Did Farage incite violence with his call for 'pure cold rage'? | The News Agents

The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity.

This is a Global Player original podcast.

It took them less than 24 hours to turn this into an absolute shit show.But it is what Nigel Farage does.

I mean, yesterday, it was Southampton, but not that long ago, it was Southport.

But I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure This is a verbal tick that Farage has perfected where he can always deny what happens next.

We all need to reflect on those words of Henry's father.My response and the response of others, to be fair, has been focused on the lessons to be learned so we can deliver justice.His response has been to appeal for rage.Rage.That's his response to a father who's lost his son and asked for that not to happen.Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying, please don't.

is unforgivable.It shows exactly who he is.

That was Keir Starmer and the who he is is Nigel Farage because of his response to the murder of Henry Novak and seeking to make political sense.out of it.It was Starmer at his withering, lacerating best.

Yeah.He was accusing the reform leader of hijacking the death of Henry Novak.And the question is, was Farage deliberately going against the wishes of the dead boy's father out of desperation?Welcome to the News Agents.

The News Agents.

It's John.It's Maitlis.

Those were the scenes in Southampton last night where Tommy Robinson had called his supporters to protest about the police treatment of Henry Novak and sure enough they turned up.Initially to a protest outside the Southampton Central Police Station and then from there they went on to an area called St Denis which is very close to where Henry Novak was killed himself.It's worth just stating that the area where Henry Novak was killed is is 226 miles to Makefield and you might think the two are completely unrelated but in a lot of the politicians response Makefield is sort of uppermost in their mind particularly on the right where an auction seems to be going on about rage and counter -rage and this was Nigel Farage yesterday talking about his response to Henry Novak's death.

Think of this, the biggest fear a police officer now has going about his or her duties.on the street is the fear of being reported for having acted in a way that was racially biased.That fear now greater than dealing with a dying man living on the ground.Henry's family have responded to this in just the most extraordinarily dignified way.But I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rage.

don't respect the wishes of the family, let us politicise it, let us show our rage, bring people out onto the streets and attack police officers.

Yeah, I think it's worth analysing what he does without a sort of lesson in semantics.Nigel Farage has once again gone as close as he can to what feels like incitement before stepping back and saying, oh no, I'm just saying you might feel quite angry.You might feel angry with the system.You might feel angry with the tragedy.You might feel angry with the outcome.I'm not suggesting you do anything.

I'm just saying it would be normal to feel pure cold rage.This is a verbal tick that Farage has perfected where he can always deny what happens next.It wasn't him that sent people to Southampton.It wasn't him that went on the train like Tommy Robinson to go and start chanting words that were almost certainly horrifying to Henry Novak's family and friends.He can say it wasn't him that injured 11 officers, according to Hampshire police, and a police dog in the protest that took place around Southampton last night.He was just sent

you might feel that.And what we so often see with Farage is what the journalist Adam Bienkoff calls a ramping up of racialised rhetoric.And I do think the question that you posed a second ago, what on earth has Southampton got to do with Makefield, is everything right now.because there are people who are looking at Farage, who frankly hasn't been that present for the last few weeks.He's been chased by these allegations of the £5 million donation, the house that he might have bought before it or after it.He's been chased by people who just frankly like to have a bit more accountability of the money that's been coming into his party.

He's been chased by people who want to try and understand the reform candidate they've put up, the disgraceful really grimy comments that he's made about women, about his position on Brexit, about COVID, about conspiracy theories.There are a lot of things that Farage probably doesn't want to answer right now.And so he's leaning in to the place that he feels most comfortable, which is this very, very careful dog whistle, which means, go and do your thing and remember who we are.And I guess one of the questions we're asking is, is this because they're feeling politically squeezed right now in a seat that they thought they would have won quite easily?

Yeah, but it is what Nigel Farage does.I mean, yesterday, it was Southampton.But not that long ago, it was Southport when he issued a video after those three girls had been brutally murdered and said, I wonder whether the truth is being held from us.I don't know.Just a dog whistle that it was probably a terrorist and that it was an Islamic extremist.who had committed the murders.

