TRIGGERnometry - The British State Hates its Own People - Dr David Starkey

Episode Date: June 20, 2026

Triggernometry is proudly independent. Thanks to the sponsors below for making that possible: - Find your forever cookware @hexclad and get 10% off at https://hexclad.com/TRIG #hexcladpartner - CyberGhost VPN: Our VPN of choice. Grab the offer at https://cyberghost.com/triggernometry - Subscribe to *AG1* at https://drinkag1.com/trig Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://shop.triggerpod.co.uk/ Advertise on Triggernometry: https://trigger-brands.com | or enquire at [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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Look, I spend a lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world, so let me tell you about something that's actually right. Sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being, rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing, and most people have no idea what's actually in it.

Avocardo green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials, designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning. The craftsmanship is real. These are mass-produced objects. Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest. I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's been on the same mattress for eight years and called it fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you, if you're going to invest in anything for your home, your bed is the way.

one that pays you back every single night. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocado greenmatress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Summer routines live or die by how easy they are. And honestly, if something takes too much effort. I'm out. That's why Grooons is my go-to. It's one daily pack of gummies covering my greens, vitamins, and minerals. Plus, it has six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than two cups of broccoli. No mixing powders, no giant pills, no hassle. I just rip open the pack, and I'm done.

They taste so good and make it easy to stay on top of my health. Even when life gets busy. Save up the 52% off with Code Podcast at Groo.co. That's Code Podcast at gurns.co. Something had gone structurally wrong with Britain. We are a state which has turned against its people. All three parties of the right are realising that they're not dealing with a series of separate problems. You're dealing with a single central issue, which is that the British state has stopped working.

We are genuinely, I think, at a moment, I would argue of a national crisis which is comparable only for the First and Second World Wars, there has to be a reunion of the right, and that the only basis for that reunion is false. But they're fighting each other. And I despair. If Britain survives, why did you say that?

Because I think it is possible that it won't. Dr. David Starkey, welcome back to Trigonometry. A pleasure to be back. Well, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. You've been on the show of a gazillion time. times, typically to talk about your great error expertise, which is, of course, history, always fun and fascinating. And we will do more of those episodes in the future, I hope.

But today we wanted to talk about the present and what's happening in this country today, and particularly what's happening on the right of British politics. We are recording this shortly before the by-election. We don't quite know what will happen, although there is some inkling as to what will happen, which is likely a Labour victory. You know all the players involved on all sides of this conversation. You yourself, I think, is a conservative who's now moved in the reform direction. Is that fair?

I remain a nominal member of the Conservative Party. I am friendly to everybody on the right. And that being the case, what do you see as happening? You mean in the biolix? No, not in the biolix. More generally. What are the big tectonic plates and how are they moving? What I think is striking is they're moving in two completely different directions.

If you look at the level of personalities, there is increasingly radical division, typified by the campaigning that's taken place in the Maker's Field by-election, in which, as it were, it's a war, it's Hobbesian. It's a war of all against all. and that Restore is yapping at the heels of reform. Reform continues to denounce the Tories. You almost think that they weren't actually fighting, that they weren't fighting Andy Burnham, but just fighting each other. And so there is, and there are vicious personal hostilities

between those who've gone over to reform, like Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman and those who remain within the Conservative Party, and even those like Katie Lamb and Jack Rankin, who I think there isn't a sheet of paper between them and Generic or indeed Farage as to what they think. Profound personal hurt was done by the way and the timing that Robert went over. So there's a series of profound bad blood.

On the other hand, if you look in the other direction, Francis, and you look at policy, What is very striking is how close everybody is moving to each other. And this, I think, is this for me is the really important thing. When you ask me the question of where do I stand? My own view is, and it's also very much the view of Jacob Rees-Mogg, that there has to be a reunion of the right, and that the only basis for that reunion is policy.

And what I'm struck by is, as you know, we've actually talked about it on this show, way back in late 2003 and developed over into the spring of, sorry, 2020. And when you're a historian decades, especially when you're my age, they're family. And into the spring of 2024, remember that extraordinary. extraordinary historical episode when Sunat was Prime Minister. It seems roughly, I'd say middle, middle ages. Anyway, I developed this idea that something had gone structurally wrong with Britain. And everything that's happening seems to me to confirm that. So when I say that they're all moving towards each other in policy, what do I mean?

I think in a rather fragmentary way, and still a pretty, it in different directions. All three parties of the right are realizing that they're not dealing with a series of separate problems, which are financial, which are judicial, which are immigration, which are education, or whatever, you're dealing with a single central issue, which is that the British state has stopped working. That the British state is suffering from autoimmune disease. It's machinery is eating and consuming itself. And it seems to me this is the great divide in politics. If you look at what's going on on the left, there's an extraordinary blindness.

What on earth is Burnhamism? Well, it seems to be faintly reheated. Reevesism, you know, do you remember, she's the Chancellor of the Exchequerque. I never quite worked out what it was, but I do remember it. Well, shall I explain it? Because Rachel Rees is only capable of copying, it's a reheated version of what Janet Yelland did in America. So it's called Securonomics here or Bidonomics there. And it was actually Jason Cowley of the former the New Statesman, who summarized it brilliantly.

What we have on this side of the Atlantic is Bidonomics without the Bucks. In other words, you can't borrow enough money to do it. It's traditional Keynesianism, lightly disguised. as investment in public services, this, that and the other. And you can just about make it work as happened in America with Biden if you borrow enough, but you send inflation through the roof, which is why America's had much higher and astonishing levels of inflation. But here, the only way we can do it is by financing it through borrowing.

So what you're doing is you are literally trying to pull yourself up by your own boatstraps, you know. And as many of us discovered when we're about two years old, Rachel Reed is a very, very, very, very slow learner. You can't do that. But Burnham seems to be about to reinvent this with the benefit of yellow buses, presumably will now, the great symbol of Bern, I imagine, will but London buses will be repainted yellow, you know, and we will spend, and serious. This is the symbol of Manchesterism, you know, his bus network. So the left is completely blind to what's going on. And I'll do something I predicted on the day that Starma was elected that he would fail.

There is a recording of it, I did it not with you, but with the New Culture Forum, on the actual morning after his election victory. I said he will fail because he represents this failed system, this system in which political power has been hived off to judges and to so-called experts in Quangos and it's strangling everything. The right is slowly beginning to recognize that. So there's some hope. There is some hope in the sense that you are talking about policy alignment, but I also think

that given the personality clashes that you described, and I think they go beyond, actually, the defectors. I mean, I think Kemi Bedinok and Nigel Farage don't particularly like each other personally. Farage has obviously been scathing about the Conservative Party. And now, of course, we sitting here don't know exactly how impactful it will be in this particular by-election. You have another party on the right, which is Restore led by Rupert Lowe, who hates for us, perhaps some might argue with some reason, given their personal history. But on top of that, hates the Conservative Party, and they all hate each other. Well, actually, the relations between, no, again, let's be much more precise about this, the relations between Rupert Lowe and the conservative,

Party seemed to me to be surprisingly good. After all, they made him a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Conservative Party actually appointed him to that. The relations between Rupert and Kemi, I think, are good. And it's very important, remember, Rupert is this bizarist of things. He's presenting himself as the ultimate outsider with all of these extraordinary young men on the web. Do you know what they're all called? It's a wonderful term. Let me share it with you, they're called the Lomosexuals. What does that mean? Well, Robert Lowe.

