0:07

This is who they are. You

0:09

know, you have a Chancellor who

0:12

is writing letters to other government

0:14

departments and to quangos and regulators

0:16

saying, give me your ideas for

0:19

growth. You've got the home office

0:21

doing nothing about the huge inflow

0:24

of fiscally negative migrants. You've got

0:26

Angela Rayna introducing the employment rights

0:28

legislation which adds at least five

0:31

billion pounds a year to business

0:33

costs. You've got Ed Milleband. de-industrializing

0:36

the economy with his energy

0:38

policies. It doesn't really add

0:40

up. Hello, welcome back to the Brendan

0:42

O'Neill show with me, Brendan

0:44

O'Neill, and my special guest this

0:47

week, Nick Timothy. Nick, welcome to

0:49

the show. Hello, it's great to

0:51

have you back on. Last time we

0:53

had you on this podcast was

0:55

a few years back, and we

0:57

were talking about your book at

0:59

the time, remaking one nation, conservatism

1:01

in an age of crisis. And also

1:03

we talked about your role as

1:05

special advisor to treason May and you

1:08

being a big supporter of Brexit

1:10

and all that good stuff we

1:12

talked about. A lot has changed since

1:14

then. You are now a member

1:16

of Parliament. You're the Conservative MP

1:18

for West Suffolk where you've been

1:20

MP since last year. So you're

1:22

now in the belly of the

1:24

lawmaking beast. And I've got a lot

1:26

to ask you about that. What's it

1:28

like? What's happening with politics? All that

1:31

stuff. But it would be remiss of

1:33

me not to ask you today about

1:35

the economy. Because on the day we're

1:37

talking, the spring statement has come out,

1:39

everyone's talking about it. Rachel Reeves is,

1:41

I think, making a mess of things.

1:44

But I want to get your thoughts.

1:46

What did you make of Rachel Reeves'

1:48

spring statement? What are your hopes for

1:50

economic recovery or growth under

1:52

this labor government? Well, I

1:54

mean, I'm quite worried about the

1:57

state of the economy, to be

1:59

honest. I think I should

2:01

probably start by saying that

2:03

some of the, you know,

2:05

this is not entirely about

2:08

party politics. I think the

2:10

British economic model has run

2:12

out of road. I think

2:14

that actually the problems come

2:16

down to something that is

2:18

quite simple to observe the

2:21

very difficult to fix, which

2:23

is that at its base

2:25

basic a country can't keep

2:27

on. consuming and importing far

2:29

more than it produces and

2:32

it exports. And we need

2:34

to re-industrialize and we need

2:36

to produce more of what

2:38

we consume at home and

2:40

we need to export more.

2:43

And that involves a lot

2:45

of change with domestic policies,

2:47

not least crazy energy policies.

2:49

But it also, I think

2:51

because this is something that

2:54

is affecting... many Western countries,

2:56

but especially the Anglo economies

2:58

which are very open. China

3:00

is systematically destroying Western productive

3:02

capacity and that in the

3:04

end will lead to impoverishment

3:07

and weakness internationally. So I

3:09

think we need really big

3:11

ideas and they're certainly not

3:13

coming from this government. And

3:15

today's emergency budget. It was

3:18

pretty depressing. I mean, the

3:20

chancellor stood up with a

3:22

slightly strange rick-tus grin, which

3:24

I think she's been coached

3:26

into doing. But all the

3:29

labor faces around her looked

3:31

incredibly glum, because they knew

3:33

the reality of it. She

3:35

announced a massively expansionary budget

3:37

last year. Labor's manifesto said

3:40

they'd live at spending increases

3:42

to nine and a half

3:44

billion pounds a year, but

3:46

the budget increased them by

3:48

76 billion pounds a year.

3:50

That's eight times more. and

3:53

she pushed her fiscal rules

3:55

to the limit. And actually,

3:57

because of the reaction of

3:59

businesses who lost confidence because

4:01

of the tax rises and

4:04

the bond markets, who saw

4:06

the extent of the extra

4:08

borrowing, the fiscal headroom that

4:10

she had in the budget

4:12

disappeared almost immediately. So now

4:15

she is having to go

4:17

backwards and looking for cuts.

4:19

And beyond all the bluster,

4:21

the list of things that

4:23

she said today, you know,

4:26

growth. forecasts have been halved.

4:28

It's quite clear that borrowing

4:30

is up and there are

4:32

going to be more tax

4:34

rises, but you know, along

4:36

the way she also admitted

4:39

that their housing targets aren't

4:41

going to be met, that

4:43

the welfare cuts that they've

4:45

announced are still within the

4:47

overall increase in welfare claims,

4:50

which means that actually they're

4:52

not going to lead to

4:54

any actual overall savings. Yeah,

4:56

and she basically... followed an

4:58

expansion re-budget with one that is

5:00

a little bit more fiscally conservative

5:02

because the bond markets forced her

5:04

into that. Yeah, I think it's

5:07

very useful to kind of take

5:09

that step back and look at

5:11

the economic question in the broader

5:13

sense. I think you're right, it's

5:15

not just a question of party

5:17

politics. There is a, these problems

5:19

have been a long time coming.

