#111 - Liz truss - The UK Needs a Trump Style Revolution

Summary

---

The Peter McCormack Show

Episode #111: Liz Truss – The UK Needs a Trump-Style Revolution
Released September 9, 2025
Host: Peter McCormack
Guest: Liz Truss (Former UK Prime Minister)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features former Prime Minister Liz Truss in an in-depth conversation with Peter McCormack about the dire state of Britain—covering issues of bureaucracy, law and order, economic decline, the left-right culture war, institutional capture, and the need for radical, Trump-style political change in the UK. Truss outlines her case that the UK’s establishment, bureaucracy, and media elite are ideologically captured and unaccountable, arguing that Britain needs a profound overhaul, not just electoral change. The conversation is candid, wide-ranging, and marked by Truss’s call for optimism, direct action, and a new breed of political and business leadership.

---

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Crisis of the “Dispossessed Centre” and Britain’s Political Divide

• Dispossessed Centrists: Truss and McCormack discuss how “centrists” feel politically homeless as the Overton window (the range of acceptable political discourse) has shifted to extremes.
  • (00:00, 10:25, 25:00)
  • Quote: “There are lots of dispossessed centrists… what on earth has happened?” – Liz Truss [00:00]
• Polarization: Debates are now binary and extreme, with little middle ground on issues like free speech, migration, and traditional values.
  • Quote: “You don’t get engagement by being a rational, reasonable centrist. We promote the extremes because that’s what gets the debate.” – Peter McCormack [10:16]

2. Institutional Capture, the “Blob,” and the Limits of Political Power

• The Blob: Truss describes Britain’s senior bureaucracy, judiciary, and media as a largely unaccountable ‘blob’, resistant to reform.
  • Quote: “…the elite, the establishment, the blob, who are very, very impervious and will take a lot of shifting in order to get change.” – Liz Truss [03:42]
• Limits of Prime Ministerial Power:
  • Truss outlines the real powerlessness of the PM versus the entrenched civil service, Bank of England, and legacy laws.
  • Quote: “No, you cannot change this thing. It needs to be completely overhauled.” – Liz Truss [11:42]
  • Quote: “As Prime Minister, you’re quite isolated… any one minister, or indeed Prime Minister, is quite isolated.” – Liz Truss [12:25, 13:34]
• Civil Service & Bureaucratic Hostility: Key policies are decided by a left-leaning bureaucracy and not the elected politicians.
  • Quote: “The problem we’ve got is not solely having them [Labour] as incompetent people… the policies are being driven by the permanent bureaucrats.” – Liz Truss [24:27]

3. Collapse of Law & Order and Social Cohesion

• Personal Crime Anecdotes: McCormack shares recent criminal incidents affecting his family and business, linking them to a wider sense of lawlessness.
  • Quote: “There’s just this like, general breakdown in law and order… People don’t care.” – Peter McCormack [06:41]
• Police Priorities: Truss criticizes the police focus on “thought crimes” and social media posts over real-world crime.
  • Quote: “Senior police… decided they’re going to focus on arresting people for what’s been posted on X or even on a WhatsApp group.” – Liz Truss [06:41]
• Failure of "Middle Ground": Law, policing, and justice issues now spark severe polarization without pragmatic compromise.
  • (07:47 – 10:25)

4. Economic Decline and Mismanagement

• Rooted Economic Issues: Truss blames decades of institutional and policy failure, particularly during the Blair and post-Blair era, for the UK’s economic woes.
  • Quote: “Britain’s economic failings have been going on for 30 years… Blair created these unaccountable institutions.” – Liz Truss [22:05]
  • Quote: “America’s had lower taxes, it’s got on with fracking, it’s had massively low energy costs… they’re now 50% richer per head.” – Liz Truss [54:48]
• Taxation and Business: Sharp criticism of high taxes, the rise in corporation tax to 25% (driving business and talent out), and the attacks on small business and entrepreneurship.
  • Quote: “I always knew the policies were right… that corporation tax shouldn’t be raised to 25%.” – Liz Truss [33:06]

5. The Problem of Unaccountable Quangos and Media Failure

• Unaccountable "Experts": Institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility, Bank of England, and Resolution Foundation are cast as left-wing, unaccountable, and beyond democratic control.
  • Quote: “I mean, [Torsten Bell] is a socialist. He believes that the more you raise taxes, the more money you will get from business.” – Liz Truss [26:00]
• Failings in the Media: Mainstream media accused of covering up or under-reporting scandals, crimes, and genuine debate—thus fueling alternative, independent media.
  • Quote: “We do have a mainstream media problem in this country.” – Liz Truss [58:10]
  • Quote: “The failure of the British media to examine what our country's problems are… is just shocking.” – Liz Truss [73:14]
• BBC License Fee: Truss openly advocating for its abolition.
  • Quote: “Yes, the license fee should be abolished.” – Liz Truss [76:50]

6. Case Study: The Mini-Budget and Market Crisis

• Vindication: Truss addresses her forced resignation and the subsequent realization that her economic warnings were prescient.
  • Quote: “There’s a lot of commentary that’s come out recently, a lot, which was: Liz was right… and it’s a growing chorus.” – Peter McCormack [37:04]
• Institutional Sabotage & Hostility: She claims that the Bank of England and OBR actively undermined her economic plans.
  • Quote: “When you’re facing a hostile system, you have to act quickly, otherwise you will get nothing done… you have to take them on straight away.” – Liz Truss [38:04]
  • Quote: “They [the Bank of England and OBR] are not people who are comfortable with conservative economic policy, and yet they are the people dictating the terms.” – Liz Truss [43:16]

7. Calls for a "Trump-Style Revolution" and Mass Overhaul

• Need for Radical Change: The UK needs a “Trump-style” populist counter-revolution, abandoning Blairite and technocratic consensus politics.
  • Quote: “There is a fight for the future of this country.” – Liz Truss [61:36]
  • Reforms Proposed:
    • A “Great Repeal Bill” to abolish legacy legislation (Equality Act, Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act, etc.), and fundamentally rebalance the state.
      • Quote: “You need to put it all on the bonfire… pretty much every piece of legislation passed by Tony Blair and frankly, quite a lot passed by the last Conservative government.” – Liz Truss [56:28]
    • Restoring accountability to police chiefs, the Bank of England, and senior bureaucrats.
    • A call for more business and entrepreneurial figures to enter politics.
      • Quote: “What that leads us to know is actually having a powerful business and entrepreneur class that are prepared to act is very, very important...” – Liz Truss [87:16]

8. Concerns Over Sectarianism, Social Unrest, and Leadership Deficit

• Potential for Civil Unrest: Truss and McCormack discuss the risk of domestic extremism, growing sectarian divides, and lack of strong, unifying leadership.
  • Quote: “There is a fight for the future of this country. We are seeing growing sectarianism as well.” – Liz Truss [61:36]
  • Quote: “I think there are real risks of more serious terrorist attacks in Britain.” – Liz Truss [61:42]
• Leadership Void: Both agree there’s a lack of voices able to transcend division and unite the country, in part due to the “woke” capture of traditional cultural and media figures.
  • Quote: “The problem is that Starmer… put himself on one side of the argument. I don’t think he’s got the credibility to rise above it.” – Liz Truss [68:17]

9. Optimism and Next Steps

• Holding onto Optimism: Despite the bleak diagnosis, Truss and McCormack end on a note of determined optimism, believing change is possible if those who care take action.
  • Quote: “I want to be more optimistic… if we can unite those different factions of people who are angry… then perhaps that can solve a lot of the crime and the discipline.” – Peter McCormack [84:19]
  • Quote: “It’s about British people reclaiming their ancient liberties… I think there’s a kind of muscle memory… people need to reconnect with and are reconnecting with.” – Liz Truss [85:31]
• Entrepreneurial Involvement: Explicit call for entrepreneurs and business leaders to get involved in politics to enable change.
• Truss on her Future: She refuses to rule out a political comeback, emphasizing teamwork, infrastructure, and commitment to restoring Britain’s greatness.
  • Quote: “I’m not ruling anything out. I’m pretty much prepared to do virtually anything to get this country back.” – Liz Truss [90:24]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “You can’t just be centrist in arguing back to them… the left have shifted the Overton window so far that there needs to be an equal and opposite reaction.” – Liz Truss [00:33]
• “We are in the dark Blair era… rampant inflation, quantitative easing… has really shafted working people.” – Liz Truss [22:05]
• “The policies are being driven by the permanent bureaucrats.” – Liz Truss [24:27]
• “Socialism has always been about equal misery for all. That’s, that’s their philosophy.” – Liz Truss [27:20]
• “I always knew the policies were right… I actually want to see small businesses, independent people, entrepreneurs.” – Liz Truss [33:06]
• “No Prime Minister, once they’ve had a no confidence vote, has actually survived.” – Liz Truss [34:29]
• “Can you imagine how everyone listening to this would feel if they had 50% more money? … because that’s what they would be if they were in America.” – Liz Truss [54:48]
• “We need a bureaucracy that’s actually accountable to the people that run the country. That’s what needs to happen.” – Liz Truss [57:15]
• “These freedoms are very long-standing in our country. And I think there’s a muscle memory… that people need to reconnect with.” – Liz Truss [85:31]
• “We will not be able to achieve this… counter revolution, without them [entrepreneurs].” – Liz Truss [89:47]

---

Structure & Timestamps of Major Sections

• 00:00–03:42: Political polarization, collapse of the centre, rise of extremes.
• 03:42–11:41: Entrenchment of the establishment (“the blob”), failure of mere elections to change anything.
• 11:41–16:28: Realities of being Prime Minister, bureaucracy's power and infrastructure inadequacies.
• 17:39–24:27: Functioning of government vs. bureaucracy, structural flaws, economic decline origins.
• 24:27–32:44: Unaccountability of economic policy, influence of left-wing think tanks.
• 32:44–45:48: Systemic difficulties in effecting change, media’s role, Truss’s attempted reforms.
• 45:48–52:25: Social breakdown, contrasts between London elites and suffering regions, homelessness, crime.
• 52:25–58:10: Ideological capture across the state, scale of needed reforms.
• 58:10–76:50: Mainstream media’s role, alternative media’s growth, institutional structures (“BBC should be abolished”).
• 76:50–84:19: Law and order, policing, police accountability, cultural discipline.
• 84:19–92:26: Reclaiming cultural and economic optimism, call for new leadership, Truss on her political future.