Oh, I see. So, you know, you've got Harrison Pitt and Charlie Downs and Conor Thomas and whatever. All the young toughies of the right are wickedly known as the Lomosexual. So they're presenting themselves as these extraordinary outsiders. But what is Rupert? Rupert is a member of Brudels, you know, the second smartest of next only. to whites of the St. James's clubs. He's hunting, shooting, fishing.

Look, that rubrican complexion. He's a farmer. He shoots pheasants, I imagine, as hunted, and presenting himself as this extraordinary outsider. So I think there's a series of really increasing the ridiculous postures being struck that do conceal fundamental agreement on place. I didn't know whether have you read, because what's happening now is each one of these three parties is starting to produce serious written stuff.

And if you look, Harrison Pitt wrote one of the most impressive documents on how we deal with immigration and how we deal with illegal immigration for Rupert Lowe. And if you look at the central section of that document, it takes my idea of the great repeal, the undoing of the Blair-right constitutional settlement as the absolute necessary step. It calls it the great clarification or something. It likely rechristens it, but it takes it a central policy. Look at what Badenoch has done.

She has just got the Conservative shadow attorney general, Lord Wilson, to write a detailed paper on repealing the central piece of legislation, which will be covered by the great repeal, which is the Human Rights Act. She's also now come out in favour of repealing one of the most important sections of the Equality Act,

the public sector equality duty, the PSED. If you again look at even more strikingly, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary has come out with saying we will bring in legislation

to remove all forms of judicial intervention in the process of appeal against asylum, against the failure to grant asylum. In other words, you will remove that judicial oversight, which is primarily why, as Rishi Sunak recognized, along with everybody else, Tony Blair recognizes in his memoirs, you can't actually get rid of asylum seekers. It's that we could stop the boats tomorrow if the lawyers said yes, the lawyers will say no. And as I pointed out, when I heard Zia Yusuf talk about this, the IEA, even Nigel went into Downing Street and ordered the first sea lord to deploy the navy and persisted in ordering him, he would find himself arrested for contempt of court.

But they're all recognising this. Every one of them is recognizing this. And Nigel is fully committed to the repeal of the Human Rights Act. He's fully committed now to the repeal of the Equality Act. Suella Braverman wrote a very interesting introduction, preface forward of what it's called, to a paper published by the Prosperity Institute, again on the terrible problems of the Equality Act. They're all recognising it,

but they're fighting each other. And I despair. It's a suicidal folly. And if you look at the alternative in terms of the nation of going down the current route that we are now, it is simply a catastrophe. That what we've seen with the current Stama government is we have complete stasis. Nothing can be done. You are pursuing a policy in which you are taxing more to pay more,

people welfare, which makes the country poorer. It is a vicious downward cycle. And there is no way you can break it without doing these fundamental changes to what's happened, what happened to Britain between 1997 and 2010. Otherwise, we're tied to a wheel. And that's a base case scenario, because come the next election, the people who might get elected from the left may be worse than that. They will be worse than that. I mean, we are genuinely, I think, at a moment, I would argue of a national crisis which is comparable only to the First and Second World Wars.

I would possibly go even further. I think we are, which is why I've been using when I've been talking about what needs to be done, the language of grand constitutional change. I think we are at the stage of the equivalent of the reign of Charles I, or the reign of James 2nd. We are a state which has turned against its people,

a state which has become the principal danger for the survival of the nation. The thing that's most striking about the slama government, it basically hates Britain. It basically hates the British. Look at Homer, Lord Homer, the Attorney General, this absurd obsession with giving away the Chegos Islands, this absurd obsession with making concessions to IRA terrorists.

We had John McTernan today talking about after Al Thairns in the House of Commons in his resignation speech said that one of reasons he resigned was the legislation which the Labour Party has been pushing through the House to make veterans who had served in Northern Ireland. for what they've done, whereas, of course, all the terrorists are exempt. It's monstrous. It is simply, simply monstrous. But what does a leading member of the Labour Party say? John McTernan, what does he actually say?

This is why the Brits thought the Brits, what the IRA call the British as a term of hatred and contempt. A leading member of the Labour Party talks of his own people in those terms. language, again, which is used, which favours emigrants over the native population. And it is truly, truly astonishing, which is, I think, again, I don't know whether you saw the New States when published, which has become, in many ways, immensely impressive under its current editorship, and published a report on the Maker's Field constituency, pointing out that burning, seething sense of things have been taken.

taken away, what we have lost, what we want back, that inchoate sense of mounting rage, which, you know, bursts forward with the events in Belfast, burst to the surface with the events in Southport. Most cookware forces are compromised most people have never stopped to think about. Old non-stick is easy to clean, but scratches, peels and distributes heat poorly. Stainless steel performs properly, but clean up after a real serious. is serious work. Hexclad removes that choice entirely. The technology is a painted laser-edged hexagonal steel surface that gives you genuine searing performance and non-stick

clean-up in the same pan. They are metal utensils safe, dishwasher safe, oven safe to 900 degrees Fahrenheit with stay cool handles so you're not burning your hand reaching for the pan. Over a million customers, more than 50,000 five-star reviews. Gordon Ramsey uses him at home and in his restaurants, and his standards are not forgiving. What actually convinced me was the cleanup. You can cook a proper sear which leaves serious residue on any normal pan and just wipe this down. That combination should not exist and yet here we are.

Every hex clad product comes with a lifetime warranty. Don't go through another summer with cookware that makes every meal harder than it needs to be. For a limited time, only our audience gets 10% off your order with our exclusive link. Click the link in the description of this episode or head to hexclad.com slash trig. Support trigonometry and check them out at hexclad.com forward slash trig.

Make sure to let them know we sent you. David, how much of where we are do you think comes down to, like you said, legislation, but also the weakness and spinelessness of our leaders and our political class? The two things are very closely related. I don't believe that the, again, you've got to read it is, It's a central point. I mean, there are different ways you could explain the current situation. I mean, I explain it systemically.

I think that the actual machinery has gone wrong. Other ways of explaining it are to look at a single big issue. And people who I've been citing as agreeing with me, people like Harrison Pitt or Rupert Lowe, obviously put immigration, and particularly illegal immigration at the head of the list. And other people say, actually, it is due to the shocking quality.

of our leaders. And there is the evidence. I mean, you know, we're about to have our seventh prime minister in 10 years. There has been nothing like this since the invention of the office of prime minister in the 1720s by Robert Orp. This is, you know, when you were saying at the beginning, I was very struck, you said, you're a day, Stark as a historian. We're now going to get him talking about the president. What we're living through is an episode of astonishing historical importance. The reason that I've involved myself in it is precisely because of my historical understanding of how all this stuff was put together. So the moment when you can actually witness what, unless we do something about it, is its dissolution. It's one of peculiar

fascination. But there is a reason why we've had this succession of failed premierships. The job as, okay, many of them were inadequates. Some of them were there for absolutely no purpose, whatever. Some, they like to resume. Some were there with trying to do the right thing in the wrong way, which is Liz Truss. I like Liz, but Liz has this terrible problem. In early middle age, she now has this large label hung around her neck which says, I give good ideas a bad name.

It's contaminating and tragic. Boris, of course, had one good thing, and then a series of catastrophic things. But fundamentally, all of them were confronting the same problem, that the system works against them. This is what Dominic Cummings, you know, Boris's right-hand man, for a period of time, I always said it was terribly like the Court of Henry VIII. Dominic was very, very, aspired to do the same sort of things as Thomas Cromwell. So I wrote a nice piece on Dom and Tom, and they both came up, of course, against an uppity woman who was, you know, actually third wife rather than second wife, with Carrie playing power politics.

