401. Trump’s Corruption Machine, Israeli Settlers, and the Rise of Reform UK

Thanks for listening to The Rest is Politics.

Sign up to The Rest is Politics Plus.

To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members' chat room and gain early access to live show tickets.

Just go to therestispolitics.com.

That's therestispolitics.com.

Rest is Politics is, as ever, powered by our friends at Fuse Energy.

And when you switch to Fuse, you will receive a Trip Plus membership with all the perks completely free of charge.

That means exclusive, in-depth bonus episodes, you know, like our interview with the Danish Prime Minister and new episodes we're making on niche subjects, ad-free listening, early access to our question time episodes, pre-sale tickets for our live shows, and much more.

Just go to getfuse.com/slash politics and use the referral code Politics when signing up.

Fuse is offering fixed electricity rates well below the April cap, with typical households saving nearly £150 on both 12 and 18 months tariffs as of the time of recording.

And fixing your rate now means you are protected from further rises, which is a rare bit of financial certainty in these very uncertain times.

It's a straightforward way to take control of your bills and receive a few podcast bonuses while you're at it.

And one bit of policy we can all agree on: cheaper power and podcast perks thrown in.

So download the app, sign up with the code Politics and visit getfuse.com/slash politics for full terms and more information.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to The Rest of Politics with me, Alistair Campbell.

And with me, Rory Schuen.

So we're going to kick off with Israel.

Grim, grim, grim stuff going on there.

And I suspect Netanyahu's doing what he's about to do because Trump is about to go and he's really pushing the limits on that.

Then I think we should talk about Trump and corruption.

I think it's one of the least covered aspects of the many aspects of Trump right now.

And I think we both agree, Rory, maybe we should have done an emergency podcast on the local elections.

Should have done.

Maybe I was being a bit tribal, getting my head under the covers and saying, Let's do it.

Well, my sister, who I saw at the weekend, said, If the Tories had still been in power and they'd had local elections as bad as that, you and Rory would be right out of the traps.

And and I did meet a man running yesterday who s was running down my street and stopped and said, Where on earth is your local elections podcast?

I've been forced to listen to Nigel Farage all morning.

So there we are.

So I think that we need to remember that.

And then maybe, yeah, there are quite a lot of elections this week we could talk about.

We'll do Australia and the local elections.

And let me do just a sort of brief spoiler alert, because obviously we'll do this after the break.

But it it is really interesting because the broad story is that in Australia and Canada, the sort of soft left, incumbent parties who'd been in government actually triumphed because what seemed to happen is Trump totally discredited the right.

Oddly, in Britain, the local election story is different.

And in fact, the right-wing party, the more Trumpian party reform, triumphed, and the conventional parties really suffered badly.

So, getting into this strange question of how Australia, Canada, and Britain, which in many ways have a great deal in common, ended up with different results, is the thing after the break.

Well, I'm hoping the difference is the general and the local, but we'll see.

Right, Israel.

So, cabinet meeting, Netanyahu comes out and says that they're on the the eve of a forceful entry to Gaza, as if they've not been very forceful up to now.

And it sort of feels to me, and I know you've watched the, I said I'd watch the Louis Through documentary on the settlers last week, and you've now watched it as well.

I've been really interested in your take on it.

But I sort of feel we're at that point where the Ben Gavir Smotric, the real hardline settler movement, is absolutely winning.

on the rampage and you get the feeling that after all the Gazans have been through, now to be told that they're going to be moved from north to south, having moved backwards and forwards.

And with the sense that Israel is basically saying, well, they'll move in, they'll take over the land, and kind of indefinite as to when they take it back.

A couple of quick things.

One is to remind people that what happened after October the 7th and the terrorist attacks was a very, very large bombing campaign which slowed towards the end of last year and was then replaced when Trump came in with what was supposed to be a peace deal, which was going to have three phases.

And the second phase was meant to be the return of all hostages and Israel withdrawing its troops.

And the second phase never really got off the ground with a lot of recriminations on both sides about why that didn't happen.

And instead, what's happened is that Israel has imposed a entire blockade on...

food, water, humanitarian assistance, which is now in its 63rd day.

And during this period, we have had the extraordinary, horrible killing of aid workers, very well documented and then buried in shallow graves.

And we've had criticisms, very strong criticisms from Tom Fletcher, who we interviewed on the show, who's the UN boss, Med Saint-Saint-Frontière, very strong in its statements about what's going on, because it is an extraordinary situation because of course Gaza has been pummeled, well over 40,000 people killed.

And now it's facing this blockade.

And as you say, Trump is about to turn up on his visit to the Gulf, to Saudi, to United Arab Emirates, Jubai Abu Dhabi, and to Qatar.

And part of that is supposed to be discussing Gaza and peace.

And at this point, when the majority of the Israeli population in the latest times of Israel poll are very much in favor of stopping the fighting, bringing the hostages back, moving to peace.

Instead, Netanyahu is pushing ahead with a policy basically that seems to be really driven by Smotric and Bengavir, who are the extreme far-right settlers who only got 10% in the last election but are a key part of his coalition.

And we can get onto that, this weird maths of how people who get 10% in an election end up driving stuff, are saying hostages are not the priority.

The priority is to, in their words, eliminate Hamas, whatever they think that means.

I just saw this thing on social media this morning.

Smotrich was asked what he thought about Bengavir's proposal to prevent all humanitarian supplies to Gaza for good.

He answered, quote, I do not disagree with him morally, but practically the world is not going to allow us to starve to death two million people in Gaza.

And Ben Gavir was in the documentary, the Louis Theroux film, where he said, we have to encourage Palestinian immigration and win.

And win, it seems to me, from the point of view of the settlers that you saw in that film, does mean this greater Israel where the West Bank and Gaza become part of Israel, which then begs the question, well, where do the Palestinians go?

And if you have, as you had in that film, people who basically say, well, I don't really care because they're not the same as us, where you have rabbis talking about them as savages.

I think this is, we're in a horrific place on this.

And there was an interview I saw on the television yesterday with the head of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

And he made a point of saying, if this goes ahead, and bear in mind, part of this new plan is that Israel takes over the humanitarian project, not the international organizations that are there now.

And he was saying, if this goes ahead, and he named three countries.

He said the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

He named those as the three countries that he felt could have some influence over this.

And yet, I just feel that the international order has sort of given up.

When was the last time we heard a kind of international like we have in Ukraine now?

Macron Starmer come together, push Europe.

When was the last time we had any sense of that happening?

We had it a little bit when Trump came in.

We had it a little bit with some of the Gulf states, but it seems just to have faded away.

I mean, I saw a picture yesterday of a girl, a young girl, who was holding her phone and showing a picture of herself a few months ago as this sort of lively, vibrant young girl.

Now, ribs coming through the skin.

You see the pictures yesterday of people queuing.

for the limited food that was there and it was children screaming and climbing over each other with these little pans to try and get some food into it.

And I don't know, I just, I just feel, and I've part of me feels that we've been too fair, actually, you know, because we have constantly tried to put both sides.

