Israel’s military offensive in Gaza to free hostages and Italy’s plan to tackle unpaid fines

Summary

The Monocle Daily – August 4, 2025

Episode Theme:
An in-depth discussion of Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza to free remaining hostages, an analysis of international responses to the conflict, sanctions on Russia amid continued aggression in Ukraine, turmoil within the UK Conservative Party, and Italy’s proposal to tackle unpaid municipal fines and taxes. Featuring expert panelists Marta Lorimer and Alex von Tunzelmann, and an interview with James Bloodworth about his book on the manosphere.

---

1. Israel’s Military Offensive in Gaza and the Hostage Crisis

(Starts at 04:06)

Key Discussion Points

• Netanyahu’s Continued Military Focus:
  • Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is pitching a new military push to free 20 remaining hostages, despite two years of largely unsuccessful operations.
  • Behind the move is speculation about Netanyahu’s lack of viable alternatives and possible political motivations.
• Mounting Internal and External Pressure:
  • Over 600 former Israeli military and intelligence officials signed an open letter to US President Trump, pleading for American pressure to end the offensive.
  • The letter signals growing dissent within Israel’s normally tight security establishment.
• Hamas’ Position:
  • Recent Hamas statements suggest no urgency to release hostages, now mentioning possible Red Cross aid, with images showing hostages in poor health.
• Lack of Endgame and Humanitarian Crisis:
  • Both panelists note that neither side seems to have a vision for "the day after."
  • Momentum in Europe for recognizing Palestine is contrasted with the unresolved humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Netanyahu’s Motivation:

  “If he’s speaking of a new kind of military solution, it’s probably that he’s completely given up on the 20 hostages that are still there and that he’s just trying to find some way out... But is there really a way out for him at this point that doesn’t involve probably stepping down, which he is... not at all keen to do, due to severe domestic legal difficulties.”
  – Marta Lorimer [05:01–05:32]

• On Shift in Israeli Attitudes:

  “There has been a pretty strong suggestion since quite early on... that he’s never had the hostages as a high priority in this campaign... Still they are not prioritized.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [05:53–06:51]

• Impact of European Recognition of Palestine:

  “All of this feels a bit like, could we just sort of not worry about this quite so much and actually just feed some people who are starving to death?”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [09:16–10:17]

• Inner Israeli Critique:

  “This war started as a just war, defensive war... once we achieved its military objectives... this war stopped being a just war. This is leading the state of Israel to the loss of its security and its identity.”
  – Quoting Amiyalon, ex-head of Shin Bet [10:48–11:00]

---

2. International Sanctions and Russia’s War in Ukraine

(Starts at 14:01)

Key Discussion Points

• US Envoy to Russia:
  • Trump’s trusted developer Steve Witkoff is sent to negotiate with Putin on Ukraine ahead of a new round of sanctions.
• Escalating Hostilities:
  • July was the worst month yet for Russian air raids on Ukraine, with nearly 6,300 drone attacks.
• Efficacy of Sanctions:
  • Both panelists are skeptical; previous sanctions haven’t shifted Russian policy.
  • Discussion of “secondary sanctions” that would impact countries like China and India, with consensus they’re unlikely to alter major alliances.
• Performative Diplomacy:
  • Trump’s announcement of moving US nuclear submarines is seen as showmanship, with little substantive impact.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Putin’s Commitment to War:

  “He’s interested in power and keeping it. And the way he’s going to keep it is by keeping this war going for as long as he can.”
  – Marta Lorimer [14:53–15:30]

• On Sanctions Generally:

  “They don’t, generally speaking. We see a pretty low hit rate for sanctions generally as a sort of political tool… in the case of Russia specifically, the feeling of being embattled… tends to shore up that sort of regime.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [15:39–16:17]

• On China and India’s Position:

  “I think they’ve both picked a team. I don’t think these sanctions are going to really change that much for them.”
  – Marta Lorimer [16:47–17:10]

---

3. UK Politics: Conservative Turmoil and the Rise of Reform

(Starts at 18:50)

Key Discussion Points

• Liz Truss’s Return to the Spotlight:
  • Former PM Truss publicly critiques current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch despite her own brief and disastrous leadership.
• Conservative Disarray:
  • Tories engage in infighting common post-defeat, but UK’s right seems particularly disorganized compared to some European counterparts.
  • Attempt to mimic far-right Reform party (led by Nigel Farage) viewed as counterproductive.
• Who Is the Reform Party?:
  • Despite holding few seats, polling shows Farage’s Reform party as the UK’s most popular.
  • Mainstream parties criticized for chasing Reform’s talking points instead of offering genuine alternatives.
• Challenges for Far Right Parties:
  • Discussion on whether far-right/populist parties inevitably self-destruct; consensus is they’re getting better organized due to electoral successes.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Liz Truss’s Continued Influencer:

  “I don’t know why we’re still hearing anything from Liz Truss… a period of silence would be most welcome.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [19:36–19:59]

• On Conservative Party Strategy:

  “The strategy that they seem to have more or less collectively agreed upon is… the radical right is successful. How about we copy them? But tell people we’ll be much better at doing what they say… because we have experience with government. And this isn’t really working.”
  – Marta Lorimer [21:06–22:35]