But Dominic's analysis is exactly mine, that the structure of government makes it impossible to do anything. And of course, even Stama. Stama, rigid, authoritarian, unimaginative, a complete product of this system, and indeed somebody who invented it. I think it's important that we realise just how much guilt, and I use that word. There's going to be another volume written in 10 or 20 years. It will be like Michael Foote's volume on those who advocated appeasement. It will be called the guilty men. and they will be held, if Britain survives,

those headed by somebody like Blair and Brown, and with Stama very high on the list, they will be held in the same contempt and hatred as those who were responsible for appeasement. And I think, in fact, those who were responsible for appeasement were actually sensible, but that's another matter, because they were just making sure we could actually fight a war when we actually declared it,

whereas what Brown and Blair and Stonelner, Stama did. Starma right at the beginning of the enterprise of imposing a completely alien notion of law, which is human rights law, and the Brown equality. I mean, the problem is, Francis, and you're doing your usual suite. I'm not completely understanding and I'm a bit puzzled, which is your essential role on this show. You do it absolutely wonderfully well. I've often wondered just quite how much rehearsal is called to keep it up for the length of time that you do. But the essential point is that we've had this world in which, and it's really remarkable. If you go back and you look at Blair's memoirs, I mean, I've got very interesting in how all this happened. And it's perfectly clear, Blair, and particularly the Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who was responsible for so much of this, didn't really know what they were doing. They thought all this was zingy, modernizing.

We're a new country, or indeed exactly the same, with David Cameron, modernization. But there were people like exactly like. like Kirstana, who knew what they were doing, who knew what the introduction of the Human Rights Act would do, that it would actually make it that we completely stood our system of government on its head and that we replaced a political constitution with a legal constitution. And again, many people will think, well, isn't that a really good thing? But the problem is, law cannot adjudicate satisfactorily between the individual right and common public safety. And it cannot deal either with budgets.

Let's give you an example. What the Equality Act does is to introduce this notion that there is a right wage separate from the market wage. And that a judge can determine it. So you have this lunacy in which because one group of people who happen to be women do a job like being dinner ladies for Birmingham, city council, and another group of people who happen to be men, chaps, do dustbin collecting. And dustbin collecting is much harder and much heavier and much more unpleasant work than sitting around, you know, serving slot to schoolchildren. And therefore they're paid more. and the argument was put to the judges, well, actually, the two jobs are really equivalent.

That demands, that demands the Lee Day, the dreadful firm of solicitors who have been responsible for pursuing so many of these absurd actions said, well, what that demonstrates is the market rate is not a defense. Can we just say this again? The market, if you as an employer,

pay the market rate for a job. That is not a defense against a judge saying that's wrong. That is guaranteed to bankrupt any company, and it has already bankrupted Birmingham, and it is going to bankrupt next. It is insane. And in other words, what I think is really striking about this, this is why suddenly Jack Straw,

having introduced all of this stuff, is saying, ooh, um, er. I think it's possibly gone a little bit far. And what we've got ourselves into is a situation in which you can actually, that wonderful phrase, you know, I'm quite fond of the Bible, although I don't believe in God, but that wonderful phrase, by their fruits, you shall know them. You can judge things by their consequences. We can see what the consequences of this sort of thing have been, and they're all bad.

Let's take another interesting example, English nature, which has been in the news an awful lot recently. This thing costing, whatever it is, $2 billion a year or more to run, what has it done? It is responsible in its most recent manifestation for saying, wouldn't it be a terribly good thing to kill the ponies on Dartmouth? Because we believe in going back to some notion of, isn't it odd, we are not allowed to have an indigenous population. but we're allowed to have indigenous flora and fauna. Isn't it really odd? The notion that the natural inhabitants of this island is perfectly acceptable

if you're talking about buttercups but really isn't acceptable if you're talking about human beings and the whole madness. But in order to restore the alleged original vegetation of Dartmouth, hadn't we better kill the ponies? Well, of course, the English because we're terminally sentimental people,

get wildly excited about that. But what else, as English, Nature done, English nature has inflicted on HS2, if it wasn't already a bad enough mess, an extra hundred million pounds for a bat tunnel. It is calculated that it might save about six bats. No, you laugh, but it's not funny. This is your money, it's my money. It's why nothing can get done.

Even worse, we're facing, you know, this astonishing power shortage. at what vast thawing costs of electricity, what have they done to contribute to that, our nuclear power station, which has already taken 10 times as long as equivalent structures in China to build. They have imposed costs of 600 million pounds in order to protect fishes against getting a little bit overheated in the discharge waters. And do you know what? They've decided that's not enough.

And what they're going to do is they're going to insist that we reconstitute the salt marshes. So you're going to look at adding approximately another billion pounds. This is insanity. We've given a group all headed by Tony Juniper. These people are fanatics. You give single issue fanatics, executive control. Now all of this, you give judges power over money. Why is send? Why is special educational needs completely out of control? Because you set up a tribunal structure. If you declare that children with special needs have rights, there can be no budget. Law does not have regard to a budget as anybody who's been stupid enough to sue in a court knows. Costs are of no order. There's no consequence. You know, the standard principle of Roman law is let the skies fall. Justice must be done. But the

That's not how you manage a society. The only way you can manage how much we spend on children with special needs against everybody else's need is by politics. But we deliberately remove the final decision from politics, which comes straight back to your point. We're in this terrible paradox that the standing of politicians has never been lower. But we desperately need the political process somehow to be revolutions. because that's the only way you can balance properly the individual against the group. Otherwise, you have Singapore, otherwise, or MBS, or Saudi Arabia, or China. You have a dictatorship.

So we've got to recover that, the experiment of hand it to experts on the one hand and judges on the other, which is what Blair did, has been, though he didn't fully realize what he was doing, has been utterly, completely and demonstrably catastrophic. And the fact is now obvious. The left cannot admit it. The left created this. It's become its Bible. Because remember, the reason that all this happened,

why did all this happen under Blair? It happened because people like Peter Mandelson had already realized that the kind of Labour Party that Burnham wants. was stone dead. New labor happens because the intelligent people, like Blair, like Campbell, like Mandelson, new socialism didn't work. So they've got to come up with something else. And this hyperactivity where they literally plucked down ideas from the shelf, these strange notions of international law and whatever that have been cooked up by people like Herma,

people like Tom Bingham, people like, like Starma, they just latch. onto them. So New Labor itself was a testament to the failure of the old Labour Party. What's now happened of course is that the Starma government shows the failure of new labor.

That these things do not work. And what is the Labour Party going to do? It's going to try to go back to a double failure of old labor. So the right Francis Constantine has never has more open goals.

But there's been an extraordinary failure to explain. An extraordinary, I cannot imagine a political situation which should be more favourable to the right than the one that we're in at the moment with one very important point, which is of course that unfortunately, thanks to the folly of David Cameron, the even worse folly of George Osborne, the absurd folly of Boris Johnson, the conservative party. and Theresa May, I would shoot. No, I'm quite serious.

I think, I think, no, I am being really serious. After a trial, presumably, right, David? Yes. Yes, good. I believe in due process. But I mean, seriously, when you look at what that woman did, she is directly responsible for the full out-of-control nature of non-crime hate incidents, which begin under Cameron, and flourish under her, the extraordinary activities of the College of Policing,

she carries through the non-legislation. It was barely discussed for legislating net zero by 2050. And that, again, Francis, means that judges determine whether you can drill in the North Sea. That even if Stama and whatever and Burnham, really this extraordinary use of somersaults he's performing, have been talking about doing this, they will immediately, until they repeal that, they will be taken to court and judges determine whether or not you can fact. This is utterly insane.

