October 24, 2025 • 51 mins
After successfully pushing for Brexit, political disruptor Nigel Farage announced his retirement. Last year, he returned to frontline politics as the leader of Reform UK, an insurgent party that’s never held national power but is now polling ahead of Labour and the Conservatives. Mishal speaks with Farage about dismantling consensus politics, Britain’s future relationship with the European Union and what he thinks Donald Trump is getting right.
4:02 - “We’ve not had enough change”
7:10 - Working in the City of London in the 1980s
11:46 Alignment with the European Union
13:33 “Everything in life’s about risk”
16:24 “Make Britain Great Again”
21:00 The Bank of England
25:19 “Putin is a very bad dude”
30:15 Immigration and ICE raids
35:12 Economic plans
46:14 Reading to prepare for government
Watch this episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe4PRejZgr0Ns_wjGlmjlPz0cded0nTYS
You can find the written version of this interview with Mishal’s notes on Bloomberg Weekend: https://www.bloomberg.com/latest/weekend-interview
Contact The Mishal Husain Show mishalshow@bloomberg.net
Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
There are fundamentally two types of people in politics. Those
want to be something, those want to do something. And
I've always been a person that's wanted to do something.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Nigel Farage Brexit campaigner, disruptor and now UK political leader
who could be prime minister.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
You know what, the rank, the title, the position doesn't
interest me at all, doesn't interest me in the least.
I couldn't care less about it. What interests me is
what you can do with it.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
From Bloomberg Weekend. This is the Michelle Hussein Show. I'm
Michelle Hussein. Welcome back. Remember the moment when the UK
voted to leave the EU nearly ten years ago now,
and one of the figures right at the forefront of
(01:05):
that was Nigel Farage.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
The sun has risen on an independent United.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Kingdom, mister Brexit. Indeed, to many people, you might have
thought that that was a career peak, an end of
the road. They'd achieved what they set out to do.
For him, though, it was the start of something new,
something bigger, it now seems, because he and his party
(01:31):
Reform UK have been having an extraordinary time in the
opinion polls in Britain. These are polls of voting intention,
and for months now Reform has enjoyed a sustained pole
lead over the two parties which have dominated British governments
for the last century, Labor and the Conservatives. Now an
election isn't due in the UK for another four years,
(01:54):
but if this kind of pole lead was to be maintained,
Nigel Farage a very good chance of being the next
UK Prime minister. Faras is someone who has been very
good at spotting political undercurrents. He did that with Brexit,
He's done that in the US in being close to
Donald Trump for a long time, understanding in many countries.
(02:17):
I think what's bubbling under the surface and what other
people might not see. So he is worth paying attention to.
He's someone also who is very recognizable. He's a big
persona people stop him in the street, want to have
their picture taken with him, call him by his first name.
He's regularly pictured having a pint in the pub. Now
(02:39):
I knew this was going to be a tough conversation
in many ways. He's combative. He's someone who you have
to fact check to the best of your ability, and
I think you'll get a sense of the tone really
right from the start of this. But really what I
wanted to do in this conversation is understand what makes
him tick and reveal really what kind of prime minister
(03:02):
he might be. You'll hear us talk about his immigration policies,
about the accusation that he is soft on national security,
what he reads, whether he would govern for the whole country,
and because he has used the words make Britain great again,
ask him what period he looks to in Britain's past.
(03:23):
We started, though, in the present. Welcome Rachel Farrett. How
how are you all right?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Yes, but I mean life is busy.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, I want to start with a sense of the moment,
actually because I'm conscious that you are in the midst
of a remarkable few months where your party has been
leading in the opinion polls in a sustained way, which
is why if there was an election today, and we
don't really have that kind of system in the UK,
but if there was an election today, you'd be you
look likely to become a prime minister.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Election tomorrow we'd win easily. But the trouble is it's
a marathon to the next election. We've hit the thirteen
mile mark and we're a mile ahead. So it's a
good thing we've done what we've done. But there's a
long wedd again well.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
But also on you personally, the idea of being prime minister.
Are you properly adjusted to this idea because most people
see you this is what you're known for, campaigner disrupt
to someone who brings change from the outside, actually leading
for the whole country is a very different thing.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, that's the point. We now need change on the inside.
We've not had enough change. We are actupying as a country.
We're declining economically, we're declining societally, we're declining culturally. People
are leaving. We're in real, real trouble. So we now
need a disruptor, not from the outside the change perceptions,
but from the inside to actually change things. But you've
(04:42):
been ready for it.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yes, you've only been an MP for a year, so.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
I've been in politics for thirteen years. I was in
the European Parliament for over two decades. I led a
group in the European Parliament for over ten years. I've
got a lot more experience than Keir Starmer or many
of the other prime ministers we've had in the recent.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Political experience, but not governing experience. You've never been part
of that. You did once say that you did want
to say that you couldn't imagine having a seat around
the cabinet table, that it was not something that attracted you.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Do you know what, the rank, the title, the position
doesn't interest me at all, doesn't interest me in the least.
I couldn't care less about it. What interests me is
what you can do with it. And there are fundamentally
two types of people in politics. Those want to be something,
those want to do something. And I've always been a
(05:33):
person that's wanted to do something. In the past. What
I've done is helped change public opinion, help shift national debate,
and now moving that on to the next logical stage.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yeah, but I still wonder about the kind of work
that is involved in delivering for a country as the
Prime minister. It involves sitting there with the red boxes,
going through the official government papers.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
What do you think I've been doing for the last
twenty five years building but.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Through civil papers every day.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's different only in human being in this country. Who
has built political movements on a table like this with
a telephone, a piece of paper and a pencil. I
can build things, I can do things. My track record
says that.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Okay, so you're ready for it.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
It is the job that you want to do, yes,
I mean, look, it's clearly an enormous job. And the
scale of the problems that we face, the institutional barriers
that will get put before us. You know, I do
understand all of that. I'll tell you what if we
don't do this, then by twenty thirty five I shuddered
to think what this country, genuinely, what this country will
(06:36):
be like. So we have to do this?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Would you govern for all? Because you're not known as
someone who brings people together. You're known as someone who
chooses their issues, campaigns very hard on them, who's often
predicted and made the political weather. But you're not a unifier.
Doesn't a prime minister have to be there?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, I think we've had too many unifiers. And look
where consensus politics has got us. Look at the message
got it?
Speaker 1 (06:58):
So you would govern as a device fig.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
You'd govern as a majority government. You'd govern on a
radical manifesto that says the country needs fundamental reform. And
of course some people won't like it, but that's the
way it is.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Well, we'll talk about the ways that you would reform.
It is the name of your party, but it's also
what you want to do, and we'll talk about that
in a moment. But I want to go back in
time first of all, because you're recording with us here
in our studios in the heart of the city of London,
a place you know well, absolutely, you used to be
a commodities trader, a metals trader. How formative was that
experience to who you are today?
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah, My father was a stop breaker for over half
a century. My grandfather was a stop breaker for over
half a century. So a lot of our family had worked,
in fact, on both sides in the city. I was
here in the eighties. I was here in that transformative
period where, let's be frank, what was a bit of
an old boys club through Big Bang became an international
global center deregulation.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, a city and it's heyday if you.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Like, opening up, innovative, that's just time. It was that
just time. Yeah, and you were actually oh absolutely, I
mean back then I was. But I mean, you know,
bear in mind, we're talking forty years ago. There were
a different set of economic problems. We didn't have the
social problems in that just time that we've got. Now,
that's one aspect of life that's worse. So I was
(08:15):
here when yeah, I mean kind of by the middle
late eighties. I mean it was the most exciting, incredible
and fun place to be.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
We did have social problems though, a lot of people
got left us. A lot of people got left behind
in that period and some of them are supporting your
party today. There were mining community socualization.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
There were mining communities who had a very bleak time. They,
by the way, had an even bleaker time in John
Major's years when we unnecessarily claoes pits. But what I
mean is we were all British. There was a much
bigger sense of togetherness despite the economic division than there
is in the country today.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
And this has been a theme of what you've been saying.
Essentially you look on migration as the source of all
the country's ills.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Well, that's a ridiculos to say, but you just.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Pointed that we were more British in the period.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
We have all sorts of problems. We have massive economic
problems now falling GDP per capita being perhaps top of
the list, or they're very ready talked about in Westminster.
Yes there were divisions then you're absolutely right, but the
social problems that we faced today are worst. Look I
think about the city was you know, I can remember
when the phone rang that it occasionally was Paris, occasionally
(09:28):
was Frankfurt, but much more likely to with Singapore or Santiago.
This was a global trading center and I couldn't understand the.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
City of London is still a global trading center.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Far less than it was. And I couldn't understand the
political obsession with our next door neighbors that the little
backyard market called Europe. Oh yes, it's the big market,
blah blah blah, but it's fifteen percent of global GDP.
So really, when I saw the Single European Act coming
in eighty six, what are we doing? And then I
saw the British establishment preparing for us to join the EUA.
(10:00):
We joined the exchange rate mechanism and.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Then had to crash out of it two years later,
which I pegging to the deutsch market, which I predicted.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yep, I predicted it. The very night we joined. I
was in a bar just over there saying this will
never ever work. And this is what really got me
in the politics I couldn't understand what I saw in
my day to day life here. I want I saw
government doing. Were two very different things.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
So it was there's a direct link then, between Brexit
and your work in the city here in the nineteen
eighties and the nineteen nineties. You came here at the
age of eighteen, actually straight out of school. When you
look at Brexit today and what has happened in the
last nine years and you say that it's a poorer
country today than it was, do you think it was
(10:43):
worth having the referendum in twenty sixteen?
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Do I think freedom is worth it? Yes? Absolutely? Do
I think self governance is governance is worth it? Yes,
of course I do. Do I think the ability to
control your borders is worth having? Yes? I do. Now
have we exercised it?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
No, That's why asked the question. Was it worth having
it in twenty sixteen the vote? Given what we know now,
Sterling has never recovered its value. Business investment, which was
rising has been stalled since that. No.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I mean, look, you know, even as Kis Starmer himself says,
the deep seated economic problems within the country pre date Brexit,
even pre date the pandemic, and our response to it,
you know, our productivity problems being perhaps just one very
very good example. I am angry that a conservative government
with a whopping great majority didn't take advantage of it.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And you think you could have done better if you
were prime ministers.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Better, Mars better and I hate to see what's happening
in the city.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So then if you were prime minister, and I can
ask you this question because the way the polls are
looking right now, so today, if you became prime minister,
would you rip up the treaty, the agreement that Kirs
Starmer made with the EU earlier this year.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Well, the whole treaty is up for renegotiation anyway. It's
a very poor treaty. We can do a lot better
than that. We'll have to play hard ball. If you
play hard or you have to mean it.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
That's the article I've heard just before from whom well
I've heard this before from okay, from conservatives, not from
people in your party, but from people who believed in Brexit.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
They never they never, but they never believed that. They Relatedly,
they belatedly accepted Brexit because if they hadn't, they would
have faced political.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
So if Brexit has never been done properly, you, as
Prime minister, would reshape our relationship with the EU.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
What do you mean if Brexit hadn't happened The reason
I'm here.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
No, I mean if you were Prime minister, what would
you do with the current alignment that we have with
the EU on many areas well.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Look, we've been weak as hell. We've given in. We've
given in, we've given in, We've expected favors in return,
we haven't got any. It needs a tough renegotiation. And ultimately,
even though we've got huge economic problems, they've got some
pretty serious problems too. In fact, the French haven't even bigger,
not just not just economic but constitutional crisis as well. Yeah,
(13:00):
giving away our fish for the next twelve years, things
like that completely outrageous, total betrayal of what people voted for.