No, it was a very, very deeply disturbed young man who had you know, there should have been greater action against him much earlier on.It was an absolute failure by the authorities.But that is what Nigel Farage did.And that brought the accusation, if you remember, that, you know, Nigel Farage is Tommy Robinson in a suit.Exactly what you were just saying about he doesn't go as far as Tommy Robinson.There is always that just that enough distance between him and what is said.

And yet you have to put this in the political context of the Makerfield by -election, where Reform think they have a great shot of beating Andy Burnham, the Labour candidate who would then be probably crowned the Prime Minister, except that Nigel Farage is being outflanked on the right by Rupert Lowe's party, Restore, and is suddenly seen in the opinion polls, Restore at something like 7 % or whatever, which could stop a reform victory.

And this is where it gets complicated, because last night I spotted, I think, three iterations of what we would call populist right parties, all trying to work out who they were throwing shade at and who they were now siding with over this exact issue.Rupert Lowe's Restore Party has come down, I think, on the side of Kemi Badenoch against Nigel Farage.You've got the tweet there.

Yeah, I mean, it is extraordinary, because You would think that Rupert Lowe's party, Restore, positions itself normally to the right of Nigel Farage and the more kind of aggressive, we've got to deport illegal immigrants.But Rupert Lowe came out last night and attacked what Nigel Farage and an ad that Reform had put out, kind of misrepresenting what Kemi Badenoch has said.And he goes, to weaponize his death, this is Rupert Lowe, to weaponize Novak's death so vindictively in order to make a viciously deceitfulgraphic, attacking a political opponent is low.I am not in the same party as Cammy Badenock.In fact, we are competing for votes in Makerfield.

I disagree with her on a great many number of policies.I would never manipulate the death of I would never manipulate the death of an innocent young man to score petty party political points, especially using such blatant lies.

Yeah, I mean, Kemi Badenoch has played, we should say, a very straight bat on this.She has effectively supported the Prime Minister's position.The tragedy is unacceptable.The policing was unacceptable.It needs to be thoroughly investigated and I think they're waiting for the police inquiry to take place.But what she said was, I don't care about black lives.

I don't care about white lives.You know, I want to get to the bottom of this.And reform essentially just took out the...The only clip was, I don't want to hear about white lives.And like, she doesn't care about white lives.I mean, just ridiculous and so easily demonstrably false.

But it is interesting to see, I guess, the, you know, Is it suddenly the age -old adage, my enemy's enemy becomes my friend.So now Rupert Lowe is backing Kemi Badenoch because he feels that his enemy here is Farage.The Prime Minister actually thanked Kemi Badenoch in the Commons today for her response and her handling of this.And we are into what feels like quite new territory, which is the two main parties, what were formerly the main parties, are feeling like the grown -ups in the room now.And this horrible swirl of misinformation and racialized ramping up is all happening in the sort of hard right periphery of who can say the most shocking thing, because they think that's where the British public is.And actually, my sense is the British public.

is not there at all.The British public is, frankly, with the family of Henry Novak.And all you have to do is go back to that poor boy's father, who must have anticipated this, who could have seen, as we all could, this coming and said, I don't want any more hatred, any more division, any more tension to come of this.And it took them a long time.less than 24 hours to turn this into an absolute shit show.

Look, it boils down to, we played Nigel Farage's statement earlier.It was like, you know, Henry Novak's dad might want this, but I've got a by -election to fight.So I've got to win the by -election and I'll do it by whatever means possible.And if that means stirring up the pot over this issue and make capital out of the tragic, appalling, horrendous death of a young man then maybe I will do it because it will serve the political ends that I seek.And I, you know, to your question, Emily, I hope you're right.I hope you're right that this is not where the British public opinion is.

But, you know, Farage is a very, very clever and canny political operator.And presumably he thinks this will play well in make a field.And that is why he has done it.And that is he hopes will help his candidate win that by election.

