The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 90. Why we should ban all money from politics and kids from social media (Peter Malinauskas)

Episode Date: August 18, 2024

Are donations the biggest evil in politics? Should children be banned from social media entirely? How much does Australia look to the UK in 2024? On today’s episode of Leading, Rory and Alastair are joined by Peter Malinauskas, Premier of South Australia, to answer all this and more. TRIP Plus:  Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes.  Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. TRIP TOUR: To buy tickets for our October Tour, just head to www.therestispolitics.com Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @RestIsPolitics Email: [e-mail] Video Editor: Teo Ayodeji-Ansell Social Producer: Jess Kidson Assistant Producer: India Dunkley Producer: Nicole Maslen and Fiona Douglas Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's the restispolities.com. Welcome to the Restless Politics leading with me, Rory Stewart. And with me, Alistair Campbell. And our guest today is the Premier. We'll explain why he's not a Prime Minister. The Premier of South Australia, Peter Malanouskas, who kindly introduced Rory and me to the stage. when we did an event at the Adelaide Festival last year, me in person, Rory Dan the line. And that was where I first got to know, Peter, this former trade union leader who has made a pretty

big mark on Australian politics already in two years as Premier. And Roy and I were both struck by two things in particular that he's currently trying to do, ban all political donations to try to get money out of politics, and ban social media use by young people. He's also an important player in Orcas, the tripartite defence arrangement with the US and the UK, and like most Aussie politicians, follows UK politics very closely. And given a career spent trying to improve rights for Australia's indigenous communities, I suspect he was as sad as we were at the defeat of the voice referendum. In fact, a lot sadder because he really is something very, very close to home and very close to his heart. So we've got so much to talk about. We're very

grateful to you, Peter, for being there. Rory, where do you want to start? Peter, let's try to start with who you are, roughly, where you come from, where your family came from. Just give us a sense of family background and childhood. Oh, thanks having us on. So Malinowski's Lithuanian. Most people in Australia think I'm Greek. Even my wife thought I was Greek until we were well into our relationship. But my mum side's all Irish Catholic. But my paternal grandfather was Lithuanian. He came to Australia at 1948 as a refugee or a refugee or a displaced person, fleeing the communists that were invading Lithuania. And my grandmother was doing a similar thing coming from Hungary. And they met in Australia as displaced people and I met at the

immigration camp and fell in love and lived out what is a pretty common story in Australia where they word their guts out and did everything to give my father opportunity. And I guess I feel very much the beneficiary of Australia's generosity at the time to my grandparents. And that undoubtedly is informed my sort of worldview growing up. Do you, do you feel your, European at all? That's a good question. Look, I have a great interest in my family's heritage, but, you know, the Baltic community when they came to Australia, they sort of embraced Australian life pretty quickly.

And because they were so small, they haven't probably had that intergenerational passing on of cultures in the way we've seen in other multicultural communities in Australia. So tragically, I know too little about Lithuanian or Hungarian culture. So I guess I would struggle to identify in any way as European. My whole consciousness as a young person growing up was very much in the Australian culture as Brits would understand it. Peter, give us a sense of the type of Australia you grew up in rural, urban, small house, big house, what your dad was doing?

What was your childhood like? Can you think of sort of comparisons with things that international listeners might be able to relate to understand this kind of life? Do you know, it's interesting, Roy, I grew up. very fortunate in a pretty standard middle class suburban household in suburban Adelaide. My dad was a public servant working for the Public Housing Trust, you know, the Public Housing Authority in South Australia. My mother was a librarian for the local newspaper. And so, you know, they, you would describe them as high income it is, but it was a pretty traditional house in suburban Adelaide. Mom and dad were really engaged within current affairs, but never actively political.

They weren't members of political parties. They were, swinging voters. You know, the Lithuanian background was vehemently anti-communist. My grandmother's bay were vehemently anti-communists. So my grandfather was certainly rolling over his grave that I joined the Labour Party, let alone now leading it in my state. So there was always an impetus to be engaged with democracy, but never into politics per se. So on one level, it makes sense that I'm doing what I am doing now, but also that would have been unthought of as a kid growing up. Do you think they would not be turning in the grave at the fact that, like Rory Stewart, you're on Vladimir Putin's band from coming here, list.

You must be reasonably proud of that. I'll tell you. That happened pretty quickly after I got elected Premier, and I said a few things and move some legislation in our parliament, compelling the state to divest some superannuation assets that we had in Russian products. So once he did that, I was quietly chuffed about it,

and so were a lot of the other local Lithuanians in our state who probably are more conservative voters. And do you think that you, Do you think that you were picked on purely because you do have this Lithuanian background? There's no doubt in my mind. No, no doubt in my mind. And I had the chance to meet the Lithuanian president when he was in Australia recently. And we discussed this. And that was certainly there for you. And they were well versed in it, which I was quite surprised by. And Peter, then, tell us a little bit about what happened next then.

So you went through school. And you then, how did you, what was your first job? What was the path that eventually led you to become premier? So the biggest supermarket chain in Australia at Woolworth's, and, you know, as a kid, I started wanted to do things. And mum and dad says, sure, no worries, you've got to go get a job. So I got a job with a supermarket, and, you know, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a great experience. I was there for like seven or eight years while I was going for university.

And Peter, what were you doing in the supermarket? I started out pushing trolleys and then graduated to the checkout before doing nightfield. And, you know, I was a member of the union, the shop assistant's union, not because I was a unionist just because everyone joined the union. And they ran a few campaigns. And one of them got my attention. And I sort of volunteered to get the petitions in the store, you know, get the signatures of other workers in the store.

And that drew attention to me as a young person. And I had a fateful interaction with the then union secretary one day. And we got talking and he offered me a job. And I, mom and dad were horrified at the prospect of it. But long story short, I decided that I'd worked 10 hours a week for the union visiting nightfield workers. And within a month of working there, I realized I'd found my natural political home because not too dissimilar into the UK, the shopper system union was a moderate union, it was associated with the right of the Labor Party.

