← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript96 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first
- [00:03]
B
broadcast on 23 March 2026 on Monaco Radio.
- [00:07]
A
The United States now only on a war footing when markets are closed. New York, London, Paris, Munich, everybody talk about somewhat left of centre city governments and was the UK version of Saturday Night Live. Funny. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Julie Norman and Yossi McElberg will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll have another dispatch from the recently concluded MIPIM Urbanism Fair in Cannes. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Julie Norman, Associate professor of Politics and International Relations at UCL Co Author of Gaza the Dream and the Nightmare. And Yossi Meckelburg, Senior Consulting Fellow at the Middle East North Africa program at Chatham House. Hello to you both. Julie, you are once again taking your show on the road, as it were. Montreal is the lucky city.
- [01:24]
B
That's right. If you're in Montreal on Friday, April 10, I'll be there doing a book launch and reading of our play the Dream and the Nightmare at Concordia University. So come join us.
- [01:33]
A
So to be clear, it's a reading, not a full scale production.
- [01:37]
B
That's right, because I cannot bring my whole cast with me. So the Montrealers are going to rally and help me do a reading there, so it should still be pretty good.
- [01:44]
A
Is there a particular reason you've picked on Montreal? Not that I'm saying there's any reason why you wouldn't. I went there once, it was delightful.
- [01:49]
B
It is. And I lived there for six years before I came over to the uk.
- [01:52]
A
Well, there's the answer.
- [01:53]
B
It is.
- [01:54]
A
Yossi, you are not going anywhere.
- [01:57]
C
Yeah, I'm staying put because, I mean, after a long term of teaching I thought, you know, it's time to go and visit the Middle east east and go to Tel Aviv and between family, friends and work to see what happens on the ground. Got tickets and got a nice email from British Airways that flights are cancelled until you notice.
- [02:22]
A
This must be exciting for British Airways actually having a good reason for cancelling flights rather than just sort of whimsically as is their frequent practice.
- [02:32]
C
But they offer you a refund. But you can still go on their website and buy very expensive ticket that they will fly you all the way to Athens. And hand you to the Israeli airline and whatever happened to you, from there on, it's your problem.
- [02:47]
A
I mean, Athens, it's some of the way there. What are you complaining about?
- [02:50]
C
So, yes, this kind of in our family household, they always say what's the worst can happen if we go to Athens and the council like to go to Tel Aviv, 12 days in Greece, something could, you know, could be worse,
- [03:03]
A
many worse places to get stuck around this time.
- [03:06]
C
Absolutely.
- [03:06]
A
But we will start in the Middle east, specifically with Iran and the interestingly ambiguous question of whether or not the war is still on. US President Donald Trump, very probably with an eye on Monday morning market openings, has claimed that the US And Iran are in talks and that accordingly he has magnanimously postponed by five days a proposed blitz of Iran's energy infrastructure. Many congratulations to those investors who did pile in earlier today, almost as if they had some foreknowledge. It seems that they might be wise to take the money and run. However, as of this broadcast, Iran's foreign Ministry and the speaker of its parliament are furiously denying that any such discussions are occurring. Julie, we find ourselves in the extremely interesting position of trying to figure out whether we should believe the president of the United States or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
- [03:58]
B
It's a toss up. I mean, I will say a couple of things can be true here. And one is that, you know, back channel conversations are often going on even during wartime. And certainly, obviously we've had intermediation from Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, kind of shuttling between us and Iran interlocutors throughout all this. But right this announcement of direct talks, I think is Trump trying to buy a little bit more time here? And as we've seen, not just in this war, but the June war, Trump being in negotiations doesn't mean a war is over. Often it's a way to kind of stall, to kind of figure out what he wants to do. And then often we still see more military action after that. And we should remember also Israel still very much a player in this, seemingly taken somewhat by surprise by Trump's announcements. And Israel also still leading their own, I would say second front in Lebanon, which may not quiet down even if the Iran side does.