5:21

to do with degrowth here in

5:23

the UK, a collapse in production,

5:25

international trends as you say. I

5:27

think that's very true and I

5:29

think what strikes me just to

5:31

bring it back to party politics,

5:33

having said that, what strikes me

5:35

is that we do need a

5:37

change in mindset. as a nation

5:39

if we're going to get serious

5:41

about growth and serious about being

5:43

more productive. And I did wonder

5:45

if you think that the Labour

5:47

Party, I mean we can get

5:49

on to the Conservative Party a

5:51

little bit later, but is the

5:53

Labour Party, the Labour government just

5:55

constitutionally ill-equipped to resuscitate that kind

5:57

of mindset? bring back that kind

5:59

of incentive to growth. I mean

6:01

this is traditionally the party of

6:03

quangocracies and net zero although it

6:05

does seem to be throwing some

6:07

of those things by the wayside

6:09

and those are the things that

6:12

are a real drag on I

6:14

guess the spirit we need as

6:16

well as the investment we need

6:18

if we are going to become

6:20

a more productive nation. Yeah, I

6:22

mean, I think you're actually just

6:24

aver generous to them. I'm not

6:26

sure they are throwing some of

6:28

these things, by the way side.

6:30

I mean, they created 27 quangos

6:32

in their first months in office

6:34

and then they announced that they

6:36

were getting rid of one and

6:39

expected a medal for it. This is

6:41

who they are. And, you know, you have a

6:43

Chancellor who is writing letters

6:45

to other government departments and

6:48

to quangos. and regulators saying,

6:50

give me your ideas for

6:52

growth. I mean, I don't think anybody

6:55

in the history of humanity has

6:57

had an idea of growth from

6:59

a regulator anyway. But as

7:02

she's doing that and looking for

7:04

others to come up with her

7:06

ideas for growing the economy, you've

7:08

got the home office doing nothing

7:10

about the huge inflow

7:12

of fiscally negative. migrants.

7:14

You've got Angela Rayna

7:16

introducing the employment rights

7:18

legislation which has at

7:21

least five billion pounds

7:23

a year to business

7:25

costs. You've got Ed

7:27

Miller Band de-industrializing the

7:29

economy with his energy

7:31

policies. And it doesn't

7:33

really add up and

7:35

the rhetoric recently has moved to

7:37

growth and making the state leaner

7:39

and getting rid of red tape.

7:41

But if you look at the

7:44

reality of what they're doing, that's

7:46

not the case at all. This

7:48

year, Spite is celebrating its 25th

7:50

birthday. 25 years ago, Spite was

7:52

a pioneer of online political journalism.

7:54

And now we are bigger than

7:56

ever. We're reaching people around the

7:58

world with our... articles, essays, videos

8:01

and podcasts all underpinned by our

8:03

principled message of freedom, democracy and

8:05

progress. This would never have happened

8:07

without you. Our listeners, readers and

8:09

supporters. Your donations fund our work

8:11

and your enthusiasm spreads the word

8:13

about it. So as we mark

8:15

Spike's 25th birthday, we want to

8:17

say a heartfelt thank you. And

8:19

we're asking those who can afford

8:22

it to donate to our anniversary

8:24

appeal. in order to keep spiked

8:26

going and growing into the future.

8:28

We also have a very special

8:30

offer on at the moment. Those

8:32

who donate 25 pounds or more

8:34

will get a year's membership to

8:36

Spike Supporters, our online donor community,

8:38

where you can comment on articles,

8:40

come to events and read the

8:43

site ad free. This is half

8:45

of what you'd normally pay for

8:47

a year's membership. And if you're

8:49

already a Spike supporter, you can

8:51

benefit from this offer too. just

8:53

make a donation of 25 pounds

8:55

or more and will extend your

8:57

membership by 12 months. So if

8:59

you want to support spiked and

9:01

get access to some brilliant exclusive

9:04

perks go to spiked hyphen online.com/donate.

9:06

That's spiked hyphen online.com/donate and donate

9:08

25 pounds or more to help

9:10

keep us going for another 25

9:12

years. That's a point well made.

