Starmer steps aside but will Burnham be better?

Summary

The Monocle Daily – Episode Summary

Date: June 22, 2026
Host: Chris Chermak
Guests: Nega Anga (former US State Department adviser), Evan Williams (documentary director/producer)
Main Theme:
A lively, sharp roundtable on the political, diplomatic, and cultural developments of the day, including the downfall of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the prospects for his likely successor Andy Burnham, US-Iran diplomacy under VP J.D. Vance, a Ukraine-Poland historical spat, pet spending habits, and a tribute to Alan Greenspan.

---

UK Politics in Turmoil: Starmer Out, Burnham In?

Timestamps: 02:46–13:15

Overview:
The panel discusses Sir Keir Starmer's abrupt resignation as UK Prime Minister just two years after a landslide Labour victory—a familiar pattern in the decade since Brexit—and the likelihood of Andy Burnham assuming leadership.

Key Discussion Points:

• Pattern of Political Instability:

  • UK sees its seventh PM in ten years since Brexit.
  • Parties fail to stand by leaders despite broad mandates.
  • Rising unpopularity, tax hikes, and communication issues cited for Starmer’s demise.
    • Evan Williams: “Seventh prime minister in 10 years. It seems to be the same pattern... increasing taxes have just annoyed everybody.” (03:36)

• International Implications:

  • Frequent leadership changes unsettle diplomatic partners.
  • Reliability of the UK called into question, complicating foreign policy and international commerce.
    • Nega Anga: "You can't rely on the UK with the same sort of foreign policy... Essentially unreliable partner, a partner that has always been reliable." (04:33)

• Diplomatic Response:

  • Immediate internal analyses of Burnham by embassies worldwide; engagement underway at high levels.
    • Nega Anga: "You have an entire sort of internal political team sitting in London... psychoanalyzing every profile... They have been pumping reports on him for a while now." (06:34, 06:57)

• Comparative International Perspective:

  • Contrast with Germany, where unpopular leaders persist; Burnham’s performance could set a new precedent.
    • Evan Williams: “If there is a turnaround in Britain... this hope thing that [Starmer] didn't really deliver... then there could be some pressure on people like Merz." (09:39)

• Structural vs. Personality Factors:

  • Increasing public impatience; desire for instant results akin to social media habits.
    • Nega Anga: "We have become a less patient society. We have everything on demand... expecting positive results immediately." (10:32)

Notable Quotes:

• Nega Anga: "You don't know if you're going to be taxed when your loved one passes away... It's this constant sort of evolution." (11:34)
• Evan Williams: "People are tired and a bit fed up and it's difficult for people just to get on with their lives." (12:20)

---

US-Iran Diplomacy: J.D. Vance's High-Wire Act

Timestamps: 13:15–23:59

Overview:
Discussion turns to the historic US-Iran talks in Switzerland, led by US Vice President J.D. Vance, and a candid interview with Robert Malley (former US Special Envoy for Iran).

Key Discussion Points:

• Comparing Diplomacy Past and Present:

  • New US-Iran MOU is short and vague compared to the meticulous 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.
    • Robert Malley: “The JCPOA is dozens and dozens of pages... The [new] MOU... is a page and a half.” (14:15)

• Political Backlash at Home:

  • Hardliners see even minor engagement with Iran as a betrayal.
    • Robert Malley: “[The MOU] is a rebuke, is an indictment of their entire theory...” (15:54)

• Stalemate or Progress?

  • Underlying issues unchanged in nearly half a century of US-Iran tensions.
    • Nega Anga: “There’s, you know, these attempts to engage... But the nuclear file has not changed....We’re in the same situation.” (16:21)

• Vance’s Precarious Position:

  • Tasked with selling the deal to skeptical Republican hawks and credibly engaging Iran, while Trump distances himself.
    • Evan Williams: “If Trump can see a benefit by jettisoning JD Vance...I don’t think there’d be any doubt about him doing that.” (18:52)
    • Nega Anga: “J.D. Vance has the most thankless brief in Washington... He literally has to sell this to the Republican hawks.” (19:53)
    • Evan Williams: “If it’s a win, he has to say it’s the President’s win. If it’s a loss, it’s his loss and he could be under the bus.” (20:43)

• Winning on Form, Not Substance:

  • Vance’s main victory would be ending involvement in a "forever war"—not necessarily winning more than Obama’s original deal.
    • Nega Anga: “His ability to just say we pulled out of a forever war will be key.” (23:10)

Notable Quote:

• Robert Malley: “If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.” (Greenspan quote, but indicative of diplomatic ambiguity—found later in Greenspan segment.)

---

Fractures in Eastern Europe: Ukraine and Poland’s Historical Rift

Timestamps: 23:59–28:23

Overview:
Examines the sudden diplomatic dust-up between Ukraine and Poland, as Poland demands the return of an award over World War II-era commemorations.

