TRIGGERnometry - Our Thoughts on Charlie Kirk and The Tommy Robinson Rally

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

Konstantin and Francis discuss the assassination of Charlie Kirk and Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom rally. | We use Ground News to escape the echo chamber and stay fully informed. Go to https://ground.news/triggernometry to save 40% on the Ground News unlimited access Vantage plan. Triggernometry is proudly independent. Thanks to the sponsors below for making that possible: - We recommend Brad Vs. Everyone podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. 00:00 - Introduction 01:20 - The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk 17:05 - The Effect Of Social Media 24:37 - The Horrific Commentary Coming From The Right 31:37 - Jimmy Kimmel And The Cancellations 45:38 - Tommy Robinson's Unite The Kingdom Rally 01:00:09 - Britain Is A Very Anti-Extremist Country Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a 30-year-old guy, a father of two young children, who are now going to grow up without him. When you label and smear somebody as a fascist and a Nazi, you are putting a target on their back. We've got to be honest and acknowledge that this is not a both-size issue. It just isn't. If we're going to talk about people monetizing this tragedy, I mean, what we've seen in the last few days on the right, I think I'm probably as horrified by that as I am by the celebratory. of Charlie Cook's assassination. The United Kingdom protest, you and I both went along.

That is another thing that, you know, there's been a lot of rhetoric about. Smearing them as far right, smearing them as racist, do not understand where this is leading. And a week after Charlie Cook, you're continuing to use the same rhetoric, the same language, the same words, and I'm angry. And I'm angry because it's dangerous, because this is a powder kick. Relax, relax, this is not an ad.

I just wanted to let you know that you can watch this video without any advertising at all. No interruptions, no pop-ups, nothing. Just go to Triggerpod.com.uk or click the link below and join thousands of our supporters who watch all our interviews with exclusive bonus content ad-free. Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal.

So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon.

Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network, performing FUS second half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person who gave me the deal. Additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply. She does a lot for your family. Mother's Day is your chance to show her you see it,

with a gift from a brand trusted for generations to help people get the moment right. 1,800 flowers. With double blooms from 1,800 flowers, buy one dozen roses and get another dozen for free. It's a bigger gesture, backed by 50 years of experience delivering fresh flowers, so you can feel confident sending something that lands.

Show up for her with double blooms at 1,800flowers.com slash Spotify. That's 1,800flowers.com slash Spotify. Francis, so it's been exactly a week, as we sit here recording this, since Charlie Kirk was assassinated. One of the things we didn't want to do is talk about it straight away. And I think you see why. We didn't want to talk about it while emotions are raw.

And emotions are very raw. Look, they were raw for both of us because two days, literally 48 hours before he was killed, we were booked to actually interview him. And both you and I were really excited about this. We saw Charlie as being a really important figure. in Maga, in modern day republicanism. He was the face of conservatism, particularly for young people in America and in the UK.

You know, this was somebody who was a galvanizing force for young people across social media. I think he had a significant impact in the election. People talk a lot about Rogan or the Theo's having Trump on and J.D. Vance's. I think people underestimated the real impact that Charlie had amongst third people who were around the age of 30, but also the younger people as well, galvanizing them,

making them think in a more conservative manner. This guy was a real force of conservative and Christian politics. It's interesting you say that because I think you're right that a lot of people underestimated him. I don't think many people who knew him underestimated him. From everyone we've spoken to, particularly since his murder, lots of people were saying, like the moment we met this guy,

we knew he was going to be president one day. we're all going to be working for him. But actually, I would confess that I was one of the people that underestimated him because for the reasons actually that you've outlined when you say, well, he's the Christian conservative voice. I'm like, we've had those on the show. I don't really need to know much more about what that group of people think. Not because there's anything wrong with what they think, but that point of view has been well represented on trigonometry. But then I saw a clip of him on Gavin Newsom's podcast And they were talking about why the left is so

Unwilling to engage in debate and why their ideas are so fragile And I thought it was incredibly insightful And that's when I was like, oh, okay, this guy is actually a real genuine thinker This is someone who has ideas of his own Who can articulate and explain things Not that he's heard from someone else Or not that he's read in the Bible or whatever This guy is actually smart and talented, and that's when we wanted to interview him.

And as you say, two days before, it was confirmed that we were going to. But it's not, I don't think it's just about that. You know, I don't think the reason we felt stunned and shocked by what happened is that of our proximity to him. I know from speaking to lots and lots of people now, it was just a very shocking moment for a lot of people. because partly some of the things that many of us have been saying for a long time were actually coming true in the sense that, you know, if you keep labeling people as Nazis and fascists, you are going to create a situation where some crazy guy thinks it's true.

And I've made this point many, many times as a view, if you thought that our country was about to actually be overrun with Nazis and fascists, wouldn't it be your duty to pick up a rifle and go and fight them? Wouldn't that, I mean, that's what our grandparents did. When they thought this country was about to overrun by Nazis, they went and enlisted and fought. Isn't that what you would expect young men to do? Well, exactly, exactly. But, and this is the very dangerous situation that we find ourselves in this country, but more pertinately America, where people are incentivized to use this language. The more hyperbolic you are, the more inflammatory your choice of language. The more reactionary you are, the greater your engagement. The greater engagement, the more followers you get. The more followers you get, the more notoriety that you have. And ultimately, the more money that you generate.

that is a perverse incentive structure for the Commentariat class. That is perverse because what it does is it incentivizes the worst type of behavior. And we've seen time and time again, people on the left, but we're now seeing it with people on the right. Some people that I know and that we've even had on this show, I'm actually getting very worried by the way that they're speaking online. Well, I'm going, this is the type of argument that the left we're doing before. it's completely lacking in nuance, it's inflammatory, it's incendiary, and it's appealing to our worst and our most base instincts. And that is a very worrying place to be, because there are people in this country and in the United States who have very severe mental health problems,

or they're vulnerable, or they're just psychotic or whatever words you want to use, evil even. and you're giving them a pass to go and do the most despicable things a human being can do, which is kill another person. Well, the permission structure is definitely, I think, and I think there's something really, really important for us to delineate here, because I've seen this one, I've said, well, look, when you call people Nazis and fascists, this is what you're doing, people go, wait, are you saying words of violence, Constantine?

