TRIGGERnometry - Piers Morgan: Israel/Palestine, Farage & Who Gets My Vote

Episode Date: June 30, 2024

Piers Morgan is a journalist and broadcaster who has spent a lifetime in media. He was the editor of the News of the World and the Daily Mirror before hosting various TV talk shows such as ITV Breakfast and Good Morning Britain. He currently hosts Piers Morgan Uncensored on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@PiersMorganUncensored) Follow Piers on X: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc   Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're a big fan of Nigel. Yeah. What's your beef with Farage? He's a treacherous. I'll tell you my beef with him. I had my own interview with Trump lined up. Three days before, he'd been at Merrillago, where I was, and he clearly went back to London and thought I'm going to sabotage it.

And he only is running this time, because I called him out on question time and told him he was bottling it, and lo and behold, 48 hours later, he announced that he's running. I've become known as someone who asked everybody, do you condemn Hamas? Well, if you don't condemn what they did in October the 7th, I don't really want to have any more time with you. They haven't really got an end game, but what happens after the war? And I've been asking that question for months.

Well, what do you do when this is over? And there's no answer. I fear we're now into a phase of this conflict that is going to take many, many years to try and thought out. Who are you voting for? I don't know. I honestly don't know. Piers Morgan, fellow YouTuber? First of all, I've just noticed you two have got makeup on and I haven't. Well, we've run a professional outfit. This is just a California tan. No, but, no.

This is where you two have gone. The last time I saw you, there was no makeup. You've been in America too long. Anyway, my natural beauty will shine through. Your natural gammony beauty is shining through. Brilliant. Welcome to the show. Piers, you've done, I mean, you've been one of the people who's covered the Israel-Palestine

conversation the most thoroughly from different sides. You've taken a hell of a lot of stick and flag online for everybody. From everywhere. from everyone. Why have you focused on that issue as much as you have, first and foremost? Well, when it happened, it was obviously a horrific incident, this terror attack on October the 7th. And all my days in journalism, straddling nearly four decades now, it was right up there with some of the worst things we've ever seen. So I realized the scale of what had happened was going to be enormous in terms of repercussions, in terms of analysis, in terms of what Israel would do by way of response. It was very like 9-11. What was going to happen after that? And as we saw, the repercussions

are now still ricocheting around the world. So I felt like it was going to be an enormous story. I also felt that it was incumbent on someone like me who tries to avoid boxing myself into partisan political camps. You know, I don't associate with any party. I don't really see myself tribal in that sense. I'd prefer to come at it as a journalist with an open mind, but with an ability to go after both sides if I feel like their argument is flawed. Now, this is not an environment we live in these days, as you guys will know from the kickback you get.

If you do that, you get attacked by everyone because there are a lot of extremists on both sides of almost any debate, Brexit, Trump, Israel, Hamas, whatever it is, Ukraine, Russia. And they will suck the oxygen out there. And then everyone on social media will pile in on behalf of their tribe. early on I was aware that the numbers we were getting of people watching, the things like

Bassam Youssef, 23 million people watched that on our YouTube channel, absolutely enormous number. I then went to America and did two more hours of him face-to-face, 12 million watched that. So we were getting these gigantic audiences for this stuff. And I realized that one of the reasons was people liked the fact I had everybody on. They liked the fact that it didn't really matter to me who they were. They had a big following and had influence on one of them on the show, and I wanted to have a proper examination of what they believed and what they stood for. And I think it's been a really interesting exercise. I mean, I think that we've positioned ourselves as a show as somewhere that people may feel annoyed by, if it doesn't suit their tribal concerns.

But there is an appreciation and a respect for the fact that I'm at least platforming everybody. because I think that's really important. And this is going to sound like a strange question because it's something we take almost entirely for granted now. But why do you think a conflict, which is quite far away from these shores, from the shores of the United States, is so central to the conversation we've been having for, it will soon be a year? Well, look, I think the root of all,

and I go back to when I was on the Daily Mirror, which I left 20 years ago, right? And one of the last things I did was oppose the Iraq War. I remember going back to my days on the Daily Mirror 20 years ago. And my last act, big story really, was the Iraq war and the consequences. And if you look at the root cause of a lot of the problems in the Middle East, it goes right back to 1948, right back to what happened then, right back to this Israel-Palestine conflict, which has never been resolved. And it's all blown up in spectacular fashion with the worst kind of accelerates. of this conflict into open war in the most catastrophic manner. So it didn't surprise me that it became a huge global story

because the repercussions go everywhere. They go right through the Middle East. They go obviously to America. Fascinating to watch how America's responded to this. How a Democrat president is getting a lot of flak from the pro-Palestinian people in America. You think he's not doing enough for them. He's getting a lot of flack from pro-Israeli.

People saying, why aren't you defending us more? And I said at the start of this, and I still say it now, this is one of the most complex moral stories I've ever had to cover. I've used this word quandary a lot. Anyone who makes just bald statements about this war since October the 7th, I find slightly untrustworthy. I don't think there is a simple answer. I don't think there's a simple analysis.

I think it's incredibly complicated. And frankly, I've become known as somebody who asks everybody, do you condemn Hamas? Well, if you don't condemn what they did in October the 7th, I don't really want to have any more time with you. If you can't condemn the slaughter of 1,200 people and 6,700 more wounded, if you can't just condemn that act without any equivocation, it's a kind of pointless conversation. If you can, and a lot of my pro-Palestinian guests have done that, then I can have a proper conversation with you. Similarly, on the other side, if your only view on the pro-Israeli side is we've got to wipe them all out in Gaza.