- [04:50]
A
I mean, Yossi, we do have to admit the possibility that President Donald Trump of all people simply has no idea what he's talking about or indeed what he's doing. He has today floated a plan for the Strait of Hormuz, which will be controlled by, and I quote me and the Ayatollah, which is an interesting diamvirate if one assumes he is speaking to the new supreme leader, if indeed the new supreme Leader is actually still with us, I'm going to be pedantic enough to point out that at least as I understand it, Mojtabah Khomeini is not in fact an ayatollah. So perhaps Trump has an actual ayatollah
- [05:25]
C
up his sleeve somewhere, or some say that with the chairman of the Iranian Parliament. So this is another route that is possible. That's the thing. In a way, you try to and some other task as analysts is to find logic when logic doesn't exist. So we said, is it a reverse psychology? He plays with them and he plays with the market. So he creates this false hope and tell the Iranian is a threat. But nothing give you the confidence that there is a plan, because the one thing you would expect, that there would be a plan for the Strait of
- [06:01]
A
Hormuz, you would think that, I mean,
- [06:04]
C
it's quite logical, considering the 20% of
- [06:07]
A
the energy, literally the most obvious thing Iran would do when attacked.
- [06:11]
C
Yes, exactly. Everyone, you know, in every meeting that I've been in the last 20 years talking about the possibility, just remember that I wrote a briefing paper for Chetimal's A possible war in March 2007.
- [06:24]
A
If only they'd listen.
- [06:26]
C
YOSSI but you know the risk and of course you think you will have a very viable plan how to ensure that there is a flow of energy if they don't do the very basic thing. I can think that actually they understand what to do beyond this. Or again, you know that they said from day one they worked on the best case scenario, and best case scenario A rarely works, really. And then if you don't have a plan B, which seems the case, you end already in four weeks of war and you try to find all sorts of quick solution because there are repercussions, whether domestically or internationally, and you start threatening your own allies if they don't join in. So whether something happening behind the scenes, the different ways that both sides see that Tehran will see itself despite all the heat, we are still standing. We are standing against the most powerful country in the world, and we're still launching missiles and we're still disrupting life in Israel and we're disrupting life in the Gulf and we're disrupting the flow of energy. We are not in such a bad position to negotiate. Maybe they need us to negotiate more than we need them at this point.
- [07:46]
A
Julie Also over the weekend, they're continuing to float the idea of seizing Hog island, which is this small chunk of land high in the Persian Gulf through which most of Iran's oil is transported. Senator Lindsey Graham was on the TV shows over the weekend airily discussing this in the context of Iwo Jima. He said, we did that. We can do this. I looked that up in five weeks of fighting on Iwo Jima, among the U.S. marine Corps, 7,000 dead and 19,000 injured.
- [08:17]
B
Yeah, I mean, we've heard a lot about harbor island since the very beginning of this conflict, and a lot from Lindsey Graham in particular about it. Obviously, this has been one option that Washington has been looking at, but one that they have not acted on for many reasons. And one is, I do think this, you know, aversion, at least initially, to any kind of boots on the ground, any kind of actual, like, presence even on the island. But I do think they're revisiting all of this. I mean, there's not really any good options now for the Strait of Hormuz. And so that is on the table. They are considering other types of ground invasions on the sides of the Strait. There's been talk about to have a special op to get nuclear material. They have so many different plans. And as Yossi said, the problem is that there wasn't a plan on how to actually go about this. And with Hog island, one of the concerns has always been that, you know, if you take that over, if you cut off that kind of stream of revenue for Iran, there would be nothing there to kind of rebuild the country after. But I don't think the Americans would know what to do with it if they did take it.
- [09:20]
A
I mean, there's also the question which has been with us since this started pretty much, Yossi, and just wondering where we are on it now, whether or not the United States and Israel are actually fighting the same war.