Oh, ho, oh, I got you. No, you haven't, dickhead. You haven't got me. because words of violence is a slogan that was used to say, you've said something that offends me, my feelings are hurt, and that is the same as violence. That is not the same as saying when you label somebody a fascist and a Nazi, i.e. a threat to democracy and a threat to our country,

you are putting a target on the back. Not only are these statements not the same. In actual fact, the claim that words of violence is another way of justifying the killing of Charlie Kirk and people like him. because what you're saying is his opinions are offensive to me. That is the same as violence. Well, if it's the same as violence, then you're necessarily, just if you look at the way people think,

if I use violence towards you, most people would agree that you're entitled to use violence back to me. So we're not saying words of violence. On the contrary, we are saying words are not violence. And this is another important part of this whole conversation. Words are not violence. And when someone says something that offends you, you're not entitled to use violence against them.

But when you label and smear somebody as a fascist and a Nazi, you are putting a target on their back. And the thing that I think we have to concede here, I mean, you talk about the reaction from some people on the right and we'll get to it because a lot of it has been really constructive and sensible and accurate and wise. Some of it's been deranged, as you'd expect. But if you want to talk about deranged,

you have to concede now that there is a sizable number of people on the left who openly condone and celebrate the murder of their political opponents. That's a fact. That is what we saw. And, you know, look, for balance, we should also say that there are a lot of reasonable people on the left. I don't know if you've had, I've had hundreds of messages from people who are going, look, I don't agree with Charlie Kirk. I don't even agree with you, frankly, but this is outrageous. And the way

people reacted to this is outrageous. And this is completely unacceptable. And I agree for our country. I agree for our society. So that we have seen that. But also, let's be honest, among young people in particular, the belief, the words of violence, and therefore you're entitled to use violence against people whose words you disagree with is widespread now. Of course. And we saw that with the case of the Oxford Union president, who debated Charlie Kirk at the Oxford Union. When he heard that he had been assassinated, he used the words, let's go,

and then openly endorses violence against political enemies or those people he deems to be incorrect or wrong, and he's quite happy to admit that. So you're going at the most prestigious debating chamber in the world, in the world, where people go from a route across the globe to debate, to share ideas, to be in that particular cauldron, you are advocating that it is acceptable.

If somebody says something that you disagree with, that you think is wrong, you think it's acceptable to kill them. That shows a moral rot at the very heart of our culture, and the left need to be quite, and there have been people on the left, Jank Wiga's actually been very good on this, who have condemned this, But everybody needs to come out and be blunt and be honest and say, no, we cannot have this. And Charlie said this himself.

There was a very moving interview where he said, where someone asked him why he does this, because he said, because if we stop talking, we're going to end up at civil war. But when you kill your enemies for talking, what are you going to stop them doing? You're going to stop them talking. And if we carry down this path, that's where we end up. Yeah. And look, a lot of the political debate about it. look, I respect Jank for the way he's reacted to this. I also have to say, and I said this to his face

when I was on Pierce Morgan, and we shouldn't shy away from this. Now, the way he's reacted to this particular incident is in attempt to dial down the tensions, and I think he's right to do that, and I respect that. But you also have to acknowledge that when we had him on the show exactly a year ago, he was one of the people who spent 20 minutes trying to convince me that President Trump is a fascist. And it wasn't very persuasive. No. So if this is not, you know, if this is now the opportunity for a lot of people to look at their rhetoric and dial it back, I think we've got to encourage that and support that and respect that. And if Chank is one of them, brilliant. Good, good on him. And I think a lot of the things she's been saying since I've been

really actually exactly the way the left should talk about these issues. But I also think there's been far too much of this. And people often accuse me of like being a both sides guy and looking at this and looking at that. And I do try to be objective about things. But I I have to say, we've got to be honest and acknowledge that this is not a both-sides issue. It just isn't. Yes, of course, dialing up the rhetoric has happened on both sides. And you mentioned media commentators. It's also true of politicians.

Politicians are incentivized to say, if we don't win this election, the roof is going to fall in on the world. And we are living in heated times, and it does feel existential for a lot of people. But there is a difference between saying, fight like hell, this is, you know, if we lose this election, your country's gone and whatever, that ratches up the general pressure. But when you call specific individuals Nazis and fascists, that is a completely different thing. You're putting a target on their back because you're saying this specific person is like this person in history who we all have been trained to hate, rightly so, for the last 70, 80 years. If you're saying this person is Hitler, you are putting

putting a target on their back. That's just a fact. And that is not the same as ratcheting under pressure, which both sides have been doing and both sides need to stop doing. Yeah. What this shows is a complete lack of education. Because I guarantee, if you sat down with these people who were throwing these words about and going, could you please explain to me the political ideology of fascism? What are the tenets of fascism? Just explain it to me. We can talk communism. We can talk liberalism. But you've said fascism. What does it mean to be a fascist. What do you believe in? What actually is fascism? The ideology at its root, at its roots, I don't think they'd be able to explain that. I don't think they'd be able to give a coherent

explanation of what fascism actually is. So to them, it's just almost just a label. It's something that I disagree with, it's something that is morally reprehensible. And what they're not doing is understanding how serious that accusation is. It's what the term paedophile. If you didn't understand what that meant. And you just thought, oh, this is a despicable person. Oh, he votes, reform. Oh, you're a pedo. Well, if you say that enough time, people are going to be like, what? Then why is he walking past the school? And we're just like, well, I'm going to pick up my door. No, you're a pedophile. Then what happens? That person is going to get severely hurt. You need to actually understand what it is that you're accusing somebody of. Because this isn't

just a label. It has a meaning. Fascism is a political ideology. understand it or stop using that word. And the same with Nazis. And the other thing is you saw as well, I think that there are these echo chambers now. I mean, there are a number of people, Stephen King, I think, was one of them. Alastair Campbell here in Britain as well. They both wrongly tweeted that Charlie Kirk was somebody who said that gay people should be stunned. They shared this to millions of people.

And you're going, you clearly must know literally nothing about Charlie Kirk. because I didn't follow his work closely, but I broadly was aware of his work. And there is no possible way that you can believe he said that and know anything about him because you just know that is not the sort of person that he was and is not the sort of thing that he would have said. And in any case, we've got into the politics of it quite quickly.

The thing that we need to say, look, I've said it for a week now, and maybe that's why we didn't open with it, This is a 30-year-old guy, a father of two young children, who are now going to grow up without him. And at the end of the day, that is the only thing that matters here. That is the only thing that matters. A man's life has been taken away, and he has been taken away from his children and his wife, for speaking to people on college campuses, which is exactly where this kind of robust debate needed to happen. Yeah.