I have no time for that either. So it's not like, you know, I'll platform people right to the point I think they're complete nutcases. And it's a complicated story, you know, deeply difficult story. And I fear we're now into a phase of this conflict that is going to take many, many years to try and sort out. You know, it's a really profound point you're making their peers, because when we interview people, They're always either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. And what happens when you have those conversations with those types of people, no matter how well-intentioned they are,

is they're only presenting one side of the story? So I guess my question to you is, how do you see this conflict? What is your analysis of it? It's evolved. There's no question. Very early on, I was adamant that Israel not only had a right to defend itself after the scale of that attack, but had a fundamental duty to its people to defend them from any

further attack, particularly given that the Hamas official spokesman was on camera saying, we're going to keep trying to do this again and again and again. No Israeli prime minister or government could do anything but do what they could to defend their people. And I think any country in the world, that would apply. So I took that as my starting point. They have a right and a duty to defend themselves. But very quickly into it, it was clear that, the scale of the response from Israel was going to be pretty much unprecedented. And then the question becomes, what is too much? What is acceptable?

What strays into potential war crimes? At what point does your right to defend itself give you the right to obliterate large sections of Gaza and tens of thousands of innocent people, particularly given that half the population is under 18? I mean, that's a staggering number of children. And particularly given the complexity of the fact that Hamas deliberately embed themselves amongst the civilian population, making it incredibly difficult to target terrorists from civilians. So that's what I mean about this being a very difficult story to cover and a very difficult moral quandary for me. I don't see it as a simple thing at all.

And as it's gone on, what I've felt is that you're starting to see a splinter now in leading members of the Israeli, do they call sphere, is that they haven't really got an end gate for what happens after the war? And I've been asking that question for months. Well, what do you do when this is over? And there's no answer. You know, a lot of Gaza's been completely destroyed. People's homes are gone.

They're now attacking what they say of the last remnants of Hamas, but I suspect there's a lot more Hamas left than we think. They're now attacking them in a refugee camp where they've sent over a million people. Right. None of that sits easily with me and I don't think with many people who are not on the extremity of this debate. So I don't know what the end game is here. I'm, you know, you're seeing now Netanyahu sort of suggesting we're nearing the end of the war. Well, how? You haven't got rid of Hamas. That was your stated mission. And it's an interesting thing with public opinion in Israel because the polls suggest that they support the elimination of Hamas, majority of people in Israel.

Israel, but they do not support Netanyahu personally. So the moment this war was over, he's almost certainly going to be out of a job, and then he goes into face corruption charges in a trial. Where's the incentive for Netanyahu to end this war? And he's been driven by some very right-wing members of his cabinet, you know, Smodrich and Bengavir and others. And their language, I have to say, I don't think Israel is waging a genocide because it has the tools to actually wage a top total genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza, but I do think some of the language some of those people have been using has been genocidal. And I can understand why people are very fearful that that is what they really want to do, drive Palestinians from Gaza irrevocably. So, you know,

what happens now? How do we go back to any kind of normality? What happens to the people have been displaced, who've lost their homes? What happens to the ideology which fueled all this to start with, has that been made worse by the scale of Israel's response? Or is it a bit like what happened with the Nazis after World War II, whether there was such a ferocious attack on all things Nazi, that it kind of pretty much disappeared? I think that's a very big question as to whether the ideology behind a mass is actually been fueled by what's happened. If you've had a child who's been killed, are you more or less likely to gravitate to the people that you may perceive in your mind have acted as some kind of resistance? I don't know. But it's going to be a huge

question for what happens, I think, after this is over. And there's also the geopolitical element, like you look at Iran, who have been funding a lot of terrorism in that area. They're not going to stop. As long as the is a tolerance in power, he's going to keep doing that. No question. And then you see Lebanon as well. Very dangerous. Hezbollah will be next. You can almost take it to the bank, and that will be on a whole different scale, do anything Hamas has done. So this is a very perilous time. Can I ask why? Because there'll be a lot of people who have heard of Hezbollah or Hezbollah, but they wouldn't know why that is. Can you explain? Well, they're just better armed. There's more of them, and they're better armed. So, you know, Hamas has always been a kind of

splinter terror group masquerading as government in Gaza. taking billions of dollars, a lot of it at the direct express wish of Netanyahu, because he wanted to split the two Palestinian accounts, Palestinian Authority and Hamas. It's suited in that they're at each other's throats. So there's been a lot of money channeled to Hamas, and they've obviously used that to arm themselves, probably a lot of help from Iran, and Hezbollah the same. So I think there's no doubt that if you're Iran and you're seeing the havoc that has been caused by one event in October the 7th, then you'd be very tempted to try and help another organization not dissimilar to Hamas, like Hezbollah, to do something on an even bigger scale, because they may feel this is their

chance to do what they've always wanted to do, which is just obliterate Israel. And that's, of course, what at the heart of Israel's fear about all this. And a lot of the, you know, I remember interviewing Netanyan in Jerusalem to CNN about 10, 11 years ago. And the two things that he did, which really interested me in terms of the psychology, he took me to a picture of his brother, who was a captain in the Israeli forces who died in the raiden on Tebi. And he started crying as he showed me the picture. So that just showed me that everyone involved in this, a bit like with Northern Ireland,

it's so deep-rooted, it's so personal. Everyone's got a personal story like this at some stage of what's being a lot of. going on on the history of Israel and Palestine. But secondly, he took me to a map behind his desk, which was really interesting visual this. And he went, watch this. And he took his hand. And he put it on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.