- [09:32]
C
And that's, I think, for a change, Israel is very clear, and Netanyahu is very clear. It's about nuclear, it's about ballistic missiles, it's about proxy, but it's also clear it's about regime change. So this Israel is quite consistent. Whether it's rightly consistent or not, that's a different question, whether it's achievable. But that's what Israel wants, to take it all the way. With Trump, again, it's backward all the time, back and forward. So you don't know, because he said at the beginning, if he just cast our mind only two months ago, when people were in the street, he said, you know, the COVID is on its way. So we are going to help you and it didn't happen. So there is the idea at least of regime change also exist in the United States. And a few times they actually Trump said it and then back and then Rubiofo said we just, it was preemptive for the preemptive because Israel was going to attack. We preempt the preemption. So this is a very mixed, there are mixed messages at a certain point, especially if it goes wrong and we know how Trump operates, then the blame game would start. And especially when the New York Times yesterday published about the Mossad actually convinced Netanyahu first that in a matter of few days they will convince basically Iranian there is a plot there to unseat the regime. And and probably Netanyahu went and sold it to Trump. Trump won't tolerate if he'll be made to look fool or I mean more foolish. So in this sense, yes, there come a point when the pressure at home he will try to divert also the blame to Israel if it doesn't go away.
- [11:07]
A
Just finally and quickly on this one, Julian, on the subject of the blame game, as Yossi put it, possible straw in the wind. Earlier today, Donald Trump musing out loud that this whole thing had been Pete Hegseth's idea. So I think we can probably guess who's going to be acquainted with the underside of a bus if this does go askew. But from where we are right now, is it feasible politically for Donald Trump just to decide he's fed up with this, declare victory and walk away?
- [11:35]
B
Well, I think that has always been one of the major possibilities for Trump since this started. You know, there used to be kind of the Pottery Barn rule in the US Excursion, so to speak, that if you break it, you own it. And from the beginning of this war, we know that that is not Trump's way of seeing things. Like there was always going to be the possibility he would break it and then walk away and leave allies or non allies to deal with it. And I think that's more of what we're approaching now. Trump is obviously looking for an off ramp. That's why we're hearing this kind of talk about negotiations. But it can just be him again declaring, okay, this is done, it's wrapped up now I'm walking away and leaving the region in complete disarray.
- [12:12]
A
Well, most of the attention consumed by the Middle east these last few weeks has been sucked up by Iran, understandably enough, with a side order of Lebanon. And if you feel like you haven't heard enough about Lebanon, then Boy, do we have a treat for you. This Saturday's edition of the Foreign Desk. But hostilities continue still closer to Israel in Gaza and on the West Bank. This past weekend in Gaza, four more Palestinians were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Among them three police officers. On the West Bank, Israeli settlers attacked several Palestinian villages, burning homes, businesses and vehicles, apparently in revenge for the death of an 18 year old settler knocked off his quad bike by a vehicle driven by a Palestinian. It is unclear whether or not this was accidental. You'll see. This is very much not the first time that west bank settlers have run riot through Palestinian villages, fields, etc. Is it fair to assume by now that Israeli authorities simply don't care?
- [13:08]
C
It doesn't seem that they care. And also see just this incident. Palestinians are never innocent in this sense. They're actually guilty until proven innocent. It's the presumption of innocence doesn't exist when it comes to Palestinians. So it might have been an accident. You don't know. Even if it's an accident, who is to blame. But it's Palestinians and this group of extremists. They're terrorists. It's not violence or violence, this is political violence. It's terrorism. Try to terrorize Palestinians there, they're going in quite big groups. And I don't know if the irony of the tragedy of it, the military protects the terrorists instead of the victims of it. So it protects the settlers that come to terrorize the local residents, the Palestinian people there. So setting cars on fire, setting houses on fire, you know, whatever, beating up people severely, in some cases killing people. And it makes by definition the government complicit, it makes the security forces complicit. And I would argue that if Israel is staying silent when this done on their behalf, it makes the entire country complicit. Because it's not an isolated incident. It's something that goes for a very, very long time.
