage him ownership away right when the party needs it least. You've been party chairman. What would you be doing now with these two renegades?

Well, look, the first thing is we've got to work out what we want former prime minister to do. We're all quite critical in the media and politicians alike of Tony Blair and David Cameron virtually immediately leaving office. People saying they're leaving to cash in. We've then got a whole series of prime ministers who have stayed in parliament and are involved in politics. Gordon Brown campaigned in the Scottish referendum. is in fact writing large parts of the Labour parties manifesto for them now in relation to devolution. When we have prime ministers coming in their early 40s,

we have to work out what they're going to do next. I think that prime ministerial interventions, they uniquely understand how challenging the job is of being a prime minister. In that interview, I heard Rishi Sunnite say to you that he, in fact, speaks to all the former Conservative Prime Minister as a party leaders and talks to them about advice. But uniquely, they know how challenging that job is. So interventions should be in free. and impactful.

And I think that can actually help the debate in this country. Ava, I mean, I do find it staggering. Here is Liz the lessis. I do find it staggering that we're even having a conversation about Liz's trust making any kind of comeback yet. And with no remorse, no apology, just like it never happened. It was all somebody else's fault.

And by the way, I was right. Yeah, and I think the other thing I take away that I'm a little bit frightened to hear, Jake, is your defence of List Trust and that low-tax policy because the first time that you enacted that, you spook the markets and you frighten investment away from the UK. And actually, investors are still frightened to put their money into our country. And if they think that people on the backbenchers, MPs on the backbenchers,

are going to still go for this low-tax policy and might brighten the markets again. They're never going to bring anything here. It's not a low-tax policy. We're in the highest tax burden this nation has ever been under. Perhaps you think they should go up. I actually think that we are... Well, apparently it does. That's about the tax.

That's not what I said at all. You advocated for a low tax policy. The pets are squeaking. You talk to ordinary working families up and down this country and what they want is the government to give them a break, to give them a tax cut to let them keep some money. I agree with you, but I think we're complaining two different issues here. I can't believe I'm defending List Trust.

But investment in the UK was, we were the lowest of the G7 in terms of investment for a decade preceding Brexit. So clearly, Liz Trust, in her awful way, was trying to fix a structural issue with Britain's economy. by trying to attract for investment. But exactly, but the communication was off. I mean, the whole strategy was not listening to any advice. Exactly. I think what's the biggest issue with her comeback is the lack of the word sorry.

And I think we have to acknowledge that. No one is against low taxes. Conservatives, even labor, you know, labor, traditional labor voters who are hardworking people want lower taxes. But it's the way she went about it, the fact that she's blamed no one, everyone else but herself. And the fact that she's really not kind of reading the room. No one wants to see Liz Truss back. No. No.

Well, maybe you do, like you? No, no, what is she coming to do? The Labour Party has agreed with the Conservative Party that they think the basic break of income tax should fall. I think that that is now agreed between the two parties. Look, Liz Trusser's diagnosis of what is wrong with the economy about being a low-growth, high-tax economy that is unable to fund public services is correct. Was the prescription for that disease right?

No, it wasn't. Should she have said sorry? I actually said earlier, I think she should have done. I think she would have got a much better hearing for the serious point that she wants to make about we need to talk about how great growth in our economy to pay for public services. Jake, good to see you. Thanks for coming in. I appreciate it. Thank you to my pack.

Excellent today, as always. Coming up, how big of a threat is a balloon from China to the mighty United States of America? Well, quite a big one, according to Vivek Ramoswame, and he joins me next. Welcome back, it's the balloon that's become a political scandal in America. This is the moment the suspected Chinese spy balloon has finally shot down over South Carolina after eight days drifting across American airspace. President Biden has been accused of humiliating America

and emboldening China back into slowly. The commander-in-chief says he decided if he commanded U.S. forces to shoot down the balloon, which they eventually did on Saturday, where that was four days after he said that. Well, joining me now. Actually, we've got a clip. I order the Pentagon to shoot it down on Wednesday