But I just think this is now beyond the pale.

I think it's utterly unacceptable.

And yet we seem to be accepting it.

The story in Israel is a story of two very, very different countries.

It's a story of this extraordinary economic success story, this tech capital, a country which often when I go to visit friends in Israel

feels dynamic, peaceful, sunny, beautiful.

You know, I travel with family in Israel and you can go to the beach, you can go to amazing restaurants

and barely be aware that the war is happening even now.

And it's a country where even in that

Thuru documentary, you saw the voices of liberal Jews.

So we saw a Jewish NGO trying to help a Palestinian get the olive harvest in.

You saw that the national security chief had said that the settlers were an existential threat, basically.

But there's another very dark story here

which has been going on much longer than we've wanted to really focus on enough in the West.

And I want to get to you on this, because the settler movement obviously begins after 1967 when Israel occupies the West Bank in Gaza.

And in the seventies, it's still a slightly fringe-eccentric thing.

Often the cliché would be, you know, American Jews from Brooklyn with strange religious nationalist ideas trying to put tents on bits of territory that they claim they're allowed from the Bible, but in the middle of Palestinian territory.

But it's as early as the late 70s that it actually becomes more and more part of formal Israeli politics.

And I think this is where we need to be sort of clearer.

Because I remember this as the Middle East Minister in Britain.

You know, we talked very clearly about occupied Palestinian Palestinian territory, about illegal settlements, you know, illegal under an international law, two-state solution.

And Israeli interlocutors were polite and didn't point out, of course, that a lot of these settlements are not illegal under Israeli law, they're illegal under international law, and that they don't see this as occupied Palestinian territory, they see this as Israel.

We saw this in one of the soldiers in the documentary.

through says, I'm not in Israel, am I?

And the guy says, yes, you're in Israel, right?

Under the right-wing governments, under the Likud governments and the Labour governments, it went on.

Big push with Sharon, really, leading the settlement process in the 80s.

The Labour governments tended to, and for this I'm very grateful to Chris Doyle, who, you know, who was talking to me about this yesterday, the different settlement plan.

Labour basically was trying to take 25-30% of Palestinian territory by building settlements around the edge of Israeli settlements, you know, Jordan Valley, edge of Jerusalem.

Likud, the right, was literally trying to put settlements on hilltops hilltops right the way through the territory to make sure they broke up the territory strategically.

And that's what we were seeing a great deal of here.

But I suppose what I want to say to you, as I sort of finished this long ramble, is when you were in government 97 onwards, Tony Blair was often seen as being quite sympathetic to Israel, and he then went on to be the Middle East envoy.

How is it that you reconciled yourself to the fact that on the surface the story was international law, occupied territories, illegal settlements, But in practice, all the Israeli governments that you were dealing with were facilitating the building of illegal settlements again and again and again, despite the criticism from the international community.

Well, I think that was a very good question.

And I think the answer is that we did think, I remember we made a big trip to the Middle East, including Israel, not long after the Good Friday Agreement.

And I can remember our media, we were having to calm our media down because there was a sense of, well, we've pulled off the Northern Ireland thing.

So maybe the next one will be the Middle East and I think because the American administration at the time was still so focused on this idea that we can build the two-piece the two-state solution that I think some of these things that were going on wasn't just a question of reconciling ourselves to them it was slightly pushing them away from our minds because they weren't in that big picture that we were pursuing so you would say you know we're worried about the settlements we've got to be careful about the settlements but meanwhile they were just growing and growing and growing and then i think when tony went on to be the Middle East envoy and with a particular focus on the economics of Palestine, although

he was seen as very pro-Israel on one level, but also he was spending most of the time working with the Palestinians.

But I think that that is a very, very fair question because when I was looking back through some of the history of the settlements and as early as 1967, the legal council to the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote a legal opinion to the Israeli Prime Minister.

My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Geneva Convention.

And this is about where you're, you know, the impact upon civilian life, even though it's been occupied militarily.

And then the American government said the same.

So the Israelis, we're going back to this point, and this relates to what's happening now, where the international order and the sense that we all have shared rules that we agree with and relate to is broken down.

So what the Israelis, as you just said, the Israelis say, well, it's not in contravention of Israeli law.

Indeed, it is Israeli law that turns outposts when they set up a settlement into a settlement through which Israeli law is effectively pipelined.

And, you know, you look at some of these places.

It didn't really come through in Louis Drew's film because he was very much focused on some of the individuals.

But you're talking about settlements that have grown into towns of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000.

Cities, really?

Yeah.

Effectively small cities, yeah.

And then you had that lady, Daniela Weiss, who's one of the kind of leaders of the settlement movement, saying, back in the 90s, my vision is for 1 million and then 2 million.

And then, of course, what you've got now with Gaz,

there have been these international criminal court cases, and there's now this argument, which I think is going through the court at the moment, about whether starvation is being used as a weapon of war, which again is a war crime.

And yet, the posture of the Israeli government is, well,

it's not.

We're not starving them.

Indeed, look at this new offer.

We're saying that we'll take over the feeding of these people.

There's no reason for them to go.

And this offer is one that has really troubled people at the UN because it's essentially saying they will use American military contractors to deliver aid only to vetted people.

So one of the principles of humanitarian assistance is that it needs to be neutral and impartial.

You don't really get into the game of saying, I'm going to interview you before I decide whether I'm going to feed you.

I was talking to an Israeli general, and he was being surprisingly honest and thoughtful about his experience when he was a commander in the West Bank of settlers coming to see him.

And this is even 10, 15 years ago, saying, we want you to designate our outpost as being vital to national security, because if you do that, then we can get the army in, we can get the legal recognition.

And he would say, no, you know, you are...

massively undermining security here.

You're alienating the population.

You're creating violence by doing this.

At which point they'd say, well, we'll go over your head.

And he would turn up then in

Netanyahu's office as Netanyahu in first time.

And he would suddenly see leaders of the settler movement sitting in Netanyahu's outer office when he turned up to try to have a formal conversation about this.

And it would be made very clear, and Danielle Weiss said this about having Netanyahu's aides on speed dial, that he would then be under enormous pressure, political pressure.

So the settlers are very, very good, despite their relatively small size, at leveraging political contacts and leveraging this sort of strange marginal thing you have in coalitions.

Israel, though, is still a country that feels like it's incredibly polarized.

You know, you've got these religious nationalist settlers who threw documentaries about.

You've got secular liberal Israelis who are connoted to the idea of the state of Israel but don't buy into the religious nationalist settlement stuff.

And then you've got the ultra-Orthodox communities, some of whom live in settlements, some who don't, but who who really don't get involved in the violence and who don't really buy into the State of Israel at all because they actually believe that you can't have a State of Israel until the Messiah comes.

And these three groups are then made even more complicated by this massive wave of emigration from the former Soviet Union,

from places like Ethiopia, from the Middle East, which have brought whole new voter blocs in, some of which are radicalized, but some of which are just going into the settlements because it's cheap housing.

The state spends more on the people living in the settlements than it does on people living living elsewhere.