Key Discussion Points:

• Historical Memory Resurfaces:

  • Old grievances from WWII—Volhynia genocide—ignite present tensions; nationalist symbols in Ukraine irk Poland.
    • Evan Williams: “These memories are like yesterday, particularly because they are associated with Ukraine’s continuing struggle. So...has it upset the Poles?...Absolutely.” (25:08)

• Diplomatic Challenges:

  • Cultural identity issues are nearly impossible for third parties to mediate, especially during wartime.
    • Nega Anga: "This isn’t just culture war stuff...this is where identity essentially becomes security." (27:00)
    • “Most third parties...do not want to get involved in the domestic politics. You just become collateral damage.” (28:23)

Notable Moment:

• Evan Williams to Nega Anga: “That’s why we need diplomats like Maggie.” (28:23)

---

The Pet Economy: Furry Children and Generational Gaps

Timestamps: 28:27–31:21

Overview:
A lighter segment on the shifting role of pets in family life, fuelled by a survey from a pet insurer.

Key Discussion Points:

• Pets as Family Members:

  • 77% of Americans see pets as “like a child”; Gen Z spends much more than boomers on their pets.
    • Chris Chermak: "A dog has long been a man's best friend, but is that dog now becoming a man's family too?" (28:27)

• Generational Divide and Spending Patterns:

  • Gen Z spends over $6k/year, Boomers $2.5k.
  • Panelists don’t own pets, but share family perspectives (negotiating children’s pony obsession, expense of canine siblings).
    • Nega Anga: “The husky is the third child. She has two sons and the husky... but the husky’s expensive dog.” (29:54)
    • Evan Williams: “We're not having pets. I'm being quite harsh... Even if we get the pet, the ponies, it’s not going to be...” (30:44)

• “Beta Testing” Children with Pets:

  • Nega Anga: "But they're beta testing it at the furry one." (31:06)

Memorable Moment:

• Chris Chermak: “Evan’s kids, you heard it here first, you’re not getting a pet from your father.” (31:21)

---

In Memoriam: The Alan Greenspan Era

Timestamps: 31:21–39:24

Overview:
A tribute and mini-bio of former US Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan after his passing at age 100, examining his influence and legacy.

Key Discussion Points:

• Legacy of Opaqueness and Independence:

  • Greenspan famously cryptic—“If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.”
  • Pursued near-complete independence from political interference.
    • Greenspan: “If the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions were subject to congressional or presidential override, short-term political forces would soon dominate.” (34:01)

• Highlights of Career:

  • Presided over historic US economic boom; revered by markets and presidents of both parties.
  • From jazz musician to Reagan and Clinton’s top central banker.
  • “Father of the modern American economy.”

• Limitations and the 2008 Crisis:

  • Greenspan’s faith in self-regulating markets left systemic risk unchecked, contributing to the 2008 meltdown.
    • Greenspan: “So the problem here is something which looked to be a very solid edifice and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down. … If the facts change, I will change.” (38:49)

Notable Quotes:

• Chris Chermak: “There are few things more opaque for the average listener in this world than central banks... and there are few central bank leaders that were more opaque than Alan Greenspan.” (33:30)

---

Key Takeaways

• Political Instability in the UK reflects broader Western impatience and unsettles diplomatic partners.
• US-Iran Relations are largely unchanged in underlying dynamics; new faces, same problems.
• Diplomatic Crises can hinge on deep historical memory and cultural symbolism, as in Ukraine-Poland tensions.
• Pet Obsession is generational and economic, symbolizing shifting cultural priorities.
• Alan Greenspan’s Life is a lesson in the power—and limits—of technocratic leadership.

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• On UK Instability:

  • "Seventh prime minister in 10 years. It seems to be the same pattern..." (03:36, Evan Williams)
  • "You can't rely on the UK with the same sort of foreign policy... unreliable partner." (04:33, Nega Anga)

• On Iran Diplomacy:

  • “The JCPOA is dozens and dozens of pages...The [new] MOU...is a page and a half.” (14:15, Robert Malley)
  • "J.D. Vance has the most thankless brief in Washington right now." (19:53, Nega Anga)

• On Societal Patience:

  • "We have become a less patient society. We have everything on demand..." (10:32, Nega Anga)

• On Greenspan's Legacy:

  • "If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." (33:30, Greenspan)
  • "If the facts change, I will change." (38:49, Greenspan)

---

End of Episode Summary

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 22 June 2026 on Monocle Radio. Starmer is out. A seventh Prime Minister in a decade is soon to be in. J.D. vance, the man who hates the Iran war, now has the task of ending it. And how much money is too much money to spend on pets? I'm Chris Chermack. 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 Chris Chermack. My guests Nega Anga and Evan Williams will discuss the day's biggest stories and we'll look back on the life of the one and only Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. federal Reserve. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Chris Chermak filling in for Andrew Muller today who's on his way to Sweden. He'll be doing a live Monocle Daily from there tomorrow evening and Thursday. You can tune in for that later on this week, but in the meantime, I am joined today by Nigger Anga, former advisor to the U.S. state Department and White House National Security Council. And Evan Williams, independent documentary director and producer specializing in international investigations. Good to have you both.