as soon as possible. They decided without doing damage to anyone on the ground. They decided that the best time to do that was it got over water outside within our within 12-mile limit. It successfully took it down, and I want to compliment our aviators who did it. That's top gun shadesy sporting there, the president. But joining me now as the American entrepreneur and commentator, Vivek Ramoswami. Vivek, you're known as the anti-woke scourge of corporate wokeery,

so it's good to have you on anyway. I mean, I may get to that in a say. But just on this issue of China and this balloon, it seemed to me a remarkable coincidence that in the run up to President Biden's State of the Union speech, which is tomorrow night, you have a Chinese spy balloon just wandering across American airspace for eight days.

And it also revealed, I think, what many people fear is the problem with President Biden, which is his ineffectiveness when it comes to dealing with China. And you just have this spy balloon there, and nothing happening to it for days of it. So look, I actually think they were purposefully waiting for that spy balloon to fly over the ocean before shooting it down precisely so they could have plausible deniability because they were

afraid of what they would actually find. So what they're able to be able to say to the public now, if I'm able to make a prediction, is that they weren't actually able to find the information so they can't know, even though they sent these Navy divers down to find it. The problem is if they had shot it down instantly overland, they would have to deal with what they actually saw. And my view is that China is not so incompetent as some believe they are. I think they were sending a signal. They have sent these balloons in the past reportedly. But I think a big part of this was showing who's in charge, the idea that we can send this balloon over your territory and you're not really going to do a darn thing about it. And I'm sorry to say that they were basically right

because shooting it down after it's over the ocean was the equivalent of doing nothing about it. And then now the outrage afterwards is just a faux outrage from the CCP for whom lying is but a habit of their culture. And so that's, I think, with essence of what's going on here, they flew these balloons over Taiwan last year, reportedly. Now they're just sending that signal to the United States as one more inch in progressing towards sending their projection of strength over us as a people.

That's, I think, a big part of the subtext of what was going on here. And what do you think is the likelihood of China attacking Taiwan anytime soon? A lot of people think it is more likely than not. So I've been talking about this for a long time. I think it is quite high. I think it goes up for every little bit it goes up further. I think it was not going to happen before October of last year. That's when Xi Jinping took over his third term as leader of the CCP. He didn't want to disrupt the apple cart. But now that he's taken over, it'd be the perfect

opportunity to show and project force. There's a Taiwanese election coming up in 2024. There's a U.S. election, presidential election, coming up in 2024. If I were in their shoes, you would look at the current U.S. president and say, that's a pretty good bet for somebody who's not going to take actually the right actions to deter this, that creates a potential window. Add to that the fact that the U.S. is actually retreating and actually even retiring some of its ships in the South China Sea, that creates a potential nadir of U.S. naval capacity in the South China Sea, right when China is actually ramping up its shipping production and its naval capacity as well. So I think it's unfortunately the imperfect confluence, which is to say from China's standpoint,

the perfect confluence of forces and alignment of the stars, to say that that moment to go after Taiwan, could be coming sooner than we want. And I think this balloon was really, if I may say, a trial balloon to say that, you know what, we're going to invade your sovereignty, see what you're going to do about it. If the U.S. didn't do anything meaningful for that, then I think that's a test to say that the U.S. may not do anything meaningful

in China's eyes for Taiwan either. And China will also be watching like a hawk what's happening in Ukraine and seeing how big a stomach for the fight the Americans have, right? Because there are increasing rumblings on the Republican side in particular in the United States that they shouldn't be spending all this money waging a war, sort of proxy war, helping the Ukrainians defeat Vladimir Putin. They should be spending it on more pressing domestic issues.

But I would argue against that, that if you let Putin win in Ukraine, that's a green light, I would say for China to go into Taiwan. Well, it's one step deeper than that, Pierce, if I may. We don't depend on Russia for our modern way of life. In fact, even in the last Cold War, the U.S. did not depend on the Soviet Union

for the shoes on our feet, or the phones in our pocket. But the precarious position with China, and I think this is the defining aspect of this Cold War in the 21st century, is the US depends on its rival, its enemy, for powering its modern way of life, from the clothes we wear to the electronics that we use.