He went around all the big Arab countries around Israel with his hand. And then he took his thumb and he put it on Israel. To show the scale of how tiny Israel is surrounded by these enormous Arab countries. It was a powerful thing. I remember joking to him saying, do you wish he'd been put somewhere else? And he went, well, like where? I don't know, Belgium. I mean, it was a very powerful visual. Now, Israel is obviously incredibly well-armed. It's obviously helped in that by the United States as an extremely powerful ally. But this has, I think, made all Israelis. And I think this is a really important point to make as well about the general overview. It's made them very fearful. The scale of what went on, you know, as like I say, nearly 7,000 people were attacked. You know, 1,200 were killed in the most barbaric, brutal manner. And these were in peace-loving areas where a lot of the people there were trying to help Palestinians.

So if you look at it in the Israeli context of what the people there feel, they must feel very fearful. Just as a lot of people in Gaza feel very fearful. the people in Gaza probably feel very fearful. So that's what I mean again about this is a very complex story. And if you try and have a simple or simplistic view, I think you are, you are, well, it must be comforting to you to do that. But it's not, it's not the right way to approach the story. It's too complicated. And it's also one with the, what the United States does with it, with this situation, because on the one hand, you have Israel, long time. allies and partners. On the other hand, you've signed the Abraham Accords. And also, you're

reliant on a lot of these Arab countries for oil. So it's not as simple as like, we're all in with the Israelis, because you can't alienate them for business reasons and also because you need them. I mean, the most significant thing to me is how inactive and quiet Saudi Arabia has been. And if you notice that, they've said very little. Saudi Arabia wants normalization of relations with Israel. They've seen the way it's going. with some of the other countries in the region and Saudi Arabia knows the oil is running out and they're going to have to rely on tourism and entertainment and sport and these other things and to do that they're going to have to open up and they're going to have a better relationship

with countries like Israel. They know that. Israel knows that. There's no will for that to be stopped. But of course what has been going on makes it very difficult for Saudi leaders with the Muslim population to now say, right, now we're going to get into business bed with Israel. It's very difficult. So again, come back to what I said. These are morally complex issues. And how these big superpowers now play this out is going to be absolutely crucial to the long-term future of the region. One of the interesting things you've raised there, Pierce, is the Israeli position or maybe the Netanyahu position of, you know, we're going to eliminate Hamas.

Do you think that that was ever possible? No. And do you think that it was certain, I mean, maybe you could argue it was possible if I knew Gaza. But apart from that, how do you even fight a terrorist group? Somebody made this very powerful point. I don't even know. It may even have been on your show about the fact that, you know, I have family in Ukraine. A lot of people, when there's bombing, go and hide in tube tunnels and all sorts of other tunnels, underground bunkers, et cetera.

We know that that is not what's happening in Gaza. the civilians don't have access to the biggest network of tunnels ever. So you've got a population that is being used in this way, essentially as a human shield, Hamas have said... And the leaders of Hamas, the billionaires you run it, are all living in Qatar. In five-star hotels. Right. So they're, you know, they've done nothing for the people of Gaza. Let's be clear. And they've run a pretty despotic regime since they took power in 2005. I don't think that there can be any future. for Gaza that involves Hamas having any leadership at all or be part of any government. That's my own view.

I don't think there can be any future for Netanyahu or the more right-wing, genocidal talking members of his cabinet. I think they've all would have to go too. It reminds me a bit of Northern Ireland, you know, when ultimately, you know, again, you had terrorists living in civilian population. The British response to that was not to go and unload 2,000-pound bombs on Belfast, right? because we recognize that we call it. They're not exactly the same,

but the principle is interesting to explore. Just for context, I think it would be relevant. Your point about 7,000 people, you know, 1,200 killed and as it wounded, if you take that in the British context, that would be about 35,000. Right, so imagine 35,000 people being attacked in Britain by people in Northern Ireland. Say the IRA had done that. They wouldn't have done, but say they had, right? What would have been the pressure from the British people to go and eradicate the Irish?

What would Thatcher have done, let's say? Right. It would have been a very big test of any prime minister. So I don't underestimate that at all. And again, there would be a fundamental duty of a British government to defend itself and defend its people from any further attacks of that nature, of course. And if the IRA would then, to extrapolate the analogy, if they were living as they were amongst civilians, what do you do? How do you get rid of them?

Ultimately, you couldn't get rid of them. And ultimately, it had to be a political settlement, which it will have to be with Palestine and Israel. There will have to be a political solution. But if you ask most Israelis right now, how do you feel about a two-state solution? I would imagine almost all of them would say, no, thanks, because we can't live in terror.

But I would say back to them, you're never going to get rid of this problem until every Palestinian has the same human rights that you do. They have to have the same rights as you. And if they don't, Why shouldn't they? Explain to me why they don't have the same rights. Explain to me when this all started, and Israel first response was to turn off the energy and the water and the food supplies into Gaza. Right there, you had evidence of the occupation, as the critics of Israel have called this for many decades, that when you have a power like Israel that has the ability to turn off large sways of energy and water into another country,

right that that is a form of occupation whether they want to recall it that or not that cannot be sustainable going forward you know you've got to offer people in palestine equal rights you've got to give them a chance to self-govern properly not being run by terror group but by people who are more moderate as we found in northern ireland you've got to have big leaders who come forward who genuinely want peace i don't think a mass want peace i don't think netanyahu wants peace he showed no sign of wanting to actually have a peace settlement to this and his entire tenure as Prime Minister. So I think you need clear new leadership to sort this out. Do you think that the Northern Ireland example, just maybe this is a sad thing to say out

loud, but sometimes in these terrible situations, people have to get tired of killing each other and they're just not. Yeah, I mean, that kind of happened in Northern Ireland. That's what I mean. But it took... And to be clear, there were very bad people on both sides of Northern Ireland. A lot of loyalist terrorists were just as despicable as I. IRA terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Whoever's perpetrating it. But in the end, it was Tony Blair,