• On Labour’s Response:

  “Labour Party in government also seem to be saying ‘Nigel Farage is obviously right about migration… but don’t listen to him, vote for us. We won’t do anything about it either.’ This is just not appealing.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [23:39–24:15]

• On Far-Right Parties ‘Self-Destructing’:

  “What we know from research is that these parties are getting much better at organizing… they are able to attract the kind of people who actually have political ambition in a way they weren’t able to do before.”
  – Marta Lorimer [25:18–26:19]

---

4. Italy’s Plan to Collect Unpaid Fines and Taxes

(Starts at 27:38)

Key Discussion Points

• Bureaucratic Irony:
  • Italy’s solution to slow debt collection is to create a new agency—essentially fighting bureaucracy with more bureaucracy.
  • Massive levels of unpaid local taxes and traffic fines: €25 billion owed, of which only €6 billion might be realistically recovered.
• Cultural and Practical Obstacles:
  • Widespread noncompliance blamed on bureaucracy, intransigence, and difficulties tracking individuals.
  • Some cities are digitizing and streamlining payments; cultural change is needed for effective enforcement.
• Extreme Measures in Turin:
  • For unpaid business debts over €50,000, Turin proposes immediately revoking business licenses.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Italy’s Bureaucratic Challenge:

  “I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea, but it just won’t work. There’s a reason why this debt hasn’t been collected… there’s more money that could come in from proper tax evasion rather than from, you were fined for accidentally driving down a bus lane.”
  – Marta Lorimer [28:28–29:09]

• On Cultural Change:

  “There is an argument that you need to do something to change the culture… that does involve actually a bit of enforcement of what’s already happened. Achieving that sort of cultural change is huge.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [29:48–31:11]

• On Drastic Enforcement:

  “That’s pretty hardcore. Do they then give you a chance to pay the money back?”
  – Marta Lorimer [31:27–31:33]

• On the Logic of Consequences:

  “I think Turin’s attitude… seems rather sensible, really. Seems quite straightforward to understand that if you don’t pay your taxes there are consequences.”
  – Alex von Tunzelmann [32:02–32:28]

---

5. Book Segment: James Bloodworth on the Manosphere and ‘Lost Boys’

(Interview starts at 33:12)

Key Discussion Points

• Bloodworth’s Personal Foray into the Manosphere:
  • Motivated by typical youthful shyness, Bloodworth describes stumbling upon the community after searching online for basic social advice.
• From Harmless to Toxic:
  • Some parts focus on benign self-improvement (getting over shyness, starting conversations), but the culture quickly becomes objectifying and misogynistic.
  • The longer one stays, the more one is marinated in a view of both genders as rigid, cartoonish types.
• What Saves Some from Falling Deep:
  • Bloodworth’s own upbringing and discomfort with the language about women pushed him away.
• Appeal of Figures like Tate and Peterson:
  • Modern social media algorithms and visual storytelling make it easier for influencers to peddle unattainable lifestyles.
  • These influencers exploit young men’s insecurities to sell courses that fund their ostentatious image.
  • The subculture, over time, makes men “worse misogynists.”

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Initial Attraction and Disillusionment:

  “It was cool to just learn a few kind of openers… but there was also… this idea that it was just this positivistic science… and you start to lose the humanity in the other person.”
  – James Bloodworth [34:59–36:27]

• On Women as Status Objects:

  “[For some] it wasn’t really about the women in the end. It was about women as a trophy to show off… as a reward object for a correct performance of masculinity...”
  – James Bloodworth [36:51–37:47]

• On the New Social Media Dynamic:

  “Apps like Instagram allow these charismatic influencers to present a lifestyle as well as a personality… for teenage boys, that can be very alluring... but what they don’t say… is that the lifestyle is often funded by the subscriptions of people who pay for these courses.”
  – James Bloodworth [38:12–39:40]

---

6. Episode Wrap-up

The show concludes shortly after the Bloodworth interview.

---

Takeaways

• Intractable global conflicts (Israel–Gaza, Russia–Ukraine) remain at a deadly impasse, with panelists expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of both military solutions and sanctions.
• Political polarization and party identity crises are afflicting traditional parties in the UK and beyond, with the far right’s rise prompting awkward and often self-defeating imitations.
• Everyday bureaucracy and noncompliance are not just dull administrative details but reflect deeper cultural and institutional challenges, notably in Italy.
• The manosphere’s toxic online influence continues to grow, fueled by influencer economies and social media’s ability to exploit young men’s vulnerabilities.

---

Panel: Andrew Muller (host), Marta Lorimer, Alex von Tunzelmann
Guest interview: James Bloodworth
For a full exploration of these topics, listen to the episode.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 4th of August, 2025 on Monocle Radio.

[B]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wonders if there's anything to be said for another military escalation. Is the current threat of more sanctions against Russia going to have any greater impact than previous threats of more sanctions against Russia? And British conservatives scream at each other about how wrong they are, which saves everyone else the trouble. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now.

[C]

Foreign.