- [14:35]
A
Julie, it's a long time since I've been to the west bank myself, but I have met some of the more excitable settlers, many of whom are quite mad and very heavily armed. You've been there more. If the Israeli authorities wanted to restrain the settlers at this point, is that even really an option?
- [14:56]
B
So yeah, having been there pretty recently, just in the summer, I mean, there's kind of a Wild west feeling throughout much of the west bank now where settlers can do whatever they want. They do do whatever they want in many cases. And I will say there have been Israeli leaders, including military commanders, who have spoken out against this type of settler violence, this type of settler terrorism, but in terms of actually doing something to police it, I think they also are aware that this particular settler movements is a very dangerous one, and they don't want to be caught in these crosshairs of these seeming like civil war kinds of images where you have soldiers needing to kind of police who are very violent settlers. But I would say, Andrew, to me, the bigger issue here is you have an Israeli government that their main mission right now in the west bank is to take as much land as possible to increase land for the settlements. And so you have a political agenda that is very much emboldening those who would pursue these other methods of achieving that. And so you can't on the one hand be saying, oh, we condemn this, but then your whole policy is one that is, you know, essentially endorsing this kind of takeover and this kind of pushing people off their land. And so I think those two things together, combined with just what the military sees as a tactical challenge for them of policing these very unruly and very dangerous settlers, are kind of combining in a way that's just causing extreme tragedy for Palestinians.
- [16:17]
A
I mean, Yossi, does it strike you that there is a, you know, a deliberate, actual coherent policy at work here, that the idea is ultimately to render the west bank more or less unlivable?
- [16:27]
C
It depends by whom. We hear the chief of staff says it's impossible to have this anarchy there. It doesn't help the idf, definitely the military, the higher echelons. But on the political level, if you ask the government, you know, the smotrich of this, well, the rich stroke on this, the Bankville, yes, it's part of their ideology. At the end of the day, they want not, you know, Julie, absolutely right, to annex as much as possible, to grab as much land, but also eventually to have as little as small Palestinian population as well. And we saw how they supported, for instance, basically expelling 2 million people from Gaza. The first thing, when Trump said it, you know, the extreme right was united behind this plan. So why would we think they think differently about the West Bank? In their ideology, this belongs to them. And at best, Palestinians be tolerated. And Netanyahu of old won't agree with them, but Netanyahu that needs them in government, even if he disagree with them, he will go along with that. So he'll create a situation, you know, whether it's building in Iran, grabbing more land in other places, that will create, you know, render a Palestinian state impossible. And we all ask ourselves this question at one point, a Two state solution in any form, confederation stressor become completely impossible to achieve. And that's what they want.
- [17:56]
A
And Julie, on the subject, just finally on Gaza, it's notable that the Board of Peace has gone quite quiet of late. Does anybody yet have the least indication of what the actual plan is?
- [18:11]
B
No, the short answer, but I would say there was a meeting last week between Board of Peace officials and actually Hamas representatives in Cairo to talk about a disarmament proposal and that was sort of offered. There's kind of waiting for Hamas response to that, but right now there's just simply no real incentive that's been offered for Hamas, I think, to agree to this if we're looking at them realistically. And in the meantime they are rearming, they are kind of retaking control over the part of the Strip where they still have kind of the main operations there. And that is just increasing by the day. And the only thing that the plan is kind of offering is a possible withdrawal of Israel. And I just don't think Hamas buys that as likely.
- [18:55]
A
Well, to Paris now, which now knows the name of its next mayor, it will be Emmanuel Grigor, previously Deputy mayor and a member of the National Assembly. His victory in recent municipal elections will continue a Socialist party grip on the Hotel Derville, which now stretches all the way back to 2001 via the incumbent Anne Hidalgo and her predecessor Bertrand Delano. It means that all four of the cities mentioned in M's 1970, 1979 hit pop music. New York, London, Paris, Munich. And I know Everybody enjoyed that 47 year old cultural reference in the introduction at the top of the show. Led by broadly left of center mayors. In New York City, Zoram Mamdani. In London, Sadiq Khan and in Munich, Dieter Reiter. Although he lost a runoff this weekend, he did lose it to the Green Party's Dominic Krause. So the conceit just about holds up I think. Yossi, what is going on here? Is it just that thing where big cities tend towards being more progressive, if we can call it that, and non cities a bit more conservative?