Yeah.Well, one thing that he will be talking about today and he will be concentrating on is just to complicate the story even further is a move overnight by police chiefs who have said that reviewing, this is their words, anti -racism guidance that suggests officers should treat ethnic minorities differently in order to ensure equality of outcomes.Now, the Times bizarrely has sort of seized again half of this and said, oh, you see, that's a case of two -tier policing.It's an admission of two -tier policing, something that the Prime Minister said in PMQ today.he does not believe happens.I think what the police chiefs are trying to explain is that they have try to give guidance for officers who are attending a scene where there may be sensitivities involved, whether it is different religions, different races, whether it is people with disabilities, whether it's people with different mental conditions, the police have to arrive at the scene and know that there will be sensitivities.

Now, if you're Farage, you say, oh, you see, that's basically two -tier policing.If you're the police chiefs, you say, Give us a break.You know how complicated this job is.You know how bloody difficult it is to arrive in an emergency on a 999 call in the dark and try and make sense of what happened.And we should just, to go back a step, remember that when the police got that call from the brother of Henry Novak's attacker, murderer, they were told that there had been a racially aggravated crime.In other words, they had been explicitly told that they were arriving at the seam where they had been a racially aggravated attack.

It was dark.I mean, the big question in my head is, for Christ's sake, bring a torch.You know, there should never have been that moment where they didn't understand that a poor boy was bleeding on the ground.There should never have been that moment.But you can understand the mindset of police who have just received a call.They think they're arriving at one thing and they don't understand what's going on.

And they've heard this very clear sort of excuse, right, from a man who I think is now being investigated by police over what actually happened.And so the idea that police chiefs are saying, well, we're going to review this because we don't want to give anyone, anyone justification for saying that we havea two -tier policing system, is still gonna lead some people to say, uh -huh, you see, it was happening all along.

I think it's an entirely legitimate question to ask about whether there was two -tier policing.In this particular case, something absolutely bloody dreadful has happened where, you know, the police get a call, racially aggravated attack, they take, they believe, the attacker rather than the victim.And, you know, and instead of this kid being read his last rites as he lay there dying, he is being read his rites as someone who has just been arrested.And that is truly horrendous.So, yeah, it's fair play.Look, ask the question.

Nobody's denying something went absolutely, tragically, horrifically wrong, right?

But let that investigation continue.take place.If there needs to be a course correction because maybe the police, having been accused of being institutionally racist, then have gone maybe too far in the other direction, let that be examined.Let that be calmly looked at and if there needs to be rewording of the advice that police officers get during their training, then fine.But don't whip it up immediately now, when before that work has taken place, and just try to sow further division in a society and make life for police officers who, you know, try and hold order by consent.don't make their jobs more difficult than the difficulties they already face.

Yeah.I mean, if you were a police in Southampton, you saw 300 people outside your police station.What you'd actually be thinking is, how quickly can I leave this job, right?And they wouldn't be the only people thinking that.Police numbers have dropped drastically because no one, frankly, wants to go into policing in this climate, in this country, in this age.

And, you know, having lived in the States for eight years, give me the policing of the UK,consent rather than policing at the barrel of a gun by force that you get in America.I think our police service, huge force.We've seen all sorts of incidents where we think, my God, the police have acted appallingly in the way that they have behaved.But overwhelmingly, I think they're trying to do a very difficult job, and they try to do it very well indeed.

Just to go back to the Commons for a moment, there was a curious moment of, I think what I'm going to call, possible stage management.A Labour MP raised the question of Henry Novak after a Prime Minister's questions that frankly, fairly, to Kemi Badenoch, had been dominated by a discussion of welfare reform.And I think it actually made her point that if you don't want to politicise something, then you choose something else to attack the Prime Minister on.She did.She went for welfare reform.But much later in that sort of half hour came a question from a Labour MP about the murder of Henry Novak.

And the Prime Minister gave a very considered, very thoughtful response to that about the importance of not politicising this tragedy.And as he finished speaking, the next person to get to his feet was Nigel Farage.And again, I just want you to listen to the phrasing of this question, because you're always trying with Farage to hear the words and then read between the lines.Just take a listen.

The horrendous circumstances of Henry Novak's death.Can I urge the prime minister to consider this?It is now clear that to growing millions in this country that we're living under two -tier policing.The instructions that are given to police officers from police bosses are clear and written down in ink.It says you must treat different ethnic groups in different ways.That, apart from the upset and the anger at the circumstances of his death, the anger that you saw spilling out in Southampton last night, which is in danger of getting considerably worse, If the public lose trust in being treated fairly by the police, can he take some action, end this divisive practice of two -tier policing, and make sure that all British citizens are treated the same?

