War Looms In The Red Sea As Houthis & Saudi Arabia Clash

Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, 13 people have been injured overnight and the latest escalation of the Houthi's attacks on Saudi Arabia. We're going to delve into the economic realities that Burnham's agenda will have to contend with. And rapper McLemore has been kicked off the Ed Sheeran tour for supporting Palestine. I'm Helena Akeno, Justice MTG, and tonight I'm joined by Aaron Bastani. It's been a while since we've been in the studio together. >> It's been a long time. It's been a hot minute. It >> has indeed been a hot minute. A very, very hot month. Few months in fact. >> Yeah. We went through what like effectively a drought. Sorry to be a bit of a damper on things. It's great to see you though. >> Likewise. Likewise. Yeah. Plenty plenty of news has happened since and probably plenty more news to come. Speaking of which, if you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at novaramedia.com/support. Many things to be covering. So, that support is well and truly appreciated. You can also listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And as always, make sure you like the video, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and don't forget to let us know what you think in the comments section down below. Yemen's Ansarah, also known as the Houthies, have launched a drone attack on Saudi Arabia overnight, injuring 13 people. Amongst the targets was Saudi Arabia's Kamis Machete, though the drone also appears to have hit civilian areas, damaging a mosque and homes. They say that attack was in response to widescale bombing off their positions by Saudi Arabia on Monday with the Houthis accusing the Saudis of having launched 54 air raids on Yemen in just 24 hours. That's on top of an alleged 250 raids, some conducted by F-15 and Typhoon fighter jets that had taken place over the previous 4 days. The latest clashes between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis comes during a period in which the Yemeni rebels have made massive advances across the country. Last week, Houthi forces won ground south of their previous positions, ultimately coming to control the entire western coast of the country, including the port of Mocker, as well as several Red Sea islands. That has given them control of the Babel Mandib Strait, the narrow opening that allows ships to pass between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. With the closure of the straight of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia had been transporting oil from the Gulf to the Red Sea via its cross-country pipeline. And control of the Babel Mandib Strait now leaves the Houthis in command of Saudi Arabia's only remaining direct oil shipping route to Asia. But even before taking full control of Babel Mandeb, the Houthis had been blocking Saudi Arabian oil from leaving the Red Sea, declaring a maritime embargo in July on ships carrying their oil through the Red Sea and attacking several. Saudi Arabia's problems were compounded over the weekend when missiles fired from neighboring Iraq struck their pipeline, which had been moving around 5% of the world's oil supply, meaning it'll be out of operation for several weeks. That immediately drove oil prices to $18 a barrel, with analysts predicting further hikes over increasing uncertainty in the Middle East. And Saudi allies don't appear to be rushing to help. It's been reported that Saudi Arabia had asked the US for assistance earlier this week. The answer was no. Trump appeared to confirm that view in Dublin on Sunday. >> They're on the balls of their feet right now, but I think they are. They've been in charge of that for a while. We've had uh discussions. The Houthis called us and they don't want to fight with us. They let us know. They don't want to fight with us. They don't want me to go after they don't want us to go after them. But they've called and they've talked to us and they don't want us to. They would much prefer not having us involved and they're letting most ships go through. There's just one country that they're not too happy with and we'll get that straightened down. >> The UK also doesn't seem very keen to get involved. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham is also said to have been asked for assistance by Saudi Arabia, but he continues to mullet over. Those are two very different stories compared to previous Saudi Arabian conflicts with the Houthis. Foreign powers are not rushing to Saudi Arabia's aid this time. Saudi Arabia, backed by an international coalition, was at war with the Houthis, opening what was essentially a civil war into a wider confrontation, joined by eight other Arab states as well as the Pakistan and the United States. The Saudiled coalition intermittently continued to wage war until 2021. In that period, at least 15,000 civilians were killed in air strikes, most of them inflicted by that coalition. And according to the United Nations, a total of 370,000 civilians were killed in the war too. Around half of them in the conflict and the rest due to the ensuing humanitarian crisis. Britain was also involved with a former Saudi Arabian foreign minister revealing that British and American officials were in the command room for Saudi strikes in Yemen and that both had access to lists of targets, though did not choose them. Britain, of course, continued selling arms to Saudi Arabia throughout. In 2021, the president Joe Biden at the time announced an end to US support to the Saudi led offensive in Yemen and paused arm sales to Saudi Arabia. It's worth pointing out that Yemen has been under crippling naval blockade by the Saudis since 2015, causing food shortages and famine despite an agreement that it would be lifted following a 2022 truce. It remains in place in Houthy controlled areas. Aaron, a lot's changed since 2015 when the US and the UK were keen to work with the Saudis against the Houthis. But what do you think is driving their quite different decision-making here? >> Previous orthodoxy and common sense was get behind US foreign policy in the region in order to keep oil prices down. That was the point, right? So it might not be popular with domestic voters. It might cost some money. Some people might even die. But as a broad modus operandi, it made some sense. You align yourselves with the house of SA. you make sure that OPEC's broadly speaking on side and you ensure most of all that you have um free trade globally of energy supplies that's really important particularly for the Europeans and it's backed up with US force what we're seeing in the last 18 months is a complete inversion of that in other words getting behind the United States having this interventionist foreign policy increases energy prices it doesn't keep them down and it's taken a while to percolate through I to people like the British government, but it's certainly there. So, the logic has fundamentally changed. Alongside that, there's now recognition of the competence of the military actors they're facing. I think before Iran was seen as a bit of a joke I think and Sarah and the Houthies were seen as like a a regional nuisance but now I think with a great deal of justification there's an understanding that actually this center point this major artery for the glo global economy can be shut down by state actors and non-state actors alike and this for me is the really fascinating part yes you've got the IGC Iran is is a powerful country with 90 million plus people but also these militias in Iraq very powerful very competent have significant weapons same with the Houthis and there are similar organizations right across the region you can say his polar as well and all of these actors have shown remarkable resilience in the last year and a half I mean Iran has taken a pummeling still there the Houthies have taken a pummeling for more than 10 years not only are they still there making significant gains militarily So the fundamental logic has changed. There's a recognition of the resilience and capacity of the people that are in the region on the other side so to speak. And then finally I think it's really hitting home how vulnerable and weak our allies are in this part of the world. I mean we were thinking about the Gulf States sort of on the eastern flank of the Arabian Peninsula. So Gata, the UAE, Bahrain. We've known that for a while, right? They're much They're paper tigers, but that's not really a surprise, is it? They're very um vulnerable to uh oil price shocks, hospitality, and tourism. If that goes south, they're kind of screwed. They're very, very, very vulnerable. And Iran exposed that in a way that I think few expected. Okay. [gasps] Equally though, Saudi Arabia is far more vulnerable than I think is widely understood. Because it's so large, people think it's a huge country. It can be a regional player. You know, Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iran will be the three regional players. Saudi Arabia has a smaller population than Yemen. Okay? If you take away foreign nationals, Yemen's population is almost twice as large as Saudi Arabia. Um Yemen has some of the most fertile arable land anywhere in the region in the Yemeni Highlands. It has about the same in terms of renewable water sources as Saudi Arabia, even though it's much smaller. So you look at population size, you look at geography, you look at the choke points it can sort of close down. It's obviously got access to Iranian military technology. What's to say that, you know, Saudi Arabia couldn't be involved and embroiled in a very long, cold, and sometimes hot war on both sides of its of its kind of natural borders. And that then becomes an existential conflict. And I I do think these were kind of provocative questions that people like you and me would have said two or three years ago, but I think that's now a mainstream talking point for foreign policy circles in in London and Washington. >> It's the uh it's the curse of being leftwing. It's being right too early. >> Yeah. What you know what if Okay, what if the Saudi regime collapses? What if what if we lose Bahrain the Iranians? What if you know Kata joins the Iranians and they want to cut the UA in half? These are all quite plausible things. Um, and I do think that's on the one hand a credit to Iranian, particularly Iranian and Houthy military doctrine, but also underscores just how naive and ignorant our political class has been about this part of the world and by extension how ignorant our publics have been. You know, I have not seen, maybe you have, Helena, because maybe we consume slightly different media, I don't know. I haven't seen one good explainer of who the Houthies are in about 15 years in the British media. I haven't seen one. Who are these people? You know, you said before we started the show, is it Houthis? You know, how do we pronounce this properly? You forgot the main part. Iranbacked. That's the main bit. You can say ansarah, you can say Houthies, you can call them whatever you like. Just make sure if you're in the British media landscape, it is preceded with that phrase, Iranbacked, Iranian proxy. Like I say, Yemen is a country with 43 million people. They run large parts of it. Now in terms of population almost all of it >> 80% I believe is the percentage of the population who which is in Houthi lives in Houthi controlled areas. >> Yeah this it's the government of it's the de facto government of Yemen. Um but we were still treating it like a a sort of you