---

Memorable Moments

• McCormack’s personal crime stories illustrate public frustration with policing and law enforcement (05:26–06:41).
• Truss’s candid admissions about being “forced out” (34:22) and the real constraints faced by outsider political leaders.
• Discussion of civil war and sectarianism in the UK—usually taboo in mainstream discourse—brings urgency and gravitas to the episode (59:21–61:41).
• Truss’s unapologetic stance on her policies and refusal to back down or seek rehabilitation from the media (38:04–45:48).
• Frequent referrals to the “Trump model” as inspiration for the necessary British counter-revolution, drawing a global populist parallel.

---

Summary Note

This episode is a deep-dive diagnosis and call-to-arms for those dissatisfied with Britain’s economic decline, institutional unaccountability, cultural fragmentation, and lawlessness. Truss offers blunt, unapologetic prescriptions—demanding a structural overhaul, grassroots activism, and business leadership, refusing to place hope in incremental political change. The tone is frank, urgent, occasionally dark, but leavened with a persistent belief in the possibility of British renewal—if, and only if, a genuine “revolution” is mounted.

---

Transcript

[A]

There are lots of dispossessed centrists at the moment who are like, what on earth has happened? You know, either I have to believe that men can become women, or, you know, I'm a supporter of Tommy Robinson. They're dispossessed. But what I would say to those people is when you've got these extreme people and, you know, the Home Office has said, the Home Office's lawyers have said the rights of illegal migrants are more important than the rights of the people of effort, you know, this is pretty extreme stuff. You know, you can't just be centrist in arguing back to them.

[B]

No.

[A]

You can't just say, oh, well, Yvette Cooper, I think you've been a bit, you know, maybe we should balance it a bit more. You have to be on the other side because that is how powerful these people have come. The left have shifted the Overton window so far that there needs to be an equal and opposite reaction.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by our lead sponsor and massive legends iron, the largest Nasdaq listed Bitcoin miner using 100% renewable energy. Now, they're not just powering the bitcoin network, they're also providing cutting edge computer resources for AI, all backed by renewable energy. Now, my boy Danny and I have been working with their founders, Dan and Will, for quite some time now, and we've always been super impressed with their values, especially their commitment to local communities and sustainable computing power. So if you're interested in mining bitcoin or, or harnessing AI compute power, Iron is setting the standard. And so you can find out [e-mail], which is Irene.com, that is iron.com. okay, Liz, nice to see you again.

[A]

Good to see you.

[B]

Good to see you. Have we got eight and a half years left to save the worst?

[A]

Yes, yes, we have. And I think that we are on track. Trump has won in America. He's doing what needs to be done in the us I think it's going to take more than one term in the us. I want to see the Republicans get elected again. And I think what is going on in Britain and Europe is we're seeing the same kind of popular revolts that we saw in America. So I think that there are the ingredients there for things to really change. There are the ingredients.

[B]

So when you look at.

[A]

So I'm actually optimistic.

[B]

What is that? I had that as a.

[A]

Compared to all the people who are sort of predicting doom and gloom, I think things will get worse, unfortunately. I think the economy is in an Absolutely dire state. But I do believe that Britain is savable and I think we're seeing America being saved.

[B]

So I had that as one of my questions. I was going to ask you what is. What is it you're optimistic about? Because I was listening to. Do you know Dave Smith? No, I was listening to him on Rogan. He's a libertarian, I think you'd really like him. And he said he sees Ron Paul about once a year. And Ron Paul always says to him, are you optimistic or pessimistic? And he always answers optimistic. And Ron Paul always said, that's the right answer. And he said, you have to be optimistic because if you're not, you have to give up.

[A]

But also, I can't help being optimistic. It's a factory setting.

[B]

Well, so when I was with Tommy the other week, he said he made a point. We have to go through all this, we have to experience pain, we have to experience all these almost. We had to go through Lucy Connolly to discuss free speech and obviously now we've had another arrest yesterday, but we have to go through all this to be able to restore Britain to what it was. Do you feel.

[A]

I certainly think that the. Everyone needs to be aware of just how bad things are in order to get the level of momentum that is needed for change. Because the establishment and the authorities who are currently in charge are very, very impervious to pressure. And this is what we're seeing. I mean, despite the fact that the police got masses of flak for Lucy Connolly, they then turn up at Heathrow Airport and arrest Graham Liner. I mean, it's insane. Why on earth would you do that? Why on earth? If you're in the chain of command in the CPS or the police, why on earth would you think this is a good idea? So what we have is a sort of rule. You could call them the elite, call them the establishment, call them the blob, who are very, very, very impervious and will take a lot of shifting in order to get change. And that does require people to understand what the problem is, demand that level of change. And what we've seen for the past 20 years is people being frustrated but essentially saying, well, that's just all the fault of the Prime Minister. And these politicians are rubbish. Let's elect some new politicians. People have to understand a problem goes a lot deeper than that. And the changes required are much more than an election. They're much more than an election. And I think that is what people are saying when they're saying things have to get Worse, that realization has to kind of permeate.

[B]

Connor, Tell Liz why you were so annoyed at seeing a comedian arrested yesterday at the airport. What happened to you this week? Oh, yeah, my car was robbed. I put a complaint into the police and I've heard nothing since. I mean, I even have the location of the headphones which were stolen and they can't knock on the doors because they could knock on the wrong house and that might hurt someone's feelings. So in the space of a week, we've had our house, our front drive, they've come through the hedges, they've broken into his car, they've stolen his headphones, his sunglasses and a wallet with couple hundred quid in. Obviously, as a dad, I've said, you idiot, don't leave stuff in your car. But still, it's his car on our driveway and it's been broken into. And that's about 700 pound of stuff, which is more than his monthly disposable income. And he can't claim it on insurance because there's no claims. It's just that's a cost to him. Someone's driven into my car in a car park and just driven off. Then in our little coffee shop, I've had to replace the cutler in the milk jugs because people keep stealing them. And so there's this just like general breakdown in law and order. People don't care. And then we see a comedian who's made some of the best TV we've had arrested for three tweets.

[A]

It's hard to know. I completely agree. The level of crime is increasing. The level of lawlessness is increasing. Yeah, I hear, I'm afraid lots of stories like Connor's story, I hear all the time. And yet the police, and this is really the senior police officers have decided that they are going to focus efforts on arresting people for what's been posted on X or even on a WhatsApp group. I mean, I thought that was insane when parents were apprehended over what they posted on a WhatsApp group. And it really exposes what is wrong with our country, which is these people who aren't elected are making decisions that the public are completely out of line with what the public want. They're completely out of line and they are unaccountable. And they are one part of a very unaccountable British state.

[B]

You said people don't understand how bad it's got. Yeah. And also there's like, there's this massive divide. Whatever the subject is, there are two opinions now. There's very little middle ground to be agreed. Either Lucy Connolly should have gone to jail for three and a half years and. Or it was a gross infringement on free speech and a gross overreaction. It either we should be housing migrants in hotels across the country and supporting them because they've come from war torn countries, or we should be stopping small boats. We've kind of lost a middle ground. There's no meeting in the middle anymore.

[A]

I think what the middle ground is has changed. So I think we're going through a very similar kind of political change to the change America's gone through. I mean, it used to be the case you had left wingers who believed in high taxes, lots of public spending they were in favor of. They were still socially conservative and patriotic. So you didn't have the kind of transgender ideology or the sort of the open border stuff. And then you had the right wing, which was believers in free markets, the family, all of those more traditional conservative values. What's now shifted is you got a bunch of people that you would describe as globalists. They believe in open borders, they believe in transgender ideology, they're not fans of traditional structures. They believe in big government, they believe in big international government. And then you've got people who are essentially nationalists who believe in Britain, borders, tradition, don't believe in woke ideology, et cetera, et cetera. And that is the new divide in Britain. So there are people in the middle. And in fact, I know people on the Lucy Conley issue who say, yes, she should have been arrested, but the sentence was too long. So I do know people. I'm not of that opinion. I don't think she should have been arrested at all. But there are people in the middle of that argument. Maybe you just don't hear from those people because debate. I don't think it is, actually. No, I think there's quite a lot of people like that. I just don't think they're the people that, you know, are on social media or talking on podcasts or whatever, or they don't.

[B]

You don't get engagement by being a rational, reasonable centrist.

[A]

You don't really know.

[B]

We promote the extremes because that's what gets the debate.