But the focus, the focus, and yes, trade with Europe
is important, of course it is, but the real focus
has to be what's happening internally within the UK economy.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
So you would rip up the ki Starmer agreement with you,
I think you're saying it needs it needs a rethink, Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
But all is done has done is make concessions in return.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
That means you would be taking an economic risk right now.
And that's and you have been known all your life
for taking risks right It's in your book.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Everything in life's about risks, and life.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Is about yourself. On being a gambler, can I read these?
I love a gamble, I love stacking up the odds,
and it's only been through taking enormous risks that the
Party and I have got to where we are today.
Is that the kind of prime minister you would be?
A risk taking prime minister?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
We need far more risk taking and by the way,
much more broad in the Prime minister. We need to
encourage risk taking in the economy.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
You take a risk with the relation with the nearest neighbor,
the big geography that puts this big market on. You
take a risk with that in the interest of it
bad relationship.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
You have to take risks to reshape it.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So how would you reshape it? You'd end alignment.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Is that what you're saying, alignments catastrophic, So you'd end
it catastrophic, moronic.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
You'd end alignment with the EA's.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Sending us is keeping us firmly hooked back in the
twentieth century, not in the twenty first it makes no
sense at all from any angle.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Is that a yes to the question I've asked, you'd
end alignment.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
With the E one hundred plus.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Okay, So this is the point. So you're still a
risk taker. You weren't in your years as a trader
in the city, and you're still going to govern in
that way if you elected Prime minister. I know you
had two really traumatic experiences as a very young man.
You were hit by a car and you ended up
spending two months in hospital, and you were then diagnosed
with testicular when you're in your in your early twenties.
(14:56):
There's another and I know you said that this is
part of why you decided you needed to do things
with your life. But there's a different way that that
story could have gone, which is that you conserve your
energy and you prioritize your family and you think of
all that's close to you. Instead, you had two failed marriages, and.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It's called living. You went, it's called living.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
And you campaigned around the country.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Look, I could be a boring so and SOA like
most people in politics. I've lived. I've had some huge successes,
I've had some massive failures. I'm sixty one, I've got
a vast experience of life. I've seen the good times,
I've seen the bad times. I've seen success, i've seen failure.
I think that makes me better qualified to be a
(15:44):
leader than those that have lived steady, what I might
describe as boring lives.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
So what have been your big failures?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Well, I've made mistakes personally. Obviously I've had successes too,
but I've made mistakes financially. And look, I've lived the
big I've lived the big Dipper of life. But I've
in the end been very lucky. I'm still here, I'm
still alive despite a couple of goes at not being
I think that's given me a couple of things. Number one,
a pretty rounded life, and number two, I'm not actually
(16:13):
frightened of anything, and that I think is very very
valuable asset given what I may well be facing in
two a three years time.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
So let's talk about your political instincts. Then, can you
take those headphones because I want to play you something
that you said at SEAPAC, the big conservative political conference
earlier on this year. You've been close to the American
right for a long time, so you go to these
conferences and this is what you said in February twenty
twenty five.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Suddenly, post November the fifth, America is optimistic, it's upbeat.
It's the beginning of a golden age in America. In fact,
in many ways, that's what we're fighting for. A very
similar agenda to the one that you've just bought for.
I'm the one that you have just succeeded with. You're
(17:04):
going to make America great again, and we, in turn
will make Britain great again.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Well, well, hang on, I've got wait, listen, wait for
my question, which is that you use these words make
Britain great again. And I know that you have a
sense of history, and I know the past is important
to you. Sense of fun.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Say make Britain great again to an American audience, I've
just elected a president of make America great again? Is
quite fun.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
So you didn't mean it, of course I meant it.
But that's what I understand what you mean by it,
because you have got a sense of history. I know
your grandparents about the past. Your grandfather had been wounded
in the First World War. What story did they tell
you about Britain's past? What is it that you think
of when you think of when Britain.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
We had a stable society. We had belief things that
bound us, perhaps religion being one of them. And by
the way, government can't force people to believe, but there
was a shared sense of religion.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Are you a man of faith community?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yes, I mean I have to say, struggling a bit.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Do you go to church?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Well, of course, I'm an Anglican. It's been a catastrophe
for twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
What the Church of englis So you believe, you believe,
but there's no church that you feel like at.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Well, if I was a more regular churchgoer, I probably
would have defected to the Catholics. Probably would have done,
haven't I haven't. I've thought about it a couple of times. No,
I think a sense of community, a sense of family.
I mean, frankly, you know the values around the meaning
of family, community, country. Those things were much stronger in
years that have gone by.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Which is which is the decade you're looking at? That's
what I'm curious about when you say the words when
Britain was great? What is in your mind? Which is
a decade?
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Britain was great? Imperially, Britain was great, industrially, Britain was
great in terms of innovation. Britain was great in terms
actually in many ways, I think of taking some very
good things the large parts of the world. Britain was
great in leaving behind some amazing legacies Australia.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I'm wondering about what period when you when you look
to the past, are you thinking about the nineteen eighties
and the period you're really or are you thinking about
the First World War. Britain is a great power.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I think really what we did since six and eighty eight,
I think we were actually fortunate to have our servil.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
But we're not going to go back to the seventeen.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Years I've just given you as.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
A political leader, when you think of when you want
Britain to go back to because you to make Britain again,
what are you looking to.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I don't want Britain to go back anywhere. I want
Britain to go forwards. And that's really the point, and
it's one of the reasons why you know, I've been
very critical of the Government of the Bank of England,
very critical much of our economic policy. I think we
are stuck in a rut. I think we're stuck with
an old, out of touch globalist mindset about so many things. No, no, no, no.
(20:01):
You can respect your traditions, you can respect your past,
you can have a sense and a feeling of what
history is. I'm not going back anywhere I want to go.
I want us to be in the twenty first century.
We're not there. We're literally but here we are sitting.
I mean, I can see Saint Paul's as I'm talking
to you in the middle of the city of London.
We have a revolution going on, an economic, a money
(20:21):
revolution going on with digital assets, cryptocurrency. It's real. It's
growing very very quickly. And what's happening here nothing literally nothing.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Untested ideas in government, aren't they. I know you were
talking the other day about wanting to have a national
cryptocurrency reserve.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I'm really sorry, we don't know what that looks like. No,
because we're years and years behind the rest of the world.
Go to Miami, Go to Miami, Fly to Miami tonight,
and you tomorrow morning can go out and buy everything
from a Starbucks coffee to a Ferrari with a card
that you've loaded up from an a am in the
stry with bitcoin, ethereum or other currencies, and the world
(21:02):
is changing and we're not changing.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
So if you think the bank, and if you think.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
About it, there's one more point think about it. Actually,
we have been great innovators, you know, whether it's the
industrial revolution, whether it's the nuclear energy industry, which we
led the world in just a few decades ago. We're very,
very inventive. We're very creative. We're naturally a very entrepreneurial country.
(21:26):
I just believe we've lost a sense of all of that.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
So the Bank of England, if you think they're so
out of step with where their focus should be in
your view, would you revoke their independence as Prime Minister?
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Well, I think the bigg I mean the bigger mistake
was taking away banking regulation from an organization that have
been doing it since sixteen ninety four, gave it to
a bunch of tick box bureaucrats down in Canary Wharf.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Do you mean the financial conduct?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
That so would you disband that?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
They are useless? They are arterly useless.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
We need a complete Would you do away with them?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
We did a radical rethink of what they are, what
they're for, who they serve, what their purpose is.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Isn't the truth though? You? I mean you don't. Really,
it's not a question of who does the regulation. I
think you instinctively don't like regulation or regular don't you
see it as a hindrance, and other people might see
it as the things that protect us from wrongdoing. Actually
your mistakes.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Actually you're wrong. You're wrong, because my argument with crypto
with digital assets is we need a regulated market. Again,
you go back there in the medieval times, it was
all about having a basic framework of rules that consumers
and market users can trust. So I'm not against regulation.
I'm not a complete laisse fair merchant, but you have
(22:39):
to get that balance right.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But I think you are saying, as Prime Minister, you
are signaling that you'd be prepared to do away with
the Financial Conduct Authority, you would give those powers back
to the Bank of England.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I think we need a complete radical rethink. Yes on
many of these things, and the FCA has been a
total failure.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Would you sack Andrew Bailey's Bank of England?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I was debanked, you know, I was debanked. I was
rejected by ten other banks. I was literally being frozen
out of the financial system to the point I might
have had to leave the country, which indeed is what
they wanted and.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
That became a big issue. And well, luckily you got
your accounts back.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Well luckily, I'm big enough and ugly enough to fight
my own corner. But there are thousands of people out
there who've been debanked because of excessive rules on anti
money laundering directives or whatever else it may be, who've
got no voice for themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
And what about the governor of the Bank of England,
Andrew big Well, he's a nice enough bloke, but would
he keep his job if you were.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Said, a good run, we might find someone new. Really,
he's had a.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Good run, so you are signaling you'd be I'm just
saying this is shade of President Trump at the federal
ry if.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Andrew Bailey wants to get with the twenty first century.
And by the way, there's one encouraging thing, because I
went to see him last month. He'd just put a
limit on the number of state coins any individual can hold.
I said, Andrew, this, this is ridiculous, this is dinosaur like.
Within a week he changed it, So maybe he was listening.
But the Bank of England, the British government, the regulator,
(24:12):
whatever shape that takes, they've all got to understand that
the world is changing, has changed very, very rapidly.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Okay, So the world has changed, not just the financial world,
the world more broadly. And if you were prime minister,
you'd have to have opinions and take advice and formulate
policy on a whole host of areas which you're not
known for talking about, such as social care, how you'd
feel vacancies in the social care sector and national security.
(24:41):
And there are people in the political establishment, labor figures,
conservative figures, including Boris Johnson, who think that you and
your party are soft on Russia.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Oh poor Boris. I feel sorry for I'm really I
guess if you failed that much you have to laugh
it out at somebody. Look, I mean, but I mean
this is of course politics and narratives, isn't it. You know,
just because fourteen thirteen years ago I said in an interview,
I thought Putin was a very effective political operator, but
not a nice human being. Suddenly you're a Putin supporter.
