Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:00]
Monzo Business Advertiser
Monzo Business is the proud partner of the Rest is Money. Now did you know that over 600,000 businesses are already banking with Monzo Business and mine is one of them. To celebrate us tearing up, we've got a special offer for you. New customers get Monzo Business Pro or team for free for the first six months. Just head to monzo.com thereestismoney to claim it for your business. Now maybe you run your own company and you're looking for a bank with the solutions to make your financial admin easier. Like expense cards that help your team save loads of time as your business grows. Just go to monzor.com therestismoney to learn more about the special offer and find out which of their plans is right for you. The offer is available to new Monzo Business customers only for either parole or team plan. Offer ends on 31st July 2025. After the offer period ends, parole will be £9amonth and team from £25amonth. Expense cards are only available with team. Only sole traders or LIM company directors in the UK can apply Ts and
- [01:07]
Robert Peston
Cs apply LifeLock how can I help?
- [01:10]
LifeLock Customer
The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.
- [01:13]
LifeLock Advertiser
One in four taxpaying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.
- [01:16]
Indeed Advertiser
What do I do?
- [01:17]
Robert Peston
My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.
- [01:20]
LifeLock Advertiser
Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.
- [01:25]
LifeLock Customer
I'm so relieved.
- [01:26]
Robert Peston
No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.
- [01:29]
LifeLock Advertiser
One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.
- [01:44]
Chef Meilin
As a chef, I know flavor doesn't begin in the kitchen, it begins on the land and West Home's nature led Australian Wagyu is a story written in the landscape of Northern Australia. Cooking is storytelling and West Home Wagyu carries a story of Northern Australia itself. Raw, powerful and deeply authentic. It's a testament to the passion and care raised in the rhythm of Northern Australia. I'm Chef Meilin from ADA Club in Los Angeles and I invite you to visit westhome.com maitland to learn more and taste a story only West Nature led Australian Wagyu can tell. That's W E S T H O L M E.com M E I L I N.
- [02:39]
Robert Peston
Hello and welcome to the Rest is Money with me, Robert Paston, and I'm thrilled to say that Steph is here, but not the Steph that you're expecting, I think, to be with me today, it's Stephanie Flanders and actually like Steph McGovern. Steph and I are former colleagues at the BBC where you were economics editor. I was business editor for a number of years. It's wonderful to have this online reunion. And Steph McGovern reminded me literally only the other day, which I'd forgotten. She obviously had a central role in my life at the BBC. Cause she was my producer. But she was also your producer, I understand.
- [03:22]
Stephanie Flanders
Yeah, she was. She was my producer when I was economics editor, but very quickly realized that she could do it much better than either of us. And now we've got full circle. I'm her understudy. I couldn't be happier.
- [03:32]
Robert Peston
Thanks very much for joining us. It's absolute treat to have you. And I just the thing that when you said you'd come on the show that I. This is more because I need a bit of therapy on this because the thing I really wanted to talk to you about is how sort of unbelievably stressful doing my job. And I don't know whether you feel the same doing your job has been since Donald Trump was inaugurated. And you know, I sort of feel every morning when I wake up, I can actually feel my cortisol levels rising because overnight, while I've made the mistake of being asleep, he said and announced some other thing that I just didn't expect to see during my professional life and try to work out what's real, what's, what's a negotiating ploy, what's going to stick. Whether there's any reason behind it is just such a challenge. So share with me your experience of this.
- [04:28]
Stephanie Flanders
Yeah, I mean, welcome to my world. At least we're living in different parts of the same world and the same craziness. I mean, as you know, I'm now at Bloomberg and I'm running the economics and politics coverage. So that actually means there's all these reporters around the world, including a lot of them in Washington, D.C. the ones in the White House are all part of my team and are obviously dealing with it in a much more kind of personal, day to day level, trying to do all the things that you just said, but to get the news out. And then we also have this big team of economists who actually, in part because of what Donald Trump has done to the global economy and to our understanding of it and politics, that team has expanded because we've just needed to have answers quicker on things like the impact of these, of different tariff deals and other things. And we've moved into geopolitics. We've got geoeconomics.