Bill Clinton, John Major, George Mitchell, all these big figures managed to get through it and got to peace when a lot of people thought it was impossible. When the IRA were blowing everybody up all the time, people thought, you never do peace with these people. You end up with Sinn Féin as a dominant party in Northern Ireland. Who would have thought that 30 years ago? What would have been not thinkable? You know, the Queen ended up having to shake hands with Jerry Adams and Martin McGinnis, right? The people who had been part of the organization which had murdered some of her own family, right? But ultimately, she recognized this was what she had to do. That's statesmanship, that's leadership. Now, what do you do here? I think you've got to get

new leaders, new leaders in. I mean, I really do on both sides and fast. And bringing it closer to home, one of the things I think this conflict has also revealed is the splits within our own societies here in the UK, in the United States, all over the West, frankly. What have you made of what we've seen on the streets of this country, in the media, in the commentary, just how our body politic has reacted to this? I think you're seeing a lot of young people in particular falling for a lot of disinformation spewed by things like TikTok. TikTok is not the number one news source for people under 24 in the world. I think a lot of the, when you see these interviews with some of these young people taking part in protest marches at universities in America or here.

And you asked them about the conflict. They don't seem to know very much. We did one on trigonometry. I saw it. It was fantastically enlightening because they didn't really know what they were doing or what the history was for anything. You know, the best, I read a very good piece by Jonathan Friedland of the Guardian. He's a Jewish columnist. And he wrote a very good piece early on saying, you know, I could construct a very good argument for both sides to have a very good cause to be the real victim here.

in this whole conflict, going back to 1948. And it was a very interesting piece where I thought that we need more of that, more of an acknowledgement that actually this is incredibly complicated and you can construct an argument for Israel and why they've had to go through 75 years of hell, you can construct exactly as powerful an argument for the Palestinians and why they have.

And it's pretty similar to what was going on in Northern Ireland. So ultimately, you've got to get people that can barrel through that. and get to resolution. It's incredibly difficult. And I don't really see many leaders out there they can do it. Oddly, Trump might be one of them. You know, in his normal kind of brutal way, actually, you know, he can be quite effective in this kind of thing.

It would be very interesting what he does, both with here and with Ukraine. Do you sound like you're assuming he's going to get elected? I think he will. I mean, I think the debate will be very enlightening. I don't know when this is going out, but the debate, in the 90 minutes. Joe Biden standing there means one of two things. Either he manages to get through it without falling over, falling asleep, or saying something unbelievably stupid,

in which case it's probably a win. Or as I suspect, he'll get found out as somebody who's got, you know, the onset of dementia. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative relative to what we're going to do with more Border Patrol and more, asylum officers. President Trump?

I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don't think he knows what he said either. Look, making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID, excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with, look, if we finally beat Medicare. And the American people, all be watching. And ultimately, the election could be won or lost on that debate stage.

But I just get a feeling that Trump, I had it in 2016, the same feeling that there was just this train, steaming through Middle America, which the coasts just weren't aware of, and we're going to catch a terrible cold. I wrote this in a lot of columns. I wrote one on the day, week of the election, saying, he's going to win. I wrote on the day he ran. A column was saying, I think he may win this. Everyone laughed to me. But I felt strongly that it was going to win. 2020, I didn't know. I was far less short. This time I'm getting that feeling again

because I feel like the deliberate weaponization by the left and America of the justice system has backfired horrendously on them. And either it's part of a Machiavellian plot where they've done this deliberately because they wanted Trump as the nominee or it's just a catastrophically bad political play where all it's done is make Trump more and more popular,

which is what's happened and raise him tens of things. and hundreds of millions more dollars. I mean, he's the first guy I can never remember he's been convicted of a criminal offense who ends up with about 100 million more dollars within a week than he did to start with. I mean, it's unbelievable.

But it's entirely, I think, appropriate given the overreach of that case to drag an American president for the first time ever through a criminal court process over a one-night stand with a pawn star 20 years ago. Nobody cares. It was one of the other cases, fine, but it wasn't. It was the porn star.

It was stormy who changes the story left, right and center. It was all of it was so kind of low rent, cheapest chips, pointless. And then they convict him. And it's like, really? I don't think people see Trump as a felon. Unless you're a real diehard Trump hater. Most independents, moderates, people in the middle, which is a lot of people. Probably like, why do we do that to one of our presidents?

But, Piz, what do you think that says about the American? system in general, political system. He's going down a very dangerous path where once you start weaponising justice systems, you become a banana republic. You don't think the Republicans will now do this to Joe Biden and his family? The moment they get the chance, if they win, of course it will. And it's been heading, hurtling, you know, down. I mean, I remember going to interview John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham in the Senate

when I was at CNN. And they were like three mates. Not all from the same party, but they were able to debate stuff, argue with each other, and then they all went and had dinner. They were friends. I wonder how much of that goes on these days. I wonder how many senators are actually friends with people across the aisle, probably very few. It's got so nasty, so toxic, fueled by tribalism on social media, which just plays, you know,

only 20% of people are on X in America and the UK. Of those, 10% make 80% of the noise. and they tend to skew to the extremities. Once you know that, you realize that X is not a representation of what the majority of people are thinking. But it sounds like they are. It sounds like these people are speaking for everybody. And it's all savage and toxic and horrible and abusive.