(25:12):
But enough, the year after I said that, the Queen
met him. Whether she was seen to be a collaborator,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
I think it's all the accusations come from the fact
that you've said things in the past like no, you think, Nate,
what I'm going to say. You've suggested that NATO provoked
Putin into invading Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
The endless eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union,
and Kissinger warned about this years ago. We shouldn't have
done it, but that's in the past. We did it.
Putin's invaded. I was really hoping that Trump could bring
Putin to heal and that some kind of compromise could
be struck, as it's just been recently struck with Gaza
and Israel. Clearly that is not going to happen. Obviously,
(25:53):
Putin is a very bad dude.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Simple Why hasn't President Trump put more pressure on him?
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Oh, he's putting huge pressure on, his pressure on India.
He's putting pressure on and I think himself, I think
Trump feels that puns met with all of him. And
clearly Putin is not a rational man. He wants to
come to a logical deal. So the idea that i'mselfd
on this is just nonsense.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Well, what put fire under the accusations was very recently
when the former leader of your party in Wales, Nathan Gill,
pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery, taking money from
someone described as a pawn of the Russian secret services.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Appalling, appalling, And he will go to prison for a
long time, at least I hope he does.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
He was the leader of your past three three weeks.
But hang on, he's been on. He's been involved with KI,
he was involved in Brexit, the Brexit party, your former
party with. He's been at your years.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I've done it for twenty five years. He was unbelievably
you perhaps don't know this a bishop in the Mormon Church,
I mean, god fearing to a level I've almost never met.
I mean, so uncorrupted. I thought he wouldn't even drink coffee,
and there he was taking money to ask questions. Appaul,
(27:05):
is it just one bad without any shadow of it down?
Speaker 1 (27:08):
You can assure voters that there is no one else
like Nathan Gillen reforms ranks.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
If there were, if I even suspected it, they wouldn't
be let through the door.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
And you're sure that no one else has taken money
from I'm.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Sure that my mother's not the mass murderer. There's nothing
sure as that, you know, I mean, how can you
be sure of anything in life? Well, you know, the
question itself is you didn't know. The question itself is
a stupid question. You know that, and I know that
I believe one hundred percent with all my heart was
nobody else.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Can I just quickly then understand your instincts on Russia
a bit more fully with a few scenarios. So if
you were Prime Minister and NATO jets entered Russian jets
entered NATO airspace, where do you stand on that?
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Do you think they should be to shoot them down?
Speaker 1 (27:52):
No questions? Whatever? That does? How much that inflames tensions?
Russian needs to be taught to lessons and.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Love trying heart. I'm the only person in the world
I think that stood up in the European Parliament in
twenty fourteen, and do you know what I said? There
will be a war in Ukraine. It's coming. I'm the
only person that got it right. I might have made
one comment once thirteen years ago that said I admired
(28:18):
him as a political operator, but not as a human being,
and I'd never live in Russia. Period.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
Okay, frozen assets, Russian frozen acids should be used to
help go on as.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Long as you like. I've made the position perfectly clear.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
No, what's the answer to that.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
They would be they're in Belgium.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
So they should be they should be used.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
You better ask the Belgian government, but clearly if they're
there through illegal means, they should see.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Your instincts is as British Prime Minister do.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
My instinct is I think Putin's a really bad blow.
And you can and you can sit me here for
an hour, you're going to get nowhere.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
You put British troops on the ground in most of
all Ukraine after its cease.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Fire, I'd be very cautious about doing that might put
a un force. When I put the British Army badge
that badged as a British Army, be deeply deeply.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Thought because you'd be worried about them being a target
for the Russian.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Be deeply thoughtful about doing that, and it wouldn't make everything.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
You see exactly. That kind of thing is what gives
hearing something caveat is what gives Russia courage.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
You are quite right, I'm not a warmonger. Rather like
President Trump, I'm not a warmonger. Those that went before
have been persistent warmongers. I'm not. I happen to think
that what the UN did in career was remarkable, and
still over seventy years on, has held and South Korea
has become just, I mean, the most incredible country, which
(29:36):
by the way, does things far better than we do
in terms of building nuclear energy and much else. That
would be the right way to go forward.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
So let's talk about areas then, where your agenda. As
you said in that clip, we heard a moment ago
where your agenda is similar to the Trump administrations, for example,
on migration. Both your party and prisident Trump's Republicans feel
very well what he's done, strongly about that.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
What he's done is amazing.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
So would you want ICE style raids taking place here
to deport the six hundred thousand people in five years
you wanted to?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
I think it's really I think what I think. Let's
see this is again. You know, I was with Tom Homan,
who was his Borders are a few weeks ago to
try and find out what's really going on in America.
It's really interesting. Border crossings are down ninety seven percent
since Trump came to power. But the interesting thing is
about deportations. So they have a thousand ICE squads out
(30:47):
around America knocking on doors saying you're here illegally and
you've got two choices. Number One, you can go. We'll
fund your return. We'll give you a few dollars. We'll
say to you that you can legally if you want,
apply for skills VIASA in the years to come to
(31:08):
come back to America, and if we think you're going
to be a productive member of the economy and of society,
will let you in.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Is that what you want? The ice raids are done
by masked armed men who jump out of vehicles grab people.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
That's your media narrative. I've just told you what's happening
and what is really.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
If you have masks, don't they and guns and they
do go into work ploce as.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
I mean, I would hope actually homes if they didn't
have guns, they'll be mad.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Would you want that here? That's really because this interview
is about what you would do as prime minister.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Do you know how many people have voluntarily left America
in eight months? One point six million. It is truly remarkable.
One point six million people have peacefully with incentives not
just to leave, but potential. I want to understand the potential.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
What lessons you're taking for the UK.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
For what I'm learning is if you do things well
and do things properly, it can be highly effective.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
So is that to yes to ice style raids in
the UK?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
It's we're not America. We'll do it our way, not
the America.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So what is that? Does our way involve the army?
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Our way will involve border Force doing the job that
they would so desperately like to do.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
That's the job they do. Now, how would it be?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Would you use the army now? At the moment border
Force are a taxi service and they hate it, so
you use the army. They absolutely hate doing what they're doing,
which is why say many people resign.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Sad saving people essentially in the channel and bringing them
to short You may see that what you mean by
the teche No, that's what in me. I think that's
what you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
French Navy. Bring them across, French Navy, bring them acrass.
It's got them all the way. Border Force picked them up,
bring them in. They tuck their passports in the sea,
they chuck their phones in the sea, and we're supposed
to just put up with it.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Really important is to understand how because the numbers you've
said you would deport are really significant six hundred thousand
over five year, which is why I'm interested in the methods.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Look, I think the truth is that most people who
were caught, who were in Britain illegally, if we do
it nicely and do it properly, will accept they have
to go.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
It's about nine thousand a year currently, and to meet
your target you'd be increasing that by ten times. Do
you think you can?
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I think we can. Of course theory reality, being in government,
I get all of that. I understand all of that.
Is it doable, yes, But there is a very important
message here. Very I mean, in most countries in the world,
if you enter illegally, you are chucked in prison. Literally,
in a majority of countries in the world, illegal entry
(33:40):
means immedia in prison.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
So is that what you do? People would arrive and
they would be put in prison immediately detain.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Well, that's what I didn't say, and you said.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
It, that's right, said what do you say?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Said, that's fine, I'm not playing games. I'm not playing games.
People would be detained.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
And deported dead simple in prison.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
There are plenty of X military bases we can keep.
But the point, Look, you know, it's very interesting. Australia
had all this in twenty twelve. They stopped it within
a fortnight. Within a fortnight, no one came illegally you
know why they were taied back to Indonesia. It can
be done. It's about political will, it's about being tough
for a short period of time. It can be done.
It can be done.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
You've got a big pledge also to cut significant amounts
of government waste. I know you're rethinking your economic plans,
but there is a figure in your principles, not the
broad print. Well, what about the amounts that it says
in this from last year that you would cut waste
by the tune government waste to save fifty billion pounds
a year. Is that still yeah? That was about That's
(34:38):
still the plan that was about.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Yeah, actually we'd probably go further than that.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
I mean, you get more than more.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Malay and Argentina's shown that you can do it, but
you have to work out doing it what the cost
of that is.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You must discover that he couldn't cut nearly as much
as he hoped to. Initially he said to had to
have that, and then it went.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
To be fair. Malay has to be fair, Malay has
but look, we're test bedding this in the in the
local councils that we won last May. Well, we've cut
about half a billion so far. You know, it's a
very good start in six months.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
What happens if you were elected to government and you're
Prime minister and you find out that you can't find
the savings you want, you're in the process of rethinking
your economic polity kinds of tax cutting plans which are
now having to be rethought. Is that because they were unworkable.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Net zero thirty billion saved, cutbacks and civil service tens
of billions saved. But of course the big one, the
big one, and the thing that I've got to think
out far more fully is the whole explosion of disability payments.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
And you are in midster having seriously what I want
to ask you is that you people said about your
plans to spend and to tax cuts that they were
unworkable and they were fantasy economics, and the fact that
you're having to rethink them suggested, well.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
I'm not rethinking they were right. I suspect what we
come back will be a lot more out of it
than what you saw there.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
More radical in which way more tax.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Well, as I said to you before I came and
did this, I'm going to be laying out some economic
stuff between now and the budget. In terms of speeches.
What is for certain? I tell it what is for
certain with the economy. And we touched on this right
at the beginning. We touched on this place in the eighties,
but we could go more broadly across the country. In
the eighties there was an attitudinal change towards work, towards
(36:28):
having a go, towards risk, which I'm pro. I'm very
pro risk. I'm very pro individuals taking risk. I don't
believe we should protect people from themselves. We should allow
them to go out and have a go. We need
an attitudinal change towards success, towards money, towards business, towards
tax and incentives. And this is stuff that you can't
(36:53):
necessarily write in a manifesto.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Well you're going to have to do though, Well, no
you can't.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
You can't attitudeal stuff. You can't. You cannot, right, you cannot.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
It's called a contract anymore.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
You've been at the BBC all your life. I don't
think you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about attitudinal
change within society. You can't put any of that in manifestos.
It's about a buzz, it's about a vibe, it's about
how a country feels. And and you know one of
the reasons, and you know you played that tape to
me earlier. You know what is interesting about Trump's America?
(37:25):
And there are bits of it you can dislike or
like or whatever. What is interesting about Trump's America is
a lot more people in America are having a go.
They're setting up companies, they're borrowing money, they're taking risks.
We need to get to that place. And and as
I say, you can't put in a piece of paper,
and one thing, I'm certain.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
You're gonna have to inspire people, aren't you.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
That's right, That's exactly which.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
Takes me back to where I started that are you
going to be someone who brings people together? Because you're
known for turning the fire on people, You're not known
for being someone who I don't know, appeals right across
the country, has a common message that.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
I'm there, I think, you know, give me.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
An inspirational message. What is great about Britain today?
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Even in my time, even in my time in the
European Parliament, where perhaps I achieved some level of infamy.