- [19:58]
C
Yeah, and I think the short answer is yes. I think that big cities are more progressive, more liberal, it's not necessarily socialist. They are open because it's a place where people from different places meet and cultures, different culture meet and prosper at the same time. I look at all this election and I'm not so sure it's a win for one or another. I think the voters are confused because government provide them what they want. So when it comes to for instance, housing, which is a big issue in Paris in shortage and other big cities when it comes to education, employment, everything that affordable. Big cities on the one hand are very attractive, but became unaffordable for most of the people that live in the same cities. So it makes sense to think to have, okay, I'll vote for people that believe in the welfare society and maybe, you know, there might be some social housing, help with education, improve the health system. So there is logic to this, but it doesn't mean that they are necessary solving the problem. The other thing, some of this in France is different from some other countries municipal election or those who run for municipal elections as aspiration also to go and become something on the national or elected or national. You know, we know like Zach Chirac and others ended as president, which is not necessarily in other places. Definitely not Mamdani, because he can't.
- [21:32]
A
I mean, do these four mayors really have all that much in common? Julia, is this possibly a bit of a reach? Are they all merely discreet products of their own in times and place?
- [21:43]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think there's obviously differences and even, you know, Mamdani, by many U.S. standards, I think the U.S. especially the right, will try and frame him as very far left though. I think the whole point of what we're talking about is the fact that these are considered more center left in
- [21:58]
A
Europe than the American political spectrum is ceaselessly hilarious. These are people who think Barack Obama was a socialist.
- [22:06]
B
Precisely. Precisely. He wasn't. No, he wasn't. So, yeah. So I do think there's obviously differences and I think to Yossi's point too, this is partly just cities being cities, but I think it's also just a rejection of the fact far right politics that people see in other parts of their country and wanting to send a message that like at least in some parts of the country, that kind of rhetoric, that kind of politics is not something that people want. And so a bit of a rejection of the more extremes and trying to go for something that maybe for some are a bit more pragmatic choices, even if it's not everything that someone wants from their party or from their representative.
- [22:41]
A
But Yossi, is this not basically indicative? And this is me imposing my overarching theory of everything on the discussion. This is the great eternal struggle between the city and the country, between the urban and the rural. I mean, it's, it's a hundred years or so since H.L. mencken was writing about populism in the United States. As what did he put at the. The Yokel Simeon Rage at the city
- [23:04]
C
man we have an expectation in nation state that we all sing for the same hymn. Shit, we all believe in the same thing and share the same culture and same. But it's not the case. There is huge variation between especially the mega cities and the rest, you know, living in rural areas also create a different state of mind that we have in the big cities. It's a kind of an artificial expectation because we live in the same again, artificial nation state which as one called in imaginary communities that we all share everything. And the reality is actually to live through differences, not to assume that we think the same. And this creates one of the things that will change election you have more migrants in the big cities. So this electorally will change also the patterns of vote in these places.
- [24:01]
A
Well, finally for our panelists, you may have heard and or seen some of this on Saturday Night.
- [24:07]
B
So why do a UK version of snl? Well, like so many large scale American operations these days, no one really knows why.
- [24:18]
A
That was Tina Fey opening the first ever edition of SNL UK in London on Saturday night. You might also have heard their Sir Keir Starmer impression.
- [24:28]
C
Oh, golly.
- [24:30]
A
Well, what if Donald shouts at me?
- [24:35]
C
What do I say?
- [24:36]
A
Lammy, just be yourself, Prime Minister.
- [24:41]
C
Yourself is who everyone likes. Hello.