[A]

But also I think there are lots of dispossessed centrists at the moment who are like, what on earth has happened? You know, either I have to believe that men can become women, or, you know, I'm a supporter of Tommy Robinson. There's sort of, you know, it's very. They're kind of. They're dispossessed. But what I would say to those people is when you've got these extreme people and the Home Office has said, the Home Office lawyers have said the rights of illegal migrants are more important than the rights of the people of effort. This is pretty extreme stuff. You can't just be centrist in arguing back to them. You can't just say, oh, well, Yvette Cooper, I think you've been a bit. Maybe we should balance it a bit more. You have to be on the other side because that is how powerful these people have come. The left have shifted the Overton window so far that there needs to be an equal and opposite reaction. And that is what I think. If I look at the way my political views have changed over time. I believed when I entered Parliament back in 2010 that the system could be reformed.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You know, if I was there, I did the right thing. We adjusted the way the Civil Service operated. We could make change. And what I came to the conclusion of after my time as Prime Minister was, no, you cannot change this thing. It needs to be completely overhauled. And that is my journey away, if you like, from.

[B]

I think there's a comeback. I do. That difference between being a Minister and being Prime Minister, when you go from minister to Prime Minister, is it an experience that you can't be prepared for? You have to actually be in the shoes of a Prime Minister to realise what's going on?

[A]

Yes. You do not know fully. And also as Prime Minister, and I think this is the problem for people like Keir Starmer. If you haven't been another Minister, you don't know what's going on in the departments because they're two completely separate things. And if you haven't been in the treasury, you do not understand the sheer power of that institution. So because the power is both unaccountable, but there are different players, it's quite hard to understand the overall picture. And this is how the Blob works. They have different power centers, they collaborate with each other, but any one minister, or indeed Prime Minister, is quite isolated where they are. And this is one of the things that has to change about the system. So I think it's quite interesting that Starmer is constantly reshuffling what goes on in number 10. He clearly is not happy with the way that the government works or doesn't work, but he can't find a way of fixing it.

[B]

What was the biggest surprise to you when you became Prime Minister, when you stepped into the role? Was there, like, a particular moment you're like, oh, shit, this isn't what I expected.

[A]

So I had worked for lots of different Prime Ministers, starting with David Cameron as a Cabinet Minister. So I'd been in number 10 quite a lot. I knew the kind of slightly Heath Robinson aspect of number 10. Know the. It's like a rabbit warren with lots of different meeting rooms and pockets of people in different places. So I knew the basic physical structure. I knew. I knew what Prime Ministers spent their time doing. What surprised me, one of the things was, and this is like a personal thing, but the extent to which you just have to do a lot of stuff yourself. So even my family having to order shopping on the Internet and fix up where it was delivered to, you know, making sure you eat every day, the kind of thing that you'd actually expect. You'd have a bit of a machine running. Yeah, doesn't. It's all pretty haphazard, I'd imagine it's all haphazard and, you know, just things like hair, makeup, having to sort all that out. No.

[B]

I assume the White House has that sorted.

[A]

Yes. I mean, if you go to the White House and I actually went to the White House during COVID and I had all the sort of COVID checks from the White House medical staff. You know, it's a much more organized operation. And if you remember, Boris Johnson always died being left alone in the Downing street hat flat. That would never happen in America. Because you have a White House doctor, you have much more of a. And I think one of the issues with Britain is we nominally have cabinet government and a system where the Prime Minister is the first amongst equals. In reality, everybody treats the Prime Minister like they're the President. They expect the Prime Minister to know everything about what's going on. They expect the Prime Minister to have a kind of command and control structure of government, but the actual structure of government is still operating like it's a cabinet government, where every cabinet minister is responsible for their department, and the Prime Minister is just there to sort of be the chairman, if you like, of that group of people. So it's certainly true. There's sort of just the lack of basic support for the Prime Minister and the infrastructure around the Prime Minister is no way suitable for what the job actually requires. See, I was quite shocked by that, even though I'd seen it. And I was sort of shocked looking at what was going on with Boris in number 10. But when you feel it yourself, you're.

[B]

Like, ah, it's kind of surprisingly amateur.

[A]

It's very amateur.

[B]

You know, I Meet and interview a lot of different people and a lot of people have teams around them doing everything for them.

[A]

Yeah, there's just not that.

[B]

This show is sponsored by Gemini. We live in a really strange time with governments driving inflation with their reckless spending and endless money printing. There is a way out of this. There is a way to protect your money, and that is by stacking bitcoin. I've made loads of shows about bitcoin. You can go and research this, you can go and read the books, but the truth is, it is the hardest money ever created. If you are interested in protecting your financial future, it's time for you to get on the bitcoin train. I have. I've been stacking bitcoin personally and through my businesses since 2017. It's protected me, it's secured my family's future and it also strengthens all of my businesses. So if you want to start stacking bitcoin, where do you do it? Well, for me, it's with Gemini. They're a fully licensed, full reserve exchange and custodian. So they give you a secure way for you to buy and own your bitcoin. There's no risks and no funny business. So if you're serious about stacking bitcoin the right way, head over to gemini.com, which is G-E-M-I-N-I.com. do you think Keir Starmer's feeling it?

[A]

Yes, totally. You can see it. I mean, you can see this latest number 10 reshuffling of the deck chairs, which won't make any difference because it's actually the treasury that control a lot of what happened in government, so he can rearrange number 10 as much as he likes. It's not going to make any fundamental difference. But the. I think one of the. And this is something I noticed when I first became a minister, is because you've got a permanent civil service who are very regulated according to the Civil Service code about what they can do and can't do. So, you know, they obviously can help you if it relates to your job, but they can't help you with anything personal or, you know, your kid helping, you know, organize your kids, attending your kids sports day, that sort of stuff. They can't do that. Then you've got. Because all ministers are pretty much MPs, you've got a parliamentary office who also aren't allowed to do that stuff because they're employed by the state. So you've got. But the. The ministerial office is not allowed to do anything related to your constituency because that would be giving them special favors. So you've got all these different groups of people who are responsible for different aspects of your life, not your personal life, which you basically have to organize yourself. Often these people don't like talking to each other. It's dysfunctional. Really, really dysfunctional. And I think that certainly cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister should have an office that do that. Sort everything for them. Yes, you know, their laundry, their diary, organizing their private travel, all that stuff. I think we should have that. And not because otherwise the Prime Minister or senior minister's time is taken up by worrying about that. Do you remember the incident? I think it was David Lammy who had an incident with a taxi cab.

[B]

No, I don't.

[A]

I don't know. I won't speculate on the details. But he had to. There was some dispute over the fare, but he had to organize his own taxi.

[B]

Okay, this is.

[A]

The Foreign Secretary has to organize his own taxi to go on a private trip, which is adding on to another trip. I mean, it's just, it's ludicrous. But it's ludicrous the way the system works.

[B]

I mean, I assume when you're in.

[A]

The job, I'm not saying, by the way, just to before I get rained on, that the government, that cabinet ministers shouldn't have to sort of pay for that support in some way. Fine. Out of their salaries, but it should at least be there as a package so you're not having to manage all those details. Look, I mean, we've tied ourselves in knots.

[B]

I don't care who it's paid for by. My assumption is when you're Prime Minister. I mean, I remember the stories of Thatcher sleeping four hours a night. I've heard those stories. My assumption is that period of your life as Prime Minister, you have very little personal time. It's all day, every day. You can never switch off from the job. But every single minute is an important minute. I mean, I've heard, you know, people I know with private jets say the reason they have a private jet is for time, because the amount of time it saves them and time is their most scarce resource. I assume as Prime Minister, your scarcest resource is time. I think everyone should agree somebody just sorts all your stuff out. That's ridiculous. Okay. I think it was after our last interview. I read Ian Dunt's How Westminster Works and why it doesn't. And that was a real eye opener to me. I brought up on the show a few times, but it talks about how ministers imps have moved around from role to role and they're sometimes moved into areas they completely don't understand, but at the same time, they're trying to prove themselves. So they want to reform things all the time. And one of the things that became really obvious to me is, I know it sounds so obvious, but if we think that the government is kind of the largest company in the country in terms of budget, it's one of the largest that we have put people in charge of that who have no experience in the things they're doing. Rachel Reeves is my perfect example. Clearly doesn't have the experience or skill set to do that. Yet we are putting her in charge of this and it's causing untold damage to the country. Is there anything we can do about that?

[A]

Well, I'm. You might push back on that in terms of. I push back on that because I think Britain's economic failings have been going on for 30 years. This is. We are in the dark Blair era. And what happened when Blair took over is he created all these unaccountable institutions. The bank of England independence has been a failure, or the way it was made independent has been a failure. Rampant inflation, quantitative easing that has made asset holders better off and has really shafted working people. You've got institutions like the Supreme Court and the judicial system, which now doesn't work and is out of touch with the public. So. And all of the things that Blair introduced, like tax credits making the welfare state bigger, all of the tax rises, some of them introduced by the Conservatives, like raising corporation tax to 25%, all of those things have put the economy in a very perilous position. So even when Rachel Reeves took over, the economy was in a very bad way. And that's what I was trying to do in 2022 is change it. Is change it by doing things like getting all the fracking, cutting taxes, blah, blah, blah, to get the economy going. Now, yes, she's made it worse. But I would say that her problem is she's just following the instructions of what the bank of England and the treasury are saying. Because pretty much every single policy she's announced, I've seen that before. I've seen it on a list of ideas by the treasury about what you should do. And she's ticked box one. And this is what they do. They present you with a list of things and it's like, which of these policies would you like to do? Is it abolishing the triple lock? Is it that will raise this much money? Is it Cutting the winter fuel allowance means that was one of the. All of these things are treasury grown options. And essentially the bank of England operates as an offshoot of the Treasury. So I'm no fan of Rachel Reeves or Keir Starmer. I think they're appalling socialists. But the problem we've got is not solely having them as incompetent people in those jobs because the policies are being driven by the permanent bureaucrats.