Was I turning my fire on people? No, I was
just teasing them. I was just teasing them. They were
turning their far on me. I mean, we just had
a party conference seas and where the levels of insightful
abuse that have come from Starmar in his cabinet are
off the scale. I've never behaved like that, not with anybody.
(38:25):
I might have strong opinions, I might express what I
believe in strongly, what I'm against very strongly. I don't
think if you look through my political career that you
will find personal invective. You'll find teasing and not much
more than that. We have to we have to have
a vibe, a buzz that says to young people setting
(38:48):
up businesses, taking risk, even having failures, even having failures
along the way is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And you know something I might succeed, I might fail.
I accept that. Yeah, but I'm going to have a guy.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
If you don't succeed as Prime minister, it's not the
same as your personal success. That's about the fortunes of
the country that are riding on that. So we're going
to need more than a vibe.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Well, I think the two are the same thing. We're
in that much trouble. We're in that much trouble.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, you as you as one man, and the vibe
you create.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
There's a whole movement here now. There's a whole movement
here now, and you've seen and I'm sitting talking to you.
I don't do many interviews these days. I allow others
to go and do it. There's a much broader range
of talent, you know, that has come on the scene
for the party. We're building a mass membership very rapidly.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
You see. I know you're a risk taker, but I
think the moment of real risk that exists for your
party right now is that you've had this sustained period
where you've been rising in the opinion polls while you've
been making big promises on spending, on big tax cuts,
and now you're at a point where're having to rethink
your economic policy and it's it's probably going to be
(39:58):
much more like to make reality.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
We're going to make bigger propose. We're going to make
even bigger proper.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
That's not the signals that your people in your party
are setting out. They're saying you're going to have a
fully costed manifest facing the same realities that other parties.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
Well, look, we're in goment.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
Maybe you're not special.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
We're in government now. We're in government now, in the
local government. You know, we're going to do our damned
list to be in government in Wales next May. We
may or may not succeed, but we're going to do
our damned list. I won't have to be judged by
what we do. I accept that.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
So is Donald Trump a role model for you for government.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
In terms of standing up for the national interest above
all else. Yes, in terms of keeping promises that you
made the electorate. Yes, there are many other areas in
which we might disagree or might do things. Which are
the areas that there are other areas that might disagree,
social policy, et cetera. We might see things differently. But
(40:53):
the fundamentalism of Trump is you tell the electorate I'm
going to do X, and you actually do it. And
that's what he's doing. And you know, and we might
look at I mean, look, you know, you and I
consider over coup of see and talk about some of
the tariff machinations and say to ourselves, what the hell
is going on, or we could go back to the
thirties and think about tariffs and damage it's done to
(41:15):
the economy or et cetera.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Do you think he's damaging them?
Speaker 2 (41:18):
It's irrelevant. No, no, no, no, listen to me. It's irrelevant.
He promised the American public he'd used tariffs as a weapon.
He's doing it, so he is. So is he to
a large extent restoring faith in the democratic system. Yes,
and we will have to if we succeed. There is
a long way to go. As I said said to
you earlier halfway through the marathon, if we succeed, we
(41:38):
must do the same. Because one of the reasons why
reform is doing so well is there is a complete
breakdown of trust. No one believes a blooming thing.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
The other parties say, I think you could be part
of that breakdown of trust because this document which said
our contract with you, it's a contract with the voters.
It's the document you stood on last year.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
I didn't write it. I inherited it to be fair.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Lead standing there face Your face is right there on
the front.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Came in after it was published to be fair, and
we changed the front page. But look are the principles
right within it? Yes, can we but.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
There are numbers in it. It's put forward as a
contract breakdown of trust. And you've been sort of a
breakdown of trust.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
You have you seen what the concern is your interview?
Speaker 1 (42:23):
If you complain about a breakdown of trust, don't you
have to stick to your I stick.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
To I would like nobody in Britain to pay income
tax until they end twenty thousand pounds.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
And when do you think you'd be able to deliver
that in government?
Speaker 2 (42:33):
I will answer that over the course of the next
few weeks, not today, as I told you before I
came on here. But do I want to want of that? Yes?
Is it realistic immediately we're in government? No, and those
circumstances are changed. Are the principles, aspirations and even the
numbers that are set out there wrong? No they're not.
(42:55):
They're right. But it's all about getting things in the
right order.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
This is the Bloomberg Weekend interview. I wondered if you
get one these days, because you are more in demand
than ever before. According to your team, you're meeting presidents,
prime ministers and kings from the Middle East these days.
Speaker 2 (43:14):
I wouldn't comment on that particularly, but King or at
least I remember, and if I do, it, wouldn't tell you.
I wouldn't tell you. I wouldn't do.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
You know what I'm it's inaccurate that you're meeting Trstan's
Prime Minister and kings from the Middley.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
Do you know what. One of the reasons I've survived
so long in public lives, I'm very discreet and you know,
if I have private meanings with people, I never discuss it.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
It's one of your senior supporters and donors who said this.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Well, I don't know who he is or she is,
but well, well I wouldn't comment on it, all right,
I wouldn't comment on it. I don't comment on things
like that, and people trust me because of that, you know,
I keep confidence.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
But you are in circles you haven't been in before.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
That's fair, That's fair, I mean, that is fair. Yeah.
I think a lot of people around the world think
we are going to win the next election just because
they people that you know, like this country, see what
a mess has got itself into.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
See it's a long haul because technically it's not due
for another four years and the current government has a
large authority do you think you can sustain the level
of engagement you need to still be in this position
in four years time. You're not really known for you
stuck at the idea of wanting you ab out of
the European Union, but you've had a number of different
(44:22):
parties over the years.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
I stuck at it more than anybody. I've been doing
this since nineteen ninety three. Did I finally retire on
the thirty first of January twenty twenty, Yes, I did.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
That was it?
Speaker 2 (44:32):
I had done with it. I came back into politics
last year. It was probably the toughest decision in my life.
You know, I turned sixty last year. Life pretty settled,
some good jobs, a company being quite successful in a
variety of areas, first couple of grandkids born. You know,
life was pretty good. So I knew I was making
(44:52):
a big sacrifice coming back into it, and I'm determined
to make it a success. And I think I've been
very you know, we talked about persistent, but I've generally
been pretty consistent in the kind of values and views
and beliefs that have had. And can I sustain it
(45:12):
for four years? Yep? It's a long haul, but yep,
can the government sustain it for four years, I think
very unlikely. And I think, you know, just as you've
seen reform take over the center right of British politics,
I think there's a massive change on the left about
to come. And I think that I think that the
(45:32):
government will be forced by twenty seven into a genuine
austerity budget. I mean, a real austerity budget. Just the markets,
you know, are going to demand that. And I suspect
at that moment the left of British politics splits in
a very very dramatic way. And I think the growth
of the Greens, the Corbynites, the sort of urban left
(45:58):
of politics, those who vote on gaza and religion more
than British issues, all of those things, I think they
will struggle to see our twenty seven.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
That's why you think there'll be a general election?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Then I do.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Yeah, Okay, I want to know what sustains you. Is
it true you read constantly?
Speaker 2 (46:16):
I do read a lot, Yeah, I do read a lot.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
What are you reading at the moment?
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Well, I'm The last book I read was mister Bellfour's Poodle,
which is about the constitutional crisis between the.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Commons of the Lords early twentieth century.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah, the principles are exactly the same. And by the way,
the Salisbury Convention has been there since nineteen eleven, And so.
Speaker 1 (46:32):
How are you interested in that?
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Because say we get elected on the manifesto to say
we're going to do X, Y and z. What if
the House what if the House of Lords would have
block us? The what if the civil service would have
block us? These are all the things that we're thinking
and going through at the moment.
Speaker 1 (46:45):
You're going back one hundred years to try and find
the answers to that.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Principles don't change over centuries. What else are you reading
over centuries? Principles day.
Speaker 1 (46:52):
How do you like poetry?
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Like a little bit of poetry? I wouldn't say hugely.
I read. I like biography, I like history. My current book,
which i've really barely started, is written by the former
Prime Minister of Armenia, and it's about how small states
can survive in the big wide world. Sarkasan is his name.
Speaker 1 (47:10):
He wrote everything you're reading is kind of part of
your homework if you like for government. Is that the case?
What do you do to actually put your head in
a different place?
Speaker 2 (47:19):
Yeah, I mean I like to go out walk when
I get time. I like to fish. I like a
day at the races. I like the odd day at
the cricket. There are things I enjoy doing. No, the
truth is, I mean, look, we are living in a
twenty four to seven media environment. I am a political entrepreneur.
Even though I'm trying to shed responsibilities of the party
(47:42):
for the moment, I'm still the main entry point for
most new people that want to give money or stand
as candidates. And so most of my life these days,
believe it or not, is focusing on what's beneath the bonnet,
focusing on the structure of the party, focusing on the
funding of the party, focusing on making sure that across
all the regions of the United Kingdom we're prepared. And
(48:05):
I just sort of say this to you, sort of
towards the end that I don't think anyone's yet really understood.
Next May May the sixth next year is the British
equivalent of the midterms in America. These are elections of
a magnitude and a significance that almost nobody yet understands.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
To close, I want to go back to where I
began and the kind of person you're known for, and
the kind of person you'd have to be if you're
to be a great prime minister. What would you say
to someone who worries that you might deport their grandmother
or you might not be a leader for them because
they are not white or they're Muslim. No, what would
(48:47):
you say to that?
Speaker 2 (48:48):
There are people give me a message to say the
questions beneath you. But I would also say this if
you the only people that call me a racist tend
to be called Jocasta and have gone to Saint Mary's
Ascot and be upper middle class and very snobby.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Is that to someone who'd be worried about you as surprised?
What is your message of unity? Do you have one?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Our message for unity is if you're in this country legally,
whether you've been a for one generation or one hundred
and fifty generations, if you're paying your taxes, obeying the law,
being part of our community, recognizing there is commonality between
all of us, whilst we're different, things that we share.
You're incredibly welcome, But are we here to be the
(49:29):
dumping ground of the world. Are we here to be
the food bank of the world. Are we here to
have uncontrolled, massive legal immigration changing our culture in dangerous
women on our streets now on that we're going to
get really, really tough, and I think you'll be very,
very surprised how many people from all different backgrounds of
religions from all over the world support that message and
(49:51):
want that as the country that they've either been born
into or chosen to live in.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
Nasure Parish. Thank you, thank you, And that's the Michelle
Hussein Show for this week. To make sure you never
miss an episode, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts,
and if you want to leave us a comment while
you're there, I'm told that's a good thing. If you'd
like to see my conversation with Nigel Farash, you'll find
(50:19):
the video online and at bloomberg dot com Slash Weekend
you'll find the written version of this interview with a
portrait of Nigel Faraj and my notes why I asked,
what I did and the context around it. The Michelle
Hussein Show is produced by Jessica Beck and Chris Martlu.
Guest booking by Dave Warren, Social media by Alex Morgan.