And that is a big problem. I hope Elon Musk can somehow sort it out. It's very hard when you're Elon Musk and you're trying to promote free speech, which in his head means you allow people like Alex Jones to be on the platform, which I think is completely wrong. I've had this conversation with him. I think that that's the problem, isn't it? That's the dilemma.

Do you let everybody have a voice on a big platform like X, even if they're getting tens of millions of followers and then deliberately telling lies about mass shooting victim families to make themselves rich, even if it means those families then get abused and have horrific things happen to them? Should that person be given that platform?

to do this. I don't think so. So I think these are, again, it's complicated free speech. I'm an absolute advocate for free speech, but there are limits in, I mean, look, the First Amendment is one of the most powerful defenders of free speech in the world, but there are limitations in that. They list them. There are things you cannot do, things you cannot say in a proper democratic society. And that's how, as it should be. Because in many ways what Musk did when buying X, and I was actually very happy he bought X. It was a reaction to shadow banning, the suppression that we saw. And he was right about that. Yes. I mean, what happened with, say, the New York Post and the Hunter Biden story was a complete disgrace. And Elon Musk, I think, was enraged as we all were about what happened

there. They literally helped Joe Biden win the election by suppressing a story that turned out to be completely true. And that was an outrage. The New York Post Twitter account was locked out for two weeks because they wouldn't delete it. Why should they delete a true story? It was a proper scoop. And it could have had, according to all the polls, it could have had a significant impact on how people voted. So when I said to Donald Trump to his face, stop going on about stolen election. There's no evidence you had that election stolen in the way you're trying to make out you did with dodgy ballots and all the rest of it. Actually, the American system is one of the best and safest in the world. Everybody can see that, I think, is not.

in a partisan mindset. But if he said that I had it robbed from me by suppression of true stories about my opponent and his family, I'm with him. I'm with him because he could have swung the election. 40,000 votes swung that election. Imagine if the Biden story had broken and had been the only thing people were talking about for two weeks of the contents of that laptop and how this guy running for president,

how his son had ended up on the board of an energy company in Ukraine for which he had zero qualifications and was earning a seven-figure son. And then there was the big guy who was taking a percentage. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you know, you added up, it's very murky what Hunter Biden was doing. And I would absolutely like to have known more before I cast a vote if I was an American in that election about how far this went and how murky it really got.

I think these are very important. So Elon Musk is absolutely bang on about that. But should people like Alex Jones get a platform? I don't think so. So you just had him on your show, Elon, I think. I've not interviewed him yet. I met him. Did you debate this point?

First of him I met him. Yeah, actually we did. We had a drink and we were talking about it. And he was much more, probably like most people on exit, can be quite a sad thing. One-on-one. I found him extremely charming, highly intelligent. I mean, he did a little Q&A first for a small group of us.

And I was peppering him with questions. I think he knew I was lining up the interview. But I would love to interview him. And he's kind of agree, but we'll see if he does it. I found him fascinating. I think he's one of the most brilliant minds of the world. I mean, no question. And I had that view reinforced by what he was like actually to see an action in the Q&A.

I mean, this guy, you know, he's thinking all the time about colonizing Mars. He's thinking about humanoid robots and how many billions are going to be and what they're going to do. You know, he's thinking about massive grand scale stuff to save the planet. So I think in his heart, Elon's a really good guy who has a really good outlook for the world. He wants to save us from ourselves. So I completely applaud him on that. I think on X, he's driving this whole free speech mission, and I salute him for it and cheer him on.

But free speech should not come with zero limitation. And it certainly shouldn't come with no consequence. which I think on the second part he totally agrees. I think he's genuinely got a slight quandary about who you let on and who you don't. I mean, at the moment, you know, it's like, should the Ayatollah of Iran be allowed an account on X? If he's promoting violence...

He's very gender-critical, mate, so probably not. Right. And if he's promoting violence against Jewish people and Israel, you can make a good argument that he shouldn't be. But these are complex things. I don't pretend it's easy at all. It's a very tough job. He's got a very tough job.

Piers, moving a little closer to home, we've obviously got an election coming up. We know you're a voting reform. You're a big fan of Nigel. What's your beef with Farage? He's a treacherous little war. I'll tell you my beef with him. And tell me how you would have responded. I take people as I find them, right?

Like I'd heard all the bad stuff about you too. And actually, when I met you, I thought you were good guys. We're sorry to disappoint. You know, very disappointing. I used to get on fine with Farage. Didn't agree with him politically about a lot of stuff, but I got on fine. But then we shared a love of cricket and real ale, and we were bump into each other and often do both at the same time. And that was fine.

And then an extraordinary thing happened where he was at GB News. I was talk TV. It was sort of rivals, but not really. And he got an interview with Trump. And I sent him a text message. Many congrats on a great scoop. He went, thank you. That's really good of you.

I really appreciate that, right? Three months later, I had my own interview with Trump lined up for the first show of my, of my peers Morgan I sent him. And just before it started, somebody came to me with three sheets of paper, but we've got a big problem. The boss wants to cancel the interview. I went, why?

He said, well, he's just been sent this by somebody. I said, what is it? And it was three pages of all the more critical things I'd said and written about Trump in the previous year. Somebody had gone to really painstaking effort to just go over everything I'd ever written or said and put them all in. And right in the middle of all this

were two complementary quotes about Trump from Nigel Farage. I was curious. but on his Twitter account, sure enough, three days before he'd been at Merrillago, where I was, having dinner with his mate, Donald Trump. And Trump would clearly mention to him that I was coming to an interview, and he clearly went back to London and thought, I'm going to sabotage it. And I just put those two things together. Me, gracious, dignified congratulating him on a good scoop. Him, three months later, I'm going to ruin his chance of a good scoop.