[B]

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 Marta Lorimer and Alex von Tunzelman will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear from the author James Bloodworth about his new book, Lost Boys, chronicling his journeys in the strange swamp known as the manosphere. 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 Marta Lorimer, lecturer in politics at Cardiff University, and by Alex von Tonzelmann, historian, author and screenwriter. Hello to you both. Hello, Marta. Alert listeners, or at least listeners with memories, may recall that I think last time you were here, you announced that you were about to swan off for an extended period in Italy. You have now swanned back. How was it?

[D]

Italy was wonderful, as usual. I think I must have put on a few kilos, and by a few, I mean about five. But I have since been back. I've been on a writing retreat in the north of England. So I am ready to start thinking.

[B]

Again how deep and profound was the contrast between whichever bit of Italy you were in and whichever bit of the north of England you were in. They're quite different places. I'm casting no shade on either. Very fond of both, just to be clear, especially to northern England.

[D]

I had no water for about a week in Italy, as in there was no running water, whereas that was absolutely not a problem in northern England. There was water coming from every possible.

[B]

Pore, usually the sky. Why was there no running water in Italy?

[D]

It's a long story that has got to do with EU funding having to be spent in time and companies doing all of the works that they really should have done in the previous year just now leaving you without water in July.

[B]

Excellent. Well, we will be returning to the theme of nothing working in Italy later in the program. Alex, sticking with the theme of writers retreats, we would around this time allow you the opportunity to insufferably plug the one you hold, I think circa November. But this year there's no point. There's no tickets left.

[A]

No, I'm afraid the Silk Road slippers, writing retreats in November. We've got Colin McCann and, and Nadifa Muhammad as our guests and they're completely sold out.

[B]

For people who have missed out this year and may be thinking about next year, what does this broadly entail?

[A]

Well, it entails handing yourself over to a team of me, the legendary book editor Alexandra Pringle, who was editorial director of Bloomsbury for many years, and also to the snazzy editor Faiza Khan, and to this amazing guest author. Whoever we put up next year, we've got, for instance, Max Porter, Samantha Harvey, Maggie o' Farrell and Michelle Hussain all coming.

[B]

I'm not busy circa next November.

[A]

Well, you know, you are our backup.

[B]

Andrew, as far as I know.

[A]

And basically, yes, handing over your. Your delicate writing to us so that we can. We just called we in USA Today last week and they called us savage. So. So it can be quite an. It can be quite an experience, but usually we're also. We're very kind.

[B]

I can tell other people they can't write. I do that for nothing.

[D]

Next November, Running water is what I want to know.

[A]

Yes, it's in Morocco, which is very civilised and has excellent running water.

[B]

Well, we will start in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to perform his impression of the proverbial man who only has a hammer and to whom the whole world therefore resembles a nail. He is reportedly pitching a military solution to free the last 20 or so of the living Israeli hostages seized by Hamas on October 7, 2020, despite the pretty obvious fact that nearly two years of military operations have not as yet freed them. This comes as 600 or so former Israeli security officials, including former Israel Defence Force generals and heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, have signed an open letter to US President Donald Trump, pleading with him to lean on Netanyahu to call it all off. Marta, do we imagine that Benjamin Netanyahu genuinely has no better ideas, or is he merely pretending he has no better ideas?

[D]

I don't really know where he goes from here at this point. The fact that he's suggesting a new military solution leaves me completely puzzled as to what we have been observing for the last two years. So this simply suggests that if he's speaking of a new kind of military solution, it's probably that he's completely given up on the 20 hostages that are still there and that he's just trying to find Some way out. But is there really a way out for him at this point that doesn't involve probably stepping down, which he is.

[B]

Of course not at all keen to do, due to the severe domestic legal difficulties which may then beset him? Alex, what do you think? Is he just somebody at this point, and people have suggested it, that either cannot think of a way to end this war or will not think of a way to end this war?

[A]

Simple answer, yes, yes, he's exactly that. I mean, I think, to be honest, there has been a pretty strong suggestion since quite early on and very much supported by the families and so on, that he's never had the hostages as a high priority in this campaign. And I mean that's been a fairly constant complaint. There've been lots of protests in Israel to that end, that he hasn't prioritized the hostages since the start. And I think what we're seeing now is indeed two years of not prioritizing the hostages. Still they are not prioritized. So the idea now, I mean, as Martin says, the idea that there will now be a military solution, well, this has been a military campaign and we still have, you know, we believe around 20 hostages in captivity, possibly the bodies of another 30 or so there. So it's sort of, it does feel, I'm afraid, rather like playing for time. It feels like there isn't really a way for him to move forward on that. And especially as you say, at the same time as you've had this really extraordinary letter from sort of 600 people of incredible seniority, many of them saying Trump, please save us from Netanyahu.

[B]

It is extraordinary and I do want to come back to that. But Hamas own statements, Marta, in the last 24 hours or so, they rather suggest that they are not an organization with many better ideas either. They're now suggesting that maybe the Red Cross could set send aid to the hostages who have been depicted over the weekend in fairly dreadful condition by Hamas own photography. That doesn't sound like an organization that's in any great hurry to let them go because again, for Hamas the release of the hostages would force a conclusion to this war as well. And the post war scenarios for Hamas do not look promising.