It believed in markets. It believed in capital getting a return, but just simply thought that workers should have professional representation. And that accorded with the worldview that I was for me while I was at university. And from there, one thing led to the other. And I've been very grateful for some great stewardship and support that I've had from a few leaders in the movement. I get the sense that the trade unions in Australia are a much bigger part of national life than maybe they have been in recent years in the UK. Is that your sense? Arguably, yes. I think the trade union movement globally has been in decline in terms of membership, and that's particularly true for private sector unions. And I don't think that's a coincidence

in terms of the fact that it's lined up with the very same time we've seen global economic and income inequality on the ride. The moment the trade union membership globally declined, income inequality started going up. So that has sort of made the trade union more relevant, but we haven't seen a transpire to a massive increase in membership, which continues to be a struggle, I think, in most Western democracies. One of the things that in my work in international development that's been very striking is that the fading of the trade unions has actually been a very sad impact on international development, because the trade unions, along with, in fact, churches, were very important in the move to make poverty history

and drive international solidarity and development. I mean, is that something that you've seen in Australia and in your lifetime as well? I think as part of that phenomenon we see, you know, throughout the West, a decline in institutions, declines in people joining membership-based organizations, whether it requires filling out a form or not. And that in turn has undermined, I think, a sense of social equity or a sense of, you know, frankly, social justice in some elements. But I don't judge the society for that. I think, you know, individuals are leading increasingly busy lives.

But I think that that impost of being busier to just maintain a decent standard of living rather than get ahead has in fact been a function of the fact that we've seen a decline of the very institutions that have been fundamental to advancing the cause of people be able to have a decent standard of living. So what was it about being a trade unionist and a trade union leader that then made you think, do you know what, maybe I need to get into politics itself and become a politician? Going from the trade union movement into the political arm of the Labor, in terms of the Labor Party in Australia is a pretty well-trodden path. But the truth is that we were able to engage on a range of issues. We were the largest union in the country at the time. And I got a taste

for the power of parliaments and governments to be able to make a more substantial change in the lives of working people, but have a positive impact on society more broadly. One of the things we did in South Australia during that time was, you know, I campaigned and led a charge to make Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, a part-day public holiday, which sounds like a small thing. But let me tell you, it's not to a worker who might have a chance of being with their family on Christmas Eve that otherwise didn't have that opportunity. So I just found that whole experience exhilarating to see, you know, a piece of legislation past the parliament. And once you get a taste for it, it's an absolute thrill in terms of, you know, having such a, what I believe is a

positive impact. So, you know, but I can't point Alistair to a singular moment in time. I, but I would say is that, you know, there is something utterly satisfying and exhilarating about getting something done in a political landscape that's contested. And was there ever a single moment in time where you thought, once you got into politics, where you thought, hmm, I reckon I could be a leader of this thing, I could become the state premier, I could, you know, go pretty far. You know, there's a saying that, you know, familiarity breeds contempt. I think, don't misinterpret that.

Once you establish that you can make a contribution, and get a degree of confidence that, you know, you do have the capacity to lead. One thing can lead to another pretty quickly. But I took over as leader of the party just after we lost an election after a period of 16 years in government and no one really gave much of a chance to returning to government. But thankfully, we were able to achieve that. And I thought having a two years experience as a minister before becoming leader of the opposition, you know, I desperately wanted to get that opportunity again.

And I relished the chance to be able to make even a bigger difference that I was able to in that two years. And I'm now blessed with that opportunity and just don't want to waste a moment. Peter, tell us a little bit about the other paths that people took to become politicians, your contemporary. So you took a route where you spent nearly 12 years working as a professional trade union person. And you came in, I guess, when in your mid-30s, you were sort of 35 when you came into Parliament. Give us a sense of three or four other typical routes that Australian politicians take when you look around the other people, either in your part of Australia or indeed at the federal level, what are the typical routes people take? I would say that one of the most

typical is we see people coming out of professional services. You know, think of a lawyer who's, you know, not too similar to what Keer Stam is a path to a significant role in the British Labor Party. The professional services are a lawyer typically, well, ended up public life because a sense of devotion, a sense of civic duty. And they see Parliament, I mean, public life is a path. I would say the other one, you do see representations of people from social services, teachers aren't uncommon in our parliaments in Australia. I would say, you know, trade unionists, teachers and lawyers arguably are overrepresented. On the conservative side of politics, we still do see some pretty good examples of people coming from a traditional

small business advocacy. And there are examples of people with those backgrounds making a pretty big contribution on the conservative side of politics. And I'm trying to make sure we're, we We attract those types of people to the Labor Party in South Australia as well because I think there's a small business constituency that social democratic parties haven't been thinking enough about. And Peter, you have this federal structures. You've got the states, small number of states. At the moment, all Labor, yeah? All bar one.

Which is the one? Tasmania. Tasmania. Okay. So you've got all states, bar one, Tasmania, which are Labor run. They're all Labor premiers at the moment. And you've got a Labor Prime Minister, Albania. at the federal level. How does that relationship work? And is there a kind of downside to having

a Labour government in Canberra as well as the obvious upside? The upside speaks for itself. I mean, there's a congeniality when you start at a decision-making forum with people having a similar worldview. I guess the rubber hits the road road when you've got a responsibility to advocate your own constituencies interests against what might be the political interests of the federal government. And we've certainly seen examples of that. I certainly see that as a test for me personally because, you know, I've got a sense of loyalty to the Labor Party and the Labor movement clearly,

but that's not what my principal obligation is to. You know, I've got a duty to the, I state more broadly that supersedes any party loyalties. That test is always challenging, but, you know, I can recall at least a couple examples recently where I've had to speak out against federal government policy, including today. What's the thing today? Well, the federal government's looking at cutting back the number of international students coming into Australia because immigration. Immigration, yeah.

And you'd be well familiar with the policies of immigration. You know, I'm very worried about what that policy means for our country. I think there's a higher road that we can take, and I've said as much today, and the phones are rung accordingly. Has any of the phone calls come from somebody called AA? The Prime Minister and I get on exceedingly well, and I'm going to see, hopefully see him on the weekend. So no is the short answer to your question, but I think the political architecture know my

worldview about these matters, and the importance of investing in education, and international students bring a lot of revenue to our education system for better or worse. And I don't think anyone would be surprised by my remarks today. Peter, the two systems, I guess, that many of our listeners will be most familiar with are the British and the US system. Can you provide us a brief summary of what's different the Australian system compared to the UK and the US when it comes to the way that federal state government's organised? Well, Australia is really, via design, a blend of the two systems. In terms of the role of states and its interaction with the Commonwealth government or the federal government,

we are model. The federal government is modelled on the US system, a Senate and a House of Representatives, the Senate being the representative of states and the House of Representatives reflecting the House of Commons in the UK, albeit with a Westminster system. So we are directly a blend of the two. And, you know, Premier's roles equates with governors in the United States. It's just that we, as a smaller country, we have a lot fewer of them. There is undoubtedly greater similarity and affinity to the Westminster system in the UK, but it is just got some nuances that make us far similar to the US. And we're interviewing you just. You just, Just a day after the announcement that Tim Walsh, the governor of Minnesota, is going to be running as the vice presidential candidate with Kamala Harris.