know a student activist group until 10 minutes ago and and that's a real indictment of the public sphere in this country. >> 100%. I mean you you saw the same with Hamas in in Gaza. They were constantly the British media would extort to the public how these the Iranianbacked proxy specifically against Israel rather than understanding the roots of where they came from, the Palestinian nationalism that drives their politics, right? It's why the Hamas ISIS stuff never really caught on because everyone could see that it was about Palestine rather than about Islamism or whatever it is. And likewise, as you say, the Houthies have a they have their own ideas for for Yemen. They have again they are now in control of huge amounts of the territory and the population. uh and it's still only seen as being an extension of the game that the west is playing with Iran rather than their own military uh their own ideological position themselves. >> And also one more thing about vulnerability, you know, um Riyad has about 7 million people and I we said this when it started kicking off between the the smaller Gulf states and Iran, you know, you blow up a few disselination plants and you know, the UEE doesn't exist anymore, right? fundamentally you can't you can't provide or guarantee water for these very large urban populations. It's the same with Riyad, right? And so yes, Yemen is poorer in a strange way like with Iran in a strange way that pres that provides more resilience because you're not dependent on this highly globalized sophisticated infrastructure that is backed up by Western companies. >> We were literally talking just before we came on air about, you know, the the the Middle Eastern like Formula 1 grumpies all been cancelled, right? So many of these these uh these Gulf states have assumed that their relationships with new kind of western capitalism that was going to continue forever. That was going to be an enduring thing and they've all divested away from purely commodity export-based economies. I mean look at what's happening with their royal exports right now. Maybe that was wise in some respects but they've gone into entertainment and the getting into UFC and all of these other things that they're trying to import like Mr. Beastworld is in Saudi Arabia for Christ's sake, right? That's the level to which they thought there was going to be this enduring relationship and blink of an eye suddenly all of this the geopolitical crisis because Trump can't say no to BB and all of these things look very very shaky indeed e economically >> the Saudis built their economy around Eddie Hearn and Gulf and you know the Iranians decided to just build infinity missiles and and loitering munitions and drones. Now, one country is wealthier than the other, but when the proverbial hits the fan, I know what's more useful, right? I mean, do you want Eddie Hearn or do you want, you know, ballistic missiles and and drones and and helicopters and and marine commandos? I know which one I want. And again, this is a really important point and it's only really become clear in the last 12 months. These things that were sold to us as strengths of countries like Saudi Arabia are in fact weaknesses. You know, it's just talked about really well by the economist, political economist John Rapley and Icarus economics. It's that wealth which makes them vulnerable. It's their integration within the global economy and dependence on western investment which makes them weak. Uh and that's only really become clear in the last year 18 months. But I think in the background Iranians have been thinking about this for a really long time clearly. Well, it explains the endurance of regimes like the like people in Iran because when you when you population see state after state kind of capitulating to western hijgemony like no matter how you know terrifying these people are to be a citizen of the country of they are the one of the very few states who still stand up to that. I mean the same is true of Assad as well. M well Kmeni was asked once you I'm not look we're not talking about which country you'd rather live in or you know these are about these are about military capabilities in a conflict in another part of the world and I think the ideology that's driving the people there matters said in response to a question about what was the point of the Islamic revolution of Iran again this is not something you'll hear in the media what was the point of the revolution he said so Iran can be governed finally from tan right we can govern ourselves the exact same ideology as mobilizing the Houthies. That doesn't mean you agree with everything the Houthies say. Okay? It doesn't mean they're necessarily uh legible for a western leftist audience in terms of policies on this or that issue. But in general, it just it's just smacks to the the absolute kind of awful foreign policy jobs of Western governments wanting to have puppet states and client states in the region rather than allowing these these countries to develop independently. Because if they had left their own devices, we wouldn't be in a position where there would be these this high level of obviously as anti-western sentiment which drives them towards authoritarian and you know in some ways pretty kind of brutal people at the top of the top of these countries. There would be a significantly better internal politics in these countries. And how do we respond? We respond with sanctions. We we respond with economic warfare. And in now we're seeing belligerent warfare and all that's in strength in the hand of the autocrats rather than trying to develop countries that are not continually living in a state of fear of western aggression. Fear that we seem as warranted. >> Yeah. I I'll finish with two points. First, we still have sanctions on Afghanistan, which is just extraordinary. You know, people will be saying we've got aid agencies there. We've got charities. Please donate to this or that. We've got sanctions on the country. You can't help that country if there are sanctions on it. Secondly, in terms of helping this part of the world, you know, effectively govern itself. This goes back so far and it's something we talk about repeatedly on the show. If you look at that eastern flank of the sort of the north part of the Arabian Peninsula, you have all these what I like to call fake countries. Now, people get very upset with me. You know, Kuwait, the UEE, Gata, Bahrain. These are countries which are effectively or or desparatisms which are propped up by the British Empire. so they could guarantee that the French wouldn't have a path to get to India in the Indian Ocean. Right? This was this was clientalism by a former imperial power, Britain. And and this is so bad that in someone like Bahrain, which was majority Shia until quite recently, there is there is literal cleansing in order to guarantee a Sunni majority. And that's part of a a geopolitical diplomatic project to make sure that Iran can't basically garner political control of that country. It would mean the Iranians are ruling it, but there would be, you know, Shia uh political interests which might be more immeable to Iran. That can't be allowed to happen. So, you literally have the re-engineering of a country's religious demographics. This is fine. This is absolutely fine as long as it aligns with US foreign policy interests, as long as it means we stop our enemies. Of course, if Russia did that, if Russia was doing that in Georgia or Ukraine, some people say they're doing it in Ukraine. Um, it's very hard to get, you know, independent objective numbers about how that looks, whereas we can do it with Bahrain. People would rightly be shouting from the rooftops about it. Okay, I Ukrainian children being taken from the Donbass and transported to Russia and things like that which again to try and rustify the area and again rightly treated with outrage happens in countries that we wanted that we do it to and again there's a double standard as you rightly point out. Andy Bham swept into number 10 on some very lofty promises. He was going to end half a century of neoliberalism whilst being a continuity government all while sticking to the restrictive manifesto pledges around taxation and borrowing. He also stated his opposition to what he described as crude welfare cuts, but also had an ambition to raise defense spending to 3 and a half% of GDP by 2035. Economic headwinds have different ideas, however, and the supply bottlenecks caused by the closing not only of the straight of hormuse, but also the Babel Mandibra are predicted to cause inflation to climb potentially as high as 6%, more than double the current CPI of 2.9%. In these figures from the FT accurate as of 4 p.m. today, we can see that the combination of an energy supply shock pushing oil costs back up over $100 a barrel and a proflegate treasury in the United States has taken its toll on UK borrowing costs with longdated guilts reaching yields of almost 6%. This means the government's fiscal headroom, the amount it has left over after its budget allocation before it breaches its own fiscal rules has been slashed in half. It hasn't helped the UK government that it spent the last few years fighting against its own central bank either. Since 2022, the Bank of England has been engaging in what is known as quantitative tightening, the process of selling guilts held on the bank's balance sheet back into the market, having bought them during the period of quantitative easing post 2008. This extra supply pushes down the prices and pushes up the yields, making it doubly hard for the government to borrow on top of the market conditions that have made rates naturally high already. With a quarterly meeting of the bank's monetary policy committee coming up this week, some economists are trying to push the bank to halt this program entirely, but it remains to be seen whether or not the bank officials will listen. Aaron, given, you know, how kind of dilitterious that the QT regime has been from the Bank of England during this period of high interest rates as well as, you know, yields being pushed up by this program. Should the Bank of England really remain independent? >> Uh, well, it's is it independent is one thing. Um this is obviously a very live question now in terms of we're going to see so many moves with interest rates because of these energy price fluctuations. Uh we're going to see lots of interest rate rises apparently this year. Um my view is that historically we had for the good part of the 20th century when productivity growth went to working people when we had real rising wages for working people you had um a bank of England which wasn't independent but subject to political control of the party of government. I would like to see that happen again. It's very unfashionable. Um and you won't find many people in support of it because so far it's just about worked. you know, in 22 23 when we had that, you know, price shock with Russia Ukraine and interest rates went up to deal with rising inflation, you're beginning to get a bit of an understanding of, well, maybe we shouldn't just do this. Um, I think it's probably going to require another shock or two uh for us to come to terms with it. But no, I I don't think that um central bank independence has anything to show for it fundamentally. I mean, what's really been accomplished in terms of really smart macroeconomic policy in the last 25 years? Not that much. Um, and I'd like to I'd like to see it be subordinate to the