That is what happened. that is what happened and I don't I don't know what the right word is for how wrong, evil and horrific that is and for anyone to celebrate it I just think they

they've got some kind of they have been failed very badly by their education system and you know I don't know if you remember this but when I do if you remember in 2018 when I turned down that safe space contract and a lot of people were saying to me

Constantin, why are you making such a big deal about it? It's just students. It's just people at university. You know, they'll grow up and they'll be fine. No, this is what I said at the time. You don't understand 10, 15, 20 years from now. These very same people who are now these stupid students who are celebrating someone being murdered,

they're going to be in charge of the country. They're going to be making decisions. They're going to be running things. They're going to be running banks. They're going to be running companies. They're going to be running political organizations. they're going to be running the country. And they have been indoctrinated with this horrific ideology,

and they think it's fine to kill people now, some of them. It's gross. Look, of course it's disgusting, but I think also we have to accept as well that social media has played its part. In that when these people go online, they see these people not as real people, but as avatars.

These are avatars. They're not real people. They don't interact with them every day. day. They don't see them. They're not their friends. And it will, you know. And so they don't, so if somebody is an avatar, they're not human. If they're not human, it's very easy to dehumanize them. Call them nuts. He called them whatever you want. Because what is the impact? It's not like I'm walking up to you at a bar and going, I think you're X, Y, and Z. You'd turn around to me and go, and then a very real encounter happens because it's real life.

So if somebody dies and they're not human, then it's like a computer game. I mean, social media in many ways is a glorified computer game. So Charlie is assassinated. Your enemy in the computer game is killed. You celebrate. And I think as terrible as I've just explained, I think that's a large part of it. And I think we as a culture, as a society, as a generation, and the younger generations, we're in real danger of losing our souls in our humanity. I don't think you're wrong about that, but I also have to push back on this as well, because I think you're right, the effect is there. But I don't, if somebody on the left or somebody that I personally, someone who's, let's say, Uber woke. Yeah.

Right. I don't want to name names because, you know, for all these reasons. Yeah. That I, I, I, people would assume that I hate because they're my political opponent. If this, if they were shot in front of an audience of people, they came to debate and killed. in that way, I wouldn't be, I have social media, I wouldn't be celebrating. Yeah. Right? I wouldn't be, I would be horrified.

Yeah. You pick out a person that you think I hate the most in the world, whoever that is in your head, right? And imagine that happening to them and all I can think of, this is horrific. Whoever did this obviously has to be punished to the worst extent, but we've got to like stop this. This is completely unacceptable. And I have social media. I'm on Twitter all the time, but I don't want to see my political opponents killed. So what I'm saying is we can blame social media all we want, but there's something else going on here.

Yeah. I also think it's a generational thing as well. I think if you've been raised on this stuff, I think not that you're going to, but I think you're more likely to believe in thinking that way. I genuinely do. I think one of the things that we're very lucky is that we remember a time before social media. We remember a time before all this stuff happened. So because you remember a time before it happened, you have a deeper connection and rooting with reality. And I sometimes think that, look, I think it's the ideology. Of course the ideology plays a part.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm also saying that the way that we're interacting and staring at our screens, I think it's destroying a generation mentally. I think it's unhelpful, but I'm sorry, Francis, I'm not down with this. People need. to take some accountability here. The teachers, the college professors, the influences, the people who go on social media,

the podcasters, all the people that have created an environment where young people now think violence is acceptable. I don't give a shit about their use of social media. This is not the right way to be thinking about this.

And I'm not going to let anyone off the hook with this. It's not acceptable. I agree with you. I agree with you. I just think that is a fundamental part of the puzzle as well. I agree. No, that apart I agree with it, but I don't think that should be remotely an excuse for this way of thinking. The reason that they think this way is first and

foremost what they've been taught, what they've been taught ideologically to think about their political opponents. And this decade we've had now of constant demonization of your political opponents as Nazis and fascists, all of this. That's where this is coming from. That's where this is coming from. Social media, of course you're right. But the thing with social media is, Social media amplifies everything. Yeah. If you put good stuff out, that also gets amplified by social media. Look, my Instagram feed is, because of what I'm following on there,

it's just people talking about parenting in a funny way and whatever. My point is, good messages also get amplified, right? So at the end of the day, it's about people who are putting out the messages. Yes. They're the ones responsible. Agreed. And they need to take responsibility for that. Absolutely 100%.

Because I think, and I see a lot of these people, I go, do you actually, genuinely, genuinely, do you actually think about the impact this is having? Or are you just thinking in a purely monetary, very, very functional business, oh, this clip did X, this clip did Y, this got X amount of followers, this got Y amount of engagement. Is that how you think about it? Or are you actually thinking to yourself, this is having a very real world impact? If you've been following the immigration debate, you'll know how different the headlines can look depending on where you get your news. We use ground news to help us step outside the echo chamber. It shows you how the same story is framed differently across the political spectrum. So you can compare headlines and decide for yourself.

Take the story about a massive immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia, USA. Follow along at ground.news slash trigger. Using Ground News, straightaway we can quickly see that the story is being covered by outlets across the board. However, scrolling down the page, Ground News allows me to easily compare the headlines. We can see CNN, which is firmly on the left, highlighted that nearly 500 workers were taken, while Fox News, on the right, framed the raid as bold action. Ground News shows us that broadly, left-leaning outlets focused on immigrants and workers, Center-leaning outlets simply reported the number detained

and right-leaning outlets emphasized illegal workers. Ground news compiles these divergent perspectives into one place. Another feature we use heavily at trigonometry is their blind spot feed, which shows you where coverage is lopsided, lets you compare headlines across the political spectrum and helps you identify what's being emphasized or ignored. If you care about getting to the truth by seeing things from all angles, ground news is essential.

Go to ground. dot news slash trigonometry and get 40% of their unlimited vantage plan. That's the plan we use. That link again is ground. Dot news slash trigonometry.