- [24:50]
A
Oh, sod that scary, scary, wonderful president. Those were excerpts from the inaugural episode of Saturday Night Live uk, a cunning attempt to avenge the usual dynamic whereby Americans make versions of British shows which aren't as good as the original. In fairness, Saturday Night Live UK was in patches significantly less terrible than many British people had been claiming, gleefully predicting. And if one of its metrics of success was causing an international incident, box ticked. US President Donald Trump posted that sketch in which a Sir Keir Starmer impersonator is trembling at the thought of calling him Julie, who may have greater experience of the original Saturday Night Live than the rest of us. Did your side split at the UK analogue?
- [25:36]
B
Oh, so I would say, like, I think one thing with SNL is like you, you watch it because you want to laugh. So if you approach it with that, like, it's just, you're in a goofy mood. It's Saturday night, like you having a good time. You just want to laugh at it. I think for Brits watching, I think some people, so many people wanted it to fail, were kind of like, ha ha, like, you know, but I think if you watched it, just like wanting a good laugh, wanting a good time, like, yeah, I felt like they did a good enough job with it. I mean I thought the opening monologue was good. I think the sketch probably helped Starmore more than he realized. That's usually the case with Saturday Night Live's sketches. And yeah, it's just like one has to just kind of go into it with like, yeah, you're just in the mood for having some laughs.
- [26:15]
A
So, I mean, if they want a quote for the posters. Yoss. I thought it was actually pretty good in parts. I liked the sketch in which a. A cinema broadcaster type tells two stars that the new film is terrible. I'm a big fan of those things where somebody is articulating clearly what everybody usually thinks but. But cannot actually say. Were you ever a fan of programs of this ilk, Yossi?
- [26:40]
C
Yes, very much. I still show my students, yes, Prime Minister. Which of course, they are too young to remember.
- [26:46]
A
Tell me, General, where's the hotline? The one to Russia? The red hot line, sir, from Downing Street. So in an emergency I can get
- [26:57]
C
straight through to the Soviet President? Theoretically, yes.
- [26:59]
A
Theoretically.
- [27:00]
C
That's what we tell journalists. In fact, we did once get through
- [27:04]
A
to the Kremlin, but only to a switchboard operator. Couldn't the operator put you through?
- [27:08]
C
We never found out.
- [27:09]
A
Didn't seem to speak much English.
- [27:12]
C
But I think, and I think there was an element of this, of a Prime Minister.
- [27:17]
A
I mean, yes Minister and yes Prime Minister are the two of the fastest ways for people to learn about this country in particular, but politics generally.
- [27:25]
C
And I think it was a great success. And I think what Saturday Night Live is actually filling a gap in the market because if you look, there is a real shortage of satire, political satire in. You have it on radio but not on TV and back. You know, in the 90s this was in the 80s, but then spitting Image and now other. There was to be stubborn Dark on Channel 4 and other programs that were really strong political setup. And I think the media outlet, the established one, were kind of scared of doing that because they get a lot of criticism, especially if you're the BBC and they have to renew your license or do you really to upset the very people that vote on that. So we see how it develops into something that people want to watch and it's in a commercial channel. But I think there is definitely going satire on British tv.
- [28:15]
A
And the difference is though, Julie, something like yes Minister and yes Prime Minister. And seriously, listeners, if you've never watched them, watch them because it is dealing with eternal themes of politics for all that you know. These were made nearly half a century ago and largely consist of three men talking In a room, it has aged incredibly well. But topical comedy of the sort that Saturday Night Live does, is that not more difficult now? Because surely by the time you're finishing the sketches on Saturday, you're desperately trying to write jokes that haven't been made a thousand times on social media already.
- [28:50]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think the bigger question with Saturday Night Live launching in London is more like, can it keep surviving in New York? Because the model is just very different now from when they started. And even now, most people are watching Saturday Night Live as clips on Sunday when they watch it as a video, and often then the news has changed and that kind of thing. So I think already the model is, like, a little bit shaky. But at the same time, I think, as Yosi said, like, just people kind of crave that, like, playfulness with political satire now and a lot of. A lot of political comedy that I used to watch, like, in D.C. a lot of those troops have given up and folded just because the polarization got so bad. They just couldn't do it anymore. So I think there's still a market for that. But certainly, yeah, just the model around it, I think, is still gonna be kind of challenging because, yeah, you have the whole Internet kind of weighing in with jokes that are sometimes made before they go to air, before people watch them.