[D]

They don't look promising for anyone involved. And I suspect that is also one of the reasons why this conflict keeps dragging on is because there still is no clear sense of a way out of the conflict and of what do you do next? In the same way that there never seems to have really been a particularly clear idea with what to do with it. But here you're coming out of a two year conflict and no real solution appears to be in mind and no sense of a durable settlement is really emerging. So we're starting to see some changes even across the world in terms of just European countries starting to speak about recognizing Palestine, but beyond that, we don't really know what happens.

[B]

Alex There has been a lot of criticism of those moves by various countries, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, to either recognize Palestine or say we will win or if certain conditions are or are not met. There has been a response to Israel that this has merely emboldened to Hamas. And is that necessarily wrong? Because Hamas, since those announcements have been made, have sounded a little more cocky. They're now saying they won't disarm until there's a Palestinian state. Whereas I think most interlocutors, including as of last week, the actual Arab League, have suggested that one condition for a Palestinian state is going to have to be Palestinian. Sorry, Hamas rather disarming and giving up.

[A]

Yes, I mean, it does, I'm afraid at this point to a lot of us feel a little bit like angels dancing on the head of a pin as well, on the basis that there's, you know, I know Israel is of course saying that there's no starvation in Gaza, but you know, international agencies are quite clearly reporting very widespread, very dangerous famine conditions in Gaza. And really at this point it feels like a bit of a technicality as to whether or not there's a state recognition at precise this point and what that means and who gets what. And all of this feels a bit like, could we just sort of not worry about this quite so much and actually just feed some people who are starving to death? I mean, it is though a very intractable situation, as Marce said. Absolutely. That, you know, this feels like one that nobody actually is getting any sort of outcome they particularly want from. And meanwhile, you know, the humanitarian result on the ground is absolutely horrific and there's no apparent interest in resolving that.

[B]

Well, let's talk a bit about this letter signed by more than 600 people. And to be very clear, these are absolutely not martyr, a sort of coterie of sandalwearing, centered candle owning peacenik hippies. This is several former heads of Mossad, Shin Bet, several generals, people who have masterminded wars against Israel's enemies and served in those wars. One of them, Amiyalon, former head of Shin Bet, said this war started as a just war, defensive war, but once we achieved its military objectives, once we achieved a brilliant military victory against all our enemies. This war stopped being a just war. This is leading the state, state of Israel to the loss of its security and its identity. Is he wrong?

[D]

I don't think he's wrong. And I think we are seeing. Whereas for the first year or year and a half we hadn't really seen much resistance, I would say, from within Israel, now we are starting to see this more and more obviously and internationally. There's also been a bit of a turn in terms of how much the international community, I suppose, is willing to let Israel get away with. So I don't think they're necessarily wrong. And there does seem to be some increasing recognition that we've gone beyond anything that could be considered as a measured response.

[B]

I just want to come back finally to Amiyalon, sort of, because I did interview him for the Foreign Desk a couple of years ago, which I recommend to listeners. Also his book Friendly Fire, about subtitle, How Israel Became Its Own Worst Enemy. And that came out a few years ago. His line, Alex, was always that Israel should look at a two state solution not as some sort of great charitable good and a wonderful thing for us to do, but because that is in itself the best guarantor of Israel's security. I mean, I know his views have hardened somewhat since October 2023, but that fundamental precept, does that still strike you as a, well, the logical thing to hold onto?

[A]

Well, I think that's a point of view that an awful lot Israelis have themselves put over the years. I remember hearing a talk by Aleph Bet Yehoshua, the great Israeli writer, where he. It was in London where he also exhorted, you know, British Jews who were more liberal to move to Israel to make aliyah. Because he said, and this was several years ago, he's been dead for several years. He said, you know, we're failing and this is going in a terrible direction and we need people to come who are more reasonable to balance this out and actually run this state very differently. And I think a lot of people have, you know, long thought exactly that, that actually a two state solution is potentially in Israel's interests. Because what it does is preserve actually Israel's existence and you know, and defend it actually, in a way. However, I mean, I don't even know really where we are in terms of that discussion, as you say. I think international opinion has shifted, actually tremendously, I would say. I think There was after the 7th of October and the awful scenes that we saw then, I think there was actually a considerable sympathy for Israel at that point, and I do think at this point, kind of two years on from that nearly, I think that situation has reversed, really. And, you know, and now I think there is, you know, clearly a very, very different situation internationally. And I think it could well be said, I don't think, you know, well, who wants to analyze Netanyahu's behavior? As you say, a lot of his behavior is quite clearly driven by his own domestic political woes, but I think there's a pretty good argument for saying he has not been activ. Actually in Israel's best interests at all.

[B]

Well, to Moscow now, which is the journey that Steve Witkoff, American property developer turned US Diplomatic envoy, for some reason will be making again later this week. Witkoff is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, apparently to see if some sort of terms can be come to over Ukraine before further US sanctions against Russia kick in on Friday, including secondary sanctions, I.e. punitive tariffs on countries which continue to import Russian oil and gas. A list which very much includes, includes China and India, somewhat confusingly also the EU President. Putin's level of interest in a ceasefire can perhaps be gauged by the fact that this recently elapsed July was the worst month yet for air raids on Ukraine, with nearly 6,300 long range drone attacks recorded. Marta, do you expect peace to descend by the end of the week?