I hope more people do think about it that way. Look, especially now, look, you can... Social media, YouTube, etc. They're new mediums, their new technologies. They fell into the hands

of a lot of people who were not prepared to deal with that level of influence. and power. And so perhaps there's some understanding to be had for, you know, maybe people like you say genuinely didn't realize that what they say in here has an impact out there. Well, we know that now. We know that now. And those people need to really have a wake up moment right here, right now. But if we're going to talk about people monetizing this tragedy, I mean, what we've seen in the last few days on the right, I think I'm probably as horrified by that as I am by the celebrations of Charlie

Kirk's assassination. I mean, there are people who are literally going, oh, let me tell you how Israel killed them. We know this guy who killed them from the text messages, from the messages on the ammunition, which were all anti-fascist, quote unquote, all of this. This was like a trans ally guy who was in a relationship with a trans person who thought Charlie Kirk was too hateful, clearly a leftist, a crazy leftist guy. There's now people going, well, I've got text messages that insinuate that Charlie Kirk was under pressure to support Israel, tune into my live stream. I'm just going, you have lost your humanity if you ever had it.

And that again just shows you just, and the one thing, the thing that I find that I struggle to understand is I go, how much of this is just sheer naked greed? in all senses of the word. And how much of this is ideological? How much of this is Israel is behind everything bad that's happening in the world, whether it's Epstein or the assassination of Charlie Kirk,

and how much of this is just you going? It's hard to know. It's hard to know. But I just think you said it before we started. It's like, I think, the Douglas Murray quote. Yeah. A flare has gone up and now we know where everybody is.

and we saw the people, very few people, but influential people, who before we even knew anything, started to try and make it about Israel or other things, and you're just going, you're not a serious person. No. And that's why I don't even want to name names. I've written stuff about the woke riot and the candorones and whatever. I'm not even interested now.

It's time to give all these people the Alex Jones treatment, which is just look, you've done. got your audience and you say whatever you want and that audience will be big, but no one's serious is going to take you seriously anymore because you're just discrediting yourself. Yeah. And I think when you see those people, you actually go, if you haven't understood who they actually are, if you've thought, you know, they've said sensible things about BLM or, you know, the riots or whatever it may be, no, the mask is well and truly slipped. And you see the grotesque, the grotesque, the grotesque underneath. And then you have to, and now it is your job as an adult to make the decision.

Do you continue to follow? Do you continue to engage? You continue to amplify this person. Or do you look and do you think to yourself actually no more? And these people, they were Charlie's friends. They were Charlie's friends. I don't think they were. Well, they claimed they were. He invited them to his events. They spoke at his events. And while his widow, and children are grieving, they are profiteering from his death with conspiracy theories that are completely the opposite of the truth. Because we know from all the things that have been, all the evidence points to the fact that this was a trans-related ally, leftist, quote-unquote, anti-fascist, crazy guy. But these people who claim to be his friends are literally profiting from his death.

I actually cannot imagine anything more disgusting. Imagine somebody, imagine this, God forbid, happened to one of us and our so-called friends were using this to get clicks on their YouTube channels while your family were grieving. It's as disgusting as the left, the people on the left who celebrated his death.

It's just as disgusting. And there's no other way to say it. And I think they've all, in my eyes, I will never ever take any of them seriously in anything they say ever again because they've just shown who they are. Absolutely. And what they've shown very clearly is that the most important thing for you is engagement, its views and its money. And if that's the most important thing for you, that's your incentive structure, then why are you going to be truthful? Why are you going to behave with decency, honesty and integrity? if the most important thing for you is those things.

If that's the top of that, if that is the top, if that's the most important thing, then naturally all your behaviours are going to lead to that thing. And it's weird because, you know, with my Russian background, I'm about as cynical as you can get. But I was not cynical enough to imagine this kind of reaction. I imagined people celebrate. I knew people would celebrate because people celebrated when Thatcher died.

Do you? And look, at some level I can relate. I'm not saying this is how I will think. But, you know, for our generation in this country, Tony Blair was evil. Like what he did in Iraq was evil, objectively. And we all knew it at the time. We all opposed the war, et cetera. Of course, of course.

I'm not saying I will celebrate when he dies because I will not. But I can see how somebody might. Yeah. Right? So at least I sort of, it's horrific. And as we've talked about, completely unacceptable. But I can sort of see how you might get there. You might get there.

But with this, I will. was not cynical to imagine. Like what I did imagine, and it is happening, you know, we had the US Attorney General Pam Bondi, for example, start talking about, you know, well, there's free speech and there's hate speech and we're going to crack down on hate speech, right? Now, this is, and this is the interesting thing, because this is another example of why this is not a both sides issue. Because the moment she said that, literally everybody on the right went, no. And they started quoting Charlie Kirk's own own quotes saying there's no such thing as hate speech in America. The First Amendment doesn't curtail people's right to say things like that. And the right. And the pushback was

instant. Because on the right, all of these ideas have been debated and people know where they stand on this. On the left, there's a whole different narrative about it. That's what I expected that. And I expected what we're now seeing, which is, look, we should talk about this because this is a live conversation as well. As we sit here this morning, Jimmy Kimmel has just been put on leave, is it? Yeah, he, yeah. Taken off air indefinitely. Definitely. Right. Because he said the shooter was a mager guy. Yeah. In one of his monologues. We'll talk about that. And also, we've seen a lot of people be sacked from their jobs, a fired from their jobs for celebrating Charlie's death and things like that. And it's quite an interesting one to adjudicate.

from our perspective. So what did you make of, what do you make of these two strands? So with Jimmy, and I'm going to put my cards on the table, I'm always pro-comedian. I'm always pro-comedian. I will always stand up for comedians

because I believe that we, over the past few years, we swung so far over the other way where people were getting cancelled that I actually, unless somebody does something particularly heinous, I will always be pro-comedy and I will always be comedian.

I think Jimmy obviously had information. It was wrong. He was given the wrong information or he saw information that was wrong. What happened? He made a mistake. Am I comfortable with what's happened? No, I'm not. If I'm being honest.

I'm not saying, I'm not going to give my opinion either way just yet. But I think we, look, I'm a former comedian. You're a current comedian and I totally get that instinct. But I also don't think this comedian, defense is getting overused. There are quite a lot of people who say things that they actually mean who are serious political

commentators or at least taking a serious political commentators who use the defense of being comedians the moment they're caught lying. Yes. Right? Basim Yusuf, a former guest of ours before there was any

evidence came out of all. He said on Twitter that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad, right? And when he was challenged on this by Pierce Morgan, he said, I, well, I just, you know, I'm a clown, I'm a comedian. I was joking. Yes. But he wasn't joking. Yeah. He wasn't joking. Yeah. And not, he's not a clown. All you've seen him do for the last year is give his serious opinion about this. Yes. And when you blur that line, you don't have that excuse anymore. Yeah. And with Jimmy Kimmel, we can have a conversation about him being taken off air. But I also think it's

unfair to pretend that he is a comedian in the same well, I think it's unfair to pretend. I think it's unfair to and I don't think Bill would do this, that Bill Maher is a comedian. Bill Maher has hosts a political show that has elements of comedy. Yes. But by Biden's, I know people on the left

who've said to me repeatedly, I just get all my news from the Daily Show. I just get all my news from Jimmy Kimmel, right? Because the point of those shows is to talk about politics and culture with a punchline at the end. But you also have a responsibility to communicate the truth.