(50:42):
Our sound engineers are Blake Maples and Kyle Murdoch. Our
video editors are Laura Francis and Toby Babalola. Our executive
producer is Louisa Lewis. Brendan Francis Newnham is Editorial director
of Audio and Special Projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Katherine Bell
is the executive editor of Weekend. Our music is composed
(51:05):
by Bot Walshaw and we'd also like to thank Will Shaw,
Alana Susnow, Victoria Wakeley, Adam Blenford, Sammasadi and Sage Bauman
and thank you for listening. Come back next Weekend
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
There are fundamentally two types of people in politics. Those
want to be something, those want to do something. And
I've always been a person that's wanted to do something.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Nigel Farage Brexit campaigner, disruptor and now UK political leader
who could be prime minister.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
You know what, the rank, the title, the position doesn't
interest me at all, doesn't interest me in the least.
I couldn't care less about it. What interests me is
what you can do with it.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
From Bloomberg Weekend. This is the Michelle Hussein Show. I'm
Michelle Hussein. Welcome back. Remember the moment when the UK
voted to leave the EU nearly ten years ago now,
and one of the figures right at the forefront of
(01:05):
that was Nigel Farage.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
The sun has risen on an independent United.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Kingdom, mister Brexit. Indeed, to many people, you might have
thought that that was a career peak, an end of
the road. They'd achieved what they set out to do.
For him, though, it was the start of something new,
something bigger, it now seems, because he and his party
(01:31):
Reform UK have been having an extraordinary time in the
opinion polls in Britain. These are polls of voting intention,
and for months now Reform has enjoyed a sustained pole
lead over the two parties which have dominated British governments
for the last century, Labor and the Conservatives. Now an
election isn't due in the UK for another four years,
(01:54):
but if this kind of pole lead was to be maintained,
Nigel Farage a very good chance of being the next
UK Prime minister. Faras is someone who has been very
good at spotting political undercurrents. He did that with Brexit,
He's done that in the US in being close to
Donald Trump for a long time, understanding in many countries.
(02:17):
I think what's bubbling under the surface and what other
people might not see. So he is worth paying attention to.
He's someone also who is very recognizable. He's a big
persona people stop him in the street, want to have
their picture taken with him, call him by his first name.
He's regularly pictured having a pint in the pub. Now
(02:39):
I knew this was going to be a tough conversation
in many ways. He's combative. He's someone who you have
to fact check to the best of your ability, and
I think you'll get a sense of the tone really
right from the start of this. But really what I
wanted to do in this conversation is understand what makes
him tick and reveal really what kind of prime minister
(03:02):
he might be. You'll hear us talk about his immigration policies,
about the accusation that he is soft on national security,
what he reads, whether he would govern for the whole country,
and because he has used the words make Britain great again,
ask him what period he looks to in Britain's past.
(03:23):
We started, though, in the present. Welcome Rachel Farrett. How
how are you all right?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Yes, but I mean life is busy.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, I want to start with a sense of the moment,
actually because I'm conscious that you are in the midst
of a remarkable few months where your party has been
leading in the opinion polls in a sustained way, which
is why if there was an election today, and we
don't really have that kind of system in the UK,
but if there was an election today, you'd be you
look likely to become a prime minister.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Election tomorrow we'd win easily. But the trouble is it's
a marathon to the next election. We've hit the thirteen
mile mark and we're a mile ahead. So it's a
good thing we've done what we've done. But there's a
long wedd again well.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
But also on you personally, the idea of being prime minister.
Are you properly adjusted to this idea because most people
see you this is what you're known for, campaigner disrupt
to someone who brings change from the outside, actually leading
for the whole country is a very different thing.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, that's the point. We now need change on the inside.
We've not had enough change. We are actupying as a country.
We're declining economically, we're declining societally, we're declining culturally. People
are leaving. We're in real, real trouble. So we now
need a disruptor, not from the outside the change perceptions,
but from the inside to actually change things. But you've
(04:42):
been ready for it.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yes, you've only been an MP for a year, so.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
I've been in politics for thirteen years. I was in
the European Parliament for over two decades. I led a
group in the European Parliament for over ten years. I've
got a lot more experience than Keir Starmer or many
of the other prime ministers we've had in the recent.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Political experience, but not governing experience. You've never been part
of that. You did once say that you did want
to say that you couldn't imagine having a seat around
the cabinet table, that it was not something that attracted you.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Do you know what, the rank, the title, the position
doesn't interest me at all, doesn't interest me in the least.
I couldn't care less about it. What interests me is
what you can do with it. And there are fundamentally
two types of people in politics. Those want to be something,
those want to do something. And I've always been a
(05:33):
person that's wanted to do something. In the past. What
I've done is helped change public opinion, help shift national debate,
and now moving that on to the next logical stage.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yeah, but I still wonder about the kind of work
that is involved in delivering for a country as the
Prime minister. It involves sitting there with the red boxes,
going through the official government papers.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
What do you think I've been doing for the last
twenty five years building but.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Through civil papers every day.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's different only in human being in this country. Who
has built political movements on a table like this with
a telephone, a piece of paper and a pencil. I
can build things, I can do things. My track record
says that.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Okay, so you're ready for it.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
It is the job that you want to do, yes,
I mean, look, it's clearly an enormous job. And the
scale of the problems that we face, the institutional barriers
that will get put before us. You know, I do
understand all of that. I'll tell you what if we
don't do this, then by twenty thirty five I shuddered
to think what this country, genuinely, what this country will
(06:36):
be like. So we have to do this?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Would you govern for all? Because you're not known as
someone who brings people together. You're known as someone who
chooses their issues, campaigns very hard on them, who's often
predicted and made the political weather. But you're not a unifier.
Doesn't a prime minister have to be there?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, I think we've had too many unifiers. And look
where consensus politics has got us. Look at the message
got it?
Speaker 1 (06:58):
So you would govern as a device fig.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
You'd govern as a majority government. You'd govern on a
radical manifesto that says the country needs fundamental reform. And
of course some people won't like it, but that's the
way it is.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Well, we'll talk about the ways that you would reform.
It is the name of your party, but it's also
what you want to do, and we'll talk about that
in a moment. But I want to go back in
time first of all, because you're recording with us here
in our studios in the heart of the city of London,
a place you know well, absolutely, you used to be
a commodities trader, a metals trader. How formative was that
experience to who you are today?
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah, My father was a stop breaker for over half
a century. My grandfather was a stop breaker for over
half a century. So a lot of our family had worked,
in fact, on both sides in the city. I was
here in the eighties. I was here in that transformative
period where, let's be frank, what was a bit of
an old boys club through Big Bang became an international
global center deregulation.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, a city and it's heyday if you.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Like, opening up, innovative, that's just time. It was that
just time. Yeah, and you were actually oh absolutely, I
mean back then I was. But I mean, you know,
bear in mind, we're talking forty years ago. There were
a different set of economic problems. We didn't have the
social problems in that just time that we've got. Now,
that's one aspect of life that's worse. So I was
(08:15):
here when yeah, I mean kind of by the middle
late eighties. I mean it was the most exciting, incredible
and fun place to be.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
We did have social problems though, a lot of people
got left us. A lot of people got left behind
in that period and some of them are supporting your
party today. There were mining community socualization.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
There were mining communities who had a very bleak time. They,
by the way, had an even bleaker time in John
Major's years when we unnecessarily claoes pits. But what I
mean is we were all British. There was a much
bigger sense of togetherness despite the economic division than there
is in the country today.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
And this has been a theme of what you've been saying.
Essentially you look on migration as the source of all
the country's ills.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Well, that's a ridiculos to say, but you just.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Pointed that we were more British in the period.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
We have all sorts of problems. We have massive economic
problems now falling GDP per capita being perhaps top of
the list, or they're very ready talked about in Westminster.
Yes there were divisions then you're absolutely right, but the
social problems that we faced today are worst. Look I
think about the city was you know, I can remember
when the phone rang that it occasionally was Paris, occasionally
(09:28):
was Frankfurt, but much more likely to with Singapore or Santiago.
This was a global trading center and I couldn't understand the.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
City of London is still a global trading center.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Far less than it was. And I couldn't understand the
political obsession with our next door neighbors that the little
backyard market called Europe. Oh yes, it's the big market,
blah blah blah, but it's fifteen percent of global GDP.
So really, when I saw the Single European Act coming
in eighty six, what are we doing? And then I
saw the British establishment preparing for us to join the EUA.
(10:00):
We joined the exchange rate mechanism and.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Then had to crash out of it two years later,
which I pegging to the deutsch market, which I predicted.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yep, I predicted it. The very night we joined. I
was in a bar just over there saying this will
never ever work. And this is what really got me
in the politics I couldn't understand what I saw in
my day to day life here. I want I saw
government doing. Were two very different things.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
So it was there's a direct link then, between Brexit
and your work in the city here in the nineteen
eighties and the nineteen nineties. You came here at the
age of eighteen, actually straight out of school. When you
look at Brexit today and what has happened in the
last nine years and you say that it's a poorer
country today than it was, do you think it was
(10:43):
worth having the referendum in twenty sixteen?
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Do I think freedom is worth it? Yes? Absolutely? Do
I think self governance is governance is worth it? Yes,
of course I do. Do I think the ability to
control your borders is worth having? Yes? I do. Now
have we exercised it?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
No, That's why asked the question. Was it worth having
it in twenty sixteen the vote? Given what we know now,
Sterling has never recovered its value. Business investment, which was
rising has been stalled since that. No.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I mean, look, you know, even as Kis Starmer himself says,
the deep seated economic problems within the country pre date Brexit,
even pre date the pandemic, and our response to it,
you know, our productivity problems being perhaps just one very
very good example. I am angry that a conservative government
with a whopping great majority didn't take advantage of it.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And you think you could have done better if you
were prime ministers.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Better, Mars better and I hate to see what's happening
in the city.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So then if you were prime minister, and I can
ask you this question because the way the polls are
looking right now, so today, if you became prime minister,
would you rip up the treaty, the agreement that Kirs
Starmer made with the EU earlier this year.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Well, the whole treaty is up for renegotiation anyway. It's
a very poor treaty. We can do a lot better
than that. We'll have to play hard ball. If you
play hard or you have to mean it.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
That's the article I've heard just before from whom well
I've heard this before from okay, from conservatives, not from
people in your party, but from people who believed in Brexit.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
They never they never, but they never believed that. They Relatedly,
they belatedly accepted Brexit because if they hadn't, they would
have faced political.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
So if Brexit has never been done properly, you, as
Prime minister, would reshape our relationship with the EU.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
What do you mean if Brexit hadn't happened The reason
I'm here.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
No, I mean if you were Prime minister, what would
you do with the current alignment that we have with
the EU on many areas well.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Look, we've been weak as hell. We've given in. We've
given in, we've given in, We've expected favors in return,
we haven't got any. It needs a tough renegotiation. And ultimately,
even though we've got huge economic problems, they've got some
pretty serious problems too. In fact, the French haven't even bigger,
not just not just economic but constitutional crisis as well. Yeah,
(13:00):
giving away our fish for the next twelve years, things
like that completely outrageous, total betrayal of what people voted for.