We get asked this all the time. Which VPN do you use at trigonometry? The answer is simply CyberGhost VPN. CyberGhost isn't some fringe tool. It has 38 million users and over 20,000. 50,000 5-star reviews on Trust Pilot, which frankly is rare for any tech product, let alone a VPN. CyberGhost encrypts your internet traffic, which means your provider, your employer, your school, or anyone else on public Wi-Fi cannot see what you're doing online.

It routes your connection through secure servers in 100 countries, hide your IP address, and keeps no logs at all, so your activity isn't being tracked or stored. On top of that, it unlocks regional content from 40 streets. streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus. And it works on up to seven devices at once, phones, laptops, tablets, even your smart TV. You can share it with your family if you want. We rely on it when we're traveling for the show because it's simple, fast and it just works. Right now you can get CyberGhosts for about two bucks a month with four months free,

a 45-day money-back guarantee and 24-7 support. that's protection for your browsing data and access to blocked content online for two bucks a month. Totally risk-free. To grab the offer, go to Cyberghostvpn.com slash trigonometry or click the link in the description of this episode.

It's completely risk-free, so check it out today. I think I finally understood what you've been trying to tell us for a very long time, David. What you're really saying, correct me if I'm misrepresenting, but what I'm hearing is, What you're really saying is New Labor legislated their political opinions into actual law, and then the Conservatives effectively carried it on. Well, it's even worse than that.

What you do is New Labor legislates its prejudices into an alternative legal system. Right. You introduce absolutely foreign principles. There's a marvelous, you know, Thomas Sewell, who is this extraordinary impressive man, the Sewell report that argued passionately. Tony, Tony. Tony. Thomas Sol is an American economy.

He spells S-O-W. But they're both equally impressive. And in a very, very similar way. In a very similar way. But when he wrote the preface to the report, which I've just mentioned now, from the Prosperity Institute, attacking the Equality Act, and he came up with this wonderful phrase. He said, a foreign body of law. an alien body of law.

And that's what's happened. So, as I said, is why I've been using these medical analogies that is like autoimmune disease or a cancer? You know, you use the word constitution of your body as well as of the state. And that's what's happened. So it's not simply policy. It's that this fundamental change happened.

You see, again, just looking back to the business of the so-called expert committees. I mean, English Nature is one of them. The Climate Change Committee, the insane policies we've been having on this. Both Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, the great American president of the first years of the 20th century, they were both fascinated by the role of experts. They're both fascinated by scientists.

Churchill has Lord Charwell, he's not yet called that, sitting around his dinner table at Chequers in his wilderness years of the 1930s, it becomes a major figure in the Second World War. But the two of them fight for the ownership of that wonderful phrase. You want your scientists on tap, but not on top. And what we've done, of course, with this multitude of quangos, 400 and odd of them, you know, effectively spending nearly a third of the start, budget without any form of democratic control, you've put the expert on top.

That's why Michael Gove said, you know, we've had too much of experts. He didn't explain it. See what I'm trying to get at all sorts of people, beginning to understand the problem, but they're understanding it in a fragmentary way. Similarly, Sunak, Rishi Sunag, in one of his Times columns, actually admitted when he talked about the Rwanda scheme. And he said, well, in retrospect, what we should have done was change the law before we tried to introduce the scheme. In other words, that the legal structures that I've been talking about made absolutely guaranteed its failure.

So what they did was something profoundly stupid. They, again, it was like this trust. They adopted what's a good policy. Rwanda is something like Rwanda is the only way we're going to deal with. It's how Australia dealt with it. It's how Italy is beginning to deal with it and so on. But they did it without making it possible. In other words, they walked straight into an open trap.

And repeatedly, British government is doing the same thing. Mahmoud is going to find all the sorts of things she wants to do will face unless she does what I think will be unthinkable, which is reversing great slices of this new Labour legislation. she will find not simply that her back benches won't do it, but that immediately the legal jaws will snap shut. And so again, what we should also be talking about is why do we seem to be in such an impossible mess? I think one of the reasons is that because, okay, I'm afraid Theresa May gets me very cross,

but just because I think she was so, she was so, I hate stupidity. And when you see trans... When you ask on the quality of politicians, when you see transparent stupidity, particularly being a teacher for a long time, you learn to control your reproving of it. But when it's on that huge public scale,

and again, it's really important that inflicts such terrible, terrible damage. You know, that this quest for the legacy, you do something off the cut. And it inflicts damage on your country, which you can quantify, I would argue, in the trillions. That is serious. That's why the term guilty men and guilty women really comes in. But why is the Conservative Party? Why is it in the mess that it is?

Why is Kemi, who is quite impressive in her way, I don't think he was going to be, but he's performed reasonably well. Why is she failed so badly? Because they haven't admitted what went wrong. Until the Conservative Party does a full-scale mea-compa. I mean, you see, it's analogous to the situation that we found ourselves in the 1970s. In the middle of the 1970s, the entire post-war structure was collapsing. From 45 onwards, you had, if Britain was a 90% socialist country. It was arguably more socialist than East Germany, or as socialist as East Germany.

And what was striking in 51 is that Churchill's conservatives went along with it. So from 45 through to about 75, there were two parties that, you know, in the phrase of the day, the current phrase of the web. It was the Uniparty, and it didn't really make all that much difference. The conservatives were mildly more financially competent than Labor, but not much. The same policies, prices and incomes, boards, the nationalized industries, all of all of that stuff, Keynesian economics and so on, the determination to maintain full employment even with feather bedding, failing nationalised industries, all of that

continued, whoever was in power. And it was only after Edward Heath's defeat in the elections 73, 74, that you get Keith Joseph coming along and saying, I've called myself a conservative, I haven't been, I've sat in conservative cabinets who've done nothing conservative, and you get that reinvention of, well, it wasn't, unfortunately, what they invent, what he and Margaret Thatcher invent isn't really a conservative party at all. They're Glastonian liberals with, you know, Manchester School economics, the old Manchester School, the good Manchester School, not Burn a mess. But at least you get a difference, there's then an actual, there's actually a political debate

in Britain. And unfortunately, what happened in 2010 is that Cameron and Oswald, and he sees he, he's a different, to see why. You look at William Hay, you look at those terrible years in which Blair just ran rings around. And they decided if you can't beat them, you join them. But that, of course, means you've got an albatross hung round your neck every time Beda not gets up to in the house and sort of says, look at the number of illegal crossings. All Starman needs to do is, oh, well, the relevant legislation you passed, and there were even more illegal. legal crossings when you were there than we have now.

And what I do not understand, unless Bader knock is so frightened that half the party, half the parliamentary party, will leave and join the Lib Dems, which I think may well be the reason. She is not, she has never explained why the Conservative Party got it so badly wrong. What she's done, interestingly, is take a tip from you, which is probably a bad idea. And she said, the only reason of the Conservatives got it wrong was because I wasn't leading them, you know. Yeah. In other words, a narrow personal point. Whereas, of course, the answer is, very simply, they got it wrong because they followed the wrong policies as established by the Labour Party.

That's the answer. And until they say that. And of course, Thatcher had the enormous advantage. She'd no need to say it because Edward Heath threw his big salt. So he made completely clear that there was a fundamental difference. And Baden-Mach hasn't been able to do that. And I think, again, with all the things, all the very promising things, and remarkable she really has managed to screw the leftish members of her party

up actually to leaving the ECHR, somebody like Jesse Norman, who is the son-in-law of Tom Bingham, who was the leading legal brains behind all of this stuff, actually wrote a book with Peter O'Borne on the conservative case for human rights. So if you persuaded him to repudiate the act, that's pretty good going.