9:14

I think when I think about

9:16

the economic issue, it's one of

9:18

those issues where I think attitude,

9:20

and I don't mean that in

9:22

its flimsy sense, I mean a

9:25

kind of real sense of drive,

9:27

is actually incredibly important. So if

9:29

you look at what Labour has

9:31

done, you commented on this recently,

9:33

that Rachel Reese referred to the

9:35

UK as a small economy, a

9:37

small country essentially. We know that

9:39

when this government first came into

9:41

power last year they were going

9:43

on and on about the big

9:46

black hole in the economy and

9:48

what a disaster everything is and

9:50

that seemed to have a discouraging

9:52

effect on people who might otherwise

9:54

invest here. or taking interest in

9:56

us, there is this tendency to

9:58

talk us down, not only in

10:00

terms of our history and our

10:02

culture, which we're familiar with, but

10:04

also even our economic prospects. And

10:07

the net zero thing, I think,

10:09

taps into that. I mean, I

10:11

think one of the things that

10:13

we can be. proudest off as

10:15

a nation is that we were

10:17

the cradle in many ways of

10:19

the industrial revolution and we transformed

10:21

humanity's fortunes in that period and

10:23

yet we're now supposed to be

10:25

shame-faced about industry we're supposed to

10:28

think that we're just this small

10:30

insignificant economy on the edge of

10:32

Europe I mean all of that

10:34

has a palpable impact doesn't it

10:36

on the prospects for growth? Yeah I

10:38

think it does I think it says quite

10:40

a lot about the mindset of the people

10:42

who are running the government now You know,

10:44

they seem to believe that

10:47

we are incapable of

10:49

doing anything of any

10:51

kind of importance in

10:54

the world, but we

10:56

are uniquely responsible for

10:59

so many of the world's

11:01

ills, that we have to

11:03

somehow compensate for those

11:06

things, whether it's about...

11:08

slavery or industrialization

11:10

gave the world so

11:13

much. And you do hear

11:15

this where people say, well, you

11:17

know, we have to be the

11:20

first in the world

11:22

to decarbonize because we

11:24

were the first to

11:26

industrialize. And this is

11:29

really perverse. You

11:31

know, industrialization gave

11:33

the world so much in

11:35

terms of the... the inventions,

11:38

the commerce, the the improvements

11:40

in the health and welfare

11:42

of people. These are things

11:44

we should be proud of and

11:47

all things that we think we

11:49

should be, you know, compensating people

11:51

for. And yeah, I think it's connected

11:54

to, you know, several other worrying

11:57

mindsets. And because I do

11:59

think There

12:01

is this tendency now

12:03

to believe, and you were

12:06

here, it said, among

12:08

quite senior officials and thinkers

12:10

and economists and so

12:12

on, that actually things like

12:14

industry, it's

12:16

somehow only really

12:18

for developing economies to

12:20

have manufacturing, and

12:23

that we're somehow at

12:25

this kind of

12:27

late stage of capitalism,

12:29

that we're much

12:31

more mature and developed

12:33

than others. And

12:35

if that were true, you'd think

12:37

that we would be richer than countries

12:39

with a bigger industrial base than

12:42

we have, like America or Germany or

12:44

Switzerland, countries of hugely different sizes,

12:46

and that's not the case. But

12:50

it's obviously the case that

12:52

the productive capacity of countries

12:54

is very strongly connected to

12:56

their prosperity. You can't just

12:58

have services alone, certainly not

13:00

in a country of our

13:02

size. And we've

13:04

tested the destruction of this

13:06

idea that you can have an

13:08

economy that's based on advanced

13:10

business and financial services, and then

13:12

redistribute the proceeds a little

13:14

bit around the country via the

13:17

public sector or taxation. That

13:20

might work if you're

13:22

a small city -state

13:24

or something, but it

13:26

doesn't work in a

13:28

country of our size.

13:31

We need to do

13:33

more things. These things

13:35

are kind of consensus

13:37

views and held by

13:39

lots of people who

13:41

don't necessarily think in

13:43

terms of philosophy or

13:46

the kind of classical

13:48

economic thinking. I

13:50

don't think international

13:52

free trade ever was

13:55

real, but it's

13:57

certainly not real now

13:59

with the way

14:01

that China manipulates the international trading system.

14:03

And we've got to get real about

14:06

that. And, you know, again, today

14:08

the Chancellor, it was actually in

14:10

the context of making this argument

14:12

about us being a supposedly small

14:15

economy, which is obviously incorrect. She

14:17

said we're a small economy

14:19

that's committed to international

14:21

free trade. And theories of

14:24

comparative advantage and things like

14:26

that have... kind of

14:28

been an intellectual justification or

14:30

cloak for offshoring and

14:33

the destruction of our industry.