government of the day. It doesn't mean it will do things I want. You know, it won't just be a leftwing government in power, but I think that should be quite a central part of a democratic agenda. >> 100% agree 100% agree. Imagine if we'd use the quantitative easing period during the zero interest rate policy period rather than just inflating the price of houses and financial assets. We'd use that to invest in productive businesses. That was Jeremy Corbyn's plan in 2017. What was known as the people's quantitative easing. You could have even given it to people on the street. You could have given helicopter money out like Australia did post 2008. You could have used quantitative easing to actually generate enough demand on new products or into productive businesses rather than inflating asset prices and our economy would have recovered. We probably have had a productivity increase like we've seen now. We get proper investment from the new government. Obviously, I don't think it's gone far enough, but you know what I mean. And in terms of things like quantitative tightening, we were the only bank of like central bank really out of like the big countries that were doing any QT at all. So what the United States is Federal Reserve was doing was what's called passive QT. Whereas rather than selling these bonds back onto the market, you just let them mature. So it doesn't actually decree uh increase yields and decrease prices in the wider market. And as a result, right, we have the highest borrowing costs in the G7. And again, as far as I can see, the apart from you the Liz trust premium, the biggest kind of biggest entity to blame for that is the Bank of England for engaging in a policy that I don't even think is necessarily relevant given that supply chain shocks just pass higher prices through the economy. A change in demand through interest rate policy and through quantitative tightening quantitative easing policy doesn't actually really have a as far as I can see a particularly big effect on inflation. when we saw the inflation came down before the interest rate rise in 2022 had any time to filter through to the economy at all. >> It's it's really hard to politicize these questions to a mass audience. It's not you know the people watching and listening to this might think no well I I agree but I'm talking about the tens of millions of people ultimately that you know um form the backbone of the electorate in this country. >> The government of the bank of England literally said you have to lose jobs there has to be more unemployment to bring down inflation. that was bank was the kind of stuff that Andrew Bailey was saying. It's a political question. >> Yeah. [clears throat] The one that really gets me as well is help to buy. >> If we're talking if we're talking about crazy policies, help to buy. I didn't realize until quite recently. Um help to buy cost well I mean it was loans. You get some back obviously, but it was about I think30 billion pounds. 30 billion pounds in the early 2010s to effectively inflate the British housing market to effectively make sure that it's harder for you if you're a first-time buyer, if you're a young person or not saying me. I didn't get my first home until late 30s. Trying to get on the housing ladder. We're going to make it harder for you. And guess what? We're going to spend30 billion pounds doing it. I mean, just outlandish. Imagine, like you say, if that 30 billion had been given over to a publicly owned national investment bank that was available to small and mediumsiz businesses, local authorities, >> a publicly owned housing developer. That money could have all gone into building council houses, increasing supply and driving the price down. But we can't we can't upset the boomer vote, can we? They can't sitting on the existing asset already which the Conservative party at the time relied on for all those votes. It's worth pointing out like lots of people at home would be well to buy like but I I I can't afford a deposit. And I'm like well all that does is make the the children of upper middle class people easier to get onto the housing ladder because if you don't reduce the price the mortgage affordability criteria that doesn't change if the price is still large, right? You still need to have a high salary. It's just getting there earlier and having to save up for a shorter amount of time. It happens quicker. So it means that the children of the rich are becoming homeowners at 24, 25, 26 because they've got this help to buy stipen from the government and you know high salaries to be able to pay for the mortgage cost and to be able to pass that mortgage affordability criteria and yet people from poorer families are looking at ever accelerating house prices. That deposit doesn't mean jack If you go to a mortgage product you your mortgage advisor tells you you don't earn enough money cuz you're working class. >> I mean that's true. I add two more things though. First of all, helped if I did help the rich but only for a couple of years, right? It was it was it was never a permanent solution. I mean, it's just crazy to me, Helena, if you're spending one or two billion on a giveaway. I may not agree with it, but politicians do that all the time. Left, right, sense. They do that all the time. They spend30 billion on a political giveaway, which made the problem worse. And I can't recall a single major media figure actually talk about30 billion pounds. Now, let's be clear, that was credit. Okay? So, I'm not just giving 30 billion away. A lot of it was given away, but it's 30 billion of credit made available to make the problem worse. I just find it utterly extraordinary. And then you're saying it's harder for poor people to get on the houses. Absolutely. But also, we need to be real about this. Just the lower middle class, the people who used to be the bedrock of people who be buying houses. Well, it was it was the um disappeared. >> It was politically important is this is cohort that decided every election. Yeah. The housing theory of everything is how this country works electorally since right right to buy and since we a marketized housing system, access to mortgage products, access to housing, access to wealth generation for middle class people. That is the fork on which every election depends which is why after every housing crash you see a change of government list trust black Wednesday 2008. That's the reality of this country and we had a conservative party that shot their own chances at trying to generate new conservative voters like in the face right just completely blew that away in favor of appeasing their existing cohort of homeowners. They thought it would last forever very although I feel like we're going to come on to um electorally advantageous photographs just in a second. Now, with a budget looming at the end of the next month, Chancellor John Healey will struggle to be able to juggle not only the promises left to him by the previous government, but also all the shiny new things that the PM wants to roll out. One of the promises left to Healey by Rachel Reeves, other than the pledge not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance, or VAT, is a promise to keep the pensions triple lock. The triple lock is a mechanism which uprates the state pension each year by whatever is highest out of inflation, wage growth, or 2.5%. And as wage growth is still higher than inflation at 3.9%, that is the rate at which the state pension is set to rise this year, having risen by 4.1 and 8.5% in the last 2 years previous in line with wages and the year before that at 10.1% in line with inflation. And again, it's worth pointing out as well, this is one thing that the triple lock does is that you'll get like multiple booms from an inflationary shock. So when there's an inflationary shock, usually wages will catch up later. That's usually how these things work as the labor market recalibrates for the new prices. But if you increase one thing by inflation and then by the wages, you get a year of increases from the inflation and then another year of increases as wages catch up. So it's increased with w ahead of wages and then with wages. So it continually increases ahead of the incomes of working people which creates a ratchet effect which moves the money that's being spent, the money generated throughout the economy more and more and more to pensioners. Now politically the triple lock is a thorny issue as it directly affects the incomes of a powerful voting block which is the retired and as a policy since its introduction in 2010 it's done a huge deal. It's done a great deal to reduce pension and poverty huge problem historically in this country and it really did solve that but problem is the welfare hawks of the toyan reform parties they paradoxically both back keeping in the increase in the state pension from the triple lock alongside the current Labor government. But one right-wing politician in particular has come out today in opposition to the policy. The leader of Restore Britain, Rutert Low, tweeted this out this morning. Younger workers already facing outrageously high taxes, enormous housing cost, and the challenge of saving for their own retirement. Yet, the triple lock can push pensions up faster than prices, leaving a younger generation of workers with an ever growing burden. It's just not fair. These are our grandchildren and our children. When I launched [clears throat] Restore Britain as a party, I said we would take the difficult decisions needed to deliver a better Britain for those who come after us. I meant it. So we will replace a triple lock. Restore Britain will secure the state pension by linking it to CPI protecting pensioners purchasing power. Aaron, it's going to lose in votes, isn't it? >> It is going to lose the votes. I'm going to give up the journalism game. I'm going to get into politics. I'm going to be like James Goldmith in 1997, you know, the referendum party, which is the kind of precursor to to UKIP, although I think UKIP also existed at the same time. I'm going to start the get rid of the triple lock party. I'm not going to campaign on anything else. Uh that doesn't mean I want pensioners to be poorer. I still think it should be indexed to wages. >> Wages. >> Yeah. You mean you might say inflation, it should be indexed to something, right? >> But the present setup we have means that you're going to have an ever larger part of the overall economic pie of overall economic output going to pensioners. And you know, at certain point, I don't know, maybe in 2200 or something, 100% of GDP would be spent on public pensions. It's it's a crazy policy. Like it's an insane policy. people then point to still high levels of pension poverty in this country which is which is a real thing. Um you might look at the sort of average um state pension per month going to somebody in Britain it's lower than a lot of other European countries but it's very legitimate point to make. Here's the thing most Brits especially most older Brits are homeowners. So yes in Germany their state pension might be 40% higher but they're paying rent. Okay, if you own a home and you've paid off your mortgage, you don't have you don't have an out outgoing like that. So, if you're looking at Switzerland or Germany or one of the Nordic countries, bear in mind that they have a much larger number of older people who are spending a big chunk of that on rent. So, why would I get rid of the triple lock? That seems so unfair. Here's the thing. If you're