[B]

So where should the policies be driven from?

[A]

They should be driven by the ministers. People elected these clowns. That's democracy. If they want to pursue clown like policies, that's their right. I mean, actually Reeves and Starmer are much more aligned to the bureaucracy than I was because most of the bureaucracy is actually drawn from the left. So for example, the head of the Office of Budget Responsibility or was at the Resolution Foundation.

[B]

I don't know what's the Resolution Foundation?

[A]

It's a left wing economic think tank that advocates higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations. And Torsten Bell, who's just been made a Treasury. I think he's just been made a Treasury Minister. He was also at the Resolution Foundation. So all of these people, they kind of, they go to the treasury, the bank of England, the Resolution foundation, the imf. One of them was even at the French Finance Ministry. They all have the same worldview. That is the worldview that's running the country and the economy. So I just see Reeves as really a symptom of that rather than the instigator of these bad policies.

[B]

This Torsten Bell I've been reading about this week, he seems a particularly, I would say, dangerous character. My word's not yours. How would you explain him to people who don't know who he is?

[A]

So I know Torsten Bell. I also know his twin brother who's a civil servant called Olaf, I think Erickson Bell. They're identical twins. I've spoken on panels at the Resolution Foundation. I've met Thorsten Bell on several occasions. I mean, he's a socialist. He's a socialist. He believes that the more you raise taxes, the more money you will get from business. And that's. And that we need to redistribute wealth in society. My view is the more you raise taxes, the more you damage economic growth because businesses are going to flee the country because people can't be bothered to get out of bed because they're not going to earn any money and it's easier to live on welfare. And what we've seen over the past few years is proof that The Laffer Curve is real, that when you do raise taxes too much more millionaires per head of Britain have left our country than any other country in the world. So Torsten Bell and his theories are actively being proved wrong.

[B]

Well, why do you think they stick to these theories then?

[A]

Why do they stick to them? Because they are ideologues who do not believe in free market economics. See, some people say to me, well, if only I could get through to these treasury officials, I could explain to them that raising taxes is going to be a bad idea. I said, you don't understand. They actually don't want to see the growth of private enterprise in Britain. The Labour Party put VAT on private school and private schools closed down. And people said this has had terrible consequences. Didn't they realize that? Of course they realized it. They wanted to close down private schools. They want everybody to go to a state school because they don't want to have billionaires who are wealthier than everybody else. They, you know, socialism has always been about equal misery for all. That's, that's their philosophy.

[B]

We had Michael Mallison here on Friday and he said, he's, I can't remember exact, exact words, but something on the lines he's like, socialism isn't a toxic word here in the UK is it? Which was quite interesting.

[A]

It's getting more toxic. Well, it is, it's getting more toxic. And one of the problems we've got is because the Conservative government wasn't really Conservative, they were effectively Blair. Right. So you've essentially had Blair set the terms. The Tory party said, we want to be the heir to Blair. That's what Cameron and co were saying. We saw the state get bigger, we saw taxes get higher. So when Conservatives left government, taxes were at a 70 year high already. And then people said, well, if that's conservatism, I don't like it because I'm feeling poorer. You know, immigration's too high, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going to vote for the alternative. And now this is socialism actually called socialism. I think people are now starting to think of real alternatives, but this is the problem. You know, George Osborne talked about austerity. The government was still spending more money every year. So the Conservatives said, I tried to change it obviously when I was Prime Minister, but a lot of Conservatives were saying we believe in low taxes whilst raising taxes. So it's not surprising that the public got confused about what being a socialist or a Conservative actually was.

[B]

So do you think there's a fair argument that a Large part of that conservative administration was socialist.

[A]

Yes, I do. I mean, if you look at who first advocated raising VAT on school fees, it was Michael Gove.

[B]

Yeah. It comes as a separate line in the bill and it's really frustrating because like, I can pay it, I've paid it, but I have friends who've had to pull their kids.

[A]

Yeah, but it's a deliberate. People who advocate it are trying to stop children being privately educated.

[B]

Politics of envy.

[A]

Yeah, completely.

[B]

It's.

[A]

This is what I mean about. It's not really possible to be neutral because these people have an agenda which is to destroy private schools, to destroy private enterprise, to make everybody, they want people either working for the state or for big corporations that are beholden to the state. So, you know, look at the Dale, Vince and all the subsidies going into green energy. That's the kind of company they want people working for. They don't want independent companies with entrepreneurs with independent views. That's not what they want. That's not part of their vision. But, but going back to the point about the, the bureaucracy, there is so much evidence that senior people in the bureaucracy are now ideologically to the left that, that, that is as big a challenge as the people in the political positions, if not a bigger challenge, I think, because at least Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer will be voted out by 2029. We know that they're time limited. We don't know that the Governor of the bank of England is time limited. He's on an eight year term. Term ends in 2028. Who's Keir Starmer going to select to replace him? Probably somebody from the Resolution Foundation, I would guess.

[B]

But cannot the incoming Prime Minister make a change to that?

[A]

So George Osborne put into law that the bank of England governor has an eight year term and cannot be sacked during the eight year term. So in 2028, a new bank of England governor will be appointed for eight years. And they will essentially control monetary policy, which is massively important, as we know, quantitative easing, interest rates, asset prices. They will control it for an eight year period.

[B]

There's nothing a Prime Minister can do to slap them down.

[A]

Well, what you have to do is change the legislation. That's the ultimate thing that has to be done is you have to change the legislation. Otherwise, certainly in the current state, and this is exactly what I found in number 10, the Prime Minister is not able to do anything.

[B]

You must feel a certain amount of vindication right now.

[A]

Well, the thing is, I always knew that the policies were right. Never in doubt I always knew it was right that corporation tax shouldn't be raised to 25%.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I always knew it's right that Britain should get on with fracking. I always knew it was right that we should liberalize IR35 and make it easier to be self employed. Because I take the opposite view of people in the Treasury. I actually want to see small businesses, independent people, entrepreneurs. I knew the policies were right and I knew the alternative was always already going in the wrong direction. I mean we'd already got to the stage where our debt was at a record high, where our taxes were a record high. So I think what is happening now is the counterfactual which is essentially showing that socialism doesn't work. You know, I just think it's regrettable that we've had to go through this.

[B]

Hold on. But it's more than that just on, on a personal level for you because I mean I don't know what it was like to go through after you had to step down or you chose to step down, which by the way other.

[A]

I didn't chose, I was literally forced out. And lots of people say, oh Liz, you could have said no. I couldn't.

[B]

Well explain that. How can you?

[A]

Well basically the Conservative Parliamentary party were threatening a no confidence vote that day. That's what was going on. So no, I couldn't have.

[B]

John Redwood said you should have held out.

[A]

It's easy for people to say but what would have happened if I had said, okay, I'll face a no confidence vote. And by the way, no Prime Minister once they've had a no confidence vote has actually survived. So Boris didn't survive, Theresa didn't survive. And if I'd done that, what do you think would have gone on in the market motivated by the treasury and the bank of England?

[B]

More instability, more.

[A]

It would have got worse. And it wouldn't have just been gilts going up to 4.8% by the way, they're higher now. It would have been a full on calamitous. And this is what I was being threatened with.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I absolutely believed that they would follow through on that. So I couldn't. What would have been the point putting through the, putting the country through that level of psychological and economic torment for the sake of 24 hours. Cause that's what it was. Because the Conservative MP is going to vote against me. That's the bottom line. And we can talk about who was organizing that within the Conservative Parliamentary party. Answer. It was all the people that wanted Rishi Sunak all the time and were undermining me from day one. But I had the decision of do I go straight away and not allow others to create further market instability which wouldn't have done anybody any good.

[B]

Connor, can you bring that chart up I sent you, by the way, this morning? So 30 year gilts, 5.74% inflation, 3.8% year on year GDP growth, 0.3% debt. It's 96.1% of GDP. The tax burden OBR passed to record post war high business investment, 4% drop quarter on quarter. Like you see where I'm going with this and the reason I ask about a certain amount of indication is because you definitely took a battering in the press on social media. Hopefully you turned your phone off and didn't watch it.

[A]

But yeah, I don't listen to social media at all. I don't sort of follow it.

[B]

Well, then you might be missing right now. Unless you've seen work, because I've tweeted it.

[A]

But obviously I follow you. I only follow right things, thinking people.

[B]

But so, so, but there's a lot of commentary that's come out recently, a lot, which was. Liz was right. It's. It's being said a lot. We, we had it in all the comments when we did the first interview. Even back then, people said, but may.

[A]

I say that your listeners are discerning people.

[B]

No, this is not. There's people who've changed their mind.

[A]

There are discerning people.

[B]

No, no, you can find, you can find a tweet from me where I've hammered you. Yeah, I don't know if you've seen that one. Yeah. And I was like, oh, God. But he had that with. So embarrassing. It's like Twitter never forgets. But like, I was one of those people who read the press, saw what happened, saw my mortgage go up and I was like, fuck Liz Truss. And then you go through the process, you learn, you learn about what happened and you're like, oh, God, Liz was right, I was wrong. And there's a lot of people saying Liz was right. And it's a growing chorus and it's actually becoming hard to argue against now because you literally warned.