A lot of that through security, of course.

I mean, one of the most interesting things in that film was where

Louis Theroux was being shown around one of the settlements and the guy said, don't film over there, that's where the army are based.

So there's the army surrounding them.

And I don't know if you saw

the guy, the Palestinian who was showing Louis Theroux around Hebron, where what you got a sense of was just the sort of buggeration of daily life, going through turnstiles and no, you can't walk past that zebra crossing because that's only for Israelis.

But that guy since has been had his home raided, has been abused by settlers.

I mean, there's a lot of kind of violence goes on and psychological violence goes on as well.

And Luther didn't get very much there, partly because one got the sense that a lot of the settler community is very wary of being interviewed by international media

and don't want it to come through.

But I had a friend who was in Hebron recently, he was an American Jew who had grown up in a very, very strongly pro-Israeli family, was thinking of working for Netanyahu's government and then walked through Hebron with a Palestinian friend walked through the settlements and saw the settlers screaming incredibly violent abuse at this Palestinian woman children chucking stuff at them and just came back completely shaken saying and this is another thing that the sense that you can live a life in Israel where you're not aware of this where you can become a really strong supporter of Israel and not concentrate on what's going on and he totally came back whole mind changed because his experience of these settlers in Hebron was so vicious.

But there was that film, there was the footage of the guy, the settler, shooting a Palestinian.

He didn't kill him, but he shot him and you can see the guy go down.

And then Louis Threw just said in that very matter-of-fact way that he does, you know, he had

his gun license taken away, but that was it.

Two final things before we move on to Trump.

One is how central the entire narrative of terrorism is.

I mean, again and again, if you were sympathetic to what Netanyahu's government is doing in Gaza, what you would say listening to us is that we're not talking about Otaba Samuel Obama.

About terrorism, we're not exactly, you know, and that Louis Theroux showed Nablus, but he didn't show the what they would call terrorists in Nablus, and that this entire thing that they're doing is about protecting themselves from existential threats.

And you saw this with the Texan settler, who just keeps this story.

These people are genocidal death cult.

They want to wipe every Israeli off the face of the earth.

They're engaged in an anti-Semitic death cult.

We have no alternative other than to do this in order to survive as a nation.

And I think that's deeply embedded.

And so this sense of trauma, which is partly historical connections, you know, the horror of the Holocaust, the experience of the wars in the Middle East, the experience of October 7th, is right at the heart.

But Alex Younger, we interviewed Alex Younger, former head of MI6, on leading this week.

And he made the point that if you are living in Gaza and what is happening to you is happening to you and Hamas is the only kind of other voice that you can you can hear and see and as an opposition to this, don't be surprised if people go towards it.

And likewise, he also said this related to when we were talking about Afghanistan, he made the point that it would seem that Israel only has a security response to this.

It doesn't have a political response because it doesn't recognize

the politics of the other side.

And I think to finish on very dangerous territory,

traditionally we draw a very, very clear line between settlers and other Israelis.

But of course, there is a connection, which is that at the heart of the project is it's a nationalist project for a homeland for the Jewish people.

And it's based on historical claims that 2,000 years ago

this was the state of Israel.

And secular Jews after 48 may have accepted accepted the particular configuration of the bit of the Middle East that they got.

But the argument of settlers that Hebron or Nablus or these places in the West Bank were where Abraham died or where Joseph was born,

the idea that the Bible is your land right to this territory is very, very central to even

most liberal secular Israeli views.

And therefore, one of the things that the settlers can exploit, and I think Weiss makes this point in the documentary, is that they're pushing the boundary of something which still reflects the basic idea and which at a fundamental profound level doesn't want a state with full Palestinian rights because if it was a state with full Palestinian rights, it wouldn't be a Jewish homeland.

And that national project of protecting Jews in this particular bit of Middle Eastern territory would collapse.

So what I suppose I'm saying is that the complication here is that the whole project touches on the edge of settlements.

Well listen, let's turn to Trump.

So he's going there and it'll be huge, huge news because pretty much everything that he does is huge news.

And I think one of the hardest things with Trump at the moment is to work out what is significant, what isn't.

And the last few days have thrown up some interesting stuff on that.

And I particularly want to talk about corruption because I think a lot of these things are a way of disguising the corruption.

I think corruption is a huge thing now.

When you have his meme coin, you have these literally vast sums of money without any tracking going into him.

Just quickly to interrupt on this, just as a brief explainer, and I'm not the world's biggest expert on this, but a meme coin is

not making the kind of normal claims that things like Bitcoin make.

Bitcoin is really posing as an alternative currency.

So Bitcoin limits the number of coins that are issued.

Very expensive to mine and it tries to present itself as something to be used in transactions.

A meme coin isn't like that.

A meme coin is basically initially a joke.

It's a token issued

and there was something called, not surprisingly, a dogecoin, which must

love promoting and going up and down on.

And there's no limit to how many of them you can issue.

And they're basically completely unregulated.

And equivalent are NFTs.

There was this weird thing called the Bored Ape Yacht Club that I remember seeing very, very wealthy Hollywood actors buying.

I sat with one of them and he just bought one and he bought it for $300,000 and was showing off to me.

What is it?

It was a cartoon picture of an extremely ugly ape, a digital picture that you got on your phone.

And how is that worth money?

Well, so I said, this is ridiculous.

William, how is it worth money?

And he said, well, because I've bought it, you know, it's now gone up for $500,000, a well-known Hollywood actor.

So I said, it's the Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

And he said, no, no, no, no, no.

And he tried to make this very complicated argument for why it was actually a valid investment.

Sure enough, you know, a few weeks later, the thing had collapsed down to being worth almost nothing at all because obviously it was a really ugly picture of an ape on your phone, which couldn't be worth anything at all.

Now, meme coin operates like this.

And the Trump meme coin,

these things are issued.

They are traded in an obscure Chinese

trade.

He doesn't declare any of the money that comes in.

He doesn't declare any of the revenue he gets out of it.

But what it is, as you've pointed out, is an amazing way of making campaign contributions.

And in fact, we can see this because some publicly listed companies have started

buying the meme coin.

And if you're publicly listed, you have to tell the Stock Exchange Commission why you're spending your money.

So Javier Selgas,

who runs a shipping company based in Mexico, has just spent $20 million of the money of his publicly listed company, which you might be lucky enough to own shares in, buying this meme coin.

And in his SEC filing, he says this is a sensible business decision because it's advocacy for the business interests of my company for a free trade deal between Mexico and the United States.

Right, and he has to declare it.

They have to declare it.

But if you're the leader of one of these Gulf countries that

Trump's about to visit, and you think, well, what would be a nice way to set up the visit is to bung a bit of either to get the boys out, Eric and Don Jr., who are out doing these big deals, and saying that the fact that they're called Trump has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is the president of the American State, the United States, because they're now running the business side of things.

There's There's no way of knowing who's paying that money.

And Trump is the guy who's in charge of the regulation of the Bitcoin, meme coin, the whole damn shooting.

So it's incredibly straightforward.