And that's what makes it so difficult to face down China relative to facing down Russia. So I actually think that it's in some ways, it's a disanalogy, because even if the US could take on Vladimir Putin, that's the easy part. In fact, you know, do a thought experiment.

Imagine this was a Russian spy balloon. There is little doubt in my mind that the thing the U.S. would have done was to shoot it down instantly and ratchet up sanctions on Russia. And the reason they didn't do it on China is because the U.S. depends on China for our modern way of life.

You know, the U.S. declared independence from the folks on your side of the pond in 1776. I think 2023 or 2024 needs to be the year that the U.S. declares independence from China or else there's no chance of actually being able to beat that enemy. You know who's been saying that for 40 years?

Donald Trump. It was one of the things he was spot on about. I remember interviewing Donald Trump 15 years ago and him telling me exactly that. He said China is basically pillaging the US without the US really realizing what's going on. And it looks like he was right. Vivek, great to talk to you.

Thank you very much. Come back again and talk about anti-woke scourge of corporations. We need your voice. It's out of control. So please come back another time. We'll discuss that. We'll do that. Well, next night, Sam Smith as the devil at the Grammys, Madonna looking barely human.

Did they all think it was Halloween? Is his art or obscenity? We'll debate back next. It's hard to keep up with Sam Smith's identities. But last night's Grammys, they, as Smith now prefers to be called, identified as Satan. Performance, while many views, especially amongst the American Christian fraternity, which there are 210 million in America. The sentence to take Cruz said it was evil. Well, one of the scariest moments for me wasn't Sam Smith as the devil.

It came with Madonna's general appearance. She seemed not to have got the memo that Halloween's in October. But are they, Sam Smith, pushing artistic boundaries or just pushing the limits of good taste? Shocking for the sake of it, outrageous, because why not? It sells records. What you want to mean now to debate all this? It's Mazden Rowan, who performs this tripping duplicates.

and the YouTuber and commentator Lauren Chen. So Lauren Chen, let's start with you. I mean, it's caused outrage this Sam Smith performance last night. He'll be quite pleased about that because quite clearly, a bit like Madonna, his heroin, part of his stick is deliberately creating outrage because it fuels interest and headlines and sells records. No, you're absolutely right. And people have said that this is a controversial move by Sam Smith.

This is not at all controversial within Hollywood. And I want to be clear that Sam Smith, did this specifically to upset the American right and Christians everywhere and to virtue signal to his fellow Hollywood members and elitist that, don't worry, he's on your team, he hates all of the things that he's supposed to hate. If he actually wanted to be controversial, in Hollywood, what he would do is actually come out in favor of traditional values because we know that would never happen in a million years or he would, heaven forbid, actually do something that's critical of maybe Islam.

That would genuinely be controversy, but of course because that wouldn't be popular among leftist elitists. He's not going to do that. This is actually, in a lot of ways, the safest thing that Sam Smith could have done. Yeah, I mean, now, Tripping and Jupiter, do I call you Tripping Jupiter or Manston? Which one would you prefer? You could call me Manston. Manston.

Thank you for being on the program. This reminds me a bit of the Met Gala in New York when they all suddenly wore crucifixes one year. And as a Catholic, I read a column saying, you know what? You wouldn't be doing this to the Islam religion. Why would you just do it to Catholicism and to Christopherson? And that reminded me again, exactly what Lauren said about last night. Yeah, you can dress up as Satan and prance about having a bit of devil-worshipping just to deliberately outrage 63% of Americans who are Christians.