But the focus, the focus, and yes, trade with Europe
is important, of course it is, but the real focus
has to be what's happening internally within the UK economy.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
So you would rip up the ki Starmer agreement with you,
I think you're saying it needs it needs a rethink, Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
But all is done has done is make concessions in return.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
That means you would be taking an economic risk right now.
And that's and you have been known all your life
for taking risks right It's in your book.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Everything in life's about risks, and life.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Is about yourself. On being a gambler, can I read these?
I love a gamble, I love stacking up the odds,
and it's only been through taking enormous risks that the
Party and I have got to where we are today.
Is that the kind of prime minister you would be?
A risk taking prime minister?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
We need far more risk taking and by the way,
much more broad in the Prime minister. We need to
encourage risk taking in the economy.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
You take a risk with the relation with the nearest neighbor,
the big geography that puts this big market on. You
take a risk with that in the interest of it
bad relationship.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
You have to take risks to reshape it.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So how would you reshape it? You'd end alignment.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Is that what you're saying, alignments catastrophic, So you'd end
it catastrophic, moronic.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
You'd end alignment with the EA's.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Sending us is keeping us firmly hooked back in the
twentieth century, not in the twenty first it makes no
sense at all from any angle.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Is that a yes to the question I've asked, you'd
end alignment.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
With the E one hundred plus.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Okay, So this is the point. So you're still a
risk taker. You weren't in your years as a trader
in the city, and you're still going to govern in
that way if you elected Prime minister. I know you
had two really traumatic experiences as a very young man.
You were hit by a car and you ended up
spending two months in hospital, and you were then diagnosed
with testicular when you're in your in your early twenties.
(14:56):
There's another and I know you said that this is
part of why you decided you needed to do things
with your life. But there's a different way that that
story could have gone, which is that you conserve your
energy and you prioritize your family and you think of
all that's close to you. Instead, you had two failed marriages, and.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It's called living. You went, it's called living.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
And you campaigned around the country.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Look, I could be a boring so and SOA like
most people in politics. I've lived. I've had some huge successes,
I've had some massive failures. I'm sixty one, I've got
a vast experience of life. I've seen the good times,
I've seen the bad times. I've seen success, i've seen failure.
I think that makes me better qualified to be a
(15:44):
leader than those that have lived steady, what I might
describe as boring lives.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
So what have been your big failures?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Well, I've made mistakes personally. Obviously I've had successes too,
but I've made mistakes financially. And look, I've lived the
big I've lived the big Dipper of life. But I've
in the end been very lucky. I'm still here, I'm
still alive despite a couple of goes at not being
I think that's given me a couple of things. Number one,
a pretty rounded life, and number two, I'm not actually
(16:13):
frightened of anything, and that I think is very very
valuable asset given what I may well be facing in
two a three years time.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
So let's talk about your political instincts. Then, can you
take those headphones because I want to play you something
that you said at SEAPAC, the big conservative political conference
earlier on this year. You've been close to the American
right for a long time, so you go to these
conferences and this is what you said in February twenty
twenty five.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Suddenly, post November the fifth, America is optimistic, it's upbeat.
It's the beginning of a golden age in America. In fact,
in many ways, that's what we're fighting for. A very
similar agenda to the one that you've just bought for.
I'm the one that you have just succeeded with. You're
(17:04):
going to make America great again, and we, in turn
will make Britain great again.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Well, well, hang on, I've got wait, listen, wait for
my question, which is that you use these words make
Britain great again. And I know that you have a
sense of history, and I know the past is important
to you. Sense of fun.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Say make Britain great again to an American audience, I've
just elected a president of make America great again? Is
quite fun.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
So you didn't mean it, of course I meant it.
But that's what I understand what you mean by it,
because you have got a sense of history. I know
your grandparents about the past. Your grandfather had been wounded
in the First World War. What story did they tell
you about Britain's past? What is it that you think
of when you think of when Britain.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
We had a stable society. We had belief things that
bound us, perhaps religion being one of them. And by
the way, government can't force people to believe, but there
was a shared sense of religion.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Are you a man of faith community?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yes, I mean I have to say, struggling a bit.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Do you go to church?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Well, of course, I'm an Anglican. It's been a catastrophe
for twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
What the Church of englis So you believe, you believe,
but there's no church that you feel like at.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Well, if I was a more regular churchgoer, I probably
would have defected to the Catholics. Probably would have done,
haven't I haven't. I've thought about it a couple of times. No,
I think a sense of community, a sense of family.
I mean, frankly, you know the values around the meaning
of family, community, country. Those things were much stronger in
years that have gone by.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Which is which is the decade you're looking at? That's
what I'm curious about when you say the words when
Britain was great? What is in your mind? Which is
a decade?
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Britain was great? Imperially, Britain was great, industrially, Britain was
great in terms of innovation. Britain was great in terms
actually in many ways, I think of taking some very
good things the large parts of the world. Britain was
great in leaving behind some amazing legacies Australia.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I'm wondering about what period when you when you look
to the past, are you thinking about the nineteen eighties
and the period you're really or are you thinking about
the First World War. Britain is a great power.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I think really what we did since six and eighty eight,
I think we were actually fortunate to have our servil.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
But we're not going to go back to the seventeen.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Years I've just given you as.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
A political leader, when you think of when you want
Britain to go back to because you to make Britain again,
what are you looking to.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I don't want Britain to go back anywhere. I want
Britain to go forwards. And that's really the point, and
it's one of the reasons why you know, I've been
very critical of the Government of the Bank of England,
very critical much of our economic policy. I think we
are stuck in a rut. I think we're stuck with
an old, out of touch globalist mindset about so many things. No, no, no, no.
(20:01):
You can respect your traditions, you can respect your past,
you can have a sense and a feeling of what
history is. I'm not going back anywhere I want to go.
I want us to be in the twenty first century.
We're not there. We're literally but here we are sitting.
I mean, I can see Saint Paul's as I'm talking
to you in the middle of the city of London.
We have a revolution going on, an economic, a money
(20:21):
revolution going on with digital assets, cryptocurrency. It's real. It's
growing very very quickly. And what's happening here nothing literally nothing.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Untested ideas in government, aren't they. I know you were
talking the other day about wanting to have a national
cryptocurrency reserve.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I'm really sorry, we don't know what that looks like. No,
because we're years and years behind the rest of the world.
Go to Miami, Go to Miami, Fly to Miami tonight,
and you tomorrow morning can go out and buy everything
from a Starbucks coffee to a Ferrari with a card
that you've loaded up from an a am in the
stry with bitcoin, ethereum or other currencies, and the world
(21:02):
is changing and we're not changing.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
So if you think the bank, and if you think.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
About it, there's one more point think about it. Actually,
we have been great innovators, you know, whether it's the
industrial revolution, whether it's the nuclear energy industry, which we
led the world in just a few decades ago. We're very,
very inventive. We're very creative. We're naturally a very entrepreneurial country.
(21:26):
I just believe we've lost a sense of all of that.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
So the Bank of England, if you think they're so
out of step with where their focus should be in
your view, would you revoke their independence as Prime Minister?
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Well, I think the bigg I mean the bigger mistake
was taking away banking regulation from an organization that have
been doing it since sixteen ninety four, gave it to
a bunch of tick box bureaucrats down in Canary Wharf.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Do you mean the financial conduct?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
That so would you disband that?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
They are useless? They are arterly useless.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
We need a complete Would you do away with them?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
We did a radical rethink of what they are, what
they're for, who they serve, what their purpose is.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Isn't the truth though? You? I mean you don't. Really,
it's not a question of who does the regulation. I
think you instinctively don't like regulation or regular don't you
see it as a hindrance, and other people might see
it as the things that protect us from wrongdoing. Actually
your mistakes.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Actually you're wrong. You're wrong, because my argument with crypto
with digital assets is we need a regulated market. Again,
you go back there in the medieval times, it was
all about having a basic framework of rules that consumers
and market users can trust. So I'm not against regulation.
I'm not a complete laisse fair merchant, but you have
(22:39):
to get that balance right.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But I think you are saying, as Prime Minister, you
are signaling that you'd be prepared to do away with
the Financial Conduct Authority, you would give those powers back
to the Bank of England.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I think we need a complete radical rethink. Yes on
many of these things, and the FCA has been a
total failure.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Would you sack Andrew Bailey's Bank of England?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I was debanked, you know, I was debanked. I was
rejected by ten other banks. I was literally being frozen
out of the financial system to the point I might
have had to leave the country, which indeed is what
they wanted and.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
That became a big issue. And well, luckily you got
your accounts back.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Well luckily, I'm big enough and ugly enough to fight
my own corner. But there are thousands of people out
there who've been debanked because of excessive rules on anti
money laundering directives or whatever else it may be, who've
got no voice for themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
And what about the governor of the Bank of England,
Andrew big Well, he's a nice enough bloke, but would
he keep his job if you were.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Said, a good run, we might find someone new. Really,
he's had a.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Good run, so you are signaling you'd be I'm just
saying this is shade of President Trump at the federal
ry if.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Andrew Bailey wants to get with the twenty first century.
And by the way, there's one encouraging thing, because I
went to see him last month. He'd just put a
limit on the number of state coins any individual can hold.
I said, Andrew, this, this is ridiculous, this is dinosaur like.
Within a week he changed it, So maybe he was listening.
But the Bank of England, the British government, the regulator,
(24:12):
whatever shape that takes, they've all got to understand that
the world is changing, has changed very, very rapidly.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Okay, So the world has changed, not just the financial world,
the world more broadly. And if you were prime minister,
you'd have to have opinions and take advice and formulate
policy on a whole host of areas which you're not
known for talking about, such as social care, how you'd
feel vacancies in the social care sector and national security.
(24:41):
And there are people in the political establishment, labor figures,
conservative figures, including Boris Johnson, who think that you and
your party are soft on Russia.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Oh poor Boris. I feel sorry for I'm really I
guess if you failed that much you have to laugh
it out at somebody. Look, I mean, but I mean
this is of course politics and narratives, isn't it. You know,
just because fourteen thirteen years ago I said in an interview,
I thought Putin was a very effective political operator, but
not a nice human being. Suddenly you're a Putin supporter.
(25:12):
But enough, the year after I said that, the Queen
met him. Whether she was seen to be a collaborator,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
I think it's all the accusations come from the fact
that you've said things in the past like no, you think, Nate,
what I'm going to say. You've suggested that NATO provoked
Putin into invading Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
The endless eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union,
and Kissinger warned about this years ago. We shouldn't have
done it, but that's in the past. We did it.
Putin's invaded. I was really hoping that Trump could bring
Putin to heal and that some kind of compromise could
be struck, as it's just been recently struck with Gaza
and Israel. Clearly that is not going to happen. Obviously,
(25:53):
Putin is a very bad dude.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Simple Why hasn't President Trump put more pressure on him?