Why do you think he did that? Because I think he's a treacherous little worm. And you find out people's character in moments like that. And no one can persuade me otherwise now because I had first-hand experience of it. Luckily, I managed to salvage it and talk it around and got a great interview with Trump. But it could easily have all just been cancelled. And I would have been home 100,000 pounds out of pocket or whatever it cost. We had eight people there flown in from all around the world. And it was our launch show.

It could have been a really bad situation for us. So his mission failed. but the intent was clear. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. That's interesting. At the same time, as an objective journalist, you have to recognize he's making a big impact in the country at the moment. Well, he's making an impact purely because the others aren't really.

Yeah. I mean, it's a bizarre situation where the tories are in total meltdown. I think they're going to get a massive shalacking. Just a question of how bad and how many survive, actually. It's a bit like the Titanic going down. It's like you just don't know how many people will get in the lifeboat. Well, it's like seven. 70 of them have jumped themselves.

Right. Because they see that. And it could be, there's only 70 left. And it may be a lot of the cabinet get wiped out. It's going to be a fascinating spectacle seeing who ends up keeping their job. But I don't feel like this kind of messanite zeal of support for Kirstama. Like there was from Blair back in 97. I remember that.

I was on the steps of Downing Street at 4 in the morning. People singing things going to get better. They meant it. They thought this guy is going to fix things. Now, he inherited a healthy economy and was able to hit the ground running and actually did a very good job for a lot of time, for a number of years. I thought Blair lost the plot over Iraq. But prior to that, he did a lot of really impressive stuff and made labor electable in a way that we hadn't seen for a very long time. Kea Starma is a decent person.

I've interviewed him for my life story show for three hours. People can't hide when you have that long with them about every aspect of a life. tough upbringing, very conscientious, hardworking, rose to the top to be director of public prosecutions, is now on the verge of rather than the top of politics. You know, that's two different industries where he's risen to the top. So definitely not to be underestimated. I think he's a serious-minded guy. He's a bit boring. There's no doubt he's not as charismatic as other more charismatic political figures. But I don't mind being bored for a bit if he can actually get the job done. The question, the problem he's going to have and the big question is where's he

going to find the money to do anything? He's already ruled out nearly three quarters of all the revenue streams from taxation. He's only going to pay the rich. And there's only a certain amount you can do with that. And as I've always tried to explain to my more socialist friends, just whacking the rich all the time. Doesn't really work. The rich just get on planes and you're going to live somewhere else. And that's what I fear may happen. It's already happening. It's already happening. And I think it's going to accelerate. So, look, He needs a bit of luck. If the economy starts to bounce back, he may have a chance to do some of the things he wants to do. If the economy really does stagnate for quite a while longer,

I don't know what they're going to be to do. There's no money. Piz, and the problem is as well, and I look at all the major political parties, is that they're completely lacking a vision. Blair had a vision. Thacher had a vision. All great leaders have a vision of the country they want to create. And to be brutally honest, none of this lot do. No, and nor does Nigel Farage. I mean, his vision basically comes down to to stop the foreigners coming in, all of them, if he had his way, right? And it's a glib way of summarizing it, but pretty much that's all he talks about. And if you actually look at some of the policies he's come up with recently, none of them

are sustainable. He couldn't afford to do any of these things. Farage is a flamethrower who then runs away from the scene of the fire he ignites, in my opinion. Let me just challenge you briefly. Do you not think, for example, I read the Reform Manifesto. I like you, I don't like the idea of net zero immigration. I don't think that's workable. I do think they've gone for a lot of things that taken together they probably can't afford.

But do you not think it's good that somebody's talking about we shouldn't have net zero and spend 30 billion pounds a year? It's fine to do this thing, but it's a bit like with Brexit, right? He was a mastermind of Brexit. He was the guy that drove Brexit. He was largely responsible for Brexit happening. And then he backs away. And for the next eight years, not me, gov.

Oh, they're doing it wrong. If only I was doing it, okay, well, then why weren't you running? Right? Truth is, he's lost every time he tried to run. And he only's running this time because I called him out on question time and told him he was bottling it. And lo and behold, 48 hours later, he now says he's running because the audience were all booing him for bottling it.

So I feel personally invested in this campaign. I can tell. But I'm glad if it's made him more accountable because I would want Farage to, if he wants to be serious about these seismic things he wants for the country, then put yourself right in the coal face. Don't just slide away and earn all your money doing TV and saying from the sidelines,

it's not working because I'm not doing it. Get in there and make it work. You know, I said to him, can you think of one reason why we shouldn't have a second referendum on Europe, given how badly is gone, and given that most people now in all the polls suggest they would vote to go back in? It's not likely to happen.

But actually, if I was Keir Stama, I would seriously consider it. You know, it's been a willful act of self-harm. I voted to remain, but was happy to see if Brexit would work. Eight years later, does anybody genuinely think he's working? I mean, just on controlling our borders. I mean, it's a joke. So I don't believe Farage can fix these problems, but maybe he'll surprise me.

And maybe we'll do another interview in two years. And he'll be the night in shining armor. We were all waiting for who could make Brexit work, who could sort immigration, who could sort net zero, who could do everything. He's being sarcastic. Yeah. Actually, I'm not. Because maybe he can.