[A]

So I just did a interview with Will Frost of Sky News.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And he was still arguing. He was saying, you went against the consensus. And I was saying, well, what was the consensus? The consensus is wrong. That's exactly what I was trying to do. So there are still people who will say, yes, but you did it in the wrong way. If only you'd waited to do the tax cuts or if only you'd done this in this order. And what those people don't understand is when you're facing a hostile system, you have to act quickly, otherwise you will get nothing done. This is something President Trump absolutely understands from Trump. One is Trump, too, has been shock and awe, because if you are fighting hostility within the system, you have to take them on straight away. So I think there are more people saying the policies were right, but they're still saying I went about it in the wrong way or I could have done it differently. People want to believe that the Prime Minister is all powerful. It's like a sort of. It's like a myth. They want to believe that I had magical powers to do it and it was only because I made the wrong decision that I didn't do it in the right way. No. I was in a weak position because I had a parliamentary party that wasn't very supportive and I had a bureaucracy that was actively hostile to what I was trying to do. And the best thing you can say about what I could have done differently is not try on the grounds it was pretty much impossible, but I don't think there was a path through that would have been different. But I'm saying people are still arguing that if only I'd done it differently or communicated in a better way, everything would be great. I mean, those people do not understand the sheer hostility of the internal machine.

[B]

We know a little bit more about what the bank of England was doing as well.

[A]

Yeah, selling gilt. Announcing the sale of gilts the night before the mini budget. That's one thing they did.

[B]

Would they have. Would they have known the detail of the mini budget and therefore.

[A]

So they talked to the Treasury. The whole. The whole idea is the treasury and the bank of England are meant to coordinate monetary and fiscal policy.

[B]

I want to talk to you about one of my sponsors, Incogni. And that means we're going to talk about the weird world of spam. And I don't just mean those spam emails that you get day after day from companies you never heard of and companies you've never signed up to. I'm also talking about those spam phone calls you get from those people who seem to know a little bit too much about you trying to get your bank details. It's all a bit creepy right now. This all comes from the world of data brokerage. There are companies out there collecting your data, building profiles and sending that data to anyone who wants it. Which is why when one of those scammers phones you up. They seem to know everything about you. Now, I've tried, I've tried myself to get off these lists, try to get off the phone lists, try to get off the email list. I unsubscribe from every one of these emails that comes in this game of whack a mole. It just never ends. And so this is where Incogni comes in. They do all the hard work for you. They reach out to these companies and they will get you legally removed from these lists. And I know because last time they sponsored my show, I signed up and I didn't take the free option that they offered me, wanted to pay for it. I wanted to see if you get value for money. And they removed me from 79 data broker lists. And so I've stayed on, I've stayed a subscriber and I have seen a massive decrease in the number of emails and phone calls I've been getting. So it's a great service. I recommend you check it out. If you're sick of this like I was, please head over to incogni.com Peter and sign up. If you use the code Peter, you will get a lovely 60% discount. So that's incogni.com forward slash Peter. But do you think their response was a economics response to what you're doing or it was a political response to attack what you were doing?

[A]

I think they did not want to be helpful.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I think they did not want to be helpful. I don't know how much of that was, you know, just not really engaging. So the treasury didn't know about the LDI issue. The bank of England should have communicated. That they should have communicated. There's a serious issue here that these LDIs have been misregulated, that if interest rates go up, it could set off a chain reaction. There was no such warning. So when I talked to treasury officials, which I did directly with quasi, there was no such. There's this tinderbox here. Any slight movement could result in a chain reaction. We didn't hear any of that. And that's what the bank of England ought to have been doing. And what's happened to these bodies, and the same is true of the Office of Budget Responsibility is they've become very proud of their independence. So they say the bank of England governor insists on dealing with the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister. They keep it at arm's length deliberately. The economic forecasts are kept at arm's length. So you sort of put the numbers into the sausage machine and then the ABR says, well this is the likely fiscal gap in five years time and you can't argue with that. So they've become very proprietorial and proud of their independence.

[B]

But they get it wrong a lot.

[A]

I know. Well, yes, and they're unaccountable, which I think is a massive problem for the system because you as Prime Minister or Chancellor, you don't control the forecasts, they're controlled by an external body. We've just said that the current head of the Office of Budget Responsibility is formally of the Resolution Foundation, a left wing think tank that believes in Keynesian economics. The bank of England bank of England governor has advocated for climate change action, blah blah, blah. These are not people who are comfortable with conservative economic policy and yet they are the people dictating the terms. So what I'm saying is that, I mean what tends to happen a lot in terms of criticisms of me is people focus on how I announced it or what I the sort of processology. They don't generally criticize the policy. But the whole point is the policy, what the OBR and Bank of England effectively forced me to do was reverse the corporation tax cut. So if you remember, Rishi Sunak decided to raise corporation tax from 19% to 25%. It was due to be put in place that spring, so spring 2023, my pledge during the leadership election campaign. So it was well flagged to the bank of England and everybody else that I wanted to keep corporation tax at 19%. Now when the market chain reaction started and then the OBR leaked that there was a 70 billion pound hole in the public finances, that was the policy they were briefing the Times, they were briefing the Guardian, that was the policy they wanted me to reverse. So they knew perfectly well in advance that I wanted to keep corporation tax at 19%. I think we all know from what's happened it was the right policy that having corporation tax at 25% has contributed to the exodus from Britain along with obviously the changes to non doms. And yet that was the policy they wanted me to reverse. And what is not going on now in the mainstream media is a discussion about was it right to raise corporation tax to 25%. That discussion is not going on.

[B]

No. You kind of got an apology from Alphaville, sort of, sort of.

[A]

I mean it was like, it was very snarky. But it did say, it did say I had the right to be mighty cross about the fact that the bank of England had essentially failed to regulate LDIs properly. And it also acknowledged that if the bank of England had done Their job there probably wouldn't have been the chain reaction in the markets. So I think that's quite a significant admission from the Financial Times, which is at the heart of this bad economic consensus that has ruined Britain's economy.

[B]

But I think the thing they've got wrong, where they're saying you can be mightily cross, is that I think we as a country can and should be crossed.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

Because I. I mean, you.

[A]

But the Financial Times still believed my policies were wrong. They just believed that it was. They just believe the market ructions. They've now acknowledged the market reaction was caused by the bank of England, but they still believe my policies were wrong.

[B]

But that's irrelevant because if we hadn't had the market reaction, you might still be Prime Minister right now.

[A]

Correct, yeah. So I don't underestimate the ability of certain Conservative MPs to cause so much trouble. They would have removed me anyway. But.

[B]

Yes, well, sure, but we don't know. Yeah. So you were robbed of your. I mean, you've. I think you've. I'll be accused of fawning over you here, but I think you were robbed of your moment as Prime Minister to do what you thought was best for the country. And we, as voters were. Or Conservatives, were robbed of a Prime Minister who was willing to do the things to stop us going to where we are right now, which is a really fucking terrible place. Use my language. Sorry, but we're in a really terrible place. When you said. I don't think people understand how bad it is. And it isn't just the economy, it is free speech. It is. This tinderbox across the country is. It's almost every. I mean, last. I'll give you another example. Last night, my football team played. This is insane. So, player gets into a challenge and someone. His shoulder hits his head, he has a big gash, opens up, he has to come off and he goes to hospital. I get a text from my manager. I wake up this morning to a text. Sit. What time is it? Three in the morning. Three thirty. Six. Still at hospital with the player. I was like, sorry, I'm just seeing this. And then 6:41 was still here. My chief exec gets in touch this morning and she says they got there last night after half time. So that would be what, about half? 8, 9 ish. 8:30. 8:30. And left the hospital at 7:20am, apparently. Shortage of doctors. I mean, how can you be going to hospital with a gaping gash in your head and you're leaving at 7 in the morning. It's that, it's the policing. Every single direction I look, Liz, this country appears to be broken. And you know, sometimes when, when we. Every time we make a show, we look at titles and everything feels very duma. Cause it's like the UK is collapsing. All these very doomer things. But it's also reality.

[A]

Yes. And you say we're in a very bad situation. Very bad.

[B]

And I think, Look, I think a large part of the country realizes it, why we're having protests, why there's this fragmentation within politics. But I think there's a large part. There's also like fingers in the air, like, no, no, no, no, everything's fine.

[A]

No, there are some pretty incredible columns written, particularly in the Times newspaper. And you just think, what. What country are these people in?

[B]

What are they missing? How. Like when you see.

[A]

Well, they live in neighborhoods that are not suffering in the same way.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And you know what's. If you look at, you know, some northern towns, take Rotherham, for example. You know, Rotherham has had appalling child rape gangs. It's part of the sort of de. Industrialization and general poverty, frankly, in Northern England. These towns have been in a bad state for quite some time that is now spreading to other parts of the country and people are feeling poorer. But it hasn't reached some of the suburbs of West London. So if you live in Richmond or somewhere like that, you can still carry on all the home counties. Actually, it's interesting, if you look at the political map of Britain and reform are doing very, very well in the sort of the north, the east of England. But if you look at the sort of areas around Oxfordshire, the Liberal Democrats are doing well. Because if you live in Henley or somewhere like that, probably your life ain't that bad and probably your car isn't getting robbed. I would guess so. I think there are still enclaves, but a lot of Britain is now experiencing what northern towns have experienced for a pretty long time. And if you travel between Richmond and Westminster, you might notice a few tents in Parliament Square. But you're not seeing. You're not seeing what's going on.

[B]

Yeah. And I keep wondering, why are these people in tents when we've got all these hotels available to house people? I'm being facetious, but, you know, the point I'm making. I was chatting to my dad the other day and he was saying, my dad's Conservative, but he's. He's not. How do I put it? He's very. How would you explain, granddad? Compassionate. Very, very compassionate. Very Quiet, you know, it's a good guy. And he said his way I put it was, if you're able to house tens of thousands of people who've come across and want to come and live in this country, but you cannot house your own people.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's going to cause a lot of people to be upset.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so I was being facetious, but I think it goes to that general point of unfairness. I think civil society is now the underclass in this country.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

We are, we are rewarding the grifters, the takers, the lazy.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And anybody who is going out, someone like Connor working hard, trying to sort his life out, as being punished.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

For that. And how do we even, Liz, how do we even shift that? Because there's so, like, when you see there's so many problems, how do you even start? Where do you start?