It's essentially a transfer directly to Donald Trump's bank account from any foreign dignitary, businessman in the world.

And we can already see that when you make these transfers, court cases disappear.

contracts are given.

There's a wonderful speech by Chris Murphy, Center for Connecticut, stands up in front of a flipboard and takes you through all the corruption of the last hundred days.

We should put it in the newsletter, actually, because in fact, he posted a picture on social media of this sort of graph going through day by day by day through the administration.

And there's kind of something every day.

So, whether it was getting rid of the regulators, whether it was getting rid of the ban on accepting gifts or going straight into lobbying in and out of government, even the thing about the employment of Musk.

They had to kind of get rid of some of the old rules governing government appointments to allow him in there.

Well, the corruption of Trump is beyond imagining i mean it's so staggering that we can barely keep up with it and it is so disgusting i mean corruption is obviously i think defined as using public office for private benefit and it it's on

scale it's absolutely off scale so this he's got 500 million apparently into his political action committees this is for somebody who under the constitution isn't going to be campaigning again so what's a political action committee if it's not to try and get you in for another term so where's that money going so you can give him cash directly

you can pay it appears now, between $1 million and $5 million.

A dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

A dinner at Mar-a-Lago or a meeting with him.

As you say, the Trump children have been traveling around just before the president visits, coincidentally, all the countries the president's about to visit, Saudi, UAE, Qatar.

And as Eric Trump said, it's amazing how quickly they get to yes.

And all these countries are literally announcing, you know,

billion-dollar deals as he's turning up again and again.

The other countries, of course, they've been visiting, not surprisingly, are the far-right populist countries in Europe, Hungary, Serbia, etc.

Yeah, where they're doing deals there.

And by the way, Don Trump Jr.

apparently is also doing it as part of what he calls a speaker, a paid speaking tour.

So you go along, you make a speech that we can't criticise on that front, Rory, but you make a speech, you then meet the heads of government, and you meet the big cheeses, and then lo and behold, there's an agreement that, yes, you can build a new waterfront properties all around Gaza.

And the paid speaking thing is interesting, too, because there's no limit to how much you could pay in a vertical for a speech.

You're apparently paying for a speech, but of course, the amount of money you could pay could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And Trump, of course, is unlike other presidents, not setting up proper blind trusts.

He's not distinguishing himself from the family.

So the income just rolls in.

And we've seen other examples.

He used the White House to strong-arm the Maine Golf Association into accepting him and his Saudi partners.

And PGA has agreed very reluctantly that they'll do their tour

on Trump's golf courses, which massively drives up the value of Trump's golf courses.

I've got to say, we're going to talk about Labour in a bit, but if it's true that the Labour government is trying to get the British Open to be played at Turnbury, because Trump has a hotel there, then I might be joining the protests at that one, Rory.

And I'm not a natural protester myself.

But then there's the whole thing about, you know, this guy that got pardoned after donating 1.8 million.

He sort of, it's just, it's off the scale.

And I think these other things that we spend so much time talking about so if you just take the last 48 hours we have the thing with the pope now i'm not a catholic i'm not anything i'm an atheist but given that the pope pope francis is you know dead just a few days for trump to go out and first of all do an interview saying i think i'd be a great pope and then to on his truth social and on the white house social media channels have this picture of him as the pope dressed as the pope and then last night because there's been a bit of backlash from Catholics, say that he knew nothing about it, it's on your effing truth social.

And then to say that it's why can't people take a joke?

And this is how they do it.

Farage does this as well, where you sort of, you say something over the top, but then you say, well, it's just a bit of fun.

Why haven't people got a sense of humour?

So it's interesting.

It's deeply offensive, that passes.

I found it really offensive and really peculiar.

Yeah.

And of course, immediately the bad boys of Brexit come in and attack me and say, I don't have a sense of humour and what's your problem.

And actually, some of my more left-wing Tory friends said, Rory, you mustn't rise to this because if you react to their jokes.

That's what they want.

I agree.

That's what they want.

Well, of course, then the next day, you had Alcatraz.

You had two things, tariffs on films and Alcatraz.

Now,

there is something.

Somebody said me something today that apparently in Florida, there's a TV channel.

where Mar-a-Lago is and they play the film that was showing that night on Saturday night was Escape from Alcatraz right so people are thinking now did Trump sit down and watch this film and thought you know we've got to reopen that place you know he suddenly throws out we're going to put 100% tariffs on film on foreign films and this Alcatraz thing so yesterday as I was driving back from the north the lead story was tariffs on films the second story was alcatraz I would put my life on it that neither of those things will happen just as he's not going to become the pope however we've spent we the world spent 48 hours talking about it, during which we're actually not talking about Trump and Israel, not talking about Trump and corruption, not talking about things that really, really, really matter.

So let's get back to corruption then, just to finish so we don't fall into the trap.

So

corruption is something that's been around in the US and indeed all our democracies a long time, but the US is pretty dramatic.

I mean, the 19th century, unbelievably corrupt.

Big move to clean it up, obviously, through the 20th century.

But still some pretty strange things that we've been talking about.

We talked about Buddy Siancey in Rhode Island taking cash.

We've talked about, you know, senators with gold bars.

We've talked about the- Yeah, also the fact that they can get insider information and trade and

talking Nancy Pelosi talking about these amazing FBI stings in the 80s, which found congresspeople and senators, including one of them, the

federal lawmakers, saying,

when the FBI agent tries to say, you know, you're going to take a bribe, he says, you don't need to talk to me.

I'm as bent as they come, right?

however the real change is Chief Justice Roberts in Supreme Court and the foul out from Citizens United so Citizens United allowed this horrible campaign financing situation

where under essentially an idea that this is a part of liberty and freedom suddenly these incredible you know hundred million dollar funds are able to often with dark money finance bits of campaigns and following on from this there's there's been a massive retreat even before Trump in prosecuting American politicians from corruption.

So, Chris Christie's team was found, get this, in order to punish somebody in New Jersey who wasn't with them, they were creating traffic jams in New Jersey by fiddling around with the traffic lights in order to undermine their opponents.

That was cleared.

The governor of Virginia, who with his wife was found taking tens of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts, again was cleared.

There's been an amazing investigation in Ohio into the Speaker of the House, who had a

genuine kind of guy who modeled himself on the Sicilian mafia and whose dad was a mafia enforcer who killed himself by a pond and who the FBI was all over this.

And then we come to Trump.

And the protections that the U.S.

set up to try to deal with this are, of course, laws,

which Trump has suspended.

So there are laws, a Foreign Agents Act, which was about trying to prevent Russian agents or Cuban agents paying American politicians.

That's been paused by Trump.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, that's about companies going abroad paying bribes.

Trump has frozen that too.

Consumer Protection Acts, frozen by Trump.

Procurement.

The State Department has, coincidentally, just issued a $400 million contract to buy armored Teslas from Elon Musk.

And no proper procurement process has followed.

In fact, contracts offered to Musk's rifles, $2 billion contract offered Verizon, has now been annulled.

And it looks like Musk is now going to get that contract, again with no due process at all.