- [29:38]
A
Julie, you have a broadly apolit SNL sketch that you wanted to cue up involving a cowbell.
- [29:45]
B
I mean, if you've ever watched American snl, you must know the More Cowbell skit. And so I. I love, like, I love my company that combines, like, music and comedy. And this was a sketch from, like, 2000, I think, with Will Ferrell. That was just, like, a classic one. So I don't know if we're gonna hear it or not, but. Okay, so all the time shall come.
- [30:14]
A
Okay, wait, wait. Bruce, could you come in here for a second, please? That. That was going to be a great track, guys.
- [30:23]
C
What's the deal?
- [30:24]
A
Are you sure that was sounding okay? I'll be honest, fellas. It was sounding great, but I could have used a little more cowbell.
- [30:34]
C
So let's take it again. And, Gene.
- [30:38]
D
Yeah.
- [30:38]
C
Really explore the studio space this time.
- [30:41]
D
You got it, Bruce.
- [30:42]
C
I mean, really? Yeah, explore the space.
- [30:46]
A
The More Cowbell skit from snl. I had one I wanted to bring to the table. This is an Australian writer, John Clark, and the late, great John Clark and his offsider, Bruce Dore. And one of the things they did for many years was they. They would present these dialogues completely deadpan, not played in character at all, except that John Clark would usually assume of some or other minister or other functionary and field a bunch of earnest questions from Bruce Dorr. In this one, John Clark plays a United nations lawyer. Ok, can I begin with quite a simple question? Yes, I wish you would. We like those ones, Brian. We've got a government here in Australia. Oh, yes, I'm familiar with the Australian situation. It costs a huge amount of money. It's actually the main news story here. But it doesn't do anything. What do you mean doesn't do anything? Brian must do something. Does it meet, for example? Yes, it meets. Yes, of course. It's not true to say it doesn't do anything, Brian. Does it make announcements? Yes, it makes announcements all the time. Quite a busy government, Brian. You should be well pleased. What are the announcements about? Well, mostly about reversing previous announcements. John Clark and Brian Doar. The thing I always loved about John Clarke's writing, Yossi, was that he did have a knack of just thrashing the English language to the point of absolute meaninglessness. One of my favourite sentences I think ever written was on his own website where he described himself as a freelance expert specialising in matters of a general character. But I did want to ask you in front of finally, is there actually any value to political satire? Does it actually do any good? 11 recalls the Peter Cook line about the sort of resounding impact of the cabarets of Weimar Germany in thwarting fascism.
- [32:22]
C
Probably Bertol Brecht didn't live in at the time on the regime. I think there is a value that is a sort of. It's not just light entertainment. But you know, one thing about the real challenge now, it's not only social media, media, it's the real character are more satires of themselves and more hysterical in the way they behave. So you can't. Sometimes you, in the past you can tell the difference between what's the real thing and the satire. You're not so sure anymore what you can replace it quite easily.
- [32:53]
A
On that sobering note, Yossi Meckelberg and Julie Norman, thanks for joining us. Finally, on today's show, we turn to Italy to meet the real estate investor and urban development company Coima. Operating in Milan since the 1970s, the company has played a huge role in defining the city's urban transformation. From ambitious projects such as Porta Nuova to the new Olympic village. Monocle's editor in chief Andrew Tuck, recently met coima's founder and CEO Manfredi Catella at the Mipim Real estate fair in Cannes.
- [33:21]
D
COIMA is our family company which has been set up in 1974. So it's now over 50 years that is active in developing cities in Italy. Particularly the most exciting, passionating and also long term development that we have achieved is together with Ainz in Milano, the neighborhood of Porto Nuova, there was a railway yard dismissed, which basically today is an equivalent of King's Cross in London or similar projects.