[A]

So I was talking earlier about the ideological capture of Britain's economic institutions by the left. You know, we've got a Resolution foundation, treasury, basically running, running things.

[B]

Communists, pretty much.

[A]

You call them social, you call them communists. But you've got the same in the Home Office about immigration and you've got the same in the Justice Department about the legal system. Because that was the other thing Blair did, is remove the powers of the Lord Chancellor. Say now judges are self appointing, essentially, and you've seen the way the direction the judiciary has gone in as well, and the judgments the judiciary are making. So you've got a whole state and the NHS has always been a bit like that, you know, since its inception, frankly. And you've got a welfare state that's just grown in size. And Gordon Brown's tax credits, where people in work were paid welfare as well, has essentially just increased the size of the welfare system and the number of people. I can't remember the figure, but there's a figure about. Is it something about 50% of people in Britain are on some kind of benefit?

[B]

Sounds about right.

[A]

It's just, you know, what we should have is successful industry that are able to pay people enough so that people aren't having to live on benefits. We shouldn't have a welfare state that is making it attractive to be on benefits rather than be in work. I mean, that's.

[B]

Or trapping people.

[A]

Yeah, trapping people. I completely agree. So solving all those problems is a massive task. But to me it starts with, you've got to change the state itself, because if you've got people who are ideologically motivated in your immigration department, in your treasury, you are not going to achieve anything.

[B]

54%, by the way, receive.

[A]

54.

[B]

Receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. So, you know, that's just not sustainable. That's sustainable. So you've got to change the state itself and you've got to make. You've got to change the laws. And what do I mean by that? I mean things like getting rid of the Human Rights act, getting rid of the Equality act, which embedded weakery into Britain. I mean, this ludicrous bin dispute in Birmingham is all about the Equality Act. You've got the Climate Change act. That stops essentially making energy cheaper. That's like a big cause of Britain's economic problems. Why is America 50% richer than Britain when it was almost per head? We almost caught up with America by the year 2000, they're now 50% richer per head. Can you imagine how you would feel, can you imagine how everyone listening to this would feel if they had 50% more money? It'd be great because that's what they would be if they were in America. They'd be 50% richer than what they are now. So what has happened over the last 25 years? Well, the answer is America's had lower taxes, it's got on with fracking, it's had massively low energy costs, that has spurred its tech sector. Everything like that is created massive economic growth. And so things like stopping the climate change stuff, stopping the Equality act stuff will help spur a much more successful country. And we just need to do all of that.

[B]

But how do you. That seems like a huge job.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

How do you unborn.

[A]

Lots of people are talking about a great repeal bill or a great restoration bill. You need to put it all on the bonfire. Pretty much every piece of legislation passed by Tony Blair and frankly, quite a lot passed by the last Conservative government. And I'd even go back to some bits of Thatcher legislation that need to go as well.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

So I think, for example, things like the Public Order act, they have created some of the free speech problems we've got. So you need to go through and just say, these are all the problems that we now have running our country. We need to repeal this legislation. We need a bureaucracy that's actually accountable to the people that run the country. That's what needs to happen.

[B]

So we will need a party with a parliamentary majority in the will to do it.

[A]

Yes. And that will take a lot of. Because you can imagine all the flak about abolishing the Equality Act. Can you imagine all the hand wringing. Oh, you want to reintroduce racism and sexism to Britain? Or can you imagine abolishing the Climate Change act and all the people gluing themselves to, you know, Parliament, stuff like that.

[B]

Can we just leave them there? Glue. I've always thought, just leave them there.

[A]

I'm definitely agree with you. I agree with you on that.

[B]

They're going to get to a moment. I go, hold on. They're literally stuck to that.

[A]

But, but you. It's just going to be one hell of. Even the, you know, the flak I got from the mainstream media as Prime Minister, now it's just on one set of tax cuts and things like fracking. Can you imagine the outcry? Can you imagine the outcry? And we do have a mainstream media problem in this country.

[B]

Yeah, we're catching them up here. But look, it's a huge job. It's a huge job to convince the public especially. Well, some parts of the public. You will never convince you. We just won't convince them.

[A]

Well, some parts of the public are on the side of Keir Starmer and the human rights people, of course, you know, I've talked about them, you know, where they live, the types of jobs they do. They work in the civil service, they might work in big corporates. They don't want to be unpopular at London dinner parties. They're the sort of people who, well, they're all fleeing America to come to Britain as well. You know, these are. I've said to my American friends, we don't want any more of your communists arriving, please keep them in Hollywood. But these are the people who are backing and they are a powerful force because they do tend to live in London, in their home counties, they're prolific in the media, they have important job. Even elements of the city are now a lot woker than they would have been 20, 30 years ago. But they need to be taken on, otherwise this country is going down the drain.

[B]

Well, so this takes me to another point. It's a term I've been reticent to use and I'm gonna, I'm gonna use it, I'm gonna mention it. But there, there are these talks of, or questioning is, is the UK going to enter a civil war? Are we in a civil war? And I first heard, I can give a big bit of a layup on this one. When I first heard this, it was a podcast and I just thought, oh, that's a really good inflammatory title to get lots of people to click. And. And then I listened to it and actually it was a very interesting conversation, talking about all the different requirements for us to be considered that.

[A]

Was this the David Betts one? Yes, because I listened to that. Yeah.

[B]

And I was. And you know, this is a King's College professor. This is his job to understand this. But even at the time I was like, oh, but when I think of civil war, I think of the us, I think of muskets, I think of an actual war. But I've come more to think of it now, what's happening in the uk, it's like, whether you call it a civil war or a fight, it's a kind of fight now for the future of our country. When we go from election to election, election. It's kind of like we used to be voting around some kind of marginal changes in taxes and policy, but I think now it almost feels like a little bit like the Cold War, it's the free market capitalist versus the Communists, is that we're essentially in a big fight now for what the future for this country is. What do we mean by Britain? What does a Great and Great Britain mean? Is it. Are we going to be a country that descends into more and more socialist policies, you know, a more miserable place, or we fighting for a country that actually, that pins itself to the principles of freedom, liberty, property rights? And I actually, I'm now sympathetic to that idea because there's certain people, you can't. You can't. You can't explain the issues of freedom and liberty to somebody who doesn't want it because they don't care for it. And so why waste your time explaining or having the conversations? We just need to out there and win it as a fight. But I am also nervous about the inflammatory side of considerations for a civil war, because we are seeing outbreaks of violence and I don't know what that means. But whilst it's an inflammatory title, it does feel like a fight for the future of this country. Like what it means.

[A]

There is a fight for the future of this country. We are seeing growing sectarianism as well.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And one of the very worrying things last summer was the failure to properly police the Islamists, which essentially Jess Phillips, the Home Office Minister, completely failed to deal with, which I thought was absolutely shocking. And if you look at what happened in Northern Ireland, and that's one of the things David Betts was talking about, you get the increasing sectarianism. I think that's a huge, huge worry. I think there are real risks of more serious terrorist attacks in Britain. I'm very concerned about the number of people we're importing who have violent histories, who are intent on destroying our country. And this is one of the big worries for me about the small boats is not, you know, the sexual violence has been appalling and that's what created the effing protests. But it's also the potential to commit terrorist atrocities is very, very worrying. The. What we're also seeing though, is the sort of peaceful uprising of British citizens. So the Pink Ladies who are protesting, and it was another absolutely unbelievable police incident where the woman raising a flag on the council buildings. I mean, anyway, I think these kind of expressions of how bad it is are important. They are important and it's important that the public kind of participate in politics because for too long, and this is the kind of Blairite culture, the Blairite culture has been. We've got these great experts who know about everything. The judges know about the law, the Home Office bureaucrats know about immigration. Let's hand the country over to human rights lawyers, economists from the Resolution foundation and medical experts, experts in every field and public. You don't need to worry yourselves about this stuff. We will just put out patronizing social media videos about how great everything's going. You just get on with your lives, working for your approved corporation or doing your job in the public sector. Off you go. And there's still the tone of everything that comes out of number 10. If you want to laugh, watch some of Keir Starmer's social media about what he's doing. So that is the attitude that there has been, and I'm afraid that many conservative politicians have adopted that attitude. You know, we need to get the optics right. We need to, you know, tell the message right, tell the story. They haven't really told the plain truth about what is going on in the country, which is, it's stagnating, it's getting more lawless. The family is, you know, not supported in this country. It's very difficult for young people to get on the housing ladder. You need. There's been a lack of truth telling and a wanting to sort of massage what's going on and present a view. And I think part is teaching the public.

[B]

Like idiots.

[A]

Yeah, it's teaching the public like children. But I think in order for that to end, the public have to get more involved. I think social media has actually been a generator of that. I think independent media is a generator of the public getting more involved. But people are going to have to think about this stuff. And one of the frustrations I had about the mini budget, it was a lot of this stuff Was self evidently true. If you put up corporation tax to 25% and make your country uncompetitive, the debt is not going to go down in five years time, it's going to go up. That is just basic maths and understanding of human behavior. And yet even political commentators were like, oh well the OBL said it's a bad thing, therefore it must be a bad thing. They're not thinking for themselves about what the impact of policy is. And we need journalists, we need the public who actually think for themselves about what is good and bad rather than just being infantilized and saying, oh well, this expert or that expert says this is good or bad, therefore I will believe them. And actually I think probably Covid was a big awakening to the fact that the people in charge don't really know what they're doing.