This is the story, and to be fair to our friend and colleague, the Mooch, he said this right from the word go.

While they're creating all these sort of

distractions left, right, and centre, the real big story here is about kind of you know personal enrichment and enrichment of his friends.

People should look out for that guy, Chris Murphy.

Follow him on social media if you don't.

He really is onto this.

And Bloomberg, by the way, they've done a I don't know how they know because the crypto world is so secretive, but he reckons that their crypto, the Trump family crypto scheme is now worth about somewhere close to a billion dollars.

Okay, right, it's been depressing so far.

Let's have a break.

Yes, it was depressing.

But after the break, we'll be back and we'll be looking at some really, really interesting electoral results around the world, some of which Australia, for example, show a great deal of kind of optimism and hope and different directions.

Trump isn't taking over the whole world.

And there are different currents moving in other directions.

So a bit of optimism after the break.

Yeah, well, I'm glad you can see the sunny side of life.

Whatever happens, Roy, we'll also talk about the local elections in England.

This episode is brought to you by NordVPN.

Summer, the season of sunburns, sand in your suitcase, and unsecured hotel Wi-Fi called something like Guest123.

So, from Cornwell Wall to Croatia, people connect to whatever network is nearest.

No password, no protection, just you, your inbox, and a stranger monitoring your keystrokes in flip-flops.

That's a very good reason to use NordVPN, which is what I use.

It encrypts your connection.

NordVPN masks your IP.

It blocks unwanted trackers.

So it's not just safer, it's also smarter.

Whether you're booking last-minute flights or chasing end-of-season hotel deals, NordVPN keeps online prices honest.

It's the one bit of your setup that works exactly as it should, whether you're at home, abroad, or somewhere in between.

So to get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com slash rest is politics.

Our link will also give you four extra months on the two-year plan.

There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee.

The link is in the podcast episode description box.

This is an ad from BetterHelp.

All of us, I think, often do find guidance in very unlikely places.

An accidental meeting, seeing someone that we haven't seen for a long time.

But there's something quite different that you can get from a therapist, from a trained professional who has actually had the discipline and the experience to engage.

And BetterHelp has been doing this, finding the right matches between people and their therapists for over 10 years.

They start with a short questionnaire, which helps you connect to an experienced therapist whose expertise aligns with your needs.

And if the match isn't right, you can change it anytime at no extra cost.

It's entirely online.

You can pause your subscription whenever you wish.

BetterHelp has already supported more than 5 million people people worldwide.

And for many of them, a right match can guide them through not just the moment, but can make a real, real difference.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash restpolitics.

That's betterhelp.com slash restpolitics.

Welcome back to the Restless Politics with me, Rory Stewart.

And me, Alistair Campbell.

So Rory, why don't you, you said you were going to to start on an optimistic note.

Why don't you tell our international listeners how the local elections went?

Well, listen, just to frame it for everybody, British and international, there are two totally different stories happening in the world.

There's the story of Canada and Australia, where being associated with Trump damages right-wing parties and allows centre-left governments, who often were in pretty bad trouble and were seen as pretty useless and looked like they were going to lose elections, they've suddenly won these elections, largely thanks to the fact that the right-wing has been discredited by Trump.

And then there's the other story, which we're seeing in Romania, which we're seeing in France, which we're seeing in Germany, which is actually right-wing populist parties topping the polls.

And that, oddly, is what happened in Britain.

And why, oddly?

We'll get onto that in a second, because in many ways, you would expect actually Britain to follow Canada and Australia, not what's happening in Europe.

Anyway, the British results were astonishing because it was totally unprecedented, historic success for reform.

And John Curtis and all these

optimistic bit.

Yeah.

So reform has managed to do something amazing.

Reform, just to remind people, is this party set up by Nigel Farage.

It was a relatively marginal party, a pretty new party in a country dominated, of course, by a two-party system for over 100 years, where if you go back to the 60s and 70s, Labour and Conservatives getting well over 90% of the vote.

And very difficult for a new party to break through in British politics.

The Lib Dems keep complaining because we've got a first-pass the post system.

But this time, they managed to break through to 32% potentially of the vote, up from a 2013 figure of 22%.

And because of the way First Pass the Post works, there's a tipping point you can reach,

which could mean with 32% of the vote, you end up with 40% of the seats.

And Labour and Conservatives hit very hard.

So quick figures.

Reform took 677 council seats, two mayoralties, took a parliamentary seat by a tiny six-vote majority.

It won the popular vote in 15 out of 23 local authorities.

Labour lost two-thirds of its councillors, including Doncaster, which was the only council that it had up, which was controlled.

It's got the lowest vote share for 40 years, so it's gone from 34% of the vote in 2024 to 19% of the vote in 2025.

But it did end up, by very narrow margins, holding Mayeralties in Dogster and Western England.

Now, the Conservatives lost all previously held councils.

I mean, it went from 16 councils down to zero, from having the most votes in five additional ones to only having the most votes in two additional ones.

And this is, for Labour and the Conservatives, the worst vote share for 40 years.

So I guess the question is: what on earth do we make of this?

In some ways, I mean, you know, for once in our lives, we predicted it like half the world.

You know, we said we thought reform would do very well.

We said that we've entered a world which is much more fractured, fragmented, because there are more parties in play.

The Lib Dems did quite well, not on vote share, but in the way they allocated their votes as part of their trick.

They didn't necessarily get a huge amount of vote, they got maybe 16% of the vote, but carefully targeted it.

So, we're going to enter a world more coalitions, more fragile, more anti-incumbency, reform doing very well.

well.

But what do you make of it all?

Well, I certainly don't find it optimistic.

If you go to the betting shop today, which I never do, but I'll tell you the odds, most seats at the next election today

in the betting shops, you get six to four Labour and six to four reform.

Now,

the betting markets at the moment think that reform have a pretty good chance of basically getting a majority in Parliament, being the next government.

Not necessarily a majority, but they're reading this as a significant change.

And I think it is.

and i i think that the labor government if i'd have been them on friday morning i wouldn't have come out and said the sort of things they said i would have come out and said this is a real kick up the ass

and we've got to listen i said to you last week i've been talking to people who've been campaigning and the winter fuel allowance was coming up again and again and again and again now that's not something that's been in the media much you've got a situation coming up where the the welfare changes and i see eleaned morgan the first minister in Wales, who we interviewed on leading.

Yeah, where Labour are going to be coming up for election next year.

And where reform is doing very well and is not going to be a very good question.

Reform is doing very, very well.

And she is making clear that she is going to speak out against some of these changes.

I was talking to an MP in Wales who reckons that something like two-thirds of his constituents will be affected.

Now, the point is, if you've been elected on a slogan of change, which Labour were, and I can point to, as I have on the podcast, lots of changes that they've made that I support.

But if the changes that they've made that have connected with the public, not people like us who sit and talk about politics all day, what do the public know about what the government's done?

They know about winter fuel.

They know about farmers, they don't much like that.

They know about national insurance on business, and they don't much like that.

And they know about PIPS.