- [33:54]
E
The change that has happened in Milan, so people know about Expo and they know these other moments have shifted the dial for the city. But I think that people are still surprised when they come to Milan these days that when they go to Porto Nuova that you see a very different, vibrant young Milan that's been wrapped around the traditional city. How did you manage to get all of these projects off the ground? Because it's complicated in any city getting even small things off the ground. But you've again and again you've done the Olympic Village as well, managed to bring together partners, persuade the city, get the backing to make these huge changes.
- [34:30]
D
Certainly the result of passion and many people working. So the merit goes to collective effort between public and private partnership. In the case of Porta Nuova, it was a very specific situation because it was kind of an empty space, like many cities happens when you have a rail and surrounded by very nice neighborhoods, very vibrant neighbors like Isola, for example, is a very interesting neighborhood in Milan. And we understood that our role was not like to innovate, but to bridge. So the pedestrian areas, the park and all the pedestrianized area that we did was really the connector of the urban framework around this project. Porto Romani is different. It's on the other side of the city, similar situation, a railway yard. In that case, Prada has been the cat catalyst, an amazing visionary step in with the Prada Foundation. So innovating substantially that neighborhood and we team up with Prada as well as Covivio and then we develop that area and now is becoming the first step is the Olympic Village, as you said.
- [35:35]
E
Tell us about the Olympic Village. Legacy is always important these projects. And nobody really builds an Olympic Village. Now that they're building a village, they're building a neighbourhood. It has to function for one piece, period, as a piece of infrastructure for a sporting event. What's the life journey ahead for the Olympic Village?
- [35:52]
D
Well, let me say that life is fun when your learning curve is steep. And our learning curve is super steep. The Olympic Village contributed. We had to develop it in 30 months. It's not a building. There's six buildings basically standing on a kind of large public areas. So the landscaping and the artscaping. So the first phase of this was very, very focused from all of us. And the very interesting thing I believe is that we design for the permanent function since the very beginning. So the objective is to repurpose the Olympic Village post Olympics in four months and open it as student housing in September. We have planned all the details to repurposing. So it's going to be like another race after the game that we will commit to make it.
- [36:41]
E
What's your take on where Milan is now? Because as I said, the Expo was interesting. Post Brexit city has hauled in more financial services. You have a tax regime that's very appealing to many wealthy people to come and settle in the city and to run businesses from there as well. Is it moving at a pace that even you find surprising, its identity changing a little bit, its ambitions even?
- [37:06]
D
Well, I think Milano had in my mind the contemporary history of Milan starts in 2000 when the public administration led by Gabriela Albertini identified urban regeneration as economic development, cultural development of the city. So that has been a very important, important steps that originated a few projects that became a benchmark and a landmark and a new heritage of the city. So Porto Nuova city life. Bocconi University developed an amazing campus as well. And that has been like very like the triggering event, urban event that made the city move into the next step. Then we had two very relevant milestones. One was Expo. So kind of making miles Milan under the international light. And then the tax break that brings a lot of international people coming and live in Milan and make it even more international. Milan was international for visitors, but not for people living there. So this is very important. This is all the positive side. On the other side, what has not been done and this is common to many, many European cities or Western economies. It is the affordability. So plan the development of the city in a balanced way. Make everybody be able to afford to live in the city. This has been a bit lacking in Milan too. I think it's easy to fix it because the numbers are relatively limited comparing to other major cities. But I think the identity of Milan stays. It's very strong. It's very linked to the past and to the tradition. So I think it's a city that can become one of the most. It is already one of the most livable.
- [38:50]
A
That was coima's founder and CEO Manfredi Kattella, speaking with Monocle's Andrew Tuck at MIPIM in Cannes. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Julie Norman and Yossi Meckelburg. Today's show was produced by Chris Chermak and researched by Anneliese Maynard. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily returns at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening,
- [39:14]
C
Sam.