- [05:18]
Robert Peston
What does that mean?
- [05:18]
Stephanie Flanders
It's everything. We're living with the interplay and the clashes of geopolitics and economics. I think when you and I were at the BBC, Robert, there was a lot of economics, but we were still in a world where economics kind of had the upper hand. Like, you know, it sort of was the end of a conversation. Often even in Westminster, if you said, well, this is the economically beneficial thing for the economy, that was kind of what we'd grown up to say, okay, that's what you do. But I think with Donald Trump's election, with Brexit, we moved into a world where actually politics started to, to Trump economics, where you had to understand those two things working together. And that's, you know, that's what we're living with every day. And you're right, it is a just a constant trouble, especially if you have, you know, a podcast and you put things out and then it immediately is blown out of the water overnight.
- [06:09]
Robert Peston
And then there's a sort of another aspect of this, and I just wondered how you deal with it. So part of our jobs has always been not only to make sense of the world, but to tell people what we think is going to happen. And with somebody as capricious and unpredictable, but with so much power, you know, with somebody like Trump, making rational forecasts is. Is hard. Now you at Bloomberg, you actually make formal economic forecasts. How do you make, you know, a rational assumption, for example, about what kind of level of tariffs are gonna stick? Because at the end of the day, you know, for example, the 90 day temporary settlement with China has brought tariffs down significantly more than almost everybody thought. So how do you say something that's actually useful to your subscribers and viewers and readers and listeners, given that at the end of the day he is so unpredictable.
- [07:12]
Stephanie Flanders
But you know, the other thing that's even embedded in your question, Robert, is the way it changes our expect so our kind of base expectation of what is like a regular week in politics changes completely. You have to have a big news story every day or several times a day, and several U turns and voltfaces. But our idea of like, what constitutes an aggressive trade war and an increase in protectionism changes. I mean, we think of this after this ceasefire, if you like, between the US and China, we still got tariff rates. The effective tariff rate that the US has against the rest of the world is still about the same as what it was in the 30s, and certainly the highest it's been since then. The sort of Smoot Hawley, that sort of infamous level. If you just kept the tariff rates at this rate between the US and China, we reckon there'd be about 70% fall over time in the exports that China sends to the us so we kind of think of this as, oh, pieces broken out. But actually, we're still in a much more dramatic place, a much more closed world, or certainly the US is much more closed than we would have expected a year ago when we were listening to Donald Trump on the Count. So I think even there, it changes. But you're right when you're trying to look at the future and provide a guide to people, let alone help people think about the future of markets, because obviously that's what a lot of people reading Bloomberg are interested in. You have to just talk about scenarios and talk about, well, if things stay as they are, it'll be this. But if you look at the past history of the first Trump administration, our US Chief economist was in the White House for a bit. You try and get the insights from those people who've seen it before to some extent, but none of us have seen it before. So you're right. At some level, we just talk a lot about uncertainty, and it's very unsatisfactory.
- [09:01]
Robert Peston
But there is this weird. Always a weird interplay between media and power. And one of the things that I think became incredibly unhealthy in that interplay in Britain was after we voted to leave the European Union. One of the consequences of that was just that government and politics became totally chaotic. There was an adrenaline rush every day of some new parliamentary crisis or some new stupid political decision. We had, you know, prime Minister, you know, we had a whole succession of different prime ministers, and everybody in our world, the media world and in Westminster just became addicted to chaos. And we are now getting a whole world because of the way that Trump operates. The whole world is now addicted to chaos. You know, if you have. You know, one of the things that I slightly worry about just on our side of the fence is when you become hooked on the adrenaline rush. You know, you don't really know what to do with yourself when you've had a calm day. This is all so unhealthy in so many different ways. Different ways. I don't just mean on a personal level. I just mean this is not a way to rationally solve the world's problems.