[D]

I feel that every time that I'm here and we talk about Russia, I say some variation of I do not think that Putin has any interest in a truce, in a ceasefire, in anything at all. I might be wrong, but my understanding of Putin is that what he's interested in is essentially power and keeping it. And the way he's going to keep it is by keeping this war going for as long as he can. There is to me no respectable out for him at this stage and probably not in the near future.

[B]

Alex, are sanctions going to work this time? Or perhaps I should phrase that another way. If sanctions were going to work, wouldn't they have worked by now?

[A]

Yes, and they don't, generally speaking. We see a pretty low hit rate for sanctions generally as a sort of political tool, to be honest with you. But certainly I think in the case of, you know, looking at Russia specifically at the moment and Putin, I think the feeling of being embattled, as so often is the case actually with sanctions, tends to shore up that sort of regime really, rather than bring it down, because then you can obviously sell a pretty easy angle on the world's against us and therefore we must draw together and be Strong, I'm afraid. Sorry to just repeat, Marta, but I tend to agree that I think if Putin had any interest in a ceasefire or in any kind of end to this war, I don't see why he wouldn't already have been negotiating to that end. I think the only person who's really surprised by that appears to be Donald.

[B]

Trump in increasing desperation. Then, Marta, is there any possibility at all that these so called secondary sanctions, if enforced against China and India in particular, might serve to prise them off Russia? Or have they both picked a team here?

[D]

I think they've both picked a team. I don't think these sanctions are going to really change that much for them. I think Alex made this point quite rightly. Sanctions don't really work or they're a tool. They're probably one of the best tools that we have, but they don't necessarily work as well as we would like them to.

[B]

Just finally on this then, Alex, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last week, and not for the first time demonstrated that vodka and social media don't necessarily mix all that well. In response to which President Trump announced that he was going to reposition two nuclear submarines. Are higher class submarines closer to Russia? That to be clear, that's not all that interesting in itself, is it? Because nuclear submarines get moved into position all the time. That's basically the point of them. But is there at least anything significant to the fact that Trump said it out loud by way of reminding the Russians that they're there?

[A]

I mean, maybe, but I think when you're generally trying to interpret sort of Trump's output at the moment, you know, I mean, it's a little bit of sort of clairvoyance going on because he's got pretty erratic in terms of what he says as well, rather than thinking it's particularly laser guided. I mean, yes, he sent Steve Witkoff to negotiate this, who as you say, was a real estate lawyer. Really, someone who Trump likes because he's good at deals, he thinks, which of course is the thing Trump wants. He says Putin's got to make a deal and all of this. But I mean, Witkoff has no diplomatic experience before 2025 and is somebody who kind of, maybe that helps not to understand all the background that we're bold, kind of weighed down with all the time. Perhaps it helps to be complet. But I think Putin is somebody who very much knows what he wants and for again, sort of very existential reasons of his own survival, really, and trying to persuade him out of that for reasons that might be convenient to Trump seems to me highly unlikely.

[B]

Well, to the United Kingdom now, which has once again been delighted by the opinions of its most former of former Prime Ministers, Liz Truss, who listeners may recall inhabiting 10 Downing street for seven inexplicable weeks in 2022 before being summari defenestrated by her own exasperated party. Gloriously, Truss believes herself in possession of wisdom which might benefit the current leader of the Conservative Party, Cami Badenoch, who does, in fairness, seem, on course, to be Prime Minister for seven weeks less than Liz Truss. Was Truss in and, well, another editorial blaming everyone but herself for her own failings accused Badenoch of being beholden to, quote, spurious narratives. Alex, imagine that. How much do you enjoy hearing from Liz Truss?

[A]

I don't know why we're still hearing anything from Liz Truss. I mean, a period of silence would be most welcome. I would suggest on behalf of Liz Truss, who, you know, as you say, sort of has accepted none of what quite clearly were her own failings that everybody else seems to think were. And in fact, quite often, maybe I shouldn't say it because quite often she seems to threaten to sue people who suggest she's responsible for her own failings.

[B]

I would pay good money to watch that court case.

[A]

I mean, she keeps sort of trying it, but I mean, really, you know, she's not even an mp. I mean, she's a complete irrelevance at this point. She lost her seat at the last election.

[B]

She did.

[A]

I mean, she has absolutely nothing to offer in terms of insight in the current situation. I mean, believe me, it takes quite a lot for me to sit here defending Kemi Badenoch, who I think is doing a pretty hopeless job as leader of Britain's Conservatives. But I mean, for goodness sake, if there's one person who could do it worse. I think we have a prime example.

[B]

I mean, Marta, it is of course, not unusual for a party which has been spanked at the polls, as the Tories were about a year ago ago, to embark on a period of sort of, you know, shin kicking and hair pulling and just general internecine squabbling afterwards. So this may just be that. But does it seem weird that that's happening here where elsewhere in Europe, Conservative parties, for better or for worse, do appear to be getting somewhat more organized.

[D]

Well, have you heard about France lately? No, this.

[B]

I said I leant heavily on somewhat.