[B]

Great to be here.

[C]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

And good to have you in this nice and cool studio as we get prepared to hunker down for what is going to be a crazy London week, basically. Evan, do you have tips for staying cool in this?

[B]

Yeah, I would just stay in a small dark or a large dark room with some open windows or something. I close my shutters for the first time today actually to sort of keep the temperature down. But it is true, London sort of stops whenever it gets too cold or too hot. And then I was listening to a very good interview with somebody saying that the houses, the cities are not designed for this sort of temperature. So I'd say stay cool and possibly have a nice cold drink at the end of the day.

[A]

Nega, did you run out and get any kind of air conditioning units or fans or cooling units to combat, as Evan says, the fact that our houses aren't really able to handle this?

[C]

I tried. They're sold out. I plan to spend a lot of time at the grocery store where it's nice and cool. Otherwise there's no such thing as air conditioning units in, in London at the moment. So it is.

[A]

Wow, really?

[B]

They've all sold out.

[C]

I mean, everywhere I went was, was sold out. So I will have to hunt the rest of the city, but I fear it's going to be way too hot to, to try to walk the streets, so.

[A]

Well, we'll let you get back to that after this show, Nega. But we will start our show today here in the UK where it has been quite a day for British politics, albeit a scene that's become all too familiar over the last ten years or so. Sir Keir Starmer has started exiting Downing street just two years after he won his Labour Party a massive majority in a general election. His popularity has plummeted over the last two years in office. And so the question now facing his pretty likely successor, Andy Burnham, is whether that drop in popularity was really about Starmer himself or shall we say more of an inevitable decline for centrist leaders of Western nations these days. Evan, did you hear the news this morning and think this was inevitable? He just kind of had to go. He lost too much.

[B]

Well, you know, yes, it does look like that, but then it's like, what is it? The seventh prime minister in 10 years. It seems to be the same pattern. It doesn't seem like the parties are prepared to stay with the leader even with the mandate. Yes, he was unpopular. Are they really going to an election straight away? I don't know. I mean internationally I think he's done a pretty good job and this sort of, you know, chatter of undermining obviously became an animal in itself and obviously there are problems in his delivery, his communication and I think the flip flopping and I also think the increasing taxes have just annoyed everybody. So what will Burnham do?

[A]

Well, that is the question. What will Burnham do? But negem, he has, he alienated a lot of people. Keir Starmer. But nonetheless, to some of Evan's points there, he did relatively well internationally. I mean, how are people outside of the going to be looking at this? I mean to Americans we're very used to just a fixed four year term.

[C]

Yeah, I mean this is wild. I mean the seventh Prime Minister since Brexit, which was only a decade ago, this is wild. I think, you know, just putting on my former US diplomat hat, you know, national security hat. I think the part that gets frustrating for other countries is that, you know, you can't rely on the UK with the same sort of foreign policy, you know, actions and rhetoric. And I think that's the, and I'm hoping this time around with Burnham at least, maybe if it is, if he does get coronated, you know, it would be great if he can, you know, at least articulate that we're on the same path. It's just a different messenger. It's a different, you know, sharpening of the mission. And I think that will bring at least a bit more ease in the foreign policy circles. Because the reality is, if you're sitting there, you know, negotiating an agreement, or you're a commercial company, you know, hoping for. For something out of number 10 and some engagement, and they're going to flip, you're now having to work with another set of ministers, another set of personalities. This is frustrating. This is a lot of time and money on the line with a very, essentially unreliable partner, a partner that has always been reliable. So I think, obviously, if there's a change of personality, no issues, but if they stay the course and they keep up with maybe a better. He wasn't very good at his messaging, will say, so it'll be great to feel like the UK will be a reliable partner again, just to actually follow that up.

[A]

Nega, I'm just curious about what this looks like when you are a US diplomat. Like when a leader suddenly changes in a country, as opposed to an election where you can prepare, what happens? Do you then get. Are you searching for all kinds of briefings to figure out, okay, who's the next guy? What's the policy? What does that mean for us?

[C]

Oh, absolutely. I mean, the research on the profiles, obviously have been ongoing. You have an entire sort of internal political team sitting in London, essentially psychoanalyzing every profile that's out there so that they're prepared. Right. So they're tracking every system.

[A]

Like, it'll be like the embassy here will be pumping out a whole bunch of reports on Andy Burnham right now.