- [10:24]
Stephanie Flanders
One of the things I know that you and I definitely felt during the global financial crisis. You know, at some level, this is why you went into journalism or into economics, that you wanted to be able to explain this stuff to people. And, you know, we've both spent our lives doing a lot of that. I didn't think I was going to be spending time on the 10 o' clock news talking about quantitative easing. You did even more talking about bank runs. But you're right, you were getting into the habit of not just explaining, but also expecting drama, expecting chaos. We talk about our own kids having shorter attention spans and spending their lives on TikTok, but the political attention span has obviously got much shorter. What you associate with effective government, however much people. We might talk later about the people's desire to see competence and things, tests of competence for governments. But even if people say they want a quiet, competent government, actually what they're kind of expecting and what they're saying with politicians is saying dramatic things and doing shocking, exciting things. I think it is very corrosive. And you know what? Probably the most corrosive thing, which I know you worry about, is what we're not thinking about when we're focusing on all the drama. We're focusing on everything on the stage, what we're not thinking about and what politicians and policymakers are not thinking about that they really ought to be trying to grapple with, whether it's climate change. You know, without any of this, we would have said this was going to be a very challenging time for the world with AI. What's the impact going to be on the global economy, climate change, all of these things, of rising conflicts, and yet we're not focused on that. We're focused on, you know, Qatar giving Donald Trump a plane.
- [12:04]
Robert Peston
You know, I was just going to say, just because we've got this microcosm of it on the day that we are recording, you know, in that both geopolitical and economic sense. What have we seen in the last few hours? We've seen an American president having talks with a new leader in Syria, the first time, I think, that an American president has spoken to a Syrian leader for something like 25 years. Lifting sanctions on Syria, lifting sanctions at a time when Israel, supposed to be America's great ally, still regards Syria as essentially run by jihadists. You've got Trump saying he wants to do a deal with Iran to sort of deal with the nuclear threat, but broadly is using language of a much more constructive sort than one thought he could ever do about the possibility of some kind of entente with Iran. There seems to be friction between Trump And Netanyahu of a sort that we hadn't anticipated. And Saudi is saying it's going to invest a trillion dollars in America. I mean, this is just a few hours to try and put into some, you know, to try and give some shape to. And I'm really struggling. I'll be completely frank.
- [13:23]
Stephanie Flanders
Yeah. And I think, and even when it comes to the sort of fact checking element, I mean, that is of course exactly what people at ITV and Bloomberg, we're struggling to sort of say, okay, seems to be it's a trillion dollars. They say it's a trillion dollars. We can really only find a few hundred billion, even just that one chasing down that one fact, that one headline. And meantime, as you say, the caravan has moved on and people are talking about the next thing. And of course, it's been much talked about that is part the quote, unquote strategy of this administration is to flood the zone and to make things extremely. But I do think it's interesting, I mean, you see at work, even here, and even though there's been criticism of Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State, there's the Donald Trump show. But underneath the surface, you've actually still got State Department officials. And I've had talk to people in Washington who say, interestingly, there's been quite a lot of protection by Marco Rubio of the sort of core staff at State Department. We'll see whether it survives more cut and their sort of, you know, the underlying dynamics. I suspect they always wanted to reopen ties, diplomatic ties with Syria. They were quite keen to unlock quite a lot of policies that have been put on hold. You know, there is some of what I guess Donald Trump might have called the deep state is still operating in some of these countries even as we see this. You know, and I guess that's also part of the point. We're trying to join the dots, say, okay, if we step back from the press conference, you know, what is actually happening here? How are relations changing in the region? And, you know, the answer is it's pretty dramatic.