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Oh, he's putting huge pressure on, his pressure on India.
He's putting pressure on and I think himself, I think
Trump feels that puns met with all of him. And
clearly Putin is not a rational man. He wants to
come to a logical deal. So the idea that i'mselfd
on this is just nonsense.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Well, what put fire under the accusations was very recently
when the former leader of your party in Wales, Nathan Gill,
pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery, taking money from
someone described as a pawn of the Russian secret services.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Appalling, appalling, And he will go to prison for a
long time, at least I hope he does.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
He was the leader of your past three three weeks.
But hang on, he's been on. He's been involved with KI,
he was involved in Brexit, the Brexit party, your former
party with. He's been at your years.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I've done it for twenty five years. He was unbelievably
you perhaps don't know this a bishop in the Mormon Church,
I mean, god fearing to a level I've almost never met.
I mean, so uncorrupted. I thought he wouldn't even drink coffee,
and there he was taking money to ask questions. Appaul,
(27:05):
is it just one bad without any shadow of it down?
Speaker 1 (27:08):
You can assure voters that there is no one else
like Nathan Gillen reforms ranks.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
If there were, if I even suspected it, they wouldn't
be let through the door.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
And you're sure that no one else has taken money
from I'm.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Sure that my mother's not the mass murderer. There's nothing
sure as that, you know, I mean, how can you
be sure of anything in life? Well, you know, the
question itself is you didn't know. The question itself is
a stupid question. You know that, and I know that
I believe one hundred percent with all my heart was
nobody else.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Can I just quickly then understand your instincts on Russia
a bit more fully with a few scenarios. So if
you were Prime Minister and NATO jets entered Russian jets
entered NATO airspace, where do you stand on that?
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Do you think they should be to shoot them down?
Speaker 1 (27:52):
No questions? Whatever? That does? How much that inflames tensions?
Russian needs to be taught to lessons and.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Love trying heart. I'm the only person in the world
I think that stood up in the European Parliament in
twenty fourteen, and do you know what I said? There
will be a war in Ukraine. It's coming. I'm the
only person that got it right. I might have made
one comment once thirteen years ago that said I admired
(28:18):
him as a political operator, but not as a human being,
and I'd never live in Russia. Period.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
Okay, frozen assets, Russian frozen acids should be used to
help go on as.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Long as you like. I've made the position perfectly clear.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
No, what's the answer to that.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
They would be they're in Belgium.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
So they should be they should be used.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
You better ask the Belgian government, but clearly if they're
there through illegal means, they should see.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Your instincts is as British Prime Minister do.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
My instinct is I think Putin's a really bad blow.
And you can and you can sit me here for
an hour, you're going to get nowhere.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
You put British troops on the ground in most of
all Ukraine after its cease.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Fire, I'd be very cautious about doing that might put
a un force. When I put the British Army badge
that badged as a British Army, be deeply deeply.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Thought because you'd be worried about them being a target
for the Russian.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Be deeply thoughtful about doing that, and it wouldn't make everything.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
You see exactly. That kind of thing is what gives
hearing something caveat is what gives Russia courage.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
You are quite right, I'm not a warmonger. Rather like
President Trump, I'm not a warmonger. Those that went before
have been persistent warmongers. I'm not. I happen to think
that what the UN did in career was remarkable, and
still over seventy years on, has held and South Korea
has become just, I mean, the most incredible country, which
(29:36):
by the way, does things far better than we do
in terms of building nuclear energy and much else. That
would be the right way to go forward.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
So let's talk about areas then, where your agenda. As
you said in that clip, we heard a moment ago
where your agenda is similar to the Trump administrations, for example,
on migration. Both your party and prisident Trump's Republicans feel
very well what he's done, strongly about that.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
What he's done is amazing.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
So would you want ICE style raids taking place here
to deport the six hundred thousand people in five years
you wanted to?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
I think it's really I think what I think. Let's
see this is again. You know, I was with Tom Homan,
who was his Borders are a few weeks ago to
try and find out what's really going on in America.
It's really interesting. Border crossings are down ninety seven percent
since Trump came to power. But the interesting thing is
about deportations. So they have a thousand ICE squads out
(30:47):
around America knocking on doors saying you're here illegally and
you've got two choices. Number One, you can go. We'll
fund your return. We'll give you a few dollars. We'll
say to you that you can legally if you want,
apply for skills VIASA in the years to come to
(31:08):
come back to America, and if we think you're going
to be a productive member of the economy and of society,
will let you in.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Is that what you want? The ice raids are done
by masked armed men who jump out of vehicles grab people.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
That's your media narrative. I've just told you what's happening
and what is really.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
If you have masks, don't they and guns and they
do go into work ploce as.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
I mean, I would hope actually homes if they didn't
have guns, they'll be mad.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Would you want that here? That's really because this interview
is about what you would do as prime minister.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Do you know how many people have voluntarily left America
in eight months? One point six million. It is truly remarkable.
One point six million people have peacefully with incentives not
just to leave, but potential. I want to understand the potential.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
What lessons you're taking for the UK.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
For what I'm learning is if you do things well
and do things properly, it can be highly effective.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
So is that to yes to ice style raids in
the UK?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
It's we're not America. We'll do it our way, not
the America.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So what is that? Does our way involve the army?
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Our way will involve border Force doing the job that
they would so desperately like to do.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
That's the job they do. Now, how would it be?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Would you use the army now? At the moment border
Force are a taxi service and they hate it, so
you use the army. They absolutely hate doing what they're doing,
which is why say many people resign.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Sad saving people essentially in the channel and bringing them
to short You may see that what you mean by
the teche No, that's what in me. I think that's
what you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
French Navy. Bring them across, French Navy, bring them acrass.
It's got them all the way. Border Force picked them up,
bring them in. They tuck their passports in the sea,
they chuck their phones in the sea, and we're supposed
to just put up with it.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Really important is to understand how because the numbers you've
said you would deport are really significant six hundred thousand
over five year, which is why I'm interested in the methods.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Look, I think the truth is that most people who
were caught, who were in Britain illegally, if we do
it nicely and do it properly, will accept they have
to go.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
It's about nine thousand a year currently, and to meet
your target you'd be increasing that by ten times. Do
you think you can?
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I think we can. Of course theory reality, being in government,
I get all of that. I understand all of that.
Is it doable, yes, But there is a very important
message here. Very I mean, in most countries in the world,
if you enter illegally, you are chucked in prison. Literally,
in a majority of countries in the world, illegal entry
(33:40):
means immedia in prison.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
So is that what you do? People would arrive and
they would be put in prison immediately detain.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Well, that's what I didn't say, and you said.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
It, that's right, said what do you say?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Said, that's fine, I'm not playing games. I'm not playing games.
People would be detained.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
And deported dead simple in prison.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
There are plenty of X military bases we can keep.
But the point, Look, you know, it's very interesting. Australia
had all this in twenty twelve. They stopped it within
a fortnight. Within a fortnight, no one came illegally you
know why they were taied back to Indonesia. It can
be done. It's about political will, it's about being tough
for a short period of time. It can be done.
It can be done.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
You've got a big pledge also to cut significant amounts
of government waste. I know you're rethinking your economic plans,
but there is a figure in your principles, not the
broad print. Well, what about the amounts that it says
in this from last year that you would cut waste
by the tune government waste to save fifty billion pounds
a year. Is that still yeah? That was about That's
(34:38):
still the plan that was about.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Yeah, actually we'd probably go further than that.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
I mean, you get more than more.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Malay and Argentina's shown that you can do it, but
you have to work out doing it what the cost
of that is.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You must discover that he couldn't cut nearly as much
as he hoped to. Initially he said to had to
have that, and then it went.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
To be fair. Malay has to be fair, Malay has
but look, we're test bedding this in the in the
local councils that we won last May. Well, we've cut
about half a billion so far. You know, it's a
very good start in six months.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
What happens if you were elected to government and you're
Prime minister and you find out that you can't find
the savings you want, you're in the process of rethinking
your economic polity kinds of tax cutting plans which are
now having to be rethought. Is that because they were unworkable.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Net zero thirty billion saved, cutbacks and civil service tens
of billions saved. But of course the big one, the
big one, and the thing that I've got to think
out far more fully is the whole explosion of disability payments.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
And you are in midster having seriously what I want
to ask you is that you people said about your
plans to spend and to tax cuts that they were
unworkable and they were fantasy economics, and the fact that
you're having to rethink them suggested, well.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
I'm not rethinking they were right. I suspect what we
come back will be a lot more out of it
than what you saw there.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
More radical in which way more tax.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Well, as I said to you before I came and
did this, I'm going to be laying out some economic
stuff between now and the budget. In terms of speeches.
What is for certain? I tell it what is for
certain with the economy. And we touched on this right
at the beginning. We touched on this place in the eighties,
but we could go more broadly across the country. In
the eighties there was an attitudinal change towards work, towards
(36:28):
having a go, towards risk, which I'm pro. I'm very
pro risk. I'm very pro individuals taking risk. I don't
believe we should protect people from themselves. We should allow
them to go out and have a go. We need
an attitudinal change towards success, towards money, towards business, towards
tax and incentives. And this is stuff that you can't
(36:53):
necessarily write in a manifesto.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Well you're going to have to do though, Well, no
you can't.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
You can't attitudeal stuff. You can't. You cannot, right, you cannot.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
It's called a contract anymore.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
You've been at the BBC all your life. I don't
think you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about attitudinal
change within society. You can't put any of that in manifestos.
It's about a buzz, it's about a vibe, it's about
how a country feels. And and you know one of
the reasons, and you know you played that tape to
me earlier. You know what is interesting about Trump's America?
(37:25):
And there are bits of it you can dislike or
like or whatever. What is interesting about Trump's America is
a lot more people in America are having a go.
They're setting up companies, they're borrowing money, they're taking risks.
We need to get to that place. And and as
I say, you can't put in a piece of paper,
and one thing, I'm certain.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
You're gonna have to inspire people, aren't you.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
That's right, That's exactly which.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
Takes me back to where I started that are you
going to be someone who brings people together? Because you're
known for turning the fire on people, You're not known
for being someone who I don't know, appeals right across
the country, has a common message that.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
I'm there, I think, you know, give me.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
An inspirational message. What is great about Britain today?
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Even in my time, even in my time in the
European Parliament, where perhaps I achieved some level of infamy.
Was I turning my fire on people? No, I was
just teasing them. I was just teasing them. They were
turning their far on me. I mean, we just had
a party conference seas and where the levels of insightful
abuse that have come from Starmar in his cabinet are
off the scale. I've never behaved like that, not with anybody.
(38:25):
I might have strong opinions, I might express what I
believe in strongly, what I'm against very strongly. I don't
think if you look through my political career that you
will find personal invective. You'll find teasing and not much
more than that. We have to we have to have
a vibe, a buzz that says to young people setting
(38:48):
up businesses, taking risk, even having failures, even having failures
along the way is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And you know something I might succeed, I might fail.