14:35

I wanted to ask you about I guess the

14:37

question of suffering but in relation

14:39

to the workforce here in the

14:42

UK and what these developments that

14:44

you're talking about and this the

14:46

incapacity on labour's part to truly

14:48

grow the economy, what it means

14:51

for working people in Britain because

14:53

I think this touches on the

14:55

benefits cuts that have... hogged the

14:57

headlines for the past few days

14:59

and Rachel Reeves hasn't done a good

15:01

job of explaining them or pushing them through

15:03

or telling us what it's all about. You

15:06

know, very few people would challenge the

15:08

idea that a state has a

15:10

responsibility to look after those who

15:12

cannot work. People who are disabled

15:14

or very ill and of course

15:16

people who are old and who've

15:18

spent their whole lives working, the

15:20

state has a responsibility to care

15:23

for those people financially. But it

15:25

is the case, isn't it,

15:27

where you've had the growth

15:29

of these concepts like incapacity,

15:31

as reflected in incapacity benefit,

15:33

which seems to me to be a

15:35

more slippery term. a quite moralistic term,

15:37

even an ideological one, which seems to

15:39

be more about putting people out to

15:41

pasture because we don't have anything for

15:44

them to do, or we don't know

15:46

how to make them gainfully employed, rather

15:48

than actually assist in them because they

15:50

can't work. That's another issue, isn't it,

15:52

where we actually do need to step

15:54

back and ask what's happening to the

15:56

nation more broadly when these kinds of

15:58

ideas can take hold? Yeah,

16:00

and I think that you

16:03

did the history of how

16:05

to work benefits and capacity

16:07

benefit is one where I

16:09

think actually, you know, both

16:11

parties should hold their hands

16:13

up over time. I mean,

16:15

I think we, I would

16:17

say, I would say this

16:19

wouldn't I, but I would

16:21

say the Conservatives have a

16:24

better record on things like

16:26

welfare reform and certainly the

16:28

coalition government did some some

16:30

good things on welfare reform

16:32

and then. And then after

16:34

COVID I think quite a

16:36

lot changed and actually the

16:38

country needs something similar happening

16:40

all over again. But it's

16:43

obviously always a temptation for

16:45

the state to park people

16:47

on whatever language you want

16:49

to use some form of

16:51

incapacity benefit because they might

16:53

not count towards the unemployment

16:55

statistics. and they will be

16:57

the hardest people to get

16:59

back into the workplace. But

17:01

if we're to have the

17:04

kind of economy and lower

17:06

cost state that we should

17:08

want, and certainly if we

17:10

want things like lower immigration,

17:12

we're going to have to

17:14

reform welfare very radically, and

17:16

that will involve having to...

17:18

to work very hard for

17:20

some people who might not

17:22

have worked for a long

17:25

time to get them back

17:27

into the workplace. But I

17:29

think there's, we also need

17:31

to look at the nature

17:33

of our economy. If you

17:35

have a, if you have

17:37

a services dominated economy, then

17:39

you basically have a kind

17:41

of barbell shaped labor market

17:44

where you have a reasonable

17:46

number of really well paid

17:48

rewarding jobs at one end

17:50

and a reasonable number of,

17:52

low skill, low pay, low

17:54

dignity, often jobs at the

17:56

other and not very much

17:58

in the middle. And, and,

18:00

you know, lots of people don't

18:03

really fit into that and,

18:05

and are excluded from work.

18:07

And I think, I think

18:09

this takes you to all

18:11

sorts of interesting connected questions

18:13

about the role of

18:15

men and, and, you

18:17

know, adolescent boys, because

18:20

there's less, there's less

18:22

dignity for, for people in

18:24

a labour market like that. So I

18:26

think, I think we should want to.

18:29

change the shape of the economy

18:31

for all those reasons as well.

18:33

Yeah, I want to come onto

18:35

the question of men and

18:37

boys and adolescents in a moment,

18:39

but just in relation to

18:42

this issue of growth and I

18:44

guess the broader connecting

18:46

issues of productivity and the meaning

18:48

of our society who we are

18:50

as a nation, what we want

18:52

to do. I wanted to ask

18:54

you what role you think immigration

18:56

plays in that discussion. I mean

18:58

immigration is always an incredibly testy

19:00

topic in this country. It has

19:02

been for some time. Do you think

19:05

one of the problems, because there is

19:07

an emerging consensus in the political

19:09

class that something does need to

19:11

be done to lower than numbers

19:13

of migrants and to have better

19:15

controlled borders, that's what the public

19:17

clearly wants. Do you think there's

19:19

a problem where economically we've become

19:22

too reliant on cheap labour? I guess one

19:24

of the issues is that we will need

19:26

to have this reimagination, reimagining of

19:28

what Britain is for and

19:31

this overhaul of ourselves before

19:33

we can truly address that

19:36

reliance. How do you think that might

19:38

play out? Yeah, well, I mean, on

19:40

immigration, I mean, I think

19:42

the Conservative Party needs to be

19:44

really honest with itself. We suffered

19:47

the worst defeats in our history,

19:49

but it's my view that we

19:51

were lucky to survive at all. for a

19:53

Conservative party to preside

19:55

over net migration that

19:58

reached almost a million. in

20:00

a year is, I mean it's insane

20:02

and the last thing a

20:04

truly conservative party should have

20:06

done and we have a lot

20:09

of making up to do with

20:11

the public where we have to

20:13

really show that we understand

20:15

that what happened was

20:18

completely wrong and we understand

20:20

why people are so angry

20:22

about it and we need

20:24

to change. And just, you know,

20:26

what we're here because we've been...