- [15:04]
Robert Peston
Absolutely is. Can I just ask you before we move on to a slightly more UK focused issue, you will be a closer observer than I have been of Scott Besant. When he was appointed. I thought he would be able to hold Trump in check on some of his wilder policies. He didn't. But he does appear to have then been able to pull him back from some of the, for example, more extreme positions on tariffs. You know, when the dollar fell, when dollar assets, you know, when investors, rather than buying the Dollar in a time of crisis sold it. When the yield on U.S. treasuries rose to levels that began to look a bit worrying, Bessant appeared to be able to pull Trump back from the brink. Do you think that he is a steadying force within the administration?
- [16:04]
Stephanie Flanders
He is. He's certainly a steadying force for the financial markets. In fact, there's an economist, Dario Perkins, who did a fantastic chart, rather sort of mischievously looking at the days where Scott Besant was dominating the headlines were very good days for the US Stock market and the days where they were all talk about. Peter Navarro, as you know, is the kind of much more wilder kind of hard line who most influenced those Liberation day, sort of very high level of tariffs. You know, those have been pretty bad days for the stock market. But I actually, I sort of witnessed it firsthand last week at the Milken, this massive kind of gathering of global money in Los Angeles. And Scott Besant was the first speaker and he had also obviously done lots of kind of behind the scenes dinners and meetings with businesses. And I was told off the record that he had just told everyone, well, we spent 100 days breaking everything and now we're going to put it all back together again. And that was kind of his line of reassurance. I guess it's reassuring that they're now trying to put things back together again. He's turning into a really critical figure because if you think about it, he's not just been unexpectedly put at the heart of doing all these trade deals. And he was certainly right at the forefront of the U.S. china. It was not the commerce Secretary, although he was kind of along for the ride. But he's also going to be in charge of getting this tax bill through, which has just been released by the Congress this week. That's got a lot of the goodies, the tax cuts that Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail. So he seems to have found a way, sort of just at the nick of time to be the last person who talks to Donald Trump. And so you have. So he has blinked in these various ways, including with China. You know, he's basically given in to China on a lot of the key things, or he certainly backed down. But you know, you have to ask yourself, how long is that going to last? Is he going to become more influential over time as others kind of fade away, or is he going to kind of fall by the wayside like some people did in the first place administration?
- [18:11]
Robert Peston
You mentioned the, you know, Trump slightly later than we might have expected, trying to push through these campaign trail promises on, on tax because obviously the American deficit is already very large. Is there anything credible that they are talking about in terms of funding these tax cuts that won't lead to a significant increase in the American deficit?
- [18:37]
Stephanie Flanders
So the estimate for the bill that was released on Monday is that it's going to lose $3.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years. And it's got some big cuts. It's sort of put a cap on quite a lot of the sort of Biden era, you know, those kind of big subsidies to build wind farms and all of those things. Actually, that's quite big money if you just put a cap on many of these tax breaks that have been brought in by the Biden administration. But no, it is going to add enormously to the deficit. And the only way they're making the numbers sort of somewhat add up is by actually going against the standard rules of counting these things and saying that making those tax cuts from the first Trump term, several trillion dollars worth of tax cuts permanent, and they were due to just expire at the end of this year, that that's just continuing normal policy. So it doesn't actually cost the trillions of dollars that we thought it did. Now, that is just a sleight of hand, but it is looking quite likely that they will get away with that. But if you are someone who's in the markets thinking, wow, this country is not on a stable path when it comes to borrowing and also, by the way, doesn't have a very stable government, well, I don't think you're going to be very reassured by that bill.
- [19:50]
Robert Peston
Look, I think that's a good moment to go for a quick break. And when we come back, let's talk about this government's change of approach on immigration. See you in a minute.
- [20:06]
Indeed Advertiser
Spring is here and there's a whole new way to chai at Starbucks that's made perfect for you. Choose your sweetness, dial it up or keep things light. Add a touch of pistachio, a hint of strawberry or vanilla, or make it a spring classic with lavender. Because this season there's endless ways to chai at Starbucks.
- [20:28]
LifeLock Customer
This episode is brought to you by indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed Sponsored by Jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate. C. According to INDEED data, sponsored jobs have four times more applicants than non sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit@ Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply.