[C]

Oh, they're definitely. They have been pumping reports on him for a while now. But, yes, absolutely. Right now there's been an entire analysis who he is, who's around him, what he stands for, how will he be as a partner, how do you engage with him? There's quite a bit of that analysis, and it's not just the U.S. i mean, pretty much most of the world is going through that process as well and churning out various different views. You can already bet that many people have already engaged with his staff. They've already engaged with him at some very high levels. So, absolutely, you have to know who your partner is. You have to know who you're engaging with.

[A]

Evan, I wonder how Germany's Conservatives, among others, will be looking at this. Will they be saying, can't we do that? I mean, we have, we've talked about this before ourselves. If there's one person less popular than Sir Keir Starmer was. It is the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz.

[B]

Well, absolutely correct. And he's still in power. There is obviously a corps in his party that wants to get rid of him that would be quite happy to do a deal with the far right, the AfD, as we've discussed before, Chris, they'd be looking, looking at this going, well, just hang in there. I think Mertz is not going to be pushed out too easily and I think they would probably look across the Channel here and look at it as if it's in some chaos. You know, what fundamentally will change in the Labor Party to your point? There you go. You know, really, by having Burnham there, I mean, really, hopefully there could be some change. I think there are some tax possibilities that Burnham has got a vision for, but does he have the numbers and the power to really put them through? I'm thinking specifically about his earlier commitment to getting rid of the inheritance tax, one of the worst things in Britain, in my view, and then replacing it with a 10% levy for social care, aged care. I'd go with that. I think it's a brilliant, bold move, you know, so that sort of thing, if he's bold enough to be able to do that and talk, I believe, seriously about rejoining the EU in some form, even though that's going to then fundamentally undermine his support in the north, and particularly where they, where he got voted back in, if there's something bold, it could be really energizing just to

[A]

follow that up quickly as well. Evan. I mean, what I think is fascinating is now you're going to have this almost two comparative tracks of say, the UK and Germany, because Germany does not do the same thing as quickly as the UK does. They tend to stick with their leaders, even if they're unpopular. So is this going to be kind of the test of whether a government can course correct halfway through with a new leader and deliver whatever it is the British public might want compared to the Germans?

[D]

Totally.

[B]

And I think they'll be looking at it very closely for that reason. If there actually is sort of more of the same and there's more chaos, then I think they would probably that would enhance Merz position to say, look, you know, it's not working. If there is a turnaround in Britain and if there is some really bold change here and they re energize the place and give it more positivity, this hope thing that he didn't really deliver quite as powerful as he could have done then There could be some pressure on people like Merza Nega.

[A]

I'm just curious as well, more broadly from your perspective, is what we're seeing here, when we see something like this happen in the uk, is it about personalities and ideas kind of as Evan is talking about there, and that somebody else can deliver them better, or is there something more structural going on here in especially kind of Western democracies? Are we becoming, I feel, less patient as a public with the running of government?

[C]

Yeah, no, I think it's that last point. We have become less patient. I think in general we've become a less patient society. We have everything on demand at our fingertips. We're expecting positive results immediately. I don't think the public is giving any sort of leader that much grace to solve a problem, to see out a problem, you know, and I think that's thei think essentially that is the biggest issue that we're seeing across the board. We see it in the United States as well. Everyone was fed up with one administration. They immediately pivoted to another administration, another sort of thought leadership because they were so tired of the previous. Right. And so that's unfortunate because there's so much then flip flopping that's happening and we don't even have to talk about the international front, just the domestic front. You know, it keeps flip flopping and you can't even plan your life because you don't know if you're going to be taxed when your loved one passes away or if you're going to be taxed by the real estate taxes. There's just this constant sort of evolution and I think it's very hard for your average population to plan their lives, but they're also very fed up. They want immediate results like you find on again, the sort of like Instagram lifestyle. Everything is at your fingertips and you move through things very quickly.

[A]

Just finally on that point, Evan, because I do think it's an interesting one, the sort of contradictions of the public, because we are getting more fed up. We want changes, but also we're getting to more extremes, more polarized politics, which means that the changes that come are so drastic we can't really plan our lives around that anymore.

[B]

That's totally true and I agree totally with Nagasen there. I mean, is it a result of our social media consumption? Are we less patient because we want instant results not based in fact, not based in policy that's allowed some time to go through? I was talking to some finance guys here who say they're fed up, they don't really know how to plan for Britain's future because of this constant flip flopping, constant tax change, constant this and that. And I think we are becoming and I think that is enhancing the support for the more extreme because they are the loudest in saying what the problems are. They're not the loudest in giving the solutions. And in fact, in some ways it might be good that they do get a chance at power just to test their lack of ideas that have been presented so far. But obviously that's a risk and Burnham may be the guy that can bring it back from that. But yeah, it's more fractious, it's less patient. I think people are tired and a bit fed up and it's difficult for people just to get on with their lives.