I accept that. Yeah, but I'm going to have a guy.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
If you don't succeed as Prime minister, it's not the
same as your personal success. That's about the fortunes of
the country that are riding on that. So we're going
to need more than a vibe.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Well, I think the two are the same thing. We're
in that much trouble. We're in that much trouble.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, you as you as one man, and the vibe
you create.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
There's a whole movement here now. There's a whole movement
here now, and you've seen and I'm sitting talking to you.
I don't do many interviews these days. I allow others
to go and do it. There's a much broader range
of talent, you know, that has come on the scene
for the party. We're building a mass membership very rapidly.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
You see. I know you're a risk taker, but I
think the moment of real risk that exists for your
party right now is that you've had this sustained period
where you've been rising in the opinion polls while you've
been making big promises on spending, on big tax cuts,
and now you're at a point where're having to rethink
your economic policy and it's it's probably going to be
(39:58):
much more like to make reality.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
We're going to make bigger propose. We're going to make
even bigger proper.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
That's not the signals that your people in your party
are setting out. They're saying you're going to have a
fully costed manifest facing the same realities that other parties.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
Well, look, we're in goment.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
Maybe you're not special.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
We're in government now. We're in government now, in the
local government. You know, we're going to do our damned
list to be in government in Wales next May. We
may or may not succeed, but we're going to do
our damned list. I won't have to be judged by
what we do. I accept that.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
So is Donald Trump a role model for you for government.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
In terms of standing up for the national interest above
all else. Yes, in terms of keeping promises that you
made the electorate. Yes, there are many other areas in
which we might disagree or might do things. Which are
the areas that there are other areas that might disagree,
social policy, et cetera. We might see things differently. But
(40:53):
the fundamentalism of Trump is you tell the electorate I'm
going to do X, and you actually do it. And
that's what he's doing. And you know, and we might
look at I mean, look, you know, you and I
consider over coup of see and talk about some of
the tariff machinations and say to ourselves, what the hell
is going on, or we could go back to the
thirties and think about tariffs and damage it's done to
(41:15):
the economy or et cetera.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Do you think he's damaging them?
Speaker 2 (41:18):
It's irrelevant. No, no, no, no, listen to me. It's irrelevant.
He promised the American public he'd used tariffs as a weapon.
He's doing it, so he is. So is he to
a large extent restoring faith in the democratic system. Yes,
and we will have to if we succeed. There is
a long way to go. As I said said to
you earlier halfway through the marathon, if we succeed, we
(41:38):
must do the same. Because one of the reasons why
reform is doing so well is there is a complete
breakdown of trust. No one believes a blooming thing.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
The other parties say, I think you could be part
of that breakdown of trust because this document which said
our contract with you, it's a contract with the voters.
It's the document you stood on last year.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
I didn't write it. I inherited it to be fair.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Lead standing there face Your face is right there on
the front.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Came in after it was published to be fair, and
we changed the front page. But look are the principles
right within it? Yes, can we but.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
There are numbers in it. It's put forward as a
contract breakdown of trust. And you've been sort of a
breakdown of trust.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
You have you seen what the concern is your interview?
Speaker 1 (42:23):
If you complain about a breakdown of trust, don't you
have to stick to your I stick.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
To I would like nobody in Britain to pay income
tax until they end twenty thousand pounds.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
And when do you think you'd be able to deliver
that in government?
Speaker 2 (42:33):
I will answer that over the course of the next
few weeks, not today, as I told you before I
came on here. But do I want to want of that? Yes?
Is it realistic immediately we're in government? No, and those
circumstances are changed. Are the principles, aspirations and even the
numbers that are set out there wrong? No they're not.
(42:55):
They're right. But it's all about getting things in the
right order.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
This is the Bloomberg Weekend interview. I wondered if you
get one these days, because you are more in demand
than ever before. According to your team, you're meeting presidents,
prime ministers and kings from the Middle East these days.
Speaker 2 (43:14):
I wouldn't comment on that particularly, but King or at
least I remember, and if I do, it, wouldn't tell you.
I wouldn't tell you. I wouldn't do.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
You know what I'm it's inaccurate that you're meeting Trstan's
Prime Minister and kings from the Middley.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
Do you know what. One of the reasons I've survived
so long in public lives, I'm very discreet and you know,
if I have private meanings with people, I never discuss it.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
It's one of your senior supporters and donors who said this.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Well, I don't know who he is or she is,
but well, well I wouldn't comment on it, all right,
I wouldn't comment on it. I don't comment on things
like that, and people trust me because of that, you know,
I keep confidence.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
But you are in circles you haven't been in before.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
That's fair, That's fair, I mean, that is fair. Yeah.
I think a lot of people around the world think
we are going to win the next election just because
they people that you know, like this country, see what
a mess has got itself into.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
See it's a long haul because technically it's not due
for another four years and the current government has a
large authority do you think you can sustain the level
of engagement you need to still be in this position
in four years time. You're not really known for you
stuck at the idea of wanting you ab out of
the European Union, but you've had a number of different
(44:22):
parties over the years.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
I stuck at it more than anybody. I've been doing
this since nineteen ninety three. Did I finally retire on
the thirty first of January twenty twenty, Yes, I did.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
That was it?
Speaker 2 (44:32):
I had done with it. I came back into politics
last year. It was probably the toughest decision in my life.
You know, I turned sixty last year. Life pretty settled,
some good jobs, a company being quite successful in a
variety of areas, first couple of grandkids born. You know,
life was pretty good. So I knew I was making
(44:52):
a big sacrifice coming back into it, and I'm determined
to make it a success. And I think I've been
very you know, we talked about persistent, but I've generally
been pretty consistent in the kind of values and views
and beliefs that have had. And can I sustain it
(45:12):
for four years? Yep? It's a long haul, but yep,
can the government sustain it for four years, I think
very unlikely. And I think, you know, just as you've
seen reform take over the center right of British politics,
I think there's a massive change on the left about
to come. And I think that I think that the
(45:32):
government will be forced by twenty seven into a genuine
austerity budget. I mean, a real austerity budget. Just the markets,
you know, are going to demand that. And I suspect
at that moment the left of British politics splits in
a very very dramatic way. And I think the growth
of the Greens, the Corbynites, the sort of urban left
(45:58):
of politics, those who vote on gaza and religion more
than British issues, all of those things, I think they
will struggle to see our twenty seven.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
That's why you think there'll be a general election?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Then I do.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Yeah, Okay, I want to know what sustains you. Is
it true you read constantly?
Speaker 2 (46:16):
I do read a lot, Yeah, I do read a lot.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
What are you reading at the moment?
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Well, I'm The last book I read was mister Bellfour's Poodle,
which is about the constitutional crisis between the.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Commons of the Lords early twentieth century.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah, the principles are exactly the same. And by the way,
the Salisbury Convention has been there since nineteen eleven, And so.
Speaker 1 (46:32):
How are you interested in that?
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Because say we get elected on the manifesto to say
we're going to do X, Y and z. What if
the House what if the House of Lords would have
block us? The what if the civil service would have
block us? These are all the things that we're thinking
and going through at the moment.
Speaker 1 (46:45):
You're going back one hundred years to try and find
the answers to that.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Principles don't change over centuries. What else are you reading
over centuries? Principles day.
Speaker 1 (46:52):
How do you like poetry?
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Like a little bit of poetry? I wouldn't say hugely.
I read. I like biography, I like history. My current book,
which i've really barely started, is written by the former
Prime Minister of Armenia, and it's about how small states
can survive in the big wide world. Sarkasan is his name.
Speaker 1 (47:10):
He wrote everything you're reading is kind of part of
your homework if you like for government. Is that the case?
What do you do to actually put your head in
a different place?
Speaker 2 (47:19):
Yeah, I mean I like to go out walk when
I get time. I like to fish. I like a
day at the races. I like the odd day at
the cricket. There are things I enjoy doing. No, the
truth is, I mean, look, we are living in a
twenty four to seven media environment. I am a political entrepreneur.
Even though I'm trying to shed responsibilities of the party
(47:42):
for the moment, I'm still the main entry point for
most new people that want to give money or stand
as candidates. And so most of my life these days,
believe it or not, is focusing on what's beneath the bonnet,
focusing on the structure of the party, focusing on the
funding of the party, focusing on making sure that across
all the regions of the United Kingdom we're prepared. And
(48:05):
I just sort of say this to you, sort of
towards the end that I don't think anyone's yet really understood.
Next May May the sixth next year is the British
equivalent of the midterms in America. These are elections of
a magnitude and a significance that almost nobody yet understands.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
To close, I want to go back to where I
began and the kind of person you're known for, and
the kind of person you'd have to be if you're
to be a great prime minister. What would you say
to someone who worries that you might deport their grandmother
or you might not be a leader for them because
they are not white or they're Muslim. No, what would
(48:47):
you say to that?
Speaker 2 (48:48):
There are people give me a message to say the
questions beneath you. But I would also say this if
you the only people that call me a racist tend
to be called Jocasta and have gone to Saint Mary's
Ascot and be upper middle class and very snobby.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Is that to someone who'd be worried about you as surprised?
What is your message of unity? Do you have one?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Our message for unity is if you're in this country legally,
whether you've been a for one generation or one hundred
and fifty generations, if you're paying your taxes, obeying the law,
being part of our community, recognizing there is commonality between
all of us, whilst we're different, things that we share.
You're incredibly welcome, But are we here to be the
(49:29):
dumping ground of the world. Are we here to be
the food bank of the world. Are we here to
have uncontrolled, massive legal immigration changing our culture in dangerous
women on our streets now on that we're going to
get really, really tough, and I think you'll be very,
very surprised how many people from all different backgrounds of
religions from all over the world support that message and
(49:51):
want that as the country that they've either been born
into or chosen to live in.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
Nasure Parish. Thank you, thank you, And that's the Michelle
Hussein Show for this week. To make sure you never
miss an episode, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts,
and if you want to leave us a comment while
you're there, I'm told that's a good thing. If you'd
like to see my conversation with Nigel Farash, you'll find
(50:19):
the video online and at bloomberg dot com Slash Weekend
you'll find the written version of this interview with a
portrait of Nigel Faraj and my notes why I asked,
what I did and the context around it. The Michelle
Hussein Show is produced by Jessica Beck and Chris Martlu.
Guest booking by Dave Warren, Social media by Alex Morgan.
(50:42):
Our sound engineers are Blake Maples and Kyle Murdoch. Our
video editors are Laura Francis and Toby Babalola. Our executive
producer is Louisa Lewis. Brendan Francis Newnham is Editorial director
of Audio and Special Projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Katherine Bell
is the executive editor of Weekend. Our music is composed
(51:05):
by Bot Walshaw and we'd also like to thank Will Shaw,
Alana Susnow, Victoria Wakeley, Adam Blenford, Sammasadi and Sage Bauman
and thank you for listening. Come back next Weekend
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!