- [20:56]
State Farm Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast Smart move. Being financially savvy Smart move. Another smart move having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to save with a personal price plan like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state.
- [21:27]
Robert Peston
Welcome back to the Rest Is Money with me, Robert Peston and another Steph. I wanted to move from the global to something a little bit more parochial. I started the week, I mean, what better way to start the week? Monday, breakfast time at number 9 Downing street for the prime Minister's unveiling of the government's new approach to immigration, a white paper that was published that brings in all sorts of new restrictions on flows of people to this country. But it wasn't just the content of the white paper that was important. It was also the language that he used in unveiling the new policy, language which upset quite a lot of his own supporters. Describing the risk that immigration was turning us into a country of strangers where we're not connected enough, saying that mass immigration, his words had done incalculable damage, which is astonishingly inflammatory language. And also saying, actually in response to a question from me, that it was perfectly clear given the economic stagnation of the last few years, that immigration does not generate economic growth. Now, all of this in terms of certainly the language that he used, I found striking. In fact, in many ways I found it quite shocking because it's not what I would have expected a, a Labour prime minister to say. But Stephanie, what did you make of it all?
- [23:03]
Stephanie Flanders
I think both the speech, but actually also the reaction to it and what you've just said sort of is a reminder of something that's been quite sort of fundamental about the populism we've seen in recent years, not just in the UK but across Europe, which is, you might have asked the question, okay, the system has failed. People feel that they've been left out of growth, that the economy is not working, that also the world has kind of moved in a way they don't like. Why has the populist reaction been so often from the right and not from the left? And I think that one of the key reasons is that because a big driver of this populism has been concern around immigration. I say not just here, but certainly across Europe and in the US that is not a place where parties of the left are comfortable, certainly in terms of the language they use. It's just not a natural area for even quite extreme left wing parties that just sort of feel morally unable to really weigh into that debate in a way that responds to people's concerns. So I think the speech, I think the sort of awkwardness of the language, the fact that there was conflict or tension between the language he was using now and language we've heard from Keir Starmer at various other times, both in Ghana government and before that, just the feeling we knew that some of what he was saying just was not coming from his heart at some level. I would say, though, the incalculable damage definitely exaggerated. But what has done damage and maybe is incalculable damage is the incompetence of how immigration policies have been dealt with, not just rhetorically, but actually in practice. I mean, I know you've talked about this in the past on the show, and it's something that comes up a lot when you look at opinion polls. People care not so much about the immigration. They don't say that they care about the immigration. They care about the loss of control. And the fact that governments have repeatedly not been able to demonstrate control and competence in their migration policies in the last few years, that I think has done enormous damage and I think is something that this government had to respond to. It becomes a sort of basic test for any government that you have to reduce immigration, but also just show that you're in control of it and that you're being competent. And yes, it's a test that's been set, set by a party that, you know, by reform to some extent. And you're responding to reform. And you know, probably Nigel Farage will never say that it's been passed, but I don't think it's one that the government can duck. And, you know, there are elements of the system that's been in place in the last few years that have not been particularly good economically, let alone politically.