[D]

Somewhat. No, I think there's a broader problem that the right, and by this I mean the traditional mainstream centre right, is facing around Europe and that is that they are increasingly competing with far right parties that are becoming themselves better organized and more successful. And the center right doesn't really know what to do with that. The strategy that they seem to have more or less collectively agreed upon is to say, well, look, the radical right is successful. How about we copy them? But tell people that we're going to be much better at doing what they say they're going to do because we have experience with government, and this is a strategy that isn't really working for them. And it's precisely the problem that the Conservative Party is facing right now, where they have to pay for the years of government that people still remember. I mean, my favorite thing about Cammy Badenoch is that she's trying to say that Liz Truss was not one of them. The way she's presenting it, it's like she's saying she was not a real Conservative. And they have reform on the side and they're trying to think about, okay, how do we keep our voters? And instead of thinking, well, there's a bunch of people that are going to go to the Lib Dems, there's a bunch of people who have left us for labor but might be willing to come back. Surely there's even a couple of defactors to the Greens. They're saying, we're going to go into reform territory. And at that point, you have made yourself completely irrelevant because there's no difference between you and reform.

[B]

Well, on that thought, Alex, Reform, according to most polling, are currently leading as Britain's preferred party. For all the fact that they currently have, I think, four MPs. And that, to be clear, given the current rate of attrition is very much, as of this broadcast, a lot of the councillors who were elected, or at least a dozen of the councillors who were elected under the Reform ticket earlier this year have resigned in circumstances of assorted mercury. We are now four years thereabouts away from the next general election in the United Kingdom. How much further into that period should the mainstream parties get before they start panicking at the prospect of Nigel Farage, prime minister?

[A]

Well, I don't think they should panic, but I think they should really pay attention to it from right now. And I mean, actually, the problem, particularly in Britain, seems to be that, I mean, Marta has absolutely described what the Conservatives are doing, which is saying, you know, reform are wrong about everything, but we're exactly like them, so vote for us. Unfortunately, the Labour Party in government also seem to be saying that. They seem to be saying, you know, well, Nigel Farage is obviously right about migration and immigration and all of this, but don't listen to him. Vote for us. We won't do anything about it either. I mean, this is just not appealing. And everybody seems to be chasing this same kind of 30% of voters that vote for reform while ignoring the fact that 70% of people, people seem to have no intention of doing that and actually want a different offering. And it's a sort of bizarre spectacle. You know, actually Britain isn't a particularly far right country by a lot of European standards, and yet this sort of completely disproportionate press attention and constant chasing and political attention on a sort of handful of, you know, pretty embittered far right voters is, you know, just seems.

[B]

Certainly they get far more attention than the people who elected 72 Liberal Democrat.

[A]

MPs, well, quite, you know, who perhaps deserve some attention. And I mean, admittedly, if you elected a double crown, you aren't expecting a lot of attention, really.

[B]

Indeed not.

[A]

But I mean, there seems to be very little offering actually for people who are, I mean, absolutely, as Marta says, sort of the traditional centre right, but also really the centre left seems to have been largely abandoned.

[B]

There is that. But can we rely or can we possibly complacently rely, Marta? And I'm aware, as I say this, that the American experience would appear to suggest not the, that far right and indeed far left parties, because this, I think, affects parties at both edges of the spectrum tend to contain the seeds of their own eventual downfall and destruction because they are frankly, disproportionately riddled with lunatics.

[D]

Well, it used to be the case. What we know from research is that these parties are getting much better at organizing. They still struggle again in places like France. There's been a big problem with their regional councillors sort of get elected and then they're kicked out of the party because, oh, you know, they, they had a swastika tattoo. Happens to the best of us. So they still struggle with some organizational things, but they are becoming more, more well organized. And one of the reasons this is working for them is precisely because they're electorally successful. So they are able to attract the kind of people who actually have political ambition in a way that they weren't able to do before. So they're getting more savvy candidates. And I think that in that way they don't necessarily contain the seeds of their own destruction because there'll still be some lunatics within these parties, but they're increasingly building a political class that is actually quite Savvy and that is going to keep them going for a while.

[B]

Just as a final thought on this, Alex, does that therefore suggest that the centre right, centre left and indeed centre parties should be a bit more. Rob. I guess calling that out rather than attempting to lean into or appropriate it. I mean I do kind of think one of those forks in the road in British history is that you can remember David Cameron as Tory Prime Minister dismissing the then UKIP as a load of fruitcakes, loonies and racists. And I do wonder if he just held that line, how different things might now be.

[A]

Yes, I mean he wasn't wrong and I think it might have been a good idea to stick to it. Yes, I mean, once again a very short answer. Yes, I do think that actually there needs to be some rather than kind of to say constantly, constantly chasing this 30% of elusive voters and it seems to, I don't know why there's something so sort of self hating in the Labour Party as well that appears to propel them towards this when they have plenty of perfectly good voters who don't want any of that, who they could be appealing to. It seems deeply weird to me and I do think that actually, you know, as we sort of have said, I think you can see why the Conservative Party is rather in the weeds after the last election and you know, most parties at that point do need to sort of, you know, have a little bit of a fight and pick themselves up. I'm not sure labouring government has any such excuse.