I just don't think he will. But one thing that can't be denied, Piers, is that he is going to have a seismic impact on this election, maybe not by winning seats, but by the effect it's going to have on the Conservative Party. Yes, on that he will. Not on the election so much as the Conservative Party. I think Labour are going to win by a historic margin have a humongous majority, which they will thoroughly have deserved from the incompetence

of their opponents, because the way that the Tories have been in the last three, four years, has been catastrophically bad. To squander the majority Boris Johnson had in 2019, to get to where we are today, with people not even wanting to admit in public they're going to vote conservative, because it's too embarrassing. It's like nothing I've ever seen. And I blame Boris Johnson, and you can see from the moment party gate blew up, the one rule for us, another rule for the rest of you. From that moment on, he was done in public opinion.

Liz Truss and her anarchic 40-odd days in so-called power trying to tank the entire economy of the country. And Ritchie's seen out picking up the pieces when it was all too late and making a series of missteps in his campaign. You know, I just thought the thing that summed up for me. I like Rishie personally. He's a good man. But to have your launch and announcement for the election and you're getting drowned like a rat because no one's giving you an umbrella, Just basic. It's the basics of politics. To come back early from the D-Day, the last great D-Day commemorations. To come back early and leave your opponent to do pictures with Zelensky, to leave David Cameron, one of your predecessors in our foreign secretary, to be posing with the President of the United States. I mean, it was madness. And I think partly, of course, Rishi, I'm sure, is kicking himself. But where are his advisors? Who are these people?

who didn't actually physically drag him back, you know, and say this is political suicide to do this. And also to not realize that being there, being the British Prime Minister on that momentous day, would be good for you with the electorate, would win you votes, reminding people you're the bus. So I think that they've made a lot of missteps. Labor have just been trying not to scare the horses and the children. Lib Dems will do surprisingly well. I can see them getting 60 plus seats. Reform, I think they'll be lucky to win more than one or two.

But what they will do is make the Conservative Party really examine itself. And the question is, do they veer right to the way Farage would like to drag them? Or is there somebody dynamic who can come through the middle who can actually wrestle the centre ground again for the Conservative Party and take them that way? I fear you're going to see that, which is Farage will drag the party very right, wing, it won't work because no really right-wing party has ever been elected in this country. And I think what will happen is eventually it'll come back and somebody will come through

who has a more centrist, more moderate conservative view for the country. And then we'll see whether Stama does one term or two. Do you not think, and I take your point historically, we've never tended to vote for parties who are very right wing. But let's not be far right. No, no, no, no, no. I think people get labeled far right far too quickly. Yeah. But I'm talking about just really quite hard right policies. It tends not to be a vote winner for the majority of the country. Agreed.

But now look at what's happening in Europe where you have some hard right parties doing incredibly well, if not winning elections. Because the parties in power are ignoring the concerns of their people. But that's what's happening here as well. It is. And so that's where this battleground is going to be. And it's only going to get worse under Starmer. That's why I think they will get dragged to the right because the people are growing more populist, because as we've seen it around Europe, you know, look at Italy, you look at what's happening in France, you look at all these countries.

Holland. Yeah. Austria. All of them. All of them. And a lot of it is fueled by a breakdown of control of immigration and broken promises. And so they've got to sort of that. Of course they have.

But if you ask me, what are the biggest concerns for people in this country? It's actually not immigration. They're concerned about it. They think it's wrong that we've got, you know, rather than tens of thousands of people coming in, we have 700,000 when our public service is already creaking at the seams. You're not a racist if you think this is unsustainable. You're just a common sense person, right?

But I think that the really big issues are the economy and the NHS and crime, and all three of those, the Tories have failed spectacularly. Housing as well. And housing. and housing. So I think it's going to be, look, it's going to be very interesting what Labor do. Do they have a grand vision of the kind you were just talking about? I don't think, I don't sense it. Maybe they're keeping their power to dry for when they win power because they will have such a

big majority. They can really do stuff. We'll have to wait and see. Who are you voting for? I don't know. I honestly don't know. I voted for both parties in the past when it was a choice of Miller Band or Cameron, I voted for the Animal Welfare Party, which my grandmother at times extremely pleased about. I, you know, I... This is fascinating, Piers, because you spend your life thinking about this stuff. Yeah, but I'm not, I'm not a partisan political animal. I know.

So I'm not a Tory. I know. I'm not a left-winger. Yeah. Yeah. So the honest answer is, I don't know. I do believe you have to vote. I will vote.

But, you know, given the choice of the three, it's a really difficult. decision for someone like me to look at and go, well, okay, the choice is a party that's disintegrated and has had 14 years and I think has done a pretty shoddy job. I certainly won't be voting reform because I think it's all smoke and mirrors and a reactionary party to what is happening with the Tories. And Keir Stama, I look at him and I think I like you personally, always got on well with you. He was an asshole fan, big tick in my box. I look at him, but I think, are you Are you going to be able to do anything to really change my life? Or are you actually just going to take all my money?

And then squander it and really not help the people you say you're going to help with it. So I've got to think about that. I want to see a bit more of their more forensic examination of their policies. I don't think we're going to hear very much. So, you know, I maybe, you know, I don't know. Maybe the animal. You sound like you're leaning labour to me. Well, maybe the animal will well.