- [25:44]
Robert Peston
No, look, I completely agree with everything you've just said. It seems to me that if you are a Labour Prime Minister thinking in a sophisticated way about the economics and indeed your political interest, you would not have framed what you were doing in the way that he did. So, you know, one of the things that I was reminded of as I was sitting in this room is in 2016, after we voted to leave the European Union, I wrote a book called wtf and one of the arguments I made in it was that we had become hooked as an economy on labor from abroad, that was low wage. And that when you had businesses employing pretty much as many people they wanted on low wages, to an extent that was a substitute for investing. And I think there was an argument this has never actually been definitively proven. Quite a lot of economists have looked at this. But there was an argument that said the problem with the low wage model is it built into the system, stagnating living standards because it was good for businesses, it maximized their profits, but it was not good because you had this constant downward pressure on wages. And so if he'd said, actually what we're going to do with immigration is make sure that the only people we bring in are individuals with a level of skills that will actually encourage businesses to invest more. And in the meantime, which is something they did actually say, we're going to try to invest much more in the skills of the British people, then I think you have a sort of nuanced argument that is basically saying, actually we are in a global market, there is some point to having people of talent coming into the rest of the world and that could make us all a bit richer. But when you make blanket statements like incalculable damage and there's no link between immigration and growth, what you're, I think doing is endorsing the sort of Nigel Farage reductivist position. You're basically saying, I mean, the position of reform is net zero immigration. They are saying they want the numbers of people coming to the UK to be matched by the numbers of people leaving and that the population of the UK cannot rise in any circumstances. That is not, I think, almost maybe you disagree, but it's very difficult to build, particularly with an aging population, an economic model on that basis that pays for our public services and makes us better off.
- [28:37]
Stephanie Flanders
I agree with the last of what you said and I do think just politically it's obviously really hazardous. And there's just an open question about whether Labour will ever should be embarking on something that people will never in some sense kind of believe it's going to go as far as if they really care about it, if it's a really salient issue for them, they're always going to go with reform on this particular issue. So why make this the issue? I kind of get that. But going back to what I said before, I think as this basic kind of test of competence and even on your point, we have no evidence from the last few years that we can implement a skilled worker only system. I mean, you will have seen one of the reports, I think that came out a few months ago from the National Audit Office. Just saying, you know, the Home Office has no idea why three times as many skilled worker visas have been issued since 2020 than expected. And it sounds, you know, it's in the same spirit as, you know, those enormous underestimates of how many Poles were going to come to, you know, how many East Europeans were going to come to the uk. It's that same sense of loss of know how many people are here. And even when we do know, we don't know why it's so many, why we've managed to grant this many visas when we actually thought we had various constraints. So I think there would be a loss of just a basic lack of credibility if they'd said we're only going to do skilled workers and we're going to be more controlled.
- [29:59]
Robert Peston
But hang on, Steph, they did say that they were going to restrict, you know, work visas to people of degree level. Now that doesn't necessarily mean very high skilled people, but they did, they have raised the bar.
- [30:13]
Stephanie Flanders
But I'm saying I don't think it could have been part, that couldn't have been the only thing that they said, I guess because he was suggesting that they should have just stepped to that and kind of kept away from some of the language. And I just think it's a bigger issue than that. And actually I think the quality, the kind of immigration that we've had since Brexit, there's just economically, there's no getting around the fact that it looks like it's been less economically beneficial. So you laid out the challenge, the pressure on, the fact that the unskilled migration, the heavy reliance on that had put downward pressure on wages before Brexit in those kind of years, broadly speaking, I think since Brexit we have ended up with, we know this, we've got sort of, there's older, the average age of people coming in has been older. They're more likely to bring dependents, they're coming from different places. But that comes with the fact that they're bringing dependence and they're more likely to stay, which suggests that they may also ultimately cost the taxpayer more than some of these more short term immigrants before. And we can just see it from the evidence. We haven't had very good growth rate and we certainly haven't. We have had a falling GDP per head in quite significant chunks of the last few years. And a lot of the countries around the world, we did a study on this last Year, I think there was more than a dozen countries that had had a GDP per head recession in the last couple of years. And they were all countries that where immig was a very hot issue. You know, adding. There was a feeling that immigrants were adding to house prices, putting pressure on the economy and not actually helping grow living standards.