[B]

A massive awakening I think for a lot of people.

[A]

Yeah, I think that has been the precursor to what we're experiencing now.

[B]

Back to these protests though. When you talk about sectarianism, which is probably a term a lot of people may not fully understand, certainly young people might not fully understand. I obviously understand a lot from when I'm a youngster, have an Irish family. But if there's a risk of sectarianism, there's a risk of also something we haven't really had here, which is almost British domestic. I'm really reticent to use the term terrorism, but I worry that we're going to.

[A]

Well, we've seen terrorism in this country, but if you look at the Southport.

[B]

Murders, that was terrorism, but I'm thinking more domestic terrorism that might actually target minority groups. Now I know for example that there are Sikh and Hindu communities and they're very concerned because they feel they're going to be targeted and painted with the same brush as maybe Muslim communities because some people can't see a difference or because there's just been this growth of kind of ethno nationalism where people are quite broadly saying we, you know, we just need to remove all Muslims from the country. Which is one, not possible and two not helpful. But there is a growth in that kind of language as well and it's very inflammatory. Yesterday in Essex, a Indian community center was burnt down. Yes, but they, I saw one post that said they don't think it was arson. Right. So I'm not sure on that, but I have seen that as well. And so I'm, I'm aware that there are like, this is what I worry about the tinder box now is that there are, there are people Very angry in the country and two clear size, very split. But I think we're lacking. I feel like we're lacking some leadership, a voice of reason. That's.

[A]

That's definitely true. Yeah, that's. That's definitely true. And the problem is that Starmer, by so clearly sort of going after people who were peacefully protesting has. And also not going after people who were violently protesting, as I mentioned, in Birmingham.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You know, the case of the Islamist violence, he has unfortunately put himself on one side of the argument. And this, you know, this is why he's known as two tier Kir, because people know he's on one side. So I don't think he's got the credibility to rise above it and say all violence is wrong. People are entitled to peacefully protest. They're entitled to express their views freely online or in person. That is fine. That is good. That's participating. But violence is a red line. He's lost the moral authority to do that. I think it's very hard to see how he gets it back. And there's also a lack of. There's a general lack of civil society leadership. And this is because a lot of figures in the past who would have been known as British treasures or respected people have gone, woke up. You know, they've gone extreme transgender ideology or the Church of England has condemned anybody who tries to control migration. That's extraordinary for our established church. So unfortunately, because the elite has taken a particular worldview, they are seen on one side of the argument. And that is a problem. I acknowledge that's a problem.

[B]

But even that's starting to fracture a little bit now. We had it this week where Rylan came out and he was. I mean, for someone like Rylan to come out and be very critical, I.

[A]

Have to be confessed. I don't know who he is. Sorry, I don't know who he is.

[B]

He's a reality TV star.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But like, he is a flamboyant gay guy and I was surprised to see him. He maybe got some of the facts wrong. But for him to come out in an interview on TV as a media darling, to be saying, look, can we just ask questions? This doesn't seem right, but you got absolutely hammered by the left, almost in a cultish way.

[A]

Yeah. Because they hate. It's when their own turn against them, they're particularly hated.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

That's what they really hate.

[B]

That's how they keep you in.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, that is how. And it's, you know, this is what Cancel Culture is all about.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's about attacking anybody who goes outside the consensus bubble and cancel culture has been very, very powerful in the British establishment for the last few years. I was actually gonna say about the whole mini budget and the way that was portrayed in the press. There was a documentary done by the Wall Street Journal in America about what happened called the Prime Minister versus the Blob. But even though the sister paper of the Wall Street Journal is the Times, they didn't mention it, they didn't put it on their website, even though they had, you know, the IP rights to it. And there's a real, you know, this country has real media blackouts on things. So criticizing the bank of England, there's very, very little coverage of it in the media. You know, there's lots of, there's lots of areas. If you look at the, you know, the rape gang scandal and the way that it just gets underreported or the protests. If you look at the number of protests that have been going on around the country, that should have been.

[B]

This is this morning.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

I just wanted to get the full details on, on epi. Just so. Okay. And so this is.

[A]

I use Grok rather than chatgpt.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I think it's slightly more sound, but even Grok can be a bit dubious sometimes.

[B]

Well, maybe Grok has just decided it can be a bit woke itself. But anyway, so people listening won't see this. I went into ChatGPT and I said, can you explain what happened with Epping Hotel? And I got this Content may violate our terms of use and usage policies. Like, huh. I'm just asking about what is something which is newsworthy. It's been in the press and also has gone to the courts. And now Chat GPT won't tell it. I don't know if that's downstream of the. On my safety bill, but I'm sure it is.

[A]

I'm sure it is.

[B]

The, the, the, the lack of care for free speech in this country is astounding.

[A]

Yes. Now, and, but also the complicity of the media, of course, you know, the complicity is just shocking. And the failure, the failure of the British media to examine what our country's problems are and have a serious debate on it is just shocking.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by Ledger, the most trusted Bitcoin hardware wallet. Now, if you're serious about protecting your Bitcoin, Ledger has the solution you need. Their hardware wallet gives you complete control over your private keys, ensuring that your Bitcoin stays safe from hacks, phishing and malware. And I've been a customer of there since 2017. Love the product, use it for my bitcoin. I use it with my Castle multisig for protecting the football club's bitcoin too. Now with Ledger's sleek, easy to use devices and the Ledger Live app, managing your Bitcoin has never been more secure or convenient. And whether you are a longtime holder or new to the world of bitcoin, Ledger makes it simple to keep your assets protected. So if you want to find out more, please do head over to Ledger.com and, and secure your Bitcoin today. That is Ledger.com which is L E D G dash dot com. That is Ledger.com. yeah, but that's why things like this are working where trigonometry is doing very well.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

You know, I mean they, they, they've.

[A]

Made, they've given you a market opportunity.

[B]

They've handed us the ball and said, off you go. And you know, we can produce this with three people. We can get.

[A]

Have you had Ofcom calling at your door yet?

[B]

No, I tell them to fuck off. I honestly don't care. I, I mean I literally don't care. And, and maybe you need to go.

[A]

To Heathrow Airport to get yourself arrested, Peter.

[B]

Well, I'm actually surprised I haven't been arrested yet because I'm trying, I keep bumping the line. I want to see, I see what is the line where I could cross it. I assume I'm on a list somewhere of agitators or anti labor people. I have been talking recently about, can we remove the Labour Party midterm? Is there, can we have like a velvet revolution? But I haven't been arrested yet. But no, but I mean that formed part of the media was dying. If you map the trajectory of media.

[A]

But it's still very. One of the problems is it's actually very influential internationally. So people believe what they read on the BBC or the Times or the ft, even though it's a very biased view of Britain.

[B]

And they weep for us.

[A]

Yeah, well, they weep for us in general.

[B]

But if you look at the trajectory of it, this is only growing as a platform. People trust it. They might not agree with me, they might think I'm a bit of a dumbass, but they trust me that I'm giving my honest opinion. And when you come sit down with me for an hour and a half, they get an honest, unfiltered hour and a half rather than a sound bite. And we are growing and they are not growing.

[A]

I definitely think it's a good thing independent Media is a great thing. I just still think, think the impact of the legacy media is huge and it's a big part of the problem. You know, we've talked about the Labour Party, we've talked about their various stooge organizations and we've talked about the bureaucracy. But the media is another big part of Britain's problem.

[B]

And is their problem themselves and their ownership structure and their own business models, or is it Ofcom or is it both?

[A]

It's both, it's both. It's both because you have the same tendencies in the US of kind of CNN and MNSBC and all those sort of things. But the fact it's state owned or not state owned, state funded, whatever, the license fee, that is a very powerful platform.

[B]

Should that go?

[A]

Yes, the license fee should be abolished.

[B]

What about the bank of England? I asked you that last time. Should we get rid of the bank of England?

[A]

Well, the bank of England should be accountable to the Treasury.

[B]

Should we just.

[A]

I mean, I think for want of a better solution, we should just abolish the bank of England Act 1998, go back to how it was before. And the concept of the independence of the bank of England was actually bedded into the Maastricht Treaty. So before Brown made it independent, John Major signed the maastricht Treaty in 1992, which committed to independence of the Central Bank. So all this started, I mean, you can sort of go back in history, but I think the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher and, you know, the rise of John Major to power was when a lot of these problems, actually that's when they really started and Blair simply accelerated all of that.

[B]

I just want to switch gears a minute because I want to talk to you about something else. Police and Crime commissioners. We have one locally, I don't think he's very good at what he does, but also his office costs 2.5 million a year and I'm trying to observe what they do and it talks about strategy, but it also seems to have a lot of people who work on comms and pr. If the office did not exist and policing was returned to the police itself, that two and a half million would mean maybe 50 more frontline officers. Is it something we need? Do we need the Office of the Police and Crime Commission? Is that another wasted, stupid idea?