over 65 and you're getting the state pension, let's say you get the full state pension, right? you've got 35 years of national insurance contributions, but you're not a homeowner and you've still got to pay your rent. You're really screwed, aren't you? So, what I would do is I would move just to uh the Robert Low option here. I would have it indexed just to inflation. Uh you'd have a decent saving, not huge, but depends on the year, right? You'd have a decent saving. Let's say 5 billion a year. I would probably spend at least half of that on social housing specifically for older people. and over a parliament you're looking at 10 to 15 billion being spent on increasing socially owned housing stock for over 65s. So I think that's a really important thing to do. >> They can fold it into a national care service policy like this current government promised to do and that doesn't seem to be happening >> quite exactly and I would probably use the remainder of the money um for retrofitting again people in older homes to have more energy efficient houses to help reduce you know our CO2 emissions and and help national energy resilience. I think that's a smarter use of that money from a climate perspective, from a social justice perspective, from a energy security perspective than what we're presently doing. And you know, I know that many people watching and listening won't like what I'm saying. They won't like what Rupert Low is saying. But here's the thing. I think it goes back to your original question. There is no, as maybe I'm wrong. There's no electoral upside for him saying this. So I'm really curious as to why he's doing it. Is he trying to turn the screw on Farage a little bit to get younger reform voters over to restore? Maybe. It's not many people, but it's, you know, it's something like they they came third in Manchester with what, 8%. 8%. That's pretty good. In in in bi-elections or in constituency elections, you're going to keep your deposit. That's a that's a good place to be if you're a new party. So, that may be part of it. I think probably what explains this quite strange decision is he has a very large number of younger I would say farr right but some of just radical right activists sort of around him and I suspect that they're driving that agenda. So is that going to help Rert Low electorally? Probably not. But if you're if you're thinking about well we want to create a new political formation to the right of the Tory party which isn't beholdened to certain demographic interests like reform and we're here to stay for 10 20 30 years. It's probably quite a smart move. I mean, that's the thing, right? Is that I was saying this on on social media earlier today in so far as like whatever you think about Restore Britain's personal ideology. I think it's rancid personally, but like when it comes to how it's been put forward, it's at the very least sincere. Whereas Reform UK don't seem to have any particular political ideology other than just do whatever boomers want, right? I mean, you can see in terms of the voting intentions predominantly um uh younger people just don't really vote for reform. like six or 7% in current cross tabs, but there's definitely, you know, a gap in the market for a right-wing party that's, you know, aimed at younger people cuz none of them seem to be looking at any policy that young people want to see. >> I think that's right. So restore, again, I agree with I don't agree with much of what they say, but and and and you're right that the word I would say is yeah, they're sincere. There's no other there's no other way of putting it. They want to create a party modeled on the likes of resembl national ninal in France or you know the AFD or the futelli ditalia. They want a reactionary radical right party far to the right of the historic center party of Christian democracy in this country as the conservative party. Right? So they are very much an ideological project and that's not new is it? I don't think reform are an ideological project. Reform are a weird hybrid of celebrity culture. Um, I'm I'm gonna say I'm gonna say Vanity Project. [laughter] >> Vanity Project. >> Is that too far? >> Feeding on the carcass of basically the collapse of the center right, which has collapsed for a bunch of reasons. We've not reproduced the middle class since 2008 in this country because of the housing market, because the economic model, because of Brexit, um the the the fragmentation of the union. All this feeds into some big problems for the legacy center, right? And so I I I do look at reform as they might form a government, but I don't and people you know what famous last words. I don't look at them as like a long-term ideological political project. >> It's a mess in the way that I look at restore. I mean their political platform it's just a mess. I'm sorry. In my kind of my personal opinion, right? You know, total uh all the caveats here, but I just think reforms political platform is a total mess. I don't think they'll come into contact with government and they'll I think will then make a big picture of it. I I don't see any coherent prescriptions for a governing party from reform UK. I just don't I see a bunch of red meat for a bunch of politically important electorates rather than a coherent plan for what they want to do when they make up when they get into office. I really don't. >> I think there's two things that happen with reform. One of one of two options, right? If they're a majority government. I mean, and by the way, they would love to be in coalition. They would love it because >> Oh my god. Literally. I mean, there's a really >> they blame everything on the Tories. Like they love to blame everything on everybody else all the time. Does do they even want to be in office? Do they do they want to be in I think they would rather let the politicians do the work and they can, you know, cut from the sidelines. Very similar to Pauline Hansen in Australia with her One Nation party kind of snapping at the heels of the Liberals over there. Like she she wants to be part of a coalition where everyone else does the work and she gets to grandstand. >> I think you know after 2024 they were probably thinking if we do well one time a Labor government and you know it'll be Estori in coalition and Nigel can be the home secretary. [laughter] You know you know he can he can cut the ribbon for a new prison or something right. I I I I I agree with you. But if they do form majority, I think there's one or two options. Either like you say, they just collapse on impact with the state and whiteall and all kinds of things. Or another is they say, you know what, we'll basically we'll basically do what the the Tories and Labor would do, some sort of middle ground, you know, so they're not going to rep privatize trains and do all these things. We're going to and this will be the one that might be a coherent political project. we're basically just going to do immigration and maybe we'll they probably will try and destroy higher education because they obviously hate it and that's how a lot of the the center left reproduces itself is is via higher education. um we'll do these two things, but every everything else will kind of leave it. And I just think for their voters, you know, you're promising a revolution, right? You're promising a revolution, and what you going to do? Okay, you're going to have, you know, rather than 24% fall in um uh small boats crossings under Labor, it'll be 60%. I mean, I you know, when I speak to reform voters, they don't want that. You know, I was speaking to Michelle Jubrey, and this is on the record. I was speaking to her at GB News a while back about the Burnham and I said well he's they're cutting these crossings so you know what what what percentage cut would you be happy with? She said 100%. And I said but it wasn't you know I mean there has always been even in the even the '9s there were crossber illegal crossings with trucks. You know it's not a new phenomenon. So even if Labour get it down 90% you won't be happy. No. And I'm not saying that to to criticize her. I think most reform voters would agree with that. So I think they're really on a hiding to nothing. Um but I do think the smarter people in that project will say look let's just focus on immigration particularly undocumented migration and higher education and the the problem things they've got is that their economic pro um prescriptions just unpopular like Robert like you see their polling kind of go down almost directly in line with Robert Jenner getting involved and being you know uh recommended policy by David Cameron is like well you're going down the exact same economic spiral that created the rise of reforming gay in the first place. Westminster's time as the center of power in Great Britain is coming to an end. That's according to the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland who for the very first time are also the leaders of the three nation separatist parties. Pleum Reena Purewith, the SNPs John Swinny and Shinfane President Marylu Macdonald and Northern Ireland's first minister Michelle O'Neal met in Cardiff on Monday to sign a cooperation agreement to work together towards independence from England. The memorandum of understanding signed by the three leaders said this. Momentum is behind our movements. We believe that constitutional change is coming. No Westminster government has the right to block democracy or undermine the principle that our people will decide their own future. We call for the British government to prepare for plan and facilitate constitutional change in each jurisdiction. Now unlike Scotland and the north of Ireland, Wales is seeking devolution rather than revolution. At the signing, Reapure said what he would require from the British Prime Minister Andy Bernham. What I've said is that I want to have a positive relationship with him. I believe he wants to have a positive relationship with with me. My job is to get him to really understand what devolution is to Wales and what Wales's needs are moving uh forward. These are early days in our relationship. I want to keep it positive. I you know I think it that's in the interest of the people of Wales. But but I think he understands that he has a lot of learning to do about what how devolution to a nation is rather different to a devolution to a region or a city of England. The country nearest to devolution is of course Scotland. After the summit, John Swinny was asked about the strength of language in that statement. >> You're all very bullish about this. I I noted that the language in the memorandum of understanding. Westminster's time is coming to an end. That's a pretty bold statement. >> I think it's a statement of fact because we're in a completely different situation now because of what happened in the election in May. And I want to advance that argument because the people of Scotland have elected a Scottish Parliament that's got the largest number of members of the Scottish Parliament committed to independence and the holding of a referendum. That's a a seismic change in the the landscape. It's also it's it's it's reinforced by what's happened in Wales and what the situation is in Ireland. >> But you're much more bullish today as well. You're talking about a referendum in the course of this parliament. That means by 2031. That's exactly right. How are you going to do that? >> Well, it's got to be delivered because the people essentially elected a parliament to deliver that in May. And >> you said before the election they had to elect an SNP majority to deliver that. They didn't do that. >> No, no. I What I said was an S&P majority was necessary to unblock the objecturate position of the UK government. They didn't get that. So, you haven't unblocked. But the people but well the the people elected a majority that's committed to the holding of a referendum on independence and committed to independence made no difference and well hope we have a different constitutional landscape now because across Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland we have first ministers who are in place that support a change to the constitutional structures of the United Kingdom and I intend to advance Scotland's argument within that context. Mary Lou Macdonald, president of Shinfane and leader of the opposition in the Republic of Ireland, told Times Radio she hoped Andy Bernham would be the last UK prime minister. This is her explaining why. >> I know that uh for English people the same as Scottish and Irish and Welsh. All of us want a good future for herself and for our kids. I want that for everybody. But I will tell you that the only way forward that we can achieve our best opportunities and our best outcomes is for Ireland to be reunited and that means an end to British jurisdiction on our island. It means those referendums happening and it means the preparations happening. Now, I can't speak for the Scottish people or the Welsh, H, but I would absolutely defend their complete right to self-determination just as we enjoy that too. >> First minister in the north of Ireland, Michelle O'Neal, also had a few words for Andy Bernham. We've had very disappointing comments, albeit we shouldn't be too surprised by the British prime minister in recent weeks whenever he visited Belfast where he told us Irish reunification was off the table, but very much today the message that he needs to hear from all of us collectively that it is very much on the table. We voted for the good Friday agreement. We voted for all of its parts, including the referendum and the question being put to the people because of course at home the constitutional position will only ever change whenever the people vote for it. That's the job of the politics of all of us who want to bring about unification. I think this can be such a positive journey because the one thing that we'll be talking about today with ply comry and with SMP is that shared objective. The fact that Westminster never we're always an afterthought. They will never serve our people well. And the message that we want Andy Burnham to take very much from our gathering today and from the fact that we're coming together in common purpose is very much that it's his job to plan and to facilitate a referendum. For our part, it's fulfillment of the Good Friday Agreement. Macdonald and O'Neal may well have been boyed by some recent comments from US President Donald Trump who visited Ireland last week. >> What's your view on? >> Well, I don't want to cause any problem, but I will tell you I'd love to see it unified. I have friends on both sides. Great people. They're Irish people. How could they be bad, right? I'd love to see it unified. I think we'll be a great a great feather in everybody's cap. Did that happen? It's going to happen eventually. Mr. President, you know what the way I look at it's going to happen eventually. It will happen now. We're talking about it and you got the right man over here to get it moving, but uh yeah, I'd like I think it would be a fantastic thing. Now, the UK will have something to say about it obviously, but I think it would be a great thing. I mean, how could it be bad? Finally, something for Trump and Biden to agree on. Now, not everyone has been so happy about the meeting. Reform's deputy leader in Scotland, Thomas Kerr, also an MSP, said this to Swinny on Twitter. You're a national disgrace coing up to extremists with links to terrorism to keep your dying cause relevant. Scotland does not want nor need another decade of division. I predict how United Gon will remain intact long after your career is ended. First Minister, early today, I spoke to Laura Webster, editor of The National. I began by asking her whether the breakup of the UK is really around the corner. >> It depends on on where you're coming at it from. Honestly, I think it depends on which nation we're looking at it from and depending on whichever leader you paid attention to yesterday. There's quite different stories at play here. So, in Northern Ireland, there is an awful lot of determination to push forward with a referendum on unification. And this has been especially spurred on by Andy Bernham's quite offensive comment um that a referendum would be off the table. It's really not his place to say that. And it demonstrated a lack of understanding about the Good Friday Agreement, which really sets out that the Northern Ireland secretary shall agree to a referendum to be held should it look like there would be majority support. And in recent polling, it does indeed look like there's majority support. So I think the reunification situation is on the cards maybe potentially sooner than Scottish independence. If you listen to John Swinny yesterday at the press conference, he sounded uh a little more cautious than Michelle O'Neal and Mary Lou McDonald. Um definitely a lot of talk about allowing the Scottish people to decide and and he personally believes that Westminster's time is coming to an end, but I don't think that he was as guns blazing as the Irish leaders there. And then if you listen to Runworth, h he's extremely cautious. He definitely doesn't want to spook people in Wales. Um in Wales, the support for Welsh independence is quite a bit lower. Um we're maybe looking at kind of the mid30s. Now, of course, once a campaign gets called, as we have seen from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, that support can grow very, very quickly. And so, people in Wales on the independent side believe that they have a lot of potential to win people over and should a campaign happen, things could absolutely start to change. So, yeah, that you've got three different leaders. They have the same aim, which is to get the recognition of their right to self-determination from Westminster, but they're in incredibly different positions at incredibly different stages of their journeys towards self-determination. And I think that's what makes it so interesting that they're working together and actually makes their working together more significant. You know, they they are understanding that there are differences politically, culturally here, constitutionally as well because of the involvement of the Good Friday Agreement, but they are all working together towards that common cause. And I was thrilled to to see that press conference yesterday. I've got to be honest, it's the kind of momentum that we in the Scottish independence movement have needed for a long time. And I absolutely love that it forces the media to pay attention. Honestly, the fact is when John Swinny or Runa Pworth or Michelle O'Neal make a statement uh individually about independence or reunification, it's so easy for the media to ignore it. And we've seen that time and time again. But the media kind of has to go, "Oh, look, it's Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. we're going to cover this. We're going to make people listen. And that has led to just a stunning amount of engagement on this subject today. There were people on the digital side of the S&P saying they don't think there's been as much organic natural online conversation about independence since 2014. So I think that really demonstrates how significant a moment this is. Now, obviously you mentioned there the level to which that there is kind of support for independence across those three different nations in so far as I mean it seems like there's always seems to be on the cusp indeed when it comes to yes no polling and when it comes to Scotland there's obviously a lot of more tension when it comes to North of Ireland and in Wales it's kind of in the background of a lot of discussion whereas as you say plug mostly focusing on governance first and foremost and then independence is is one of their ambitions that they're trying to as you say get to the electorate via these kind of meetings and these kind of memorandums that they've been signing. But what is the risk given how this has made it another high-profile conversation of driving and fermenting anti-independence support because of that high-profile nature of this discussion? >> Sure. I mean, I think there's always going to be unionist commentators who are going to come out of the woodwork and and say something whenever anyone dares to suggest the UK breakup, right? You've had Steven Daisley today suggesting that we need to find a way to make it completely illegal for there to be these kinds of conversations. I mean, some of the reaction has been just totally ridiculous and and it's out of touch, frankly. It doesn't respect the fact that so many people are looking for an alternative to the established union and so many people are waking up to the fact that the union does not serve their interests. And so I think part and parcel of this is that there are going to be high-profile people, perhaps powerful people who are going to come forward and make their opposition to any change to the union very clear. Uh again, there was Rupert Low from Restore saying this would be his trigger point for their new policy on rolling back devolution. Do you know what? So what? We are up for the challenge. We are up for the fight. The independence movements in Scotland and Wales. uh we we know what's going to get thrown at us and and in here in Scotland we have experienced it already. We saw it in 2014. We saw the businesses scaremongering people. We saw the politicians lying and we we stood up to it and we still achieved 45% of the vote. And if you look at how much has changed since 2014, how much of a worse position the UK is in, how we were lied to about our position in the European Union as well. I think a lot more people will vote for independence this time when we get the chance to vote again and I believe we will get the chance to vote again. >> Now, when it comes to that backlash that you mentioned there, one piece of backlash in particular caught my eye, which was Reform UK's deputy leader Thomas Kerr, who responded to John Swinny and accused him of uh ping around with extremists with links to terrorists in a kind of veagal reference to Shin Feain. How does that kind of language go down in Scotland? >> There's plenty unionists who have examples of uh working with extremists on the other side of the argument in in Northern Ireland. So I think sometimes it's better for them to to stay away from that kind of conversation unless they might be accused of hypocrisy. But I think yeah, I've seen there has been media coverage suggesting that the SMP should not work with Shinfane, that John Swinny should be ashamed to be talking to Michelle O'Neal. I think realistically people understand it's 2026. we're in incredibly different situation to where we were decades ago. And it's it's a pretty outofouch approach to suggest that, you know, these historical factors mean that we can't work together now um for a better future for our nations. Um yeah, I I think most people can kind of see through that argument. Michelle O'Neal is the democratically elected first minister of