And the thing about PIPS, the personal independence payments, they haven't even happened yet.

And the PIPS hasn't even happened.

The Pips is payments for people with disabilities.

Exactly.

I've had quite an interesting weekend because I went to Burnley,

then I went to see my sister over in Retford, and I was in Doncaster, I was in Manchester.

Yesterday I was in the Peak District.

And there is still, but they've got to be really careful because this will run out pretty quickly if they're not careful.

There is still a desire that the Labour government does well.

But what I heard again and again was this is just not what Labour government should be doing.

Taking money away from pensioners, taking money away from the disabled, whilst not fixing the kind of big stuff of inequality.

And the, you know, and we can maybe talk about Europe because I still honestly do believe one of the reasons why Farage

is able to get away with morphing from one sort of character into another whilst constantly being described as authentic is because the things that he's done in the past have never been pinned on him.

Why was he allowed to get away from the Trump shadow?

Answer because he decided,

I'm going to play down the Trump thing.

And he never talks about Brexit.

He plays down these things.

Is it also that the Labour government doesn't want to complain about Trump because they are worried that they'll annoy him?

So they don't want to pin Trump off.

Possibly.

I kind of understand.

But let's just, you know, it didn't stop him coming out of the weekend and talking about the film tariffs.

which is like, you know, the UK is one of the hardest hit on that.

Just to just to sort of stop for a second on that, we really need to focus on that because we talk a lot about what could generate growth in the UK.

Creative industries are one of them.

And creative industries and media and film has been the most incredible success.

And actually, to give a little bit of credit to both Gordon Brown and George Osborne.

They put a lot of stuff in place, which a proper industrial strategy.

Yeah, big studios.

Studios

tax breaks for us.

And it actually worked.

And actually, if we're looking for industrial strategies and growth, for the other things that we often talk about that Britain's good at, you know, life sciences, AI development.

The film industry is a really good model.

But my goodness, it's a disaster if the big Hollywood studios

can't make in the UK.

So you mentioned Carney.

You mentioned Canada.

So as you say, Albanese

and Kearney both won from left-to-centre perspectives at a time when people are saying that incumbents are dead and you can't win from the progressive left.

right.

They've disproved that.

I think it's less that the Kirstalmer government is worried about upsetting Trump.

trump too often the arguments are taking place on kind of accepting farage's premise about the country no we can't touch brexit yeah the country is a bit broken yeah the immigration system is a disaster and what i i said last week attack him where he's weak and stop attacking him going from where he's strong what does that mean in practice not not attacking him where he's strong attacking him where he's weak well immigration has to be fixed immigration is a real problem but if you come at immigration from the perspective that says, we're going to do this because this is the way that we take on Farage, or this is the way that we shore up our vote in the red wall, which is how they breathe this stuff out the whole time.

Fix the immigration system because the immigration system has to be fixed.

The fact that he could go through, Farage could go through the last few weeks where all he does is campaign.

He's a campaigner, right?

I remember he once said to me, he said, I'd be hopeless as prime minister.

I'm a campaigner.

I'm a communicator.

I'm out there.

And he's very, very good at it.

So the fact that that there was a poll last week, who do you blame for Brexit?

Okay,

Farage was

way down the list.

He was one of the big drivers of it.

But if the Labour government decides, as the Tory party has done, let's not talk about Brexit, don't be surprised if he gets away with it.

We should have had the Trump thing, should have been pinned on him day one.

No, Kierstarmer can't do it for the reasons you say.

But let me tell you, yesterday, in Paris, Macron and von der Leyen were there.

Macron stood stood in front, in Paris, in front of a slogan in English, and the slogan said, choose Europe for science.

And he and von der Leyen announced 500 million Euro scheme to attract American scientists to Europe.

And she said, it is the most disastrous miscalculation to turn against science.

He said, did we ever in our lives imagine that one of the great democracies of the world would turn against fact and turn against science.

You don't have to.

Now, is that going to affect Trump's impression of Macron?

I suspect he will get told about it.

Oh, got to watch out for him, as he's done with Carney.

Mark Carney's going to be seeing him today.

We'll see.

But I'd be very, very surprised if Trump does his 51st state thing.

So I think it's about, and look,

I'm reluctant to sort of, you know,

if I say to you, Rory, I don't want to become the Roy Keene of the podcast world.

Do you understand what that means?

Yeah, I get that.

He's grumpy and complains and sits at the corner.

Yeah, but also he basically says, Man United was a lot better in my day, and this lot aren't quite up yet.

And I don't want to be that person who says, but I heard one of them in the aftermath, part of the line of defense was,

well,

this stage of the government, governments have always struggled.

We didn't.

And they actually compared it to 1997.

You know, the Blair government had all those problems with Bernie Eccleston and blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, we did have lots of problems.

But you weren't punished like this.

We weren't up in the polls in the first year and we didn't lose a by-election for, I think, the first first six years.

So if you start from this defensive mindset, and I just felt the response was too complacent, take it as a kick up the arse and say, you know, because what you say, what they're saying is we're going to go faster further.

But on some of these things, the change that's been offered is not change that people felt they voted for.

And if you've campaigned on change, don't be surprised if people then say, I don't like the change.

They think, who else is offering change?

And I don't know if you've ever looked at reform in the dictionary.

it means change yeah no it's it's it's amazing to say dan danny finkelstein who i i saw at the event that we did for prisons the the twinning project has this great line that labor's slogan is britain is broken let's do nothing about it and and i i think there is there is you know i said to you before the election that it was difficult to put a cigarette paper between starma and Sunak on almost any issue.

They sounded identical on immigration, identical on tax, identical on welfare.

In fact, it was impossible to see what policies Labour had up its back pocket which was going to make it any different.

They felt like they were an austerity-like party that were going to come in, and it's very difficult to see what they'd do that'd be any different.

And you know, even on housing policy, health policy, a lot of the stuff that Labour was talking about is exactly what Sunak was talking about.

Now, the answer then was

you know, I might be exaggerating I probably am exaggerating, but the answer then was, well, you know, they've got to win this election, so they don't want to go too much on the policy difference.

They'll just let the Tories lose because everyone hates the Tories.

And then once they're in, you know, the mask will come off, and then the policies will be revealed, and then the radicalism will unfold.

It doesn't feel like that, I'm afraid.

But what we both said during the campaign was that the scale of challenge that the country faced was not being met by the scale of policy response.

Now, they would probably say, and I was talking to a minister last night who said, Look, you know, we've still got a bit of time.

And I said, Listen, you will be amazed how little time you've got.

And once people start to settle on a judgment, and this is what I heard, listen, I met loads of people who voted Labour, and I met loads of people who didn't vote who said they might come back.

Okay, but I also met this couple who said to me that

any conversation, as you know, that starts with, I've always voted something is always followed by a but yeah and the but that this guy gave me was this thing he said I didn't vote Labour for this I didn't vote Labour to lose my winter fuel I didn't vote Labour to see my the you know my wife's benefits cut I didn't you know you've so what is the and and I keep obsessively going on this thing about what is the national story and so like Farage does have a national story and the trouble is it's the same as

to some extent it's the same as what labor's Britain is broken yeah Farage went round the country, saying Oxford is broken, Stafford is broken, Lincoln is broken, Durham's broken, right now.