Look, I voted for Fatcher, first time as I got. I voted for Major first time around. I voted for Blair twice, but not after the Iraq War. I would have voted for Gordon Brown. I did not vote for Cameron. Certainly wouldn't have voted for Ed Miliband or Jeremy Corbyn. I voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 purely because, as a Remainer, I was in sense that he was the only person prepared to honour the result of the referendum on Europe,

even though it was the other side. I just thought democracy demands you accept the result of a democratic referendum, right? So it was almost a protest vote, and I wasn't going to vote for Corbyn in a million years. He would have destroyed this country. So each time I make a kind of calculation, and this time it's a difficult calculation. But, you know, I certainly look, I wouldn't feel ashamed of voting for Starler. There is one reason, Francis. Let me just one quick thing.

You've spent a lot of time on your show talking about the ludicrous, conversation about trans women. That's another thing that would stop me in my tracks. So with Stama, he literally pretended he didn't know what a woman is. Well, he's moving ever nearer. I mean, when you start saying that Tony Blair told me about the biology. Really? Tony Blair had to tell you what a woman is.

Really? And I think we're up to 99.9% of women don't have penises now. So he's getting there. He's getting there. Look, I think he is cognizant that there is a large section of his party who do believe this guff. who've been sucked into the gender culture war. And it's a real war that really, as Jake Erroling has made very clear to people,

directly impacts on women's lives. It means little girls who have a dream of competing for their country in the Olympics may have that dream shattered because a six-foot-four-inch biological male decides they would like to compete in women's sport, be it swimming or running or whatever it may be. That's clearly insane. I interviewed Lisa Nandi on Good Morning Britain a few years ago and said to her, you know, we'll just extrapolate this then.

So would you be all right with Floyd Mayweather and Usain Bowl, identifying as women and competing in the Olympics? Yes, came the answer. What? How have we got to this place? So Stama, having been mad about it, as now, as he has with a lot of stuff, moved. I don't mind politicians doing that.

I don't think we should use a stick to beat politicians when they get more normal or reach a better place. We should encourage evolution of views. I don't like people who were just intransigent sat in their little and their little things. But I don't think that's what happened. This is the issue. If he had genuinely evolved his views, I would salute him to the rafters, as you were saying. That's not what's happened here.

He obviously knew what a woman was all along. And then lied about it in part of him. I don't disagree. Look, he's avoided me. Marishi Sunnah has done two big interviews with me since I launched on sent him. Kirstarmo, despite a lot of times telling me he'll do it, has no. never done it. And there's a reason, and it's partly to do with this. He knows my first question would be, what is a woman? And until I just get the answer, it's an adult biological female,

which is what a woman is, with no equivocation, he's going to get fallout from that. So yeah, that's another thing to think about. You know, I've got a young daughter, right, who likes her sport and likes her. I don't want her to, under a labor government, have her rights being infringed. are they going to be infringed or not? Are we going to see what happened to Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland where she puts a male rapist into a female prison simply because he went, I'm a woman, so he could get somewhere where he could attack other women? I mean, completely insane. And it cost her job. And I look at Kirstehran and I think, okay, let's see, right? But I can't make a vote predicated on what may happen. I have to vote on the day as to whether I genuinely believe this person is going to

represent the kinds of things that are important to me. And the gender thing is very important to me. I think the protection of women's rights is one of the big, big issues of our time. And on that, Rishi Sunnak's been rock solid. So, you know, when it comes to who do I cast my vote for, things like that are going to play a part. But Piers, if he can't stand up to the wackos in the Labour Party, what's he going to do with Putin? Good question. It's a very good question. I agree. That to me, sorry, that to me is spineless. I agree. If you can't stand up and say a basic biological fact that we all know to be true,

because some people who've spent too long, you know, at university and gender studies class are going to start crying, they're not, you're not, you're not fit to be leader. That to me is not a leader. Well, he has moved a lot and I think he'll continue to move. Because let's be honest, the woke worm has turned dramatically, I think. Right. It is just people are just seeing through this bullshit and they're beginning to think, they're beginning to see the impact on their own lives and their own family's lives. You know, more and more kids are losing out in women's sport because of the trans athletes dominating whatever it may be that they're that they're competing in. And that's, you know, I want trans people to be to have fairness and equality like everybody else. Well, they're the same human rights as me and you and you. I genuinely do. I want nothing but good for, trans people, but not at a point it erodes women's rights. Shouldn't be difficult this. They shouldn't be allowed to erode women's rights. And there should be a new category set up for trans athletes.

It doesn't work the other way. You know, with the trans men, you never see them dominating men's sport, because of course it doesn't. Because they're women. There's a reason that we separate the sexes and the Olympics. If we didn't, no women would win a gold medal, apart from potentially, I think, equestrian, possibly an archery or something. I've read some statistic about it, but why would you want to do that to women's sport? Why would you want to stop women winning? Equality.

That's the irony. Because the very last thing is about it's equality. Yeah. Well, you know. Piers, it's always a dynamite interview when you come on. We could have spent another hour here. The final question is always the same.

What's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be? Who else are going to sign as a strike? Because if you ask me, what am I spending most of my time thinking about after two consecutive seasons what Arsenal should have won the Premier League and choke the first one and last season pretty much didn't choke but we just didn't have that guy I won a lethal 25 a season striker and that is honestly the thing that is dominating my mind

and I'm hopeful that if Keir Starmer wins as an Arsenal fanatic like me that he will put a lot of pressure on Mikhail Artetta because a happy Arsenal is a happy Prime Minister. Right. Good to know you're focusing on the biggest. Thanks for coming back on me. It's pleasure. Actually, on a serious point on that,

I would like people to examine more what Nigel Farage has said about Putin, how much money he's taken from Russia today, and what he genuinely believes about things like the Ukraine war, and just ask yourself one question. Do I think that guy's the right guy to defend this country? And if you do, have a lobotomy. Cheers, chaps.