- [31:51]
Robert Peston
I mean, you've sort of hit on something that is, you know, I try not to cry too often, but when I think about it, you know, I do almost burst into tears that, you know, we had a decision to leave the European Union that was driven by, driven to a huge extent by worries about immigration. In the decade or so before we voted to leave the EU, immigration was on average something like 2 to 300,000 a year. These were, as you say, people who were younger. They didn't really, you know, yes, if in some cases they used schools and gps, but frankly on the whole they didn't use public services. And quite often when they got to a certain age, early 30s, wanted to settle down, they went home again. And as you say, since Brexit, the levels of immigration have been, well, I mean, it reached 930,000 in 2023. So we've had levels of immigration that are multiples. These are people who are settling, they're not going home. They are a much greater burden on the state and on public services. And so the policy failure has been off the charts. And yet, despite the fact the policy failure has been off the charts, we have a government and in fact, even the Liberal Democrats dare not contemplate saying, well, doesn't that just show we'd be able to control immigration better if we were part of the eu. But there is quite a strong argument for saying if we rejoin the eu, we could then have a collective EU wide immigration policy that it would certainly potentially. For example, one element we haven't talked about, which is the asylum seekers crossing the Channel, almost our only hope of curbing numbers crossing the Channel would be having a resettlement scheme agreed throughout the eu, but which we can't have because we're not a member of the eu. So there is, you know, I hate the cliche paradox, but my God, some
- [33:55]
Stephanie Flanders
things in politics you don't get to do over. And I suspect Brexit is one of those, you know, there were failings that contributed to that and we didn't get a do over, we just got the implications of those failures brought home to us. The implications of incompetence. I mean, the system for controlling immigration that was put in place under Boris Johnson Post Brexit, even at the time, there were question marks about it. But that, again, is just, at some level, gross incompetence and has had enormous consequences, unexpected and otherwise. But you've hit on something, Robert. I mean, I think I'm less critical than you are of what the government's trying to do on immigration and the kind of message it was sending on Monday. But I do wish that they would pair that with a more ambitious approach to Europe and say, look, and we know certainly all the rhetoric coming out of the government around the budget and around the spring statement and in other areas, the world has changed. And we've seen that in a security sense, you know, I think adding some more content to, you know, the world has changed. So, you know, we're going to change our approach to immigration, but also we're going to recognize that there is an opportunity and a necessity now to join with Europe and to reach out to them in various ways that did not exist a year ago. And we're going to, we're going to seize that and we're going to be brave in doing that. And I think to sort of pair those two together, those two messages, I think would just suggest more energy and more of a proactive approach than the kind of suspicion that they're just now responding to reform, which by itself is not going to animate very many people in the party or indeed voters.
- [35:36]
Robert Peston
Well, I mean, we've got this first UK EU summit of this government coming up on Monday, which in theory will set the framework for a closer relationship with the EU on defence, on trade, on security. And we'll have to wait and see how ambitious they are going to be or whether they, in that sense, as with immigration, they will allow Nigel Farage and reform to continue to set the agenda. You talked about the incompetence that led to the decision taken by the British people to leave the European Union. I mean, I would argue that we are seeing a repeat of, of that incompetence by this government. Because part of the incompetence, I would argue, of David Cameron in authorizing the referendum and indeed in so much of his rhetoric at the time, was he would constantly say, both in word and deed, Nigel Farage has a point. And once you say, once the leader of a nation says Nigel Farage has a point, quite a lot of undecided people then think, oh, well, if he has a point, I was slightly dithering about it. Well, I'll vote the way Nigel wants me to vote. And I slightly think that what they're doing with immigration at the moment is they are legitimizing those who are wavering about it. It's legitimising for quite a lot of people a vote for reform and a vote for Farage.