[A]

Well, let's move on to Switzerland now where the big cheeses of the US and Iran have left after a weekend of talks. And now the technical teams get down to business, threshing out a long term deal over the next 57 days or so that could bring us all the way back to, well, circa 2015 and Barack Obama's nuclear deal. U.S. vice President J.D. vance led the weekend delegation for the U.S. and the talks of course, came after both countries reached a 1.5 page memorandum of understanding last week that ends the immediate fighting and sets the guidelines for a more comprehensive agreement. Now before we get back to our panel, let's hear a little from Robert Malley, who served as U.S. special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration and was also part of the team that negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA. On Sunday, Malley spoke with Washington based journalist H.J. mai and gave his thoughts on the comparisons being made between the two agreements.

[E]

So just first in terms of the comparison with the jcpoa, because I hear it's being bandied around quite a bit both by proponents of the JCPOA who want to say how superior it is to this memorandum of understanding and by opponents of the JCPOA like Vice President Vance, who tried to ridicule the notion that the MOU was in any way worse than the jcpoa. I really think this is a irrelevant comparison at this point. The JCPOA is dozens and dozens of pages of details on the nuclear file, on the sanctions file. It is a meticulous, painstakingly drafted document, the mou. I mean, the drafting itself leaves somewhat to be desired, full of ambiguities, full of imprecision. It's a page and a half. We're not at the Stage yet. When we can make a comparison now as to the content of the Memorandum of understanding, I'm not surprised. So I think it's predictable that Republicans, particularly more hardline Republicans, would be quite up in arms about this Memorandum of Understanding for a basic reason is that the MOU is a rebuke, is an indictment of their entire theory. Their theory of the case was the following, Asphyxiate the Iranian economy and or strike it militarily and you will get the desired result, which in their view is regime change, regime collapse, whatnot. President Trump has tried both. He's tried maximum pressure. He's tried a military strike. His conclusion, we need a memorandum of Understanding that essentially, even if it's, you know, we're not at the JCPOA stage yet, but it essentially reiterates the basic bargain of that deal, which is Iran will have constraints on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

[A]

Robert Malley, former US Special Envoy for Iran, speaking there with Monocle's HJ My nega. Robert's point right at the end there kind of summed it up for me. We've had a couple of months or a few months of war and a hardline response from Trump, but really the basic bargain, as he called it, of a deal between the US And Iran remains pretty much the same as it was back in 2015.

[C]

That's about right. That kind of sums it up. I mean, I think the reality is, you know, we've spent, you know, months going through every tactic, every personality in Iran and what does it mean? But the reality is that the situation between these two countries have not changed over the last 47 years. And, you know, there's, you know, these attempts to engage with them on areas that are extremely important for the United States and its allies, which is the nuclear file. But the nuclear file has not changed. You know, it all came to a screeching halt. Iran continued to do what it did, and, and now we're back at the same sort of set of scenarios, asking them to engage and the smallest things that they do, the Trump administration now is taking as a win. Right. Apparently, Vice President Vance said that there was progress on IAEA access. But the reality is, you know, the Iranians have never said no. They've just been dilly dallying when it's time for a verification. So again, it' sy the world has changed over the last decade, and Iran's sort of capabilities and ways around hiding their facilities have evolved. But no, we're in the same situation. So the idea that we can negotiate in 60 days. Interesting.

[A]

Same situation, different people. Evan. J.D. vance leading this attempted peace effort, now nuclear negotiations. What strikes me, of course, is the fact that he is now the face of peace for a war that he never wanted in the first place. How did we get here?

[B]

Indeed. Look, if they pull something off which advances exactly from where MEGA was describing, which was in know, basically no change at all, if there's something there that they can grab a hold of, then JD Vance can probably use that as a, as a, as a win. But he's. He looks like he's in very, potentially very dangerous territory because Trump has already been joking about the fact that he, you know, this is. This is JD's deal, man. This isn't me.

[C]

Right.

[B]

And we know what's happened to various administration top administration people in the past. And if Trump can see a benefit by jettisoning JD Vance before possibly the next election, I don't think there'd be any doubt about him doing that because it enables him to step away from the mess that actually was created by the President himself. So, yeah, it's tricky. And if there is a deal. Exactly. As an example, if anybody, then if there's a proper analysis of what this actually means, well, that's when it'll really start to rub, because what has it actually achieved? And if it's JD's memorandum and understanding, he's going to have to carry the can for it. A really interesting point, I thought, was also this confusion about the $300 billion restoration and rehabilitation fund. So JD Vance said publicly, yeah, you know, like, we're gonna do that. And then Trump says, we're not putting any money in. And then there's like, a thing about cooperation with the regional allies, and it's like, what is going on here? Is this just another real estate deal?