But she will get no credit. And she will not have a ground with which to deal with Farage. In other words, and again, I spent much of the last, whatever number it is, two and a half years now touring around the country with my friend Mark Littlewood, ex-the-I-A, and we've been going around Reform Associations and Conservative Associations. The first thing that I do when I go to a Reform Association, Constantine, you know, so much of this game is pantomime, which is one of the reasons you're a very good public speaker.

And it's pantomime. And I always begin by saying, well, I've got to make a confession. This is a reform association. And I remain a member of the Conservative. He spoke. And then what I do is, it's fine. I've been honest with you. You will be honest with me.

Come on. Hands up. Everybody was a member of the Conservative Party. Half the hands go up. I say, right, keep them up. How many of the rest of you have voted? conservative virtually every hundred goes up. So what we're dealing with, we're dealing with a genuine war within conservatism as to what it actually is, what it means, what its relationship with

the past, what its relationship with the desired future, what it thinks is worth carrying forward, what it thinks has gone wrong. It's exactly the kind of debates that happened in the middle of the 1970s, and even more so in the middle of the 19th century after the great reformat, the great clash between Robert Peel and Benjamin Disraeli. David, that was magnificent, and despite my facial expression, I understood everything. However, there's one thing that you said where a chill ran down my spine. It was three words where you said, if Britain survives. And you're not a man to use hyperbole or to say words when you don't mean them?

Why did you say that? Because I think it is possible that it won't. If we head down the route that we are doing now, we face national bankruptcy. We are, that's one thing. In other words, we face, if we're lucky, something like the IMF intervention of 1976, although I think our situation is very, very much worse. The level of our indebtedness is much greater than it was in the 1970s. And that's not nice.

If you look at what happens with Greece, you deal with enforced cuts in public sector salaries of 20% and more. You deal with confiscation of elements of bank account, you know? Right. That's one thing we face. We are playing profoundly dangerous games with Russia. We are challenging Russia publicly, led, of course, by that ass Boris Johnson, who is asinine in this regard. And we're doing it without the strength.

You know, again, go back to Theodore Roosevelt, who seems to me to be one of them. He's one of the first politicians of the era of mass democracy. And he really, he understands. And he's also got a marvelous gift of phrase. He is the one who says, you know, speaks hoffley and carry a big stick. And we do the opposite. We yell from the house stops and we have a bent twig, which is the state of the British Armed Forces.

This is profoundly dangerous. At the same time, we have a demoralized population. We have, thanks to the left, we have spent the last 50 years saying that British history is to be ashamed of, that patriotism constantly, constantly citing Dr. Johnson, who meant something different is the last refuge of the scandal. We've spent time denigrating our armed forces with people like Lord Hermeth and Kirstehrmur himself, imposing ludicrous conditions in which you effectively say

war is an act of policing. What? The absurdity of judgments that are lad in 18 or whatever under some threat of imminent death, does he pull a trigger or not? You know, some fact judge or overfed and overfeed QC, KC, 40 years later, decides whether it's legal or not, intolerable. But so we've, in fact, destroyed the social basis of our army. We've destroyed the ideological basis of our army.

We're in the ludicrous position that we support the Ukraine. Well, yeah, very nice. What is the war in the war? the Ukraine, it's a war of national identity. People are fighting to belong to one tribe or another. A country that wasn't quite sure whether it was Russian or Ukrainian, people are being forced to choose. They're forced to choose a language. They're forced to choose a historical myth. You're fighting to defend absolute frontiers. Why the fuss about the Donbass, nor the rest of it, or whether the Crimea, we can't even protect our fronties. We make no attempt to protecting our frontiers.

So we've got ourselves into a mess in which we somehow imagine that if you utter nice words and belong to elaborately titled international organizations, the world will run, you know, like a prayer goal. And I'm afraid it doesn't. There's that phrase of Cardinal Walsy, naked to his enemies. We've left ourselves naked to our enemies. And we've many. And there's just this refusal to contemplate. Nations have, the first duty of the state is to defend and to administer justice. And we failed hideously.

The resignation of Healy. I want to slip the name. I'm probably going back to Denny's. It's John. It's John. Healy. Yeah. The former Secretary of State for Defense, with that excoriating series of resignation letters,

and then a clown like Lamey as head of the judicial system. I mean, just one despairs. Government failing. It's two central duties. But unfortunately, you see, the failure really begins under the Conservatives. This is the catastrophe. The worst cuts, and again, Fletcher not escaping.

The reason that the Falklands happens is we make foolish reductions to the Navy and to the practice sending ships to the Falklands and the Argentinians draw the obvious conclusion. Similarly, it is George Osborne in his transcendent folly

that imposes so-called austerity across the board. apart from foreign aid and the NHS. I mean, this is what I mean about the Tory party adopting the values of the left. The only things that were protected from austerity were foreign aid and the NHS, the totems of the left by the Conservative Party.

And instead you begin this catastrophic programme of cutting back on criminal justice and legal aid. And all of the things you described, David, Nobody, I would put it to you, that there's probably a handful of people in the country that understand them at the level that you are describing them at. But the ordinary person at this point, and I'd say this from talking to people in all kinds of walks of life, hasn't worked out what's happened. But what they really have worked out is something very bad.

Something very bad has happened. Absolutely right. That's exactly what the article about, Maker's Field, is about in the, in the, in the, in the, in the New Statesman published today, saying exactly that. And again, with what you expect, how on earth do ordinary people, who most of the time rightly don't greatly care about politics? But they have an instinct. They know.

They see everything from the potholes to the tips, to the fly tipping, to the extraordinary things that they hear, their children say that they've been talked in school to the manifest the two-tier horrors of what happened in Southport, of what happened in unimaginable, what happened in Belfast, and what happened in Southampton. And all of them are the same. The same issues are involved. But you see, what again, both of you,

People find it difficult to understand. So the term two tier is very useful. But it suggests something sort of, oh well, it's probably just you've got a chief constable or something like that. You see, it's not. This is what is terrifying. It is embedded in law. And this is what has gone so terribly wrong.

The law has turned against itself. And it was done with no one. motives. So often, you know, again, one becomes old and hackneyed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intentions were good. Yes, they were.

I belong to a minority. I'm a puff. No, no, no, no. But no, no, no, but no, no, I know because I was in, I've been on the receiving end of nasty policemen. Right? And you also saw the AIDS crisis.

And I indeed lived through it. And terrible consequences. and I fought for the equalization of the age of consent, but I fought through it through the political process, not by claiming abstract right, which is why I think it's stuck in Britain, in other words, why it's not been challenged, whereas Roe versus Wade,

where you used, unisaged as to secure so-called abortion rights in America, fell to bits, because it was on the basis of extreme legal construction. you were straining the legal argument. But if you go back to, I mention one man and I want to focus on him again, because I think he's so important, there was serious, genuine, really brilliant, and I think in many ways, noble lawyer, a man called Tom Bingham, or Bingham,

who was the senior law law before it was turned into the Supreme Court. And he is the one who really reconceives of law. in this different way. And he delivers a lecture in Australia, possibly wise to do it in Australia, rather than here. And this is what he says, and it's really important that we all understand this. He says quite explicitly, human rights law is anti-democratic. It is counter-majoritarian. It protects the minority as against the majority.