20:29

I've been pretty rude about the

20:31

Labour Party on the economy. We

20:33

also have to be honest about

20:35

the fact that actually the

20:38

economy didn't grow, certainly not

20:40

per capita in any meaningful

20:43

way for a really long

20:45

time since at least the

20:47

financial crash. So it's completely

20:50

understandable that people are very

20:52

upset with the way politics

20:54

and government has worked over

20:56

a number of years. and

20:58

are totally prepared to consider

21:00

alternatives. So we've got to

21:03

work really hard on all

21:05

of that to make sure

21:07

that we can change course,

21:09

get better policies, but also

21:12

make up for and try

21:14

to address some of the

21:16

serious failures on immigration. But

21:19

on immigration in the economy,

21:21

I think, you know, obviously

21:23

they're very closely

21:26

related. The economy has

21:28

become used to

21:31

very easy access

21:33

to very low-pay

21:35

foreign workers. It's

21:37

killed incentives for

21:40

businesses to train

21:43

and retrain British

21:45

workers. It's killed

21:47

incentives for investment

21:50

in labour saving

21:52

technologies. It's not

21:54

a surprise that

21:57

productivity is very

21:59

poor. because, you know,

22:01

improving productivity requires investments and

22:03

things that people have avoided

22:05

by using cheap foreign labour.

22:07

So I think you can,

22:09

we can reduce immigration very

22:11

drastically with visa changes, strict

22:13

caps, and so on, but

22:15

we also have to reform.

22:17

lots of other parts of

22:19

the state and the economy

22:21

to make sure that when

22:23

the immigration numbers are reduced

22:26

drastically, we can absorb the

22:28

effect of that. So post-18

22:30

education needs to change completely.

22:32

It's not acceptable for universities

22:34

to early survive by selling

22:36

immigration and not just education.

22:38

We need to train up

22:40

far more of our own

22:42

people by giving them technical

22:44

and vocational. educational opportunities at

22:46

18 but also later in

22:48

life. We definitely need to

22:50

reform welfare. We definitely need

22:52

to improve things like workforce

22:54

planning and the public sector.

22:56

And we need to be

22:59

clear to business that they're

23:01

not going to have this

23:03

option anymore and they need

23:05

to work with the state

23:07

to get the skills and

23:09

the training that they need.

23:11

If they want the kind

23:13

of workforce that they think

23:15

they need to compete internationally.

23:17

Hi, it's Brendan here. I

23:19

want to let you know

23:21

some exciting news. My new

23:23

book is Out Now. It's

23:25

called After the Pogrom, 7th

23:27

of October, Israel, and the

23:29

Crisis of Civilization. And it's

23:32

available right now from Amazon.

23:34

I'm really proud of this

23:36

book. It is an unflinching

23:38

account of how the West

23:40

failed the moral test of

23:42

7th of October 2023, which

23:44

of course is the day

23:46

that Hamas and other militants

23:48

invaded Israel and unleashed barbarished

23:50

barbarism. The book documents in

23:52

chilling detail how activists, academics

23:54

and others in the West

23:56

ended up making excuses for

23:58

her mass. violence ended up

24:00

taking the side of the

24:03

pogromists against the pogroms victims

24:05

and ended up in the

24:07

process turning their backs on

24:09

the values of civilization. The

24:11

book is fundamentally a call

24:13

to arms for Western civilization.

24:15

It makes the case for

24:17

restoring enlightenment values and standing

24:19

with Israel while it's under

24:21

attack by radical Islamists. I

24:23

don't know if an author

24:25

is allowed to describe his

24:27

own book as essential reading,

24:29

but I really do think

24:31

it's essential reading. It's called

24:33

After the Pogrom, 7th of

24:36

October, Israel and the Crisis

24:38

of Civilization, and you can

24:40

get your copy right now

24:42

on Amazon. Yeah, sounds like

24:44

a... a pretty good policy

24:46

program to me. I want

24:48

to ask about labours, you

24:50

know, we've touched on labours,

24:52

not very good approach to

24:54

economic questions and the immigration

24:56

question. I want to ask

24:58

you how you think this

25:00

government is tackling social questions

25:02

and social problems. And I

25:04

guess I want to kick

25:06

off by asking you about

25:09

adolescence, which not the period

25:11

in life, but the Netflix

25:13

drama, which the whole country

25:15

is talking about, it seems.