Just look at what happened there.he talks about it being in danger of getting worse.He talked about it spilling out onto the streets.Violence doesn't just spill out onto the streets.It emerges onto the streets when people like him incite it.And as you saw, if you watch that video, that little clip, you will have seen Luke Taylor, Danny Chambers, two Lib Dems sitting behind him, who are enraged by his words, who are saying, you incited that, you did that, you provoke that.

And he is ignoring all the Commons cries, he's ignoring all the people saying shame on you, to make his point that, oh, we wouldn't want this to get worse, would we?Well, maybe he would.Maybe that's exactly what he's saying.

We will be back in just a moment with Jeremy Hunt, the former Chancellor, and how Britain can get rich again.Well, we are joined in the studio now by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and numerous other cabinet posts, Jeremy Hunt, who has written a new book called Can We Be Rich Again?And Jeremy Hunt, there used to be car manuals about how you fix your car, the Haynes manuals.Is this kind of one of those books for the economy?

In a way, yes, but I suppose I put it differently.If you can cast your mind back four years to that crazy moment in October when I became chancellor, inflation 11%, the economy heading into a big recession, huge black hole in the public finances, and I had no background in economics.and had never done a job in government with any responsibility for the economy.And this is the book I wish someone had given me.And the truth is, everyone says, well, you recommend all these things.Why didn't you do them?

Well, you learn on the job.That is what happens in politics.You don't know everything when you arrive.In fact, sadly, there are some things you learn after you've stopped doing the job, and you think back on your time in office, and you reflect on it.And so it was kind of therapeutic.putting together these things, but also the discipline, which of course is the thing you can't do when you're a busy minister.

We're saying all these so -called good ideas, what's the actual impact on annual GDP growth and which are the ones that actually work and which are the ones that are really not worth the effort?

We're going to come back to Tony Blair in a bit later, but I mean I remember him saying that the problem is you come into government knowing nothing and the moment you leave government is when you know most and you're most useful and that seems to be a realkind of example of craziness in our politics, that there you are, you say you've become chancellor and you've got no background in economics or, you know, running the country's finances.

I mean, that is true.Absolutely true.And of course, in a democracy, it is right that, you know, the defence secretary is a civilian in charge of the uniformed services and as a non -doctor I was elected and I was responsible for the NHS and I think there is something right about that too.But the big difference between politics and nearly every other profession, let's say you become chief executive of British Airways.You can arrive, get your feet under the table, get your people in place, get to know the industry and then maybe a couple of years later say here's my plan to make BA the best airline.In politics, your political capital is draining away from the moment you arrive.

And I think if there was one, if we get a new chance this year, which people are speculating we might, if there was one thing I would say, irrespective of ideology or party, it is you have to do your big things in your first three months.You can't wait any longer because political capital is like an egg timer.The sand is dripping away.And if you wait a couple of years to do your big things, you won't have any capital left.And so for the economy, where there's always going to be vested interests who are against this reform or that reform, whatever the big thing is you want to do, you just have to do it really fast.And that is the challenge.

the big challenge of the job.

I think what you say in the book is choose one thing that you want to go for and make sure that everyone knows about it and then do it which I guess talks a little bit to the problems of incrementalism but I mean to be fair Jeremy you I know you want to kind of skip overthe why didn't I do that when I had the chance, but some of the things that you talk about were within your grasp, you know, ending the triple lock, which you've now said is sort of, you know, screams in your face.Of course, you want to end the triple lock.Of course, you want to think about where that wealth disparity is and who you're going to help.You talk about the need to cut taxes.You talk about the need for welfare reform.

I mean, it was all within your grasp.