And do you know what? He lists the minorities. Do you know what's in the head? The mentally sick. Rudacabana, Calocane. Racial minorities, chipses. All the problem groups. So when you look at why the state completely failed to incarcerate Ruder Cabana or Calocane,

the presumption of the law is you don't. In other words, what we can see is when it comes to the balance between the individual right and public protection, the legal doctrine of embodied right is disastrous. Again, this notion that their rights means prisoners have got the right to vote, which was forced on Britain by the human rights court. It is an absurdity. You see, again, human rights, it is also the wonderful capture of language by the left.

They sound wonderful. Paddington Bears. I always say it's sort of Paddington Bear. Again, equality, who could possibly object? But you see, the problem is what you do with those ideas. Traditionally, I mean, again, the great contrast is between the French and the American Revolution. If you look at the French, the French are the first people to come up with a declaration of, it's called the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

But of course, the moment you do it, you have the terror, so you put it in the box and forget about it. And by the way, when it comes back, because of the very loose nature of Napoleonic law, which is a series of general principles anyway, yet another set of general principles get lost in it, it's when you embed that stuff in the common law. common law system where words are taken seriously, that you have the disastrous consequences. But if we go back to what Bingham is saying there, he is, the law itself is turned against its principal purpose.

The principal purpose of the law is to protect the law, the law-abiding citizen. And also the principal purpose of the state is to protect itself. If you constantly go on about, oh, our duties is to the world, you know, the man who has just been made a knight of the garter, the king being, of course, you know, as soaked in this stuff as the leftist of lawyers, Gus O'Donnell, who was the head of the treasury. There's the famous conversation, which is reported by David Goodhart, when they were in conversation, and I think it was Mark Thompson, who was the director of the BBC, and then went off to run the New York Times, and David Goodhart. And the conversation was, well, what is the actual purpose of government? And Adonnell, oh, you know, I didn't think my purpose was just to pursue the prosperity of Britain. It was the well-being of the world.

And that's what's gone wrong. And conservatives again had no defense because people like Churchill, you know, Churchill was a liberal, really. Remember, he crosses the floor of the house twice. And Churchill, in that expansive post-war phase after 45, conservatism bought this stuff. It was defenseless. And one of the things we've got to do on the right, is to retrawl our past, re-explore our past, to find out what left us so vulnerable. How did we lose the principal, the main...

What is so terrible? That question you asked me. We were the world's best governed country. Why does everywhere talk about a parliament? Because they were copying ours. still the role of common law as the world's best system of commercial law, however catastrophically it's gone wrong in terms of public law and criminal law in Britain itself, the just quality of the British public service, the civil service until very recently.

Things have gone wrong very, very recently. The roots are deeper, but we need to explore that past to find out what we need to recover. Because again, the temptation is revolution. The temptation is faced with this mess that I described that we say, okay, knock it all down and start again. That is the infinite catastrophe. The attempts of doing that are invariably fail. The only reason, the American, the American, the same thing. only been one successful revolution, and it's the American Revolution. And that was successful

because it wasn't a revolution. Right. I've always thought that. It's a war of independence. It's a revolution. It's a rebellion. And rather than, you know, when the French with their revolution, they try to alter everything from the system of weights and measures to the actual areas of government, to the names of the days of the week, for heaven's sake, and transform law and everything else, the Americans keep it all. And what you finish up with, by the way, the absolute fury of radicals like Tompane is a very lightly modified system of the British government. The president is an elected king, the Senate is a version of the House of Lords, the House

of Representatives is a version of the Commons with a speaker. And as I always tease my American friends, they administered by the United States. going to test you, the administrative officer of the House of Representatives, what's he called? I don't know. The Surgeoned at Arms. Americans have the faintest idea, well, a surgeon and arms. But it's there because the British part of the British Parliament, that's a sergeant at arm. So what I'm trying to, what I am trying to do, which is why I slightly bridled when you sort of said, oh, you're a historian, but now we're talking about the present.

It seems to me the only way that we can get out of this mess is by realizing that our present has erred terribly precisely because it's repudiated our past. And what we have to do is to reconnect with to realize, whereas people like Blair or whatever, or what they talk about the hand of history, they clearly regard it just as a, just as, you know, fuddy-duddyism, old-fashioned, you know, just to be thrown away. But in fact, properly, the history of the people is an organic thing. It's like a fertile soil. It's a thing you need that fertile soil of the past for things to grow. It's not surprising all of these things went wrong under Blair, because what he effectively did was to tear everything up by the roots. And then you're very surprised 20 years later when they've all withered,

because you pull them up. Look, I'll be honest with you. I was skeptical. A green powder that claims to do everything sounds exactly like something I'd tear apart. I've seen enough people pushing miracle solutions to know what that looks like. But I take AG1 every morning

and I'm not someone who sticks with those things out of habit if they're not delivering. One scoop in water, that's it. Over 75 vitamins, minerals and nutrients designed to support your energy, mood and digestion. For someone juggling the podcast, writing, travel and trying to stay sharp enough to hold my own in the conversations we have on this show,

that foundation matters to me. I'm not dragging myself through the afternoons the way I used to. With AG1, I feel like I'm actually running on a full tank and this isn't just marketing copy. AG1 is clinically backed. Every study on their website is openly available for you to read. If you're a trigonometry listener,

you don't take things on faith, so go and look at the evidence yourself. That transparency is part of why I trust it. So if you care about thinking clearly and staying on top of your game, try AG1 for yourself at drinkag1.com slash trig. And for 59 pounds instead of 79 pound for the first month, plus vitamin D3 and K2, a three five-count travel pack and a free welcome kit. Give it a go. Well, David, first of all, let me ask you to unbridle yourself,

because I was not remotely suggesting that your expertise in history is not relevant to present moment. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons we love having you on. the show and we've often talked about the present and you mentioned the revolution on the way in to have this conversation today i revisited our first ever interview and it opens with the phrase starkies it's you saying starkie's rule of revolution is that every revolution reproduces the worst features of the ancient regime but i would put it to you that the rise of restore in particular shows you that in this country now

at a fairly low level, but nonetheless, there's a rising spirit of revolution. There's a rising, let's throw this whole thing out and start again. I mean, I don't think it's an accident that Rupert Lowe's favorite historical characters, Cromwell. And much of the language and the rhetoric

is of that nature. And that, I think, is also part of the reasons why I bridled in your suggestion that the right is united around policy. I don't think it is. I don't think it's united around policy or personality. Now, of course, there are some areas on which they increasingly agree. But I think you articulated the problem beautifully in terms of the right.

You said it's the most fertile opportunity for the right to fight back. But what you have is the Tories who are tarnished by their time in government, and like you say, they have not made the Mayor Kalpa that they need to be able to move on. You have reform. But I think part of the issue. for reform is just time. It's like people are very fed up, but the next election is three years away. And so increasingly, the rhetoric is amplified and which is where you have restore come in, there's a personality class with Rupert and Nigel, obviously. But there's also now a feeling

like this whole thing doesn't work, which clearly it doesn't. I mean, objectively it doesn't. But I think the conclusion from some is now, actually, we just have to throw away the whole thing and we have to go in an almost radical revolutionary route. And that to me is also part of why I think it's more difficult for the right to unite around all of these things. Would you agree? Sorry. There's also one element that I'd like to add to that, which is there are a faction on the right who not only want to tear everything down, they want revenge for what they feel that has been inflicted upon them. I think on that latter point, I am not entirely unsympathetic.