[A]

The idea behind it was to try and make the police accountable, but in fact the prison crime commissioners don't really have that much power because they can't interfere with the operational independence of the police. So I don't think it's worked at all. I don't think it's worked. What I believe needs to happen is I think the police chiefs need to be hired and fireable by the Home Secretary. I think that they've become unaccountable. I think the College of Policing, which is a kind of police chief quango, is just coming up with WOKE policies right, left and center. It needs to be abolished. The police chiefs need to be higher and fireable. And one thing I think Britain needs is, is a sort of FBI style national police force because the Metropolitan Police is always divided between the kind of dealing with terrorism, dealing with serious organized crime across the country and London policing. And I think London loses out because often the police want to focus on the more high profile stuff. I think you should separate it into maybe two forces doing London neighbourhood policing and then have a proper national police force. And the police chiefs hate this because it would mean only one of them got the top job. That's why they hate it, honestly. That's why the police chiefs hate it. But you have to break the power. I've talked about the bank of England and the treasury, but there is also another powerful cabal which is Britain's police chiefs and they have to be made accountable. They're not accountable at the moment and it's a problem.

[B]

So when I try and observe the issues of crime, because it feels like there's just, it's just we're living almost in a lawless country. And I saw this video on Twitter, someone posted, this guy, he said, this is how you get a free drink in England. And he films himself walking into a Greggs. He takes a bottle of Oasis off the shelf in front of the security guard, he opens it and drinks it and walks out. And that to me was just a signal of the state of our country. It's just nobody cares. But there's so much crime. Shoplifting, drugs, whatever, there's crime everywhere. And then when I look at it, it feels like we don't have enough police, we don't have enough prison cells to put people in. Even if they do arrest people, there's so many different ways for people to, to, to not be punished. I've heard recently about if you were caught as a drug dealer, you can just claim that you are part of modern day slavery and you get a visit from Salvation army and you come off remand and then you're given a house. It feels like we don't enforce law and order particularly well. It's very hard to enforce law and Order. And it's very laborious. The court process is very slow. I look at countries like, and I don't want to be a police state. And I look at, yeah, I don't want to be a police state, but I certainly want people punished. But I. But I also. Car was broken into the other night. And then I hear of people living in other countries, they say, I don't even have to lock my car. How do we get to a more.

[A]

Respectable, lawful part of it isn't just the police, it's also the culture of the country.

[B]

That's a shift.

[A]

And it's also about. It's about, I think, the denigration of the family, the rise of the welfare state. A lack of responsibility is also part of the problem, a lack of personal discipline. So I don't just blame the police for people's antisocial behavior, you do. They're responsible for it. Their family's responsible for it. It's a broad issue. You know, I'm a big supporter of having strong discipline in schools. That's not always the case. I think some of the academy schools have turned out well and have promoted discipline, but there's a lot of cases where that's not. Not true. But going back to the police, they have to be. If you want them to focus on the public's priorities, they have to be accountable to somebody that's elected. That is the only way to secure that. Unless you're talking about people hiring their own private security firm. They have to be accountable to the people that are elected. So either you have proper mayors, which I'm not necessarily advocating, who are able to hire the Chief Constable locally, or you have the Home Secretary doing it and you might not like what you get under a Labour Home Secretary. And I'm no fan of Yvette Cooper, but at least she was elected and at least she can be booted out of office, so she should. And look at this free speech arrest. What's Yvette Cooper said? Is it her or kiss? Yeah. I don't agree with this being these people being arrested, but this is operational police independence. I was like, well, what are you there for, then? If we're going to have these unelected people deciding to arrest Graham Lineman at Heathrow Airport. Lineman, Heathrow Airport. What's the point of the Home Secretary if the police are just running policing in Britain? So I think that if a Chief Constable is ultimately responsible for making those bad decisions, the Home Secretary should be able to say, you're fired. Or Peter McCormack Chief Constable of Bedford. I see that you've been arresting people for posting on X. I'm going to replace you with somebody else. If that power doesn't exist in political hands, then.

[B]

See, I am optimistic and I want to be more optimistic. But then when we get into this, Liz, there is so much to do, so much to fix.

[A]

It's a good job we're all going to live to 120, so I'm sure I will.

[B]

You probably don't know my past, but anyway. But there is a big cultural issue and this is the part of the raising of the flags that I particularly like, because it feels like a root, it feels like an establishment of a set of cultural beliefs that we want to stand behind as a country. And look, some people want to say the flags are racist, they're not. Some people want to say it's just to fight for the country. Fine. But actually it feels like there's so much anger that if we can unite those different factions of people who are angry, because I think there are a lot of factions both politically and outside of politics, if we can unite those behind a set of cultural beliefs of what we want the country to be, then perhaps that can solve a lot of the crime and the discipline. And then if we perhaps can fix the economy in eight and a half years, we might be okay.

[A]

Yeah, I think so. And I think that is what has to happen. And what this is about is it's about British people reclaiming their ancient liberties. I mean, even in Saxon times, free men of England had fundamental liberties like the right to be treated justly by the courts of the time. In fact, the right to bear arms. They, these freedoms are very long standing in our country. And I think there's a kind of muscle memory about what we are, what England is, what Britain is that people need to reconnect with and are reconnecting with.

[B]

For those of you out there who want to protect your bitcoin, I want to tell you about casa, the leading bitcoin security solution and a solution that I use for my bitcoin and my football club's bitcoin treasury. Now, if you're serious about protecting your bitcoin, you will need a rock solid security plan. And CASA gives you just that. With their multi signature security and key management services, CASA makes it easier than ever to take control of your bitcoin without ever having the risk of a single point of failure. Now they offer multiple levels of protection, all designed with simplicity and ease of use in mind. And, and that works even if you're not a tech expert, so don't leave your bitcoin security to chance. Go to Casa I.O. and check out the services that I am using today to protect my bitcoin so you can protect your stack and sleep easily. You can find out more at Casa Ioo, which is C a S a Ioo that is Casa Ioo. Right. Is there anything I've not asked you about? You wish I had? Um, we've covered a lot.

[A]

No, I. I just want to make another point, which is, you know, I talked about the importance of businesses and entrepreneurs and I think the government and the treasury sort of behemoth is anti. They're anti small business, they're anti the self employed. You know, they just go after the self employed like nothing else. They're anti entrepreneurs because they want more control. So what that leads us to know is actually having a powerful business and entrepreneur class that are prepared to act is very, very important and are prepared to serve in public is very important and that has to be part of the solution. And I think it's interesting that the Trump revolution includes a lot of those people. You know, the people who've gone into doge, the people who have gone into the State Department, you know, the people who are active in the MAGA movement. You know, it's a lot of the tech entrepreneurs, it's a lot of the entrepreneurs in other fields. That's what, that's what needs to happen as well.

[B]

We don't have a lot of.

[A]

Because people won't be people when entrepreneurs won't be able to make money in the future in Britain if they don't do something now, because there will be no business left. That's the point.

[B]

It's very hard. The risks have increased and the rewards have been reduced.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, but what I'm saying is that these people need to start operating in the political space.

[B]

I know one person I'm particularly going to send this to who is very angry as an entrepreneur and he. I keep saying to him, look, needs.

[A]

To actually do something.

[B]

We don't.

[A]

There's no point in being angry and not doing anything.

[B]

It's.

[A]

The anger needs to be translated into action.

[B]

We have personality entrepreneurs on the left, someone like Adele, Vince, who gives with one hand and take us with another. But we don't have a lot of people.

[A]

Is he the only one? He's the only one we've managed to mention in this interview. I'm not sure.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

The left is. And he's not an entrepreneur. He's like A. Yeah, he's a grifter of state subsidies. I mean, he's not an entrepreneur.

[B]

He might sue us for that. He sues everyone.

[A]

No, he doesn't.

[B]

He also owns a football club, but we don't have, like, in the us they have a lot of personality entrepreneurs. I mean, Mark Henderson has discarded all his, or maybe have been discarded by his California Democrat friends because he came out and supported Trump, but he came out principled to support Trump. We don't have a lot.

[A]

We need to find them. Yes, we need to find them.

[B]

Well, they exist.

[A]

They must exist. Yeah, they exist, but they need to be there. They're really needed now. I think we will not be able to achieve this, whatever you want to call it, restoration, counter revolution, without them. And I think the American experience shows that they're very, very important.

[B]

Trump had a comeback.

[A]

I think I know where you're going with.

[B]

You know exactly where I'm going because you know exactly where I'm going, because I think we were robbed of a Prime Minister who knew the problems. Is there anywhere where you would come back? You don't have to give a prediction.

[A]

Look, I don't ever rule anything out because I, you know, what I'm interested in, What I spend 247 thinking about is how do we make our country great again? But I'm not obsessed with being the leader of that. I will do whatever it takes to help with that. Because what I discovered during my time running for leader and at number 10, is you need a team of people. You can't do it on your own. And I lacked the infrastructure, I lacked the supporters. This is why I'm talking about the importance of entrepreneurs. See, to me, building the infrastructure and the team, as I say, I'm not ruling anything out. I'm pretty much prepared to do virtually anything to get this country back. I mean, I am, because some people, you know, some people are leaving Britain and saying, you know, Britain is lost. I don't believe that. And I believe that all the great things in the modern world, you know, Britain is hugely responsible for. Yes, if you look at America, it is our greatest invention. Yes, they might not like me saying that, but, you know, but if you. You trace back to, you know, things like the justice system, the right to bear arms, the concept of parliamentary democracy. Of course, some of those ideas also came from ancient Greece and ancient Rome, but so much of it was, you know, formed here on this island.

[B]

They don't thank us enough.

[A]

They're not grateful enough.

[B]

They should say thank you.

[A]

Connor is that a message to JD Vance.

[B]

I like that guy. Connor, anything you want to ask? Sure. No. Good. Liz, always good to talk to you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. We are. We are here for the fight. We want to restore England. And I am very optimistic. So very good.

[A]

We're the optimist.

[B]

Let's go and do it. Thank you everyone for listening. We'll see you all soon. Bye.