I know, and you know, he does not have a clue about how to fix it.

But what is the Labour national story?

What is, if you say to the Labour people,

what give me the give tell me what Britain's going to be like in 10 years, what's the change?

Now, I honestly, right now,

can't give an answer to that.

So, that's me.

So, and I'm obsessed with this stuff.

So I had dinner with your friend Gordon Brown this week.

So when's he coming on the podcast?

I did ask him that.

I did ask that.

He said, I'll get back to you.

He said, well, I don't really have much to say.

I'll come on when I have something to say.

No, he does have a lot to say, it turns out.

And of course, I don't want to put him on the spot because we were having a nice dinner conversation.

But fundamentally, he would, I think, say, a much more radical, ambitious economic policy and a policy that addresses society and a whole new economic economic model and he would describe what that was and let's get him on the podcast to try to explain that but yeah when i heard um on the the morning after the election ellie reeves party chair was was doing the rounds of the studio and i know it's difficult you just had a big hit and you know you've clearly lost and you you go out and you've got to say something but she kept saying about run call and the by-election which was paused because that guy thumped somebody and but they lost a majority of 14 700 okay it was only by six votes and if it had gone the other way on the recount, we wouldn't have talked about it so much.

But it's a huge swing against them.

And she mentioned,

she kept mentioning, you know, we've got to get our message out better about the things that we've done.

For example, we've just delivered four new breakfast clubs in Runcorn, right?

Now, I've got nothing against the four new breakfast clubs, and I think food poverty is a terrible thing.

But I was actually thinking about Gordon as she was saying that, because Gordon wouldn't have talked about breakfast clubs.

He would have talked about our ambition to end child poverty.

He would have talked, you know, what they're not doing to my mind is setting this stuff in this, as I say, a national story.

Where is the country going?

Breakfast clubs are great.

They are not a national story.

Final point.

I mean, I've been very struck with our conversations with David Blunkett, with our conversations out in Milburn, this dinner I just had with Gordon Brown, that they must have been difficult figures to manage, to put it mildly.

Gordon Brown can't be an easy person to manage.

But my goodness, the sense of intellectual confidence, his, you know,

it is a form of charisma, and it's just astonishing his certainty, his vision.

And I'm struggling a bit within the Labour Cabinet to see people with that kind of degree of kind of raw.

And I guess, you know, I don't know.

As you say, we don't want to make you sound like Roy Keene.

Before we go on to Australia, let's have a little chat about the Tories.

I was actually talking to Luke Trill from Moor Common.

Well, he's been doing these focus groups that he says are the worst he's ever heard.

Absolutely unbelievable.

So the Tories, I think, are in unbelievable trouble.

So this is me speaking.

Now you're cheering me up.

Yeah, so this is me speaking as a former Conservative cabinet minister, somebody who may be pretty unpopular in my party, but I can assure you this is unimaginable, the mess they've got themselves in.

We are now, I think, in a situation in which it's not inconceivable that reform could actually replace the Conservative Party as the major right-wing party.

We've seen it.

In France, Les Republican vanished.

It can feel like what happened to the Liberal Party in Britain, just to remind people, you know, Liberal Party,

in 1905, they won this enormous majority, figures like Lloyd George, Asquith.

After the First World War, the Liberal Party vanishes and is outflanked and replaced by this new thing called the Labour Party.

And we go from one type of two-party system, Liberal against Tory, to a new type of two-party system, Labour against Tory.

And I think reform

is doing very well at hoovering up Tory votes.

And they're reassuring people.

You know, you can see now quite a lot of my former Conservative colleagues saying, well, you know, Farage is not exactly Trump, is he?

A lot of what he says is the sort of stuff that mainstream Conservatives agree with.

And remember, of course, Farage himself came out of the Conservative Party, basically.

He founded these parties, Brexit Reform, because he wasn't really given an opportunity within the Conservative Party.

So I think she is in real trouble.

And above all, I think...

Do you think she's done?

Do you think she's finished?

I cannot understand, honestly, why she's not out there speaking.

She keeps saying, well, nobody will listen to me.

Maybe a bit of truth in that.

You know, I'll give her that.

I need to develop policies.

I don't want to come out and just talk nonsense.

But it seems to me it cannot be right.

You have to dominate the airwaves.

You have to get attention.

You can do it through speeches as much as policy.

And you've got to make the call.

Now, my call, my advice to come here, not going to listen to me, apart from come on the podcast, you know, if you're not feeling your voice is being heard, here we are, millions of people will be able to do it.

Let me tell you, Kemi, we made the same offer to Pierre Pollyvre and to Mr.

Dutton in Australia, their opponents came on and won.

Yep, so it is, it's a chance to get your voice out.

And I would say that if I were the Conservatives, you've got two strategies.

You've got the trying to imitate reform, which I think is a disaster.

Well, that's what they've done, and that's why they're in the mess.

That is why I've said, and I'll say it again, I said it last week, if Labour honestly think that the way to deal with reform is to be a bit more Faragi on policy, absolute nonsense.

Absolute nonsense.

The way they have got now to give a sense of a Labour government doing things that the people who voted for them expected them to do, and that is what they hear and know about, and forming a big picture that paints a proper story of where we're going.

And the Tories, of course, what they should be doing is trying to present themselves as the serious, mature party of government and change.

They should exploit people's uncertainty about Trump.

They should exploit the fact that the Labour government seems a bit inept, that the growth isn't really coming, the economy isn't really taking over.

And they should be really leaning in, I suppose, to figures like Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, and producing a sense that this is going to be the safe pair of hands and they're going to rebuild that brand.

Now, it's not easy.

because they had 14 years of discrediting that brand.

I think if they had a leadership election tomorrow, Jenrick would get it, and that would would be a complete disaster because you'd just try and sort of be forage it's not serious i think the other thing that that was interesting about the the australian election we talk about winners and losers in elections and obviously dutton was the big loser that even lost his seat but i think the other loser is murdoch you know the murdoch papers did what they do they threw everything uh and i think that one of the reasons why albanese won

And by the way, this was spectacular.

We said when he did the podcast interview with us that we both thought he felt felt very confident, but I think even he did not think it was going to be quite as good as this.

It was a swing towards labour

and it's very much his victory because if you're being written off, and maybe this is the thing that can give Kierstarmer a bit of hope, if you're written off a bit and you then turn it around,

then he has remade himself and he's done it.

Remember what I said to you what Fiona, my Fiona, said about the interview.

We were going down through France and listening.

She said, he's a bit dull, but he really sounds like somebody who's got a conviction and principle.

I really like that.

And I think ultimately, in these volatile times, there was one of the Australian columnists who said that, you know, in the end, Australians decided which of these two would I want to look at my tax returns and do it right.

And it was Albo.

Is that sort of sense of decency actually came through?

Well,

let me.