[B]

Well, to Italy now and a proposal from the what could possibly go wrong school that is a plan to address the inefficiency of various arms of Italian bureaucracy by establishing a new arm of Italian bureaucracy. The idea is that this would address the shocking debts being racked up by many Italian cities by recovering unpaid local taxes and traffic fines incurred but never coughed up by delinquent scoff laws. Listeners absolutely cannot imagine how difficult it has been to write an introduction to this topic without invoking the debt collecting talents of certain elements of Italy's business world. Marta, I feel I owe you right of reply. Is this assuming we can't just dangle people by their ankles out of hotel bedroom windows or leave horses heads in their beds to get their traffic fines paid, is this necessarily a bad idea?

[D]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but it just won't work. There's a reason why this debt hasn't been collected and presumably it's because people don't want to pay, because they're dead because you can't locate them. There's a bunch of reasons. So I am not. I'm not sure how establishing an agency is really, or, you know, getting the agency that already does this stuff to actually help you is really going to help. And besides, you know, probably Italy has bigger issue. There's more money that could come in from proper tax evasion rather than from, you were fined for accidentally driving down a bus lane.

[B]

Nevertheless, these sums are not inconsequential, Alex. They think that various Italian cities are owed 25 billion euros in unpaid taxes, fines and fees. Although due to people dying, paperwork getting lost, et cetera, only 6 billion of that may now be recoverable. Is this one of those things where. Cause I know that there's a 10 and a tendency, indeed in some quarters to just write stuff off because the amounts involved actually are worth less than what the expense it would be incurred in actually chasing them up. But is there an argument for chasing them up nonetheless? Does it not state, look, everybody has to contribute. There is a law, Yes.

[A]

I mean, 25 billion down to 6 billion recoverable is a pretty leaky bucket, isn't it? I mean, you'd be pretty miserable if you lost that much. Yes. There is an argument that you need to do something to change the culture of this and that. That does involve actually a bit of enforcement of what's already happened. It's really difficult to do, though. I mean, I think that achieving that sort of cultural change is huge. There were some, you know, some points have been put forward. I think some Italian cities, for instance, have created an app, you know, I mean, the answer to everything, of course, in the modern world, to make it easier for people to pay, which is a lovely euphemism. Well, easier to track, should we say, whether people owe things. If you've, like, digitized the records and so forth, and perhaps you can do that. Maybe. Maybe some cities will do better at kind of keeping the records for this sort of stuff and for enforcing them in a timely fashion. Because, as you say, when people have died and so forth, often that is just because there are huge delays in trying to collect any of this money. And, you know, it was 40 years ago, nobody can remember what happened, and so everyone's now dead. I mean, so, you know, there's a sort of cultural change that you could perhaps start nudging by this sort of thing and by kind of trying to collect some of these older debts and by sort of, you know, changing the methods by which you approach and collect it in the future. But I do think it's very, very achieve, especially when there clearly has been this very long legacy of non enforcement.

[B]

Just finally on this, Marta, do we like the idea of the city of Turin who are getting a bit medieval on delinquent businesses? The idea is now that if you end up owing the city more than €50,000, they just pull your plugs, you're out of business, they revoke your licenses.

[D]

That's pretty hardcore. Do they then give you a chance to pay the money back?

[B]

I am not entirely sure. I assume so.

[D]

I would guess that in that case it seems fair you should pay your taxes. So why not?

[B]

Because the thing I like that about Alex is that it's simple and I speak. And you may be in the same boat as a fellow freelancer, somebody who has just written their twice yearly check to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having almost no comprehension whatsoever of how that figure was arrived at or what it will be spent on.

[A]

Yes, baffling. Yes, I completely agree. And accountancy software has made that no clearer.

[B]

None.

[A]

It's absolutely impossible really to work out as a normal human. Yes. And I do think, actually, I think Turin's attitude there seems to me with the proviso that indeed this fine can then be paid and the thing can be plugged back in again, I'm afraid. I agree. I think that seems rather sensible, really. Seems quite straightforward to understand that if you don't pay your taxes there are consequences. I think is kind of the base level to establishing a system that actually is enforceable.

[B]

Well, we fixed Italy. Alex von Tzeman and Marta Lorimer, thanks both for joining us. Finally on today's show, a great deal of angst is on at large over upcoming generations of young men, bewildering quantities of whom are relying for life guidance on such preposterous creatures as Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate and other denizens of the subculture which has become known as the Manosphere. James Bloodworth's new book, Lost A Personal Journey through the Manosphere, is a collection of dispatches from this realm, lent additional authority by the fact that Bloodworth, by his own admission, once took a few steps towards membership of the Manosphere before thinking better of it. I spoke to James earlier and began by asking what had briefly attracted him.

[C]

Yeah, so in 2005, I was looking on the Internet. I was. I'd been through a long period. I was quite young and shy and socially awkward and I was in college at the time. There was a young woman I was interested in, but I was just kind of Clueless, like, how do I ask?

[B]

This is a tale as old as time.

[C]

Yes, it is. And then I went home one day after college and Googled how to ask a girl out. And I discovered this forum. And it was kind of men's shop. I kind of didn't really know what to think, first of all, but kind of worth a try, worth reading, see what they're saying. And it was. It turned out to be a pickup artist forum, which would become famous that year through a book by Neil Strauss.

[B]

This is the Game by Neil Strauss.