But given he wouldn't do that with other religions, which are likely to lead to more serious repercussions for him, I thought it was a bit cowardly, if I'm honest. I mean, I don't think there's anything cowardly about Sam Smith. And, you know, if Lauren's suggesting that they are doing this just for publicity as far as, like, their identity goes, I mean, people struggle their entire lives with identity and the fact that they can come to a place where they feel secure enough to let it out in the public is an amazing thing and a beautiful thing and a really important thing. As far as the red glitter hat with the devil horns and I'm sorry, Ted Cruz, if anyone looks at it. Sam Smith and thinks the word evil, I think that they might frighten a little too easily. As far as the Catholic Church goes, I mean, I can't think of a better, you know, religion to criticize or to tweak or because, I mean, there's like decades and decades of child sexual

abuse that got covered up. So they don't really have a right to stand out and be outraged when they're. But there are decades and decades of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And the point that Loram is making, I think, rather powerfully, was that you wouldn't get Sam Smith mocking Islam in a performance at the Grammys. Because, again, I mean, he wouldn't say it's cowardly. I'd say that is an example of kind of cowardice, because we all know he wouldn't do that.

And what he did last night, I'll say the he, I think he called, they. They, what they did last night was a deliberate. an act of provocation to a group of people who represent nearly two-thirds of America. And I find that an interesting strategic decision. You know, this is somebody who wants to sell records in America. You know, it's a risky strategy to take on that number of Christians and mock their religion in that way.

Well, I don't think anybody's religion was mocked at all. And this album by Sam Smith is, it's phenomenal. It's got really positive messaging to it. But like, if you're going to talk about artists pushing boundaries, this is what great artists do. You go back to David Bowie. He was attacked and vilified when he burst onto the scene. Lady Gaga, over a dozen years ago or more coming out. Same thing.

You could go back to, sorry, are you going to tell me you don't like David Bowie? You don't like Lady Gaga because people weren't happy. And the interesting thing is with these icons, go back to Catherine Hepburn, right? when she was doing movies. She wore pants and people freaked out. The detractors who push against people who push gender boundaries, nobody remembers their names

years later. I think the problem, I'll come back to Lauren, but the problem I have with Sanders Smith is that they can't seem to work out what they are. So we went through a period where he was identifying apparently as a straight man, then he came out as gay and everyone was applauded. And then within

I think 18 months, he decided he wasn't a gay man anymore. He was going to be non-binary, gender fluid and what is it be called they. It's quite hard to to keep up Lauren Chen, not to be disrespectful to they, but it is hard to keep up with Sam Smith because every 18 months or so, he seems to like a chameleon flip into some other new identity. And then we have to respect those titles that they now want. Now, you're absolutely right and it's interesting because I was looking back to interviews when Sam Smith first came out as gay. And he actually back then would say things along the lines

of there's more to me than my sexual sexual. I just want this to be normalized. This shouldn't be a whole thing, which, I mean, by today's 2023 standards, that almost makes him sound like a right-wing extremist, the idea that his sexuality shouldn't define himself. But fast forward to today, apparently he's gotten the memo

that the trendy thing is to come out as some sort of trendy new gender every other day. And I just want to say in regard to Sam Smith dressing as the devil, that's not part of your identity. Your fashion choices are not part of your identity. Sam Smith deciding to, in his music video, where a corset doesn't mean he's non-binary. All it means is that he's desperate for attention

has absolutely no sense of fashion and probably doesn't have good friends around him. Right, and talking of people desperate of attention, Mazden, I just want to show you Madonna's head at the Grammys. And I just wonder, is this an example when you look at Madonna at the Grammys last night, of where plastic surgery takes you if you're not very careful? If you're asking me, I'm not an expert on plastic surgery.

So I prefer to go back to Lauren's comment. I just have a question for both of you. Have we got the picture of Madonna? Sorry, there we are, yeah. Sorry, go on, Mazden. Well, I wish her well. She's an icon. She's done great things in music

and influenced a lot of people. My question is, why are conservatives, the ultra-conservatives especially, the only ones who are obsessed with what people wear, obsessed with how people identify, and obsessed with other people. She's run out of time, but I can answer one question.

I'm not a conservative. So if that helps you, That will help with debate. Lauren, Madden, great to have you both. Come back again soon. That's it for me. Keep it uncensored.