I'm very sympathetic. But let me distinguish. And I think that what we must recognize is that we did one really important thing in the early 18th century. This is after the fall of the Tory government under Queen Anne and the coming to power of the current royal house, the House of Hanover. We at that point looked as though we were going to continue impeachment, which in the form of impeachment, so with Robert Harley, the Earl of Oxford, it looked as like, we would do what had always happened up to that point, when a leading minister falls, you get confiscation and execution. We didn't do it.

And we haven't done it from that point on this. And I don't want to do that. What I think would be legitimate, because I think as a measure, there needs to be a measure of public disapproving. That point that I made about the guilty men, I would do it by the stripping of honours. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate. that people like May be stripped of her peerage. I think it is entirely appropriate that Blair be stripped of the garter.

And there needs to be an act of public shaming. But there is always the risk of that, of course, that it just becomes tit for tat, which is, you know, what it did before. So maybe, and also the pursuit of vengeance is a foolish one because it does terrible damage to people. I mean, I know I experienced cancellation. There is a risk that you simply let your hatred of those who did it consume you, and it destroys you. And it's a foolish thing to do as an individual or as a person.

But to go back, I do not believe that Restore has got, and look at, why is it called Restore? It's called Restore precisely because Rupert Lowe was one of those who first accepted my analysis. Because if you remember, the point that I've made is there's this gigantic shift under Blair, Blair Brown, what we need to do is an great act of repeal in which we undo it, and then we restore. We have a new restoration. And I think the problem with Rupert, and he will forgive me saying this, I think he is not the most coherent of thinkers. And he's, of course, got a group of radical young men and some rather sillier middle-aged men who are supporting him. Middle-aged men in particular, going off and playing with rather silly bits of pseudo-political philosophy, which have been dredged up from Eastern, from Germany and whatever, at various periods. But I don't believe it amounts to anything very serious.

If you look at their actual policy recommendations, they pretty much fit the same. So the debates are the same if you read Harrison Pitts paper, and the only way they will be able to do anything. is by winning a majority in Parliament. Where I think there is, where I think things are going wrong at the moment, and it's even the game that's being played on the right.

It goes back to your point, Francis, about politicians. This weird business and Makersfield demonstrates it really interestingly. Both Robert Kenyon and also the reform candidate and Andy Burnham themselves, they're playing the ordinary. chat routine. We're just completely ordinary people

and somehow the fact that we're just ordinary people, you know, do it with a different accent. I'm now forgotten to do Northern, I've been away. Where's people like, Andy Burnham was at Cambridge for God's sake, you know, read English literature at Cambridge. You can't have anything much more

south and poncous than that, can you? But playing this game of being an ordinary person. This idea that the solution to what's gone wrong with our politics is a house of commons of completely inexperienced people is a madness it's a madness that they will be just chewed up and spat out by this judicial legal expert civil service machine that we've been talking about and but it's very easy to see why and it's also of course one of the myths of democracy you know we we want to our politicians to be just like us.

Please God, no. No, no. But you can see at a moment like this the power of that. Yeah, of course. But also, but it is, there is a tragedy, and I think again it's tragedy, particularly at the moment of Farage, that you can see what he's trying to do. I don't know whether you read the long-form essay that he published on Suburface. stack on two tier.

Well, it wasn't terribly well written. It was very rambly. It repeated itself. And although everything in it was very good sense, anybody reading it who wasn't like you and me would just go straight to sleep. Whereas, you know, he has got real rhetorical gifts. He's not using them.

He's not yet stood on that platform. Maybe he can't. Maybe he doesn't have the confidence to do it. Maybe he doesn't have sufficient interest in ideas. Let's go back to Thatcher. Or indeed, Blair. Blair was passionate about ideas. Everybody's saying that what is so catastrophic about Starma is even though he is one of those who formulates the ideas of the current miasma.

You can't articulate them. You can't explain them. And the only way we will get out of this is by people who can clearly articulate, A, what's gone wrong, B, what needs to be done to begin to put it right. And then, even more importantly, I mean, I'm not pretending anything I've been saying is a panacea. It is simply the first thing a new government that wants to do anything will have to do. It's the first step. You've got, in other words, you've got to strike off, it's like one of these slavery liberation films.

It's the moment at which you cut your fetters. Or, you know, Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. That's not a very, not a very welcome analogy. But you've to strike off the fetters before you can do anything at all. But that requires what Thatcher was able to do. Articulate ideas. Explain why. Carry people with you.

And again, I think that the population is ready for it. This sense of, this sense of, I mean, there's a sense of, this terrible sense of nostalgia, of loss. And it can go in one of two directions, can't it? It can go to the violence. And people like David Betts talking about the evident risk of, of small, low-scale civil war, it can go in that direction. Or if there is somebody who can seize that moment, can explain to people what's gone wrong, why it's gone wrong,

who was responsible, what's got to be done to put it right. It can then be turned round. It can become positive. It can become a moment of genuine restoration and revival, as has happened very frequently in the Anglo-British past, you know. You've termed what could have been the disaster of Magna Carta, the ensuing French invasion and whatever. You had a man, William the Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, with the imagination, with the capacity,

with the combination of political and military skill, able to turn it around. You had that extraordinary moment in 1689, when both the Conservative, when both the Tories And the wigs came together to remove an impossible king and to do so in a fashion which you were able to, wonderful, pretend nothing had happened. You'd removed a king in a dynasty and you pretended nothing had happened. The kind of non-revolutionary revolution that we were describing with America. But there's that terrible hole in the landscape. Well, this is why I'm honing on the right, because I think on the division, on the right because for a long time it looked like Nigel Farage is the man to do.

He's still in prime position out of the... In pole position, yeah. It's the right time. To do it, but look, I can sort of see the Tories doing some kind of pact with reform towards their next election, but the enmity between restored reform is such that I don't see that happening. And I think there's a very real chance that the voter split and therefore you get actually actually a different form of a red-green coalition god help us right so what in terms of your perspective what do you think should happen between those parties on the right i want a miracle don't i yeah well this

is what i'm this is why i keep coming back to this issue come on please please you know i'm quite good in an analysis but i'm not god yet um i haven't undergone an apotheosis um but i don't just hope hopes, a sense of what is at stake penetrates their minds. These are people who claim to be acting for the benefit of the country. Can they not just think and reflect and look at what the possible consequences of their choice, well, indeed, the certain consequences of some of their choices will be? I don't think they can though, because if I... They're so blinded by...

Well, if I sit in each of their chairs, here's what I would say to what you're saying. If I'm Kenny Badernock, I'd say to you, I mean, Rupert Lowe is, you know, we agree with him on some things, but he's way out there and not a big party, not a serious person to do business with. Nigel Farage has no experience of government. He's good at talking, but we can't work with him. And he hates us, keeps talking down our party. How can I do a deal with him? And by the way, the thing she will never say publicly, but we all know, like you said, half her party are Lib Dems. In fact, most of her party are Lib Dems because the other Tories, I think God.

voted out or now in reform. And if you're Nigel Farage, you say, how can I do a pact with the conservatives who I've been saying have ruined the country for the last 15 years and did? And how can I deal with Rupert-Lowe, who keeps, you know, with all the history that we have, who is an extremist and all the rest of it? And from Rupert-Lowe's perspective, he's saying, well, look, at reform, they've become, I mean, they keep saying the reform is now the establishment, which seems a stretch. But there you go. So from each of their individual, positions, there is a reason why this infighting is going on. It's not accidental. No, no, no. I've never suggested it. I know. I'm not saying you are saying that. And so,

therefore, I agree with you. My hope is everybody understands what's at stake. But I think the individual circumstances of which leader that we're talking about are such that the incentive structure drives them in the exact opposite direction. I think that's true if you look at it, the level of party level and personality. level. I think in view of the magnitude of the issues, this is why I was emphasizing policy. And I think, again, that I think party members, I think party members in many ways have a higher wisdom than their leaders. And this is one of the reasons that I'm so keen to push saying look seriously at policy, because the plain truth is on the big question,

There, increasingly is not a sheet of paper between them. What there is is difference of rhetoric. In other words, if we look with Restore, yes, the lads, the Lomosexual, play fantasy. They need, frankly, the best way is slightly to give up. I mean, they're coast-playing revolutionaries. And the online world enables want to do that. And sensible people just need to have a little giggle and say, you come on, boy. You know, really, you're not quite that big chap, you know.