[C]

Yeah. Kind of undercover, looking at this subculture of men who gathered online on online forums to kind of share. Some of it relatively benign, like tips on how to kind of grooming tips or what aftershave to wear or how to approach someone you like in a box. But then there was also kind of this whole systematic idea of gender relations. So they thought they believed they had gender relations to, like, this exact science.

[B]

Some of it is, as you say, harmless. The idea of teaching people how to start a conversation or open themselves up a bit or overcome shyness. But it's kind of the gateway drug, I guess. And this is what I think makes your book more interesting than most studies of this fear in that you get to a certain point in the manosphere and then sort of realize, actually a lot of these people are just awful and I don't really want anything to do with it. Whereas, of course, a lot of people do keep going. And that's where they end up becoming acolytes of the likes of Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and similar weirdos. When you think back on the period, was there a particular moment for you where you thought, personally, I'm not enjoying this and I'm not happy about it and I'm not comfortable with it.

[C]

I mean, the reason I became interested in that stuff initially was because basically I would, like, wanted to have a girlfriend. It was just like, oh, how do I.

[B]

A reasonable ambition.

[C]

Yeah, like kind of there was. And then there was a lot of men in the community who kind of were in the manosphere at that time. It was just like, how do I get a girlfriend? Often people, often men who had worked in engineering jobs, kind of socially awkward, and they tended to see social interaction through a problem solving context. But then the longer you spent in the culture, the more you'd kind of become marinated in this view of men and women, which is very, very objectifying about women, obviously, but also very essentialist. So men and women were kind of depicted as caricatures. And I Think for me, when I kind of got kind of thought like, you know, I don't really need this was. It was too elaborate and too kind of dehumanizing. So I didn't really want to, you know, it was, it was cool to just learn a few kind of openers for when you go out or something. Just conversations, basic conversation starters. I didn't see any harm with that. But there was also, it was all kind of marinated in this idea that it was just this positivistic science that you can just break down interactions with human beings and then you start to lose the humanity in the other person, that they're just as variable. If you say certain things, they'll respond a certain way. And just kind of the language, the kind of the day to day language people would use about women basically in the subculture was kind of off putting. As someone who was mainly brought up by women, it kind of jarred the way they would casually talk about women.

[B]

I mean, that's possibly what saved you. Because the thing that strikes me from not only reading your book about the people who get properly hardcore about this, but just my own encounters with the subculture online, the thing that always strikes me, and I'd be interested in your views on this, that for all that they are impelled by a desire for women, they don't actually seem to like women very much.

[C]

No. And often. So there would be a mixture of people who kind of fell into the manosphere, so to speak, or fell into the pickup community then. And some of those people just were kind of regular, regular guys in some ways. But then you did have, you did meet other people who kind of, they weren't. It wasn't really about the women in the end. It was about women as kind of a trophy to show off to their friends and women as a, as a kind of reward object for a correct performance of masculinity or whatever. Women were kind of status objects like a sports car or money or something. That was something I definitely noticed. And the longer people spent in the community as well, the more they were around this kind of objectifying these attitudes. You know, rating women on a scale of 1 to 10 and seeing women as just kind of of these objects to be manipulated. I mean, it wouldyou could besomeone could be a misogynist or at least overlook the misogyny when they found the community, but the community would very often make men worse misogynists.

[B]

I think another thing that baffles the outsider, and it certainly baffles me, is that when you look at the kingpins of this movement you investigated and it is people like Jordan Peterson, people like Andrew Tate, they just come across as just such obviously preposterous figures. What did you glean about what their appeal is? What makes people look at somebody like either of them and think, yes, that's what I want to be like.

[C]

I mean, it's partly social media. So the one thing that's changed in recent years is when I was younger, there were no algorithms, so I could kind of leave the community behind and my YouTube algorithm or whatever wouldn't be pushing more radical videos onto me. And the other thing that social media has allowed is, or changed, at least in the past, people like Andrew Tate, kind of confidence men may have, you know, put an ad in the back page of a kind of top shelf magazine or something, or men's magazine or something like that, promising these kind of get rich quick schemes or these lifestyle life coaching or whatever. But social media apps like Instagram, video based, picture based social media apps, they allow these, these charismatic influences to present a lifestyle as well as the personality as well. So kind of taking telegenic charisma of someone like Andrew Tate or even Jordan Peterson, but they can also show off a lifestyle like fast cars, big houses, private jets, exotic travel, nice food, and also being around lots of glamorous women all the time and these kind of status objects. And for teenage boys, that can be very alluring, that kind of thing. You tend to grow out of seeing those things as necessarily the be all and end all of life. But when I was younger, that wasn't really, really there either. So now they can kind of, these kind of personalities can communicate directly with a young person and also broadcast a lifestyle. And of course, what they don't say, what they don't tell people, is that the lifestyle is often funded by the subscriptions of people who pay for these courses.

[B]

That was James Bloodworth speaking to me earlier. James, new book Lost A Personal Journey through the Manosphere is available now. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panel on us today, Alex von Tunzelman and Marta Lorimer. Today's show was produced by Carlotta Rebello and researched by Henry King. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield and Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily returns at the same time tomorrow.

[C]

Thanks for listening.