- [37:06]
Stephanie Flanders
Yeah, I think there's obviously something to that. But I think we also probably have to get past the point of saying are they legitimate, are they not legitimate when they're going to be running a whole bunch of councils. Apart from anything else, I think the whole point is to say, ok, we're going to treat them like a legitimate party because they are, they've legitimately won these elections, they're going to be running these councils. Councils and you know, let's treat them like real people. No, but even the arguments like I was, that's why I was pushing back earlier. I think even there isn't, there is some content in the arguments which that, which the government needs to respond to. But it to be say, okay, we're grown ups and we're going to respond to this in a grown up way rather than just having a load of slogans. And I think the more that you get into that. So one thing I think that you know, if you do what you can do on the immigration and you show this is a competent, credible approach to controlling immigration, but you also rather call them on the embrace of unions and all the slightly more kind of left wing economics, at least the language that's been embraced by reform and say, okay, well do you really believe in higher taxes? Do you really believe in all these things that these trade union bosses that you're now cozying up to, you know, where's the substance there? Because most of the people in your party are very much on the other side of the fence politically and don't believe in most of these policies. So what exactly are you talking about? And equally I think on Europe that reform is suggesting to people that the only problem with Brexit was the execution and that actually maintaining a distance with Europe will still is a good thing to do for the economy and make people feel better. And I think you come out as a government and say that's just not true and we're going to show you why. Because the world has changed now we're
- [38:46]
Robert Peston
all going out of time. Let's try very briefly to cheer people up, to use a sort of horrible technical expression they use in the city. We have seen since Trump became president an outperformance, a relatively good performance of the euro sterling European stock markets. And you think this could be Europe's Moment. There are reasons why this could be a period of quite significant European revival. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. What do you think?
- [39:21]
Stephanie Flanders
No, I'm sort of chortling because I spend slightly more time than you, but I don't spend my life with people in the city who are worrying about this on a daily basis or talking to people about investment strategy. But for at least the last 10 years, people have been wondering when it is that Europe will outperform the US and it's sort of every year someone has persuaded themselves that this will be Europe's year because historically there just hasn't been such a long period where the US has just outpaced not just Europe, but the rest of the world. But we'd reached a point at the end of last year where I think there was a historic gap between the US companies. How much of global stock market value was accounted for by U.S. companies? I think it was about 70% relative to the much smaller, as we know, 20 something percent, low 20% of the global economy represented by the U.S. so, so even if you don't think that Donald Trump is going to sort of drive the US economy into a brick wall, you didn't need much excuse as an investor the last few months to think, well, should we just sort of start going bit back to normal? Should I use this as an excuse to just take some investments, relatively speaking, out of the US I'm still going to be heavily invested in the US but there's a lot of sort of spare cash I have because I don't want to be, be putting all my chips on there anymore. I just think it's, you know, it's got too far out of whack and I think that's what's happened and what we've even seen this week where there's been a recovery in US markets, actually there hasn't been that much of a recovery in the dollar and the rest of the world has still been doing a bit better. So Europe potentially could do particularly well out of that because it's going to have a slightly better growth story to tell, especially if it has all this kind of defense investment and other things. And people might even be think the Euro, you know, we're not going to put all our money in the euro, but maybe it's worth, you know, a bit more. So those kind of structural things I think could help Europe and I think we could certainly help the uk you could also say that the UK just generally to investors, so people who want to build things, who want to have businesses. I know there's people who are leaving for tax reasons, but I hear a lot of others who look at the UK and say, you know, not only does it look cheap, but it looks like, like a nicer place to be. I don't have to worry about whether I'm going to be stopped at the border. I don't have to worry about the rule of law and a very kind of unstable, unpredictable government. You know, there's other things that I think the UK has in its favour now, not just cheap price.
- [41:59]
Robert Peston
Well, hear, hear. To all of that. Could not agree more. I'm now going to say thank you very much, Steph. And if, like me, you cannot get enough of Stephanie Flanders, you've got to listen to her brilliant Trumponomics podcast, available, I understand, on all good podcast platforms. Steph, thank you so much for joining us today. It's been a real treat.
- [42:21]
Stephanie Flanders
Robert, it's been a pleasure. Anytime.
- [42:23]
Robert Peston
See you again very soon.
- [42:24]
Stephanie Flanders
Bye. Bye.
- [42:28]
1-800-Contacts Advertiser
Close your eyes. Exhale. Feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I would get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh, my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste.
- [42:53]
Indeed Advertiser
Visit 1-800contacts.com today to save on your first order.
- [42:56]
Robert Peston
1-800-contacts.