[C]

I mean, look, J.D. vance has the most thankless brief in Washington right now. I mean, if you think about it, right, this poor man has to sell. If this works out. To your point, if something happens, something that moves forward, he literally has to sell this to the Republican hawks.

[B]

Yep.

[C]

Ouch.

[A]

Of which he was, well, not a friend of theirs. Kind of a friend of theirs.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

Hard to sell.

[C]

But then he also has to sell discipline to President Trump. Right. Like he can't, in the middle of the negotiations, tweet something that upsets the Iranians and then they walk out. Right. So that, in and of itself, is a bit of a thankless task. But then how do you also sell credibility to Tehran that he actually has the ability to do this so, you know, again, tricky. This is quite something.

[B]

You're quite right. Because if it's a win, he has to say it's the President's win. If it's a loss, it's his loss and he could be under the bus. Right. And meanwhile, in the reporting that I was looking at today, of course, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio has been, been very distant from all of this sort of stuff.

[A]

He has managed to distance himself impressively.

[E]

So.

[C]

Well, so well. I mean, bravo. That was a master class. How did he do that?

[B]

You know, he did his job.

[C]

I mean, I don't know, theoretically, but you have, you know, Witkoff, you have Kushner, and again, that's not sticking on them either. I mean, this is just chef's kiss about how this is playing out. But, you know, well, let's see, if something happens with Cuba and then that may be Rubio's.

[B]

Can I come in there? Your experience as well. I mean, Jodie just looks very uncomfortable in any of these sort of picture opportunities, doesn't he?

[C]

I mean, well, this.

[A]

Well, he didn't even get the picture opportunity.

[C]

He didn't, but he got the opportunity to be on camera. As you know, this whole perplexed moment, I will say, I mean, again, who knows how this all plays, how this particular one played out and what the various conversations were behind the scenes and all those closed door conversations. But the reality is, I mean, this is what the United States. I mean, we do pay attention to the protocol, the timing, all of those factors. So why this particular scenario occurred the way it did begs so many different questions. Is the team sort of protocol bench weak in this matter, or was the United States so desperate that it needed to come to the table to show proof that, yes, we are actively engaged in this or not? I mean, it was remarkable. And obviously the Iranians played it in such a way that even the Pakistanis and the Qatari mediators had no idea that this is how Iran was going to play. It should have been assumed. But anyhow, again, in terms of optics and showmanship and what that did to J.D. vance is quite something.

[A]

We do need to move on. But I just have a very quick follow up nega if possible, because I'm just really curious about this. In terms of a win for J.D. vance, is there actually anything in that 2015 Obama nuclear deal that was missing? Is there something they could get that was not in that original deal?

[C]

To be honest with you, I think the win that I think J.D. vance will be able to pull if he's able to pull this off is to be able to declare that, see, we were able to have a no more forever war and we were able to pull out of Iran. I think that is going to be quite frank, the win in terms of what they. I think it's very hard to analyze between the 2015 agreement and whatever today's agreement will look like because so much has changed. It's hard to be able to articulate that this was a bigger win. Of course, you're going to have the strategic communicators spinning this and saying we've gained quite. These are the things that we've gained. But I think, you know, his ability to just say we pulled out of a forever war will be key.

[A]

Well, moving on to one more conflict because it has been a good few weeks for Ukraine with President Volodymyr Zelensky fresh off a successful G7 summit where much of the storyline was about Ukraine in the ascendancy and therefore better able to persuade one Donald Trump to support it. But while that relationship may be in the process of mending, relations are now fraying closer to home. Poland's president over the weekend demanded that Zelenskyy return the country's highest state award, a demand that Zelenskyy agreed to. He has handed it back. And all of this over the commemoration of a set of World War II fighters that are revered by Ukrainians for defending them against the Soviets and reviled by the Poles for what they call the Volyna genocide. Evan I mean, what strikes me about this story, I guess, is just how long our memories are between n nations, how much Even World War II still plays on our minds, how fragile also some of our relations are. It just doesn't take much to nudge us back into some kind of old strife and debates that countries are having.

[B]

Totally. This is a really fascinating story, actually. I remember going through Western Ukraine probably about 18 months ago, and the black and white, sorry, the black and red colours, the flags of those original fighters are what signifies the Ukrainian resistance in the west of the coast. They are a very deep part of the Ukrainian consciousness of its struggle, foreign independence against the Soviets. But also we have to remember that that part of the country was occupied by Poland around 1918. I think it was up until the Soviet, the German invasion, then the Soviets. So their resistance against those Polish overlords was part of the Ukrainian fight against the first, they sided with the Nazis because they thought they were going to get independence. Then they fought the Nazis and the Soviets and the Poles that were there now, that's not to excuse what happen, because I think on reports there was something like 80,000 Poles that were killed by the Ukrainians in that war over a decade. So this is something that goes to the heart of what has shaped the modern Eastern Europe. And these memories are like yesterday, particularly because they are associated with Ukraine's continuing struggle. So is it right for Zelenskyy to have recognized probably right now, has it upset the Poles because of the violence like it was yesterday? Absolutely. And remember, Poland is absolutely critical to Ukraine's war effort. So it's a bit of a mess.