And I wondered whether you had any thoughts on that. I mean, it strikes me that maybe being governor of Minnesota is a little bit like being a premier. And I wonder whether, you know, looking at him, looking at you, you know, he's like a straightforward guy who was the football coach in his local town who's now become a major figure. What do you think about looking at the United States? Do you see what Kamala Harris was doing? Are you interested by the choice of somebody like the Governor of Minnesota as a running major? Absolutely fascinated and enthralled by. And I don't mind saying I was really excited at the news.

And seeing some of the contributions the governor has made on the national stage just in the last 24 hours, I have loved every second of it. I mean, you know, this is a Democrat who, you know, speaks to, I guess, my politics in many respects. And, you know, I think he is a great contrast to Kamala Harris and, you know, the governor of Minnesota and, you know, her role in California, that clearly got very different backgrounds. And I'm really excited by his choice. I mean, he's a very plain speaking style, that that knockabout dad clearly culturally feels like he sits pretty comfortably in middle class America and that just resonates. And I think it just creates a perfect compliment for the Harris

campaign. And look, I've got to say, today's probably the most energized I've been about the Harris campaign, I've had the Democratic presidential campaign in four years. You obviously don't feel the same pressure maybe that a federal prime minister or a UK prime minister might feel to, quote, stay out of the American campaign. Because I think we could we can very clearly see where your heart lies in this. What I love about what's happened in the last few weeks with Vice President Harris and now Tim Walts is that it's just brought this. He used the word himself.

It's brought this sense of joy back, which is what I think you're expressing. But also, it's perfectly clear to me, Donald Trump and Vance don't know how to deal with it. And I just wanted to ask you in the Australian context, because Australian politics has got a reputation for being really tough. And I love that toughness. I've seen some of that toughness. Paul Keating is one of my heroes. I know that he's one of yours. But this is going to be a bridge to the sort of the donations issue, because I feel the same joy at what's going on right now. But at the same time, the money that they're now involved in raising to try to fight this campaign, the fact that when Kamala Harris was announced, she raised more in a single day than the cost of the entire UK election that we've just had.

So how does that joy fit with the fact that you're this sort of sole voice in world politics who's trying to ban all political donations? It doesn't sit with me very well at all. And I've got to say, I've been a bit appalled by the whole specter of the thing. I mean, during the course of Biden's, the last days of his presidential campaign, we saw a chorus of donors coming out and saying that the president has to give up his candidacy. And it was almost seen as a litmus test or a measuring stick of his legitimacy of being a candidate. And it struck me, I thought, when is it?

At what point in politics did donors start becoming a chief architect of who leads a political party or not? And then, of course, when Harris became the presumptive nominee and there was an explosion in fundraising, that was then waived around as a demonstration of the success of her candidacy. So it was almost as though that money has superseded any analysis of policy weight in US policy. Raising money is a sign of success. Now, on a practical level, it's rational. But another level, it seems almost perverse that the determinant of success. success is almost exclusively money to the extent that donors are now seen as being a principal

decision maker of who the candidate for the presidency of the United States is. It struck me as quite contrary to the best traditions of what we understand liberal democracy looks like. Peter, as somebody who was an MP, and then lastly, when I was running for leadership and Mayor of London was trying to raise significant sums of money, it's a lot. It's a It's clear to me that most owners don't give money for nothing. They give money because they have an interest. I mean, you may find a few friends and relatives who may be prepared to write you a check

because they like Peter or they like Rory, but often you're raising money from strangers. And I was very struck that that means that they also get to determine the issues. So when I was running to be mayor of London, one of the first questions I would be asked is what was my position on Israel-Palestine? And I'm thinking, whoa, well, hold a second. I'm running to try to sort out the signaling on the Piccadilly line, right?

Tell us a little bit about your sense of the way in which actually donors' interests and the way they try to affect policies and why that might also be a reason to reform things. That's an excellent question. I think I've never seen any year. I've been to a lot of party fundraise. I've had to engage in a lot of fundraising myself. In fact, we're still doing it. And we will continue to do it until such a time we've banned it.

we've got a plan to do that because I just can't, you know, as part of, you know, the functioning of a political party. I've never seen evidence of politicians of other side being transactional about changing a position on the back of a donation. I've never seen that occur. But what you do of C of CORE is political donors more inclined to support candidates and parties that support what they want, you know, and, and again, on one level, that's quite rational. My frustration is more, though, not so much on the influence that donors have,

but on the perception of that influence, which I think undermines people's confidence in the democratic process. But then second to that, but probably just as important, is the amount of time this is now taking of candidates and political leaders. And the genesis of my view that we've just got to get rid of this altogether actually happened in the 2014 US midterm. I was in the US on a political trip, and we got to meet with candidates and campaign managers of both persuasions. And the rule of thumb there in the US now for the highest quality campaign managers is they will not work for candidates unless that candidate signs up to spending no less than

80% of their time fundraising. 80%. That is a standard for the best campaign managers. So that means that's not time, you know, speaking to constituents, developing policy, having town hall meetings, making stakeholders. None of those things is just being a telemarketer fundraising. And, you know, that seems to me to be in the extreme that it fundamentally compromises the electoral process. And Peter, I think that's right.

I was interviewing a congresswoman from Connecticut who said during her time in office, she reckoned she had spent an average of four hours every day just on the phone, raising money, including weekends. But that also connects to a broader issue that's true in all our politics, which is the way in which campaigning to win office absorbs all the time, which would otherwise go into thinking about what to do when you're there. So our classic example, I suppose, is people like Liz Truss, who really saw politics about winning power. but had very little patience for detailed conversations about policy. And she was very successful because that's part of our culture. I mean, it's amazing in Westminster. And I think actually even in Australia in the US,

that if you try to have very earnest conversations about policy, you're seen as a bit geeky that so much of the effort is about, you know, attacking the opposition, winning those votes, getting the opinion polls right, getting the focus groups right, getting the press releases into the newspaper. papers. And that leaves surprisingly little bandwidth for sitting down and really thinking hard about what to do compared, for example, to running a business. Well, I think that's right. But, you know, history tells us that people who aspire to high office and achieve it without much

of a plan of what to do with it once they get it tend to get found out. Well, Liz trusted. They tend to get found out. And I mean, From my perspective, in an Australian context, we see at a state level four-year terms. We have four-year terms, but at the federal level, it's three-year terms. Of course, in the House of Reps, in the US, it's two-year terms. So it's hardly surprising that once you cover off on the politics and the fundraising, policy sometimes can come third. I think in the UK, or certainly in a – whether you see four-year terms or five-year terms.