25:17

The media classes and the

25:19

political classes in particular, and

25:21

many listeners will have seen

25:23

it. It's a drama about

25:25

a young boy who commits

25:27

a terrible crime, and it's

25:29

about the influence of Andrew

25:31

Tate and the in-cell culture

25:33

and all those other awful

25:35

things that exist on the

25:37

internet. What have you made

25:39

of the... response to that

25:42

because it does seem like

25:44

Kia Starmer has been running

25:46

with it to a certain

25:48

extent as an example of

25:50

the problems facing young men

25:52

in this country. What have

25:54

you made of it? I

25:56

mean, I actually find it

25:58

quite depressing the way some

26:00

politicians and commentators in the

26:02

media have picked up on

26:04

it because what they've done

26:06

is rush straight to where

26:08

they feel comfortable. rather than

26:10

wear the facts. should point

26:12

them. So if we're talking

26:15

about something like knife crime,

26:17

this story is not representative

26:19

of what typically happens with

26:21

knife crime and youth violence.

26:23

So the perpetrator is a

26:25

white kid from a stable

26:27

family with a loving father.

26:30

That doesn't really reflect

26:32

what the evidence tells

26:34

us about this kind

26:36

of violence. It's normally

26:38

connected to gang crime,

26:40

which is normally connected

26:42

to drugs. It is

26:45

more common in some

26:47

communities than others. So

26:49

the statistics show that

26:51

young black men are

26:53

more likely to be

26:55

the perpetrators of knife

26:58

crime, but also the

27:00

victims. And to be

27:02

frank, I think one

27:04

of the reasons, lots

27:06

of the knife violence

27:08

that we've seen over

27:11

the years has been

27:13

less prominent in the

27:15

media is because the

27:17

victims of young black

27:19

boys, and for whatever

27:21

reason, they tend to

27:23

be covered less in

27:26

the media than if

27:28

the victims were different.

27:30

That's wrong. But it's

27:32

true. And there's research

27:34

by different respected bodies

27:36

which show the connection

27:39

with things like family

27:41

breakdown, kids who are

27:43

being cared for in

27:45

some way by a

27:47

social worker or sort

27:49

of foster care or

27:52

whatever and more likely

27:54

to get involved in.

27:56

representative of the kind

27:58

of problem. that we're

28:00

really talking about. But

28:02

some of the politicians who

28:05

are talking about it

28:07

a lot really want to

28:09

talk about things like social

28:11

media, because it's a kind

28:13

of faceless problem, or

28:16

at least a bagy

28:18

man is somebody that

28:20

they're comfortable complaining

28:22

about, rather than actually

28:24

getting into the real

28:27

detail of what's behind

28:29

this. because it's difficult,

28:31

because obviously social problems

28:33

are difficult to fix,

28:35

but it's also uncomfortable

28:37

for some quite ideological

28:39

politicians and commentators, because

28:41

they don't want to talk

28:43

about things like family breakdown. Yeah,

28:45

do you think there is still that

28:47

reluctance to talk about not only

28:49

things like family breakdown and fatherlessness, which

28:52

I think you know 10 or 15

28:54

years ago you could have had an

28:56

open discussion about that problem but not

28:58

so much these days. Do you think

29:01

there's still also a reluctance to talk about,

29:03

I don't know how you would describe them

29:05

cultural problems or cultural contributors to

29:07

some of these issues or cultural

29:09

tensions even that exist in 21st

29:12

century Britain. I mean I'm thinking

29:14

of the fact that the grooming

29:16

gang issue burst back into the

29:18

headlines earlier this year pushed in

29:20

in large part by Elon Musk

29:22

who seems to have just very

29:24

suddenly discovered it even though it's

29:27

been a problem for a long

29:29

time and you know there was

29:31

pressure on the labor government to

29:33

set up inquiries to take it

29:35

a bit more seriously to not

29:37

push it under the carpet and

29:39

Initially they seem to take it

29:41

a bit more seriously and then

29:43

it kind of disappeared again. What

29:45

do you make of issues like

29:47

that and the impact they have

29:49

on or don't have on public

29:51

discussion? Well I think that's a

29:53

really good example of what we're talking

29:56

about so justice was clearly not

29:58

done with these break games. In fact,

30:00

I think there's been very

30:02

little recognition of the fact

30:04

that these were racially and

30:07

religiously aggravated crimes, probably the

30:09

worst racially and religiously aggravated

30:11

crimes in the history of

30:13

the country, you would think,

30:15

given the scale of the

30:17

abuse and the number of

30:19

the victims. And the response

30:22

from the public pressure and

30:24

political pressure for there to

30:26

be... a national inquiry into

30:28

the rate gang specifically was

30:30

to say, first of all,

30:32

we've already had an inquiry

30:34

because there was the Alexis

30:36

J inquiry, which actually wasn't

30:39

really about this. It was

30:41

about the institutional response and

30:43

failings of different organizations to

30:45

allegations of abuse when they

30:47

had a duty of care.