[A]

It is a bit of a mess. And Nega, you were saying before we went on air, what's striking about this also from the perspective of a former US Diplomat, is that when these things are so personal and are about symbolism between two different countries, I mean, the war in Ukraine means so much support for it around the world is such an important element, and yet it isn't easy for a third country to come in and mediate over something like this.

[C]

I mean, the reality is this isn't just culture war stuff, right? This is essentially where identity essentially becomes security. So, yes, absolutely. How do you mediate when you haven't lived through some of these experiences where it runs deep in the veins of these both parties? I think the reality is, is that in general, you try not to touch these unresolved historical memory issues because they're not manageable during wartime. They're a bit more manageable in peacetime. And so I think the tricky bit is so much of it is being aired out in public on television, and most of this stuff will be able to be resolved behind the scenes. Reality is they're going to have to resolve this behind the scenes. They're going to have to resolve this regardless. You know, Ukraine is in such a precarious, continues to be in such a precarious place that both parties are going to need each other. But it's when we, you know, most third parties who enter into these conversations do not want to get involved in the domestic politics. You just become collateral damage.

[B]

That's why we need diplomats like Maggie.

[A]

Okay, well, speaking of diplomacy, finally for our panel, this is an important one on our honor, the end of our show, because a dog has long been a man's best friend, but is that dog now becoming a man's family, too? Or woman's, of course. A study from Healthy Paws Pet Insurance, first reported in the New York Post. And yes, please do be aware of potential biases from a survey done by a Pet insurer finds that 77% of Americans say that their pet is like a child to them. And spending on pets reached a new record in 2025. But there is a difference between Gen Z and boomers here. Gen Z will spend more than $6,000 per year on their pets, compared to just around $2,500 for the wealthier boomer parents. I have to just open the floor first of all, to both of you, who has a pet here who would like to claim love of a pet?

[B]

I do not have pets. My children are desperate for pets, but they want, but they want ponies. And so I appreciate that. Which is a bit hard negotiating, doesn't it?

[C]

Yeah, I very much appreciate that. I do not have a pet. So I live vicariously through my sister who has a husky, who has a husky in Houston, mind you. So she, the husky definitely lives quite, quite a life.

[A]

But I was gonna say, not that you necessarily wanna throw her under the bus on this very show, but how does she treat her husky?

[C]

Oh, the husky is the third child. She has two sons and the husky, you know, but the husky's expensive dog. You know, pets are genuinely expensive. You know, I remember having this whole conversation with my sister. So she used to live in New York and so she had a mini husky in New York. And the reality was this whole conversation that you need to have pet insurance. It is so expensive. But you know, they're expensive in some ways and they're cheaper in other ways. I mean, think about it. You don't have to pay for a husky's university tuition, but you may be able to buy them cute little outfits. So I, you know, so I can't relate to the conversation. But they don't demand as much.

[A]

That is a fair relation, though. I mean, Evan, how much of this goes through your mind when you're negotiating with your children?

[B]

We're not having pets. I'm being quite harsh about it for a number of reasons that I won't go into right now, but it's not going to happen. And they, and they, you know, I mean, I think it's right. But it taps into something really quite interesting, doesn't it? With the generation that's prepared to spend that much money on a pet that they, they almost treat like children. Like, I mean, the solution could be why don't you just have kids?

[C]

But they're beta testing it at the fairy one.

[A]

But are they?

[B]

Is that it? It's going on forever. It's going on forever. No, no, no, we're not spending $6,000 on pets. Even if we get the pet, the ponies, it's not going to be, I'm

[C]

just imagining a pony Galavant in a London flat.

[A]

We'll bring you on for that. Sadly, Evan's Kids, you heard it here first. You're not getting a pet from your father. Nega Anga and Evan Williams, thank you very much for joining us today. Finally, on today's show, former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan passed away earlier today at the age of 100. That's according to a statement from his wife of 29 years, Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell called him a giant of a man who helped shape the US Economy for decades, but also a lover of tennis, baseball, golf and jazz. Here is a look back at Greenspan's influence on American and global monetary policy. He has become the standard by which central bankers are measured. The United States honors Alan Greenspan for his outstanding career of public speaker service and for enhancing the character and prosperity of our nation. There are few things more opaque for the average listener in this world than central banks and how they go about setting the interest rates that govern everything from the mortgages you pay on your home loan to the price of goods in the supermarket. And there are few central bank leaders that were more opaque than the longtime Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, widely considered the father of the modern American economy. In fact, Greenspan prided himself on that opaqueness, leading investors to look at novel indicators, such as examining the fullness of his briefcase to get a sense of whether a big decision on interest rates was coming. During his nearly two decades at the helm of the US Central bank, Greenspan never gave media interviews or press conferences. And what he did say in prepared remarks or congressional testimony would come to be known as Greenspan Speak. Among his most famous quotes. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said. Or maybe this, as I said to

[D]

the president before, it's like eating peanuts. You keep doing it, keep doing it and you never get tired because the future is always ultimately unknowable.