Yes, I look as if first of all, it's a totally fair criticism there were lots of big radical things in the book that I didn't do and I you know without getting into boring self -justification I suppose what I would say is there were lots of big difficult things.I did do like Increasing taxes for a conservative Chancellor.It's very very difficult And you remember the heat that I got over freezing tax thresholds or cutting spending where you know also I got a lot of heat and And we did make a start on welfare reform, but maybe welfare reform is a good one to talk about.Because whereas I did the big tax rises and spending cuts, which stabilized the markets and the public finances straight after that big increase in debt that we had after COVID, I did those quickly and I to use the horrible Westminster jargon, I landed them, and they were accepted on all sides as being necessary.And I won the argument that they were necessary.On welfare reform, I waited a year.

And it wasn't that I was actually doing nothing.You know, I wanted to do it in my very first budget, but I only had like, three months after the autumn statement because it was in March 23 and I couldn't persuade the OBR to recognize the impact on GDP so I had another go for the autumn statement of 23.And by that time, we were within months of a general election.And it really is difficult for any politician.

OK, so I totally understand.As chancellor, you didn't have long, right?That's absolutely clear.And you came in, sort of parachuted in on a 999 call, essentially.But you were the longest -serving health secretary.So actually, you could have done something fundamental to social care in those, what was it, six years, seven years?

And I mean, maybe that speaks to the point again.Nobody was kicking you out of that job.You had a long time doing that.

Yes.I mean, I the big the social care issue is is is difficult.It does boil down to money.And I think even as health secretary, I was pushing for it very hard.But, you know, in the end, it had to be the priority of the prime minister and the chancellor.And indeed, I didn't do it when I was chancellor.

So I can't say it was someone else's fault.But you're right on the NHS.So I arrived as health secretary and I thought the NHS is this huge Leviathan, and I'm going to concentrate on patient safety and reduce the amount of avoidable harm and death.And I did.I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet, but I look back on it.Did I make the structural reforms to the NHS that would have really set it up for the future?

No.I think we need to decentralise the NHS, get rid of these national targets that no other healthcare system has in the world that I think turn patients into numbers.I think frankly Stalin would be proud of all the targets that run the NHS and it's dehumanising and we've got rid of them in education, we've got rid of them in crime and we should have and I wish I'd done that.So it's a fair criticism.And in truth, would I have been supported by the prime ministers I served to do that?Well, it would have been politically very contentious because people would have said, you're scrapping the targets because you can't meet them.

So it wouldn't have been easy.but it would have been the right thing to do.

Jeremy, can I just, you know, and we talked about the triple lock and moved on from it quite quickly.Everyone seems to accept that it's not in government right now and not in frontline politics, that the triple lock is insanely expensive and a huge commitment.Yet no one in government will do anything about it because, of course, old people vote in much greater numbers than young people.And so politically, I suspect if you'd gone to a prime minister and said, hey, why don't we get rid of the triple lock?

They said, you must be bloody joking.I think that's probably true.But I think there's two answers to that question, John.The first is, It is important in the political process that people who have more freedom to speak out actually do make these arguments.And I'm not the only backbencher in Parliament who is saying that it's not that we don't want to treat pensioners generously and eliminate pensioner poverty, but if in reality the only way you can fund above inflation increases in the state pension is by borrowing, You are actually being generous to pensioners at the expense of their children and grandchildren.And I think I can make that argument now in a way that was more difficult in government.

And the more people like me do that, the more likely we are.to win it.

There's a structural point there.I've just come back from Australia and there was a whole discussion on these things about whether social policy is skewed towards old people.In Australia, it's not because there's compulsory voting.So young people are going to vote in the same numbers as old people.And that has a really fundamentally important effect on what is the social policy of a government, whether it be liberal, the conservative equivalent, or whether it be Labour.

Do you know, I was against the Australian compulsory voting for...very long time and then this year I met an Australian politician who talked to me about it and explained that the really good thing about compulsory voting is that it doesn't disincentivises politicians from speaking to a narrow sector of the population because they know, come the general election, everyone's going to be voting.So I think there are some arguments in favour of it.

So would you support that?

Well, I'm actually This is a terrible thing to say to you guys, but I'm actually writing another book.So we've got to invite you back again.Called How to Fix Our Democracy or something along those lines.And I haven't finally formalized my thoughts, but it is something I'm really intrigued by, let me say that.So you wouldn't be against it?I'm actively considering whether that's something we should look at, yeah.