Northern Ireland and the first minister should engage with her just as he should engage with any democratically elected leader. >> Yeah, as always the it's made very clear point that Shinfane is indeed a legitimate political party and whatever's happened in the past and whatever links people may have, they are democratically elected right now and that's what's important. Although when it comes again specifically to kind of the Scottish issue here, uh Andy Burnham has said whilst this kind of storm of English devolution has been going on uh in uh down the south of the border, he said that Scottish independence was quote offlimits. Now how is that kind of gone down in terms of the reaction? >> I think pretty badly to be honest. And he keeps making these statements consistently that demonstrate his kind of lack of awareness around independence or the constitutional issue in general. yesterday his spokesperson's response to the Celtic Alliance meeting was along very similar lines like I'm focused on dealing with the cost of living crisis. I'm not interested in these constitutional debates. The truth is it doesn't really matter what Andy Burnham is interested in when the leaders of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all interested in having this conversation. There's only so long that he can get away with saying that for. And it's really interesting as well. I don't know if on the show you guys have been talking about what the prime minister said at PMQ's last Wednesday, which was he again kind of demonstrated a bit of a lack of awareness on this where he said that Scotland should have the same kind of mechanism to getting a referendum as Northern Ireland. Now, as I've already mentioned, the Good Friday Agreement states that the Northern Ireland Secretary can or shall hold a referendum should it look like there's majority support, which then therefore would mean that Andy Bernham thinks that the Scottish secretary should or shall hold a referendum in Scotland when it looks like there is majority support. Now, that is actually quite a massive change from the the government saying things like independence is off limits, independence is off the table. And so there is a bit of a perception now in Scotland among independent supporters that Andy Bernham has set the challenge. He has set the test for what we have to achieve in order to secure that referendum. Of course, he's kind of w that back uh maybe after PMQ's got some angry phone calls from the Scotland office or something or from his advisers at number 10. Um but he has said that it's on the record. It's in the parliament. It's unanswered for anybody to go and see. And so I think that is something for people to focus on and rally around. uh we haven't had a prime minister say anything close to that um since the referendum and so why not try and rise to that challenge and try and get independent support up and and I think that's what the pressure will now be on John Swinny here in Scotland. Uh people want to see what action is going to be taken to capitalize on this moment to make the most of this momentum and to really push Andy Bernham into sticking to his word. The one of the things in the run-up to the the elections in Hollywood earlier this year was the them essentially the SNP stating that they would use it as a mandate to drive the uh the argument for independence or to try and find a mechanism to be able to gain independence. Do we do we see how that might play out at all or is it this one like the first step on a long road do you think? >> Well, if I'm going to be really really frank about the mandate that the S&P set for themselves before the election, I think it was a mistake. Um they said that only an S&P majority would quantify as a mandate for a second referendum. And I mean for for listeners who might not be aware maybe the S&P got around 37 38% in that Hollywood vote. They certainly did not secure a majority. Um even though there was a pro-independence majority, the largest ever pro-independence majority the Scottish Parliament's ever seen. But the support for independence in the polls is sitting at around more like 52%. So that's a huge gap between people who want to vote S&P and people who would potentially vote for Scottish independence. So therefore making the mandate for a referendum totally tied to the fortunes of one party and under the control of one leader is is a mistake. uh there are other pro-independence parties available in Scotland and of course there are many people who are not affiliated with any party who would vote for independence and so those people have to be included. Um how we go about making people work together is a whole thing. The independence movement much like leftist movements or you know progressive movements is incredibly factional. There are many people who will not work with other people because of their associations with you know Alex and Nicholas Sturgeon whatever it may be. Also gender issues play unfortunately a rather large role in the kind of factionalism in the independence movement in Scotland. So I think we have a huge hurdle there of how we get people to actually work together uh towards a referendum. Um but regardless John Swinny is going to face a lot of pressure at the S&P conference uh next month. uh the members are pushing for uh this particular motion at the conference. They would like to see uh an independence delivery unit set up. They would like to see a national campaign set up to try and move towards what we've talked about as the standard set by Andy Burnham. H we'll have to wait and see if that wins support. But I think uh regardless of what happens at S&P conference, there has to be more of a move towards the independence movement coming together um and not allowing uh any one party or or individual to control the narrative here. >> Aaron, I want to get your take on this memorandum in a moment, but first a story from Wales broke just before we went on air. Sarah Koopa, who is elected to the Senate as a reform MS in May, has quit that party to join Pled Camry of all things. That's quite a switch from Wales's most right-wing party to its most progressive. Explaining in a statement why she's jumped ship, Koopa Southath said this reform has no interest in the work I came here to do. They are not serious about governing Wales. Therefore, more interested in division, opposition, and headlines than in finding solutions. There is a real appetite in the group to want the government to fail and no interest in what that failure would mean for the people that we represent. She went on to say this. I cannot support reforms attacks on people seeking sanctuary or other vulnerable groups. I particularly reject the way minorities have too often been used as political targets. The party century has no interest in Wales. The Senith Group is staging post in the effort to get Naja Farage into Downing Street. And that was glaringly obvious at its conference this week. Uh, was it not obvious the whole time? I mean, I guess what do you make of this radical move, Aaron? I'm not that surprised. You know, I went to Cardiff and I went to Murtha Tidfield before May, before the elections for the Senate and I met quite a few reform voters who were voting reform just to give them a chance and their view is that well the Conservative party has collapsed and the Labour Party is discredited and I'm not I'm not a Welsh nationalist so I'll just vote for these guys. You know, some people also then voted for the Greens on the other side, but it was very much, okay, well, what happens when the two- party system collapses? And I think that can often lead to quite incoherent outcomes, which is not to say that the majority of reform voters are like this lady. I she's saying about sanctuary. I presume she's talking about refugees. Very strange. You know, she wasn't just joining reform as a member. She was standing for office. But in any case, I think particularly in the context of Wales, the collapse of both major parties, um because remember it was applied reform one two there kind of explains this. Uh and that's maybe where we're heading, maybe less so now with Burnham, but in England as well. You know, I don't think Labour, even with Burnham, [gasps] even if they perform out of their skin, are going to get the same percentage they got in the last general election with Karma. I could be wrong. Um, and by the way, with a lower percentage, they could still form a government because of reform doing better uh than last time around as well. So, I'm not that surprised in the context of Wales. In terms of the other stuff, we'll talk about that in a moment, but it does feel very much like um everything's to play for. And my worry with the left is, and I don't want to criticize the left, but look, we're on the left. I don't care what the right or the center right are doing, you know? I don't want to criticize them because let them fail. >> [snorts] >> My worry with the left is often that, you know, if you aren't part of our side in a highly legible, codified way, well, we're not interested. Believe me, there are millions of people like this whose votes are up for grabs. Millions. I'm not I'm not exaggerating. But it's worth pointing out as well on that note, reform got huge amounts of their voters at the last election and continually to have it pulled in terms of their vote share. It's coming from non voters, people who did not vote at the last election. These are politically, you know, people [clears throat] in a certain way of stripes could potentially engage with their vote. Is it, you know, our reform offering something specific that, you know, engages a certain part of the electorate? Well, that doesn't mean there are other people who are non voters who couldn't be engaged in different ways. >> Yeah. They feel heard. There's two parts of that. So, the most right-wing people that I've encountered while doing these, you know, documentaries around the country, um, we've not been to Scotland, but we've been to Northern England, we've been to the Midlands, the South, obviously, and Wales. The most right-wing people, the the kind of craziest right-wing people I speak to, almost always say they won't vote, which I find really fascinating. So, I'll even say, "Well, Farage wants to be the prime minister." They say, "No, he's just like the rest." There are quite a few people like that. And I think reform have that in the back of their minds. you know, we can't form majority unless we win over a critical mass of Tory voters, right? But we also activate these people. That's really hard. That's a really hard political thing to do. [laughter] Secondly, um that's very very true. If you look at propensity to vote, um it correlates with income quite significantly. Uh that wasn't the case until about 1987, 1992, but I think 87 was the last election where it was was, you know, not really true. In other words, you could be earning £10,000 a year or £200,000 a year. You were just as likely to vote more or less within the margin of error. Okay. So, this is quite a new phenomenon. Opportunity democracy. >> Yeah. Exactly. And I I think it's something that absolutely the left should be taking on. And by the way, when you're talking to somebody who's not voted for 15 years, who who may not be that well off or lower middle class even, yeah, again, they're not going to have the most coherent politics of all. But like I say, I do think there's something quite specific with Wales here. So there'll be lifelong