[A]

Thank you, Alan. Okay, so Greenspan was not the guy you turned to if you wanted a layman's explanation of how the economy and, and monetary policy work. But he was the guy who presided over an unprecedented boom in the US Economy from his perch as head of the US Federal Reserve, which is often considered the second most important job in the United States behind that of president. And it's a power that he exercised independently, free from political interference, which is, of course, by design, as he explains

[D]

here There is a grudging acceptance of the degree of independence afforded our institution. It is generally recognized and appreciated that if the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions were subject to congressional or presidential override, short term political forces would soon dominate.

[A]

Free from political interference. Greenspan came as close as something as geeky as central banking can to having a rock star. Which is all the more fitting because he started his career as a jazz music musician. Raised by a single mother in New York City, Greenspan was a math whiz from a young age, but actually went to the Juilliard School of Music and later played with saxophonist Stan Goetz and the Henry Jerome Band before refocusing his attention on what he was born to do, which was to manage the world's largest economy. Greenspan would become an economic advisor to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1972, later a chief economic adviser to President Nixon and successors Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. It was Reagan who appointed him Federal reserve chair in 1987. And while his background was as a Republican, his awesome power and control over the American economy was so great that even Bill Clinton, the first Democratic president to take office in 16 years, kept Greenspan on the job.

[D]

Job.

[A]

Clearly wise leadership from the Fed has played a very large role in our strong economy.

[B]

That is why today I am pleased to announce my decision to renominate Alan

[A]

Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. And it was that partnership which yielded the most fruit. Together, Clinton the Democrat and Greenspan the Republican presided over an unprecedented period of economic expansion and low inflation in the United States and much of the Western world world. And while Greenspan did face his share of economic crises over his tenure, the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the dot com bubble bursting in the year 2000, it seemed as if he couldn't put much of a foot wrong reassuring markets, raising interest rates when he needed and cutting them before a crisis could derail the US economy. It was an unprecedented economic boom that even at times like this in 1990 confounded Greenspan himself.

[D]

You would have expected long ago prices to have accelerated. I don't recall moving this far into a business cycle expansion. With the price level inflation rate staying down and by some measures even continuing to fall. I do not remember this type of inflation pattern existing for this long.

[A]

That surprise and desire not to give up on a good thing explains how Greenspan was handed superlatives such as the oracle, an economic God among men, unelected and serving six American presidents. Four as chair of the Fed until he finally retired in 2006. And yet Greenspan's is a cautionary tale as well. Because when you solely rely on one man to know what he's doing, well, every man's luck will eventually run out. This is going to be one of the watershed days in financial markets history. It was a manic Monday in the financial markets.

[B]

The Dow tumbled more than 500 points

[A]

after two pillars of the street tumbled over the weekend. Lehman Brothers, a 158-year-old firm, filed for bankruptcy. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence and major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down. This, of course, is the financial crash of 2008, just two years after Greenspan retired. And it's a crisis that would lead to a rethinking of Greenspan's legacy and approach to monetary policy. For one thing, Greenspan was not a fan of regulation, a follower of Ayn Rand who believed that financial markets were capable of regulating themselves, which is why he didn't catch the build up of subprime mortgages that led to the massive 2008 financial collapse. Central bankers after Greenspan have tried to learn those lessons. The profession has become more transparent, not less, with regular press conferences the norm these days and central bankers often forecasting where they expect interest rates to go. Greenspan himself certainly wasn't a fan of everything that's changed in the central bank banking world since he retired. But he was a man willing to admit when mistakes were made in an era of self assured politicians, that too should be part of his legacy.

[D]

So the problem here is something which looked to be a very solid edifice and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down. And I think that, as I said, I still do not fully understand why it happened. And obviously to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views. If the facts change, I will change.

[A]

Alan Greenspan passed away earlier today at the age of 100. That is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. A big thanks to my panelists today, Nega Anga and Evan Willis Williams. Today's show was produced by Christy o' Grady and researched by Josefina Astrid Nagler Gomez. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Chris Chermack here in London. The Monocle Daily is back at the same time tomorrow with Andrew Mullard live from Sweden. Goodbye and thanks for listening.

[D]

Sam.