30:49

Or to say, well, we'll

30:51

allow some of the councils

30:54

involved to have their own

30:56

inquiries when the councils themselves

30:58

stand accused of neglect and

31:00

in some cases worse because

31:02

their employees, social workers and

31:04

others fail to protect these

31:06

girls and may even have

31:09

been corrupt or colluding in

31:11

these crimes. But then there

31:13

was, you could tell there

31:15

was this sort of sense

31:17

of relief that Elon Musk

31:19

said something very unpleasant about

31:21

Jess Phillips and everyone kind

31:24

of piled in on an

31:26

Elon Musk and just tried

31:28

to change the subject and

31:30

make it about him. We're

31:32

talking about something that was

31:34

absolutely horrific and took place

31:36

at great scale in this

31:38

country and you know Elon

31:41

Musk was definitely very unpleasant.

31:43

But how unpleasant he was

31:45

pales into insignificance compared to

31:47

what we're... what we're really

31:49

supposed to be talking about.

31:51

And I just think there's

31:53

this recurring thing in Westminster

31:56

when David Amos was murdered

31:58

by an Islamist. The debate

32:00

that followed was insane. Everyone

32:02

started talking about... civility online

32:04

and nothing to do with

32:06

it because people seem to

32:08

want to go to subjects

32:11

where they're comfortable with who

32:13

the baggy man is and

32:15

they probably want to clamp

32:17

down on social media anyway

32:19

and it's very inconvenient to

32:21

talk about some of these

32:23

problems that do overlap with

32:25

culture as you said. Islamism

32:28

or the religiously aggravated sexual

32:30

assault of girls. And we

32:32

need to be much more

32:34

intellectually honest than this. Yeah,

32:36

and I couldn't agree more.

32:38

And there is a reluctance

32:40

too, isn't there, to talk

32:43

about, I guess, what we

32:45

might see is the root

32:47

cause of some of these

32:49

issues, which is, I guess,

32:51

the ideology of multiculturalism, by

32:53

which I don't mean the

32:55

lived experience of diverse communities,

32:58

which sometimes works, it doesn't

33:00

work so well, but the

33:02

ideology of multiculturalism in the

33:04

sense of that quite explicit

33:06

downplaying of the idea that

33:08

there might be any kind

33:10

of mainstream British culture to

33:12

which people should aspire to

33:15

assimilate into and instead this

33:17

celebration of all sorts of

33:19

cultures, all sorts of religious

33:21

faiths, all sorts of ways

33:23

of living so that you

33:25

create this kind of patch

33:27

of this almost balkanized society

33:30

and then It's hardly surprising

33:32

in those circumstances that these

33:34

kinds of everyday cultural tensions

33:36

blow up. Yeah, and in

33:38

a way it's worse than

33:40

that, isn't it? Because there's

33:42

an asymmetry, because the ideology

33:45

of multiculturalism sort of says,

33:47

we must celebrate and cherish

33:49

every cultural identity, but not

33:51

the majority one. And you

33:53

had that crazy example this

33:55

week where a school has

33:57

canceled. Easter celebrations in the

34:00

name of diversity. and said

34:02

instead that they would mark

34:04

some kind of events

34:06

to celebrate refugees.

34:09

I mean obviously that's

34:11

very stupid because

34:14

even if diversity were

34:16

the thing that you

34:19

celebrated more than anything

34:21

you would think that

34:23

Christian culture would

34:26

fit into that diversity. quickly about

34:28

one more thing about the government and

34:30

I guess about the future of politics

34:32

in this country, which is you wrote

34:34

a really good piece recently about Labour's

34:36

identity crisis and I think it summed

34:38

it up really well where on the

34:41

one hand, you know, it's hard to

34:43

figure out, is this a socialist government

34:45

or is it a government that's moving

34:47

to the right? You know, Kierstam opposes

34:49

this great human rights lawyer, but now

34:51

he's the kind of defense guy who's

34:53

going to spend loads of money on

34:55

the military and protect Europe from Russia.