Because you quote Jean -Claude Juncker.I have to say, I love the quotations that you put in here because they sort of take you into You know, really sort of pithy places.And he famously said, I know exactly what to do for the country.I just don't know how to get reelected afterwards.It does seem for your next book, this is a fundamental flaw with politics and with democracy, because frankly, I don't believe that you didn't know what to do, Jeremy.You're a smart guy and you've been in politics a long time.

I bet you knew exactly what to do when you came into pretty much even the chancellor job as well.But you didn't believe that your party could get re -elected if you did it.I mean, look at the...You try and make a case for a 25 % tax rate.You say it gets rid of all the fiscal drag and all the problems with people trying to earn sort of less on the upper limit so that they don't get, you know, pulled into a higher band of taxation for very little more money.And you say the sort of simple answer, let's call it a sort of Scandinavian model, is something like a 25p tax rate.

You must know there were things that youcould have done that would have been better, but unelectable.

Well, do you know, this is the most scary argument of all.And this really worries me, because increasingly, and you know, when you do books, you go around, you've both done this, you go around book festivals.And increasingly, I get a question, which is, is the problem just democracy?that we can't have leaders who are constrained by a timetable and electoral timetable and I profoundly disagree with it.I want to disagree with that and I do actually disagree with it and the reason I disagree with it is because I can also give you lots and lots of examples when in politics we've had decisive leaders who've known there is something difficult to do in a democracy and have made the argument and have won that argument.Now, I'm conscious the example I'm going to give is one that lots of listeners to the podcast will disagree with.

But I'm not talking about the specific policy.But look at George Osborne's austerity.He actually made the case there needed to be spending cuts.When he became chancellor in 2010, he cut spending by 18%.That is bigger than any cuts that Margaret Thatcher did.and was re -elected in 2015.

Look at Michael Gove's school reform.Sorry, these are all Tory examples, but I could give some Blair ones, you know, civil partnerships.

Well, Blair believed in the Iraq war, famously, and got re -elected in 2005.Yes.

So, I mean, whether they were the right policies or the wrong policies, I think that in the end, people do respect politicians who are prepared to be courageous.Now, let me just give a solution on the triple lock, because I don't think By the way, one thing about this book is I am positive about Britain's prospects, and I want to try and give a positive solution here.I am not thinking that it would be realistic.for Rachel Reeves or any Labour government to abandon the triple lock this Parliament.It was a manifesto commitment they were elected to keep it for this Parliament.It wouldn't actually save that much money to do it.

But what I would like is for all the major parties to agree that they won't put it in their manifesto for the next Parliament.And I'm not saying that And this is very important that we are talking about cutting the state pension.I want an inflation guarantee.I want every pensioner to have the security of knowing that the state pension will at least match increases in prices.But I do think it would be a good thing if the parties recognised that this is something that is just unaffordable and wrong.

That's such an interesting area that you're raising there, the idea that the parties should work together on this, because presumably on welfare reform everyone agrees that the welfare bill is too high, but it won't happen because Labour can't feel that it would upset its backbenchers if, you know, Keir Starmer was suddenly to work with Kemi Badenock over this, and Kemi Badenock might find headwinds if she was working with Keir Starmer on something.

I think she offered to, didn't she?

Yes, she did offer to, and Blair said last week she should have taken her up on the offer.

Well, look at what is the big radical reform.I mean, there's lots of things we need to do on welfare.But I think the big one that everyone knows in their heart of hearts is right, is that people who have mild or moderate anxiety or depression, we should be giving them treatment, not parking them on benefits, which, by the way, will lead to more social isolation and probably make the anxiety and depression worse.And it would be a fraction of the cost.And I think that that is something that a government can win the argument for with the public.I think the public profoundly agree with that.

And if you coupled tough reforms to welfare with a big increase inmental health provision in the NHS, I think the public would say that makes sense.I think it's absolutely winnable.

But just to go back to your point about democracy, I mean, I don't think anyone is saying, oh, it is the end of democracy because you wouldn't get re -elected.I think to your point, what they're saying is, where is the leadership now?from politicians, right?That's really at the heart of it.