And you say he was given wrong information. I am sorry, mate. This has been the biggest story on the news for the last week. The police have released plenty of information about the motivations of the shooter. They've released as text messages. They've released the information

that was on the ammunition. How are you getting this wrong like that? Okay. So that's a fair point. But I see certain things as being different. I think what Bassim does is Bassim presents, I think Bassin presents himself, I don't think Bassin presents himself as a serious political commentator, which is fundamentally disingenuous that he then retreats to that position. He also spread a conspiracy theory knowingly, and he admitted that in the clip, which is

reprehensible and utterly disgusting. It's anti-Semitic vile. So there is no excuse, and I do not defend Bassem, and I utterly condemn him. With Bill Ma, that is a serious political show, I agree with your point. He's also got jokes, though, just like Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah. I see Jimmy Kimmel as being more kind of, I haven't seen the Jimmy Kimmel show in a long time, but I see it as being... It's one of the other reasons that also they're not that bothered about canceling, because ratings apparently going through the floor.

Exactly. I always saw Jimmy Kimmel as being much more of a kind of fluffy, light entertainment show than a political show. Come on, man. That's the way I saw it. Fine. But he is presenting information to the public about which he then does jokes. When you insinue that this person who killed Charlie Kirk was a MAGA guy, you are spreading a conspiracy theory. This is the thing, again, right? There are a lot of batch crazy conspiracy theories on the right.

And they're loved and appreciated by many people with large audiences on the right. And I dislike that. And I've always said that I dislike that. And a lot of, you know, all the fuck start with Pete again, wake your way down, right? but the lefters got away for a very long time with spreading conspiracy theories of the worst kind

while claiming that the right is conspirator or no, no, no. If you go on TV a week after Charlie Kirk is killed by a left-wing radical and you say he was a MAGA guy, imagine it was the other way around. Imagine a major left-wing figure had just been politically

assassinated by someone from the right and Greg Gutfeld went on his comedy show Fox and said, well, this guy was obviously a leftist. What would happen? Yeah. There would be a firestorm of people calling for him to be sacked, to be cancelled, to be fired, all of this, for spreading misinformation. Yeah. Right. So Jimmy Kimmel, I think, is exactly in that category. Now, do I want to see him canceled permanently never allowed to work again? No. But I also think if your job is to communicate information to the public, you have a response to you. You have a

to be accurate about it. And that is not an acceptable breach of that duty, in my opinion. Yeah. Look, I agree with, I agree with, I agree with that. My instinct is always when it comes to comedy. But it wasn't comedy, though. It's not comedy. It's satire. It's not satire. It's him expressing his opinion. He basically told people that this guy was killed by a MAGA guy. Charlie Kirk was killed by a MAGA guy. That's not satire. Satire is making a joke. But he then led to a joke. But look, I agree. The fact that he said that...

Okay. If I say Francis Foster is a paedophile and then make a joke about how he's the best... He realized everybody's going to fucking clip that. Right? Yeah, yeah. Which bit is the joke? Yeah.

And which bit is the serious thing? Yeah. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, yeah. I do see what you mean. If I said Francis Foster is a paedophile, but he couldn't even do that properly, right? The joke is he couldn't even do that properly.

Yeah. But the setup is the truth that I'm attempting to claim. is the truth. And that's what Jimmy did. Yeah. And when you have a huge audience to whom you're communicating about politics and culture, I don't think you can get away with saying it's just a bit of comedy. Yeah. I don't think that's legitimate.

Yeah. Look, I agree. I just, I think deep down, my concerns are that when we, look, Batsim, like I said, but with Jimmy, I just worry that it's going to degenerate and just into political point scoring and it's like, oh, we're going to cancel this guy

now we're going to go after this guy and cancel him and I'm like, look, what you said was wrong, it was stupid, he should apologize. An issue a correction. An issue of correction. But do I want to be in a place where we start going tip for tack cancellations? I don't want to be, I don't want to live in that world.

That I agree with. And what I'd also say is from what I'm hearing, the FCC were involved in putting pressure on his employers, which that to me, is troubling, right? Because you don't want the government's, an arm of the government, influencing what broadcasters are allowed to broadcast. So I don't think I'm comfortable with that aspect of it. But at the same time, I think it's a grotesque negligence on his part. Absolutely. And if his own network felt that he'd made a mistake that deserved some kind of

reprimand, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Yeah. You know? And also, in terms of, set Jimmy aside, I think we've kind of said what we think about it. There's been a lot of this, you know, here's this person who said this in celebration, let's get him fired from this job, that job, and whatever. And again, that's quite a complicated one because I think we have to be honest that there's a difference, right? If someone is flipping burgers in a McDonald's, I don't see how whatever, however their views are, how evil their views are, I don't think they should be canceled and be fired

from their job for doing that. But in the same time, if you are in a position where you're dealing with the public or you're dealing with children, you're an educator, I don't think we can pretend that that has no impact. I don't think if you're teaching children. I mean, there was a guy in Canada, his stories in New York Post, who showed his 10 and 11-year-olds in class the video of the assassination repeatedly and then explained to them why I was justified. allegedly. So if you're doing that, I'm sorry, you getting fired is not for the cancel culture, out the door you go. Yeah. And look, extended beyond that. If say you are working in a hospital as a doctor or a nurse in some way you're dealing with patients. We've seen that, you know, with people supporting Hamas and the slaughter of October 7th. Right. So if you're in that position

and I am a religious conservative, I'm not a religious conservative, but I am an American and religious conservative. I'm going into hospital. Do you think I would feel comfortable being treated for my medical condition by somebody who thinks it's okay to murder people like me? Right. So again, if you are in that sort of position, I don't know that you could argue that people who celebrate violence against people like the people they serve can remain in that position credibly. But I also think, you know, there are oppositions when that isn't the case where it's probably a different thing. Yeah, and this is, again, this is the issue

where we actually have to look at it. And we have to be nuanced about this, and we actually have to have a discussion, a conversation, and go, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, when can you say it, when can't you say it? Because a corporation would go, everybody who works for McDonald's is a representative of McDonald's. They are an ambassador of McDonald's,

whether you are in the work. Is you flipping burgers? Yeah. Are you? You could, because, you know... Look, we have an office here. If the cleaner who cleans our office once a week went out and I don't know what his opinions are.