Tory voters. The Tory party's collapsed. Well, I'm not going to vote Labour because that's been the party of the country for 100 years in Wales until May. And I'm not a Welsh nationalist, so I'm not going to vote CLI. So I I'll go for reform. There'll be there'll be quite a few people like that. When I was in Murtha Tidville, I met quite a few reform voters who have to be honest were quite nice people. They probably voted well. They told me I voted Lib Dem in the past. Uh but I'm not going to vote for them now. And I'm obviously never going to vote for Labor because that's the negative polarization thing there is so real. You know, you meet lots of tribal Labor voters, but also people who define themselves by not voting Labor. And I think that really is a lot of reform people over there. >> Yeah. And I think what reform has in my mind, you know, when I've watched I've watched so many Vox parts now at this point, right, from you know the four or five years of streaming whilst reform have been a political movement in this country. And the thing I hear the most from reform supporters is we need a change, right? It's not even necessarily an ideological predelection towards what reform are offering, but they they everything's getting worse. They see no solutions and they're hitting the chaos button, right? They're saying whatever has been going wrong has been, you know, predicated on the uni party being in office. Therefore, I need to shake things up. And that's what reform represents to me. And the left party can certainly be that. I mean, Jeremy Corbyn was that in 2017. That's what 67% voter turnout more than years more than they had in years. One of the most remarkable things about the 2017 general election was the best data suggests that bear in mind um reform rather reform's predecessor but one UKIP got almost 4 million votes in 2015 I think it was about 3.85 85 million votes. >> 12 12% of the vote or something. >> Yeah, this is UKIP in 2015 and they just win one MP. Quite an extraordinary moment. The best data suggest that in 2017 in terms of where those voters went, the break for the Tories and Labor was about 50/50. It was maybe marginally greater for the tries. In other words, the person standing on the most left-wing platform of any British politician, you might argue since the Second World War, certainly since Michael Foot in 1983, um was attracting just as many UK voters as Theresa May, the home secretary who, you know, who who who made it a big part of her agenda to target and isolate um uh migrants here, both who are undocumented, but who also overstayed visas. So, it's not as, you know, it's not as set in stone as um as we're often led to believe. And by the way, this idea that people are ideologically coherent and they believe this or that and they'll never believe this and they won't change, that is so central to the agenda of the mainstream media. They love elections which are 4951, 52, 48. They love them. Why? It keeps you gripped. And if one party's doing too well, well, we got to boost this side. Oh, well, they're flying at the moment. We need to find some dirt. Bring them down to earth. they they want that. Um, and so, you know, I think in terms of judging our fellow voters out there, do not take your prompts uh from the likes of the BBC or Sky News or GB News or ITV. Make up your own mind. >> At the end of the day, I think my kind of maxim on this is that voters have concerns, right? They have a a list of concerns that they want to be addressed by politicians and they don't have, you know, preconceived notions of how those things might be solved, but they're looking for politicians who are offering solutions to those issues. Those issues may be in line with what you're saying. They may be out of line with what you're saying, but as long as you can speak to them and convince them that your solution is best for those issues, then they'll vote for you. You look at Mandali in New York City, for example, where he's talking about cost of living and there are people there literally. There's a a direct quote from a Voxbot with somebody saying, "I voted for him because I thought he was a conservative cuz conservatives talk about bringing the cost of things down and that's why he was running on wouldn't believe that they were a socialist." again it's about the issues being solved by policy rather which is why again the video format of explaining policies to voters was so powerful and has been powerful for Andy Bernham is because it's not necessarily about how it's done or the ideological position that get there it's about making sure that those issues get solved yeah you know and sort of adjacent to this is a big difference between Burnham and St and how they do politics kan will say I am allocating 2 billion pounds to transport budgets which is a good thing good Bernham will say I'm capping bus fairs at2 so Burnham is talking about the outcome. Star is talking about the process. You know, you can you can put 5 billion into transport. It can be mis misspent. It could be wasted. And again, this is something that I think it's kind of like a it's a reflex from the sort of post 1989, postcold war Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair technocratic center that we need to just move a million miles away from. Like I say, talking about cost of living or getting cost down for businesses, that is not rightwing. That is not rightwing. If those businesses are worker owned or if it's a family and the the the staff are paid 20 quid an hour and the community depends on it, that is not a right-wing thing to do to care about their energy costs or to care about their bills on XY Z or their supply cost. That's that's a very progressive thing to care about. And and like you say, Mani superb. Ever since the start of Israel's brutal assault on Gaza, we here on Novar Alive have reported on many musical artists showing solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Artists such as Nikap and Bob Villain have faced controversy with their pro Palestinian sentiments, but it's rare to see more mainstream acts use their platform to show support. That was until last week when rapper McLemore gave this speech while supporting Ed Sheeran on his US tour. >> I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day. One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart. Free Palestine. I said free Palestine. I want those words to be loud and clear so the people from Gaza all the way to the occupied West Bank know that we have not forgotten them. And this next song was inspired by the bravery of Columbia University students who led an encampment movement that mobilized the entire world, open up hearts, myself included. So, thank you to those students that risked their diplomas, that risked their tuition, that risked their scholarships, that stood up and said no. CUAD students, students for justice and Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace. Thank you guys to all of my Jewish brothers and sisters. Criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide in no way is a criticism of you. My message is for peace, love, for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality. So I say free Palestine. I say free Lebanon. I say free Cuba. I say free Congo. Free Sudan. Free all people in America living in fear over this terrorist organization ICE. That speech was given just before Matt Lammore performed a song Hint, a reference to Hindra, the 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by the IDF after they shot the car that she was in over 300 times. This however attracted the eye of Israel supporters who immediately pulled the anti-semitism alarm. Many fans took to social media to accuse him as such and demand Ed Sharon to disavow McLemore. The musical artist Pink weighed in too and posted a real to her Instagram story criticizing McLemore from the page stop anti-semitism which accused McLemore of spreading quote anti-Israel propaganda. Pink then clarified her position in an Instagram post of her own saying this. Last weekend, he stood in front of a stadium full of music loving families with violent images from a war on the screens, dedicated a song to the movement of his choice, and then took the mic to tell all of the Jews in the stadium that it wasn't about them. You didn't get to decide that for us. Okay, so we're just doing like dual loyalty trope in reverse, are we now? Just actually you we are we are one and the same with Israel. Your criticism of that is criticism for us. And he was very clear that, you know, he can only he can direct who his criticism is actually at there. Second of all, people playing in front of war footage isn't a new thing. I know that you've ever seen a performance of War Pigs or Bob recently, but many people have indeed used war footage as part of their musical acts or as music videos. Turns out music sometimes quite political unfortunately. Now, it wasn't just criticism that McLemore was subjected to. The Israeli American Council, a powerful pro-Zionist lobby group, even started a petition to have McLemore removed from the tour on the grounds that he had quote used a global concert platform to advance a one-sided political agenda. The naysayers got their wish over the weekend as it was announced that McLemore had indeed been dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour with many speculating that Sheran himself had asked for McLemore to be removed. It turned out, however, that it was the promoter that had been behind the decision to remove Matt Llemore after venue operators had threatened to pull the plug on the entire tour dates. This is from Rolling Stone. In a statement shared on Instagram, McLemore claimed he was dropped from the tour after Robert Craft, the billionaire owner of the New England Patriots in Gillette Stadium, mounted a pressure campaign against Sheran. Craft in his own statement confirmed he made the decision to bar Matt Llemore from performing at Gillette, saying it was based on his recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran shows in New Jersey and a broader history of anti-semitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community. Robert Craft has never been a politically neutral actor. He's donated money to politicians of both parties and has had a longtime friendship with the US President Donald Trump. He's been a longtime supporter of Israel, too, having previously donated $20 million to a fund opposing BDS. That donation was announced at the ceremony in which he was awarded Israel's Genesis Prize, presented with the award in 2019 by none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stated that quote, "Israel does not have a more loyal friend than Robert Croft." The news that Matt Llemore had been dropped was immediately met with public outrage. Artists offering their support included the affforementioned kneecap, but also Pink Panther, Paloma, Faith, Garbage, and Saul Williams amongst many others. The outrage as to platforming even reached Congress with the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Premier Jaipal, saying this. It's so incredibly disappointing that McLemore, my constituent, was removed from Ed Sheeran's tour because of his comments in support of the Palestinian people. We should all be outraged that powerful people are more upset at what an artist says than the displacement, starvation, and killing of innocent Palestinian children and families. Thank you, Matt Llemore, for speaking up. This is a moment for us