I've been trying to think this through because I think it's so interesting.

So, if you were a political scientist, you would say that Britain, Australia, and Canada have an enormous amount in common in the structures of their political systems which should mitigate against populism.

So constitution, western-style parliamentary democracies, strong party discipline, variations on first past the post, although obviously preferential in Australia.

Two parties dominant in all these three countries, divided basically between conservatives and sort of third-way centrists and a similar kind of welfare state commitment.

Strong similar institutions, all three countries, common law, public broadcasters, which literally comically are called ABC, BBC, and CBC, unions, civil service, and also the sort of national character.

These are countries which are often about incremental change, institutional stability, big consensus around NATO, foreign policy.

So, you'd really provide quite a good explanation on why you'd expect those three countries to be similar, unlike the US or Europe, which have very, very different systems.

So, what went wrong?

And this is my attempt to try to answer this.

What went wrong for whom, though?

What went wrong, I guess, for the right wing in Canada and Australia?

You could, by the way, you could.

I mean, most people in Australia and Canada won't know that much about our local elections.

So they actually might be looking at Australia and Canada in the same prism

in that Labour won a landslide a year ago.

You see, and what I thought, I remember, remember I said to you what Francois Aron said to me, he says, listen, you guys are lucky because you've had your populism with Brexit.

So I think actually there's a but anyway, carry on because I think you're right.

They've done something different.

They've done something different.

And Britain, of course, these local elections remind us that in and the son Gordon Brown pointed out to me that populist parties, far-right populist parties, are now leading in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary, and the United States.

And was that the election in Romania at the weekend where the election having been ordered for a rerun because of Russian interference and the former candidate not being allowed to stand, the guy that was closest to him politically is now taking the lead and is going into the runoff with a very, very big lead.

Exactly.

And you would have thought, therefore, as you say, anti-incumbency, you know, COVID screwed up economies, growth was pretty anemic in places, that it was pretty easy to beat centre-left parties in Australia and Canada.

And the Australian, I just want to push into the Australian narrative a bit.

So as you've pointed out, this is the biggest election victory on some numbers since the Second World War.

in other measurements since the 60s or the 70s.

Unbelievable.

Number of seats exploded.

Very, very unusual.

Normally, governments do slightly worse for a second time.

It's got a massive explosion.

And in both countries, the leader of the opposition lost his seat.

Pollierov lost his seat.

Daffin lost his seat.

Their story four months ago seemed pretty straightforward.

And I produced this, their great slogan.

Weak, woke, go broke.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean,

it sounds brilliant.

You know, weak on national security, a little bit woke on the voice referendum.

Sending us broke.

Well, Australia is going from having had a great budget surplus, going to deficit, deficit stretches into the future.

Can I just say on the woke bit there?

So

I thought both of their speeches, Dutton made a very, very

gracious concession speech.

He said something very nice, actually.

He said to

Albanese, your mum would be really, really proud of you.

And then he spoke about the woman who'd beaten him in his own seat, who'd also

lost a son.

And he spoke very kind of warmly and movingly about her and how he'd like to help her.

And I was watching him thinking, why were you not like a bit like this before but one of the things the the culture war issues that dutton got involved in in the campaign he suddenly said this thing about we're going to get you know when you go to australia as you know and every time you do a meeting they say you know we we honor and pay tribute to those the original owners of the land etc etc and he said he was going to cut all that down and i think he did that because he was such a big player in the voice referendum but what albanese did he lost the voice referendum but he didn't then trim his views on it so when he made his acceptance speech, one of the loudest cheers was when he said, and I want to pay tribute to the original owners of the land.

It was a way of saying, I'm not moving off that because actually we've still got problems on that to fix.

So I think that's the point I was making about principle and conviction.

You stick to the big things that you believe in.

When I was in Canberra, I saw Simon Birmingham, who was the on the Conservative side, he was the sort of shadow foreign minister.

And he just got in touch trying to reflect on how his party, Dutton's party, was trash in this election.

And he actually quoted Theres May.

Oh, the nasty party.

Yeah, he said, our base is too narrow, and so occasionally are our sympathies.

You know what some people call us the nasty party.

And he said that actually Dutton came across as too grudging, too intolerant of freedoms.

And actually, there was a narrative, you know, and it's the narrative that I would suggest the Conservatives need to find in Britain.

That you could have had a narrative which said, you know, we are in favour of enterprise, innovation, mutual respect.

We're comfortable in the modern world, but there's place for a party that isn't too owned by the unions.

It's surprising, actually, in some ways, Albanese's party is quite old-fashioned when it comes to unions.

There were quite a lot of scandals that could have been used and somehow fizzled out.

Scandals around Qantas Club, around what was happening in Victoria with the labour unions, scandals around cliff top houses.

None of this really mattered in the end.

They weren't able to land any of this, were they?

Yeah, yeah.

Albanese was lucky in having the opponent he had.

But listen, anyway, Roy, you did say at the, before the break that we were going to cheer ourselves up.

Australia has cheered me up a lot because I think it shows, you know, decency.

He came, I think that's the thing that came through in our interview with him.

He came over as a really kind of decent sort of bloke who is in politics for the right reasons.

He was almost crying when he won because I think there must have been times when he thought he was in trouble.

Well, you mean, it's amazing, isn't it?

And let's just finish on this note of optimism.

So, you know, we were setting up, as we came out of a year of elections where incumbents were losing all the time, time, a world in which it was likely that most of the big countries in the world were going to give up on sort of left-wing social democracy and embrace the right, and only Starmer would be allowed out there as the outlier.

And actually, the Trump effect has pushed in due directs in some countries more populism, but in Australian Canada, really astonishing has given a new lease of life.

to these centralist parties, turning people like Albanese and Carney into incredible heroes who've done things that are sort of almost unprecedented in political history.

I mean, Carney's even more dramatic, and let's just finish by paying tribute to him and reminding people we've done a couple of leading interviews with him, and I just got a nice, nice message from him.

We should get him on again.

But he took what was a 20-point lead against him.

A Liberal Party that really would have been perceived in Canada as weak, woke, sending us broke.

turned it all around at a moment where his economy is under huge pressure from Trump, standing up for values that we need to somehow rediscover in Britain.

And if Labour and Conservative don't rediscover them in Britain, we're going to be in real trouble.

Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely right.

Final election that took place last week.

Singapore, my friend Lawrence Wong, great win.

Great win.

Why are you laughing?

He increased the vote.

This famous liberal democracy.

Well, it's a strong democracy, that's for sure.

But anyway, he did bloody well.

But again, Trump was a factor.

I think people who were thinking about not voting with the status quo decided, hmm.

And as I said to you before, his speech about Trump and the tariffs was...

Well, where where do we get him on?

You're going to come on?

Yeah, we'll definitely get him on.

Don't worry.

Very good.

Okay.

Take care.

Bye-bye.

Mike and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other.

When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a four-litre jug.

When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping.

Oh, come on.

They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia Trip Planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip.

Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool.

Whatever.

You were made to outdo your holidays.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.