34:58

You know, it's hard to, you know,

35:00

are they the kind of tax and

35:02

spend public sector people or are they

35:04

going to be the people who cut

35:06

the red tape, which is what they're

35:08

claiming they will be. It's difficult to

35:10

work out who they are, and I

35:12

guess it's difficult to work out who

35:14

they represent. And the last time we

35:16

spoke, we did talk about the potential

35:18

for the Conservative Party to become the

35:20

party of the working class because Labour

35:22

was no longer playing that role. So

35:24

I just want to end by asking

35:26

you about the political realignment, how

35:28

you think that stands, where you

35:30

think the Labour government stands in

35:32

relation to it, and who you

35:35

think might make a better fist

35:37

of speaking for working class voters

35:39

these days. Well I've always very

35:42

passionately believed that the

35:44

Conservative Party should be and can

35:46

be a party that wins the

35:48

support of and represents working

35:50

class people. And I think it's actually

35:53

really important for us as a party

35:55

to do that because we should be

35:57

a party that represents the whole country.

36:00

and the realignment that

36:02

gave us the opportunity

36:04

to do that has

36:06

been driven by the

36:08

left leaving the working

36:10

classes. It's nervous of

36:12

patriotism, of plain views

36:14

and policies about law

36:16

and order and welfare,

36:18

about things like the

36:20

need for a strong.

36:22

national defence. People feel

36:24

that the Labour Party

36:27

has left them. Now,

36:29

since we had that

36:31

conversation obviously a lot

36:33

of has changed, so

36:35

the Conservative Party, to

36:37

be frank, blew its

36:39

opportunity that we had

36:41

after the 2019 election,

36:43

when lots of working

36:45

class voters did actually

36:47

lend us their support

36:49

and put their trust

36:51

on us. And the

36:54

Labour Party finds itself

36:56

in power. in

36:58

a way that with two-thirds of

37:00

the seats on one-third of the

37:02

vote, so it's a little bit

37:04

distorted, but it's a big opportunity

37:07

for them to try to build

37:09

a wider coalition of supporters and

37:11

govern in the interests of the

37:13

whole country. And you can see

37:16

that there are some people in

37:18

the Labour Party who want to

37:20

do that, and you can see

37:22

that Morgan McSweeny. cursed armor's advisor

37:25

is trying to push them into

37:27

some people called it a blue

37:29

labor position. Some people think of

37:31

it as more like the old-fashioned

37:34

labor right, you know, they want

37:36

to tax and spend and they

37:38

want to redistribute, but they're sort

37:40

of, you know, fundamentally, sort of

37:43

patriotic people and, you know, believe

37:45

in a proper response to things

37:47

like crime. But if you actually

37:49

look at their actions rather than

37:52

their words, I don't think that's

37:54

where they really are. I don't

37:56

think that's really something that they

37:58

have within themselves. I think

38:01

Kiestarber once

38:03

said something like, there's

38:05

no version of me

38:07

that isn't a human

38:09

rights lawyer deep down. And

38:12

I think that's true.

38:14

And where they, I'm slightly

38:16

worried actually that

38:18

some of the positioning

38:21

on Ukraine and the

38:23

potential commitments that

38:25

are being discussed.

38:28

that some of that might be

38:30

motivated by a sense of political

38:32

positioning and they've said this is

38:34

an opportunity to you cast labour

38:36

as a patriotic party but I'm

38:38

actually very concerned about the commitments

38:41

that are being made without

38:43

a plan and without much thought

38:45

given to the consequences of having

38:47

troops on the ground or planes in

38:50

the air defending Ukrainian airspace

38:52

because peacekeeping sounds really fluffy

38:54

and nice but in reality

38:56

it means being prepared to

38:58

shoot back at Russians. And that

39:00

I think is worthy of

39:03

a much bigger debate. But

39:05

I digress slightly. The realignment

39:07

is still there, I think,

39:09

in terms of where the public

39:11

are, where the parties are has

39:14

changed quite a lot because of

39:16

our failure after 2019, to

39:18

be perfectly honest. And, you

39:20

know, it's made more complicated

39:23

by the emergence of reform.

39:25

But my view is that

39:27

we as a party should

39:29

probably worry less about the other

39:31

parties and think about what we

39:34

got wrong and how much we

39:36

need to change. And if

39:38

we do our jobs properly

39:40

and we communicate our values

39:42

properly and we come up with

39:44

the right policies that the country

39:47

needs, then if we do those

39:49

things right, then there'll be less

39:51

to worry about with other political

39:53

parties. But the facts of the

39:55

real alignment in terms of where

39:57

the public are and where the...

40:00

ideas of the parties are, think I think all

40:02

still there there and still a big

40:04

opportunity for the centre right. for the

40:06

centre we need to take it. to

40:08

take thank you very much. you very

40:10

you. Thank you. Thank

40:24

you for listening to

40:26

the Brendan O 'Neill

40:28

show. We'll be back

40:30

with another be back with another guest

40:33

and forget to subscribe Don't

40:35

in the to subscribe and in

40:37

www reading spiked at -online .com