to come together, find our moral conscience as a nation, and end this genocide. There has been, as we've gone live, a statement made by Ed Sheeran, which I will read out at least a part of at the moment. It's very long. This is the main portion of it. There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics. My audience includes young people, often children of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Mlemore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed. If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change. There are different approaches to being an advocate for change. I am not complicit, the statement said. I have my own personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn't mean I don't have them and doesn't mean I don't care. I mean, the whole point of the statement being made by McLemore is to try and engage in conversation, engage in dialogue, right? By wanting to, you know, potentially not have those things beyond stage. That is actually shutting away that conversation. And it's real kind of cowardice from Ed Sheeran. Like, you're the big name on this tour. You're a bigger international name than Robert Croft, right? You're probably bigger international name than Benjamin Inah to be honest. But like you can use your platform to call out promoters who are canceling tour dates because at the end of the day, right, no venue should be forced to have someone play at their venue if they don't want to, right? This is a a business transaction like any other which is based on mutual agreement, right? I don't think that venue should be forced to, you know, host Screwdriver or Jim Davidson or whatever, right? I don't think that's anything should be the case. But you have a platform to be able to advocate for the independence of the axe who you invite onto your tour with you and instead you've just tried to play both sides. I will remark that he didn't do with Ukraine like Ukraine very open and supportive and same thing is happening. Ethnationalist uh invasions and murdering and killing in terms of the incursions from Russia into the Donbass just like with Israel into the West Bank and Gaza. Yet again, that's a settled issue in the west, right? You have you have to support Ukraine, but in Palestine, it's treated as divisive, and there seems to be no justification as to why. Now, on the subject of people cancelling, it was interesting, however, how the anti-cancel culture brigade over at Fox News greeted the news, and I'm sure you can guess how it went. I I believe like five of the seven venues are owned by Jewish uh operators or business people and they don't want to have anything to do with the anti-semitism of course coming from this anti-semite McLemore. And I will point out they're the heroes in all of this. Not the promoter, not Ed Sheeran who's an absolute coward who chose to do absolutely nothing despite the fact that McLemore was using the venues that he put him on to spread this anti-semitic garbage. And so kudos to Robert Craft and others who the ter family as well who have stepped up and said no to Mcmore. >> Got it. I think that's a good thing. >> Yes. It's a good thing that he has been cancelled for wrong thing. It's really weird how they can hold these two thoughts simultaneously in their head. The cancel culture is terrible. But we can also, you know, just openly embrace this idea that actually there is dual loyalty. And it's not just that there's Jewish people that own these stadia. It's actually really important that we make sure everybody knows that the Jews own these things and they're the ones coming down here. like that is breaching into hugely anti-semitic territory to imply that somehow the ethnicity of the people who own these stadia is entirely kind of projecting those political viewpoints, right? To to link the ethnicity of the people doing it to these decisions is only going to make anti-semitism worse when again these are political decisions for political reasons and ideological reasons that has nothing to do with anyone's ethnicity. Aaron, what did you make of this this story? This >> there was the sheeran response which was I'm not doing anything. I'm not saying anything, but we all try and affect change in our own way. Well, that sounds to me like you're doing nothing. Which, by the way, is fine. You can say, I'm doing nothing. I don't care. You can say that. It's a free country. I mean, at least like you can be a political and say it's not my job to be political. People who are into politics can do that. I'm stepping away. >> But the zeitgeist for for creative artists in the US is you have to kind of be an activist, right? >> But he's saying I'm an activist. We want change. There's different ways of making change. Which is true. That is true. diversity of tactics, but I'm not doing anything and I'm not saying anything, but there's different ways of creating change. Okay, so what are you going to do? And he says specifically, I want my concerts to be a place of safety. It's such a dangerous thing to say, a place of safety. I don't want people to be challenged. I don't want people to have to reflect on their views. I don't want people to um or be it even just temporarily to leave themselves behind. That's that's that's not what you do when you you you go and see art or you go and listen to music. You you're there to be part of a crowd. Be you're there to be part of something bigger, not safety. It sounds so anodine and sterile. I feel like I'm in a sort of white padded cube listening to that statement. Of course, it was not written by him, I'm sure. Um the jewel the jewel um the dual loyalty thing is really interesting and I I think it's just so ridiculous now that it's just important to pull out. actually drives me around the bend. It drives me around the bend. >> It's crazy and it's both sides of the Atlantic. Although I have to say this is just utterly absurd. Um we saw the chief rabbi do it in this country as well uh quite recently. It just needs to be called out. You you can't have it both ways. Um and then in terms of the sort of broader sweep here, Fred Sheeran, it just seems so this to me is the almost more interesting question. Right. So, like you say, he can just argue, I'm not here to be political. I'm not an activist. I just want people to have fun at my concerts or the safety thing doesn't really add up to me. But the way he's done it just seems so politically counterproductive given this is a very polarizing issue in American politics. I do get that, right? Um, but to not even pretend to defend free speech, it's kind of crazy, isn't it? I mean, this is literally this is the first amendment of the US Constitution. This is what America is built on is is the right to free speech. This is how it's arguably corrected its original sins of things like slavery and asymmetries around civil rights. So if you don't believe in free speech, I struggled to believe how you uphold the idea of America at its best, right? And I don't believe all that crap. >> Being a musical artist, free expression, like like musical art, any art is fundamentally about expression, right? And I said before, I don't think any anyone should be forced to, you know, like be engaged in a business transaction. Anything anybody they don't want to do so, right? But like go find a different tour. Go just say cool. You don't want people performing here. I will go I will take my business elsewhere. I will publicize, right? That you don't want to be involved with this on the grounds that you dislike what somebody says and we will take it elsewhere. We'll perform a better gig at a different place and we'll we'll rearrange it and the tickets will be valid or indeed say something. use your platform to call that out and say, "Look, you're ruining fans enjoyment because you're getting politically involved in my musical expression, my artistic expression." Right? There are so many different ways that he could have gone to try and get a better outcome for the tour and the people who bought the tickets for the tour knowing that Mlemore would be there and knowing he's already released a song that's pro Palestine, right? Like if you already had problems with Mlemore because of him doing a pro Palestine song, you should have made that clear before you booked all of these tour dates where you knew he was going to support. And by the way, the people shouting the loudest about this are the far right. Is the anti-semitic fascist far right. They're saying, "See, going back to our point about dual loyalty, see, they say they're Americans, but the minute somebody's criticizing other Jews in Israel, look what they do. Five out of the seven stadiums, look what they do." That's what Nick Fentes is going to say. And I find it really extraordinary that these purportedly pro-American Jewish organizations, which seem to be just pro-Israel, I find it extraordinary that hasn't landed with them. They don't understand what they're doing. >> They don't understand how they are building they are building anti-semitism in America. They're building it brick by brick. >> There's a really really great article by Ezra Klein where I was talking about this like if you teach people that, you know, like the hatred of Israel means you're anti-Semitic, they won't they won't stop hating Israel, they'll just become anti-semitic. Yeah, >> that's it's it's so so unbelievably dangerous. So so so dangerous. And again, it actually drives me round the bend. Oh, and well, I think one point I will lastly make is that this is a problem with having oligarchy in your country where billionaires who own every part of your infrastructure, your stadium, whatever it is, right? They're not community venues anymore. They become the play things of the people who own Craft, who own the New England Patriots, who own the stadiums, whatever it is, right? And they get to decide what does and doesn't happen. It's not a community decision about who you want to have playing music in your area. It those decisions get totally kind of subsumed by the capital class when you don't have these things in public hands. You don't have this in community hands. And you know, if your community doesn't want somebody to play music around you, then perfectly reasonable. Why is it one person's decision? >> Yeah. So true. I mean, back in the day, if that was a publicly owned venue or a local authority owned venue, you know, the mayor or the governor or the senator might be the person that makes the decision. >> Um, hey, you might not like the decision. At least somebody voted for them. >> Yes. It's a rep it's a representation of popular opinion, popular decision-m rather than the the kind of unilateral policy of one incredibly cranky billionaire. >> Oh, thank you very much for joining me tonight, Aaron. It's been a pleasure. It's been too long. Too long. >> My pleasure. I mean, I'm I'm a bit I'm a bit tired, he says, with the two kids. I'm still adjusting, but I have to say one thing that has definitely struck me, Helena, is how good you are at this now. >> It's been it's been a quite a wild ride over the last 3 years. Literally 3 years and 5 days time. >> Wow. I should also say the tech team have done a phenomenal job. But very impressed. >> Thank you. Very impressed. Much appreciate. >> I'll be out of a job soon, I'm sure. >> And of course, as always, thank you everyone for tuning in at home, too. Come back tomorrow for another live stream from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Novara Media. Good night.