I actually think that if you look over the 14 years of Conservative governments, there were plenty of examples where actually things were done in those terms.Difficult decisions were taken.And then Brexit came like a big hiatus.

So just before you skip over that, things were done like austerity.I think we can all agree, austerity didn't actually leave the country in a better place at all.

Actually, I would disagree with you.And I know this is something that a lot of people would disagree with as well.But, you know, when the Conservatives came to office, I think everyone kind of forgets that we were borrowing nearly one pound in every four that the state was spending.So a doctor on 100 grand that we were paying in the NHS, the state was borrowing 25 grand to fund that salary.And it's completely and totally unsustainable.And so, you know, Alistair Darling's plans that he was penciling in, had Labour won, were not that different to George Osborne's plans.

Of course, Ed Miliband as Labour leader played up that difference because, you know, that's the age old Tory -Labour argument, but they weren't that different because we had to do something about that horrific deficit.Look, there are lots of other things that we didn't do.I fully accept that.I'm not trying to make the case for the defence in a big way.But I think Brexit paralysed politics because it was such a huge thing, whatever the rights and wrongs, it was such a huge thing forthe political system to absorb.

I mean, I remember in Theresa May's government, it was really, really hard.When Theresa May was trying to get her Brexit deal through, it was very, very hard.And then straight after Brexit, we had the pandemic.And these are not excuses, but I think what they meant was it was just very, very difficult when so many huge things were happening externally.But now I think we have got to get back to this.And whatever happens in British politics this year, Let me say something less contentious, which is one of the chapters in this book.

If Andy Burnham becomes prime minister later this year...You'll have to be his chancellor.No, I won't be his chancellor for sure.But there is a chapter on devolving power to elected mayors, which he profoundly agrees with.would make an enormous difference.We are literally the only country in the Western world where a city the size of Leeds or Sheffield or Manchester doesn't allow elected leaders to solve their own problems.

Literally everything that Andy Burnham has wanted to do as mayor, he's had to bang on the door of number 11 Downing Street, whether to me or to Rishi Sunak or to Rachel Reeves.It's crazy.And if you look at cities like Bilbao or Denver in the US, that 40 years ago were just like Manchester, totally suffering from deindustrialization.Bilbao has caught up with Madrid.Denver has caught up with New York in terms of per capita wealth.Manchester is still about half London's wealth.

The rate of growth under Manchesterism and Burnham and Bernstein before him has been pretty impressive.

That's what's so depressing.Manchester's the city we've given the most devolved power to and it is still, I accept it's done better,than other places, but it is still struggling as compared to London and the South East.And the core reason, which I think Andy Burnham would totally agree with, is that we don't give the people elected to run Manchester the power to sort out their own problems.And in fact, we make it worse because we give electoral legitimacy to the mayors who are elected, but we don't give them the agency to sort out problems.And that is something he could do in his first months as prime minister.

He could say, I'm going to give the mayors in our cities and the mayors of our counties the same powers that they would get in Denver or Bilbao.And we're going to make it easy for people to solve their own problems.

You talk about the debt there.And you gave a very vivid example of a doctor earning 100k and 25 of it.the government is borrowing to pay.Do you feel equally confident about the debt?And, you know, we had the Tony Blair essay last week saying we're not a serious country if we're spending more on incapacity benefits and sickness benefits than we are on our defence.

Well, I agree with that.But I'm really interested that you mentioned debt, because this was one of the things in the category of what did I come to understand after I'd finished doing the job rather than when I was in the job.So when I was doing budgets, if I'm honest, I saw our debt as something that had to be managed.I had to make sure that all the measures in my budgets didn't provoke the markets into the kind of meltdown that happened with the mini -budget.But I didn't really understand the scale of the problem.And I now look at it and I realise that actually interest rates shot up after Ukraine and I was basically the first Chancellor and Rachel Reeves the second who's had to deal with high debt and high interest rates together.