They're pretty bad, mate. I've spoken to him. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, of course. Are they representing the values of trigonometry? Are they... No, they're not. Objectively not. I don't even know his name.

Yeah. But yeah, but that's... That is what could be argued. Yeah, but that's just not true, though. Yeah. A cleaner does not represent the values of the company. Okay, an accountant. They don't know.

How do they represent? I don't know my accountant's values. I think his values are money, personally. But if you're KPMG and one of your senior accountants, for instance, starts to eat your senior accounts is a different thing. Okay. Or just a regular accountant. And they celebrate October 7th. Would KPMG not be entitled to fire that person?

I think they, look, personally, what I'm trying to say is I think there's a line somewhere. And that line for me is about, are you dealing with people that may feel that you actually want them dead based on your commentary, right? That's what I'm talking about. So if I'm going into a hospital and someone is there celebrating the murder of people like me, that I don't think is a tenable position. I think what we're saying is that it's when it prejudices your work. Right.

When it affects the way you do your job, or at least other people will credibly think that it does. So if you're a cleaner in a hospital, have any opinion you want, evil as it might be. Yeah. But when, for instance, that you're dealing, for instance, if I was KPMG and someone tweeted about, I don't know, Hamas and said, I'm pro-Hamast,

I'm like, well, can I really trust you to handle this Jewish customer's accounts? can I really trust you if you celebrate the slaughter of Jews and Israelis and you think that's a good thing can I trust you to handle Mr. Lowenstein's accounts? I personally

don't think I can and that's not an unfair position to be in it. Right, so your point is it affects your work in a material way or other people will feel that it does yeah so it's slightly more complicated than people are trying to make it out to be because a lot of people on the right are like

all these people deserve to be cancelled and people on the left or look at the right practice in cancel culture. I think it's, as we've discussed, somewhat more nuanced and complicated. But these things always are. But when you go on social media, it's much easier to go, these people are wrong, these people are, you know what I mean? Yeah. If you want smart, fearless commentary on the craziest things happening in media,

politics and online culture, you'll love the Brad versus Everyone podcast, hosted by Brad Palumbo. an independent journalist who calls it like it is. The podcast covers viral madness from across the political and cultural spectrum, and no one's safe. He goes after Gen Z TikTok scammers and far-right grifters. He'll take apart progressive media darlings and maggot influencers,

all from a place of sharp moderation, not blind loyalty. Think of it like Trigonometry's younger American cousin. Same instinct for cutting through the noise, Same appetite for the stories everyone else is too scared or too biased to cover. If you like your commentary, honest, sharp and entirely uncancellable, find Brad versus everyone on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings.

There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. Well, the other thing that has happened since we last spoke is the United Kingdom protest. The video that we did on our channel is done very well. I think it's approaching 700,000 views at this point. You and I both went along. That is another thing that, you know, there's been a lot of rhetoric about.

And look, left-wing politicians, starting from Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London down, have had absolutely no problem talking about this. This is a far-right gathering. And again, there's some nuance to that, which I'm sure we can talk about. Obviously, some of my impressions, not all of my impressions, there's quite a lot to add to what people saw in the video. But they're in the video. What were your impressions of it? So my impressions were this.

Overall, the vast... I find it very interesting because I've never been to a political rally. To me, and you're going to say, this... But to me, political rallies are largely middle-class things. They're largely middle-class things, because middle-class people... have the time and the energy to be on social media, get worked up, get angry, the free time to then go down to Parliament Square and protest, wave their little flag, do whatever they want, right? It's a middle-class activity. Revolutions were always started and led by the middle class, right?

The thing that I found very interesting is that when I went to this particular demonstration, it was very working class. It was people that I would know from South London growing up and go down the pub or go watch the football. I remember watching certain, there was a lot of chanting. It was a really almost odd mixture of politics and football mixed together. Starmer as a wanker being a prominent feature. Yeah, which people have chanted at the football week after week. So that's a football chant and there was a very football element to it.

So I found that very interesting. The vast majority of people that I spoke to that I went out and I was chatting with ordinary decent people, I would argue that the reason they were there is they felt that something is wrong in their country and they felt for a long time they have been told to be ashamed of their history, their background, their race, their country. And to them it was a demonstration of pride and a celebration of the country. There was a fringe element that I saw, which were drunken, aggressive, occasionally violent, and I saw it happened. I think it was 25 or 26 police officers were hurt.

Yeah. So just to clarify what we know now is 25 arrests were made. Yeah. The majority of those arrests were made among the counter-protesters. Yeah. But there was some violence which people can see in the video that I did between the police and the pro-tomy protesters, this was on a side street where people couldn't get to the main protest

and I think they were frustrated and angry about that, but they were violent towards the police, which of course is never acceptable. But for a protest of several hundred thousand people, you know, the level of violence was actually surprisingly low for me because the one thing and people can see, you know, someone actually said, you know, you keep talking about, you worry about this being violent.

Yeah, it's because we saw a lot of people who had clearly, you know, we got there for what, 10, 1045, 11? By that time, there were people that clearly had about five pints in them at least. There were a lot of people who had been drinking. And that's always a worry when people are rowdy. Of course. And the government didn't, I don't know whether it was government, the train companies, there were very few trains going into London on that day.

So what happened is that people would get the coaches down from places like Middlesbrough or Sunderland, northeast, northwest, and they would get the coaches. them as early as four or five o'clock in the morning to come down. And I was speaking to some people who were on the coaches who said that it was reminiscent of going on an away day to a football match. And let's be honest about this. White working class culture, especially football culture, revolves around booze. You go out, you have a few beers, you get pissed up, you're with your mates, you have a sing-song, you do whatever else. That is how it is. By the way, why did you say Why? Because I don't think it's white. I mean, there was quite a lot of non-white people there.

I know there's a lot of non-white people at the football who are also drinking. I agree. But I'm talking about people that I grew up with. I'm talking about my dad. Yeah. So I'm like with my dad and my dad's not a football fan. He's a real man. He likes rugby league. But like when we go out with my family, we start, you know, they start drinking. All I'm saying is, I think football culture is not a race thing. No, it's not. But I'm talking about like working class culture. Yeah. Work in class culture, which is. Why is it white? Sorry if I'm being pedantic. Wouldn't black people also go out and have a few pints?

But in my experience, like, when we go out... You're saying you don't have any black friends? I don't have any black friends. But I'm talking about, like, going for pints. It's a very kind of... Which is where I come from. Like, that is the culture. It revolves around pints and booze and whatever else.

And I don't see as much in other cultures as I do with my own culture. Fair enough. Yeah. And again, there's no judgment on. That part. It's just how it is. It's how we're brought up. It's how we always have it. So there was a lot of drinking from an early. There was a lot of drinking from an early. And most people were friendly, rambunctious. They were just there to have a laugh. There was banter. There was like. And we saw it. People were very friendly. They approached to us. And there was a small minority who were there. And it seemed like it was there was an edge to them. Yeah, there was an edge to them. But also among those people. So in our video, you can see there are people who've climbed. up onto the scaffolding overlooking the main stage.

Yeah. And they were boozy. They added a bunch of cans up there, smoking, whatever. And then when they saw me, they started shouting and waving constantly. You know, so just because they were rowdy, like, I'm a first generation immigrant. Yeah. Like, if they were, like, evil far right racist. Yeah.

I don't think they'd be celebrating my being there or wanting to get my attention or whatever. Yeah. And that was actually walking through the. crowd, you saw it. It was quite difficult for us to make forward progress because just of the pure number of people who wanted to say hello, take a selfie, shake our hands, etc. Now, I don't think we are seen, particularly on the fringes of the right, as particularly friendly to them, because we're not, right? So I think that tells you what the general tenor of the event was. We also saw Avi Yemeni, who's a friend of Tommy's, who's a Jewish-Australian YouTuber. He had a

confrontation with a couple of people who were actually there, who were real Nazis, but they were there because Tommy Robinson is pro-Israel and they wanted to express their disagreement with that. And we did see a handful of those people, but I don't think they were there to support the protest. I think they were there to infiltrate it and subvert it if they could. So that definitely happened as well. Obviously, there's been a lot of talk about whether it was far right or not. Now, it's sort of, I mean, I think first of all, you have to always have your definitions right in these situations. For me, far right, is openly racist, neo-Nazi-associated party

like the British National Party, which we had, right? Some time ago, the BNP under people like Nick Griffin, right? That's what I would mean by the far right. Would you accept that definition, or do you have a different one? No, I accept that definition, pretty much. So by that definition, I really didn't see anything that fit that definition in the crowd. Yeah.

Other than those people who were there to subvert it, nor on stage either. What you did see on stage, I would argue, is a number of people who are certainly far more fringe and extreme than the overwhelming majority of the audience. That is something that I think is undeniable, actually. And that is something that...

And look, I wouldn't put Tommy in that category because I don't think his views... I think, as we discussed when we had him on the show, I think he gets a lot of flack because of some of the ways that he's behaved. But in terms of his views, I haven't heard him say anything that makes me think he's very fringe. But some of the other people there, particularly from Europe, yep, absolutely were fringe. And so I almost think the people on stage were on balance

more extreme than the people in the crowd. Oh, I completely, look, I completely agree. I mean, one particular speaker, Valentina Gomez, was some of her language was unacceptable. I couldn't, because I was backstage, I couldn't really hear anything that was said. What did she say? So she said the Muslims are going to, if they get into power, they're going to rape your daughters and they're going to behead your sons. She says we need to send them back to send these Muslims and these rugs back to their Sharia nations. That's extreme language. I don't think that's acceptable. I don't think.

And I think whoever booked her or whenever endorsed her needs to actually think to them, need to actually take a long, hard look at themselves. because you're in a position of responsibility when you put on a rally like this. It's as simple as that. And to me, and I'm going to be honest, I'm probably going to get flat for this. I don't care. You can't have that.

You simply cannot have a woman like that on stage saying those things. It is dangerous and it's inflammatory. And there's also been a lot of talk about what Elon said. Again, I couldn't hear it because I was backstage. There's some ambiguity in the way that he phrased it. I don't think the way he phrased it was particularly helpful.

If by, you know, fight he meant like, you know, organized rally, political movement, etc. He said violence is coming to you. Well, I don't think, I mean, objectively, that is what's happened in the last week. So I don't think he's wrong about that. But what I think the issue was, he then said, you've got to fight or you die or whatever. Yeah. And I think, again, it depends on what exactly he meant.

If he meant fight as an organized rally, you know, organized political movements, that's totally legitimate. If he's encouraging people to become violent, that's totally unacceptable. And, you know, he'd obviously have to clarify what he meant. We can blame Tommy for booking the wrong people and whatever, and I think there's legitimate conversations to be had about that. But the reason I bring up the fact that people in the crowd were far more moderate than the speakers on stage is, to me, what that signals is a failure of leadership

from the mainstream politicians. Because you've got moderate, reasonable, normal people who are being spoken to by people, who are far more extreme than them. And that's because the people who should be speaking to these normal, moderate, reasonable people are not speaking to them, are not addressing their concern,

are smearing them all as far right and completely ignoring what they're saying. And that sense of frustration, that sense of the elites are not listening to us, is what's driving those protests. That's just the reality of what it is. And my worry is, if the mainstream do not address the concerns of ordinary people,

those ordinary people will be pushed in these unhealthy extreme directions. And that is the real issue going on here. And I would say this is the fault predominantly of the Labour Party. Those people in there, the people I spoke to, were the vast majority were the people the Labour Party should be representing. The reason that those people felt compelled to go out, whether they could articulate it or not. Some of them could, some of them couldn't.

But I think deep down if you scratch the surface, is because they feel betrayed. And you know what? They have every right to feel betrayed. They have every right to feel betrayed by the elites, the political parties, the way the grooming gangs was covered up, the way that anyone who talked about them

was smeared as racist, the way that any concerns, and let's talk about any concerns white working class people have, was immediately shunted to one side. And if they talked about diversity, if they talked about concepts like white privilege, anything like that,

they were immediately shunned. They were told they were stupid, far-right racist. You can only do that trick so many times before what you get is a backlash. And people, and this is what the elites never understand. I cook, like my dad's from Wigan. That is, when Orwell wanted to write about deprivation, misery in this country, he went to Wiggin. He went to Wiggin. That's where he went. When my dad grew up, he said I had two choices. If I didn't go to university, I'd work down the pit or I'd work in St. Helen's Glass, the Glass Factory. And both were pretty tough, miserable existence. And I'm guessing, by the way, neither of those two exist anymore. No, neither of them exist. So not only would you work there, you'd probably lose your job for you. Yeah, you'd pretty

lose your job. So you're angry and you're frustrated, right? And the people that I knew in Wigan, they were honest, solid, good people who just wanted to go to work, provide for their families, come home, raise a family. That's all they wanted. They weren't far right. They weren't. racist as a vast majority of this country are they were tolerant, good people, not extremists. But you have pushed people to this point where they feel that they have no other option but to attend a Tommy Robinson rally. Whatever you think about Tommy, I think we can all agree that is a very worrying place to be. And the Tsarra Sultanas of this world and the Diane Abbott and our beloved mayor, Siddique Kant, that's sarcasm for the Americans.

can't actually understand that smearing them as far right, smearing them as racist, do not understand where this is leading, because this is leading somewhere that is very dark and it's very dangerous. And you haven't learned the lessons. And a week after Charlie Cook, you're continuing to use the same rhetoric, the same language, the same words, it's despicable. And I'm angry. And I'm angry because it's dangerous. And they haven't learned. They haven't learned. they haven't learned. And that is what I got from it. That is really what I got from it.

And I'm worried about my country, genuinely, because this is a powder keg. And one other thing we ought to add as well is Britain is an extremely anti-extremist place. You really have to work very, very hard to get hundreds of thousands of people on the street protesting about something like this, in this way. It's very, very hard.

You're right. You know, you can get your middle class vegans to get a Palestine flag and go for a nice walk and a little sing-along. But to get working class people out in the streets in the hundreds of thousands like this, you've got to really, really go for it. And in addition to all the cultural issues you've talked about, and let's be honest, I mean, our interview with Alistah Heath is one of the best we've done. And one of the things people need to understand is part of the reason all of this is happening is that our GDP people, per capita, which is a measure of how wealthy we actually are, is lower today than it was in 2008. Our taxes are higher, which means people have less money than they did back then. And this is something that I heard, this was said in 2014, so it's probably much worse now, but the reason

Europe is struggling as it is, and the reason all these movements are happening everywhere Europe is, Europe has 12% of the global population, 25% of the GDP, and 50% of the welfare spending and the economy is not growing. We're financially. And until we let go of our obsessions with net zero, with having millions of people on the unemployment register simply because they're a little bit anxious or a little bit depressed or whatever, this will carry on because people are poorer. People are frustrated with mass immigration, especially illegal immigration, which, you know, like one guy said, and I'm a very reasonable guy. He said, I'm a single father. I work hard and I see people being put up in hotels. Like what, you know, you can't have that.

You could, you could paper over these cracks if the economy was growing rapidly and everyone felt life was great. And then the guy, who cares about the, you know, I've got more money. I'm doing right. That's not where we are. And so the government need to, I mean, this government's not going to do it, but whoever is the next government have to get the economy growing as well is addressing all these cultural issues because otherwise the extremes are inevitably going to rise. I just don't think there's any other way around it.

No. You know what I find very interesting. I don't think people are talking about enough. Every government, right-left or center, runs out of steam. It runs out of steam. It runs out of ideas. It runs out of momentum, figure, whatever you want to call it. This thought of run out of steam after, it's barely been a year.

Yeah, but I'm not surprised because this was all... I predicted this, if you remember, election. I said they're going to realize that the problem wasn't the evil Tories hated the poor. The problem is the country's got giant structural problems that you can't fix without drastic action, which they won't be able to take. So they've run out of steam in a year as expected. And I mean, I guess the question is, do you think we're going to, do you think the next election will happen earlier than planned? It's hard to see it. I can't think another three years of this is going to last.

something needs to happen. There needs to be some, I don't know, I don't know. I really think. There's a very worrying phrase usually, mate. Yeah, because it is, but we're in a very worrying situation. Look, from a political perspective, I mean, look, as we talked about with Alistair Heath, a fiscal crisis is coming. And if you were Labor, it's almost like you go, you know what,

why don't we just have an election lose and let someone else eat that financial crisis? because it is coming and if Labor are seen to be the ones that oversaw it, you know, they're going to be dead. Whereas if they hand over to reform and reform face that fiscal crisis, they're going to get the list trust treatment.

You know, because a lot of list trust's policies were entirely correct. I mean, you know, people talk about how she spooked the bond markets and, you know, to some extent she did. But yields are higher now than they were under list trust. So my point is a lot of

of the political blame will go to whoever is in charge when the inevitable happens. From Labor's perspective, maybe you just call an election now and let someone else eat it. After a year? Barely a year. They probably won't do it because they're not that smart, but that would be the smart play. Yeah. How do you frame it? Like, we've had a year, we've shut the bed. Let's have an election. I think we're going to have another election either way. Yeah. So with the land inevitable? Yeah, and look, if you get the fiscal crisis while Labor's still in charge, that would be very good for reform. If you get the fiscal crisis after, then that would be very bad for whoever's in charge, because people will just blame whoever's in charge. Of course.

Anyway, it's been a really, really difficult week for a lot of people. I'm glad we gave it some time because we were able to have a conversation with a bit of perspective. And I'm sure we'll see everybody very soon again. For another uplifting episode. Let's start at the beginning. What is England? England emerges in the aftermath of the Roman province of Britannia. By 9.50, England is recognisable to date. And that's when we get the greatest hero of English medieval history.

It's called William the Marshall. And then we see the House of Lords, the House of Commons developing. Extraordinary thing about the Plantagenet family, you get a very uneven performance by its kings. Richard the Lionheart, John Softsword. You know, Edward I, Edward I. Edward the second. Absolute, useless Muppet. You get Wars the Roses, you get Civil War in England.

Families, fighting families. The printing press has been discovered. The rest of the world has been discovered. From the Tudors onwards, then we're starting to feel this kind of acceleration. The 17th century got civil war. No one would have said, Brit, that one, those guys there, they're about to run the world. And then we get the monumental global clashes the 20th century.