Up to five, yeah. Five, yeah. You know, that does, I mean, at the very least, if you've got confidence in your leadership, that does render oppositions in particular, time to think and curate policy. I hated every moment of opposition, except for one thing. I found myself being able to read again. When you're in government, and we're back in the figure of that now, when you're reading, it's a brief or, you know, it's a note on everything that you should know about running of the

government, you deal with with files. But in opposition, all of a sudden that disappears. But that affords you the ability to read things. and think, and I found that really profoundly useful. You know, particularly in the depths of COVID when I was opposition leader, you know, I read a book about the outly government, and that really changed my thinking about the agenda we were going to pursue post-COVID in South Australia if we were lucky enough to form government.

Which book was it? Citizen Clem. Oh, great. By John Bue. Yeah. And not for reading that book. I don't know if, I suspect building things that we would have done differently in a policy sense. That really fascinates me. So there's Clement Ali, Labor Prime Minister after the war,

and Paul Bue, kind of fairly right-wing historian, I think it's fair to say. Is that right, Rory? That's OK. Yeah, it's Paul's son, John, I think. But yeah, he then became part of the Boris Johnson's national security apparatus, that's right, yeah. It becomes an advisor to Boris Johnson. And a book he's written about a Labour Prime Minister is taken up by a Labour Premier in the South Australia. He says it makes him think about the job differently and do things differently. Can you think of a specific? Well, of course, during the war period, Atleyn was very keen to work collaboratively with Churchill in the war cabinet.

And, you know, no one really gave Atley much of the chance of winning that election at the conclusion of World War II. But, of course, what Atley did was apply thought, you know, beyond the bipartisan approach to the war effort, he was thinking about reconstruction. And here in Australia in the middle of COVID, there was no appetite. in our domestic politics, quite rightly, for partisanship. I was the only opposition leader in a state level that survived COVID because other opposition leaders were chipping away their government's responses to COVID. We took an approach that said, look, we're going to provide essentially total bipartisan for the conservative government in South Australia on their approach to COVID because they handed it on the basis of science and did a pretty good job.

Having done that, then we defoted our effort to thinking about at the end of COVID, people are going to want to know what's the legacy of COVID going to be. And so, you know, that was the same thing that Atley did and, of course, led to the creation of the NHS. And we had similar policies about how we were going to reinvest in the health system and try and build it back up again. You did something very interesting there, which is not common in British politics, which is to say about your opposition, well, you know, they did it on the basis of science,

and I think they did a pretty good job. Generally in British politics, we're very tribal. and even if we secretly think that the other party might have done an okay job on something, we never begin to give them credit for anything, for fear, I guess. Alistair, why is it we never give them credit for anything? Is it we're worried that a newspaper might pick up in quotes as saying something remotely nice about the other party? I've never heard the Labour ever say anything complimentary about 13 or 14 years of Tories in office,

and I've never heard the Tories say anything complimentary about 13 years of Labor in office. Look, you're right. It is not done a lot. I don't think it's not done at all. I think that one of the reasons that the Northern Ireland peace process worked is that from the word go, Tony Blair gave credit to John Major for what he tried to do. John Major gave Tony Blair total support through the whole thing. I think during COVID, it was interesting to listen to you, Peter, say that about your approach because I think Kirstama tried to make that his approach in relation to COVID. But with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, it became impossible.

I also think, Roy, that if you look at some of the debates that they've been recently, and we talked on the podcast, about how Rishishish Sunak actually is now taking a very different tone. I think it's sometimes that the tribalism, the forced tribalism, comes from that sort of Westminster parliamentary system, exacerbated by the way that our media operates. Well, Peter, what's your take on our politics right now? In the UK? Yeah, when you look at what's going on in the UK right now.

Well, there's been a change of government, and that always presents, you know, that is the greatest moment in time, I imagine for any new leader. Like I, even now, I think back to that window of six months post being elected. And knowing what I know now, I ask myself, what I do things differently. So, you know, the new prime minister is enjoying that. Obviously, he's got some challenges on his hands with the events there in the last 48 hours. But just in terms of supporting the government of the day or being generous to your opponents,

I actually think that generates a degree of credibility within the electorate. You know, when they hear the opposition leader every single day smashing the government, after a while it's just dog barks. You know, it's fulfilling people as expectations. But if every now and then you are being generous to your opposition, it creates an environment of giving more weight to when you are being critical, particularly given, depending on how you characterize your criticism as well. So I do wonder, though, whether or not compulsory voting changes the equation there

because part of the challenge in a non-compulsory voting environment, particularly where turnouts declining as we see in the US and the UK, you know, you've got to motivate your base, you've got to make them angry, you've got to fire them up and get them out to vote. No Australian politician has to worry about that. Everyone's going to vote. So the task is to persuade people who have voted conservative at the last election to choose to vote Labor at this election and vice versa for the Liberal Party.

On compulsory voting, Peter, you're speaking to the absolute converted here. Both massive converts, but obviously every time we speak in favor of it, I get challenged with enormous numbers of emails and Twitter attacks. So the two normal challenges that people make are it's somehow an imposition on civil liberties. It's the government imposing. The second one that I get quite a lot on Twitter is, come on, Rory, have you ever met a voter? What do you mean you're going to force everybody to vote? So, Peter, addressing my kind of skeptical friends or adversaries in Britain who are against

compulsory voting, try to make the case for it and explain why it's not. not as bad as people in Britain fear. You know, in both the US and the UK, there is a new position from government on people every single day in most elements of their lives. And so I think the best example is, if the government has the power to compel you to pay tax, why shouldn't they have the ability to compel you to have a say

on how those taxes are spent? And I had a ding-dong argument with an American in a pub one day, and he had an answer to every argument I had. Except that one, so I want to stick with it. Just to close off on the donations before we move on to social media, you've sort of told us why you want to do it. I'm interested in how you're going to do it because it strikes me as a very difficult challenge.

And we mentioned, you know, I mentioned Paul Keating. I read some of the stuff that Paul has been saying about it. He's very, very opposed to this. And there are opponents. Rory and I, by the way, are completely with you on it. We think this is a great thing. It's why we wanted to have you on the podcast. So it's that lots of British politicians could maybe hear some of your arguments.

But how are you going to do it and where's the opposition coming from? Okay. So, look, we won't see about the opposition where the opposition are coming from. I took this policy to the election. And there was not much love for it. Even on my own side of politics, I've got to say internally for a range of reasons. But I announced it before the election, honestly, because I knew that if we were successful in the election, day one, there becomes a disincentive to do this, because fundraising

is a lot easy for incumbents than it is for oppositions. That's the truth of it, unless the government of the day is in its dying days and the writings on the wall. And the simple reason for that is if you're buying a ticket to a fundraiser, you're far more, if you're a business, you're more interested to hear what the Premier or the Prime Minister is going to do versus what the opposition might like to do one day if they get the chance. You know, they're going to. You those things have different weight. The way we're doing it is, firstly, is that we're capping expenditure. We're putting a hard ceiling on the amount that could be spent by political parties and individual candidates in seats. So a hard cap on the amount that could be expended.

Something that we've actually already got in South Australia, we're just going to lower that cap a little bit. But then the second thing that we're doing is that we're going to publicly fund up to that cap. So it's a, a just... dual measure, cap, and then publicly fund up to the cap. Now, there are complexities with this because it is diabolically complex for a range of reasons, including the High Court, has been rather restrictive in this. But we've got to, we've developed a few models that we think can navigate through that path, including importantly the preservation of the interests of independence and also a new entrance to the political system. They've got to have an ability

to participate as well. Yeah. Talk me through that because I've run as an independent. and it's brusely tough to run against the main parties. So imagine I was running in one of the constituencies in your state. How would I qualify to actually get the money to allow me to run against the Labor candidate if I'm an independence come from nowhere? So you have to get enough signatures within your constituency to nominate in the first instance, but the second that you qualify to nominate, you will then get an upfront payment,

a modest one, but an up-front payment from the state to initially fund your campaign. The second thing that we're doing is that we will continue to allow new entrants that is non-incumbent candidates who aren't in a political party. So an independent new entrant, we're going to preserve their ability to fundraise up to a maximum of $2,700 per donation. But if Rory Stewart's running as an independent in the state seat of, you know, Croydon, if you're elected, at that point, you're in the system and you can no longer fundraise. Okay, loads covered there.

Loads still to do. We're going to come back after a short break and talk about the next band that Peter wants to bring in, and that's on young people having access to social media. There's something else here now, something new.

From exclusively on Paramount Plus, it's the series Stephen King calls scariest hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know

Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we all go home. From Binge All Episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Hi everybody, it's Dominic Samark here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics, when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Rest is History, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own.

So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise, people are arguing about Europe, the government has got a few issues with the trade unions, and we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues and people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing, which is our Britain, and the Britain of the mid-1970s.

So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history, we'll be looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. And we'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1970s. a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson

and we'll be talking about one of the grimmest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout. Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is History wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to The Restless Politics Leading with me, Rory Stewart.

And me, Alistair Campbell. And social media, Peter, again, two very simple questions. What is it you're trying to do? Why are you trying to do it? And how are you trying to do it? I think there's enough peer-reviewed research out there now, Alistair, that that makes it clear social media access for children is actually doing them harm, particularly around mental health. I don't think this is a dispute anymore. We've seen

journal after journal publish reports along these lines. The second element is the more fundamental sort of societal question. I think democracy is in difficult shape at the moment. It's probably going through the most challenging period, certainly since World War II. And I think there's a number of things that governments can do to help insulate democracy. We've already spoken about compulsory voting, banning money from politics. But I think social media and disinformation is really dangerous, particularly in the minds of young people who don't yet have the critical faculty to be able to account for misinformation in the way that you hope it adult would.

That said even adult struggle. So we think the best thing to do is just get social media out of the hands of children. This idea, the model that we are pursuing and set to deliver is based on the model that Ron DeSantis has deployed in Florida.

And, you know, there's not too many things. I probably find myself agreeing with Ron DeSantis on, but I actually thought what he's doing is a good thing, and I don't have any shame in saying that we would like to repeat it. Peter, tell us how that model works in practice. So I've got a nine-year-old son. Tell me a little bit about what would then happen to him and his access to social view.

So we've appointed the former chief justice of the Australian High Court to provide advice on the best legal mechanism to do this. We're going to release that report hopefully in September. But put simply, we want to put in place a piece of legislation that creates a burden or an onus or an obligation on social media platforms. They know the age. They have the capacity to know the age of people who have an account. Rory Stewart can't just get a social media account.

you have to go through a process, you have to fill out a form and the like. There should be age verification. The obligation should be on the social media platform. And if you're under the age of 14, you should not be allowed to get one. Now, that sounds simple, but of course, in practice, it's complex. But that's the detail that we're working through. And since we've made our announcement that we're doing this and intend to complete the work this year, most other states and territories have indicated that they're getting

on board. We've got a major summit in Australia in a couple of weeks to do that. the federal government and federal opposition are keen to deploy it. So I think this is going to happen. But the only other element is giving for children between 14 and 16, that would require parental consent. Like I said, the model has been applied in Florida. It seems to be working.

We don't see any reason why we can't achieve it here in South Australia and Australia. Peter, I mean, it's very exciting for us. But of course, as you can imagine, we've been interviewing on this podcast. people like Nick Clegg, who's a kind of big employee of Facebook and Helott-Torning Schmidt and others, and they're very much saying, yeah, you haven't read the evidence. There's no evidence that social media is damaging people. There's no evidence that's polarizing. So these big social media companies obviously have a huge interest in trying to block this.

Are you hearing from them? What are they saying? How do you mount Canterangs? Or are you brilliantly managing to start a revolution in South Australia that, Facebook hasn't really woken up to and they're going to not notice it until it's swept its way across the world. Look, I'd love it to be the latter. They've noticed, but they're not engaging with us and despite our invitations to do so.

And that includes with the former Chief Justice of the High Court. Why do you think that is? I think they're making a big mistake there. Yeah, me too. We're hopeful that changes. When we announced that we're doing this publicly, I've made it clear that we'd much rather work with them than without them. It doesn't mean that we're necessarily going to agree clearly.

you know, they're a legitimate stakeholder in this and it'd be easier if they were on board and engaged. I don't know if they think they'd rather put their head in the sand or just be dismissive of it or to fight it once they see the legislation. It worries me because I'd like to know what they're thinking.

Yeah. If I'm honest about it. I know Nick Clegg was also a supporter of electoral donation reform when he was in the coalition government. So anyway. But look, we're doing this. I met with a gentleman by the name of Vivek Murphy, who is the US Surgeon General in the Biden

administration and had that position in the Obama administration. I was a real privilege to meet him, an extraordinary human being exceptionally accomplished and clearly very intelligent. He's issued a nationwide US Surgeon General warning asking parents to get their kids off social media. That is how strongly he believes the evidence is that this is now decidedly doing them harm. And he started to me an exercise they did in the US, which I thought was really interesting. They asked a bunch of 13-year-olds, are you on social media? And they all said yes. Then they asked them, would you like to give up social media? And they all said no, hardly surprising. But then they asked them, if you knew that all your friends were giving up social media,

would you do it too? And they all said yes. And at a significant proportion of those, said, well, we would actually prefer that, which is a demonstration of the fact that kids aren't necessary on social media because they love it, but because they've got no choice but not to. If they choose not to be on social media, they're actively choosing to disengage with their friends. And that's not an option to a young person. We've already banned mobile phones in public schools in South Australia.

We've the first state to have a total ban. We've had it in place now for just on 12 months. And all the reports are being resoundingly positive, not just from teachers and principals talking about how loud schoolyards are, but actually from kids saying they actually prefer it. What do you define? When you talk about the harm that social media does to young people, how do you define that harm?

So we've seen, well, I mean, it's defining a number of respects. Firstly, it's demonstrated in the evidence of the rise of diagnoses of mental health conditions, depression, anxiety, you know, and it's most extreme, of course, tragically, in the form of self-harm. All these numbers are going up globally. And there's a bit of research out there that points of the correlation between that and the development of social media platforms

on phones with front-facing cameras. That seems to be the moment where things started to change. But anecdotally, not just anecdotally, but also we know that bullying has always existed in schools. I think it's naive to suggest otherwise. What changed with social media is, once upon time,

kid got bullet at school, they went home and found a place of refuge. There is no refuge in a world of social media. And kids go on home and they're looking at their phone and their screens and the bullying continues or exacerbates. It's that permanent sense of being under siege for a young person has a particularly deleterious impact on their upbringing. And you think about how I'm a politician. You know, I'm a professional politician. You know, you would think that I am trained to read comments on social media and dismiss them and think whatever. And largely I can, but even I every now mean read a comment on social media aimed at me and I still feel the pinch. Imagine if you're a 13 year old kid, it worries me greatly.

Let's just develop this for a second because we've got actually a pattern now around the world of relatively young, talented politicians, leaving politics. politics, particularly women. And part of that, I think, must be this continual abuse. Undoubtedly. On social media. Just talk about it a little bit. And, you know, you seem a relatively, as you say, balanced robust person, but just give lessness a sense of what it can be like for politicians, particularly female politicians, when it's really going wrong, what the emotional impact is and why it means that sometimes good people feel a bit abused and Harrison.

and public service. I think politicians often are a demonstration of the best of humankind and the worst, you know, but ultimately we are human. We have all the fragilities and the failings of human beings. But politicians are always looking for feedback. They want to know what their constituents think of the work that they're doing and what they're advocating for and are they doing a good job? That's, you know, again, that's human.

But how do you get that feedback outside of elections? I mean, there's published polls, but they tend not to occur at the candid level. They normally at the national level. So that doesn't really apply to a local MP in their constituency. So social media becomes a proxy for feedback. But of course, it's a terrible one because the people who are motivated to contribute on social media almost always are particularly strident in their views. There's not a normal thing to sit around and tap out responses to politicians on social media.

But politicians gravitate towards that because they are yearning. for a sense of how their performance is going and how good a job they're doing for their constituency. So on one level, it's rational that they read comments and social media responses. And then before you know, you're heading into the rabbit hole of a pretty dark place. And I think that infects your view. And after a while, you know, I could take a toll on the best person. So I do think it's having an impact. I don't know what the answer to that, because of course, social media and politics can be a

platform for good dialogue and exchange of ideas. I guess it's not help when the main platform is owned by somebody who seems to be becoming as big a narcissist and sociopath as Donald Trump. But we'll, let's move on from that. Let's just talk briefly about Orcus. You're a big, big supporter of Orcus, the tripartite defense arrangements between Australia, the UK and the US. Is that mainly for strategic reasons, your security interests as you see them?

Is there also an added kind of huge defence industry element for South Australia? My advocacy principle is oriented to the first one. But there's no denying it's in our state's interests industrially. And the demand it creates for labour and improving our economic complexity. But for the country, this is strategically critical. Look, Australia's defence posture needs to reflect the time that we're leaving in and the part of the world that we see changing around us. You know, Australia is in far close proximity to the UK

to the biggest military buildup that we've seen since World War II. And you've basically got two options. You can either say, look, that's not a problem, nothing we should worry about, let things run their course, which is a legitimate option, or say no, that that creates an environment that warrants a response. And I'm certainly in the latter category. I think that it is mission critical now, more than ever, particularly as we see the politics of isolationism in some parts of world on the rise, that Australia think about our sovereign capability to have, a defence sector and to produce the equipment that we would require to defend ourselves.

And the Yorkers arrangement, I think, gives us the most accelerated pathway to move up the value chain in terms of the sold of products that we afford our men and women in uniform. I think this is my view, and this is difference from other people's in my party at the membership level, but I think this accords with the best traditions of the Australian Labor Party and how we understand our capacity is a small, middle power to be able to have a positive influence in the region. Just quickly for listeners to explain, at the core of the Orcus arrangement is Australia constructing next generation high technology nuclear-powered submarines.

And this was controversial because they initially had a deal with France, which the UK and US supplanted. And a lot of the technology the Premier is talking about is in relation to developing that engineering capacity and building capacity. Premier, can I just also give you a chance to talk about what it feels like to look at the world from Australia's. perspective, because obviously we and Britain are surrounded by very mature democracies. But you are looking at a world where you're facing directly at an authoritarian China. You're looking at a populist India. You're looking at Probovo having been elected in Indonesia. You have in Singapore a very effective but relatively authoritarian state. I mean, there's all these very different political models surrounding you in Asia Pacific. What is that teach you about the inevitability of liberal democracy and the direction of the world?

Look, I think for Australians who think about it and have that in their consciousness, it elevates in their minds the fact that we simply cannot take the liberal democracy that has largely served our country exceedingly well for granted, plain and simple. I suspect my view about this has been informed by my heritage and the circumstances at which my family found themselves in Australia. But I do think there's a rising consciousness in the broader Australian public about the fact that geopolitically we are at a more precarious time in the fastest changing region on the planet. I also think there's a rising awareness that isolationism

in America is sort of gathering steam. And while the Australian US alliance is in a stronger position has ever been in many respects, it's not something you can always assume will be true, because policies can change. Now, I don't say that to diminish in any way, shall perform the strength of the relationship at the moment, but it would be, look, it would be reckless on behalf of Australia to assume the status quo will be here forevermore. So there's a legitimacy in wanting to pursue a sovereign capability.

And I think more Australians are on board with that now than they may have been if you were trying to prosecute that argument 10 years ago. One of the things that struck me when I was out in Australia, that time that I met you at the festival, and I also bet some of your state premier colleagues, Jacinda in Victoria and Chris Minz in New South Wales. I do get a sense of a kind of confidence about Australia at the moment. And the thing I felt whenever the discussion came to Orcus,

was that it was basically talking a lot about the A and a lot about the US and not that much about the UK. And I just wondered the extent to which the UK, which has these extraordinary historic links with Australia is genuinely, as opposed to the kind of sentimental stuff, genuinely how much do we feature in the thinking and the debates that happen around politics in Australia? In a way that when I think we used to have conversation with Paul Keating,

I kind of really genuinely felt that we were quite a big part of the kind of Australian political mindset. I think in my state, there's a real aware where it is, of the UK's role in the Yorkers relationship, because we're going to be building submarines with the UK more than the US. We're taking a, you know, I've been to Barrow in the UK where you build the submarines and there's a lot of attention about what happens in Barrow and Darby with Rolls-Royce and what that will mean for our state. I think that the reason why there's been more noise around the US element of Alpers is because there are questions, there have been questions in the

public realm and in the media, in the commentary around whether or not a change of, administration in the US to a Trump presidency would compromise Orkis. Now, I'm actually quite confident it won't and hopeful that it won't. I guess my question, Peter, goes more broadly than Ork's in defense. If you and your colleagues from around Australia were sitting there having a dinner with Antenalbanese and you're just talking about Australia's strategic interests, already mentioned, you know, you're always going to have US top of mind. You're always going to have China top of mind.

But where do we kind of figure? I'm not asking this out of need. I'm just interested, the extent to which I feel we've kind of slipped quite low on the pecking order. I think that it would be not discussed too broadly up until two things. Ukraine and Walker's.

I think both of those things have completely re-elevated the Australian UK relationship, not just in a defence context, but in a government-to-government and political one. The other one I would say is Brexit, also sort of created a sense that there was an opportunity to have a more direct relationship with the UK than what was the case previously. I'm not saying that that's a considered view. I'm just saying there's certainly been a sense of that, and the pursuit of a free trade agreement

with the UK speaks to that. Last one from me, Premier, I'm looking forward very much to, I'm coming to Australia, end of October, beginning in November, and I'm going around speaking, but like Alastair and Perth and Camber and Sydney and Melbourne, and I'm looking forward to it very much. Give me a sense, though, on what I should be looking for on that visit in terms of how we can build stronger relationships between Australia and the UK and what might be involved in that and how those connections work. And whether the monarchy is part of that or not, or what other dimensions apart from defence can bring these countries closer together. Well, an acknowledgement that we're better at cricket and at the Summer Olympics, we'll get you a long way. I think many of the challenge that we see domestically in the UK are comparable to some of them

that we see here in Australia. I look at the NHS and our public health system and the aspirations are the same, but the challenges are just as acute. And, you know, I think any example where we contemplate how the welfare state can modernise or how public service delivery can improve in a modern economy where, you know, government's capacity to throw large S at these services is diminishing. I think anything that speaks to that challenge and a sense of shared hope, but shared knowledge to unlock a pathway forward, I think, is powerful and meaningful. There's still far more commonality in terms of

public policy ideals and challenges between Australia and the UK and almost any other country. and I think when we think about those in a more human fashion of how we can help each other, I think that that still captivates the attention of Australians who are interested in public policy. My final question, Peter, and thanks for all your time, is this, that you're quite often written up as a contender for possible future labour leadership nationally, federally, which, of course, would mean Australian Prime Minister, but you've sort of, you keep brewing it out. Is that genuine or if the, if he sort of, obviously, I was thinking this in the context of what you said about Tim Walts. I mean, a few weeks ago, he was chugging along thinking, oh, well, Joe Biden's going to stand and I'll carry on being governor of Minnesota. And now suddenly

it looks like he might end up as being vice president. If you felt that the Labor Party thought you were the guy, is that not impossible to resist? Do you know, Moss Stein, you know, we're comparatively smaller jurisdiction to some other states in the country. But that brings with it a degree of agility to give us the flexibility to do a few things that creates an impact and maybe even an impact that gets taken up across the rest of the country. Being a premier of a state has got an enormous amount of a possibility of authority attached to it that means you can do a lot of good, unincumbent from other considerations. I did have an opportunity to go into federal politics, but I ended up choosing this option in a way that I didn't anticipate it would myself.

So I feel as though I've made a decision to dedicate myself to making as big a difference from this privileged position I've got. And it's just not on my, more than not being on my radar, it's I don't have any intention to do that. And I feel quite comfortable saying, you know, I'm rolling it out or what have you. And think about how disingenuous it would be, Alistair, for someone in a position such as the one I've got, to be thinking about the next job more than the one that I've got now. Now, you know, I'm alive for the fact that these jobs are temporary by nature.

You know, in apologies, you can be here one day and they're the next and down the next. So you've got to make every post to win away. You've got the chance and run in a million miles an hour, which is what I'm really enjoying doing at the moment. And, you know, we've been able to do a few things that the rest of the country is paying interest in. So I don't know any other positions that would give me the ability to do that. Okay, well, I'm taking that as an 85% note. No, it really, really has been great talking to you. And I think our listeners will at the end of that understand why people do talk about you in those terms.

Premier, we really, really appreciate it. All right, Peter. Peter, Peter, listen, lovely to talk to you. Thanks very much, cheers. Well, Alistair, thank you. I mean, I really, really like that. To be honest, this is a tradition in leading. I was a little bit skeptical.

I looked in my diary and trying to explain to Shoshana who we were interviewing. I was like, what's going on here? But I trust you. And actually, that was terrific. I really liked it. And of course, one of the reasons I really loved it is I felt that unlike somebody who's a kind of working politician right in the middle of British politics, he was somebody who was able to talk like a human being, step back a little bit, be a bit more confident, be a bit

more honest about stuff. I was very taken with him. What did you make of him? Look, I've only ever met him that once and spoken to him a few times since. And I really like the guy. I think he's very impressive. I was very, very struck as well when I was out in Adelaide how much people liked him,

including people who weren't necessarily labor people. And, you know, I think the reason why, I think it was, quote, just a state premier. I'm not sure even I would necessarily have said, you know, let's have him on the podcast. But I think it is really interesting what he's trying to do in politics with this donation banning.

And I really, I think it's interesting as well the stuff on social media. And by the way, on the banning, you say that he talks, you know, you'll talk with a bit more openness than serving politicians, et cetera. You know, I suspect that will cause him quite a lot of grief within that debate because it is quite very, it's a difficult thing that he's trying to do. No, he's the sort of politician of which we need more, which are people who kind of take

tough positions, argue for them, hold out for them. And if they work, they work. If they don't, they don't. Then he'll try and move on to the next thing. I also think he's a, without being too romantic about him, I think he's a model of what can work quite well in a modern democracy. I mean, if we think about the kind of things that wind people up about politicians in Britain, obviously there's a lot of people who are very fed up, understandably with old Etonians, they're fed up with professional politicians and spads. They're looking for, I think, people who are relatable. And he has a, I think, a good combination of being, as you say, say, a kind of good-looking, straightforward guy. But also, I like the fact, as I said, that he praises the opposition when it does things he likes. He talks like a normal person. There's no sense of kind of super caution and message points that he's pushing across. He's somebody who you'd imagine

as a kind of reassuring CEO of a big company, too. Yeah, but he has, but listen, he's got a lot of politics in him. He knows how to do politics. Look, one of the reasons are, you've all for Nespi why don't like Australia so much? One of the reasons is that I do think when you go there, and I think you'll find this as well. When you meet the politicians, they're pretty high quality at various levels. You know, I mentioned the other two that I met,

really impressive people, you know, that you would feel totally comfortable in the idea that they are serious, senior political figures. And there is something really rough and tough about Australian politics. But there's also, you know, I find them very, He's a very, very thoughtful guy, I think. Shall I tell you my favorite part of that interview was when he suddenly dropped in a book about

Clebert Attlee and changed the way that he governed? I loved that. That was wonderful, wasn't it? And, Alison, just sort of quickly to finish, you know, I was saying, you know, I could see him as somebody who'd be a good CEO of a company, and you said, yeah, yeah, but he's more political than you're acknowledging. Tell us a little bit about that. What are the ways in which you maybe, me or another listener, might miss the fact that he's actually

a pretty skillful politician? He gave you one indication of where I felt that. So, for example, he made the point that he campaigned on something that he knew was costing him a bit of support. Right. Because he knew that if he won, he would need that having campaigned for it and fought for it to allow him then to do it, as he said from day one. Goes back a little bit to your point about, you know, the Ken Clark theory that you have about the current Labour government. you've got to upset people sometimes to be able to get things done. And I also think that he's the pushback that he got on the stuff that he was saying today about a current issue in Australian politics to do with the universities.

And there was that little sort of twinkle in his eye that said, yeah, I know I'm going to have a few conversations about this, and I'm going to have to manage my way through this. And he said, you know, I'll be seen Alba at the weekend. I just think he's one of those guys who, as he said in the discussion about donations, not a transactional politician, but a relationship politician. He will have good relationship, I suspect, with a very, very big network. Skillful politician, but also confident enough to be prepared to be frank about the damage that social media does, even on him. I thought that was nice. I mean,

he's not presenting himself as completely invulnerable. He's convincing because he, yeah, I think he's able to have the confidence to open up a little bit about other sides of things. Great. Okay. I'm glad you enjoyed that. ever Rory, I've been proven right about our choice of guests. As always, as always, Alastair. Have a great, have a great day. Bye-bye. See you, see it. Bye. Hi, it's Dominic here from The Restis History, and here is that clip that I mentioned earlier. The other thing is something else you get some Grantham, and that's the Methodism.

And actually, this to me, I think this is one of the absolute defining things of Thacherism. It's the tone, the moralistic, evangelical tone. Yeah, and the low church tone rather than the high church tone. Mary. Margaret, as a girl, had to say grace before every meal. She had to go to chapel three or four times on Sundays. Her father, as a lay preacher, went on and on and on about hard work, individualism, thrift, clean living, all of this. And this is what I think makes her politics different. There is a moralism to it, a low church moralism that is totally unlike anything that any other Tory leader says before her. So in 1984, an interview with the Times, I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end, good will triumph. I mean, Ted Heath could have lived to the age of 10,000, and he would never have said anything like that. It's unthinkable. Also, I mean, what's interesting is that it's giving to the left what the left often give to the right. It's casting the left as evil and the right as virtuous, and usually it's the other

way round. Completely it is. I mean, you see this reflected in her archives, which are online at Thatcher Foundation website, which is brilliant, by the way. this amazing digital archive. You can see all the notes that she would handwrite for her conference speeches, and they'd be full of all the stuff about the evils of socialism, good versus evil, what the great religions of the past teach us, what life is struggle. Her speechwriters would cut all this.

They'd say, God, this is bonkers. But it would find its way in one way or another. And I think you're absolutely right. She thinks socialism is not just wrong. She thinks it's morally, it's evil. It's corrupting. And people in 70s Britain, you know, they're used to thinking, socialists are well-meaning and idealistic.

Maybe they're a bit deluded, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, she doesn't think that. She doesn't think they are well-meaning idealistic. She thinks that they're doing the devil's work. Yeah. And that's what makes, for her admirers, it's so invigorating. and for her critics, I mean, if you're on the left, right, and you're used to thinking of yourself as the goodies,

to be told, actually, you're the bad people, it's insulting. And it's why I think one reason why people take it so personally when she sort of wades into battle. If you want to hear more, search for the rest is history, wherever you get your podcasts.