And it's all too important and it matters too much and there's too much at stake. But I did use that word miracle and we've been an extraordinarily lucky country, but every so often luck does run out. David, do you think the next election is existential? country? Yes, I think the whole of our conversations suggest that. I think the point is that the path that we are on now is guaranteed. And this again is the predictive element of the I want to emphasize this, that I'm assuming I'm now donning a mantle of office. Because it seems to me that the analysis that I've given has worked both analytically, in other words, you're

looking back, but it is now turned into an accurate instrument of prophecy. I prophesy the Burnham government will fail and will fail worse. That we are in a cycle, we're in a downward cycle. We're trained to a wheel. Everything that you do, everything they do makes things worse. The operations of law make race relations worse. The equality. The equality. Act makes, amongst other things, makes running the company worse. The tax policies make youth unemployment more likely, make the business of employing anybody more difficult. In other words, you're in this lunatic situation.

But if you said, what is the worst thing you can... This is a bit like your analysis now of the parties and the personalities. If you said, what is the worst thing that you could do, That is the most likely choice that the government will make. So, yes. But what is also extraordinary is that there's a solid 20% and more of the population that is so purblind that it believes in this stuff. I mean, again, one of the things that, and we haven't really talked about this,

the whole of the left believes in, and we talked about magic, The left fundamentally believes in magic. This is why Polanski is such an interesting figure. You know, he genuinely believes in magic. If you think about it, enough under the pendulum and allegedly going into hypnosis, you can grow your tits. And the left's approach to policy is absolutely identical. You know, you believe, you know, the Red Queen in Alice in Wondland, six impossible things before breakfast. I mean, Lewis Carroll is fascinating on all of this.

And again, the famous interchange with what's he called? What is the big egg called? Oh, falls off a wall. Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty, that exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice, where Humpty Dumpty says, words mean what I want them to mean neither more nor less.

And what does Alice say? Question of power. It's the whole, absolutely, just extraordinary. And again, this is the whole point of George Orwell. It's why you have the essay on language at the end on Newspit at the end of 1984. The left believes in words over everything. Again, the whole business of gender transitioning. The idea of gender is the triumph of world.

words over biology. You know, that extraordinary moment, if you remember when Lord Winston, the last moment that he appears on question time, when he says, you know, I am terribly sorry, I know I will never appear on question time again, but your sex is in every actual cell of your body. Yeah. Says that.

Yeah, my favorite part of that was Fiona Bruce's response. Do you remember? No. Well, she went, some people might disagree with you. Here is our, here is our leading, here is our leading public biologists, you know, and some airheaded woman who is best, you know, acting as a dolly to fill it mold in front of a picture. You know, I mean, just. Well, actually, I think it's worse than that because my experience with Fiona is that she's actually pretty sensible about lots of things, and she's always...

But she's not allowed to be. But she's not allowed to be. That's what I mean. I think it's worse in that respect. Yeah. I mean... But it is, it is, remember, if there is, we're dealing with things which are, the left is myth. You know, as that's said, the facts of life are conservative.

And when you want to believe it's different. And it's a religion. I mean, you know, not, not, not for nothing, you know, labor is a moral crusader. It's nothing. It's a religion. And, or, or indeed, like Islam. They are religions, and the fact that people believe nonsense doesn't unfortunately stop them believing nonsense. But again, it should be such an opportunity.

Sorry, I'm sounding really pathetic. It should be such an opportunity on the right. The doors are open, the windows are open, we've got a political structure which is manifestly collapsing, We've got half the military establishment spouting nonsense. You can even see with Blair, semi-rowing back is awareness of the catastrophe and so on and so on. But, you know, I do understand, David, why people are going to the left. It's very similar to Venezuela. So Venezuela in the late 90s, it was a failed state.

People knew that if we had democracy, but people knew that all that would happen, is that somebody would come in, they would talk a good game, they'd rob the country blind, so would their cronies, everything would continue to collapse, everything would continue to fall apart, and at the end of their term they would go to Costa Rica or some other country like that, and live off their ill-gotten games. Chavez was starting his campaign, and people went, can it be any worse than what's gone before? I mean, it was. I was just going to...

I fear that way. Spoiler alert, it can. Spoiler, that's spoiler in a great deal of it. But if there's another spoiler alert there, I don't actually believe that our political class is pillaging the country. No, no, but I'm not saying that they are. But what I'm saying is that people saw a failing system. It's different.

Yeah. But nevertheless, the system is failing, and they go for the emergency lever. But what I think is more peculiar is that they haven't, the left, all that it's dabbling, well, it doesn't look to be dabbling. terribly seriously with the Greens and Polanski. The left is persisting. The left has got this enormously long history of being a central part of the failure.

But the true believers continue. Whereas at least on the conservative side, there's a serious, however heavily disguised it is, there's a serious degree of rethinking. On the left, there's actually regression. The attempted rethinking of new Labour having catastrophically failed, what do they do?

There's a very good reason, of course. The Labour Party is the most nepotistic of party. Everybody is, everybody else, his uncle, brother, sister, whatever. You look at it. And, of course, they have to keep going because otherwise, however, this is where I'm afraid, I do slightly agree with it. Not so much corruption, but there is a political machine. It's got, either you've got to acknowledge that it's been a disaster and dissolve it,

Or you desperately try to keep it going. But I would hope that the one thing that will happen is that the utter catastrophe, because I'm certain that a Burnham government will be, an utter catastrophe, really will perform that final act of dissolution of this thing. And it seems to me it is now bound, now bound to tear itself apart even more dramatically than the Conservative Party did.

You've now, with the fall of Starma, you're at that stage. This is the equivalent of the fall of Boris Johnson. Weirdly, although I think there are very strong similarities, actually, between Boris and Burnham. Again, people who like to be loved, the nice chap, the good communicator. all deeply depressing. As always, David, that's why we have you on, to feed our inner pessimism

and sense of doom. Happy? No. David, always a pleasure. Before we head to questions from our supporters on Substack, what is the one thing we're not talking about that we should be?

Nothing. It seems to me that we covered that ground. And the one thing, the thing that is, and again, one's going to sound terribly naive, we are missing, what are we missing? We are missing the person who can do all the things we've been talking about. We are missing the equivalent of the Thatcher. We are missing the equivalent of Churchill at the key moment of William the Marshall or whoever. And there is, we've got to hope somewhere,

there is some man or woman who will be capable of standing up and doing that. You think it's Theresa May? I do not believe in the living dead. A zombie, please, God help us. Head on over to Trigopod.orgh.com.com. Where David's going to answer your questions. Don't forget to click the link in the description of this episode. to grab the special CyberGhost VPN discount.

It's completely risk-free, so check it out today. Julius Caesar was voted dictator temporarily by the Senate to save the Republic and never stood down. Could you ever ever advocate for a dictator in a possible dystopian future Britain?