And I don't think people understand the impact this is having on growth.And if you say, why is it that we're so struggling to get out of, like, 1 % growth, I mean, you know, £110 billion on debt interest.Sounds like just a number, but if you add on the amount we have to pay for public sector pensions, which we haven't put aside over the years, it's about 19 pence on income tax that we are having to pay for our debt interest and the pensions of, you know, former doctors and armed forces officers and civil servants and so on.Now that 19 pence of income tax, that's not going to things that are going to help to grow the economy.We're not spending that on new motorways or nuclear power stations.A lot of it is going to foreigners who are lending us money.

And we have to, if we're going to be a grown -up country, to use Tony Blair's words, we have to have a plan to bring down debt over time.It's not going to be immediate.It's like having a huge mortgage on your house.You can't deal with it instantly.But I think The rule that we should have is that outside emergencies, we should say that public spending won't grow faster than the growth in the economy.It's quite a simple...

Doesn't that basically take us back into austerity, though?Not at all.Essentially, you are still making that same argument, which is solving the debt problem is more important than spending on public services.

No, what I'm saying is that I totally agree, by the way, that we should prioritise within public spending the public spending that supports growth.But I would flip that argument on its head, Emily.Every 1 % GDP goes up, the Chancellor has £10 to £12 billion more to spend on public services.So the question is, how do you get GDP to grow?And I think thathaving a plan that over time reduces this huge debt overhang is the smart thing to do.

Let's just move into some of the current issues.We had some of the Mandelson Files sort of headline, for better or for worse, was the Pat McFadden comment that he felt he was surrounded by colleagues or backbenchers who said the question is always, who can we tax more to spend on welfare?I mean, presumably that has not just happened with this Labour government, that was also what we've had as a pattern for the last 15 years, right?

Not the last 15 years, but it started to go wrong very badly in the pandemic.The welfare rolls were actually coming down until 2019.But in the pandemic, you had a double whammy.Firstly, it made a lot of people ill. because it was a horrible pandemic but secondly you had this explosion in benefit claims linked to mental health that were not necessarily to do with the pandemic and those two things together mean that we are adding about a thousand people every day to the role of people who are signed off not having to look for work and you know At the moment, if you're out of work, we've got six million adults out of work, and you collect the three main benefits that are available to you, you'll get between £31 ,000 and £46 ,000.If you work full -time on the national living wage after tax, you get 22 grand.You can't run a modern economy with those kinds of incentives.

We are about three weeks away from the Makefield by -election, just to wrap up.You've talked very favourably about the need for, I guess, policies, parties to work together to actually create the best outcome.It's no secret that the Conservatives don't want reform.in power.Labour doesn't want reform in power.Is this an ideal moment for a Conservative candidate to pull out of a race that the Conservatives aren't going to win anyway and stop panning it to reform?

No.We have different policies.I mean, we're talking about welfare for a lot of this discussion.where reform have flip -flopped all over the place.And I think sometimes we have different values to reform.And I think the way you win in British politics is by making the argument for the things that you believe in, not talking about pacts, which look to the electorate like you're trying to stitch things up behind their back.

It's not a pact.It's just a way of saying we don't need to be in this race.Happens quite a lot.

Yeah, but I think that's how it'd be interpreted.

Jeremy Hunt.Thank you very much for being with us and good luck with the book.Thanks for coming in.

Thanks.

We're not moving forward with the fund.You're right that there's a date that in the case in the East District of Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period.The reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time, which is the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them.The reasons for the fund, I think, remain as important as they were before.we are not moving forward with the fund.

armed by the Trump administration in the face of such opposition to the most ridiculous idea that they ever had.

Yeah, this was for the anti -weaponisation fund.This utterly ridiculous idea.The cop killer slush fund.The cop killer slush fund was what its critics called it.And it turns out that in the end, the critics were on the Republican side as well.So a massive climb down, essentially, from the Attorney General, from Donald Trump, after the courts ruled it couldn't go ahead.

And there was a moment where the Democrats can't quite believe that it's over.Is that it?Is that going?It is not moving forward ever.And Blanche says, correct.So we will tell you more about that climb down.

We're going to be talking about the Epstein files.And we're going to be looking at a particularly curious candidate that the Democrats have got in Maine.That's on the News Agents USA.We'll see you tomorrow, though.Bye bye.Bye.

This has been a Global Player original production.

The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity.